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]

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.

I still like to talk about 5e, and engage in the community. Like many here I don't get to play as often as I want to. I just don't see a point to changing the design philosophy of the game and still insisting its the same game. Or at least, I don't see a creative point to it, and that's what matters to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't see the changes they've previewed as a few tweaks. You do, so we're just not going to agree on this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The other reason I feel confident in talking about grind in 4e.... I wrote Stalker0's Guide to Anti-Grind

and it probably remains even to this day the most popular and complimented article I have ever written. I think that highlights that a lot of people on the forums were experiencing 4e grind.

At the very least would you agree that grind in 4e and grind in 3e were radically different beasts and pretending like 4e was somehow worse than 3e is not particularly accurate?

 

[Staffan]

I think the one issue with 4e rituals was the expenditure of "components". Components as a game mechanic is a poor price, as its extremely variable and fiddly. One group could have 2 or even 3x the gold of another. for one group casting a ritual could be a "big deal", and for another group rituals can practically be at will.

4e had the answer but didn't pull the trigger, healing surges.

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Part of the point is to divorce rituals from your daily resources. Also, giving them a financial cost answers questions like "How can people starve if there are good-aligned clerics who can cast create food and water?" Well, if the spell costs more than normal food does, it turns from a world-changer to something adventurers use if they're out of supplies.

but both take a 1st level slot for a wizard or sorcerer (I think maybe artificer maybe not)
becuse tradition says spell slots. there is 0 reason a mage could ot learn mage armor in there book. prep it as a prep slot then have it at will...and still have first level spells as slots like tash's laugh and shield.

As written, there are a number of ways of getting an OK AC as an arcane caster. You can give up a daily spell slot and cast mage armor. You can be a dragonborn (or draconic sorcerer) and enjoy your protective scales. You can be a mountain dwarf and wear armor. You can be a warlock and wear armor. I figure they're all roughly balanced considering opportunity costs. But in the larger scheme of things, AC 13+Dex isn't that special. At first level, giving up one of your three spell slots per day is definitely a cost you need to consider, but once you're up to level 5 or so, who cares, so it might as well be at will?

But shield adds on top of your regular AC, and can push it pretty high. In addition, you can cast it retroactively, so it's never wasted: if your AC is 14 and someone rolled a 22, you don't need to waste the resource. So shield is a strong spell, but it makes up for it by only lasting a short while.

The main difference is that mage armor at will is extremely close to mage armor 1/day in practical effect, while shield at will is essentially a +5 bonus to AC, which is very different. I don't think anyone would protest against a warlock invocation that let you cast shield 1/day, or even 1/short rest.

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

The problem with those is that they are all either warriors who can cast spells a little, or casters who can do a bit of fighting. I want a swordmage that merges fighting with magic. I want something like the Death Knight or Elemental Shaman from World of Warcraft, or how Thor fights once he unlocks his inner lightning.

 

[Parmandur]

At the very least would you agree that grind in 4e and grind in 3e were radically different beasts and pretending like 4e was somehow worse than 3e is not particularly accurate?

Neither was setter or worse, strictly speaking, just different. I found 3E more playable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Neither was setter or worse, strictly speaking, just different. I found 3E more playable.

My experience was emphatically the opposite. 4e had more mechanical heft than 3e in the lowest levels, but the combination of bazillions of spell buffs and the huge risk of "rocket tag" made every high-level 3e combat a friggin' nightmare, literal hours even for "easy" combats. Especially if you ever actually tried to support other people, even though doing so was almost always strategically inferior to focusing on ruthless personal optimization.

 

[Stalker0]

At the very least would you agree that grind in 4e and grind in 3e were radically different beasts and pretending like 4e was somehow worse than 3e is not particularly accurate?

I would say they are so different that I wouldn't even call 3e "grindy". In fact I think 3e had the opposite problem from 4e.

Grind in 4e was often described as "action without purpose". Because defense was higher than offense, the players often knew they were going to win, and it was all just going through the motions. A fight in 4e could take 10 rounds, but rounds 6-10 were basically just "I attack, I deal X...move on". That's the kind of grind I am referring to.

3rd edition combats from a round standpoint were fast, lightning fast. It was often described as "rocket tag", where the higher the level, the faster the combat. Combats were often over in 1-2 rounds, and pretty much "decided" in the first round at higher levels.

However, what I think you are referring to is the "resolution time" of 3e. A round of 3e could take an excessive amount of real time to complete due to the number and complexity of mechanics. One dispel magic = a dozen rolls and recalculations. One strength boosting spell = 5-6 areas to update your sheet, etc etc. And of course the sheer amount of math. I absolutely feel this, I am playing in a 1e pathfinder game where we are 17th level, and let me tell you, combats are SLOOOOOWWW. Not in rounds mind you, again 1-2 rounds is the norm, but those 2 rounds can take 2 hours to run.

In terms of which is worse it depends on your point of view and your party's composition. If you're playing a martial heavy group in 3e resolution times aren't that bad. If your playing a heavy striker group in 4e, grind isn't too bad. Also in 3e, people could sometimes just "tune out", they talk, grab a snack, play on the phone, whatever. Whether that was enjoyable or not was of course up to them. 4e its harder to tune out because your turn comes up quicker, so in theory you are more engaged...but if aren't feeling threatened or that your turn is very important your not going to ever get that excited either.

I think when people look fondly back on 3e, its really "sweet spot" 3e. Sweet spot 3e is like 3-8th level....hell Epic 6 was created specifically to maximize the sweet spot experience. Sweet Spot 3e is some of the best dnd has to offer, its superior to 4e in many ways and in 5e in some ways. There are lots and lots of options, but they are all relatively balanced with each other. Casters and noncasters are relatively balanced. The number of encounters you can do each day....pretty solid but not too much. The time to resolve a combat, pretty quick. Everything just kind of "works" in that level range. Its really when you play outside it that the real evil of 3e mechanics begins to haunt you, and very high level 3e is an absolute nightmare.

 

[Parmandur]

My experience was emphatically the opposite. 4e had more mechanical heft than 3e in the lowest levels, but the combination of bazillions of spell buffs and the huge risk of "rocket tag" made every high-level 3e combat a friggin' nightmare, literal hours even for "easy" combats. Especially if you ever actually tried to support other people, even though doing so was almost always strategically inferior to focusing on ruthless personal optimization.

Simple solution was to not play 3E at high levels. The similar solution for 4E was, alas, ro not play 4E at low levels.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Based on my age, I'd want a Monk using "Hadouken!" or maybe "Get Over Here!" since those are from my teenage years.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I don't see why anyone would call the best selling edition the "apology edition". It's just ... odd. Also please define "a large portion" that has "moved on". The books are still selling quite well, as far as we know the game is still growing by double digits (although eventually it will have to plateau).

The reason they wouldn't want to make drastic changes is because why would they kill the golden goose? Changes are expected, after all they've had a lot of time to work out some of the math and balance, I don't expect to see dramatic changes. It ain't broke, but like anything it could use a tune up.

If wanting to sell books is "greed" well, yeah. Kind of the point of having a for profit company is to make profits.