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

[delericho]

You need a poll, but not here. Ask your group to vote.

 

[Cergorach]

If they are interested enough to ask, discuss with the group. For us it was an upgrade, for your group the conclusion might be different.

 

[Li Shenron]

MM and DMG are a lot better imho.

Personally I like the PHB as well BUT.

1. Players are a lot more powerful.

2. Game is more complex heading towards 3.5/4E levels. (5.0 is around a 5-7 out of ten levels 5.5 starts around 7).

3. Combat takes longer. Some monsters have around double the hp. 30-45 minutes can be standard.

4. Combat can be very swingy espicially with crits. CR 8s with 3 attacks eack dealing 7d6 or 8d6 damage (with +0 wisdom saves). NPC Spellcasters having basic attacks that beat their cantrips or a cantrip can outright replace one of the attacks. CR 17s dealing 40d6 AoE things like that. CR2 2d8+3 psychic danage at range, 4d10+5 force damage 4 attacks CR 12.

5. Counterspell got nerfed. Its kinda of a temporary swing now.

6. Encounter rules are tougher. Either you use a large amount of fodder (double 5.0 roughly) or fewer creatures with buckets of hit points. Contributing to point 3. Fame suggests you don't outnumber PCs more than 2-1.

7. Damage dealing spells outside emanations feel kind of mid. CR3s with 80+ hp means fireball feels underwhelming even if you hit say 5. On paper you might deal lots of damage but yeah.

The meta is spellcasters disable and let the martials sort things out while using an AoE emanation to contribute. Spellcaster damage is to low until higher level and then they have better things to do.

Nice summary, all reasons for me not making the switch.

But I have to say that I looked into the 5.5 DMG and it is admittedly a better book overall. The 5.0 DMG got it wrong IMO to present a "top-down" view of DMing which move from world-building -> campaigns -> adventures -> running the game. This is really not good for new DMs, it gives them the feeling that they have to do world-building, but new DMs are much better off starting small and then gradually move up if they want. The 5.5 DMG does it much better, starting with "running the game".

Yeah, hard disagree on everything there, because all the things you seem to have considered bugs in the 2014 version are to me either the selling features or non-issues. I knew how it worked, I never had trouble explaining to people how it worked, and because it worked differently than other spells it was actually tactically interesting. Sometimes it was clutch, other times it was useless. That's what made it interesting.

If everything is going to be so standardized they should just cut out half the spells, because they're just endless boring versions of the same things. 2024 5e seems to be basically all the complexity of 2014 5e just with less actual flavor to be found in that complexity.

I feel the same. The standardization process is appalling... it reeks of the same "badwrongfun" attitude of 4e, throw away diversity (like the old Sleep spell) in the name of a presumed safety, plus "the majority anyway likes it this way, so the minority can just suck it up and adapt". I was really not expecting Crawford to do something like that

There is of course another reason, which is just that change is inexorable.

The sooner you make it and get over it, the happier you will be.

The longer you go without making the change the more likelihood that your players and yourself will pick up on, read, hear or see things that you think are for your game but not actually your game. The relevancy of 5e 2014 will dwindle and in a couple of years you’ll be left wondering why you didn’t switch.

This is horrible. "Relevancy" is a trap, it only matters for the sellers on the market (all markets, not just RPG). If you think you are happy only by following what is current, think again. There are plenty of groups who play BECMI, AD&D or other editions, and they couldn't be happier.

 

[BenjaminPey]

On the DM-side the new MM with its easy-to-use stat blocks, its more effective creatures, and the new encounter-building rules, it is smoother to play in 2024.

On the player-side, they ironed out the classes and subclasses, mostly to satisfaction. Weapon masteries could be annoying or at least some of them can (topple, mostly), but others are frictionless (Nick, Vex, Sap).

Rules-wise, it's easy enough to revert to 2014 in the case you feel the change is not for you, though shouldn't be too frequent, and almost entirely table-dependant. (Like how you handle surprise, how you handle influence, etc.)

All in all, if you have the ressource at hand, I don't see why you shouldn't at least try it. (If you don't and would have to spend money on it, it's another question.)

 

[BookTenTiger]

If your players aren't too into the nitty gritty of rules, then you could leave it up to the individual player. You could help them understand the differences between the 5.0 classes and the 5.5, and if it's a change they're interested in, they can use 5.5, but if they want to stick with what they're used to, then stick with the 5.0 version.

 

[TheSword]

This is horrible. "Relevancy" is a trap, it only matters for the sellers on the market (all markets, not just RPG). If you think you are happy only by following what is current, think again. There are plenty of groups who play BECMI, AD&D or other editions, and they couldn't be happier.

Horrible is a bit strong. I’ve played lots of out of print or no longer supported games as well as current ones and I know which I’d prefer.

Yes of course it’s possible not to switch. But all other things being equal it’s much nicer to be part of a living thriving game than one consigned to history. It’s having a shared sense of excitement, being able to engage with designers and producers, the anticipation of change and growth.

To be clear I don’t think 2014 has been consigned to history yet. But it will be one day. And in the meantime most of the system based discussions are about 2024. This will only increase as time goes on.

To clarify, this assumes all other things being equal, where you don’t feel strongly either way, as was intimated in the OP.

 

[Tigris]

I feel the same. The standardization process is appalling... it reeks of the same "badwrongfun" attitude of 4e, throw away diversity (like the old Sleep spell) in the name of a presumed safety, plus "the majority anyway likes it this way, so the minority can just suck it up and adapt". I was really not expecting Crawford to do something like that

4E never threw away diversity (it actually made different spellcasters like sorcerer and wizard way more divers from one another (by having non overlapping spell lists, class feats and roles), similar fighter and ranger were a lot more different than in other editions) it just implemented modern game design including balance and precise and standardized wording.

Of course many players of old D&D had problems adapting to modern game design, but nowadays where people who played old editions of D&D are such a small neglectable amount of D&D players overall, it makes sense to ignore them, to make things better. In the end people unable to adapt can just play old editions, I dont see why everyone should have to suffer lack of modern game design because of some people unable to adapt.


Diversity does not come from single overcomplicated spells a single player might have, especially when the spell rewards metagaming (knowing hp of teammembers and hit dice of enemies). Having actual different weapons behave differently in 5.5 brings a lot more diversity, then making single spells behave less like exceptions. Also having a complicated spell, which may hurt your team, which is only really useful in levels 1-2 (and maybe in special situations a bit later) is just really bad gamedesign, since levels 1 and 2 were only meant to be played by total beginners and skipped by others. 5.5 says this now openly and is overall just more consistent in its design.


(Also the sleep spell in D&D 4E is pretty unique (non damaging, can give unconscious which gives auto crit, and uses "condition gets worse if you cant get rid of it"), it does not use hit dice, since well that did not exist in 4E, and hit dice is a bad design anyway, but its definitly not less diverse. We could even argue that a Crowd Control Spell which cares for HP is more close to damage spells, since in the end it cares for the same as damage spells (HP) just instead of ko it makes people sleep, which in practice might have the same effect).

 

[Zardnaar]

4E never threw away diversity (it actually made different spellcasters like sorcerer and wizard way more divers from one another (by having non overlapping spell lists, class feats and roles), similar fighter and ranger were a lot more different than in other editions) it just implemented modern game design including balance and precise and standardized wording.

Of course many players of old D&D had problems adapting to modern game design, but nowadays where people who played old editions of D&D are such a small neglectable amount of D&D players overall, it makes sense to ignore them, to make things better. In the end people unable to adapt can just play old editions, I dont see why everyone should have to suffer lack of modern game design because of some people unable to adapt.


Diversity does not come from single overcomplicated spells a single player might have, especially when the spell rewards metagaming (knowing hp of teammembers and hit dice of enemies). Having actual different weapons behave differently in 5.5 brings a lot more diversity, then making single spells behave less like exceptions. Also having a complicated spell, which may hurt your team, which is only really useful in levels 1-2 (and maybe in special situations a bit later) is just really bad gamedesign, since levels 1 and 2 were only meant to be played by total beginners and skipped by others. 5.5 says this now openly and is overall just more consistent in its design.


(Also the sleep spell in D&D 4E is pretty unique (non damaging, can give unconscious which gives auto crit, and uses "condition gets worse if you cant get rid of it"), it does not use hit dice, since well that did not exist in 4E, and hit dice is a bad design anyway, but its definitly not less diverse. We could even argue that a Crowd Control Spell which cares for HP is more close to damage spells, since in the end it cares for the same as damage spells (HP) just instead of ko it makes people sleep, which in practice might have the same effect).

Modern game design is leading towards simplicity.

4E doubled down on complexity its a big reason why it tanked. Its complexity slowed things down and contributed to its playstyle.

The customer is always right. Cant force people to like "modern design" (meaningless term) when its conveniently your preferred option.

5.5 complexity relative to 5.0 is one reason why I dont think it will last as long (could be wrong).

 

[TerraDave]

....

Just make sure to nerf the emanation spells to only trigger 1/round instead of 1/turn if your players love to break the game.

....

I have now done that. Gets crazy otherwise.

I think your list posted above is about right, and was just about to make a blanket agreement...

But then remembered I also have problems with a few other spells, find many player species changes annoying, don't like a lot of the NPC changes, have to clarify more things that shouldn't need it (e.g. stealth, certain subclass features) and don't really enjoy the higher complexity that comes with the combination of more feats, fiddlier class features, weapon mastery, and the now much better sorcerer class, which is not the simple caster anymore.

So overall, meh.

 

[Burnside]

Modern game design is leading towards simplicity.

4E doubled down on complexity its a big reason why it tanked. Its complexity slowed things down and contributed to its playstyle.

The customer is always right. Cant force people to like "modern design" (meaningless term) when its conveniently your preferred option.

5.5 complexity relative to 5.0 is one reason why I dont think it will last as long (could be wrong).

I 100% agree that "modern" design tends towards simplicity and I think Shadowdark punching so far above its weight class is clear evidence of what a lot of folks actually want in their TTRPG experience.

I am not prepared to predict that 5.5 won't last, but I DO think that 5.0's relative simplicity was an important factor in its success, and I am surprised by 5.5's (modest) move in the opposite direction. I'd have preferred if anything a modest move in a streamlined/simpler direction - and that in the form of a Tasha's-sized supplement with optional rules to streamline 5E, not a relaunch of the core books.

I appreciate that WotC is a corporation and they need to make money, but I don't really see a strong need for 5.5 to exist other than the financial one. There I things I like about 5.5 and things I don't, but really no silver bullet in it that makes me say "Ah! See, THIS right here is why we, as players and DMs, needed 5.5!"

With other edition changes, I think you can make stronger arguments that it was time for the game itself to evolve and change; I struggle to see that argument for 5E to 5.5.