D&D (2024) Little changes for 5.5

[ECMO3]

I hear your point, but would be surprised if they didn't tweak some of the classes, in particular the ranger, and maybe monk and sorcerer, as well as incorporate a number of other smallish changes to issues that have arisen over, what will be by then, ten years of playing the edition.

After Tashas, I don't think the Ranger needs any more tweaking to be potent. It is now a top tier class probably third behind Wizard and just behind Paladin in combat but with substantially more utility than Paladin.

Those remaining that want Ranger changes seem to be focused on wanting a less magical Ranger and I don't see that as a change WOTC is likely to make. Although it would be somewhat popular on this board, overall I think it would nger far more people than it would make happy.

Monk might get tweaked. I don't see Sorcerer changing a lot.

 

[ECMO3]

wait one more, remove default deities, and go back to a 2e style "spheres" over domains (you can keep the name I mean the mechanic). instead of knowing all cleric spells you have 10-12 lists of spells (one being general) and clerics start with access to the "all/generic" +2 other spheres of spells, and as they level they get more spheres up to a max of 6 (5+ generic/all).

I think there is zero chance of that. I think it would be more likely that additional spells get added to the list that any cleric can prepare, potentially including some from other class lists,.

I really think they are going to steer clear of things that tighten or restrict builds in favor of things that expand or offer more build options and necking down the spells someone can pick does the former.

 

[ECMO3]

The Monk has fewer HP possible now from HD in relation to other classes than it even had in 1e!

This is not true. Monks in 5E have the same hps as Rogues and are 1hp behind fighters per level.

In 1e they were behind Fighters at every level and behind Thieves at every level after 1st. Even with a 16 constitution, when a Monk has the 2500xp to make level 2 the Thief with a 16 con is at level 3 and is 3hps ahead of the Monk. He gets further ahead at every level after that. By the time the Monk has the 3.2M xp to make 17th level the thief is 24th level. That assumes the Monk won every single challenge or else the thief would be even further ahead and the monk has to stop there and even defend his position to avoid dropping to 16th level. The thief keeps going up and up with every enemy he kills and go he finds.

 

[GreyLord]

This is not true. Monks in 5E have the same hps as Rogues and are 1hp behind fighters per level.

In 1e they were behind Fighters at every level and behind Rogues at every level after 1st. Even with a 16 constitution, when a Monk has the 2500xp to make level 2 the Rogue with a 16 con is at level 3 and is 3hps ahead of the Monk. He gets further ahead at every level after that. By the time the Monk has the 3.2M xp to make 17th level the thief is 24th level. That assumes the Monk won every single challenge or else the thief would be even further ahead and the monk has to stop there and even defend his position to avoid dropping to 16th level. The thief keeps going up and up.

Monks started with 2d4 for a maximum of 8 HP. Rogues started with 1d6 or 6 HP in 1e. Monks started ahead of Rogues in regards to HP base.

At level 2 the Monk has a base of 12 HP available, as does the Rogue, though with the more even scale of the 2d4 vs. 1d6 (or 3d4 at 2nd level vs 2d6 of a Rogue) the average for the Monk's HP is still higher than the Rogues base HP.

Monks fell behind a bit during mid levels but then did not STOP gaining HD at name level like other classes. Instead, they continue to get HD every single level.

In comparisons, Monks start with less HP in relation to other classes proportionally (they had two times the HP of Wizards, and more than Thieves and Assassins in 1e when created as a base, now though they have more HP than Wizards it is only by 2/3s and as you state, start with the same HP as a Rogue) and a lower maximum HP overall...which I pointed out originally.

If we REALLY want to get into the bushes, Monks also get a lower AC, lower damage and a whole slew of other nerfs. This probably originated in 3e where they nerfed the Monk pretty hard (and as I said, most likely due to racism, though probably not intentional racism on their part) and these nerfs have continued onwards into 5e, making it so that the Asian inspired class cannot be a toe to toe fighter or warrior, much less deal damage on the scale of others in many instances.

Why they feel the Monk cannot have as nice of things as other classes...well...institutional racism is a hard thing to overcome.

In some ways it originated with a racial bias (inspired by Kung-Fu the series and other movies, so based on those, but on a more awed inspired way, even if they didn't give the Monk ALL the nice toys it should have had even at the beginning) and that racial bias has continued, but gotten stronger in the way they view it so that the Monk got even LESS nice things than it did before.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not in D&D

'Twas a joke.

 

[teitan]

SO what we've seen mentioned already is too many for me but what I would ideally like is:

Adding one new subclass to each with minor tweaks to the existing subclasses in the PHB. Add in the Artificer.

Have Tasha's as an option but use the original as quick build "default" versions for races. Studying how they plan to do it has left a sour taste in my mouth because it reeks of playing catch up to Pathfinder who are doing it better already and based on what WOTC has said will continue to do that bit better.

Eliminate or at least clarify bonus actions. Too often people get confused about whether they have a bonus action or not. Either move to a move and two action economy or clarify and strengthen the bonus action so that it is more obvious. It has/can hold up games with players trying to figure out if they have a bonus action or not and I have seen players who don't know that their spellcaster has spells that can be cast as bonus actions because it isn't always clear unless you are using D&D Beyond.

Make what is an optional rule more visually clear. Mark it out in a bubble or colored text. The amount of people who expect optional rules to be the default style of play is staggering. The amount of people who don't realize they are optional rules is even more suprising. I pointed out that something was an optional rule at a session one night when a player called it out that I didn't do something right and he looked it up and was surprised to see I was right. This needs to be more clear.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The other method is to just not be simulationist in the rules, a la Fate or PbtA which don't have you roll for the attack so much as roll for the section of battle overall.

I mean 'don't be simulationist' is IMO the best advice any game designer or experiencer can take.

 

[Vaalingrade]

it was an example of too much balance... in order to make a game (any game) you need to balance it to a point but have enough clear differences that things don't feel or look the same.

in my example even though the fluff said Superman and Batman were very diffrent, the sheets could look out of game very similar...and get the 'samey' complint.

But your example even points out that they're in no way actually the same except for the guy who just wants to be clearly more powerful than the other (ie, Batman).

 

[Mercurius]

After Tashas, I don't think the Ranger needs any more tweaking to be potent. It is now a top tier class probably third behind Wizard and just behind Paladin in combat but with substantially more utility than Paladin.

Those remaining that want Ranger changes seem to be focused on wanting a less magical Ranger and I don't see that as a change WOTC is likely to make. Although it would be somewhat popular on this board, overall I think it would nger far more people than it would make happy.

Monk might get tweaked. I don't see Sorcerer changing a lot.

Then those changes can be incorporated into the PHB 50th, as not everyone has Tasha's. Meaning, if the "new Ranger" is in a supplement, it should be incorporated into the core rules.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Thank you for your definition of "revision". However, I was talking about the definition of "fully compatible", which is how they described it.

If I can run any previous character and every previous adventure with the new stuff without change, it's fully compatible. Revision is a different term that does not hold to that.

You're welcome. They can change things while still being fully compatible and run any previous character or adventure without much conflict. They could for exemple revise some core rules on falling, reduce a number of creatures having darkvision, change how racial ASI works etc while still being compatible.

But i am fairly guaranteed when looking back closely not every little part of it will be as fully compatible as they pretend because they will want a revision over a new edition roll out, while incorporating many new changes they want in the game. It won't just be an errata to the 3 books, it entails more than that.