What do you want & expect to see in 2024's 5.5e?

Yaarel

Mind Mage
what is the 'lineage treatment' I think I missed something
In this context, "lineage" means the standard features for any race. Improve any chosen abilities, languages are Common plus one, lifespan typically a century (but can be longer for certain lineages), height-weight is any chosen humanlike physique (so muscular elf, etc, if wanted).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yaarel

Mind Mage
other then wasteing time, is there a reason. I like the 2 not equal action mechnics... I can use it to make an off hand attack or quicken a spell... but I cant do both
Mearls dislikes the bonus action too.

He suggests rewriting things like two-weapon attack as an action that includes two attacks, rather than an action plus a bonus.


The difference is, the elimination of the bonus simplifies the choices that each player makes per round, thus speeds up the game.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Mearls dislikes the bonus action too.

He suggests rewriting things like two-weapon attack as an action that includes two attacks, rather than an action plus a bonus.


The difference is, the elimination of the bonus simplifies the choices that each player makes per round, thus speeds up the game.
Beforehand left the public eye, he changed his mind and laid out why the Bonus Action was here to stay on the Mearls Happy Gun Hour. Doubt thst will change any.
 



Don’t worry, bonus action will stay. I would not bet on their disappearance!
But I may bet some gold on the disappearance of most short rest recovery for features and slots.
yeah that still makes me sad... but I see it coming too.

I still want the game to be balanced more along the warlock class chassie... 2 subclasses that can mix and match, mini class features that you choose as you level up to customize more, and at will, short rest and long rest abilities.

I even think there should be 4 'simple' pre built level 1-10 builds for the base 4 classes (fighter rogue cleric wizard) that have all of those subclasses mini feature (invocations) and even atwill (cantrip) encounter/daily (spells) picked so you don't make ANY choices with that subclass (like champion)
 



Yaarel

Mind Mage
yeah that still makes me sad... but I see it coming too.

I still want the game to be balanced more along the warlock class chassie... 2 subclasses that can mix and match, mini class features that you choose as you level up to customize more, and at will, short rest and long rest abilities.

I even think there should be 4 'simple' pre built level 1-10 builds for the base 4 classes (fighter rogue cleric wizard) that have all of those subclasses mini feature (invocations) and even atwill (cantrip) encounter/daily (spells) picked so you don't make ANY choices with that subclass (like champion)
If everyone is on the same rest schedule, the DM can make the rest 10 minutes long, an hour long, 8 hours long, even a week-of-relaxation long.

The resting mechanic becomes ... better ... when there is only one kind of rest.

Personally as DM, the single rest will be strictly when narratively appropriate.



It does seem like 5e is phasing out the short rest − and I approve − but how the Warlock will work remains unclear to me. Will both the Wizard and now the Warlock still have an Arcane Recovery feature to regain spell slots − perhaps now as a 10-minute ritual or something?
 

If everyone is on the same rest schedule, the DM can make the rest 10 minutes long, an hour long, 8 hours long, even a week-of-relaxation long.

The resting mechanic becomes ... better ... when there is only one kind of rest.

Personally as DM, the single rest will be strictly when narratively appropriate.



It does seem like 5e is phasing out the short rest − and I approve − but how the Warlock will work remains unclear to me. Will both the Wizard and now the Warlock still have an Arcane Recovery feature to regain spell slots − perhaps now as a 10-minute ritual or something?
I think everyone should have BOTH long and short (along with atwill) so every class has a reason to take each
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
I think everyone should have BOTH long and short (along with atwill) so every class has a reason to take each
It seems like 5e is moving toward proficiency-bonus-times-per-day, rather than short-rest-times-per-day.

But putting every class on both long and short schedules is a good solution too.

One advantage of the bonus-per-day is it scales, becoming more frequent, thus more powerful while leveling.


I wonder if the there is a way to benefit from a number of 10-minute-rests-per-day equal to proficiency bonus? Thus combine the concepts of bonus-per-day and short-rests-per-day.
 

yeah that still makes me sad... but I see it coming too.

I still want the game to be balanced more along the warlock class chassie... 2 subclasses that can mix and match, mini class features that you choose as you level up to customize more, and at will, short rest and long rest abilities.

I even think there should be 4 'simple' pre built level 1-10 builds for the base 4 classes (fighter rogue cleric wizard) that have all of those subclasses mini feature (invocations) and even atwill (cantrip) encounter/daily (spells) picked so you don't make ANY choices with that subclass (like champion)
The resting disparities have generate more complain and whim than LOVE.
I remember Mearls or Crawford saying that they were proud of this resting disparities, that it would allow PC to shine at different pace. The intent is noble, but the overall result didn’t follow. The management of the ´adventuring day´ has been a regular source of dissatisfaction that can be read here. How they will address that in the revision? I don’t know, but from now we should be playtesting solution. 2024 is coming soon.
 


The resting disparities have generate more complain and whim than LOVE.
I remember Mearls or Crawford saying that they were proud of this resting disparities, that it would allow PC to shine at different pace. The intent is noble, but the overall result didn’t follow. The management of the ´adventuring day´ has been a regular source of dissatisfaction that can be read here. How they will address that in the revision? I don’t know, but from now we should be playtesting solution. 2024 is coming soon.
I agree the current system doesn't work
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
By the way,

I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.

Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.
 

By the way,

I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.

Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.
I will do you one better... any spell that takes more then an action to cast should be a ritual and all rituals should have gp cost but no spell/action should
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
I will do you one better... any spell that takes more then an action to cast should be a ritual and all rituals should have gp cost but no spell/action should
I consider meditating quietly a "ritual". So, it wouldnt really cost money.

But, creating magic items − especially consumable magic items − might cost money for the item itself that will be magicked.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
By the way,

I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.

Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.
having a table of 3-5 standard components with prices for them that spells just use (ie 1 pinch of $thing1/4 pounds of $thing two/etc) rather than every spell having a unique costly component would indeed be nice & allow economic changes along with room for reward without needing to dig into specific spells or make a bunch of changes. Spells can still require unique components but it would be a chest & ## pounds of daanvii quartz or whatever for leomund's secret chest instead of a 5000gp chest & a 50gp chest
 

having a table of 3-5 standard components with prices for them that spells just use (ie 1 pinch of $thing1/4 pounds of $thing two/etc) rather than every spell having a unique costly component would indeed be nice & allow economic changes along with room for reward without needing to dig into specific spells or make a bunch of changes. Spells can still require unique components but it would be a chest & ## pounds of daanvii quartz or whatever for leomund's secret chest instead of a 5000gp chest & a 50gp chest
residum from 4e could come back
 

G

Guest 7034872

Guest
By the way,

I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.

Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.
You bring up a really good point. What I've noticed since getting back into this in 2018 is that many DMs I've seen don't even pay attention to the material component cost of the various spells: it only comes up and gets enforced when one of the players mentions it or asks about it.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top