D&D 5E Where to Now?

[Blue]

The easiest way to describe them is to describe their purpose.

The Ranger is a guide, hunter, tracker, and/or wilderness liaison. The ranger is a job.

WOAH. That's a massive narrowing of the ranger, one that does not match with existing crunch, existing fluff, nor with the fact that they get nature related spells.

Sorry, I am not accepting that limiting of scope. First, we already have a wider scope in play, we can't "put it back into the box". Second, 5e is designed with wide base classes and more specialized subclasses. Narrowing a base class like that is against the design philosophy.

The Wilderness Warrior, the Scout, and the Green/Ancients Knight on the other hand as primarily about their base skills. The Wilderness Warrior is a Fighter. The Scout is a Rogue. The green/ancients knight is a paladin They fight like their classes. They just get along with nature better. One might ride a giant lion as a mount. Another might be an expert at using primitive weapons and handling animals. Another might be good at ambushing. But they are their base class primarily.

Got it. Wilderness Warrior is a fighter with the outlander background - fighter with nature skills. Scout is the rogue subclass. Green/Ancients Knight is the Oath of Ancients Paladin.

The Warden and the Seeker are two halves of the same coin. They are warriors imbued with natural mystical powers. They enhance their weapons and armor with natural primal power for some purpose. The Seeker focuses on enchanting their ranged weapons and ammunition. The Warden focuses on enchanting themselves and everthing they touch. In 5, they easily could be two subclasses of the same primal warrior class.

There's no need to toolbox 5e. There's plenty to missing stuff from the past for D&D 5e to make.

Seeker seems to fall under the existing Ranger. Warden doesn't seem to be described in any way connected to nature except describing a pwoer source so I'm not sure where to go from there.

 

[Blue]

That's why I use a 3pp Druid that took out Wildshape. Gives space for weapon using druids, animal companion druids, etc.

For non-Moon druids, wildshape gets non-combat minor forms. There's not enough design space there to do worthwhile animal companions in the base class just taking out wildshape. I can't see how they'd add that and remain balanced.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I'm pretty sure PHBs for 5e printed after errata are defined include the update errata text. I know the PHBs and other core books in last year's gift set with the alternate covers included errata corrections.

I'd like to see something awesome in 2024, and a new edition probably isn't it (although a lot of water can fall in 4 years).

 

[Minigiant]

Well, that's what I'd call "5.1" or "5.2"--minor tweaking that doesn't impact backwards compatibility. I would never suggest that this would be an official name change...that would be quite counter-productive and confusing to some. WotC de-emphasizes use of "5E" as it is. My guess is that even if new core books were akin to a 5.2, they wouldn't even call it "revised"--maybe with a 50th Anniversary seal or logo (assuming it was in 2024).

When I use the terms 5.x and such, I only use it as a way of differentiating it from the rules of 5E. Something like so:

5.1 Errata, a few clarifications and minor tweaks (e.g. revised ranger), maybe some new art
5.2 As above, but with more minor tweaks, and some new additions (e.g. warlord)
5.3 As above, but a lot of minor tweaks and a few significant ones
5.4 As above, but with more major tweaks and maybe even a few minor-to-moderate structural changes
5.5. Significant revision, tweaks, rules adjustments

If they do publish a new set of rulebooks at some point, I would guess it would be in the 5.1 to 5.2 range. 5.3 is possible, but unlikely--and only if they could do it in a way that it would still be backwards compatible. I would be surprised at anything above that.

Meaning, 5.1 and 5.2 would be fully backwards compatible, and the new books unnecessary unless you want shiny new stuff and/or whatever they add. 5.3 starts down the slippery slope, which becomes quite pronounced by the time you get to 5.5.

I don't even thin we should go to 5.1. Many in the community callfor errata and revisions but few can point down and agree with what they want. The safest and best route is to add more of the stuff that go on lists and limit actually changes. At most,the changes would be for stuff that is universrsally hated and cannot be fixes with more spells, sublaclasses, items, downtime activities, and optional modular rules.

Going to even 5.1 is likely too far for at least 6+ more years..

WOAH. That's a massive narrowing of the ranger, one that does not match with existing crunch, existing fluff, nor with the fact that they get nature related spells.

Sorry, I am not accepting that limiting of scope. First, we already have a wider scope in play, we can't "put it back into the box". Second, 5e is designed with wide base classes and more specialized subclasses. Narrowing a base class like that is against the design philosophy.

It's not narrow at all

I described a

1. guide
2. hunter
3. tracker
4. wilderness liaison

That's 4 things. That's not included other jobs like animal handler, beast master, herbalist, border patrolman, pathfinder, trailblazer, and other occupations.

The point is that the ranger who is a tracker is a tracker who learns combat and magic. The ranger is not a warrior who learns tracking. That's why the ranger spell list is a mix of druidic and wizard spells. The spell augement the process of doing the job. The combat skill is for defence of self and possible escorts and companions.

The issue with is ranger is other setting could have other skills they need to have and it doesn't line up with the typical D&D settings. And not until 4e was rangery things not so hard or soft locked away from other classes.

That's why I'm against a revised rangerfora new book. Many people don't actually want rangery things in their ranger.They want a wilderness fighter or a scout. This isbecause they only played ranger when didn't exist or were not allowed at the time they played before.

 

[darjr]

If they come out with an unearthed arcana book the debate about it being 5.1 is 5.5 will rage on, regardless of it matters or not.

It would be cool if it was called Xagyg’s Unearthed Arcana and had Greyhawk in it.

 

[Mercurius]

If they come out with an unearthed arcana book the debate about it being 5.1 is 5.5 will rage on, regardless of it matters or not.

It would be cool if it was called Xagyg’s Unearthed Arcana and had Greyhawk in it.

I'd love to see Xagyg on a book cover, and Xagyg's Unearthed Arcana is so perfect--also as an homage to Gygax--that it makes me think you have inside info.

Hmm.

Edit: Actually, it would be a great 50th anniversary commemorative book or box, assembling a kind of "best of" Gygaxiana, updated for 5E.

 

[darjr]

I'd love to see Xagyg on a book cover, and Xagyg's Unearthed Arcana is so perfect--also as an homage to Gygax--that it makes me think you have inside info.

Hmm.

Edit: Actually, it would be a great 50th anniversary commemorative book or box, assembling a kind of "best of" Gygaxiana, updated for 5E.

Ha! All the book titles have surprised me.

 

[TwoSix]

For non-Moon druids, wildshape gets non-combat minor forms. There's not enough design space there to do worthwhile animal companions in the base class just taking out wildshape. I can't see how they'd add that and remain balanced.

I wouldn't say it's balance neutral with the PHB druid, but I'd hardly hold up the PHB druid as a particularly balanced example anyway. Whether maintaining balance neutrality with PHB options is worthwhile is something I'd classify as user specific.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Maybe WotC should talk with the main 3PPs about an Unearthed Arcana with optional rules, for example a different list of abilities scores, racial traits replaced with an optional list of racial feats, or how to create archetypes(version Pathfinder) or variant classes.

 

[Harzel]

About every ten years for some reason we see a big influx of Hobbits, then they slowly disappear as players get tired of them; and ten years later there's suddenly another wave of 'em because for some reason they're the 'in thing' again.

Like locusts, a plague.