D&D 5.5e, will you get it?

Do you plan on getting the 5.5e books?

  • Yes, I have the 5e books

    Votes: 98 52.7%
  • Yes, and I did not buy 5e before

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • No, and I bought 5e originally

    Votes: 39 21.0%
  • No, and I did not buy 5e either

    Votes: 13 7.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 34 18.3%


Judging from the 1st playtest document, the designers already have some ideas that are justifying my previous decision to buy it.

log in or register to remove this ad


Lord of the Hidden Layer
My PHB's binding is breaking. By 2024 I will likely need a replacement that can stand up to regular use.


Following yesterday's announcements, I'm now leaning much more strongly towards "no". For reasons I've mentioned before, electronic offerings (other than PDFs) are useless to me, so that's two of their three pillars demolished at a stroke.

As for the new rules, it sounds like once again they're spending an awful lot of effort on the core of the game (and notably the player's options), which IMO are the bits of the game that least need attention. Where I think the game does need massive work, I just don't see it happening.


I think it’s almost certain that I’ll get some digital version of the books, as most of my playing is online with family and friends.

The question is whether I’ll get physical books. I have the books for every edition I’ve played (B/X, 1e, 2e, 4e and 5e), so part of me wants to have the 50th anniversary version as well. But as I said, most of my playing is online, so there’s not much need for physical books.

A physical/digital bundle might be worth it if the DND Beyond VTT is feasible to use. Or if the books just look fun to read.


I'll admit that I have a bad habit of buying books (TTRPG or otherwise) that I don't need that borders on a compulsion, but I'm going toi hold off on making any hard decisions until I see the finished product. I will admit to watching the changes closely and doing my best to playtest them as well, but I'm going to do my best to not let that sway my resolve (oh such a bad time to have a bad Will save)


Mind Mage
I downgraded my vote from yes − definitely − to maybe.

I am excited about the mechanical refinements and organizational restructuring.

But the heavyhanded setting assumptions, especially "gods", are a turnoff.

So, other. I will wait and see.


Mod Squad
Staff member
... jumped the woke shark.

Mod Note:
Using terms like "woke" in a dismissive manner is a great way to get a moderator to look at you funny. We have an inclusivity policy - please go elsewhere when you don't feel like following it.

Yes. My core 5e books are getting a bit the worse for wear, especially the PHB, and it'd be nice to have something to replace them.

Besides, I don't own a book with the ardling race yet.

Get it? Absolutely. Use any aspect of it that I liked the 5e version of better? Only when someone else is running the game.

I think the greatest strength may end up being that it simply blends very well with 5e.

Li Shenron

So far, these are 1D&D. At least like 90% of what we have seen.
Yeah, the first playtest packet already pretty much puts the nails in the coffin for me.

I already knew about feats becoming mandatory due to new backgrounds, because they've been shelling them around in all campaign settings books already. I absolutely love feats both as a player and as a DM (I use them regularly to vary monsters) but I also heavily rely on feats being optional for players who want low-complexity PCs, and since I mostly play with casual gamers, beginners and kids, having to force feats on all 1st level characters is a dealbreaker for me.

Now I also know I have to force Inspiration too, because they're proposing a natural 20 grants Inspiration. That's A LOT of Inspiration for PCs especially if you run a roll-heavy game. Between my belief that the game is already bloated with advantage, and again an issue with complexity (not as big as feats for sure, but still one more thing to keep track of), in many of my games I practically do not use Inspiration at all, and in the others I use it as a pretty rare reward (typically when a player makes a tactically inconvenient decision as a sacrifice to save someone else or to better roleplay their PC).

Another huge dealbreaker is the "monsters don't crit" change. I have a strong personal preference for the consistency of a world where basic things work similarly for PCs and everyone else, and this puts a huge dent to it.

Don't tell me that "you can always choose to ignore these rules if you don't like" because I will. But it looks more like I will ignore the whole 5.5, because what would be the point for me to make the switch? I am pretty much running 5e with zero house rules!

And also don't tell me that these are only playtest stuff, we don't know if they'll be in the final book, etc... Some proposals maybe will be cut but most won't. And you can be absolutely sure that the fanbase will say yes to anything that makes their current PCs more powerful for free.

Greg K

I am leaning towards given that I dislliked most of Tasha's, disliked much of the first playtestt packet, and do not think the design team leads are good at mechanical design. However, given that there were a few things that liked, I need to see more before I can say yes or no.

The positives (for me) include the addition of Orc as a player race, Thieves' Cant acquired from background, baPrimal as a magic source, and Slowed as a condition,
I am mixed on ability score increases only from background and feats from background. With regards to the latter, I like it, but it means feats are no longer optional.
Last edited:


Unless it takes a weird turn, yes, I like what I'm seeing with this first playtest doc.

That said, I'll likely be supplementing it with LevelUp stuff (the parts that can be used outside base A5E) since I was so impressed with the monster book.

An Advertisement