If I were to judge purely by internet discourse, I'd think that the 2024 update to Dungeons & Dragon's 5th Edition was unpopular. This surprises me, though, because I've been quite sanguine on most of the changes that have taken place. I have players who haven't wanted to update their existing characters, which I can respect, but I also think that the updates really fixed a lot of longstanding problems with the system.
I'm not saying that they did a 100% good job, to be clear: In some cases, I wish they'd been bolder in their redesigns (the Ranger, for example, feels like it could have used an extra boost) and I think some changes actually introduced problems that will need fixing in the future - my biggest one being the restrictions on ability score bonuses to certain abilities for each background, which feels like it's just going to get a fix similar to what Tasha's did with races (now species).
However, what I'm here to write about in this post is a question of intent and planning.
I, like so many others, had 5E as my introduction to the game. I think I had seen some of Acquisitions Incorporated in the 4th Edition era, but pretty early on I was watching it when they were previewing "D&D Next," which was the playtest name for 5E, similar to how the update was One D&D.
As such, everything from the Thief Rogue to the Rune Knight Fighter were brand-new to me. Visiting Eberron and Ravenloft were also new experiences.
I say this to allow for the fact that not everyone was on board 5E as soon as I was, where I started playing it about a year after its release.
However, I have some reason to be a little concerned:
The Forgotten Realms campaign setting brings several new subclasses (not unlike how SCAG brought some,) and most of those are new, with only two repeats. The new UA, which almost certainly will mean a new Ravenloft sourcebook of some sort, inverts this, bringing two new subclasses, but mostly revised versions of existing subclasses.
Which raises the question: how soon is too soon for a revamp?
The 2024 PHB brought some newer subclasses in for a second coat of paint - while the Zealot Barbarian was in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, which came out 8 years ago, the Soul Knife Rogue came out with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, which was five years ago. And two of the subclasses getting revamped in the new UA are from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, which came out four years ago.
I don't know how most other players are, but I tend to play in long campaigns, and so among the subclasses I'm interested in playing from these books, I still have several I've never actually gotten a chance to play, and it's strange to think that there will be revamps to some of them before I've really gotten a chance to play them (I was able to play an Undead Warlock for two sessions, which was fun - I'm honestly kind of drowning in Warlock character concepts. I want to play my original Great Old One Warlock in a big campaign, but I'd also love an Undead one, and possibly a Genie one as well).
Here's the thing:
I think it would be a real misstep to just run through the same settings and concepts we've seen in the past decade all over again in the coming decade (or however long before there's a true 6th edition or whatever). Obviously, D&D has been revisiting existing stuff for a long time - outside of Wildemount from Critical Role, there hasn't been a single brand-new campaign setting published by WotC in 5th Edition, unless you count the Radiant Citadel, which isn't so much a campaign setting itself (though it maybe could be) as a hub for a series of original adventures. Ravnica and Theros are new to D&D, but they were both established already for Magic the Gathering (as will the upcoming Lorwyn/Shadowmoor, which MTG hasn't revisited since their first sets that came out when I was in college).
We're getting Forge of the Artificer, which will bring a new Artificer subclass, which is great, and an expedited update for the Artificer class, which is one that I've always loved conceptually.
But as much as I want to see all my favorite character options updated for the rules revisions, I find myself asking:
Will we actually get new stuff? Or are we just going to be on a decade-long cycle of coming back to the same ideas again and again?
This might be needlessly alarmist, and I hope it is. We really don't yet have a model for how the publishing schedule and strategy will work in the coming years, and likely, WotC is trying out some new things. I believe Forge of the Artificer is going to be shorter, but also at a lower price point than previous sourcebooks (I believe only 30 bucks).
Perhaps these horror subclasses will come in a quick Ravenloft player-pack of a similar scale, and maybe smaller, cheaper, but still impactful products could be great for the game, and a good way to serve the various campaign settings/product lines that have struggled to get extensive support in 5E's "one big book" model.
Frankly, I'm surprised that they haven't pushed for more digital-only sourcebooks, though I also imagine that there's a vocal part of the playerbase who really wants to have everything physical and printed.
Anyway, we'll have to see what things look like in the coming months and years.
No comments:
Post a Comment