There are certain business and legal questions we can't answer (for business and legal reasons). And if you have a specific rules question, we'd rather point you to Customer Service, where representatives are ready and waiting to help guide you through the rules of the game. That said, our goal is provide you with as much information we can—in this and other venues.

____________________________________

Are there plans for a permanent wound and injury module?

It’s one of the things we want to explore in a rules module. Such a thing would probably also not be just one set of rules, but a spectrum, allowing people to dive as deeply into lingering wounds as they like. For example, one group might want more consequences for being injured in a fight, but not be interested in highly specific injuries, ( “Ooh, critical hit, looks like the orc crushes your collarbone!” ), while another group might want to combine everything from hit locations to lingering wounds and slow healing all together to create a really gritty game. That’s fine—and we hope that you can use a single module, or combine modules, to get the kind of game you want.

Will a halfling barbarian be able to contribute to the group as much as a human barbarian?  Are certain concepts designed to be sub-optimal?

While there are always going to be some combinations that work together more naturally than others, we’d like to think that playing an oddball combination doesn’t mean you can’t contribute. For example, in the case of the halfling barbarian, while you certainly won’t have the strength of a half-orc, you could still be very effective by option to use a two-weapon fighting style (with, say, two short sword) since some of the heavy weapons like the greataxe are off-limits. Every possible combination is not going to be equal, but the goal is to make sure that any given basic combination of choices can feel good about contributing to the adventure, even when playing a less common combination.

 Could humans have subraces or would those be better expressed as cultural details?  Could half-races and planetouched be expressed as human subraces?

We’re pretty happy with how easy-to-use humans are right now, and how they help make character generation go quickly. Right now, we think that the half-races (like half-elf and half-orc) work better as their own race choices; the same goes for the planetouched races. That way, we can focus on getting the feel of each of those races right, without the need to worry about how certain racial traits affects the normal human.

____________________________________

How can I submit a question to the D&D Next Q&A?

Instead of a single venue to submit questions, our Community Manager will be selecting questions from our message boards, Twitter feed, and Facebook account. You can also submit questions directly to dndinsider@wizards.com. So, if you’d like to have your question answered in the D&D Next Q&A, just continue to participate in our online community—and we may select yours!

There are certain business and legal questions we can't answer (for business and legal reasons). And if you have a specific rules question, we'd rather point you to Customer Service, where representatives are ready and waiting to help guide you through the rules of the game. That said, our goal is provide you with as much information we can—in this and other venues.

____________________________________

Just how much can a subclass change a core class?

When we look at a class, its features should say, “This is what is true about all members of this class.” When we look at a subclass, its features say, “This is what can be true about certain members of this class.” Moreover, the important thing to know about a subclass is that it’s not about mechanics, it’s about the archetype. That’s why we want to look at things like “Knight” for a subclass, not “Defender;” the word “Knight” puts a face on the subclass and describes its place in the world.

So, the priority for a subclass’s mechanics is to live up to the archetype. If that means very different mechanics sitting inside two different subclasses, we think that’s OK. What unites the subclasses is what sits at a higher tier, inside the class itself. For example, we know we want fighters to be extremely good with weapons of all kinds; we know they should be versatile in combat, and they should be among the most resilient and defensive of the classes. Those are things that we think all fighters need, so that’s something all fighters get. When you look at a knight, for example, you’d expect the knight to have those things…and also a number of social features that tie into the knowledge of courtly manner, etiquette, royalty and nobility. A gladiator, on the other hand, doesn’t need any of those things, but what the knight and the gladiator share, as members of the fighter class, are that same skill, resilience and versatility that the class itself provides.

Will different subclass abilities be available a la carte?

Right now, we are designing the subclasses as a complete package that you buy into completely or not at all. The reason is that this allows us to take a look at the whole picture of a subclass’s features, looking not just at their individual effects but the effects of their combination. Moreover, some subclasses might have more complex or involved subsystems within them, and need more interlocking features than another subclasses, whose features might be perfectly functional independent of one another. What we plan to do, instead of treating the features like interchangeable parts, is provide information for Dungeon Masters to work with players to design their own subclasses, using the same kinds of guidelines we are using for designing them internally. We still have feats available for fine-tuning characters, and want to continue exploring (as we have up to this point) the occasional dipping into other archetypes and mechanics with feats as a means of providing tweaks to your character concepts.

Would wizard subclasses be a means by which wizards utilize non-Vancian casting options?

That is an avenue we’re exploring right now, yes. A big part of the class-subclass design process is deciding which features are essential to all members of the class, and which ones are desirable for only a portion of the members of that class. Certainly we think that the ability to cast arcane spells is an essential part of the wizard class; the means by which it obtains the spells themselves, and the resources with which the class casts those spells, may be more flexible. It’s something we plan to experiment with and playtest.

____________________________________

How can I submit a question to the D&D Next Q&A?

Instead of a single venue to submit questions, our Community Manager will be selecting questions from our message boards, Twitter feed, and Facebook account. You can also submit questions directly to dndinsider@wizards.com. So, if you’d like to have your question answered in the D&D Next Q&A, just continue to participate in our online community—and we may select yours!

There are certain business and legal questions we can't answer (for business and legal reasons). And if you have a specific rules question, we'd rather point you to Customer Service, where representatives are ready and waiting to help guide you through the rules of the game. That said, our goal is provide you with as much information we can—in this and other venues.

____________________________________

With skills as an optional add-on, will characters not using the skill system be playable at the same table as characters who are?

Right now, we’re thinking that using the optional skills system will be a table-wide decision, not a character-by-character decision. Feedback from the playtest has clearly indicated that the players and DMs who want a skill system want one that is robust and one that replaces ability checks as the core resolution method, with the DM calling for, say, a Stealth check instead of a Dexterity check. Since it’s likely that the optional skill system will go so far as to change the way the players and the Dungeon Master interact like that, it’s probably a decision the entire table makes as a group, and then abides by.

Are skill dice going away completely?

Not entirely. Right now, we’re looking to preserve the basic concept inside of some of the classes more often associated with skills, including the bard and the rogue. We’re experimenting with having something like the skill die inside of those classes (and potentially expanded upon inside certain other class features) to help give those classes an edge over other characters in certain arenas. Of course, this doesn’t preclude us using other mechanics in other classes to reflect non-combat expertise (for example, giving out additional proficiencies and areas of knowledge).

Will backgrounds be the only means by which to gain proficiencies?

No. Both areas of knowledge and proficiencies can potentially come from race, class, background, or feats. We want to give these out where it’s appropriate, and are not limiting them to coming from a single source.

____________________________________

How can I submit a question to the D&D Next Q&A?

Instead of a single venue to submit questions, our Community Manager will be selecting questions from our message boards, Twitter feed, and Facebook account. You can also submit questions directly to dndinsider@wizards.com. So, if you’d like to have your question answered in the D&D Next Q&A, just continue to participate in our online community—and we may select yours!

There are certain business and legal questions we can't answer (for business and legal reasons). And if you have a specific rules question, we'd rather point you to Customer Service, where representatives are ready and waiting to help guide you through the rules of the game. That said, our goal is provide you with as much information we can—in this and other venues.

____________________________________

How much gold should a new character created above 1st level have?  How many and what kinds of magic items should they have?

The game balance answer is: starting gold and equipment works at any level. We make very few assumptions about the presence or absence of gear in the game right now, so you should be OK just starting with what you would have at 1st level. However, there may be story and world reasons why you would want the more experienced adventurers to start with better gear. However, that falls more into the realm of DM advice, and will likely have to wait for a more thorough treatment in our DM materials. 

What are the current plans for Paragon Paths and Prestige Classes? Are they now going to be emulated by feat chains?

It’s likely that their concepts will find homes in a couple of different places. While many of their abilities are likely to find their way into feats, we’re also looking at integrating some of them into the base classes. We’ve shown several choice points in our classes up to this point, and many of those prestige classes and paragon paths could reappear as choices inside of the classes.

If a character takes "add +1 to an ability score" at every feat slot, will that character "break" bounded accuracy?

No, for the simple reason that we have ability score maximums in place. Since you cannot improve an ability score above 20 without some magical means, we aren’t concerned about players reaching high primary ability scores, because the highest they can go is still capped.

____________________________________

How can I submit a question to the D&D Next Q&A?

Instead of a single venue to submit questions, our Community Manager will be selecting questions from our message boards, Twitter feed, and Facebook account. You can also submit questions directly to dndinsider@wizards.com. So, if you’d like to have your question answered in the D&D Next Q&A, just continue to participate in our online community—and we may select yours!

Why don’t you start off by telling us a little bit about you and your history with D&D, what you're playing now, and anything else you want people to know about you?

I did not start off as a gamer. I was a science-fiction fan as a kid: Star Trek, Space 1999, Star Wars, Outer Limits, and atom-age stuff from the prior two decades. The closest I'd gotten to fantasy was watching the movies of Ray Harryhausen, and reading Edgar Rice Boroughs and a copy of Edith Hamilton's Mythology.

When I became one of the legion of middle-school boys who made D&D a fad in the early 80's, I wasn't looking for a wargame or a simulation of Tolkien or anything. I think, more than anything, what sold me were the Skeletons, which called to mind the amazing sequence in Jason and the Argonauts, and the Black Pudding, which reminded me of The Blob (even if it was vulnerable to fire instead of cold).

While my friends & I didn't really understand the game, it was still a lot of silly fun, while it lasted. I stuck with it, though, looking for other groups playing the 'Advanced' game and finding other games, besides. I was 15 when I started DM'ing, and I ultimately ran a campaign through both editions of AD&D that wrapped in the mid 90's, with characters ranging from 14-18th level. By that time, Hero and Storyteller had taken over as my games of choice, and D&D had lost my interest.

I came back to D&D with 3.0 and the "back to the dungeon" theme, which appealed to my sense of nostalgia. d20 turned out to be a fair system, too, and I was pleased to see it do well. Since then, D&D has been the game I've been playing the most, and I haven't let anything drive me away from it, yet.

Right now, I'm running a weekly mini-campaign that picked up from Beyond the Crystal Cave. I also run games at local conventions - DunDraCon, PacifiCon, and Clockwork Alchemy (where I run the obscure Airship Pirates). I just finished running the Against the Cult of Chaos 5e playtest, but am playing 4e this season (I like reprising my Neverwinter character). I also play in several regular campaigns that alternate, including one that's reached Paragon, and another at Epic.

What was the playtesting experience like with D&D Encounters? How did the D&D Next Encounters season differ from prior 4th Edition experiences?

Through most of the playtest, I did notice that 5e monsters were few, low-AC and low-hp, resulting in the celebrated 'faster combats.' At 1st level, so were the PCs: they were dropping in every combat.

5e has really gone all the way back to first edition principles with 1st level hps, and a phenomenon has returned that I'd outright forgotten. Having disposable 1st level characters ingrains in the players the reality that life is cheap. Once you've internalized 'life is cheap,' you're not a hero anymore.

It's a little counter-intuitive, I suppose. RL heroism means facing /real/ danger selflessly. With more durable PCs - common, IMX, from 1e via variants through modern D&D - players can do the 'heroic' thing without being 'punished' by losing the character, or being unable to participate in swaths of the adventure while they languish at negative hps. It's not /really/ heroic, since they know they're taking pretty-survivable risks, mechanically - but, then, it never is, because they're just imaginary characters. If those imaginary characters have 'plot armor' like the genre characters they're modeled on, though, that imaginary heroism can be fun.

I also ran the playtest "TotM" which got mixed responses from the players, some didn't care, some were occasionally confused by it, and one hated it outright. TotM is another good reason to use fewer monsters, because it gives the DM less to keep track of in his head, so that also made sense. I'm comfortable enough running in that mode, though, from years of doing it in the 90s, and I find you can help even the most reticent player through it by giving them clear descriptions and prompting them with simple choices.

Is the Theater of the Mind style of play more difficult or easier than using a grid and miniatures/counters as a DM?

I've done both for so many years they both seem pretty easy. TotM requires the DM to keep track of positioning. That's just another detail along with hps, conditions, and the like. You then have to communicate that information to each player, on his turn. OK, technically, it's a little more to do. But it's not a terrible burden. Neither is using miniatures.

I know much has been made of "Theater of the Mind" as some sort of superior 'play style' that promotes immersion and imagination and roleplaying and world peace or whatever. I'm afraid that's just a lot of edition war propaganda. TotM is just what you do when you don't have a play surface for whatever logistical reason. It's a good skill for a DM to have.

Speaking of controversial topics, what's your view on the Tiers (Apprentice, Adventurer, and Legacy) recently discussed in Legends & Lore and on the forums?

Are there any non-controversial topics? I think Tiers are like Roles and Sources: they're something that has always been with the game. A 1-3rd AD&D module was a different adventure from a 4-7th or 8-12th. BECMI was essentially arranged in such tiers.

Formalizing Tiers doesn't add to or detract from the game, just makes it a little easier to work with. If you're bothered by 'seeing the strings' it might make you twitch a little, I suppose.

These specific tiers I have my doubts about. Starting at 3rd level, for instance, avoids some of the issues I mentioned earlier with PCs dropping too easily. By the same token, introducing the game to new players via those issues at 'Apprentice Tier' doesn't seem like a great idea.

Legacy Tier does sound like a great idea, though. Leaving behind a legacy seems like it has the potential to motivate a high-level character who can't be challenged by the same old dungeon crawls, anymore. Maybe it shouldn’t be the only direction a campaign might take at higher levels, "Epic" or "Immortals" play might be good modules to include, as well.

So, what would the difference be between "Legacy," "Epic," and "Immortal?"

That was off the top of my head thinking of the Epic Tier and Immortals set as things prior editions have done with very high-level play.

Legacy would be as discussed, leaving something behind for future generations. Epic would be taking the adventure into challenges of greater scope than the typical fantasy world - "Planeswalking," I suppose, getting embroiled in the plots of Gods and Devils, final confrontation with recurring villains and so forth. Immortal would be actually seeking immortality and godhood.

Legacy would keep the campaign and the characters centered on the world. In Epic they move beyond it to yet greater challenges and yet more dire threats. In Immortal Tier, they'd move beyond the world in search of greater power and accomplishment. So you could 'branch' your campaign depending on the desired focus.

Well, from the first packet on, I've found the playtest has been doing an admirable job of capturing that "Classic D&D Feel." For me, that's fun - for an hour or so, then I start to remember why I stopped playing AD&D 18 years ago.

Of course, to do that, it calls back a lot of old D&D problems. Hit points being too low for monsters and for 1st level PCs, as I already mentioned, for instance. All casters working basically like the wizard, for another.

Actually, the current "neo-Vancian" casting is quite remarkable in just how much it gives out in terms of flexiblity. A caster in the current packet casts spells like a 3.5 sorcerer, prepares them like a classic Vancian caster, and has at-wills like a 4e character (the Wizard even gets an encounter spell). Talk about taking the "best" from each edition!

And, across the aisle from all that, the fighter and rogue keep being given new toys, only to have them shared out to everyone and/or taken away. The fighter has gotten better in having some resources to manage, but has also been reduced to a bland "bigger numbers" class. Getting the Fighter some more dramatic maneuvers as alternatives to just rolling Expertise dice or popping a Combat Surge would be a way to improve that class, for instance. Getting it some serious non-combat ability wouldn't hurt, either.

And, of course, the game would be improved with the addition of a Warlord class that did justice to the 4e PH1 version.                        

What other classes from prior editions would you like to see in D&D Next?

Every class has its fans, and I don't think any of them deserve to be disappointed. If a class has never appeared in a Player's Handbook, I can see letting it wait for a supplement. I think the "if it was in a PH1, it's in" guide is a fair way of further limiting that for the 'Standard' game, even if it does only cut 3e and 4e classes.

Personally, I'd like to see the Sorcerer (along the lines of the 3e sorcerer), Priest (along the lines of the 2e Complete Priests Handbook), Fighter, Warlord, Scout and some sort of Duelist/Swashbuckler (a class attempted many times, but never done well, IMHO).

And, to wrap things up, do you have advice for your fellow playtesters? Anything you'd like to pass along to the design team?

I've noticed playtesters talking over how to modify the system for their playtests. I'd advise against it. Better to test the actual packet we've been given than test modifications or additions to it.

I've also noticed people giving up and dropping out of the process: it won't get any better if the people who don't like it drop out. Dissenting opinions are the most important ones in a process like this.

To the design team: Swing for the bleachers with the Fighter (and other martial classes). In 4e, the Fighter had hundreds of powers, now, he's no longer limited to the "defender role," and design space has been blown wide open. There's no reason not to go wild with that.