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

[MichaelSomething]

But do they do anything about it.

3.x had much more robust 3 pillar support. But that's obvious: 3.x had much better overall support.

I guess one thing I dislike is the low level of support overall. Despite more customers than ever by orders of magnitude, we get very little support.

I consider it a plus. While I prefer strong thematic support, the vast majority of players don't bother to read the rules so why bother writing them in the first place? Don't we have a running joke about how no one reads the DMG??

Another plus is that there is a version of 5E with more support for everything; Level Up! Brought to you by the same person who runs the greatest D&D forum on the planet!

 

[Reynard]

I consider it a plus.

Why? If you don't want it, you don't buy it. But folks who do can.

 

[Marc17]

But do they do anything about it.

Not really*, and complaining about that was going to be in my Dislikes but all my Dislikes list was basically about how I don't think any of the WotC designers have ever been up to the job of implimenting whatever good ideas they had, or at least did not spend enough time on it. Still, it was nice of them to at least insinuate that D&D might be a role playing game rather than just a fantasy medieval combat simulator. I think that including the downtime actions and lifestyles int eh base rules was a good start. They did have an interaction encounter in the 5.24 rulebook but pretty much don't offer any suggestion on how to actually run it.

As for the unified d20 system, I think it was a good idea and goal, but boy did I really begin to feel that they thought they had a sacred round hole they were determined to pound every peg into.

*ETA: I keep thinking and going back to that there might be some treatment that can make the Influence action as a basis of such, but everytime I do, I run into some deeper question that puts me off.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

+ascending AC. i don't know how you all dealt with thac0 before.
+save consolidation (and transformation into nads)
+unified proficiency bonus...sort of. would prefer pf2e style where there's multiple levels of proficiency that can be upgraded into if it's going to be how training works but the (level/x)+y level bonus is fine
+consistent ability bonus (as opposed to the seemingly arbitrary scaling of past editions)
+maneuvers/martial powers, at least in concept
+death of randomized rarity as a balancing mechanic (at least in character building)
+more character customization like asis, feats, subclasses
+cantrips
+short rests
+concentration and attunement
+warlord
-no warlord
-overproliferation of concentration and attunement
-1 hour short rests
-the death of int
-the sheer rarity of save proficiencies or save related bonuses in 5e, and the stupid power of the few save related features that do exist as a result
-the death of weapon sizes
-oversimplification of proficiencies
-related to above, "all must be spells" design
-outsizing of ability bonus compared to proficiency bonus
-same class bonus to hit for everyone
-having to choose between asis and feats (seriously who thought this would feel good ever)
-weapon masteries (at least in practice)

 

[Necropolitan]

In 3.5 Glabrezus could cast Wish for a mortal once per month. Then 4E removed it and 5E didn't bring it back.

They were one of the few (and maybe only) non-unique Chaotic Evil beings who could grant Wishes. It was the perfect setup for "Be careful what you wish for" plots where you didn't need to come up with any motivation for the wish-granting villain other than "They think it's fun!"

Glabrezus also used to be able to cast illusion spells to disguise themselves. Which they needed to do because they look like this:

Nobody with any sense would accept a Wish from that guy. With an illusion they could make themselves look like anyone or anything and could easily get someone to let their guard down enough to say "I wish X" and then twist that to cause harm.

But 5E stripped away all their spells that could bribe or trick mortals while keeping their characterization as Demons who specialize in tricking and betraying mortals. They're not even proficient in Deception in 5E, they have a +3 to the roll which is the same as a 1st level PC with proficiency and just a +1 Charisma bonus!

So 5E's replaced a monster with endless possibilities for both combat and social encounters with one that will most likely just be a combat encounter with what amounts to a flying melee combatant with a few combat-specific spells.

Also the 3.5 art for them was better (there's a Vrock in front of them):

The 3.5 art has a menacing stance, is wearing jewelry (which indicates intelligence), is more detailed, and if you told people it was one of the most powerful forms of non-unique Demon they'd believe it.

Meanwhile the 5E Glabrezu art looks like a dumb raging brute who might not even be sapient.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The WoWyfication of 4E.

Do you mind if I ask: How much World of Warcraft (or indeed any MMO) have you played? And, how much 4e did you play?

I ask because I hear this comparison a lot, but it is often quite a superficial comparison--which I find is very counterproductive for discussion. But there are some people who really do mean it in a thoroughgoing way, so it's important to ask, rather than assume.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The unified d20 resolution system that 3E introduced was way overdue and is a fantastic now-core addition to the game.

Advantage/disadvantage, while not as big an upgrade as the d20 resolution system, is also a great upgrade and one that's happily been copied by many games since, as it's a great idea when the goal is fast and engaging gameplay, rather than simulation.

The OGL has fundamentally changed the game for RPGs more generally and the SRD now being in Creative Commons now means that D&D ultimately belongs to the players, even if the corporate brand owners lose their minds in future.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why? If you don't want it, you don't buy it. But folks who do can.

Negative: people view the existence of things that they don't like as oppression by WOTC that forces them to play in a mandated style. While you and I, being Enworlders, are empowered enough to make the game our own despite any WOTC, weaker players arn't strong enough to withstand any "official" D&D material.

 

[MGibster]

Do you mind if I ask: How much World of Warcraft (or indeed any MMO) have you played? And, how much 4e did you play?

I played D&D 4th edition when it was released in 2008 and then started playing World of Warcraft later than same year. After a few hours of playing WoW, I realized the cool down abilities reminded me of D&D's at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers. The way D&D 4th edition had those abilities organized didn't seem much different than the abilities tied to numbers on my keyboard. When playing D&D, when using Deft Strike it felt like I was playing WoW and pushing 3 on my keyboard for Slam. And then you had the addition of Strikers (DPS), Defenders (Tanks), Controller, and Leader (healers?). You're honestly telling me this doesn't make you think of an MMORPG?

That D&D 4th edition was inspired by WoW and other MMORPGs seems patently obvious to me. But unlike others, I don't view that as a bad thing. Video games were inspired by D&D and other TTRPGs for decades, so why shouldn't TTRPGs take some inspiration for video games? Probably my favorite part of 4th edition was that it did a good job of making sure every character was useful in every encounter which wasn't always the case in previous editions. In 3rd edition, I remember a fight against a golem where my Wizard was essentially worthless because none of my magic could do anything. I never saw that happen in 4th edition.