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

[Maxperson]

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

Completely changing how ASIs work and quite a bit more drastic, allowing players to just invent whole races are not small changes.

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

Doesn't matter. Power level isn't the requirement for how big a change is. Before you had fixed ASIs and races were better at some things than others. Now they will be floating and all races are the same with stats. That's huge and alters the world view of races. No longer are elves and halflings nimble. No longer are half orcs strong.

And I know you or someone else is going to be like, "Racial abilities can show those things." But then you've created a disconnect where races are strong, but not strong, nimble, but not nimble, because stats matter. It's a large change to how things work, even if mechanically things are still equal.

 

[Charlaquin]

Even my dramatic games aren’t super serious.

We could further distinguish between drama and melodrama. Point is, some people want to treat the fiction as more akin to LotR or GoT than Vox Machina or Slayers.

 

[CleverNickName]

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."

Oh I have, believe me.

"BuT iT's NoT a hOuSeRuLe iT's iN tHe pLaYeR's HaNdBoOk..."

I know it won't stop every argument, but it would be a big relief for me if, in all future rulebooks, Wizards of the Coast would just keep optional rules separate from the rest. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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


Even my dramatic games aren’t super serious.


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.

You're right and I apologize.

While the actual changes might be minor, all of the plans we know about should significantly change the look of the new books, and that can absolutely work against acceptance.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We could further distinguish between drama and melodrama. Point is, some people want to treat the fiction as more akin to LotR or GoT than Vox Machina or Slayers.

It's been a while since I've read it, but isn't LotR jam-packed with songs and dumb puns and way more fun than people who purport to be fans give it credit for? Everyone acts like it's all Boromir when there's plenty of Tom, Merry and Pippin.

To say nothing of the Hobbit.

Which is a long way of saying 'please don't sully LotR by grouping it with GoT'.

 

[darjr]

Two words.
Tom Bombadil.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's been a while since I've read it, but isn't LotR jam-packed with songs and dumb puns and way more fun than people who purport to be fans give it credit for? Everyone acts like it's all Boromir when there's plenty of Tom, Merry and Pippin.

Who says a serious fantasy story can’t have levity?

To say nothing of the Hobbit.

The Hobbit is plenty serious, especially in light of the fact that it was written for children.

Which is a long way of saying 'please don't sully LotR by grouping it with GoT'.

I’m not comparing them in terms of quality, I’m just saying they’re both examples of fantasy stories with serious tones.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

A +1 to AC, Spell DC or attack is pretty consistently awesome.

 

[tetrasodium]

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

4e went too far. Opposite of 5e's "natural language" is technical writing(like with actual courses & such) but 4e too often sped past it straight into what was basically just a data dump & took it a step further by too often ctrl-c/ctrl-v the data between classes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Who says a serious fantasy story can’t have levity?

The 90's and 00's.