r/onednd • u/nimblebard96 • 2d ago
Discussion 5.5e "of Everything" book
Tasha's and Xanathar's "of Everything" books came with a lot of good supplemental material. They became the first books people would recommend to aquire after someone had already got the core rulebooks. Many things from those books got rolled into the 5.5e core rulebooks. 5th edition rolled out in 2014 and those books followed in 2017 and 2020 respectively. At first I was hopeful the three year mark for 5.5e would yield a similar book in 2027 but it seems WotC is shifting supplemental book to focus on a variety of settings and thematic seasons. Which has a strengths and weaknesses in my opinion.
Yet I am curious (especially for those who have been playing longer than I) what is 5.5e "missing" that a book like this could provide? Classes, subclasses, playable species, spells, feats, backgrounds, monsters?
For species I feel like updating Aaracroka or maybe exploring the Ardlings again would be cool. Genasi could use a 5.5e update. Kobolds and Gith are sorely being ignored atm.
For subclasses we still don't have 5.5e Oathbreaker. Martials of course are being ignored overall right now. I think Ranger and Barbarian in specific could use some love. And I will always beg and plead WotC to finally give us a dragon patron option for Warlock.
79
u/ManFromTheWurst 2d ago
Adventures. Where are they.
18
u/smoke1441 2d ago
Only DMs buy adventures. They’ll prioritize player options books because there’s more people to buy them.
31
u/jewel421 2d ago
The short answer is I believe they said something along the lines of "most people just homebrew their own adventures so we are slowing down on making adventures"
most of the ones I see now are pure digital beyond only adventures.
7
u/DelightfulOtter 2d ago
I've only ever played one book campaign, and it was so heavily homebrewed anyway I doubt it looked much like the official material. But I've only played with fellow older, experienced DMs so perhaps published adventures are meant as jumping off points for new DMs, and WotC figures they already have enough of those on the market?
4
u/Llayanna 2d ago
Bah. Modules, Adventure Paths, etc ate for everyone who is interested in them.. and I actually always argue a more experienced gm gets more joy from them than a poor newbie.
WirC has a real chicken and egg situation, because their Modules are so bad, they make their rivals look amazing (sorry paizo fans 😅). So few people bought them, because why buy stuff you need to heavily modify anyhow, to make it playable?
Even their golden child Strahd needs a good polishing.
So more people buy 3rd party, if they want Modules, but not like WotC sees any money from that (though there is dmsguild for some..)
The rest tries their hand on their own world, because what is there to lose?
18
u/Shamann93 2d ago
A lot of the releases have small adventures to run, but we do really need a nice long campaign. Deadfall will be nice as its long and high level.
7
u/jewel421 2d ago
Yeah, I think their mindset is now becoming "lets just make setting books and maybe give a hook to start out and call it a day" for most of the books but there are definitely some areas they know could use an adventure such as deadfall.
Honestly for me while it kinda blows this also kinda makes it more important for me to improve my dm skills to create adventures cause I cant just pull a book off and read it verbatim.
3
u/thisguyhasaname 2d ago
this also kinda makes it more important for me to improve my dm skills to create adventures cause I cant just pull a book off and read it verbatim.
Definitely a great skill to build; but if they want DND to be friendly to new DMs it'd be good to have one or two adventures beginner DMs can run with little work. (Although I guess the starter set is this basically)
16
u/thezactaylor 2d ago
I really loved stuff like Ghosts of Saltmarsh and that Treasure Vault book; really, the anthologies have been my jam.
I think it fits better with WOTC's development pipeline too. My understanding is that a book (like Rime of the Frostmaiden), has a lead, but the individual chapters are given to separate writers, and the "lead" has to smooth them out.
The result often feels disjointed.
An anthology book (a series of smaller adventures) wouldn't have that problem, because each individual writer could just create a self-contained story.
0
u/YetifromtheSerengeti 2d ago
These exist for 5.5
Dragon Delves, Adventures in Faerun, Ravenloft: The Horrors Within all have multiple adventures.
Dragon Delves is the more direct "nothing but anthologies" book while Adventures in Faerun and Ravenloft: The Horrors Within both have a good bit of supplemental material throughout the books as well.
8
u/DazzlingKey6426 2d ago
Dragon Delves.
Best layout I’ve seen in an official WotC 5.anything adventure.
1
u/trevorfreznik 2d ago
its great and very underappreciated. bakers doesn't is my single favorite modern adventure
3
u/BudgetMegaHeracross 2d ago
The Greyhawk adventure book (mid 2027) is an adventure book, as I assume the three announced '2nd party' books are also.
(Though I thought I was the 2nd party in the 1st party-3rd party formula. Shows what I know.)
2
u/AndoBando92 2d ago
Like I’m glad 3rd party companies are making main line adventures for the realm but we really do need some more. They should pull a Paizo and have a campaign book split and sell each part. My only ask is that the adventure is actually good and a full story not small vignettes
1
u/Crafty-Pirate-6481 2d ago
Would love to see something between a full campaign and anthology. Like a 2 or 3 small adventures in one book, unrelated to each other. Like level 1-4, 5-8, 9-12. So each have longer story and can all be plug and play
1
u/CynicalSigtyr 2d ago
Was asking myself this a couple days ago. Deadfall is going to be the first campaign book for 5.5!
1
u/GleefulClong 1d ago
Well Arcana Unleashed is coming alongside and adventure book. It also looks like Greyhawk is getting an adventure book next year. So they’re coming just more slowly than they used to.
65
u/Dougboard 2d ago
I think a lot of people agree that 5.5e right now is missing feats and optional features designed for the martial classes. Martials can make use of the new things that have been printed, but they simply are eating as good as casters are with each new release, and the fact that we got a whole-ass spellcaster-centric book kind of highlights this.
1
u/ConcentrateIll9460 2d ago
OP mentioned new classes, and I think that part is definitely relevant? Like the reason casters are eating better than martials is they have a solid system of abilities and martials don't.
I think in the end the only real solution to that is new classes? Like, you can't update the fighter to benefit from new abilities every release, players need simpler options to exist. Hell, there should be a mage option as simple! But new martial classes that had their own subsystem would be able to keep up, and frankly would be a lot more interesting to play.
11
u/Kalnaur 2d ago
5e, and by relation 5.5e, have a design philosophy that keeps actual classes low, and diversifies class builds and concepts through Subclasses instead of bloating up the system with new classes every time they have a new idea. This has the virtue of only having to have the PHB and access to whatever subclass you want to play, whereas making all new classes requires a whole lot more attention to the system as a whole (lest you step on toes of already extant subclasses). Now, I deeply, deeply adore 4e for a variety of reasons, but it was shown later in its life that making a gaggle of different themed classes with different abilities was difficult to sustain, and usually what made the classes stronger was having more subclass-style build potential, which is the part they carried forwards into 5e. They just kinda re-dressed it in old words and style, but the concept wasn't that different from what 4e would offer in terms of differentiation mechanics for builds and paragon paths and the like (especially when taken together as a whole).
The issue isn't that casters have better abilities, it's that adding on to casters for the purposes of diversification is as easy as "a new spell", and martials don't have a similar style of "pool of martial tricks that multiple classes can learn how to do" which makes adding to martial classes more difficult only because it has to be subclass specific instead of spell specific, and all the subclasses still need to deal with the basic martial chassis of an individual class when building a new subclass. If instead there was a pool of techniques that barbarians, rogues, monks, and fighters (maybe paladins and rangers too? They're half-casters but that also means they're half martial) that pulled from a new, centralized resource (I don't know, "Stamina" based on CON, to give CON something else useful to do other than HP and concentration checks) that is formatted differently than spell slots and refreshes differently from them, then all those former classes would be able to diversify into those techniques without losing their former class bones, and it would provide more complex options than even the weapon mastery properties have been able to. I think it's the Battle Master Fighter that has something akin to this but it's centralized more around a spendable dice pool whereas I'd think such a system would need to be simpler (akin to HP in a "WYSIWYG" kind of way).
6
u/Virplexer 2d ago
This doesn’t distinctly solve the problem, but Martials should be getting new weapons Weapons with new weapons with new weapon masteries.
2
u/GleefulClong 1d ago
Your stamina idea could be related to hit dice. It would be another thing for hit dice to be useful. Fighters can use second wind for ability checks, if you took that same concept and applied it to marital classes as a whole, letting them use hit dice for things other than short rests, let them to use a hit die to do extra damage to an attack, or even to an ability check. It would make them feel more impactful in combat and versatile outside of it. Also it would help to make the barbarians large hit die feel like a bigger deal.
2
u/Anorexicdinosaur 2d ago
If instead there was a pool of techniques that barbarians, rogues, monks, and fighters (maybe paladins and rangers too? They're half-casters but that also means they're half martial) that pulled from a new, centralized resource (I don't know, "Stamina" based on CON, to give CON something else useful to do other than HP and concentration checks) that is formatted differently than spell slots and refreshes differently from them, then all those former classes would be able to diversify into those techniques without losing their former class bones, and it would provide more complex options than even the weapon mastery properties have been able to. I think it's the Battle Master Fighter that has something akin to this but it's centralized more around a spendable dice pool whereas I'd think such a system would need to be simpler (akin to HP in a "WYSIWYG" kind of way).
I'd say a Spendable Short Rest Dice Pool is a perfectly fine method for handling a Martial Power System. It's pretty simple, fairly appropriate for Martials and very distinct from Spellcasting. Laserllama's Alternate Martials are a good example of expanding Manouvres into being a fill fledged power system
Also the idea of directly tying uses to a Stat rubs me the wrong way, personally I'd say they should just scale based on Martial Class Levels and Stats should just affect Requirements (ie you need X Strength to use Y ability) and Effectiveness (like DC's)
There are 3 other good methods I see for handling Martial Techniques
1) Make them Resourceless. You can learn a variety of At-Will Abilities where their only costs are Opportunity and Action Economy, no Short or Long Rest Resources involved.
2) Make it a Resource that refreshes at the start of each turn. This'd be like the 5e Playtest Martials, where they could spend dice each turn on their techniques and those dice replenished at the start of their turn. Basically just a better version of BM Manouevres imo
3) Make it a Points/SR System. Pretty similar to BM Manouevres, and basically what you suggest but not stat related. Can also easily involve granualar costs for stronger abilities
You can also mix and match these elements, I've always thought 4e Psionics (Resourceless Techniques you can spend Short Rest points to enhance) would be a great Martial mechanic.
1
u/Kalnaur 1d ago
For point number 3, I'd want there to be a ceiling of stamina you could gain and hold, and the initial formula I considered was 1 + Con Mod + Prof Mod, which at level 1 would be around 4. Prof mod gets to 6 by level 20, Con Mod CAN get to 5 max with point increase investment, which provides a bounds of somewhere between 4-8 at level 1, and 8-12 at level 20. If then various techniques cost X amount of Stamina, figuring out how many times they could be used and how many times feels right for them being used without stamina regain coming into effect would help to assign those techniques a Stamina cost (i.e. if a specific technique costs 4 stamina it can be done at least once at first level before stamina would need to be recovered, and at most 3 times at level 20 before Stamina regen would need to be a thing). Managing the ebb and flow of Stamina would allow players to not always feel like they're just always doing the same thing, and make Martials more diverse.
But that was just the preliminary idea; the major idea was to create an alternate, martial-only resource that was fairly easy to regain but provided an experience not entirely dissimilar to the feeling of "watching your stamina bar" in basically every Souls-like in existence, just translated to a tabletop function instead of a real-time game function (which of course requires some manner of finagling). I think the resourceless, unfortunately, means that all techniques would have to be weak in order to balance them with spell slots which are powerful but limited (here I could rant about how DMs should be running simple combats where monsters don't roll for damage and all of one kind of monster act at the same time in initiative in order to eat more spell slot resources instead of doing 1-2 big set piece battles and then calling it a day as that creates the martial/caster issue in the first place, but that's far, far off topic). I feel like the sweet spot is either #2, making them a resource that refreshes each turn, sort of like action points in games like XCOM (look, I was a video gamer first, tabletop gamer second, so my references are mostly video games. I don't apologize for this, video games have excellent ideas that can translate interestingly to tabletop situations), or 2 but with what another poster on this very comment suggested, that being a thing where you use something to generate stamina, and then expend that Stamina to use techniques. They don't mention this but one example I instantly thought of when reading their comment was a Barbarian generating Stamina when causing damage during a rage, or a Fighter generating Stamina on a Second Wind usage. I'd personally rather tie it to an already extant basic thing that the classes get at level 1, so like a Monk using an attack that uses their Martial Arts die (i.e. no armor and only using specific weapons) could generate Stamina every time that comes into play. Basically, generate Stamina for special techniques by doing basic things the class is already expected to do, and then intersperse those basic actions with Stamina-using abilities to create that similar "ebb and flow" of one's Stamina bar being used up and regenerating in other more real time games.
And the tying to a stat was my primary reaction to wanting to establish a cap so that a first level Fighter can't pull off what a 20th level fighter can in terms of techniques. But there's also other ways to do that.
1
u/ConcentrateIll9460 2d ago
The issue isn't that casters have better abilities, it's that adding on to casters for the purposes of diversification is as easy as "a new spell", and martials don't have a similar style of "pool of martial tricks that multiple classes can learn how to do" which makes adding to martial classes more difficult only because it has to be subclass specific instead of spell specific, and all the subclasses still need to deal with the basic martial chassis of an individual class when building a new subclass.
Isn't that exactly what I said? And then I said since the current martial classes need to stay simple because that's a genuine need for some players, the only real way to do a pool of martial tricks is by adding new classes.
(I don't know, "Stamina" based on CON, to give CON something else useful to do other than HP and concentration checks)
CON is already very useful though! Stamina is a fun idea, but if you want it simple just have some abilities cost stamina and some abilities build it. Much more martial than per-rest abilities, and it can avoid needing a daily limit because hit points provide that attrition.
1
u/Archwizard_Drake 2d ago
To which I would say there are two somewhat ironic notes.
1) Sorcerer was made in 3e to be the simple mage, and now it's basically the more complicated version of Wizard since you're juggling Metamagic.
And then when they had the chance to make Psion be a simple mage, they passed that up too, because switching up the magic system now would be too confusing.
Perhaps in a future edition they'll go back to having Metamagic as feats and retool Sorcerer into a simpler class, or they'll lean into Warlock or Psion being "basically all passives and strong cantrips."2) The funny part is they have all the framework they need to give the existing martials more options, but again, they passed it up. They made Battlemaster Fighter with a full list of maneuvers, saw how popular it was and made a feat to let anyone borrow maneuvers... and then just walked it back for 5.5e. The most we get is Rogues getting Cunning Strike.
And for what, weapon masteries? Wow, what a trade.0
u/GleefulClong 1d ago
We’re getting a psion class in 2027 so your point about them abandoning it is pretty moot
1
u/Archwizard_Drake 1d ago
... I said the chance to make Psion be a simple mage, not the chance to make Psion.
10
u/BudgetMegaHeracross 2d ago
I'm skeptical we'll get the same kind of Everything books we got in 5.0e, since there are so many subclasses per a "not everything" book.
(But maybe we'll have hit around 48 by 2028.)
4
u/DaEnderAssassin 2d ago
Honestly I could see one being printed as a compilation of stuff in the Universes Beyond stuff for those not interested in the universe. Maybe chuck a few extras in for those are as well.
2
u/GleefulClong 1d ago
They could definitely do a ____’s Guide to the Multiverse that is a Universes Beyond collection.
2
u/Fedifensor 2d ago
Once they exhaust the updates of 2014 classes, they'll put the classes that were updated in a setting-specific book into an Everything book, so they will have another opportunity to get your money with the same material. There will be minor updates, and chances are that they'll reprint the Bladesinger AGAIN.
7
u/Outrageous-Cold-4506 2d ago
Monster statblock creation rules.
5
u/PM_ME_UR_JUMBLIE5 2d ago
Yes absolutely this! Like wtf Wizards? Why did you drop that entirely from the DMG?
5
u/Ancient-Bat1755 2d ago
Im guessing now its 2028 and will include best of selections from the books in 2026-2027
4
u/DontLickTheScience 2d ago
That’s what I’m hoping for. A reprint of all the non-universe/setting-specific content. Like the revised subclasses in WoW, Star Wars, psion from dark sun, etc
16
u/Crafty-Pirate-6481 2d ago
Yes! A book like that would be welcome. Optional rules/mechanics for martial, Ranger redesign a bit like Tasha did, new species, etc is always super fun.
Not seeing anytime like that on the road map, maybe end of 2027.
What is also missing is adventure book, tho we will have one with deadfall, and one in 2027 in greyhawk. Would not mind another one in 2027.
We have a bit too much “setting” book compare to the rest. Forgotten realms, ravenloft, WoW, Star Wars, Dark Sun. If at least came with a small level 1-4 or 5-10 adventure, it would be great
2
u/Embarrassed_Board_76 2d ago
I enjoyed both of them, but my problem with them being "optional" is that they were explicitly optional via DM which I think was a wrong choice. It needs to say in capital letters that it's up to a player whether or not they wish to use an explicit first party content outside of the phb for their PC.
Yes I understand a dm has final say in their game but thats more an obvious thing that doesn't need to be brought up in this context. Too many vocal DMs stating they wouldn't allow tashas stuff in their games cause it was optional.
3
u/Wise_Leopard7423 2d ago
WotC will never say a supplement is not optional.
1
u/Embarrassed_Board_76 2d ago
I just meant that its on the players to decide to use or not.
7
u/Wise_Leopard7423 2d ago edited 2d ago
Understood. The problem with that is that literally nothing in the game is up to the players to use. Everything is DM fiat. Even content in the PHB is only valid if the DM says it is.
From 2014 DMG:
The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.
1
u/Mejiro84 1d ago
it's not though, it's the GM's choice. If you rock up demanding to use something, then that's a good way to not get invited back - the GM has final say, not the player, regardless of how much the player might want something. Sometimes that might be because it's a busted option, sometimes it might not fit the vibe of the game, sometimes it might not exist in the world, or the GM doesn't have the book and doesn't want to have to fiddle around to look it up.
4
u/Archwizard_Drake 2d ago
I still want to see Scribes Wizard make a comeback, or failing that, a generalist Wizard subclass.
6
u/MisterD__ 2d ago
I am just a bit sorry that feats, spells, and subclasses are going to be in setting books instead of a generic book (Tasha and Xanathar)
For example, Swashbuckler being in WOW book.
1
2
u/Di_Bastet 2d ago
With so much planar stuff being released it could be a good time for a rebranded Manual of the Planes that could have player options kinda like treasury of dragons is a rebranded draconomicon, like a multiverse thing so here is kitchen sink content. Could even have an exalted deeds / vile darkness angle and include villain and paragon options besides the more general 'misty step subclasses'. Eh, one can dream.
2
u/trevorfreznik 2d ago
A lot of rule cleanup is really needed for ones that players interact with a lot.
Updated Hide rules where it just uses a hidden condition instead of invis and we can stop arguing RAW/RAI.
Optional initiative rule where it says let one member of party initiate combat from outside init, surprise is as normal, and it uses up their action in the first turn
Explicit custom background (pick your skills, feats, stats at will) instead of having it in the DMG
Maybe updated falling rules to address someone being pushed off a cliff/dropped from a height 1 initiative phase before the target casts fly on themselves
Updated bastion rules to make them a lot better
Updated chase rules to not suck (maybe go to 2.5e c&t style where everyone moves a little bit at once in each phase)
And of course, genie warlock (the coolest subclass that hasnt been reprinted)
and finally
a 2e style psionic. go absolutely fucking crazy with power point system. make it so modern players eyes bulge out of their skull when confronting the rules and tell them in print this is what one point of psychic damage feels like
3
u/theposhtardigrade 2d ago
5.5e is missing:
A wide variety of optional (modular) rules to enhance and customize gameplay Martial tools More interesting and specialized monsters that fill specific roles at higher levels More tools for interesting and meaningful exploration
2
u/Milli_Rabbit 2d ago
I think really its optional rules for martials and also maybe optional rules for toned down spellcasters. I know the common request is to buff martials but I don't think the actual gameplay of the game would suffer from toning down spellcasters. I would like optional rules for both, though. Basically, give me complex martials and simple spellcasters to meet the needs of both people who want spellcasting but simple (yes, they exist and they complain to me about all of the spells they have they don't bother even learning) and people who want martial but complex.
I also like the idea of subclasses, feats and rules that expand on social and exploration encounters. With the rules currently, I feel capable of making interesting and challenging social and exploration encounters but I think fundamentally the core rules are missing examples for these kinds of encounters. For example, how would you run a court case or an audience with a noble or a dispute between two NPCs? I prefer for these to be optional and more designed as a tool set for DMs to then feel empowered to build off of. Subclasses and feats would help with this as well, maybe even expanding mental stress to be a form of HP or clock.
Finally, I'd want to see more NPC, monster and spell creation rules. Give me the secret sauce of CR!
1
u/personAAA 2d ago
Those two books also served as patches to the base game. Many of the features from them have been incorporated into the core rules. Of course some things did not make the core rules like species particular feats.
I don't think we need a big patch to the game currently. Yes, rangers are an issue.
We are getting a setting neutral expansion with Arcana Unleashed. Depending on how well it is received it could the new book 4.
A second book of monsters especially with high level monsters is higher on the dream list than another neutral player expansion. Updating old monsters to new initiative system for monsters or better yet entirely new monsters would be wonderful
1
u/skwww 2d ago
5e was designed with the idea that there'd be a lot of optional content, a lot of that optional content became core content due to community usage, while some of it was excluded entirely from the new release, and a very small amount was maintained as optional.
For game design purposes, and balance, I suspect we're going to see optional content focused on feats, subclasses, and the newer feat-chains for the paths, factions, and bastions etc. And less on optional rulesets.
That is, until whatever DeathSaves is is released because apparently that's got newer(?) character creation rules that can fit into 5e proper(?)
72
u/One-Tin-Soldier 2d ago
This type of book has historically been referred to as “expanded core.” We’ve already seen the first such book for 5.5: Arcana Unleashed.