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.”.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't really agree but definitions of "conservative" vary here. We know some of the rules changes, but there's a bunch of poorly-handled stuff they could change without having a huge impact, and I suspect we'll see more changes to classes/subclasses than people expect. The last major "rules update" book was Tasha's, and the fundamental rules ideas for that are from late 2019, which will be five years ago by the time 5.5/6E comes out. Already the ideas from Tasha's have seen some fairly significant development/tuning with MotM's races, for example. It'll be very interesting to see what the PHB races look like.

My personal expectation is that there will be significantly more changes than 3.5E, and somewhat fewer changes than 2E, in terms of total change. I'd be unsurprised if we lost Hit Dice or they were altered significantly, for example (equally, they might not be), for example. I'd also be unsurprised to see Counterspell DIAF or get significantly more specialized, as another example.

I don't think we'll see any fundamental changes to player-side mathematics.

Bolded your last sentence, because I agree with that, which is what I would define as conservative. Tasha's and MotM aren't isolated: Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven and Dragonlance also point the way towards changes they have said they are interested in moving to Core. I think there is a lot of adjustments that they can make to Classes without fundamentally changing the game, and Crawford has said that part of the nof the Sage Advice Compendium is to act as QA when they rewrite the core books: clear up the confusions that people had in the 2014 iteration.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It really looks like WotC want to move away from Long and Short rests, and also from stat-mod-based uses of things (to Proficiency-bonus uses).

that alone would be a change, but I assume that there is a major shake up or two we have NOT seen coming but this looks like the big enough on it's own.

 

[Parmandur]

like a dedicated swordsman with magic. like a swordmage, duskblade, magus, or other similar classes... just like people who don't know D&D don't know the difference between sorcery wizard and warlock and might call all of them 'mage'

Yes, that's my point: the PHB, let alone all of the supplements, covers the concept.

 

[Parmandur]

that alone would be a change, but I assume that there is a major shake up or two we have NOT seen coming but this looks like the big enough on it's own.

The biggest unseen shakeup would probably be an overhaul of certain Classes, particularly the Monk and Barbarian, to make them less...well, racist.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A swordman with magic? Like the Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Warlo k, or Artificer?

You're illustrating the problem.

D&D 5E has really messed up here. There aren't many ways 5E has messed up, but the "Sword and magic guy" is absolutely one of them. Instead of putting in a "Sword and magic guy" to fit the fantasy archetype (which is a very popular and common one, especially in anime/manga/JRPGs, but even in stuff like Pathfinder), individual 5E designers insisted on taking their own, eccentric "runs at the problem", all of which are hyperspecific, and thus very poor at fitting the fantasy archetype. Classes, in general, shouldn't be hyperspecific - and that's why this needs to be a class, not a random pile of subclasses for other classes.

The reason 5E messed up with that it was an "Apology Edition", and terrified of doing anything novel for the first, what 2-3 years it existed (including as Next).

So they instead of having the class 5E needs, 5E has a multitude of half-arsed, hyperspecific subclasses, which don't, in general, get at the root/core issue in the way that something like 4E's Swordmage, 3E's Duskblade (one of several base classes like this in 3E!) or Pathfinder's Magus do. The person who wants to be the lightly-armoured warrior with Magic doesn't want to be an Elven Bladedancer, or Warlock (at all), and they absolutely hate the idea of being an Artificer (because the whole concept of Artificer is opposed to this, even if the mechanics almost work if you squint hard at them). Normal players do not like "reskinning", either. They want a class and subclasses that work out of the box, and that make sense to them.

D&D 5E hasn't messed up a lot class-wise, but this is a place it definitely has (the other biggest misses are Monk and Sorcerer - Monk because the archetype is wildly outmoded Boomer stuff, Sorcerer because it's a class justified by mechanics not fantasy, which is not a good justification for a class).

Yes, that's my point: the PHB, let alone all of the supplements, covers the concept.

But what you're demonstrating is that it does not. A bunch of half-arsed subclasses which touch on a concept that obviously should be a class is not a smart or effective way to handle things. Something 3E, 4E, and Pathfinder 1E and 2E all understood, I note. I'd say it's curious that 5E didn't, but it's not curious at all - it's because of the "Apology Edition" factor. If 5E had been similar but not an "Apology Edition", I have no doubt Swordmage would have made the cut into 5E, either in the PHB or in an early supplement.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Honestly this list proves @Mind of tempest point entirely.

However, there is an Arcane half-caster Gish in 5E: the Artificer.

it is not a gish as it does not have full weapon proficiency.

me either but I wish it would

the arcane warrior. the fact that you see this archtype over and over agian but don't see it as an archtype amazes me.

that is why ranger is the PERFECT example... it is a class that we have gotten in every edition...

the rage mechanic can be reskined for a monk battle meditation, and even with it's fluff could be a feat. it in and of itself is NOT a thematic distinction.

yes, and when we are talking about new updates, new editions and .5 editions I think is the perfect time to reexamine them.

sure lets hear it


um... if they are banking new big 3 books on JUST new players I hope someone at hasbro looks at them, laughs and fires them on the spot... that is a terrible business decision. I wont say you are wrong though, they may just make a huge mistake.

we agree on the arcane warrior being a thing but in what ways are those classes different from a multiclass, hint they are not I want it to truly grow beyond that and into something with an iconic name and place in the world.

we only get ranger because of the grandfather clause and I want it overhauled.

yes, you can re-fluff a mechanic but the point is that the arcane warrior does not have a unique mechanic with fluff at all.

I am not trying to argue what present classes should be I am arguing why the arcane warrior has never quite solidified into an icon yet.

right I will make a whole thread for it look for the imbued.

 

[TwoSix]

My personal expectation is that there will be significantly more changes than 3.5E, and somewhat fewer changes than 2E, in terms of total change. I'd be unsurprised if we lost Hit Dice or they were altered significantly, for example (equally, they might not be), for example. I'd also be unsurprised to see Counterspell DIAF or get significantly more specialized, as another example.

Yea, I'm hoping they'll be fairly aggressive in re-tuning a lot of the spells. The "best spell meta" has been pretty static since the PHB release, and I'd like to get away from obvious top spells like bless, fireball, and spirit guardians.

And if they don't make changes to obvious proud nails like Barkskin, they just aren't taking the revision seriously enough.

What I don't expect to see is anything that would make previous material invalid, like changing up the levels at which subclass features are gained or modifications to the skill list.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The biggest unseen shakeup would probably be an overhaul of certain Classes, particularly the Monk and Barbarian, to make them less...well, racist.

I don't think we'll see any changes to Barbarian. My feeling is WotC have decided they can brass balls that one out. As long as Pathfinder (which is a bit more "right on" than WotC's D&D) has a Barbarian class, I don't think this will be an issue. There's also the fact that the people primarily impacted by it as racist are people from indigenous ethnicities, who, and I'm going to be blunt, are treated as lower-down on the US-centric list of "valid racism concerns". Despite the US' (and Canada's) grotesque history of anti-Native American horrors, issues involving racism involving Native Americans are broadly seen as "less important" on the left in the US - anti-Black and anti-Asian racism is seen as far more important. At extremes, sometimes it's even suggested that mentioning anti-Native American racism is an attempt by White people to divert attention away from other forms of racism. It's a complex issue but the sum total is that this sort of racism is just pushed to the bottom of the in-tray, issues-wise.

Monk is both a weird ultra-specific racial stereotype (Chinese Shaolin Monk, specifically, and absolutely nothing else), and is very badly designed mechanically, because it incorporates literally everything needed to make a Boomer/1970s stereotype of a Shaolin Monk into the basic class chassis, which is utterly demented and totally unlike any other class design in 5E. So every Monk subclass is "Shaolin Monk BUT ALSO..." which is weird as hell. It also means Monks cannot be "Magic Martial Artist", because they're too hyperspecific, despite that being a fantasy archetype that is wildly popular, and far more popular than "Shaolin Monk" (which again, was last a popular archetype in the 1970s and early 1980s). Again too we come back to the "Apology Edition" factor, as I suspect otherwise Monk might have not made the cut as a PHB class (and thus been possible to bring back cooler, later), and wouldn't have been rushed into this weird 1970s shape it is.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

we only get ranger because of the grandfather clause and I want it overhauled.

Ranger is a complicated one.

Loads of players coming to TT RPGs, esp. entirely new ones, love the fantasy of being a wilderness expert with a bow, and probably a sword or spear and quite likely an animal companion.

So the fantasy of Ranger is a valid one. The problem is that 5E implements it in a way that doesn't work at all well with that fantasy, but instead is more compatible with previous editions of D&D (Apology Edition factor again - interesting that this didn't apply to the more boldly designed Paladin, I'd say).

So yeah, the current design of Ranger being in the game is pure grandfather clause. But a wilderness warrior who often uses a bow and is somewhat stealthy and maybe has an animal friend/friends is an archetype D&D needs to have, and which should be its own class.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yea, I'm hoping they'll be fairly aggressive in re-tuning a lot of the spells. The "best spell meta" has been pretty static since the PHB release, and I'd like to get away from obvious top spells like bless, fireball, and spirit guardians.

there should be a formula... and follow it. Fireball and Magic Missle don't have to be the best spells of those levels

And if they don't make changes to obvious proud nails like Barkskin, they just aren't taking the revision seriously enough.

ugh... yes that needs to be reworked

What I don't expect to see is anything that would make previous material invalid, like changing up the levels at which subclass features are gained or modifications to the skill list.

my guess is all short rest abilities reset, new class features for some classes that need a boost.
what i want all classes rebuilt on a mix/match of warlock and artificer with subclasses
My dream that is at least feasible break fighter and wizard into different classes
My dream that isn't happening 4e rebuilt with new math and less hp