The Small Questions Thread

[GX.Sigma]

I've been compiling a list of unanswered questions I have about D&D Next, so I can remember to ask them of the designers next time there's a public chat or AMA or whatever.

Let's have this thread be here to ask small questions. We can discuss them and answer them, if an answer is to be found. If there is none, we will remember to ask the designers next time we get a chance.

• Will exploration rules be a module?
• Will group initiative be a module?
• What happened to monster hit dice? I always thought it was more of a monster thing than a player thing, so what's the idea making it relevant for players but not even having it for monsters?
• Have you considered making the Barbarian a theme?
• If it's a theme or class, can it please be called Berserker instead?
• The design team have stated that one of the goals is to not have any class feel necessary. They're clearly doing that with the Cleric, but what about the Rogue? In the current rules, parties without Rogues are unable to pick locks or disable traps.
• If combat maneuvers are themes, won't that just make half the themes useless to people who don't favor that style, and make people unwilling to choose a theme they otherwise would? Wouldn't that be bad?
• What happened to nonabilities? Why do undead have Con scores? What's up with the gray ooze?
• Before the public playtest went out, Mike Mearls mentioned that Wizard cantrips wouldn't explicitly be attacks, but minor things that might be useful in a laboratory and might have some combat application. I liked that idea. What happened to it? Could we see that again some day?
• Charm person says "humanoid creature," but hold person just says "creature." What gives? (It doesn't seem to be a typo, as it explains how it affects winged creatures and swimming creatures.)

 

[DogBackward]

[*]Will exploration rules be a module?

No. rules for exploration have always been, and always will be, core.
Unless you're using some as-yet-unknown definition of "exploration".

Have you considered making the Barbarian a theme?

I hope so, but I doubt it.

The design team have stated that one of the goals is to not have any class feel necessary. They're clearly doing that with the Cleric, but what about the Rogue? In the current rules, parties without Rogues are unable to pick locks or disable traps.

But you don't need a Rogue to find traps. And you don't actually need to be able to mechanically disarm a trap. There are tons of ways to get around a trap besides fiddling with the mechanisms. Your Fighter with the Soldier background (and thus training in Perception) spot that pit trap? Jump over, walk around, or get a plank. Find a trap on a door? Open it from a distance. As for locks, the dwarves make a special kind of lockpick, usable by any class: it's called a really big hammer.

Rogues aren't necessary, they just make certain things easier. Which is how it's supposed to work.

What happened to nonabilities? Why do undead have Con scores? What's up with the gray ooze?

Constitution is an abstract way of saying "This thing is really tough." If Constitution is a non-ability for all undead, then you have the issue of zombies with crap HP. You have to create a workaround, which is usually clunky and unnecessary. It's much, much easier to just say "Zombies are tough, so they have high Constitution." Then, you represent them not being alive by just giving them the same old immunities undead have always had. There's no reason for nonabilities at all, really.

Before the public playtest went out, Mike Mearls mentioned that Wizard cantrips wouldn't explicitly be attacks, but minor things that might be useful in a laboratory and might have some combat application. I liked that idea. What happened to it? Could we see that again some day?

I agree here. Pathfinder does cantrips very well. Honestly, I'd like all attack spells to be leveled; don't give Wizards at-will magic attacks. There are countless other ways to contribute, including taking your 14-16 Dexterity and your quarterstaff and backing up the Fighter. With flat math and no BAB, you won't automatically suck ass in melee.

Although, not even giving Wizards a crossbow proficiency is just kind of a dick move, I think. It's one of the easiest things around to fire. If you can learn to rewrite the very laws of reality, I think you can figure out "Point at enemy, pull trigger."

 

[Lanefan]

[*]Charm person says "humanoid creature," but hold person just says "creature." What gives? (It doesn't seem to be a typo, as it explains how it affects winged creatures and swimming creatures.)

Sounds like they've conflated Hold Person and Hold Monster (or Paralysis) into one spell and forgot to rename it.

A few other small (or not-so-small) questions:

- what are the core design goals for level advancement rates - how many sessions, encounters, or adventures per level?
- will there be variable advance rates a la Pathfinder's slow-medium-fast built in to core?
- are there any plans to allow for simultaneous (by choice or roll) actions in combat - two or more combatants taking their turn at the same time?
- what is being done to ensure spellcasting while in melee is severely curtailed?
- in a typical 5e scenario how many h.p. will the average peasant have, and how many will the average 1st level PC have?
- will conversion guides be produced from each previous edition to 5e?

And many more...

Lanefan

 

[Li Shenron]

My additional questions:

• Are touch spells discharged on a miss, or can you keep attacking until you hit?
• Are you going to allow all spells to be cast as rituals?
• Are you considering a module to bring more differentiation between weapons, armors, shields (e.g. weapons with different criticals, armor vs weapon table)?
• Will there be a module for representing wounds/injuries that last beyond a full-night rest?
• If you make a module about special attacks and manouvers (charging, disarming, tripping etc.) will they be available to everyone as a combat action, or will they require some training (e.g. feats)?
• Will there be a module for metamagic?
• How do you plan to handle monsters as player characters?
• Do you plan to still have divine spellcasters to know all their spells in the common list?

 

[GX.Sigma]

No. rules for exploration have always been, and always will be, core.
Unless you're using some as-yet-unknown definition of "exploration".

I mean (and I hate this term) "old-school" exploration rules. I'm not married to 10-minute turns and hex crawls, but they are the best solutions I've found to the following problems:

Dungeon exploration:

• If a party enters the dungeon at 5:00 PM, is it dark yet when they leave the dungeon?
• If the Cleric casts a spell with a duration of 1 hour, how do you decide when that hour is up?
• If there's no way of keeping track of time, why would the party not search every room and wall for traps, treasure, and secret doors?

10 minute turns solve these problems: You can move a certain distance in 10 minutes (which I defined in my houserule as twice one's tactical speed; or ten times if they're not mapping), and some activities take up the whole of 10 minutes (searching for traps, disarming traps, searching for treasure, searching for secret doors, etc.). Every 20 minutes, there is a 1 in 6 chance of a wandering monster. Even if used solely on the DM's side as a means of eyeballing duration, this system solves the above problems.

Wilderness exploration: Without exploration rules, a cross-country journey is either

1. A fade to black
2. A single random encounter roll (or a series thereof)
3. Encounters the DM has prepared earlier

All of these have the same problems:

• Restricts player choice (i.e., is not a form of exploration)
• Makes the world seem small
• Makes travel time seem insignificant (and/or difficult to quantify)
• Requires either advance DM preparation or emergency DM adjudication
• Is not an engaging or interesting mode of gameplay

The hex crawl solves these problems: The world map is laid out on a hexagonal grid, making distances easy to count. It takes a certain amount of time for the party to move to a different hex, and there is often (if not always) a random encounter roll and/or a chance of getting lost, each modified by the type of terrain. Some hexes may have predefined things within them (castles, wizard towers, dungeon entrances, etc.), and some regions may have events occurring throughout them (a war between two types of monster which the party may be able to exploit, etc.). This system allows the players to make meaningful choices, and gives them an actual world to actually explore.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Where do we go when we die?

Spoiler

Shadowfell or Great Ring?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Small questions:

Will 5E support tiny characters? Leprechauns, pixies?
How many tiny characters can fit into a medium character's space?
How will 5E handle weapon and armor sizes for small characters?
Will worn magic items resize to fit the wearer?
Will there be rules for climbing larger enemies in combat?
How will using the party's gnome as an improvised weapon be handled?
Will the spells enlarge and reduce be included?