Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

[Lord Ruby34]

5.5 really feels like 5e with some of the issues fixed. I even like most of the fixes, but they just seem like too little. I decided that if I was going to change the rules of 5e, then I'll change them to something that actually inspires me. So I'm going over 5e with a fine toothed comb, retooling the classes and subclasses, and stealing anything I particularly like from 5.5. I might get the books at some point to make that easier, but I'm not going to go out of my way to pick them up.

[paladinn]

At this point, without seeing the finished product, I'd say it's a negative. There are some core mechanical things that need to be tweaked; but I haven't seen evidence that they are going to be addressed by 5.x.

Some of the proposed changes have been possibly good (ranger mods, for example); some have been bad (paladin smites, etc). I think at most, I'll be cherry-picking 5.x features to bring into a 5e game. But even that is predicated on how "compatible" the final product actually is.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

5.5 really feels like 5e with some of the issues fixed. I even like most of the fixes, but they just seem like too little. I decided that if I was going to change the rules of 5e, then I'll change them to something that actually inspires me. So I'm going over 5e with a fine toothed comb, retooling the classes and subclasses, and stealing anything I particularly like from 5.5. I might get the books at some point to make that easier, but I'm not going to go out of my way to pick them up.

It doesn't even feel like issues are being fixed, it feels like things that they were going to do in 5e but didn't get the time to implement them.

At this point, without seeing the finished product, I'd say it's a negative. There are some core mechanical things that need to be tweaked; but I haven't seen evidence that they are going to be addressed by 5.x.

Some of the proposed changes have been possibly good (ranger mods, for example); some have been bad (paladin smites, etc). I think at most, I'll be cherry-picking 5.x features to bring into a 5e game. But even that is predicated on how "compatible" the final product actually is.

I feel like a majority of 5e is fixed with homebrew rather than spending money on a new edition.

It will probably be as compatible as playing 3e/4e with their "half edition" or later splat books... Which in theory they work together but there's a definite "haves and have nots" situation going on with those.

3e Fighter worked in the same game as a Warblade but... Not really. One was clearly better than the other.

4e Warlock worked with Essentials Binder but again, one is clearly better than the other (though, funny enough the early version is better unlike in 3e).

[KorvinStarmast]

I am, because:
-They’re fixing a lot of commonly complained about problems with 5e.

Hardly. They screwed up the Warlock already.

-Basically every class has been improved to be more fun to play.

They nerfed the Paladin and hosed the Monk.

—They finally figured out what makes bad capstones bad, and are getting rid of them and replacing them with good ones.

It's a mixed bag but I am glad they did a rescrub on Capstones.

-The Monster Manual is being updated, and what they’ve said about the changes sounds very promising.
-The DMG is being updated to improve the layout, and adding some new GM tools (like the Bastion system).
-It really is going to be backwards compatible with like 99% of what‘s been published for 5e.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm really disinclined to spend a bunch of money on content that I basically already own. If I find something that is really egregious, im just going to houserule it, not buy an entire new set of (expensive) books just for the one patch.

Likewise. I was excited for the "play test" via the UA and ended up underwhelmed and disappointed.

some I strongly dislike, such as Druid's Wild Shape and Paladin's Smite.

Aye.

Probably not, i dont have the time or money to burn like i used to. I will take and adapt all the free UA stuff though.

Please stay in touch, you have a lot of good ideas.

Not me. I'll probably drop 5e completely for other systems, if not, I'll at best take the rare few good changes (which are things that existed homebrew for years before WotC even announced they'll be making their cashgrab attempt "new" edition anyway) and ignore all the way they make the game worse. And even then, WotC won't see a single cent from me.

I have three 5e groups I'll keep playing with until the campaigns end. I don't see me going to the new edition unless someone else DMs. I may buy a PHB for that.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Hardly. They screwed up the Warlock already.

They nerfed the Paladin and hosed the Monk.

It's a mixed bag but I am glad they did a rescrub on Capstones.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Likewise. I was excited for the "play test" via the UA and ended up underwhelmed and disappointed.
Aye.

Please stay in touch, you have a lot of good ideas.
I have three 5e groups I'll keep playing with until the campaigns end. I don't see me going to the new edition unless someone else DMs. I may buy a PHB for that.

The 3e Binder was peak Warlock design and until we get that back, we won't have a great Warlock. As much as I loved the 4e Warlock, even that paled in comparison. This half-caster stuff could work... But right now it's got no direction.

I'm glad they did the playtest so that I know not to spend my money on WotC products.

[Rukelnikov]

I personally don't get the "switching" idea, incorporate what you like and disregard what you don't, same as any splatbook.

Having said that, I haven't played DnD since early 2021, and this is not nearly exciting enough to make me wanna go back to it.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

I personally don't get the "switching" idea, incorporate what you like and disregard what you don't, same as any splatbook.

Having said that, I haven't played DnD since early 2021, and this is not nearly exciting enough to make me wanna go back to it.

It got me to go to Cypher System. So I guess D&D 5.5 is negative exciting?

[TurboGhast]

I don't see myself picking up 5.5 at the moment. From word of mouth, I get the impression that it doesn't fix the flaws I see in 5e (the largest ones being frontline martials not having enough tools for defending allies, and most martials not having enough high level tools overall) and introduces few new problems (most prominently, certain classes suffering ludonarrative dissonance because every subclass starts at 3rd level).

[Skrum]

The biggest draw for me is the upgraded monk and weapon mastery.

Besides that there's a bunch of tiny "shuffling around" changes that I'm positive towards when I read them but just aren't big enough changes for me to actually be excited about (grappling, minor feats at first level, backgrounds).

On the negative side, they seem to be trying to write synergy between class abilities out of the game. They're striving to have abilities do exactly what they say they do and nothing more, even when combined with whatever ability from whichever class. That is a huge red flag for my interest in the game.

Of the stuff that's been put out so far, I'd be inclined to incorporate the class changes sans paladin, plus weapon mastery, and leave the rest.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

I don't see myself picking up 5.5 at the moment. From word of mouth, I get the impression that it doesn't fix the flaws I see in 5e (the largest ones being frontline martials not having enough tools for defending allies, and most martials not having enough high level tools overall) and introduces few new problems (most prominently, certain classes suffering ludonarrative dissonance because every subclass starts at 3rd level).

Subclasses are way too chaotic in 5e and in 5.5 (so far).

Some classes require the subclass to keep up with the game where other classes can ignore their subclass and still be a force of reckoning.


The fighter is a perfect example of a badly designed class/subclass since a lot of the Champion should be the baseline fighter. Legit, Improved Critical should be a baseline fighter feature and have the subclass be something a bit more dynamic (which doesn't mean it can't be simple).

[Envyus]

Hardly. They screwed up the Warlock already.

They nerfed the Paladin and hosed the monk.

How and how? Both Monk and Warlock seem quite improved.

Paladin is a little weaker, but I am fine with that, plus the various Smite Spells have reasons to be used now.

[Envyus]

I don't see myself picking up 5.5 at the moment. From word of mouth, I get the impression that it doesn't fix the flaws I see in 5e (the largest ones being frontline martials not having enough tools for defending allies, and most martials not having enough high level tools overall) and introduces few new problems (most prominently, certain classes suffering ludonarrative dissonance because every subclass starts at 3rd level).

Well it’s not out yet.

[rlc]

I don't see myself picking up 5.5 at the moment. From word of mouth, I get the impression that it doesn't fix the flaws I see in 5e (the largest ones being frontline martials not having enough tools for defending allies, and most martials not having enough high level tools overall) and introduces few new problems (most prominently, certain classes suffering ludonarrative dissonance because every subclass starts at 3rd level).

i think they said that they won’t do the 3rd level for every subclass thing because of the survey results.
i kind of think everybody should get their subclass at the same level, though.

[Kane0]

Please stay in touch, you have a lot of good ideas.

Oh of course, i'll still be hanging around!

[TurboGhast]

Well it’s not out yet.

I mean, aren’t we all talking about the preview stuff at the moment? I haven’t heard about a UA bringing back combat challenge from 4e (or adding an equivalent), so I still think fighter’s gonna be missing an ability I find key to its class fantasy in 5.5e.

i think they said that they won’t do the 3rd level for every subclass thing because of the survey results.
i kind of think everybody should get their subclass at the same level, though.

I hadn’t heard about that. Nice for sure, but avoiding one step back isn’t enough for me to be certain the rest will be a convincing leap forward.

[GooeyChewie]

i think they said that they won’t do the 3rd level for every subclass thing because of the survey results.
i kind of think everybody should get their subclass at the same level, though.

Sadly, no. All classes are getting their subclass at level 3. WotC was also looking at making all classes get subsequent subclass features at the same levels, and that’s what they reverted back to 5e standards.

I agree every class should get their subclass at the same level; I just think that level should be 1.

[rlc]

Sadly, no. All classes are getting their subclass at level 3. WotC was also looking at making all classes get subsequent subclass features at the same levels, and that’s what they reverted back to 5e standards.

I agree every class should get their subclass at the same level; I just think that level should be 1.

yeah, level 1 makes sense to me, too, because you can make an argument for every class, honestly.
level 3 really isn’t a deal breaker for me, though. you can still be a cleric of whatever god without having earned enough their power to be considered specialized.

[Salmon343]

Absolutely switching up. So far to me, it's 5e but better.

Weapon Mastery looks like a great addition to the martial kit. And while I think there's a golfbag of weapons problem (I'm really hoping they let us stack masteries on one weapon by default), it's far better than the 5e baseline.

There's been QOL improvements to all classes that make it easier to use your abilities (bonus action Lay on Hands, decoupling Monk ki actions from the attack action), and general improvements to classes (Charisma to attack for Pact Weapons, Indomitable buff). Stuff has been reigned in across the board (no more Action Surge double-cast, Smites now require a bonus action - although they are easier to use now) which makes things way easier as a DM.

Unlike 3.5 to 4e, or 4e to 5e, Ond D&D is really similar to 5e. So I see myself replacing 5e with it entirely (adapting 5e content where it doesn't yet exist in One D&D). It'll be easy to adapt, and I'm not gonna miss anything I drop design ethos wise.

[Asmotherion]

I'm going to give it a try, given I've grown tired of 5e.

[Velaryon]

My plan is to wait and see what the finished product looks like, but at the moment I am very skeptical and would be surprised if I end up adopting 5.5. Based on what I have seen of the various playtests over the last year, I think they've gotten more wrong than right. I'm pleased that they backed off the "Wild Shape is now a generic stat block and you just say it's whatever animal you want" thing, but the last updated idea I saw still looks like a sidestep at best from the 5e version, and doesn't fix the issues I have with it.

I'm going to order copies of the new edition for my public library collection, because they will check out well. The 5e Players Handbook was our second highest-circulating nonfiction book of 2023, beating out books by Prince Harry, Britney Spears, various politicians and pundits, and many others. So once we've gotten copies of the new PHB for the library, I'll look through that before deciding whether to pick one up for myself. If I had to guess, I'd say I'll probably cherry pick some rule changes that I do like, but otherwise stay with 5e for the most part.

[GooeyChewie]

yeah, level 1 makes sense to me, too, because you can make an argument for every class, honestly.
level 3 really isn’t a deal breaker for me, though. you can still be a cleric of whatever god without having earned enough their power to be considered specialized.

For me, it's more about gameplay than the thematic element. Some subclasses have a major impact on how you want to build your character, in terms of what equipment you select and what ability scores you prioritize. For example, one of the issues with the Brawler subclass from UA Playtest 7 is that the subclass wants you to use Unarmed Strikes or improvised weapons, but for your first two levels you either need to take the Tavern Brawler feat (which then becomes largely redundant at level 3) or use real weapons. Or Rogue's Arcane Trickster, you really need to invest in Intelligence at character creation but you have to look ahead to level 3 to make that determination, which defeats the point of delaying the subclass in the first place.

[KorvinStarmast]

How and how? Both Monk and Warlock seem quite improved.

Warlock as a half caster if a severe violation. Monk as currently made in 5e is fine, all it needs is an ASI at level 10 like rogue gets and it is nearly perfect - except that Four Elements needed to be redone from the ground up. I'll go check the last UA to see if they unscrewed the stuff that got me to write a blistering negative feedback.

Paladin is a little weaker, but I am fine with that,

I am not

plus the various Smite Spells have reasons to be used now.

Yes, that was an improvement. We don't need a new freaking edition to make those spells better, though.

[Jophiel]

My regular group has moved off 5e to a Pathfinder Kingmaker campaign, Mutants & Masterminds and discussion of a Shadowrun campaign. Between that and just not liking some design decisions related to D&D in the past years, it feels unlikely that I'd want to invest in a number of new books. More likely, if we ever did another D&D game, I'd just dust off my 5e 2014 books and crib or homebrew whatever adjustments I felt were needed.

[Zevox]

Warlock as a half caster if a severe violation.

It was, but they dropped that. Warlock's back to Pact Magic. Trouble is the only thing they did to address their low spell slots/short rest dependency issue is give them an ability that lets them regain half their spell slots once per day. So, basically the bare minimum they could've done, since that's 1 spell slot at most levels, and less impactful than actually just giving them +1 spell slot since it doesn't recharge on short rests.

[Silly Name]

Honestly, I haven't seen anything so far that makes me excited or interested in switching over and have to deal with all the little differences and different balance points.

I like 5e, it plays fine for me and my group and we have lots of fun with it. I'll have to put up with learning OneD&D because I'm part of an TTRPG association that partecipates in Conventions and the like and our policy is to always use the currently-supported ruleset (not just D&D, but also CyberPunk, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. GMs can bring whatever systems and adventures they want, we just have to ensure some standards), but my D&D games will keep being D&D unless my group really insists on switching.

[Theodoxus]

yeah, level 1 makes sense to me, too, because you can make an argument for every class, honestly.
level 3 really isn’t a deal breaker for me, though. you can still be a cleric of whatever god without having earned enough their power to be considered specialized.

My primary issue with having subclasses chosen at 1st level is you basically end up with 48 classes, 3 of which you can't multiclass into. (provided they stick with 12 classes and 4 subclasses for each).

Might as well drop the class/subclass nomenclature at that point and just call each entity by their subclass name.

You're not a Hunter-Ranger, you're just a Hunter. You're not an Oath of the Ancient Paladin, you're just an Ancient Oath-taker. You're not a Abjuration Wizard, you're just an Abjurer...

Granting a subclass at level 2 would solve the issue for me... though that also feels quite soon. But at least it's makes more sense.

[Envyus]

Warlock as a half caster if a severe violation. Monk as currently made in 5e is fine, all it needs is an ASI at level 10 like rogue gets and it is nearly perfect - except that Four Elements needed to be redone from the ground up. I'll go check the last UA to see if they unscrewed the stuff that got me to write a blistering negative feedback.
I am not

Yes, that was an improvement. We don't need a new freaking edition to make those spells better, though.

So you were complaining about stuff you haven’t read. Not a great look.

No we don’t need a new edition to make those spells better, but it’s not just those spells, there are tons of other changes coming that it doesn’t make sense not to make a new book.

[Kane0]

I foresee my table changing from 'any 5e book is fine, UA with DM approval' to 'any 5e and 5.5 book is fine, UA and homebrew with approval'

[GooeyChewie]

My primary issue with having subclasses chosen at 1st level is you basically end up with 48 classes, 3 of which you can't multiclass into. (provided they stick with 12 classes and 4 subclasses for each).

Might as well drop the class/subclass nomenclature at that point and just call each entity by their subclass name.

You're not a Hunter-Ranger, you're just a Hunter. You're not an Oath of the Ancient Paladin, you're just an Ancient Oath-taker. You're not a Abjuration Wizard, you're just an Abjurer...

Granting a subclass at level 2 would solve the issue for me... though that also feels quite soon. But at least it's makes more sense.

I don’t understand this viewpoint at all. You would still have 12 classes, each with four subclasses. The fact that two different Rangers could be a bit more distinct from each other at level 1 than they can under the current rules would not make Hunter-Ranger a different class from Beast Master-Ranger or any other Ranger subclass. Most of your features would still come from your class.

[Pex]

For the games I DM I will stay 5E because that's what we're playing. When they're done if/when I DM another game right after I'll decide then. As a player I'll play 5.5E if that's the game. The games I'm in will probably stay 5E because that's what we're playing.

Every new edition people complain about having to buy new books. Nothing new or special about that. Some people don't want to switch. They're allowed to, but that's not the new version's problem or fault. 3E -> 3.5E I'll say is the exception because it was so soon after and just right after they published a lot of splat books for 3E that became irrelevant. That was bad on the company's part. I suppose ideally it would be nice if there was a game system that was absolutely perfect in every way and doesn't change editions forever. Boardgames do that. However, since editions do change while it's relevant to critique the new rules for their own sake having a change be 10 years since that last one is not egregious.