D&D 5E (2014) 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.”.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

you know what I mean most classes have a clear none mechanical fantasy like how they get their powers in a way that can't be just made by multiclassing.

no I still don't know what you mean... I can describe to you what archtypes I would want and how it would story beat go... the fact that you CAN multiclass into it would also remove ranger paliden from the class list (rogue/druid and fighter/cleric respectively)

In fact my argument for breaking up the fighter is it is doing too much coverage and doing it all badly... Look at the middle earth book where no class gets spells (so they are all break downs of fighter and rogue) and with the exception of scholar all of them are fitting under fighter or rogue... wait also there is a barbarian reskin too

edit: to be clear... the bladesinger, the eldritch knight, the swordbard and the hexblade are all cudgels for the gish becuse we don't have a swordmage/magus style class IMO

 

[Parmandur]

I feel like some people are really self-deluding about the level of backwards-compatibility here, and also self-deluding about how willing WotC are to replace books (which is pretty funny given MotM replacing two books).

WotC have not promised "100% backwards compatibility", contrary to what some people have claimed. They've never said anything of the sort. They've strongly implied that they want the books to be basically backwards-compatible, but let's be real, 2E was basically backwards-compatible with 1E. Whilst I don't think the structure of the game will change as much as 1E to 2E, I do think that's more the kind of change we're looking at. They key is that adventures/setting material still works/makes sense, and it should do, for the most part.

There's no way stuff that's in Tasha's or Xanathars will be "a sidebar". That's laughable. Changes will get made, and they're not going to segregate off stuff on the basis of it appearing in older books, which would only confuse and frustrate players, especially newer ones.


No, that's not obvious and indeed it doesn't make any sense at all. MotM replaced and severely changed two existing books just recently. Tasha's and Xanathar's will largely suffer the same fate. Sure, some stuff won't make the PHB/DMG, but that'll probably go into a new book which contains material from both and likely other sources as well.

I think one of the major reasons they might be talking about 5.5/6E now, before many people are, is to manage expectations. 5.5/6E has the potential to piss off people in both directions. Some people are irrationally expecting 100% backwards compatibility for everything, and absolutely minimal changes, and that's very unlikely to be the case, for the simple fact that it won't sell books, and it won't "refresh" the game. Other people are apparently expecting some pretty wild redesigns, including entire new classes, or fundamentally different math. I suspect they will also be disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new class or two in the first couple of years of 5.5/6E, but I would be extremely surprised if there was on in the PHB.

The main thing I hope about WotC showing people stuff early is that we don't see the same sort of weird design conservatism they had with DNDNext, where every time they had a good or clever idea, they did take-backsies immediately (except advantage/disadvantage), not even seemingly responding to criticism (often all visible discussion was largely positive, as per the Next Sorcerer, for example). The people who irrationally expecting few changes and 100% backwards-compatibility will freak out and be very noisy if WotC show any actual changes at all - this will include a whole bunch of people new to TTRPGs with 5E, note, who have never seen an edition change and will be outraged by it - I just hope WotC is anticipating that, and has enough spine to realize that just because some people are being loud, doesn't mean they have good ideas re: design or the long-term health of D&D.

Here's the thing, though: we already have most of the rule changes implemented already. We know it is going to be as conservative as all get out.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Honestly, I don't think core classes should be more than imagery and recognizable fantasy tropes. Tying that imagery into a specific fiction should be what setting books are for.

the problem with that is that eat setting pages plus most classes have a recognisable fantasy, artificer is a literal magic engineer, paladins are holy knights with magic and so one some basic idea of what it is to sell it or do you want to go back to 4e technical manual books?

no I still don't know what you mean... I can describe to you what archtypes I would want and how it would story beat go... the fact that you CAN multiclass into it would also remove ranger paliden from the class list (rogue/druid and fighter/cleric respectively)

In fact my argument for breaking up the fighter is it is doing too much coverage and doing it all badly... Look at the middle earth book where no class gets spells (so they are all break downs of fighter and rogue) and with the exception of scholar all of them are fitting under fighter or rogue... wait also there is a barbarian reskin too

edit: to be clear... the bladesinger, the eldritch knight, the swordbard and the hexblade are all cudgels for the gish becuse we don't have a swordmage/magus style class IMO

look we have never been able in all of dnd or pathfinder to make an arcane gish that is Iconic.
paladin can't quite be made from cleric/fighter it has some other bits to it now.
the ranger struggles as it lacks the thing that makes it an icon it is almost there it just needs to be made more defined and unique.

the magus/swordmage are mechanically fine but lack the iconic news they need something more to them, I might have an idea that will work for it but it is still in the early stages.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

do you want to go back to 4e technical manual books?

gods yes... please.

look we have never been able in all of dnd or pathfinder to make an arcane gish that is Iconic.

swordmage
Magus
Dusk Blade

that is just off the top of my head 3 classes 1 4e 1 3.5 and 1 PF

paladin can't quite be made from cleric/fighter it has some other bits to it now.

it has the lay hands, the smite and the auras... they can all be spells or class feature through subclass nothing stands out as 'only this iconic idea' the cleric even started as the holy knight

the ranger struggles as it lacks the thing that makes it an icon it is almost there it just needs to be made more defined and unique.

and yet every edition we get what is basically a rouge (thief)/Druid as a class... and they try to tack on some fighter stuff based on the LotR calling someone a ranger.

the magus/swordmage are mechanically fine but lack the iconic news they need something more to them, I might have an idea that will work for it but it is still in the early stages.

what makes barbarian, ranger, paliden even sorcerer unique?

 

[TheBanjoNerd]

I know I'm in the minority but part of me wants them to rereleases 4e & Essentials as "5.5" LOL
So many things newer players want were in that edition.

Given that their new monster design skews very closely to 4e's design, and that I'm an unashamed 4e fan, I would love to see this happen.

 

[Reynard]

Given that their new monster design skews very closely to 4e's design, and that I'm an unashamed 4e fan, I would love to see this happen.

What did they do, double the hit points again?

(it's a joke)

 

[TwoSix]

the problem with that is that eat setting pages plus most classes have a recognisable fantasy, artificer is a literal magic engineer, paladins are holy knights with magic and so one some basic idea of what it is to sell it or do you want to go back to 4e technical manual books?

I think the key idea there is "most classes have a recognizable fantasy". Identifying classes and making a choice for D&D shouldn't be any harder than picking a class in Diablo. Those classes have lore once you get into the game, but the initial choice is purely based on concept with recognizable mechanical conceits (barbarians will get into melee and smash, wizards will blast from a distance, necromancers will fight with minions and death magic, etc.)

 

[Stalker0]

4e doesn't have grindy combats. It just has long combats. It was specifically designed to try to make having those long combats be actually fun to play through.

I'll completely disagree here. While 4e did not have as many problems as people think, especially in the early days of the game, it absolutely had grind.

Defense scaled faster than offense for 4e monsters, and once you burned through encounter and daily powers, your at-wills (especially in the early days when a lot of new at-wills had been created yet) just didn't do a lot of damage. Against solos and some elites, it was grind city.

 

[Mind of tempest]

gods yes... please.

swordmage
Magus
Dusk Blade

that is just off the top of my head 3 classes 1 4e 1 3.5 and 1 PF

it has the lay hands, the smite and the auras... they can all be spells or class feature through subclass nothing stands out as 'only this iconic idea' the cleric even started as the holy knight

and yet every edition we get what is basically a rouge (thief)/Druid as a class... and they try to tack on some fighter stuff based on the LotR calling someone a ranger.

what makes barbarian, ranger, paliden even sorcerer unique?

not expecting the first one.

I acknowledge those classes but in what ways are they thematically not mechanically distinct?

ranger is a poor example as everyone knows that they are lacking something to finalise them the catalyst that will truly make them great.

barbarian is rage and how it affects people, ranger no one knows hence why it is a mess, paladin holy knight someone who only fights for higher ideals, sorcerer is magic as genetics to be born more than other.
not saying I like all of them but those are what they are at the present time.

I think the key idea there is "most classes have a recognizable fantasy". Identifying classes and making a choice for D&D shouldn't be any harder than picking a class in Diablo. Those classes have lore once you get into the game, but the initial choice is purely based on concept with recognizable mechanical conceits (barbarians will get into melee and smash, wizards will blast from a distance, necromancers will fight with minions and death magic, etc.)

true and there is nothing wrong with that but they become more than mear mechanics by having an identity beyond mechanics, the problem being we have yet to generate one, I might have the answer if you want me to say it.

 

[OB1]

who do you think is going to pay for the 2+ years of development of this anniversary edition if they write off 3/4 the current users?

New players. It's a continuation of the strategy to have a larger base to sell a range of product to. If you don't need the 50th AE edition to play the 4 other products they produce per year after it comes out, those products will sell more copies. The reason for the AE edition, IMHO, is to make it easier to acquire new players. Selling it to existing players is a nice bonus, not a requirement for the product to be successful.