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

[Yaarel]

I think everyone should have BOTH long and short (along with atwill) so every class has a reason to take each

It seems like 5e is moving toward proficiency-bonus-times-per-day, rather than short-rest-times-per-day.

But putting every class on both long and short schedules is a good solution too.

One advantage of the bonus-per-day is it scales, becoming more frequent, thus more powerful while leveling.


I wonder if the there is a way to benefit from a number of 10-minute-rests-per-day equal to proficiency bonus? Thus combine the concepts of bonus-per-day and short-rests-per-day.

 

[Krachek]

yeah that still makes me sad... but I see it coming too.

I still want the game to be balanced more along the warlock class chassie... 2 subclasses that can mix and match, mini class features that you choose as you level up to customize more, and at will, short rest and long rest abilities.

I even think there should be 4 'simple' pre built level 1-10 builds for the base 4 classes (fighter rogue cleric wizard) that have all of those subclasses mini feature (invocations) and even atwill (cantrip) encounter/daily (spells) picked so you don't make ANY choices with that subclass (like champion)

The resting disparities have generate more complain and whim than LOVE.
I remember Mearls or Crawford saying that they were proud of this resting disparities, that it would allow PC to shine at different pace. The intent is noble, but the overall result didn’t follow. The management of the ´adventuring day´ has been a regular source of dissatisfaction that can be read here. How they will address that in the revision? I don’t know, but from now we should be playtesting solution. 2024 is coming soon.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The management of the ´adventuring day´ has been a regular source of dissatisfaction that can be read here. How they will address that in the revision?

They have 1000% signaled that the answer is 'by making it worse'.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The resting disparities have generate more complain and whim than LOVE.
I remember Mearls or Crawford saying that they were proud of this resting disparities, that it would allow PC to shine at different pace. The intent is noble, but the overall result didn’t follow. The management of the ´adventuring day´ has been a regular source of dissatisfaction that can be read here. How they will address that in the revision? I don’t know, but from now we should be playtesting solution. 2024 is coming soon.

I agree the current system doesn't work

 

[Yaarel]

By the way,

I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.

Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

By the way,

I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.

Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.

I will do you one better... any spell that takes more then an action to cast should be a ritual and all rituals should have gp cost but no spell/action should

 

[Yaarel]

I will do you one better... any spell that takes more then an action to cast should be a ritual and all rituals should have gp cost but no spell/action should

I consider meditating quietly a "ritual". So, it wouldnt really cost money.

But, creating magic items − especially consumable magic items − might cost money for the item itself that will be magicked.

 

[tetrasodium]

By the way,

I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.

Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.

having a table of 3-5 standard components with prices for them that spells just use (ie 1 pinch of $thing1/4 pounds of $thing two/etc) rather than every spell having a unique costly component would indeed be nice & allow economic changes along with room for reward without needing to dig into specific spells or make a bunch of changes. Spells can still require unique components but it would be a chest & ## pounds of daanvii quartz or whatever for leomund's secret chest instead of a 5000gp chest & a 50gp chest

 

[GMforPowergamers]

having a table of 3-5 standard components with prices for them that spells just use (ie 1 pinch of $thing1/4 pounds of $thing two/etc) rather than every spell having a unique costly component would indeed be nice & allow economic changes along with room for reward without needing to dig into specific spells or make a bunch of changes. Spells can still require unique components but it would be a chest & ## pounds of daanvii quartz or whatever for leomund's secret chest instead of a 5000gp chest & a 50gp chest

residum from 4e could come back

 

[Guest 7034872]

By the way,

I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.

Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.

You bring up a really good point. What I've noticed since getting back into this in 2018 is that many DMs I've seen don't even pay attention to the material component cost of the various spells: it only comes up and gets enforced when one of the players mentions it or asks about it.