D&D 5E Things I like and dislike about 5e...

[Tony Vargas]

It does feel like D&D again.

Like classic D&D, yes. That's pretty nearly unanimous, I think.

Darkvision is a lot to give up for a feat. If you play in a game where lighting doesn't matter, darkvision is no big deal. In a game where the DM uses lighting as part of the environment. It leads to getting ambushed a ton.

Nod. It's a very old-school dynamic. At low level, non/demi-humans, with infravision (yeah, I know) and the ability to multi-class were dominant. Once magic leveled the vision playing field and level limits came into play, humans pulled ahead. Not as pronounced in 5e, where it's just the vision, and magic items are optional, but still reminiscent.

I think humans are like 3E humans.

The optional ones, yes, very much so. Which is nice, because that's when humans stopped sucking at low level...

I like the game for the most part. I miss the customization options of 3E. You could do a lot with that system with a character.

Agreed.

I like encounter design.

Can't agree. It's a weak point, IMHO, very inconsistent results. Better to go by feel, than use the guidelines, I find. YMMV.

The incorporation of lairs as active entities is very cool. I like legendary actions and the ability to make monster tactics individualized and interesting in ways that surprise players.

Not as pronounced as in 4e, but nice, yes. And, it's much easier to get that much out of monsters than it was in 3.x, when you were expected to build them in as much detail as PCs if you wanted to make them more interesting.

I very much like that magic had some of its power returned. I'm not a fan of balance trumping genre conventions. Magic should be powerful, more powerful than swinging a sword. It should be able to do things that no one can come close to accomplishing with mundane means. It's back in that position.

I think balance does need to trump genre conventions, if magic is going to be a usable player resource, rather than just a DM-arbitrated McGuffin or setting-establishing color. At bottom, that's really why EGG went with Vancian (and saving throws), because the more typical genre depictions of magic wouldn't have been up to snuff for a functional PC at the skirmish-level scope of D&D combat. Long rituals, stellar alignments, prophecies, automatic folkloric counters, devastating 'prices' and consequences to wielding the dark arts, all the stuff that makes it almost incongruously easy for the barbarian to cut the evil sorcerer in half at the climax of the story, just wouldn't cut it. It would have made a playable mage impossible. It went too far the other way at higher (much over 6th, really) levels, but it was necessary for a playable game. The game's wobbled around since then trying to balance casters and keep them playable. 5e's done better than most, so far (though that's not very far, the slow pace of publication augurs well, the longer the game avoids bloat, the less potential problems). Casters aren't as heavily limited as in classic D&D, nor so wildly overpowered as in 3.x, so seem to be mostly playable. That such a large majority of player options cast is also a little contrary to genre, though I don't see how that ties into playability - maybe it's just that so many caster classes were introduced over the decades?

Legendary Resistance: Seems to go overboard neutering magic. They incorporated the kitchen sink to limit magic. Magic resistance that gives advantage against spell attacks,

Advantage has minimal impact when a poor save is targeted, so I can see the need.

immunities to many conditions caused by magic, damage resistance and a save against magical damage that can't be bypassed, immunity to spells,

Also reminiscent of the classic game. Sometimes you need to pick just the right spell (or other resource/tactic) vs the monster you're facing.

bounded saving throws

DCs seem to pull ahead, though. A caster's always going to max his caster stat and have proficiency. The best a target can hope for is to match that. The worst gets really grim. One of the smarter things they did at the last minute was to take the DC down to 8 base, instead of 10. It partially offset that virtually-automatic maximization on the caster side. Basing save DCs on slot level, as in 3.5, might have worked better, though.

all of it topped off with legendary resistance for the very rare chance that an end game creatures misses a save for a round. It makes affecting a creature in an end game encounter nearly impossible. That isn't very fun as a caster.

Try playing a non-magic-using archetype (Berserker, Champion, Battlemaster, Theif or Assassin) for 15 levels, see if you have any more fun than you did with your Wizard in ToD.

 

[Celtavian]

The only thing I find lacking in 5e so far is the lack of summoning. I want to play my summoner wizard again. It's something I've played since my 2e days (off and on) and I'd love to bring him back in 5e. Just not possible.

Other than that, pretty minor quibble, I'm pretty happy about 5e.

You can't play an "on demand" summoner. You can still play a summoner in 5E using Planar Binding.

 

[Celtavian]

DCs seem to pull ahead, though. A caster's always going to max his caster stat and have proficiency. The best a target can hope for is to match that. The worst gets really grim. One of the smarter things they did at the last minute was to take the DC down to 8 base, instead of 10. It partially offset that virtually-automatic maximization on the caster side. Basing save DCs on slot level, as in 3.5, might have worked better, though.

DCs don't pull ahead because creatures get up to +10 modifiers on their saving throws from stats on top of proficiency. Absent magic items, a PC maxes at DC 19. With advantage and save bonuses, it's very difficult to affect a legendary creature.

As far as non-legendary creatures their saves are weak.

Try playing a non-magic-using archetype (Berserker, Champion, Battlemaster, Theif or Assassin) for 15 levels, see if you have any more fun than you did with your Wizard in ToD.

I'm playing a monk/rogue using the open-hand archetype. It's fun.

I've seen the power of a Battle-master. Very impressive. Though he would have been screwed without fly and bless.

 

[Raith5]

I am enjoying 5e but there quite a few things I miss from 4e. I really like the shift away from encounters (in 4e) and shorter combats. I also think they got many of classes right which 4e stuffed up (I am thinking of the druid and barbarian here). But I do miss the whole attacker always rolls against static defences (rather than the 5e combination of attack rolls/saves/hp thresholds etc) it is far more elegant and easy, and still think they aimed too low with making martial characters interesting.

FWIW, I think they got the skill bonus right in 5e, +5 in 4e made the gap between skilled and unskilled too big but like some others in this thread I hope to see skills be able to do other things, maybe even like some of the utility powers of 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am enjoying 5e but there quite a few things I miss from 4e.

I do miss the whole attacker always rolls against static defences (rather than the 5e combination of attack rolls/saves/hp thresholds etc) it is far more elegant and easy,

It's also pretty easy to house-rule back in. Assuming casters rolling d20 + stat + prof, the base for each 'stat defense' would need to be 14 to have the same chance of 'missing' (successful save). Of course, some of those would be 14 (or even 13) and never get better....

and still think they aimed too low with making martial characters interesting.

Can't argue with that. And it is a lot harder to just house-rule in.

like some others in this thread I hope to see skills be able to do other things, maybe even like some of the utility powers of 4e.

Strikes me as the kind of thing that'd be a DM-arbitrated action in 5e. You may not have Fast-Talk, but you can still talk fast and see if the DM will give you a deceit roll to save your blown diplomacy check....

DCs don't pull ahead because creatures get up to +10 modifiers on their saving throws from stats on top of proficiency. Absent magic items, a PC maxes at DC 19. With advantage and save bonuses, it's very difficult to affect a legendary creature.

+10 is pretty crazy. Do many creatures have all 6 stats at 30, like that? Even all three of the more typical save stats? Part of the fun/challenge is picking the right spell for the job, that can include forcing the best (worst) save.

As far as non-legendary creatures their saves are weak.

So it's more of a spotlight balance thing. Spells shine against most creatures, not so much vs legendary ones, who I suppose, are meant to stick around for a while, like 4e Solos, not just fail their first save and get butchered in a round or two.

I'm playing a monk/rogue using the open-hand archetype.

Open-hand is about as close as you can come to non-magic-using while still having Ki points.

It's fun.

As much fun as a wizard? For 15 levels?

I've seen the power of a Battle-master. Very impressive. Though he would have been screwed without fly and bless.

DPR is fun for those who are happy with just DPR, sure. I'm generally not - I have a feeling we have that in common.

I'm guessing the occasional legendary monster raining on the caster parade doesn't spoil the whole experience - not nearly to the point of taking it down to less fun than playing a Champion.

 

[Celtavian]

+10 is pretty crazy. Do many creatures have all 6 stats at 30, like that? Even all three of the more typical save stats? Part of the fun/challenge is picking the right spell for the job, that can include forcing the best (worst) save.

The Empyrean comes closest to all high stats.

Here's an example stats from an ancient black dragon: Str: 27 (+8) Dex: 14 (+2) Con: 25 (+7) Int: 16 (+3) Wis: 15 (+2) Cha: 19 (+4)

Saves: Dex +9, Con: +14 Wis: +9 Cha: +11

You figure wizard will have his DC 19 at this time. That is four saves that the dragon has a 55% or better of making. All the most important saves against the most powerful spells. Str and Int don't have saves that have a powerful effect on a creature like a dragon. With round by round saves for a lot of spells, that's roughly a 1 round duration for effect spells. A 50% chance to do half damage for a dex or con save spell for damage. An average 6th level damage spell does 12d6 or an average of 36 damage. If the dragon saves, that is 18 damage. That's a powerful resource to expend for that level of damage. You're better off using a cantrip with an attack roll for 18 damage with no save.

It's definitely stacked against casters against the powerful creatures. Absent spells like simulacrum or planar binding allowing you to summon a creature to fight a dragon that can't banish your summoned creatures, you would have no chance against a dragon. A fighter melee with no magic would have a very small chance, but probably die as well. A fighter or martial archer has the best chance alone. The dragon has no way to resist ranged bow damage. A smart archer or crossbowman that uses his environment is perhaps the most dangerous character in the game now.

Or maybe a switch hitting rogue that can do ranged or melee equally and sneak around is extremely powerful. Sneak in, hit someone hard, move away, hide again, kite and destroy. I would say in 5E the dex-based martial is way up on the power scale for all three pillars. If he has casting ability like an eldritch knight or arcane trickster, even better.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here's an example stats from an ancient black dragon: Str: 27 (+8) Dex: 14 (+2) Con: 25 (+7) Int: 16 (+3) Wis: 15 (+2) Cha: 19 (+4)

Saves: Dex +9, Con: +14 Wis: +9 Cha: +11

You figure wizard will have his DC 19 at this time. That is four saves that the dragon has a 55% or better of making. All the most important saves against the most powerful spells.

You were talking about 30s, this thing has a 15 WIS & 14 DEX. I'm not seeing the problem. It's not even like you have to have some weird INT or CHA save or stat-check-not-save trick in your back pocket. That's little better than a coin toss. When that dragon was a wyrmling and the caster 1st level, it'd've had the same DEX, for instance, and saved a little more often because the caster's governing stat was probably more like 16. So the caster has many more spells, /and/ they work more often, even against the toughest opponent. That sounds like pulling ahead. Not like it was in 3.5, when save DCs could be optimized until downright untouchable. But also not like a high level monster saving vs spells on 4 in AD&D, either. Of the three, AD&D's "caster has many more spells, but they're significantly less likely to work" actually sounds kinda reasonable (until you remember that 1e spells had no cap on damage....).

 

[Celtavian]

You were talking about 30s, this thing has a 15 WIS & 14 DEX. I'm not seeing the problem. It's not even like you have to have some weird INT or CHA save or stat-check-not-save trick in your back pocket.

There isn't a problem by itself. Combine all the pieces together and it neuters casters. A 50% chance to save against spell durations that allow a save on a round to round basis or a save against the damage for a 6th level resource you get two of per day is a big deal. It's not like 3E where you have four or five six level slots, a bunch of magic items, and scrolls for additional magic. It's two 6th level slots a day that only have a roughly 50% chance to work for one round. If they happen to miss that save that works for 1 round, they can use legendary resistance.

The average legendary creature has 3 uses of legendary resistance. The average high level caster has a total of 6 spells level 6 to 9. 50% chance save chance from base saves combined with three chances to automatically save, you're looking at effectively being able to completely resist a high level caster's best spells 100% of the time on average. Add in magic resistance, you have a worse chance. Throw in the concentration mechanic, you have fewer spells on your list you can use. It all adds up to very neutered capabilities against legendary creatures.

It's not a problem from a party perspective. It sure is boring from a player perspective for caster.

As I stated, you're better off playing an Eldritch Knight archer or rogue archer with some spell casting to have the ability to be effective in nearly every scenario within the game.

 

[Leatherhead]

Skills.

I'm actually rather fond of this, it keeps untrained people "in the game" when they inevitably have to try some skillwork.

Alt human is too strong.

They are popular because they get floating +1 bonuses to two stats of their choice. Having a 16 in any attack stat and a 14+ in any secondary stat makes them ideal for any class. The feat, while good, is only "great" at levels below 4. In contrast, every other race only gets that 5% perk for a few of the (sub)classes. Try removing the +1 bonuses if you want to curb their power.

 

[PnPgamer]

Alt human is not too powerful imo. Despite the feat, they make really poor scouts because of the lack of darkvision. They cant see crap in total darkness. They also lack plenty of other things, such as natural poison resiliency, greater speed, better stat boosts (two times +1 is not the most optimal if you play point buy) and other unique abilities other races get.