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

[rooneg]

What would be the point of buying those books if you already own the 2014 versions? Is the new print intended only for new players going forward? I mean, if you care about the stuff they're supposedly updating, aren't you already playing that way now?

I just don't see why anyone who is playing now would buy these if the changes are as minor as everybody says.

I mean, it's pretty clearly going to revamp the core ancestries (MotM didn't give us new versions of them, so this will), and consolidating all the changes to the core classes along with whatever other tweaks is worth a new PHB to me. Better monsters in a new MM are also worthwhile.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm hoping that they also live up to Shea's desire for "wider, richer, more interesting, and more inclusive" content in this area. The trend for races since Tasha's has focused mainly on making character race lore significantly leaner... which is freeing for some, but leaves others cold. I think it's well within Wizards' capabilities to keep lore as inspirational as it's been in the past, while still keeping inclusivity in mind. It's more work, but worth it, I think.

Not work I would expect them to do. Bland, inoffensive, and short are the words of the corporate zeitgeist.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The design assumption is that all Eogues should be getting Sneak Attack every time that they attack. So as far as the decanters are concerned, it isn't a power boost, simply making the assumed action easier and more clear for players and DMs.

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?

 

[Nikosandros]

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?

That's a fair observation. My impression is that they included conditions for "compatibility" with previous flavor, but balance-wise they meant for it apply almost all the time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is one of those design assumptions that rests on top of other assumptions about how the rules would be read. Like, if you are the sort of DM who makes it practical for a rogue to cunning action hide and shoot with advantage afterwards then this was basically how it already worked. If you're the sort of DM who structures encounters or interprets the stealth rules such that this isn't possible then ranged rogues in your games often didn't get sneak attack (or had to jump through other hoops like obtaining a familiar or whatever to make it happen). I hope some of the wording on this stuff is cleared up to make the intent more obvious in 5.5e, it would make things easier for everyone.

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.

 

[Reynard]

New art.

But anyone playing now isn't the target audience, new players are.

You know which other company assumed indefinite growth?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because it's more fun/rewarding to feel like you "earned" it through skilled play. Even if there are so many options that it's easy.

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

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Flavor. It's entirely about providing a mechanical hook that ensures a Rogue is actually being played like the fictional archetype the class is supposed to emulate.

yeah put fluff in fluff spots and mechanics in mechanics please

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is a game aimed at 12 year olds.

okay... by 12 I was ready not to be patronized.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It didn't "Immediately" happen. It's happening over a period of four years. It's called making phased changes.

It is obvious to me that they never intended for those changes to be optional. They just wanted people to think they were at first.