D&D 5E What would you like to see in a "revised edition" of 5E?

[Dausuul]

Anyone who thinks 5e needs a Revised Edition is someone who will never be happy with any gaming product, ever. There is no point in trying to appease such people.

You can be happy with something and still see ways to make it better. I love 5E, I think it's the best edition of D&D ever by a country mile, but I can see right away some things I'd like improved; why is there "no point trying to appease" people who think the Stealth rules could stand to be polished up some and sorcerers need more cold spells?

Now, as far as balance issues go, those are going to take a while to shake out. While I'm as eager as anyone else to debate 5E game balance, it's far too early to make up a definitive list of issues. I'm confident there will be issues, but we don't yet know what they are.

 

[DaveDash]

What I'm getting from this debate so far is that dodging is way overpowered in 5E. I don't think a single question aimed at you has connected yet.

Imaro didn't ask for combat logs or damage charts. He asked what exactly Bob the melee character took when Jim took Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, and why the DM was using a majority of flying creatures.

Maybe you're right and those feats are overpowered, but you're not going to convince anyone of that by refusing to answer questions and saying anyone who wants to debate the point is "burying his/her head in the sand." If you don't want a debate, I don't know why you continue to respond to posts. What are you hoping to achieve? If you want everyone to admit you're right, you're sure going the wrong way about it.

It would actually help if he asked the right questions. Quote me where I said the DM only used flying creatures.

Point 1 is irrelevant. Its possible to completely eclipse a character without those feats damage wise when you have them. Do you dispute this?

 

[DaveDash]

I didn't ask if they are from a real game, I'm asking what feats did the players you're comparing take? I mean you gave us the feats of one character but don't list those of the other... why? that's pretty pertinent information if doing a comparison...



Will the data be complete this time? because if not I'll ask the same questions... what did the melee fighter spend his two feat slots on that isn't making him better at melee than the ranged fighter or comparable in ranged combat??



The issue is you are getting specific... claiming two specific feats on a particular character unbalanced the game but then don't provide the same level of specificity for the character you compare him too... Also I hate to break it to you but your claim is all about specifics.

No it's not pertinent at all. My claim is that these feats are not working as intended because you can completely eclipse one characters damage output by taking them, do you refute this?

For the rest of your post, you didn't even quote me correctly. I never said what you are claiming at all "The DM only used flying creatures". Start by quoting correctly.

 

[DaveDash]

I'm actually going to bow out of this thread. You guys can draw your own conclusions based on what I have posted so far. You can also try out some higher level games yourself and use these feats (with and without) and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Imaro]

No it's not pertinent at all. My claim is that these feats are not working as intended because you can completely eclipse one characters damage output by taking them, do you refute this?

If I take tough twice and you devote two slots to dealing damage... yeah you should probably do alot more damage than my character... of course I'll probably be able to take more damage than you... Context is everything and your dancing around specifics is starting to make me think you really don't know what you're talking about.

For the rest of your post, you didn't even quote me correctly. I never said what you are claiming at all "The DM only used flying creatures". Start by quoting correctly.

I never said "only" I said a majority... @Dausuul read my post correctly, I'm surprised you didn't... Now whose purposefully misquoting?

As for a quote, here you go...

Or, as another example, picture this scenario. You're Bob the melee fighter and you've put hundreds if not thousands of hours into your character. You are finally reaching the higher levels. Jim the archer however in your group has decided to pick up Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. As you start leveling up, you start to note a lot of encounters you're pretty ineffective compared to Jim. Jim can basically do everything you can do up close and personal in combat, but he can also do the same things at range, and unfortunately for you, most of the higher level encounters you're facing happen to use a lot of highly mobile flying, or legendary moving creatures.

 

[Dausuul]

It would actually help if he asked the right questions. Quote me where I said the DM only used flying creatures.

The question was why the DM used a majority of flying creatures. It was in response to this:

"...unfortunately for you, most of the higher level encounters you're facing happen to use a lot of highly mobile flying, or legendary moving creatures."

Point 1 is irrelevant. Its possible to completely eclipse a character without those feats damage wise when you have them. Do you dispute this?

Point 1 is highly relevant, because we don't know if the greatsword fighter invested his 2 feat slots in boosting his damage output. If he didn't, then all you've proven is that 2 feats is better than 0 feats.

Since you keep refusing to answer this very very simple question, I'm assuming this is correct and the greatsword fighter used his feat slots on things that didn't improve his damage output. In which case, he deliberately chose to deal less damage and get other benefits in exchange, and I don't see a problem.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I would personally like to see a commitment from WotC towards not revising the core rules at all for the next decade (maybe alter the cover art on a reprint, maybe, but that’s about it). In 10 years time we might see a classically built 50th Anniversary edition.

There were too many rules changes made to the game post 3rd edition already, and they weren’t all that successful. Rather than invest in edition wars all the time, WotC ought to invest in carefully marketed advertising (and movies), positive word of mouth and organised play, some great adventures and campaigns, maybe a carefully crafted open license for 3rd party support, and a bit more electronic support (which would be started by pdf releases of the core rules).

But change or add to the rules again (and again)? No.

 

[IchneumonWasp]

I would personally like to see a commitment from WotC towards not revising the core rules at all for the next decade (maybe alter the cover art on a reprint, maybe, but that’s about it). In 10 years time we might see a classically built 50th Anniversary.

There were too many rules changes made to the game post 3rd edition already, and they weren’t all that successful. Rather than invest in edition wars all the time, WotC ought to invest in carefully marketed advertising (and movies), positive word of mouth and organised play, some great adventures and campaigns, maybe a carefully crafted open license for 3rd party support, and a bit more electronic support (which would be started by pdf releases of the core rules).

But change or add to the rules again (and again)? No.

I agree with this. D&D 5e is in essence what D&D has always been and should always be. The game is good as it. Sure, when more people have played it, they will be come aware of problems and think of ways to solve it. But it is a game. There will always be problems with balance and different preferred styles of play etc.

It is also not something that needs to have an official revised edition. It would be better to just release more player options or alternative rules / modules, so people can decide at their table to change things if they want to.

 

[Grazzt]

It is also not something that needs to have an official revised edition. It would be better to just release more player options or alternative rules / modules, so people can decide at their table to change things if they want to.

You sir, win the internet.

 

[Joe Liker]

You can be happy with something and still see ways to make it better. I love 5E, I think it's the best edition of D&D ever by a country mile, but I can see right away some things I'd like improved; why is there "no point trying to appease" people who think the Stealth rules could stand to be polished up some and sorcerers need more cold spells?

I certainly didn't (and wouldn't) claim 5e is perfect, but the issues you mention do not call for anything like an entire revision of the rulebooks. A simple errata/clarifications page would work just fine for these and most other issues.