D&D 5E Musings on the likelihood of future products

[Mercurius]

I am most curious to see what they do for the 50th Anniversary.

I think it would be great if they could issue some commemorative reprints of old classics. That seems like low-hanging fruit.

But what will they do with 5e?

That's kind of why I didn't extend the chart -- I wouldn't be surprised to see a shift of direction, more alternate approaches, possibly other genres, just something...different. Or not. But for the 50th anniversary itself, my best guess is the two box sets, possibly a third "best of D&D" one, or maybe a box set of classic modules.

 

[Mercurius]

I am still utterly baffled as to why they abandoned the Unearthed Arcana Mystic class and psionics rules, and then went on to release that far inferior subsystem of psionic class substitution abilities (and then apparently dropped that version as well, I guess?) The final 28-page Unearthed Arcana Mystic document was utterly fantastic; I absolutely loved how the psionics system worked, how the Mystic class worked, how all the Mystic Order subclasses worked, and even just loved the feel of the whole system, making it very distinct from magic and really felt like abilities the character could just do when they had the psionic discipline activated, rather than spells that were cast.

It could be that they stopped because they settled on the mystic, which would mean we could have psionics sooner than we think. I didn't really follow the UA articles, so can't comment on the quality of the designs, but will take your word for it.

 

[Mercurius]

Now this is the high grade speculation I come here for!

You forgot to include a Monster book category! Volo's Guide openly suggested Fiends (check), Gith (check), Dragons, and Undead for future books in the intro chapter, and we got half of those with MToF. A Draconomicon or Van Richtens Handbook of Horrors would be excellent product ideas.

On the other hand, however, it could be that both Volo's style monster books and Xanathar's style crunch books have been overtaken by the new Setting book format, serving both purposes in one stop. Ravnica actually had a bestiary similar in size to Volo's or Mordenkein's, for instance.

Yeah, I thought about monster books later on but was getting tired, and then slotted in FF. But I think you're right and had the same thought: monsters in adventure and setting books, maybe compiled later on.

 

[Mercurius]

Well, what the most recent Psionics UA said was:

"In 2017 [really, 2015-2017 in several iterations], we experimented with an unofficial character class—the mystic—focused on psionic powers. Through its features and subclasses, the mystic allowed you to create a character who echoed the abilities of other classes in the game but with a psionic twist. As much as many playtesters enjoyed the psionic themes in the mystic, feedback was also clear that the class encroached on other classes’ territory and that it was often too complex, too powerful, or both."

"Following that feedback, we’ve decided to say farewell to the mystic and explore other ways of giving players psi-themed powers, as we did with the features of the Great Old One warlock in the Player’s Handbook."

We've known since 2018 that the Mystic was dead, and in 2018 what Mearls said was that people didn't like how different from the standard rules it was, and a large number of DMs said they wouldn't allow it at their table if a player asked. So part of their quest is to find a Psionics ruleset that will be accepted.

This is kind of a bummer, but also makes me think, that they should approach psionics, the planes, and epic in a similar manner: as toolbox options with a variety of variations. Like so:

Planescape: Great Wheel, World Tree, build your own cosmology; with options for Planescape/Sigil, Ravnica/planeswalking, and Spelljammer.
Psionics: mystic and psion, dedicated classes and add-on for other characters.
Epic: More detail for existing levels; option for levels 21-30; immortal/demigod rules of "ascension."

Or at least that's what I'd like to see.

 

[atanakar]

I don't think we'll see WotC to an Egyptian-themed setting.

This could happen! Amonkhet MtG.

 

[Undrave]

There's been a ton of speculation about the future of the D&D line, so at the risk of re-hashing discussions, I wanted to present a different way of approaching the subject.

Oh! As an FYI, your first post has issues when viewed in dark mode. It's not a big deal but I just figured I'd mention it.

Yeah, but I was wondering if anyone understood why it was so unpopular? I thought it was all utterly fantastic and, like I said, I am baffled as to why so many people wouldn't like it. It seems bizarre to me.

Because it was TOO MUCH STUFF all at once. It was like multiple classes in one with too many new rules, too many builds out of the box and it felt like a differently themed copy of multiple classes.

Maybe a scaled down version of it could work.

 

[Undrave]

This could happen! Amonkhet MtG.

I'd be all for that!

Egypt was my favourite faction in Anachronism

 

[Parmandur]

Oh! As an FYI, your first post has issues when viewed in dark mode. It's not a big deal but I just figured I'd mention it.



Because it was TOO MUCH STUFF all at once. It was like multiple classes in one with too many new rules, too many builds out of the box and it felt like a differently themed copy of multiple classes.

Maybe a scaled down version of it could work.

Crawford has hinted that a new, back to the drawing board Psion Class is possible, but it won't be the Mystic.

 

[atanakar]

I'd be all for that!

Egypt was my favourite faction in Anachronism

Nice tie in with Theros too.

 

[Mercurius]

Much as I like Planescape and Dark Sun, their popularity outside of guys in their 40s-50s who still use the word "module" even though WotC stopped using it 20 years ago is minimal - and even in their heyday, these settings were not very successful financially. The fact that this board overwhelmingly consists of that demographic could lead one to believe there is a demand for those settings, but WotC's market research doesn't bear that out. Each has a Gen X cult following but not a growing fanbase.

Exandria is the money setting right now. Nothing they release in 2020 will outsell the Wildemount book. If they don't release more Exandria stuff, including a hardcover adventure, they will have dropped the ball. And I'm not saying that because I particularly want Exandria stuff; it's just that it's very clearly the best business move they could make right now. WAY ahead of Planescape, Dark Sun, or Spelljammer.

Kara-Tur or any iteration of "Oriental Adventures" is a PR disaster waiting to happen for them unless they hire a team of Asian creators to make it. Otherwise I'm sure they'll have the common sense to avoid it.

Valid points, all, but I'll throw in few points.

Yes, PS and DS are beloved by us Gen Xers, but they are really beloved. But further: the question is how they'd translate to the contemporary context. No one knows for sure, but I personally think they'd be quite popular among the young 'uns.

Furthermore, the reason they don't have a "growing fan-base" could be because there is no new material. WotC doesn't have to go whole hog; a Manual of the Planes is a near inevitably for reasons I stated, and they can test out Sigil/Planescape within its pages, and then decide on whether to do more specific treatment. So maybe I should push back my Shemeska's Guide by a year or two, and go with the idea of a dedicated Sigil chapter in MotP (like 4E), with possible greater coverage later on.

DS also fills a need, or a lack in the current lineup: a heavily thematic sword & sorcery style setting. It may not receive a line of follow-up books, but I see it getting the Eberron treatment: a core book (with a possible player's guide including psionics), and then opened up to DM's Guild.

Kara-Tur doesn't have to be a PR disaster. I'm not sure how D&D is doing in Japan, South Korea, and China, but if there is a market, it could be designed there as the first "international D&D book."