# What do you want & expect to see in 2024's 5.5e?



## Henadic Theologian

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

 And does enworld need a 5.5e prefix?

 I think Monsters of the Multiverse will be a preview of what we can expect from the MM, but bigger of course, both in Monster design, presentation, and formatting, but most shocking of all by adding an expanded races chapter.

 I think the PHB will have a few more races. I think Monsters of the Multiverse give us an idea on how they plan to handle subraces.

 I think Artificer and if all goes right Psion will be added to the PHB.

 Races will be rebalanced.

 I think new two weapon fighting rules will come out. 

 I think better feat rules might come.

 The DMG will have HUGE rewrites.

 I think all three books will be bigger.

 Full compatibility.

 Spells will get updated, some tossed out, so fixed  and others added.

 I think MtG art will end up in the book.

 The DMG might also deal with MTG settings.


----------



## Shiroiken

I expect a change to races. Probably being changed to heritage, species, or some other non-politically charged term. Ideally they'll rebalance them to fit the new style promoted by Tasha's and future products.

What I want out of the "update" (whatever they call it) has basically a snowballs chance you know where. The most likely of which involves rebalancing some classes, sub-classes, and feats. Given their track record though, I'm not hopeful.


----------



## TerraDave

I like "five fifty" as a way to say it, but I don't think it will stick. 5-50. Or 50e. 

On the MM side, just go crazy. And fix the math. If anything, I am a little disappointed with what we have seen. Very small math tweaks, though with the original MM more could and would be justified.

For PHB, please, please, please fix the feats. I don't know if we will get new races or classes outright. The supplements will still be out--and they need to leave space for releases in the future. I expect a lot of weaker options to get boosted, and some small amount of nerfing. Maybe more on using skill/abilities, maybe more on exploration, maybe more combat options. Or some of that could be in the DMC. Maybe some new equipment, weapon, and armor traits. 

A few big topics--adventuring day, healing and injury, death--I would love "solutions" on. But there may not really be any. Again, maybe updated options.


----------



## R_J_K75

I'd like to be able to download pdfs of the core books, (and other books), when you purchase them.  I have no desire or intention to invest in D&D Beyond.


----------



## Charlaquin

TerraDave said:


> I like "five fifty" as a way to say it, but I don't think it will stick. 5-50. Or 50e.



I think 50AE has a nice ring to it.


----------



## DeviousQuail

I expect they'll be bigger books due to combining bits and pieces from other books into one place. I also expect them to add something big and new to convince people who have already bought a bunch of books to buy in. 

Assuming I'm right about the big and new piece I want that to be either a new class or an overhaul of the less well received subclasses. Otherwise it'll be hard to justify the purchase since updating things based on Tasha's is pretty easy to do on your own.


----------



## R_J_K75

DeviousQuail said:


> overhaul of the less well received subclasses.



Yeah theyre pretty lame.  I'd like to see something along the lines of the 2E Kits to replace the subclasses.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Henadic Theologian said:


> What do you want & expect to see in 2024's 5.5e?
> 
> And does enworld need a 5.5e prefix?
> 
> I think Monsters of the Multiverse will be a preview of what we can expect from the MM, but bigger of course, both in Monster design, presentation, and formatting, but most shocking of all by adding an expanded races chapter.
> 
> I think the PHB will have a few more races. I think Monsters of the Multiverse give us an idea on how they plan to handle subraces.
> 
> I think Artificer and if all goes right Psion will be added to the PHB.
> 
> Races will be rebalanced.
> 
> I think new two weapon fighting rules will come out.
> 
> I think better feat rules might come.
> 
> The DMG will have HUGE rewrites.
> 
> I think all three books will be bigger.
> 
> Full compatibility.
> 
> Spells will get updated, some tossed out, so fixed  and others added.
> 
> I think MtG art will end up in the book.
> 
> The DMG might also deal with MTG settings.



I expect a product line that is too similar to existing material to reasonably call it 5.5e.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

The return of the monster classes, and the template-transitional classes, and the racial parangon racial classes. At least in a book of alternate rules.

Archetypes as pathfinder, or the option to can replace class features. 

Racial feats.

The return of the (ki) martial maneuvers from Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, now when the anime and the donghua (Chinese animation) becoming so popular. The binder with the vestige pact magic was an interesting idea.

I would like more classes beyond the artificier and the coming-soon mystic. When the blood-hunter?


----------



## teitan

I don't expect any sort of 5 anywhere near it beyond "50th Anniversary Edition" with it being mostly tweaks like including Tasha's rule with the default core races we already know being examples of how to build a "typical" version, or "fast build" version of a race. I expect maybe two to three subclasses added in. More feats with the layout calling out optional rules more efficiently. Expansions to the monsters available, integration of vehicle and naval rules with the PHB or DMG. Rewrites for clarity with a big ol' FR book as well. Multiverse is the beginning, there WILL be a Greyhawk setting and Planescape, but FR will be the big kahuna.


----------



## Weiley31

I would really love/appreciate it if somehow WoTC brought back the _NEXT Sorcerer_ or fully fleshed the concept out more. I think there's PLENTY of time for them to do something like that since 2024 is the revised core set.


----------



## Neonchameleon

I'm expecting (like many others) the players' side to be largely the same - but the DM's side to be overhauled. And we already have something approaching my single biggest wish, the spellcasting monsters being overhauled so they don't really use PC rules.

On the player side there are the obvious changes. Artificer goes into PHB. Ranger is replaced either by the Tasha's ranger or by another iteration. Four Elements Monk and a couple of other subclasses are re-written. With luck they'll overhaul the Warlock invocations and either edit or replace all the "add a spell to your spell list" invocations for more interesting things, and give the level 12+ fighter some abilities that aren't repeats of lower level ones (and do more for the level 12+ rogue). Also the sorcerer subclasses being buffed to Tasha's sorcerer level.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

doctorbadwolf said:


> I expect a product line that is too similar to existing material to reasonably call it 5.5e.




 5.5e is just a placeholder for the minor edition change until it has a proper name.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm expecting (like many others) the players' side to be largely the same - but the DM's side to be overhauled. And we already have something approaching my single biggest wish, the spellcasting monsters being overhauled so they don't really use PC rules.
> 
> On the player side there are the obvious changes. Artificer goes into PHB. Ranger is replaced either by the Tasha's ranger or by another iteration. Four Elements Monk and a couple of other subclasses are re-written. With luck they'll overhaul the Warlock invocations and either edit or replace all the "add a spell to your spell list" invocations for more interesting things, and give the level 12+ fighter some abilities that aren't repeats of lower level ones (and do more for the level 12+ rogue). Also the sorcerer subclasses being buffed to Tasha's sorcerer level.




 I think the 5.5 MM will be modeled on Monsters of the Multiverse, including the races chapter, although some may end up being added to the PHB instead if they are deemed major enough and common enough, like Goblins, Aasimar, Genasi, etc...


----------



## Aldarc

Pray that WotC will have learned how to provide a decent Index for the new core books.


----------



## tetrasodium

I don't expect much because wotc hasn't shown themselves willing to make notable changes or additions to 5e and haven't mentioned their design goals for it  so there isn't much to guess about. They will probably be too conservative with change in an effort to claim that it is "fully compatible" with 5e" though


----------



## Olrox17

I want a lot, and I expect to be disappointed   ok, more seriously:


more design space dedicated to subclasses. Here's a discussion thread about this idea.
the math for saving throws and DCs is out of whack... which wouldn't be such a huge issue, if the game wasn't filled to the brim with cheaply available "save or suck" spells and effect, on both sides of the DM's screen. A potential solution would be to utilize HP thresholds for everything that inflicts powerful status effects. Here's an attempt to implement that through an HR.


----------



## TerraDave

Just looking at the above, for the PHB it will not just be "tweaks". This isn't just errata and a couple of new sub-classes. It will reflect the years of work being put in now, based on years of play. 

The book can be "compatible" and still make some changes.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Pessimist me thinks that it will be a couple of class feature variants, and some updating of feats.

Optimist me hopes that it will be a complete redo of certain classes, subclasses, feats, backgrounds.... And maybe if we're lucky some more classes like warlord and swordmage.


----------



## Krachek

I would take a deep breath before calling out for 5.5ed. It will be the same game!
That’s what implied 100% compatible. I expect a change similar to 4ed Essentials.
It was still the same game, with fresh classes and mechanics.


----------



## el-remmen

Just some cool stuff I can incorporate or ignore as my tastes (and those of the players in my group) dictate.


----------



## jgsugden

I want tweaks, not revisions.  I'm ok with adjustments to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master, a clarification to the stealth rules, etc...  however, I do not want them to massively overhaul the game.  Essentially, I think they hit roughly the right balance going from 3E to 3.5E.  Repeating that level of adjustment would be a good target.


----------



## Sacrosanct

I think there will only be tweaks.  This won't be nearly as a significant change PO was to 2e, or 3.5 to 3e.  It's still 5e just like 2e The Complete X series books were still 2e.


----------



## Neonchameleon

jgsugden said:


> I want tweaks, not revisions.  I'm ok with adjustments to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master, a clarification to the stealth rules, etc...  however, I do not want them to massively overhaul the game.  Essentially, I think they hit roughly the right balance going from 3E to 3.5E.  Repeating that level of adjustment would be a good target.



You mean you want everything up to and including the shape of a horse on the battlemap (from 5ft by 10ft to 10ft square) and a significant part of the skill list to change?

Essentially I think that 3.0 to 3.5 is a lot bigger than the changes I want to see.


----------



## Horwath

1. Battlemasters maneuvers being available to all martial classes, with battlemaster having more known/more usages/higher dice.

Having all character number of maneuvers know, number of d6 dice to fuel them equal to proficiency bonus.

2. rework of races 

3. Rebalancing martials to be a little bettter comparing to full casters.

HDs/HPs by classes:

d12: barbarian, fighter, monk
d10: artificer, paladin, ranger, rogue
d8: bard, cleric, druid, warlock
d6: sorcerer, wizard

also have all d10 and d12 classes at least 1 fighting style and one Extra attack feature. 
d8 and d6 get their with some special features of certain sub-classes.

4. rework bard and warlock as 2/3 casters, similar to 3.5e
1st level spells at level 1
2nd at lvl 4
3rd at lvl 7
4th at lvl 10
5th at lvl 13
6th at lvl 16
7th at lvl 19

5. Make short rests short again. 5-10 mins long. 1hr is not a short rest.

6. Sub-classes from level 1.

7. limit of abilities to 18(+4)


----------



## Weiley31

I just got the _The Wild Beyond the Witchlight_ alt-cover yesterday. So far, from what I can tell going by the preview of stat blocks for the new Mord+Volo combo book coming next year, this book is using the new format for spellcasting in stat blocks. I actually like how they seem to do the Spellcasting aspect for Npcs in that regards.

For example, some like Mr. Witch and Mr. Light, have a spell where they have to make a roll after casting it. If they roll a 3 or an 8, then they can't use that spell until the next dawn. The rest of the spells in their list don't have that. Others, like Iggwilv/Zyblina, don't have to worry about rolling for such a thing  for _ANY_ of their spells, thus showing how somebody like that is stronger/better/more apt at casting their spells or a measure of their much more powerful spellcasting.


----------



## Swarmkeeper

5e 2.0


----------



## Steampunkette

Ranger Revamp
Warlord/Marshal class
Artificer added to Core
Psionic Class
Ideally a Combat Maneuvers setup for Martials ala Level Up/A5e
Race Revamp to fit new standards
Feat changes to reduce "Trap" and "OP" options
Spell changes, including removal of problematic names to distance from certain actors
Full Reprint of core rules based on Errata and heavy handed Sage Advice modifications
Alignment slips out of Limbo and becomes either Narrative-Only or completely excised
Gnomes are monsters, again, instead of PC Race. Thri-Kreen added to replace


----------



## aco175

So, marketing tells me that 6e will be in 2025 or 2026! 

I would echo that small fixes seem right.  I would like to see multi-classing rules and feats fixed.  I would not like power creep to fix 'X class that sucks'.  I like 4e monsters and it look like things are heading that way more or less.  Not a fan of monsters being player races, but I'm old and get it.  

I thought 3.5e did fix some 3.0 things and was fine so this should be ok as well.


----------



## Raith5

5.5 like 3.5 was the same game. The issue for me is that if this is just correcting math and small changes, why would anyone buy it? There has to be some value add here while keeping 5e spirit intact. I hope this is an opportunity to do more than correcting errors and actually expand the game to fill out things where there is demand.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

jgsugden said:


> I want tweaks, not revisions.  I'm ok with adjustments to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master, a clarification to the stealth rules, etc...  however, I do not want them to massively overhaul the game.  Essentially, I think they hit roughly the right balance going from 3E to 3.5E.  Repeating that level of adjustment would be a good target.



More or less. 

3.5 did some things well... but it started the shift the game from theater of the mind to battlemap play. It also fixed some things in the wrong direction (for example prestige classes became the way to fix multiclassing, instead of just fixing mticlassing). 

On the other hand, game stayed more or less compatible and older 3.0 option were replaced peace by piece with more modern 3.5 options. So I agree with the amount of changes that should happen.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

aco175 said:


> So, marketing tells me that 6e will be in 2025 or 2026!
> 
> I would echo that small fixes seem right.  I would like to see multi-classing rules and feats fixed.  I would not like power creep to fix 'X class that sucks'.  I like 4e monsters and it look like things are heading that way more or less.  Not a fan of monsters being player races, but I'm old and get it.
> 
> I thought 3.5e did fix some 3.0 things and was fine so this should be ok as well.



I really would like multiclass rules to stay mostly the same. They work out very well at our table and produce flavourful and mostly balanced characters. 

I think there needs to be general fix with how extra attack and cantrips scaling works. They don't play well with each other.


----------



## Steampunkette

And for silliness' sake:

Full Backwards compatibility!
Rules to transfer characters between 5.5e and 2e so you can make those 5/2 rounds with THac0!
BECMI to cover Epic Levels for 5.5e.
4e Tablespace Play!
1e Racial Class options for 5.5e characters. Why play an Elf Wizard when you can play an Elf-Elf?!


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> 1. Battlemasters maneuvers being available to all martial classes, with battlemaster having more known/more usages/higher dice.
> 
> Having all character number of maneuvers know, number of d6 dice to fuel them equal to proficiency bonus.
> 
> 2. rework of races
> 
> 3. Rebalancing martials to be a little bettter comparing to full casters.
> 
> HDs/HPs by classes:
> 
> d12: barbarian, fighter, monk
> d10: artificer, paladin, ranger, rogue
> d8: bard, cleric, druid, warlock
> d6: sorcerer, wizard
> 
> also have all d10 and d12 classes at least 1 fighting style and one Extra attack feature.
> d8 and d6 get their with some special features of certain sub-classes.
> 
> 4. rework bard and warlock as 2/3 casters, similar to 3.5e
> 1st level spells at level 1
> 2nd at lvl 4
> 3rd at lvl 7
> 4th at lvl 10
> 5th at lvl 13
> 6th at lvl 16
> 7th at lvl 19
> 
> 5. Make short rests short again. 5-10 mins long. 1hr is not a short rest.
> 
> 6. Sub-classes from level 1.
> 
> 7. limit of abilities to 18(+4)



I would be sad to see bards back at 2/3, but that would be acceptable in the 5e framework. You could add artificer to 2/3 casters as well. 

Limiting stats to 18 in general or making it more costly would be appreciated. Actually I would like stats to not increase at all or have them interact mostly with skills and not too much with class abilites and attack bonuses.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Henadic Theologian said:


> 5.5e is just a placeholder for the minor edition change until it has a proper name.



Right, I don’t think that it is a minor edition change. It’s errata and some new material.


----------



## dave2008

R_J_K75 said:


> I'd like to be able to download pdfs of the core books, (and other books), when you purchase them.  I have no desire or intention to invest in D&D Beyond.



I used to be the same way, but once I gave it a chance I don't think I could go back. Beyond is just so much more useful than a PDF, I actually avoid my huge library of PDFs.


----------



## Olrox17

UngeheuerLich said:


> I would be sad to see bards back at 2/3, but that would be acceptable in the 5e framework. You could add artificer to 2/3 casters as well.



The improvement in design space would be huge though. We could have spellcasting-focused subclasses that give access to high level spells, so, say, a Lore Bard would be exactly as it is right now. Then, _new_ subclasses that _don't_ get those high level spells, would have to get something else in return. Possibly something unique and awesome.

Personally I think all full casters should be turned into 2/3 or half casters, and all half casters should be non-casters, by default. Then, we can let subclasses give back or improve spellcasting where needed, and we can finally have awesome spell-less paladins and rangers, swordmage wizards with unique, relevant abilities, non-OP moon druids...good stuff.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Olrox17 said:


> The improvement in design space would be huge though. We could have spellcasting-focused subclasses that give access to high level spells, so, say, a Lore Bard would be exactly as it is right now. Then, _new_ subclasses that _don't_ get those high level spells, would have to get something else in return. Possibly something unique and awesome.
> 
> Personally I think all full casters should be turned into 2/3 or half casters, and all half casters should be non-casters, by default. Then, we can let subclasses give back or improve spellcasting where needed, and we can finally have awesome spell-less paladins and rangers, swordmage wizards with unique, relevant abilities, non-OP moon druids...good stuff.



 I agree with the first paragraph... but the second one is too much. 
The cleric, ok. The sorcerer, maybe. The wizard, no. 
Paladin and ranger... maybe. 
They have been half casters for quite a while now and I do think it diffefentiates them from fighters.
Or you just make all of them fighters and have some wilderness or holy subclasses. I could subcribe to that.


----------



## Olrox17

UngeheuerLich said:


> I agree with the first paragraph... but the second one is too much.
> The cleric, ok. The sorcerer, maybe. The wizard, no.
> Paladin and ranger... maybe.
> They have been half casters for quite a while now and I do think it diffefentiates them from fighters.
> Or you just make all of them fighters and have some wilderness or holy subclasses. I could subcribe to that.



Heh, I understand what you mean about the wizard, but I'm just a huge fan of the 4e Swordmage. No 5e gish is even close to how good of a gish the Swordmage was, even after they re-introduced a few of its signature abilities, like Booming Blade.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I really don't see the point of changing the caster types of so many classes.  Because all that ends up happening is you replace those high level spell slots they no longer get with just magical class features.  So rather than having several different options to choose from at high level (IE their spell list), the class instead just gets one single magical "thing" at various levels instead.  How is that considered an improvement in gameplay?  What is such the problem with getting to select 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells that we keep insisting they get taken away from certain classes?  I just don't get it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Olrox17 said:


> Heh, I understand what you mean about the wizard, but I'm just a huge fan of the 4e Swordmage. No 5e gish is even close to how good of a gish the Swordmage was, even after they re-introduced a few of its signature abilities, like Booming Blade.



The swordmage could be the arcane paladin or ranger. Half caster and then go from there. Maybe having a generic half caster with subclasses for paladin, ranger and swordmage could work. Depends on how much weight subclasses are allowed to have. I think, they might get a bigger design space for all classes. And start at level 1.


----------



## Bill Zebub

All I'm _expecting_ for changes are:
 - Original classes/subclasses tweaked to be in line with more recent ones (for example, using proficiency bonus in place of ability modifier, and abilities getting one free use before consuming resources).
 - Races adhering to the new format
 - _Maybe_ some particular good/bad spells adjusted

What I'd _like_ to see in addition is:
 - Sorcerer and Monk subclass abilities modified so they don't consume base class resources (Sorcery Points and Ki, respectively)
 - Everybody starts with one feat, and Humans somehow made a more compelling choice.
 - Feats all rebalanced and given +1 ASI 
 - Inspiration officially moved to being used _after_ the roll, not before


----------



## Olrox17

DEFCON 1 said:


> I really don't see the point of changing the caster types of so many classes.  Because all that ends up happening is you replace those high level spell slots they no longer get with just magical class features.  So rather than having several different options to choose from at high level (IE their spell list), the class instead just gets one single magical "thing" at various levels instead.  How is that considered an improvement in gameplay?  What is such the problem with getting to select 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells that we keep insisting they get taken away from certain classes?  I just don't get it.



The point is, you're not taking away anything, you would just expand the design space available. All the current subclasses would remain perfectly valid options. But if a WotC dev had a brilliant idea for a spell-less paladin, or an half-caster druid (4e Warden?), or the Swordmage I was talking about earlier, then the system would accommodate them, and give them enough design space to work with.


UngeheuerLich said:


> The swordmage could be the arcane paladin or ranger. Half caster and then go from there. Maybe having a generic half caster with subclasses for paladin, ranger and swordmage could work. Depends on how much weight subclasses are allowed to have. I think, they might get a bigger design space for all classes. And start at level 1.



Sure, that would also work. Also agreed on starting subclasses at level 1.


----------



## Scribe

1. Class clean up/balance iteration.
2. Race reboot. I expect 2-5 features per race, the vast majority of what describes a race will be 'roughly human' and 'you decide'.
3. Spell clean up/balance iteration.

Basic stuff.

4. Removal of Gods/Alignment as part of the core game, pushing this into Setting specific.


----------



## HammerMan

Olrox17 said:


> Heh, I understand what you mean about the wizard, but I'm just a huge fan of the 4e Swordmage. No 5e gish is even close to how good of a gish the Swordmage was, even after they re-introduced a few of its signature abilities, like Booming Blade.



I think it is the spell list that needs to be changed. If eldrtich knights had 5-6 melee themed spells, that alone would make it feel more swordmageish


----------



## HammerMan

DUplicate post after years of lurking


----------



## HammerMan

I will say I am disappointed. I want ground up rewrite not a .5 mid edition smoothing out. I may just start looking for a non D&D game to play.


----------



## Lyxen

HammerMan said:


> I will say I am disappointed. I want ground up rewrite not a .5 mid edition smoothing out. I may just start looking for a non D&D game to play.




Honestly, you might as well do it now, there is no way a ground up rewrite would maintain full compatibility, and with the success of 5e, itself based on thorough playtesting, there is no chance that it would happen anyway.


----------



## Waller

Here's my wishlist. For me they need to do all the stuff that Level Up is doing.


----------



## R_J_K75

dave2008 said:


> I used to be the same way, but once I gave it a chance I don't think I could go back. Beyond is just so much more useful than a PDF, I actually avoid my huge library of PDFs.



I just prefer pdfs as theyre easy to print a page or a few for an adventure. I found a website called www.5etools.com that you can print out encounters, monster stats, spell lists.  Pretty nice site actually.  But back to DDB, I just dont want to pay again for books I already own.  IDK the truth of this but Ive also read that when you purchase something there you dont own it and they can pull the license at any point they want?


----------



## ECMO3

Here is what I think we will see:

1a. Redo PHB races to align with Tasha's and VRGR. Specifically allowing bonuses to be assigned anywhere, proficiencies to be informal: example Elves get proficiency in one skill instead of proficiency in Perception), Dwarf combat training provides proficiency in 2 martial and 2 simple weapons.  Also all racial spells will now be able to use any ASI and use spell slots to cast

1b. Alternatively instead of 1a they may do away with races entirely and have a list of features that you choose.  Essentially everyone would be what is now called custom lineage but with a feat being one option but other options available as well.  You choose the features you want with your character, then choose her size and what she looks like.

2. I think we will see some feats reworked with the older feats made more like the newer ones.
'
3. I think we will have several new ways to roll/buy abilities.

4. I think we will see alignments retired completely

5. I do not think there will be major changes to any of the classes and the basic class chassis, although some of the subclasses will be tweaked and others eliminated.

6. I think you will see some Magic The Gathering rules and options officially integrated into D&D

7. I think the magic  items will be cleaned up so you don't have uncommon items that should be rare and vice versa

8. I think we will see expanded rules on tool use.

*Possible things I could see happening:*

9. Simplified Armor.  Instead of a bunch of different armors, just 3 types: light AC12+dex, medium AC15+dex(max 2), heavy AC18.  Then you decide if your heavy armor is plate or ring mail, but regardless that is just flavor and the stats are the same.

10. Simplified weapons:  Reduce the weapons table into class and features.   So instead of having a longsword and a warhammer with the same features and same damage you would just have:
Versatile Martial melee weapon: d8/d10

Instead of a dagger you would have:
Versatile, Thrown, Finesse simple melee weapon: d4

Then you decide what your weapon looks like for flavor purposes and you choose the damage type (bludgeoning, piercing or slashing) but the damage dice is determined by the combination of type (simple/martial) and features (versatile, finesse, reach, loading, heavy .....).


----------



## Henadic Theologian

ECMO3 said:


> Here is what I think we will see:
> 
> 1a. Redo PHB races to align with Tasha's and VRGR. Specifically allowing bonuses to be assigned anywhere, proficiencies to be informal: example Elves get proficiency in one skill instead of proficiency in Perception), Dwarf combat training provides proficiency in 2 martial and 2 simple weapons.  Also all racial spells will now be able to use any ASI and use spell slots to cast
> 
> 1b. Alternatively instead of 1a they may do away with races entirely and have a list of features that you choose.  Essentially everyone would be what is now called custom lineage but with a feat being one option but other options available as well.  You choose the features you want with your character, then choose her size and what she looks like.
> 
> 2. I think we will see some feats reworked with the older feats made more like the newer ones.
> '
> 3. I think we will have several new ways to roll/buy abilities.
> 
> 4. I think we will see alignments retired completely
> 
> 5. I do not think there will be major changes to any of the classes and the basic class chassis, although some of the subclasses will be tweaked and others eliminated.
> 
> 6. I think you will see some Magic The Gathering rules and options officially integrated into D&D
> 
> 7. I think the magic  items will be cleaned up so you don't have uncommon items that should be rare and vice versa
> 
> 8. I think we will see expanded rules on tool use.




 Actually maybe Perception should be a skill at all, it's more an innate ability like having enhanced senses of the Elves, so instead of getting perception skill they just get advantage on perception checks as keen senses. Use investigate if you want a trained skill the improves ones innate perception.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

3 action economy similar to pathfinder and more tactical combat. Significantly more options.

Since there's more money in being simple/narrative/newbie-friendly I expect to be disappointed.


----------



## Zaukrie

I am sure they'll change the race stuff and other things they've been tweaking. 

I want monsters to be more interesting. I don't think that will happen. I also think they should do some kind of warlord thing, and minions for monsters. I expect neither.


----------



## Zaukrie

Oh, I want what Level Up is doing.....seriously. I expect that to be much better than what WotC does.


----------



## Mecheon

I significantly doubt we're going to be getting on the level of Level Up. Races redone like Tasha's, some spells added into base because they're pretty required, a few spells retired for being too niche and unused, others buffed a smidgin to make them more viable.

I don't expect too many changes.


----------



## ECMO3

Henadic Theologian said:


> Actually maybe Perception should be a skill at all, it's more an innate ability like having enhanced senses of the Elves, so instead of getting perception skill they just get advantage on perception checks as keen senses. Use investigate if you want a trained skill the improves ones innate perception.



I doubt that will happen.  I think they may change some of the rules on stealth, perception and investigation but I don't see perception as a skill going away.

Also I think racial traits will be less tied to race, so "keen senses" may be a racial trait but it would not be specifically tied to elves, you could take that as an option on your elf or your dwarf or your tortle or whatever race, likewise you could choose stonecunning for your elf.


----------



## Juicy Brucey

Changes to simplify DM'ing. 

Non-charisma based social skills. Maybe even just rework the whole skill system.

Backgrounds was a good move in 5e. Maybe too much emphasis is on back story that no one ever sees now. Main story is far more interesting. Something that encourages players to develop the story that actually happens at the table more. Personal quest trope paths with reward? I don't know.


----------



## Aldarc

Juicy Brucey said:


> Changes to simplify DM'ing.
> 
> Non-charisma based social skills. Maybe even just rework the whole skill system.
> 
> Backgrounds was a good move in 5e. Maybe too much emphasis is on back story that no one ever sees now. Main story is far more interesting. Something that encourages players to develop the story that actually happens at the table more. Personal quest trope paths with reward? I don't know.



I wish - though do not expect - that Backgrounds did more interesting things. 

One of my problem with feats and the Alt Human is that some feats are the best way for some PCs to reflect their backgrounds or character concept. For example, if you want to reflect that your character has some magical training, but not enough for a feat, then you have to wait until you get Magical Training at 4th level. But it would be nice if you could just pick a Background, e.g., "Wizard's Apprentice," and then you could also pick up a wizard cantrip. 

So I would like to see a greater emphasis on Backgrounds or see them expand what Backgrounds could do.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Juicy Brucey said:


> Non-charisma based social skills. Maybe even just rework the whole skill system.




Yes.  Technically it's in there that your skill proficiencies can be used with alternate abilities, but that should be highlighted more, and the default ability-skill pairings should be downplayed or even eliminated.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> Actually maybe Perception should be a skill at all, it's more an innate ability like having enhanced senses of the Elves, so instead of getting perception skill they just get advantage on perception checks as keen senses. Use investigate if you want a trained skill the improves ones innate perception.



I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Perception should be an always passive ability. The search action should just temporarily raise your Passive Perception by a set number (5, perhaps, or your Proficiency Bonus).


----------



## Bill Zebub

And does anybody else think that trying to make feats "optional" (and therefore mixing them up with ASIs) was one of the worst decisions in 5e?

I like the simplicity of 5e.  I got tired of crunchy games decades ago.  But feats are just not hard.


----------



## Juicy Brucey

Bring Dexterity more in line with other stats. Take the initiative bonus away. Give rogues a level based bonus to compensate so you don't screw up sneak attack.

Not something I expect to see, but something I would love to see.


----------



## AtomicPope

First I expect the game to be nearly the same except after years of feedback and experience the classes, subclasses, monsters, races, and traps will be more finely tuned.

Things I expect to see:

Proficiency Mods Replacing Stat Mods Abilities - Replacing any abilities that use XX Stat Mod per long/short rest with Proficiency makes sense as it puts focus back on the character level and takes it away from attribute dependency.  We can even get things like 1/2 Proficiency Bonus for powerful/restricted abilities.
Thematic Subclasses that Transcend Classes - With the advent of Strixhaven I'm excited to the greater potential of the 5e system.  I would like to see more subclasses that can be taken by various classes.  Some of these come to mind: Beastmaster (Druid or Ranger),  Wildmagic (Wizard or Sorcerer), Weapon Master (Fighter, Rogue, Ranger) etc.
Improved Monster Format - Mordi's Monster Manual turned back the clock to 2e style monsters, but not far enough.  I love the 2e monster format with ecology, habitat, and so forth.   We should take what worked in 4e and that's the proficiency checks for monster lore, and hardcode that into each monster entry.
Expanded Traps/Trap Creation in the DMG - Getting a player's supplement with traps was nice but it's the wrong place for it.  We need that in the DMG so traps can function like "monsters", a dangerous encounter that uses resources and rewards exp.
Better Rangers - In my own campaign our 20th level Ranger was allowed to pick and choose between the PHB and UA for her class features.  The new changes have been great for the class, expanding their role and making the animal companion an actual threat to the monsters.
In some ways I'm a little disappointed that 5e dropped some of the wonderful innovations from 4e like Minions and Skill Challenges.


----------



## Juicy Brucey

But yea, it'd be sweet if 4 elements monk was actually good.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Bill Zebub said:


> And does anybody else think that trying to make feats "optional" (and therefore mixing them up with ASIs) was one of the worst decisions in 5e?
> 
> I like the simplicity of 5e.  I got tired of crunchy games decades ago.  But feats are just not hard.



No, I think it was smart.  Because I don't think most players use feats as a way to give "flavor" to their characters, they use them as just one more dial to raise their character's effectiveness and power level in whatever they are doing (which is usually combat, as that is the backbone of the entire D&D game.)  So making feats optional meant some DMs could choose to just not allow all these new combat abilities that increased character power, when it was pretty soon into the game's release that DMs and players discovered just how powerful D&D characters already were.  PCs didn't _need_ additional power in combat, they were already powerful enough.  And thus not having to worry about trying to present challenges for a party with a character with Great Weapon Master, a character with Sharpshooter, three characters with Lucky, and a character with Polearm Master... was a boon for many DMs.

If the game wanted to remove all feats that increased combat effectiveness and only had feats like 'Actor' or 'Linguist' that built upon the other parts of the game besides combat... the social and exploration pillars... maybe then having feats non-optional would be okay.  But the game isn't going to do that because that would be 'non-compatible' with the game as it is.


----------



## Li Shenron

All I want is "most" before "druids will not wear metal armor".

What we'll get is everything except that.


----------



## clearstream

Charlaquin said:


> I think 50AE has a nice ring to it.



V.V


----------



## Charlaquin

clearstream said:


> V.V



I don’t know what that means


----------



## Laurefindel

*What I expect?*
Essentially cosmetic  changes mostly, and a different presentation of the same things we have now.

I expect changes to core ranger and beast master subclass, in line with Tasha’s optional variant ranger features.

I expect removal of fixed ASI at character creation, but little changes to other abilities.

I expect (and hope for) a rationalisation of « pet » rules to a universal « acts on your initiative but takes turn after yours » for companions, mounts, familiar, and conjured creatures.

I expect minor tweaks to some subclasses like champion (despite being popular) and 4-elements monk.

I expect some rationalisation on reactions, bonus actions, and their timing.

I expect a few more subclasses offered as « core » in the PHB, especially to classes with two presented archetypes (but not an anthology of all splat published so far).

I expect (and hope for) a little more diversity in monsters’ roles and abilities, and 1/day spells and spell-like abilities instead of player-like spellcasting.

I’m not sure if I expect the artificer to make it into PHB. Somehow I don’t think it will.

*What I want?*
I want an in depth review or what spells require concentration and doesn’t, and whether they should or shouldn’t.

I want more monster spellcasters. If you’re to publish mostly spellcasting PCs, grant us more ready-made spellcasting antagonists. Or a selection of templates as add-ons.

I want no-magic and low-magic how-to-guides in the DMG.

I want minor but thematic rule variants for specific settings (unlikely to happen given WotC's multiverse approach).


----------



## clearstream

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t know what that means



Roman numerals! V = 5

So V.V = ...


----------



## overgeeked

UngeheuerLich said:


> The swordmage could be the arcane paladin or ranger. Half caster and then go from there. Maybe having a generic half caster with subclasses for paladin, ranger and swordmage could work. Depends on how much weight subclasses are allowed to have. I think, they might get a bigger design space for all classes. And start at level 1.



Hexblade warlock. Swap CHA for INT. Swap the level 6 specter ability for the Archfey misty step. You’re 80-90% to a swordmage.


----------



## Faolyn

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Perception should be an always passive ability. The search action should just temporarily raise your Passive Perception by a set number (5, perhaps, or your Proficiency Bonus).



Hmm, I like this. I hadn't thought of that before. But maybe actively searching should involve your Investigation (so, Int mod + PB, if you're proficient). With guidelines to try to prevent DMs from making the DCs too high on purpose.


----------



## Olrox17

overgeeked said:


> Hexblade warlock. Swap CHA for INT. Swap the level 6 specter ability for the Archfey misty step. You’re 80-90% to a swordmage.



Well, no, not really. The 5e Hexblade does attempt to recreate the 4e Hexblade (and doesn't do a stellar job at it, unfortunately). The 4e Swordmage is very different: the at-will Aegis of shielding/Aegis of assault to either protect allies or hound enemies relentlessly, unarmored but constantly warded by magic, the great emphasis on teleporting yourself and others, enemies included, the ability to modify at-will bladespells in several ways with the white lotus feats...they were very unique.


----------



## overgeeked

Olrox17 said:


> Well, no, not really. The 5e Hexblade does attempt to recreate the 4e Hexblade (and doesn't do a stellar job at it, unfortunately). The 4e Swordmage is very different: the at-will Aegis of shielding/Aegis of assault to either protect allies or hound enemies relentlessly, unarmored but constantly warded by magic, the great emphasis on teleporting yourself and others, enemies included, the ability to modify at-will bladespells in several ways with the white lotus feats...they were very unique.



Yeah. I’m aware. I played a swordmage for the majority of 4E. Most fun I’d had playing D&D in ages. The stuff you’re pointing out is the rest of that 80-90%. Some of it’s in spell selection, some in other class abilities, and some just isn’t part of 5E.


----------



## Yaarel

The 5e Hexblade has the Warlock spellcasting mechanic that is suitable for a Swordmage because it is a fullcaster that can attain the highest-tier spells.

Similarly, the Warlock spellcasting makes sense for Psion too.

Wizard, Bard, Cleric, and Druid are different classes that use the same spellcasting method.

Likewise, Warlock, Swordmage, and Psion could be different classes that uses the same spellcasting method.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I could see them changing some classes that get less subclass like Bards abilities to get maybe 1 more subclass ability. It might break other existing Bard subclasses (and I think College of Valor will just be replaced by College of Swords), but maybe there could be a substitution added in for those unconverted subclasses.

I think the Weapon Attack Cantrips like Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade could be in the new PHB, those are popular cantrips for many.

There could be an effort to move some spells like Eldritch Blast and Hunter's Mark into class features, as those are often quite central to Warlocks and Rangers.

Monk could get something like more Ability Score Increases to address the complaints the class is really MAD, along with Martial Arts being less complicated.

Maybe an attempt to open up maneuvers and superiority die to places beyond just the Battlemaster.


----------



## Yaarel

There seems a shift away from per-short-rest features and toward proficiency-bonus-times-per-long-rest.

Can this work for the Warlock too, so that the two or so spell slots refresh instead depending on the proficiency bonus?


----------



## tetrasodium

Yaarel said:


> The 5e Hexblade has the Warlock spellcasting mechanic that is suitable for a Swordmage because it is a fullcaster that can attain the highest-tier spells.
> 
> Similarly, the Warlock spellcasting makes sense for Psion too.
> 
> Wizard, Bard, Cleric, and Druid are different classes that use the same spellcasting method.
> 
> Likewise, Warlock, Swordmage, and Psion could be different classes that uses the same spellcasting method.



It could be, but not as long as the continue expecting the gm to balance sort rest & long rest classes against adventuring day assumptions blatantly in conflict with how people play/run the game & how wotc's own adventures are structured.


----------



## Yaarel

Kobold Avenger said:


> There could be an effort to move some spells like Eldritch Blast and Hunter's Mark into class features, as those are often quite central to Warlocks and Rangers.



And Bless for Cleric works best as a class feature, rather than a spell.


----------



## Yaarel

tetrasodium said:


> It could be, but not as long as the continue expecting the gm to balance sort rest & long rest classes against adventuring day assumptions blatantly in conflict with how people play/run the game & how wotc's own adventures are structured.



I figure, this fact requires a Warlock update anyway. So whatever works for the Warlock would work for other classes like Psion and Swordmage too.


----------



## Bill Zebub

DEFCON 1 said:


> No, I think it was smart.  Because I don't think most players use feats as a way to give "flavor" to their characters, they use them as just one more dial to raise their character's effectiveness and power level in whatever they are doing (which is usually combat, as that is the backbone of the entire D&D game.)  So making feats optional meant some DMs could choose to just not allow all these new combat abilities that increased character power, when it was pretty soon into the game's release that DMs and players discovered just how powerful D&D characters already were.  PCs didn't _need_ additional power in combat, they were already powerful enough.  And thus not having to worry about trying to present challenges for a party with a character with Great Weapon Master, a character with Sharpshooter, three characters with Lucky, and a character with Polearm Master... was a boon for many DMs.
> 
> If the game wanted to remove all feats that increased combat effectiveness and only had feats like 'Actor' or 'Linguist' that built upon the other parts of the game besides combat... the social and exploration pillars... maybe then having feats non-optional would be okay.  But the game isn't going to do that because that would be 'non-compatible' with the game as it is.




Agree with the 2nd paragraph.  I think the better solution is to avoid overpowered feats.  They should have been able to figure out that GWM and SS were overpowered relative to the other feats.


----------



## Faolyn

Yaarel said:


> There seems a shift away from per-short-rest features and toward proficiency-bonus-times-per-long-rest.
> 
> Can this work for the Warlock too, so that the two or so spell slots refresh instead depending on the proficiency bonus?



Spend a minute to concentrate and regain all expended spell slots; can do this PB times/long rest.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Bill Zebub said:


> Agree with the 2nd paragraph.  I think the better solution is to avoid overpowered feats.  They should have been able to figure out that GWM and SS were overpowered relative to the other feats.



Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter should be folded into Fighting Style, as a high level Advanced Fighting Style feature.


----------



## tetrasodium

Bill Zebub said:


> Agree with the 2nd paragraph.  I think the better solution is to avoid overpowered feats.  They should have been able to figure out that GWM and SS were overpowered relative to the other feats.



I think what happened was less not figuring it out than

step1: Make a system with feat chains & such
step2: "simplify!" "streamline!" "monorail!" comes down the chain
step3: ????.
step4: collapse the feat chains & reduce rate of feat gain at the last minute & declare feats "optional" as cover.
It's hard to imagine the folks at wotc being capable of _not_ figuring it out.


----------



## Yaarel

All feats should feel comparable to a +2 ability score increase.

With this as a metric, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master might be balanced, while most of the other Player Handbook feats feel underpowered.

I prefer an update to improve the Players Handbook feats.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Yaarel said:


> All feats should feel comparable to a +2 ability score increase.
> 
> With this as a metric, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master might be balanced, while most of the other Player Handbook feats feel underpowered.
> 
> I prefer an update to improve the Players Handbook feats.




I also just don't like ASIs.  Or, they are far too frequent or predictable or something.


----------



## Stormonu

Kobold Avenger said:


> Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter should be folded into Fighting Style, as a high level Advanced Fighting Style feature.



Personally, I changed them so you took a minus equal to your PB bonus and gained twice that to damage.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

I'm in the camp that sees the core rules not changing, but the old classes and subclasses being revised to smooth out their rough edges. There's wide agreement in the community on which classes and subclasses need a tune up. 

I expect all sorcerer subclasses to get an additional spell list. I would also like it if they got some other class features that made them feel more distinct and differentiated.

The warlock needs a power bump. It's an awesomely thematic and flexible class, but feels undertuned at the table. Fixing the short rest mechanics, giving them an extra spell in Tier 2, and beefing up the invocations would probably do it.

The paladin needs a nerf, specifically with divine smite and the saving throw aura.  

Even after Tasha's I think the ranger needs an overhaul. They key problem the ranger still has is that it lacks a defining class feature. There's no ranger equivalent to smite, rage, backstab, metamagic, etc. It desperately needs that. I'm not optimistic that it will ever get it. And I don't feel that hunter's mark is interesting enough to qualify.

I'd still love to see to see a swordmage.

I honestly believe the warlord could be a fighter subclass--a mechanic that lets it hand out Second Wind and Action Surge to other characters would get it most of the way there.

I suspect that after the new core books are published Xanathar's and Tasha's will feel very outdated. I think that's why they're being bundled and discounted at the same time this announcement is being made--because they're only relevant for another 24 months. 

If the changes above are roughly what WotC delivers, then many of the original 5E subclasses will not be strictly compatible. Like if every sorcerer subclass gets a spell list, the shadow sorcerer from Xanathar's is gonna say, "What about me?"


----------



## DEFCON 1

tetrasodium said:


> I think what happened was less not figuring it out than
> 
> step1: Make a system with feat chains & such
> step2: "simplify!" "streamline!" "monorail!" comes down the chain
> step3: ????.
> step4: collapse the feat chains & reduce rate of feat gain at the last minute & declare feats "optional" as cover.
> It's hard to imagine the folks at wotc being capable of _not_ figuring it out.



I also think the designers might have just not thought of or had forgotten just how much some players optimize D&D for combat at the expense of everything else.

With the break of 4E and the years separating the mix-max fiasco of "6-class/prestige class" multiclassing that some people did with 3E and what they were trying create for 5E... I suspect they didn't think those folks would return and go far into the mechanical weeds to milk every last bit of combat juice out of the 5E stone to turn GWM/SS/PAM/Lucky into the massive problems they ended up being for many tables.

Now granted... a lot of those problems are because DMs are allowing those problems to occur based on what they are accepting at their tables, the type of players they are playing with, and what their actions are for encounter building to try and challenge them... but at the end of the day the folks at WotC just didn't realize how vigous their game's math was going to need to be to keep things _really_ bound.  Because the looseness of the rope encircling the math still allowed for some folks to really pull against it and get far outside the herd.


----------



## Retreater

I expect a 50th anniversary logo smacked on the cover and a price increase. If they really want to make an effort, they might even do a find-and-replace edit to change "race" to "ancestry" - probably sloppily enough that "grace" becomes "gancestry."


----------



## ECMO3

Kobold Avenger said:


> Maybe an attempt to open up maneuvers and superiority die to places beyond just the Battlemaster.



They already are.  You can get battlemaster maneuvers through two different feats - Fighting Initiate and Martial Adept.  If you get both of them that gives you three maneuvers and 2 dice per short rest.


----------



## tetrasodium

DEFCON 1 said:


> I also think the designers might have just not thought of or had forgotten just how much some players optimize D&D for combat at the expense of everything else.
> 
> With the break of 4E and the years separating the mix-max fiasco of "6-class/prestige class" multiclassing that some people did with 3E and what they were trying create for 5E... I suspect they didn't think those folks would return and go far into the mechanical weeds to milk every last bit of combat juice out of the 5E stone to turn GWM/SS/PAM/Lucky into the massive problems they ended up being for many tables.
> 
> Now granted... a lot of those problems are because DMs are allowing those problems to occur based on what they are accepting at their tables, the type of players they are playing with, and what their actions are for encounter building to try and challenge them... but at the end of the day the folks at WotC just didn't realize how vigous their game's math was going to need to be to keep things _really_ bound.  Because the looseness of the rope encircling the math still allowed for some folks to really pull against it and get far outside the herd.



........  I...  Yea... I don't know about that.  5e optimization troubles tend to enter the realm of 3.x's pulled from eight different books with 6 class/prc builds with oone or two steps and those steps tend to be blindingly obvious at a glance.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

overgeeked said:


> Hexblade warlock. Swap CHA for INT. Swap the level 6 specter ability for the Archfey misty step. You’re 80-90% to a swordmage.



Still needs some unique or nearly unique spells like Entangling Strike and the more interesting XYZ Smite spells, to really be close to a Swordmage.  

And an ability to attack before or after casting a spell, so you can hit and Thunder Step as one action.


----------



## ECMO3

Bill Zebub said:


> Agree with the 2nd paragraph.  I think the better solution is to avoid overpowered feats.  They should have been able to figure out that GWM and SS were overpowered relative to the other feats.



These are not overpowered and I think many feats are better than these, including most of the half feats and when you compare them to an ASI, you are giving up a lot.

Compared to a character who takes an ASI in the attack ability you are talking about around 2-3 points damage per attack against most foes, so it is a slightly smaller damage boost then you would get by casting Hex or Hunter's Mark.  While all classes can benefit from the cover and range bonuses on SS and the BA attack on GWM, some classes will actually lose DPR on the attacks with these if they take the -5/+10 and have damage riders like sneak attack, dreadful strike, favored foe, Giant Might etc.

On top of that all your saves and skills in that ability are worse than if you took the ASI and you lose out on the other tertiary benefits from the higher score (carrying capacity, AC, initiative).


----------



## ECMO3

Yaarel said:


> I figure, this fact requires a Warlock update anyway. So whatever works for the Warlock would work for other classes like Psion and Swordmage too.



I doubt they are going to update/change the warlock casting mechanic.

This is only really relevant to combat and I think people on this forum are much more concerned about the combat pillar than WOTC.  WOTC is deemphasizing combat and has said new campaigns, starting with WBW, will be able to be completed without any combat at all and this will mean the difference between slots recharging on a long or short rest will be far less relevant.

Also for as many people as they are that hate that the Warlock is built around 2 short rests/6-8 combats and being underpowered in most campaigns, there is another group that loves the multiclass potential with sorcery points and Paladin smites.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

THEMNGMNT said:


> The paladin needs a nerf, specifically with divine smite and the saving throw aura.



I’d rather see them love Lay On Hands and get Smite nerfed hard than see anything change to the Aura. IMO they should lean harder into the aura and stack fewer unrelated other features on the class.


----------



## DEFCON 1

tetrasodium said:


> ........  I...  Yea... I don't know about that.  5e optimization troubles tend to enter the realm of 3.x's pulled from eight different books with 6 class/prc builds with oone or two steps and those steps tend to be blindingly obvious at a glance.



This is going to be something impossible to really figure out... mainly because every table and DM is going to be different, and how their encounter building and adventure focus will be up and down the underpowered/overpowered line.

So for instance... I don't agree that even in 5E you need to pull from three/five/eight books to overpower the game.  Personally, I think some players can overpower the game just by using the PHB as it is, with certain choices of optional rule-- and if playing at a table with a DM who is not focused or prepared to build encounters to match up against them.

A DM who uses the standard encounter creation design rules in the DMG might have their encounters get completely overwhelmed because of the number of players at their table they are building for, the class combinations working together at the table, the tactical skill of the players in question, the optional rules the players are using, how often the DM is allowing for rests, etc. etc. etc.  The game is just not that vigorous in its math.  It's not designed to allow every type of table to be run in every type of way, ALL of them ending up with really well-balance and equal combat.  It's just not possible.  Heck... even asymmetric board games designed specifically for that purpose that don't have to worry about all the other "character crap" of RPGs have a hard time getting their mechanics completely balanced.  So to think the 5E designers should have been able to get it correct during their design (when they were probably dealing with alpha and beta testers who might not have actually been the kind of optimizers who have been decrying these feats after the fact since the very beginning) is probably putting way too much of an expectation upon them.


----------



## ECMO3

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’d rather see them love Lay On Hands and get Smite nerfed hard than see anything change to the Aura. IMO they should lean harder into the aura and stack fewer unrelated other features on the class.



I think a Paladin is powerful in combat if optimized for that but they are so weak out of combat that for the most part no one at my table wants to play them.  They don't get the Ribbon features of  the other Martials, even the fighters are better with an extra ASI in there and some specific subclasses.

Paladins can be a decent face but even here they are not great are limited by lack of proficiencies, cantrips and lack of expertise or reliable talent.  

To really make a good playable Paladin out of combat you need to go Dex-based and that takes their damage and AC down a notch, or spend ASIs on non-combat feats like skill expert or prodigy.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

ECMO3 said:


> I think a Paladin is powerful in combat if optimized for that but they are so weak out of combat that for the most part no one at my table wants to play them.  They don't get the Ribbon features of  the other Martials, even the fighters are better with an extra ASI in there and some specific subclasses.
> 
> Paladins can be a decent face but even here they are not great are limited by lack of proficiencies, cantrips and lack of expertise or reliable talent.
> 
> To really make a good playable Paladin out of combat you need to go Dex-based and that takes their damage and AC down a notch, or spend ASIs on non-combat feats like skill expert or prodigy.



I genuinely feel like you play an entirely different game, where only the names of things are the same, as the one I play. I wish I could figure out what the nature of the difference is to some useful degree.

You know they have non-combat spells, and they have Persuasion, Insight, and Intimidation on their skill list for social encounters, and athletics and perception for exploration, right? Divine Sense is a pretty much purely out of combat ability that comes up in hunting and investigating extraplanar stuff all the time in my games with Paladins. Hell, Lay on Hands gets used to treat folk in towns and gain the party favors or establish trust pretty often. 

They're in a better position out of combat than the fighter.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’d rather see them love Lay On Hands and get Smite nerfed hard than see anything change to the Aura. IMO they should lean harder into the aura and stack fewer unrelated other features on the class.



My party got a huge buff and rarely failed saving throws thanks to the vengeance paladin's aura. It was cool for them but somewhat frustrating for me as the DM.


----------



## ECMO3

One thing I would like to see is a revised proficiencies for multiclassing.  With the current guidelines there is a definite order you want to multiclass in. I doubt any of this will be added but things I would like to see are:

1. Remove all armor proficiencies for multiclassing into a class, except fighters and fighters should get all armors, not just light and medium.  I would still give shields to all martials.

2. Remove all weapon proficiencies for all non-martials.  

3. I think the skills need to be more balanced.  Starting as a Rogue and then doing 1 level of Ranger and then going bard will give you 8 proficiencies plus Thieves tools and expertise in 5 of them at 5th level.  That is in addition to any racial proficiencies you get.  Subclasses can add even more.  I think there should be a baseline number and when you multiclass you get that number extra if your current class has less.  So multiclassing from fighter to Rogue would get you 2 more, Ranger to Rogue would get you 1 more.  But Ranger to Bard would not get you any.

3. Similarly the number of cantrips for multiclassed characters should not be cumulative, but based on total level and the highest number.  So take your total level and have the total number of Cantrips be for the highest of your classes at that level.   Keep track of which cantrips are from which class though.  So a 1st level sorcerer has 4 cantrips.  If he multiclasses into wizard he gets no more.  If he stays wizard when he reaches 4th level (1/3) he could get his first wizard cantrip, at that point his total level is 5 and a 5th level sorcerer gets 5 cantrips.  At this point he has 1 wizard and 4 sorcerer cantrips.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

THEMNGMNT said:


> My party got a huge buff and rarely failed saving throws thanks to the vengeance paladin's aura. It was cool for them but somewhat frustrating for me as the DM.



Why? I genuinely don't understand why that would be frustrating.


----------



## ECMO3

doctorbadwolf said:


> I genuinely feel like you play an entirely different game, where only the names of things are the same, as the one I play. I wish I could figure out what the nature of the difference is to some useful degree.
> 
> You know they have non-combat spells, and they have Persuasion, Insight, and Intimidation on their skill list for social encounters, and athletics and perception for exploration, right? Divine Sense is a pretty much purely out of combat ability that comes up in hunting and investigating extraplanar stuff all the time in my games with Paladins. Hell, Lay on Hands gets used to treat folk in towns and gain the party favors or establish trust pretty often.
> 
> They're in a better position out of combat than the fighter.



I don't think they are as good as the fighter because of the extra ASI and the ability to hit 20 by 8th level while taking a non-combat feat.  Also some of the fighter subclasses give ribbons or skills that are missing from most Paladins (although admittedly I have not seen a lot of Paladins played).  Certainly you can build a fighter to be a 1-dimensional combat machine, but compared to a Paladin, I think it is easier to build them to be broader without sacrificing as much of their combat abilities.   For example a dex-based high stealth fighter can still be the best archer in the game while also being a good scout.  Take your extra feat to pick up skill expert or skulker and you can go from being a good scout to being the best and competing with the Rogue who took expertise and if you start with 17 dex you can pick up both of these by 8th, still have a 20 Dex and be better than the Rogue.  It is much harder to do that kind of thing on a Paladin build.

Champion is getting half his proficiency on all strength and dex checks, Rune Knight and Psi warrior are bringing bonuses to several skills or checks, Eldritch knight has cantrips without sacrificing a fighting style, Arcan Archer has an extra skill proficiency... 

The spells help, although they don't get a lot and there is a high cost to using them.  Like I said Paladins can be a decent face because of their typically high charisma, but a Rouge with a 14 Charisma is generally going to outdo them in social situations and can outdo them while also being pretty darn good at Stealth and Acrobatics in addition to picking up even more skills or bonuses with subclasses like scout, soulkinfe or Phantom.  They can do that pretty easily while also maxing dexterity for combat.  Bards and to a lessor extent Rangers can do  this as well.  In terms of base class, all those classes are weaker than a Paladin in combat though so it makes sense.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Laurefindel said:


> *What I expect?*
> Essentially cosmetic  changes mostly, and a different presentation of the same things we have now.
> 
> I expect changes to core ranger and beast master subclass, in line with Tasha’s optional variant ranger features.
> 
> I expect removal of fixed ASI at character creation, but little changes to other abilities.
> 
> I expect (and hope for) a rationalisation of « pet » rules to a universal « acts on your initiative but takes turn after yours » for companions, mounts, familiar, and conjured creatures.
> 
> I expect minor tweaks to some subclasses like champion (despite being popular) and 4-elements monk.
> 
> I expect some rationalisation on reactions, bonus actions, and their timing.
> 
> I expect a few more subclasses offered as « core » in the PHB, especially to classes with two presented archetypes (but not an anthology of all splat published so far).
> 
> I expect (and hope for) a little more diversity in monsters’ roles and abilities, and 1/day spells and spell-like abilities instead of player-like spellcasting.
> 
> I’m not sure if I expect the artificer to make it into PHB. Somehow I don’t think it will.
> 
> *What I want?*
> I want an in depth review or what spells require concentration and doesn’t, and whether they should or shouldn’t.
> 
> I want more monster spellcasters. If you’re to publish mostly spellcasting PCs, grant us more ready-made spellcasting antagonists. Or a selection of templates as add-ons.
> 
> I want no-magic and low-magic how-to-guides in the DMG.
> 
> I want minor but thematic rule variants for specific settings (unlikely to happen given WotC's multiverse approach).



I would echo the quoted post with the addition that i think there should be more ritual spells. Any spell with a casting time of greater than an action should be a ritual and ritual casting should be more widely available. There are a number of interesting but niche spell on various spell lists that do not get selected because of spells known limitations, concentration requirements and so forth. Also bring back martial rituals.

I would also like the see the fighter (EK) get some work and the ranger needs a bit of tweaking. At least the Favoured Foe from Tasha's should have the concentration requirement removed as in the playtest.


----------



## tetrasodium

DEFCON 1 said:


> This is going to be something impossible to really figure out... mainly because every table and DM is going to be different, and how their encounter building and adventure focus will be up and down the underpowered/overpowered line.
> 
> So for instance... I don't agree that even in 5E you need to pull from three/five/eight books to overpower the game.  Personally, I think some players can overpower the game just by using the PHB as it is, with certain choices of optional rule-- and if playing at a table with a DM who is not focused or prepared to build encounters to match up against them.
> 
> A DM who uses the standard encounter creation design rules in the DMG might have their encounters get completely overwhelmed because of the number of players at their table they are building for, the class combinations working together at the table, the tactical skill of the players in question, the optional rules the players are using, how often the DM is allowing for rests, etc. etc. etc.  The game is just not that vigorous in its math.  It's not designed to allow every type of table to be run in every type of way, ALL of them ending up with really well-balance and equal combat.  It's just not possible.  Heck... even asymmetric board games designed specifically for that purpose that don't have to worry about all the other "character crap" of RPGs have a hard time getting their mechanics completely balanced.  So to think the 5E designers should have been able to get it correct during their design (when they were probably dealing with alpha and beta testers who might not have actually been the kind of optimizers who have been decrying these feats after the fact since the very beginning) is probably putting way too much of an expectation upon them.



that was my point.  that level of charop power comes from the most trivial of thought towards optimization in 5e


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> All feats should feel comparable to a +2 ability score increase.
> 
> With this as a metric, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master might be balanced, while most of the other Player Handbook feats feel underpowered.
> 
> I prefer an update to improve the Players Handbook feats.



Agreed. SS and GWM are some of the only Feats that people inclined towards character optimization seriously consider over +2 to your primary ability score. That makes them the best-balanced Feats, in my book. Others could use a buff to bring them up to that level.


----------



## Faolyn

DEFCON 1 said:


> I also think the designers might have just not thought of or had forgotten just how much some players optimize D&D for combat at the expense of everything else.



I think there's a slight chance that the designers had instead _hoped_ that players would move away from such optimization.


----------



## Juicy Brucey

ECMO3 said:


> The spells help, although they don't get a lot and there is a high cost to using them.  Like I said Paladins can be a decent face because of their typically high charisma, but a Rouge with a 14 Charisma is generally going to outdo them in social situations and can outdo them while also being pretty darn good at Stealth and Acrobatics in addition to picking up even more skills or bonuses with subclasses like scout, soulkinfe or Phantom.  They can do that pretty easily while also maxing dexterity for combat.  Bards and to a lessor extent Rangers can do  this as well.  In terms of base class, all those classes are weaker than a Paladin in combat though so it makes sense.




Rogues are supposed to excel in non-combat situations. You're not really talking about _paladins_ having less skills than rogues, you're talking about _everyone_ who isn't a bard or rogue. Rogues are basically there to give a non-magical utility option, while wizards are the magical utility guys. Bards for some reason are both, but that's another issue.

Paladins are in line or better than most options in the non-combat department. Can always play a half elf if you need more (great option for pallies!)

Having an unlosable horse that doesn't depend on the DM is pretty nice too.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> I think there's a slight chance that the designers had instead _hoped_ that players would move away from such optimization.



Or, the designers knew that optimizers are a small minority, and didn’t and still don’t see a need to dramatically cater the rules to them.


----------



## Amrûnril

Charlaquin said:


> Agreed. SS and GWM are some of the only Feats that people inclined towards character optimization seriously consider over +2 to your primary ability score. That makes them the best-balanced Feats, in my book. Others could use a buff to bring them up to that level.




I'd agree a lot of feats could use buffs, but bringing them all to this level woud have the downside of leaving non-primary ability score increases even further behind. 

Ultimately, I think characters relying on single ability scores for so much of their combat effectiveness is the game's biggest balance issue, and both feats and non-primary scores end up as casualties of that.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

increased character complexity/customization, so characters of a class feel less samey.


----------



## Osgood

I’d bet money it will be called either Anniversary or Gold Edition rather than any numerical designation. It’ll make it feel less like a true edition change and hype up the big 5-0 milestone. 

As for what I think the PHB will have:

Races revised, per Tasha’s (flexible ASI, languages, etc.), plus cleaning up the ones that saw revisions along the way like dragonborn and tieflings.
Overall class structure will be about the same, but with some sprucing up here and there. Several of the subclasses will see some major overhauls though. (Personally, I’d love to see a major revision to the Ranger and the Sorcerer.)
Feats revised and/or expanded.
Skills and (especially) Tools revisions/clarifications.
Alignment remains, but made optional.
Some spell revisions. 
Downtime and exploration revisions (ideally more attention on traps).
Mostly minor rules clarifications and expansions throughout.


----------



## Charlaquin

Amrûnril said:


> I'd agree a lot of feats could use buffs, but bringing them all to this level woud have the downside of leaving non-primary ability score increases even further behind.
> 
> Ultimately, I think characters relying on single ability scores for so much of their combat effectiveness is the game's biggest balance issue, and both feats and non-primary scores end up as casualties of that.



Oh, sure. I mean, if I had my druthers, Strength would add to damage with all weapons (melee _and_ ranged), Dex would add to hit with all weapons (again, melee _and_ ranged. Get rid of the finesse/non-finesse divide completely), and Con would add to all physical saving throws. Likewise for the mental stats, Int would add to hit with spell attacks, Cha would add to spell save DCs (alternatively, Int to spell attacks and spell save DCs with Cha adding to spell damage), and Wis would add to all mental saving throws. But that’s _well_ beyond the scope of 50AE or whatever they end up calling it.


----------



## ECMO3

Juicy Brucey said:


> Rogues are supposed to excel in non-combat situations. You're not really talking about _paladins_ having less skills than rogues, you're talking about _everyone_ who isn't a bard or rogue. Rogues are basically there to give a non-magical utility option, while wizards are the magical utility guys. Bards for some reason are both, but that's another issue.
> 
> Paladins are in line or better than most options in the non-combat department. Can always play a half elf if you need more (great option for pallies!)
> 
> Having an unlosable horse that doesn't depend on the DM is pretty nice too.




Yes and no. You are right it is unfair to compare to a Rogue or Bard but even when you look outside Rogues and Bards Paladins are still lacking compared to most classes.  You are also right about half elves, but that is something that another class could take too to even be further ahead.

Since TCE, Barbarians get more skills than Paladins, and Rangers get more skills and can get expertise as part of the class chassis.  Rangers also have subclasses that can make them the dominant class at either scouting (gloom stalker) or charisma checks (Fey Wanderer) on top of the extra skill(s), expertise and exploration features.   Wizards, Warlocks, Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers have only 2 skills (not counting subclasses) but they are full casters with both utility cantrips and utility spells.  

So it is really just Paladins, Fighters and Monks on the bottom rung, and when you consider Paladins are reliant on strength where fighters and Monks aren't I think they take a back seat to those as well, before you even consider subclasses.


----------



## ECMO3

Amrûnril said:


> I'd agree a lot of feats could use buffs, but bringing them all to this level woud have the downside of leaving non-primary ability score increases even further behind.
> 
> Ultimately, I think characters relying on single ability scores for so much of their combat effectiveness is the game's biggest balance issue, and both feats and non-primary scores end up as casualties of that.



I don't think they are more powerful than every other feat.  For example, unless you have extra attack, magic initiate with one of the blade cantrips is going to boost weapon damage in tier 2 and 3 more than GWM will and if you take MI you get a spell and another cantrip to boot.

There certainly are some weak feats but considering all 3 pillars, many/most feats offer a fair trade against an ASI, these two included.


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> Agreed. SS and GWM are some of the only Feats that people inclined towards character optimization seriously consider over +2 to your primary ability score. That makes them the best-balanced Feats, in my book. Others could use a buff to bring them up to that level.



from other books, Fey touched and Crusher come close.


----------



## DEFCON 1

My only real issue with feats is that I don't think a lot of them do what is always talked about as the point of them... this idea that feats let you "customize" your character.  Because any feat that just lets you do what you are already doing _but better_ isn't "customizing" your PC at all in my opinion.

If you are a warrior who uses a great weapon and your PC was built for using that great weapon really well... taking the Great Weapon Master feat is merely just taking what you already are and adding bigger numbers to it.  I do not call that "customization".  Who your PC is hasn't changed.  In your table's party you are still the character who has mastered using great weapons and who does massive amounts of damage with them.  You never _needed_ a feat to really prove that.  You haven't customized, you are still what you always were.

Even a feat like Actor doesn't really give you much of anything that many tables already has access to and which you already are built for if you've made a PC for whom taking the Actor feat would make sense.  A CHA bump?  You already have high CHA, so okay it's now higher.  Advantage on Deception and Performance?  You've already built your PC to be really good at both of those skills already (otherwise you probably wouldn't have taken the Actor feat supposedly for "flavor" to prove it) so Advantage is again just bigger numbers for something you are already doing.  The only thing you get which is "special" and is "additive functionality" to your character is the voice mimicry thing.  But while I can't speak for anyone else, I personally don't think that's really all that great of a feature because I know for at least my table, if I have a player who has built a disguise-focused PC whose whole schtick in the social pillar is to pretend to be other people... I'm so happy to see this rare butterfly of a character concept that I am never going to shiat on them by getting all squirrely and saying crap like "Wellllllllll... while you might _look_ like this person, your voice sounds different and thus I'm going to give you Disadvantage on every Deception check you make when you speak."  That would basically be me saying that I think your character design desire is stupid and I'm not going to let you play it.  And to thus essentially force that person to take a feat to take Actor just to get over that roleplay hurdle _I believe_ is a terrible way to DM.

So to me... all the feats should mainly be giving out abilities that add completely new game rules and functionality that characters otherwise couldn't get.  Nothing would be _just_ "what you are already doing but higher numbers", the feats would mainly be adding new things to the character to let them do things they otherwise couldn't do.  And if we want to add a little bit of "higher number" functionality as well, then fine.  But that shouldn't be the reason why someone would want to take the feat in the first place.  Again... all in my own personal opinion.


----------



## HammerMan

overgeeked said:


> Hexblade warlock. Swap CHA for INT. Swap the level 6 specter ability for the Archfey misty step. You’re 80-90% to a swordmage.



Yeah that is a good homebrew but I think you also need some hombrew spells burning blade frost backlash (I guess infernal wraith helps) and my favorite Incendiary sword (throw sword it hits ground and explodes then reforms in hand) are all good ones.


----------



## Nefermandias

LuisCarlos17f said:


> The return of the monster classes, and the template-transitional classes, and the racial parangon racial classes. At least in a book of alternate rules.
> 
> Archetypes as pathfinder, or the option to can replace class features.
> 
> Racial feats.
> 
> The return of the (ki) martial maneuvers from Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, now when the anime and the donghua (Chinese animation) becoming so popular. The binder with the vestige pact magic was an interesting idea.
> 
> I would like more classes beyond the artificier and the coming-soon mystic. When the blood-hunter?



So basically, you are asking for a return to late 3.5?


----------



## Filthy Lucre

Nefermandias said:


> So basically, you are asking for a return to late 3.5?



The one true king.


----------



## ECMO3

DEFCON 1 said:


> Even a feat like Actor doesn't really give you much of anything that many tables already has access to and which you already are built for if you've made a PC for whom taking the Actor feat would make sense.  A CHA bump?  You already have high CHA, so okay it's now higher.  Advantage on Deception and Performance?  You've already built your PC to be really good at both of those skills already (otherwise you probably wouldn't have taken the Actor feat supposedly for "flavor" to prove it) so Advantage is again just bigger numbers for something you are already doing.  The only thing you get which is "special" and is "additive functionality" to your character is the voice mimicry thing.



Getting actor feat with a changeling character is extremely powerful and game changing (excuse the pun).  You can look and sound like anyone you have seen and heard.  Even on a character with disguise self it can still be very powerful.

Being a half feat you often set up for it by starting with an odd charisma, so you still get the boost you would get from an ASI.

Also while some feats do make you better in what you are already good in, and actor probably falls into this catagory, others don't.  The skilled feat specifically targets things you are not proficient in (and therefore either ok or poor before the feat).  Prodigy, light, medium and heavy armored, weapon master are all similar.  Usually if I am taking alert I am taking on a character with a low perception and I go from being the easiest to surprise to being impossible to surprise.  Magic initiate is often taken by non-casters and when it is taken by casters it is usually to get off-list spells they do not have access to otherwise.


----------



## Aldarc

DEFCON 1 said:


> My only real issue with feats is that I don't think a lot of them do what is always talked about as the point of them... this idea that feats let you "customize" your character.  Because any feat that just lets you do what you are already doing _but better_ isn't "customizing" your PC at all in my opinion.
> 
> If you are a warrior who uses a great weapon and your PC was built for using that great weapon really well... taking the Great Weapon Master feat is merely just taking what you already are and adding bigger numbers to it.  I do not call that "customization".  Who your PC is hasn't changed.  In your table's party you are still the character who has mastered using great weapons and who does massive amounts of damage with them.  You never _needed_ a feat to really prove that.  You haven't customized, you are still what you always were.
> 
> Even a feat like Actor doesn't really give you much of anything that many tables already has access to and which you already are built for if you've made a PC for whom taking the Actor feat would make sense.  A CHA bump?  You already have high CHA, so okay it's now higher.  Advantage on Deception and Performance?  You've already built your PC to be really good at both of those skills already (otherwise you probably wouldn't have taken the Actor feat supposedly for "flavor" to prove it) so Advantage is again just bigger numbers for something you are already doing.  The only thing you get which is "special" and is "additive functionality" to your character is the voice mimicry thing.  But while I can't speak for anyone else, I personally don't think that's really all that great of a feature because I know for at least my table, if I have a player who has built a disguise-focused PC whose whole schtick in the social pillar is to pretend to be other people... I'm so happy to see this rare butterfly of a character concept that I am never going to shiat on them by getting all squirrely and saying crap like "Wellllllllll... while you might _look_ like this person, your voice sounds different and thus I'm going to give you Disadvantage on every Deception check you make when you speak."  That would basically be me saying that I think your character design desire is stupid and I'm not going to let you play it.  And to thus essentially force that person to take a feat to take Actor just to get over that roleplay hurdle _I believe_ is a terrible way to DM.
> 
> So to me... all the feats should mainly be giving out abilities that add completely new game rules and functionality that characters otherwise couldn't get.  Nothing would be _just_ "what you are already doing but higher numbers", the feats would mainly be adding new things to the character to let them do things they otherwise couldn't do.  And if we want to add a little bit of "higher number" functionality as well, then fine.  But that shouldn't be the reason why someone would want to take the feat in the first place.  Again... all in my own personal opinion.



This is one reason why I'm wondering whether some of the character customization that feats represent should be further offloaded onto Backgrounds.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

I won’t say what I would expect.  But I would like an index that is useful and ambiguous areas cleaned up.

I would love for all of the races to be presented together and likewise for all of the classes to be compiled.

that said, it will be a hard row to hoe—that’s a lot of info in one place.


----------



## DEFCON 1

ECMO3 said:


> Getting actor feat with a changeling character is extremely powerful and game changing (excuse the pun).  You can look and sound like anyone you have seen and heard.  Even on a character with disguise self it can still be very powerful.
> 
> Being a half feat you often set up for it by starting with an odd charisma, so you still get the boost you would get from an ASI.



Well, like I said, this would only be a boon if your DM was such a stickler for this sort of thing that they were going to penalize you repeatedly for not sounding like the people you were trying to impersonate (throwing up Disadvantage on ever Deception check for example).  But to me, that's the kind of stuff I hate to see as both a player and a DM, all in the name so-called "realism".  Impersonating people is such a minor effect in D&D gameplay (even within a setting like Eberron) that to force someone to blow their one feat slot in the first 7 levels of the game just to allow them to do the exact thing they built their character for without penalty... kinda sucks in my opinion.  Especially when that action is only going to come up once every like... third, fifth, eighth session.

A DM wants to train their players not to bother making characters that are focused on things unrelated to combat?  Keep penalizing them for their choices and make them use their feats to "fix" them.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Aldarc said:


> This is one reason why I'm wondering whether some of the character customization that feats represent should be further offloaded onto Backgrounds.



This exactly what I did for my upcoming Theros game (where almost all the characters are Human).  I re-worked most of the backgrounds by not only giving Expertise for the primary skill of the two, I also made feats for them that specifically gave additional functionality as well as bonuses to the things they would do due to the background they chose.

The Physician background had an applicable Physician feat.  The Philosopher and Epic Poet backgrounds had an Orator feat to take.  The Scout had a Spotter feat, the Athlete had a Wrestler feat, etc. etc.  My players were quite happy.


----------



## Aldarc

DEFCON 1 said:


> This exactly what I did for my upcoming Theros game (where almost all the characters are Human).  I re-worked most of the backgrounds by not only giving Expertise for the primary skill of the two, I also made feats for them that specifically gave additional functionality as well as bonuses to the things they would do due to the background they chose.
> 
> The Physician background had an applicable Physician feat.  The Philosopher and Epic Poet backgrounds had an Orator feat to take.  The Scout had a Spotter feat, the Athlete had a Wrestler feat, etc. etc.  My players were quite happy.



Yeah, so if you had a Mage's Apprentice or Hedge Wizard Background, for example, then the Fighter or Rogue could potentially pick up a cantrip or spell at the start instead of having to wait around until level 3 before they get to properly play their Eldritch Warrior or Arcane Trickster.


----------



## Nefermandias

Nah.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Nefermandias said:


> So basically, you are asking for a return to late 3.5?



Really the things I loved more in 3.5 but they aren't in 5th yet.


----------



## ECMO3

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, like I said, this would only be a boon if your DM was such a stickler for this sort of thing that they were going to penalize you repeatedly for not sounding like the people you were trying to impersonate (throwing up Disadvantage on ever Deception check for example).



I think there is a huge difference in being able to bluff and being able to mimic someone.  Skill checks are not automatic and I don't think most DMs would allow a player without the feat to mimic someone's speech to his closest friends or his wife for example and if they did it would be an insanely high DC.  This feat does that and gives a mechanic for it which is a lot easier to pass.

Further in the game with the changeling I am talking about, he did not blow his slot, he chose it and it comes up nearly every session, it is fun and it is downright awesome in combat against any kind of organized humanoids.  Literally on a dungeon crawl right now, eliminating a clan of Dueregar.  We clear one room, he impersonates one of  the people in it or the Lieutneant and he goes into the next room.  He scouts it out and then we whisper to him for the layout.  He positions himself or sometimes even starts ordering others around in unfavorable positions, put down their weapons and help him with this...... Then we go in and kill them.  He orders them around in battle too (at least until he attacks).  Rinse and repeat.  He is a Warlock and I think it is far more effective than if he took the ASI or really any other feat I can think of.

Is it  kind of cheesy spamming it like this?  Yeah kind of, but so is GWM or SS or any other combat-related feat.


----------



## ad_hoc

Tasha's and Xanathar's are going to be in the bundle along with the updated monster manual II combining Volo's and Mordekainen's.

This is a big clue that they are considering both Tasha's and Xanathar's to be part of "5.5" and won't be made redundant or obsolete.

They wouldn't announce an upcoming revision and then push 2 older books out along with their first revised rulebook without intending those books to continue to be used.

To me that indicates that the level of changes they're going to make are more minor than many here are hoping for or possibly expecting. If they were more drastic we would see changes to Xanathar's and Tasha's in other words.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

HammerMan said:


> Yeah that is a good homebrew but I think you also need some hombrew spells burning blade frost backlash (I guess infernal wraith helps) and my favorite Incendiary sword (throw sword it hits ground and explodes then reforms in hand) are all good ones.



I’m a big fan of “throw sword, do AoE, sword reforms” spells.


----------



## Nebulous

ad_hoc said:


> Tasha's and Xanathar's are going to be in the bundle along with the updated monster manual II combining Volo's and Mordekainen's.
> 
> This is a big clue that they are considering both Tasha's and Xanathar's to be part of "5.5" and won't be made redundant or obsolete.
> 
> They wouldn't announce an upcoming revision and then push 2 older books out along with their first revised rulebook without intending those books to continue to be used.
> 
> To me that indicates that the level of changes they're going to make are more minor than many here are hoping for or possibly expecting. If they were more drastic we would see changes to Xanathar's and Tasha's in other words.



Good point.  They wouldn't make such sweeping changes so soon that would invalidate recent books.  I do think it will be minor and far less than the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.   Whenever they announce 6e I think they're going to come out and say it.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Nebulous said:


> Good point.  They wouldn't make such sweeping changes so soon that would invalidate recent books.  I do think it will be minor and far less than the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.   Whenever they announce 6e I think they're going to come out and say it.



Except they made some fairly significant changes - and I expect that the 10th/50th edition will take those changes. It's less severe than 3.0 to 3.5 because that cash grab was designed to break backwards compatibility. Changes I expect:

An updated monster manual to match or iterate on the Monsters of the Multiverse format, making it far easier for DMs to run
PC Races changing to match the new format (including without the stat modifiers)
The Tasha's ranger and the Tasha's beastmaster companions to be made the official version.
Many of the other optional features from Tasha's classes to be made core
A balance pass over the big lists of things that aren't actually getting used (the bottom third of feats, invocations, battle master maneuvers, and spells) and possibly the top few percent. Also pulling some things in from Tasha's and Xanathar's and more
Possibly reworking warlocks, fighters, and monks because they seem to be deprecating short rests. (fighters are easy - prof times/day; ki and warlock spells are harder)
Class tweaks
General subclasses overhauled: Champion Fighter, Berserker Barbarian, Assassin Rogue, Transmuter Wizard, War Cleric
Warlock: Pact of the Blade rework, and alternatives to Eldritch Blast (I recommend each subclass getting a variant - which would allow buffing the Archfey and Great Old One). Pact of the Talisman becoming core
Sorcerer - more spells known for the subclasses (again as with Tasha's)


----------



## Yaarel

ECMO3 said:


> I think there is a huge difference in being able to bluff and being able to mimic someone.  Skill checks are not automatic and I don't think most DMs would allow a player without the feat to mimic someone's speech to his closest friends or his wife for example and if they did it would be an insanely high DC.  This feat does that and gives a mechanic for it which is a lot easier to pass.
> 
> Further in the game with the changeling I am talking about, he did not blow his slot, he chose it and it comes up nearly every session, it is fun and it is downright awesome in combat against any kind of organized humanoids.  Literally on a dungeon crawl right now, eliminating a clan of Dueregar.  We clear one room, he impersonates one of  the people in it or the Lieutneant and he goes into the next room.  He scouts it out and then we whisper to him for the layout.  He positions himself or sometimes even starts ordering others around in unfavorable positions, put down their weapons and help him with this...... Then we go in and kill them.  He orders them around in battle too (at least until he attacks).  Rinse and repeat.  He is a Warlock and I think it is far more effective than if he took the ASI or really any other feat I can think of.
> 
> Is it  kind of cheesy spamming it like this?  Yeah kind of, but so is GWM or SS or any other combat-related feat.



 The value here is the special combo, visually shapeshifting plus the feat to mimic voice.

The feat by itself has a different value.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I expect a product line that is too similar to existing material to reasonably call it 5.5e.



Yet I think they might call it a 6E, but emphasize continuity, as with most other games like Call of Crhulu.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Yet I think they might call it a 6E, but emphasize continuity, as with most other games like Call of Crhulu.



Tbh, calling it 6e seems like a wild choice, to me. I don’t think they will.  

But as long as I can just keep using my current stuff, don’t have to rewrite all my homebrew for it to work with the new stuff, etc, I don’t really care that much.


----------



## Scott Christian

What would I like to see? a unified setting from the PHB that allows for specific spells, races, weapons, etc. That's it. Then create a bunch more settings. And in the beginning of each setting make it clear to players these rules, spells, races, etc. are for this setting.

Then in the DMG have a generic setting. One that uses everything. This way, at least there is more of a "table vote" as to what type of game will be played.


----------



## Malmuria

The only reason I would buy it is if they changed the art direction to something I found more interesting.  Otherwise, I assume there will be an SRD, which should cover most rule changes and such.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Henadic Theologian said:


> What do you want & expect to see in 2024's 5.5e?



want:
a ground up rewrite called 6e. I want 4e merged with 5e with some brand new ideas.

expect:
they will ride the fence and not call it 5.5 or6 (but we will call it one or the other) it will have new updated race/linage rules (not exactly what we got in tasha's or multiverse... but that is the base, and they will expand on it over the next few years) and class modifications (no idea how but the surveys already show this) I bet feats will see full overhauls.  

halfway between want/expect I think/hope spells and concentration are adjusted.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Neonchameleon said:


> You mean you want everything up to and including the shape of a horse on the battlemap (from 5ft by 10ft to 10ft square) and a significant part of the skill list to change?
> 
> Essentially I think that 3.0 to 3.5 is a lot bigger than the changes I want to see.



I want bigger then that


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Olrox17 said:


> Heh, I understand what you mean about the wizard, but I'm just a huge fan of the 4e Swordmage. No 5e gish is even close to how good of a gish the Swordmage was, even after they re-introduced a few of its signature abilities, like Booming Blade.



I think we have a huge hole (one they try to fill with eldritch knight and bladesinger) in the way of a 1/2 arcane caster like paladin or ranger and Swordmage is perfect fit. but you need some cross over spells with wizard, but some JUST swordmage spells


----------



## EzekielRaiden

What do I _want_?

Warlord, more inherent Fighter utility, Warlord, revisions to several spells to make them less obtuse, Warlord, better support for tactical combat, Warlord, martial healing, Warlord, actually useful magic item pricing etc., Warlord, a complete overhaul of the CR system so that it's not near-worthless, Warlord, a rework of most of the game's feats so they don't suck so much (or, for the rare few, are not stupidly powerful), Warlord, a Cosmic sorcerer subclass, Warlord, and Warlord.

Oh, and Warlord. Might've forgotten to mention that.

What do I _expect_?

Mostly small tweaks, errata integrated into the rules, slight re-phrasing. Changes to the layout of the Race Ancestry chapter. Possibly putting the Artificer into the PHB. Rework of the base Ranger (the Tasha's version, with Primal Companion, will be the default; the DMG may offer a spell-less alternate version, sorta like how the current DMG has the Oathbreaker Paladin.) Book may end up 20-30 pages longer in total (unless they trim out some of the art, which is possible). People will most likely be shocked by how little changes actually _change_ things.


----------



## JEB

Malmuria said:


> Otherwise, I assume there will be an SRD, which should cover most rule changes and such.



They may do a 2024 update of the SRD, but I wouldn't be 100% sure of it. If they do, they may also delay its release by a year or so, to avoid affecting sales of the revised core rules while they're fresh. A lot depends on how much they value third-party support (especially when they have the DM Guild).


----------



## Henadic Theologian

GMforPowergamers said:


> want:
> a ground up rewrite called 6e. I want 4e merged with 5e with some brand new ideas.
> 
> expect:
> they will ride the fence and not call it 5.5 or6 (but we will call it one or the other) it will have new updated race/linage rules (not exactly what we got in tasha's or multiverse... but that is the base, and they will expand on it over the next few years) and class modifications (no idea how but the surveys already show this) I bet feats will see full overhauls.
> 
> halfway between want/expect I think/hope spells and concentration are adjusted.




 Do you think any new races or classes will be in 5.5e PHB?  (By new I mean new to the PHB,  not to the game itself?).


----------



## Neonchameleon

Henadic Theologian said:


> Do you think any new races or classes will be in 5.5e PHB?  (By new I mean new to the PHB,  not to the game itself?).



I think there are even odds that the artificer will be in the PHB. Nothing else.


----------



## JEB

Henadic Theologian said:


> Do you think any new races or classes will be in 5.5e PHB? (By new I mean new to the PHB, not to the game itself?).



I think it's a given that orcs will be in the 2024 PHB. There are a few other maybes, but I'd put money on orcs. Custom lineage is going to be in the 2024 DMG for sure if it doesn't make it into the PHB.

Not expecting any new classes, but likely a number of particularly popular subclasses will be moved to the core.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Tbh, calling it 6e seems like a wild choice, to me. I don’t think they will.
> 
> But as long as I can just keep using my current stuff, don’t have to rewrite all my homebrew for it to work with the new stuff, etc, I don’t really care that much.



Yeah, time will tell how it shakes out. I certainly think it will more likely be called 6E than "5.5" or anything silly as that. 

What I expect to see is rewritten (but backwards compatible!) Core books, and a new trade dress. Feels like a new Edition by usual publishing definitions, even if I don't see anything as radical as prior D&D Editions.


----------



## Yora

I don't have a clue what to expect. But apparently it sounds somewhat like a new printing that includes the current errata.


----------



## Li Shenron

Neonchameleon said:


> Possibly reworking warlocks, fighters, and monks because they seem to be deprecating short rests. (fighters are easy - prof times/day; ki and warlock spells are harder)



I think all your guesses are likely, but deprecating short rests would be a MAJOR shift enough to call it another half edition at least.

It might seem easy to just think that everywhere it says "you can't do this again until you complete a short rest" change it to "you can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per day". That's ok for single special abilities but what about big stuff like regaining all of a Monk's ki points, a Battlemaster's superiority dice or a Warlock's spells slots? They can't get away with a "reset button" that would break suspension of disbelief for large swathes of the gamer base, so they would have to define what does it take to gain those back: one action is still way too gamist, for a reasonable narrative it will need to be at the very least an amount of time that prevents regaining in the middle of combat. But then, 10 minutes or 30 minutes or an hour... you're back to having short rests at most with some discount. And short rests are alread "dialable" if you want them shorter.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Bill Zebub said:


> All I'm _expecting_ for changes are:
> - Original classes/subclasses tweaked to be in line with more recent ones (for example, using proficiency bonus in place of ability modifier, and abilities getting one free use before consuming resources).
> - Races adhering to the new format
> - _Maybe_ some particular good/bad spells adjusted
> 
> What I'd _like_ to see in addition is:
> - Sorcerer and Monk subclass abilities modified so they don't consume base class resources (Sorcery Points and Ki, respectively)
> - Everybody starts with one feat, and Humans somehow made a more compelling choice.
> - Feats all rebalanced and given +1 ASI
> - Inspiration officially moved to being used _after_ the roll, not before




I'll stick with my post from 5 months ago.


----------



## delericho

As time goes on my wish-list gradually increases.

I'm reasonably happy with most of the PHB as-is. I think there are a lot of fairly minor tweaks that it could benefit from, but they are _minor_ - little trims that would just make the game that bit better. My major wish here is that whatever they do to address problematic material in the books they get _done_. That may be tricky, as I suspect it's a bit of a moving target, but I really don't want to see drow being revised in 2024, then again in 2025, 2026, and so on.

Likewise, I'm reasonably happy with the MM as-is. The major thing here is sorting out the spellcasting trait (and similar) - ideally, everything you need to run a monster would be right there with the monster statblock. The only other things I would do would be to move the tables from Appendix B of the DMG (monster lists) and also the Monster Features table from p280 (creating a monster) into the MM. (Indeed, every 'monster' book should really contain a version of that table for the monsters it includes, to empower DMs who are creating their own monsters.)

But it's the DMG where I would really like to see changes. Although I rated (and, actually, still rate) the 5e version as the best of the DMGs across the editions, I've been shocked at how little use I've made of it over the years - treasure tables and magic items, creating a monster, and that's it. The rest of it is very superficial - it covers a lot of ground but is surprisingly short on detail.

So I'd like that book considerably altered - at the very list there should be many _many_ more pages of traps. But ideally I'd also like to see a much more in-depth discussion of types of adventures (treasure hunt, mystery, heist, extended pursuit...) with a breakdown of each; node maps for short, medium, and long adventures of various types, 1-2 page spreads on a variety of environments (desert, mountain, forest) so that each has a couple of big, noticeable features that means that all 'desert' adventures have some similarities and also feel different from 'mountain' adventures. And so on.

What I expect: actually, I'm inclined to think I'll more or less get my wishes on the PHB and MM, in that I expect fairly minor tweaks. I'm not expecting much from the new DMG - potentially the same book with new artwork. I certainly _don't_ expect them to include anything from Xanathar's or Tasha's to be in the new core, nor do I expect the new core to do anything that breaks compatibility with those books - the Gift Set appears to be a sign of things to come, so I'd expect us still to be using it.

And I'd be okay with that - my absolute minimum is much better binding and a much better index, and surely they must be able to manage at least that?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Li Shenron said:


> I think all your guesses are likely, but deprecating short rests would be a MAJOR shift enough to call it another half edition at least.
> 
> It might seem easy to just think that everywhere it says "you can't do this again until you complete a short rest" change it to "you can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per day". That's ok for single special abilities but what about big stuff like regaining all of a Monk's ki points, a Battlemaster's superiority dice or a Warlock's spells slots? They can't get away with a "reset button" that would break suspension of disbelief for large swathes of the gamer base, so they would have to define what does it take to gain those back: one action is still way too gamist, for a reasonable narrative it will need to be at the very least an amount of time that prevents regaining in the middle of combat. But then, 10 minutes or 30 minutes or an hour... you're back to having short rests at most with some discount. And short rests are alread "dialable" if you want them shorter.




Actually, if the battlemaster regains their superiority dice prof bonus times per long rest (probably by spending an action or 1 minute of refocussing), it would make them more balanced. Same for action points or second wind. 

Now you can actually afford going nova as a battlemaster and still be able to contribute in the fight thereafter. 
Also at low levels, only 2 fights per day seems common enough that you are coming out net positive. 

You can do the same for warlocks and monks. 1 action (or minute) refocus prof times per day would allow those classes to be up and running after a short time after combat, so once again, they should come out net positive. While only having 3  ki points per day, being able to spend 2 points, using 1 to dodge and your action to refocus, then spend 3 again, using one action to refocus allows a level 2 monk to effectively be twice as durable. 
At level 10 the tradeoff will even be better. 

Actually I might introduce it before 5AE hits the table and test it.

And I don't think it is too gamist, using a refocus action/minute/10 minute.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

ad_hoc said:


> Tasha's and Xanathar's are going to be in the bundle along with the updated monster manual II combining Volo's and Mordekainen's.
> 
> This is a big clue that they are considering both Tasha's and Xanathar's to be part of "5.5" and won't be made redundant or obsolete.
> 
> They wouldn't announce an upcoming revision and then push 2 older books out along with their first revised rulebook without intending those books to continue to be used.
> 
> To me that indicates that the level of changes they're going to make are more minor than many here are hoping for or possibly expecting. If they were more drastic we would see changes to Xanathar's and Tasha's in other words.



I actually see it the other way. Tasha's and Xanathar's are being bundled and discounted because they are about to be made redundant. This is the "going out of business sale" for those two books. That's why the 2024 revisions were announced at the same time as the bundle. It was WotC giving us a heads up that theses books will be outdated in 2 years.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think we have a huge hole (one they try to fill with eldritch knight and bladesinger) in the way of a 1/2 arcane caster like paladin or ranger and Swordmage is perfect fit. but you need some cross over spells with wizard, but some JUST swordmage spells



Yeah my biggest wish for 5.5e is the swordmage. Closely followed by the warlord.

Objectively I think we need the warlord more. But the swordmage is my favourite class.


----------



## TarionzCousin

I think it would be very cool if they could somehow re-use artwork from the old editions' PHB's, DMG's, and MM's. 

--and pay those artists again!


----------



## Minigiant

WANT


Warlord Class
Scholar Class
Fighter, Ranger,Paladin get onus fighting style extra to high mental score (INT for Fighter, WIS for Ranger, CHA for Paladin)
Spells for Hunter and Beastmaster ranger
STR based Monk rules
DEX based Barbarian rules
Goblin, Hobgoblin, Bugbear
Hybrid races 
Mul (half human half dwarf)
Quarterling (half human half halfling)
Koboldborn (Half kobold half dragonborn)

EXPECT

New race rules and traits
Orc
Kobold
Tasha updates to classes
More base feats


----------



## Alby87

THEMNGMNT said:


> I actually see it the other way. Tasha's and Xanathar's are being bundled and discounted because they are about to be made redundant. This is the "going out of business sale" for those two books. That's why the 2024 revisions were announced at the same time as the bundle. It was WotC giving us a heads up that theses books will be outdated in 2 years.



This means that what MotM did to VGM and MTOF will be done by another "compilation book" with just the subclasses, the new spells and new magic items, once the new PHB with the option and artificier class is out, and all the DM stuff goes to the new DMG? Not a far stretched call, I have to say :/


----------



## TarionzCousin

Minigiant said:


> WANT
> 
> 
> Warlord Class
> Scholar Class
> Fighter, Ranger,Paladin get onus fighting style extra to high mental score (INT for Fighter, WIS for Ranger, CHA for Paladin)
> Spells for Hunter and Beastmaster ranger
> STR based Monk rules
> DEX based Barbarian rules
> Goblin, Hobgoblin, Bugbear
> Hybrid races
> Mul (half human half dwarf)
> Quarterling (half human half halfling)
> Koboldborn (Half kobold half dragonborn)



I didn't know that I wanted most of these things until now.

Are "koboldborn" as a D&D race discussed anywhere?


----------



## Gustavo R

I think I'm the only one who doesn't want hundreds of classes and races. 

I want something simple, strong, and with room for infinite possibilities.
I would like to see fewer classes (something between 5 and 8), but with more variables. Specific traits can be explored in subclasses (ranger and barbarian can be fighter subclasses, for example).
I hope to see more online tools to complement the books. Something like online character sheets, official soundtracks, progression trees, and custom character creation for your appearance, etc.


----------



## ART!

Henadic Theologian said:


> Do you think any new races or classes will be in 5.5e PHB?  (By new I mean new to the PHB,  not to the game itself?).



I know you weren't asking me, but I expect to see significantly more races in a new PHB. Not twice as many, but maybe 1.5 as many. I see them leaning toward more options for players, but of course there's limits on space and they'll want to hold back stuff for future releases.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

ART! said:


> I know you weren't asking me, but I expect to see significantly more races in a new PHB. Not twice as many, but maybe 1.5 as many. I see them leaning toward more options for players, but of course there's limits on space and they'll want to hold back stuff for future releases.




Since we don't need subclasses for different secondary attributes, we have a bit more space to include more crunch. For some races, the we will just get the choice of a few different abilities, while others are treated as seperate races. I expect halflings, gnomes and dwarfs to fall into the first category, while elves might get the latter treatment. I think dragonborn will get only a single entry in thr PHB.

For the name of the new edition I like DnD5eNext.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> Since we don't need subclasses for different secondary attributes, we have a bit more space to include more crunch.



is there enough difference for high elf wood elf and drow elf to all be needed?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> is there enough difference for high elf wood elf and drow elf to all be needed?




No. But at least there is enough difference to warrant different statblocks. For dwarves I can't think of enough that differentiates them (movement speed, drow magic, high elf magic, darkvision). Especially since +2 con is gone we need +1 hp/level for all dwarves and proficiency in armor is also going away.
Maybe dwarves get a bonus action ability that is prof bonus/long rest and tgey can chose between +2 AC for a round (mountain dwarves) or recover prof bonus times 1d4 hp (hill dwarves) or something like that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. But at least there is enough difference to warrant different statblocks. For dwarves I can't think of enough that differentiates them (movement speed, drow magic, high elf magic, darkvision). Especially since +2 con is gone we need +1 hp/level for all dwarves and proficiency in armor is also going away.
> Maybe dwarves get a bonus action ability that is prof bonus/long rest and tgey can chose between +2 AC for a round (mountain dwarves) or recover prof bonus times 1d4 hp (hill dwarves) or something like that.



yeah I assume that the elves will all get the 'free prof in weap and skill' after trance of teh astral elf and shadar ki  to replace long sword short sword long bow short bow and perception


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah I assume that the elves will all get the 'free prof in weap and skill' after trance of teh astral elf and shadar ki  to replace long sword short sword long bow short bow and perception



I'm pretty sure the Astral Elf is just a playtest for the new standard Elf to encompass the High and Wood varieties. I think Drow will get their own writeup, similar to the 3 Elf Races in MotM.

I kind of expect yhe other Subraces to be folded together, and maybe some (like Tinker Gnome stuff) going over to Background Feats


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> I'm pretty sure the Astral Elf is just a playtest for the new standard Elf to encompass the High and Wood varieties. I think Drow will get their own writeup, similar to the 3 Elf Races in MotM.
> 
> I kind of expect yhe other Subraces to be folded together, and maybe some (like Tinker Gnome stuff) going over to Background Feats



me too.

although I wouldn't mind if WotC let us peak behind the curtain and tell us how to balance drow spell like abilities


----------



## Shardstone

Here's what I want from 5.5E.

More DM materials.

More then anything, more DM materials. I want them to actually hire people who know story structure AND game design, and can combine those two things into good experiences.

This might be a hot take, but most stories released by WotC for 5th Edition are sub-par at best. They are clunky, written by different people, don't often make sense, make unclear assumptions, and often don't live up to the hype and idea WotC markets them as.

Out of the Abyss was supposed to be Wonderland in the Underdark and scary. It wasn't.

Storm King's Thunder was sold as a Shakespearian Epic. It wasn't.

Tomb of Annihilation was at least close to what it wanted, but then I got this cringe culture on Chult that was just a bunch of black people needing their foreign white saviors to help them because they are too busy going oongo boonga in the jungle or getting drunk on Capitalism. I'm black, by the way, so this isn't racist, what's racist is ToA.

I wrote a whole essay on how Avernus failed to be Mad Max, or anything close to it.

That isn't to say people don't have fun times with these adventures. I know about 5 people are going to read this and quote me saying "My group loved blah blah"

But guess what? I loved Transformers 2, and that movie is still dog water. 

WotC could be making far better adventures. I can see great ideas in the OSR and 3PP realms, but all the WotC stuff constantly feels half-assed, and I really can't run it. Not just because the assumed story is usually sub-par, but because the layout of the books is just almost unnavigable. I gave up on Storm King's Thunder because with all the prep I had to do, I was basically making my own adventure and filling out EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.

And I'm TIRED of it. I just want adventures that are both good to read AND good to play. It isn't all that hard! But they seem so dedicated to the story writing and narrative techniques of the 70s-00's, that they have failed to create anything even remotely compelling to me for this generation.

That isn't to say there isn't good lore either! Even though most people hate the 5E lore, I actually prefer it to most other D&D editions. But none of that lore matters; in fact, it matters less now then it ever has. 

Just for God's sake give me one good, well-written adventure. Please. _Please. Just try._

And fix the art. God, first party D&D should always set the bar. This edition, it constantly misses the mark.


----------



## CleverNickName

Krachek said:


> I would take a deep breath before calling out for 5.5ed. It will be the same game!
> That’s what implied 100% compatible. I expect a change similar to 4ed Essentials.
> It was still the same game, with fresh classes and mechanics.



Agreed.  If anything, I wager that this "5.5E" will be to 5th Edition, as 3.5E was to 3.0.  Or maybe as the _Book of Nine Swords_ was to 3.5E.  It's not going to be a new game, or even a new edition...it's just going to be a handful of updated mechanics.

I think we've already seen all of the biggest changes:

The errata incorporated.
The lore will be updated.
The monster stat blocks will be updated.
Racial adjustments are ala carte, instead of fixed.
Alignment is no longer default for certain races.
New subclasses, feats, spells, etc. from other splatbooks might be included in the core rules, or they might be repackaged as a "PHB II" or something, neither would surprise me.
That's...about it, as far as I can tell.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah I assume that the elves will all get the 'free prof in weap and skill' after trance of teh astral elf and shadar ki  to replace long sword short sword long bow short bow and perception




I think elves get the genasi treatment. All categorized as elves, but slightly different stat blocks.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> me too.
> 
> although I wouldn't mind if WotC let us peak behind the curtain and tell us how to balance drow spell like abilities



They have. Cross reference the Spell creation guidelines in pages 283 and 284 of the DMG with the Feats that grant Spell like abilities, build out a Feat and use Tasha's guidelines to create a Rave around that Feat.


----------



## Parmandur

Shardstone said:


> Here's what I want from 5.5E.
> 
> More DM materials.
> 
> More then anything, more DM materials. I want them to actually hire people who know story structure AND game design, and can combine those two things into good experiences.
> 
> This might be a hot take, but most stories released by WotC for 5th Edition are sub-par at best. They are clunky, written by different people, don't often make sense, make unclear assumptions, and often don't live up to the hype and idea WotC markets them as.
> 
> Out of the Abyss was supposed to be Wonderland in the Underdark and scary. It wasn't.
> 
> Storm King's Thunder was sold as a Shakespearian Epic. It wasn't.
> 
> Tomb of Annihilation was at least close to what it wanted, but then I got this cringe culture on Chult that was just a bunch of black people needing their foreign white saviors to help them because they are too busy going oongo boonga in the jungle or getting drunk on Capitalism. I'm black, by the way, so this isn't racist, what's racist is ToA.
> 
> I wrote a whole essay on how Avernus failed to be Mad Max, or anything close to it.
> 
> That isn't to say people don't have fun times with these adventures. I know about 5 people are going to read this and quote me saying "My group loved blah blah"
> 
> But guess what? I loved Transformers 2, and that movie is still dog water.
> 
> WotC could be making far better adventures. I can see great ideas in the OSR and 3PP realms, but all the WotC stuff constantly feels half-assed, and I really can't run it. Not just because the assumed story is usually sub-par, but because the layout of the books is just almost unnavigable. I gave up on Storm King's Thunder because with all the prep I had to do, I was basically making my own adventure and filling out EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.
> 
> And I'm TIRED of it. I just want adventures that are both good to read AND good to play. It isn't all that hard! But they seem so dedicated to the story writing and narrative techniques of the 70s-00's, that they have failed to create anything even remotely compelling to me for this generation.
> 
> That isn't to say there isn't good lore either! Even though most people hate the 5E lore, I actually prefer it to most other D&D editions. But none of that lore matters; in fact, it matters less now then it ever has.
> 
> Just for God's sake give me one good, well-written adventure. Please. _Please. Just try._
> 
> And fix the art. God, first party D&D should always set the bar. This edition, it constantly misses the mark.



The only part of this that I agree with is the yikes implict racism operating in Tomb of Annhilation. 

5E art is actuallt some of my favorite art...full stop. Hits the spot.


----------



## South by Southwest

What do I expect to see? I really don't know. What would I _like_ to see? Fewer races and fewer sub-classes. Yeah, that's right--_fewer__._

By analogy, suppose you're in the grocery store and you're walking down the cereal aisle. Suppose it's no longer an aisle: suppose they've now got an entire two-story warehouse devoted exclusively to varieties of cereal. Does this make your shopping experience more or less enjoyable? You know my answer.


----------



## ART!

Shardstone said:


> More then anything, more DM materials. I want them to actually hire people who know story structure AND game design, and can combine those two things into good experiences.
> 
> This might be a hot take, but most stories released by WotC for 5th Edition are sub-par at best. They are clunky, written by different people, don't often make sense, make unclear assumptions, and often don't live up to the hype and idea WotC markets them as.



This. They're very plot-based, which I find clunky and frustrating to run and as a player feels miasmic.


Shardstone said:


> WotC could be making far better adventures. I can see great ideas in the OSR and 3PP realms, but all the WotC stuff constantly feels half-assed, and I really can't run it. Not just because the assumed story is usually sub-par, but because the layout of the books is just almost unnavigable. I gave up on Storm King's Thunder because with all the prep I had to do, I was basically making my own adventure and filling out EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.
> 
> And I'm TIRED of it. I just want adventures that are both good to read AND good to play. It isn't all that hard! But they seem so dedicated to the story writing and narrative techniques of the 70s-00's, that they have failed to create anything even remotely compelling to me for this generation.



God yes.
I'm preparing to run the final chunk of _Tomb of Annihilation_, and remembering part of why I stopped where I did in the first place. I'm going through it and just editing the bejeebus out of it. It's so frustratingly set up, with more questions raised than answered about really basic things. At least the final dungeon crawl is fairly straightforward. 

I had similar experiences with the two _Tyranny of Dragons_ books.


----------



## Shardstone

Parmandur said:


> The only part of this that I agree with is the yikes implict racism operating in Tomb of Annhilation.
> 
> 5E art is actuallt some of my favorite art...full stop. Hits the spot.



That's fine! I know many people who like the art and enjoy the adventures. My taste just don't jive up


----------



## Krachek

CleverNickName said:


> Agreed.  If anything, I wager that this "5.5E" will be to 5th Edition, as 3.5E was to 3.0.  Or maybe as the _Book of Nine Swords_ was to 3.5E.  It's not going to be a new game, or even a new edition...it's just going to be a handful of updated mechanics.
> 
> I think we've already seen all of the biggest changes:
> 
> The errata incorporated.
> The lore will be updated.
> The monster stat blocks will be updated.
> Racial adjustments are ala carte, instead of fixed.
> Alignment is no longer default for certain races.
> New subclasses, feats, spells, etc. from other splatbooks might be included in the core rules, or they might be repackaged as a "PHB II" or something, neither would surprise me.
> That's...about it, as far as I can tell.



The biggest change I see would be to convert all classes and subclasse into Long rest class.
Getting rid of short rest recovery for anything other than hit points.
But even that I’m not sure they will go that far.

Otherwise the core will remain the same.


----------



## MichaelSomething

I want more obtuse and obscuring writing that will push the players and DM into using their judgement more instead of relying on the books to tell them how to play.


----------



## Yaarel

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think elves get the genasi treatment. All categorized as elves, but slightly different stat blocks.



Because the abilities are now all player-choice "lineage" design, there is no longer a reason for separate elf races.

Every elf can be one elf race, with a player choice of a level-2 spell or level 1 plus cantrip; plus swapable Darkvision (which I consider a powerful cantrip or level 1 spell).

The writeup can say members of an elf community often share from the same assemblage of typical spells and cantrips. But individuals might vary.

So, using the same race stats, a High community might tend to choose Misty Step, while a Udadrow community might choose Darkness. And so on. The mutability of potentially other spells is a known elven quality.


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> me too.
> 
> although I wouldn't mind if WotC let us peak behind the curtain and tell us how to balance drow spell like abilities



The Monsters of the Multiverse has writeups for various elves:

sea elf, shadar kai, and eladrin.

All of them include the choice of ability improvements, the sleep immunity being part of Trance, and other newly standardized features.

I still feel the "core" elf, can be a single race, whose choice of spells and Darkvision can model high, wood, and drow, without needing separate writeups.

Instead, the race writeup will mention "cultures", and members of that culture will "typically" choose certain spells as their innate spell.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I'm pretty sure the Astral Elf is just a playtest for the new standard Elf to encompass the High and Wood varieties. I think Drow will get their own writeup, similar to the 3 Elf Races in MotM.
> 
> I kind of expect yhe other Subraces to be folded together, and maybe some (like Tinker Gnome stuff) going over to Background Feats



I think they’ll go the opposite direction, and make the wood and high elf more distinct. 

The rock gnome might disappear, but I think enough people prefer non-nature non-Fey gnomes that they’ll find a way to keep them.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think they’ll go the opposite direction, and make the wood and high elf more distinct.
> 
> The rock gnome might disappear, but I think enough people prefer non-nature non-Fey gnomes that they’ll find a way to keep them.



Could go either way at this point.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> Could go either way at this point.



I would rather have one flexible elf race, than a hundred inflexible ones.


----------



## Yaarel

Normal Darkvision can rewrite as a slot 1 spell, at level 1, whose duration lasts until the end of the next long rest.

The spell grants longer ranges with higher spell slots. Perhaps spell grants additional effects like seeing color and seeing thru magical darkness with additionally higher slot augments.

Many elf cultures might tend to pick Darkvision as an innate slot 1 spell. But the Udadrow culture typically picks it as an innate slot 2 spell.

The values of slot 1 spells and slot 2 spells, per short rest or per long rest, are well understood, and show up in feats in Xanathars and Tashas.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> I would rather have one flexible elf race, than a hundred inflexible ones.



Well, we know from Monsters of the Multiverse that they were willing to split Sea Elves, Shadar-Kai and Eladrin into standalone Races. But they also crested a branching path for some others, like Kobolds. They have different tools available to them.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> Well, we know from Monsters of the Multiverse that they were willing to split Sea Elves, Shadar-Kai and Eladrin into standalone Races. But they also crested a branching path for some others, like Kobolds. They have different tools available to them.



Yeah.

At the same time, with regard to Mordenkainens elf races, the sea elf, shadar-kai, and eladrin seem noncore and "supplimenting" the Players Handbook races, maybe even monstrous.

Meanwhile, the sea elf has a textbox that actually mentions the inherent "mutable nature" of the elf, and how its mutability will continually cause new kinds of elves to show up in the future.

"That [elf] blood is what causes them to evolve after spending centuries connected to a particular environment, so it is only a matter of time before other kinds of elves emerge."

The elf "evolves" − not by means of DNA − but inherently evolves by means of magic.

Elf evolution is to some degree a choice. The choices of features that adapt well to an environment tend to prevail. The ability to adapt is innate, not necessarily any particular chosen feature.

In other words, elves evolve as a "magical culture" whose individual magical choices tend to be fashionable trends − rather than evolve as a less mutable gene pool.



A core elf race should be highly flexible, to represent this "mutability". The elf player has decision points to build the players own concept of an elf character.

Meanwhile, traditional elf cultures, such as high, wood, and uda, are like convenient pregenerated choices for a traditional elf build. But a player can build their own concept, even when a member of a traditional culture. Players from different ethnic backgrounds can explore their own kinds of elf.

Meanwhile, the ability to mix-and-match cultures, allows character concepts like the child of high and drow parents, or wood and eladrin parents.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

If they plan to include more races in a new PHB I think it'll be the addition of Orc, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Bugbear and Aasimar. I definitely see Orc being there above the rest, since I feel Half-Orc will be getting de-emphasized considering how much of the newer art of "typical PCs" include more Orcs than Half-Orcs.


----------



## LadyElect

Kobold Avenger said:


> If they plan to include more races in a new PHB I think it'll be the addition of Orc, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Bugbear and Aasimar. I definitely see Orc being there above the rest, since I feel Half-Orc will be getting de-emphasized considering how much of the newer art of "typical PCs" include more Orcs than Half-Orcs.



I'm familiar with some of the more recent Orc and Goblinoid reimaginings, but have there been instances of that for Aasimar as well in recent updates? I'm not up to date on all the various settings.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> Yeah.
> 
> At the same time, with regard to Mordenkainens elf races, the sea elf, shadar-kai, and eladrin seem noncore and "supplimenting" the Players Handbook races, maybe even monstrous.
> 
> Meanwhile, the sea elf has a textbox that actually mentions the inherent "mutable nature" of the elf, and how its mutability will continually cause new kinds of elves to show up in the future.
> 
> "That [elf] blood is what causes them to evolve after spending centuries connected to a particular environment, so it is only a matter of time before other kinds of elves emerge."
> 
> The elf "evolves" − not by means of DNA − but inherently evolves by means of magic.
> 
> Elf evolution is to some degree a choice. The choices of features that adapt well to an environment tend to prevail. The ability to adapt is innate, not necessarily any particular chosen feature.
> 
> In other words, elves evolve as a "magical culture" whose individual magical choices tend to be fashionable trends − rather than evolve as a less mutable gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> A core elf race should be highly flexible, to represent this "mutability". The elf player has decision points to build the players own concept of an elf character.
> 
> Meanwhile, traditional elf cultures, such as high, wood, and uda, are like convenient pregenerated choices for a traditional elf build. But a player can build their own concept, even when a member of a traditional culture. Players from different ethnic backgrounds can explore their own kinds of elf.
> 
> Meanwhile, the ability to mix-and-match cultures, allows character concepts like the child of high and drow parents, or wood and eladrin parents.



So, here's the thing: we know thst MotM is a preview of what they will do with the new ruleset. What we see are examples of some Races being keyed as part of "Race Families" (Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Orcs, and Goblinoids, specifically). Most of the Races don't belong to one of these, but this does appear to be something that they carry into the Core. So expect multiple Elves or other Races within groups.


----------



## Faolyn

Yaarel said:


> "That [elf] blood is what causes them to evolve after spending centuries connected to a particular environment, so it is only a matter of time before other kinds of elves emerge."
> 
> The elf "evolves" − not by means of DNA − but inherently evolves by means of magic.
> 
> Elf evolution is to some degree a choice. The choices of features that adapt well to an environment tend to prevail. The ability to adapt is innate, not necessarily any particular chosen feature.
> 
> In other words, elves evolve as a "magical culture" whose individual magical choices tend to be fashionable trends − rather than evolve as a less mutable gene pool.



This is how I've always wanted it to be like. 

It's also why I don't have a problem with subterranean elves being black-skinned: it's basically magical camouflage, in the same way that wood elves are typically green or brown, and sea elves are typically blue. (I _do _have a problem with the Always Evil race being black-skinned, but that's a different issue). I had always felt that elves would be able to change should they live in a different environment.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

LadyElect said:


> I'm familiar with some of the more recent Orc and Goblinoid reimaginings, but have there been instances of that for Aasimar as well in recent updates? I'm not up to date on all the various settings.



They got a mechanical overhaul where the types are just choices within a writeup rather than being presented as subraces.


Parmandur said:


> So, here's the thing: we know thst MotM is a preview of what they will do with the new ruleset. What we see are examples of some Races being keyed as part of "Race Families" (Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Orcs, and Goblinoids, specifically). Most of the Races don't belong to one of these, but this does appear to be something that they carry into the Core. So expect multiple Elves or other Races within groups.



This is why i think we will see more distinct wood elves, at least. I could see high elves being "just play an eladrin, bro", because what even makes high elves interesting at all? But wood elves are narratively distinct enough to merit getting something like the wood elf magic feat baked in, or something like that.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is why i think we will see more distinct wood elves, at least. I could see high elves being "just play an eladrin, bro", because what even makes high elves interesting at all? But wood elves are narratively distinct enough to merit getting something like the wood elf magic feat baked in, or something like that.



High Elves are awesome, with that Giah energy. But for both, folding those Feats in to a full Rave writeup makes a lot of sense. Probably also Gnomes, as they did with the Deep Gnome.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> High Elves are awesome, with that Giah energy. But for both, folding those Feats in to a full Rave writeup makes a lot of sense. Probably also Gnomes, as they did with the Deep Gnome.



As long as they do like they did with the deep gnome, and word it in such a way that the feat is still viable, not invalidated. 

Which isn't hard. Granting extra uses of spells you get via your race, and extra benefits with them, is a perfectly good format for a feat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> Because the abilities are now all player-choice "lineage" design, there is no longer a reason for separate elf races.
> 
> Every elf can be one elf race, with a player choice of a level-2 spell or level 1 plus cantrip; plus swapable Darkvision (which I consider a powerful cantrip or level 1 spell).
> 
> The writeup can say members of an elf community often share from the same assemblage of typical spells and cantrips. But individuals might vary.
> 
> So, using the same race stats, a High community might tend to choose Misty Step, while a Udadrow community might choose Darkness. And so on. The mutability of potentially other spells is a known elven quality.




No. They won't go that far. Not all races in MotM got the lineage treatment. I don't know how you get to that logical conclusion.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. They won't go that far. Not all races in MotM got the lineage treatment. I don't know how you get to that logical conclusion.



what is the 'lineage treatment' I think I missed something


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> what is the 'lineage treatment' I think I missed something



See the Races from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft. They were called "Lineages," and not "Races." The difference seems to either be thst they were thinking about replacing "Race" with "Lineage" entirely, or because they could be used to replace a Race on an existing character (say your Dwarf get mummified or bites by a vampire).

At any rate, "Lineage" only appeared as a game term in Tasha's and Ravenloft, Rave came back since then.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> See the Races from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft. They were called "Lineages," and not "Races." The difference seems to either be thst they were thinking about replacing "Race" with "Lineage" entirely, or because they could be used to replace a Race on an existing character (say your Dwarf get mummified or bites by a vampire).
> 
> At any rate, "Lineage" only appeared as a game term in Tasha's and Ravenloft, Rave came back since then.



okay. I like the idea. I just had this crazy concept to play a mix of Arcangle from Xmen with hawman.woman useing the reborn

edit: Reborn owlfolk still keep there fly speed that I can refluff as metal wings


----------



## Krachek

One wishful expectation : the disappearance of the bonus action!
Ha…. No more wait at the end of the turn of every players, waiting his deep thinking about how he can spend his bonus action. Deliver us from the bonus action!


----------



## glass

Firstly, I hope they have the discipline to not actually make a 5.5. I am strongly of the opinion that 3.5, while a fine game in its own right*, was a terrible revision of 3.0 (too many small-medium changes for an incremental revision, not enough big changes to really fix much of significance).

With that out of the way, I am quite sure they will ditch race in favour of some other term (hopefully "species", but probably "ancestry" or "lineage"). Aside from that, I hope they make a few minor tweaks but nothing too unmanageable, and add some new content (a Warlord would be nice). An index would be nice, too.

Most of all, I hope they do not break backwards compatibility too badly, if only because that would break compatibility with A5e too.

_
glass.

(* Albeit not without issues, of course.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Krachek said:


> One wishful expectation : the disappearance of the bonus action!
> Ha…. No more wait at the end of the turn of every players, waiting his deep thinking about how he can spend his bonus action. Deliver us from the bonus action!



other then wasteing time, is there a reason.  I like the 2 not equal action mechnics... I can use it to make an off hand attack or quicken a spell... but I cant do both


----------



## Krachek

GMforPowergamers said:


> other then wasteing time, is there a reason.  I like the 2 not equal action mechnics... I can use it to make an off hand attack or quicken a spell... but I cant do both



Aside waiting, it is the idea of meaningful action. Give PCs spells and features that worth an action or a reaction to use. For example second wind can be make as a more shinny feature that allow drastic return. Spiritual weapon can be made more valuable on casting and on reuse as an action. it would certainly help maintain player focus on what there gonna do in their round,
The rogue may be the only exception to allow juggling with many smaller options like it is sometime show in fantasy.


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> what is the 'lineage treatment' I think I missed something



In this context, "lineage" means the standard features for any race. Improve any chosen abilities, languages are Common plus one, lifespan typically a century (but can be longer for certain lineages), height-weight is any chosen humanlike physique (so muscular elf, etc, if wanted).


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> other then wasteing time, is there a reason.  I like the 2 not equal action mechnics... I can use it to make an off hand attack or quicken a spell... but I cant do both



Mearls dislikes the bonus action too.

He suggests rewriting things like two-weapon attack as an action that includes two attacks, rather than an action plus a bonus.


The difference is, the elimination of the bonus simplifies the choices that each player makes per round, thus speeds up the game.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> Mearls dislikes the bonus action too.
> 
> He suggests rewriting things like two-weapon attack as an action that includes two attacks, rather than an action plus a bonus.
> 
> 
> The difference is, the elimination of the bonus simplifies the choices that each player makes per round, thus speeds up the game.



Beforehand left the public eye, he changed his mind and laid out why the Bonus Action was here to stay on the Mearls Happy Gun Hour. Doubt thst will change any.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Beforehand left the public eye, he changed his mind and laid out why the Bonus Action was here to stay on the Mearls Happy Gun Hour. Doubt thst will change any.



I'm glad. As much as I can understand why people may dislike people taking too much time, I LOVE the idea of a greater and less action


----------



## Krachek

GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm glad. As much as I can understand why people may dislike people taking too much time, I LOVE the idea of a greater and less action



Don’t worry, bonus action will stay. I would not bet on their disappearance!
But I may bet some gold on the disappearance of most short rest recovery for features and slots.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Krachek said:


> Don’t worry, bonus action will stay. I would not bet on their disappearance!
> But I may bet some gold on the disappearance of most short rest recovery for features and slots.



yeah that still makes me sad... but I see it coming too. 

I still want the game to be balanced more along the warlock class chassie... 2 subclasses that can mix and match, mini class features that you choose as you level up to customize more, and at will, short rest and long rest abilities. 

I even think there should be 4 'simple' pre built level 1-10 builds for the base 4 classes (fighter rogue cleric wizard) that have all of those subclasses mini feature (invocations) and even atwill (cantrip) encounter/daily (spells) picked so you don't make ANY choices with that subclass (like champion)


----------



## Vaalingrade

Stopping every hour to stake the doors and sleep 8 hours in essential to the 'feel of D&D'.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> Beforehand left the public eye, he changed his mind and laid out why the Bonus Action was here to stay on the Mearls Happy Gun Hour. Doubt thst will change any.



I missed that. What did Mearls later say in favor of the Bonus Action?


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah that still makes me sad... but I see it coming too.
> 
> I still want the game to be balanced more along the warlock class chassie... 2 subclasses that can mix and match, mini class features that you choose as you level up to customize more, and at will, short rest and long rest abilities.
> 
> I even think there should be 4 'simple' pre built level 1-10 builds for the base 4 classes (fighter rogue cleric wizard) that have all of those subclasses mini feature (invocations) and even atwill (cantrip) encounter/daily (spells) picked so you don't make ANY choices with that subclass (like champion)



If everyone is on the same rest schedule, the DM can make the rest 10 minutes long, an hour long, 8 hours long, even a week-of-relaxation long.

The resting mechanic becomes ... better ... when there is only one kind of rest.

Personally as DM, the single rest will be strictly when narratively appropriate. 



It does seem like 5e is phasing out the short rest − and I approve − but how the Warlock will work remains unclear to me. Will both the Wizard and now the Warlock still have an Arcane Recovery feature to regain spell slots − perhaps now as a 10-minute ritual or something?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> If everyone is on the same rest schedule, the DM can make the rest 10 minutes long, an hour long, 8 hours long, even a week-of-relaxation long.
> 
> The resting mechanic becomes ... better ... when there is only one kind of rest.
> 
> Personally as DM, the single rest will be strictly when narratively appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem like 5e is phasing out the short rest − and I approve − but how the Warlock will work remains unclear to me. Will both the Wizard and now the Warlock still have an Arcane Recovery feature to regain spell slots − perhaps now as a 10-minute ritual or something?



I think everyone should have BOTH long and short (along with atwill) so every class has a reason to take each


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think everyone should have BOTH long and short (along with atwill) so every class has a reason to take each



It seems like 5e is moving toward proficiency-bonus-times-per-day, rather than short-rest-times-per-day.

But putting every class on both long and short schedules is a good solution too.

One advantage of the bonus-per-day is it scales, becoming more frequent, thus more powerful while leveling.


I wonder if the there is a way to benefit from a number of 10-minute-rests-per-day equal to proficiency bonus? Thus combine the concepts of bonus-per-day and short-rests-per-day.


----------



## Krachek

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah that still makes me sad... but I see it coming too.
> 
> I still want the game to be balanced more along the warlock class chassie... 2 subclasses that can mix and match, mini class features that you choose as you level up to customize more, and at will, short rest and long rest abilities.
> 
> I even think there should be 4 'simple' pre built level 1-10 builds for the base 4 classes (fighter rogue cleric wizard) that have all of those subclasses mini feature (invocations) and even atwill (cantrip) encounter/daily (spells) picked so you don't make ANY choices with that subclass (like champion)



The resting disparities have generate more complain and whim than LOVE. 
I remember Mearls or Crawford saying that they were proud of this resting disparities, that it would allow PC to shine at different pace. The intent is noble, but the overall result didn’t follow. The management of the ´adventuring day´ has been a regular source of dissatisfaction that can be read here. How they will address that in the revision? I don’t know, but from now we should be playtesting solution. 2024 is coming soon.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Krachek said:


> The management of the ´adventuring day´ has been a regular source of dissatisfaction that can be read here. How they will address that in the revision?



They have 1000% signaled that the answer is 'by making it worse'.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Krachek said:


> The resting disparities have generate more complain and whim than LOVE.
> I remember Mearls or Crawford saying that they were proud of this resting disparities, that it would allow PC to shine at different pace. The intent is noble, but the overall result didn’t follow. The management of the ´adventuring day´ has been a regular source of dissatisfaction that can be read here. How they will address that in the revision? I don’t know, but from now we should be playtesting solution. 2024 is coming soon.



I agree the current system doesn't work


----------



## Yaarel

By the way,

I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.

Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> By the way,
> 
> I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.
> 
> Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.



I will do you one better... any spell that takes more then an action to cast should be a ritual and all rituals should have gp cost but no spell/action should


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> I will do you one better... any spell that takes more then an action to cast should be a ritual and all rituals should have gp cost but no spell/action should



I consider meditating quietly a "ritual". So, it wouldnt really cost money.

But, creating magic items − especially consumable magic items − might cost money for the item itself that will be magicked.


----------



## tetrasodium

Yaarel said:


> By the way,
> 
> I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.
> 
> Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.



having a table of 3-5 standard components with prices for them that spells just use (ie 1 pinch of $thing1/4 pounds of $thing two/etc) rather than  every spell having a unique costly component would indeed be nice & allow economic changes along with room for reward without needing to dig into specific spells or make a bunch of changes.  Spells can still require unique components but it would be a chest  & ## pounds of daanvii quartz or whatever for leomund's secret chest instead of a 5000gp chest & a 50gp chest


----------



## GMforPowergamers

tetrasodium said:


> having a table of 3-5 standard components with prices for them that spells just use (ie 1 pinch of $thing1/4 pounds of $thing two/etc) rather than  every spell having a unique costly component would indeed be nice & allow economic changes along with room for reward without needing to dig into specific spells or make a bunch of changes.  Spells can still require unique components but it would be a chest  & ## pounds of daanvii quartz or whatever for leomund's secret chest instead of a 5000gp chest & a 50gp chest



residum from 4e could come back


----------



## South by Southwest

Yaarel said:


> By the way,
> 
> I hope − beg, plead − to rethink spells that have a "costly" gold-piece component. There are various concepts of innate magic in D&D, and none of them make sense when forced to spend money to cast a spell.
> 
> Obliterate the costly component from the spell descriptions.



You bring up a really good point. What I've noticed since getting back into this in 2018 is that many DMs I've seen don't even pay attention to the material component cost of the various spells: it only comes up and gets enforced when one of the _players_ mentions it or asks about it.


----------



## Krachek

Vaalingrade said:


> They have 1000% signaled that the answer is 'by making it worse'.



That should not be so bad, it is a private business not the government!
But we can have reasons to be doubtful.
5ed have been built during time of needs.
Now they are back on top, they can take it too cool, and mess things again!
They have concern now of large market scale, and expert players that we see here can be forget a bit.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> I missed that. What did Mearls later say in favor of the Bonus Action?



That hid problems with it would better be resolved through equipment special features or Sibclass sbilities.


----------



## tetrasodium

GMforPowergamers said:


> residum from 4e could come back



I remember it but residum was too monolithic & still basically just GP.  Finding xxxgp of residum was xxx gp of whatever residuum was for but finding 6 pounds of $specific general component or 100 pounds of  a different one is going to be limited to their relevant umbrellas of spells  rather than any spell.  Having each spell have one off components listed only in the individual spell  rather than having all spells drawing from a handful of generic pricy stuff makes it too difficult for anyone to realize on the spot without the gm sating "by the way guys that's used as the component in HINTHINTHINTTHISSPECIFICSPELLHINTHINTHINT".  Think of the difference between  giving players a large sum of diamonds everyone knows are needed for raise dead type spells & almost any other material components.  Srttings like Eberron & Darksun could have their own lists & economies without needing to one off all the spells & such that way.


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> residum from 4e could come back



If mages have a way to emanate residuum magically − without using money − then it would feel innate.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> If mages have a way to emanate residuum magically − without using money − then it would feel innate.



I feel like it would work for natural casters to have to pay for incense or focusing herbs and teas or something for rituals.


----------



## Greg K

This is off the top of my head and I may expand later: Some of the things that I want.

PHB
Cover Levels 1-10 or 1-12 (save higher levels for another book)
Darkvision: Go back to Night VIsion and Dark VIsion
Races (expand later)
Separate the biological aspects  from culture (and, in most instances, environment which can be a third choice of options)
Add Goblin, Orc, Lizardman to races
Tasha's Racial Ability Score Modifier change as  sidebar

Subclasses at first level.  If not, class variants at first level with skill substitutions and variant class abilities (see below)
Classes
Barbarian
variant: Urban/ Civilized Barbarian: There are examples of characters in literature and film whom are city-dwellers and nobles.  Should provide optional modifier to class skill list and one or two Berserker features to reflect this.

Bard
keep full caster
variant: Martial Bard: gets Medium and Martial Weapons
add Colleges:  Cantor (divine bard), Troubador (Roguish Bard)

Cleric
Additional choice at level 1 dealing with Armor and Weapon Proficiency:
Cloistered/Monastic Priest (Robed, Simple Weapons),
Mendicant Priest (warndering beggar priest),
Itinerrant Travelling Priest (light armor/)
Templar/Martial Priest
Smaller genreal base list shared by all clerics:  Spells dealing with Bless/ Curse/ Remove Curse, Communicating with deity (e.g., Augury, Divination), Planar Ally

Channel Divinity (to be expanded later)

Figher
variant: Light Armor Fighter
add Fighting Styles from later books
add Martial Archetypes: Archer, Bodyguard,  Brawler/ Pugilist,  Commander/ Strategist, Corsair/ Pirate, Duelist/ Fencer, Gallant, Hoplite, Horse Archer, Lancer, Kensei, Musketeer, Swashbuckler, Templar (Divine version of Eldritch Knight), Warrior Monk (non-spellcasting ki user)

Monk (expand later)
add variant: Iron Body Monk
add some maneuvers for style variation
some things should not require ki
more choice in ki abiliites

Paladin (expand later)
Ranger
Rewrite base class as non-spellcasting outdoor willderness warrior survivalist  (AgenderArcee at Reddit/Unearthed Arcana and GM Binder has a good model class for this)
add variant: Urban Ranger, Spell-less

Rogue
add variants: Academic Rogue, Wilderness Rogue
add archetypes:  Acrobat, Charlatan/Swindler, Mastermind, Scout

Sorcerer
add expanded spell lists for all Origins
add new Origins: Arcane Bloodline, Fey Bloodline

Warlock (expand later)
Wizard (expand later)

Classes (New)
Arcane Warrior: Arcane counterpart to Paladin and Ranger
Scholar
Shaman
Warlord
Witch

Magic & Spells (expand later)

Dungeon Master's Guide
add expanded downtime rules
add variant: Skill Points
add variant: Armor as Damage Resistance


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> I feel like it would work for natural casters to have to pay for incense or focusing herbs and teas or something for rituals.



Heh. I oppose.

Herbs and incense are external and artificial − precisely non-innate.

Innately natural is: thought, speech, body.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> Heh. I oppose.
> 
> Herbs and incense are external and artificial − precisely non-innate.
> 
> Innately natural is: thought, speech, body.



Eh, I feel like some enhancement isn't so bad.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> Eh, I feel like some enhancement isn't so bad.



Ok, but "enhancement" is almost the opposite of "innate".


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> Ok, but "enhancement" is almost the opposite of "innate".



You're talking to a man with glasses, fillings and an implant. I feel like my cybernetics are pretty innate to me at this point.

Also, it's pretty on trope for naturally powered individuals to use aides. Cyclops' visor, gandalf's staff, the Metals from Mistborn, etc, etc.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> You're talking to a man with glasses, fillings and an implant. I feel like my cybernetics are pretty innate to me at this point.
> 
> Also, it's pretty on trope for naturally powered individuals to use aides. Cyclops' visor, gandalf's staff, the Metals from Mistborn, etc, etc.



These are all examples of artificial technologies and magical technologies. The artifice is the opposite of innate.

Specifically, I hope 50e removes gold pieces as part of a spell description. There are other more magical, more innate, mechanics to prevent spamming.

Avoiding costly components is also less setting dependent. Money might be more accessible to nobles and less accessible to remote or rural communities. This presence or absence of money shouldnt interfere with innate magical talent. Eschewing material components needs to eschew costly components too. But yet, the costly component should never be part of the spell description in the first place.

Magic items are in a different category from spells. Magic items are tools − are technology. But personally, I dont even want to see trafficking in magic items for money in magic shops, as if it is merely a mundane technology. These items are magical − personal, relational, existential, spiritual.

I do like the 5e concept of "attuning" with a magic item, because that feels more innately magical. It is possible to have a personal affinity for certain magical items and not others. Viceversa, whoever made the magical item might have imbued the item with affinity for certain persons for certain reasons.

In any case, the costly component gets in the way of many magical concepts.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> These are all examples of artificial technologies and magical technologies. The artifice is the opposite of innate.
> 
> Specifically, I hope 50e removes gold pieces as part of a spell description. There are other more magical, more innate, mechanics to prevent spamming.
> 
> Avoiding costly components is also less setting dependent. Money might be more accessible to nobles and less accessible to remote or rural communities. This presence or absence of money shouldnt interfere with innate magical talent. Eschewing material components needs to eschew costly components too. But yet, the costly component should never be part of the spell description in the first place.
> 
> Magic items are in a different category from spells. Magic items are tools − are technology. But personally, I dont even want to see trafficking in magic items for money in magic shops, as if it is merely a mundane technology. These items are magical − personal, relational, existential, spiritual.
> 
> I do like the 5e concept of "attuning" with a magic item, because that feels more innately magical. It is possible to have a personal affinity for certain magical items and not others. Viceversa, whoever made the magical item might have imbued the item with affinity for certain persons for certain reasons.
> 
> In any case, the costly component gets in the way of many magical concepts.



The costly component is a balance measure.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> The costly component is a balance measure.



No, the costly component is worthless as a mechanical balancing factor.

There is little rhyme or reason as to which spells have gp cost and which dont.

The basic idea is to prevent spamming. But. Is applied inconsistently. (Similarly, the concentration mechanic applies inconsistently.)

There are better mechanics to prevent spamming, such as frequency per long rest. Consider, there can only be one Clone at a time − it doesnt matter how much it costs.

And the flavor of costly is often wrong. Resurrection is a spiritual creation event and should have nothing to do with money.

And so on.

Costly feels non-innate.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> No, the costly component is worthless as a mechanical balancing factor.
> 
> There is little rhyme or reason as to which spells have gp cost and which dont.
> 
> The basic idea is to prevent spamming. But. Is applied inconsistently. (Similarly, the concentration mechanic applies inconsistently.)
> 
> There are better mechanics to prevent spamming, such as frequency per long rest. Consider, there can only be one Clone at a time − it doesnt matter how much it costs.
> 
> And the flavor of costly is often wrong. Resurrection is a spiritual creation event and should have nothing to do with money.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> Costly feels non-innate.



That's what Mearls and Crawford have said: Spells that they don't want to be as simple to use all the time or in combat, have an associated cost.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Parmandur said:


> That's what Mearls and Crawford have said: Spells that they don't want to be as simple to use all the time or in combat, have an associated cost.



I mean Yaarel is completely right that this is a garbage limiter. Either the players will never take the spell because it is too costly, or they're so loaded that they can use the spell whenever anyway.

Costly magic is the same dumb idea of balance as the 3x Paladin's numerous RP restrictions that made them insufferable to be in a party with by design.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Weapon speed.

Always weapon speed.


----------



## Micah Sweet

glass said:


> Firstly, I hope they have the discipline to not actually make a 5.5. I am strongly of the opinion that 3.5, while a fine game in its own right*, was a terrible revision of 3.0 (too many small-medium changes for an incremental revision, not enough big changes to really fix much of significance).
> 
> With that out of the way, I am quite sure they will ditch race in favour of some other term (hopefully "species", but probably "ancestry" or "lineage"). Aside from that, I hope they make a few minor tweaks but nothing too unmanageable, and add some new content (a Warlord would be nice). An index would be nice, too.
> 
> Most of all, I hope they do not break backwards compatibility too badly, if only because that would break compatibility with A5e too.
> 
> _
> glass.
> 
> (* Albeit not without issues, of course.)



I'm not too worried about them breaking compatibility with A5e, as I already have what I want from o5e converted to LU's superior (for me) system.  I really hope they make more substantial changes, so all the folks who want a D&D that caters to their sensibilities can get it.

I expect, however, that they'll instead hold the line at the changes they've already made, along with a lot of rewritten text to appeal to today's demands.


----------



## Micah Sweet

South by Southwest said:


> You bring up a really good point. What I've noticed since getting back into this in 2018 is that many DMs I've seen don't even pay attention to the material component cost of the various spells: it only comes up and gets enforced when one of the _players_ mentions it or asks about it.



See, I feel making use of material components aids in immersion, and makes casting a spell feel like casting a spell and not using a super power.  I dislike component bags for that reason.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> No, the costly component is worthless as a mechanical balancing factor.
> 
> There is little rhyme or reason as to which spells have gp cost and which dont.
> 
> The basic idea is to prevent spamming. But. Is applied inconsistently. (Similarly, the concentration mechanic applies inconsistently.)
> 
> There are better mechanics to prevent spamming, such as frequency per long rest. Consider, there can only be one Clone at a time − it doesnt matter how much it costs.
> 
> And the flavor of costly is often wrong. Resurrection is a spiritual creation event and should have nothing to do with money.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> Costly feels non-innate.



I don't want magic to feel innate, at least for classes that narratively learned their spells (wizards and artificers, mostly).  It would basically make them indistinguishable from a sorcerer (which i think should work as you describe).


----------



## South by Southwest

Micah Sweet said:


> See, I feel making use of material components aids in immersion, and makes casting a spell feel like casting a spell and not using a super power.  I dislike component bags for that reason.



I've no great quarrel with that. My only point was that DMs themselves seem not to be using this aspect of the game very much; it only comes up when a _player_ first mentions it.

By analogy, I have no special complaint against the rules for encumbrance; I've just noticed that hardly any DMs ever concern themselves with it unless and until the players do.


----------



## Micah Sweet

South by Southwest said:


> I've no great quarrel with that. My only point was that DMs themselves seem not to be using this aspect of the game very much; it only comes up when a _player_ first mentions it.
> 
> By analogy, I have no special complaint against the rules for encumbrance; I've just noticed that hardly any DMs ever concern themselves with it unless and until the players do.



Most DMs don't, no.  That's why I'm making a stand!


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't want magic to feel innate, at least for classes that narratively learned their spells (wizards and artificers, mostly).  It would basically make them indistinguishable from a sorcerer (which i think should work as you describe).



Spells are class-agnostic.

But classes can have different flavors. For example, the Artificer absolutely is about magic items and magical technologies. Even its name refers to artificial (non-innate) magic. But this is about class features, not spells per-se.

Spell descriptions need to function for innate magic concepts. But class descriptions can be non-innate.

Also, races can refer to casting spells innately, and the spell descriptions and the balancing mechanics should work for these too.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> See, I feel making use of material components aids in immersion, and makes casting a spell feel like casting a spell and not using a super power.  I dislike component bags for that reason.



For me, material components feels like Hellenistic (mainly Greek-Egyptian) magic. To some degree also Celtic magic, with regard to the crazily convoluted ingredients and requirements for potions.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> Spells are class-agnostic.
> 
> But classes can have different flavors. For example, the Artificer absolutely is about magic items and magical technologies. Even its name refers to artificial (non-innate) magic. But this is about class features, not spells per-se.
> 
> Spell descriptions need to function for innate magic concepts. But class descriptions can be non-innate.
> 
> Also, races can refer to casting spells innately, and the spell descriptions and the balancing mechanics should work for these too.



It may be better to make "you ignore the material component" as a Sorcerer Class feature, for story reasons.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> It may be better to make "you ignore the material component" as a Sorcerer Class feature, for story reasons.



Ignoring the material component is easy. Indeed, I consider the Sorcerers own magical blood (or similar) to be the material component for any spell. The Sorcerer is a living wand.

The problem is the costly component that is too annoying to ignore.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> Ignoring the material component is easy. Indeed, I consider the Sorcerers own magical blood (or similar) to be the material component for any spell. The Sorcerer is a living wand.
> 
> The problem is the costly component that is too annoying to ignore.



I mean that if you want, you can waive that requirement for a Sorcerer in your games. Some Feats and  lass/Rave abilities do so already. Specific trumps general.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> I mean that if you want, you can waive that requirement for a Sorcerer in your games. Some Feats and  lass/Rave abilities do so already. Specific trumps general.



I want 50e to make it officially so.

Obliterate the problematic costly component.

Heh, if you want to continue charging costly components, you can homebrew that requirement in you own games!


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> I want 50e to make it officially so.
> 
> Obliterate the problematic costly component.
> 
> Heh, if you want to continue charging costly components, you can homebrew that requirement in you own games!



Probably not going to happen, since the Spells in question involve setting up genre expectations.


----------



## tetrasodium

South by Southwest said:


> I've no great quarrel with that. My only point was that DMs themselves seem not to be using this aspect of the game very much; it only comes up when a _player_ first mentions it.
> 
> By analogy, I have no special complaint against the rules for encumbrance; I've just noticed that hardly any DMs ever concern themselves with it unless and until the players do.



I require encumbrance and always have butwotc poisoned the well there on two counts.

Firstly they listed container sizes but never actually said that they needed to be used and gave such insane carrying capacities that players just assume they can be ignored because the encumbrance rules are either basically bottomless or very restrictive and punishing with almost no in-between thanks to excessive simplicity

Secondly there is the more glaring problem where dndbeyond did not even have support for containers until like late last year.  That cemented in the  heads of players who started with 5e that the container rules you almost need to intuit to fill in the missing rules simply do not apply to PCs

Many 5e players IME simply take a catch me if you can approach to tracking inventory weight and refuse to put in any effort unless the gm takes the time to tell them the weight of literally anything they pick up including things like weapons & armor that are listed in the phb.


----------



## Krachek

Recently I gave to the pc cleric an item that allow to cast once per day a cleric spell without material component. voilà!
There is no need for a revision to alter such low scale rules.
costly Components are there to flavor and to bring some incentive to gather them and make their use more valuable. If it is annoying for a setting ( wilderness, post apocalypse) a Dm can simply ignore them.


----------



## Yaarel

Krachek said:


> Recently I gave to the pc cleric an item that allow to cast once per day a cleric spell without material component. voilà!



Heh, was that item called a "holy symbol"?  : )


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> It may be better to make "you ignore the material component" as a Sorcerer Class feature, for story reasons.



"Your own body functions as your spell's material components" is something I very much would like to see in the 2024 version of the Sorcerer.


----------



## Greg K

What I want and expect are two different things.  What I want (is the following which I thought I had posted the other day):

Darkvison: Go back to 3e low-light vision, darkvision and for less things to have darkvision
Humans should work more like Rich Howard's Ultimate Adaptability or better remove non-biological aspects from races and use the article as an example for environment/culture being an additional choice for all races.
More PHB races: Deva, Kobold, Goblin, Lizardfolk, Orc
Tieflings to have abyssal and infernal types
All class too receive their subclasses at first level (Otherwise some level 1 class variants for Barbarian, Bard,  Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger)
Either stretch the 1-10 levels (or 1 to 12) to 1-20 or have PHB 1 cover levels 1-10 or 1-12 and PHB2 cover the rest (or is a supplement for mythic fantasy).
Tohe full spellcasters toned down. 7th-9th were not originally meant for players (if necessary move them to an Epic level/ mythic fantasy book/supplement)
More classes in PHB: Alchemist (separate from the Artificer), Arcane Warrior, Scholar, Shaman, Warlord, Witch
Berserker change Exhaustion to a fatigued/winded condition that can be removed with a short rest.
Cleric: would like to see on a warlock like chasis with much shorter general base list
Fighter could use more subclasses, fighting styles, and maneuvers
subclasses: Brawler, Corsair, Commander, Duelist, Gallant, Kensei,  Lancer,  Musketeer, Swashbuckler, Hospitaer/Templar, a Wuxia (ki based warrior)
if  subclasses are not at first level, a Light Armor Fighter variant at first level
Tasha's styles and maneuvers

Monk: needs more customization to reflect styles and some other changes
Ranger: The Ranger should be non-magical by default with magic via subclasses (see AgenderArcee's Martial Ranger on r/Unearthed Arcana and GM Binder for an example)
Rogues
Thieves Cant should be a background language for Criminal and, maybe, Urchin,
class could use more subclasses in PHB

Sorcerer:  add a general Arcane Origin for a magic family. a Fey blood origin, and create a smaller tailored base list.
Wizards: break the spell list down. Reduce the number of spells in the  spell list by tailoring it
Feats: some need rebalancing and reworking.
for example make Great Weapon Fighter and Sharpshooter based on  PB.   up to PB as penalty/ bonus based on twice the penalty taken

Changes to address the ease to bypass/minimize exploration in the wild
Crticial hits should just be weapon or unarmed damage die maxed and roll a second die
Some spells  reworked/releveled or abandoned
Example: True Strike should just make the target's next attack a natural 20, but not a crit (taken from Mike Mearls's Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc Press) for 3e)

add downtime from Xanathar's and Tasha's
add Companion /Sidekick rules
The DMG should include:
skill points, armor as DR, wound/ vitality, touch AC, glancing blow as optional rules
More conditions  Bleeding, Bloodied, Dazed Fatigued/Winded, Frozen, Shakened, Slowed, Staggered, Swallowed, Weakened Ability  as options (or move to PHB)
More dials/variants for death and dying (fix the whack a mole), lethality, resting
actual dials and guidelines for tailoring the game: low magic, sword & sorcery, gothic fantasy, romantic fantasy, mythic fantasy

Now, what I expect is something that will make want to stick with 5e or move to another system entirely


----------



## delericho

I would like to see armour (and shield) proficiencies eliminated.

Instead, all light armours should give AC 11, all medium armours 12, and all heavy armours give AC 13. And shields give no AC bonus.

But for those classes known for the use of armour, they get a class feature (optional in some cases) to give them 'full' use of the armours in their category.


----------



## Horwath

returning armor from 3.5e style with max dex bonus, variable ACP for dex skills and just STR requirements for ALL armor.

I.E:
leather armor, AC 11 +dex(max 6), min str 8
hide armor, AC 12 +dex(max 5), min str 10
chain shirt, AC 13 +dex(max 4), min str 12
scale mail, AC 14 +dex(max 3), min str 14
chain mail, AC 16 +dex(max 2, min str 16, penalty -1
plate, AC 18 +dex(max 1), min str 18, penalty -2


----------

