# Little changes for 5.5



## Paul Smart

With the announcement of 5.5, what are some of the minor changes you would like to see? For me, it is the following:

1) Three starting arrays, Heroic, Normal and Weak.

Heroic for parties that want to start strong.  
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12 and one free feat

Normal
No change to starting arrays

Weak for those that want to start as basically peasants.
14, 12, 10, 10, 8, 8.

2) Presdititation, Thaumaturgy and Druidcraft are free for arcane, holy and druidic magic users, respectively.

3) When multiclassing martial classes that all get an extra attack at level 5, you get an extra attack at level 5.  Example: Fighter 3, Barbarian 2 = 5 total levels.  You get an extra attack.

4) Eldritch Blast is a class feature for warlocks. Also, Hexblade abilities are standard for all warlocks.

5) Make monks playable.  See Trentmonks video on how to improve monks and make the changes.

6) Clean up the rules for stealth and hiding.

7) Add a Warlord class

8) Add a Psionic class - subclasses Psionicist (full caster type), Psionic Warrior (half caster type), Psionic Rogue (skill expert)

9) Add a dedicated Gish class - subclasses Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, etc. 

10) Make Bloodhunter and Gunslinger official.

11) Add an alchemist class that works.  Also, fix the Artificer.

12) Others as suggested below.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I wouldn't exactly call adding 6 new classes to the 5.5 Player's Handbook "minor changes".


----------



## Charlaquin

I think people’s hopes for the anniversary core books are way too high. I don’t expect much will be changing beyond changing races/ancestries to fit the new model and incorporating optional rules from later supplements directly into the core rules.


----------



## Mercurius

Charlaquin said:


> I think people’s hopes for the anniversary core books are way too high. I don’t expect much will be changing beyond changing races/ancestries to fit the new model and incorporating optional rules from later supplements directly into the core rules.



I hear your point, but would be surprised if they didn't tweak some of the classes, in particular the ranger, and maybe monk and sorcerer, as well as incorporate a number of other smallish changes to issues that have arisen over, what will be by then, ten years of playing the edition.

Or as I have said in the past, I don't think this is will be a true "5.5" but it will definitely be more than a "5.1" and probably more than a "5.2." My money is on 5.3 to 5.4...meaning, they'll avoid any backwards compatibility issues (as much as possible), but will use the opportunity to fix certain things and improve the game as a whole.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mercurius said:


> I hear your point, but would be surprised if they didn't tweak some of the classes, in particular the ranger, and maybe monk and sorcerer, as well as incorporate a number of other smallish changes to issues that have arisen over, what will be by then, ten years of playing the edition.
> 
> Or as I have said in the past, I don't think this is will be a true "5.5" but it will definitely be more than a "5.1" and probably more than a "5.2." My money is on 5.3 to 5.4...meaning, they'll avoid any backwards compatibility issues (as much as possible), but will use the opportunity to fix certain things and improve the game as a whole.



I agree they’ll likely take the opportunity to make some small tweaks here and there to address frequent sticking points. I’m not sure the ranger needs much more than having the optional class features from Tasha’s in as part of the core class and the improved Beast Master companion in place of the original MM beasts. Maybe a slight buff to Favored Foe, since common perception is that throb over-nerfed it from the UA version? But I don’t expect much more than that (not no more, but not much more). Same for the monk, I think building the optional Tasha’s features right in would go a long way to improving it. Maybe make Patient Defense a reaction instead of a bonus action or something. That’s the level of changes I expect to see - little tweaks here and there, but no big changes or additions like new classes (though I could see them including the artificer in the PHB).


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Mercurius said:


> I hear your point, but would be surprised if they didn't tweak some of the classes, in particular the ranger, and maybe monk and sorcerer, as well as incorporate a number of other smallish changes to issues that have arisen over, what will be by then, ten years of playing the edition.
> 
> Or as I have said in the past, I don't think this is will be a true "5.5" but it will definitely be more than a "5.1" and probably more than a "5.2." My money is on 5.3 to 5.4...meaning, they'll avoid any backwards compatibility issues (as much as possible), but will use the opportunity to fix certain things and improve the game as a whole.



I hope you are right as I will buy yawning portal sorts of collections but probably not core books again.


----------



## Mercurius

Charlaquin said:


> I agree they’ll likely take the opportunity to make some small tweaks here and there to address frequent sticking points. I’m not sure the ranger needs much more than having the optional class features from Tasha’s in as part of the core class and the improved Beast Master companion in place of the original MM beasts. Maybe a slight buff to Favored Foe, since common perception is that throb over-nerfed it from the UA version? But I don’t expect much more than that (not no more, but not much more). Same for the monk, I think building the optional Tasha’s features right in would go a long way to improving it. Maybe make Patient Defense a reaction instead of a bonus action or something. That’s the level of changes I expect to see - little tweaks here and there, but no big changes or additions like new classes (though I could see them including the artificer in the PHB).



You could be right. I don't on Tasha's and am not up on the various optional and additional rules that have come out. I'm still back on the "alt Ranger" and wondering why that was discarded


----------



## Mercurius

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I hope you are right as I will buy yawning portal sorts of collections but probably not core books again.



Someone at WotC said that they want to do more collections, although maybe not always retro like YP. Maybe they sprinkle those in very few years, but I do think it quite possible that we get a yearly adventure collection.


----------



## OakenHart

Honestly my biggest hope with the upcoming revision is more tools to make DMing smoother.  For all my issues with 4e, it _did_ make running/prepping incredibly smooth and easy.

They're already making the monster stat block a bit more straightforward which is good, but I'd like to see a return of descriptors/tags on the monster to make encounter building more easy.  Bring back 4e descriptors/tags like "brute", "skirmisher", etc.  A monster doesn't need to perfectly fit into the tag, but close enough to where a DM can tell at a very quick glance roughly the sort of role a monster would likely play in a given combat.


----------



## R_J_K75

I'm disappointed that they opted for a core rule book revision in 2024 instead of 6E.  No matter how big or small the changes are I think its a missed opportunity to update the game to a new edition.  Personally I believe its time to explore a different set of core mechanics and move away from the d20 system; it seems outdated to me nowadays and what will be by then 24 years on only more so. 2014-2024 is a good run for 5E and I think its long enough most people would by into a new edition.  Minor changes aren't enough to fix what's wrong with 5E for me.


----------



## Ath-kethin

I'm expecting changes at least as significant as 3.5 was to 3.0. That means new/clarified terminology, new mechanics, a new approach on skills, and integrating popular options from different splatbooks from the preceding years. I doubt they will add a bunch of new classes, since that kind of approach would make it much more challenging to sell as a "minor revision."

Of course, 3.5 was actually a pretty major overhaul to the game in a lot of ways, and it paved the way for much heftier changes as well. And the later 3.0-era books were trending toward the direction 3.5 took anyway, so it will be definitely worth paying attention to incremental changes that appear between now and 2024.


----------



## GreyLord

What I'd say were little changes...

1) Revise the Ranger from the PHB now to match more recent updates and options

2)  Give the Monk a bigger HD or more HP and deal more damage.  Racism against Asian and Asian inspired things should not still be a thing in this day and time (and though may have not observed this, this is actually probably a bigger racist relic than OA is IMO.  The way the Monk is made screams of White Privilege, it is ironic how it's gone under the rader for so long).  The Monk CAN be an able warrior and hold their own in a fight like any other combatant.  (for example, 1e Monk could have 72 HP based on base HP.  Rogue could have 60.  Fighter could have 90.  That was 1e.  The Monk has fewer HP possible now from HD in relation to other classes than it even had in 1e!

3)  Revamp races more in line with recent books.

4) Revamp the Monster Stat blocks into an easier to read format

5) I like the idea of the Heroic, standard, and weak stat arrays, but would put the weak array as 12, 12, 10, 10, 8, 8.


----------



## Lyxen

First, no one officially called it a 5.5, we know (thank god, but it was absolutely impossible that they would risk killing the golden goose) that it won't be a 6e, but it might be a 5.4, 5.3, 5.2, 5.1, 5.01, 5.0.1...

As for me, I expect full backwards compatibility and nothing that breaks the game as it is. It is not perfect, but it's more than good enough. We played 20 years with AD&D (not counting the abomination that was 2e except to steal the settings which worked well enough), so that gives 5e at least 10 more years...


----------



## HammerMan

R_J_K75 said:


> I'm disappointed that they opted for a core rule book revision in 2024 instead of 6E.  No matter how big or small the changes are I think its a missed opportunity to update the game to a new edition.  Personally I believe its time to explore a different set of core mechanics and move away from the d20 system; it seems outdated to me nowadays and what will be by then 24 years on only more so. 2014-2024 is a good run for 5E and I think its long enough most people would by into a new edition.  Minor changes aren't enough to fix what's wrong with 5E for me.



agreed we have a good base but it needs an overhaul.  taking what we learned for 3e,4e,and 5e they should be working on 6e.


----------



## HammerMan

Paul Smart said:


> With the announcement of 5.5, what are some of the minor changes you would like to see? For me, it is the following:
> 
> 1) Three starting arrays, Heroic, Normal and Weak.
> 
> Heroic for parties that want to start strong.
> 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12 and one free feat
> 
> Normal
> No change to starting arrays
> 
> Weak for those that want to start as basically peasants.
> 14, 12, 10, 10, 8, 8.



not bad, not sure it is exactly what I would do but I like the idea.



Paul Smart said:


> 2) Presdititation, Thaumaturgy and Druidcraft are free for arcane, holy and druidic magic users, respectively.



yes cosigned. 



Paul Smart said:


> 3) When multiclassing martial classes that all get an extra attack at level 5, you get an extra attack at level 5.  Example: Fighter 3, Barbarian 2 = 5 total levels.  You get an extra attack.



yes cosigned. 



Paul Smart said:


> 4) Eldritch Blast is a class feature for warlocks. Also, Hexblade abilities are standard for all warlocks.



Eldritch blast and a hex ability I would say, I don't think all warlocks need cha attacks with a melee weapon (but blade locks do)



Paul Smart said:


> 5) Make monks playable.  See Trentmonks video on how to improve monks and make the changes.



give them d10s for hp or evasion sooner, don't start the die for martial arts at the lowest possible.... yeah revisions needed.



Paul Smart said:


> 6) Clean up the rules for stealth and hiding.



actually have rules not just "New DMs will figure it out



Paul Smart said:


> 7) Add a Warlord class



100% my dream co sign (It doesn't need to be that name though, just a resource manageing martial class, warblade sword sage are both good options)


Paul Smart said:


> 8) Add a Psionic class - subclasses Psionicist (full caster type), Psionic Warrior (half caster type), Psionic Rogue (skill expert)



nope... psionics should be worked on but not for core.


Paul Smart said:


> 9) Add a dedicated Gish class - subclasses Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, etc.



Yes 100% cosigned someone called one an arcanaknight or somthing... take the artificer base but replace the spells on the spell list with things like bigger versions of green flame blade and maybe a throw the sword it explodes then reforms in your hand mixed with some buffs like haste.


Paul Smart said:


> 10) Make Bloodhunter and Gunslinger official.



nope... both COULD work in a later supplement (but with bloodhunter getting a rewrite) neither needs to be in the core.



Paul Smart said:


> 11) Add an alchemist class that works.  Also, fix the Artificer.



I would include the artificer, but I think fixing the alchemist sub class would do. Heck just having a crafting subsystem would work that anyone can opt into (like the ritual caster feat an alchemist feat)


Paul Smart said:


> 12) Others as suggested below.



go back to con score HP at 1st level, and no con bonus to hp per level (but keep the con bonus to HD spent to heal) then give different classes 2,or 3 HD at first level so they can use them to heal during short rests. (front line classes get 3 less combat classes get 2)


Better ways to read monster entries, better encounter design rules and suggestions, different levels of monsters and different types including putting the mythic rules right in the MM.  More monster templates too.

Make alignment an optional rule (like feats are now) yeah alot of old school gamers will keep it, but no need to burden the next generation with a mandatory 9 pt grid that no one can agree on... heck maybe have 2 different ways to do alignments and both be optional.


----------



## HammerMan

wait one more, remove default deities, and go back to a 2e style "spheres" over domains (you can keep the name I mean the mechanic). instead of knowing all cleric spells you have 10-12 lists of spells (one being general) and clerics start with access to the "all/generic" +2 other spheres of spells, and as they level they get more spheres up to a max of 6 (5+ generic/all). give each sphere a major and a minor channel divinity (all/generic is turn undead as minor but no major) then you choose one of the 2 you start with to be major (you get both channels) and at latter levels add a 3rd of your spheres to be major (getting another channel) but some of them replace the major with a class feature (like armor prof or weapon prof) 

so two 5th level clerics of different gods can know very different spells with only a bit of overlap, and even 2 5th level clerics of the same god may have some slight differences (based on order they took the spheres)


----------



## Lyxen

HammerMan said:


> agreed we have a good base but it needs an overhaul.  taking what we learned for 3e,4e,and 5e they should be working on 6e.




What we've learned from 3e and 4e is that publisher greed kills a game really quickly. Also, what we've learned from both these games and 5e is that extensive playtesting and feedback helps you make a far better game. And this we learned from the negative side of 3e and 4e, which needed to do a new sub-edition to incorporate the feedback, whereas 5e had the intelligence (and the budget) to do it before publishing, so that 5e is already [D&D Next].5. So, although not perfect, it does not need an overhaul, just maybe some streamlining, and some revision of the debatable parts of the game which, frankly, have more to do with legacy than anything else (races, etc.).


----------



## Krachek

The OP wish list can mainly be implemented right now by a proactive DM.


----------



## HammerMan

Lyxen said:


> What we've learned from 3e and 4e is that publisher greed kills a game really quickly. Also, what we've learned from both these games and 5e is that extensive playtesting and feedback helps you make a far better game. And this we learned from the negative side of 3e and 4e, which needed to do a new sub-edition to incorporate the feedback, whereas 5e had the intelligence (and the budget) to do it before publishing, so that 5e is already [D&D Next].5. So, although not perfect, it does not need an overhaul, just maybe some streamlining, and some revision of the debatable parts of the game which, frankly, have more to do with legacy than anything else (races, etc.).



wait how are 3e and 4e "needed new sub edition" but 5e that just had a sub edition annoinced some how doesn't?
I am confused.

and yes it needs a whole overhaul


----------



## HammerMan

Krachek said:


> The OP wish list can mainly be implemented right now by a proactive DM.



but if you need a proactive DM that has enough experence to see this... why not have them update the edition so everyone has it?


----------



## Lyxen

HammerMan said:


> wait how are 3e and 4e "needed new sub edition" but 5e that just had a sub edition annoinced some how doesn't?
> I am confused.




Obviously, because you think that WotC has announced a sub-edition. They have not.



HammerMan said:


> and yes it needs a whole overhaul




That's your personal perspective, but from mine, it certainly does not...


----------



## HammerMan

Lyxen said:


> Obviously, because you think that WotC has announced a sub-edition. They have not.



an update and evolution with changes is what?


----------



## Lyxen

HammerMan said:


> an update and evolution with changes is what?




Just minor changes, just reintegrating updates from the books since the three core books came out. Have they said it would be a new edition ? Or even a new sub-edition ? Once more, thinking that they will kill the golden goose by requiring all these people out there to buy a new sub-edition is being in dreamland.


----------



## Malmuria

remove counterspell


----------



## Horwath

several classes need a good overhaul.
In order of need:

Monks,
Artificers,
Rogues,
Rangers,
Fighters,
Barbarians,
Sorcerers,
Warlocks,

rest are more or less ok or need minor tweaks(scaling of wildshape) or huge nerf bats(looking at you Twilight cleric).

Feats need a good clean up. You have 10 or 15 or so feats that compete with +2 to primary ability. Rest are either below that or not even worth considering more than 2 seconds about them.

Also, all character have to get one feat at level 1, and please take this option of; "feats optional" and throw it in the trash with current 70% of feats.

Add option for classes with armor to trade a level or two of armor proficiency for extra class skill or two. I am hard pressed to imagine an elven fighter even training with heavy armor let alone using one.(exceptions can happen ofc.)


----------



## HammerMan

Lyxen said:


> Just minor changes, just reintegrating updates from the books since the three core books came out. Have they said it would be a new edition ? Or even a new sub-edition ? Once more, thinking that they will kill the golden goose by requiring all these people out there to buy a new sub-edition is being in dreamland.



they never announced essentials as a new edition, and it was 100% backwards compatible but we count that as a mid break on 4e. 

back in 2e skills and power combat and tactics and (i need to look to see what the third book was) was called 3e back in the 90s and now many see it as a midedition shift. 

So by your count the only mid edittion is 3.5


----------



## Blue

I would like "5.5" to be exactly as they described it: fully compatible.  So anything new is additive, nothing changed.

EDIT:  This is what 4e Essentials did, after lessons learned with 3.5.  It didn't invalidate or require changes to any existing character nor to any existing adventure.


----------



## HammerMan

Blue said:


> I would like "5.5" to be exactly as they described it: fully compatible.  So anything new is additive, nothing changed.



that would be a nightmare for me if nothing changed.


----------



## Blue

HammerMan said:


> that would be a nightmare for me if nothing changed.



Then I hope it's a nightmare for you.  Not because of any personal animus, but because it's a well loved and well selling edition that a ".5" edition won't make enough changes to solve the big problems (like the mismatch in encounters-per-day expectations), so I'd rather not a nitpicking little set of changes that is close enough that I need to double check everything in case it's one of those small things that was changed.  I had a 5e DM who kept investing 3.x-isms into the game as he was unlearning and relearning, and it will be a heck of a lot worse for every existing player to go from something really close instead of something further away from 5e.  So many "I'm pretty sure that's how the rule is" that it's hard to unlearn.

Small change is my worst fear for the anniversary edition.


----------



## HammerMan

Blue said:


> Then I hope it's a nightmare for you.  Not because of any personal animus, but because it's a well loved and well selling edition that a ".5" edition won't make enough changes to solve the big problems (like the mismatch in encounters-per-day expectations),



funny, but I agree... I don't know if it was here or on another thread but I said one of my big disappointment was that it WASN'T an announcement of 6e with a full ground up rewrite.




Blue said:


> I'd rather not a nitpicking little set of changes that is close enough that I need to double check everything in case it's one of those small things that was changed.  I had a 5e DM who kept investing 3.x-isms into the game as he was unlearning and relearning, and it will be a heck of a lot worse for every existing player to go from something really close instead of something further away from 5e.  So many "I'm pretty sure that's how the rule is" that it's hard to unlearn.
> 
> Small change is my worst fear for the anniversary edition.



I am hopeing for big changes but will take small ones as long as they are good ones.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> I think people’s hopes for the anniversary core books are way too high. I don’t expect much will be changing beyond changing races/ancestries to fit the new model and incorporating optional rules from later supplements directly into the core rules.




Yup. They might make the Ranger be closer to the UA one than the PHB one (and in particular give the Beastmaster a choice of three companion stat-blocks). That sort of thing. Not much else.


----------



## GMMichael

Paul Smart said:


> With the announcement of 5.5, what are some of the minor changes you would like to see?



Rulings, not rules.  So...


Paul Smart said:


> 6) Clean up the rules for stealth and hiding.



This.  And get rid of Opportunity Attacks.  And Reactions.

Ooh, ooh!  And a fully-built level 1 character for each class.  So I don't have to spend 2 hours making my next character... on that note, get rid of Death Saves too.  Lameness.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Remove language about feats being optional.


----------



## HammerMan

GMMichael said:


> fully-built level 1 character for each class.



Not every class, but the 4 main classes should have example characters... not full page sheets but 1/8 page stat blocks...


----------



## jmartkdr2

HammerMan said:


> an update and evolution with changes is what?



My ninth printing PHB has updates, additions, and corrections compared to my first printing copy. Would that be 5.9e, then?


----------



## HammerMan

jmartkdr2 said:


> My ninth printing PHB has updates, additions, and corrections compared to my first printing copy. Would that be 5.9e, then?



no, but changing the entire concept of race would most likely be a big deal... 

again the 4e system never got a 1/2 edition by your way because the essentials books were all additive instead of replacing.


----------



## jmartkdr2

HammerMan said:


> no, but changing the entire concept of race would most likely be a big deal...



They're not going to that, I don't think. I certainly see no evidence that they will.


HammerMan said:


> again the 4e system never got a 1/2 edition by your way because the essentials books were all additive instead of replacing.



Ok. Not really a problem there.


----------



## HammerMan

jmartkdr2 said:


> They're not going to that, I don't think. I certainly see no evidence that they will.
> 
> Ok. Not really a problem there.



so by your reckoning 2e and 4e didn't have an edition update because they didn't label it as such?


----------



## jmartkdr2

HammerMan said:


> so by your reckoning 2e and 4e didn't have an edition update because they didn't label it as such?



Pretty much. "Edition" isn't an externally defined technical term.


----------



## GreyLord

Vaalingrade said:


> Remove language about feats being optional.



Not everyone likes to play with feats.

Feats being optional I think works better for the majority.

I feel that there are those who are highly invested in the hobby that are loud and make it seem as if everyone uses them, but I tend to think that there are MANY who do not.

I think the game loses more if they make them mandatory rather than keeping them optional...

Personal feelings on the matter (and as one who does not use feats generally, or restricts them to certain classes).


----------



## ad_hoc

You consider those to be minor? That is more change than I want to see (and IMO in the wrong direction).

I'd like to see a change to grapple/shove. Ideally it shouldn't be an ability check. Too many things double proficiency and give advantage. At the very least when the MM is revised many more monsters should have Athletics proficiency.


----------



## Lyxen

GreyLord said:


> Not everyone likes to play with feats.
> Feats being optional I think works better for the majority.




Yes, exactly, what is the problem with them being optional ? If everyone really uses them, then you should not have any problem using them in any game that you want to participate in. But if, as some of us suspect, they are not so widely used as that, it leaves a DM the option about the kind of game that he wants. I know that some powergamers absolutely need them for their builds and want the option removed so that they can force them down the DM's throat, I hope it's not the case here.


----------



## John R Davis

Ignore the noisy 1000's, respect the content millions and just tweak the glaring errors. 
Thank you.


----------



## humble minion

Clarify the language of Barkskin.
Tweak the weapon tables so there's reasons for Dex-based melee PCs to wield weapons other than rapiers.
Warlock invocations that boost Eldritch Blast should apply instead to any single attack cantrip, chosen at the time you select the invocation.
Tweak some of the attack spells to make things like lightning bolt remotely as good as fireball
Paladins should be able to choose at the time of subclass selection the damage type of their smite and of related spells like Divine Might, from between radiant and necrotic at least, and maybe the elemental damage types
Optional rule for clerics to swap a monk's unarmoured defence and one skill proficiency in lieu of any and all armour/shield proficiencies
List the school of magic in the class spell lists (like was done in Xanatha's and Tasha's)
Be a bit more generous about spells castable as rituals.  Planar Binding?  Glyph of Warding?

I've never played a monk or been in a game with one, so I've got no opinion there!


----------



## Lyxen

John R Davis said:


> Ignore the noisy 1000's, respect the content millions and just tweak the glaring errors.
> Thank you.




^^ Exactly this.


----------



## Horwath

John R Davis said:


> Ignore the noisy 1000's, respect the content millions and just tweak the glaring errors.
> Thank you.



and how will you know what the glaring errors are without the "noisy 1000's"?


----------



## Lyxen

Horwath said:


> and how will you know what the glaring errors are without the "noisy 1000's"?




Uh, because they are glaring ?


----------



## Horwath

Lyxen said:


> Uh, because they are glaring ?



not so glaring if they passed the playtest and went into print, are they?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Lyxen said:


> Uh, because they are glaring ?



Then one would logically assume that WotC would have caught those when designing the system and that a revision to the core rulebooks like this one would be completely unnecessary. But here we are, because the game does have glaring problems in the base rules that haven't been fixed, we need people telling WotC the problems for them to be able to notice and fix them, and the players of the game have much more experience playing it than WotC do, simply because there are millions of us and only a few dozen game designers for 5e at WotC.


----------



## Lyxen

Horwath said:


> not so glaring if they passed the playtest and went into print, are they?




Not everything that went into print was part of the general playtest, for once, and second, don't confuse a playtest with the actual life of a game played by millions. That being said, I don't see that many glaring problems. Our groups have the most fun with this edition than we've had since BECMI and AD&D 1e, and that's probably more nostalgia talking.

Because, honestly, small problems of balance here and there don't make glaring problems, except for the most avid powergamers. Imprecisions in the rules don't make for glaring problems when the intent of the game actually to be mostly guidelines with the DM adjudicating edge cases with local rulings.

Frankly, the only glaring problem remaining now that the ranger has been reasonably improved is the monk, but I don't care as I don't like the class anyway, especially in more traditional fantasy settings.   

So I would really like to hear what your glaring problems are, as long as it's not a change of philosophy of the edition, because I can guarantee that this will not change (and neither would I desire it). Frankly, all the things that I've seen in this thread so far are non-problems or things that can easily be settled at any table with a bit of discussion. Of course, this is assuming that everyone agrees, but then if one table cannot agree, how could these be so glaring ?


----------



## HammerMan

John R Davis said:


> Ignore the noisy 1000's, respect the content millions and just tweak the glaring errors.
> Thank you.



I would love to see the survey even implying that MORE people are happy without the changes, let alone being able to say millions...


----------



## HammerMan

humble minion said:


> Clarify the language of Barkskin.



yup even in the basic rules make the term "base AC" a defined term, something like your dex+armor+magic is your base and other things like sheilds and cover (or just make a shield count as lesser cover) add to it...



humble minion said:


> Tweak the weapon tables so there's reasons for Dex-based melee PCs to wield weapons other than rapiers.



remove the finesse property entirely. make all melee attacks use str or dex, and all range attack use dex or wis. Then make the thrown properity allow for str to damage but not to hit.


humble minion said:


> Warlock invocations that boost Eldritch Blast should apply instead to any single attack cantrip, chosen at the time you select the invocation.



100% cosigned...


humble minion said:


> Tweak some of the attack spells to make things like lightning bolt remotely as good as fireball



or, just hear me out here... we don't buff legacy spells at all... lower fireball damage to be in line with other 3rd level spell.


humble minion said:


> Paladins should be able to choose at the time of subclass selection the damage type of their smite and of related spells like Divine Might, from between radiant and necrotic at least, and maybe the elemental damage types



I don't know I think the smite spells have this covered...maybe just add a few. (Then you can give a GIsh class some elemental smite spells too)


humble minion said:


> Optional rule for clerics to swap a monk's unarmoured defence and one skill proficiency in lieu of any and all armour/shield proficiencies



I like it


humble minion said:


> List the school of magic in the class spell lists (like was done in Xanatha's and Tasha's)



meh could take it or leave it


humble minion said:


> Be a bit more generous about spells castable as rituals.  Planar Binding?  Glyph of Warding?



1000% yes, please...


----------



## Raith5

If everyone has just one different change they want, the number of overall changes once collated is going to be greater than any one's person's preference! 

But there is a pretty narrow space they have to work with here. If it is just typos and minor changes I am sure many will say why bother buying it? But if they change too much and change popular things then few people will probably buy that as well.

My guess that the "5.5" iteration will be heavily tailored to making the game work online/VTT and enabling groups to customize the rules in that space. My biggest problem with the modularity of 5e is that the various optional rules are a bit scattered. Id like to see the capacity of the various rules to essentially be an online list where you can click the various options: short rest durations, healing rates, extra feats etc


----------



## Horwath

Lyxen said:


> Not everything that went into print was part of the general playtest, for once, and second, don't confuse a playtest with the actual life of a game played by millions. That being said, I don't see that many glaring problems. Our groups have the most fun with this edition than we've had since BECMI and AD&D 1e, and that's probably more nostalgia talking.
> 
> Because, honestly, small problems of balance here and there don't make glaring problems, except for the most avid powergamers. Imprecisions in the rules don't make for glaring problems when the intent of the game actually to be mostly guidelines with the DM adjudicating edge cases with local rulings.
> 
> Frankly, the only glaring problem remaining now that the ranger has been reasonably improved is the monk, but I don't care as I don't like the class anyway, especially in more traditional fantasy settings.
> 
> So I would really like to hear what your glaring problems are, as long as it's not a change of philosophy of the edition, because I can guarantee that this will not change (and neither would I desire it). Frankly, all the things that I've seen in this thread so far are non-problems or things that can easily be settled at any table with a bit of discussion. Of course, this is assuming that everyone agrees, but then if one table cannot agree, how could these be so glaring ?



Do not confuse having fun with having a balanced game, we had a blast also playing 3.0E when it was released, and we won't go into how im(balanced) it was.

Also, rangers has been somewhat fixed, but not really, if they kept changes from UA and not watered it down, also if they gave rangers spell preparation instead of very limited spells know, it would be better. Also rangers and paladins should have had cantrips by default, and not to be slapped on with spending a fighting style for only 2 cantrips.

Sorcerer has been fixed with Aberrant mind and Clockwork soul, but what about all the subclasses printed before?

Rogue also has some issues, Assassin being number one issue. Mastermind, inquisitive, swashbuckler are not much better.


----------



## Willie the Duck

Charlaquin said:


> I think people’s hopes for the anniversary core books are way too high. I don’t expect much will be changing beyond changing races/ancestries to fit the new model and incorporating optional rules from later supplements directly into the core rules.



I tend to agree. I think they may put in some fixes for very individual things (probably not 'fixing the ranger,' but 'fixing the berserker barbarian,' or 'adding to PHB archetypes what became normal for XgtE and TCoE archetypes' or the like).
More likely, I think they will put in more clarifying language and guidance, especially among things that certainly will affect player characters, but not specifically in the character creation and build component of the game (class features and the like). Things like the vision and hiding rules, surprise/initiative, long rests and non-sleeping classes, required order/completeness (or not) of prerequisites in if-then statements, guidance on what they envision as part of the exploration pillar, DMing 101, and those kind of things. Stuff that enhances the game for the beginners (especially beginning DMs).
Incidental to this, I suspect that some rules (from all over the book) will get a review, and maybe a wording re-write. From those re-writes, I hope we can glean whether certain things were intentional or not. Random bits and bobs -- thief rogue with fast hands being the best recipient of the Healer feat, one-handed quarterstaff and shield (with or without PAM), coffeelock, and so on.



Horwath said:


> and how will you know what the glaring errors are without the "noisy 1000's"?



Noisy 1000s are actually good at finding potential errors, but you then have to address the situation from the perspective that not everything they find are actually errors. 


HammerMan said:


> I would love to see the survey even implying that MORE people are happy without the changes, let alone being able to say millions...



The important part would be that there would be a survey, and that it would be followed, thus not assuming that the noisy 1000s are representative.


----------



## Lyxen

Horwath said:


> Do not confuse having fun with having a balanced game, we had a blast also playing 3.0E when it was released, and we won't go into how im(balanced) it was.




I'm certainly not confusing, balance it totally artificial anyway, 5e has been designed to be only roughly balanced which is fine for me, which is why small balancing of classes is certainly not glaring, nor is it necessary.



Horwath said:


> Also, rangers has been somewhat fixed, but not really, if they kept changes from UA and not watered it down, also if they gave rangers spell preparation instead of very limited spells know, it would be better. Also rangers and paladins should have had cantrips by default, and not to be slapped on with spending a fighting style for only 2 cantrips.




No, this would only make rangers so strong that the 1000 would then start clamoring for other classes to be balanced up, in an unending power drift that would just kill the game as it killed 3e then 3.5e.



Horwath said:


> Sorcerer has been fixed with Aberrant mind and Clockwork soul, but what about all the subclasses printed before?




They are absolutely fine, I've played shadow personally, and we have a storm one in my avernus campaign, and we are having a blast.



Horwath said:


> Rogue also has some issues, Assassin being number one issue. Mastermind, inquisitive, swashbuckler are not much better.




And there is an assassin in my avernus campaign, she is also a bhaalspawn and currently trying to recruit dogai (devil assassins) to her cause to try and regain the Throne of Blood, she is doing perfectly fine.


----------



## Horwath

Lyxen said:


> No, this would only make rangers so strong that the 1000 would then start clamoring for other classes to be balanced up, in an unending power drift that would just kill the game as it killed 3e then 3.5e. /quote



Yes, one extra skill and having hunters mark few times per day without spell components and concentration would break the game. Totally.


Lyxen said:


> They are absolutely fine, I've played shadow personally, and we have a storm one in my avernus campaign, and we are having a blast.



Again, You can always have fun with with underpowered class, but do not claim that they are anywhere near Wizard, Bards and Clerics. Or even druids. They just lack versatility with so few spells with no real raw power to compensate. Maybe more sorcery points or their recharge on short rest, or both.


Lyxen said:


> And there is an assassin in my avernus campaign, she is also a bhaalspawn and currently trying to recruit dogai (devil assassins) to her cause to try and regain the Throne of Blood, she is doing perfectly fine.



I have played it also. It can be fun as any class. But "assassinate" needs rework to be more reliable and not a total gamble.


----------



## Stalker0

Lyxen said:


> They are absolutely fine, I've played shadow personally, and we have a storm one in my avernus campaign, and we are having a blast.
> .



ask the 1st level party who died to a fireball their wild sorc accidentally cast if everything is absolutely fine.

sorcs are playable but they still could use some love. And that’s not just forum goers saying it, Wotcs own polls have sorcs near the bottom


----------



## HammerMan

Horwath said:


> Again, You can always have fun with with underpowered class, but do not claim that they are anywhere near Wizard, Bards and Clerics. Or even druids. They just lack versatility with so few spells with no real raw power to compensate. Maybe more sorcery points or their recharge on short rest, or both.



the problem is no non spellcaster is balanced with spell casters out of combat. 

in any given fight the wizard can be decent, but the fighter would do more damage...in SOME fights the wizard will get off a SoD or SoS spell and be a huge game changer.
Outside of combat everyone has skills and role playing... but wizards have auto win buttons. 

Every class should have at least the option to have a resource management system for out of combat abilities.  Every group of classes (I go with Arcane Divine Martial) should have at least 1 easy for newbie class and one complex class... in a perfect world every class would have a sub class for 2-4 layers of simple/complex.




Horwath said:


> I have played it also. It can be fun as any class. But "assassinate" needs rework to be more reliable and not a total gamble.



We played with the more 'natural' meaning of surprise (AKA we would ask 'did you think that could happen') instead of using the mechanic of the surprise round, and that alone worked great. It wasn't until I came on here that I found people arguing the rule on it.  So 'teleport like misty step' and "SUPRISE", attack someone on the street "Suprise" attack from invisabilty when you have not yet been seen in this encounter "SUPRISE"

however, fighting the guy who has been assassinat twice by your rogue... literally nothing is "Surprise" because he totally knows you are going for it.


----------



## John R Davis

HammerMan said:


> I would love to see the survey even implying that MORE people are happy without the changes, let alone being able to say millions...



Well. They are the silent millions who don't need to fill in a survey!!


----------



## Vaalingrade

Turning against balance is such a weird modern thing. It's like the whole 'tyranny of fun' thing.


----------



## Stalker0

Vaalingrade said:


> Turning against balance is such a weird modern thing. It's like the whole 'tyranny of fun' thing.



I think its just a fear of change, which is a common human trait.

A lot of people like 5e, and therefore are fearful that "in the name of balance" certain elements of the game will be removed that will "diminish" the game in some way.

I think this fear grew stronger with 4e, which for many people was so different it was "not their dnd".

I can understand that concern. That said, if this is a true "5.5e" than to be worth a damn and not just a PR stunt, than we do need to take a deep look at 5e, and take a strong eye to what "is working well vs barely working".

I will use two classes as dichotomy to showcase the difference.

*Barbarian*
I consider the barb one of the best designed classes in 5e. Time and time again, I have watched typically cautious players try out a barbarian, and just go wild. The mechanics so perfectly encapsulate the flavor, that players just "get it". Every player who has tried a barbarian in my game (and there have been several) have come out of it a believer. One of my players who is a die hard spellcaster, gave it a shot....and said that is the most fun with a martial class they have ever had.

*Sorceror*
I have seen two sorcs in my game over several campaigns. And the players had fun, their characters both had interesting moments, loved the campaign as a whole. But both players when asked if they would play a sorc again both said "eh, probably not....it just felt like something was missing". The sorc wasn't "busted", they didn't feel useless or anything, just... incomplete.


That to me is the kind of thing we need to address in 5.5e. Even if a class is workable, doesn't mean its truly "working". I think the monk is the same way. At the end of day, a monk is absolutely playable and not as bad as some people think... but there is a reason that so many threads have popped up over the years around "monks sucking". There is just something missing about them, something incomplete, something that juuuuuust isn't quite hitting the mark.


----------



## HammerMan

Vaalingrade said:


> Turning against balance is such a weird modern thing. It's like the whole 'tyranny of fun' thing.



back in the day there was a superhero D20 game called mutants and masterminds. 

it was supposed to be balanced to have batman and superman in the same 'party'
in theory you made batman super hard to hit and a little tough... you did this by giving him the equivalent of a huge dex bonus. You make superman by ditching AC all together and being really hard to hurt.  You have superman hit really strong/hard, and you have batman hit just right to do more damage...

this was pulled off with caps.  You would set a power level (lets take 12) and as such AC bonus maxed at 12, to hit maxed at 12, damage bonus maxed at 12, tougness (negate damage) maxed at 12 and super powers (each had a rank) maxed at 12.  However there were trade offs.

so in above example batman would trade 2 toughness max for 2 AC bonus max and have a 24AC and +10 toughness as max, then trade damage and attack also by 2 so max +14 to hit but max +10 to damage, and superman would do the reverse but even more so doing 5 for ac/tough and 3 for att/dam giving him a max AC of 17 and a max toughness of +17 a max attack of +9 a max damage of +15   
Now remember those are max not what they have to start... but of course both will have different ways to get to AC attack and damage mods even the toughness...  Superman has super str and invulnerability, batman has a high dex the equivalent of sneak attack and body armor... in world they could not be more diffrent...

BUT!!!!!  Big But, they both start with same number of points, and yeah batman may spend more on skills (not nescarlary being a detective and being a reporter has a lot of overlap) but when they start they both could end up with batman having +4 to hit (+6 with flank/suprise) +3 damage (+5 with flank/suprise) and superman having +5 to hit and +4 to damage, batman having a 16 AC (dodgey and armor) and superman having a 16 AC (tough hide) and batman having +15 toughness (dodgy roll withit plus body armor) and superman having +15 toughness (invunrable) and both having +4 initative...

infact remove the flavor text and the two sheets MIGHT look almost identical, and even as they gain more pts would until the hit the maxs, and even then look similar. 

THAT is over balanced.  Infact it was during the 3.0-3.5 change over area, this COULD have been a canary in the cole mine for why 4e would not be received as well by the old guard.

now these two don't sound too bad right... I mean they are both JLA member so of course they are similar... try it with the avengers and you get Black widow deals similar damage to Hulk.

(IF you know the system this is a SUPER basic simplfication, and yes the invunrability and pericing traits helped and there are lots of little things that somewhat fix this, but at it's basic this is the orginal Mutants and Masterminds....also FYI my 2nd favorite SUperhero RPG is the more modern M&M, and I love 4e, so I mean no disrespect to either. )


----------



## Blue

Horwath said:


> not so glaring if they passed the playtest and went into print, are they?



Are you are saying that 7 years, literal millions of players, and countless surveys in incapable of uncovering something glaring that a year playtest that started incomplete in terms of the classes and subclasses and changed multiple times missed?

That seems to be rather myopic.


----------



## Undrave

Stalker0 said:


> That to me is the kind of thing we need to address in 5.5e. Even if a class is workable, doesn't mean its truly "working". I think the monk is the same way. At the end of day, a monk is absolutely playable and not as bad as some people think... but there is a reason that so many threads have popped up over the years around "monks sucking". There is just something missing about them, something incomplete, something that juuuuuust isn't quite hitting the mark.



I think what the Monk is good at is just not what people who want to play a martial artist want to be good at.


----------



## Stalker0

HammerMan said:


> now these two don't sound too bad right... I mean they are both JLA member so of course they are similar... try it with the avengers and you get Black widow deals similar damage to Hulk.



I think the best answer to this is in subsystems like what Buffy used.... the idea of drama or plot "points". Aka the strong characters are just better than the weaker ones....but the weaker ones get points that can change scenes, allowing them to pull off cool manuevers or daring escapes all their own.

I think it works because its intentionally asymmetric, trying to balance two cosmically imbalanced characters is just an exercise in failure, the better answer is not to try, but instead give them completely different schticks.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Undrave said:


> I think what the Monk is good at is just not what people who want to play a martial artist want to be good at.



That's a great definition of a class failing to work: it doesn't provide the _fantasy_ the fluff implies. That's what classes are supposed to do.


----------



## the Jester

It seems a lot of people have a very, very different idea than I do of what backwards compatible means.


----------



## Blue

HammerMan said:


> yup even in the basic rules make the term "base AC" a defined term, something like your dex+armor+magic is your base and other things like sheilds and cover (or just make a shield count as lesser cover) add to it...



PHB, pg 14, in the creating a character section:  "Without armor or a shield, your character's AC equals 10 + his or her Dexterity modifier. If your character wears armor, carries a shield, or both, calculate your AC using the rules in chapter 5."

You statement of "dex+armor+magic" isn't correct - it ignores the max dex of some armors, which is why wearing armor it refers you to those specific rules.  It would be harmful to have conflicting rules put in.



HammerMan said:


> remove the finesse property entirely. make all melee attacks use str or dex, and all range attack use dex or wis. Then make the thrown properity allow for str to damage but not to hit.



What is the point of Strength at that point beyond one skill and the ability to wear some heavy armors without a movement penalty?

Dex is usually considered the strongest of ability scores.  Making it more applicable makes it more powerful - that's introducing more balance issues then you are fixing.  In order to change the rules effectively, you must first understand them and their implications.


----------



## HammerMan

Stalker0 said:


> I think the best answer to this is in subsystems like what Buffy used.... the idea of drama or plot "points". Aka the strong characters are just better than the weaker ones....but the weaker ones get points that can change scenes, allowing them to pull off cool manuevers or daring escapes all their own.
> 
> I think it works because its intentionally asymmetric, trying to balance two cosmically imbalanced characters is just an exercise in failure, the better answer is not to try, but instead give them completely different schticks.



yes totally, and again I just totally did the most bare bone example, to give M&M the benfit they DO have things like that too...


----------



## HammerMan

Blue said:


> PHB, pg 14, in the creating a character section:  "Without armor or a shield, your character's AC equals 10 + his or her Dexterity modifier. If your character wears armor, carries a shield, or both, calculate your AC using the rules in chapter 5."
> 
> You statement of "dex+armor+magic" isn't correct - it ignores the max dex of some armors, which is why wearing armor it refers you to those specific rules.  It would be harmful to have conflicting rules put in.



well my statement was an example of what it could be, since the term is not defined now, so I don't know how an example of what COULD be clarified can possible me WRONG?!?

what I am saying is the bark skin "Ac can't fall below 16" (wait is it 15?) works fine until you start putting situational modifiers on it... if base AC meant something (how tough you are to hit without situational bonuses) the spell would function better with less misunderstandings.

As it is now, if I have 14 AC (+2 dex, +1 ring of prot and +1 from padded or leather armor) and you have 14 AC (all dex) and the druid casts bark skin on me I have a 16 you have a 14. IF we both go behind partial cover I still have a 16 and you have a 16... or do I does that cover give me an 18? what about 3/4 cover +5 you have a 19, do I have a 19, or a 21?




Blue said:


> What is the point of Strength at that point beyond one skill and the ability to wear some heavy armors without a movement penalty?
> 
> Dex is usually considered the strongest of ability scores.  Making it more applicable makes it more powerful - that's introducing more balance issues then you are fixing.  In order to change the rules effectively, you must first understand them and their implications.



1) I don't NEED to understand any of it to make suggestions, because as I have pointed out before NO ONE PAYS ME TO WRITE RULES
2) I would decouple Initiative and AC from dex to compensate.  For Initiative I would give the better of Wis or Int and for AC I would just make it your best stat with armor restrictions of +2 medium and +0 heavy but I would make light max +5 (sounds useless until you remember things that up stats) 

I agree Dex is too good right now adding to some attacks the biggest save and AC plus some of the most used skills

I would also go back to 3e/4e saves  Ref Fort Will with choice of 2 stats to save (so Int or dex for Ref. Str or Con for Fort, and Cha or Wis for Will)

doing so also buffs the most useless stat (int)


----------



## Vaalingrade

I'm very confused at how notoriously difficult to balance Superhero RPGs, which do have to deal with a canonical issue of street-levelers mixed with cosmic heroes mixed with creators pets like Batman having balance issues has anything to do with balance in Fantasy where the creators decide the relative power level of the classes.

Unless this is another 'Wizards ruin everything' issue where wizards are expected to be gods (like Batman) and parity with martials would threaten them.


----------



## Undrave

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm very confused at how notoriously difficult to balance Superhero RPGs, which do have to deal with a canonical issue of street-levelers mixed with cosmic heroes mixed with creators pets like Batman having balance issues has anything to do with balance in Fantasy where the creators decide the relative power level of the classes.
> 
> Unless this is another 'Wizards ruin everything' issue where wizards are expected to be gods (like Batman) and parity with martials would threaten them.



It's ALWAYS the Wizards players who complain the most about balance.


----------



## Blue

HammerMan said:


> well my statement was an example of what it could be, since the term is not defined now, so I don't know how an example of what COULD be clarified can possible me WRONG?!?



Term is defined, I literally gave you the page in the PHB and the quote.



HammerMan said:


> 1) I don't NEED to understand any of it to make suggestions, because as I have pointed out before NO ONE PAYS ME TO WRITE RULES



You are posting in a public forum about rules changes, it's generally considered courteous to "understand any of it" before posting so you can present an informed opinion.  If you would like to proclaim that you don't know what you are talking about because you aren't paid to do it, that's your perogative.  It does give others an understanding of what weight to put on your suggested rules changes.  Thanks for the heads up, I won't bother to discuss rules changes with you.


----------



## Blue

Stalker0 said:


> ask the 1st level party who died to a fireball their wild sorc accidentally cast if everything is absolutely fine.
> 
> sorcs are playable but they still could use some love. And that’s not just forum goers saying it, Wotcs own polls have sorcs near the bottom







This is last year's from D&D Beyond.  Sorcerer is "bottom" with 7% popularity, shared with four other classes including paladin and bard that are often considered in the top part of the power curve, and beating out the druid, also a class that people do not think is underpowered.  It's within 1% of every class except Fighter, Rogue and Warlock.

My google-fu has not been able to bring back anything on results of class surveys, but it easily could be discussed in a video or somewhere else that wouldn't easily find it.  Can you give a source that WotC surveys saying sorcerers are near the bottom?


----------



## Stalker0

Blue said:


> My google-fu has not been able to bring back anything on results of class surveys, but it easily could be discussed in a video or somewhere else that wouldn't easily find it.  Can you give a source that WotC surveys saying sorcerers are near the bottom?



I mean you just did give a survey that says Sorcs are near the bottom, so we are half way there

The trick then is in asking why that is the case. Is it mechanics, flavor, is that people just like playing the "core 4" (in which case poor clerics). Is it that paladins are too "lawful stupid" for most people. Is the fighter and rogue OP and that's why people like to play them etc etc.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm very confused at how notoriously difficult to balance Superhero RPGs, which do have to deal with a canonical issue of street-levelers mixed with cosmic heroes mixed with creators pets like Batman having balance issues has anything to do with balance in Fantasy where the creators decide the relative power level of the classes.
> 
> Unless this is another 'Wizards ruin everything' issue where wizards are expected to be gods (like Batman) and parity with martials would threaten them.



If you use the rules to represent in-universe power (like DnD usually does), it's basically impossible to balance street-level superheroes and god-level superheroes. If they were DnD characters, Thor would always be better than Hawkeye. 

The games (and comics and movies) that pull it off do so by not trying to do that. They balance the narrative impact of the characters: it's not that Hawkeye's arrows do as much damage ad Mjollnir, but they have the same amount of effect on the overall battle. Hawkeye is just as useful as Thor - even if they're not even close in terms of power.

Sometimes this is tailoring the spotlight: if the task is "hit a very small thing far away without touching anything next to it" Hawkeye's your man. The other method is to just not be simulationist in the rules, a la Fate or PbtA which don't have you roll for the attack so much as roll for the section of battle overall.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Stalker0 said:


> I mean you just did give a survey that says Sorcs are near the bottom, so we are half way there
> 
> The trick then is in asking why that is the case. Is it mechanics, flavor, is that people just like playing the "core 4" (in which case poor clerics). Is it that paladins are too "lawful stupid" for most people. Is the fighter and rogue OP and that's why people like to play them etc etc.



The most popular full caster is the Warlock - not by a lot but it's the winner. Is that due to simplicity, customizability, having the best 'story' for the class, or just doing the best job representing that story? I for one don't know.


----------



## HammerMan

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm very confused at how notoriously difficult to balance Superhero RPGs, which do have to deal with a canonical issue of street-levelers mixed with cosmic heroes mixed with creators pets like Batman having balance issues has anything to do with balance in Fantasy where the creators decide the relative power level of the classes.
> 
> Unless this is another 'Wizards ruin everything' issue where wizards are expected to be gods (like Batman) and parity with martials would threaten them.



 it was an example of too much balance... in order to make a game (any game) you need to balance it to a point but have enough clear differences that things don't feel or look the same.

in my example even though the fluff said Superman and Batman were very diffrent, the sheets could look out of game very similar...and get the 'samey' complint.


----------



## Horwath

Undrave said:


> I think what the Monk is good at is just not what people who want to play a martial artist want to be good at.



Monk is good at speed. The end


----------



## HammerMan

Blue said:


> Term is defined, I literally gave you the page in the PHB and the quote.




nope still didn't  becuse the base AC barkskin says can't drop below 16 is AFTER armor and Dex but is it after sheild? what about cover?


Blue said:


> You are posting in a public forum about rules changes, it's generally considered courteous to "understand any of it" before posting so you can present an informed opinion.  If you would like to proclaim that you don't know what you are talking about because you aren't paid to do it, that's your perogative.  It does give others an understanding of what weight to put on your suggested rules changes.  Thanks for the heads up, I won't bother to discuss rules changes with you.



You can ignore me all you want... but please don't quote bits and peices when I went on to show I did understand and how I would fix what you worried abotu


----------



## Undrave

Horwath said:


> Monk is good at speed. The end



And then what? Speed is not that valuable. People don't want to a martial artists who runs away all the time, they don't want to be the one who "locks down the casters" (which I think is an emergent property of the Monk, not an intended design). 

Let me paraphrase myself to explain what people want out of the Monk: They want to Rock the Dragon in the Dragon Balls with their bare fists.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Undrave said:


> Speed is not that valuable.



Lightning McQueen and the Flash disagree vehemently


----------



## Undrave

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Lightning McQueen and the Flash disagree vehemently



Not in D&D


----------



## Stalker0

Undrave said:


> And then what? Speed is not that valuable.



While I respect some of the issues with the monk, this is not one of them. The answer is.... speed is as valuable as the game makes it.

If the key lever to turn off a deadly trap is 60 feet away....the monk shines. If the person your party is trying to save is on the other edge of the combat, the monk can shine.

Class balance is partly based around hooks for the DM, obvious ways that the DM can make a class feel cool and special. Just as a DM can neuter fireball by only having single monster fights, they can neuter a monk's speed.....or they can make it essential by the design of encounters.


----------



## HammerMan

speed is good as little better then a ribbon.  it can help from time to time but isn't what I would want to build a class around...

Heck even flash gets other tricks now adays (throw lighting, phase through walls, run on water/up building, mach 10 punch, time travel, dimensional travel)


----------



## Undrave

Stalker0 said:


> While I respect some of the issues with the monk, this is not one of them. The answer is.... speed is as valuable as the game makes it.
> 
> If the key lever to turn off a deadly trap is 60 feet away....the monk shines. If the person your party is trying to save is on the other edge of the combat, the monk can shine.
> 
> Class balance is partly based around hooks for the DM, obvious ways that the DM can make a class feel cool and special. Just as a DM can neuter fireball by only having single monster fights, they can neuter a monk's speed.....or they can make it essential by the design of encounters.



I'm not saying the Monk shouldn't have that speed, but all of those are just niche things the DM specifically craft to let the Monk shine. It's got nothing to do with the Monk player making active decisions. The Monk being fast is fine, but I don't think it's worth as much as the designers seem to think. The Barbarian also gets a speed buff and nobody points to it as being important to the class... because it's not. It's a bonus. A nice thing to have. You don't pick the Barbarian class to run faster and so you shouldn't think people pick the Monk to run faster either.


----------



## Undrave

HammerMan said:


> speed is good as little better then a ribbon.  it can help from time to time but isn't what I would want to build a class around...
> 
> Heck even flash gets other tricks now adays (throw lighting, phase through walls, run on water/up building, mach 10 punch, time travel, dimensional travel)



Exactly. If we want to make it seem like the Monk is _FAST, _they should be fast at everything. The bonus action bare handed attack and flurry of blows should just have extra hits and maybe they should gain some bonus to certain skills as well and just no longer need to take any action to disengage. That sort of things.


----------



## Plaguescarred

Blue said:


> I would like "5.5" to be exactly as they described it: fully compatible.  So anything new is additive, nothing changed.
> 
> EDIT:  This is what 4e Essentials did, after lessons learned with 3.5.  It didn't invalidate or require changes to any existing character nor to any existing adventure.



A revision to something can means some changes. But i would also like something closer to Essentials than to .5 compatibility wise


----------



## Blue

Plaguescarred said:


> A revision to something can means some changes. But i would also like something closer to Essentials than to .5 compatibility wise



Thank you for your definition of "revision".  However, I was talking about the definition of "fully compatible", which is how they described it.

If I can run any previous character and every previous adventure with the new stuff without change, it's fully compatible.  Revision is a different term that does not hold to that.


----------



## ECMO3

Mercurius said:


> I hear your point, but would be surprised if they didn't tweak some of the classes, in particular the ranger, and maybe monk and sorcerer, as well as incorporate a number of other smallish changes to issues that have arisen over, what will be by then, ten years of playing the edition.



After Tashas, I don't think the Ranger needs any more tweaking to be potent.  It is now a top tier class probably third behind Wizard and just behind Paladin in combat but with substantially more utility than Paladin.

Those remaining that want Ranger changes seem to be focused on wanting a less magical Ranger and I don't see that as a change WOTC is likely to make.  Although it would be somewhat popular on this board, overall I think it would nger far more people than it would make happy.

Monk might get tweaked.  I don't see Sorcerer changing a lot.


----------



## ECMO3

HammerMan said:


> wait one more, remove default deities, and go back to a 2e style "spheres" over domains (you can keep the name I mean the mechanic). instead of knowing all cleric spells you have 10-12 lists of spells (one being general) and clerics start with access to the "all/generic" +2 other spheres of spells, and as they level they get more spheres up to a max of 6 (5+ generic/all).



I think there is zero chance of that.  I think it would be more likely that additional spells get added to the list that any cleric can prepare, potentially including some from other class lists,.

I really think they are going to steer clear of things that tighten or restrict builds in favor of things that expand or offer more build options and necking down the spells someone can pick does the former.


----------



## ECMO3

GreyLord said:


> The Monk has fewer HP possible now from HD in relation to other classes than it even had in 1e!



This is not true.  Monks in 5E have the same hps as Rogues and are 1hp behind fighters per level.

 In 1e they were behind Fighters at every level and behind Thieves at every level after 1st.  Even with a 16 constitution, when a Monk has the 2500xp to make level 2 the Thief with a 16 con is at level 3 and is 3hps ahead of the Monk.  He gets further ahead at every level after that.  By the time the Monk has the 3.2M xp to make 17th level the thief is 24th level.  That assumes the Monk won every single challenge or else the thief would be even further ahead and the monk has to stop there and even defend his position to avoid dropping to 16th level.  The thief keeps going up and up with every enemy he kills and go he finds.


----------



## GreyLord

ECMO3 said:


> This is not true.  Monks in 5E have the same hps as Rogues and are 1hp behind fighters per level.
> 
> In 1e they were behind Fighters at every level and behind Rogues at every level after 1st.  Even with a 16 constitution, when a Monk has the 2500xp to make level 2 the Rogue with a 16 con is at level 3 and is 3hps ahead of the Monk.  He gets further ahead at every level after that.  By the time the Monk has the 3.2M xp to make 17th level the thief is 24th level.  That assumes the Monk won every single challenge or else the thief would be even further ahead and the monk has to stop there and even defend his position to avoid dropping to 16th level.  The thief keeps going up and up.




Monks started with 2d4 for a maximum of 8 HP.  Rogues started with 1d6 or 6 HP in 1e.  Monks started ahead of Rogues in regards to HP base.

At level 2 the Monk has a base of 12 HP available, as does the Rogue, though with the more even scale of the 2d4 vs. 1d6 (or 3d4 at 2nd level vs 2d6 of a Rogue) the average for the Monk's HP is still higher than the Rogues base HP.

Monks fell behind a bit during mid levels but then did not STOP gaining HD at name level like other classes.  Instead, they continue to get HD every single level.

In comparisons, Monks start with less HP in relation to other classes proportionally (they had two times the HP of Wizards, and more than Thieves and Assassins in 1e when created as a base, now though they have more HP than Wizards it is only by 2/3s and as you state, start with the same HP as a Rogue) and a lower maximum HP overall...which I pointed out originally.

If we REALLY want to get into the bushes, Monks also get a lower AC, lower damage and a whole slew of other nerfs.  This probably originated in 3e where they nerfed the Monk pretty hard (and as I said, most likely due to racism, though probably not intentional racism on their part) and these nerfs have continued onwards into 5e, making it so that the Asian inspired class cannot be a toe to toe fighter or warrior, much less deal damage on the scale of others in many instances.

Why they feel the Monk cannot have as nice of things as other classes...well...institutional racism is a hard thing to overcome.

In some ways it originated with a racial bias (inspired by Kung-Fu the series and other movies, so based on those, but on a more awed inspired way, even if they didn't give the Monk ALL the nice toys it should have had even at the beginning) and that racial bias has continued, but gotten stronger in the way they view it so that the Monk got even LESS nice things than it did before.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Undrave said:


> Not in D&D



'Twas a joke.


----------



## teitan

SO what we've seen mentioned already is too many for me but what I would ideally like is:

Adding one new subclass to each with minor tweaks to the existing subclasses in the PHB. Add in the Artificer.

Have Tasha's as an option but use the original as quick build "default" versions for races. Studying how they plan to do it has left a sour taste in my mouth because it reeks of playing catch up to Pathfinder who are doing it better already and based on what WOTC has said will continue to do that bit better. 

Eliminate or at least clarify bonus actions. Too often people get confused about whether they have a bonus action or not. Either move to a move and two action economy or clarify and strengthen the bonus action so that it is more obvious. It has/can hold up games with players trying to figure out if they have a bonus action or not and I have seen players who don't know that their spellcaster has spells that can be cast as bonus actions because it isn't always clear unless you are using D&D Beyond. 

Make what is an optional rule more visually clear. Mark it out in a bubble or colored text. The amount of people who expect optional rules to be the default style of play is staggering. The amount of people who don't realize they are optional rules is even more suprising. I pointed out that something was an optional rule at a session one night when a player called it out that I didn't do something right and he looked it up and was surprised to see I was right. This needs to be more clear.


----------



## Vaalingrade

jmartkdr2 said:


> The other method is to just not be simulationist in the rules, a la Fate or PbtA which don't have you roll for the attack so much as roll for the section of battle overall.



I mean 'don't be simulationist' is IMO the best advice any game designer or experiencer can take.


----------



## Vaalingrade

HammerMan said:


> it was an example of too much balance... in order to make a game (any game) you need to balance it to a point but have enough clear differences that things don't feel or look the same.
> 
> in my example even though the fluff said Superman and Batman were very diffrent, the sheets could look out of game very similar...and get the 'samey' complint.



But your example even points out that they're in no way actually the same except for the guy who just wants to be clearly more powerful than the other (ie, Batman).


----------



## Mercurius

ECMO3 said:


> After Tashas, I don't think the Ranger needs any more tweaking to be potent.  It is now a top tier class probably third behind Wizard and just behind Paladin in combat but with substantially more utility than Paladin.
> 
> Those remaining that want Ranger changes seem to be focused on wanting a less magical Ranger and I don't see that as a change WOTC is likely to make.  Although it would be somewhat popular on this board, overall I think it would nger far more people than it would make happy.
> 
> Monk might get tweaked.  I don't see Sorcerer changing a lot.



Then those changes can be incorporated into the PHB 50th, as not everyone has Tasha's. Meaning, if the "new Ranger" is in a supplement, it should be incorporated into the core rules.


----------



## Plaguescarred

Blue said:


> Thank you for your definition of "revision".  However, I was talking about the definition of "fully compatible", which is how they described it.
> 
> If I can run any previous character and every previous adventure with the new stuff without change, it's fully compatible.  Revision is a different term that does not hold to that.



You're welcome. They can change things while still being fully compatible and run any previous character or adventure without much conflict. They could for exemple revise some core rules on falling, reduce a number of creatures having darkvision, change how racial ASI works etc while still being compatible. 

But i am fairly guaranteed when looking back closely not every little part of it will be as fully compatible as they pretend because they will want a revision over a new edition roll out, while incorporating many new changes they want in the game. It won't just be an errata to the 3 books, it entails more than that.


----------



## Blue

Plaguescarred said:


> You're welcome. They can change things while still being fully compatible and run any previous character or adventure without much conflict. They could for exemple revise some core rules on falling, reduce a number of creatures having darkvision, change how racial ASI works etc while still being compatible.
> 
> But i am fairly guaranteed when looking back closely not every little part of it will be as fully compatible as they pretend because they will want a revision over a new edition roll out, while incorporating many new changes they want in the game. It won't just be an errata to the 3 books, it entails more than that.



What makes you think so?  After the blastback with 3.0 to 3.5, in 4e they just introduced Essentials, which was fully compatible in the way I am suggesting.  What makes you guarantee that they will make revisions when they have both (a) already shown in the previous edition that is not how they do it anymore and (b) already put that to practice in Tasha's where nothing old is changed, just new options added.

In other words, please defend that they will break with the policy that they have had for both 4e and 5e to something else.  We have what I am saying already established by their behavior, provide equally strong examples or discussion from WotC that they will break this behavior and do revisions as you are stating.


----------



## HammerMan

Blue said:


> What makes you think so?  After the blastback with 3.0 to 3.5, in 4e they just introduced Essentials, which was fully compatible in the way I am suggesting.  What makes you guarantee that they will make revisions when they have both (a) already shown in the previous edition that is not how they do it anymore and (b) already put that to practice in Tasha's where nothing old is changed, just new options added.
> 
> In other words, please defend that they will break with the policy that they have had for both 4e and 5e to something else.  We have what I am saying already established by their behavior, provide equally strong examples or discussion from WotC that they will break this behavior and do revisions as you are stating.



where I agree Essentials is/was just additive. However I don't see how arguing 2 of the WotC (so discounting TSR for the moment) edition mid breaks 1 did 1 way and the other did the other is a solid argument for knowing for sure what way they will go.

As someone that LOVES 4e, and would have to be PAID to play 3/3.5/PF again I will say the biggest argument against the essentials is 4e's revision came later in the edition and didn't last as long as 3.5. 

Now having said that we are all guessing here, we are all hopeing.  My hope that this would be a ground up rewrite for the anniversary and 6e have all ready been dashed/


----------



## Plaguescarred

Blue said:


> What makes you think so?  After the blastback with 3.0 to 3.5, in 4e they just introduced Essentials, which was fully compatible in the way I am suggesting.  What makes you guarantee that they will make revisions when they have both (a) already shown in the previous edition that is not how they do it anymore and (b) already put that to practice in Tasha's where nothing old is changed, just new options added.
> 
> In other words, please defend that they will break with the policy that they have had for both 4e and 5e to something else.  We have what I am saying already established by their behavior, provide equally strong examples or discussion from WotC that they will break this behavior and do revisions as you are stating.



IIRC Essentials was more like a parallel redux than a revision of the PHB, it introduced classes more simple and streamlined than the one originally printed ones. 

I believe the rules were compatible though but the Fighter and the eFighter were different beast, not revised, of the other, they existed side by side. I remember them saying you could have the 2 in the same party without problem. 

Essential was not what i'd consider a revision of the core rulebooks compatible with 4E the way they announced 5E's revision to the core rulebooks.

Do i believe you will still be able to play using older 5E books and adventures alongside revised ones?  Yes. I have faith in their goals. But i have a gut feeling it may not be as smooth in some areas depending what changes they make to them. But changes must be significant enought to warrant a revision of the core rulebooks or people won't buy them if they're very similar.


----------



## Blue

HammerMan said:


> where I agree Essentials is/was just additive. However I don't see how arguing 2 of the WotC (so discounting TSR for the moment) edition mid breaks 1 did 1 way and the other did the other is a solid argument for knowing for sure what way they will go.
> 
> As someone that LOVES 4e, and would have to be PAID to play 3/3.5/PF again I will say the biggest argument against the essentials is 4e's revision came later in the edition and didn't last as long as 3.5.
> 
> Now having said that we are all guessing here, we are all hopeing.  My hope that this would be a ground up rewrite for the anniversary and 6e have all ready been dashed/



Actually, I'm not "guessing".  I'm saying that we have a clear sign that (a) the revisionist change of 3.0 to 3.5 has been superceded with the additive change of 4e Essentials, which is true.  They did one, and then change how they did it the next time.  I'm also saying we have _already seen_ that the same additive change is what they are already practicing between no revisions of existing classes so far and with how Tasha's handled it, specifically the Beastmaster ranger but also some of the optional adds to other classes.

So I am stating facts on what we have most recently seen.  This is not guessing, this is established.

I am asking for the same level of actual facts in a rebuttle.  Not "guessing" or "hoping".


----------



## HammerMan

Blue said:


> Actually, I'm not "guessing".  I'm saying that we have a clear sign that (a) the revisionist change of 3.0 to 3.5 has been superceded with the additive change of 4e Essentials, which is true.  I'm also saying we have already seen that the same additive change is what they are already practicing between no revisions of existing classes so far and with how Tasha's handled it, specifically the Beastmaster ranger but also some of the optional adds to other classes.
> 
> So I am stating facts on what we have most recently seen.  This is not guessing, this is established.
> 
> I am asking for the same level of actual facts in a rebuttle.  Not "guessing" or "hoping".



Okay, the most resent changes (the races) are completely different style and as such will ripple change through out making backwards compatibility hard to say the least.

WoTC has already launched 1 survey about how we do or don't like class features (including subclass and base class features) that if they change will ALSO hurt backwards compatibility.

Now it is possible to change class features, modify sub classes and redo races from the ground up but not to do those things AND make it just addative.

I will also add 4e had a robust errata through out it's life. So by the time essentials came around we ALREADY had dozens of pages of errata. 


That should all stand up as good of evidence as you have.

Having said that we STILL are ALL (yes you too) just guessing.


----------



## Blue

HammerMan said:


> Okay, the most resent changes (the races) are completely different style and as such will ripple change through out making backwards compatibility hard to say the least.
> 
> WoTC has already launched 1 survey about how we do or don't like class features (including subclass and base class features) that if they change will ALSO hurt backwards compatibility.
> 
> Now it is possible to change class features, modify sub classes and redo races from the ground up but not to do those things AND make it just addative.
> 
> I will also add 4e had a robust errata through out it's life. So by the time essentials came around we ALREADY had dozens of pages of errata.
> 
> 
> That should all stand up as good of evidence as you have.



This is good.  Strong, actual facts.



HammerMan said:


> Having said that we STILL are ALL (yes you too) just guessing.



We're all speculating on what the future will bring.  However, the details I brought up on why I was making that call were not guesses but true.  Now you've brought up other information that helps counter it - this is where real debate comes from.  What you have here is solid, not handwaving away trends we have observed but solid why we think those trends are changing.


----------



## Greg K

HammerMan said:


> back in the day there was a superhero D20 game called mutants and masterminds.
> 
> it was supposed to be balanced to have batman and superman in the same 'party'
> in theory you made batman super hard to hit and a little tough... you did this by giving him the equivalent of a huge dex bonus.



Sort of I guess as, in M&M, Dex and Defense (the equivalent of AC mod for Dex) were two unrelated things.


HammerMan said:


> You make superman by ditching AC all together and being really hard to hurt.  You have superman hit really strong/hard, and you have batman hit just right to do more damage...



Yeah, in 2e, Superman will have be doing high damage based off Strength (maybe, witht the feat(s) that trade off for more damage).  Batman will have a low base damage, several martial arts related feats. 


HammerMan said:


> this was pulled off with caps.  You would set a power level (lets take 12) and as such AC bonus maxed at 12, to hit maxed at 12, damage bonus maxed at 12, tougness (negate damage) maxed at 12 and super powers (each had a rank) maxed at 12.  However there were trade offs.
> 
> so in above example batman would trade 2 toughness max for 2 AC bonus max and have a 24AC and +10 toughness as max,



Is that a typo? How is he getting 24 AC and +10 Toughness? I know that in 2e, Tradeoffs on maximums were on a 1-to-1 basis. if he trades two Toughness for two  Defense ("AC") , His max Defense ("AC") is only 14. To get 24 Defense, his max Toughness would be reduced to 0 (This, of course, assumes that the GM is willing to accept that trade-off).


HammerMan said:


> BUT!!!!!  Big But, they both start with same number of points, and yeah batman may spend more on skills (not nescarlary being a detective and being a reporter has a lot of overlap) but when they start they both could end up with batman having +4 to hit (+6 with flank/suprise) +3 damage (+5 with flank/suprise) and superman having +5 to hit and +4 to damage, batman having a 16 AC (dodgey and armor) and superman having a 16 AC (tough hide) and batman having +15 toughness (dodgy roll withit plus body armor) and superman having +15 toughness (invunrable) and both having +4 initative...



I am a little lost here. How is Batman getting 16 AC and 15 Toughness in a PL 12 game? How is Superman getting a 16 AC (Tough Hide) and 15 Toughness?  In both 2e and 3e (and I am assuming you are talking about 2e or 3e, as you keep mentioning Toughness and trade-offs),  the combined max cannot be more than 24.


----------



## HammerMan

Greg K said:


> Sort of I guess as, in M&M, Dex and Defense (the equivalent of AC mod for Dex) were two unrelated things.



yes, again like i said it was a quick exmaple not an indepth look at M&M


Greg K said:


> Is that a typo? How is he getting 24 AC and +10 Toughness? I know that in 2e, Tradeoffs on maximums were on a 1-to-1 basis. if he trades two Toughness for two  Defense ("AC") , His max Defense ("AC") is only 14. To get 24 Defense, his max Toughness would be reduced to 0 (This, of course, assumes that the GM is willing to accept that trade-off).



Base AC 10 +14= AC24 and +10 touchenss   14+10=24 24/2=12  power level 12 allows for 24 AC and +10 toughness


Greg K said:


> I am a little lost here. How is Batman getting 16 AC and 15 Toughness in a PL 12 game? How is Superman getting a 16 AC (Tough Hide) and 15 Toughness?  In both 2e and 3e (and I am assuming you are talking about 2e or 3e, as you keep mentioning Toughness and trade-offs),  the combined max cannot be more than 24.



those should have both been +5 not 15


----------



## Greg K

HammerMan said:


> Base AC 10 +14= AC24 and +10 touchenss   14+10=24 24/2=12  power level 12 allows for 24 AC and +10 toughness



Ok, so you were talking about overall Defense total and not the bonus. got it.


----------



## HammerMan

Greg K said:


> Ok, so you were talking about overall Defense total and not the bonus. got it.



and again it wasn't an excusive look at the game (witch I like) it was just how sometimes things can feel the same.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Bring back Weapon Speed.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mercurius said:


> I hear your point, but would be surprised if they didn't tweak some of the classes, in particular the ranger, and maybe monk and sorcerer, as well as incorporate a number of other smallish changes to issues that have arisen over, what will be by then, ten years of playing the edition.
> 
> Or as I have said in the past, I don't think this is will be a true "5.5" but it will definitely be more than a "5.1" and probably more than a "5.2." My money is on 5.3 to 5.4...meaning, they'll avoid any backwards compatibility issues (as much as possible), but will use the opportunity to fix certain things and improve the game as a whole.



I think they’re gonna avoid compatibility issues so hard that most predictions will be disappointed.  

Like, no subclass ever printed in a book by them will be made incompatible with the updated version of the class. So, Rangers might get some tweaks, but it will probably be closer to putting the Tashas options in the PHB than anything major. Sadly, I doubt they’ll even put any core abilities at an earlier level.


----------



## Paul Smart

Another thing I would like to see, but this will have to wait for a new addition is flexible spell casting ability scores.  Wizard means wise one, you want a wizard that uses wisdom, sure.  A cleric is a brilliant theologian that uses intelligence.  Why not?  

Also, for third casters like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, choose two spell schools that you can use.  You want a gnome knight that uses illusion, great.  A human intelligence operative diviner rogue.  Sure. Add some flexibility so we can better realize whatever concept we have.


----------



## HammerMan

Paul Smart said:


> Another thing I would like to see, but this will have to wait for a new addition is flexible spell casting ability scores.  Wizard means wise one, you want a wizard that uses wisdom, sure.  A cleric is a brilliant theologian that uses intelligence.  Why not?
> 
> Also, for third casters like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, choose two spell schools that you can use.  You want a gnome knight that uses illusion, great.  A human intelligence operative diviner rogue.  Sure. Add some flexibility so we can better realize whatever concept we have.



I think AT and EK should get spellbooks (still limit the spells they get for level up by school, but can learn any wizard spell in game) and I agree allowing more flexible casting (and maybe attack) stats would be cool.


----------



## Mercurius

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think they’re gonna avoid compatibility issues so hard that most predictions will be disappointed.
> 
> Like, no subclass ever printed in a book by them will be made incompatible with the updated version of the class. So, Rangers might get some tweaks, but it will probably be closer to putting the Tashas options in the PHB than anything major. Sadly, I doubt they’ll even put any core abilities at an earlier level.



Possibly. They'll try to avoid compatibility issues, but you know how things go. I haven't checked out Tasha's, but maybe they're enough. But I just think tweaking classes is exactly the type of thing you do with a revision; to _not_ do so would be a missed opportunity.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mercurius said:


> Possibly. They'll try to avoid compatibility issues, but you know how things go. I haven't checked out Tasha's, but maybe they're enough. But I just think tweaking classes is exactly the type of thing you do with a revision; to _not_ do so would be a missed opportunity.



I don’t think this _is_ actually a revision. It’s largely a reprint, and the only things really being revised are gonna be monster stat blocks and how races are presented. And even those will like be presented as options. Any PHB race or class will still be AL legal, and anything they add will work with current published material.

IMO of course, but I will be very surprised if I’m far off the mark.


----------



## Mordhau

Stalker0 said:


> While I respect some of the issues with the monk, this is not one of them. The answer is.... speed is as valuable as the game makes it.
> 
> If the key lever to turn off a deadly trap is 60 feet away....the monk shines. If the person your party is trying to save is on the other edge of the combat, the monk can shine.
> 
> Class balance is partly based around hooks for the DM, obvious ways that the DM can make a class feel cool and special. Just as a DM can neuter fireball by only having single monster fights, they can neuter a monk's speed.....or they can make it essential by the design of encounters.



It's pretty one note though isn't it.  And not likely to be so relevant if you're not using the grid.

But the point was that the speed itself doesn't really convey the flavour of the monk (useful or not).  It would be better to give them the mobility feat for free (for example).  That would better convey the right kind of speed (ducking in and out of combat) rather than martial artis training being a short cut to Usain Bolt.

Mechanics have to convey flavour, and at a certain point mechanics that are useful but don't convey flavour well get in the way of replacements that would do a better job.

D&D just seems to suffer because designers (and fans, but that's a flaw in the playtest process) often can't seem to get past poor solutions to problems in order to find better ways to achieve the same ends.  (So the Monk must be fast in terms of raw movement, Rangers must have favoured enemies etc)


----------



## Mordhau

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t think this _is_ actually a revision. It’s largely a reprint, and the only things really being revised are gonna be monster stat blocks and how races are presented. And even those will like be presented as options. Any PHB race or class will still be AL legal, and anything they add will work with current published material.
> 
> IMO of course, but I will be very surprised if I’m far off the mark.



I think they'd have to at least revise the Ranger.  In it's current state it now works but it's a mess in terms of containing newbie traps.  Take two-weapon fighting and pick the wrong subclass and you find you have completely redundant features.  It might be possible to refine the core class so that the previously published subclasses remain viable unchanged, but I'd hope they would not be so constrained.


----------



## Mercurius

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t think this _is_ actually a revision. It’s largely a reprint, and the only things really being revised are gonna be monster stat blocks and how races are presented. And even those will like be presented as options. Any PHB race or class will still be AL legal, and anything they add will work with current published material.
> 
> IMO of course, but I will be very surprised if I’m far off the mark.



We'll see. At the very least, they can re-organize and consolidate, and make sure the PHB includes the "best of" various supplements and later additions. But again, I think it is quite possible they tweak a bunch of things throughout the book, and it is possible to do so without upsetting the apple-cart.

We may actually see more changes to the DMG and MM than the PHB, but who knows.


----------

