Whatever it winds up actually being called, the next iteration of D&D is coming in three years. That's actually quite a bit of time - you can more or less think of it as half again the entire lifespan of 5th edition up to this point (rounded off.) So, it is entirely too early to start seriously speculating on what might be in the new edition or update to D&D.
Still, we're going to be seeing at least some changes to the rules.
In fact, I think we must anticipate that there will be some big, significant changes. This is going to be ten years after the launch of 5E, and I think we're likely to see Wizards of the Coast taking this as an opportunity to redesign major aspects of the game.
That said, 5th Edition has been wildly popular, and WotC has already announced that these new books will be "backwards compatible" with all previous 5th Edition books.
D&D is a modular game - you could technically take the bare bones of the rules and have a totally different array of races and classes and monsters and the game would still work more or less the same - you'd even be able to use the same character sheets.
Even then, you could swap out even more things. Take skills, for instance. You could easily add something like "Computers" and remove something like "Animal Handling" and, without really changing any of the rules (except adding any new skills to backgrounds and classes while removing the old ones) the game could still function exactly the same.
Now, when it comes to TTRPGs, I'm fairly narrow in my experience. 5th Edition is the only d20 system I've played, though at least now I'm learning how Starfinder works. As I understand it, you could do some very radical changes, or you could do some tweaks.
Philosophically, I guess the first question is what they aim to do with this revision/revamp. For example, earlier editions of D&D, along with similar games like Pathfinder, are a bit crunchier in terms of mechanics.
As an example:
If I have proficiency in Perception and Insight, and I don't have any special things like Expertise, my bonus to both of those skills will be the same, because they're both Wisdom-based (at least by default.) Beyond my Wisdom modifier, I'm adding that one flat proficiency bonus, which is the same for all its uses - it's how I calculate my spell save DC, how I calculate my attack bonus with weapons I know how to use or my spells, and it's what I add to those ability checks when I have the requisite skill.
In Starfinder, though, the equivalent skills, which would be Perception and Sense Motives, could be radically different. Not only might one of them be a class skill while the other isn't (making a difference of 3,) but I could also have a Skill Focus feat that gives another 3, and then, each time I level up, I might choose to invest ranks in Perception every level while I only put one into Sense Motive every other, or even not at all.
This is something that allows for greater customization, but it's also something that makes the game more complex. If I have a newer player who is struggling while I DM, I can ask a few quick questions and help them figure this sort of thing out "wait, what's my perception?" "Well, is that bubble filled in?" "Yes." "Ok, you're level 3, so it's just your Wisdom modifier plus two."
If I had that conversation in Starfinder, I'd have to ask a lot more clarifying questions, which might even include "did you assign your skill ranks when you leveled up?"
My sense is that WotC has really benefited from the simplification of these systems. And simplicity doesn't mean the game's boring! Given the power of the D&D brand, it's likely to be many players' first TTRPG, which means that accessibility is a very important thing for the game.
The closest thing I think we have to a preview of what's coming in 2024 (which is almost certainly not finalized - again, it's three years off) are what we've seen of the changes to monster design - specifically the spellcasting monsters. Rather than having statblocks bogged down in a long list of spells and spell slots, NPCs and monsters are getting a clear "this is what they use on most turns" ability along with perhaps some limited utility spells.
As someone who does a lot of DMing, this is very exciting to me - villainous spellcasters are a classic trope of the genre, but so often with stat blocks like Archmage or Biomancer (or Lich, though I've only just had one of those in play as a friendly NPC - spoilers for my campaign, btw!) I find myself looking at their spells and thinking "ok, so... I guess this 7th level spell could be what they use this turn - a cone of cold here, a lightning bolt there" but picking those out of a huge list - and dear lord, tracking spell slots - is a lot of mental effort you've got to do on top of being a DM.
You might accuse this of "dumbing down" the game, but I think it's more about allocating resources better. As a DM, I'd rather be using my mental energy to keep the villain's complex plan to manipulate the heroes in mind rather than tracking how many 5th level spells I've cast.
Having just thrown a Demilich at my party, I really appreciate the design of that monster - it's very deadly and scary, but it doesn't bog you down with a ton of abilities you'll never use.
But, to expand outward: I think that we might deduce that WotC plans on making the 5.5 revamps more user-friendly, rather than adding crunchiness to the game.
So, where else might we see such changes?
Honestly, it's hard for me to think of things, in part because I'm so used to the game system that most of it feels pretty intuitive at this point.
One of my pet issues has always been the use of "levels" to refer to spells as well as classes. New players will often think that their 2nd level Wizard can now cast 2nd level spells, which makes a ton of intuitive sense and is, well, wrong. I think calling spell levels "ranks" instead might, yes, step on the toes of older editions that used ranks for skills (I... assume? If they worked anything like they do in Starfinder?) but I think this could clear up a lot of confusion.
But that's a one-word change that hardly warrants a new edition.
While I think it's great to give monsters a "default move," I wouldn't necessarily push that design on players. To be fair, plenty of classes already have such a thing - usually "the attack action," (or "eldritch blast") but I don't think that they need to make non-Warlock pure casters stick with a "primary move." In a lot of ways, I think that role is already filled by cantrips, and it's a liberating feeling when your caster gets high enough level that you can go through a whole combat (or a few) and only cast leveled spells.
I suspect that if they really want to make good on the promise that 5th Edition books will still be compatible with the new core rulebooks, they can't change all that much.
That being said, in previous edition transitions, WotC has published free conversion documents to help navigate the changes. Perhaps, if these rules can be succinct enough, they might be more radical in their redesign.
My suggestions are far more evolutionary than revolutionary, which makes them more likely to actually happen but also a bit less interesting to talk about.
Philosophically, I would love to see a greater focus on high-level play. I think that there's a bit of a vicious cycle when it comes to this sort of thing: WotC hears that players don't tend to play to the higher levels, and so they don't publish adventures that go to the higher levels. But then, as a result, players don't tend to get to those higher levels.
Now, as much as I enjoy having all the adventure books, I haven't actually run any of them (though I might run Wild Beyond the Witchlight possibly after the Starfinder adventure for my Sunday group, unless our DM feels up to continuing her homebrew campaign that we started with). But I think that having high-level published adventures could also encourage DMs who like to homebrew by showing them the sort of challenge they can present to a high-level party.
Frankly, I'd love a DM-facing book focused on running high-level content, though I also get that WotC wants to make sure that every book has some player-facing aspect to broaden the potential market - I think this is likely why Fizban's Treasury of Dragons has subclasses (unlike previous monster books) and why Wild Beyond the Witchlight and the upcoming Strixhaven books have playable races.
Anyway, it's early to speculate, but I think keeping an eye on the future 5th Edition releases will give us a strong indication of the direction that 5.5 will be heading.
No comments:
Post a Comment