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.”.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

 

[Reynard]

The ranger should get spells known based on their favored enemies and terrain like I said 10 years ago.

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.

 

[Minigiant]

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]

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.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'd say that Geralt is a Ranger, with access to some arcane spells like Thunderwave, Burning Hands, Charm Person and Shield.

 

[ssvegeta555]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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]

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]

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.