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]

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).

Strangely, I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you.

First we have to consider what is a "magical swordsman" (or a gish). If one takes the definition of "someone who can fight and cast arcane spells", then poof, multiclass fighter mage, done. But I don't think that's what you meant - you mean a swordsman who has integrated magic into his fighting.

You are completely correct that there is no "proper" class focused on this concept, and that there could have been, or perhaps even should have been. I have a magus in a PF game that I hoped (in vain) would switch to 5e. Converting him accurately is nigh impossible. It's particularly bad if you restrict yourself on the PHB. Ironically, the closest we have to a gish is the paladin - but even then that's quite wrong because the flavor of the spells and class as a whole just don't match.

on the other hand, the magical swordsman has always seemed a bit... idiosyncratic to me. Instead of having one "path" to gish-dom, 5e offers a very wide array of ways to do it:

Eldrich knight
Hexblade
College of sword bard (esp with a 1 level dip in hexblade)
bladesinger

aaaand that's not all!

Fighter-mage MC can still work
Arcane Trickster (which pairs well with bladesinger btw)
Some artificers (a more steampunk approach if you will)
Some other fighter subclasses are sort of "magical warriors" - psi warrior and rune knight in particular, and this can be enhanced by taking things like ritual caster.
Hexadin/Sorcadin

If you have a dedicated gish class, half of these options probably wouldn't exist.

 

[overgeeked]

What classes are based on fictional tropes that you think monk is that much different? Do D&D wizards, warlocks, paladins, clerics or rangers really match any pre-existing fiction? Why would monks be any different? Most classes in D&D are their own fictional construct which are inspired by, but do not accurately model, other fiction.

The complaint is usually western vs eastern tropes. That the monk doesn’t fit in with the rest as it’s the solitary eastern fantasy trope is a game dominated by western fantasy tropes.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Strangely, I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you.

First we have to consider what is a "magical swordsman" (or a gish). If one takes the definition of "someone who can fight and cast arcane spells", then poof, multiclass fighter mage, done. But I don't think that's what you meant - you mean a swordsman who has integrated magic into his fighting.

You are completely correct that there is no "proper" class focused on this concept, and that there could have been, or perhaps even should have been. I have a magus in a PF game that I hoped (in vain) would switch to 5e. Converting him accurately is nigh impossible. It's particularly bad if you restrict yourself on the PHB. Ironically, the closest we have to a gish is the paladin - but even then that's quite wrong because the flavor of the spells and class as a whole just don't match.

on the other hand, the magical swordsman has always seemed a bit... idiosyncratic to me. Instead of having one "path" to gish-dom, 5e offers a very wide array of ways to do it:

Eldrich knight
Hexblade
College of sword bard (esp with a 1 level dip in hexblade)
bladesinger

aaaand that's not all!

Fighter-mage MC can still work
Arcane Trickster (which pairs well with bladesinger btw)
Some artificers (a more steampunk approach if you will)
Some other fighter subclasses are sort of "magical warriors" - psi warrior and rune knight in particular, and this can be enhanced by taking things like ritual caster.
Hexadin/Sorcadin

If you have a dedicated gish class, half of these options probably wouldn't exist.

would it not be better to just have one and cut the endless half-built options?

The complaint is usually western vs eastern tropes. That the monk doesn’t fit in with the rest as it’s the solitary eastern fantasy trope is a game dominated by western fantasy tropes.

people also complained about almost anything that was either not Tolkien or not medieval Europe or at least what think those things are.

 

[Parmandur]

The problem is there hasn't been a popular Monk stereotype since the 1970s. It was replaced with Martial Artist in the public consciousness. You might bring in Avatar for the '00s, but Aang is one character among a vast array of supernatural martial artists in that, and probably the least interesting/engaging one (he's almost the "straight-man" for the whole show). D&D only has Monk, not Martial Artist, because of the very peculiar and specific time it was developed.

I definitely agree with your point re: personal range of media though.

Monk is properly a Background, at any rate. Cleric Monks, Wizard Monks and Sorcerer Monks, even Bard Monks, make as much sense historically as Martial Arts Monks.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Monk is properly a Background, at any rate. Cleric Monks, Wizard Monks and Sorcerer Monks, even Bard Monks, make as much sense historically as Martial Arts Monks.

Pretty much every class, archetype, or background could conceivably be switched to a different one of them. There are several that will only stay what they are because of tradition, not because it's the best way to present them.

 

[Oofta]

The complaint is usually western vs eastern tropes. That the monk doesn’t fit in with the rest as it’s the solitary eastern fantasy trope is a game dominated by western fantasy tropes.

But it's loosely based on the western interpretation of what a monk is. It's the old Kung Fu TV show (although the new one is actually closer), Bruce Lee with a smidgen of wire fu movies. It's not strictly a western culture theme, but it is certainly a recognizable image in western society. But that wasn't the complaint, the complaint was that it doesn't match the current image of monks. I disagree with that as well since there are a so many sub-genres of kung fu fiction, such as the aforementioned Kung Fu TV series currently being aired by the CW which at least in part could be a circular reference back to D&D.

If it's a complaint about cultural appropriation, that's a different story altogether. But then again, we don't worry too much that the druid class doesn't really match any historical template either, like most classes and monsters, it's just something pulled out of the blender of fictional tropes.

 

[Oofta]

Monk is properly a Background, at any rate. Cleric Monks, Wizard Monks and Sorcerer Monks, even Bard Monks, make as much sense historically as Martial Arts Monks.

That's why we have backgrounds like Acolyte. We could rename the class to something else, I'm not sure what it would buy to change the label or what that label would be. Fantasy Martial Arts Expert doesn't really roll off the tongue so you have to call them something. Ninja would probably be closer I suppose.

 

[Mind of tempest]

But it's loosely based on the western interpretation of what a monk is. It's the old Kung Fu TV show (although the new one is actually closer), Bruce Lee with a smidgen of wire fu movies. It's not strictly a western culture theme, but it is certainly a recognizable image in western society. But that wasn't the complaint, the complaint was that it doesn't match the current image of monks. I disagree with that as well since there are a so many sub-genres of kung fu fiction, such as the aforementioned Kung Fu TV series currently being aired by the CW which at least in part could be a circular reference back to D&D.

If it's a complaint about cultural appropriation, that's a different story altogether. But then again, we don't worry too much that the druid class doesn't really match any historical template either, like most classes and monsters, it's just something pulled out of the blender of fictional tropes.

druid does not matter as the culture who made them is so dead they might as well be fossils at this point and are white so we would not be appropriating.

 

[Staffan]

You are completely correct that there is no "proper" class focused on this concept, and that there could have been, or perhaps even should have been. I have a magus in a PF game that I hoped (in vain) would switch to 5e. Converting him accurately is nigh impossible.

The magus is still not what I want. The magus still casts the same spells as a wizard. I want a class whose magical abilities are focused around melee combat. I want to reach out with telekinesis (or a summoned tentacle or whatever), grab a foe, and pull them onto my sword. I want to make a mighty leap into a horde of enemies and have my landing be the center of an explosion of some kind of energy, both dealing damage and knocking foes over. I want to transform myself into a lightning bolt, blast across the field of battle and damaging all the foes in my way. I want to summon an illusory double that distracts my foe so I can get a good shot in.

There's no class in 5e or Pathfinder that comes even close to doing that sort of thing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's why we have backgrounds like Acolyte. We could rename the class to something else, I'm not sure what it would buy to change the label or what that label would be. Fantasy Martial Arts Expert doesn't really roll off the tongue so you have to call them something. Ninja would probably be closer I suppose.

yeah Ninja comes with it's own bagage... I would like brawler, martial artist or something along those lines...