D&D (2024) Potential other "rules expansion" books

[sevenbastard]

Depending on how far you want to go, just eliminate caster classes (or just full caster) / subclasses and then offer a few new non-magic classes. I don't see any need to rebalance existing ones. If you want a low-magic you just have few classes. I mean there is reason the One Ring doesn't a dozen classes w/ 4 subclasses each. You can pretty much do low magic out of the box simply by eliminate caster classes. The game works just fine without them.

PS - I want to be clear that I too am In favor of a specifically low/no-magic setting guide.

Agreed.

I made an extensive Sword and Sorcery/ Darksun ish (without psionics) house rule for 5.14e that used only Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and Wizard. Then limited the sub classes available for the first 3.

I also did homebrew for all the species in that world.

Currently 5.24e has a lot less subclass that rely on magic so I haven't updated it.

Now what it really needs is a spelless ranger...

 

[Parmandur]

In terms of the pacing of 5E releases, that is soon. In my opinion, at least.

It's almost as old as Tasha's. That is forever ago now.

Whatever they are working on updates both of the Van Richten's Subclasses...similar to how Forge of the artificer is updating the mechanics from Rising from the Last War.

A mechanical update and campaign model booster, that they can sell with Van Richten's in a bundle...seems like a winner.

 

[dave2008]

Now what it really needs is a spelless ranger...

W used a rogue scout as a spelless ranger

 

[jayoungr]

It's almost as old as Tasha's. That is forever ago now.

Well, we'll see. I personally will be surprised if they're looking to replace Van Richten's Guide, but it could happen.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Your OP did ask “what could be done?”, not “what is likely to be done?”!

This would be a very short thread otherwise.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They've already said they are full, big books. The FRPG isn't just player options (subclassses, spells, Circle Magic, Feats, Backgrounds, Factions), but the general Setting update will be in it as well, so most of the lore outside of the 5 deep dives in the FRAG will be in the FRPG.

So no it's not going to be a cheap Forge of the Artificer style book.

They know FR's primary appeals are the breadth of its settings and the depth of its lore.

The FR players guide is a full size book (so far as we know). But the term "Rules Expansion" I take to refer to smaller books like Forge of the Artificer.

We do not know if the "Horror Subclasses" UA is intended for a full sized book, a smaller Rules Expansion book, or a couple of different books, as has been done in the past to obfuscate unannounced titles.

 

[tombowings]

We used a rogue scout as a spelless ranger

Curious that all your rangers know Thieves' Cant, have proficiency with Thieves' Tools , and lack proficiency with longswords, longbows.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Is Thieves Cant still in the rules? I haven’t seen it since BG1.

Also, rogues have longsword proficiency.

 

[tombowings]

Is Thieves Cant still in the rules? I haven’t seen it since BG1.

Also, rogues have longsword proficiency.

In the 2024 version, they have Thieves' Cant at 1st level and are no longer proficiency with longswords, only "Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property" (p. 129).

Maybe this fits a certain wilderness archetype, but it doesn't fit the grizzled outdoorsman I imagine when I hear the word "ranger."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

grizzled outdoorsman

Which is the issue. This is not the only interpretation of what a ranger is (and is covered by fighter). To some people, the word Ranger means: a member of a military reconnaissance unit; a law enforcement officer responsible for a large area; someone who is friends with a talking bear, etc. and the original D&D ranger, Aragorn, was more of a grimy paladin with magical healing powers.

Everyone comes to Ranger with a different preconception of what it means, then are disappointed when the D&D class is not a perfect match.