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.”.

 

[Ancalagon]

• Hunter subclass features feel more like base class features (I'm biased because I proposed the original hunter features before the playtest on the old WOTC forums).

As an aside - I suspect that some designers would intentionally not look at forums. Clearly you didn't sue WotC for payment for use of your ideas (... I think?) but you could have. If the designer can swear in court they never look at the forums, they can claim they came up with the idea independently

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

I've seen many rangers played in older edition, and the situational aspect (the right terrain, the right enemy) definitely was an important aspect of the class, and I'm not sure it was a good one...

 

[Minigiant]

As an aside - I suspect that some designers would intentionally not look at forums. Clearly you didn't sue WotC for payment for use of your ideas (... I think?) but you could have. If the designer can swear in court they never look at the forums, they can claim they came up with the idea independently

Oh forums are chock full of bad Ideas.

I couldn't have sued WOTC. They executed my idea terribly so the judge woulda throw it out. Plus if I won, this poorly designed class would be attributed to me.

 

[Reynard]

As an aside - I suspect that some designers would intentionally not look at forums. Clearly you didn't sue WotC for payment for use of your ideas (... I think?) but you could have. If the designer can swear in court they never look at the forums, they can claim they came up with the idea independently

Minigiant couldn't have. That's not how game design intellectual property works.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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.

Yep I totally agree there. A beastmaster ranger could probably still work fine alongside a main pet class. As one would be getting most of their class power from the pet, and could probably ride it too.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

This is kinda brilliant.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

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)

Their community is usually isolated from larger society most of the time. So hermit, while imperfect might be closer then most backgrounds.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That’s cool, my comments are backed by what they were saying at the time and feedback they got from the playtest but your comments are jaded speculation.

I don't know if saying "the popular things in public minds influence D&D is jaded... my OTHER thoughts are

 

[bedir than]

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.

every class should have a pet subclass.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

every class should have a pet subclass.

I think that there should be generic pet rules (like anyone can have a hunting dog or hawk and use a bonus action to direct them) but that most (I wont say all but I wouldn't complain) classes should have pet subclasses that allow for those things to level up and be more useful.