Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 jaden_stormtracker Aug 03, 2015 4:43:13	According to Mike Mearls at GenCon:    * The Player's Handbook might change, but only based on a lot of player feedback, because a revised version was popular.   Given the fact that the Player's Handbook is $50, I think if that they did a D&D 5.5 edition, it would seriously piss of the customer base. The game is only like a year old. WTF is WotC thinking???
#2 sim-h Aug 03, 2015 4:47:21	It would just be a 2nd printing, including all the errata etc. I expect it would not change a huge amount of core things. Maybe add in some UA rules and a reworked Beastmaster Ranger if they do that.   Think it's a bit of a leap to say WotC are releasing DnD 5.5 based on that one statement!
#3 Nozareem Aug 03, 2015 6:05:21	While their working on beast master ranger how about they also fix up the pact blade warlock?  Like allow them a special side note about the use of the armor of shadow invocation add in the fact if you character is a pact blade warlock they could wear light armor while using this spell.  This will allow them to last longer as a melee attacker.  It would also be nice to have a invocation at 5th lvl you can pick up the dual pact blade invocation.  These ideas will help make the pact blade more effective and more fun to play!
(Reply to #2) ModusPonens	sim-h wrote:
(Reply to #4) Ath-kethin	ModusPonens wrote:
#6 Hebitsuikaza Aug 03, 2015 7:14:12	Yeah, unfortunately one of the issues with a printed RPG as opposed to an online game is that you can't "patch" balance issues or bugs (i.e. the rules not being clear enough causing unexpected consequences) and such so easily. Even with card games, you remake your sets each year or two and can change the text on the cards so that it is clarified or more balanced than the older version's text.   They try to do this through eratta. There have been a lot of rulings to clarify the rules since the book was printed-- and a lot of that was done in Twitter and such.   If one is going to do a new printing, they may as well rewrite the unclear rules or change whatever they ruled should be changed rather than just straight printing the version that conused people.
#7 shintashi Aug 03, 2015 8:20:40	Beastmaster ranger section could be redone, because it needs it - heck, simply changing it to "a collection of one or more animals who's total does not exceed CR 1" would make the class totally amazeballz. (because you could have like, a couple of ferrets at CR1/8, a bird at CR1/4, and a big cat at CR 1/2, for instance... you know, like in the movie Beast Master).   The one thing that could be added that would help out everyone without changing any rules would be a Spells by School guide, like they used to have in AD&D. All this is is a couple of extra pages that tells you which wizard spells are Necromancy, Evocation, etc., and sorts them by level, with little paranthesis at the end of each spell in the list. This helps specialist wizards tremendously. I can guess some of the spells but others not so much, and as a DM it would be nice to have a quick reference - you might see a bunch of summoning or abjuration spells while reading book only to discover more than half the ones you liked weren't available to the Wizard at all. That kinda sucked.   They could probably add an Elementalist wizard and throw in the Elemental Evil spells into the spell list, or they could save that for a future supplement. Fire Elementalists for example, have almost always been close to core in most people's minds, and simple too.
#8 edwin_su Aug 03, 2015 8:45:36	jaden_stormtracker wrote:
#9 mellored Aug 03, 2015 9:19:51	We added a revivify beast spell.  (level 2, no component cost).   So far, it's make the beastmaster much better.
#10 Coredump00 Aug 03, 2015 9:26:11	jaden_stormtracker wrote:
#11 arnwolf666 Aug 03, 2015 10:15:58	If they would just get rid of the concentration mechanic.
#12 The_Jester Aug 03, 2015 10:25:18	As mentioned above, listen to the actual podcast. It was said in a hypothetical sense. And, again, it would depend on the idea being popular.
#13 Zardnaar Aug 03, 2015 11:25:39	Probably be more like the 1995 2E PHB vs the 1989 PHB. Errata+ new art.
(Reply to #11) Yunru	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #14) arnwolf666	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #11) Cyber-Dave	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #16) arnwolf666	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#18 cassi_brazuca Aug 03, 2015 14:47:56	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #18) arnwolf666	cassi_brazuca wrote:
#20 Vulf Aug 03, 2015 15:04:50	Throughout 4th edition they slightly revised things based on player feedback. Such as Battlerage Vigor temporary hitpoint generation, or completely nerfing the feat that let you use constitution for AC instead of dexterity. Which dropped a few classes into the void of obscurity.   Things they need to address are: Second Wind being nearly worthless Dual wielding being nearly worthless by requiring a bonus action Multiclassing ****ing up your progression towards extra attack, while at the same time most campaigns have a big leap in difficulty around player level 5. -Expecting everyone to have extra attack by that time.   As well as extra options for the sake of having extra options: Too many fighting styles. There should just be 3, each with 2 benefits. The choice would be more meaningful if it helped you do more than 1 thing.
#21 Yunru Aug 03, 2015 15:00:34	If we're talking about things we miss, I miss lazy gameplay. The "My allies will do ot for me" of the 4e Warlord, the "My enemies will do it to themselves" of the 4e Enchanter. Sure there's a lot of control spells, but they're all prolonged spells with saves rather than one-off "do X"s, with a lack of saves making up for a lack of sustain.
(Reply to #20) arnwolf666	Vulf wrote:
#23 Vulf Aug 03, 2015 15:18:31	I think a couple of spells could probably be revised to have their concentration mechanic removed. I like the system though, I think it adds an element of vulnerability and excitement.   Magic Weapon. I'd be fine with a shorter duration and no concentration.   Bless is kind of a spell tax on the Party's only divine caster. Could it be weaker, such as a static +1, but effect more people and not require concentration? Higher levels make it +2, +3?
(Reply to #23) arnwolf666	Vulf wrote:
(Reply to #16) arnwolf666	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#26 Yunru Aug 03, 2015 15:33:32	Because at some point, some bright spark looked at the balancing mechanic and thought "let's use it for flavour too!" May that person live in interesting times.
#27 TenaciousJ Aug 03, 2015 16:57:27	I hope concentration is always a part of 5e because I like how it changed the dynamic coming from 3.5, but I also hope they review which spells require concentration or alter some of those spells to work without concentration if casted with a higher level slot.   Bless would be fine if instead of gaining more targets, it allowed concentration on 1 other spell at slot level 2 or 3, and then working for maximum duration without any concentration at slot level 3 or 5.  It's not a tax anymore than a party must have Bardic Inspiration or a Wolf Totem Barbarian for easy advantage.
(Reply to #27) arnwolf666	TenaciousJ wrote:
#29 Shasarak Aug 03, 2015 17:51:52	Ath-kethin wrote:
#30 arnwolf666 Aug 03, 2015 18:19:22	I really would have liked to see 3.x keep refining in the direction that 3.5 was going with a simplification of the rules which was not happening.  I really liked the swift and immediate actions.  I liked the reserve feats far better than infinite cantrips.
(Reply to #30) Zardnaar	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #31) arnwolf666	Zardnaar wrote:
#33 TenaciousJ Aug 03, 2015 22:56:03	Zardnaar wrote:
(Reply to #33) arnwolf666	TenaciousJ wrote:
#35 Ramzour Aug 03, 2015 23:56:13	jaden_stormtracker wrote:
#36 moonbeast Aug 04, 2015 4:41:35	jaden_stormtracker wrote:
#37 DemoMonkey Aug 04, 2015 5:03:46	"50% is the majority."   Ummm...
#38 TenaciousJ Aug 04, 2015 6:22:44	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #38) arnwolf666	TenaciousJ wrote:
#40 Zardnaar Aug 04, 2015 11:18:56	I like magic item christmas tree in AD&D, 3E not so much.
#41 MonsterEnvy Aug 04, 2015 11:35:51	arnwolf666 wrote:
#42 LuisCarlos17f Aug 04, 2015 12:08:29	* Magic item Christmas tree. that is fun...but it is real for lots of videogames, for example Diablo by Blizzard, or Newerwinter Online.    * We may see a 5.5, abut after a lot of feedback. I guess after playtesting with videogame versions.
#43 Vulf Aug 04, 2015 13:57:02	I also think heavy armor should let you benefit from a +1 mod to dexterity(1 less than medium armor). 2nd edition rules Baldur's Gate having such a mechanic on the heavy armors that didn't hang loosely. Baldur's Gate was my introduction to DnD, and many of my expectations on what DnD can be came from it. Interesting stories, memorable characters, customisable class kits.   Just because you are wearing the best lumps of metal money can buy doesn't mean you should stand there like a statue. Why are you even allowed to take the dodge action in plate armor if you aren't capable of gaining any benefit from being dextrous?
#44 MechaPilot Aug 04, 2015 14:11:00	Vulf wrote:
(Reply to #29) UngeheuerLich	Shasarak wrote:
#46 Mandarin Aug 04, 2015 14:50:36	What is big enough changes for an update (5,5e), instead of just errata. Say that they decide to just give Heavy Armor Master damage reduction 3 (no buts), and Shield Master straight out add shield bonus to reflex saves, to follow the design goal of 5e, that is simplicity. Is that the type of changes we could get in errata, or does such thing cause 5,5?    For example changes to ranger beast master, seems to be so big, that it shouldn't be an errata.    Having said that, I do hope that we dont get bloated with erratas, as it will make it a mess, and I would in such case, rather have a proper update.
#47 Shasarak Aug 04, 2015 15:33:24	UngeheuerLich wrote:
(Reply to #31) Brightmantle	Zardnaar wrote:
#49 rookrock Aug 05, 2015 9:17:56	When 3.5 came out, I threw my hands up as I had been dumping cash into 3. I'll be OK with a 5.5 update if someone with a 5.5 phb can sit at the table with a 5.0 phb (with errata) with no problems. If they expect me to buy in again, even if they wait 5 years to do it, I'll walk again. I have been actively buying every little thing they put out since July last year because they touted this as the edition for the ages. Errata? Fine. New PHB that makes old PHB unuseable at the table? Not fine.   I actually like that much of this game is about rulings by the DM's I play with (even when I disagree) rather than WotC putting out something that becomes too rigid.   I also get that the Beast Master Ranger needs something to make him less suck. The only fair way to do that, however, would be to rework Beast-Master and put him both in a new PHB and in the free Basics (or some free online alternative). The only other alternative I see isincluding a reworked Beast-Master in a player's companion (like the one for PotA and the incoming one for RoD). Actually to have it in the RoD would be perfect for all the Drizzt fanboys (a club I'm proud to be a part of) though I know the time line for that is too short.   Anyway, TL;DR, I'm not buying any 5.5 PHB, DMG, or MM should they ever surface. Find a better way to release/fix content.
#50 Cyber-Dave Aug 05, 2015 9:52:23	rookrock wrote:
#51 arnwolf666 Aug 05, 2015 16:42:41	Amazes me how we have a generation that buys video games like crazy and the balk at the idea of buying a new PHB every year.
#52 MechaPilot Aug 05, 2015 17:02:35	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #52) arnwolf666	MechaPilot wrote:
#54 Vulf Aug 05, 2015 18:11:16	Game of the Year editions usually come out a year later, but at a cheaper price with all the new stuff included.   And Steam sales, hur hur.   Either they print a new edition of the book, but decide not to release the new materials online for free because Why would anyone buy the new book? or they use the campaign setting books like Sword Coast as a vehicle to release new class options or "rules variants, we aren't changing the rules these are just variants that are completely optional that fix broken rules but you can use the old stuff if you want even though this way is better."   The first choice definitely pisses people off. The 2nd choice causes bloat, but probably pisses fewer people off.   Remember in 4th edition, the new versions of the PHB rules had to be purchased, either with a new book or by paying a monthly subscription to read the rules online.   The basic rules they have posted is probably because having to teach every every single player that shows up to Adventurer's League the rules probably leaves a sour taste in the mouth of both the DM and the Players.
(Reply to #51) rookrock	arnwolf666 wrote:
#56 Mistwell Aug 05, 2015 22:32:19	55 posts, and only one person seems to have actually listened to the podcast to hear what was actually said - which isn't the interpetation put on it by the first post and run with for most posts since then.   Listening to the actual broadcast, which is almost an hour long, here is what he actually says. It starts around the 32.5 minute mark (though refers back to discussion that starts around the 30 minute mark or so). He's saying that IF they were ever to do a revised Player's Handbook (not when, but if), it would be many many years down the line, and it would have a very high bar for changes, and those changes would have been well vetted in playtesting and would be very popular and obvious ones. Ones which alost the entire player base would say. "well, of course, that's how we're all using it now already, it's super popular, it's the thing we all do now so the Player's Handbook should reflect it". The tone definitely never implies it would happen any time soon, if at all.   He also says the more typical "changes" would instead be to release additional content for classes, not change existing content. In fact he refers back to that concept and basically says they would only change the PHB if the additional content became so popular that it was, in essence, the only real content people were now using for that class.   The full broadcast is worth a listen if you have the chance. There is a lot more context in it than a summary can really do justice to for finer details like this one line summary.
#57 Shasarak Aug 05, 2015 23:07:08	I would say that at least three people have listened to it.
#58 Grazel Aug 06, 2015 1:23:11	rookrock wrote:
(Reply to #58) rookrock	Grazel wrote:
#60 The_Jester Aug 06, 2015 9:56:40	arnwolf666 wrote:
#61 The_Jester Aug 06, 2015 10:11:55	Grazel wrote:
#62 Grazel Aug 08, 2015 2:38:27	The_Jester wrote:
#63 The_Jester Aug 08, 2015 9:02:20	Grazel wrote: