D&D 5E D&D Head Talks Future Plans (Sort Of)

WotC has launched a new design blog. The first edition is written by D&D head Ray Winninger, and he talks a little about future plans.

"Later in the year, Chris will return with our big summer adventure, James Wyatt will deliver a substantially improved version of a concept that I initiated myself, and Amanda Hamon will close us out with a project that was jointly conceived by herself and several other studio members. As usual, Jeremy Crawford is working with all of our leads, overseeing mechanical content and rules development.

In addition to these five major products, look for a couple of additional surprises we’ll unveil in the months ahead."

You can read the full blog here:

Who We Are & What We Do | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

The first of many design blogs, direct from your friends at the Dungeons & Dragons Studio!

dnd.wizards.com

He also mentions that a D&D book takes 12-14 months to make, and half the projects developed don't make it to market. Winninger describes the structure of WotC's 'D&D Studio':

"The D&D Studio itself is organized into four departments: Game Design, Art, Production, and Product Management, each led by a department head. Game Design is responsible for the developing game mechanics and stories. Art establishes the “look and feel” of Dungeons & Dragons by creating visual concepts, directing our freelance illustrators, and creating innovative graphic designs. The Production department manages our project schedules, interfaces with manufacturing experts, and generally handles administrative matters for the studio. The Product Management department interfaces with sales, marketing, and market research. They also own our long-term product roadmap and look after the D&D business."

The studio has five Product Leads: Jeremy Crawford, Amanda Hamon, Chris Perkins, Wes Schneider, and James Wyatt.

 

[overgeeked]

I really think they've boxed themselves in on psionics at this point. They seem unwilling or unable to break the current concepts of magic/casting. Not sure I typed that exactly clearly.....but I just think 5e's design principles are hindering a truly different system for psionics, which is what psionics' fans want (though others may not).

I’m a fan of psionics and I want them to be handled basically exactly the same as they are so far. A few feats, a few subclasses, and a few spells. I don’t want a whole new system of casting just for psionics. I’m fairly certain I’m in the minority on that.

 

[R_J_K75]

Just guessing, but I suspect it has something to do with not wanting people to focus on what is coming up later as it may impact sales of more immediate products. Also, it gives them more flexibility, as far as publication order.

You could be right but I suspect people are only going to buy what they are interested in, unless they are a collector or feel they can repurpose the products content. I don't think someone's going to buy a Ravenloft or Dragonlance book if its no use to them regardless what's coming out next, or later in the year. Personally I really liked when they came out with their annual product catalogs and even planned my games around it sometimes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh definitely! The point I've always made is that if you subjected any existing 5E full-caster to the "approval process" they put the Mystic etc. through, they'd be roundly rejected. Bards would basically be shot out of a cannon, but even Wizards would be "OP". They shouldn't be using UA for stuff like that because the 70% approval threshold just won't be met by most classes (I'm not sure many of 5E's core class designs and archetypes would have met it, frankly, if presented in isolation - Rogues maybe, but a few posts on reddit and other sites about how it was "too easy" to get SA - even though that was the design intention - and they'd have had massive bad feedback).

They all did, during the open playtest. The problem is that the demographics have shifted quite a lot since then. I don’t think any of them would pass that threshold today.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m a fan of psionics and I want them to be handled basically exactly the same as they are so far. A few feats, a few subclasses, and a few spells. I don’t want a whole new system of casting just for psionics. I’m fairly certain I’m in the minority on that.

According to the polls you’re in the majority on that. That’s why the feats, subclasses, and spells that worked that way made it through the UA process where no mechanically distinct psionics system has.

 

[Charlaquin]

Or how about this for a surprise: 5E version of the lost Nentir Vale Gazetteer.

That would certainly be surprising.

 

[BMaC]

Where's Mike Mearls on the organization chart these days?

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

Plus "a couple surprises." Hmm...the implication is that they aren't "major" and also somewhat different from previous products. Let the speculation begin...

My money is still on a "Dungeon Kit" and a "City Kit" to go with the "Wilderness Kit".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm wondering (as I mentioned in another thread) whether the July adventure will be fey-themed, perhaps even partially set in the Feywild itself, which would explain the fey UAs...

Possibly, but four new lineages seems a lot for an adventure path. RotFM had one, and that was a reprint.

I expect it will involve planer travel, possibly a trip to Sigil. I hope it will be for levels 11-20.

 

[Delazar]

I’m a fan of psionics and I want them to be handled basically exactly the same as they are so far. A few feats, a few subclasses, and a few spells. I don’t want a whole new system of casting just for psionics. I’m fairly certain I’m in the minority on that.

Maybe the minority on these forums, but I'm not sure your preference is different than the one of a lot of new players.

I have access to a great number of new players (West Marches campaign, mostly young players that started with 5e), and this is also their wish. In fact, sometimes as the boomer I am I mention the good old days of Dark Sun, as I long for the "psionicist" class, and they tell me "wasn't that a sorcerer subclass or something?"

Which makes me cringe a bit, but in the end, it's probably our best shot. I could live with a psionicist class that uses existing spells, maybe a few more added to fill in some gaps.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I’m a fan of psionics and I want them to be handled basically exactly the same as they are so far. A few feats, a few subclasses, and a few spells. I don’t want a whole new system of casting just for psionics. I’m fairly certain I’m in the minority on that.

WotC's own market research says the majority of players share your opinion.

The voices on this forum are not a representative cross-section of 5e players.