Is it time for 5.5?

[clash]

I know this has probably been asked before but in light of some of the changes in Tasha's and the current ua is it time for an 5.5 edition of d&d? Here's why I think so.

1) The changes to the races is controversial and while I personally like the idea it is kinda half baked. A new version using the same ruleset would allow existing races to be balanced with the new ruleset in mind.

2) The class changes introduced in Tasha's as alternatives and some of the class fixes for rangers and Sorcerers as well as things like the hexblade could be baked into core class features instead allowing for overall more balanced subclasses.

3) The formula introduced in the new ua while cool in concept is kinda hacky in execution trying to force it into the existing classes. I love the idea that some subclasses can be portable. Why not bake that right into design. Then the divine soul and Celestial paatron could have been the same bloodline. Illusionist could be a subclass for bard, warlock and wizard. I feel like a lot could be improved by introducing this cool idea in a fully baked version into 5.5.

So what do you guys think? Should wotc quit attempting to make half baked patches and release 5.5 or are their current patches a good way to continue progressing?

[ProsecutorGodot]

The time is passed but it will never be branded as such.

See you all in a few months when this thread pops up again.

No, but for real, they're not going to rebrand 5E, they're just going to make changes until a new edition starts development and I doubt that's happening anytime soon.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

This is 2021, tons of people are buying books on dndbeyond, roll20, fantasy grounds, etc. instead of and/or in addition to buying physical copies. We're seeing questions like these (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/nz6kgx/how_do_we_play_offline/) come up, from people who have been playing for years and yet have never even seen a character sheet on paper. With so many moving to digital play, it's super easy for them to patch in changes to classes, races, etc. There's absolutely no need for a 5.5 edition, nor will there ever be a need for such a thing like there was for 3.5 edition.

[clash]

This is 2021, tons of people are buying books on dndbeyond, roll20, fantasy grounds, etc. instead of and/or in addition to buying physical copies. We're seeing questions like these (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/nz6kgx/how_do_we_play_offline/) come up, from people who have been playing for years and yet have never even seen a character sheet on paper. With so many moving to digital play, it's super easy for them to patch in changes to classes, races, etc. There's absolutely no need for a 5.5 edition, nor will there ever be a need for such a thing like there was for 3.5 edition.

I mean sure they could do that, but it doesn't seem they are willing to do that and they set a precedent of not being willing to change anything existing. Without a new version I honestly can't see them actually making changes just tacking on patches.

[Grod_The_Giant]

While it has its flaws, 5e is still a fundamentally strong, stable system. No systemic flaws have been uncovered in seven years of heavy use, there's not much discontent about the mechanics as they currently stand, the system is still miles away from 3e/4e levels of bloat, and there haven't been any major philosophical shifts in the way people play or approach RPGs.

Forget the business side of things--there's no game design reason to overhaul the system.

I mean, I'd love to see a book of variant rules like 3.5's Unearthed Arcana, or my Grimoire of the Grotesque. I'd love to see new player options that push the bounds of the system, like the 3.5 Tome of Magic (only, you know, with editing). But a new edition? No.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, but for real, they're not going to rebrand 5E, they're just going to make changes until a new edition starts development and I doubt that's happening anytime soon. And that's the key. Rebranding hurts them, so they won't do it. :smallwink:


While it has its flaws, 5e is still a fundamentally strong, stable system.
Yes, and yet they seem to be trying to piss into their own fondue dish. :smallyuk:
Can't stand the prosperity, it seems.

[Tanarii]

Nope. Not until the design group that thought Tasha's was a good idea are gone, and someone that can give us a decent product is brought on board.



Forget the business side of things--there's no game design reason to overhaul the system.

That's a better point than mine :smallamused:

[Arkhios]

No. Not until they make an official announcement.


Forget the business side of things--there's no game design reason to overhaul the system.
Also, this.

[CheddarChampion]

I'd like the books to be revised but my opinion will never have an effect on how D&D progresses.

I bet our collective opinions will never affect it either.

[Arkhios]

I'd like the books to be revised but my opinion will never have an effect on how D&D progresses.

I bet our collective opinions will never affect it either.

Despite a common belief, this forum represents only a vocal minority of the whole player base, and it's highly unlikely their communications department (or whatever) reads these forums, even sporadically.

[Waazraath]

I know this has probably been asked before but in light of some of the changes in Tasha's and the current ua is it time for an 5.5 edition of d&d? Here's why I think so.

1) The changes to the races is controversial and while I personally like the idea it is kinda half baked. A new version using the same ruleset would allow existing races to be balanced with the new ruleset in mind.

2) The class changes introduced in Tasha's as alternatives and some of the class fixes for rangers and Sorcerers as well as things like the hexblade could be baked into core class features instead allowing for overall more balanced subclasses.

3) The formula introduced in the new ua while cool in concept is kinda hacky in execution trying to force it into the existing classes. I love the idea that some subclasses can be portable. Why not bake that right into design. Then the divine soul and Celestial paatron could have been the same bloodline. Illusionist could be a subclass for bard, warlock and wizard. I feel like a lot could be improved by introducing this cool idea in a fully baked version into 5.5.

So what do you guys think? Should wotc quit attempting to make half baked patches and release 5.5 or are their current patches a good way to continue progressing?

No. You mention some glaring disparities between older and newer content (extra spells for rangers and sorcerers, the hexblade as overpowered warlock class), but imo this is not worth it to update the entire editon for. It's more than workable now, and the balance of the edition is good enough that you can play an old sorcerer or ranger or a fiend bladelock and still be relevant. There still are a lot of people buying books, no reason to piss 'em all off by releasing 5.5 - can only speak for myself, but at the moment I'm buying almost everything, if they would pull a 5.5 on my I'd stop buying anything till 6th.

I think (but also hope) we'll have more releases like this for a year or 4, 5, and only then, if sales start to dwindle, we get a 6th edition.

[Kane0]

Not until the market shifts. Us diehards will always pick at the system in detail but for the majority things are just fine and selling well.

[MaxWilson]

I know this has probably been asked before but in light of some of the changes in Tasha's and the current ua is it time for an 5.5 edition of d&d?

Isn't that basically what Tasha's already is? I see people talking lately about their Beast Barbarians and Watcher Paladins and Armorer Artificers and Twilight Clerics and Fey-touched feats, and it sure doesn't sound anything like the game I recognize. I think Tasha's is its own fork of D&D, and calling it 5.5E is probably accurate.

[Waazraath]

Isn't that basically what Tasha's already is? I see people talking lately about their Beast Barbarians and Watcher Paladins and Armorer Artificers and Twilight Clerics and Fey-touched feats, and it sure doesn't sound anything like the game I recognize. I think Tasha's is its own fork of D&D, and calling it 5.5E is probably accurate.

I don't know... my 3.5 suddenly had swordsages, soulbinders, warblades and dragon shamans running around, but it still was 3.5 to me and not 3.75; and some of those changes were adding entire new subsystems to the edition.

[Yora]

Isn't that basically what Tasha's already is? I see people talking lately about their Beast Barbarians and Watcher Paladins and Armorer Artificers and Twilight Clerics and Fey-touched feats, and it sure doesn't sound anything like the game I recognize. I think Tasha's is its own fork of D&D, and calling it 5.5E is probably accurate.

Sounds like 1st edition people are talking about Unearthed Arcana.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sounds like 1st edition people are talking about Unearthed Arcana. Now that you mention it, where is that weapons specialization, anyway? :smallbiggrin:

[MrStabby]

I know this has probably been asked before but in light of some of the changes in Tasha's and the current ua is it time for an 5.5 edition of d&d? Here's why I think so.

1) The changes to the races is controversial and while I personally like the idea it is kinda half baked. A new version using the same ruleset would allow existing races to be balanced with the new ruleset in mind.

2) The class changes introduced in Tasha's as alternatives and some of the class fixes for rangers and Sorcerers as well as things like the hexblade could be baked into core class features instead allowing for overall more balanced subclasses.

3) The formula introduced in the new ua while cool in concept is kinda hacky in execution trying to force it into the existing classes. I love the idea that some subclasses can be portable. Why not bake that right into design. Then the divine soul and Celestial paatron could have been the same bloodline. Illusionist could be a subclass for bard, warlock and wizard. I feel like a lot could be improved by introducing this cool idea in a fully baked version into 5.5.

So what do you guys think? Should wotc quit attempting to make half baked patches and release 5.5 or are their current patches a good way to continue progressing?

Is it time?

Probably not.

The game does have some problems (let be clear, they are not huge problems and the game is not only playable, it is very good). And a 5.5 could fix these problems. The thing is, that I think this is better postponed. WotC are better than ever at soliciting feedback and they generally seem to use it to improve things but importantly they seem to be sepping up content and are actually pretty creative at the moment.

I would love a rebalanced 5.5 that at least tried to fix the edition's problems but I think it is a great opportunity and I want more things out to fix first.

The tagged on alternative class features are good but too constrained to be a true fix. The new optional rules on races in Tasha's is maybe a look to the future but for now they are a stifling mess. The edition is still lumbered with rangers, the hexblade, the wizard and shepherd druids (and printing stuff like the peace/twilight cleric doesn't help). Let's get another 18 months of content out and then see. A lot of recent stuff is great - undead warlocks, the UA draconic monks and rangers, Mercy Monks, Watcher Paladins, artificers (yeah, I hate them but objectively they are actually quite well done), wildfire and stars druids, Rune Knights and so on. On average quality is good, but we fixate on the bad.

The time will come when it will be right to tie all of these changes together in a balanced, elegant way rather than how it is now - but I don't think we are there yet.

[Sparky McDibben]

OK, let me ask the Playground this: in the event of 5.5e, do you think WotC would move to being a digital-only publisher via VTT and an in-house version of D&D Beyond?

What do you think that would do to the 3rd party content space?

[MrStabby]

OK, let me ask the Playground this: in the event of 5.5e, do you think WotC would move to being a digital-only publisher via VTT and an in-house version of D&D Beyond?

What do you think that would do to the 3rd party content space?

No.

People still play in shops, they still shop in shops and seeing somethin on the shelf is a big advert still. Whilst I could see expanding the digital presence, I don't see the physical going away just yet.

[Corsair14]

With as much rules testing and such like Tasha's with them testing the waters and so forth to see how things are received, I think 6th will be right around the corner perhaps in 2022. I would not be surprised if I heard there were groups already playtesting ideas under an NDA. The real question will be with the questionable reception of Tasha's which way will they go? The fanboys are thinking its the greatest thing since sliced bread while the die-hards are going "Not in my D&D" and which are they going to appease.

Die-hards while likely being older and having more disposable income than younger fanboys types, also have the adjustable attitude if they see something they don't like to go, "Alright, I already have the books, stuff is still being produced so back to 2nd edition I go, screw you guys." Many already have and a whole market has arisen to cater to them and their vision of what DnD should be. The fanboys fawn over the changes and I see the future of DnD catering more to them with all the splat books that keep popping up. Thus a 6th edition based on the silliness of things like Tasha's and the UAs as a reference I think wont be far behind. So no, its been 7 years, there wont be a 5.5, there will be 6th instead.

[noob]

With as much rules testing and such like Tasha's with them testing the waters and so forth to see how things are received, I think 6th will be right around the corner perhaps in 2022. I would not be surprised if I heard there were groups already playtesting ideas under an NDA. The real question will be with the questionable reception of Tasha's which way will they go? The fanboys are thinking its the greatest thing since sliced bread while the die-hards are going "Not in my D&D" and which are they going to appease.

Die-hards while likely being older and having more disposable income than younger fanboys types, also have the adjustable attitude if they see something they don't like to go, "Alright, I already have the books, stuff is still being produced so back to 2nd edition I go, screw you guys." Many already have and a whole market has arisen to cater to them and their vision of what DnD should be. The fanboys fawn over the changes and I see the future of DnD catering more to them with all the splat books that keep popping up. Thus a 6th edition based on the silliness of things like Tasha's and the UAs as a reference I think wont be far behind. So no, its been 7 years, there wont be a 5.5, there will be 6th instead.

Imagine 6th being basic dnd but with the weird "one off roll types" like "metabolic shock" and a bunch of others being made more uniform?
The interest is that it would be even simpler to pick up for new players.

[ZRN]

I'd step back and ask: why WAS there a need for 3.5e or 4.5e ("Essentials")?

3.5e was necessary because there were tons of design problems in 3e that were bogging down the system, and rampant class imbalance.

4.5e, on the other hand, was necessary because a lot of people didn't like the "samey" class design where everyone got the same types of abilities at the same levels, so it added some streamlined but equally powerful classes.

I'd argue that neither of those cases apply here. Balance may not be perfect in 5e, but there are no base classes that just need a full revamp because they're so far behind. And most people are either mostly satisfied with class design in 5e or at least don't have a consistent broad complaint about it that could be addressed by adding revised classes.

To my mind, the only reason to come out with a revised edition is when some of the baseline assumptions and mechanics of the core system are broken to the point they make the game worse. In 5e this isn't the case, both because they designed it better and because the classes are a bit more modular - so for example when sorcerers are a bit underwhelming, they can just add new, more powerful subclasses without having to rewrite or amend the PHB. Or the Tasha's alternate/additional class abilities. That's not optimal - it would be nice if all the subclasses were balanced - but it's certainly better than trying to get millions of people to buy new books and learn a slightly revised system.

[Composer99]

Short answer: no, it isn't.

Slightly longer answer: sales numbers say no.

Other than a slackening of core book sales, I could see a 5.5 being on the menu for D&D's 50th anniversary, since that would be a good year for a big splashy release.

[ZRN]

With as much rules testing and such like Tasha's with them testing the waters and so forth to see how things are received, I think 6th will be right around the corner perhaps in 2022.

I think you're vastly underestimating how much change is involved in a full new edition, at least under WOTC.

3e, 4e, and 5e all completely changed almost every aspect of the game. Stuff like "how many bonus spells do sorcerers get" or "do dwarves get to pick where they put their racial +2" would probably be almost meaningless in the context of a 6th edition. And frankly, in Tasha's and recent UAs, they're not doing anything near the level of experimentation they did with late 3.5e or late 4e/Next playtest as they worked towards new editions. Plus, unless they're planning a HUGE change in approach, they've extensively playtested every aspect of 5e before publication. Remember how long the 5e playtest was? They're not going to push an entire new edition out the door next year.

[Waazraath]

but it's certainly better than trying to get millions of people to buy new books and learn a slightly revised system.

especially since those millions of people wouldn't buy those books, I think, and thus it being not only a bad decision for the game but also from a business point of view.

[MrStabby]

I'd step back and ask: why WAS there a need for 3.5e or 4.5e ("Essentials")?

3.5e was necessary because there were tons of design problems in 3e that were bogging down the system, and rampant class imbalance.

4.5e, on the other hand, was necessary because a lot of people didn't like the "samey" class design where everyone got the same types of abilities at the same levels, so it added some streamlined but equally powerful classes.

I'd argue that neither of those cases apply here. Balance may not be perfect in 5e, but there are no base classes that just need a full revamp because they're so far behind. And most people are either mostly satisfied with class design in 5e or at least don't have a consistent broad complaint about it that could be addressed by adding revised classes.

To my mind, the only reason to come out with a revised edition is when some of the baseline assumptions and mechanics of the core system are broken to the point they make the game worse. In 5e this isn't the case, both because they designed it better and because the classes are a bit more modular - so for example when sorcerers are a bit underwhelming, they can just add new, more powerful subclasses without having to rewrite or amend the PHB. Or the Tasha's alternate/additional class abilities. That's not optimal - it would be nice if all the subclasses were balanced - but it's certainly better than trying to get millions of people to buy new books and learn a slightly revised system.

I think that there are some system-wide issues tha could be fixed. Things that go beyond a particular class or feature and could maybe be improved at the game level.

It isn't so much a need, as an opportunity.

Off the top of my head:

1) Sumoning spells are really strong in an abstract kind of way. To balance this the creatures summoned have to be weaker than the class fantasy of some characters would suggest, or you can't get many or so on. A fundamental rework of the rules for controlling allies in combat to let summoned creatures be invividually strong without overshadowing anything else might be beneficial.

2) Expanding alternative class features, rebalancing them and putting them on an official footing. If I want to be a nature themed caster then druid is great; if I don't want to spend my time in another shape then wildshape is a wasted feature. These kind of things are all over different classes. Better, well sructured and balanced rules for swapping some of these out would expand options considerably.

3) More thought into either formalising game asumptions and building into the rules (which I don't like) or thinking about how different classes behave differently under different assumptions (i.e. high/low magic, high/low treasure, long/short days, high/low level etc. high/low combat). This will never be perfect but I wouldn't mind seeing some more refinement here.

4) Fixing the exploration pillar. I don't know how, or even if it can be done well but I think a 5.5 would be an opportunity to give this some thought.

5) The core philosophy of specialism vs generalism. Personally I would like to see a push to slightly more specialist characters. I think 5.0 offers too high rewards/too low costs for being generic and being capable of doing almost anything.

[Tanarii]

Isn't that basically what Tasha's already is? I see people talking lately about their Beast Barbarians and Watcher Paladins and Armorer Artificers and Twilight Clerics and Fey-touched feats, and it sure doesn't sound anything like the game I recognize. I think Tasha's is its own fork of D&D, and calling it 5.5E is probably accurate.
Nope. .5 editions are a "reset" of the rules for the basic races and classes, culling the splat in the process. So 3.5 counts, and 1e UA, 2e Players Option,* and Xan/Tash are the exact opposite.

4e Essentials was effectively a .5 edition in terms of trying to pull the reset button, but it also wasn't because they made it completely compatible and kept publishing the main line. Plus it was widely ignored by the community.

*Actually Players options is also arguably a .5 edition, since it was core changes to the base classes/rules and effectively wiped the splat if you used it.

[ZRN]

I think that there are some system-wide issues tha could be fixed. Things that go beyond a particular class or feature and could maybe be improved at the game level.

It isn't so much a need, as an opportunity.

Off the top of my head:

1) Sumoning spells are really strong in an abstract kind of way. To balance this the creatures summoned have to be weaker than the class fantasy of some characters would suggest, or you can't get many or so on. A fundamental rework of the rules for controlling allies in combat to let summoned creatures be invividually strong without overshadowing anything else might be beneficial.

2) Expanding alternative class features, rebalancing them and putting them on an official footing. If I want to be a nature themed caster then druid is great; if I don't want to spend my time in another shape then wildshape is a wasted feature. These kind of things are all over different classes. Better, well sructured and balanced rules for swapping some of these out would expand options considerably.

3) More thought into either formalising game asumptions and building into the rules (which I don't like) or thinking about how different classes behave differently under different assumptions (i.e. high/low magic, high/low treasure, long/short days, high/low level etc. high/low combat). This will never be perfect but I wouldn't mind seeing some more refinement here.

4) Fixing the exploration pillar. I don't know how, or even if it can be done well but I think a 5.5 would be an opportunity to give this some thought.

5) The core philosophy of specialism vs generalism. Personally I would like to see a push to slightly more specialist characters. I think 5.0 offers too high rewards/too low costs for being generic and being capable of doing almost anything.

Oh, I definitely have a laundry list of things I'd like to see them revisit/revise, many of which would probably be more suited to a 6e than a 5.5. (I don't like spell slots.) But the effort involved in not only writing this 5.5e, but convincing everyone to actually buy and play it, seems not really worth it.

[Corsair14]

As someone who played 3.0-3.5 very heavily(college student, actually had time to play all nighters without regret) I honestly didn't see a big change between 3.0 and 3.5. A few rules here and there were tweaked but nothing any of us really took notice of and went wow. Cant comment on 4th and the 4.5 change, my group didn't change editions from 3rd after we played a game of it and found it incredibly unfun. Now looking between 3rd and 5th I think I would have a hard time switching back to 3rd. It had a lot of good things to it but had a lot of bloat. Which is why with Tashas being an effective 5.5, its not like they are going to advertise it as such, we are going to 2nd edition+ (For Gold and Glory), more streamlined but more detail at the same time and things make more sense.

How many years did 5e get playtested before they officially announced it? I am betting in house under a very strict NDA it was more than 2 years and maybe some select groups had access under the same silence. With the success of 5e and newer players liking it so much, I would be willing to bet a 6th edition would not be as big a departure as 4th to 5th. They need to sell books and a new edition means at a minimum that's a new player guide, monster manual and DMs guide. I am sticking with my predication on 2022 for 6e. 5e is long in the tooth and while players are never ready for an edition change, companies generally do not care.

[ZRN]

How many years did 5e get playtested before they officially announced it? I am betting in house under a very strict NDA it was more than 2 years and maybe some select groups had access under the same silence.

I kind of doubt it, just because the early 5e/"D&D Next" playtests were REALLY basic and not at all polished.

[Willie the Duck]

Isn't that basically what Tasha's already is? I see people talking lately about their Beast Barbarians and Watcher Paladins and Armorer Artificers and Twilight Clerics and Fey-touched feats, and it sure doesn't sound anything like the game I recognize. I think Tasha's is its own fork of D&D, and calling it 5.5E is probably accurate.

Sounds like 1st edition people are talking about Unearthed Arcana.

Nope. .5 editions are a "reset" of the rules for the basic races and classes, culling the splat in the process. So 3.5 counts, and 1e UA, 2e Players Option,* and Xan/Tash are the exact opposite.
4e Essentials was effectively a .5 edition in terms of trying to pull the reset button, but it also wasn't because they made it completely compatible and kept publishing the main line. Plus it was widely ignored by the community.
*Actually Players options is also arguably a .5 edition, since it was core changes to the base classes/rules and effectively wiped the splat if you used it.
There's been exactly one officially '_.5' edition, so unless we want to project off a sample size of one in the end it will boil down to perception. My take is that something is a .5 edition if they release a new PHB and/or DMG that would replace the old one. Otherwise it is an expansion. Even so if the expansion goes back and retro-actively changes some major things like 1e Unearthed Arcana, 2e's player options, Tasha's, or heck Supplement I: Greyhawk.

As to Beast Barbarians and Fey-Touched feats and stuff, that's just expanded player options, along with some new jargon. Plus, changes within an edition are the norm -- oD&D added paladins and rangers and variable weapon damage (imagine how much of a shock that would be) between start and end. 1e had weapon specialization and the addition of a skill system. 2e had your much-loved Wild Magic, and spells that made you grow feathers from your elbows or make bridges exist or not depending on whether you looked away (I'm sure a purist must have reacted to that with a 'this game is recognizable').


I'd step back and ask: why WAS there a need for 3.5e or 4.5e ("Essentials")?

3.5e was necessary because there were tons of design problems in 3e that were bogging down the system, and rampant class imbalance.

4.5e, on the other hand, was necessary because a lot of people didn't like the "samey" class design where everyone got the same types of abilities at the same levels, so it added some streamlined but equally powerful classes.

I'd argue that neither of those cases apply here. Balance may not be perfect in 5e, but there are no base classes that just need a full revamp because they're so far behind. And most people are either mostly satisfied with class design in 5e or at least don't have a consistent broad complaint about it that could be addressed by adding revised classes.

To my mind, the only reason to come out with a revised edition is when some of the baseline assumptions and mechanics of the core system are broken to the point they make the game worse. In 5e this isn't the case, both because they designed it better and because the classes are a bit more modular - so for example when sorcerers are a bit underwhelming, they can just add new, more powerful subclasses without having to rewrite or amend the PHB. Or the Tasha's alternate/additional class abilities. That's not optimal - it would be nice if all the subclasses were balanced - but it's certainly better than trying to get millions of people to buy new books and learn a slightly revised system.
I'd say that 3.5 probably was a mistake, and they could have patched the major issues with updates (they certainly kept tinkering with shapechange rules all the way until the end), but that the fundamental distinction (I believe) was that they thought they had to make fundamental changes which would back-alter vast swaths of what came before (ex: changing how damage reduction worked altered 25-50% of the Monster Manual), and that one person who played with the revisions could not play when coming into a group who did not (well above the basic 'no, we don't use that book, you will have to rethink your planned build').

[Asmotherion]

I think it's about time for a 6e, which takes feedback on 5e and makes character creation somewhat more customisable. Realistically though, I doubt we'll see 6e for at least the next 3-5 years.

[FilthyLucre]

Nope. Not until the design group that thought Tasha's was a good idea are gone, and someone that can give us a decent product is brought on board.


That's a better point than mine :smallamused:

Whats wrong with Tasha's? If anything we need more things like Tasha's. I personally miss the 'Complete...' splatbooks and would like to see more options or systems appearing.

[noob]

Maybe they did not like the power escalation aspect that looked like a ploy to sell more books?

[Xervous]

Whats wrong with Tasha's? If anything we need more things like Tasha's. I personally miss the 'Complete...' splatbooks and would like to see more options or systems appearing.

As a veteran observer of 5+ threads that Tasha’s has gotten locked, the most common gripe that doesn’t get argued into the dirt is that WotC fumbles out replacement rules for perceived problems that either fail to address the problem (old sorc subclasses still don’t get extra spells) or brings an anti depressant medication’s list of side effects that leaves it unclear if the feature is better off being used for the general case or not (ability scores go anywhere). Attack WotC on the grounds of poor design implementation, attack them on the grounds of power creep, there’s no need to touch the thread locking details.

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe they did not like the power escalation aspect that looked like a ploy to sell more books? That's one of my complaints. (Twilight clerics!) Rune Knight, though, I think was a decent choice.
... the most common gripe that doesn’t get argued into the dirt is that WotC fumbles out replacement rules for perceived problems that either fail to address the problem (old sorc subclasses still don’t get extra spells) or brings an anti depressant medication’s list of side effects that leaves it unclear if the feature is better off being used for the general case or not (ability scores go anywhere). Yeah, needed one more good scrub before publishing. QA and QC functions are in poor shape.

I have a friend who has consistently been doing playtest for 5e stuff since about 2014/2015-ish; he's commented on how, in the last year or so, that process has been under resourced.
I did some play test for Salt Marsh stuff, some Theros stuff, and a few pre-publish Candlekeep adventures with him).

[FilthyLucre]

As a veteran observer of 5+ threads that Tasha’s has gotten locked, the most common gripe that doesn’t get argued into the dirt is that WotC fumbles out replacement rules for perceived problems that either fail to address the problem (old sorc subclasses still don’t get extra spells) or brings an anti depressant medication’s list of side effects that leaves it unclear if the feature is better off being used for the general case or not (ability scores go anywhere). Attack WotC on the grounds of poor design implementation, attack them on the grounds of power creep, there’s no need to touch the thread locking details.

Lmao I've been away from these forums for a while. I had no idea that Tasha's had been met with anything other than universal acclaim.

[KorvinStarmast]

Lmao I've been away from these forums for a while. I had no idea that Tasha's had been met with anything other than universal acclaim.
Some things that I really like about Tasha's.

The little batch of summoning spells.
Magic Tattoos
Swapping out cantrips at ASI level.
Adding Slow and Command to the bard's spell list.
The section on 'how to parley with Low INT monsters'
Swap out fighting styles at ASI level.

Some things I disliked:

Mimic colonies.
The over correction on sorcerers with no reach back to previous sorcerer spell lists. (Similar to my tooth gritting with the Xanathar's domain spells for Rangers but no reach back for original rangers :smallfurious: ).
Lack of balance with a number of the sub classes introduced.
Feats that once again strained the uniqueness of classes. (Specifically the ones that offer Invocations as feats, and meta magic. Really didn't like that).

[Tanarii]

(I don't like spell slots.)If you dont like spell slots, youre better off choosing a different game. I can't see them getting rid of them again.


As someone who played 3.0-3.5 very heavily(college student, actually had time to play all nighters without regret) I honestly didn't see a big change between 3.0 and 3.5.There were some significant revisions to the way several classes worked, as well as core adventuring tasks (like Stealth). Thats what made it a revised edition instead of just adding new options.

But yes, it was nothing compared to any edition change to date.


I am sticking with my predication on 2022 for 6e. 5e is long in the tooth and while players are never ready for an edition change, companies generally do not care.
I cant see it happening that soon. Maybe by 2024. And IMO thats still too soon.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you dont like spell slots Am finally playing a game with spell points. Not sure how it will work out, but so far it's easy to keep track of stuff.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I am sticking with my predication on 2022 for 6e. 5e is long in the tooth and while players are never ready for an edition change, companies generally do not care.

I'm not sure how you could see a 2022 announcement, let alone release, we've still got consistent news about 5E books being worked on throughout 2022. It doesn't seem at all realistic for an edition change to be happening in the next year.

[Slider Eclipse]

There is almost certainly a solid potential for a "5.5E", though not in the grand sweeping way that most people are likely thinking. 5E itself has proven to be a mostly solid system, but with Tasha's onward showcasing a rather drastic shift in design philosophy holes are starting to form that could be easily patched up with the slight updates that a half edition would provide, kinda like how Base 3.5E works with Base Pathfinder 1E, with Pathfinder being effectively just a refined version of 3.5E's rules that required minimal effort to port old content over.

In doing such a thing they can set the stage for some of the new ideas becoming the standard such as Linage rules or making all caster subclasses have there own lists of bonus spells, or implementing a proper feat system to make use of the newer more playstyle defining feats.

[KorvinStarmast]

proper feat system to make use of the newer more playstyle defining feats.
Getting rid of racial feats would be a great start
The feat system is already pretty good; it's a choice.
Also:
No Feat Chains.

[FilthyLucre]

Getting rid of racial feats would be a great start
The feat system is already pretty good; it's a choice.
Also:
No Feat Chains.

Feats are way too infrequent for my taste. I want to be making a meaningful choice about my class at pretty much every level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Feats are way too infrequent for my taste. I want to be making a meaningful choice about my class at pretty much every level.

At that point you either have overstuffed classes or your definition of "meaningful" drops to the basement.

Compare 4e, where you made decisions pretty much every level--some combination of
* picking new powers
* trading out powers for higher level powers
* feats
* paragon/epic destiny features

But those feats and powers? The differences between them were really really small. And the vast majority of those choices were phantom choices--each of the few discrete build paths had most of their choices made in advance if you wanted to be effective. They were taxes, treadmill fashion, not actual choices. If you had a "feat" every level, you'd end up either with a completely different power curve or tiny little feats that aren't individually meaningful. And if you don't want trap options[1], you'd have to balance every single choice against every other choice for all supported build styles for that class and any class that could take it. Which is a nightmare.

That doesn't mean that there isn't improvement to be made on 5e's feat/build path system, but "make a lot of decisions" isn't a good way to go about it without rebuilding everything from the ground up. More is not better, more is often worse.

[1] which I don't. In fact, I'd rather take 10 options, all of which are viable for a build over 100 options, of which 30 are viable for a build, 60 are viable, just not for that build, and 10 are outright traps.

[KorvinStarmast]

Feats are way too infrequent for my taste. I want to be making a meaningful choice about my class at pretty much every level. I think you want a different edition. The way the 1-20 progression is, each level something new shows up. Now sometimes, it's just "new spell level access" and sometimes it's an ASI and sometimes it's like the Paladin's aura that boosts saves.

The value per "new things" varies wildly.

And sometimes it' an ASI that can, optionally, be applied to a feat.

I like feats as an optional rule; I also like them for a lot of other reasons but when they went to racial feats I got a big old frownie face. :smallmad: I realize that tastes differ. I prefer feats to be accessible to everyone (with the few pre requisites making sense where they are in the PHB)

[Theodoxus]

If I were WotC, I'd roll out a 5.5 with a new setting or two.

If we got a completely revamped class build, spells and psionics, while rolling out Dark Sun - and making it backwards compatible with 5.0? That's the way to do it.

Of course, the things I'd want are expanded actions (bring back interrupts along with OAs; minor and immediate actions; a bonafide delay action; freakin' 5' step/shift... (I allow a 5' move as a bonus action that uses half of your movement, but doesn't provoke OAs for moving out of a threatened square.)

Revamping saving throws? Classic F/R/W, yes please.

Both those additions would be optional, but could easily work in 5.0, or 5.0's combat and saving throws could work in 5.5 (basically would need to include in the description something like Make a Willpower (Int) Save or a Fortitude (Str) Save, to denote what attribute is is affecting).

But mostly, if they used DS as their 5.5 setting, I'd say goodbye to 5.0 forever.... just sayin'.

[2D8HP]

Frankly there's enough options in the rules already to make 5e D&D more like what I want, I suppose the only reform I'd really want is another class that was as cognitively easy for me as the Champion Fighter.


OK, let me ask the Playground this: in the event of 5.5e, do you think WotC would move to being a digital-only publisher via VTT and an in-house version of D&D Beyond?


Oh geez, I sincerely hope not!


What do you think that would do to the 3rd party content space?


I really don't know, I'm too busy being appalled at the abomination of a possibility that D&D rules would no longer come in printed books that I may get in a store.


Some things that I really like about Tasha's.

The little batch of summoning spells.
Magic Tattoos
Swapping out cantrips at ASI level.
Adding Slow and Command to the bard's spell list.
The section on 'how to parley with Low INT monsters'
Swap out fighting styles at ASI level.

Some things I disliked:

Mimic colonies.
The over correction on sorcerers with no reach back to previous sorcerer spell lists. (Similar to my tooth gritting with the Xanathar's domain spells for Rangers but no reach back for original rangers :smallfurious: ).
Lack of balance with a number of the sub classes introduced.
Feats that once again strained the uniqueness of classes. (Specifically the ones that offer Invocations as feats, and meta magic. Really didn't like that).


Things I liked about Tasha's: the art with a picture of Tasha,
the other art with pictures of Tasha,
the covers, both standard and alternate were rockin'!
The notes in Tasha's "voice"

Things I didn't like about Tasha's: actually reading the new rules in it bored me


Feats are way too infrequent for my taste. I want to be making a meaningful choice about my class at pretty much every level.


Oh lord no, unless "leveling up" was slowed way down (which is a fine idea!)

[Arkhios]

Feats are way too infrequent for my taste. I want to be making a meaningful choice about my class at pretty much every level.

Sounds like Pathfinder 2e would be right up your alley, then. The characters in it are literally built by selecting one or more feats at every level.

As much as I liked to have a lot of feats playing pathfinder 1e, too much is too much. Definitely the biggest downside of the 2e for me. Big enough to dislike the whole game, actually.

[Tanarii]

At that point you either have overstuffed classes or your definition of "meaningful" drops to the basement.



Oh lord no, unless "leveling up" was slowed way down (which is a fine idea!)
Right?

I've been trying to read Pathfinder 2. It's a pain to process. At one point I scanned through my old 4e books, and it was the same. After having been exposed to modern TTRPGs in the last 5 years (mostly through references in the general forum), I've come to appreciate being able to read and comprehend character rules without spending hours processing first. Playing pathfinder 2 after making the decisions might be fine, after all 4e was.

[noob]

Frankly there's enough options in the rules already to make 5e D&D more like what I want, I suppose the only reform I'd really want is another class that was as cognitively easy for me as the Champion Fighter.

I did suggest at one point the idea of making a "blaster" class or subclass that was as simple as the champion: your blasting attack is at will (and comparable to shooting a lot of arrows as a fighter) and once a short rest you get an aoe attack(basically replaces the action surge) and none of that "spell slots" or "spell prepared" thing: it would allow to have a "magic shooting guy" without ever having to read the spell rules.

[Xervous]

Sounds like Pathfinder 2e would be right up your alley, then. The characters in it are literally built by selecting one or more feats at every level.

As much as I liked to have a lot of feats playing pathfinder 1e, too much is too much. Definitely the biggest downside of the 2e for me. Big enough to dislike the whole game, actually.

Options every level? Sure. Meaningful choices? Not so much. I found myself squinting to see the benefits of most features in PF2E, or wondering how the devs thought it would be a great idea to put ribbons as options next to features.

[Chronic]

Options every level? Sure. Meaningful choices? Not so much. I found myself squinting to see the benefits of most features in PF2E, or wondering how the devs thought it would be a great idea to put ribbons as options next to features.

Yeah PF2 subtitle could be "the illusion of choice", where you make constant decision about your character and it never becomes fun to play!

I think there is a few system that should be revised in 5e because, well because they suck. Fortunately most people don't play the rule as stated, like for the light/dark system, so it's not a major problem. And that's probably the great thing about 5e, it's surprisingly flexible, you can come up with a tweak or a fix very easily, on the spot even. Which is to me the mark of a great rpg.
So could they improve the core game? Sure? Do they need to spend time doing it? Probably not.

[Arkhios]

Options every level? Sure. Meaningful choices? Not so much. I found myself squinting to see the benefits of most features in PF2E, or wondering how the devs thought it would be a great idea to put ribbons as options next to features.

I'm more concerned how the devs thought it would be a good idea to make such a fluid character creation that flows right through your hands like water. In any case, I'm not a fan. Never was. Even the playtest version made me want to puke.

If I wanted to play with building blocks of meaningful choices, I'd go build something with Lego Technic pieces instead.

[Kvess]

I think the problem with 5e is WoTC didn’t release enough splatbooks throughout its lifecycle. It seems like nobody who has a problem with the options in Tasha’s or Xanathar’s remembers 3.0 and 3.5 and how many books players were told to use or disregard in those days. We were drowning in so many optional rules that we could use or ignore whatever we wanted.

[KorvinStarmast]

I suppose the only reform I'd really want is another class that was as cognitively easy for me as the Champion Fighter. Hmm, have you had another look at Rune Knight? Seems to me a pretty straightforward option.

I really don't know, I'm too busy being appalled at the abomination of a possibility that D&D rules would no longer come in printed books that I may get in a store. Likewise.

Things I liked about Tasha's: the art with a picture of Tasha, the other art with pictures of Tasha, the covers, both standard and alternate were rockin'! The notes in Tasha's "voice"

Things I didn't like about Tasha's: actually reading the new rules in it bored me
yes, they did get a little bit more fiddly with a lot of stuff. (Your posts got a big old grin out of me)

@Kvess: I am a bit lost on your post, but as it's in blue let's just say that I don't get the joke.
It happens sometimes. :smallcool:

[BoutsofInsanity]

Could I hypothetically see a book that is a revised PHB? I think I could.

Do I think they will do it? Not for another couple of years.

I could see a "5.5" release being something like a rules compendium / class revamp of the PHB that doesn't invalidate all the other books.


Redone races in accordance with Tasha's so the emphasis is placed on racial abilities, not modifiers
A reprint of the classes with some massaging of their core abilities
It wouldn't invalidate the splat books except maybe in a few targeted instances
A compilation of several rules that have been spread out across several books, like the exploration and crafting rules
Revamp of PHB feats and ability score increases - Other feats are fine for the most part
]*]An emphasis on guidelines to homebrew rule sets and adjudicating things that aren't entirely RAW or RAI
Essentially, it would replace the O.G. PHB but still work with the splat books


But they don't really need to. Like it's been said before, the core rules of 5e are incredibly solid. And despite what online forums would have you believe, the modular nature of 5e allows for easy homebrew and adjudication of rules and scenarios. Further, the vast majority of players don't get into the rules like we do. Most players don't get into the weeds, they want to fight monsters, do some roleplay, and have drinks. And most DM's are average. They aren't trying to run exceptional games and cracking the system apart. They just want to run adventures with their friends.

I mean, hell, I have about a 2 - 4 page word document with some house rules that essentially fix near all my "problems" with 5e that's essentially 5.5. It's only around 3 pages and I'd be playing happy for a long time.

Also controversial opinion - Racial ability modifiers are stupid, Tasha's gave tons of customization power to players, and is the best book to come out next to Xanthar's guide.

[Willie the Duck]

Whelp, been a nice thread. See everyone in the next one. <braces for impact>.

[Xervous]

Whelp, been a nice thread. See everyone in the next one. <braces for impact>.

I’m not counting this as #6 if it doesn’t break 20 pages.

[Anonymouswizard]

In terms of a shift in design paradigm? 5.1* is already here. In terms of actually going back and revising existing options? I wouldn't count on it, considering they rushed out a revised version of every race in about two pages (although marked as optional).

Honestly, even though I think a radial redesign deserved a lot more attention than what it actually ended up being, it's clearly been done in a way to cause as lille to be rewritten as possible. At most the next printing of the PhB might include some erratta to bring the old races in line with the new roles, more likely it'll be an extra two pages in the back at best. That doesn't make a .5 edition as D&D has traditionally defined them.

The fact of the matter is, most of WotC's audience probably cares more about their multiple copies of the PhB being invalidated than the changes introduced in supplements. So even if the next Everything book introduces an even bigger change, or brings back Wealth by Level or some other system stepped from 5e many people won't care, but those who picked up the corebooks in the last year or three don't want them invalidated.

* I'm not convinced that we're not going to see other shifts before 6e.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'd rather have optional rules to add complexity than a base complexity. The simplicity of 5e is it's greatest strength, and that's already being challenged with recent releases.

Advanced 5e might be what I'm hoping for, so I've got my eye on it. It would've been nice if WotC had recognized that they could easily cater to different sorts of players by bringing back the OD&D/AD&D split, but hey, they're at least allowing for third parties to do it. I've done it myself often enough, again thanks to the simplicity of the basic system. I prefer that to running a game too complex to be customized to taste.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd rather have optional rules to add complexity than a base complexity. The simplicity of 5e is it's greatest strength, and that's already being challenged with recent releases. {snip} ... thanks to the simplicity of the basic system. I prefer that to running a game too complex to be customized to taste. Pretty much my take on that.
But, rant follows:
:smallfurious: Make Ranger a prepared caster like a Paladin. :smallfurious:
Ok, I'll stop.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Pretty much my take on that.
But, rant follows:
:smallfurious: Make Ranger a prepared caster like a Paladin. :smallfurious:
Ok, I'll stop.

This is a great example of why 5e simplicity is a boon. It takes very little to make this change, and you can immediately make an educated guess as to how it would balance out. It offers greater utility and adaptability to a class that is generally on the lower end of the power spectrum. All signs point to this being perfectly acceptable. Now you either just allow it as DM or try to convince your DM, and in the latter case they'll be able to grasp these same conclusions readily.

[ZRN]

I did suggest at one point the idea of making a "blaster" class or subclass that was as simple as the champion: your blasting attack is at will (and comparable to shooting a lot of arrows as a fighter) and once a short rest you get an aoe attack(basically replaces the action surge) and none of that "spell slots" or "spell prepared" thing: it would allow to have a "magic shooting guy" without ever having to read the spell rules.

This was basically the 3.5e warlock, which is why I was a bit disappointed when the 5e PHB warlock ended up being a sort of patchwork 4e-style AEDU chassis instead. Not that 5e warlocks are bad, but we still don't have a "simple" magical class, and I think that's a mistake.

[MrStabby]

I'd rather have optional rules to add complexity than a base complexity. The simplicity of 5e is it's greatest strength, and that's already being challenged with recent releases.

In principal I agree. In practice I have run games without feats or multiclassing or flanking or without Tasha's revised races or XP levelling... everyone seems to think their preferred way of playing the game or their desired content is the Natural, Correct, Default and Unimpeachable way of playing, no matter that rules are labeled optional.

I think that any shuffling off complexity to optional rules will need to be accompanied by some managing of expectations around how common these things will be and in turn giving thought as to how common they SHOULD be.

[Waterdeep Merch]

In principal I agree. In practice I have run games without feats or multiclassing or flanking or without Tasha's revised races or XP levelling... everyone seems to think their preferred way of playing the game or their desired content is the Natural, Correct, Default and Unimpeachable way of playing, no matter that rules are labeled optional.

I think that any shuffling off complexity to optional rules will need to be accompanied by some managing of expectations around how common these things will be and in turn giving thought as to how common they SHOULD be.

My ideal here would be for a sort of DMG filled with optional rules and mechanics, not something labeled or marketed towards players in any way. You hear players ask for things they see in the books they buy; I don't often hear players asking for the optional rules from the DMG, even when they would be advantageous for them. There might be room for a more complex players-only book, but such a book should play nice with base 5e and maintain similar balance.

Though I also recognize that what I'm asking for isn't a likely thing. The market shows that a more complex system isn't going to sell as well. I also have doubts on how many people would buy a DM-centric book.

But one can dream.

[rlc]

We already got 5.5, it just doesn’t make sense to name it that.
Heck, even 3.5 shouldn’t have been called that.

[Theodoxus]

I did suggest at one point the idea of making a "blaster" class or subclass that was as simple as the champion: your blasting attack is at will (and comparable to shooting a lot of arrows as a fighter) and once a short rest you get an aoe attack(basically replaces the action surge) and none of that "spell slots" or "spell prepared" thing: it would allow to have a "magic shooting guy" without ever having to read the spell rules.


This was basically the 3.5e warlock, which is why I was a bit disappointed when the 5e PHB warlock ended up being a sort of patchwork 4e-style AEDU chassis instead. Not that 5e warlocks are bad, but we still don't have a "simple" magical class, and I think that's a mistake.

This is exactly the 5E Warlock, just with spell selection eliminated. You could easily do something like:

Warlock 1: EB, Prestidigitation; Hex and Burning Hands [fiend patron all the way!] - pick one to cast once a short rest.
Warlock 2: Ignore spells, grab AB and ES; your at-will blasts now are doing longbow+ damage with comparable range. (now each spell can be cast once a short rest.)
Warlock 3: Swap Burning Hands for Shatter or scorching ray (shatter's probably more in line with the AOE motif though), grab a familiar [Pact of the Chain]
Warlock 4: Add Mage Hand or Blade Ward to your cantrips. (more "magical" or more defense... whichever you prefer)
Warlock 5: Swap Shatter for Fireball. Add RB or Lance of Lethargy or Devil's Sight depending on your needs.

You can pre-build it, never have to read the spell rules, just explain exactly how Hex, BH, Shatter/SR and FB work. You know you can cast each once a short rest.

If you ever want to expand your power, just load in the additional Warlock features you've purposefully gated behind the "magic shooting guy" façade you've created.

Yes, technically you still have spell slots and known spells, but there's no reason you need to call them that, or even reference them. You just know that your power is growing. From a small cone in BH to a small AOE with shatter to a larger AOE with Fireball. You know you can cast each once and then need to rest. You know you can also cast Hex and keep it going pretty much until you need to take a short rest to get that back too.

Your primary attack is your 'magic shooting' of Eldritch Blast (1d10) plus Agonizing Blast (+3 to +5) out to 300' plus a rider; knock back or slow; or the ability to see normally in darkness. You probably have Mage Hand and Prestidigitation to do parlor tricks and appear more "majicky". And really, the only thing you're missing through level 5 is 4 more spells known - which moves it away from "Magic Champion" to "uh oh, now I need to make decisions on what to cast". So, ignore the extra spells and call it a day.

[Kane0]

Warlock 3: Swap Burning Hands for Shatter or scorching ray (shatter's probably more in line with the AOE motif though), grab a familiar [Pact of the Chain]

From a small cone in BH to a small AOE with shatter to a larger AOE with Fireball. You know you can cast each once and then need to rest.

Ag's Scorcher might be a better fit

[Theodoxus]

Ag's Scorcher might be a better fit

True, outside of the fact it's not a Warlock spell... at least RAW.

[Pex]

Going by Forum chatter, the PHB could use a revamp that could be called 5.5E. The Tasha book is leaning towards the idea; it just takes the willingness to commit on their part to do it. They need to overcome the inertia they think the PHB is perfect. the Revised Ranger didn't go anywhere. They simply need to do it. They like surveys. Ask the people what they want. Going by the most popular Forum chatter:

1) Use Revised Ranger
2) Give Sorcerer Bloodline bonus spells
3) Make Eldritch Blast a Warlock class feature
4) Give Blade Pact Warlock proficiency with medium armor and shield.

Being objective as I can, I think those four are the major changes that would get near universal approval. People have their own wishlist, including me. Everyone's wishlist may not agree with each other, but given the wishlists exist people are ready for 5.5E. Whatever changes are made there will exist people to complain about those changes, but that doesn't mean the changes shouldn't be made and also the complaints may be valid. A particular change maybe shouldn't have been made or that there was a change is ok but the implementation is bad.

However, they probably won't. They won't do anything official, but given Tasha opened the door the hypothetical next major splat book will offer suggestions as Optional Rules, such as Dragon and Wild Sorcerer Bloodline spells and what it means to have Eldritch Blast as a Warlock class feature. Any official significant These Are Now The Rules changes will come in hypothetical 6E.

[Slider Eclipse]

Getting rid of racial feats would be a great start
The feat system is already pretty good; it's a choice.
Also:
No Feat Chains.

Fully agree no Feat Chains. the main issue the feat system has atm is simply the fact it was written and designed with the PHB feats in mind, ones that baring a few key exceptions worked as an entirely optional thing that just added some minor flavor to a character. Even as early as Xanathars though we started to see feats that can fully define a character in very impactful ways, with Tasha really upping the ante there with things like Telekinetic/path giving your character a sudden dose of Psionic powers, or Gunner being basically a bandaid to fix one of the many many problems Firearms have. At that point the fact that Feats don't come online unless you get an ASI starts to be a small issue, one that creates a notable problem where more and more characters are V.Human or Custom Linage just because they can get that defining feat from the start, instead of having to wait forever, possibly even delaying a multiclass character from starting there secondary class because "well, I really need this feat first so I should rush to level 4 for it".

Thankfully like every other minor crack that modern design has created this is also a simple solution for a 5.5e, just give everyone that free feat at 1st level and made feats core and not some optional system DM's can ignore.

[Tanarii]

Thankfully like every other minor crack that modern design has created this is also a simple solution for a 5.5e, just give everyone that free feat at 1st level and made feats core and not some optional system DM's can ignore.

Hard no. One of the best things about 5e is that Feats are an optional rule.

[2D8HP]

Hmm, have you had another look at Rune Knight? Seems to me a pretty straightforward option.


Thanks KorvinStarmast, I did look at the Rune Knight sub-class in Tasha's and I agree that it's pretty good, I'll still need index cards with class features written on them at first but it gives a touch of magic without too much hassle, I'd say it's kinda like Rogue in it's coolness per cognitive hassle ratio.
Good suggestion.
Thanks again


Hard no. One of the best things about 5e is that Feats are an optional rule.


THANK YOU Tanarii!

[Dienekes]

Thanks KorvinStarmast, I did look at the Rune Knight sub-class in Tasha's and I agree that it's pretty good, I'll still need index cards with class features written on them at first but it gives a touch of magic without too much hassle, I'd say it's kinda like Rogue in it's coolness per cognitive hassle ratio.
Good suggestion.
Thanks again


You certain you’re not interested in a more rules light system? D&D’s pretty crunch heavy, and you seem particularly averse to it.

But anyway. The topic at hand.

Would I like a 5.5, which fixes some of my qualms and brings races, classes/subclasses, and feats all up to snuff of modern design ideas? Yes. The longer I play the longer my list of issues with the current iteration of the system goes. Not enough to drop the game, it’s still my favorite edition of D&D, but the issues are there.

Does that mean it’s time for a 5.5? I don’t think so. The games still incredibly profitable by all the data I’ve seen. People still seem to love the product, and my qualms are not near enough to get me to drop the system. And there are still a lot of books down the pipeline in this edition that seem interesting.

[KorvinStarmast]

Does that mean it’s time for a 5.5? I don’t think so. The games still incredibly profitable by all the data I’ve seen. People still seem to love the product, and my qualms are not near enough to get me to drop the system. And there are still a lot of books down the pipeline in this edition that seem interesting. It's that last bit that certainly interests me, though the QC function could use a boost.

@2D8HP
I'll still need index cards with class features written on them at first but it gives a touch of magic without too much hassle, Rune knight is one of those classes that tempts me to play a fighter again. As to 3x5 cards, even though I play mostly on VTT these days, I keep a scratch pad in front of me to take notes and write down some "don't forget this" stuff when I play any spell casting class. (And I still need to refer back to spell descriptions a lot with my bard these days). As Dienekes points out, this system isn't rules light and it's easy to forget a detail here and there during play. Your 'notes' approach is IMO a best practice. :smallsmile:

[ZRN]

This is exactly the 5E Warlock, just with spell selection eliminated. You could easily do something like:

Warlock 1: EB, Prestidigitation; Hex and Burning Hands [fiend patron all the way!] - pick one to cast once a short rest.
Warlock 2: Ignore spells, grab AB and ES; your at-will blasts now are doing longbow+ damage with comparable range. (now each spell can be cast once a short rest.)
Warlock 3: Swap Burning Hands for Shatter or scorching ray (shatter's probably more in line with the AOE motif though), grab a familiar [Pact of the Chain]
Warlock 4: Add Mage Hand or Blade Ward to your cantrips. (more "magical" or more defense... whichever you prefer)
Warlock 5: Swap Shatter for Fireball. Add RB or Lance of Lethargy or Devil's Sight depending on your needs.

You can pre-build it, never have to read the spell rules, just explain exactly how Hex, BH, Shatter/SR and FB work. You know you can cast each once a short rest.

If you ever want to expand your power, just load in the additional Warlock features you've purposefully gated behind the "magic shooting guy" façade you've created.

Yes, technically you still have spell slots and known spells, but there's no reason you need to call them that, or even reference them. You just know that your power is growing. From a small cone in BH to a small AOE with shatter to a larger AOE with Fireball. You know you can cast each once and then need to rest. You know you can also cast Hex and keep it going pretty much until you need to take a short rest to get that back too.

Your primary attack is your 'magic shooting' of Eldritch Blast (1d10) plus Agonizing Blast (+3 to +5) out to 300' plus a rider; knock back or slow; or the ability to see normally in darkness. You probably have Mage Hand and Prestidigitation to do parlor tricks and appear more "majicky". And really, the only thing you're missing through level 5 is 4 more spells known - which moves it away from "Magic Champion" to "uh oh, now I need to make decisions on what to cast". So, ignore the extra spells and call it a day.

Yeah, the 5e warlock is flexible enough to make a semblance of a "simple blaster" out of it (aside from the perhaps finicky objection that all those cantrips and spells you listed are STILL spells, from the Spells section of the book, which means you have to sort through that big 84-page chapter to figure out what your abilities do).

But ironically, you need a decent amount of system mastery to build that "simple" caster. You need to understand the warlock spell list, the subclasses and THEIR respective spell lists and abilities, the invocations, etc. That's a much more convoluted process than, say, creating a champion fighter, where you pick a subclass and two fighting styles, maybe a feat or two if you're feeling fancy, and you're set through level 20.

The frustrating thing here is that fighter clearly demonstrates that they could build a "simple" class chassis that ramps up to some level of complexity with more complex subclasses and class feature options.

[Necrosnoop110]

Slightly longer answer: sales numbers say no.
Where does one see official sales numbers?

[Cybren]

I don't know... my 3.5 suddenly had swordsages, soulbinders, warblades and dragon shamans running around, but it still was 3.5 to me and not 3.75; and some of those changes were adding entire new subsystems to the edition.

Complete Mage brought feats that gave at-will magic attacks, the tome of battle added an analog to casting in maneuvers, late 3.5 was very much '3.75'.

[Composer99]

Where does one see official sales numbers?

No hard numbers about D&D specifically that I know of, but WotC as a whole pulled in $816M in 2020, and D&D sales have been growing for 6 years straight (including massive growth in 2020 compared to 2019) - see www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/13/dungeons-dragons-had-its-biggest-year-despite-the-coronavirus.html

It's not the time to pull the plug on this edition.

[Tanarii]

But ironically, you need a decent amount of system mastery to build that "simple" caster. You need to understand the warlock spell list, the subclasses and THEIR respective spell lists and abilities, the invocations, etc. That's a much more convoluted process than, say, creating a champion fighter, where you pick a subclass and two fighting styles, maybe a feat or two if you're feeling fancy, and you're set through level 20.
Agreed. Warlock is one of the complicated classes to master. Spells + SR casting + automatic upcasting + Invocations + Pact Boon makes for a dizzying array of options.

SR casting in particular means a player need to think more than a full Spellcasting csster about core combat spells and then branching out into situational/utility. And as with any caster need to keep an eye on which are concentration.

[False God]

Tasha's already is 5.5E, well, probably more like 5.4E, but yes, the end is in sight.

It looks exactly like the end-run books of both 3.5 and 4E. They are substantial changes from the default, but can be safely ignored. They are brazen attempts to retool elements of the game that everyone just took as "default" as a way of Wizards dipping their toes in the pool of the next edition to see what they can and can't get away with.

I would expect 2 more years of 5E before we start seeing winding down and real talk of 6E.

And just to be clear, I have no problem with that. And it's not from dislike of 5E. It's just inevitable that with a print system you will uncover errors, create corrections, add new material, and this will inevitably reach a point where instead of more "corrective" or "additive" supplements, it's easier to start from the ground up and make a new edition.

[KorvinStarmast]

and this will inevitably reach a point where instead of more "corrective" or "additive" supplements, it's easier to start from the ground up and make a new edition. Easier?
I wonder.
It took over two years to get 5e out. In two years of publishing you can get, on a slow year, a setting book, an adventure or two, and a splat ... at the least. And, no need to spin up a new hype machine to convince current customers that they need to replace their previous edition (hype machines do cost money)

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, the 5e warlock is flexible enough to make a semblance of a "simple blaster" out of it (aside from the perhaps finicky objection that all those cantrips and spells you listed are STILL spells, from the Spells section of the book, which means you have to sort through that big 84-page chapter to figure out what your abilities do).

But ironically, you need a decent amount of system mastery to build that "simple" caster. You need to understand the warlock spell list, the subclasses and THEIR respective spell lists and abilities, the invocations, etc. That's a much more convoluted process than, say, creating a champion fighter, where you pick a subclass and two fighting styles, maybe a feat or two if you're feeling fancy, and you're set through level 20.

The frustrating thing here is that fighter clearly demonstrates that they could build a "simple" class chassis that ramps up to some level of complexity with more complex subclasses and class feature options.


Agreed. Warlock is one of the complicated classes to master. Spells + SR casting + automatic upcasting + Invocations + Pact Boon makes for a dizzying array of options.

SR casting in particular means a player need to think more than a full Spellcasting csster about core combat spells and then branching out into situational/utility. And as with any caster need to keep an eye on which are concentration.

Yes. you're both correct. However, my attempt was not as a player, but as a DM with a player who expressed this desire for a "simple blaster guy". What I present was the coding form, basically, so you could produce the same idea. Since WotC didn't deign to do this for us, we have to do it ourselves - and as I noted, it's literally only masking certain features, not making anything up. You could legally run this exact character at ever AL table without anyone blinking at it - outside of a few who might wonder why you're purposefully sandbagging yourself.

So, as a DM, I could very quickly write this up on one sheet. I'd write it up from level 1 to 20, just like any other class chart. I'd include the cantrips and spell names under special abilities. Under the ability explanation, I'd include a quick rundown of the spell the player would need to know (range, action (not even call it casting time), etc.) I'd probably change V/S/M to "Talking, Finger wiggling, and Bat Guano" (make all those fire blasts use bat guano!). Include a line about "you can only use this ability once a short rest." Really, it's 1st level that's actually the most 'complicated' because you only have 1 spell slot, so you somehow have to get your player to understand that for this sole level, they can only either Hex or Burning Hands, but not both, so choose wisely. (And I suppose the easiest way around that is to only give them Burning Hands and no Hex For You! until 2nd level.)

[False God]

Easier?
I wonder.
It took over two years to get 5e out. In two years of publishing you can get, on a slow year, a setting book, an adventure or two, and a splat ... at the least. And, no need to spin up a new hype machine to convince current customers that they need to replace their previous edition (hype machines do cost money)

Increasingly narrow products for increasingly narrow segments of the playerbase. Not every book is equally good, equally fun, equally purchasable, and all RPGs tail off over time. They are not evergreen products.

Noone is asking you to replace your books with a new edition.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Increasingly narrow products for increasingly narrow segments of the playerbase. Not every book is equally good, equally fun, equally purchasable, and all RPGs tail off over time. They are not evergreen products.

Noone is asking you to replace your books with a new edition.

That's kind of the entire reason it would be made as a new edition, they stop production on the previous one with then expectation that you have a good chance at moving forward into the next one. 5E wouldn't be "replaced", in the same vein that OD&D or 3.XE was "replaced". The expectation would be that if you want continued support, you start picking up the new books.

I'd also be willing to bet that if a new edition were announced people would be a lot more hesitant to leap into what can be, lets be honest, a fairly expensive hobby starting in 5E.

Why would they want to kill that momentum? I just don't see why they would do that.

Don't get me wrong, I think you're absolutely right that sweeping system updates would be easier for them to introduce as a new system rather than constant patches and errata but the current momentum the actual hobby has would be pretty difficult to maintain if they even whispered the words "5E is ending".

[Tanarii]

More importantly, 5e was promised to be an evergreen edition. A half-edition would be a major policy change.

[Xervous]

More importantly, 5e was promised to be an evergreen edition. A half-edition would be a major policy change.

Having their everything cake and eating it too?

[MoiMagnus]

I think that this shows that 5.5 is not to be expected at short term:
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/expanding-dungeons-dragons
WotC recently took over the localisation of D&D in multiple language (rather than letting third party do it, hence putting an end to some contracts here and there). Releases of the translated PHB/DMG/MM in French, German, Italian, and Spanish are planned for September.

I highly doubt they would do so if 5.5 was in the working.
At most, they are working on a new list of errata to include in the new printings.

[stoutstien]

I think that this shows that 5.5 is not to be expected at short term:
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/expanding-dungeons-dragons
WotC recently took over the localisation of D&D in multiple language (rather than letting third party do it, hence putting an end to some contracts here and there). Releases of the translated PHB/DMG/MM in French, German, Italian, and Spanish are planned for September.

I highly doubt they would do so if 5.5 was in the working.
At most, they are working on a new list of errata to include in the new printings.

I'm hoping they can hire some people that are better than ones doing it now. The current translations are Hit or Miss at best and occasionally comically bad.
Part of the issues that obsession with using natural language which is just difficult to work from.

[Tanarii]

Having their everything cake and eating it too?
Yes, they certainly tried to do that, in introducing an "optional" rule and then made the optional rule the standard moving forward in new products, without updating the PHB.

[Nefariis]

As you guys have said, 5e is already pretty good, and I think the last thing Wizards wants is another 4e situation -

With that being said, if Wizards did do a new version, I think it would be a 5.5e, and here is how I think it would go.


They would come out with two book set.

In the first book -

It would have all the current races, classes, and sub classes printed out without any of the fluff or background. This would be a rebalancing that would take into account every other race, class, and subclass that has been been printed for 5e thus far. Obviously, some things wouldn't need to be changed at all and could stay as is - but this would give game designers an opportunity to realign other areas of the game that they feel got away from them (either over powered or under powered or just plain wrong), and adjust/address those things accordingly. If all the classes/sub classes are done at once, I think they could take an extremely high view of everything and really make an effort to bring everything back in line with each other.

In the second book -

A reprinting of the DM's guide - 5e now has the distinct advantage of having 8+ years of play testing. If you follow sage advice and the erratas, there are clearly some rules and mechanics that they wish they would have done differently but, because it would change the underpinnings of the game, they are leaving them as is and doing rough clarifications - well this would be a chance to actually change some of those core mechanics and provide a better polished game. For the most part, 5.5e would be the exact same game as 5e, save for a few things that designers didn't foresee in the original play test. This would go well hand and hand with the race/class rebalance as they could add/subtract from the game simultaneously to put everything in harmony at once.

Here is why I think this would work.

It has taken 8 years of publishing to get to the amount of content that we currently have, this way, we dont have to start over and wait years for specific content.
Because the rules/classes/mechanics haven't changed that much, future content could be used in 5e and 5.5e the all the same - the content wouldn't need to be for a specific edition.
All campaign settings, modules, monsters, and fluff would work just the same in 5.5 as it would in 5e.
People could have their choice of 5e or 5.5e, and it wouldn't hurt or effect their publishing/marketing strategy, the content roadmap would be unaffected - it wouldn't matter if people switched
Giving races, classes, subclasses a face lift should be good enough to make the game feel fresh and more polished.



Again, most people are in agreeance that 5e is already pretty good and don't see the need for a massive mechanics change - but here is an easy solution to make a few changes that wont redefine the game, satisfy players, and keep the edition going for years to come.

My 2 cents

[PhoenixPhyre]

As you guys have said, 5e is already pretty good, and I think the last thing Wizards wants is another 4e situation -

With that being said, if Wizards did do a new version, I think it would be a 5.5e, and here is how I think it would go.


They would come out with two book set.

In the first book -

It would have all the current races, classes, and sub classes printed out without any of the fluff or background. This would be a rebalancing that would take into account every other race, class, and subclass that has been been printed for 5e thus far. Obviously, some things wouldn't need to be changed at all and could stay as is - but this would give game designers an opportunity to realign other areas of the game that they feel got away from them (either over powered or under powered or just plain wrong), and adjust/address those things accordingly. If all the classes/sub classes are done at once, I think they could take an extremely high view of everything and really make an effort to bring everything back in line with each other.

In the second book -

A reprinting of the DM's guide - 5e now has the distinct advantage of having 8+ years of play testing. If you follow sage advice and the erratas, there are clearly some rules and mechanics that they wish they would have done differently but, because it would change the underpinnings of the game, they are leaving them as is and doing rough clarifications - well this would be a chance to actually change some of those core mechanics and provide a better polished game. For the most part, 5.5e would be the exact same game as 5e, save for a few things that designers didn't foresee in the original play test. This would go well hand and hand with the race/class rebalance as they could add/subtract from the game simultaneously to put everything in harmony at once.

Here is why I think this would work.

It has taken 8 years of publishing to get to the amount of content that we currently have, this way, we dont have to start over and wait years for specific content.
Because the rules/classes/mechanics haven't changed that much, future content could be used in 5e and 5.5e the all the same - the content wouldn't need to be for a specific edition.
All campaign settings, modules, monsters, and fluff would work just the same in 5.5 as it would in 5e.
People could have their choice of 5e or 5.5e, and it wouldn't hurt or effect their publishing/marketing strategy, the content roadmap would be unaffected - it wouldn't matter if people switched
Giving races, classes, subclasses a face lift should be good enough to make the game feel fresh and more polished.



Again, most people are in agreeance that 5e is already pretty good and don't see the need for a massive mechanics change - but here is an easy solution to make a few changes that wont redefine the game, satisfy players, and keep the edition going for years to come.

My 2 cents

But then you'd have serious issues with DM overload--they'd have to figure out how to handle a 5.0!ranger and a 5.5!ranger in the same party and remember all the differences. Unless there were exactly no changes in book 1...which would rather obviate the point. Or you'd fail at backwards compatibility--you'd have to go entirely to 5.5 or stay entirely on 5.0.

And one core issue with book 1 in this proposal--there is no fluff/crunch distinction in 5e. Those things you're calling descriptive? Those are equally just as much rules as what dice you roll when. So a book of classes without "fluff" or races without "fluff" would be basically the SRD, just with more stuff in it. And the SRD is sorely lacking in terms of usability, especially for new players. So this proposed book 1 would be basically pointless except to cannibalize sales of the PHB, Tasha's, Xanathar's, Volos, etc.

[Nefariis]

But then you'd have serious issues with DM overload--they'd have to figure out how to handle a 5.0!ranger and a 5.5!ranger in the same party and remember all the differences. Unless there were exactly no changes in book 1...which would rather obviate the point. Or you'd fail at backwards compatibility--you'd have to go entirely to 5.5 or stay entirely on 5.0.

And one core issue with book 1 in this proposal--there is no fluff/crunch distinction in 5e. Those things you're calling descriptive? Those are equally just as much rules as what dice you roll when. So a book of classes without "fluff" or races without "fluff" would be basically the SRD, just with more stuff in it. And the SRD is sorely lacking in terms of usability, especially for new players. So this proposed book 1 would be basically pointless except to cannibalize sales of the PHB, Tasha's, Xanathar's, Volos, etc.


Sorry, I should have been more clear, I never intended or envisioned using both editions at the same table - I envisioned it as an either or.

The "fluff" I am referring to is the "what is an Elf / traits of a Halfing / etc", though they are important, they probably wouldn't of changed from 5 to 5.5 whereas their stat blocks, abilities, progressions, etc might of - another reason to forgo the extra walls of text (especially when they are previously written elsewhere), is the need for space. Reprinting ever race, class, and subclass is already going to be a hefty book, even without the extra background details.

Finally, I hardly think it would cannibalize sales of the previous edition's books - I didn't make any mention of spells, feats, weapons, armors, monsters, or magic items - all of which would still be in their respective 5e books. Also, you might have inadvertently argued against yourself, by making Book 1 into an "SRD style" book that lacks Background/Lore/Fluff, you might further incentivize people to buy the respective books to get that background information that Book 1 is lacking. Again, not cannibalizing.

Also this might lend itself to another opportunity to sell content where to you buy Book 1&2 and then their might be additional supplemental guides that just contain Lore.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I never intended or envisioned using both editions at the same table - I envisioned it as an either or.

The "fluff" I am referring to is the "what is an Elf / traits of a Halfing / etc", though they are important, they probably wouldn't of changed from 5 to 5.5 whereas their statblocks, abilities, progressions, etc might of - another reason to forgo the extra walls of text (especially when they are previously written elsewhere), is the need for space. Reprinting ever race, class, and subclass is already going to be a hefty book, even without the extra background details.

Finally, I hardly think it would cannibalize sales of the of the previous edition books - I didn't make any mention of spells, feats, weapons, armors, monsters, or magic items - all of which would still be in their respective 5e books.

But then you need both books open at the same time if you want to use 5.5 material. And cross referencing stuff like that is a royal pain. "Fluff" and rules are not separate.

And frankly, I'm not seeing the need. Optimization seekers (ie all of us on these forums) see significant cracks only when we're pushing the system way beyond its intended space. And even then the cracks are relatively tiny except at the bleeding edge of optimization--you can play a beastmaster ranger just fine.

[Nefariis]

But then you need both books open at the same time if you want to use 5.5 material. And cross referencing stuff like that is a royal pain. "Fluff" and rules are not separate.

And frankly, I'm not seeing the need. Optimization seekers (ie all of us on these forums) see significant cracks only when we're pushing the system way beyond its intended space. And even then the cracks are relatively tiny except at the bleeding edge of optimization--you can play a beastmaster ranger just fine.


As DM's, we keep numerous books open already and have to cross reference all the time, I don't see how this would be any different - And this might actually make it easier because the table is playing from the same source.

And I didn't say there was a "need" - I was just supplying what I felt was a straight forward way to introduce 5.5e - which is what this thread was about.

Everything can be improved upon - 5e is not the pinnacle.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Everything can be improved upon - 5e is not the pinnacle.

And I think the general consensus is "Yes, and it's better if they do it without rebranding to 5.5e"

Most people recognize Tasha's as 5.5e in disguise, the backlash for not being upfront about how impactful the design changes in that book would be for the future of 5e is (in my opinion) relatively small compared to how sales and the momentum building for D&D would be halted at such an announcement.

[Nefariis]

And I think the general consensus is "Yes, and it's better if they do it without rebranding to 5.5e"

Most people recognize Tasha's as 5.5e in disguise, the backlash for not being upfront about how impactful the design changes in that book would be for the future of 5e is (in my opinion) relatively small compared to how sales and the momentum building for D&D would be halted at such an announcement.

I'm not sure that I buy that Tasha's was intended to be 5.5e - I think the racial feature additions were a quick reaction to real world social justice events.

They felt more haphazardly thrown together (albeit with good intentions), then a planned update on their over arching editions roadmap.

I'm also not sure that I buy sales/momentum building would halt at such an announcement either - clearly Tasha's works in the 5e universe and vice versa, so I can't imagine they would release something that wasn't backward/forward compatible - as long as the 5e PHB is base source book, why would anything be "halted"?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm not sure that I buy that Tasha's was intended to be 5.5e - I think the racial feature additions were a quick reaction to real world social justice events.

They felt more haphazardly thrown together (albeit with good intentions), then a planned update on their over arching editions roadmap.
Prior to Van richtens I may have agreed, however now we know that much of the "optional" variants are going to be core design going forward.

It seems pretty intentional, regardless of what might have encouraged these changes.


I'm also not sure that I buy sales/momentum building would halt at such an announcement either - clearly Tasha's works in the 5e universe and vice versa, so I can't imagine they would release something that wasn't backward/forward compatible - as long as the 5e PHB is base source book, why would anything be "halted"?

I'm absolutely sure that if a new edition went into works you would see a noticeable dip in sales. Many of those who are entering the hobby would instead opt to wait for what's most current and will have continued support. It doesn't even necessarily have to make sense, people tend but to enter into "live services" at the end of their cycles.

[Witty Username]

To keep track, 5.5 would be essentially a revised printing of the core books, and basing new material on the revised books? So a reprinting of the PHB to incorporate the Tasha's take would get us there?
That seems pretty likely If the new books are well received.
Then again we already have Tasha's, so it would only be necessary if the idea of Tasha's is well received enough to warrant changes but not enough for players to use.
Probably Wotc will hold off until they have more extensive changes.

[Theodoxus]

Prior to Van richtens I may have agreed, however now we know that much of the "optional" variants are going to be core design going forward.

Maybe... or maybe the three races in Van Richtens are no more special than variant human... All three are based on morphing an underlying race, creating a Custom Lineage, so to speak. So, we'd need something like the UA Fey to also have all floating ASI to make a definitive statement. I won't be surprised either way, honestly.

[Slider Eclipse]

To keep track, 5.5 would be essentially a revised printing of the core books, and basing new material on the revised books? So a reprinting of the PHB to incorporate the Tasha's take would get us there?
That seems pretty likely If the new books are well received.
Then again we already have Tasha's, so it would only be necessary if the idea of Tasha's is well received enough to warrant changes but not enough for players to use.
Probably Wotc will hold off until they have more extensive changes.

This is ultimately what I feel like a 5.5E would entail, not this grand wiping of the board everyone seems to think of when they hear about a new Edition. People seem to forget that 3.5 itself was just a refinement of the issues that plagued 3e, just as Pathfinder 1e was primarily a refinement of the issues that 3.5 had. All a proper "5.5e" would do is be a complete replacement of the Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide to better reflect the current modern standards of the game. This would ultimately mean

1. Bringing all Base Races (and likely some of the more popular early splatbook races) into a New base that reflects post Tasha "Linage" Systems.

2. Fixing the commonly agreed to be horribly underpowered Ranger class, along with updating some Subclasses for other Classes in line with modern standards (Say giving Dragonic Sorcerer's access to bonus spells related to Dragons as an example). also likely would add Artificer to the base game for AL purposes.

3. Minor rules updates to reflect the more flexible nature of modern game design such as making Feats a core system or complete overhauls of the Background system.

All of this would still fit most if not all pre existing 5e content just with a new baseline that reflects how WotC have changed the game over the years.

[Theodoxus]

2. Fixing the commonly agreed to be horribly underpowered Ranger class

If this is what's holding back a 5.5E, we might as well move on to 6E...

Seriously, no one can agree on the best fix for Ranger. All the attempts meet some praise, but a lot of scorn. Ranger is just one of those classes that doesn't seem to work. Either it ends up with bad action economy (too many or too few) or the guiding principal of the class is too generic. Fighters, with more attacks and more feats make better archers. Rogues with expertise and various tricks make better scouts. Rangers are a hybrid class that has little to offer in combat to make them special. Their one really defining trait is to make the Exploration pillar trivial or even unnecessary. And that actually backfires because it ends up handwaved most of the time, leading to a very boring class.

Ranger can easily be rolled under fighter as subclass. Especially if Battlemaster were incorporated into the base class. The Ranger subclass would then gain a beast companion that can use one of the (now) Fighter's attacks to do it's thing. The Fighter would still have up to 3 attacks to do their thing. Maybe add some Hunter perks to the Ranger at later levels and call it a day. Other current Ranger subclasses could be moved to different classes. Gloomstalker could be a Rogue subclass with a little modification to account for the loss of spellcasting. Dress it up more like an Underdark Assassin and call it good. Horizon Walker I'm not sure about honestly... though it's terribly niche anyway. Monster Slayer works as a Fighter subclass, again with a mod for spellcasting. I think both Tasha's archetypes could roll over to Druid. Swarmkeeper specifically would be a nifty brother to the Spores...

But we've hashed this Ranger problem forever and there just aren't happy answers most people will accept. Burn it to the ground and hopefully whatever rises in 6E meshes a whole lot better with the undergirding ruleset.

[rlc]

If this is what's holding back a 5.5E, we might as well move on to 6E...

Seriously, no one can agree on the best fix for Ranger. All the attempts meet some praise, but a lot of scorn. Ranger is just one of those classes that doesn't seem to work. Either it ends up with bad action economy (too many or too few) or the guiding principal of the class is too generic. Fighters, with more attacks and more feats make better archers. Rogues with expertise and various tricks make better scouts. Rangers are a hybrid class that has little to offer in combat to make them special. Their one really defining trait is to make the Exploration pillar trivial or even unnecessary. And that actually backfires because it ends up handwaved most of the time, leading to a very boring class.

Ranger can easily be rolled under fighter as subclass. Especially if Battlemaster were incorporated into the base class. The Ranger subclass would then gain a beast companion that can use one of the (now) Fighter's attacks to do it's thing. The Fighter would still have up to 3 attacks to do their thing. Maybe add some Hunter perks to the Ranger at later levels and call it a day. Other current Ranger subclasses could be moved to different classes. Gloomstalker could be a Rogue subclass with a little modification to account for the loss of spellcasting. Dress it up more like an Underdark Assassin and call it good. Horizon Walker I'm not sure about honestly... though it's terribly niche anyway. Monster Slayer works as a Fighter subclass, again with a mod for spellcasting. I think both Tasha's archetypes could roll over to Druid. Swarmkeeper specifically would be a nifty brother to the Spores...

But we've hashed this Ranger problem forever and there just aren't happy answers most people will accept. Burn it to the ground and hopefully whatever rises in 6E meshes a whole lot better with the undergirding ruleset.

I actually like this. I’m kind of expecting 6e to be a bit like 5e with more of a 4e influence, coupled with a revamped lineage system, and I think this would fit perfectly with that. Of course, this is all just speculation.

[Witty Username]

Every martial class, even monk, can be rolled into fighter without much issue.
In all honesty, ranger is in a decent spot with the Tasha's rules.
That being said it would be the most likely to be revised with a new phb.

[neonchameleon]

Simple answer: No it isn't time yet. 5e moves at a pretty glacial pace and the 50th anniversary of D&D plus the ten year anniversary of 5e are coming in 2024. At the pace 5e is moving there isn't remotely time for a 5.5 between now and then and the anniversary editions will be a great excuse for reprinted/revamped core books.

[MrStabby]

Simple answer: No it isn't time yet. 5e moves at a pretty glacial pace and the 50th anniversary of D&D plus the ten year anniversary of 5e are coming in 2024. At the pace 5e is moving there isn't remotely time for a 5.5 between now and then and the anniversary editions will be a great excuse for reprinted/revamped core books.

I could see a timetable broadly like:

2021 - TCoE.
2022 - Release some material (in good faith) but higher risk - some controversial content
2022 - review feedback. Articulate design goals for next edition
2022 - recruit/resource design team. Work out a 5.5 core content
2023 - Design first draft of 5.5
2023 - Testing under NDA of prototype; solicit feedback
2024 - incorporate feedback, tweak, align artwork to future releases
2024 - publish 5.5

Call 5.5 D&D 50.

[quinron]

I don't think we'll see a "5.5e," but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see a major reprint of at least the PHB, presented as an optional update, that implements all the changes and additions they've made with Tasha's, the new UA, etc. That way, you can get the "most current" rules all in one book if you want or if you're new, but if you already have a PHB it won't be invalidated.

That, or we'll see something along the lines of Pathfinder Unchained, where a book like Tasha's is treated as a kind of soft system update and pretty much every book that comes out afterward will be balanced around the assumption that you're using the new rules while not requiring them to function.

If anyone could get away with a mid-edition update like this, it'd be Wizards - they've pretty definitively reclaimed the market. Question is, does even a majority market claim constitute enough money that they can risk it? And I don't think any of us has enough information to speculate on that, so the fair assumption to make is that they'll keep doing what works.

[neonchameleon]

I don't think we'll see a "5.5e," but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see a major reprint of at least the PHB, presented as an optional update, that implements all the changes and additions they've made with Tasha's, the new UA, etc. That way, you can get the "most current" rules all in one book if you want or if you're new, but if you already have a PHB it won't be invalidated.

That, or we'll see something along the lines of Pathfinder Unchained, where a book like Tasha's is treated as a kind of soft system update and pretty much every book that comes out afterward will be balanced around the assumption that you're using the new rules while not requiring them to function.

If anyone could get away with a mid-edition update like this, it'd be Wizards - they've pretty definitively reclaimed the market. Question is, does even a majority market claim constitute enough money that they can risk it? And I don't think any of us has enough information to speculate on that, so the fair assumption to make is that they'll keep doing what works.

It's barely even a mid-edition update. By 2024 5e will be ten years old; no edition has lasted more than eleven years. But three years is a long time and there are questions about whether the current strategy will still be working although it seems to be now.

It will however give them a chance to update the PHB in a few meaningful ways even if they stick to 5e. My expectations are for a smaller change than 3.0 to 3.5:
Artificer in
Ranger revamped either through Tasha's rules or otherwise
Four Elements Monk rewritten
Sorcerer subclasses give bonus spells the way the Tasha's ones do.
Pact of the Blade warlock allowing Cha-based melee attacks
Warlock subclasses strengthened to Xanathar's/Tasha's quality.
Transmuter wizard buffed.
Tabaxi added to races
Greenflame Blade added to core spells
Barbarians don't suffer exhaustion penalties while raging

And with luck better monster design tools.

[Bosh]

I wouldn't mind a 5.5ed personally, I just don't think it'd be a good business decision and as I think that's fairly obvious I don't think we'll be seeing one for a while. As long as the flood of newbies continues there's no financial reason for a new edition as people get annoyed if they just get started and then get the rug pulled out from under them. Also people who have 5e as their first edition tend to either not really notice the kind of flaws that people who've been around for a while do or just get burned out enough on D&D that what they really need is to play another game instead of trying to twist D&D into something that goes against it's overarching spirit.

The closest thing to a 5.5ed I'd like to see is something along the lines of the old 2e spell encyclopedia: a big book or a series of books that is a big old treasury of the mechanical option. Like "big book of all 5e spells," "big book of all 5e feats, classes, races and subclasses," "complete book of all monsters including all from every module" etc. etc. These could have some very minor tweaks but more of a 5.01e than a 5.5e.

I just don't really appreciate tinkering of the sort that Tasha's doing with racial stat mods that's messing with stuff from the PHB without giving us a replacement core.

[rlc]

I don't think we'll see a "5.5e," but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see a major reprint of at least the PHB, presented as an optional update, that implements all the changes and additions they've made with Tasha's, the new UA, etc. That way, you can get the "most current" rules all in one book if you want or if you're new, but if you already have a PHB it won't be invalidated.

That, or we'll see something along the lines of Pathfinder Unchained, where a book like Tasha's is treated as a kind of soft system update and pretty much every book that comes out afterward will be balanced around the assumption that you're using the new rules while not requiring them to function.

If anyone could get away with a mid-edition update like this, it'd be Wizards - they've pretty definitively reclaimed the market. Question is, does even a majority market claim constitute enough money that they can risk it? And I don't think any of us has enough information to speculate on that, so the fair assumption to make is that they'll keep doing what works.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Could they do with including all of the changes in reprints of the older books? Sure, but that doesn't mean that they need to call it anything other than what it is, because...

This is ultimately what I feel like a 5.5E would entail, not this grand wiping of the board everyone seems to think of when they hear about a new Edition. People seem to forget that 3.5 itself was just a refinement of the issues that plagued 3e, just as Pathfinder 1e was primarily a refinement of the issues that 3.5 had. All a proper "5.5e" would do is be a complete replacement of the Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide to better reflect the current modern standards of the game.


calling it "3.5e" has caused enough confusion, both then and two editions later, that people think they're two different editions, so that's probably more of an argument against calling mid-edition updates anything besides an update.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wouldn't mind a 5.5ed personally, I just don't think it'd be a good business decision and as I think that's fairly obvious I don't think we'll be seeing one for a while. {snip} Also people who have 5e as their first edition tend to either not really notice the kind of flaws that people who've been around for a while do or just get burned out enough on D&D that what they really need is to play another game instead of trying to twist D&D into something that goes against it's overarching spirit. {snip} I agree with the analysis on the business side.
I just don't really appreciate tinkering of the sort that Tasha's doing with racial stat mods that's messing with stuff from the PHB without giving us a replacement core. This customer also finds the tinkering without giving a replacement core to be a valid criticism of Tasha's.

[Nefariis]

Out of curiosity how many people think there will be an official 5.5e before we see a 6e? (vs just skipping on ahead to 6e)

I think we will absolutely see a reprinting of the PHB and DMG in 5.5e format before we even hear a whisper of 6e from wizards/hasbro

[KorvinStarmast]

Out of curiosity how many people think there will be an official 5.5e before we see a 6e? (vs just skipping on ahead to 6e)
/me Shakes magic 8 ball.
The response was "Hazy, ask again later" :smallcool:

[Zuras]

The idea that Hasbro would release a new edition to confuse potential new customers right when the new D&D movie is coming out presumes a degree of incompetence in Hasbro management far beyond what even those of us who dislike them find reasonable.

[Arkhios]

The idea that Hasbro would release a new edition to confuse potential new customers right when the new D&D movie is coming out presumes a degree of incompetence in Hasbro management far beyond what even those of us who dislike them find reasonable.

Slightly off topic, but if we decided not to support our favourite (?) games based on our opinions of the companies that actually own them, we might end up having only rocks and sticks found in the woods, and our own imagination and rules to play with. :smalltongue:

That said, I really can't disagree with that notion, either. I mean, they would be fools to do that right now. Or anytime in the near future.

[Bosh]

The idea that Hasbro would release a new edition to confuse potential new customers right when the new D&D movie is coming out presumes a degree of incompetence in Hasbro management far beyond what even those of us who dislike them find reasonable.

Not any time soon, but it'll come sooner or later. I think around 12 years+ for 5e's lifespan seems reasonable. But the way that Tasha's seemed to focus a lot on tweaking what's already in the PHB seems to indicate that WotC is at least in the "noodling about a bit" stage of getting ready for 6e even if that is still years and years away.

[Chugger]

No. This doesn't need to be any longer than "no", except it won't let me post unless it's longer.... /sigh

[Theodoxus]

The more I think about it, the more I think the Sphere's books are basically 5.5E. I know they're not officially WotC, so not officially 5.5 by any stretch, but they're exactly what I would want from a half-boost system. They're all encompassing, backwards compatible, don't change the underlying mechanics but bolt on new ways to deal with both martial and caster characters, massively improving all three pillars of the game... Really the only drawback is they're a little more complicated to understand at first, but become quite intuitive - and fairly easy to teach. But you can keep, or even remake everything from the simple no-rules fluff Champion or even a Champion-esque caster, all the way up to a particularly complicated shapeshifting minionmancer bear riding bears... Plus it has a sweet take on psionics.

[Nefariis]

The idea that Hasbro would release a new edition to confuse potential new customers right when the new D&D movie is coming out presumes a degree of incompetence in Hasbro management far beyond what even those of us who dislike them find reasonable.

The new movie is slated for 2023 - I would bet anything that they coincide the release of the new movie with the new 5.5 edition.

Why wouldn't they? They would have an entire market of potential new users to market new books and merchandise too - and I wouldn't believe anyone of you who said you wouldn't either go see the movie or buy the new edition books out of protest.

This seems like a table top games marketing manager's dream - a combined movie, book, merch release that involves hollywood and famous people.

I would liken Hasbro to Matel in the 90's when they released the movies like He-Man and Ninja Tutles and sold millions of action figures at the same time.

[quinron]

It's barely even a mid-edition update. By 2024 5e will be ten years old; no edition has lasted more than eleven years. But three years is a long time and there are questions about whether the current strategy will still be working although it seems to be now.

It will however give them a chance to update the PHB in a few meaningful ways even if they stick to 5e. My expectations are for a smaller change than 3.0 to 3.5:
Artificer in
Ranger revamped either through Tasha's rules or otherwise
Four Elements Monk rewritten
Sorcerer subclasses give bonus spells the way the Tasha's ones do.
Pact of the Blade warlock allowing Cha-based melee attacks
Warlock subclasses strengthened to Xanathar's/Tasha's quality.
Transmuter wizard buffed.
Tabaxi added to races
Greenflame Blade added to core spells
Barbarians don't suffer exhaustion penalties while raging

And with luck better monster design tools.

I mean "mid-edition" as in it would still be considered 5e. All the 5e content that's already been published would still work, and it'd still be compatible with anything coming out in the future. They'd just reprint the old stuff (or at least the PHB) with updates to reflect the changes they've made since the edition's initial release.

Ultimately, it's all going to depend on how set they are on making the Tasha's/UA changes into the norm for the edition. If so, it'd honestly probably be worth it for them just to make a PHB v2.0 and/or put the rule changes together as an online "errata" list for folks who already have a PHB. Otherwise every new mechanic in every new product is going to require them to decide whether they're going to consider them with or without the optional rules, and if (as seems to be the case based on both the text and statements from the designers) there's an ideological motivation behind some of the changes, they'll have to reckon with the fact that the previous content is out of step with the foregoing content.

[Pex]

In another perspective, just because 3.5E existed doesn't mean forever after all XE editions of D&D must now have an X.5E. 3.5E made significant changes to 3.0E. Agree or disagree, the game designers felt the changes were needed. Ideas they thought were good proved to their eyes not to be good. It is presumptuous to think 5E will forever be D&D till the end of time. Though that could be, it's more likely there will be a 6E. When the next D&D comes it could very well be 6E.

[noob]

In another perspective, just because 3.5E existed doesn't mean forever after all XE editions of D&D must now have an X.5E. 3.5E made significant changes to 3.0E. Agree or disagree, the game designers felt the changes were needed. Ideas they thought were good proved to their eyes not to be good. It is presumptuous to think 5E will forever be D&D till the end of time. Though that could be, it's more likely there will be a 6E. When the next D&D comes it could very well be 6E.

4e essentials was the equivalent of a .5 edition too and it was epic due to the ultimate errata allowing to use all dnd content with it.(No clue how it works if you use a basic edition fighting man. Do you get to use tac0 in 4e?)

[KorvinStarmast]

Do you get to use tac0 in 4e?) THACO was AD&D 2e, though. :smallwink:

[noob]

THACO was AD&D 2e, though. :smallwink:

In basic edition did you just hit stuff instead of throwing random dice for no reason whatsoever?(why do people throw dice to hit opponents? Are you supposed to shoot them with the dice in the head?)

[Tanarii]

In basic edition did you just hit stuff instead of throwing random dice for no reason whatsoever?(why do people throw dice to hit opponents? Are you supposed to shoot them with the dice in the head?)
B/X and BECMI used a table lookup. It was faster than THAC0 and allowed non-linear progression. In particular when a 1 and 20 were required to hit, since there was no auto hit or auto miss rule.

[noob]

B/X and BECMI used a table lookup. It was faster than THAC0 and allowed non-linear progression. In particular when a 1 and 20 were required to hit, since there was no auto hit or auto miss rule.

Why does dnd 5e not have a table look up variant rule?
I do not really like the concept of fumbles and of automatic hits.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why does dnd 5e not have a table look up variant rule?. It's not necessary. Target number suffices for combat resolution. It's less complicated to do it the way 5e does it.

[noob]

It's not necessary. Target number suffices for combat resolution. It's less complicated to do it the way 5e does it.

Feats are not necessary: it is simpler to play without.
It is exactly why feats are a variant rule and not a main rule.
Why can we get the old thing of feats as a variant rule and not the old look up tables as a variant rule?

[KorvinStarmast]

Why can we get the old thing of feats as a variant rule and not the old look up tables as a variant rule? Why waste that space in the book when most people can add and subtract numbers less than 30 in their head?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why does dnd 5e not have a table look up variant rule?
I do not really like the concept of fumbles and of automatic hits.

Lookup tables are incredibly slow if you don't have them memorized. And nasty to memorize if they're 2d (matching both row and column). Plus they remind me of tax tables.

[noob]

Why waste that space in the book when most people can add and subtract numbers less than 30 in their head?

tanari told that look up tables allowed non linear progression while keeping the math low.

[Tanarii]

Lookup tables are incredibly slow if you don't have them memorized. And nasty to memorize if they're 2d (matching both row and column). Plus they remind me of tax tables.IMx the lookup tables were better and faster than THAC0, specifically. Because people couldn't do the math for THAC0 very fast. 5e where it's all addition and compared to an increasing TN is pretty fast. Although it's linear and it uses an automatic hit on 20 rule, instead of repeating 5 times. It used to be you couldn't hit something with an AC more than 4 steps lower than you could hit with a 20+bonuses.


tanari told that look up tables allowed non linear progression while keeping the math low.
Whether or not having a AC at which a creature can't hit something is a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion though.
And straight addition is something most people can do relatively quickly.

[Pex]

Ironic as it may be for me to say, combat is one area where tables of numbers interferes with the game instead of facilitates. Simple math is faster than looking up a table. As much as patience is warranted for players absolutely new to the game to learn the rules, given they actually will learn the rules, expecting they be able to do simple math is not an infringement. Roll a d20, add plus number, that's the AC they hit. Simple. Easy. Fast. 2E THAC0 was math too, but it was subtraction. Doable, but addition is easier. 3E changing the paradigm to higher is always better was an improvement to the game. 5E Bounded Accuracy stops the inflation.

Old ideas should not be dismissed just because they're old, but neither were they always the best idea. They may have worked/been fine then, but when something better comes along use it.

[paladinn]

Pondering the idea of 5.5 (or even 6). I'm getting a vibe from WotC that they're running out of gas on 5e. Some of the stuff that's come out in XGtE and TCoE has been minor reworking (especially of the ranger class); but a lot has been taking what had basically been class features and making them available/graftable for other classes. The artificer was definitely new (and way cool); but much of the rest has been pretty meh. The new racial/ethnic "rules" just seem like bowing to woke political pressure. And evidently the "energy" for future development is in cross-pollination with MtG.

The last time I got a "feeling" like this was when 3.5 had run its course and you had stuff like Incarnum coming out.

I think regardless of the direction, the success of 5e has proven that people will play D&D, whatever the edition, as long as they don't jump the shark again like with 4e. Coming back from that debacle was a minor miracle.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think regardless of the direction, the success of 5e has proven that people will play D&D, whatever the edition, as long as they don't jump the shark again like with 4e. Coming back from that debacle was a minor miracle.
5e brought me back. :smallcool:

[PhoenixPhyre]

IMx the lookup tables were better and faster than THAC0, specifically. Because people couldn't do the math for THAC0 very fast. 5e where it's all addition and compared to an increasing TN is pretty fast. Although it's linear and it uses an automatic hit on 20 rule, instead of repeating 5 times. It used to be you couldn't hit something with an AC more than 4 steps lower than you could hit with a 20+bonuses.


Faster and better than THAC0 is a very low bar to hurdle. And even then, you'd need every single person to have that table printed out[1] in front of them at all times. Which would suck. Maybe not as much as THAC0[2], but still.

[1] the days before electronic devices
[2] honestly, when I'm running a game I sometimes find it a pain to subtract HP from the total in a timely manner. I can add, sort of. But when I'm updating 25 (hyperbole) monsters and trying to respond to everything else...I'm glad I've got a VTT (mod) that just lets me assign damage and it does the math. When playing in-person, I always counted damage upward and killed it when damage == max hp.

[Tanarii]

Faster and better than THAC0 is a very low bar to hurdle. And even then, you'd need every single person to have that table printed out[1] in front of them at all times. Which would suck. Maybe not as much as THAC0[2], but still.
:smallconfused: Only the DM needs the table.

That said, it was pretty common for character sheets to have a line to write in the "to hits" for AC 9 to AC 0 for your current class/level.

[Pex]

2E did like its charts - Thief skills, system shock, ST modifier for fighters, Turn Undead, etc.

You can have too many, you can have too little.