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

[THEMNGMNT]

I’d rather see them love Lay On Hands and get Smite nerfed hard than see anything change to the Aura. IMO they should lean harder into the aura and stack fewer unrelated other features on the class.

My party got a huge buff and rarely failed saving throws thanks to the vengeance paladin's aura. It was cool for them but somewhat frustrating for me as the DM.

 

[ECMO3]

One thing I would like to see is a revised proficiencies for multiclassing. With the current guidelines there is a definite order you want to multiclass in. I doubt any of this will be added but things I would like to see are:

1. Remove all armor proficiencies for multiclassing into a class, except fighters and fighters should get all armors, not just light and medium. I would still give shields to all martials.

2. Remove all weapon proficiencies for all non-martials.

3. I think the skills need to be more balanced. Starting as a Rogue and then doing 1 level of Ranger and then going bard will give you 8 proficiencies plus Thieves tools and expertise in 5 of them at 5th level. That is in addition to any racial proficiencies you get. Subclasses can add even more. I think there should be a baseline number and when you multiclass you get that number extra if your current class has less. So multiclassing from fighter to Rogue would get you 2 more, Ranger to Rogue would get you 1 more. But Ranger to Bard would not get you any.

3. Similarly the number of cantrips for multiclassed characters should not be cumulative, but based on total level and the highest number. So take your total level and have the total number of Cantrips be for the highest of your classes at that level. Keep track of which cantrips are from which class though. So a 1st level sorcerer has 4 cantrips. If he multiclasses into wizard he gets no more. If he stays wizard when he reaches 4th level (1/3) he could get his first wizard cantrip, at that point his total level is 5 and a 5th level sorcerer gets 5 cantrips. At this point he has 1 wizard and 4 sorcerer cantrips.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My party got a huge buff and rarely failed saving throws thanks to the vengeance paladin's aura. It was cool for them but somewhat frustrating for me as the DM.

Why? I genuinely don't understand why that would be frustrating.

 

[ECMO3]

I genuinely feel like you play an entirely different game, where only the names of things are the same, as the one I play. I wish I could figure out what the nature of the difference is to some useful degree.

You know they have non-combat spells, and they have Persuasion, Insight, and Intimidation on their skill list for social encounters, and athletics and perception for exploration, right? Divine Sense is a pretty much purely out of combat ability that comes up in hunting and investigating extraplanar stuff all the time in my games with Paladins. Hell, Lay on Hands gets used to treat folk in towns and gain the party favors or establish trust pretty often.

They're in a better position out of combat than the fighter.

I don't think they are as good as the fighter because of the extra ASI and the ability to hit 20 by 8th level while taking a non-combat feat. Also some of the fighter subclasses give ribbons or skills that are missing from most Paladins (although admittedly I have not seen a lot of Paladins played). Certainly you can build a fighter to be a 1-dimensional combat machine, but compared to a Paladin, I think it is easier to build them to be broader without sacrificing as much of their combat abilities. For example a dex-based high stealth fighter can still be the best archer in the game while also being a good scout. Take your extra feat to pick up skill expert or skulker and you can go from being a good scout to being the best and competing with the Rogue who took expertise and if you start with 17 dex you can pick up both of these by 8th, still have a 20 Dex and be better than the Rogue. It is much harder to do that kind of thing on a Paladin build.

Champion is getting half his proficiency on all strength and dex checks, Rune Knight and Psi warrior are bringing bonuses to several skills or checks, Eldritch knight has cantrips without sacrificing a fighting style, Arcan Archer has an extra skill proficiency...

The spells help, although they don't get a lot and there is a high cost to using them. Like I said Paladins can be a decent face because of their typically high charisma, but a Rouge with a 14 Charisma is generally going to outdo them in social situations and can outdo them while also being pretty darn good at Stealth and Acrobatics in addition to picking up even more skills or bonuses with subclasses like scout, soulkinfe or Phantom. They can do that pretty easily while also maxing dexterity for combat. Bards and to a lessor extent Rangers can do this as well. In terms of base class, all those classes are weaker than a Paladin in combat though so it makes sense.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

What I expect?
Essentially cosmetic changes mostly, and a different presentation of the same things we have now.

I expect changes to core ranger and beast master subclass, in line with Tasha’s optional variant ranger features.

I expect removal of fixed ASI at character creation, but little changes to other abilities.

I expect (and hope for) a rationalisation of « pet » rules to a universal « acts on your initiative but takes turn after yours » for companions, mounts, familiar, and conjured creatures.

I expect minor tweaks to some subclasses like champion (despite being popular) and 4-elements monk.

I expect some rationalisation on reactions, bonus actions, and their timing.

I expect a few more subclasses offered as « core » in the PHB, especially to classes with two presented archetypes (but not an anthology of all splat published so far).

I expect (and hope for) a little more diversity in monsters’ roles and abilities, and 1/day spells and spell-like abilities instead of player-like spellcasting.

I’m not sure if I expect the artificer to make it into PHB. Somehow I don’t think it will.

What I want?
I want an in depth review or what spells require concentration and doesn’t, and whether they should or shouldn’t.

I want more monster spellcasters. If you’re to publish mostly spellcasting PCs, grant us more ready-made spellcasting antagonists. Or a selection of templates as add-ons.

I want no-magic and low-magic how-to-guides in the DMG.

I want minor but thematic rule variants for specific settings (unlikely to happen given WotC's multiverse approach).

I would echo the quoted post with the addition that i think there should be more ritual spells. Any spell with a casting time of greater than an action should be a ritual and ritual casting should be more widely available. There are a number of interesting but niche spell on various spell lists that do not get selected because of spells known limitations, concentration requirements and so forth. Also bring back martial rituals.

I would also like the see the fighter (EK) get some work and the ranger needs a bit of tweaking. At least the Favoured Foe from Tasha's should have the concentration requirement removed as in the playtest.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is going to be something impossible to really figure out... mainly because every table and DM is going to be different, and how their encounter building and adventure focus will be up and down the underpowered/overpowered line.

So for instance... I don't agree that even in 5E you need to pull from three/five/eight books to overpower the game. Personally, I think some players can overpower the game just by using the PHB as it is, with certain choices of optional rule-- and if playing at a table with a DM who is not focused or prepared to build encounters to match up against them.

A DM who uses the standard encounter creation design rules in the DMG might have their encounters get completely overwhelmed because of the number of players at their table they are building for, the class combinations working together at the table, the tactical skill of the players in question, the optional rules the players are using, how often the DM is allowing for rests, etc. etc. etc. The game is just not that vigorous in its math. It's not designed to allow every type of table to be run in every type of way, ALL of them ending up with really well-balance and equal combat. It's just not possible. Heck... even asymmetric board games designed specifically for that purpose that don't have to worry about all the other "character crap" of RPGs have a hard time getting their mechanics completely balanced. So to think the 5E designers should have been able to get it correct during their design (when they were probably dealing with alpha and beta testers who might not have actually been the kind of optimizers who have been decrying these feats after the fact since the very beginning) is probably putting way too much of an expectation upon them.

that was my point. that level of charop power comes from the most trivial of thought towards optimization in 5e

 

[Charlaquin]

All feats should feel comparable to a +2 ability score increase.

With this as a metric, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master might be balanced, while most of the other Player Handbook feats feel underpowered.

I prefer an update to improve the Players Handbook feats.

Agreed. SS and GWM are some of the only Feats that people inclined towards character optimization seriously consider over +2 to your primary ability score. That makes them the best-balanced Feats, in my book. Others could use a buff to bring them up to that level.

 

[Faolyn]

I also think the designers might have just not thought of or had forgotten just how much some players optimize D&D for combat at the expense of everything else.

I think there's a slight chance that the designers had instead hoped that players would move away from such optimization.

 

[Juicy Brucey]

The spells help, although they don't get a lot and there is a high cost to using them. Like I said Paladins can be a decent face because of their typically high charisma, but a Rouge with a 14 Charisma is generally going to outdo them in social situations and can outdo them while also being pretty darn good at Stealth and Acrobatics in addition to picking up even more skills or bonuses with subclasses like scout, soulkinfe or Phantom. They can do that pretty easily while also maxing dexterity for combat. Bards and to a lessor extent Rangers can do this as well. In terms of base class, all those classes are weaker than a Paladin in combat though so it makes sense.

Rogues are supposed to excel in non-combat situations. You're not really talking about paladins having less skills than rogues, you're talking about everyone who isn't a bard or rogue. Rogues are basically there to give a non-magical utility option, while wizards are the magical utility guys. Bards for some reason are both, but that's another issue.

Paladins are in line or better than most options in the non-combat department. Can always play a half elf if you need more (great option for pallies!)

Having an unlosable horse that doesn't depend on the DM is pretty nice too.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think there's a slight chance that the designers had instead hoped that players would move away from such optimization.

Or, the designers knew that optimizers are a small minority, and didn’t and still don’t see a need to dramatically cater the rules to them.