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

[Parmandur]

If you're supposed to have Sneak Attack all the time, what's the point of there being conditions on it at all? Why not just add the damage straight to their attacks as a class feature?

I mean, that's why theybadded a free ability to make that more clear. And maybe even more explicit in the new Core.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They are not intended as cash cows.

true I forgot they didn't care about sales... Your right I give up

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Do you mean existing players?
If so I think it’s possible WotC could be happy.
For instance they’ve sold a lot of PHBs, if half those people buy one of the new core I. The first year that would be a lot of books!
Second, I dint think most of the new purchased PHBs are going to existing customers and if the new books are good I think that will
continue.

okay you win

 

[Parmandur]

Interviews and social media posts are a terrible way to communicate design intent. Not everyone follows the designers on Twitter. If you're not going to make your intent explicit in the game itself, at least put it on your website. 4e got that right at least with their pre-edition books.

Yet people seem to get that Rogues are supposed to be able to Sneak Attack, by and large. It's already in the rules as written, making the rules as intended more clear is the role of revisions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Weirdly, the one house rule I got no push back on was banning multiclassing. It mostly seems to be a hard-core power gamer thing to insist on multiclassing. Maybe I just got lucky in that regard.

The curious thing I have noticed about multiclassing is the players who use it tend to make gimped characters with it. I haven't banned it, but I try to discourage it, because I get things like monk/wizards!

 

[Parmandur]

You know which other company assumed indefinite growth?

Who said anything about indefinite? But if their core audience is teenagers, not 40-somethings, then it is reasonable to expect new books to sell primarily to teenagers.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, that's why theybadded a free ability to make that more clear. And maybe even more explicit in the new Core.

Sure. But that just adds cruft to the game. It doesn't work as intended so they add more rules to make it work as intended.

Or, they could simply make it explicit in the first place. That seems like the cleaner, more clear design route to take.

Obfuscate the intend behind rules that the referee can possibly misinterpret, then patch things to remove that potential for misinterpretation...or simply be explicit in your design in the first place.

 

[DEFCON 1]

never in a million years would I have guess "Just selling as a growing market and not to current base isn't a great strategy" would be so controversial a statement.

I presume it's because of what appears to be your assumption that no current players of D&D are going to buy the new books? Unless that is not what you are saying, in which case I have misunderstood what you are trying to get across.

 

[bedir than]

They are simply updated replacements to keep the game current. They are not intended as cash cows.

I expect a high end anniversary set to be a cash cow though. Maybe a bundle of original Gygax basic with the 50th anniversary edition

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not a huge fan of tricking the players into thinking something is challenging when it isn't.

That's kind if the game, though: the odds are always stacked for the house, and in 5E the players are the House.