D&D (2024) Little changes for 5.5

[ad_hoc]

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.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

 

[John R Davis]

Ignore the noisy 1000's, respect the content millions and just tweak the glaring errors.
Thank you.

 

[humble minion]

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!

 

[Lyxen]

Ignore the noisy 1000's, respect the content millions and just tweak the glaring errors.
Thank you.

^^ Exactly this.

 

[Horwath]

Ignore the noisy 1000's, respect the content millions and just tweak the glaring errors.
Thank you.

and how will you know what the glaring errors are without the "noisy 1000's"?

 

[Lyxen]

and how will you know what the glaring errors are without the "noisy 1000's"?

Uh, because they are glaring ?

 

[Horwath]

Uh, because they are glaring ?

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

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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]

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.

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 ?