I just wish they would have divorced class from role, tied powers to power sources instead of class,
I think the fanbase equated class to what 4e formalized as Source more so than to Role, while it seems from the design that they expected a more equal weight, that class would exist at the intersection of Source & Role, rather than be primarily about Source.
Class taking the place of source would have meant fewer classes and less sheer space devoted to powers. Leaving Role to 'build' (sub-class) decisions might have opened up some loopholes, but it could have been a better way to go.
matched flavor to mechanics, and used 5E like magic items, feats, and bounded accuracy.
I'm not as jazzed about bounded accuracy as most people, 5e just scales with tremendous hp/damage bloat, instead, so it's not that big a deal - and, while it's fine for balancing combat at various levels, it's not so fine for anything that's going to turn on d20 rolls, instead. :shrug:
To me 5E is almost that game, but then I also feel like it took a few steps back as well.
It's a big call back to the classic game, which gives it a tremendous appeal to us long-time fans, and to returning fans - and, probably, to any new would-be fans who are into that sense of history and getting in on the 'real' thing.
If you can't understand the huge difference in player agency validity that results from WHEN content is created by the DM, then I suspect you will never get my point.
"The Forge," call the style of play in which the DM fills in what he wants regardless of player decisions, 'Illusionism,' and are /really/ down on it as WrongBadFun of the lowest order. So you're not alone in your opinion.
I think it can be a very legitimate technique, though, especially in a game like 5e D&D or AD&D where the DM is given a great deal of latitude to make rulings and has more responsibility for the quality of the play experience as a result of being Empowered.
Pacing is certainly one area where 'illusionism' can be very helpful. The DM can choose to mod the game so that it works with varied pacing, to make rulings to take the current environment & pacing into account, or to force the optimal pacing some of the time via such techniques. It's an extra layer of flexibility that the game leaves open. It's just that the first option would be a tremendous amount of re-design work; the second, while very consistent with 5e philosophy, is never so much as alluded to as a valid option; and the third seems to be resented by some segments of the player base.
IMHO, DMs don't need WotC's permission to go ahead and rule whether/when rests are possible and/or that they take more or less time in some situations than others. But the resistance I've seen in this thread makes me think maybe a nod to the concept in the PH wouldn't have hurt, so that players don't think of resting as a right or law of physics, but as just another case of players declaring actions (we stop and rest ) and the DM narrating results (you get such-and-such benefits or "you are attacked by wandering Pit Fiends" or whatever).
