A thread for everything that doesn't work in/for 5.5e

I came across a video recently where one of the current designers expressed that the team looks at feedback and criticism and is assessing such as they move forward. As someone who participated in the OneD&D surveys, I think there are a lot of people who think feedback was hardly taken into account during the revision processes. I'd singled out numerous mechanical issues within the OneD&D UAs, and none of them were addressed for the final product.

So if the designers are seriously taking feedback from players into account, I figured we should make a thread on their official forums to share feedback. Not simply on subreddits or external forums, which are notorious for hivemind mentalities. Not simply with whatever YouTuber is popular at the moment. Regular users, expressing their dislikes, turn-offs, and negative experiences with 5.5e. Whatever the designers decide to do with this feedback is entirely up to them—if they even acknowledge it or give any credence to what is expressed here.

I'll start us off with one of the biggest turn-offs 5.5e has for me, and it's one that's stopped me dead in my tracks every time I've been willing to try to join a 5.5e game:

A 5e revision should have never taken away options from players.

Certain classes have had major features stripped from them, entire subclasses have been "overhauled", feats have been altered. And in some cases, player options received straight buffs, power-creep in features, new options. In other cases, options ceased to exist entirely.

Let's take one subclass one of my favourite PCs was: the Archfey Warlock. I made use of her charm and fear features in combat and out of combat, whether to get out of a sticky situation or help smooth-talk. Simple features, but they were effective for the character I played.

In 5.5e, almost all of those features are gone, and replaced with...Misty Step spam. Misty Step can be useful, but having an entire subclass built around spamming Misty Step is hardly exciting or imaginative. Furthermore, almost all of the features incentivize being in melee—hardly the place a Pact of the Tome Warlock wants to be. The capstone effectively punishes players who don't use two specific spell schools, when my Warlock often made use of Summon Fey. Even the Pact of the Tome itself lost out on Book of Ancient Secrets, taking away a significant invocation from the playstyle.

You can find this sort of problem all over the place. Medium Armor Master no longer removes Stealth disadvantage from medium armor—why? Was such a thing so broken, especially when Heavy Armor Master conversely gets buffed? Moderately Armored loses shield access, hurting a prime feat for Bladelocks. Class features like Land's Stride, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, just gone. Were these features somehow a negative for the game?

The mentality is obvious. Survey respondents didn't like the features so the designers removed them. Except survey respondents hardly represent the entire playerbase. Survey respondents often approve of stuff that's overpowered rather than well-designed and good for the health of the game. And in this case, the game removed a lot of features that many players made use of, nerfed numerous player options into uselessness for no real reason. And at the end of the day, it's absurd because there was no reason to remove options even if you want to create new options. The existence of the 5e Archfey Warlock should not be a problem for anyone who doesn't have to play that subclass.

But somehow it was, to the point that 5.5e felt obligated to redesign the subclass and declare the previous subclass no longer legal for play under the updated rules. Which is effectively telling players who preferred the older Archfey Warlock that their experience with the game doesn't matter to the creators of the game.

If all of your content has to meet the approval of the small segment of the playerbase that answers these online surveys—a lot of people don't bother, and that doesn't make them any less invested in the game itself—then people with tastes that don't align with that segment are going to be left out by your design direction.

There's a line in the 5.5e Ranger reveal video where Jeremy Crawford says that Rangers were always a popular class, despite ranking low on surveys. The changes in 5.5e only cared about one group of those people.

This post doesn't add up. You lament at the beginning:

As someone who participated in the OneD&D surveys, I think there are a lot of people who think feedback was hardly taken into account during the revision processes. I'd singled out numerous mechanical issues within the OneD&D UAs, and none of them were addressed for the final product.

Yet at the end you criticise the designers for listening to the feedback:

The mentality is obvious. Survey respondents didn't like the features so the designers removed them. Except survey respondents hardly represent the entire playerbase. Survey respondents often approve of stuff that's overpowered rather than well-designed and good for the health of the game.

In one breath you criticise stuff being overpowered/power-creep:

And in some cases, player options received straight buffs, power-creep in features, new options

But in the next claim the designers should have been purely additive with features and not take anything away:

A 5e revision should have never taken away options from players

And at the end of the day, it's absurd because there was no reason to remove options even if you want to create new options. 

And the hyperbole positively drips off this post:

But somehow it was, to the point that 5.5e felt obligated to redesign the subclass and declare the previous subclass no longer legal for play under the updated rules. Which is effectively telling players who preferred the older Archfey Warlock that their experience with the game doesn't matter to the creators of the game.

This is untrue—you can still play 5e versions of things, even within 5.5e games. Sure, the recommendation is that you go with the most recent version of things for the least amount of friction, but they designed the revision to be backwards compatible meaning if you want to play a 5e Archfey warlock in a 5.5e game, heck with a 5.5e base warlock, you can.

Then there's the fact that this post seems to complain about truisms:

If all of your content has to meet the approval of the small segment of the playerbase that answers these online surveys—a lot of people don't bother, and that doesn't make them any less invested in the game itself—then people with tastes that don't align with that segment are going to be left out by your design direction. 

Yes, people who don't tell the designers what they want in the game aren't going to have those opinions represented in the design of the game. How do you expect the designers to get information from players who don't want to provide any information?

There's a line in the 5.5e Ranger reveal video where Jeremy Crawford says that Rangers were always a popular class, despite ranking low on surveys. The changes in 5.5e only cared about one group of those people.

You're misunderstanding this quote—Crawford was explaining how the Ranger was popular as a concept for a class, but never lived up to that popularity in execution. The low ranking was the satisfaction in the classes execution. They got that popularity information from the same surveys that ranked its satisfaction low—the same people saying "I like the idea of Ranger" were the ones saying "I don't like how Ranger is executed"

All this from a 50 minute (as time of my reply) old account

"A 5e revision should have never taken away options from players.  Certain classes have had major features stripped from them"

So, if a class, subclass, or spell or whatever is found over time to be overpowered or have some path to being abused by some players, correcting that issue is prohibited? I dont see how that makes the game better.

Bro, let me show you this awesome power, a power i have been wielding since i was 12. 

HOUSERULES

with the power of houserules and homebrewing you can return 2014 5E features to 5.5. My table is doing it, and you know what? It is awesome.

You can also just keep playing 2014 5E. I also do that. It is pretty neat.  
I have 5.5, 2014 5E, and my Amalgamation system all to play with, and it GREAT!

Personally, I like 5.5 the best out of all the iterations i have been alive for, and i know it isn't perfect, but it don't need to be. Hack it until it fits you.

Also by Bane's buttery Buttcheeks, don't let this turn into another edition war. Just play what you like.

Something in 2024 rules that doesnt work are the rules for how, if at all, Hide interacts with Passive Perception.

The wording for Hide say you need to roll a stealth check and beat a dc 15 and if you beat that you are hidden until an enemy "finds" you.

It is unclear if Passive Perception is a way to find someone hidden, if it alters the original DC for the stealth check, or if enemies must take the Search Action.

If Passive Perception is always on and affects the dc of a stealth check to hide, then the thing about the Passive Perception rules is an emergent behavior of several perception rules working together:

Rule A) Search Action Perception Check has thr player roll a d20 and add modifiers that affect perception.  This takes a full action.

Rule B) Passive Perception is calculated as the average result a player would get if they had taken the Search Action Perception Check, i.e. as if they had rolled a 10, but passive perception consumes none of the players time. 

Unclear rule C) it is not clear in the rules whether passive perception is always on, applies to any and all Hide actions, or whether passive perception is something that only applies when the dm chooses, and if they dont so choose, then pasive perception does not apply and only the DC 15 and the Search Action can prevent Hiding.

Weird outcome 1: If passive perception is always on, then doing nothing search related and instead spending your time attacking or somethig else is, on average, just as good from a percieving point of view as burning your Action to Search. 

Dont search, use passive, your perception is 10+mods

Search, roll d20, average result is 10, add mods.

Result: people dont take search action, relying on passive is on average just as good.

Weird outcome 2: taking the Search Action, spending 6 seconds of your time to look for something means you roll a d20 add mods. Which means if you roll less than a 10, you percieve worse than doing nothing.  Half time you take the active search action it will produce a worse result than doing nothing or doing somethig beside searching, and relying on Passive Perception.

Passive Percepton is a reliable average search result. As if you always roll a 10. Actively searching can roll anywhere from a 1 to 20, meaning half the time, taking rhe Search Action is worse than doing nothing and relying on Passive Perception, (assuming PP is always on)

Some homebrew the idea that Passive Perception is a floor result for an active perception check, so you cant roll worse than your passive. The problem with that is on average, taking the active Search action with a minumum 10 on the die, on average results in an effective roll of 13 or so.  Actively searching with a floor of 10 for the roll is on average only 3 points better than doing something else and relying on pasive perception.

Result: no one sesrches, everyone relies on passive. Giving up your Action to Search gives you only 3 points better than your passive, on average.

My suggestiin is to clearly state Passive Perception is always, and add a couple new rules:

R1) Battefield Uncertainty, during combat, imposes a -5/disadvantage penalty to your passive perception. Active Search action is unaffected, no penalty.

R2) if you take the Search Action during combat, follow existing rules. And then from that point until the beginning of your next turn, whatever you roll becomes your passive perception score.

R3) Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Rogues: at level 5, these classes can Search as a Bonus Action. (i.e. to avoid the Battlefield Uncertainty penalty, use bonus action to Search)

(R4) Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Rogues: at level 10 these classes do not suffer the Battlefield Uncertainty penalty (no -5/disadvantage). (i.e. Sentinel Shield advantage is no longer canceled by battlefield uncertainty disadvantage, so Sentinel Shield applies +5(advantage) to passive perception).

These new rules remove the uncertainty of when passive perception applies, remove the weird effects of rolling for perception sometime being worse than doing something else, and makes perception more consistent and something worth taking an action to do.

It also gives martials a little boost in their power since their constant training for combat helps them.overcome battlefield uncertsinty