Want to play D&D 5E? You can May 24th!

[jenskot]

Playtest results:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120625

[Questionor]

In addition, we have a narrative combat module and a tactical combat module in the works.

The tactical module takes many traditional elements of miniatures gaming and introduces them to D&D. Facing, terrain, knockback, and so on all get a full treatment here, along with rules for morale and generic maneuvers such as grappling, trip, disarm, and so on. You can think of this as a fusion of the 3E combat rules written with 4E's approach to streamlining things.

The narrative rules module allows a player to pick a few effects that he or she would like to incorporate into an attack and translate that into a modifier to a character's basic attack. For example, you might accept an attack penalty in order to knock someone prone as part of your attack. These rules are still in their earliest phases, but the idea is to create a more player-driven system of stunts.

Ok I don't know what that's going to become but it sounds cool!

[BaronHelix]

Playtest results:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120625

Coolstuff, except:

We'd like to do an optional rule that adds a critical hit table to the game, along with a critical fumble table.

Do games really need more splash tables?

[Patmos]

I am afraid that Modules are going to be the death knell for this iteration of Dungeons and Dragons. with Modules they are attempting to "please" everyone, but essentially it makes the game inconsistant through different groups, they are going to make an edition war inside of themselves. If i get asked to play a pathifinder game i essentially know what i am getting, if i sit down at a game of NEXT I have no idea which modules we could be playing with, I can imagine narrative combat players, getting very upset when they see the game they sat down at has tons of minis and tactics and visa versa.

And because they are intending to farm anything that could remotely offend any gamers sensibilities out to a module they can not make the considerations to rules that really make a lot of these modules work (example: mosters powers and weapons can not have baked in abilities that would require a module), leaving the base system thin. Casual players will be thoroughly confused as the game they just learned could be completely different next play through, thats bad design. It also makes it hard to design new content for since many products feel like they would have to consider every module (and give each less) or be module specific (and divide the base audience). Plus module bloat...

it might be fine, I am just saying I am worried.

[BaronHelix]

I thought a lot of the powers styles were supposed to work side by side. Separate but equal. One person gets cool bonuses when facing is proper but penalties when facing is wrong. Another just gets a smaller static bonus. Granted, the GM has to be mindful of more things, but I thought they were still looking to be ok.

[Deliverator]

Patmos and BaronHelix——I'm actually more worried about the idea of different players at the same table being able to use different modules, than the idea of modularity within the game itself. Why? Because as long as play culture is such that games always advertise which modules they are or are not using (and as long as the combinatoric number of different module combos possible is small—say 1 of 3 combat modules, 1 of 2 social/interaction modules, 1 of 2 exploration modules for a total of 12), I think it'll be fine. But the idea of different players at the same table using different rules for the same fictional actions? Bizarre.

The reason it's important to specify "for the same fictional actions" is because of course different players have always interacted with different subsystems, based on their class. But that's okay, because the fighter isn't casting spells or picking locks in-fiction either.

In addition, we have a narrative combat module and a tactical combat module in the works.

The tactical module takes many traditional elements of miniatures gaming and introduces them to D&D. Facing, terrain, knockback, and so on all get a full treatment here, along with rules for morale and generic maneuvers such as grappling, trip, disarm, and so on. You can think of this as a fusion of the 3E combat rules written with 4E's approach to streamlining things.

The narrative rules module allows a player to pick a few effects that he or she would like to incorporate into an attack and translate that into a modifier to a character's basic attack. For example, you might accept an attack penalty in order to knock someone prone as part of your attack. These rules are still in their earliest phases, but the idea is to create a more player-driven system of stunts.

Ok I don't know what that's going to become but it sounds cool!

Yeah, it sounds like a great concept, but I will say that "take an attack penalty to do something cool if you *do* hit" is a totally shit-tacular design at its core. I really wish they'd look at The Secret Fire for how to implement attack special effects in a more "narrative" way correctly—the short version is to use a token economy, and to require justification using in-fiction narration.

Matt

[Questionor]

as long as play culture is such that games always advertise which modules they are or are not using (and as long as the combinatoric number of different module combos possible is small—say 1 of 3 combat modules, 1 of 2 social/interaction modules, 1 of 2 exploration modules for a total of 12), I think it'll be fine.

exactly! in fact it will be an improvement over the current way where there is no defined way to describe. I'm used to asking before rolling a character in 3.5:
what kind of combat we doing? full on map of 5 ft squares or just fuzzy/wing-it descriptions or somewhere in between.
Will there be a lot of social interaction and will it be a large part of the game or will skills like diplomacy be a waste?

[Tekatana]

D&D 3.5 reprints!

[BaronHelix]

D&D 3.5 reprints!

I'm really not trying to be a wise ass here, I don't understand why I would be excited about this. The old core books aren't scarce, has there been enough significant errata to warrant celebration?

[Tekatana]

I still have all the 3.5 stuff - I guess they became scarce? I dunno. I feel it's like remaking Spiderman too soon (D&D imitates life)