D&D Movie/TV There's A New Trailer For D&D: Honor Among Thieves

A brand new trailer for the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons movie has just been released! The movie comes out March 31st. This trailer very much highlights the tongue-in-cheek nature of the movie and is filled with one-liners. The trailer also gives us a good luck at the Red Wizards of Thay, along with the mimic, the owlbear, and other iconic D&D monsters.

​

 

[Remathilis]

The fact you are quoting Doctor Who means I must disagree with you on principle alone.

It's fine. Not everyone can have taste.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's fine. Not everyone can have taste.

That was obvious from your post. (j/k)

 

[timbannock]

I will see this, not because money goes to Hasbro or WOTC but because the money goes to the people who worked on the movie. I will boycott WOTC, they got their money for this already.

Is it possible (or maybe the better question is "is it likely") that they get a cut of the box office? I don't really know how deals like that work at this level of film, so I'm genuinely curious.

Because if it's true they already got their cut of the pie, then I'm much more amenable to throwing some money at this film. It look like it hits all the points that are most important to me in a D&D film, but the OGL debacle is more important to me since it directly affects me.

 

[Haplo781]

Is it possible (or maybe the better question is "is it likely") that they get a cut of the box office? I don't really know how deals like that work at this level of film, so I'm genuinely curious.

Because if it's true they already got their cut of the pie, then I'm much more amenable to throwing some money at this film. It look like it hits all the points that are most important to me in a D&D film, but the OGL debacle is more important to me since it directly affects me.

Wait until like the third or fourth week so the theater gets most of the ticket price.

 

[timbannock]

Wait until like the third or fourth week so the theater gets most of the ticket price.

Very good point!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ive played every class under the sun in every Ed since 2. All my characters did Cool Things. I didn't need some magical crutch to feel like I was having fun

One thing 2E had that really helped was the thing where you could say you were doing some cool awesome badass stuff as Fighter or whatever, and it was just a -4 to hit and did whatever the DM said it did. That I felt really helped.

 

[DarkCrisis]

One thing 2E had that really helped was the thing where you could say you were doing some cool awesome badass stuff as Fighter or whatever, and it was just a -4 to hit and did whatever the DM said it did. That I felt really helped.

I still do that even when DMed 5E.

"Can I jump down on the dragons back as it flies by and stab it?"

"Sure. Hard to do but lets call it an acrobatic check to start and then an attack at disadvantage as you are trying not to fall off while attacking."

No magic needed at all to be super cool.

To be fair, she risked falling to her death if she bunged it

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"Sure. Hard to do but lets call it an acrobatic check to start and then an attack at disadvantage as you are trying not to fall off while attacking."

Yeah but you just made it vastly harder than in 2E.

You made it two checks - double the fail chance, and the fail chance is high - AND you then put disadvantage on the attack, which is at the very least equal to the -4. And what did you give them? One normal damage attack? Where in 2E you could hand out whatever.

This is why 3E was the biggest disaster in D&D history with regards to "trying to do cool stuff", because it had a rule for everything, and in practice that meant making like 3-4 checks (often with an additional -4 penalty for not having some Feat or another) to do something that in 2E was just an attack roll at -4.

This is also why 4E was pretty good at this, thanks to Page 42's table, and the associated text, where it directly encourages you to make checks to do cool stuff easy, not hard, and if it's stuff that'll happen like once a campaign, like your example, makes it do a ton of damage/cause strong conditions/both.

 

[Von Ether]

Yeah but you just made it vastly harder than in 2E.

You made it two checks - double the fail chance, and the fail chance is high - AND you then put disadvantage on the attack, which is at the very least equal to the -4. And what did you give them? One normal damage attack? Where in 2E you could hand out whatever.

This is why 3E was the biggest disaster in D&D history with regards to "trying to do cool stuff", because it had a rule for everything, and in practice that meant making like 3-4 checks (often with an additional -4 penalty for not having some Feat or another) to do something that in 2E was just an attack roll at -4.

This is also why 4E was pretty good at this, thanks to Page 42's table, and the associated text, where it directly encourages you to make checks to do cool stuff easy, not hard, and if it's stuff that'll happen like once a campaign, like your example, makes it do a ton of damage/cause strong conditions/both.

That was my first heartbreak with 3e on the first month in. I wanted by Rogue to swing from a chandelier, the GM applied an approximate DC, which was very high for a 1st level character. I feel flat on my face. Years later, C&C and DCC - both d20 engines - found ways around that.

My second heart break was that both my first and second 3e GMs had about 6 sessions of original content in them before breaking out 2e modules and re-running things we had played again and again. That's more on the GMs, though. I used 3e to run Castle Falkenstein.

Back to the trailer, I get a kick out of the owlbear twisting their neck like that. That's a cool bit of detail.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Yeah but you just made it vastly harder than in 2E.

You made it two checks - double the fail chance, and the fail chance is high - AND you then put disadvantage on the attack, which is at the very least equal to the -4. And what did you give them? One normal damage attack? Where in 2E you could hand out whatever.

This is why 3E was the biggest disaster in D&D history with regards to "trying to do cool stuff", because it had a rule for everything, and in practice that meant making like 3-4 checks (often with an additional -4 penalty for not having some Feat or another) to do something that in 2E was just an attack roll at -4.

This is also why 4E was pretty good at this, thanks to Page 42's table, and the associated text, where it directly encourages you to make checks to do cool stuff easy, not hard, and if it's stuff that'll happen like once a campaign, like your example, makes it do a ton of damage/cause strong conditions/both.

2E also had “skills”. If you chose not to use them, that’s fine.

It’s not really a systems fault of you under or over use the systems in place. Anything can be shortened down to just 1 roll if that’s what you want.