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

[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.