D&D 5E Where to Now?

[Mercurius]

Riffing off my MCU-style phases above, what if WotC planned a 20-year edition style in line with the 20 levels and tiers of game play? I don't think they actually did, especially because they can't have possibly planned for that long without a re-boot, but let's play make-believe...

Phase-Tier Zero (2013, "session zero"/character creation): Next playtesting, Dragonspire/Icewind Dale.
Phase-Tier One (2014-17, levels 1-4): Core rules, establishing the focus on story arcs. Apprentice adventurers becoming local heroes--and the rise of D&D's popularity.
Phase-Tier Two (2018-23, levels 5-10): Expanding to settings. This is considered the sweet-spot by many players--as adventurers make a name for themselves and become national or regional heroes, and could also be the golden years of 5E as the core line is fleshed out more fully, while still focusing on classic D&D game play.
Phase-Tier Three (2024-29, levels 11-16): This is where we'd see revised "5.2" books, that form the basis for more experimental options and styles. More emphasis on planar adventures and world-shaking events, alternate approaches to the game (kingdom-building, other genres, etc). "Continental heroes."
Phase-Tier Four (2030-33, levels 17-20): Wild and woolly--extra-planar, immortal game play, apocalyptic events, the multiverse, etc. "World heroes." Completion of the cycle.

Again, I don't see this as WotC's plan, or how they look at it now, but it is a fun thought experiment. At the least, phase-tiers 0 to 2 seem relatively accurate, with 3-4 just being rather speculative.

 

[Fenris-77]

All but one of the subclasses only have wildshape as a ribbon ability and focus on other things.

Yes, the subclasses are the differentiation. The class itself, the part they all share, is focused on Wildshape plus Nature Casting. You can't play a Druid without Wildshape. Anyway, this isn't a criticism, just an observation that the concept space for the class is restricted somewhat by the class abilities. The design space taken up by wildshape is what could have been occupied by greater summoning or greater control type abilities.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If people don't want to play a class, that is totally fine, but then it doesn't belong among the 12 classes printed in the Player's Handbook for general use by everyone.

Wait a second, let's be clear what the data is saying: the druid is still fully half as popular as the most popular class (Fighter), and 2/3 as popular as all except Fighter and Rogue. That does not mean "people don't want to play" it. I actually find it pretty surprising that the distribution is as even as it is.

I started typing "I bet if you look at almost anything else, such as ice cream, you would find that it the distribution falls off much faster..." but I stopped and looked it up. The first result I found with numbers was this:

 

[Minigiant]

And to do this the Ranger also had to be a hella good and tough warrior, hence it's original placing as a sub-class of Fighter.

The whole spindly two-weapon Dexterity-based Drizz't-style Ranger is to me an abomination; even more so if it's expected to have a pet following it around all the time.

Of course. The point is the Ranger was based on a nature guide who stabbed up the viliains and beasts that he could not talk down or avoid.

To me there are 6 different wilderness warriors in D&D.

1. The Ranger
2. The Scout
3. The Warden
4. The Wilderness Warrior
5. The Seeker
6. The Green Knight

Along with a shaman and witchdoctor class, thats why I think a wilderness book would be awesome.

 

[Eltab]

I preferred the 4e Druid. Because you (the player) did not have to carry around a notebook describing all the possible animals you could wildshape into, with their stats / powers / abilities. Rather, you kept your man-form capabilities.

YMMV (almost certainly Y M does V)

 

[Blue]

Of course. The point is the Ranger was based on a nature guide who stabbed up the viliains and beasts that he could not talk down or avoid.

To me there are 6 different wilderness warriors in D&D.

1. The Ranger
2. The Scout
3. The Warden
4. The Wilderness Warrior
5. The Seeker
6. The Green Knight

Along with a shaman and witchdoctor class, thats why I think a wilderness book would be awesome.

Can you describe those to me in such terms that it's obvious there is no overlap?

Ranger, the nature-magic skirmisher, and Scout, the response when people wanted a spell-less Ranger. Where do the rest fit in the streamlined class paradigm of 5e?

 

[Blue]

I preferred the 4e Druid. Because you (the player) did not have to carry around a notebook describing all the possible animals you could wildshape into, with their stats / powers / abilities.

Every single druid except a single subclass, that books is called the PHB since the forms are listed in Appendix D. The same book you are already carrying around for your spells.

 

[atanakar]

I really don't want WoTC to try to make a «toolbox system» out of D&D5e. It was not build for that. Look at other systems, like Fantasy AGE, if that is what you want. It was designed for that in mind.

Where to from now for D&D5e? They should just keep doing what they are doing. I'm not nostalgic of old settings. The vast majority of old the books are available on DMGuild for new DMs who are curious about these old settings. Anything B/X and Advanced is very easy to port to 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

Can you describe those to me in such terms that it's obvious there is no overlap?

Ranger, the nature-magic skirmisher, and Scout, the response when people wanted a spell-less Ranger. Where do the rest fit in the streamlined class paradigm of 5e?

The easiest way to describe them is to describe their purpose.

The Ranger is a guide, hunter, tracker, and/or wilderness liaison. The ranger is a job. A ranger has a job to do and thus acquires skills, techniques, and magic to do the job. The job requires a combination of abilities. The ranger could be a skirmisher but they don't have to. A ranger of the grasslands might wield a lance and shield on horseback. An arctic ranger might dual wield axes with medium armor under her cold weather clothes as a swirl of snow protects her from missiles as she charges. The job dictates the skills.

The Wilderness Warrior, the Scout, and the Green/Ancients Knight on the other hand as primarily about their base skills. The Wilderness Warrior is a Fighter. The Scout is a Rogue. The green/ancients knight is a paladin They fight like their classes. They just get along with nature better. One might ride a giant lion as a mount. Another might be an expert at using primitive weapons and handling animals. Another might be good at ambushing. But they are their base class primarily.

The Warden and the Seeker are two halves of the same coin. They are warriors imbued with natural mystical powers. They enhance their weapons and armor with natural primal power for some purpose. The Seeker focuses on enchanting their ranged weapons and ammunition. The Warden focuses on enchanting themselves and everthing they touch. In 5, they easily could be two subclasses of the same primal warrior class.

There's no need to toolbox 5e. There's plenty to missing stuff from the past for D&D 5e to make.

 

[Fenris-77]

Of course. The point is the Ranger was based on a nature guide who stabbed up the viliains and beasts that he could not talk down or avoid.

To me there are 6 different wilderness warriors in D&D.

1. The Ranger
2. The Scout
3. The Warden
4. The Wilderness Warrior
5. The Seeker
6. The Green Knight

Along with a shaman and witchdoctor class, thats why I think a wilderness book would be awesome.

You should check out Into the Wyrd and Wild. I just finished reading it and it's awesome. There are some great mechanics for wilderness survival, along with a ton of great monsters and spells and other stuff. It's got some horror around the edges, and I think it would do a great job making the journey just as exciting as the destination. It's usefully presented as a toolbox, so you can pick and choose what bits to use, and it also has a nifty little primer on designing 'outdoor dungeons'.