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

[Reynard]

D&D has been changing since the first time it was played, let along published. Cross pollination with related media as well as other RPGs, not to mention the simple creativity of the people making the game over the years and editions, have caused many elements of D&D to evolve. Sometimes these evolutions are minor and the core remains strong. Others not so much. And since we all have our own preferences, experiences with the game, and relationships with the aforementioned adjacent media, we all likely prefer some evolutions and dislike others.

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?

Note that this is a + thread. In this context, what I hope that means is that we can express our preferences and respond to others without it getting vitriolic.

For my part, I like the diversifying of "magic user" archetypes over the editions, all the way to the wizard, sorcerer, warlock and bard division today.

One thing I do NOT like is how the druid has transformed into... whatever it is now. I much prefer the more traditional 1E archetype over the were-berserker thing it has become.

 

[Lazybones]

I like that player characters are more durable; I don't miss the one-hit-and-you're-dead style from the early editions, and the various save-or-die effects that were common in the early incarnations of the game. I like the shift toward inclusivity within the game and the hobby as a whole. I like the changes that help balance the classes better between each other and across levels; for example, allowing low-level thieves to actually do stuff rather than having 1d4 hit points and minuscule chances of passing a skill check, and that magic-users have more than a single spell before they're relegated to chucking darts (not even allowed a humble crossbow!).

 

[Yaarel]

I mostly like the way D&D is evolving across the editions.

The spellcasters becoming more spontaneous with the ejection of vancian casting (late 3e) is the biggest breakthru.

The understanding of the game engine as an ecosystem and how to balance player options (4e), made more choices meaningful - and ultimately made D&D more appealing to more people with different tastes (5e).

Character customization (late 2e) made almost any character concept possible (3e), thru reflavoring versatile mechanics (4e), and now there is a game engine that can handle robust mechanical tweaks for the sake of actualizing flavors during gameplay (5e).

I prefer the gaming style of mind theater and narrative immersion (1e), and became frustrated with rules that required minis on a grid (3e-4e). I am glad there is a return to the ideal of narrative immersion (5e). For players who prefer gridplay, this can now be done in a modular way as a setting (5e 2024) that has dedicated grid rules that are true for the setting.

I love the flavor of psionics (0e-1e), the power of an individuals soul (consciousness, mind, selfexpression), and am delighted the psionic flavor returns to the core rules (5e 2014 MM) as player options (5e 2024 PH).

I care about customization and need all options to roughly balance with each other in order to be viable choices for players who want them. I appreciate fixing almost all of the overpowered spells (5e 2014) and the current process of beefing up the underpowered spells (5e 2024).

I love that mages can fight with pure magic cantrips (4e-5e), rather than with pitiful wrongly-flavored weapons (1e-3e).

 

[billd91]

Evolutions I have really liked:

• Everyone on same XP table - balancing by XP cost to level up never really worked, period
• Stealth/Perception - one opposed set instead of 2 sets (move silently/listen, hide in shadows/spot)
• Stat bonus progression - no longer packed at top of dice range means nobody has to cheat to get a functional bonus
• Stat bonus increases - again, nobody has to cheat to get a functional bonus, characters have more growth opportunity
• Bounded Accuracy - keeps the number bloat down and easier to manage, keeps opponents relevant longer in PC career
• More spell groups get to 9th level - it was always stupid clerics capped out a 7th level, wizard 9th
• Druid shape changing - it actually does something more useful now compared to 1e
• Prepping spells in 5e - beats memorizing multiple slots of a single spell because you know the cleric is gonna cast cure light wounds 4 times

Evolutions I haven't liked so much:

• Dexterity has become too good - Yeah, I know, people want to support different archetypes of martials (swashbucklers, etc) but it takes on a king stat power a bit too much
• Too much is focused/balanced around "the encounter" - I get that this is a useful way of viewing the game because this is where the most elaborate gameplay occurs, but it dominates too much, this became obvious when a bunch of spell durations (stat buffs and invisibility) were dialed down to single encounter durations (maybe a second encounter if you got lucky) in 3.5 and I won't even get into 4e's myopia on the topic
• Monsters in 5e may have been simplified too much - too many, particularly fiends, are little more than bags of hit points
• 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
• Too many weird changes to monster types that mess with what people know and what powers/spells can do - AKA goblins are immune to hold person because of what now?

 

[Umbran]

As a thread, this is fine.
As a (+) thread, this doesn't seem to have have a core premise that one could be for or against that moderators can judge is not being respected.

 

[Reynard]

• 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

Preferences vary, for sure. One thing that I am glad for is that monsters/NPCs DO NOT follow PC rules.

 

[Remathilis]

Like:

* The general trend towards inclusive play. 2e was often defined by adding as many restrictions and handicaps as possible. The trend has moved towards options and not crippling PCs for playing outside the box.

Dislike:
* Some loss of unique D&Disms in the process. In the process of simplifying the game, some nails that weren't causing problems still got hammered. For example, the druid and bard lost some flavorful but not OP weapon choices that were long established tropes (scimitar for druid, rapiers for bard) due to them only getting simple weapons. And while you can get martial weapons, often times you will do so because you want better weapons than those.

 

[Basic Expert]

I would say improvements have been:
1. Better lore, particularly 4E onwards.
2. Better class balance (still needs work and still very contentious, but in general, yes, maybe?)
3. Less reliance on magic items for power upgrades.
4. Customization through feats (even though I abhor the term "feats").
5. Unified resolution mechanic from 3E onwards.
6. Advantage and disadvantage.

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).
4. Monster math and creation/customizing systems, CR, and so on. An orc has 1d8hp, not 15!?!
5. Occasional "natural language" mixed with occasional "very precise rules language".
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.
8. Modern multi-classing and level dips. The charop players love this for the plethora of extra options, but it just seems like cheesy min-maxing to me.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I don't like the increasing focus on character building through rules systems.

I do like like the increasing simplification of rules systems, and more dependence on rulings over rules.

 

[billd91]

Preferences vary, for sure. One thing that I am glad for is that monsters/NPCs DO NOT follow PC rules.

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.