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

[darjr]

Oh, I agree. Whatever people think of 4E, it knocked a lot things out of the park re: layout & design, ease of reference, and concise rules.

Unless you were colorblind. The symbols were always printed way too small to completely replace the colors. imho

But we get left out a lot a lot. And my color blindness is a weird one anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, I agree. Whatever people think of 4E, it knocked a lot things out of the park re: layout & design, ease of reference, and concise rules.

Sure, but they also absolutely sucked the pleasure out of reading the book (for me).

 

[Scribe]

Sure, but they also absolutely sucked the pleasure out of reading the book (for me).

As books, to be enjoyed, I bounced off them so hard I never looked back. Still do to this day.

 

[JEB]

As books, to be enjoyed, I bounced off them so hard I never looked back. Still do to this day.

Paging through the 4E Monster Manual was what led me to skip 4E. (The 4E Monster Vault was much better, but too late.) I'd really rather they not return to that model for rulebooks.

 

[billd91]

Oh, I agree. Whatever people think of 4E, it knocked a lot things out of the park re: layout & design, ease of reference, and concise rules.

Yep, I’m no fan of 4e. I am a fan of the clarity of its layout.

 

[MockingBird]

Sure, but they also absolutely sucked the pleasure out of reading the book (for me).

Same, can't put my finger on it but I just didn't enjoy reading them.

 

[Malmuria]

It's really not an either/or between simple quality of life layout and editing and text that is a pleasure to read. In fact, the whole point of good layout and editing is to make a book (any book) easier to read! Good writing is not sheer volume: in some cases (like a rulebook) clarity and brevity make writing good, in other cases (an adventure) writing should be evocative, dramatic, and sensory. Again, take a look at the Young Adventurer's Guides: every topic on a two page spread, visual design that aids in understanding, sidebars with short but evocative descriptions.

 

[Maxperson]

Strictly speaking, they are quite equivalent in game terms. Mostly what I've seen is people glaze over and ignore Feats because they discover that they are optional well before they begin to make sense if them. The Background Feat regime will change a lot about how most people approach Feats, I think.

I don't see the equivalence. Half the +1s won't even do anything because the secondary stat will be even. The rest will add a trivial amount of increase as you will get a +1 bonus to something you probably aren't using all that often. Compare that to a feat that does lots of stuff that will be used frequently and a skill proficiency that will be used frequently, and both generally to good effect. The latter just seems much better to me.

I do get that some people don't want the added complexity of feats. That doesn't make the two equivalent, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Instead, we currently have some optional rules in the PHB and others in the DMG, and it causes a lot of unnecessary conflict at my table. The players aren't informed about which "options" are actually options, and the DM--that's me!--has to endure a lot of push-back and arguments from the players whenever he wants to add stuff from the DMG (or remove stuff from the PHB).

Refer them to the PHB, page 6.

"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am addressing a possible issue where a popular style is somehow believed to be more valid than a less popular one. Don't tell me you've never seen that one.

Unless I say it, don’t shove it into my face like I have, please.

Some people like their make-believe silly, others like it dramatic. Both are fun in my experience.

Even my dramatic games aren’t super serious.

It can't be anything else. The change to racial ASIs and ability to invent races whole cloth are enough to make a significant change to the default game.

It can't be anything else. The change to racial ASIs and ability to invent races whole cloth are enough to make a significant change to the default game.

Hardly. Those are quite small changes. Changing how dual wielding works with the action economy would be bigger.

They didn’t make races more or less powerful, or change how they interact with the rest of the game.