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

[Burnside]

Yeah ultimately you have to look and decide how much you don’t like the things you don’t like.

I agree that there is a lot of Temp HP. In some respects that acts as a counter because it doesn’t stack which I kind of like. Particularly when it promotes cooperation between players. Though yes I find it a little bit too much. But that is a very minor disinclination vs the many things I really like such as starter feats.

Really don’t see how anyone can prefer 2014 grapple. Lack of skills on NPCs and monsters made a mockery of it because of the proficiency gap.

I would also add that I think in addition to the monk, 5.5 absolutely improves the Thief, Berzerker, and Circle of the Land subclasses imo. Also I don't have the issues with the new Ranger that some folks seem to have with it.

 

[Tigris]

Counter argument is 5E relative simplicity biggest D&D ever.

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.

 

[AlViking]

are there Basic rules for 5.5 and where can I get them? I assume they were in the starter sets in the past

Basic rules are free online. I haven't looked at the 5.5 version but you can find them at D&D Beyond Basic Rules.

It's 5.5, just without all the options so limited species, subclasses, etc..

 

[Mort]

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!"

For me, the changes to fighters, barbarians, and monks alone justify 5.5. Could the changes have been made without a new edition? Certainly, but the edition change brought on the, IMO extremely positive, changes.

Same goes for weapon masteries - my group LOVES them. Could they have been introduced without a new edition? Sure, but, again, the edition spurred the introduction and that's been another net positive for my group.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

The AD&Dand OD&D re-releases were before 5E landed.

Your statements more applicable to 4E.

We know rather statements of the industry wasnt good due to 4E. Youre trying to blame 5E anemic sales on itself. Sales weren't that bad all things considered. And 2014 wasnt even a full year.

I would expect 5 to to sell a lot better on release as 5E didnt near destroy the brand.

Your "facts" ironically are more easily explained by the popularity of 4E and 5E legacy in regards to the overall state of the D&F market.

Hell they considered selling D&D post 4E.

 

[mamba]

There are free 5.5 Basic Rules available for use on DNDBeyond, but not as a PDF or anything.

ah, I was wondering about PDF

There is also the 5.1.2 SRD, which is suspect is what's meant by "basic rules" in this case. They are not identical to the free rules you get to use on DNDBeyond.

SRD does not count, that has very different reasons to exist than to serve as a simplified 5e introduction

 

[Clint_L]

Nah. The Basic Rules for 5.5 are still 5.5. Weapon Masteries, Starter Feats, etc - it's all still there. Just fewer subclasses.

Heroes of the Borderlands isn't at all what I want in a D&D experience, although Welcome to the Hellfire Club is closer. But regardless, Starter Sets are aimed at new players with the ultimate goal of moving them into the main 5.5 product line. I'm not talking about a product for new players specifically.

My suggestion is that WotC might want to consider why indie publishers offering simpler - but complete - iterations of 5E are doing so well, and maybe pursue that market in a low-risk way.

"So well" is very relative - these are a drop in the bucket, compared to D&D's share. I imagine they see the risk as exactly what they saw ultimately take down TSR: splintering your player base so that you become your own competitor, resulting in niche releases that can never recoup expenses. I think they are more than happy to cede that space to small indie publishers.

The whole premise of One D&D/D&D 2024/5.5e is to make the game more unified, not less.

 

[Belen]

My experience matches @Tigris.

A fully rested caster, especially beyond tier 1 play, just has so many more levers to pull when fully rested. And it's not about damage, casters have enough options that damage is often the least optimal.

Also, like @Tigris, I find the gap is narrowed (in favor of martials ) in 5.5 - especially outside of combat.


Interesting, I find that this type of adventure design significantly favors casters - as they will much more likely have their high level spells available when needed. And, properly applied, the higher level spells are encounter changing/defining.

I see martials better even in high levels. The last encounter I ran at high level (15) the martials had pasted the enemies by the time the casters got an effective turn.

I almost never see full casters outperform martials.

I see the folks complain about them on ENWorld but that does not match my experience. Martials tend to be effective all the time while casters need to prep correctly and they do not always have right loadout for an encounter.

 

[Clint_L]

I see martials better even in high levels. The last encounter I ran at high level (15) the martials had pasted the enemies by the time the casters got an effective turn.

I almost never see full casters outperform martials.

I see the folks complain about them on ENWorld but that does not match my experience. Martials tend to be effective all the time while casters need to prep correctly and they do not always have right loadout for an encounter.

Agreed - or they are trying to burn their way past legendary resistances while the martial classes are unloading. I think casters excel when they focus on changing the conditions around the encounter; once the encounter happens their effectiveness is very situational. In 5.5e they are badly outclassed when it comes to damage dealing, so that shouldn't be their focus unless they are very specifically built for it (and then their ability to do the other stuff is severely curtailed).

 

[Tigris]

I see martials better even in high levels. The last encounter I ran at high level (15) the martials had pasted the enemies by the time the casters got an effective turn.

I almost never see full casters outperform martials.

I see the folks complain about them on ENWorld but that does not match my experience. Martials tend to be effective all the time while casters need to prep correctly and they do not always have right loadout for an encounter.

Thats why single experiences dont matter, but analysis and statistic does.

There are always casters who cant play well. If you dont have effective spells at level 15 then something is really wrong with the amount you have.