WoTC 5th Ed designer video

[tylermo]

Seems like 1st print to 2nd saw additions to poison rules. Was there also a revision of EV? 2nd to 3rd print didn't revise or add anything, unless I'm mistaken. 4th printing...radically changed barbarian, slightly retooled monk, 45 new illusion spells, multi and class and a half. I think that covers the changes.

[Ieuane]

Overall I liked what was said. The grid is now gone, there is a simple set of core rules and the game is going to be designed where you won't have to buy new books if there is an update and everything is being set to reflect the tastes of individual DMs. This has my interest. I also like Mike Mearls and his attitude toward older editions.

That was my take too. At one point Mearls said "Fighter combat maneuvers" in a way that sounded like a new category. They also mentioned Constitution Save in place of Fortitude, and a Wisdom check in place of Perception as a skill. The grid, like you said, will no longer be mandatory. I wanted someone to yell "Amen" at that point. I liked the part about pulling back from the "player empowerment" bulge in 4e. The long, teary eyed part about wanting spells back that do things outside of combat was nice.

The "modularity" confusion went on a little long. Until they explained that all of the rule modules they are hinting at will be in the core rulebook, I think everyone was thinking, "I'm going to have to buy a book shelf worth of staple bound crap to play the full game."

[Julian Grimm]

To me, combat maneuvers sounds like the combat options from Mentzer D&D. I'm sure they won't be exactly the same but I would guess that is what they are drawing from. If I were to make a solid guess I would say they will be certain 3.X combat feats repackaged. The idea of the rules modules being in the core books makes me think of 2e where optional rules were presented along with the core rules in the same book. I liked this approach and am glad to see it coming back. All in all, I came away from the video with more interest in the new edition.

[Sir Ironside]

The "modularity" confusion went on a little long. Until they explained that all of the rule modules they are hinting at will be in the core rulebook, I think everyone was thinking, "I'm going to have to buy a book shelf worth of staple bound crap to play the full game."

Maybe it was I that wasn't paying attention. But, I got the feeling that there would be one essential corebook then module books that allow you to play however you feel. Personally, if they go this route it isn't designed for the GM to have to buy all the books. Just one that adds to the essential core, with rules that tack onto the essential book. If the consumer feels compelled to buy all the supplemental books, that falls on the that customer and not WotC.

In essence (If you go by traditional offerings) the DM would need to buy the stripped down core (Which I think is a stand alone book and is playable out-of-the-box), a Players Handbook and some kind of monster book. Any other supplemental core book will just allow the GM to play a style that they want or is accustom to. They can even buy other supplemental core books that allow them to play other kind of versions, but all in all I didn't get the impression all versions would be in the GM core book. If they did that, then all DM's would be paying for alternate systems they would have no interest in playing. This isn't just adding alternate rules and putting them in a side bar, this is something much more grand.

Plus if they plan on including all of the alternative play styles, and give them the proper treatment that they would deserve, even if there is only 5 different styles based off of the core, the DM's guide would become a massive book.

Putting it all in just one book, just doesn't make sense, to me.

[Ieuane]

The "modularity" confusion went on a little long. Until they explained that all of the rule modules they are hinting at will be in the core rulebook, I think everyone was thinking, "I'm going to have to buy a book shelf worth of staple bound crap to play the full game."

.... They can even buy other supplemental core books that allow them to play other kind of versions, but all in all I didn't get the impression all versions would be in the GM core book. If they did that, then all DM's would be paying for alternate systems they would have no interest in playing. This isn't just adding alternate rules and putting them in a side bar, this is something much more grand.

Plus if they plan on including all of the alternative play styles, and give them the proper treatment that they would deserve, even if there is only 5 different styles based off of the core, the DM's guide would become a massive book.

Putting it all in just one book, just doesn't make sense, to me.

The part I'm talking about starts a little before the 47 minute mark. He mentions an "approach of modularity in the core," and module not being synonymous with a single product, but “multiple modularities being in one product.” So, it's probably a mix of the two. I shouldn't have said "all" modules will be in the core rulebook, because they will obviously expand the core with supplements. But what they are working on now, the core variants if you will, I think they mean those will be present. I don't see the release lacking substantial options, or modules, in it from the start. If not, it's DOA. Who knows though, the industry is full of people who have made money selling OGL d20 over, and over, and over again.

[concobar]

I kinda liked most of what i heard in that interview.

[redwullf]

So, the first D&D play test has hit the streets today. My first impression so far: It looks a little like 4e and C&C jumped in the sack and made a beautiful baby. It still has some of its 4e ancestors' quirks, but they're barely noticeable, and they're offset by it's beautiful simpler mechanics.

I realize that such a statement may or may not be received well by C&C advocates, such as myself, or the Trolls. As Stephen pointed out earlier, the FRPG market has gotten pretty competitive of late. My thought is that you can't really fault WotC/Hasbro from trying to capitalize on the OSR movement to get some of their grognards back. The next D&D (at least the "basic" set that we can expect to see) definitely taps deep into its old school roots. It "feels" like D&D again, perhaps even more so than 3e did when if first came out.

Discuss.

[Omote]

My buddy is a playtester, so I'm waiting to hear what he has to say. Inparticular, because he is such a diehard 4E fan, and NOT a fan of C&C.

~O

[redwullf]

My buddy is a playtester, so I'm waiting to hear what he has to say. Inparticular, because he is such a diehard 4E fan, and NOT a fan of C&C.

~O

He might think of it negatively, then, because this play test (at least) feels more like C&C than 4e. /shrug

[Omote]

Perhaps. But, if he does say that he likes it and claims to hate C&C... I'm gonna pounce.

~O

[Peter]

They had me till Skills, Domains, Advantages, Rituals, Conditions, and having the Rogue be un-unique. I don't think the designers understand the meaning of core. Maybe they will get it in 6e.

[Julian Grimm]

I've had a chance to scan through the playtest documents and I have to say I like what I see. I will look at them further and keep an eye on things as the playtest progresses but, if I had to choose now, I can say I would buy the new edition based off what has been released. My hoped for the new D&D are actually higher than they were before.

[Rigon]

I've had a chance to scan through the playtest documents and I have to say I like what I see. I will look at them further and keep an eye on things as the playtest progresses but, if I had to choose now, I can say I would buy the new edition based off what has been released. My hoped for the new D&D are actually higher than they were before.

I tried to download them, but it keeps sending me to the sign up page. I've signed up twice now and I'm still not able to download it.

R-

[MormonYoYoMan]

Same here, Rigon.

Still, since everyone seems to say that it's "like C&C," why would I switch to it from C&C? Maybe it's better that I never download it.

[Rigon]

Same here, Rigon.

Still, since everyone seems to say that it's "like C&C," why would I switch to it from C&C? Maybe it's better that I never download it.

I'd like to take a look at it, at least. Not sure I'd switch or anything, but I do like to look.

R-

[Julian Grimm]

Same here, Rigon.

Still, since everyone seems to say that it's "like C&C," why would I switch to it from C&C?

I can give you an honest answer to that question though it makes sense only to me. Here goes...

When all is said and done I am a fan of Dungeons & Dragons. My turning to C&C and other 'clone' games came from a disagreement with how 3.X D&D was going. So when a game like an older edition of D&D with some modern concepts came along it did interest me. However, it was like drinking Dr. Thunder when I really wanted a Dr. Pepper. It was similar but it wasn't the same.

So when the announcement was made about 5e and, when I heard what was being said, I became interested. That interest has turned to cautious optimism and that is moving more to optimism. It's hard for me not to be interested when a version of D&D is coming that may be what I want.

Of course this only makes sense to me and I am only sharing this as an insight to why I am so interested in 5e.

[MormonYoYoMan]

Actually, that does make sense to me also. Though I've never been set on any one system (the closest might have been the original Runequest 2) may be why I'm not really concerned about how and why D&D may mutate. Never did like AD&D, for instance, but it made for hilarious comedy when I ran it strictly by its own rules.