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

[UngeheuerLich]

I would be a lot more onboard with Team Evergreen if there were more robust optional rules in the main books. Some of the modularity they promised in the playtest...oh so long ago. Build out some of the options from BECMI, etc.

Eh. Maybe it's too late for me and I'm doomed to be Team Old Grog Yells at Clouds.

I hope you get what you want.
I use some of the optional rules already, but I think there is room for improvement.

I think optional rules are the way to hae your cake and eat it.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah I know that I have a bit too strict notion of backwards compatible... but the free boosts of Tasha to me mean that if you play e.g. a 2014 PHB character without those boost and another at the table plays a similar character with 2024 PHB boosts, that is unfair. If the whole set of boosts was optional (as it is currently, as long as Tasha remains a separate optional book and the boosts are not integrated to the PHB) then it's everyone or no one, and it's still fair within a group. Other Tasha's stuff is not a problem because it's not "free", you always have to give something up to get a variant class feature for example.

There are basically two sets of Class options in Tasha's, as you day: replacements that are equivalent (like the Ranger exploration cha ges: they aren't "better" strictly speaking), or completely power irrelevant. There is no issue from mixing and matching as it stands, so it seems plausible that they will continue the trend line.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah I know that I have a bit too strict notion of backwards compatible... but the free boosts of Tasha to me mean that if you play e.g. a 2014 PHB character without those boost and another at the table plays a similar character with 2024 PHB boosts, that is unfair. If the whole set of boosts was optional (as it is currently, as long as Tasha remains a separate optional book and the boosts are not integrated to the PHB) then it's everyone or no one, and it's still fair within a group. Other Tasha's stuff is not a problem because it's not "free", you always have to give something up to get a variant class feature for example.

I don't think any of Tasha's power boosts will improv a character beyond full spellcaster power.
If you play a 2014 4e monk and someone plays a 2024 4e monk, I hope they will see a (small) power difference.
But 2024 4e monk vs 2014 wizard would be no problem.

Not upgrading the weaker classes and subclasses would make a rules upgrade obsolete.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think any of Tasha's power boosts will improv a character beyond full spellcaster power.


Not upgrading the weaker classes and subclasses would make a rules upgrade obsolete.

The Rogue's free Steady Aim option might be the biggest offender. "Upgrading the weaker classes" is an evergreen excuse, and subjective to say the least. In any case, Steady Aim boosts ranged weapons Rogues which are as far from being a weak character concept as possible in 5e.

 

[Parmandur]

The Rogue's free Steady Aim option might be the biggest offender. "Upgrading the weaker classes" is an evergreen excuse, and subjective to say the least. In any case, Steady Aim boosts ranged weapons Rogues which are as far from being a weak character concept as possible in 5e.

The design assumption is that all Eogues should be getting Sneak Attack every time that they attack. So as far as the decanters are concerned, it isn't a power boost, simply making the assumed action easier and more clear for players and DMs.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The Rogue's free Steady Aim option might be the biggest offender. "Upgrading the weaker classes" is an evergreen excuse, and subjective to say the least. In any case, Steady Aim boosts ranged weapons Rogues which are as far from being a weak character concept as possible in 5e.

I tend to view Steady Aim as a patch the designers used to ensure sneak attack is being granted as often as the designers meant for it to be used in combat. If there was better guidance in the PHB about the expected frequency of sneak attack damage I don't think it would have ever come up.

In my games it's not an upgrade because rogues already are hiding and sniping in almost every encounter round they choose to without the patch.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You really hate discussion, don't you?

Really I was just trying to make people laugh.

 

[Parmandur]

I tend to view Steady Aim as a patch the designers used to ensure sneak attack is being granted as often as the designers meant for it to be used in combat. If there was better guidance in the PHB about the expected frequency of sneak attack damage I don't think it would have ever come up.

In my games it's not an upgrade because rogues already are hiding and sniping in almost every encounter round they choose to without the patch.

Exactly: it's basically a ribbon, since the 2024 Rogue should be getting Sneak Attack just as often. Crawford actually explained on air when discussing thebUA for Tasha's Rogue options that the Rogue Subclasses granting Sneak Attack are about story, not power.

 

[Li Shenron]

The design assumption is that all Eogues should be getting Sneak Attack every time that they attack. So as far as the decanters are concerned, it isn't a power boost, simply making the assumed action easier and more clear for players and DMs.

Did WotC say so explicitly? If "every time" was the intended rule, why isn't sneak attack simply written a such? It certainly would be a lot more clear.

I tend to view Steady Aim as a patch the designers used to ensure sneak attack is being granted as often as the designers meant for it to be used in combat. If there was better guidance in the PHB about the expected frequency of sneak attack damage I don't think it would have ever come up.

In my games it's not an upgrade because rogues already are hiding and sniping in almost every encounter round they choose to without the patch.

That's you games. In other games it requires more thinking. If you interpret the hiding rules more strictly, is it not that easy. This patch helps you, but ruins somebody else's game on the assumption that everyone plays like you do.

And the bottom line is, just because the majority likes a change, it doesn't make it "backward compatible".

 

[Parmandur]

Did WotC say so explicitly? If "every time" was the intended rule, why isn't sneak attack simply written a such? It certainly would be a lot more clear.



That's you games. In other games it requires more thinking. If you interpret the hiding rules more strictly, is it not that easy. This patch helps you, but ruins somebody else's game on the assumption that everyone plays like you do.

And the bottom line is, just because the majority likes a change, it doesn't make it "backward compatible".

Yes, Crawford has said explicitly as such in response to being questioned about whether there is a balance.issue for giving Rogues more opportunities for Sneak Attqck. By design, a Rogue player should be getting Sneak Attack every time. So, from that perspective, it is a non-change for the game: 100% is not more than 100%. It does work to bring more tables into line with design assumptions, but that isn't a boost.