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 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 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.

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.
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

[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?

[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.