D&D (2024) What do you want & expect to see in 2024's 5.5e?

[Yaarel]

It could be, but not as long as the continue expecting the gm to balance sort rest & long rest classes against adventuring day assumptions blatantly in conflict with how people play/run the game & how wotc's own adventures are structured.

I figure, this fact requires a Warlock update anyway. So whatever works for the Warlock would work for other classes like Psion and Swordmage too.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, I think it was smart. Because I don't think most players use feats as a way to give "flavor" to their characters, they use them as just one more dial to raise their character's effectiveness and power level in whatever they are doing (which is usually combat, as that is the backbone of the entire D&D game.) So making feats optional meant some DMs could choose to just not allow all these new combat abilities that increased character power, when it was pretty soon into the game's release that DMs and players discovered just how powerful D&D characters already were. PCs didn't need additional power in combat, they were already powerful enough. And thus not having to worry about trying to present challenges for a party with a character with Great Weapon Master, a character with Sharpshooter, three characters with Lucky, and a character with Polearm Master... was a boon for many DMs.

If the game wanted to remove all feats that increased combat effectiveness and only had feats like 'Actor' or 'Linguist' that built upon the other parts of the game besides combat... the social and exploration pillars... maybe then having feats non-optional would be okay. But the game isn't going to do that because that would be 'non-compatible' with the game as it is.

Agree with the 2nd paragraph. I think the better solution is to avoid overpowered feats. They should have been able to figure out that GWM and SS were overpowered relative to the other feats.

 

[Faolyn]

There seems a shift away from per-short-rest features and toward proficiency-bonus-times-per-long-rest.

Can this work for the Warlock too, so that the two or so spell slots refresh instead depending on the proficiency bonus?

Spend a minute to concentrate and regain all expended spell slots; can do this PB times/long rest.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Agree with the 2nd paragraph. I think the better solution is to avoid overpowered feats. They should have been able to figure out that GWM and SS were overpowered relative to the other feats.

Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter should be folded into Fighting Style, as a high level Advanced Fighting Style feature.

 

[tetrasodium]

Agree with the 2nd paragraph. I think the better solution is to avoid overpowered feats. They should have been able to figure out that GWM and SS were overpowered relative to the other feats.

I think what happened was less not figuring it out than

• step1: Make a system with feat chains & such
• step2: "simplify!" "streamline!" "monorail!" comes down the chain
• step3: ????.
• step4: collapse the feat chains & reduce rate of feat gain at the last minute & declare feats "optional" as cover.

It's hard to imagine the folks at wotc being capable of not figuring it out.

 

[Yaarel]

All feats should feel comparable to a +2 ability score increase.

With this as a metric, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master might be balanced, while most of the other Player Handbook feats feel underpowered.

I prefer an update to improve the Players Handbook feats.

 

[Bill Zebub]

All feats should feel comparable to a +2 ability score increase.

With this as a metric, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master might be balanced, while most of the other Player Handbook feats feel underpowered.

I prefer an update to improve the Players Handbook feats.

I also just don't like ASIs. Or, they are far too frequent or predictable or something.

 

[Stormonu]

Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter should be folded into Fighting Style, as a high level Advanced Fighting Style feature.

Personally, I changed them so you took a minus equal to your PB bonus and gained twice that to damage.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I'm in the camp that sees the core rules not changing, but the old classes and subclasses being revised to smooth out their rough edges. There's wide agreement in the community on which classes and subclasses need a tune up.

I expect all sorcerer subclasses to get an additional spell list. I would also like it if they got some other class features that made them feel more distinct and differentiated.

The warlock needs a power bump. It's an awesomely thematic and flexible class, but feels undertuned at the table. Fixing the short rest mechanics, giving them an extra spell in Tier 2, and beefing up the invocations would probably do it.

The paladin needs a nerf, specifically with divine smite and the saving throw aura.

Even after Tasha's I think the ranger needs an overhaul. They key problem the ranger still has is that it lacks a defining class feature. There's no ranger equivalent to smite, rage, backstab, metamagic, etc. It desperately needs that. I'm not optimistic that it will ever get it. And I don't feel that hunter's mark is interesting enough to qualify.

I'd still love to see to see a swordmage.

I honestly believe the warlord could be a fighter subclass--a mechanic that lets it hand out Second Wind and Action Surge to other characters would get it most of the way there.

I suspect that after the new core books are published Xanathar's and Tasha's will feel very outdated. I think that's why they're being bundled and discounted at the same time this announcement is being made--because they're only relevant for another 24 months.

If the changes above are roughly what WotC delivers, then many of the original 5E subclasses will not be strictly compatible. Like if every sorcerer subclass gets a spell list, the shadow sorcerer from Xanathar's is gonna say, "What about me?"

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think what happened was less not figuring it out than

• step1: Make a system with feat chains & such
• step2: "simplify!" "streamline!" "monorail!" comes down the chain
• step3: ????.
• step4: collapse the feat chains & reduce rate of feat gain at the last minute & declare feats "optional" as cover.

It's hard to imagine the folks at wotc being capable of not figuring it out.

I also think the designers might have just not thought of or had forgotten just how much some players optimize D&D for combat at the expense of everything else.

With the break of 4E and the years separating the mix-max fiasco of "6-class/prestige class" multiclassing that some people did with 3E and what they were trying create for 5E... I suspect they didn't think those folks would return and go far into the mechanical weeds to milk every last bit of combat juice out of the 5E stone to turn GWM/SS/PAM/Lucky into the massive problems they ended up being for many tables.

Now granted... a lot of those problems are because DMs are allowing those problems to occur based on what they are accepting at their tables, the type of players they are playing with, and what their actions are for encounter building to try and challenge them... but at the end of the day the folks at WotC just didn't realize how vigous their game's math was going to need to be to keep things really bound. Because the looseness of the rope encircling the math still allowed for some folks to really pull against it and get far outside the herd.