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

[Celtavian]

I've "neutered" martials a touch - no -5/+10 mechanic for those two feats. I dont find casters nerfed at all this edition. They are very strong. All the classes are.

Taking away the -5/+10 balances the damage. My group won't let that happen. I sort of understand because all fighters and barbarians have is the ability to boost damage as far as offensive capability, the fighter more so than any other class.

Besides legendary creatures, casters are still powerful. I didn't say casters were nerfed. I said they were neutered in end game encounters due to the stack of limiting factors that balance them compared to other classes in other aspects of the game, but stack up to make them nothing but buff bots in battles against legendary creatures. In your game it won't be quite as bad without those -5/+10 feats. They are the reason the damage disparity is so large. With bounded accuracy, the =5 penalty is nothing at higher level with full buffs and resources available.

 

[TwoSix]

I hope they never bring back a class like the summoner in Pathfinder. "On demand" armies were a broken mechanic and irritating time sync at the table. I would like to see a summoner class with a powerful summoned creature. I imagine they could do that in 5E without breaking the game. I hope it's in the plan down the line.

I think it's pretty doable, if you summon one single creature with a CR similar to what's available to a moon druid for wildshape, and require the summoner to spend an action to command the creature. Similar concept to a moon druid in terms of creating a temporary pool of hit points to soak up attacks.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And why should someone who has no idea what he is doing be kept "in the game"?
Imo this "everyone can do everything" philosophy which survived 4E hurts the chatacterization and devalues skills in general.

Thankfully, with both the Expertise and Advantage mechanics in the game... both of which have been tested to be balanced as mechanics in of themselves... a particular DM could certainly expand on their use to increase the value of skills for his or her table. Whether it's giving more characters Expertise on certain skills (or course then also giving Rogues and Bards something extra to compensate for the loss of what had been an exclusive feature), or granting skill proficiency both the Bonus *and* Advantage... that is one of the more easy variants a DM could incorporate into the game to get the results they want for a more hefty skill system.

 

[Blue]

Alt human is too strong. Don't get me wrong, I think the alt human is cool. But the other races are generally sub-optimal (elf monk and dwarven fighter might be on-par?) as far as I can tell. In our current game we all (all!) independently choose to play an alt human. The bonus feat is just too good (and flexible) to pass up.

My own take on this one is: Alt human is very strong at low levels. There is no other way to get a feat before 4th, and for many the first feat will be 8th or 12th.

On the other hand, once others start having feats it's less powerful. A dwarf might have a +2/+2 where it wants them to the alt human's +1/+1, causing that PC to take a feat instead of an increase earlier, while also keeping all the nifty dwarf bonuses that are greater than the other alt human bonuses.

The XP chart makes getting up the 5th quick and at that point it's a lesser deal because the other class could have a feat - and probably didn't take it because the stat bonuses were more important. Those same stat bonuses that the alt human have less than most other races.

So it feels very strong during character creation, but it doesn't stay that strong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not really interested in waiting to 9th level just to start playing the character I want to play.

Beats 'never.'

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

You do make a good case that a caster probably won't be able to single-handedly take out a monster meant to solo the whole party. OTOH, if you have three casters in the party (and with half of all possible sub-classes being primary casters, that seems pretty likely), 3 uses of Legendary resistance just guarantees he gets through the first round.

It sure is boring from a player perspective for caster.

In that sort of 'perfect storm' of all-proficient saves, high stats, MR, and Legendary Resistance, I suppose it might be. That'd have to happen a lot to outweigh everything a caster gets to do that other classes don't, though. For a game like 5e, that's balance. You virtually sit out some challenges, some of the time, so someone else can be center stage for a while. The problem might be that it doesn't happen to casters, enough, if you're only noticing it in these kinds of extreme scenarios.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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

Well, even druids aren't entirely "on demand" summoners, since many of their "conjure" spells have a full minute casting time. (Something we only realized after doing it wrong for several games.)

 

[Celtavian]

You do make a good case that a caster probably won't be able to single-handedly take out a monster meant to solo the whole party. OTOH, if you have three casters in the party (and with half of all possible sub-classes being primary casters, that seems pretty likely), 3 uses of Legendary resistance just guarantees he gets through the first round.

A caster couldn't manage this anyway, but landing an occasional high level spell would be nice. Then again they'll fix this as more spells come out or I'll research some. Mainly a single target spell that blasts for good damage on a hit would help immensely. Unfortunately, those are concentration right now, I'm usually using my concentration slot for fly while the cleric uses theirs for bless.

In that sort of 'perfect storm' of all-proficient saves, high stats, MR, and Legendary Resistance, I suppose it might be. That'd have to happen a lot to outweigh everything a caster gets to do that other classes don't, though. For a game like 5e, that's balance. You virtually sit out some challenges, some of the time, so someone else can be center stage for a while. The problem might be that it doesn't happen to casters, enough, if you're only noticing it in these kinds of extreme scenarios.

I finished a module fighting a ton of dragons. It was quite common. That is with three casters in the group. We never once broke Legendary Resistance. Not a single time with a bard, cleric, and wizard in the group. Not once did we even come close to breaking Legendary Resistance for the following reasons:

1. Concentration slot needed for buffs like fly, protection from energy, bless. Concentration slot for buff removes about a 1/3rd to a 1/4 of your offensive or effect spell options.

2. Martials had it killed at a fast enough pace it would have been a waste of time to try to break Legendary Resistance which would take well over the three or four rounds martials kill Legendary Creatures in. Action Surging fighters and Smiting paladins do a truck ton of irresistible damage. Legendary Creatures have nothing to slow down martial damage, especially if the martials have magic weapons.

3. Don't have time to use options that don't work due to the damage output of Legendary Creatures. You have to kill them fast or they kill you fast. No time to waste trying to break Legendary Resistance.

4. Limited high level spell resources. Your high level resources return only after a long rest. Spending even one high level 6th or above spell that has a high chance of failure means you expended a highly limited resource in a wasteful manner. Every good caster knows not to spend limited magical resources on wasteful abilities that have a very low chance of working.

I would say that if three highly experienced casters such as those in our group have not been able to break Legendary Resistance playing 16 levels, there is a problem with the mechanic unless that is considered working as intended. My friends and I are not neophytes, yet we did not break Legendary Resistance one time in 16 levels. We didn't even get close one time. I think we knocked off one or two uses in the entire 16 levels of play.

Even if you have to wonder how three highly experienced players playing the most powerful casters in the game that had a fairly easy time with the final encounter in Tyranny of Dragons managed not to break through Legendary Resistance even a single time in 16 levels. I'd bet that our experience is not unique.

 

[Sunseeker]

And why should someone who has no idea what he is doing be kept "in the game"?

Because people who aren't included while playing find other things to occupy their time. If they find themselves occupying their time with something more enjoyable then they are likely to drop. You WANT to keep people engaged. There are plenty of ways to do this. The last thing you want is for Joe to decide he'd rather be somewhere else, doing something else, with people who actually want him to be involved.

Also: in 4E everyone could not do everything. Everyone got to choose what they were good at within a range. You were much less pigeonholed in 4th.

 

[MARCVS AVRELIVS]

Thing I like so far about 5e are similar to others.

I like that it feels like an update of 2e, informed by lessons from 3e and 4e, rather than a continuation of 3e or 4e. Not that I don't like 3.5, Pathfinder or 4e - just that this edition "feels" like D&D in ways those don't.

I like that I'm mapping again, and experiencing the feeling of discovery that looking at a crude grid of squares provides. I'm also enjoying that the other players want to see the map, are leaning into the table to look at it, and are making conjectures about what unmapped areas could contain. Exploration is a huge part of my D&D experience.

I'm liking that my table is involved in cross-table roleplay again, and that we tend to refer to each other as Outlander or Noble or that annoying Charlatan, more than "great sword fighter" or "striker" or "controller".

I'm liking that my 'complaints' are more or less about DM-style, rather than rules problems... but that said, I'm also liking that my arguements are less "the rules say this" and more "you know, there's a bit in the DMG that is very much like what you just houseruled".

Really liking the feeling that adventuring is dangerous, and that I can't take any encounter we have for granted. We lost our party to a green dragon - the DM felt terrible, but as a group, we kind of felt like it was a deserved death. It's nice to be back to being concerned about what's behind the door.

Liking the shift in thinking to a grand tactical, rather than tactical. Last session, we plotted how to take on some ghouls and the tactical thoughts were broad strokes, rather than focused on who needed to be in which square or how best to set up overlapping AoO zones. Combat feels zippy now, and isn't something we avoid because we don't have an hour left in the session... now we want to avoid it because we might get killed.

The concentration mechanic works for me, too. Spells feel like a meaningful resource and choice, rather than just a routine set of things to cast in every fight. In the same vein, I like that the melee types have their importance back as frontline protectors for the casters, without that being their only role.

Like that character creation takes less than an hour, and doesn't involve a bunch of math and optimization choices. I'm also liking that I don't feel like I've made a bad choice for taking things for roleplaying reasons. Bounded accuracy makes it feel like I can be "suboptimal" without dragging down the group.

And mostly, I'm liking that every monday I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next.