Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

[Atranen]

I dislike a lot of the changes for violating the KISS principle.
The new weapons features: too fiddly.
The burden on the DM for keeping track of vex/topple/ etc for all of the weapons that various MM creatures use is not value added. (Vex in paricular I find to be too admin intensive).

The weapon features are one of my least favorite changes as well. They'll bog the game down with extra stuff to track and remember.

[Envyus]

The weapon features are one of my least favorite changes as well. They'll bog the game down with extra stuff to track and remember.

I very much doubt this from having tested them. They were just a nice bonus.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah sure probably. It's mostly compatible and there are few neat new features added to some of the classes. If have a gripe it's some subclass levels being moved but that's about it. To be honest, it would be weird to continue to play 3e when 3.5 came out and added a bunch of new content and rules, and I feel the same way about going from 5e to 5.5 or whatever. Most arguments I see against switching over are literal pedantry, misleading, or could be solved by moving a singular digit.

I very much doubt this from having tested them. They were just a nice bonus.

This. DM's aren't really in charge of keeping track of them. Most of the effects are player tracked (vex, nick), a normal effect (toppling), or happen immediately (cleave, graze). If your fighter player can't do the first, and you're not interested in tracking normal conditions in the games, there is always something easy like the latter effects.

[Psyren]

I very much doubt this from having tested them. They were just a nice bonus.

This. DM's aren't really in charge of keeping track of them. Most of the effects are player tracked (vex, nick), a normal effect (toppling), or happen immediately (cleave, graze). If your fighter player can't do the first, and you're not interested in tracking normal conditions in the games, there is always something easy like the latter effects.

They think every single monster with a weapon in their statblock (or even just most/many of them?) will be interacting with this system for some reason. Where that came from, I have no idea.

Yeah sure probably. It's mostly compatible and there are few neat new features added to some of the classes. If have a gripe it's some subclass levels being moved but that's about it. To be honest, it would be weird to continue to play 3e when 3.5 came out and added a bunch of new content and rules, and I feel the same way about going from 5e to 5.5 or whatever. Most arguments I see against switching over are literal pedantry, misleading, or could be solved by moving a singular digit.

Agreed - and even if the new PHB doesn't have enough new stuff to justify switching over, they'll be releasing future splats based on its changes that do. At a minimum they'll need to translate the other four wizard subclasses soon after the PHB releases so people can bring their existing core characters over, and while they're doing that, they'll probably come out with new or remixed rogue subclasses that have cunning strike options of their own, they'll likely want to come out with new weapon mastery options eventually etc.

[Atranen]

I very much doubt this from having tested them. They were just a nice bonus.

This. DM's aren't really in charge of keeping track of them. Most of the effects are player tracked (vex, nick), a normal effect (toppling), or happen immediately (cleave, graze). If your fighter player can't do the first, and you're not interested in tracking normal conditions in the games, there is always something easy like the latter effects.

I'm sure they will work for some tables. At my table, the game is slow enough as is. I'm often running community games with large table sizes (6) and often new players. They need simplification, not additional conditions and effects to keep track of.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm sure they will work for some tables. At my table, the game is slow enough as is. I'm often running community games with large table sizes (6) and often new players. They need simplification, not additional conditions and effects to keep track of.

Yeah, that's kind of where I'm coming from.
As a player I can take them or leave them, since (1) I pay attention and (2) I get into the game.
If I play in a 5.5 game and have a ranger, I'll certainly pick my weapons mastery with an eye toward tactical utility that fits my character theme. But I do not want to DM this next iteration.

I play with quite a few casual players who don't need added complexity or even want it.

For Psyren: nice try at a goalpost move on Monk magical attacks, not interested.

[Psyren]

The KISS rule was your goalpost, not mine

[Atranen]

The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic. For example, werewolves should be weak to silver, and horcruxes can have a small list of weaknesses.

But does every high CR monster need this? Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason.

[KorvinStarmast]

The KISS rule was your goalpost, not mine

It's my criterion based on their 2014 design goals for the basic game engine, and I don't like how they have departed from it. (And they departed from it about the time Tasha's came out, so this isn't new to D&Done).

As to the monk attacks, current 5e is KISS: once you are level six, all attacks are magical and that more or less ends "is it resistant/immune?" during combat damage resolution. Much simpler than what they are doing with "Oh, yeah, force damage as a rider" currently.

The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic.

Not gonna disagree. But they did the resistance thing to get away from the DR fiddly bit in 3.x, right?

But does every high CR monster need this?

Short answer is: no.

Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason.

A fair critique.
I have gotten used to it, but I also need to do more prep each time I pull out a new monster for the party do interact with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic. For example, werewolves should be weak to silver, and horcruxes can have a small list of weaknesses.

But does every high CR monster need this? Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason.

Yeah. I agree with all of this.

[Theodoxus]

I could get behind the 2024 books being officially called "The 50th Anniversary 5th Edition, Remastered". (Be even niftier if they managed to put a tiny 'zero' between 5 and t in 5th.)

I would love it if they remastered every edition for the 50th Anniversary... but that's a lot of work (and unless they've been secretly working on it outside our purview, way too late in the game for it to occur now)... maybe for the 100th... but I doubt I'll live to 103 to see it!

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Every class should just be a spell that wizards cast. You get access through them at level 1 and can upcast them for additional class features. Sort of like Tenzer's Transformation, the paladin version lets you smite. The cleric and druid ones just temporarily adds their spell lists.

Rage use to be a 3.5 spell, please don't remind WotC.

I hear this and raise you "Clerics should be a Paladin subclass".

Paladins are the ones kicked out of the church for being too extreme but the deities are like "yeah, like, the paladin totally gets it!" but like the deity can't let everyone know this (might lose followers) so they secretly give the Paladin powers but mask it as if the Paladin just has to believe in themselves a whoooole bunch (basically, Green Lanterns).

Paladin (Subclass)


Requirement: (Any Class)

Special: Must have been kicked out of a church for being too extreme (yes, shredding on a skateboard counts).

[Ignimortis]

The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic. For example, werewolves should be weak to silver, and horcruxes can have a small list of weaknesses.

But does every high CR monster need this? Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason.

Then the already-present 5e issue with "a couple hundred mundane low-level archers can kill literally everything they can hit" gets even more noticeable. I am already very skeptical about 5e's implementation of resistance (honestly, resistance 5, 10 or 20 isn't hard and is about the same complexity as "divide by half", the only issue with it is that 5e doesn't scale damage on hit properly, so not having a magic weapon would shut some people down hard), and that would make things even worse, with HP being even more of a singular indicator of how hard a thing is to kill.

Rage use to be a 3.5 spell, please don't remind WotC.

3.5 also used to have a spell that let you get Fighter bonus feats for a while (something about heroism, IIRC), and Divine Power that got you full BAB, and other stuff. And Polymorph is pretty much beefed-up Wild Shape. Most things that existed in 3.5 had a spell that would let you borrow it, or at least an approximation of it.

And that's the issue with D&D magic - every spell is basically a class feature, some are just less subtle about it.

[titi]

Rage use to be a 3.5 spell, please don't remind WotC.


Paladin (Subclass)


Requirement: (Any Class)

Special: Must have been kicked out of a church for being too extreme (yes, shredding on a skateboard counts).

Shredding on a skateboard is one of the basic requirements to become an oath of glory paladin (the other one is being a gym bro)

[Mindflayer_Inc]

3.5 also used to have a spell that let you get Fighter bonus feats for a while (something about heroism, IIRC), and Divine Power that got you full BAB, and other stuff. And Polymorph is pretty much beefed-up Wild Shape. Most things that existed in 3.5 had a spell that would let you borrow it, or at least an approximation of it.

And that's the issue with D&D magic - every spell is basically a class feature, some are just less subtle about it.

It wouldn't be too bad if the Wizard wasn't allowed to be every type of wizard all at once (because the subclasses are mere blips to them). They would have some sort of limiter to where they couldn't just have all those spells.

If 5.5 said that Wizards now only know a number of spell schools equal to their proficiency bonus (cantrips don't count) or gave us a half-caster wizard (who got class features a la the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer) I would be rather interested in what they were doing.


It's really telling how the Fighter and Wizard are two sides of the same "generic class" coin and yet the fighter gets to know maybe two fighting styles and honestly can only use one effectively unless they went Dex or whatever. Meanwhile the Wizard can just cast any magic spell ever.

[Ignimortis]

It wouldn't be too bad if the Wizard wasn't allowed to be every type of wizard all at once (because the subclasses are mere blips to them). They would have some sort of limiter to where they couldn't just have all those spells.

If 5.5 said that Wizards now only know a number of spell schools equal to their proficiency bonus (cantrips don't count) or gave us a half-caster wizard (who got class features a la the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer) I would be rather interested in what they were doing.


It's really telling how the Fighter and Wizard are two sides of the same "generic class" coin and yet the fighter gets to know maybe two fighting styles and honestly can only use one effectively unless they went Dex or whatever. Meanwhile the Wizard can just cast any magic spell ever.

Agreed on all points.

I've posted about this a few times, but if Fighter was designed the same way Wizard was, Eldritch Knight would be a full caster that maybe couldn't have Illusion/Enchantment spells but otherwise would perform as a subclass-less Wizard, and all Fighters would be able to make Sneak Attacks, have Expertise in several skills, Rage, fight unarmed as well as with a Longsword, etc - just not all at once, but every morning they'd be able to choose most of that.

Meanwhile if Wizard was designed the same way Fighter is, they'd know three cantrips, one spell per spell level (which would also require spell level/3 rounded down previously known spells of the same school), and would not be able to add spells from scrolls ("learning a spell? why would you be able to do that, if Fighters can't learn a new fighting style by spending some gold and time?").

Re: thread, I see no reason to switch. It's still 5e with all of its' issues, and it's not getting fixes, it's getting bandaids at best.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Agreed on all points.

I've posted about this a few times, but if Fighter was designed the same way Wizard was, Eldritch Knight would be a full caster that maybe couldn't have Illusion/Enchantment spells but otherwise would perform as a subclass-less Wizard, and all Fighters would be able to make Sneak Attacks, have Expertise in several skills, Rage, fight unarmed as well as with a Longsword, etc - just not all at once, but every morning they'd be able to choose most of that.

Meanwhile if Wizard was designed the same way Fighter is, they'd know three cantrips, one spell per spell level (which would also require spell level/3 rounded down previously known spells of the same school), and would not be able to add spells from scrolls ("learning a spell? why would you be able to do that, if Fighters can't learn a new fighting style by spending some gold and time?").

Re: thread, I see no reason to switch. It's still 5e with all of its' issues, and it's not getting fixes, it's getting bandaids at best.

I think a Fighter that is designed like a Wizard would be a Fighter that is a Fighter, Rogue, Ranger (spell-less), and maybe a magic-less Monk thrown in all-in-one class.

Which people will say it's broken but Wizard and Clerics get to do it.

[Psyren]

It's my criterion based on their 2014 design goals for the basic game engine, and I don't like how they have departed from it. (And they departed from it about the time Tasha's came out, so this isn't new to D&Done).

As to the monk attacks, current 5e is KISS: once you are level six, all attacks are magical and that more or less ends "is it resistant/immune?" during combat damage resolution. Much simpler than what they are doing with "Oh, yeah, force damage as a rider" currently.

But it doesn't end it. If you search for monsters that are resistant to bludgeoning currently, you'll find both magical and nonmagical bludgeoning in that set, and it's even worse if you're not using DDB and trying to do so via PDF. It's worse if you're a Moon Druid because you have four more variations to look through. Meanwhile Force and Radiant resistance have no such demarcation to worry about.

The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic. For example, werewolves should be weak to silver, and horcruxes can have a small list of weaknesses.

But does every high CR monster need this? Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason.

But that's exactly what they're doing. Now high level monsters can simply be resistant to bludgeoning or piercing, and you then switch to Force or Radiant. Scanning statblocks for those is much easier and faster.

[Atranen]

Then the already-present 5e issue with "a couple hundred mundane low-level archers can kill literally everything they can hit" gets even more noticeable. I am already very skeptical about 5e's implementation of resistance (honestly, resistance 5, 10 or 20 isn't hard and is about the same complexity as "divide by half", the only issue with it is that 5e doesn't scale damage on hit properly, so not having a magic weapon would shut some people down hard), and that would make things even worse, with HP being even more of a singular indicator of how hard a thing is to kill.

Isn't the point of bounded accuracy that low level enemies remain a threat? A few hundred low level archers should be able to kill everything they can hit, under that system. Maybe bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for epic level D&D.

Agree that the DR system from 3.5 is easier. Subtraction vs division.

But that's exactly what they're doing. Now high level monsters can simply be resistant to bludgeoning or piercing, and you then switch to Force or Radiant. Scanning statblocks for those is much easier and faster.

"do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic" is what I wrote. That is not exactly what they are doing.

[Psyren]

A few hundred low level archers should be able to kill everything they can hit, under that system.

If you resolve a hundred low level archers using the combat framework, then yes, but that's not the only possible option.

"do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic" is what I wrote. That is not exactly what they are doing.

Close enough for me.

[2D8HP]

Then the already-present 5e issue with "a couple hundred mundane low-level archers can kill literally everything they can hit" gets even more noticeable it.[…]

That sounds like a good thing to me.

[Atranen]

That sounds like a good thing to me.

Agreed! One of the things 5e got (close to) right imo

[PhoenixPhyre]

That sounds like a good thing to me.

Agreed! One of the things 5e got (close to) right imo

Yeah. For one thing, it means that the setting doesn't need an endless stream of hyper-powered characters just so the high power threats don't nuke everyone--that way leads to superhero settings, none of which make even a tiny lick of sense.

[Ignimortis]

Isn't the point of bounded accuracy that low level enemies remain a threat? A few hundred low level archers should be able to kill everything they can hit, under that system. Maybe bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for epic level D&D.

My general idea of how a dragon should function starts at Smaug vs. the entirety of Lonely Mountain dwarves, then Dale, and eventually Lake-town. It is clear that numbers alone cannot win against this sort of creature. And it is also said that Smaug was not the mightiest dragon to ever live, far from it. 5e does not represent the average dragon in a similar way.

So yes, I'd say that bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for not only epic level D&D, but level 13+ D&D even.

That sounds like a good thing to me.

When we're talking about normal creatures that are perfectly killable by sticking them full of steel, like minotaurs or hill giants? Sure. When we're talking about old powerful dragons, demon generals and lords, high elemental forces? I'd disagree.

Yeah. For one thing, it means that the setting doesn't need an endless stream of hyper-powered characters just so the high power threats don't nuke everyone--that way leads to superhero settings, none of which make even a tiny lick of sense.

For me, it means that the setting doesn't need to have too many high-level threats. If there's a hundred ancient dragons out there, and most of them are malicious, then dealing with one is rather diminished compared to if there was only one or two, and having them be preoccupied enough to not cause problems until it's time for them to do so is also more plausible.

[Arkhios]

When we're talking about normal creatures that are perfectly killable by sticking them full of steel, like minotaurs or hill giants? Sure. When we're talking about old powerful dragons, demon generals and lords, high elemental forces? I'd disagree.

Why though? If a low-level archer can shoot at a powerful creature from 150 feet or farther away, why should they be any less effective than a heroic individual using an exactly same weapon, if they know how to use said weapon and can aim to hit. Why would the weapon be any different for different users?

[Ignimortis]

Why though? If a low-level archer can shoot at a powerful creature from 150 feet or farther away, why should they be any less effective than a heroic individual using an exactly same weapon, if they know how to use said weapon and can aim to hit. Why would the weapon be any different for different users?

If said weapon is non-magical and the heroic individual does not have any special force behind him (even if it would be just their heroic fate making their blows strike true and hard where a lesser man would miss or fail to deal any damage)? Nothing should be different. As 5e does it, a level 20 Fighter just shoots faster and slightly (emphasis on slightly) more accurately than a CR1/8 guardsman, or a CR3 Archer.

However, I do believe that higher-level characters have to have something along those lines (being destined for great things, unnatural luck, etc), even if they lack explicit superhuman powers. And it'd be even better if the game just acknowledged that a level 11+ character can at the very least make problems for things that can threaten kingdoms or even worlds, through sheer personal power.

[Arkhios]

However, I do believe that higher-level characters have to have something along those lines (being destined for great things, unnatural luck, etc), even if they lack explicit superhuman powers. And it'd be even better if the game just acknowledged that a level 11+ character can at the very least make problems for things that can threaten kingdoms or even worlds, through sheer personal power.

Well, level 11+ character is much more likely to have access to supernatural resources such as spells (Magic Weapon, or Elemental Weapon, for example), quite possibly their own, even, so that's one way to acknowledge it by RAW. Class abilities are another way.

[Theodoxus]

What class abilities does a non-EK Fighter have at 11+ that negates the need for magical weapons?

Say, a ghost wanders into a 12th level Battlemaster's house and attacks him in his sleep. All the Fighter's gear is downstairs. So, the dude is basically fighting barehanded in his skivvies, trying to make it downstairs to his gear. He's slapping it 3 times a round for (1+Str mod)/2... fun!

[Oramac]

Also, as a paladin main in 5e, what they did to Divine Smite is a gosh-darn travesty; if there was any paladin feature that deserved nerfing, it was Aura of Protection, and that one’s mechanics are unchanged (and no, “just use the 2014 paladin at a 2024 table” is not a viable response here, because that leaves me at the mercy of “DM may I” and the expectation of using a 2014 paladin at a 2024 table will be different from at a 2014 one, because it’ll no longer be the default).

This.

For me, I'll wait to see how they treat the paladin in the 2024 PHB. If they print that atrocious excuse for smite that was in the UA, I won't be buying it. If smite is similar to the 2014 version (or the fix Treantmonk proposed), I'll likely buy the 2024 PHB.

[Keltest]

What class abilities does a non-EK Fighter have at 11+ that negates the need for magical weapons?

Say, a ghost wanders into a 12th level Battlemaster's house and attacks him in his sleep. All the Fighter's gear is downstairs. So, the dude is basically fighting barehanded in his skivvies, trying to make it downstairs to his gear. He's slapping it 3 times a round for (1+Str mod)/2... fun!

Well, he's doing three times the amount of damage that a commoner would be doing, even without magical weapons, and even if that commoner was a body builder or something. More likely, the fighter is dealing something like 9 damage a round assuming all attacks connect, compared to the commoner's... 1.

Also he doesnt die in the first round due to being attacked, so theres that.

But lets turn that around. Lets say an owlbear wanders into the home of a 12th level wizard. He spent all his spell slots earlier in the day and is just settling down for a nap. What's he going to do, bonk it on the head for 1d8 bludgeoning damage once a round?

Its a silly question, right?