D&D General Dan Rawson Named New Head Of D&D

Hasbro has announced a former Microsoft digital commerce is the new senior vice president in charge of Dungeons & Dragons. Dan Rawson was the COO of Microsoft Dynamics 365.

Hasbro also hired Cynthia Williams earlier this year; she too, came from Microsoft. Of Rawson, she said "We couldn’t be bringing on Dan at a better time. With the acquisition of D&D Beyond earlier this year, the digital capabilities and opportunities for Dungeons & Dragons are accelerating faster than ever. I am excited to partner with Dan to explore the global potential of the brand while maintaining Hasbro’s core value as a player-first company.”

Rawson himself says that "Leading D&D is the realization of a childhood dream. I’m excited to work with Cynthia once again, and I’m thrilled to work with a talented team to expand the global reach of D&D, a game I grew up with and now play with my own kids.”

Interestingly, Ray Wininger -- who has been running D&D for the last couple of years -- has removed mention of WotC and Hasbro from his Twitter bio.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean I would equate it more to picking booming blade or sacred flame... but yeah. I pick the things I want to do. "I want to attack with a short sword" was replaced with "I want to attack with my dex and add cha to damage" because in the 2nd one ALL ROGUEs could attack with short swords where in the 1st only prof characters could (without a penalty)

my defualt fighters in 2e took bladesx3 and a ranged weapon
then at 3rd specilized in a weapon and at 6th mastered that weapon
now 9th was where I had to decided between the SoD Death Blow, or High Mastery.

Sounds like you were playing with skills and options? Skills and powers? I don't remember what it was called, but it was poorly executed and tacked on at the end of 2e. 2e didn't have those things, other than specialization for most of its life span.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Lack of 2e short sword proficiency meant that you weren't attacking at a minus 3 with your short sword. Lack of Sly Flourish meant no penalty to hit with a short sword. Sly Flourish(which I just had to look up) also applies to three different weapon groups, unlike short sword proficiency which only applied to short sword and no other weapon. Then Sly Flourish uses dex to hit, unlike 2e which only used strength. Then it adds both dex and char modifier to damage, unlike 2e short swords which were only str bonus. I mean, how the hell does charisma let you do more damage when you swing a sword?

For me, I just can't see that as anything resembling 2e proficiency selection. And 1st level isn't all that I'm talking about. It was the entire character class ability selection. You didn't get more proficiencies as you leveled up in 2e, but you do get more powers in 4e.

Either I misunderstood or you are saying things about 2e that are factually untrue:

If you lack proficiency in a weapon, you attack at - 2 as warrior class and a bit higher penalties for other classes.

You also got more proficiencies and weapon proficiencies as you leveled up

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The entirety of the conversion doc so far is "take a level 1 feat and some classes get an extra feat. You may have different spells than other characters of the same class. Your unique abilities are yours "

I mean class features changed on both bard and ranger, class spell list changed on both, and how you know/prep spells changed on both

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sounds like you were playing with skills and options? Skills and powers? I don't remember what it was called, but it was poorly executed and tacked on at the end of 2e. 2e didn't have those things, other than specialization for most of its life span.

I mean I started playing in 95 and I remember these being 'new options' at some point... but still 2e (although funny story I had friends that called it 3e)

 

[Maxperson]

Either I misunderstood or you are saying things about 2e that are factually untrue:

If you lack proficiency in a weapon, you attack at - 2 as warrior class and a bit higher penalties for other classes.

We're talking about the thief class, since he's using a 4e rogue's Sly Flourish as his example. So the penalty was -3

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We're talking about the thief class, since he's using a 4e rogue's Sly Flourish as his example. So the penalty was -3

The thief class of ADnD 2nd editon?
So he just wrote weren't instead of were? Just a slipup?

 

[Maxperson]

I mean I started playing in 95 and I remember these being 'new options' at some point... but still 2e (although funny story I had friends that called it 3e)

2e came out in 1989 and stopped being made in 1997, so 1995 when those books came out was near the end and tacked on. There was no balance to them at all and a lot of them were pretty darn broken.

 

[Maxperson]

The thief class of ADnD 2nd editon?
So he just wrote weren't instead of were? Just a slipup?

Yeah. The rogue category, which thieves were a part of, had a -3 penalty along with priests. Wizards had -5. Warriors had -2.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

2e came out in 1989 and stopped being made in 1997, so 1995 when those books came out was near the end and tacked on. There was no balance to them at all and a lot of them were pretty darn broken.

I'm sorry you feel that way most of them (outside of Mthac0 and costume classes) were main stream for us through 2003 (we started 3e in 2000 but had legacy games going and some DMs didn't want to update my last 2e game was right before September 2003)

I also just remembered the 'cantrip' like ones were a dragon mag add on (one of the ones with the wizard 3 I think a dragon was playing chess on the cover... it's amazing how my old mind works with some memories)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah. The rogue category, which thieves were a part of, had a -3 penalty along with priests. Wizards had -5. Warriors had -2.

yup and I remember all wizards taking throwing knives from combat and tactics for the last few years cause you could throw them with Dex and deal 2d4 on a hit... but they couldn't be used in melee. I can't remember why we didn't have thieves use them more... heck or fighters at that damage.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

2e came out in 1989 and stopped being made in 1997, so 1995 when those books came out was near the end and tacked on. There was no balance to them at all and a lot of them were pretty darn broken.

another funny thing about memories... I remember 2e lasting through 2000 when 3e came out, and playing after that even. So to me 95 was 'early'

we both remember 2e but it seems like we may remember entire different games

 

[darjr]

another funny thing about memories... I remember 2e lasting through 2000 when 3e came out, and playing after that even. So to me 95 was 'early'

we both remember 2e but it seems like we may remember entire different games

This right here is the kernel of the problem D&D designers face.

D&D is a thing that can be very different for people. What’s worse is when a superficially similar aspect actually hits people very differently when looked at in detail.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry you feel that way most of them (outside of Mthac0 and costume classes) were main stream for us through 2003 (we started 3e in 2000 but had legacy games going and some DMs didn't want to update my last 2e game was right before September 2003)

I also just remembered the 'cantrip' like ones were a dragon mag add on (one of the ones with the wizard 3 I think a dragon was playing chess on the cover... it's amazing how my old mind works with some memories)

Skills and powers were a power gamers wet dream, which I was back then. I was totally a power gamer until my late 20's. Why have a 16 strength as a fighter when you could drop stamina down to 10 and have 22 muscle, gaining +4, +10 to hit and damage instead of +0, +1. Why have a 14 dex as a fighter when you could Drop aim to 3 and have a 25 balance, getting +5 to initiative, -6 to ac and just not use missile weapons in combat? Why not have that 12 in con drop to 3 health and 21 fitness for +6 hit points per level. Resurrections in 2e were nearly impossible to get at lower levels anyway? And so on.

The 2d4 knife is just another example, as was the ability of rogues to choose their thief abilities, including the ability to detect magic with a touch.

It was terribly unbalance and broken, but also very fun. It's also not something I use when I talk about 2e in general since it was tacked on at the end and not a part of 2e for the majority of it's lifespan.

 

[bedir than]

I mean class features changed on both bard and ranger, class spell list changed on both, and how you know/prep spells changed on both

Sure!

But just because a Bladesinger exists that didn't make the War Mage incompatible with the game. Bard14 and Bard24 can exist at the same table with just two changes - a level 1 feat and at like 13th level another feat.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Skills and powers were a power gamers wet dream...

100% true. But for someone who wasn't a powergamer I also enjoyed it because you could build nuanced characters. The versatility was unlike anything we had ever seen before by TSR. You could easily abuse it, like 5e Plots Points, but it also allowed the creatives to really craft their characters.

 

[Maxperson]

100% true. But for someone who wasn't a powergamer I also enjoyed it because you could build nuanced characters. The versatility was unlike anything we had ever seen before by TSR. You could easily abuse it, like 5e Plots Points, but it also allowed the creatives to really craft their characters.

Yes, which is what 3e turned into for me. Could you build the charger that hit for like 1500 points of damage? Yep. I used the skills, prestige classes, feats, etc. to just achieve neat concepts. The character customization 3e allowed makes that edition still by far my favorite.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Skills and powers were a power gamers wet dream, which I was back then.

sigh... right cause when you don't like something it's ONLY powergamers that used it... nothing I have brought up raised fighters above wizards and clerics by any meaningful amount.

I was totally a power gamer until my late 20's. Why have a 16 strength as a fighter when you could drop stamina down to 10 and have 22 muscle, gaining +4, +10 to hit and damage instead of +0, +1.

cause you had to have them within 4 of each other and nothing above 18? Maybe you were just playing with house rules letting you have a 22 and 10 when you at best could by the rules have a 14 and 18 (I don't remember how it interacted with % str)

Why have a 14 dex as a fighter when you could Drop aim to 3 and have a 25 balance, getting +5 to initiative, -6 to ac and just not use missile weapons in combat?

again cause you can't have more then a 4pt spread and nothing over 18. so that 14 dex could go up to a 16 (real good in those days) and lower the other half to 12... but thats it.

Why not have that 12 in con drop to 3 health and 21 fitness for +6 hit points per level. Resurrections in 2e were nearly impossible to get at lower levels anyway? And so on.

becuse you can't... that's like asking "why can't I just add my +2 from background right to the modfire instead of the score" in the new 1D&D play test Then your 16 is +5 instead of +3... it's the same argument, you can if the DM house rules it but your house rule isn't breaking the base game that says that +2 goes to the score making it a 18...

The 2d4 knife is just another example, as was the ability of rogues to choose their thief abilities, including the ability to detect magic with a touch.

oh we loved that one too.... all the extra theif abilities were great.

We also had house rules where we played with some of it... but if your idea of "OMG it broke the game" is a 25% chance of detect magic 1/item but at will then we have VERY different ideas of broken

in 4e you could use an arcana check dc XX to detect if an item was magic and I loved that too

It was terribly unbalance and broken, but also very fun.

it was unbalanced only because YOU broke it.

It's also not something I use when I talk about 2e in general since it was tacked on at the end and not a part of 2e for the majority of it's lifespan.

sigh... it was part of 2e like it or not

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yes, which is what 3e turned into for me. Could you build the charger that hit for like 1500 points of damage? Yep. I used the skills, prestige classes, feats, etc. to just achieve neat concepts. The character customization 3e allowed makes that edition still by far my favorite.

Do you feel that way about it - even as a DM?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

100% true. But for someone who wasn't a powergamer I also enjoyed it because you could build nuanced characters. The versatility was unlike anything we had ever seen before by TSR. You could easily abuse it, like 5e Plots Points, but it also allowed the creatives to really craft their characters.

thank you for reminding people powergaming isn't the only reason to custimize

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, which is what 3e turned into for me. Could you build the charger that hit for like 1500 points of damage? Yep. I used the skills, prestige classes, feats, etc. to just achieve neat concepts. The character customization 3e allowed makes that edition still by far my favorite.

I hate 3e/3.5/PF1... and will never choose to play it again. What you say about the skills and powers and combat and tactics and spells and magic books for 2e I say about 3/4 of 3e. I don't want to play that game of numbers again.