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.”.

 

[Ancalagon]

I loved 3E so much, it's the Edition I started with. But I just couldn't play it as written after 5E.

The first game one plays always leaves a mark. Why I like Troika! so much, it's based on the first ttrpg I've every played or ran.

 

[Alby87]

I just not understand people wanting Xanathar and Tasha material in the new PHB. It is obvious they are still going to sell those book, so no freebies. The only thing I can see backported from Tasha are the "optional class feature", as they are patches on main game.

They have to release a game that's still mechanically compatible with adventures and such: letting people being more powerful just because they builded against 5.5E would invalidate adventure books and DDALs.

They'll revise the classes, reorganize feats and spells. And no more.
The MM will receive the MPMM treatment.
The only book I expect a reorganization and rewrite of good chucks is the DMG. Is the most "panned" book of the core trio, people calling almost useless. It's a good book, but no newbie friendly.

And yes, we will see 5.5E changes in the new starter set. I'm waiting to see it!

 

[teitan]

5e was wildly successful, so if it's not broke, don't fix it.

Here's what we'll probably see:
--cool new art, graphics and look
--some mechanics tweaks but nothing radical
--incorporate more non-combat skills into character classes
--systemically address concerns with race, gender, and issues like that.

What I would like to see but don't expect:
--Some attempt to streamline combat so it's not so grindingly long sometimes. No idea how you do this without radical changes. I think they are aware of this problem but not sure if they'll take this up. It might be that characters and monsters could simply be more lethal, thus shortening combat.

HA you should play 3.x or 4e if you think 5e combats are grinds!

 

[teitan]

Heh, this just made me think:

"Fifty years. Fifth edition. That's ten years per edition!"​

I guess that's one of those "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" -type of observations.

It's kinda more if we just tackles it as the fifth editions of Advanced D&D which is a revision of 0e in the same way BX and BECMI are revisions of 0e. SO you have 0e-1e (it wasn't revised, they just did new covers), 2e, revised 2e with the black covers, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Essentials (which was a soft but heavy rethinking) and now 5e and 5eR (I refuse to call it 5.5) so that is 10 editions. 2e Revised was simple tweaks and clarifications akin to Cthulu editions, small subtle and unnoticeable changes. 3e started the whole an edition is a different game that people seem to be expecting with D&D since 4e and 5e are totally different games from 3.x era and all of them are wholly different mechanically from 0e-2eR.

Since it is technically the 5th edition of AD&D though, one shouldn't be throwing Basic versions of D&D into the dog pile. It was very clear that 3e was supposed to be the successor to 2e and Basic D&D was a different game even if modules etc were still largely compatible. The ability scores were different, the hit points were different, the monsters functioned differently, the attack matrixes were different. It was just easy to whiff over that and not really care until 4e when it was really different.

 

[teitan]

I know many people who still play older editions (OD&D to 4e) and are perfectly fine with it. WoTC doesn't have direct access to your wallet to force you to buy the new edition.

Btw, you might see 14th edition much sooner than you think! 5e is actually the 10th edition (excluding Rules Cyclopedia).

• 1974 (original)
• 1977 (Basic Set 1st ver.)
• 1977 (Advanced D&D)
• 1981 (Basic Set 2nd ver.)
• 1983 (Basic Set 3rd ver.)
• 1989 (AD&D 2nd Edition)
• 2000 (3rd edition)
• 2003 (v3.5)
• 2008 (4th edition)
• 2014 (5th edition)

Including Basic D&D is ridiculous. 5e is a continuation of the AD&D lineage and they were two different games. They were supported for and marketed to different audiences. It's kinda like saying a Gameboy is the same as a Super Nintendo. Sure, with an adapter you can play a Gameboy or Gameboy Color game on your Super NES but they aren't the same system, it requires conversion.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Bring back Race as Class!
Bring back Gold for EXP!
Bring back the Commoner class!

 

[teitan]

I suspect Lineage would allows choice of any feat asRace has more mechanical meat.

Background has less and thus would limitedto feats like Skilled, Tough,, and other specially tailor feats.


Successful doesn't mean perfect.

5e has a few widely accepted issues and a few common compliants that were not taken care of due to a no major errata policy.

MotM is major errata. The last couple years has been patches to fix "issues" with the game as new people came in and the tinkerers became the minority and we started seeing a move towards "D&D is broken and why does every table have their own rules" in social media. For a little while I have been seeing comments to the effect of "We are tired of fixing your game WOTC" in the Twitter and Youtube sphere because a lot of new players weren't in on the ground floor of 5e where one of the design goals was to make 5e the DM's game where the DM could tweak the game to play how they wanted but with the rise of "you don't need the DMG to run D&D" and ignoring that things are called out as optional rules and are just... rules.

A friend had some players insist on using the flanking rules in one of his games and he said you so sure about that? They were very excited about it. They loved the first session with them, then he used the same tactics with monsters... they decided at the end of the session they didn't like the flanking rules anymore.

Players need options, but DMs also need options and to carry the table. There needs to be a balance as was learned from the weight of the 3.x and 4e era. Being able to house rule for things that aren't working isn't "a broken game" or a game that "needs fixed". What needs fixed in D&D is hit point bloat.

 

[teitan]

Strixhaven and Dragonlance have a higher assumption of based power than normal 5e according to WOTC. That's why you get a feat in your background.

I doubt 5.5e will give everyone a free feat for free because many people say 5e is too easy as is and base PCs are too powerful.

If 5e have a Optional Flaw system, then mabye you could take a flaw to get a feat. This is whay I see them doing with Custom Lineages. You can take an Undeath Lineage and get a feat and some undead like features but have to take a Flaw of Undeath like vulerablity to fire or disadvantage to being charmed or frightened.

God I hope not, I like that feats are an optional rule. Do not make them core again. Optional makes it easier to have a casual pick up game and say "make some 9th level characters" and just start playing 15 minutes later with people avoiding analysis paralysis trying to pick their feats.

 

[teitan]

Creawford literally said in the Revisted Dragonlance UA video "If you are playing a group of characters in this global fantasy war (the War of the Lance) you have extra capabilities."

So the free feat or feats will likely only be for high power settings like Dragonlance, Strixhaven, and Dark Sun.
Normal settings will likely require a cost to get a bonus feat.

So there will be 2 Feat Settings, 1 Feat Settings, and 0 Feat Settings.

They started that with Theros

 

[EzekielRaiden]

people keep raving about that class, I'm going to have to look it up...

anyway, I played a psi warrior with the sage background and the ritual caster feat. It was fun

It's pretty cool. Has a lot of teleportation and trickery powers--some of the best stuff you could do as a Swordmage was, ironically, to mark a target and then run away from them. Because, given the right choice of feature (what 5e would call "subclass") and powers, if you "run away" then the target would have to choose between accepting your mark punishment because they attack one of yor friends, or potentially waste its turn chasing after you (potentially eating OAs from your friends) and maybe not even being able to hit you because of your high defenses.

It's not my favorite Defender in 4e (that would be Paladin), but it's definitely got some interesting mechanics in it.

HA you should play 3.x or 4e if you think 5e combats are grinds!

4e doesn't have grindy combats. It just has long combats. It was specifically designed to try to make having those long combats be actually fun to play through.

Now, obviously, there are some people who just think ALL fights are grinds, no matter what's involved in them. But 4e wasn't nearly as grindy as 3.X, especially at high levels. (I've tried to play high-level PF. Single turns can take half an hour sometimes. It's ridiculous.)