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

[Krachek]

They have 1000% signaled that the answer is 'by making it worse'.

That should not be so bad, it is a private business not the government!
But we can have reasons to be doubtful.
5ed have been built during time of needs.
Now they are back on top, they can take it too cool, and mess things again!
They have concern now of large market scale, and expert players that we see here can be forget a bit.

 

[Parmandur]

I missed that. What did Mearls later say in favor of the Bonus Action?

That hid problems with it would better be resolved through equipment special features or Sibclass sbilities.

 

[tetrasodium]

residum from 4e could come back

I remember it but residum was too monolithic & still basically just GP. Finding xxxgp of residum was xxx gp of whatever residuum was for but finding 6 pounds of $specific general component or 100 pounds of a different one is going to be limited to their relevant umbrellas of spells rather than any spell. Having each spell have one off components listed only in the individual spell rather than having all spells drawing from a handful of generic pricy stuff makes it too difficult for anyone to realize on the spot without the gm sating "by the way guys that's used as the component in HINTHINTHINTTHISSPECIFICSPELLHINTHINTHINT". Think of the difference between giving players a large sum of diamonds everyone knows are needed for raise dead type spells & almost any other material components. Srttings like Eberron & Darksun could have their own lists & economies without needing to one off all the spells & such that way.

 

[Yaarel]

residum from 4e could come back

If mages have a way to emanate residuum magically − without using money − then it would feel innate.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If mages have a way to emanate residuum magically − without using money − then it would feel innate.

I feel like it would work for natural casters to have to pay for incense or focusing herbs and teas or something for rituals.

 

[Greg K]

This is off the top of my head and I may expand later: Some of the things that I want.

1. PHB
   1. Cover Levels 1-10 or 1-12 (save higher levels for another book)
   2. Darkvision: Go back to Night VIsion and Dark VIsion
   3. Races (expand later)
      1. Separate the biological aspects from culture (and, in most instances, environment which can be a third choice of options)
      2. Add Goblin, Orc, Lizardman to races
      3. Tasha's Racial Ability Score Modifier change as sidebar
   4. Subclasses at first level. If not, class variants at first level with skill substitutions and variant class abilities (see below)
   5. Classes
      1. Barbarian
         1. variant: Urban/ Civilized Barbarian: There are examples of characters in literature and film whom are city-dwellers and nobles. Should provide optional modifier to class skill list and one or two Berserker features to reflect this.
      2. Bard
         1. keep full caster
         2. variant: Martial Bard: gets Medium and Martial Weapons
         3. add Colleges: Cantor (divine bard), Troubador (Roguish Bard)
      3. Cleric
         1. Additional choice at level 1 dealing with Armor and Weapon Proficiency:
            1. Cloistered/Monastic Priest (Robed, Simple Weapons),
            2. Mendicant Priest (warndering beggar priest),
            3. Itinerrant Travelling Priest (light armor/)
            4. Templar/Martial Priest
            5. Smaller genreal base list shared by all clerics: Spells dealing with Bless/ Curse/ Remove Curse, Communicating with deity (e.g., Augury, Divination), Planar Ally
         2. Channel Divinity (to be expanded later)
      4. Figher
         1. variant: Light Armor Fighter
         2. add Fighting Styles from later books
         3. add Martial Archetypes: Archer, Bodyguard, Brawler/ Pugilist, Commander/ Strategist, Corsair/ Pirate, Duelist/ Fencer, Gallant, Hoplite, Horse Archer, Lancer, Kensei, Musketeer, Swashbuckler, Templar (Divine version of Eldritch Knight), Warrior Monk (non-spellcasting ki user)
      5. Monk (expand later)
         1. add variant: Iron Body Monk
         2. add some maneuvers for style variation
         3. some things should not require ki
         4. more choice in ki abiliites
      6. Paladin (expand later)
      7. Ranger
         1. Rewrite base class as non-spellcasting outdoor willderness warrior survivalist (AgenderArcee at Reddit/Unearthed Arcana and GM Binder has a good model class for this)
         2. add variant: Urban Ranger, Spell-less
      8. Rogue
         1. add variants: Academic Rogue, Wilderness Rogue
         2. add archetypes: Acrobat, Charlatan/Swindler, Mastermind, Scout
      9. Sorcerer
         1. add expanded spell lists for all Origins
         2. add new Origins: Arcane Bloodline, Fey Bloodline
      10. Warlock (expand later)
      11. Wizard (expand later)
   6. Classes (New)
      1. Arcane Warrior: Arcane counterpart to Paladin and Ranger
      2. Scholar
      3. Shaman
      4. Warlord
      5. Witch
   7. Magic & Spells (expand later)
2. Dungeon Master's Guide
   1. add expanded downtime rules
   2. add variant: Skill Points
   3. add variant: Armor as Damage Resistance

 

[Yaarel]

I feel like it would work for natural casters to have to pay for incense or focusing herbs and teas or something for rituals.

Heh. I oppose.

Herbs and incense are external and artificial − precisely non-innate.

Innately natural is: thought, speech, body.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Heh. I oppose.

Herbs and incense are external and artificial − precisely non-innate.

Innately natural is: thought, speech, body.

Eh, I feel like some enhancement isn't so bad.

 

[Yaarel]

Eh, I feel like some enhancement isn't so bad.

Ok, but "enhancement" is almost the opposite of "innate".

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ok, but "enhancement" is almost the opposite of "innate".

You're talking to a man with glasses, fillings and an implant. I feel like my cybernetics are pretty innate to me at this point.

Also, it's pretty on trope for naturally powered individuals to use aides. Cyclops' visor, gandalf's staff, the Metals from Mistborn, etc, etc.

 

[Yaarel]

You're talking to a man with glasses, fillings and an implant. I feel like my cybernetics are pretty innate to me at this point.

Also, it's pretty on trope for naturally powered individuals to use aides. Cyclops' visor, gandalf's staff, the Metals from Mistborn, etc, etc.

These are all examples of artificial technologies and magical technologies. The artifice is the opposite of innate.

Specifically, I hope 50e removes gold pieces as part of a spell description. There are other more magical, more innate, mechanics to prevent spamming.

Avoiding costly components is also less setting dependent. Money might be more accessible to nobles and less accessible to remote or rural communities. This presence or absence of money shouldnt interfere with innate magical talent. Eschewing material components needs to eschew costly components too. But yet, the costly component should never be part of the spell description in the first place.

Magic items are in a different category from spells. Magic items are tools − are technology. But personally, I dont even want to see trafficking in magic items for money in magic shops, as if it is merely a mundane technology. These items are magical − personal, relational, existential, spiritual.

I do like the 5e concept of "attuning" with a magic item, because that feels more innately magical. It is possible to have a personal affinity for certain magical items and not others. Viceversa, whoever made the magical item might have imbued the item with affinity for certain persons for certain reasons.

In any case, the costly component gets in the way of many magical concepts.

 

[Parmandur]

These are all examples of artificial technologies and magical technologies. The artifice is the opposite of innate.

Specifically, I hope 50e removes gold pieces as part of a spell description. There are other more magical, more innate, mechanics to prevent spamming.

Avoiding costly components is also less setting dependent. Money might be more accessible to nobles and less accessible to remote or rural communities. This presence or absence of money shouldnt interfere with innate magical talent. Eschewing material components needs to eschew costly components too. But yet, the costly component should never be part of the spell description in the first place.

Magic items are in a different category from spells. Magic items are tools − are technology. But personally, I dont even want to see trafficking in magic items for money in magic shops, as if it is merely a mundane technology. These items are magical − personal, relational, existential, spiritual.

I do like the 5e concept of "attuning" with a magic item, because that feels more innately magical. It is possible to have a personal affinity for certain magical items and not others. Viceversa, whoever made the magical item might have imbued the item with affinity for certain persons for certain reasons.

In any case, the costly component gets in the way of many magical concepts.

The costly component is a balance measure.

 

[Yaarel]

The costly component is a balance measure.

No, the costly component is worthless as a mechanical balancing factor.

There is little rhyme or reason as to which spells have gp cost and which dont.

The basic idea is to prevent spamming. But. Is applied inconsistently. (Similarly, the concentration mechanic applies inconsistently.)

There are better mechanics to prevent spamming, such as frequency per long rest. Consider, there can only be one Clone at a time − it doesnt matter how much it costs.

And the flavor of costly is often wrong. Resurrection is a spiritual creation event and should have nothing to do with money.

And so on.

Costly feels non-innate.

 

[Parmandur]

No, the costly component is worthless as a mechanical balancing factor.

There is little rhyme or reason as to which spells have gp cost and which dont.

The basic idea is to prevent spamming. But. Is applied inconsistently. (Similarly, the concentration mechanic applies inconsistently.)

There are better mechanics to prevent spamming, such as frequency per long rest. Consider, there can only be one Clone at a time − it doesnt matter how much it costs.

And the flavor of costly is often wrong. Resurrection is a spiritual creation event and should have nothing to do with money.

And so on.

Costly feels non-innate.

That's what Mearls and Crawford have said: Spells that they don't want to be as simple to use all the time or in combat, have an associated cost.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's what Mearls and Crawford have said: Spells that they don't want to be as simple to use all the time or in combat, have an associated cost.

I mean Yaarel is completely right that this is a garbage limiter. Either the players will never take the spell because it is too costly, or they're so loaded that they can use the spell whenever anyway.

Costly magic is the same dumb idea of balance as the 3x Paladin's numerous RP restrictions that made them insufferable to be in a party with by design.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Weapon speed.

Always weapon speed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Firstly, I hope they have the discipline to not actually make a 5.5. I am strongly of the opinion that 3.5, while a fine game in its own right*, was a terrible revision of 3.0 (too many small-medium changes for an incremental revision, not enough big changes to really fix much of significance).

With that out of the way, I am quite sure they will ditch race in favour of some other term (hopefully "species", but probably "ancestry" or "lineage"). Aside from that, I hope they make a few minor tweaks but nothing too unmanageable, and add some new content (a Warlord would be nice). An index would be nice, too.

Most of all, I hope they do not break backwards compatibility too badly, if only because that would break compatibility with A5e too.

_
glass.

(* Albeit not without issues, of course.)

I'm not too worried about them breaking compatibility with A5e, as I already have what I want from o5e converted to LU's superior (for me) system. I really hope they make more substantial changes, so all the folks who want a D&D that caters to their sensibilities can get it.

I expect, however, that they'll instead hold the line at the changes they've already made, along with a lot of rewritten text to appeal to today's demands.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

See, I feel making use of material components aids in immersion, and makes casting a spell feel like casting a spell and not using a super power. I dislike component bags for that reason.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, the costly component is worthless as a mechanical balancing factor.

There is little rhyme or reason as to which spells have gp cost and which dont.

The basic idea is to prevent spamming. But. Is applied inconsistently. (Similarly, the concentration mechanic applies inconsistently.)

There are better mechanics to prevent spamming, such as frequency per long rest. Consider, there can only be one Clone at a time − it doesnt matter how much it costs.

And the flavor of costly is often wrong. Resurrection is a spiritual creation event and should have nothing to do with money.

And so on.

Costly feels non-innate.

I don't want magic to feel innate, at least for classes that narratively learned their spells (wizards and artificers, mostly). It would basically make them indistinguishable from a sorcerer (which i think should work as you describe).

 

[Guest 7034872]

See, I feel making use of material components aids in immersion, and makes casting a spell feel like casting a spell and not using a super power. I dislike component bags for that reason.

I've no great quarrel with that. My only point was that DMs themselves seem not to be using this aspect of the game very much; it only comes up when a player first mentions it.

By analogy, I have no special complaint against the rules for encumbrance; I've just noticed that hardly any DMs ever concern themselves with it unless and until the players do.