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

[Belen]

Thats why single experiences dont matter, but analysis and statistic does.

There are always casters who cant play well. If you dont have effective spells at level 15 then something is really wrong with the amount you have.

Or most people do not obsess about builds in online forums.

I love how the response is that those players are just bad players.

 

[Zardnaar]

Thats why single experiences dont matter, but analysis and statistic does.

There are always casters who cant play well. If you dont have effective spells at level 15 then something is really wrong with the amount you have.

People push old 3.Xisms which are no longer tried.

Spellcasters suck at damage and lack save or dies. AoE maybe but seventeen death/incapacitated >moderate damage.

 

[Mort]

People push old 3.Xisms which are no longer tried.

Spellcasters suck at damage and lack save or dies. AoE maybe but seventeen death/incapacitated >moderate damage.

But casters can excel at controlling the situation and turning a difficult fight into a winnable even easy one. Everything from a well placed Web, or a timely Hypnotic Pattern, to low level stuff like increasing the party mobility with a jump or expeditious retreat. Heck, in 5.5 a sorcerer with

All of this mitigated by the fact that a caster usually has to be judicious when expending their "big guns."

If the need to be judicious is eliminated, the encounter defining spells can be hurled in a fairly regular basis- and that's a factor that needs to be taken into account when designing the encounters.

Very interesting to see other takes on this. Because it's a good reminder that there are MANY factors involved and even with a consistent rules set, tables play very differently.

 

[Parmandur]

So the time has come. Just wrapped up my last campaign in epic fashion, and already the clamors for the next are ringing in my ears.

But several in my group asked the question, should we move to 5.5 for the next game?


I am already using the 5.5 monster manual for some encounter, but I have been loathe to reteach my group (who is not the most rules savvy) all the little updates about 5.5. So for those of you who have gone through the transition, is the juice worth the squeeze? And if so, where there any online resources that you found great to help with the transition?

If they don’t really have system mastery, then there is nothing to lose, but the new presentation might help them. Go for it, or at least let them use the new books and mix and match, it really isn't much of a big deal at all.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Which to me sounds like "I didn't want any changes to anything existing". That's perfectly fine, I just don't see why you can't simply say that.

Okay, well that's almost true. What I'll come right out and say is that I didn't want any changes to anything that wasn't actually broken.

I really would have been much happier if they just rewrote the corebooks to reflect late 5e design, fixed a few things that were generally seen as problems, assuaged their racial hangups, and, critically, left vast amounts of the PHB untouched. Instead they did the prior things, but also gave us lots of lateral-move-at-best changes in the mix seemingly just to meet a making changes quota. But because it was "not a new edition" changes could not be highlighted, they had to instead be subtle snakes hiding in the grasses.

I'm not opposed to positive change, I just don't get jazzed about needless and questionable changes. There was no part of me antsy to see change for the sake of novelty.

 

[AlViking]

I see martials better even in high levels. The last encounter I ran at high level (15) the martials had pasted the enemies by the time the casters got an effective turn.

I almost never see full casters outperform martials.

I see the folks complain about them on ENWorld but that does not match my experience. Martials tend to be effective all the time while casters need to prep correctly and they do not always have right loadout for an encounter.

Every once in a while the enemy shows up in fireball formation, the caster rolls high and does a lot of damage. But in games I play or run? That seems to be the exception to the rule. In fact it's so much of an exception that it stand out and is more memorable which may be why some people think martial types always fall behind, because they remember those instances where spells were really effective and forget all the times the martial character dominated combat.

But there's a ton of variables as well, type of enemies faced as long as multiple different styles of play and how effective the individual player is. For me? I like playing a variety of characters when I get to play but it seems like my martial characters have generally contributed more to combat than casters.

 

[AlViking]

But casters can excel at controlling the situation and turning a difficult fight into a winnable even easy one. Everything from a well placed Web, or a timely Hypnotic Pattern, to low level stuff like increasing the party mobility with a jump or expeditious retreat. Heck, in 5.5 a sorcerer with

All of this mitigated by the fact that a caster usually has to be judicious when expending their "big guns."

If the need to be judicious is eliminated, the encounter defining spells can be hurled in a fairly regular basis- and that's a factor that needs to be taken into account when designing the encounters.

Very interesting to see other takes on this. Because it's a good reminder that there are MANY factors involved and even with a consistent rules set, tables play very differently.

But a lot of those control options are often difficult to use effectively because it limits options to defeat the enemy. Hypnotic Pattern for example is great if you have a large enough area and can target only enemies but it's just as dangerous to allies as it is to the enemy. Also assumes that enemies can safely and effectively attacked from a distance once they're incapacitated. With web you have many of the same problems as well as requiring anchor points.

The spells can be awesome ... situationally. So if the DM is regularly giving you options where those options work well it's going to change perceptions dramatically.

 

[AlViking]

Okay, well that's almost true. What I'll come right out and say is that I didn't want any changes to anything that wasn't actually broken.

I really would have been much happier if they just rewrote the corebooks to reflect late 5e design, fixed a few things that were generally seen as problems, assuaged their racial hangups, and, critically, left vast amounts of the PHB untouched. Instead they did the prior things, but also gave us lots of lateral-move-at-best changes in the mix seemingly just to meet a making changes quota. But because it was "not a new edition" changes could not be highlighted, they had to instead be subtle snakes hiding in the grasses.

I'm not opposed to positive change, I just don't get jazzed about needless and questionable changes. There was no part of me antsy to see change for the sake of novelty.

But the level of change you seem to think would be acceptable is almost to the point of being errata. I can't think of any changes that were made for 5.5 for the sake of novelty, even if I don't agree with every change.

If you don't mind change I think 5.5 while not perfect is a best version of D&D overall. You don't. It sounds like we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Zardnaar]

But a lot of those control options are often difficult to use effectively because it limits options to defeat the enemy. Hypnotic Pattern for example is great if you have a large enough area and can target only enemies but it's just as dangerous to allies as it is to the enemy. Also assumes that enemies can safely and effectively attacked from a distance once they're incapacitated. With web you have many of the same problems as well as requiring anchor points.

The spells can be awesome ... situationally. So if the DM is regularly giving you options where those options work well it's going to change perceptions dramatically.

One reason I rate emanations highly.

Less damage up front but every round+whatever else impure doing.

Doesn't hit allies eg spirit guardians or conjure animals/woodland being. Wisdom save force or radiant damage.

 

[AlViking]

One reason I rate emanations highly.

Less damage up front but every round+whatever else impure doing.

Doesn't hit allies eg spirit guardians or conjure animals/woodland being. Wisdom save force or radiant damage.

There are a few that are worthwhile like spirit guardians. Unfortunately they're also concentration so if the characters are fighting intelligent enemies they're also putting targets on their backs.

It's not that casters can't contribute significantly to combat, it's just that in my experience they don't completely dominate combat.