"The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)

The online D&D Celebration event, which has been running all weekend, comes to a close with The Future of D&D, a panel featuring WotC's Ray Winninger, Liz Schuh, Chris Perkins, and Jeremy Crawford, hosted by Elle Osili-Wood.

D&D is exploring the multiverse
Revisiting classic settings. 1st of 3 settings (Ravenloft) released this year. Next year, the other two major classic D&D settings come out. Both in formats they've never published products before.

Plus a "little peek" at a third classic D&D setting - a cameo.

In 2023, yet another classic setting is coming out.

Evolving D&D
Because of new players, they're always listening. Exploring new styles of play (like no combat needed in Wild Beyond the Witchlight). Also presentation of monsters and spells. New product formats. More adventure anthologies.

Making products easier to use. Ways to create the best experience. Experimenting and looking into technology.

Approaches to Design
Wild Beyond the Witchlight has interior design and tools to make running the adventure easier. Story tracker, guidance.

Beyond the books, they want to make different and varied products - packaging and form factor. Things different to hardcovers and boxed sets.

A blog post is coming soon detailing some of the changes, with more to come in future posts.

50th Anniversary in 2024
They've begun work on new versions of the core rulebooks. Recent surveys tie into that. They're still making plans, but expect more surveys. More will be said next year.

They will be completely compatible!

New experiences in the digital arena.

January Gift Set
Rules Expansion Gift Set -- Xanathar, Tasha, and a new book: Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. All in a slipcase. Was intended for the Holidays, but global production issues mean January instead. There's also an alternate cover version.

D&D 5E - A Closer Look At January's D&D Rules Expansion Gift Set

WotC earlier announced a D&D Rules Expansion Gift Set for January, which includes three books - Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and the new Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. These were intended for the holidays, but the global production issues...

www.enworld.org

Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse
A treasure trove of creature related material from previous products compiled into one book and updated.

Opportunity to update material with a feel for how the 50th Anniversary books will be.

Improvements based on feedback, rebalancing, new and old art.

Over 250 monsters, and 30 playable races. All of the setting agnostic races that have been published outside the Player's Handbook.

Some content from Witchlight, Fizban's, and Strixhaven was influenced by Mordenkainen's.

Available first in the gift set, but separately later in the year.

Monsters alphabetized throughout rather than using subsections.

D&D 5E - Zooming In On Monsters of the Multiverse [UPDATED!]

Earlier, WotC announced Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse, a new D&D compilation of monster material from previous products updated to a new format. These screen grabs are as good as I could get them. They're not terribly clear, but you can make more out than in the original...

www.enworld.org

Stat block changes --

Spellcasting trait is gone. Spellcasting action, slimmed down. Spellcasting monsters need less prep.

Spell slots are gone for NPCs. Regular actions that would have once been spells.

It was too easy for a DM to use spells which result in the monster having a too low effective CR.

Monsters can be friends or foes, and some magic will help rather than hinder PCs.

Where are we going?
More adventure anthologies. Another classic setting fairly soon.

Two all-new settings. Completely new. In development stage, an 'exploration' phase, testing the viability of them. They might not see the light of day.

Retooling nostalgia and blending it with new concepts. A blend of things that you know, and things that they have never done before.

In the short term -- more news next month about a new product for 2022 which goes into a new scary place we've never been before.

Boo the miniature giant space hamster
Below is an sketch from Hydro74's alt cover, which features Boo the miniature giant space hamster.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Except, that's literally built into the mechanics of the game. Monks can run up walls and on water, one of their main mechanics is named "Ki", their fists are magical, they stop being affected by aging, can literally astral project and turn invisible and get resistance to all damage (except force) by using their ki points.

The Monk class, although I wish it was more open to fit pugilist and spy characters, is very much filled with "eastern exotica".

A bit, though making it more mundane would be a terrible solution. Better to lean into the esoteric/mystic nature of the archetype with a more broad selection of Ki powers, and rename the class and the “ki” feature.

IMO, the same applies to the Samurai. Why can't there be Paladin Samurai, Monk Samurai, or even a Barbarian or Ranger Samurai?

You can. Go ahead. You can also use the Samurai to make a noble Spanish inspired duelist if you want. The presence of the Samurai subclass doesn’t interfere at all with you making a Paladin Samurai.

I mean, surely you don’t think that we can’t have Fighter Swashbucklers just because Rogue has a subclass bearing that name?

That's why I don't like having classes or subclasses so specifically dependent on real world cultures. It creates issues, and there's just a way easier way of doing it.

What issues, though? That some folks might not like the lack of symmetry or grid filling that comes with only some RL specific orders/titles having an archetype in the game built to model them? I have a hard time imagining a complaint I’d care less about, as a designer.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

A bit, though making it more mundane would be a terrible solution. Better to lean into the esoteric/mystic nature of the archetype with a more broad selection of Ki powers, and rename the class and the “ki” feature.

Sure, but you can also lean into the esoteric nature of the class without having to base it so much after East Asian exotica. "Esoteric" doesn't always mean "East Asian themed". You could have an Esoteric Pugilist, that is just a wrestler/boxer that punches people magically. There's no reason why that has to automatically be based off of East Asian Monks. It can obviously fulfill that theme, and like I said before, I love that D&D can support a diverse array of playstyles and characters, but I don't think it's good class design to have one of the core classes of the game be so heavily based off of a real world culture. I don't like it with Paladins, Barbarians, or Druids, and I don't like it with Monks.

You can. Go ahead. You can also use the Samurai to make a noble Spanish inspired duelist if you want. The presence of the Samurai subclass doesn’t interfere at all with you making a Paladin Samurai.

. . . It makes it less of a Samurai than the Samurai subclass. There's an Order of the Stick comic precisely about this. If there's an archetype named something and you call yourself that thing, it will make people confused and you'll be perceived as less of that thing than the person of that archetype.

I mean, surely you don’t think that we can’t have Fighter Swashbucklers just because Rogue has a subclass bearing that name?

Swashbuckling is a much larger and less specific theme than a Samurai, which is a very specific real world culture's type of warrior. This is a false equivalency.

What issues, though? That some folks might not like the lack of symmetry or grid filling that comes with only some RL specific orders/titles having an archetype in the game built to model them? I have a hard time imagining a complaint I’d care less about, as a designer.

It's not about "grid filling". It's about "why are we treating these types of real world culture's specialized warriors differently?" IMHO, they should all be treated the same; just being a specific way you play your character. If one is a subclass and another is just reflavoring, they're not being treated in the same way, and this causes issues and questions about why it is the way it is. It's favoritism and nonsensical design. I like design, worldbuilding, and homebrewing that makes sense.

 

[Remathilis]

Yo, you're just proving here how specificity is a bug here. If I make a knight in Eberron, no one is going to be confused. If I make a samurai, everyone's going to look at me and say, "What? Which nation here has samurai? That's a Japanese warrior!" The subclass is too tied to a specific real-world culture (which translate badly to fictional settings) to give it its niche... but if we remove that cultural stuff, it's just a knight!

Dhakaan. Keith Baker said the (3.5) version of samurai and ninja fit well with proud martial traditions of the ancient goblinoids. Hobgoblin samurai and goblin ninjas were great ways to show incorporate the classic tropes of both without a need for an exoticized Asia analog.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, but you can also lean into the esoteric nature of the class without having to base it so much after East Asian exotica.

Sure. That was literally my point. I don’t really see how a esoteric pugilist has any traction, but whatever, go for it. Just don’t turn the class into a mundane martial artist. There literally isn’t any reason to not just use the fighter for that.

It makes it less of a Samurai than the Samurai subclass. There's an Order of the Stick comic precisely about this. If there's an archetype named something and you call yourself that thing, it will make people confused and you'll be perceived as less of that thing than the person of that archetype.

No. That is complete nonsense.

It's favoritism and nonsensical design

It isn’t either of those, at all. It’s just an artifact of the fact that not every single thing that is cool in the world can gets it’s own subclass. At least, not within what 6 books.

 

[Remathilis]

It's not about "grid filling". It's about "why are we treating these types of real world culture's specialized warriors differently?" IMHO, they should all be treated the same; just being a specific way you play your character. If one is a subclass and another is just reflavoring, they're not being treated in the same way, and this causes issues and questions about why it is the way it is. It's favoritism and nonsensical design. I like design, worldbuilding, and homebrewing that makes sense.

Why do we treat Norse berserkers and Arthurian holy knights as specialized warriors? Why are ancient Celtic holy men singled out as a separate class when all other religions fit under a different class? Why are there three separate spellcaster classes when thier names are synonyms for one another?

Because: reasons.

 

[Umbran]

No. That is complete nonsense.

Mod Note:
You know, in another thread, someone just used pretty much this exact line on you, and you declared you weren't going to engage. So... maybe you will want to reconsider using it yourself.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why do we treat Norse berserkers and Arthurian holy knights as specialized warriors? Why are ancient Celtic holy men singled out as a separate class when all other religions fit under a different class? Why are there three separate spellcaster classes when thier names are synonyms for one another?

Because: reasons.

But they're not treated that way anymore. D&D's Barbarian, Paladin, and Druid classes have expanded well beyond their origin. Monks really haven't. A Paladin doesn't have to be an Arthurian knight anymore, Barbarians have expanded a ton from their nordic berserker roots (the "Berserker" subclass doesn't have any Norse-specific mechanics), and Druids are now basically just a "shaman" subclass. There are lore reasons for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards being different classes and being different mechanically.

How real world archetypes are and should be treated in the game is a good discussion to be had. Not one to be dismissed by whataboutisms and ignored.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure, but you can also lean into the esoteric nature of the class without having to base it so much after East Asian exotica. "Esoteric" doesn't always mean "East Asian themed". You could have an Esoteric Pugilist, that is just a wrestler/boxer that punches people magically. There's no reason why that has to automatically be based off of East Asian Monks.

Name one monk subclass that isn't based on some Asian form of martial arts. There is a Shaolin open hand monk, a shadow ninja, an element-bender, a drunken master, a sun monk that fings hadokens, and a kensi weapon master. I guess the Mercy monk is supposed to have some sort of plague doctor thing going on, but it's only supported in the art.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Name one monk subclass that isn't based on some Asian form of martial arts. There is a Shaolin open hand monk, a shadow ninja, an element-bender, a drunken master, a sun monk that fings hadokens, and a kensi weapon master. I guess the Mercy monk is supposed to have some sort of plague doctor thing going on, but it's only supported in the art.

. . . Are you trying to rebut my post here? You're kind-of proving it. The 5e monk is heavily reliant on Asian archetypes/stereotypes. That's kinda my problem with it. The paladin isn't only an Arthurian Knight in Shining Armor anymore, the Barbarian isn't only a Nordic Berserker, and the Druid isn't only a Celtic Priest, but the Monk, more-or-less, is still just an Asian Martial Artist. That's exactly my issue with it and the Samurai. The other classes expanded, and while they still include their historical niche, they also include a vast swathe of other themes (Oath of Conquest/Watchers/Heroism Paladins, Circle of Spores/Wildfire/Stars Druids, Path of the Beast/Zealot/Totem Warrior Barbarian).

Do you not see the issue there?

 

[Marandahir]

Name one monk subclass that isn't based on some Asian form of martial arts. There is a Shaolin open hand monk, a shadow ninja, an element-bender, a drunken master, a sun monk that fings hadokens, and a kensi weapon master. I guess the Mercy monk is supposed to have some sort of plague doctor thing going on, but it's only supported in the art.

It's in the mechanics of the Way of Mercy too.

Way of the Iron Embrace, Way of the Desert Wind, Way of the Cobalt Soul, Way of the Astral Self, Way of the Long Death, Way of the Ascendant Dragon, all these builds fit Monks that aren't particularly Orientalist tropes.

But the Monk class itself is particularly orientalist cliches in its core class mechanics, which is an issue.

Again, I have no issue with Wuxia being a genre of play in the game. The problem is complicated, but the simplest solution is not not use the minefield name.

And we've seen WotC avoid names to prevent confusion in other cases: they made Critical Role change their Draconian Dragonborns into Draconblood Dragonborns so as not to confuse with Draconians from Dragonlance. They haven't released a Templar subclass or feat or background of any kind, because Templar has a VERY SPECIFIC meaning in Dark Sun.

Samurai is being used here to represent kitchen sink Oriental Adventures warriors when it's very specifically a warrior caste from Japan.

Paladin and Druid and Bard don't have the same cultural currency outside of their RPG counterparts that Samurai and Ninja etc do. Sure, Paladins were the predecessors of the duchies and counts of France, the 12 legendary companions of Charlemagne. And yes, as an amateur Celtic cultural scholar, I'm well aware of the real world meanings of Druids and Bards. But if people aren't thinking of nature mage RPG character for Druids, they're otherwise thinking people in white cloaks with sun symbols performing human sacrifice at Stonehenge, which is ALSO fanciful. And likewise, the idea of Bards have been taken over by collective cultural ideas to represent musicians and poets, travelling minstrels etc. These latter two are also concepts that defy national borders - we've got Bards and Druids in history from Spain to Ireland to as far away as the Black Sea and Turkey - wherever there were Celtic-speaking peoples. So these are concepts that are really pan-European. While Samurai are very specific to just one country, Japan. To apply them more broadly is a form of cultural appropriation that we really shouldn't be doing.

 

[Remathilis]

How real world archetypes are and should be treated in the game is a good discussion to be had. Not one to be dismissed by whataboutisms and ignored.

I think it's fair that if we are reexamining if a sub/class that has a certain cultural name or trope is harmful to that culture, ALL of them should be on the table. Druids and paladins have evolved past their cultural past? Then perhaps it's time to rename or reexamine those classes. Neither of those terms, to the best of my knowledge, has lost its cultural origin like "barbarian" or "assassin" has. Maybe it's time to rename and reinvent bards, druids, monks, samurai, paladins, cavalier, kensi, warlocks, and other class names with cultural baggage.

 

[Marandahir]

I think it's fair that if we are reexamining if a sub/class that has a certain cultural name or trope is harmful to that culture, ALL of them should be on the table. Druids and paladins have evolved past their cultural past? Then perhaps it's time to rename or reexamine those classes. Neither of those terms, to the best of my knowledge, has lost its cultural origin like "barbarian" or "assassin" has. Maybe it's time to rename and reinvent bards, druids, monks, samurai, paladins, cavalier, kensi, warlocks, and other class names with cultural baggage.

Maybe! I do think that Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Cavalier, and Warlock are terms that have adopted other meanings over time. Kensei and Samurai are very specific terms that really shouldn't have been used in the game, though.

And Barbarian is actually one of the worse offenders; it's still a derogatory term that doesn't at all describe what the class does or is. I'm sure that more than a few Imaziɣen would find this class name offensive to this day, similar to how the Romany have found Vistani as extremely offensive depictions.

This does not mean we don't include fantasy approximations of real world cultures or in other ways celebrate those cultures. Vistani don't have to go away. Barbarians don't have to go away. Heck, Kara-Tur doesn't have to stop existing in the Realms. It's the WAY these tropes are utilised, that we don't reduce them down to stereotypes, that we LISTEN to the concerns of the people who come from said cultures, that we put their stories front and center rather than forcing orientalist fantasy cliches written by old white men into the spotlight to capitalize on the fandoms of Japanophiles (admittedly, including yours truly).

I won't deny that I have copies of the 1e and 3e Oriental Adventures. These books are horribly offensive and were wrong then and are wrong now. But there IS a draw to the fiction and genre, and when I was young and stupid I thought these books could help me capture some of that flavour I enjoyed. And at our home games you have the space to explore tropes and cliches that you may find fun while others might find it offensive. That's for YOUR table to figure out what you all feel comfortable with.

MY issue is rather with publicly sanctioned culturally-insensitive stereotypes published in books, making it seem like if you want to play a Samurai character, you have to BE as Samurai Fighter. Or if you use the Samurai Fighter subclass, then you're automatically a Japanese noble-warrior, not a Dhakaani Hobgoblin or Elvish Blademaster, complete with all the anime puns and Weeaboo-Weeaboo shaming and snickering.

And as I said before, I have little issue with the Samurai subclass mechanics. My solution as originally posed - that seemingly derailed the thread, I'm sorry everyone - was that if we move Maneuvers into a dial that all Fighters can access without a feat or fighting style, and no longer have two Fighter subclasses are are completely generic but with completely different mechanics, then the name Battle Master can be moved over to take on the Samurai subclass features. It doesn't need to be called a Knight. Battle Master captures the idea that Samurai is trying to talk about, too, without pigeonholing into a single culture.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think it's fair that if we are reexamining if a sub/class that has a certain cultural name or trope is harmful to that culture,

Who ever said "harmful to that culture"? Certainly not me. I just think that it's bad design to have such a big disparity between classes for how they and their historical roots are treated.

ALL of them should be on the table.

I never said that any of them are above scrutiny. I think that anything in D&D that has the potential to be harmful towards a culture or people should be scrutinized and sensitively designed. Just because we're talking about one thing (Monks and Samurai and their ties to their inspiration from East Asian Martial Artists), doesn't mean that we're ignoring other things.

Druids and paladins have evolved past their cultural past? Then perhaps it's time to rename or reexamine those classes. Neither of those terms, to the best of my knowledge, has lost its cultural origin like "barbarian" or "assassin" has.

Fine. Rename the Druid to "Shaman" if that's better (I don't know if it is, just giving a suggestion). Rename the Paladin to "Knight" or "Oathsworn" or something like that. I honestly don't care. These are just red herrings to distract away from the topic of discussion. Who cares? If the names are too tied to their European ancestry for the modern class, change the name.

Maybe it's time to rename and reinvent bards, druids, monks, samurai, paladins, cavalier, kensi, warlocks, and other class names with cultural baggage.

Again, this is a red herring. Either discuss the thing we're discussing, or don't. Just don't try to distract from it with whataboutisms and other red herrings.

 

[Marandahir]

Who ever said "harmful to that culture"? Certainly not me. I just think that it's bad design to have such a big disparity between classes for how they and their historical roots are treated.

I never said that any of them are above scrutiny. I think that anything in D&D that has the potential to be harmful towards a culture or people should be scrutinized and sensitively designed. Just because we're talking about one thing (Monks and Samurai and their ties to their inspiration from East Asian Martial Artists), doesn't mean that we're ignoring other things.

Fine. Rename the Druid to "Shaman" if that's better (I don't know if it is, just giving a suggestion). Rename the Paladin to "Knight" or "Oathsworn" or something like that. I honestly don't care. These are just red herrings to distract away from the topic of discussion. Who cares? If the names are too tied to their European ancestry for the modern class, change the name.

Again, this is a red herring. Either discuss the thing we're discussing, or don't. Just don't try to distract from it with whataboutisms and other red herrings.

I think Shaman is more offensive and appropriating than Druid is, but what do I know. I agree that this is a red herring.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

This is a nonsense debate.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think Shaman is more offensive and appropriating than Druid is, but what do I know. I agree that this is a red herring.

It's less specific, culturally, than "Druid", which was my reasoning behind suggesting it. However, I'm definitely not an expert, and was just giving a suggestion.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Nvm

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's less specific, culturally, than "Druid", which was my reasoning behind suggesting it. However, I'm definitely not an expert, and was just giving a suggestion.

The very broad usage of Shaman can be argued to be a wild misappropriation of a much more culturally specific term than Druid, FWIW.

 

[Marandahir]

Lol, what? This is a demonstrably false statement.

It really depends on a lot of factors we don't really have full answers to. Is Shaman a Tungusic word or is it ultimately from Sanskrit? Are we talking about what the word Shaman has become in the English language (a hodgepodge catch all for priests and holy people that are not from one of the imperial cultures we study in World History)? Or are we talking about specific Tungusic holy people from whence the term entered the language?

Are we saying Druid in the very specific, Brittano-Gaulo-Belgic sense that Julius Caesar wrote about them, or are we talking about the priestly class across Celtic cultures? Or are we talking about nature priest animal skin-changers? Because those are very much a modern invention, but very much part of the word's identity now.

I'd argue that Shaman is a more problematic term because it's a word used in modern day English to denigrate and otherise sacred traditions of cultures the English speaker knows little about, whether they be from Siberia or South America or sub-Saharan Africa or Australia or among the first nations of North America, etc. Meanwhile, Druid has particular meaning in the cultural heritage of the remaining Celtic nations of Britain, Eire, Cymru, Alba, Kernow, Breizh, and Galiza, but is not used to refer to modern-day religious practitioners as the religion was replaced by Christianity centuries ago. The term IS used by Neo-Pagan and Neo-Druidic societies like OBOD, but these groups are similarly creating new definitions for these terms that have little if any continuity with the original Bards, Wates, and Druids of Ancient Celtic religious and scholarly life.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

For me, discussions of hyper nuanced political correctness/sensitivity don't enhance my D&D experience. As long as the monks aren't buck teethed/squinting and the shamans don't have bone nose piercings I'm good.