D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[GMforPowergamers]

Mine too. It wasn't an issue at all.

oh it was an issue... I know people who called us power gamers for "letting someone get 3 attacks in the first round"

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Subtraction is confusing?

Is that reductive comment supposed to come off as a veiled attack on the intelligence of anyone who doesn't like THAC0? Because if so, great job!

 

[Vaalingrade]

no, we use it when it is not driven by a goal other than to tear down, if that applies to you, find more worthy goals

Fun. Now we're pretending that wanting a clear delineation of iteration of the game is 'tearing down' -- another poplar means of attack.

Not even mad, just disappointed at the transparency.

 

[SteveC]

oh it was an issue... I know people who called us power gamers for "letting someone get 3 attacks in the first round"

The solution was to just haste everyone so it was three every round (or 5 if it was 5/2)! It's just a year of your life, right?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

no, we use it when it is not driven by a goal other than to tear down, if that applies to you, find more worthy goals

so are we complety abandoning the 'don't make it personal' and the 'address the argument not the poster' so we can read minds and assign agendas to one another?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is that reductive comment supposed to come off as a veiled attack on the intelligence of anyone who doesn't like THAC0? Because if so, great job!

No, I don't care if people liked THAC0 or not; I don't really like it and use better methods to accomplish my goals in the games I play. I literally just don't find it confusing.

 

[Remathilis]

so are we complety abandoning the 'don't make it personal' and the 'address the argument not the poster' so we can read minds and assign agendas to one another?

First day?

 

[deganawida]

The debate was so heated that it was on the Great D&D Trivia Quiz Contest in Dragon Magazine, and the Designers couldn't agree when the 3rd attack happened. They ended up calling the question a wash.

And yet the simplest solution was never implement, that is, adding extra weapon damage dice to the single attack. D&D attacks are already abstract, in that they're parries, feints, weak thrusts, and so on, and only the one that hits actually connects. Why try to mix simulation with abstraction? Madness.

 

[Faolyn]

Subtraction is confusing?

Honestly, for many people, yes. Dyscalculia is a thing.

Also, it's simply not as fast as addition is, even when dealing with numbers as small as are likely to be found at a gaming table.

 

[mamba]

I don't know if you mamba are trying to obfuscate anything (cool I know that word from WoD) but I do feel that WotC is... or to take the term Gamer girl used "mudding the waters"

I can rule out the trying part for you. I never try to obfuscate anything, it is not helpful

I mean out of everyone involved I would say the only CLEAR agenda is WotC... the agenda to keep selling for next year AND sell big on the new books.

agenda has a negative connotation to me, that is why I preferred the word goal here. I did not disagree with what their intent is, it obviously is that

no I would say we are looking at what they are doing separate from what they are saying and seeing they don't line up (IMO).

and if this were an objective evaluation I’d have no problem with that. Then we can discuss why you think it differs (not that we need to). It’s when it is not that it turns into an agenda.

I am not convinced that everyone here is just to the best of their ability evaluating what WotC says and comparing it against the playtest. I think some have other motives or may simply be upset about the OGL still and now try to ‘get back’ at WotC