TONS of 5e Info from Enworld Interview

www.enworld.org/forum/news/323442-en-wor...

"We decided to remove the henchmen rule from the game for the time being"-Mearls

"spells - such as mirror image being set as interrupts"-interrupts are in 5e

"the playtest material had feats that were much more related to the other two pillars that we have heard mentioned besides combat: exploration and role-playing (the friendship feat Undecided of the diplomat and the Explorer’s Explore Guild Member feat for example
).-diplomat and explorer are likely themes

^^proof there are trap feats in 5e? Surprised

FROTHSOF D&D

FREE 5E ADVENTURE!!!

DOWNLOAD MY FREE 4E ZINE!!!

 

 

That's an interview, not a leak.
leak sounds better
www.enworld.org/forum/news/323442-en-wor...

"We decided to remove the henchmen rule from the game for the time being"-Mearls

"spells - such as mirror image being set as interrupts"-interrupts are in 5e

"the playtest material had feats that were much more related to the other two pillars that we have heard mentioned besides combat: exploration and role-playing (the friendship feat Undecided of the diplomat and the Explorer’s Explore Guild Member feat for example
).

^^proof there are trap feats in 5e? Surprised



ARe you kidding me... Really, trap feats? You are going to drop everything and claim trap feats without knowing what those feats do.

What it says "We had feats that delt with the other pillars for the playtest, we decided to move things outside of combat to backgrounds."

This mentality just astounds me. How do people take a snippet of information, put the worst possible spin on it, and present it as if it were fact. Do you work for Fox news or something?

hey hey hey dont shoot the messenger
It seems there are several posters that wail and gnash teeth in regards to 5e/Next at any opportunity.  Unfortunately, although they dislike nearly everything that is mentioned about the next edition, they permeate the board in an attempt to sow discord.
Feats dont work the way you think they do.

they werent bundled into a diplomat theme? 

ps clever one-liners dont work the way you think they do

"Rogues pick a scheme, inspired in part by the 2e mechanic that let thieves allocate points to their skills so that they could focus on one ability or another."

So schemes are not 'manuevers' or 'tricks' but rather a build similar to the Cleric domains?

"One of my players played a wizard with a witch theme and had a pair of ravens - which were useful, but not overwhelming. "

That sounds cool.

My level of hype was waned a little bit with the Wizard and Paladin design goals, but I'm still quite interested.
I'm happy henchman are in as a module.  I was a little sad to see them go but I agree they don't need to be in core.  I do wish they would be in PHB 1 as one of the default modules.   I'm not sure from reading which way to fall on whether they will or won't be in the first book.  I vote yes!


I agree with @frothsof (ugh that almost hurt coming out) that I hope feats stay combat focused and non-combat be in traits.   


 
I personally dislike that combat definition takes up the bulk of the available character options.  However depending upon how they do this type of thing and what they justify as a combat related bonus should be interesting.
That's an interview, not a leak.



+1
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
That's an interview, not a leak.


I don't know if I can learn to love the healing surges, but the rest of the interview sounds really nice.

I am looking forward to the play tests.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
hey hey hey dont shoot the messenger


When the messenger blatantly misrepresents the message, he deserves to be shot.
hey hey hey dont shoot the messenger


When the messenger blatantly misrepresents the message, he deserves to be shot.



I think I have to agree on this point.
Weapon specialization has moved into themes. Again, based on feedback, we moved the fighter away from picking one type of weapon to be good at.

Good, I hate being forced into weapon specialization.

The interesting part to me is how much 2nd edition has influenced things, primarily from the idea that characters can be customized primarily according to how they fit into the world. Rogues pick a scheme, inspired in part by the 2e mechanic that let thieves allocate points to their skills so that they could focus on one ability or another.

I'm rather curious how scheme fits into the 5e setup. With themes going in also, it sounds like scheme is more of a choice of what combat specialty a rogue is going for.

When we looked at race, class, theme, and background, we decided to make background 100% focused on exploration and interaction.

No combat bonuses in backgrounds. Hopefully they stick by that. It can feel strange at times, but the game needs some enforced balance between combat and non-combat options.

While themes are by no means complete, I’d love it if you could play the game without them and need only minimal or no modifications by the DM. That would be a good option for groups that want a slimmed down experience or who simply don’t want feat-style abilities in the game. For instance, our assumption for now is that if you want to build NPCs using classes, you don’t have to give the NPC a theme or background. That speeds things up considerably, while pointing us in a direction where PCs could also do that.

Sounds like themes probably replace some default bonuses built into the class rather then being entirely on top of what you get otherwise. If not, then having any degree of balance would be impossible here.

Changed the title of the thread to aleviate any confusion. This was definitely a sanctioned article/interview, but there is lots of new information in there.

Edit: Removed some posts that were talking about moderation. At this point, most of us know that's a no-no.

Trevor Kidd Community Manager

Leak was sexier than interview.

Lots of good stuff, but I think Interrupts slow down the game no matter how you slice it.  If everyone has a pause button while the game is running, it ultimately slows down the game.

I appreciate the interviewer talking mechanics, but this is so light on mechanics it's worse advertising than calling it a leak.

I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.


You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...


Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

Leak implied that they're trying to hide things that people like frothsof object to.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Leak implied that they're trying to hide things that people like frothsof object to.



 i should have just said spoilers!
Leak was sexier than interview.

Lots of good stuff, but I think Interrupts slow down the game no matter how you slice it.  If everyone has a pause button while the game is running, it ultimately slows down the game.

I appreciate the interviewer talking mechanics, but this is so light on mechanics it's worse advertising than calling it a leak.




the interupts aren't to bad if they are limited to things like up your defense against that by 3 or reduce the damage you took by x.
Interesting interview, though the fawning nature of the questions got a little annoying.  Not because of a philosophical objection to pitching softballs (Enworld has never to my knowledge claimed the mantle of serious journalism), but because it was sometimes hard to decipher question, and after a point it seemed less than totally honest.

The facts derivable from it, though, have served at the current time to bolster my confidence, if only to a mild degree.  The more I hear about next, the less worried I become that the design paragdim involved is anthetical to my desires.  Of course, everything remains subject to change.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."
On Worldbuilding - On Crafting Aliens - Pillars of Art and Flavor - Simulationism, Narritivism, and Gamism - Shub-Niggurath in D&D
THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

A good read, that's for sure. Nice to see more revealed to us so we have a better grasp of what's going on and what to expect come the 24th. I know I'm anxious to see what all the hub-bub is about in this iteration and see if we can't make it work.
I thought Mearls was on the lam and WOTC was prepping the Imperial Stormtroopers to go after him.  Darn!  

 
"When we looked at race, class, theme, and background, we decided to make background 100% focused on exploration and interaction. That means that every class has something to contribute in those situations. It also freed us up to focus on using a more organic approach to designing classes and races.

The key is that classes provide you with all the baseline combat abilities you need, so if you take a class and a background you’re covered in the three pillars. Classes can also have non-combat abilities as needed.

Themes are a place where people can find their own specialization. Most themes offer a mix of abilities, but you can choose to focus on one part of the game if you want to. Still, a guy who takes a combat-based is only marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere.

While themes are by no means complete, I’d love it if you could play the game without them and need only minimal or no modifications by the DM. That would be a good option for groups that want a slimmed down experience or who simply don’t want feat-style abilities in the game. For instance, our assumption for now is that if you want to build NPCs using classes, you don’t have to give the NPC a theme or background. That speeds things up considerably, while pointing us in a direction where PCs could also do that."

This is excellent, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could be disappointed upon reading it.  Between your class and your background you are covered in all three pillars.  Simple. 

Also, even if you take a combat focused theme, you are only "marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere."  So if you have your character focus on interaction will you be worse at combat?  Of course, because you are making a deliberate choice.  Will the difference between you and the combat focused character be very large?  No.  Sounds good to me.

And then, as a final cherry on top, there is the option to play without themes (or even backgrounds) for groups that want very simple characters. 

@Arithezoo - They have stated a couple times in the past that you can just pick Race and Class and go. So it likely looks like this for your choices:

1 - Race and Class

2 - Race, Class and Background

3 - Race, Class and Theme

4, Race, Class, Background and Theme 
I'm curious to see some of the possible 'specialization' themes. For martial charachters, there are some pretty obvious possibilites: weapon specialization, maneuvers, etc.

For casters, what would there be? I had the impression that most themes would be open to most classes, so what would be a generic theme for casters that still makes sense when another class takes it? Maybe one with a tiny bit of healing ability (think 4e Knight Hospitaler, but may be not an immediate), or a simple spell that anyone can learn? Maybe a cantrip?

I'm intrigued and curious and I want more now.
"When we looked at race, class, theme, and background, we decided to make background 100% focused on exploration and interaction. That means that every class has something to contribute in those situations. It also freed us up to focus on using a more organic approach to designing classes and races.

The key is that classes provide you with all the baseline combat abilities you need, so if you take a class and a background you’re covered in the three pillars. Classes can also have non-combat abilities as needed.

Themes are a place where people can find their own specialization. Most themes offer a mix of abilities, but you can choose to focus on one part of the game if you want to. Still, a guy who takes a combat-based is only marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere.

While themes are by no means complete, I’d love it if you could play the game without them and need only minimal or no modifications by the DM. That would be a good option for groups that want a slimmed down experience or who simply don’t want feat-style abilities in the game. For instance, our assumption for now is that if you want to build NPCs using classes, you don’t have to give the NPC a theme or background. That speeds things up considerably, while pointing us in a direction where PCs could also do that."

This is excellent, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could be disappointed upon reading it.  Between your class and your background you are covered in all three pillars.  Simple. 

Also, even if you take a combat focused theme, you are only "marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere."  So if you have your character focus on interaction will you be worse at combat?  Of course, because you are making a deliberate choice.  Will the difference between you and the combat focused character be very large?  No.  Sounds good to me.

And then, as a final cherry on top, there is the option to play without themes (or even backgrounds) for groups that want very simple characters. 




Yet I'm a little disappointed. Just because I sometimes enjoy high disparity. If I want to play a character that's utterly unable at fighting, yet god at sneaking, and you want a godlike fighter that is a dumb at relating and the most noisy folk existing, even when he tries to be sneaky, I'd like to have an option. That's something I liked of character optimization. You were a god in something, you were unable in enything else. (I'm not takeing into consideration pun-pun or other extreme cases)
I'm curious to see some of the possible 'specialization' themes. For martial charachters, there are some pretty obvious possibilites: weapon specialization, maneuvers, etc.

For casters, what would there be? I had the impression that most themes would be open to most classes, so what would be a generic theme for casters that still makes sense when another class takes it? Maybe one with a tiny bit of healing ability (think 4e Knight Hospitaler, but may be not an immediate), or a simple spell that anyone can learn? Maybe a cantrip?

I'm intrigued and curious and I want more now.



Here is a list of themes that have been mentioned in different articles etc (this is taken from ENWorlds D&D Next area):



  • 1st-level Themes mentioned: Slayer, Mystic, Guardian, Lurker, Leader, Sharpshooter, Skirmisher, Tempest, Weapon Master, Wild Talent, Domain Themes, Avenger, Werewolf, Revenant, Disciple of Tenser, Alchemist, Red Wizard, Commoner, Noble, Knight, Apprentice, Planetouched, Deva, Pub-Crawler, Spy


  • 6th-level themes mentioned: Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, Shadowdancer, Necromancer, Enchanter, Abjurer, Axe Specialist, Dwarven Defender


Not a lot of crunch but you can kind of imagine what each theme might be based upon previous experiences within the game.

 
Disciple of Tenser, Red Wizard,



I did actually miss those two and both have me watering a bit. Do you recall where they were mentioned?
Disciple of Tenser, Red Wizard,



I did actually miss those two and both have me watering a bit. Do you recall where they were mentioned?



You can check the ENWorld boards they have a special section dedicated to D&D Next - D&D Next
Good on them with backgrounds.

They're gonna have to be careful with themes, though; any sort of exploration/social features gained from them would now have to be comparable to combat-focused themes and backgrounds. It's a rocky road with lots of potential for traps and pitfalls.


Pity, they're holding out on henchmen. I don't want to risk a premature launch on henchmen rules, even as a module, so it's probably best to push the idea back to a supplement.

Good on them with backgrounds.

They're gonna have to be careful with themes, though; any sort of exploration/social features gained from them would now have to be comparable to combat-focused themes and backgrounds. It's a rocky road with lots of potential for traps and pitfalls.


Pity, they're holding out on henchmen. I don't want to risk a premature launch on henchmen rules, even as a module, so it's probably best to push the idea back to a supplement.




With the limited scope of the playtest starting out we wont likely be seeing the levels at which we would need to worry about those rules for some time to come. So no reason to muddy the waters until they need to right?
Interesting spoilers. With the Chat and the Interview, i must say D&D Next really changed after Playtest feedbacks. Wink


Interesting...


Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Interesting spoilers. With the Chat and the Interview, i must say D&D Next really changed after Playtest feedbacks. Wink


Interesting...





Well as was noted in the interview some people have been playing with rules sets that are months old Or at least the interviewer alluded to such in his question to Mike.
I find it hard to understand the thematic difference between theme and background. I mean, what kind of abilities/'class features" would each give me? 
I find it hard to understand the thematic difference between theme and background. I mean, what kind of abilities/'class features" would each give me? 



For the most part it seems backgrounds will give skills and traits, which seem to matter to the exploration and interaction/roleplaying pillars of the game and will not or will rarely give any extra to the combat pillar.

Themes seem to give mostly to the combat pillar but can also give to either of the other two pillars. It also seems possible that a theme that gives none to combat and completely to one or both of the other pillars. They both seem to give 4 of some combination of things.

Backgrounds give 4 skills and/or traits (4 total between both). Skills are skills, traits are things like owning a smithy or being a good crafter.

Themes give feats and feats seem to be mostly combat focused, but there will be some that are not.

This is just what I've gleamed and this could all be completely wrong.
Interesting spoilers. With the Chat and the Interview, i must say D&D Next really changed after Playtest feedbacks. Wink


Interesting...





Well as was noted in the interview some people have been playing with rules sets that are months old Or at least the interviewer alluded to such in his question to Mike.



D&DXP was indeed a long time ago...
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I've read the article/interview and I like what I'm reading. I'm really looking forward to it. Although the fact that classes will be focused on combat worried me a little bit, they do seem to emphasize that characters would do a lot more outside of combat, so the designers are thinking about the game outside of combat, meaning that hopefully spellcasters will be able to do more than just cast damage spells and the game will indeed focus a lot on exploration and roleplay. 

I'm really looking forward to spending lots of money on 5e products. Let me love D&D again! 
Class, race, theme, background.  The four pieces of your character, and equivalent in defining who you are.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition