5.5E Little changes for 5.5

ad_hoc

(he/they)
You consider those to be minor? That is more change than I want to see (and IMO in the wrong direction).

I'd like to see a change to grapple/shove. Ideally it shouldn't be an ability check. Too many things double proficiency and give advantage. At the very least when the MM is revised many more monsters should have Athletics proficiency.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lyxen

Great Old One
Not everyone likes to play with feats.
Feats being optional I think works better for the majority.

Yes, exactly, what is the problem with them being optional ? If everyone really uses them, then you should not have any problem using them in any game that you want to participate in. But if, as some of us suspect, they are not so widely used as that, it leaves a DM the option about the kind of game that he wants. I know that some powergamers absolutely need them for their builds and want the option removed so that they can force them down the DM's throat, I hope it's not the case here.
 


Clarify the language of Barkskin.
Tweak the weapon tables so there's reasons for Dex-based melee PCs to wield weapons other than rapiers.
Warlock invocations that boost Eldritch Blast should apply instead to any single attack cantrip, chosen at the time you select the invocation.
Tweak some of the attack spells to make things like lightning bolt remotely as good as fireball
Paladins should be able to choose at the time of subclass selection the damage type of their smite and of related spells like Divine Might, from between radiant and necrotic at least, and maybe the elemental damage types
Optional rule for clerics to swap a monk's unarmoured defence and one skill proficiency in lieu of any and all armour/shield proficiencies
List the school of magic in the class spell lists (like was done in Xanatha's and Tasha's)
Be a bit more generous about spells castable as rituals. Planar Binding? Glyph of Warding?

I've never played a monk or been in a game with one, so I've got no opinion there!
 





AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
Uh, because they are glaring ?
Then one would logically assume that WotC would have caught those when designing the system and that a revision to the core rulebooks like this one would be completely unnecessary. But here we are, because the game does have glaring problems in the base rules that haven't been fixed, we need people telling WotC the problems for them to be able to notice and fix them, and the players of the game have much more experience playing it than WotC do, simply because there are millions of us and only a few dozen game designers for 5e at WotC.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
not so glaring if they passed the playtest and went into print, are they?

Not everything that went into print was part of the general playtest, for once, and second, don't confuse a playtest with the actual life of a game played by millions. That being said, I don't see that many glaring problems. Our groups have the most fun with this edition than we've had since BECMI and AD&D 1e, and that's probably more nostalgia talking.

Because, honestly, small problems of balance here and there don't make glaring problems, except for the most avid powergamers. Imprecisions in the rules don't make for glaring problems when the intent of the game actually to be mostly guidelines with the DM adjudicating edge cases with local rulings.

Frankly, the only glaring problem remaining now that the ranger has been reasonably improved is the monk, but I don't care as I don't like the class anyway, especially in more traditional fantasy settings. :p

So I would really like to hear what your glaring problems are, as long as it's not a change of philosophy of the edition, because I can guarantee that this will not change (and neither would I desire it). Frankly, all the things that I've seen in this thread so far are non-problems or things that can easily be settled at any table with a bit of discussion. Of course, this is assuming that everyone agrees, but then if one table cannot agree, how could these be so glaring ?
 


HammerMan

Legend
Clarify the language of Barkskin.
yup even in the basic rules make the term "base AC" a defined term, something like your dex+armor+magic is your base and other things like sheilds and cover (or just make a shield count as lesser cover) add to it...

Tweak the weapon tables so there's reasons for Dex-based melee PCs to wield weapons other than rapiers.
remove the finesse property entirely. make all melee attacks use str or dex, and all range attack use dex or wis. Then make the thrown properity allow for str to damage but not to hit.
Warlock invocations that boost Eldritch Blast should apply instead to any single attack cantrip, chosen at the time you select the invocation.
100% cosigned...
Tweak some of the attack spells to make things like lightning bolt remotely as good as fireball
or, just hear me out here... we don't buff legacy spells at all... lower fireball damage to be in line with other 3rd level spell.
Paladins should be able to choose at the time of subclass selection the damage type of their smite and of related spells like Divine Might, from between radiant and necrotic at least, and maybe the elemental damage types
I don't know I think the smite spells have this covered...maybe just add a few. (Then you can give a GIsh class some elemental smite spells too)
Optional rule for clerics to swap a monk's unarmoured defence and one skill proficiency in lieu of any and all armour/shield proficiencies
I like it
List the school of magic in the class spell lists (like was done in Xanatha's and Tasha's)
meh could take it or leave it
Be a bit more generous about spells castable as rituals. Planar Binding? Glyph of Warding?
1000% yes, please...
 

Raith5

Adventurer
If everyone has just one different change they want, the number of overall changes once collated is going to be greater than any one's person's preference!

But there is a pretty narrow space they have to work with here. If it is just typos and minor changes I am sure many will say why bother buying it? But if they change too much and change popular things then few people will probably buy that as well.

My guess that the "5.5" iteration will be heavily tailored to making the game work online/VTT and enabling groups to customize the rules in that space. My biggest problem with the modularity of 5e is that the various optional rules are a bit scattered. Id like to see the capacity of the various rules to essentially be an online list where you can click the various options: short rest durations, healing rates, extra feats etc
 

Horwath

Hero
Not everything that went into print was part of the general playtest, for once, and second, don't confuse a playtest with the actual life of a game played by millions. That being said, I don't see that many glaring problems. Our groups have the most fun with this edition than we've had since BECMI and AD&D 1e, and that's probably more nostalgia talking.

Because, honestly, small problems of balance here and there don't make glaring problems, except for the most avid powergamers. Imprecisions in the rules don't make for glaring problems when the intent of the game actually to be mostly guidelines with the DM adjudicating edge cases with local rulings.

Frankly, the only glaring problem remaining now that the ranger has been reasonably improved is the monk, but I don't care as I don't like the class anyway, especially in more traditional fantasy settings. :p

So I would really like to hear what your glaring problems are, as long as it's not a change of philosophy of the edition, because I can guarantee that this will not change (and neither would I desire it). Frankly, all the things that I've seen in this thread so far are non-problems or things that can easily be settled at any table with a bit of discussion. Of course, this is assuming that everyone agrees, but then if one table cannot agree, how could these be so glaring ?
Do not confuse having fun with having a balanced game, we had a blast also playing 3.0E when it was released, and we won't go into how im(balanced) it was.

Also, rangers has been somewhat fixed, but not really, if they kept changes from UA and not watered it down, also if they gave rangers spell preparation instead of very limited spells know, it would be better. Also rangers and paladins should have had cantrips by default, and not to be slapped on with spending a fighting style for only 2 cantrips.

Sorcerer has been fixed with Aberrant mind and Clockwork soul, but what about all the subclasses printed before?

Rogue also has some issues, Assassin being number one issue. Mastermind, inquisitive, swashbuckler are not much better.
 

I think people’s hopes for the anniversary core books are way too high. I don’t expect much will be changing beyond changing races/ancestries to fit the new model and incorporating optional rules from later supplements directly into the core rules.
I tend to agree. I think they may put in some fixes for very individual things (probably not 'fixing the ranger,' but 'fixing the berserker barbarian,' or 'adding to PHB archetypes what became normal for XgtE and TCoE archetypes' or the like).
More likely, I think they will put in more clarifying language and guidance, especially among things that certainly will affect player characters, but not specifically in the character creation and build component of the game (class features and the like). Things like the vision and hiding rules, surprise/initiative, long rests and non-sleeping classes, required order/completeness (or not) of prerequisites in if-then statements, guidance on what they envision as part of the exploration pillar, DMing 101, and those kind of things. Stuff that enhances the game for the beginners (especially beginning DMs).
Incidental to this, I suspect that some rules (from all over the book) will get a review, and maybe a wording re-write. From those re-writes, I hope we can glean whether certain things were intentional or not. Random bits and bobs -- thief rogue with fast hands being the best recipient of the Healer feat, one-handed quarterstaff and shield (with or without PAM), coffeelock, and so on.

and how will you know what the glaring errors are without the "noisy 1000's"?
Noisy 1000s are actually good at finding potential errors, but you then have to address the situation from the perspective that not everything they find are actually errors.
I would love to see the survey even implying that MORE people are happy without the changes, let alone being able to say millions...
The important part would be that there would be a survey, and that it would be followed, thus not assuming that the noisy 1000s are representative.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Do not confuse having fun with having a balanced game, we had a blast also playing 3.0E when it was released, and we won't go into how im(balanced) it was.

I'm certainly not confusing, balance it totally artificial anyway, 5e has been designed to be only roughly balanced which is fine for me, which is why small balancing of classes is certainly not glaring, nor is it necessary.

Also, rangers has been somewhat fixed, but not really, if they kept changes from UA and not watered it down, also if they gave rangers spell preparation instead of very limited spells know, it would be better. Also rangers and paladins should have had cantrips by default, and not to be slapped on with spending a fighting style for only 2 cantrips.

No, this would only make rangers so strong that the 1000 would then start clamoring for other classes to be balanced up, in an unending power drift that would just kill the game as it killed 3e then 3.5e.

Sorcerer has been fixed with Aberrant mind and Clockwork soul, but what about all the subclasses printed before?

They are absolutely fine, I've played shadow personally, and we have a storm one in my avernus campaign, and we are having a blast.

Rogue also has some issues, Assassin being number one issue. Mastermind, inquisitive, swashbuckler are not much better.

And there is an assassin in my avernus campaign, she is also a bhaalspawn and currently trying to recruit dogai (devil assassins) to her cause to try and regain the Throne of Blood, she is doing perfectly fine.
 

Horwath

Hero
No, this would only make rangers so strong that the 1000 would then start clamoring for other classes to be balanced up, in an unending power drift that would just kill the game as it killed 3e then 3.5e. /quote
Yes, one extra skill and having hunters mark few times per day without spell components and concentration would break the game. Totally.
They are absolutely fine, I've played shadow personally, and we have a storm one in my avernus campaign, and we are having a blast.
Again, You can always have fun with with underpowered class, but do not claim that they are anywhere near Wizard, Bards and Clerics. Or even druids. They just lack versatility with so few spells with no real raw power to compensate. Maybe more sorcery points or their recharge on short rest, or both.
And there is an assassin in my avernus campaign, she is also a bhaalspawn and currently trying to recruit dogai (devil assassins) to her cause to try and regain the Throne of Blood, she is doing perfectly fine.
I have played it also. It can be fun as any class. But "assassinate" needs rework to be more reliable and not a total gamble.
 

Stalker0

Legend
They are absolutely fine, I've played shadow personally, and we have a storm one in my avernus campaign, and we are having a blast.
.
ask the 1st level party who died to a fireball their wild sorc accidentally cast if everything is absolutely fine.

sorcs are playable but they still could use some love. And that’s not just forum goers saying it, Wotcs own polls have sorcs near the bottom
 

HammerMan

Legend
Again, You can always have fun with with underpowered class, but do not claim that they are anywhere near Wizard, Bards and Clerics. Or even druids. They just lack versatility with so few spells with no real raw power to compensate. Maybe more sorcery points or their recharge on short rest, or both.
the problem is no non spellcaster is balanced with spell casters out of combat.

in any given fight the wizard can be decent, but the fighter would do more damage...in SOME fights the wizard will get off a SoD or SoS spell and be a huge game changer.
Outside of combat everyone has skills and role playing... but wizards have auto win buttons.

Every class should have at least the option to have a resource management system for out of combat abilities. Every group of classes (I go with Arcane Divine Martial) should have at least 1 easy for newbie class and one complex class... in a perfect world every class would have a sub class for 2-4 layers of simple/complex.


I have played it also. It can be fun as any class. But "assassinate" needs rework to be more reliable and not a total gamble.
We played with the more 'natural' meaning of surprise (AKA we would ask 'did you think that could happen') instead of using the mechanic of the surprise round, and that alone worked great. It wasn't until I came on here that I found people arguing the rule on it. So 'teleport like misty step' and "SUPRISE", attack someone on the street "Suprise" attack from invisabilty when you have not yet been seen in this encounter "SUPRISE"

however, fighting the guy who has been assassinat twice by your rogue... literally nothing is "Surprise" because he totally knows you are going for it.
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top