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

billd91 said:

I think there's a good argument that it's better to not follow detailed PC build rules. I'm less convinced that it's as good to follow different rules in-play when the spells, in this case, are otherwise the same.
In any event, I'd like to make sure to differentiate between the two ideas - NPC build vs NPCs in-play.

Click to expand...

I view the rules governing the PCs and the rules governing the NPCs to be necessarily different given the practicalities of running the game. I admit that it does get a little fuzzy when an NPC is coded as something like a classed character, but beyond there there is no in-fiction reason NOT to let ancient liches and great wyrms and demonic cultists cast different spells and use different kinds of magic than the PCs. Even when we aren't talking about enemies: hedge wizards and lay priests should also have access to different magic than the PCs, concerned about different things than blasting goblins.

Likes:

1. Simplified system. Easier to learn and teach now than it was through 1st to 3.5th.
2. The characters feel more balanced now than they have done in previous editions.
3. Advantage and Disadvantage. So much better than trying to decide modifiers.
4. Encounter building is generally easier now than ever before.
5. Less dependency on magic items. I'm used to 3rd and Pathfinder 1st where if you everyone was a walking Christmas Tree of magic stuff.
6. 3rd edition adding the Sorcerer. I never played Wizard's/Magic Users under 1st and 2nd because I hated having to choose what spells to memorise and usually the wrong ones. Just having spell slots makes for a better caster in my mind.

Dislikes:

1. Races to Species and gender changing certain monsters to have male and female (Banshees in game and real world lore are always female spirits for example. Same with Medusa's and Dryads). Inclusiveness is good but in my games they will be their traditional genders.
2. Some spells feel really overpowered. An example in one of my campaigns is a Druid who routinely casts Nature's Ally and dumps it in a room and steps back. That spell has annihilated foes far too easily for it's level.
3. Cutting off the game at about 11-12th level. D&D has always been about getting to that vaunted 20th level even though I appreciate that for modern players shorter more frequent campaigns seem preferable.
4. Monster lore changes. Goblins being fey now as an example. I don't get the need to change that from traditional D&D.

billd91 said:

Too many NPC (mainly spell casters) get around PC restrictions - the restriction against casting multiple slotted spells doesn't mean anything when NPCs cast based on castings/day and a lot of players don't like it when NPCs are getting away with things they can't and NPCs are built differently is a justification doesn't really cut it

Click to expand...

I actually made it part of my homebrew setting. Player Characters are always "Heroes of Legend" with ties back to an ancient cataclysmic time in history. That's why PC's get classes (normal people don't) and heroic inspiration.

I don't like the evolution of Dungeons and Dragons into a digital game and an analog game. As the game evolves, these two will become increasingly incompatible.

I do like Bounded Accuracy. This has "fixed" so many things.

I do like the 5e focus on character personality traits.

Lakesidefantasy said:

I don't like the evolution of Dungeons and Dragons into a digital game and an analog game. As the game evolves, these two will become increasingly incompatible.

Click to expand...

Do you mean online vs face to face?

DragonLancer said:

Likes:

6. 3rd edition adding the Sorcerer. I never played Wizard's/Magic Users under 1st and 2nd because I hated having to choose what spells to memorise and usually the wrong ones. Just having spell slots makes for a better caster in my mind.

Click to expand...

Hear hear to this one - IMO all casters should work this way (and if that means concatenating a few caster classes together e.g. Sorcerer-Warlock-Wizard, that'd be a nice side benefit)

DragonLancer said:

Dislikes:

3. Cutting off the game at about 11-12th level. D&D has always been about getting to that vaunted 20th level .....

Click to expand...

Not always; only since 3e, which is where the 1-20 paradigm came in. Before that, depending on version it was either fully open-ended to as high as 100th or soft-capped around 9th-11th.

As for my own take:

Like:
--- the flatter power curve in 5e, as compared to 3e-4e
--- 4e's bloodied mechanic, which really wasn't followed up on in 5e like it could have been
--- rulings not rules ethos, as long as those rulings are consistent with themselves within the same campaign
--- degrees of success/failure, more evident in PF2 but D&D has kind of waved at the idea
--- PCs and NPCs using the same chassis in order to reflect that PCs are representative of their populations in the setting; 3e got this right but of course overdid it, then 4e and 5e abandoned such (so I guess this is a like and a dislike at the same time)

Dislike:
--- loss of separate sub-classes of arcane caster, most notably Illusionist and Necromancer, where the difference is in the spells they can cast rather than how they cast them
--- increased focus on being super-heroes out the gate (and then all the way through) rather than everyman-made-good or zero-to-hero or gritty survivalist games
--- any form of Ranger after 1e
--- decreased actual danger to the characters; the game used to have an overarching ideal of "get rich or die trying", and sadly somehow both the "get rich" and "die trying" elements have slowly faded away over time
--- the rise of the "character build" side of the game and the unnecessary complexity this adds to character generation; there's a lot to be said in favour of "roll some dice, choose a class and species, give it a name, and get it in play" char-gen.

I like how the party size became smaller over the editions. Not sure if this is because the number of players in my neighborhood shrank and now I only have 3-4 and not the 7-8 of old, or if the classes became more and the game did not need the 3-4 fighters, 1-2 thieves, 1-2 wizards, and 1-2 clerics like old.

I should also add that I much prefer how 5th now doesn't need the classic fighter-rogue-cleric-wizard party build. These days it feels genuinely that a party composition can be almost anything and that's good.

DragonLancer said:

Do you mean online vs face to face?

Click to expand...

Yes, plus computer games.

I do like the use of Virtual Table Tops to connect people. I don't like the use of digital tools that make the experience of playing Dungeons and Dragons more and more into a graphical experience. This also includes expensive tables with integrated monitors to display interactive maps.

Likes

• Mechanics are generally better. I'm not a fan of 3E or 4E, but both have innovations that make going back to AD&D difficult (I know because I tried).
• Moving away from alignment as a mechanic. IMO it should be an RP tool, not a limiter.
  • Similarly, I really liked the Traits, Bonds, and Flaws from 5E14, and am sad it was removed in 5E24.

Dislikes

• The ability score matrix using +/-1 per 2 points. I much prefer the BECMI array, with design assuming most characters have a low bonus, rather than a high one.
• The lore changes. For example, Kobolds are an offshoot of goblinoids, not dragons.

Perspective of someone who started with 3E and mainly played 5E:

Dislike:

• 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.
• Feats. The very word is dumb and confuses people.

Likes:

- Advantage/Disadvantage more or less replacing number modifiers was brilliant.