D&D Psionics Survey; Plus "First Major Mechanical Expansion" Coming?

The latest D&D survey is up from WotC, and it's asking your thoughts on the revised Awakened Mystic article (aka 5E psionics rules) in Mike Mearls' Unearthed Arcana column last July. It also asks whether you want to see new races, classes, spells, and feats. At the same time, the last survey's results are in, reporting on the pubic's opinions of the Kits of Old article from a few months ago; and Mike Mearls refers to a "first major mechanical expansion" in the game.

[lq]At this stage, we’ve begun considering what the first, major mechanical expansion to the game might look like.[/lq]

 

[TerraDave]

As someone who has tracked these things...a "major mechanical expansion" would certainly sell well.

Mearls implies that we would see a post UA round of play-testing for it. In any case, they should do a good job. It will end up in a lot of games.

 

[Patrick McGill]

I appreciate their caution, very much so. I to wonder what the expansion might look like. Up to this point any new options were directly tied to the storylines/campaign world. I wonder if this is an indicator that this major expansion (if it happens, which doesn't seem to be a sure thing) won't be.

 

[Tzarevitch]

I wonder if they are using the word "expansion" to mean "fix."

 

[Sunsword]

I think they mean new races, monsters, and class options. My emphasis is new, not fixed.

 

[Patrick McGill]

I put the most extreme negative option as far as new classes are concerned. I would really prefer any new character types to be expressed via subclasses. I feel like keeping the ones we have now (with maybe a new one simply for psionics) would help keep it elegant. I can't really think of anything that reaches the archetypal breadth of what we have now (and can think of a couple we have now that don't really do it for me in that regard as it is).

 

[Jester David]

If they're looking at it now, even if they started writing tomorrow, it'd be a late 2017 release. At the earliest...

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I put the most extreme negative option as far as new classes are concerned. I would really prefer any new character types to be expressed via subclasses. I feel like keeping the ones we have now (with maybe a new one simply for psionics) would help keep it elegant. I can't really think of anything that reaches the archetypal breadth of what we have now (and can think of a couple we have now that don't really do it for me in that regard as it is).

uptill now subclasses only add abilities.
Some might want to see modifications to the base abilities of a class, for example a non spellcating ranger.

So there would be 2 options add base classes, or make subclasses do more then add abilities so they also can replace or remove features given by the base class.

 

[Bad Fox]

If they're looking at it now, even if they started writing tomorrow, it'd be a late 2017 release. At the earliest...

I feel like even though Mearls says they are just considering an expansion, a lot of the initial work has already been done. There have been quite a few UAs that have presented drafts of additional rules.

Not saying that we would see anything before the year is out, but I do think it could be completed faster than we might expect...

 

[Einlanzer0]

On the one hand, I prefer that classes be kept as broad as possible and incorporate other concepts for diversity like background and subclasses. On the other hand, if the concept of "class" was really that broad we wouldn't have rangers, paladins, druids, bards, and warlocks as full classes. So it's kind of an arbitrary distinction.

So, really, I don't think it's any big deal, and could be really good, to have entire new classes, as long as they aren't excessively pigeonholing and there's plenty of room to diversity them through subclasses.

More than anything, I'd like to see optional additional rules to make the ability scores more significant. I.e. give me a real reason to play a fighter with high int, or something comparable.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I wonder if they are using the word "expansion" to mean "fix."

I would say this:

3e: 2000.
3.5e: 2003.
4e: 2007.
Essentials: 2010.

Every 3-4 years, under WotC, we get a new e, or a major mechanical update.

I'd imagine this release fits that pattern. It's probably not a new e. It might just be a pile of character options, or a reinterpretation of certain elements (a la essentials). I'd imagine possible elements might include The New Ranger. But I bet it'll be a Pretty Big Deal!

 

[GMMichael]

Book of Nine Swords. For 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would say this:

3e: 2000.
3.5e: 2003.
4e: 2007.
Essentials: 2010.

Every 3-4 years, under WotC, we get a new e, or a major mechanical update.

3e: 2000.
3.5e: 2003.
4e: 2008.
Essentials: 2010.

So 2-5 years.

Book of Nine Swords. For 5e.

Literally too good to be true.

 

[Jester David]

I feel like even though Mearls says they are just considering an expansion, a lot of the initial work has already been done. There have been quite a few UAs that have presented drafts of additional rules.

Not saying that we would see anything before the year is out, but I do think it could be completed faster than we might expect...

All the UA articles combined are just over 70 pages. They'd need to double the content for even a small 160-page accessory.
Plus layout, editing, art orders, getting review copies to proof, etc. Getting the book written is less than half the work of getting a book published.

 

[Xavian Starsider]

I'd love to see a second Monster Manual

 

[icosahedron20]

I would say this:
Every 3-4 years, under WotC, we get a new e, or a major mechanical update.

I remember the original quotes about the game being modular. I had hoped that it would mimic the software industry moving towards more frequent (or continuous) updates rather than the big releases every few years.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I think they mean new races, monsters, and class options. My emphasis is new, not fixed.

I can see this other than monsters - monsters are the DM's domain, while this sounds more like options for players. Maybe some stats for NPCs, but that would be about it.

 

[Bad Fox]

All the UA articles combined are just over 70 pages. They'd need to double the content for even a small 160-page accessory.
Plus layout, editing, art orders, getting review copies to proof, etc. Getting the book written is less than half the work of getting a book published.

You are correct, of course! But even that is a big start, as the actual writing of a product is one of the easier bits. As you have products over on DMsGuild, I'd expect you'd agree that coming up with coherent rules and concepts can be the hard part. Turning words into sentences is relatively straightforward by comparison.

I think you're pretty bang-on when you say that all the UA articles are just over 70 pages, but you're making a big assumption when you imply that they've shared everything they've done. I expect there's quite a bit we haven't seen.

That said, I do agree that commissioning art, then doing the layout and art would be very labour intensive. It'd have to add a huge chunk of time. I don't think that it would be impossible for us to see something in time for Christmas, though.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

If they're looking at it now, even if they started writing tomorrow, it'd be a late 2017 release. At the earliest...

I would look for a holiday 2016 release, depending on how much playtesting there is to be done.

 

[Jester David]

That said, I do agree that commissioning art, then doing the layout and art would be very labour intensive. It'd have to add a huge chunk of time. I don't think that it would be impossible for us to see something in time for Christmas, though.

Back in 2014, they were writing the DMG in August for a late November release. But that was mostly straight text and advice, and a lot less playtesting and rules. And that was still a good four-month period.

Making new class content and having *any* sort of playtest will be slower. Designing class options simply takes more time than a bunch of magic items or optional rules.

Case and point: http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...Perkins-Tweeting-Page-Snippets-Of-Mongrelfolk
Perkins was hard at work on Curse of Strahd a year ago. Making a book is time intensive.