D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Yaarel]

The unified d20 roll high mechanic was a mistake. A d20 test aiming to roll lower than an Ability score should have been standardized instead.

How would a Strength score 20 work? Or Giants with a Strength score 28? At a glance, to roll d20 under the score seems like less design space for gameplay?

 

[payn]

I miss alignment. I do not miss class abilities tied to alignment that can be taken away arbitrarily.

 

[MGibster]

So what changes to core D&Disms (classes, mechanics, settings, meta-game, etc) that have occurred over time do you like? Which ones could you do without?

I'm still a little bitter about making the monk one of the care character classes. Maybe with enough time I'll get over it.

I really like Advantage and Disadvantage. It's an elegant solution compared to figuring out fiddly plusses or minuses.

 

[Merlecory]

I would say unwelcome developments are:
1. A tonal shift to gonzo-everything goes magic supers, including over-reliance on spellcasting as a class feature. Nothing wrong with this, it's just not my bag.
2. Short rest and encounter-based mechanics.
3. Weapon masteries for 5.5 (not the idea of, just the execution).
6. Six saving throws with awkward scaling into higher tiers.
7. No explanation of how the game should change, and what challenges are appropriate, throughout different tiers of play.

I think I would agree to lots of this list, but have a few thing I want to expound upon/append.

Regarding your #2: I think resting in 5E doesn't quite work. Short rests could have a place if they were actually short. A full hour is a fairly long time in a dungeon, but very short for a party traipsing through the woods. I like the Sanctuary rest rules from other systems, or slower recovery from earlier editions. Wounds should not go away after a nights rest, they should linger.

As for my list

1. A lot of things have become spectral these days. I think features/spells should have some in game-world effect; players should be invited to think about how their character's abilities and the world interact.
2. Similarly, replacing features with spells. Compare XGtE's Sheppard Druid. Speech of the Woods lets you talk with animals the same as talking with every other creature. Compare the 2024 Druidic feature: You can cast speak with animals.
   1. I think that the two features say very different things about the characters who have them, and about what it means to be a druid in the game world.
3. I have mixed feelings for (dis)advantage. It is a very elegant mechanic, but it is also a fairly "powerful" mechanic, often worth ~+5 for a role.
4. Bounded accuracy was too tight, if it ever was a worthwhile mechanic. It makes the gap between untrained characters and trained characters far too close for what I like. I have seen a number of people be disappointing by being beaten by other players in things they have tried to be good at (eg, Wizard not succeeding an arcana check that the barbarian passes). You can try to require proficiency to even participate in some skills, but not others (eg, athletics).
   1. I think WotC sees these complaints complaints, and has tried to mitigate situations where your character sucks at something they should be good at (eg, Fighter's Tactical Mind), but these features can easily let you outshine a character who is supposed to be "good" at the skill. Tactical Mind's d10 (available at level 2) is worth an average of +5.5, about as much as Expertise at max level (+6).
5. I think the game has lost some "rough" points. Times where a character can't easily do what they want.
   1. Spellcasting in melee range provoking Attacks of Opportunity. Topical, given the Spellbreaker paladin in UA right now.
   2. More features are designed to let you be Single Ability Dependent: Dex(as mentioned up thread), Gish subclasses getting to attack with their Main stat. We have 6 ability scores, give each character a reason to want them. Let characters have abilities that are influenced by different scores and let players choose what features they want to lean into.
6. Not having guidance on how to create/key.stock a dungeon in the 2024 DMG was a mistake.

I realize that this has been a log list of complaints, but there are genuinely things that I have liked.

1. (Dis)advantage is genuinely nice is a lot of situations. easy to teach, understand, and use.
2. Caster's getting to use magic as their go to in combat via Cantrips is a whole lot better than throwing darts.
3. Martial character action economy (at least compared to 3.X) was a "Rough" spot that is better left in the past.

 

[Stormonu]

For me, the good is in advantage/disadvantage and getting away from pre-selecting your spells into slots. Having a small list of spells to draw from, but not forcing you to plan out each and every slot is very enjoyable. Monster design not necessarily following PC rules is refreshing; I thought I wanted that in 3E, but it just became a nightmare. For the most part, bounded accuracy keeps the game from getting too gonzo - at least in the playable levels.

The main things I abhor is hit point bloat, everything-is-a-spell design and at-will cantrips. On the last two, I like magic, but not that much magic. On the first, I hate combats that feel like rounds of nerf bats and pillow fights to "ensure" monsters get to do "something cool" before the fight is over.

 

[Cergorach]

Positive:

• Moving away from THAC0 during the transition from 2E to 3E.
• Moving away from % based class skills to a more mature skill system. And while 3E was more customizable, the current 5e system I find simpler and possibly more elegant.
• Simplification/streamlining of core systems in 5E.
• Streamlining of monster statblocks in 5e 2024 (making it easier to run them ad-hoc).
• Making classes more of a Swiss Army Knife right from the start in 5e 2024 (I no longer feel the need to multi-class into a Fighter/Mage/Thief).
• D&D digital support, especially in the VTT landscape.

Negative:

• The WoWyfication of 4E.
• Oversimplification of 5E: straight up not having rules for creating NPCs, modifying monsters, templates, etc. Leaves the DM in too deep a hole.
• 3 item limit of attunement with magical items in 5E.
• Art style and presentation of most D&D books the last half decade or so, with the exception being the cartography.
• Design direction and end products of old nice 2E settings like Planescape and Spelljammer. I feel that third party products have done a better job then WotC.
• Major time leaps in Forgotten Realms with 4E and 5E.

Edit: the forum software changed my + and - symbols to bulletpoints, added positive and negative to each list.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

An evolution I don't care for is the excessive preoccupation with simplicity.

Simplicity is good, when it serves a purpose, or when it removes something that doesn't serve a purpose. Simplicity is not good in and of itself, just like complexity is not good in and of itself. This does not mean that there shouldn't be simple options or paths. There absolutely should be! The game should make that very easily reached by most players, and the simple options need to be at least Quite Decent, and perhaps even Pretty Good.

But it can't come at the cost of never offering complexity, nuance, texture, etc. You need to have stuff that gives folks a feeling of ownership, mastery, development...because if you don't, they'll leave, sooner or later. Too simple IS a problem.

Something I have liked, however, is...dragonborn! That's a pretty obvious thing I approve of

 

[Zardnaar]

Lijes. Ascending AC.

Dislike. Bloated hit points.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I'm still a little bitter about making the monk one of the care character classes. Maybe with enough time I'll get over it.

I really like Advantage and Disadvantage. It's an elegant solution compared to figuring out fiddly plusses or minuses.

honestly it is more they suck at making monk a decent class but I digress.

I liked the more accepting nature of variety.

dislike the lack of decent settings details as a setting is just picking a premade option so you can worry about running the game

 

[Parmandur]

How would a Strength score 20 work? Or Giants with a Strength score 28? At a glance, to roll d20 under the score seems like less design space for gameplay?

The number only went to 18 before 3E, and the Gauntlets brought it to 18 with a few boni.

That's a feature of what I am talking about here, not a bug.