D&D 5E D&D New Edition Design Looks Soon?

WotC’s Ray Winninger has hinted on Twitter that we may be seeing something of the 2024 next edition of D&D soon — “you’ll get a first look at some of the new design work soon.”.

 

[Reynard]

The difference is....the players aren't really seeing the mechanics. They don't see behind the curtain, they just have X monster that does Y thing, and they have to react to it. Also, players are used to the idea that monsters get all sort of weird crazy abilities (that the DM explains to them as they fight the monster), so adjusting monsters with new crazy abilities players have not seen isn't seen as "weird" as compared to changing how the fighter swings their sword.

The curtain isn't particularly thick, though. there isn't much to obscure "the mechanics" in what happens each round. And that's only if the GM is making an effort to try and obscure them. "It uses it's reaction to puke acid on you" IS the mechanic.

 

[Mark Craddock]

My personal guess for this 2024 edition is less of a 5.5e and more a 5.1e....like polishing with sand paper rather than cutting with a saw.

From a player standpoint I'm really not expecting major changes. Some balance passes on feats and spells, maaaybe some adjustments to the least liked classes, maybe a little more rules clarification on the areas that often create the greatest amount of rules questions (like stealth). This will likely result from the results of the satisfaction surveys that went out, the areas that were rated on the bottom will get some sanding, but things that have general satisfaction will remain mostly untouched.

To me the biggest wildcard is on monster design. Since that is primarily experienced by DMs I think you have a bit more latitude there, as DMs are more rules focused and I think more open to changes than your wider and more casual player base. If there are going to be "big changes" I would expect to see them in monsters.

If Monsters of the Multiverse is a preview of the changes to monsters I'm not a big fan but I'm sure there will be further evolution. I think we will see a power creep for races and classes based on what we've seen of Tasha's and MoM. Hopefully, whatever they do to the Ranger will be viewed as a fix.

 

[Reynard]

Hopefully, whatever they do to the Ranger will be viewed as a fix.

My theory is there is nothing wrong with the ranger and never has been. It's just a meme. It's possible there isn't even a ranger class to begin with.

 

[Stalker0]

the thing is it seems like it now today is cutting edge of spell casting systems for 22 years ago... it is the most dogmatic not updated part of the game.

having the warlock able to mage armor, speak with animals and detect magic at will while other casters (sorcerers are magic born but can't detect that well, druids are the nature people and can't speak with animals that well) shows the hang up of the vancian ssytem...

Ultimately the notion of spellcasting in dnd is a mechanic problem....that has a lot of complexities.

• We want magic to be strong and interesting
• We want to allow non-magic characters to balance with magic characters.
• We want magic and non-magic characters to work on heavy encounter and light encounter days.

Doing all of these elements well is quite difficult. For example, this notion of balance between magic and non-magic characters is not a thing in all systems. One of the reasons Ars Magica has such a flexible magic system is....everyone is a mage. You have bodyguards and non-magical assistants, but mages are straight up better than anyone else, and PCs are expected to be mages. Magic is simply better. This is LOTR, Gandalf is just better than other characters, magic is just better.

Also the notion that magic is strong (but balanced) demands that there is a certain amount of restriction in its use. Whether that's spell slots or you take damage each time you use it or XYZ, there is a notion that magic cannot be unlimited and strong. Again, that's not required. You could use the paradigm that "magic is unlimited but weak". For example, a wizard could actually be your jack of all trades. Magic can do anything....but not well. A wizard can pick a lock with magic....but never as good as a rogue. A wizard can blast a creature with magic, but never as well as a fighter. A wizard can create any structure, but never as well as a trained craftsman. That is a valid idea, it's just not how Dnd has traditionally gone.

I think the issue that often lingers with dnd is the "downtime problem". The system has often worked on balancing magic and mundane within encounters and combat....its where a lot of the rules effort goes, and I think the balance there is pretty good most of the time. But once you get into downtime, the balances changes a lot. Suddenly a wizard without time constraints could cast a given spell 50 times over a week....and that creates some huge impacts if its unchecked. Often this is when I see the problem of magic vs mundane really come into play. Yeah the fighters and the mages both contribute to combat, but in the two days before the adventure starts, when the DM is just working with the mage on their diviniations and their scrying and what buffs they want to precast..... the caster gets a tremendous amount of personal spotlight time as compared to the fighter. That is the time I think the imbalance is truly "felt"

 

[Blue]

WotC is actually disincentivized from making interesting mechanics, as they are likely to divide their player base.

Counterpoint: Advantage/Disadvantage.

 

[Charlaquin]

counterpoint the mystic let me play a budget meat mage, and some other stuff thus I am still lacking what I want even if I was not burdened by the necrotic chassis that is the sorcerer.

What in Pelor’s name is a meat mage?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The curtain isn't particularly thick, though. there isn't much to obscure "the mechanics" in what happens each round. And that's only if the GM is making an effort to try and obscure them. "It uses it's reaction to puke acid on you" IS the mechanic.

the funny part is that monsters are more clear then some player facing abilities... look at the misty step debate on the front page as people read the rules and the fluff and try to make a ruleing

 

[Stalker0]

If Monsters of the Multiverse is a preview of the changes to monsters I'm not a big fan but I'm sure there will be further evolution. I think we will see a power creep for races and classes based on what we've seen of Tasha's and MoM. Hopefully, whatever they do to the Ranger will be viewed as a fix.

Having now played out the Vecna scenario a few times on ENWORLD, I am starting to agree with you. Before I was pretty neutral on the changes of spells -> abilities, I got the appeal, and as a DM I had often felt overwhelmed by the big spell lists, so I could sympathize.

But having seen how many rules arguments broke out on Vecna's abilities because they were no longer spells soured me to the idea. I think the rules changes have actually created confusion rather than solve it. Spells for all of their baggage has a ton of rules support that explains how they work, so when I cast a spell, a lot of questions are already answered. When I cast an ability, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions for the DM to figure out.

 

[Blue]

I think they are also not that big on owning their own VTT and such. I mean, it seems like a pretty great idea at first blush, but then you are cannibalizing your own book sales. 4e had some pretty decent online tools, but notice how they have steered clear of a lot of that with 5e. Nothing that would discourage people from paying for books makes sense to them, and its not hard to see why.

Havent; they come out with a VTT is among their goals? Maybe when the new head of Wizards (Microsoft Development VP) and her executive VP (also software development) were hired?

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd put it down to partly the changing demographic from the pre-5e days, partly them rediscovering the hard truth that most people don't know what they actually want.

It’s very true. We know when we experience something whether we like it or not, but we’re usually very bad at figuring out why we liked or disliked it, or predicting whether or not we will like something we haven’t yet experienced.