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.”.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

They can and probably will make previous material "soft" invalid, meaning that the new versions are just stronger mechanically. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Yup. Now we're dealing with mostly-new players and are out of the Apology Edition shadow, where we had to lean into nostalgia out of fear we might not get players back from dread Pathfinder, I think it's time to rebalance spells so that they are actually somewhat balanced, rather than "trad" spells being overpowered, and less-trad spells being mostly less powerful (unless they slipped up, design-wise).

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Level Up's Adept class is quite an adept re-imagining of the monk.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They can and probably will make previous material "soft" invalid, meaning that the new versions are just stronger mechanically. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

3e to 3.5 was 'back compatible' with a free pdf/print pamphlet at gencon.

However even if you started useing sword and fist or defenders of the faith... more and more you would find that complete warrior and later complete divine replaced them. It also showed that some Prestige Classes didn't get updated and if a DM let you use a 'not updated PC class' would be like useinf a UA today that has been abandoned or remade in a book... sure some will let it in but you shouldn't count on it.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

the idea works the mechanics need an overhaul but we are getting that but it needs to be more iconic it needs to be able to stand alone without the copycat drow or the human for the lord of the rings. note I am building on your point not disagreeing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yup. Now we're dealing with mostly-new players and are out of the Apology Edition shadow, where we had to lean into nostalgia out of fear we might not get players back from dread Pathfinder, I think it's time to rebalance spells so that they are actually somewhat balanced, rather than "trad" spells being overpowered, and less-trad spells being mostly less powerful (unless they slipped up, design-wise).

See, I'm completely on board with the idea of 5e as the "apology edition". Now that design and a large portion of the fan base has moved on from that, why can't we inaugurate a new edition reflecting what they want the game to be now, and move 5e to the top of the previous editions pile? Give me a reason why they can't do that that isn't about fear or greed.

 

[TwoSix]

They can and probably will make previous material "soft" invalid, meaning that the new versions are just stronger mechanically. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

I'm totally OK with, and expect, previous material to be edited or superseded by better choices. I just don't think they'll have a Tasha's fighter subclass be unusable with the 2024 fighter chassis, or a background from Ravnica referencing a skill or tool that isn't in the 2024 PHB.

Likewise, I don't think they'll make any big changes to stat allocation, I expect 2024 races to follow the "floating +2/+1" model still. Changing stat allocation to include those bonuses would invalidate the races that didn't get a MotM update.

 

[TwoSix]

Yup. Now we're dealing with mostly-new players and are out of the Apology Edition shadow, where we had to lean into nostalgia out of fear we might not get players back from dread Pathfinder, I think it's time to rebalance spells so that they are actually somewhat balanced, rather than "trad" spells being overpowered, and less-trad spells being mostly less powerful (unless they slipped up, design-wise).

Just having some design confidence in moving 5e from the "We're sorry, please like us again" edition to the "We're the goddamn market leader, let's act like it" edition would be a major step up for development.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm totally OK with, and expect, previous material to be edited or superseded by better choices. I just don't think they'll have a Tasha's fighter subclass be unusable with the 2024 fighter chassis, or a background from Ravnica referencing a skill or tool that isn't in the 2024 PHB.

Likewise, I don't think they'll make any big changes to stat allocation, I expect 2024 races to follow the "floating +2/+1" model still. Changing stat allocation to include those bonuses would invalidate the races that didn't get a MotM update.

To be fair, after the new PH comes out there will be very few un-updated races. I'm not sure how strong a consideration that is.

And if they want to include 1st level feats, they could reduce ASIs to +2 or two +1 to balance it.