u/MyrthDM

One thing I keep coming back to with 5.5e is that a lot of balance still seems to depend on something that is not always easy to control: how often the party gets to rest.

On paper, a lot of the 2024 rules feel cleaner. Encounter building seems better, monsters feel more dynamic, and classes generally feel smoother. But in actual play, rest pacing can still completely change how the game feels.

In my experience, this is one of those things that can make the same party feel balanced or wildly overpowered depending on the adventure structure. If the party gets a Long Rest after one or two meaningful fights, casters can unload their strongest resources almost every encounter, and even dangerous fights can get flattened quickly.

But if I push too hard in the other direction, it can start to feel like I am forcing artificial time pressure just to make the math work.

Short Rests are also weirdly table-dependent. Some groups naturally take them, while others almost never do unless the DM creates a very obvious pause. And in some official-style adventures, the story feels urgent enough that stopping for rests can feel strange, but the mechanics still assume some kind of resource attrition.

So I’m curious how people are handling it in 5.5e.

Do you feel like rest pacing is still one of the biggest balance levers in the game?

Do your players actually take Short Rests regularly?

Are you using any house rules, safe havens, gritty realism, time pressure, or narrative limits on Long Rests?

Or do you think 5.5e works fine without worrying too much about the adventuring day?

One 5.5e change I find more interesting than I expected is the new Exhaustion system.

In 2014, I almost never wanted to use Exhaustion unless the situation was really extreme. It was flavorful, but it also felt very punishing very quickly, and the old chart made it feel like one of those mechanics that could turn into a death spiral if used too often.

With the 2024 version, I like that it is cleaner and easier to remember. A stacking penalty feels much easier to use at the table than a different effect at each level. It also makes me more willing to actually consider Exhaustion for things like harsh travel, failed long rests, cursed areas, survival scenes, or long-term consequences.

At my table, that is probably the biggest difference. I can imagine using Exhaustion now without feeling like I am immediately ruining the character. But I am still not completely sure how often it should come up. Too little, and it barely matters. Too much, and it can still make the game feel harsh in a way some players might not enjoy.

I have also seen some DMs use Exhaustion when a character drops to 0 HP, and I can see the appeal because it makes going down matter more and helps reduce yo-yo healing. But I am not sure if I would use it all the time, because it could punish frontliners more than anyone else.

So I’m curious how people are actually using it.

Has the 2024 Exhaustion system made you use Exhaustion more often?

Do players find it fairer and easier to track?

Have you used it for going to 0 HP, travel, survival, environmental hazards, or long-term consequences?

Or is it still one of those rules that exists on paper but barely shows up in most campaigns?

The 2024 Hiding rules are one of those changes that I keep seeing people interpret in slightly different ways.

On paper, I think I understand what the rules are trying to do. Hiding is more defined, the Invisible condition gives it a specific mechanical hook, and the DC to find a hidden creature is clearer than just vaguely asking whether someone is hidden or not.

But in actual play, I still find that it can create table questions pretty quickly.

At my table, the confusion is usually not “can someone hide?” but what happens immediately after. Can they move out from cover? When exactly does an enemy count as seeing them? How much does sound matter? Does the Invisible condition wording make players imagine something stronger than normal stealth? And how much should the DM rely on strict positioning versus common sense?

I like that 5.5e tried to make hiding more usable in combat, especially for Rogues and sneaky characters. But I am still not sure it feels fully intuitive once the map, cover, line of sight, movement, and enemy awareness all start interacting.

So how are you running it?

Are you using the 2024 Hide rules strictly as written?

Are you modifying them at all?

Have they made stealth in combat smoother at your table, or do they still create arguments and edge cases?

One of the biggest selling points of 5.5e was that it would still work with older 5E material.

In theory, I really like that. There is so much 2014 content that people already own, use, and enjoy, especially subclasses, species, feats, spells, magic items, and adventures. It would feel strange to just throw all of that away.

But in practice, I’m not fully sure how smooth backwards compatibility actually feels at every table.

In my experience, some older options plug into 5.5e pretty easily, while others create small questions that need DM judgment. Older adventures seem mostly easy to run with the new rules, and a lot of older magic items or monsters can be used without too much trouble. But character options can get a little messier.

For example, older subclasses that were written for the 2014 class structure can feel slightly awkward when placed on the 2024 chassis. Older species and backgrounds can also create questions because ability scores, Origin Feats, and background design work differently now. And with spells or feats, there is sometimes that moment of “are we using the old wording, the new wording, or only the new version if it exists?”

None of that is necessarily a huge problem, but it does mean backwards compatibility sometimes feels less like plug-and-play and more like “this works, but the DM has to make a few calls.”

So I’m curious how people are handling it.

Are you allowing all older official 5E content with 5.5e?

Are you only allowing older content if there is no 2024 replacement?

Have you run into any weird interactions, balance issues, or surprisingly smooth combinations?

Or do you think the cleanest option is to mostly stick to the new books?

One thing I find interesting about 5.5E is that a lot of tables do not seem to switch in a completely clean way.

Even when people mostly prefer the 2024 rules, there are usually a few 2014 mechanics, rulings, spells, subclasses, or table habits that they still keep because they just feel better for their group.

For me, I generally like the direction of 5.5E, especially the cleaner presentation and some of the smoother combat changes. But I also get why some tables keep older pieces around. Some 2014 mechanics had a certain table feel that the newer rules do not always replace perfectly. Contested checks are probably the easiest example. I understand why saving throws are cleaner and faster, but there is something very satisfying about “my roll against your roll” in the moment.

So I’m curious what other tables are doing.

If you mostly use 5.5E, are there any 2014 rules or mechanics you still keep?

Are there any old spells, subclasses, races/species, downtime rules, or DM habits that still work better for your table?

Or have you found that fully switching to 2024 is cleaner than mixing versions?

Crafting and magic items are one of those parts of D&D that I always want to use more than I actually do.

In theory, I love the idea of players hunting for rare materials, finding formulas, using downtime, upgrading gear, or creating magic items that feel tied to the campaign. It can turn treasure into story instead of just another reward on a list.

In 2014 5E, the core crafting rules always felt pretty limited to me. Then Xanathar moved things in a much better direction. It gave crafting more structure, with formulas, gold costs, workweeks, and the idea that special materials could become part of the adventure. I liked that a lot, because crafting felt less like simply paying money and waiting, and more like something that could create quests.

But even with Xanathar’s, I never felt like the system fully got there. A lot still depended on the DM deciding whether the formula existed, where the materials were, what counted as an appropriate ingredient, and whether the campaign even had enough downtime for crafting to matter.

With the 5.5 rules, it feels like crafting and magic item creation are more directly supported and more clearly integrated into the game. That is a good thing, and I like the direction. But I’m still not sure whether it is enough to make crafting a regular part of most campaigns, or whether it still depends so much on DM permission, downtime pacing, and campaign structure that many tables will mostly keep handling it case by case.

In my experience, this is also one of those rules that changes massively from table to table. In some campaigns, especially ones with a strong home base, travel pauses, or lots of downtime between adventures, crafting can actually become part of the game. But in other campaigns, especially some official adventures where the party has to keep moving or there is always an urgent threat, there just is not much natural space for it. It also depends a lot on the players. Some groups love planning around gear, materials, and long-term projects, while others just want to find cool items during the adventure and move on.

So I’m curious how it has worked for you in actual play.

Have the 2024 crafting and magic item rules made crafting more relevant at your table?

Do players actually plan around crafting now?

Do DMs feel like the rules provide enough structure?

Or is crafting still mostly a case-by-case ruling with a few more numbers attached?

Weapon Mastery was one of the 5.5e changes I was most interested in when the new rules came out.

At first glance, I liked the idea a lot. Martials getting more texture from their weapons felt like a good direction, especially because 2014 combat could sometimes make weapon choice feel less meaningful than it should.

But now that people have had more time with it, I’m curious how it actually holds up in play.

In my experience, it definitely makes martial turns feel less flat, especially early on. Even small choices like pushing, slowing, nicking, or setting up advantage can make combat feel more active. At the same time, I can see the argument that after a while some players just settle into the same best option every turn and it becomes another routine.

So where have you landed on it?

Does Weapon Mastery still feel like a meaningful improvement?

Has it changed how people build or play martials at your table?

Or did it feel exciting at first, then become just another thing to track?

Bastions are one of the 5.5e ideas I keep going back and forth on.

On paper, I really like them. Giving the party a home base, NPCs, facilities, and something that grows alongside the characters sounds like exactly the kind of thing that can make a campaign feel more grounded and personal.

But in practice, I’m not fully sure how naturally they fit into every kind of campaign.

In my experience, players often like the idea of having a base, a ship, a guildhall, a tower, or some kind of home between adventures. But once the campaign starts moving, especially if the party is traveling a lot or following a more urgent plot, it can be hard to make that home base feel relevant without forcing the campaign to bend around it.

So I’m curious how people are actually using them.

Have Bastions added something meaningful to your campaign?

Do your players care about them and interact with them regularly?

Or do they mostly feel like a cool system that only really works if the campaign is designed around them from the start?

I’d especially like to hear from DMs who tried them for more than a few sessions.

After seeing more people talk about the 2024 monsters, I’m starting to think the bigger question might actually be encounter building.

One of the most common frustrations I had with 2014 5E was that encounter balance often felt more like a rough suggestion than a reliable tool. Sometimes a “deadly” encounter got deleted in two rounds, and sometimes something that looked manageable on paper became way more dangerous because of action economy, terrain, or one bad turn.

With 5.5e, I’ve seen people say the new encounter building rules work much better, especially when paired with the newer monster design. But I’ve also seen DMs say they still have to rely mostly on experience and instinct, especially when resources, rest pacing, magic items, and party optimization get involved.

In my experience, the biggest issue with 2014 encounter building was that I often had to mentally correct the difficulty before the fight even started. If the party had strong magic items, good control spells, or just better action economy, the listed difficulty could stop meaning much very quickly. I could still make good encounters, but it was more because I knew my group than because the system was giving me a really reliable estimate.

So I’m curious how it has actually felt at your table.

Do the 2024 encounter building rules feel more reliable than 2014?

Are combats easier to make challenging without becoming unfair?

Or are you still mostly eyeballing difficulty the same way you did before?

I’d especially like to hear from DMs who have run both versions for the same group.

One thing I keep seeing people bring up about 5.5e is that the new monster design feels better at the table.

Not necessarily just stronger, but more active, more direct, and more likely to make combat feel different from round to round.

For me, this is one of the changes I’m most curious about because monster design is one of those things that can look very different on paper than it feels in play. Some of the newer statblocks seem more streamlined, and I can see how fewer “nothing happens because they passed the save” moments could make monsters feel more memorable.

At the same time, I wonder if part of the improvement is just that monsters are more dangerous now, rather than actually more interesting.

So for people who have used the 2024 Monster Manual or fought against 2024 monsters:

Do they feel more fun to run or fight?

Do they make encounters more dynamic?

Or do they mostly just hit harder and keep up better with stronger player characters?

I’d especially like to hear from DMs who have run both 2014 and 2024 monsters for the same group.

One 5.5e change I keep going back and forth on is Origin Feats and the new background structure.

On one hand, I think it gives characters more identity and customization right from level 1, which is fun. It also feels like a cleaner way to make backgrounds matter mechanically instead of just being mostly flavor.

On the other hand, I can also see the argument that it makes character creation feel a bit more gamey, or that it pushes people toward thinking about background as a package of stats and feats first, and a story element second.

So after actually seeing it in play, where do you stand on it?

Do Origin Feats make character creation better in practice?
Or do they make backgrounds feel a little too mechanical?

And for DMs, have you found the new background setup better to work with at the table?

One of the more interesting 5.5e changes to me is that subclasses now come online at level 3 across the board.

I can definitely see the upside. It makes early progression feel more standardized, probably easier to teach, and it avoids some classes frontloading too much identity right away.

But at the same time, I’m not totally sure it was the right call for every class. For me, it feels cleaner from a design point of view, but it also makes some classes feel a little more generic at levels 1 and 2 than they used to. On some characters, the subclass is such a big part of the fantasy that waiting until level 3 can make the early game feel more like a lead-up than the actual concept.

So I’m curious where people landed on this after actually playing with it.

Do you think moving subclasses to level 3 improved the game overall?

Or do you think it delayed some class fantasies in a way that hurts the early experience?

And has your opinion changed after seeing it at the table instead of just reading it?

A lot of discussion around 5.5e usually ends up being about balance, buffs, nerfs, and what is technically stronger than before, but I’m more curious about something a little more practical:

What change has actually made the game more fun at your table?

For me, one of the biggest ones is that martial turns feel less repetitive now. In a lot of 2014 games, martial combat could sometimes slip into I walk up, I attack, I end my turn. In 5.5e, things feel a bit more textured. Between weapon masteries, cleaner class design, and some subclasses feeling more active, it feels like there is more going on from turn to turn without needing to overcomplicate the game.

That has probably been one of the biggest quality-of-life improvements for me. Not necessarily the flashiest change, but one that makes actual play feel better.

So what about you?

What change in 5.5e has genuinely made the game more fun in practice, either as a player or as a DM?

It could be:

• a class that now feels smoother to play
• a mechanic that makes combat more satisfying
• a rule that speeds things up or reduces confusion
• a DM-facing change that makes encounters easier to run
• a feature that looked small at first but ended up improving the feel of the game a lot

And on the other side, was there anything that sounded great when you first read it, but ended up being less fun at the table than you expected?

Now that people have had some time to read and actually play the revised rules for Dungeons & Dragons 5.5e for a while, I’ve noticed that a lot of discussions still come down to people interpreting the rules in very different ways.

At my table and in online discussions, some rules seem to be misunderstood or misapplied pretty often. Sometimes it's because the wording changed compared to Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, and other times it's because the new mechanics interact with older assumptions.

Some examples I’ve seen people get confused about:

• how weapon masteries actually trigger and when they apply
• the revised exhaustion rules and how punishing they really are
• hiding and stealth, especially when a creature can attempt to hide in combat
• changes to certain spells and how their wording affects old tactics
• class feature updates that work differently than they did in 5E

I’m curious what others have run into in actual play.

What rules in 5.5e do you think are currently the most misunderstood?
Have you had to correct something at your table that people assumed worked the same as it did in 5E?

Bonus question: was there a rule you initially misunderstood yourself until you saw it used at the table?