D&D (2024) Dungeons and Dragons future? Ray Winninger gives a nod to Mike Shea's proposed changes.

[Dannyalcatraz]

You really hate discussion, don't you?

Mod Note:

This is making it personal without even TRYING to address any part of the thread’s discussion.


Also note Bill Zebub got a warning for threadcrapping and baiting the hook.

PLAY NICE.

 

[tetrasodium]

Is this an easy fix? Shea recently said in a video that there was enough variability in 5e encounters that it would be impossible to precisely balance encounters. He has his own version of simple encounter building rules, but he acknowledges that he often wings it and the main toggle for him is between deadly and non-deadly encounters. Which works for me, but is different from the demands I see for very precise and reliable math for building easy/medium/hard/deadly encounters. Similarly, adding damage to high CR monsters is easy, but it seems that high level play brings a host of other problems. Will those be fixed?

In the surface it looks like that should be an easy fix, but the devil is in the subsurface details where things break down. Not every class is impacted the same by cranking the cr or using the clone stamp tool on monsters. One class might feel great because the monster ac & tohit is still too low matter. A second class might be shut down completely because the saves are suddenly too high & msgic/legendary resistance are too common. Worse still there aren't tools that can be given in the form of magic items to give the hard hit class a meaningful hand up without causing new problems.

No its not really a simple change

Edit: the wish list seems so conservative it makes 3.0-> 3.5 look like a total rewrite of absolute incompatibility

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My dream would be a complete reworking of the format (from Core book layouts to better Character Sheets to reworked Monster Statblocks to the language used to write the rules... but very little (to almost no) rules changes (beyond balance-fixes).

Freshen it up for clarity and crispness. Keep it working essentially the same.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Note the bolded part: that is what I see WotC as changing. D&D has had an idiosyncratic use of "Edition" for over 30 years, that doesn't match up with other RPGs or publishing in general.

Call of Cthulu 6E to 7E is what I see them doing, or Magic the Gathering Editions to be more pointed: they exist, but compatibility and continuity is how they work.

Sure, they’ll keep revising 5e, while making sure the absolute smallest number of 5e books become “legacy” in the process.

But the people who are making most of the D&D related content are not new to D&D. They remember past editions. What’s more, past edition works are available via DMsGuild. They aren’t going to try to change what a new numbered edition means. If they call it something new, it will use a different nomenclature from past new editions, because it isn’t the same type of thing, and because they don’t want to screw with sales by giving people like Mike Shea and the most popular actual play games, etc, to magnify controversy over a confusing name change.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, they’ll keep revising 5e, while making sure the absolute smallest number of 5e books become “legacy” in the process.

But the people who are making most of the D&D related content are not new to D&D. They remember past editions. What’s more, past edition works are available via DMsGuild. They aren’t going to try to change what a new numbered edition means. If they call it something new, it will use a different nomenclature from past new editions, because it isn’t the same type of thing, and because they don’t want to screw with sales by giving people like Mike Shea and the most popular actual play games, etc, to magnify controversy over a confusing name change.

In publishing, a new "Edition" is signified when a text is substantially rewritten and needs to have the type set redone (as opposed to errata which can change between printings of one edition).

What they are talking about is a new Edition, albeit one with a backwards compatible rule set, similar to the change from B/X to BECMI to Rukes Cyclopedia. I think they will acknowledge that, as Innis the reality of what they are doing and a totally refreshed set of Core books with new art and text will sell...perhaps better because theybare backwards compatible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In publishing, a new "Edition" is signified when a text is substantially rewritten and needs to have the type set redone (as opposed to errata which can change between printings of one edition).

Jeebus, yes, I am aware, as indicated by the text of the post you’re quoting.

Did you read the post you’re replying to?

 

[SakanaSensei]

My dream would be a complete reworking of the format (from Core book layouts to better Character Sheets to reworked Monster Statblocks to the language used to write the rules... but very little (to almost no) rules changes (beyond balance-fixes).

Freshen it up for clarity and crispness. Keep it working essentially the same.

Gimme one of them Necrotic Gnome OSE style book collections in a slip case. Here's the 50 page core rules book, here's the 100 page character options book, here's the spell book, here's the section of the DMG about items, here's the section on variant rules... If they keep monster statblocks as big as they are, though, we probably can't get similar treatment for the MM.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Gimme one of them Necrotic Gnome OSE style book collections in a slip case. Here's the 50 page core rules book, here's the 100 page character options book, here's the spell book, here's the section of the DMG about items, here's the section on variant rules... If they keep monster statblocks as big as they are, though, we probably can't get similar treatment for the MM.

They could do Monsters separate from NPCs and Animals, though.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

They could do Monsters separate from NPCs and Animals, though.

I think an efficient use of templates and/or tables for monsters with many incarnations through the MM might gain a huge amount of space.

I mean, and hear me out, dragons...dont need 30 different stablocks if all it changes it the type/shape of breath and some specific movement speed. Give me dragon statblocks based on age, then a table with the shape/damage/type of breath and special movement (and probably thematic spells) to add to make a red or silver or ruby dragon.

Orc/Hobgoblin/Goblin chieftains can be a little side note on how to buff a basic one.

Beast with 1 hit points probably dont really require statblocks beyond a generic ''tiny beast'' block where you can add a fly/swim speed or whatever.

This would leave some space to add a section on generic, plug-able lair/legendary actions and features to create solo monsters using any of the basic statblock.

 

[JEB]

Very necessary, and I'm happy with the steps they are starting to take, but this is going to require a fairly extensive rewrite of some sections of the monster manual, including changing art styles for several entries (hobgoblins for example).

I'm hoping that they also live up to Shea's desire for "wider, richer, more interesting, and more inclusive" content in this area. The trend for races since Tasha's has focused mainly on making character race lore significantly leaner... which is freeing for some, but leaves others cold. I think it's well within Wizards' capabilities to keep lore as inspirational as it's been in the past, while still keeping inclusivity in mind. It's more work, but worth it, I think.