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.”.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I think this is the only thing I can think of, where Level-Up kinda dropped the ball.
with only +1/+1, the standard array of 15/14/13/12/10/8 only has one single optimal way of adding your bonuses to get the highest total of +X`s. Even when you roll, having an even and an odd number to add allows for more optimal choices.

A similar thing annoyed me in vanilla 5e: The varian human would no feel so bad, if the standard array was 15/14/13/12/11/9. With the normal array, variant human gives exactly the same number of +X´s as the standard human, and a feat, and a skill. Your now uneven scores are probably never raised and thus never relevant.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd argue that "unarmed combatant" is a broad enough archetype to support a class, and "Shaolin-style monk" could be a subclass of that.

yeah the idea that some classes are super nero "this concept" while other sets of concepts "this, and this and that, don't forget this, oh and that" all get grouped into one. Some classes need to be broadened some chopped up and the whole idea of the structure reimagined... I am just afraid that the 2024 books will not be up to that much of a a rewrite.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A similar thing annoyed me in vanilla 5e: The varian human would no feel so bad, if the standard array was 15/14/13/12/11/9. With the normal array, variant human gives exactly the same number of +X´s as the standard human, and a feat, and a skill. Your now uneven scores are probably never raised and thus never relevant.

a few years back I had 2 guys complain we didn't have enough humans in the game (there answer was to mix the varriant and base human togather) I just switched to every stat being odd in our array and over time we saw more and more base line humans... like magic.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

From what I can see that does seem like movement in the correct direction, for sure. My feeling is WotC aren't going to do anything clever with Monk, sadly, not until they do a full edition with more limited backward compatibility.

As a start, I'd be happy if they offloaded all the weird Remo Williams stuff out of the base class, and onto a subclass.

 

[Minigiant]

From what I can see that does seem like movement in the correct direction, for sure. My feeling is WotC aren't going to do anything clever with Monk, sadly, not until they do a full edition with more limited backward compatibility.

Part of the problem is WotC doesn't explore ideas outside of the designers personal range of media until get late into an edition and they have to.

If it were me.
I would have taken a popular or most popular example of a monk from every decade

The 70s Monk
The 80s Monk
The 90s Monk
The 00s Monk
The 10s Monk

...and made them the first 5 monk subclasses.

But it's sorta too late for that for 5e.

 

[darjr]

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.

Because they like this edition and it’s well tested by the trials of time? I dint get it. Just stop buying new books and you have exactly what you want.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Part of the problem is WotC doesn't explore ideas outside of the designers personal range of media until get late into an edition and they have to.

If it were me.
I would have taken a popular or most popular example of a monk from every decade

The 70s Monk
The 80s Monk
The 90s Monk
The 00s Monk
The 10s Monk

...and made them the first 5 monk subclasses.

But it's sorta too late for that for 5e.

it might work better to look into the history of martial arts heroes so it can copy more core ideas instead of a distent half mangled copy?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Because they like this edition and it’s well tested by the trials of time? I dint get it. Just stop buying new books and you have exactly what you want.

And this time there is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater...

5e is great and a few tweaks here and there don't hurt.

 

[darjr]

And this time there is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater...

5e is great and a few tweaks here and there don't hurt.

Sure, but they want an edition change so they can have an edition all to themselves. Which they can do now.

 

[Minigiant]

it might work better to look into the history of martial arts heroes so it can copy more core ideas instead of a distent half mangled copy?

You can do both.

That's how you should design classes. You research what are the most historic and popular representations of a class. Put the stuff many of them have in common in the base class and put the unique aspects in subclasses. 5e did Step One but it forced the traditional old school archtype into the base classand branched from their in Step Three. Now there's no way to go back and redo Step Two while remaining backward compatible without tripling compexity.