D&D 5E Revisiting revised core rulebooks

[dave2008]

There is only one big mechanical change that has been talked about by WotC (Mearls) and that is getting rid of bonus actions. Unfortunately this requires massive changes to every books, as there are literally hundreds of characters and monsters abilities based on bonus actions. I don't think it's worth making a new edition for this purpose, and it will certainly have its own drawbacks.

I had the same thought fairly recently, but it was pointed out to me that Mike no longer believes bonus action need to be removed. A change to another rule solved his issue more effectively than eliminating bonus actions. There was a post about it, but i'm not going to go and try yo find it.

 

[Li Shenron]

I had the same thought fairly recently, but it was pointed out to me that Mike no longer believes bonus action need to be removed. A change to another rule solved his issue more effectively than eliminating bonus actions. There was a post about it, but i'm not going to go and try yo find it.

Interesting, thanks! If you eventually remember which was the other rule changed (I wonder how... errata?) then I would be interested in hearing about it

 

[dave2008]

Interesting, thanks! If you eventually remember which was the other rule changed (I wonder how... errata?) then I would be interested in hearing about it

Will do!

 

[ZeshinX]

Interesting, thanks! If you eventually remember which was the other rule changed (I wonder how... errata?) then I would be interested in hearing about it

Pretty sure this isn't the reason, but it is a pretty nice houserule on how to handle bonus actions.

Death to the Tyranny of Bonus Actions

Bonus actions in 5e? Not a fan. Mike Mearls now sees them as "fairly hacky," and I agree. But since removing them entirely won't happen u...

talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.com

 

[ZeshinX]

But how does this impact the likelihood of revised core rulebooks, even--dare I say--a new edition? Do you feel that:

A) It is now more likely that we see revised core rulebooks within the next few years?
B) Substantial revision is now more likely?
C) We may even see a new edition sooner than later?

I don't think they'll be changing much with the core rulebooks beyond including errata as they have been with certain printings. Doubtless the temptation to make significant changes to the problematic language therein exists, and along with those some mechanical changes as well while they're at it, but it would very much create a situation akin to the 3.0/3.5 changes. I get the feeling they very much wish to avoid that kind of situation, since they've done it with the previous two editions (3.0 -> 3.5 and 4e -> Essentials). If anything, they might simply reword where necessary, but mechanically things function otherwise identically as is.

I suspect the next major XGtE-type release will be the book to really offer some new ways of doing things, use of non-problematic language along with a large number of new mechanics and player options (I pray we finally see the ranger get its exceedingly long overdue revised options in official print).

I think a new edition is still a ways off. 2024 seems likely, if not later.

 

[delericho]

I think a new edition soon is somewhat more likely than it was previously - if WotC are serious about some of the lore changes, they probably need to be baked into the core, and they probably also need to break backwards-compatibility enough to 'force' people to update.

That said, a new edition right now is probably the last thing they want to do, given that 5e continues to sell so well. And when you factor in the problem that even-numbered editions have a tendency to almost kill the game, that suggests they should probably avoid it.

So... maybe. My gut feeling is that we won't see a new edition for several years yet. For the Anniversary, I think I'd instead expect to see some sort of deluxe re-issue of the books, maybe with new artwork but with no rule changes, but probably some greater emphasis on other premium products. Though I'm not sure what those might be.

 

[NotAYakk]

Pretty sure this isn't the reason, but it is a pretty nice houserule on how to handle bonus actions.

Death to the Tyranny of Bonus Actions

Bonus actions in 5e? Not a fan. Mike Mearls now sees them as "fairly hacky," and I agree. But since removing them entirely won't happen u...

talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.com

This certainly makes the elven hexblade PAM samurai paladin sorcerer far stronger.

Round 1: Fighting Spirit, Hexblade Curse, Shaft attack, Quickened booming blade, action surge, 6x triple-advantage attacks each with 27% crit chance and +10+stat+prof to damage, two sources of smite (warlock and paladin) on any crit.

Round 2: No need, everything dead.

Bonus actions used:
1. Spell (quickened booming blade)
2. PAM
3. Fighting Spirit
4. Hexblade curse

 

[ZeshinX]

This certainly makes the elven hexblade PAM samurai paladin sorcerer far stronger.

Round 1: Fighting Spirit, Hexblade Curse, Shaft attack, Quickened booming blade, action surge, 6x triple-advantage attacks each with 27% crit chance and +10+stat+prof to damage, two sources of smite (warlock and paladin) on any crit.

Round 2: No need, everything dead.

Bonus actions used:
1. Spell (quickened booming blade)
2. PAM
3. Fighting Spirit
4. Hexblade curse

Most definitely...which is why I don't play with people that favour "builds" over "characters".

 

[NotAYakk]

Most definitely...which is why I don't play with people that favour "builds" over "characters".

Sure, but you could have a rule that level 10 wizards get unlimited wishes, and it wouldn't break 99.8% of games where people built characters randomly.

Because the odds of 10 wizard levels is a bit low.

You could also just not includes feats and multiclassing and I think unlimited bonus actions is also fine (no more than one per feature).

I mean, hexblade is probably too strong.

 

[Weiley31]

Pretty sure this isn't the reason, but it is a pretty nice houserule on how to handle bonus actions.

Death to the Tyranny of Bonus Actions

Bonus actions in 5e? Not a fan. Mike Mearls now sees them as "fairly hacky," and I agree. But since removing them entirely won't happen u...

talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.com

That house rule: actually sounds like pretty cool. Does Mearls endorse it or what?