D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books

[Parmandur]

Chris Perkins did an interview with GamesRadar about the direction and goals for the new books, how it is not a "new edition," amo g other things:

"This is not a vanity press we're doing," says Perkins. "This is not me trying to prove myself as a designer to the world. We're trying to answer the question of 'what is the D&D that fans really want to play, and how do we deliver that for them? So in things like the Unearthed Arcana [playtests], we will sometimes put things in the articles that we know probably won't fly, that the community will push back on because they're not ready for it or they don't think it's right for the game that they want to play. We do that because we have to know, and that's the only way we can really know. So the playtest process has been very interesting to look at because I found that the fans don't want us to move too far from where Fifth Edition is now."

D&D dev says there isn't a new edition of the game because players can't get enough of this one

Interview | Chris Perkins weighs in on the changes being made to D&D

www.gamesradar.com

 

[ezo]

Booms??? Or books...?

I started to think there was some new thing called "booms" going on.

 

[Charlaquin]

How many times and in how many different ways can they say it’s not a new edition before people will believe them?

 

[Scribe]

How many times and in how many different ways can they say it’s not a new edition before people will believe them?

Considering I will never believe them, infinite.

 

[Charlaquin]

From the article:

“Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks offer three different approaches to being the party tank (…)”

Monks are tanks now?

 

[Parmandur]

From the article:

“Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks offer three different approaches to being the party tank (…)”

Monks are tanks now?

Frontline combatants, yes. Tank, after 20+ years, has become somewhat imprecise a term in regular usage.

 

[bedir than]

From the article:

“Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks offer three different approaches to being the party tank (…)”

Monks are tanks now?

I've played a dwarf monk as a tank. The many attacks help control that space due to stun

 

[Charlaquin]

Frontline combatants, yes.

Frontline combatant doesn’t necessarily equate to tank though. Monks are lightly armored, highly mobile single-target damage dealers - what you might call “strikers,” “skirmishers,” “DPS,” or something along those lines. A “tank” is typically a heavily-armored, limited-mobility, space-controlling unit.

 

[Parmandur]

Frontline combatant doesn’t necessarily equate to tank though. Monks are lightly armored, highly mobile single-target damage dealers - what you might call “strikers,” “skirmishers,” “DPS,” or something along those lines. A “tank” is typically a heavily-armored, limited-mobility, space-controlling unit.

People use "tank" pretty imprecisely now: a Monk's shtick is Frontline combatants, which I imagine the writer meant with that comment. He seems to be going off of the "Class Groups" from the UA Playtests (as they also group Paladin, Druid and Cleric together as "support") which while they stripped out the rules part over the playtest may still be in the PHB as an organizational grouping.

 

[Charlaquin]

People use "tall k" pretty imprecisely now: a Monk's shtick is Frontline combatants, which I imagine the writer meant with that comment. He seems to be going off of the "Class Groups" from the UA Playtests (as they also group Paladin, Druid and Cleric together as "support") which while they stripped out the rules part over the playtest may still be in the PHB as an organizational grouping.

Which is also weird; Paladins are definitely more tanks than supports.