Article Header Image
A Living Rule Set
Mike Mearls

A t the Origins Game Fair in early June, we talked about the concept of a living rule set for D&D and what it means for players and DMs. Though several websites have reported what was said there, I thought it would be a good idea to recap the basics behind the system. What does it mean to say that D&D is a living set of rules?

The biggest change affects how we make updates to the game going forward. In the past, we relied on forums, summaries of issues from customer service, and our own experiences with the game to guide the changes we made. Though this approach uncovers parts of the game that people are having issues with, it does a poor job of assessing the magnitude of those issues. The public playtest showed us that we need to cast a much wider net to create a clear picture of what’s going on.

To that end, you can expect to see annual surveys that work much like the ones we used to guide the development of fifth edition D&D. These surveys will not only allow us to identify trouble spots in the game, but we can use them to look at how attitudes change over time. By comparing one year’s results to the next, we can gain a sense of how the game is changing.

If we do identify a problem area, the next step depends on the magnitude of the change. Some alterations are simple and easy. If a rule is unclear, we can include an update in a FAQ or similar resource. If a number is wrong or a rule is missing a keyword, we can update future printings of the relevant books and compile a list of errata. For changes of this magnitude, we’ll aim to provide annual updates. We’ll make actual rules changes (as opposed to updating a FAQ) only when absolutely necessary. If players and DMs feel they need to replace their books because of these changes, we’ve gone too far.

Many problems are not as simple to change, however. One class might lag behind others, a magic item might be too powerful, and so forth. The first step in the process of dealing with issues of that nature requires much more time and energy.

To start with, we’ll assess the issue’s impact on the game. Let’s say a number of players complain that a class is too weak and refuse to play it. But at the same time, people who play that class enjoy it and give it high marks. In this case, we won’t change anything. But if no one is playing the class even though they want to, then we need to look at different options.

A similar process applies to elements of the game that might be too good. Are too many players choosing a particular option? Do people who choose that option like it and find it balanced? Do DMs hate some particular rule or game element even as players love it? We’re likely to change something only if players report that it’s too good, if it’s a popular option with players, and if DMs have issues with it.

If we know something is an issue, we’ll let you know that we plan to address it. When we have some ideas, we’ll put those in front of the community and playtest them before making any changes. If a change is well liked and solves problems, we’ll implement it as an option for DMs to use.

We don’t plan on rushing things. It might be a year from when we raise an issue to when we have a fix. But as soon as we can, we’ll share that solution as an option for DMs and players to use as they wish. Groups that never felt the effect of the issue in the first place can ignore it, while those looking for a solution will have a well tested, proven response.

Some players might see the specter of a new edition always hanging over this sort of process. However, we see the fifth edition rules as a game that we want to stick with for the long haul. A revision significant enough to require serious changes to printed books should offer multiple obvious improvements to the game. If you’re buying new books, it should be because you want to—not because we’re twisting your arm. In an ideal world, updates to our printed products should simply capture the incremental updates and revisions that have proven widely popular.

In many ways, this approach increases the longevity of this version of the rules. In the long run, allowing problems to pile up increases player and DM frustration and creates more demand for a new edition. By easing change into the game and making it freely available, we make it easier for groups to stick with the fifth edition D&D rules for years.

Finally, the living rule set approach gives R&D the space to offer up suggested improvements and alterations to D&D. If we have an idea for improving the game, we can present it as an option for DMs, gather feedback, and make informed decisions for future products and potential changes to the core game. Those options can remain exactly that—options you can take or leave as you see fit. Only if the community embraces a new option to the point that it becomes the effective default will we look to make a change to the game.

Starter Set Preview: Pregenerated Characters

With the D&D Starter Set just around the corner, it’s time to take a look at the design behind the set. This week, the pregenerated characters are in the spotlight.

The Starter Set comes with five characters that players can choose from. Remember that you can also download Basic D&D if you want to create your own characters. The characters are:

  • Human fighter, armed with heavy armor and a big axe
  • Human fighter, equipped with light armor and a bow
  • Dwarf cleric
  • Elf wizard
  • Halfling rogue

The characters were created using the options from Basic D&D, making it easy to use them alongside other characters that the players opt to create.

With these characters, we decided to do more than simply give players a sheet of numbers and rules. Using our system of traits, flaws, and bonds, we gave each character a background that ties directly into the adventure. For instance, the human fighter with the bow is a native of the region covered by the adventure, born in the town of Thundertree. That town was overrun by monsters and its inhabitants were scattered years ago, so the character has come home in part to drive those monsters away.

As you play through the adventure using the pregenerated characters, elements of their backstories help drive the action forward. NPCs connected to the adventurers’ backgrounds can appear to help or harm the party. Locations and people the characters want to seek out become key parts of the adventure. Roleplaying a character in this way can lead to more adventures and more action than simply treating the character as a collection of stats.

We took this approach because we wanted to impress upon new and returning players the importance of roleplaying in D&D. Giving these characters personality traits shows new players where to begin. More importantly, the element of a character’s background that ties into the adventure gives each player a clear sense of purpose, direction, and autonomy in playing through the adventure. Rather than relying on a chain of linear events to drive the action, the adventure expects the players to take an active role in deciding what to do next.

As a DM, even if you have players creating characters using Basic D&D for the Starter Set adventure, you should consider sharing the pregenerated character backgrounds and bonds with the players. Those options can allow newly created characters to integrate more closely into the adventure, giving the players a sense of purpose and the ability to make active, informed decisions that shape the action.

Join the R&D team at 4 PM (Pacific) today in a livestream unboxing of the Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set. We’ll discuss how to prepare to run the Starter Set if you’re a Dungeon Master and answer questions about the adventure’s contents.

Mike Mearls
Mike Mearls is the senior manager for the D&D research and design team. He led the design for 5th Edition D&D. His other credits include the Castle Ravenloft board game, Monster Manual 3 for 4th Edition, and Player’s Handbook 2 for 3rd Edition.
Sort Items By: Newest First Oldest First Top Rated
@mbeacom: (sorry, reply isn't working) If you're being technical, yes, you could play a game with the original 4.0 books now - but you could not play 4.0. "Everything is core" definitely sunk that boat.
Posted By: nukunuku (6/30/2014 9:01:49 AM)


There is a persistent rumor, started back when 3.5 was coming out, that new versions aren't timed based on what the games need, but to revitalize the market and sell new material being push from above. This idea of "living rules" worries me because of this history. A lot of that would go away if the rules were sold in electron, updating formats. And sold - not subscribed. I was burned with that by 4e.
Posted By: Blue23 (6/27/2014 11:13:18 PM)


That's not a rumor, that's fact.  Good luck quelling the proliferation of new material as long as these guys have to kowtow to Hasbro (kudos on getting the ladies in on the livestream).  It does give me hope that we are being promised something which doesn't require a purchase of any kind, and it doesn't hurt that that adjustment is being described as an option which can be adopted, or not.
Posted By: RadperT (6/30/2014 9:45:51 PM)


Where's Chill Touch??@nbsp; Is Shocking Grasp still a "ranged" spell?@nbsp; Is Misty Step the new Mirror Image???
Posted By: RadperT (6/27/2014 8:54:10 AM)


"If players and DMs feel they need to replace their books because of these changes, we’ve gone too far."

Thank You!
Posted By: Pyrate_Jib (6/26/2014 1:14:57 PM)


Did WotC ever actually announce that they were going to stop producing 4e content? While I agree that it's pretty reasonable to expect the average person to realize a DDI subscription for anything other than the tools was going to be pointless, it's not as if WotC ever let the people know what they were buying.

And adventures with conversion notes is support? C'mon. - John
Posted By: Seanchai (6/24/2014 11:31:32 AM)


Supposed to be a reply to Ramzour. - John
Posted By: Seanchai (6/24/2014 11:32:24 AM)


"Did WotC ever actually announce that they were going to stop producing 4e content?"

Posted By: mbeacom (6/24/2014 6:10:19 PM)


I think analyzing feedback and not rushing errata is very wise. Releasing big rules changes as a module seems cool too - use it if you need it. Acknowledging there *may* be changes up front, and having a plan for rolling them out, shows respect for the player base. Keep up the good work WotC!
Posted By: Black_Sneak (6/24/2014 6:37:10 AM)


If you had been following the 5e playtest for the past 2 years, you would have seen a LOT of new content. If you expected new 4e content with your DDI subscription, even though they were designing a new edition, then that's a silly mistake on your part. And despite that, there HAS been some 4e content released in the form of edition-neutral Adventures with downloadable 4e monster stats.

Please get your facts straight before you complain about things.
Posted By: Ramzour (6/24/2014 2:25:08 AM)


I love how people are always complaining about Vancian magic. WotC tried to take it out of the game once before, and the result was an abject failure. When the designers say a version of the game was a "mistake" then you can probably safely call that a failure. The nice thing about 5e though, is that it sounds like there may be alternative magic methods in the game, especially for different types of caster. My best advice? Look at the material coming out on the 3rd in the Basic Rules, pick up the $20 starter set, and take a look at the PHB when it launches in August. If you still have issues, then that's fine. But all the whining and complaining about the system before we've seen the finished results is getting old.
Posted By: Tulloch (6/23/2014 11:58:51 PM)


@ Tulloch

Bringing up Vancian magic is interesting because it shows a deep divide in the fanbase. There are others. How will this surveying errata system work when it comes to changes over divisive potential problems? The loudest group gets their way? The most determined? You could say they'd leave the issue alone in such a case, but that favors one side and would be abrogating the promise made here. - John
Posted By: Seanchai (6/24/2014 11:37:29 AM)


Ain't gonna be no Sorceror or Warlock in the Basic rules, let alone the Starter Set, and staff's been absolutely mum about any alternative casting system, say, if you want to play a spontaneous level-bending Cleric rather than have a domain.
Posted By: RadperT (6/27/2014 11:16:54 AM)


Addendum: A week after this article posted the Twitch window lit up & I found myself watching Greg Bilsland DM The Lost Mine of Phandelver (it was also available in a dnd/news article), for about 5 minutes because I was really, really late. There was a short Q & A afterwards, though, and Greg specifically described the Sorceror as a point-based, and the Warlock as a more 4ey refreshing caster, which, nonetheless, uses largely the same spells ("invocations") as the others. So casting methods are intrinsic to specific classes, there's still no spontaneous divine caster, and no Wild Mage nor Wilder so far. [At the time of this reply, which I would have indented to myself if that link were working, said video has not as yet appeared on YouTube (user/dndwizards).]
Posted By: RadperT (7/1/2014 9:40:59 AM)


Yeah, I've been burned not once, not twice, but THREE times in the last decade with all these edition changes and "revisions." This article sounds like WotC saying "oh yeah, this system of yours? We're DEFINITELY going to be changing it soon, but don't worry, you'll still be able to use all the stuff you buy now (spoiler alert: you won't, and now you can't complain later that we didn't want you)." The return of a proper looking green dragon and the new advantage/disadvantage rules are the only good things to come out of this new version.

Also, until Vancian spellcasting goes the way of THAC0 (especially the ridiculous and virtually game-ruining wish) and proper rituals are restored, I'm out.

Oh, and another thing, WotC: with absolutely ZERO new content on the website for the last six months, what exactly can we loyal DnD Insider subscribers look forward by way of a kickback? My suggestion: one free booster of the Icons of the Realms DnD min... (see all)
Posted By: TheFounderPrime (6/23/2014 8:43:07 PM)


So which character uses a sword?
Posted By: Salamandyr2000 (6/23/2014 8:42:23 PM)


Excellent & succinct snarkasm!  I would expect the archer (a Fighter "style" independent of the subclass, as I understand it) to have a longsword for use in melee.  I can't wait to see if both of these guys are Warriors or one of them is a Weaponmaster or Pit Fighter or whatever they call that subclass.  Dual-wielding being a trope of Fifth Edition (surpassed only by the rolling of two d20's on numerous occasions), it seems likely that the Thief (that character's most plausible Rogue subclass, or Scheme, as I believe it is unfortunately called) will be armed with not one, but two shortswords.
Posted By: RadperT (6/30/2014 10:50:07 AM)


(mbeacom: the issues with launch 4e were the MM1 and some of the DMG DCs.)
Posted By: Dreamstryder (6/23/2014 7:09:25 PM)


I know. And the game still worked fine. Did it get easier than it should at end game? Sure. But it worked. It was very playable. Like I said, I ran a group through Tomb of Horrors in the last 18 months, one of the last hardback 4E products with players only using options from the original PHB. No problems whatsover. I get that 4E had boatloads of errata, but most of it was insignificant. The rest was only of concern of min maxxers at very high level play. The idea that you couldn't play 4E with the original books, even to this day, is quite frankly absurd. I say this simply because I do it. I still run 4E games using 1st printing PHBs with no errata and somehow our games don't burst into flame.
Posted By: mbeacom (6/24/2014 6:14:15 PM)


The one situation where it makes a difference, and this was touched on by another poster, is organized public play. There you have to use the most up to date rules, and for that the books, with all the errata, became largely useless.
Posted By: TheGimper (6/24/2014 10:14:17 PM)


You gotta make up your mind. The other guy says the problem was with the MM1. Well, that wouldn't effect organized play. So you can't be talking about that. You have to be talking about the PHB. But even so, If you brought a character made with the original PHB (no errata) to organized play and used a power with the wrong duration or AoE or whatever, they'd simply correct you and move on.

Is that such a big deal? That happens even with no errata. "Huh, I guess I misunderstood how that power worked). If you play organized play, you should be used to nitpicky nonsense. Errata or not, organized play tends to be that way, in any game IMO. But regardless, the books were not useless.

The vast VAST majority of core rules did NOT change. The books were very useful. The errata was largely wording, clarity, specificity and small changes to details. Honestly, most of them could have been ignored in normal gameplay without any noticable game impact. A couple of powers ... (see all)
Posted By: mbeacom (6/25/2014 5:27:35 PM)


Love those Posters from the live feed!
Posted By: socksieboy01 (6/23/2014 7:08:37 PM)


I stopped playing 3.x because I hated how spellcasters were the only ones who had cool things to do, and were of course *way* more powerful than non-casters (even without spell stacking).

I love Next so far, but our group noticed spells are still outrageously superior to everything else. A 5th level druid with 2-3 fights per adventuring day can do 4 times the damage that a 10th level fighter can, easily and with half damage on a miss.

I want this issue addressed, or I'll have no other choice but cut all spell damage by half, to start with.
Posted By: Ashtoret (6/23/2014 4:20:59 PM)


The Rogue's Cunning Action and the Fighter's new features and subclasses go a long way to helping martial classes and giving them cool things. Also, casters are now limited by the Concentration mechanic, as well as non-scaling spells (e.g. a Fireball is always 6d6 damage unless you use a higher level spell slot).
Posted By: Ramzour (6/23/2014 4:53:30 PM)


We've not had a similar experience so far at least. Everyone seems to think the classes are pretty well balanced. But, then again, my players never know how many encounters we'll have per day so they have to play as if there may be one or there may be 8. The guy playing the fighter actually likes that his moves are not predetermined by someone else. He feels limited by spell lists and move lists so he avoids casters. I think this speaks to how different people play the game. He just wants more actions to do cool things with and the Fighter really gives him what he needs. Especially when he's hasted. :)
Posted By: mbeacom (6/23/2014 6:14:44 PM)


Please know that the constantly-changing rule set was a major reason I stopped playing 4e, and the biggest reason why I stopped buying products. There was NO POINT to buying a book when it was completely out of date 6 months later. A living game is a good idea in theory, but this is true after only a few changes: "If players and DMs feel they need to replace their books because of these changes, we’ve gone too far." I felt like my 4e PHB was basically a paperweight after 6 months. I'm all for little corrections and errata, but 4e changed entire systems (entire math) with additional options that were not in the original books. You couldn't play the game with only the original books! You HAD to look to outside resources; thus, the books were pointless.

This whole article makes me much more nervous about buying the printed books. Hopefully you'll have some kind of PDF-only option where we can re-download the updated PDF each time you make a change? It's not a... (see all)
Posted By: nukunuku (6/23/2014 3:42:27 PM)


"You couldn't play the game with only the original books!" (4E after 6 months)

You absolutely could. This is simply not true. I could run a 4E game today, using just the original PHB (I've done it in the past 12 months) and still use any material they printed almost without noticing unless you're a very serious details person. I ran Tomb of Horrors (one of the last core 4E hardcover adventures prior to Essentials) for players using character/class options that only existed in the the original PHB. It worked fine. I also ran those characters through the Essentials adventures in the DM kit and the Monster Vault. No problems whatsoever.
Posted By: mbeacom (6/23/2014 5:56:45 PM)


Yeah, the more I think about it the more nervous I am getting too. Between the release of 3.5 right after 3.0 and fourth Ed's "your books are out of date, might as well get an online subscription," and now this announcement of "we will continue to survey and change the rules," I don't know...

I was really excited about this edition but, now? The only thing that gives me a little confidence is that, as bad as this article sounds, I feel like it's WOTC's attempt to address our grievances at excessive errata and reprints and books going out of date. But still, the idea that my 50 dollar PHB might be "out of date" in a year just because some people complain in a survey, even if the rules actually worked just fine, would really piss me off. Don't get me wrong, I and others have a lot of hope and excitement for this edition, but that also means our disappointment will be much bigger if WOTC screws up.

Honestly, I think the best thing wou... (see all)
Posted By: moes1980 (6/23/2014 6:21:47 PM)


4e did not completely change the math. It offered an alternative with the Essentials materials. Honestly, it was pretty easy to avoid using Essentials, and still have a good game. My group played a 5 year campaign in 4e, with pretty much no Essentials materials involved at all. There's nothing anywhere that says you have to use EVERY book or source in your game. If you read it and don't like it, don't use it. As for 5e, at least they're getting player input with the survey this time around, so the things that the community sees as issues will be addressed.
Posted By: Tulloch (6/23/2014 11:53:28 PM)


PDF versions of the books were the most exciting thing for me when I heard they were going to do it for 4th Edition.

Then it got cancelled.

I hope-no, dream-that for 5th edition, we will finally have the option to go *ALL* digital for our material: PHB/DMG/MM etc. The character builder was so close. What WotC needs to do is figure out a way to make digital versions *pay* and fill their bottom line so that not only those of us who are all for digital versions of books are made happy, but we'll have the added bonus of always being up to date and not worried about rules changes and errata nearly as much.
Posted By: Ninja-to (6/26/2014 4:42:14 AM)


Well, every game I have played has either had errata or needed it. At the same time, I have never used published errata in any of my games. Rules tend to work fine 90 percent of the time, and a simple house rule fixes the other 10 percent. Heck, how many times does someone on here say "I don't like this bit but, no big deal, I'll just house rule it"?

It will be the same with this, 90+ percent I will like and me and my players will house rule the other bits rather than waiting to see if an errata gives us what we want.

I can see errata being necessary given the level of organized play in the adventurers league, so for that it could be more important. Also, I am glad to hear that this edition is meant to last. This makes me happy, and I hope future releases focus on expanding the dnd world and options rather than starting from square one every few years (it sounds like a lot of the optional rules int he DMG can be expanded on in supplements, such as mass... (see all)
Posted By: moes1980 (6/23/2014 3:38:22 PM)


I played AD&D for 25 years and never knew what errata were until 3.5 came out.  It seems to me that they exist at all as a result of inadequate testing, by which I mean the analysis of possible outcomes more than playtesting, and the incomprehensible desire to appease a vociferous minority of ranters.  The approach described above seems to move toward a more moderate response to potential imbalances.  It is important to recognize that no system is perfect, so the decision to redesign needs to be carefully considered, as it can create more frustration than the problem it was intended to fix.
Posted By: RadperT (6/30/2014 11:29:33 AM)


There were no errata, but I can guarantee you that most every DM had house rules - at least in some part because the RAW were broken in some way.
Posted By: dimonic (7/11/2014 4:36:35 PM)


"Some players might see the specter of a new edition always hanging over this sort of process. However, we see the fifth edition rules as a game that we want to stick with for the long haul. A revision significant enough to require serious changes to printed books should offer multiple obvious improvements to the game. If you’re buying new books, it should be because you want to—not because we’re twisting your arm. In an ideal world, updates to our printed products should simply capture the incremental updates and revisions that have proven widely popular."

This problem could easily be handled by having digital editions of the source books, which is the way I had hoped Wizards would go with 5th ed. That way, all you'd have to do is make the necessary changes and upload the revised version of whichever source book for registered users to download.
Posted By: TheGimper (6/23/2014 3:01:27 PM)


Using a system like DriveThruRPG where you buy a product and get emails if the authors upload a new PDF with changes/errata in it would be ideal. Hopefully, WotC is looking into something like this. And, since they are hosting their own free Basic rules PDF, that one will always be kept up to date with errata for a simple/quick re-download by the masses (after an appropriate notice on the site saying they've updated it, of course).
Posted By: jcheraz (6/23/2014 3:29:52 PM)


That would work.
Posted By: TheGimper (6/24/2014 10:03:40 PM)


Not everyone wants the books to be solely digital. Not all of us own a smartphone, kindle, tablet or some other toy. Some of us actually like having books on the shelves and in our hands. For decades now, printed errata has worked just fine, and it will continue to do so.
Posted By: Tulloch (6/23/2014 11:50:21 PM)


Where are we going to PLAY when we don't shop at our local game store?
Posted By: RadperT (6/27/2014 10:48:49 AM)


I've posted this above, and it applies to your comment so re-posting:

PDF versions of the books were the most exciting thing for me when I heard they were going to do it for 4th Edition.

Then it got cancelled.

I hope-no, dream-that for 5th edition, we will finally have the option to go *ALL* digital for our material: PHB/DMG/MM etc. The character builder was so close. What WotC needs to do is figure out a way to make digital versions *pay* and fill their bottom line so that not only those of us who are all for digital versions of books are made happy, but we'll have the added bonus of always being up to date and not worried about rules changes and errata nearly as much.
Posted By: Ninja-to (6/26/2014 4:45:46 AM)


I felt like my 4e books were worth little more than doorstops after all the errata WOTC printed. Sounds like the same thing might happen with 5e. Why spend over $100 on a ruleset that is going to be revised on a constant basis? I really hope this doesn't reach the same scale of errata that 4e did.
Posted By: the_black_vegetable (6/23/2014 2:58:56 PM)


Yeah, if I recall, I remember one book was errated before it was even released. On the day I bought the book and tried to use it to make a character I was being told by others my character was not "legitimate" because the rules that I had just bought a half hours go were wrong. Really depressing and didn't help the local friendly game store either, as people were almost immediately disappointed with their 35 or 40 dollar book they just purchased. I really hope we don't go back to those days...
Posted By: moes1980 (6/23/2014 3:45:54 PM)


My hope is that the game does not do what all the past games have done. A new rule book every few weeks. While adding new content is great, do it slowly, give the GMs and players a chance to get the last one and find flaws in it, instead of tossing out a dozen books.
Posted By: Silverthorne (6/23/2014 2:58:07 PM)


Maybe the biggest problem with 4e was the amount of errata. The errata fixed some of the issues with options being too powerful, but many (probably most) players don't know about or read the errata.

I hope that in 5e there aren't as many clangers as 4e had at launch.
Posted By: Chimpy20 (6/23/2014 1:53:15 PM)


Art appreciation aside, I'm dismayed to hear you're going to continue to attempt to survey a game into existence. Beyond the issue of having to pay for a customer-designed game, how does this serve the casual gamer, who may not know about or care to answer the surveys? You'll once again be listening to and designing for an echo chamber. - John
Posted By: Seanchai (6/23/2014 1:31:29 PM)


Very cool dwarf there! - John
Posted By: Seanchai (6/23/2014 1:28:49 PM)


Someone clearly doesn't know you can give things a rating of just half a star. - John
Posted By: Seanchai (6/23/2014 11:22:20 PM)


Lot of trouble reloading the page just to be a dork. 
Posted By: RadperT (6/27/2014 10:42:16 AM)


What if there are people who enjoy a class and other people who really WANT to enjoy a class but can't because it's not up to par? Some people will play roles even if it's "too weak" because other elements of the class outweigh for them the drawbacks. But that doesn't mean the class isn't broken, and it still would benefit EVERYONE to pump the class up to par.

I'd be very wary of two things: one, the tyranny of the majority (where a minority opinion of issues are snuffed out by other loud voices that think differently - there should be a sufficient minority rather than needing a majority of voices to fix the issue); and two, the law of diminishing returns (a LOT of people were invested in the creation of 5th Edition, but that doesn't mean that you'll get similar turn-out in the annual revisionary processes).

I'm cautiously interested. While I don't want a 5.5e rerelease of the three core books a few years down the line from now, I don't like the e... (see all)
Posted By: Marandahir (6/23/2014 12:50:11 PM)


I'm not so much concerned about a "tyranny of the majority" as I am *what* majority will be taking the surveys and raising the issues. - John
Posted By: Seanchai (6/23/2014 1:32:54 PM)


A class can be weak according to the optimizers and still be loved by the masses. If the class is weak, then they can create new sub-classes for it that address its relative weakness.
Posted By: Elemental_Elf (6/23/2014 1:54:29 PM)


That is one badass looking dwarf. Loving the 5E artwork so far.
Posted By: Gizmoduck_5000 (6/23/2014 12:45:51 PM)


It all sounds good, but I have to ask about this part. "we see the fifth edition rules as a game that we want to stick with for the long haul."
Oh, I so hope this is true. Historically, every version of DnD has been given a shorter shelf life than the previous one.
Posted By: SwampDog (6/23/2014 12:43:12 PM)


The surveys sound like a good opportunity to discover who's houseruling the game and why; particularly popular house rules could then be incorporated as "official" options, or even spur a closer look at revising the rule that everybody seems to want to change.
Posted By: RadioKen (6/23/2014 12:41:15 PM)


So almost like the "Unearthed Arcana" method? :)
Posted By: AuricRAvenhelm (6/23/2014 3:50:25 PM)



Create Comment
Follow Us
Find a place to get together with friends or gear up for adventure at a store near you
Please enter a city or zip code