D&D 5E D&D 5.5e; Your wish for 5.5e update.

Parmandur

Book-Friend
You don't have to put the whole spell description into the stat block to be useful. Range/Damage/ST would be useful, though.

Strangely, I find everything they DO include on the stat block to be easier to memorize than the minutia of what the spells do.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app
Getting spell cards can be helpful; but the statblocks can't take much more.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Tony Vargas

Legend
Getting spell cards can be helpful; but the statblocks can't take much more.
Nod. Spell descriptions can rival a monster stat block for column-inches and the monsters that have spells might well have a number of them.
Hand-wringing about "D&D becoming M:tG" aside, spell cards are a handy resource, just pick out the spells the monster you're going to use has and slip them by it's entry like a bookmark.
Condensed spell descriptions, could work - a future printing of the MM could have a glossary of abbreviations and special terms to help with that, for instance, since natural language spell descriptions are too wordy to be practical.
 
Last edited:

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Nod. Spell descriptions can rival a monster stat block for column-inches and the monsters that have spells might well have a number of them.
Hand-wringing about "D&D becoming M:tG" aside, spell cards are a handy resource, just pick out the spells the monster you're going to use has and lip them by it's entry like a bookmark.
Condensed spell descriptions, could work - a future printing of the MM could have a glossary of abbreviations and special terms to help with that, for instance, since natural language spell descriptions are too wordy to be practical.
Yeah, most monsters have fairly limited casting, too; a wizard NPC is not likely to play that different from a PC Wizard in spell management.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
Every previous edition had hordes of additional splat books for cash flow, but they would spike in sales when they came out and then drop down, while core books sales stood strong. Development costs for the core books had a MUCH higher ROI.

Compare to 5e where it's almost entirely core book sales, plus APs.

Yup. When Wizards first took over D&D they used a tweaked version of the "successful" RPG publishing business model - put out core books, then put out supplements constantly to gleam crumbs from supplement money and to try to sell more core books to new players. A game line had to support itself entirely or else it was axed and so D&D had to be self supporting - if it wasn't bringing in a consistent amount of dollars per quarter then it would get the axe in favor of a different game. That's how TSR ran D&D in the 90s and Wizards looked at that model, decided that the only problem with it was that TSR basically had game lines that competed with each other (in the sense of having multiple settings each with their own releases every month) and trimmed it back to a roughly one book per month release schedule making those releases overall "setting neutral". In order to fill those one-book-a-month releases with content they were essentially forced to pack them with "crunch" - their market research suggested that that was a common desire across D&D players. A group might not want to buy anything but Dark Sun setting books, but they'd be up for buying any "setting neutral" book full of new rules options. And so 3e was retooled in a way that made it easier to write crunchy rules supplements and plug them into the system (using a whole lot of 90s game design lessons learned about making systems that were easily expandable with splatbooks).

The problem with that approach is that if you're releasing a book every month full of new rules options a) your playtesting probably isn't that robust so b) you both break the game quicker (by releasing game-breaking options) and you discover existing broken bits in the game quicker (because you're pushing its limits in your design a lot faster that a slower release schedule). And so you start to hear the clamor for a revised edition that will bring together all of the rule fixes you've built over the course of a few years into a single place. Add to that the fact that "new revised edition" sounds like "more sales of core books" and you get the edition treadmill that Wizards was on from 3e through the end of 4e.

Of course the problem with THAT has become obvious in retrospect - every new edition release is a jumping off point for players who have invested time and money into the game. And so Wizards saw diminishing returns for each of their new edition pushes - hence the switch in marketing strategy, the shrinking of the D&D team, and the push to consider D&D "as a brand" instead of "as a game" to justify the continued existence of the D&D team to corporate mucky-mucks. (Marvel and DC comics see something similar with their strategies of rebooting books with new issue #1s periodically - a reboot has become a great jumping off point for old readers looking for an excuse to talk themselves out of buying the book every month. It's the same thing here, except that the players of older editions tend to just keep playing those older editions.)

I don't see a new edition coming any time soon because there is literally no reason for a new edition to come anytime soon. There aren't enough "official" new rules in the game post-release to justify any kind of new edition. They can put out a new rules-heavy tome every year for the next 10 years and still not have the massive quantity of official rules added to the game that Wizards put out between 3.0 and 3.5. Any attempt to release a new edition at this point would be a pure cash-grab - and a stupid one. They are far better off sticking with their original idea of making 5e the "evergreen" version of D&D and saving their rule changes as optional extensions.
 

Jeff Carlsen

Adventurer
5e D&D will last, without doubt, until sales figures flag consistently enough to warrant a new edition to rekindle interest. If you want a long-lived 5e, keep buying what's released, and keep sharing the game and the hobby with new players as long as you can.

My best guess when the flagging starts? Maybe... 2019? It's still going pretty strong, and as The UA articles have proven, there's quite a bit of design space they can mess with for a major rules expansion, so at the very least I think we're getting five to six years out of this puppy. IMHO more than a decade is unrealistic to get out of a "healthy" edition cycle; in my estimation both AD&D1 and AD&D2's cycles were a bit "unhealthy" toward the last few years of their cycles, made so extended by Gary Gygax's contentious ouster, and TSR's bad business moves, respectively.

Then again, it's been said that AD&D1 was still selling respectably into 1990, when it was forcibly killed off to keep from cannibalizing AD&D2 sales, so maybe we'll be looking at 5e books on shelves into the year 2030... :)

It's not just a matter of declining sales leading to a new edition or half edition. They've done that several times, and it split the fanbase every time. Mearls has talked about this. The short term financial benefit of a new edition comes at the expense of the long term health of the game. So, they're trying something different this time.
 

Eubani

Legend
I am more interested in rule modules than new rules. As this was to be the selling point of 5e.....Core rules +X module and Y module gives Z game feeling. At the moment WotC is acting like what they have in the dmg is good enough but it is not what they were trying to sell us.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I am more interested in rule modules than new rules. As this was to be the selling point of 5e.....Core rules +X module and Y module gives Z game feeling. At the moment WotC is acting like what they have in the dmg is good enough but it is not what they were trying to sell us.
The DMG modules really were what they were trying to sell; impressions otherwise were likely mistaken. However, of looks like the big book of crunch will expand on those options considerably...

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app
 

1720x

Villager
  • Static Spell saves and DCs
  • Bring back bonus spells (These felt better to me in 3x than the DC bumps ever did)
  • Meaningful Spell caster feats
  • Bake in class essential feats and spells into the class (Hex is a warlock class feature not a spell) Spell sniper should be built in to all casters
  • More non concentration buffs, or allow a high upcast to remove the need for concentration on low level spells (Think casting bless at 5th level)
  • Clean up smite, this power while it serves as an threat mechanic for paladins is all over the place.
  • Make other former Defender classes have a viable Defender subclass, The barbarian outshines everyone in the defense department, Maybe bake in Heavy armor master (But a bit better) into the fighter defender sub class, and give the paladin something, as the class is closer to the avenger at current, Here I will say it may even be worth losing smite or severely dampening it for a more defensive option
  • Make paladin features more useful, The disease immunity is rare, Sense evil is pathetic. These 2 need to be given some point of use or just be removed and replaced, that simple.
  • Also on the topic of paladins, and adding clerics, they need to sort out their identity, as they are becoming spiritually the same class. Maybe make the paladin a full caster but with more limited options for spells but heavy armor and great weapons (Restrict spells to healing, defensive, martial buffs, and effect removal) take the cleric, rename to priest and remove armor proficiency, Priests get access to the full cleric list plus some of the domain only spells as they make sense, All Priest healing is ranged, add more damage prevention spells (THP Resistance and the like to priests tool kit) reduce hit die to a d6. Base all abilities off of Wis and Cha. Paladin to become the classic cleric Priest becomes the Healing mage.
  • Clean up spell riders, The left overs from 1 and 2 E that made lots of sense in that world, but now are just odd ball effects that cause more headaches than fun (The penalty on raise dead, the zombie from finger of death, Alignment based triggers should be made optional) Each of these calls back to times past, Finger of death was designed for when a necromancer could have a legion of undead, Raise is just being out classed by a lower level spell and becoming a niche use, alignment is now really not used by a lot of DMs
  • Just redo the Sorcerer, ANd give us more bloodlines that are actually impactful, I think this is one of the few things 4E got right, but Pathfinder did also, give bonus spells, bonuses to spells, and tweaks on how spells work based on bloodline.
  • Give non lore bards access (Via a feat) to a fighting style
  • Fighting style feats (Let anyone on the front line pick one of these up)
  • Re work spell lists, grant all arcane casters wider access to spells (This hurt the sorcerer in 5E)
  • Re do basic stats for default characters Start at 10s not 8s allow higher totals at creation as stats will no longer be tied to spell saves/dcs, but apply fun bonuses such as bonus spells and damage boosts keeping them relevant but not game breaking
  • Remove the feat/stat bump increase choice, this choice is a no brainer for some classes and cripples the progression of others who are very feat dependent (Ranger)
  • Bake Sharp shooter into ranger class as well as hunter's mark
  • return max range to sneak attack (Was max range 30)
  • More skills and languages at creation
  • More feats (Not to the extent of 3rd or 4th but probably 1 every 3-5 class levels depending on class feature depth)
  • Change dated monster effects and conditions
    • Remove ghost's aging, replace with target loses one spell slot or use of a limited class feature
    • Mummy rot becomes a dot dealing d10 necrotic /round until removed and is a disease
    • Dragons are spell casters and give them a sample spell list in templates
    • Demilich give it spells FFS
    • Humanoids: Give us examples at several different levels (Low Mid and possibly high) for goblins gnolls and the like
  • Races
    • Make Ability bonuses more variable and do not tie them to a sub race
    • tie extras to sub race
    • Bake in the racial feats in full
    • Bake half humans together re add Vryloca and Shifter and Changeling
      • Unbind the +2 using sub race to place it
      • Asamar, teifling and Genasi could also fall under this heading
  • Increasing weapon damage (Number of dice) with higher levels, the static number creep means the damage die becomes largely irrelevant after a point in advancement so make a + 1 long sword do 2d8 + str meaning a +3 Longsword weilded by a max level fighter with maximum strength would do 4d8+5
  • Return to caster level scaling, use upcast scaling for range area, and targets effected
  • More spells of 6-9 3 max daily at cap would be about right since a casting attribute above 20 would be difficult to maintain
  • Use 4E treasure method and return recommended levels to magical items (This was a useful guideline for handing out equipment
    • Starting a game at higher levels generate and playtest sample starting gear sets (Ie weapon +2 Armor +1 2 potions of greater healing and 20 magical ammunition at levels 10-15)
    • PLAYTEST HIGH AND CAP LEVEL EXTENSIVELY
      • There is a lot to be said about having a plan for end game, to dedicate a chapter or more to handling 20th level adventurers, and how to reward them when EXP is not the driving force of advancement any longer. Explore options like magical item progression, Arch foes and the intrigues surrounding them, and founding a faith, kingdom, etc. as well as other potential end game progression options.
      • Options for picking up missed class features for cap level multi classed characters
      • Legendary magic (Scrap the epic spells these should be worth a level just to cast a single one
      • Any other ideas as well should be explored
  • Revise CR and Exp tables
    • Use 3 different CR for easy read CR (Creature vs 1 PC) CR 4 (CR vs classic 4 man party) CR 8 (Vs parties of 6+)
      • Rate CR based as follows:
        • 1 Action economy, accuracy
        • 2 Mobility and utility and damage potential
        • 3 defense
          • Action economy is king as PCs usually have the upper hand here, but a cr 3 monster capable of getting 4 attacks would be considerably more threatening than a CR 5 Monster with one attack Likewise a monster capable of removing a PC from combat with a single swing is far more powerful than a monster with twice the health and half the damage potential
          • Utility is an indicator of how well a monster synergizes in a group, and how mobile it is, highly mobile foes may be very difficult for the PCs to even attempt to attack, and foes that buff others are far more dangerous in groups than alone
        • CRs need not be the same across all three rankings, generally the larger the party the lower it's cr will be. As a side note this should not decrease the EXP value as the divide will handle this when dealing with a larger party.
    • WHen determining CR check that effects the creature can inflict are either temporary, or that the party will have the means to resolve the condition internally If not revise the monster to a higher CR or adjust the ability accordingly. The assumption that the party will all make a saving throw or that there will be a friendly healer in every town should not be presumed and a cr 3 monster should be able to be dealt with by a 3rd level party including after battle cleansing where necessary. This means that all lasting conditions should be able to be removed by at most a second level spell, or fall off after a rest if they are not.
    • Reduce the death's door threshold
      • Attacks that reduce a player to between 0 and -15 the character makes death saves normally
      • Attacks reducing a character to between -15 and -30 character auto fails first death save and must make 3 to stabilize
      • attacks reducing a character between -30 and -45 the character is considered to have failed 2 death saves, one more failure results in death or 3 successes stabilize the character
      • attacks reducing a character beyond -45 inform next of kin
    • This should reign in the viability of the healing word revive tactics as being alive with 8th HP increases the chances exponentially of being reduced to -45 HP by the attacks coming in on the next round.
  • Healing
    • Healing needs to be made more efficient, As the current state of the game stands Healing is not a part of combat except in emergencies, and even then takes exponentially more effort than dealing damage (3d8 inflict vs 1d8 cure). this said healing should be divided into 2 types
      • first large single targtet heals used as emergency buttons for a party
      • second small slow cast high efficiency healing used between battles.
      • This line may blur in spells above 4th or 5th level
    • An example would be Cure wounds (Level 1) restores 2d8 hp to 1 targer with in 30 feet adding 1d8 per caster level up cast removes the effects of one poison (2nd) disease (3rd) or allows the regrowth of a lost body part over the next 1d6+1 days (4th) reducing the time rolled by 1 day per level beyond 4th minimum 1 day
    • another example would be rejuvinate Level 1 range 30 feet all creatures spending hit dice may roll 2 dice per hit die spent and add the caster's level to their constitution modifier. at higher levels this ability allows one poison or disease to be neutralized form one creature for each spell level higher it is cast.
 

mrpopstar

Sparkly Dude
That's quite the list, @1720x. I agree with some, disagree with some, but gagged on your "more skills and languages at creation" bullet. As it stands, a human fighter is proficient in nearly 25% of skills at 1st level. He can also speak 25% of the standard languages as a baseline. It isn't difficult by any stretch for the core adventuring party to boast proficiency in every skill and fluency all standard languages.
 

Remove ads

Top