D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books


log in or register to remove this ad

Clint_L

Hero
From the article:

“Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks offer three different approaches to being the party tank (…)”

Monks are tanks now?
They are now...if you are using the 2024 UA.

My current party has both a barbarian and my monk. Against a single target BBEG, my 2024 Mercy monk is unquestionably the superior tank. Way better AC, most enemy attacks are at disadvantage, can heal herself as needed, and deflect attacks basically eliminates one hit per round while adding more offence.

Edit: if we need someone to soak a ton of attacks, like from a mob of minions, that's when it's the barbarian's turn to shine. The two together are a pretty deadly combination. And we also have a moon druid if we just need a big bag of hit points. Plus an artificer with a steel guardian...it's a ridiculously tanky party.
 



FitzTheRuke

Legend
Considering I will never believe them, infinite.

Belief is pointless. You and they are just using a different definition of "edition". They're not trying to lie to you (in this case). They have spent a LOT of effort in explaining what THEY mean by "not a new edition" - it doesn't obsolete the majority of 5e books. That's pretty much all that's important to them.

Clearly, you're more concerned with how it obsoletes the 2014 Core Books. That's fine! But by that definition it's 9th Edition. Now, they're clearly not going to call it that.

It's not some nefarious plot (this time) - they appear to have chosen, out of a whole lot of (mostly bad) choices to just call it D&D. Apparently. Possibly 2024 D&D. We haven't actually seen their full marketing yet.

We can agree with that choice or not, it's not a big deal.
 

Scribe

Legend
Belief is pointless. You and they are just using a different definition of "edition". They're not trying to lie to you (in this case). They have spent a LOT of effort in explaining what THEY mean by "not a new edition" - it doesn't obsolete the majority of 5e books. That's pretty much all that's important to them.

Clearly, you're more concerned with how it obsoletes the 2014 Core Books. That's fine! But by that definition it's 9th Edition. Now, they're clearly not going to call it that.

It's not some nefarious plot (this time) - they appear to have chosen, out of a whole lot of (mostly bad) choices to just call it D&D. Apparently. Possibly 2024 D&D. We haven't actually seen their full marketing yet.

We can agree with that choice or not, it's not a big deal.

Agreed across the board. I have no issue with them not calling it a 'new edition/revision/.5 version' its marketing and a hope to not scare off people with a dreaded rules reset and obsoleting of their existing books. I very much get that.

I dont particularly care about why they are doing it, when I've decided that from my perspective, its a change, and if one can set the 2014 classes beside the 2024 classes and they are different? Well...
 

People use "tall k" pretty imprecisely now: a Monk's shtick is Frontline combatants, which I imagine the writer meant with that comment. He seems to be going off of the "Class Groups" from the UA Playtests (as they also group Paladin, Druid and Cleric together as "support") which while they stripped out the rules part over the playtest may still be in the PHB as an organizational grouping.
People, OK. But if a game designer refers to a Melee DPR class as a a Tank, then I'm concerned about the game. Did they just give the monk a new role, or is he simply clueless?
 




Remove ads

Top