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.”.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

I am a HUGE 4e fan... and HP math was WAY too high... most combats played out as fun at first, maybe even tense but about half way through everyone knew who was winning and it was just going through the motions.

a 'hack' fix a lot of people talked about was double monster damage and half monster hp... I think an updated monster and PC math was needed. I think it could (especially with some 5e inovations and throwing back to 2e for some ideas) be the perfect D&D... but it wasn't perfect it needed some refineing.

 

[darjr]

I am a HUGE 4e fan... and HP math was WAY too high... most combats played out as fun at first, maybe even tense but about half way through everyone knew who was winning and it was just going through the motions.

a 'hack' fix a lot of people talked about was double monster damage and half monster hp... I think an updated monster and PC math was needed. I think it could (especially with some 5e inovations and throwing back to 2e for some ideas) be the perfect D&D... but it wasn't perfect it needed some refineing.

From monster manual 3 onward and the monsters in the GammaWorld game, things were better.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.)

this is also why wizards needs to be a class type not a class...

Beguiler
Warmage
Necromancer
Swordmage
Artificer
Sorcerer
Warlock

can all be classes, have 3-5 subclasses and fill the role of wizard... but with destinct class features play style and break the damn spell list up... no 1 class should have that big a list. Have there be overlap, but each class should have 2-3 exclussive spells per level (only they get it) and each level should have a handful of 2-3 of these classes get it but not all and then have a big 'most of these classes' get list

 

[Parmandur]

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?

People aged 12-24, or younger.

 

[Parmandur]

swordmage
Magus
Dusk Blade

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

Honestly this list proves @Mind of tempest point entirely.

However, there is an Arcane half-caster Gish in 5E: the Artificer.

 

[Parmandur]

It's pretty cool. Has a lot of teleportation and trickery powers--some of the best stuff you could do as a Swordmage was, ironically, to mark a target and then run away from them. Because, given the right choice of feature (what 5e would call "subclass") and powers, if you "run away" then the target would have to choose between accepting your mark punishment because they attack one of yor friends, or potentially waste its turn chasing after you (potentially eating OAs from your friends) and maybe not even being able to hit you because of your high defenses.

It's not my favorite Defender in 4e (that would be Paladin), but it's definitely got some interesting mechanics in it.


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.

Now, obviously, there are some people who just think ALL fights are grinds, no matter what's involved in them. But 4e wasn't nearly as grindy as 3.X, especially at high levels. (I've tried to play high-level PF. Single turns can take half an hour sometimes. It's ridiculous.)

The only difference between "long combats" and "grind combats" is whether one enjoys the grind.

At the tabletop, grind is tedious to me: if I want that, I'll play a computer RPG or wargame.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

not expecting the first one.

me either but I wish it would

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

the arcane warrior. the fact that you see this archtype over and over agian but don't see it as an archtype amazes me.

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

that is why ranger is the PERFECT example... it is a class that we have gotten in every edition...

barbarian is rage and how it affects people,

the rage mechanic can be reskined for a monk battle meditation, and even with it's fluff could be a feat. it in and of itself is NOT a thematic distinction.

not saying I like all of them but those are what they are at the present time.

yes, and when we are talking about new updates, new editions and .5 editions I think is the perfect time to reexamine them.

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.

sure lets hear it

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.

um... if they are banking new big 3 books on JUST new players I hope someone at hasbro looks at them, laughs and fires them on the spot... that is a terrible business decision. I wont say you are wrong though, they may just make a huge mistake.

 

[TwoSix]

this is also why wizards needs to be a class type not a class...

Beguiler
Warmage
Necromancer
Swordmage
Artificer
Sorcerer
Warlock

can all be classes, have 3-5 subclasses and fill the role of wizard... but with destinct class features play style and break the damn spell list up... no 1 class should have that big a list. Have there be overlap, but each class should have 2-3 exclussive spells per level (only they get it) and each level should have a handful of 2-3 of these classes get it but not all and then have a big 'most of these classes' get list

I’d probably have “wizard” eat the evoker/warmage concept, but there definitely shouldn’t be a generalist caster.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's because different spells care about different aspects.

Shield vs mage armor are fairly balanced when you need to cast them. Mage armor is a little better than wearing studded leather armor (AC 13+Dex, lasts all day long), and shield gives you +5 AC for one round and is cast as a reaction. One is a preparation spell, the other is an emergency button with limited charges (that it shares with other spells).

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.

in fact you will see rituals already ar half way there.

Healing spells are likewise limited as a resource, because otherwise you have infinite hit points as long as you survive the fight. The level on healing spells is there as a resource management detail: healing lots of damage takes up a lot of your magic power. Speak with dead on the other hand is primarily level-limited to keep it out of the hands of low-level characters. It's a rare occasion that you would need to speak with dead multiple times in a day. Speak with dead could probably have been a ritual, to be honest.

again it could be at will for all casters that know/prep it give great flavor and not unbalance the game, but tradition is for spell slot useage.

Speaking of which, that's a thing I'd love to see but recognize that I probably won't: a return to 4e rituals.

you and me both

 

[Stalker0]

I am a HUGE 4e fan... and HP math was WAY too high... most combats played out as fun at first, maybe even tense but about half way through everyone knew who was winning and it was just going through the motions.

a 'hack' fix a lot of people talked about was double monster damage and half monster hp... I think an updated monster and PC math was needed. I think it could (especially with some 5e inovations and throwing back to 2e for some ideas) be the perfect D&D... but it wasn't perfect it needed some refineing.

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.