Uniting the Editions, Part 2 Up!

[UngeheuerLich]

4e spells were all well balanced... but personal spell lists were a disaster for D&D... Cleric casts hold person, the wizard casts nearly the same spell which is called different.
Iconics are important.

I also don´t feel a PR disaster... it is your wrong perception of time.
it is just one month since the announcement. They are asking for input in a directed way. Because they want specific things answered. When looking at the polls, you get a quite good feeling of the things the players want most.

My feeling is, that the announcement and the NDAs are ok. I am also sad, not to hear more about the new edition, but I am sure they want to present some later drafts with feedback from the convention worked in.
2 month ahead we hopefully get the playtest in our hand. My feeling is, that this would be about the right time.

edit: oh, and DCs... In 4e i just make different DCs for the druid who tries to search for traps and the rogue who does so. The druid has a lot better perception, because of his wisdom modifier, but it is a hard task for him, the rogue does the same check as a medium check, as he knows what to do. I can imagine just just decide on the fly to add +2 (or higher) bonuses to simple characters if it is described well and makes sense...

 

[Tony Vargas]

4e spells were all well balanced... but personal spell lists were a disaster for D&D... Cleric casts hold person, the wizard casts nearly the same spell which is called different.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Hold Person is not in 4e, at least not under that name... There's Hold Foe - single target, damages, plus dazes & immobilizes (save ends both). The closest wizard spell is Pinioning Vortex, which damages, plus dazes, immobilizes and causes the target to hover two squares up, but only for one turn. In adition one targets WILL and the other FORT. So Hold Foe is substantially more likely to work on a brute, like an Ogre for instance, than Pinioning Vortex.


However, Hold Person has been on both the Cleric and Magic-user (Wizard) lists in just about every other edition of the game, before. Not even different names nor much different mechanics, just different levels.


I mean, if you're looking for examples of /very/ similar powers there are lots of them - mostly among the martial classes, who do a lot of shuffling around and hitting things and calling it a 'power.'

 

[Kynn]

Actually, I think that's exactly what Monte said.

How exactly do you explain this?

The next big question you might have, however, is that with everything being so customizable, who makes the decisions?

I think some of the answers are player-provided answers, and some are DM-provided. This is tied in very closely with my philosophy of the game overall. Players should play the characters they want to play (with DM input), and DMs should run the games they want to run (with player input).

Some choices then—such as whether a character has a long list of skills and feats; or skills, feats, and powers; or just ability scores, hit points, Armor Class, and an attack bonus—are up to the player.

That doesn't imply anything like the Fighter/Slayer split or the idea that the DM will choose to allow a mix-and-match game. It says right there that Monte's vision is the choice of character complexity and scope -- e.g., what skill systems are used -- is up to the player. Not the players as a group, not the DM allowing the player to do it, but the individual player's choice.

(Monte does throw a bone about "with DM input" but it's clear that he's saying the choice about skills-vs-just-ability-scores is a decision made by the player. Not by the DM deciding the players can mix-and-match.)

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

I wish I could get some sense of what the designers think about non-combat. They seem to be defining earlier editions and their work moving forward in relation to combat and styles of combat-oriented play. I get the sense that they are primarily concerned with modes of combat during play and are looking to define 5E in terms of how players approach combat situations. If it turns out that "themes" are no more than a thin veneer to deal with combat-oriented play approaches, that's going to undercut the one aspect of design I have so far seen that seems to speak to 5E as an actual roleplaying game.

I played D&D Next at D&D Experience. I didn't get to build a character or use any modules (we just had the bare bones system as I understand it and pre-gens). My character had more out of combat options than I could actually use in just one 4-hour session which seemed really positive. My character worked on the battlefield (Caves of Chaos is a warzone where careful diplomacy works but so does violent conflict) but I could easily have seen my character going to court and hanging out with foppish nobles. I was impressed at everything my low-level character could do both in combat and out.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

Yeah, I think they're heading for a bit of a PR disaster by announcing this early (with press release and NY Times interviews and so on) and then not offering up anything for the masses to chew on.

(Their "select bloggers get details on this but are under NDA" strategy also seems a poor choice from a PR perspective.)

I actually made a post requesting that Wizards consider dropping the NDA early to help spread the world about D&D Next (I played it at D&D Experience). I was surprised when many, many posters got angry with me and accused me of not having faith with my NDA (not true at all, but that is another story). There are more people out there posting who want the NDAs to hold than who want Wizards to reveal things early.

So I'd expect solid details around May (the NDA runs till then I think). Of course, Wizards can drop any info they want before then (the skills seminar revealed quite a bit actually).

 

[Hassassin]

I think the more telling thing in these articles are the polls. Not only how people are responding but which questions they are asking. So far, they seem to be asking the right ones.

I don't really understand the point of the current questions. How would you parse what they're after here?

Playing the game the way I want to play - Well, duh.

Professional game designers providing what they think works best - That's why I'm buying a game.

DMs having a say in character options - Of course. You don't allow assault rifles in a world without them, or samurais and ninjas in a medieval-themed one.

Players having a say in the campaign and game overall - Again, duh.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That doesn't imply anything like the Fighter/Slayer split or the idea that the DM will choose to allow a mix-and-match game. It says right there that Monte's vision is the choice of character complexity and scope -- e.g., what skill systems are used -- is up to the player. Not the players as a group, not the DM allowing the player to do it, but the individual player's choice.

(Monte does throw a bone about "with DM input" but it's clear that he's saying the choice about skills-vs-just-ability-scores is a decision made by the player. Not by the DM deciding the players can mix-and-match.)

There is nothing inherent in that quote, one way or the other, that says that the players can all pick something different. It merely says that the players should give the primary direction on the complexity of the characters. Now, there have been the statements elsewhere about one player having something simple and another player having something more complex, but there was nothing in those statements that said the full rang of simple or complex was avaialble to every player in every game.

Some choices made preclude options. I'm not sure which ones will be this way, but I guarantee that there will be some choices made by the players, as a group, that will preclude certain options. Whether how skill checks are handled is one of those remains to be seen.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Hold Person is not in 4e, at least not under that name... There's Hold Foe - single target, damages, plus dazes & immobilizes (save ends both). The closest wizard spell is Pinioning Vortex, which damages, plus dazes, immobilizes and causes the target to hover two squares up, but only for one turn. In adition one targets WILL and the other FORT. So Hold Foe is substantially more likely to work on a brute, like an Ogre for instance, than Pinioning Vortex.


However, Hold Person has been on both the Cleric and Magic-user (Wizard) lists in just about every other edition of the game, before. Not even different names nor much different mechanics, just different levels.


I mean, if you're looking for examples of /very/ similar powers there are lots of them - mostly among the martial classes, who do a lot of shuffling around and hitting things and calling it a 'power.'

That was exactly my point. Hold person is iconic... different spells that do the same are not.
Same with powers... sure strike and careful attack... healing word and inspiring word...
essentials and subclasses remedied some of those points, next D&D will most surely have spell (and power) lists again. There was a design and development or a rule of three answer on that subject (maybe both)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't really understand the point of the current questions. How would you parse what they're after here?

Playing the game the way I want to play - Well, duh.

Professional game designers providing what they think works best - That's why I'm buying a game.

I'm fairly certain that last one relates at least a little to a discussion that was going on after 4E was announced but before it was released. Some 3E folks advocated that "professional" game designers should provide all the rules options, and that the rest of us should use whatever they provided. Other 3E folks advocated for more DM control over the action, as they know best at their own table.

 

[Henry]

He also makes it clear D&D Next will not be a bridge between editions (you can't play 1e characters with 3e PCs) but will be able to emulate your edition preference. Heck you can even create your own preference by mixing and matching various modules.

Actually, it's surprising to me that he had to spell this out. I know it's because more than one person across several message boards had this notion, but it's still a bit surprising.

RE: Monte's article so far, I like the part where he mentions "Ability scores 3-18, magic missiles, fireballs, etc.... and it looks not unsurprisingly like OD&D". If anyone wonders, I think this is going to resolve the notion what the "basic, core" game of 5E is going to look like -- it's going to look pretty similar to OD&D, or at least that's their intent at this phase. Frankly, I couldn't be happier with the notion, because it means for a basic game, if I have someone I'm trying to teach roleplaying to for the first time, I'd rather not haul out Pathfinder Box, or Savage Worlds, or Star Wars D6 system -- I want to haul out Dungeons and Dragons, and if they like it, be able to direct them to Dungeons and Dragons for more of their fix.

*Yes, I could do it with Swords and Wizardry, or another clone, but the very name still has cachet with the general public, so they don't feel like they're buying into something they've never heard of before.