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

[DEFCON 1]

That's a very narrow view of the hobby. There are many people playing at conventions, at game stores and, more and more, online. Understanding the community and the general desires of "other players" makes for a broader pool of players. The isolated group is increasingly the minority, I think.

If this was the case then I'd expect more people to be a lot more open here on the boards about playing all different styles of D&D and not getting bent out of shape that the game does things they don't like. If they have no choice but to play with huge numbers of random people... then they should be much more open about how they play.

But that doesn't seem often to be the case. Rather, people are just as fixated now as ever on how they think D&D should play... and how WotC keeps messing that up by introducing changes here and there... making it more and more likely that that person will never be able to find a game at a convention, game store or online. If you have a set way of playing D&D and you need to play that way and only that way... then you're going to have to work extra-hard to find a group that can match.

That's the whole reason for actually playing in a home group (or established online group)-- you can get a group of players that WILL play in exactly the style you want your D&D to be and you can play that way consistently. And at that point, it doesn't matter what WotC or any other player does to the game.

 

[darjr]

The rules compendium was released after the 4E announcement so

Really? I must have forgotten. That’s actually kinda cool.

 

[Reynard]

Really? I must have forgotten. That’s actually kinda cool.

I just checked. 4E was announced at GenCon 2007 and the Rules Compedium was released October 2007.

 

[overgeeked]

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?

There's two things that affect what's optional. There's official and there's expectation.

Feats and multiclassing and Tasha's floating racial bonuses are officially optional. But they're all expected to be the standard by most players. With each new book they become increasingly less officially optional and increasingly more expected as standard. Feats as part of backgrounds means they're no longer optional. All new races using the Tasha's floating bonuses means they're no longer optional. Etc. I don't expect the revision to maintain the illusion that those things are optional.

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

I don't really have a horse in the race as I mostly referee, but it would be nice if the design actually matched the intent of the designers.

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.

The way I see it is that since I have to re-read my texts and posts anyway to make sure autocorrect hasn't screwed up, I might as well turn it off and edit my stuff where necessary.

 

[OB1]

Cool. So three. The rogue gets to sneak attack as long as they're not: tied and bound, effected by the slow spell, or at disadvantage. But otherwise all the time.

Yes, exactly. Not getting sneak attack should be a rarish occurrence for a rogue. Steady Aim helps accomplish that.

 

[dave2008]

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?

It depends how the implement them whether or not the default state is optional (like multiclassing, feats, and magic items) or not. They could be, but I think they are making the change.

However, I as asking because it seemed like you were saying because of some future product, that you don't have to buy, might include these features that means those features are not optional now. They are 100% optional now.

Personally, anything that doesn't change how the game is played is pretty optional IMO. Whether or not characters even has a +2 to one stat and +1 to another has little impact on the game IMO. So yes, it is very much optional to me.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes, exactly. Not getting sneak attack should be a rarish occurrence for a rogue. Steady Aim helps accomplish that.

Yes, exactly. All I was trying to say when this tangent started is that the designers meant for the game to work a particular way, so they should have designed the game to explicitly work that way from the start. Not hide their intent behind layers of rules and rules interactions. If they wanted the rogue to always get sneak attack (which they've said they did), then the game should have been explicitly designed that way from the start, not patched later to make it work that way. That's all.

 

[dave2008]

Sadly, not in character advancement past level 3. After that, the choices are nearly all made for you.

My players chose what to do every round of every combat or social encounter. Those are the choices we care about. I realize that is not enough for some, but that is what I was talking about. Choices in game, not so much during character creation. Of course Tasha's did add some additional options beyond 4th for all classes IIRC, so maybe they will expand on that in the '24 edition for you.

 

[Reynard]

It just struck me at exactly how long lived 5E has been. 8 Published years so far, plus 2 more before 5.xE or whatever, plus another year of Next? That is a long edition cycle. Only 1E was longer, I think. Maybe 2E if you just do math but it was dead for 3 years of its "life" -- so, undead?

 

[darjr]

It just struck me at exactly how long lived 5E has been. 8 Published years so far, plus 2 more before 5.xE or whatever, plus another year of Next? That is a long edition cycle. Only 1E was longer, I think. Maybe 2E if you just do math but it was dead for 3 years of its "life" -- so, undead?

I’d just like to add that WotC has owned D&D longer than TSR.