D&D (2024) Speculation on the next UA in April

[Henadic Theologian]

If they keep it a subclass, I'll probably incorporate the specialization feat from Black Flag even into a "vanilla" 5E game, as it allows specialists to also be something more than just a specialist.

Do you really think they will use stuff from other games systems? Or do you mean something generally inspired by it?

 

[Amrûnril]

Or a Specialization Wizard similar to the Circle of the Land Druid so you don't need 7 different subclasses.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the approach the developers follow, but I don't think the result would be nearly as compelling as the 2014 subclasses. A single subclass could do a good job of giving abilities that increase access to a chosen school, but it would probably mean missing out on abilities like the Abjurer's Arcane Ward that complement that school in more unique ways. Personally I'd prefer refined versions of one or two school specialists (with the promise of more in future supplements) to a single amalgamated subclass.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the approach the developers follow, but I don't think the result would be nearly as compelling as the 2014 subclasses. A single subclass could do a good job of giving abilities that increase access to a chosen school, but it would probably mean missing out on abilities like the Abjurer's Arcane Ward that complement that school in more unique ways. Personally I'd prefer refined versions of one or two school specialists (with the promise of more in future supplements) to a single amalgamated subclass.

Then you'll get "what what about my favourite spell school!" From fans of the other schools. Let refined versions come later for individual schools.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Interesting. What would you like to see in a "complete overhaul of the stat-block design?" I don't think that is happening given what they have said and what they have already previewed.

However, I am more interested in what you would like to see in a revised stat-block. In general I like the current design, but I could see a few tweaks for ease of use and efficiency. But I don't personally see a complete redesign being needed. I would love to know what you think is need though!

Well, there's what I'd LIKE and what I'd expect/enjoy. What I'd really like would involve monsters being built slightly differently than they are, with some similarities to how they were in 4e. I'm not so much concerned with "roles" or even minion/reg/elite/solo/swarm versions - though that stuff was useful and could be done well (but perhaps to a lesser degree) in 5e. No, it's more that I like the way that a lot of monsters had a few simple, often encounter-specific "powers" (actions) that they could do. Without getting too far into the specifics (though I bet you and I could go quite far into it), it's really that I'd like anything that makes each monster feel less like a bag of HP that can do X damage. I'd like them a little more dynamic, AND YET... I don't want them to take up more space or be any more complicated. In fact, I already feel like many stat-blocks are too long and too complicated. The MMoM versions are "better", IMO, but not quite there yet. Also: Personally, I love the 4e icons/symbols over 5e's use of "natural" (read: wordy) language used in stat-blocks.

As far as what I'd expect/enjoy, I guess it's (hopefully) a step in that direction, but not a sea-change. I don't expect the use of icons & symbols, because I've read that they don't work well for screen readers, and aren't good for the visually impaired.

 

[dave2008]

Well, there's what I'd LIKE and what I'd expect/enjoy. What I'd really like would involve monsters being built slightly differently than they are, with some similarities to how they were in 4e. I'm not so much concerned with "roles" or even minion/reg/elite/solo/swarm versions - though that stuff was useful and could be done well (but perhaps to a lesser degree) in 5e. No, it's more that I like the way that a lot of monsters had a few simple, often encounter-specific "powers" (actions) that they could do. Without getting too far into the specifics (though I bet you and I could go quite far into it), it's really that I'd like anything that makes each monster feel less like a bag of HP that can do X damage. I'd like them a little more dynamic, AND YET... I don't want them to take up more space or be any more complicated. In fact, I already feel like many stat-blocks are too long and too complicated. The MMoM versions are "better", IMO, but not quite there yet. Also: Personally, I love the 4e icons/symbols over 5e's use of "natural" (read: wordy) language used in stat-blocks.

As far as what I'd expect/enjoy, I guess it's (hopefully) a step in that direction, but not a sea-change. I don't expect the use of icons & symbols, because I've read that they don't work well for screen readers, and aren't good for the visually impaired.

Well I agree with most of that, I just wouldn't call that a complete overhaul (except maybe the icons - which I also loved from 4e). In reality, WotC has been doing some of that in monsters after the MM. But yes, i could see it pushed farther.

I recently fantasized about making a 5e Bestiary where all the monsters were calculated with levels instead of CR with five types per level where:

• Minion: 4 minion = 1 PC
• Grunt: 2 grunts = 1 PC
• Standard: 1 std = 1 PC
• Elite: 1 elite = 2 PCs
• Paragon: 1 paragon = 4 PCs

So you can just pick the monster(s) as need to match your group size and level and get a "even" challenge. With an even challenge being roughly 50/50. I haven't done the math yet, but it would still be based on the DMG CR system, just translated to equivalent level.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well I agree with most of that, I just wouldn't call that a complete overhaul (except maybe the icons - which I also loved from 4e). In reality, WotC has been doing some of that in monsters after the MM. But yes, i could see it pushed farther.

I recently fantasized about making a 5e Bestiary where all the monsters were calculated with levels instead of CR with five types per level where:

• Minion: 4 minion = 1 PC
• Grunt: 2 grunts = 1 PC
• Standard: 1 std = 1 PC
• Elite: 1 elite = 2 PCs
• Paragon: 1 paragon = 4 PCs

So you can just pick the monster(s) as need to match your group size and level and get a "even" challenge. With an even challenge being roughly 50/50. I haven't done the math yet, but it would still be based on the DMG CR system, just translated to equivalent level.

I like that idea

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well I agree with most of that, I just wouldn't call that a complete overhaul (except maybe the icons - which I also loved from 4e). In reality, WotC has been doing some of that in monsters after the MM. But yes, i could see it pushed farther.

Well, I toned down the kind of thing I was thinking about in order to be more "realistic" when challenged on it. I'd LIKE a bigger overhaul than that, but I don't expect one.

I do think they may go back to the drawing board when it comes to the statblock's layout, which I'd like to see, even if only for it to look fresh.

I recently fantasized about making a 5e Bestiary where all the monsters were calculated with levels instead of CR with five types per level where:

• Minion: 4 minion = 1 PC
• Grunt: 2 grunts = 1 PC
• Standard: 1 std = 1 PC
• Elite: 1 elite = 2 PCs
• Paragon: 1 paragon = 4 PCs

So you can just pick the monster(s) as need to match your group size and level and get a "even" challenge. With an even challenge being roughly 50/50. I haven't done the math yet, but it would still be based on the DMG CR system, just translated to equivalent level.

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I'd like for sure! (I've also considered doing something very much like that myself.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What would you change about the g
fighter?

I would split it in 3 in fact I would use the 3 subclasses from the 2014phb as the threefull classes.

Make a simple straight forward little choice warrior based on the champion
Make a complex character that can have choices and leveled options and resources plus ways to interact in all 3 pillars about as well as a melee full caster (so hexblade sword bard war cleric or bladesinger)
a half arcane caster warrior

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"Oh it's True. it's Damn True"

Bookmark my post, stock up on popcorn, and wait until the Warrior UA comes out.
If you thought the Druid UA (the class people don't even play) had reactions wait until you see Fighter.

• Some people want Manuever as core
• Some people don't want Manuever as core
• Some people want Spells as core
• Some people don't want as core
• Some people want Weapon Mastery as core
• Some people don't Want Mastery as core
• Some people want Stronger Second Wind
• Some people want Second Wind gutted
• Some people want Anime style combat
• Some people want Gritty combat
• Some people want the Champion gone
• Some people want Champion rolled in the base class
• Some people want Social Pillar class feature rolled in
• Some people don't want Social Pillar class feature rolled in
• Some people want Exploration Pillar class feature rolled in
• Some people don't want Exploration Pillar class feature rolled in
• Some people want Fighters to get Expertise

And no one agrees on what the fighter post level 10 locks like.

It's gonna be a show. People who don't even play 5e will show up to complain. Trust me.

this is why 1 class supporting all non magic combat is a bad idea (well more like 2 and 1/2)

 

[Minigiant]

this is why 1 class supporting all non magic combat is a bad idea (well more like 2 and 1/2)

Well then had a chance to do "core variants and modules." but decided not to in order to appeal to the old school.

I mean they even abandoned the non-obvoous-magical barbarian after the first subclass.

Buy your popcorn now. The Warrior packet is gonna cause a pseudo edition war and included people who never experienced one. It's gonna be a mess. I'd have pity if it weren't WOTCs own fault.