Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Jaden.Shadowcraft Sep 17, 2014 6:31:11	Mike Mearls has stated that in early 2015, there will be surveys going out much like we had in the playtest so that the rules can be modified, if need be. Which rules would you like to see adjusted in the living D&D system?   Here are a few things I would like to see updated:   Ranger:   Allow the beastmaster ranger to choose an animal companion that levels with him/her. That way, the animal companion is actually a viable partner that can hold his own in combat against creatures of any level. However, doing this requires the party to understand that the Ranger's animal companion counts as an addiitonal party member for XP. The 20th level capstone ability of Foe Slayer should read: "At 20th level, you become an unparralled hunter of your enemies. You can add your Wisdom modifier to the damage roll of EACH of your attacks you make against one of your favored enemies. If you are a beastmaster, this bonus also applies to your animal companion. Additional Training: We should be able to use the Training options to add to the list of our Natural Explorer feature. Assusming, you can find someone to train you, spending 250 days in the Artic (for example), should allow you to gain the benefits.   We should start listing the things we want to see updated here, and maybe even have this post stickied so that it can be easier for both players and the developers to find
#2 Ath-kethin Sep 17, 2014 6:35:54	Why would the developers even look here? They said they will be using surveys they provide, not hanging around the forums.
(Reply to #2) Jaden.Shadowcraft	Ath-kethin wrote:
#4 CCS Sep 17, 2014 7:00:29	This time frame is a mistake on the design teams part.
(Reply to #4) Jaden.Shadowcraft	CCS wrote:
#6 DemoMonkey Sep 17, 2014 9:49:45	"Allow the beastmaster ranger to choose an animal companion that levels with him/her. That way, the animal companion is actually a viable partner that can hold his own in combat against creatures of any level. However, doing this requires the party to understand that the Ranger's animal companion counts as an addiitonal party member for XP."   "Hey guys, I'm going to play a Beastmaster in our 4 man party. You all don't mind taking an experience point cut just so I can feel awesome right? Right? What...what are you doing with that axe. No! NOOOO!!!!"
#7 mellored Sep 17, 2014 10:33:22	Ath-kethin wrote:
#8 Gazra Sep 17, 2014 9:58:44	I hope the first round of updates focuses purely on fixing typos, errors, unclear wordings and so on. Any kind of game balance issues need to sit on the burner until many more people have had the chance to see how things work in actual play. Also wouldn't mind if any balancing errata was kept just as optional and modular as any DMG rule variant.
#9 DemoMonkey Sep 17, 2014 10:37:50	My personal take on it:   "We got this thing wrong, and now no one can use it, so here's a fix" is a necessary errata.   "We never thought of a player putting these two separate things together, and the combination is broken, so here's a fix." is unnecessary errata because the choice of just not combining those things is always an option for the player or the DM.
#10 BW0222 Sep 17, 2014 13:20:21	If true... this is a somewhat pointless thing.   First, I would have hoped they had enough playtesting that there aren't anything serious which needs to be completely overhauled.   Second, most of my suggestions are simple rules clarifications. Same questions keep coming up. I would hope these are addressed by FAQs or erratas.   Third, I'm sorry, but I'll need a year after all the books are released to actually have enough play time under my belt to have meaningful opinions other than obvious rules clarifications/errata issues.   Forth, no one is going to pay for a 5.5 version within two years or so. WotC doesn't have as solid a base as its 3.0 base when 3.5 was released. The D&D community is much more split -- 3.x, Pathfinder, 4.x, and now 5E. 5E also has an uphill battle getting folks to move over and consolidate the community again. I wish them luck, but having players pay another $150+ within two years of today likely isn't going to fly -- especially on a 0.5 update.   IMO, WotC needs to have FAQs and errata up quickly. However, releasing any type of serious updates within a year... isn't something I think the market will accept. Even hinting at it could easily stall 3.x, 4.x, and Pathfinder folks to wait until next year before even buying 5E and trying it.
#11 arnwolf666 Sep 17, 2014 15:26:34	Forums are the worse place to get idea's about your customer.  Forums seem to attract the most whiners and angry blogger types, and is a very poor representation of your customer base.  I don't think they should ever look at the forums except to answer specific rules questions.
#12 Dunther_the_Great Sep 17, 2014 15:36:09	DemoMonkey wrote:
(Reply to #10) BTShire	BW0222 wrote:
#14 Kavrek Sep 17, 2014 19:47:39	BTShire wrote:
#15 RCanine Sep 17, 2014 22:31:01	DemoMonkey wrote:
#16 Psikerlord Sep 18, 2014 1:17:57	I would suggest any possible changes to a 2nd edition PHB include:   1. fixing that max damage evoker ability so it does d12 dmg with cantrips 2. giving all ranger pets save profs in the same stats as the ranger, and giving them evasion. Or make this a feat wth a +1 wis thrown in to placate the "feat tax" feel of it.   cheerio
(Reply to #16) Ashrym	Psikerlord wrote:
#18 arnwolf666 Sep 18, 2014 5:08:41	There will be a 6th edition as soon as the sales for 5E drop.  It is that simple.  I just hope 6E is a cleanup of 5E and not an entirely different game.
#19 arderkrag Sep 18, 2014 6:08:44	I will not be errating my phb into irrelevance. What needs to happen is an offering of options differing from those in the phb.
#20 Arawn76 Sep 18, 2014 6:16:11	I'll be honest if they even hint at anything other than a printing update I'll wash my hands of trhe game. Update to mistakes...fine, rules changes requiring a 5.5 adios   Played that game once and once only
(Reply to #17) Bardic_Dave	Ashrym wrote:
#22 GhostStepper Sep 18, 2014 9:51:05	BTShire wrote:
(Reply to #21) Ashrym	Bardic_Dave wrote:
(Reply to #23) Bardic_Dave	Ashrym wrote:
#25 Trillinon Sep 18, 2014 13:05:27	The stated purpose of the annual surveys to to keep tabs on how people feel about the rules over the course of time and to make adjustments where things haven't worked out. But, they have not stated the method those adjustments will take. The impression I got is that they would try and use future products to provide alternative mechanics instead of revising the PHB.
(Reply to #24) Ashrym	Bardic_Dave wrote:
#27 ORC_Cricket Sep 18, 2014 19:41:34	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct   Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.     Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
(Reply to #13) BW0222	BTShire wrote:
#29 Chakravant Sep 18, 2014 21:23:40	Both Cook and Mearls in L&L articles mentioned that 5E is intended to be the definitive, final edition of D&D.  That is why it was codenamed "Next" rather than 5E.  It isn't supposed to be an edition.  It is supposed to be the sum going forward.   WotC could go bankrupt tomorrow and it wouldn't significantly impact Hasbro stock prices.  They're such a lernean hydra at this point WotC is barely a drop in the bucket.
#30 GhostStepper Sep 18, 2014 21:31:01	Chakravant wrote:
#31 Chakravant Sep 18, 2014 22:04:25	GhostStepper wrote:
(Reply to #26) Bardic_Dave	Ashrym wrote:
#33 Zardnaar Sep 19, 2014 3:44:50	Chakravant wrote: