D&D 5E (2024) New Campaign: Should I make the switch to 5.5?

[Burnside]

So back to Basic/Expert and AD&D? No thanks. And in a sense it already exists in the form of the Starter Set/Basic Rules, as AlViking noted.

Nah. The Basic Rules for 5.5 are still 5.5. Weapon Masteries, Starter Feats, etc - it's all still there. Just fewer subclasses.

Heroes of the Borderlands isn't at all what I want in a D&D experience, although Welcome to the Hellfire Club is closer. But regardless, Starter Sets are aimed at new players with the ultimate goal of moving them into the main 5.5 product line. I'm not talking about a product for new players specifically.

My suggestion is that WotC might want to consider why indie publishers offering simpler - but complete - iterations of 5E are doing so well, and maybe pursue that market in a low-risk way.

 

[Tigris]

FWIW, If I was WotC, I would strongly consider testing the market for a streamlined/less mechanically complex variant of D&D covering levels 1-10. Doesn't need to be a huge product; maybe even digital-only at first. But it could be a profitable small product line alongside the main one.

Why should they step back in evolution? You can still buy the old games. Also they do NOT want to have more than 1 version of D&D that was a bad idea in the past and would just split their efforts and they would be their own competitor.


Also there are manye market researches which failed. Old simple editions of D&D no one wants to buy them anymore. Shadowdark? Also compared to D&D no one wants to buy it. Dragonbane, also no one wants to buy it.

The only other D&D like which gets somewhat players (compared to D&D) is Pathfinder 2 which is more complicated.


Also they had tons of feedback for 5.5 and people did not want martials to be even more simple, thats why martials god improved with weapon masteries etc.


WotC does not care for tiny markets (like people wanting to play simple D&D), they care for the big market only.

 

[Burnside]

This was my list of reasons to switch. Things I see as straight upgrades

• Weapon Masteries
• Starter Feats
• Adjustments to spells - like Counterspell and sleep.
• The Bloodied condition
• Change to inspiration
• More use of Proficiency bonus in feats and class abilities. Fixing GWM and SS
• Decoupling stats to race and in general making race more flexible
• Making background more important.
• Changes to illusionist
• Changes to Monk
• Changes to unarmed combat and grapple/moving away from opposed Athletics checks.

I would also add from the Eberron and Forgotten Realms books

• Organization feat chains
• Interesting subclasses
• Abilities that use HD as a resource

Full disclosure. I think the only thing that I don’t like about 2024 so far is the Path of the World Tree barbarian. I found it quite frustrating because of its ability to move enemies around. That was quite confounding as a DM. Though I don’t think it was OP, just disruptive.

It's just more of a mixed bag for me:

• Weapon Masteries - net negative, don't feel they're needed and they slow down combat
• Starter Feats - net negative, weren't needed and add complexity/character sheet bloat
• Adjustments to spells - like Counterspell and sleep - some good and some bad in the adjusted spells
• The Bloodied condition - I like this
• Change to inspiration - I like this, and the change reflects how most people used it already
• More use of Proficiency bonus in feats and class abilities. Fixing GWM and SS - yes, good
• Decoupling stats to race and in general making race more flexible - yes, good
• Making background more important. - yes, good
• Changes to illusionist - minor, but yes
• Changes to Monk - big improvement
• Changes to unarmed combat and grapple/moving away from opposed Athletics checks. - I much preferred the old rules
• Organization feat chains - I hate feat chains
• Interesting subclasses - I think some of the new FR subclasses are very poorly designed; I do like the new artificer though
• Abilities that use HD as a resource - sure

I'd also add:

• Too many sources of Temp HP which creates admin work & again, slows the game down slightly
• The Circle Casting rules in the new FR books are kind of a disaster
• For my taste, too much teleporting. I love teleporting as a player, but it's an ability 5.5 gives out like candy to the degree that it loses its charm for me

 

[Burnside]

Shadowdark? Also compared to D&D no one wants to buy it.

Do you think D&D sells better than Shadowdark more because of how the actual games play, or might it have slightly more to do with awareness/name recognition/huge marketing budget/being a 50+ year old national institution brand name owned by a publicly traded company?

All I'm saying is that Shadowdark is shockingly successful considering it's a creator-owned grassroots indie product with a comparative micro-budget. If I was WotC, I would at least be interested in examining that success.

Because if I could combine Shadowdark's design with D&D brand recognition, I bet I'd make a lot of money.

 

[mamba]

They did kind of do that with one of the latest starter set "Heroes of the Borderlands", didn't they? It's only up to level 3, but that's high enough to get feedback on whether people like the idea or not. Personally I don't think it's necessary, that's what the basic rules are for.

are there Basic rules for 5.5 and where can I get them? I assume they were in the starter sets in the past

 

[Zardnaar]

I 100% agree that "modern" design tends towards simplicity and I think Shadowdark punching so far above its weight class is clear evidence of what a lot of folks actually want in their TTRPG experience.

I am not prepared to predict that 5.5 won't last, but I DO think that 5.0's relative simplicity was an important factor in its success, and I am surprised by 5.5's (modest) move in the opposite direction. I'd have preferred if anything a modest move in a streamlined/simpler direction - and that in the form of a Tasha's-sized supplement with optional rules to streamline 5E, not a relaunch of the core books.

I appreciate that WotC is a corporation and they need to make money, but I don't really see a strong need for 5.5 to exist other than the financial one. There I things I like about 5.5 and things I don't, but really no silver bullet in it that makes me say "Ah! See, THIS right here is why we, as players and DMs, needed 5.5!"

With other edition changes, I think you can make stronger arguments that it was time for the game itself to evolve and change; I struggle to see that argument for 5E to 5.5.

5.0 has a lot of small issues that added up over 10 years. Mo steps completely ducked along with encounter rules.

Class design was flawed ascwell. 5.5 got that part mostly right.

Errata vs new edition though... .

After 10 years your sales will plateau hell I suspect they did 2020 or so then covid was a suger rush.

 

[Burnside]

are there Basic rules for 5.5 and where can I get them? I assume they were in the starter sets in the past

There are free 5.5 Basic Rules available for use on DNDBeyond, but not as a PDF or anything.

There is also the 5.1.2 SRD, which is suspect is what's meant by "basic rules" in this case. They are not identical to the free rules you get to use on DNDBeyond.

 

[TheSword]

It's just more of a mixed bag for me:

• Weapon Masteries - net negative, don't feel they're needed and they slow down combat
• Starter Feats - net negative, weren't needed and add complexity/character sheet bloat
• Adjustments to spells - like Counterspell and sleep - some good and some bad in the adjusted spells
• The Bloodied condition - I like this
• Change to inspiration - I like this, and the change reflects how most people used it already
• More use of Proficiency bonus in feats and class abilities. Fixing GWM and SS - yes, good
• Decoupling stats to race and in general making race more flexible - yes, good
• Making background more important. - yes, good
• Changes to illusionist - minor, but yes
• Changes to Monk - big improvement
• Changes to unarmed combat and grapple/moving away from opposed Athletics checks. - I much preferred the old rules
• Organization feat chains - I hate feat chains
• Interesting subclasses - I think some of the new FR subclasses are very poorly designed; I do like the new artificer though
• Abilities that use HD as a resource - sure

I'd also add:

• Too many sources of Temp HP which creates admin work & again, slows the game down slightly
• The Circle Casting rules in the new FR books are kind of a disaster
• For my taste, too much teleporting. I love teleporting as a player, but it's an ability 5.5 gives out like candy to the degree that it loses its charm for me

Yeah ultimately you have to look and decide how much you don’t like the things you don’t like.

I agree that there is a lot of Temp HP. In some respects that acts as a counter because it doesn’t stack which I kind of like. Particularly when it promotes cooperation between players. Though yes I find it a little bit too much. But that is a very minor disinclination vs the many things I really like such as starter feats.

Really don’t see how anyone can prefer 2014 grapple. Lack of skills on NPCs and monsters made a mockery of it because of the proficiency gap.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why should they step back in evolution? You can still buy the old games. Also they do NOT want to have more than 1 version of D&D that was a bad idea in the past and would just split their efforts and they would be their own competitor.


Also there are manye market researches which failed. Old simple editions of D&D no one wants to buy them anymore. Shadowdark? Also compared to D&D no one wants to buy it. Dragonbane, also no one wants to buy it.

The only other D&D like which gets somewhat players (compared to D&D) is Pathfinder 2 which is more complicated.


Also they had tons of feedback for 5.5 and people did not want martials to be even more simple, thats why martials god improved with weapon masteries etc.


WotC does not care for tiny markets (like people wanting to play simple D&D), they care for the big market only.

Counter argument is 5E relative simplicity biggest D&D ever.

People who provide feedback online tend towards complexity more. Revisions also tend towards complexity then scale back next edition.

I suspect WotC also want to drive peopke towards online play. The computer handles some of the complexity for you. Keeping track of conditions for example.

Really game you kind of want numbered minis on a grid and a condition tracker. I use blank paper and just write the damage taken. PitA writing in conditions.

BG3 is more complex but still fun as you're not doing the work.

Finding 5.5 DMs may be harder than 5.0 ultimately. Theyre using beyond data after all

 

[Tigris]

Do you think D&D sells better than Shadowdark more because of how the actual games play, or might it have slightly more to do with awareness/name recognition/huge marketing budget/being a 50+ year old national institution brand name owned by a publicly traded company?

All I'm saying is that Shadowdark is shockingly successful considering it's a creator-owned grassroots indie product with a comparative micro-budget. If I was WotC, I would at least be interested in examining that success.

Because if I could combine Shadowdark's design with D&D brand recognition, I bet I'd make a lot of money.

Shadowdarks creator 100% just profited just from being a well known 5E creator its not someone coming from nowhere. And in the end "removing stuff" is easy. And Shadowdarks success is still laughable compared to D&D.

You can always just play level 1-5 in D&D 5E, or not use subclasses etc. so people can play this and people can easily make 5e homebrews like shadowdark anyone can do this in 2 afternoons. You dont need to spend well paid game designers to do such things.


On the other hand adding things is hard, so it makes sense to pay to play gamedesigner to create more complex things, because that is hard, especially to do somewhat balanced and consistent.