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.”.

DF9A3109-D723-4DBC-9633-79A5894C83FF.jpeg

 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
They should swap paladin and ranger casting. Let rangers prepare spells, allowing them to adjust to different situations and terrain types (and maybe allow them to swap spells on a short rest once per day, so they can adapt mid-day). Paladins on the other hand could have spells known, representing their holy gifts (plus, most of their spells are just going to be smites anyway).
The ranger should get spells known based on their favored enemies and terrain like I said 10 years ago.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The ranger should get spells known based on their favored enemies and terrain like I said 10 years ago.
Mike Mearls in the Happy Fun Hour laid out he would have dine the Rabger if he could do it over again, and it boiled down to making "Favored Terrain" the Subclass at Level 1, ao a Forest Ranger or Mountain Ranger would be the organizing principle for the archetype.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Really, a complete redesign of the ranger that includes herbalism and similar "nature alchemy" wouldn't be a bad thing. But that would require WotC acknowledging that you don't need spells to do magic.

I believe an early goal of 5e was to go heavy on spells to court old school players and lower the learning requirements of new players.

However the designers underestimated how much new players could understand do to their experience with video games and the "middle school" heavily desired fully supported systems that matched the assumptions better than spells.
 

Reynard

Legend
I believe an early goal of 5e was to go heavy on spells to court old school players and lower the learning requirements of new players.

However the designers underestimated how much new players could understand do to their experience with video games and the "middle school" heavily desired fully supported systems that matched the assumptions better than spells.
The ranger is especially weird because it is both heavily tied to a specific archetype (Aragorn) AND has been modified both in D&D and associated media (especially video games) for a long time. I think they need to eliminate the class, myself, and create Fighter, Rogue, Paladin and Druid archetypes for rangers. But they won't.
 


ssvegeta555

Explorer
Oh wow, look at that, yet another edition. Woop dee doo. Can't they just stop this new edition crap? So damn stupid to one day be in my 70s and see D&D 14th Edition!

The game should have stayed in 3e. Would have been such an awesome D&D game to have products from 2008-current for 3e. Such a terrible tragedy. That Fiendish Codex III: Yugoloths will never come will it?
If I had control of WotC to make one book of my choice it'll absolutely be Fiendish Codex III, and it'll be written for 3.5. I was really hoping that book would come out before 4e hit. But it never came.
 

Oh wow, look at that, yet another edition. Woop dee doo. Can't they just stop this new edition crap? So damn stupid to one day be in my 70s and see D&D 14th Edition!

Yeah. Evolution is crap. Imagine products were never updated and you had to do with everything as it was originally done.

I don't think that is feasible. But hey there are people who don't believe in evolution.
 

Staffan

Legend
The ranger should get spells known based on their favored enemies and terrain like I said 10 years ago.
The problem with making the ranger based on a particular terrain (at least combat-wise) is that that makes them the most situational of classes. Either you base their power level outside of the terrain in which case they become OP inside it, or you base it on being in their terrain in which case they're weak outside of it.

That's why I like preparation for rangers (along with a broader spell list), because it lets them adjust their stuff as they go. We're in the desert? Create Water is nice. We're in a swamp? Water walk, Water breathing, Protection from poison, Lesser restoration. In the mountains? Feather Fall, Spider Climb, Spike Stones. Stuff like that.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
The problem with making the ranger based on a particular terrain (at least combat-wise) is that that makes them the most situational of classes. Either you base their power level outside of the terrain in which case they become OP inside it, or you base it on being in their terrain in which case they're weak outside of it.

That's why I like preparation for rangers (along with a broader spell list), because it lets them adjust their stuff as they go. We're in the desert? Create Water is nice. We're in a swamp? Water walk, Water breathing, Protection from poison, Lesser restoration. In the mountains? Feather Fall, Spider Climb, Spike Stones. Stuff like that.
My original suggestion back in 2012 was t have each favred enemyand fvord terrain grant a bonus that applied to situations outside their specialty. A desert ranger would have elemental resistance spells to endure the heat but it would apply to a red dragon's breath or fireball. a goblin hunting range's cleaving strike would work on orc and human raiders as well.

Arctic: Endure Elements + Heavy Armor Defense
Forest: Entangle + Light Armor Defense
Plains: Longstrider + Mounted Combat
Dragons: Wingclipper Strike + Evasion
Giants: Giantkiller Strike + Dodge
Humaniods: Cleaving Strike + Mobility

Someone in WOTC saw what I wrote and stunted it into a subclass instead of making it a base class.
 

Frozen_Heart

Adventurer
Ranger seems to be trying to be lots of classes in one which isn't ideal.

  • Aragorn type ranger fighter.
  • Sneaky forest marksman.
  • Primal themed half caster.
  • Pet class.

The top two could easily be subclasses to fighter and rogue, while the pet class becomes its own thing. Leaving the primal half caster as ranger.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Ranger seems to be trying to be lots of classes in one which isn't ideal.

  • Aragorn type ranger fighter.
  • Sneaky forest marksman.
  • Primal themed half caster.
  • Pet class.

The top two could easily be subclasses to fighter and rogue, while the pet class becomes its own thing. Leaving the primal half caster as ranger.
The ranger class could be all those archetypes. You just can't do it off the 3e ranger's chassis. WOTC's goala of bringing back old school and 3e players, making warrior classes simple, and requiring a 90% satisfactory threshold in playtest surveys toinclude materal forced then to use an poor outdated chassis for the ranger class (and monk class and sorcerer class).

They should have created a new chassis or reused the 4th edition one.

The question now is of they will redo some of the clsses in 5.5e or just tweak the 5e ones that miss the mark today.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
The problem with making the ranger based on a particular terrain (at least combat-wise) is that that makes them the most situational of classes. Either you base their power level outside of the terrain in which case they become OP inside it, or you base it on being in their terrain in which case they're weak outside of it.

That's why I like preparation for rangers (along with a broader spell list), because it lets them adjust their stuff as they go. We're in the desert? Create Water is nice. We're in a swamp? Water walk, Water breathing, Protection from poison, Lesser restoration. In the mountains? Feather Fall, Spider Climb, Spike Stones. Stuff like that.
Yes, please.
 

Frozen_Heart

Adventurer
The ranger class could be all those archetypes. You just can't do it off the 3e ranger's chassis. WOTC's goala of bringing back old school and 3e players, making warrior classes simple, and requiring a 90% satisfactory threshold in playtest surveys toinclude materal forced then to use an poor outdated chassis for the ranger class (and monk class and sorcerer class).

They should have created a new chassis or reused the 4th edition one.

The question now is of they will redo some of the clsses in 5.5e or just tweak the 5e ones that miss the mark today.
I mean sure the ranger class could incorporate the pet class, but I'd rather it was done separately like pathfinder has done it. That way so much more variety and power budget can go into the pet.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I mean sure the ranger class could incorporate the pet class, but I'd rather it was done separately like pathfinder has done it. That way so much more variety and power budget can go into the pet.
Rangers can have pets. The issue is that how a ranger uses a pet is different from how a "pet class" uses a pet.

The D&D ranger would not play pokemon with their companion. It would use it as a flanker, harrier, mount, or focal point for their magic. It would require less design space if you focus down on the role.

A pet class would be a great addition for people who want PC power pets.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
A hermit lives in isolation. A large portion (the majority?) of monks live communally. So... no?

(edit to note that yes, some monks live alone)
Monakos is the Greek word for Hermit, which is what was used for early Christian religous. Monks who live together started as hermits who share some stuff in common. Which is totally seperate from Taoist and Buddhiat traditions used by the D&D Monk, so thematically this is a huge mess.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
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.
I have the solution!!!

 


Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
They should swap paladin and ranger casting. Let rangers prepare spells, allowing them to adjust to different situations and terrain types (and maybe allow them to swap spells on a short rest once per day, so they can adapt mid-day). Paladins on the other hand could have spells known, representing their holy gifts (plus, most of their spells are just going to be smites anyway).
this is sheer speculation, but...

it feels like the thinking was this - they wanted the ranger and the paladin to be equivalent spellcasters. So the paladin is limited because they blow most of their slots as smites, and the rangers is limited because of few known spells.

... I don't think it actually works, but that's what my gut is telling me.
 

In keeping with the idea I have that Superiority Die should be generally used in more places beyond a single subclass of Fighter (I still think all fighters should use it). I think Monks can tap a little into Superiority Die, maybe something like 1 Ki point does a maneuver and it's their martial arts damage die that determines the size of the Superiority Die roll. Some Bards (the more fighty-ones as opposed to the more spellcastery ones) could use a bardic performance to do a Manuever with their Bardic Performance Die as the Superiority Die roll.
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top