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

[Azzy]

IMO.... If you already have the '24 books, there's no point not using them unless your group doesn't want to. If you don't have them, there's no need to switch unless you have issues with the '14 books (the '24 books are supposed to be better balance, the some nerfs and some buffs). You can always mix and match if you want—like the using the '24 monk or whatever. In my opinion, 24 makes some positive changes and some non-so positive changes, so it's pretty much a wash when it comes to which is better.

But ultimately, I's suggest talking to your group and ask their thoughts on the matter.

 

[Mort]

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.

Not, if the caster is a sorcerer with careful spell or an evoker with sculpt spells. Then friendly fire isn't a problem, and distance isn't that big a deal either.

It's a group game, and the caster generally has the luxury of picking spells that play to the group strengths, like not picking web if the group had no range.

And notice, I'm not recycling the old (and mostly tired at this point) argument of casters greater than martials. I'm just saying casters bring allowed constant access to their top tier (highest level) spells seems easy too strong to me.

Though even here, to bring it back to 5.5 vs. 5e, 5.5 really mitigated. High level martials now have A LOT stronger defenses (I'm thinking particularly of fighters and monks) against magic then they did in 5e.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not, if the caster is a sorcerer with careful spell or an evoker with sculpt spells. Then friendly fire isn't a problem, and distance isn't that big a deal either.

It's a group game, and the caster generally has the luxury of picking spells that play to the group strengths, like not picking web if the group had no range.

And notice, I'm not recycling the old (and mostly tired at this point) argument of casters greater than martials. I'm just saying casters bring allowed constant access to their top tier (highest level) spells seems easy too strong to me.

Though even here, to bring it back to 5.5 vs. 5e, 5.5 really mitigated. High level martials now have A LOT stronger defenses (I'm thinking particularly of fighters and monks) against magic then they did in 5e.

I've been advocating for 2E types saves since 3E.

Paladins, Monks, Fighters I would play lvl 1-20. 4 vs 8 5.0 cf 5.5.

 

[Steady Vane]

Can we stop repeating this cycle? 5E was WotCs least successfull D&D released ever by far only the PHB sold well, but nothing else, you know it I mentioned this several times. It was so bad they needed to rerelease the older D&D editions in its second year of 5Es release to make the numbers look not devastating in order to Hasbro not outsource D&D from WotC. Only Critical Role and Stranger things saved it from being a disgrace.


5.5 outsold 5E almost instantly. And except some people on forums almos no one thinks 5E was better. And 5.5 did go in the direction of more complex martials for good reason. All feadback 5.5 received pointed it into the direction to make the martials less simple.

I will point out that initial sales are all reflections on the past edition and how it left the state of the game.

4e was a failure, so initial 5e sales were slow. That didn't last!
5e was the most popular D&D version ever, so pre-orders for 5.5 did well. How have sales been since then?

It's the longevity that points to a game's actual impact. Last I heard Hasbro only reports successes on its quarterly reports, and talk about DnD there has been dead silent for over a year. They sure did crow about all those preorders though didn't they

 

[Zardnaar]

I will point out that initial sales are all reflections on the past edition and how it left the state of the game.

4e was a failure, so initial 5e sales were slow. That didn't last!
5e was the most popular D&D version ever, so pre-orders for 5.5 did well. How have sales been since then?

It's the longevity that points to a game's actual impact. Last I heard Hasbro only reports successes on its quarterly reports, and talk about DnD there has been dead silent for over a year. They sure did crow about all those preorders though didn't they

I've been consistent with that. We wont have a clearer picture until year 3 imho. Biggest threat to 5 5 is 5.0/inertia folloqed by WotC.