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

[Argyle King]

Which was actually a really great thing to do. They knew some people would be sticking with 3.5 for a long time and they gave them a "going away present."

For some people, it likely was. I bought the book.

I never really used it though. A year later, 4E came out and was different enough that there wasn't really a way to still use the material.

For my friends who did stick with 3rd, they had switched over to Pathfinder. While PF wasn't officially released until 2009, playtest documents were available before that.

I'm not upset that I bought the book. But, with hindsight, my choice likely would have been different.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you mean option for '24? Because they are 100% optional now. We don't use them. Of course, even if they are the default in the '24 edition they are still optional. We will not use them in our games and it will still work wonderfully.

And if the Tasha's changes are fully integrated into the 2024 core, as I expect? Will they still be optional then, in any sense beyond your personal belief system?

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Until about a week ago, I would have agreed with this. However, given the size of the change required (one word), I would have expected the new Starter Set to make the change and be done, and yet the pregens for that one still use 'race'.

I think one of the main reasons the new Starter Set didn't include character gen rules was future proofing. The most significant changes in the Anniversary Edition are likely to be character gen related, so all you need to update the Starter Set is to switch out the pregen sheets in the appropriate print run.

 

[darjr]

The whole game is predicated on situational calls and rulings. That's a feature not a bug. The problem with the rogue is that some players felt nerfed because their referee's ruled things in such a way to reduce the amount of sneak attacks the rogue could use. So WotC needed to fix things by adding steady aim, thus removing (or seriously limiting) the referee's ability to make those specific calls. The rules cannot cover everything and the designers certainly shouldn't try to. That way lies madness.

But, if the design intent is one thing the designers should not hide that behind layers of rules and rules interactions. The designers have said point blank that the rogue is designed around the assumption that it can always sneak attack. But, instead of designing the class that way, they chose to leave it up to the referee...only to come in later and add in steady aim to fix their initial mistake.

Seriously, turn off your autocorrect. It's more trouble than it's worth.

Eh, I kinda like it the way the rogue sneak attack works. But I kinda see your point.

As for autocorrect, no, oh no, you wouldn’t want to read my posts with it off.

That’s my secret cap, I’m always autocorrect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that's the one that gets me. So, if there are a nearly infinite number of games out there and one or more are bound to do what you want...why not look for those games and play them instead of continuing to buy into a game you know you'll have to house rule to get to play how you want? I mean, if you're house ruling things anyway, buy the game that's closest to your end result and have less work to do.

This is virtually the entire reason I bought into Level Up. It is closest to what I want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They did. You can take it away as a DM. The “all the time” is a straw man.

I thought Perkins said it was supposed to be all the time in one of those mysterious social media posts and interviews that the devs think communicate their game design intentions adequately.

 

[Micah Sweet]

True. Buts it’s also got tons of rules. I thought you’d never buy a book just for the art?

I'm talking about visual art, not writing. And I think you know that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why is it important to you to understand current players?

You only play with your own players. So they're the only ones you need to understand. Understanding me gets you nothing.

Well, I am a gamer in 2022, and I do encounter new players. We just had two new players join our group a few weeks ago, and I don't understand their perspective.

 

[Reynard]

For some people, it likely was. I bought the book.

I never really used it though. A year later, 4E came out and was different enough that there wasn't really a way to still use the material.

For my friends who did stick with 3rd, they had switched over to Pathfinder. While PF wasn't officially released until 2009, playtest documents were available before that.

I'm not upset that I bought the book. But, with hindsight, my choice likely would have been different.

The rules compendium was released after the 4E announcement so

 

[darjr]

I'm talking about visual art, not writing. And I think you know that.

I do. And sorry just trying to be a bit funny.

Apologies.

I do think plenty of people played with 3.0 content using 3.5 rules. Even PCs. I think people remember the issues but forget all the times it just worked.

The FR book was just an easy at hand example but still an apt one imho. Lots of rules that I personally saw get used in 3.5. In fact one if the folks that had to get told it was a 3.0 book was my very self.