Community

This is the third of my ten-part series of articles, in which I look at the Design & Development articles released in the early part of Fourth Edition. This article examines the articles penned by James Wyatt, one of the people currently leading the development of the next iteration of D&D. Please feel free to add coments below, or in the related discussion thread.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford
3. James Wyatt
4. Rob Heinsoo
5. Peter Schaefer and Matthew Sernett
6. Bruce R. Cordell
7. Chris Sims 
8. Rich Baker and Logan Bonner
9. Stephen Radney-McFarland  
10. Andy Collins

Wyatt is credited with four articles: Pantheon, Quests, Under the Hood of the DMG, and Death Matters (the last of which he co-authored with Rob Heinsoo). Let's examine each article...

PANTHEON, by James Wyatt
Summary: In this article, Wyatt describes the pantheon of the Core World of 4e. The pantheon of 4e gods are cobbled together from deities from both Greyhawk (Corellon, Pelor, and Moradin) and Forgotten Realms (Torog, Bane, and Zehir). The goal was to create a world that feels iconic but is specifically designed for gaming, in contrast, presumably, with Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms themselves, which were either created ad hoc for Gary Gygax' home campaign, or was conceived by Ed Greenwood for a series of novels, and which subsequebtly transmuted into a campaign world.

Evaluation: The 4e pantheon achieved its purpose. The gods were general enough to allow for most clerical concepts.  They were certainly iconic, and they fit together naturally. The stories of Bane, Corellon, Moradin, et al. were slowly fleshed out over the course of the edition's lifetime, from the Dawn War (and before) through the destruction of the Empire of Nerath. They worked together well.

Result: The design team accomplished their goal, but at a price. Many people (like me) enjoyed the new cosmology but it appeared that just as many or more did not like the "cosmic reboot". Even though the new cosmology was better suited to character concepts and adventures, the loss of decades of metaplot, continuity, and, more importantly, the lost decades of time that some spent learning this mythos, felt like a betrayal.

Conclusion: It's unclear how the gods will be treated in the new edition. In the most recent playtest packet, clerics choose domains based on archetypes of deities. Each archetype is then given some samples from various pantheons, including the Norse, Egyptian, Forgotten Realms, and Greyhawk pantheons. So it appears that they are trying to keep things loose without creating the mash-up pantheon that they constructed in 4e. However, while in 4e the mythos was constructed to give players a wide range of deity choices, in Next it appears the group is to decide on a mythos and it is up to them to make sure they meet the players' respective needs.  This more closely resembles 2e's use of domains to distinguish clerics, which was often combined with examples culled from a variety of pantheons both mythological and fictional.


QUESTS, by James Wyatt
Summary: In this article, Wyatt discusses the philosophy behind XP advancement, particularly as it pertains to story. Wyatt described the design philosophy as follows (boldfaced emphasis is mine):

Quests are the story glue that binds encounters together into adventures. They turn what would otherwise be a disjointed series of combats and interactions into a narrative -- a story with a beginning, a middle, and a climactic ending. They give characters a reason for doing what they do, and a feeling of accomplishment when they achieve their goals.

In this vein, 4e resurrected 2e's emphasis on Experience Points to be given out for accomplishing specific goals. But 4e took it a bit farther. As the Wyatt quote above shows, 4e was concerned with the entire story arc: beginning, middle, and end. The design philosophy lent itself to adventures with specific story arcs. In 2e, you could get "roleplaying XP", which meant a boost for playing in character. You could also be given story XP for accomplishing a significant goal outside combat. But these were to be given ad hoc. 4e's innovation was to have the DMs hand out "quest cards" to the players when they begin the adventure, telling them precisely how much XP they would get for accomplishing specific tasks.

Evaluation: The design philosophy worked, in my opinion, too well. Because the design framework established by the game itself which was to have an established climax with the biggest XP reward coming for the successful conclusion, adventures often took on a railroad quality.  Players would "stick to script" in order to get the big XP reward at the end of the tunnel. Deviation meant less XP. DMs were encouraged to give their players a road map -- in the form of quest cards -- that would actively deny them XP if they deviated from the story. That was certainly not how it was intended to work, but in effect, this is the mindset that the game engendered.

Conclusion: The playtest is still trying to balance the need for story-based XP rewards and trying to discourage railroading. Here is a relevant excerpt from the latest playtest:

XP for Noncombat Encounters: It’s up to you to decide whether to award XP to characters for overcoming challenges outside of combat.... As a rule of thumb, gauge the difficulty of the encounter (easy, average, or tough) and award the characters XP as if it had been a combat encounter of the same difficulty.

You can also award XP when characters complete significant adventure objectives. You can treat major objectives as average encounters, and minor objectives as easy encounters.

I think the distinction between the playtest and 4e is subtle but informative. The playtest makes no mention of "climactic endings". Rather, as goals are achieved, XP is awarded. There are no quest cards and no predetermined goals. The party picks a goal; if they make it, they get some XP. This approach -- which is more reminiscent of 2e than 3e or 4e -- puts the power in the hands of the players, or at least in the hands of the group as a whole.


UNDER THE HOOD OF THE DMG, by James Wyatt
Summary: This article discussed the design of the 4e DMG. Specifically, the article is a chapter-by-chapter recount of the contents of the 4e DMG. What is most remarkable about this recounting is how few mechanics are described in the article. Essentially, the DMG is being presented almost entirely as a collection of narrative advice for the DM on crafting stories.

What was interesting to note were the things that traditionally had been in DMGs of the past but that would be absent from the DMG here. Specifically, rules for magic item creation would be included in the Enchant Item ritual. Rules for magic items themselves would be in the Player's Handbook, along with the combat rules. As far as this article made it seem, the DMG was an optional book unneeded by experienced DMs and the Players Handbook was more of a Rules Compendium.

Those mechanics the article does discuss are offered in the form of guidelines. Famous page 42, with the DC by level chart that allowed DMs to make balanced on-the-fly improvisations, is presented as a guideline, as is the discussion of treasure parcels. This makes the DMG feel like it is a series of optional rules and helpful hints.

Evaluation: In practice, the DMG actually had a ton of rules, including traps, artifacts, diseases, and terrain. And those guidelines (DC-by-level and parcel charts) actually turn out to be crucial charts for running a balanced campaign. But this article reveals that the design philosophy of 4e was to make rules as transparent as possible and place them in the book that all the players would possess -- the PHB. This led to some cries of "player entitlement" (a cry with which I do not agree), but overall the transparency worked very well.

Conclusion: We know very little of what Next products may appear to be on release. 4e critics' complaints of "player entitlement" have given way to Next critics' complaints of "mother-may-I DMing" (a complaint I find as absurd as the player-entitlement complaints). Finally, bounded accuracy means there is no need for 4e's DC-by-Level chart, and since magic items are being moved back into DM territory, the parcel system (or its replacement, the rarity system) is also unneeded. The DMG -- if there is one -- is likely to have the magic items back within its covers, along with magic item creation rules and many other aspects of DMing.

However, and this is crucial, I imagine that the underlying philosophy of rules transparency will survive. I believe most combat rules will be found in the PHB, along with all keywords and similar definitions. Although treasure is returned to the DM's bailiwick, the price of that loss is lessened by bounded accuracy. The players will continue to be empowered (rather than entitled) to be a greater voice in how the game is run.


DEATH MATTERS, by Rob Heinsoo and James Wyatt
Summary: Although nominally about death and resurrection, the true meat of this article is its discussion of "save or die" mechanics. "Save or Die" was not limited in the article to effects that could kill you. Here is how Heinsoo defined it:

We referred to any effect or attack that could take a PC out of the game for more than a round with a single die roll as a save-or-die effect, even when the consequence wasn't death. Paralysis, confusion, stun, and charm -- all these 3E effects frequently functioned as save-or-die effects. They made a player's enjoyment of an encounter, or an entire evening, hinge on a single saving throw.

The article goes on to explain various methods they tried to replace the save-or-die effect, eventually coming to two separate replacement mechanics: the death save and the saving throw durational mechanic. I'll describe each in turn.

The death save is a supplement to the old negative-hp = death rule. In BECMI and 1e, you died at 0 hp. In 2e and 3e, you died at -10 hp. In 4e, you died in one of two ways: at negative hp equal to your bloodied value, or you could fail three "death saves". If you have negative hp, you rolled a d20 every turn. A 9 or less was a strike and three stikes and you're out.

The saving throw durational mechanic is one in which the player rolls a save (10 or better on a d20) to end a condition. While this is described as a replacement for save or die, in reality it was a replacement for random spell durations. Instead of being asleep for 2-5 rounds, you were asleep until the player rolled a save. The way this mechanic was used to avoid save-or-die was indirect. Developers simply stopped designing save-or-die effects. Instead, they made what was called save-or-save-or-save-or-die effects. Most effects of permanent duration required a player to fail three saves in a row. This also applied to diseases and curses.

The goal of these mechanics was to prevent a player from being taken out of the game with a single bad roll. It would require a series of bad rolls.

Evaluation: I think this was a mixed bag. The death saving throw is fine (and a watered down version appeared in 3e in the form of a stabilization check) and did help to keep unconscious players engaged. However, the durational saving throw mechanic, while preventing a single bad roll from killing a character, also contributed to combat length. In combat each player may be subject to a number of conditions a save would end, and this meant extra rolls for every player every turn. Moreover, many mechanics existed for granting bonuses or penalties to the saving throw, which added to combat length as people struggled to remember what bonuses they had and when they expired. It also contributed a narrative problem: what does a saving throw represent. if my character is turned to stone, what is he doing to get this saving throw? Probably, nothing because the saving throw is representing when the spell expires, which is why, traditionally, the spell's duration was rolled by the spellcaster and not the spell recipient.

Conclusion: The durational saving throw is being discarded in Next, andthe death saving throw returns in a drastically altered form. But the durational saving throw was never really the object here. The object was to avoid arbitrary random character death. That is why the death saving throw remains in the game. What the designers have not done, however, is figured out a way to avoid save-or-die effects. Right now, they seem to be using the "threshold" mechanic, in which certain save-or-die spells would only affect a character under a threshold of hp. This does mean it is unlikely for a PC to die form one bad roll, as the monster will first have to take the PC below the threshold. But it has other consequences, such as the charm spell being described as "beat me into loving you". The designers continue to struggle with the same issues Wyatt struggled with so many years ago.


ANALYSIS
If I had to sum up what I gleaned from Wyatt's articles, it is that Wyatt was keenly interested in player empowerment. Each of his articles involve placing the dice and meaningful character choice in player hands. However, what Wyatt did not anticipate is that this also contributed to a "too many cooks spoil the broth" issue in some 4e games. By decentralizing control of the game, you increase chaos at the table, leading to longer combats, more confusion, and disarray. Next appears to be discarding inedividual player entitlement in favor of "group empowerment" in which important decisios are to be made by the gaming group as a whole.  Much of this appears lifted from Second Edition, including the emphasis on being offered multiple pantheons, allowing story XP to arise organically from the party's decisions, and keeping the major rules in the player-accessible supplments.  The DM is recapturing some of hsi power, at least in the interest of maintaining his role as a game tracker who keeps the game flowing.

Wyatt has subtly changed his focus on player empowerment from the individual to the group, taking inspiration from Second Edition. The one area where Wyatt and the other designers seem to be struggling is save-or-die, a phenomenon that Second Edition did nothing to lessen. Without a roadmap, the designers appear to be finding the journey more difficult. I hope they find their way on this issue, and soon.

Next week I'll move from the designers still employed by Wizards to those who are no longer with us. I'll begin with the great-granddaddy of Fourth Edition: Rob Heinsoo. (You already got a taste of Heinsooan mechanics with the Death Matters article.)

See more at Unearthed Wrecana!

This is the second of my ten-part series of articles, in which I look at the Design & Development articles released in the early part of Fourth Edition. This article examines the articles penned by Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford, two of the people currently leading the development of the next iteration of D&D. Please feel free to add coments below, or in the related discussion thread.

Mearls is credited with two articles: Encounter Design in 4th Edition, and The Evolution of Magic Items (the latter of which which he co-authored with Andy Collins).  Jeremy Crawford is credited with one article: Dispel Magic (which he co-authored with Michele Carter).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford
3. James Wyatt
4. Rob Heinsoo
5. Peter Schaefer and Matthew Sernett
6. Bruce R. Cordell
7. Chris Sims 
8. Rich Baker and Logan Bonner
9. Stephen Radney-McFarland
10. Andy Collins

Let's examine each article...

ENCOUNTER DESIGN IN 4th EDITION, by Mike Mearls

Summary: The article sets forth its premise in the first sentence: "The encounter serves as the basic building block of a D&D adventure." This article sets forth the tools that will aid a DM in balancing encounters.  Monster levels, monster roles, trap design, and monster math are all described in general terms.  The article concludes: "If the 3rd Edition’s presentation of CR was the first step to taking some of the mystery out of encounter design, the 4th Edition builds on that core to produce a more accurate tool, along with additional uses for that tool."  But the premise is really the point of the article.  The encounter will be the metric that DMs are intended to base their adventures around. 

This encounter-based choice was intended to make encounter design easier and more reliable, leading to fewer unintended TPKs or cakewalks. 

Evaluation: The encounter-based design permeated the edition.  In addition to giving all characters encounter powers, few creatures had powers that were dailies.  Monsters were assumed not to survive an encounter and thus needed no more than encounter powers.  The math was tightened to reflect the assumed numbers of the PCs. 

Overall, balance was a success.  The game did lead to fewer cakewalks and TPKs.  However, it soon became apparent that the encounter-based design had its own issues.  The focus on encounter based design made it very difficult to engage in different types of adventurers.  Adventures in which a group of monsters might harrass a party for days.  Or adventures in which the party was besieging an active fortification in which the enemies would react to the party's moves became much more difficult to stat out. Part of this was because of the level of scaled math, which meant deviating very far from the encounter guidelines quickly turned a challenging combat into a TPK. 

Result: The Next design team has gotten away from the encounter as the basis for design and have instead talked about the adventuring day as the basis for design.  With flatter math and fewer encounter powers. the idea is to start from an assumption that the players will rest once a day, and within that day, the DM can throw a certain number of creatures and hazards at that party.  Those opponents can reconfigure themselves in a number of ways, either as static encounters that 4e preferred, or dynamic ever-changing foes whose strategy shifts to accommodate the PC's actions.

Conclusion: Although 4e's use of math to balance challenges will survive in the next edition, 4e's concentration on the encounter will be softened and the new metric is the adventuring day. We will see if that choice is successful.


THE EVOLUTION OF MAGIC ITEMS, by Andy Collins and Mike Mearls

Summary: This article takes place as a conversation between Mearls and Collins to describe the evolution of magic item design in 4e.  Again, Mearls tells us the goals the designers set for themselves up front: "Keep magic items simple, make them a small proportion of a character's power, and make their expected progression utterly transparent."  Within the article, these design goals led to retaining 3e's body slots, implementing specific slots for AC (armor) and non-AC defenses (neck). It also introduced the cap on the use of daily item powers in an effort to prevent the Christmas Tree effect.  Finally, the magic items reflected the steep bonus advancement that 4th assumed, leading to magic items that went from +1 to +6.  What Mearls apparently meant by "Keep magic items simple" was to reduce the number of items that had no hard mechanics associated with them, such as the decanter of endless water, or nystul's marvelous pigments.

Evaluation: In my opinion, 4e failed to live up to its own goals.  Although the "necessity" of magic items was reduced to armor, neck slot, and weapliment, the Christmas Tree effect never went away because 4e retained 3e's use of wealth-by-level guidelines and because magic items were assumed to be readily available for purchase (at least until rarity was introduced).  Moreover, items were rarely "simpler".  While there were fewer items that allowed free range effects (like a wand of illusions), the stat block format for powers often made items seem arcane and inaccessible. 

Result: Other than "simple" items, the goals remain the same, but the designers have taken a new tactic to address it.  Body slots are gone, but so is the need for ever-increasing item bonuses.  Items are no longer fungible.  You cannot buy the +3 armor.  And creative open-ended items are back.  The onus is once agan on the DM to make sure the items who chooses to give out do not overwhelm his campaign.

Conclusion: The designers tried a 3e-but-less-so approach to magic items in 4e, but this was insufficient to meet their goals.  So in Next, they are abandoning the 3e/4e model of magic item fungibility and body slots and returning to the AD&D model of magic item rarity coupled with bounded accuracy to reduce the need for specific items.  This is likely to see the return of the "Monte Hall" DM who offers too much magic and the "Ebeneezer Scrooge" DM who offers too few.  But it may in fact finally achieve the goals they set for themselves five years ago.


DISPEL MAGIC by Jeremy Crawford and Michele Carter

Summary: This article is only tangentially about the dispel magic spell. Truly, it's about the new power-design philosophy in 4e.  Crawford and Carter didn't provide a nice blurb I could quote, but what I glean from this article is that most powers are designed so that they can be presented in a specific format: the power block, introduced in this article.  All powers in 4e would be presented in a very specific format and to do that the powers had to be simplified and genericized.  An additional goal was that powers had to be broadly applicable.  No longer would spells only affect a class of creatures or one class' effects.  And to do that, Dispel Magic actually became "Dispel Conjuration or Zone". This meant that monster powers no longer had to be categorized as supernatural or spell-like.  It also meant that spells that were once described in several columns could be desicribed in a paragraph.

And that was the intention.  Third edition spells and creatures often had increasingly long descriptions because they had to anticipate all sorts of interactions between unique mechanics.  Fourth Edition actively sought to promote "exception-based mechanics" in which a few core rules and keywords would govern most mechanical interactions, so the rules only had to deal with rare exceptions

Evaluation: 4e clung to these design goals very closely, with slavish devotion to a condensed stat block.  But it was one of the more divisive choices made in 4e.  Many people were turned off to what was felt to be a forced genericness.  The change to Dispel Magic was only a symptom of this.  Very few, if any, powers specifically worked on a power source.  In some ways, the rules became oversimplified and over-reliant on keywords.

Result: This design philosophy is not likely to survive Next.  Many people (justified or not) complained that the power system made characters feel too "samey".  Dispel Magic was complained about loudly as it did not really dispel "magic".  It dispelled "zones and conjurations", and could no longer be used reactively to inhibit a rival spellcaster.  But most devastatingly, because most effects were limited to a single round, and because the spell did not affect magical powers that imposed conditions that lasted until a save was made, dispel magic was considered a very impotent spell.  Let's compare 4e's dispel magic -- as described in the article and shown above -- to the playtest:

As you can see, the new dispel magic is restricted to magical sources. But more importantly, the spell will work to remove magical conditions imposed on one's allies, restoring the spell to its former importantce.  Also, you'll notice the editing has changed. The spell has gotten wordier (though not as wordy as 2e or 3e's versions).  Finally, counterspelling is not addressed in this packet, so its status, and dispel magic's role in that, is unclear.

Conclusion: Again, this design philosophy is getting toned down in Next.  The goal is to keep the spells as short as they need, but without sacrificing flavor.  Spells will not be tied to a rigid format but they will also be kept as condensed as possible.  While 4e's design choice made it easier for spells to fit the design guidelines, 5e will require a spell by spell analysis, thus relying more on constant vigilance in editing.  We will see if they can carry through with this delicate balancing act.


I find it interesting and heartening that Mearls and Crawford's design philosophies have been able to adapt to the demands of the marketplace. Once, these designers championed 4e's focus on encounters, steep bonus progressions, and universal power-based rules, but have, in the new iteration, given way to the adventuring day, bounded accuracy, and a return to distinctive power effects.  In the next article, we will take a look at the 4e Design & Development articles of James Wyatt, the other D&D Next designer involved in Next to see if this trend continues.

Read more at Unearthed Wrecana!

So I was going to get into D&D Before, but due to today's Wandering Monsters article, I feel the need to go back to a prior topic in which I have great interest: monster stat blocks.

James Wyatt asked for our opinion on the new stat block (see block below; click on it for a larger view).   Having given my opinion on stat block design four times before --  -- I feel that I wouldn't be able to give the appropriate response in a simple post or comment.



For me, design of a stat block needs to have several factors:
It needs to be complete.  It should not require you to look up powers or descriptions elsewhere in the books.

It needs to be concise.  It should be only as long as needs to be and no longer.  unwanted space, unneeded desription, and superfluous categorization should be stripped away, leaving exatly what a DM needs to sleect a creature for his campaign and then to run the creature.

It needs to be organized. A stat block serves two purposes: choosing the monster, running the monster, and fighting the monster.  A stat block should be organized with these three goals in mind.  Because choosing a monster is a more leisurely activity, thatinformation cna and should be presented last.  The combat is the most time sensitive information -- a DM needs to find this stuff quickly to keep combat flowing smoothly.  That should be at the top.  Finally, the noncombat information should be right below the combat and gathered in a single place.

So how does this stat block stack up?  (Note that I am going to respect Wyatt's wishes not to dwell on the presentation: page design, graphic design, or art direction.  I am simply going to evaluate the information presented.)

Complete: The stat block (with accompanying descriptive text) appears to be very complete.  It has information I would need to choose this monster, including environment, size, behavior, description, motivations, and strategies.  moreover, all the information neeeded to run the creature in in the block, with a minimal use of keywords and no need to reference other books.  So a perfect score on completeness.

Concise: The stat block is fairly concise.  The entries themselves have all the information I need and I see very little that is superfluous.  The narrative portion is useful and engaging withouth being overly wordy or monotonous.  The information provided is both colorful and useful. So another perfect score!

Organization: This is where I feel the stat block needs work. I can't figure out the organizational structure of this stat block.  Why are alignment and languages stuck in the middle there?  Why is "senses" (generally needed for interaction) shoved between Abilities and Speed? I am not able to appropriately find things.

Also, and I'm not sure if this is discussing presentation, why are the attacks presented on one line?  It's difficult to read and is beginning to get a little arcane.  If I may, here would be how I would structure the stat block for ease of reference.

BUGBEAR	Medium Humanoid (Goblin) Str 15+2 Dex 14+2 Con 10+0 Int 8–1 Wis 11+0 Cha 9–1
COMBAT	Armor Class 14 (leather, shield) Hit Points 18 (4d8) Speed 30 ft.
Traits	Burly The bugbear can wield weapons that are one size category larger than normal without penalty.
	Stealthy +5 The bugbear gains a +5 bonus to all checks made to avoid detection.
Actions	Large Morningstar (Melee) Attack: +2 to hit (reach 5 ft.). Hit: 5 (1d8 + 1) bludgeoning damage and 5 (1d8 + 1) piercing damage.
	Large Javelin (Ranged) Attack: +2 to hit (range 30 ft./120 ft.). Hit: 9 (2d6 + 2) piercing damage.
INTERACTION	Senses darkvision 60 ft. Languages common, goblin Alignment neutral evil
ENCOUNTER BUILDING	Level 3 XP 140 Environment: Hills or any underground
DESCRIPTION	Brutal and murderous, bugbears are stealthy killers despite their large size. Bugbears are lanky and leanly muscular, standing 7 feet tall. Unlike other goblinoids, a bugbear's brown hair grows from its tan hide in great profusion. A bugbear's nose is the most pronounced of all the goblinoids, resembling that of a bear and sharing a bear's keen sense of smell.
MOTIVATION	Bugbears have two main goals in life: survival and treasure. They are superb carnivores, winnowing out the weak and careless—monster, humanoid, and animal alike.
TACTICS	Brutal Ambushers. Like goblins, bugbears are stealthy and skilled at ambushes. They lurk in canyons and badlands when travelers approach, launching the ambush with a barrage of massive javelins. After the initial attack, they skulk through the rocks to different advantageous positions to launch further attacks, avoiding melee combat as long as possible. After melee is joined, they batter their foes with oversized morningstars. They are not cowardly like goblins, but they don't coordinate their attacks. Instead, they look out only for themselves, and they'll sometimes compete for kills or trophies. A bugbear is unlikely to come to the aid of an ally who's in trouble—a bugbear who's not strong enough to hold its own is one less hand to share the spoils.
ORGANIZATION	Territorial Bands. Bugbears live in small bands that rarely number more than a dozen, led by the largest and meanest of the group. They dwell in caves and dungeons, but range over territories of several square miles aboveground or they stay within a more restricted region underground. They view any intruders into their territory as either rivals to be destroyed or sources of food and treasure, and thus they have no interest in negotiation or ransom. They sometimes take prisoners to use or sell as slaves. Bugbears survive primarily by hunting, and they have no compunctions about eating anything they can kill. They are also fond of wine and strong ale, often drinking to excess. They prefer to raid the surface at dusk or dawn, when their darkvision gives them an advantage. They are not hindered by sunlight, though, and frequently lurk in open canyons, gorges, or other areas where they can make use of cover to get the jump on their targets.
TREASURE	All That Glitters. Extremely greedy, bugbears love glittery, shiny objects and weapons. They are always on the lookout to increase their hoards of coins, gems, and weapons through plunder and ambush.

Even ignoring the formatting I used, I think this stat block would be much better served with this organization.  It should be noted that this stat block would only be about two lines longer than Wyatt's version, mostly by breaking the attacks into three lines.

See more at Unearthed Wrecana! 

Recently, I have been looking over the Design & Development articles that were published in the run-up to Fourth Edition and it occurred to me that it would be useful to see whether the goals that the designers set for themselves were met, and whether they will be carried into the Next iteration of D&D.  Partly inspired by Style75's discussion thread, the idea of D&D Before was born.  In this ten-part series of articles, I will look at each of the Design & Development articles released in the early part of Fourth Edition.  I stop when the articles begin discussing materials that are to be introduced in the Players Handbook 2, like the bard and barbarian.

Fourteen designers wrote articles for Fourth Edition.  Remarkably, all three of the lead developers for Next -- Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, and James Wyatt -- were among them.  After analyzing the current designers' "before" articles, I will look at the other developers' articles, also by author.  By grouping the articles by designer, I hope to get a sense of each designer's preferences and personal style.  
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford
3. James Wyatt
4. Rob Heinsoo
5. Peter Schaefer and Matthew Sernett
6. Bruce R. Cordell
7. Chris Sims 
8. Rich Baker and Logan Bonner
9. Stephen Radney-McFarland
10. Andy Collins

This initial installment will serve as a general index and table of contents for all the articles to follow. Welcome to D&D Before! Please feel free to add coments below, or in the related discussion thread.

4e Designers Working on D&D Next

Mike Mearls
Encounter Design in 4th Edition
The Evolution of Magic Items (w/Andy Collins)


Jeremy Crawford
Dispel Magic (w/Michele Carter)



James Wyatt:
Pantheon
Quests
Under the Hood of the DMG
Death Matters (w/Rob Heinsoo)

Bruce R. Cordell
Elves
Wizards and Wizard Implements
Forgotten Realms (w/Phil Athans)

Other 4e Designers 

Rob Heinsoo
PC Roles
Warlock
Warlord

Peter Schaefer
Monsters! Monsters! (w/Rob Heinsoo)
Elite Bulette

Matthew Sernett
The Core Mechanic


Chris Sims
Demons & Devils
Zombies (Part 2)
Halflings

Richard Baker
Points of Light
Cosmology

Logan Bonner
Critical Hits
Magic Item Slots

Stephen Radney-McFarland
The Importance of Terrain
Paladin Smites
Traps!

Andy Collins
Feats
Magic Item Levels
Death and Dying

_{A note on the photos I use.  All are taken either from the author's own blog, Wikipedia, the Wizards' website, or screen captures of YouTube videos of interviews they have given.  If any of the authors herein do not want their likeness used, you may PM me or leave a comment on the blog and I will remove it.}

Read more at Unearthed Wrecana!

This is an ongoing series in which I highlight what I think were the best D&D-related blogs each month. This is the article for October 2012. The criteria for this honor is:

1. The blog must be on the WotC Blog site.
2. It cannot be made by a featured or staff blogger (the point is to highlight blogs that might otherwise go unnoticed).
3. It cannot be made in the blogs for a specific group.
4. It must pertain to D&D (of any edition).
5. It must be in English.
6. It must not be reposted from or pushing content on another site.
7. It must tickle my fancy.

Note, you really should check out the featured blogs. You can see the current Featured Blogs here and the Staff Blogs here.

While we remain in playtest phase, I'm segregating playtest reports into a separate list.  Please take a look at the great work of these Heroes of Blogging, Chroniclers of Blogging, and Heroes of Playtesting!

HEROES OF BLOGGING

• Jakalair prepares with cat food.
• Hartledge uses minis, provokes bounded accuracy, and challenges players without frustrating them.
• Lord Archaon continues his old and new cosmology.
• Nozus puts halflings on the table.
• Prom challenges you to be hunted by dragons and fight fires.
• Utn4 tables armor.
• VacantPsalm writes up the wilder.

CHRONICLERS OF BLOGGING

• David Givens chronicles Encounters.
• Khilkhameth chronicles Dark Sun and the Red Order.
• TimmyTooTall chronicles the Fallcrest Militia.

HEROES OF PLAYTESTING

• The Mask of Ice.
• Similkameen.

See more at Unearthed Wrecana!