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

[Horwath]

Personally, I don't know that there is anything I'd want to change. We've already made those changes at our table. The nice thing about 5e is that changes, like the ones you have listed, are easily managed with this edition. Implement them and see how they feel for you.

Well, some version of update will happen.

Will it be 5.5e or 6th, I don't know. But the money treadmill must go on.

And they tend to release new edition or revision of current edition around 4 years apart. For 5th edition that comes in 2018.

 

[darjr]

No thank you. WotC keep on keeping on.

 

[Oofta]

Well, some version of update will happen.

Will it be 5.5e or 6th, I don't know. But the money treadmill must go on.

And they tend to release new edition or revision of current edition around 4 years apart. For 5th edition that comes in 2018.

Based on ... what exactly?

They're probably coming out with a new player's options book, and I wouldn't be overly surprised by a DM's options book either.

A new edition redoing core rules? I don't see it and I don't think it's necessary. Based on everything we've seen, 5E is doing quite well.

 

[77IM]

Wizards would really be shooting themselves in the foot hard, if they made such drastic changes within the next few years. Instead, let's think about what minor changes they might be able to squeak by.

Instead of 5.5, we should be thinking about 5.1:

• Errata. Most of the errata changes are mere wording changes, and could be included easily. I think the biggest one would be changing every damn monster in the MM that has resistance to non-magical "weapons" to instead have resistance to non-magical "weapon attacks." Most of the other errata changes are isolated to a single spot.
• Clarifying language. I'm sure they've got a list of Frequently Asked Questions that are so dang frequent that it would be worth adding a sentence or two here or there to clarify the rules. This is kind of like errata++.
• Re-balancing feats and spells. We all know that a few feats are OP and many others are duds. Likewise, several spells are obviously not worth taking. Some of this has already been addressed by errata. But they could do a few more, because the changes are isolated; it probably won't ripple through the system. Examples: I'd like to see the -5/+10 feets nerfed a little (a LITTLE), and Polearm Mastery nerfed. I think many of the skill-related feats (Athlete, Actor, Skulk, etc.) should grant Expertise in the skill they apply to. Weapon Master should just give proficiency in all weapons. Savage Attacker should somehow, you know, be savage, not just a damage upgrade.
• Revised classes. They've said that they wouldn't include the revised ranger in a new printing of the PHB. But I think if they came out with a "Revised Edition" a few years from now, and if the revised ranger proved popular, they could put it in there and people would be happy rather than sad. I wouldn't change much about the other classes -- maybe improve the Four Elements monk a little, a couple of targeted fixes to barbarian's Frenzy and the warlock's Blade Pact, nerf the druid Moon Circle at low levels, that sort of thing.
• New races, subclasses, feats, spells. A FEW new game elements would be good; it may help people who already have the un-revised PHB feel that they are getting some value. Adding new stuff is tricky because it's easy to go overboard and overwhelm new players. Everybody will have a different opinion about how much is too much, so here's mine: sorcerer doesn't have enough subclasses, there aren't enough feats for spellcasters, and non-fire energy types need better representation in damaging spells, especially at spell levels 2-3. I could maybe see a couple of new races (aasimar, genasi, and split tieflings into two subraces) and some racial feats, but maybe not.

My guideline would be to make the new PHB absolutely, ruthlessly backwards-compatible with existing adventures and supplements. There should be zero conversion needed for those things. Converting existing characters should be as simple as, "oh your underwhelming feat/feature now gives you a new bonus, so write that down." That's IT. Anything more and it will fracture the player-base and the publisher-base. We saw this with 3.5 and it sucked.

 

[Horwath]

Based on ... what exactly?

They're probably coming out with a new player's options book, and I wouldn't be overly surprised by a DM's options book either.

A new edition redoing core rules? I don't see it and I don't think it's necessary. Based on everything we've seen, 5E is doing quite well.

I'm not saying that 5e is doing bad. It's quite good actually. But look at the trends:

3rd ed year 2000.

3.5e y 2003.

4E y 2008.

4E essentials(essentially 4.5E) y 2010.

5th ed y 2014.

 

[Mercule]

The "biggest" change in my mind is that feats should be moved back into core and not compete with ASI. As they are right now as an option some people use and some people don't and with the different ways people roll up ability scores you end up with a rather large variance in power levels and general assumptions that make the game balance overall less easy to judge. And the alternative is just dropping feats, which I have no desire to do.

This would make me sad, and I'd probably not move to the new edition. The "feat treadmill" was one of the worst aspects of 3E/3.5E. I like feats as being (relatively) minor perks that help characters to fill out roleplaying niches more than grant real power. Ideally, I'd like to actually see both feats and ASIs decreased. I'm not actually sure the game actually even needs ASIs, but it gives a balanced way to keep feats as an option w/o having them as prominent as 3E.

I had actually hoped that 5E would jettison ASIs and that the feats would be converted to be more like "ribbon" abilities. I like the current balance, for the most part.

 

[happyhermit]

I'm not saying that 5e is doing bad. It's quite good actually. But look at the trends:

3rd ed year 2000.

3.5e y 2003.

4E y 2008.

4E essentials(essentially 4.5E) y 2010.

5th ed y 2014.

Well, look at the trends of product release for those editions. How many books were released during those periods? If Wotc can buck that trend why wouldn't they buck the new edition treadmill as well.

Almost all of the major changes mentioned in this thread ie; feats not being completely optional or and either/or ASI proposition, Free BM maneuvers for all "martials", make healing cost HD, etc. would all individually make me seriously consider walking away from the game. If they were made as 100% optional alternatives that's fine though still bloaty, but not a real change then.

They are going to release new mechanical options for players and Gms, that much is certain, though not something I really want.

There is no basis to infer that there will be a new "edition" of any type within the next 5e years and using the paradigm of 3e and 4e to predict that is completely flawed because the 5e paradigm is so obviously different.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not saying that 5e is doing bad. It's quite good actually. But look at the trends:

3rd ed year 2000.

3.5e y 2003.

4E y 2008.

4E essentials(essentially 4.5E) y 2010.

5th ed y 2014.

If I were a betting man and if there were a way to do so, I'd wager that you are incorrect. Comparing 5E to 3.0 is comparing apples to oranges, and I think they learned their lesson by having such an extended playtest period.

There were also issues with 3.5 both in structure at higher levels, option bloat and too much reliance on gamer specific language that made the system less approachable. All those factors and more led to the release of 4E. The essentials books were a last ditch effort (IMHO) to salvage the mess that was 4E and to shore up profits while they started working on 5E. As far as 4E ... they had to do something. Pathfinder was eating their lunch.

As the saying goes "past performance is no guarantee of future results." They've made an approachable game (much to the chagrin of some grognards) and changed the overall approach.

So what are you willing to wager?

 

[mrpopstar]

Drop subclasses and feats from the core. Include them in an expanded options supplement.

 

[Mercule]

My number one want of 5.1, 5.5, or 6.0 is that it's a long time in coming.

Otherwise, the list is a bunch of minor stuff:
- No drow in the PHB (removing them everywhere would be fine, too).
- Pull gnomes into the standard races and put halflings in optional.
- Make tieflings look mostly human, again.
- Get rid of the Barbarian class entirely.
- Put the latest UA Ranger (or something similar) into the PHB, in place of what's there.
- Tweak Sorcerer a bit. Not sure how, but it just doesn't "click" for me. I think there's a disconnect between "magic is in my blood" and "I have to use the same arcane formulae as Wizards".
- Replace the Wild Magic bloodline with a Wild Talent that captures the Psionic feel of doing magic with force of will/personality. (Don't call it psionics, though.)
- Stop referring to skills in the format of "dexterity (acrobatics) check". It's just an acrobatics check. At most, it's "acrobatics (dexterity)", but skills should not be a subset of ability checks.
- Do something that makes tool proficiency more clear. By this, I mean give an actual list and give someplace to check off on the character sheets.
- Make determining surprise a bit more clear. In fairness, most editions have kinda sucked at this.
- Raise the AC on monsters a point or two. Bounded math is good, but this variable isn't quite right.
- Provide a slightly better price list for magic items. I don't want a magic Walmart, but the ranges are too broad/vague.
- Organize magic items by category. I've never had a time where I was trying to decide between putting a flame tongue or folding boat into an adventure, but I have wondered about whether it should be a flame tongue or dragon slayer. That sort of grouping would be much more user-friendly.
- Make about as many references to the Forgotten Realms as the current edition has to Greyhawk. This includes support across all books, adventures, etc. Even better, mothball the Realms entirely. Yeah, I know. Not happening.

Of all those, the magic item organization is probably the one that bugs me most. I seriously can't see how that made it to print without someone saying, "Guys, this sucks to use." At least include tables/lists by type.

I'm not saying that 5e is doing bad. It's quite good actually. But look at the trends:

3rd ed year 2000.

3.5e y 2003.

4E y 2008.

4E essentials(essentially 4.5E) y 2010.

5th ed y 2014.

I could get behind a 2020 release, give or take. I'd actually prefer the 10ish years that 1E AD&D had, but whatever.