D&D 5E The Official Poll! What THREE things do you like most about D&D 5th Edition?

[eamon]

I can see the argument that it lacks nuance, but saying that rolling two dice is slower than trying to count up which bonuses to add and which penalties to subtract doesn't make sense to me at all. I suppose if you've played 3.0/3.5 for years, that sort of thing might seem like second nature, but I still can't see how counting up, "Okay, I have a +2 to hit, and a +2 because a party member is flanking, but I have a -2 penalty because of the terrain, etc." is faster than, "I rolled a 15 and a 17, so I take the higher/lower of the two."

Oh yeah - if you've got lots of circumstantial bonuses, that's a hassle. But really, that's a separate issue - having a bunch of advantage/disadvantage sources also isn't a great place to be because while it's quick, but the result is often nonsensical. If you're only adding one modifier, I don't think there's a big difference.

But don't misunderstand me - I like advantage/disadvantage. It works, it's really simple, and the lack of flexibility (you really can't stack it or have differing magnitudes) can be a good thing because it keeps designs simple. I just don't think it's all that special... 5e with advantage replaced by circumstance modifiers would still mostly play the same.

So it's not that advantage isn't nice, it's that I think other parts of 5e have much more impact, such as the magic system and release calendar .

 

[Mhyr]

I am so mainstream: Advantage/disadvantage, Bounded accuracy and Simplicity/light rules.

 

[mrm1138]

So it's not that advantage isn't nice, it's that I think other parts of 5e have much more impact, such as the magic system and release calendar .

Okay, I kinda see what you're saying. I mean, I still don't think it's really any slower, but in terms of thinking there are other parts of the game that are better, that makes sense. I really enjoy advantage/disadvantage because I tend to prefer less flat probabilities. While the majority of your rolls will still be a straight d20 roll, adding in that bit of variability is something I really love.

On a similar line of thought, I really wish the designers had left proficiency dice as a core mechanic rather than relegating it to the alternate rules in the DMG. I feel like it would have been easier to institute with my group if it had been there from the get-go.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There is also a first answer sort of bias that probably is helping advantage/disadvantage in the ratings. Most people probably see it and think, "yeah, I like that!" click on it, then don't worry about agonizing over which 3 they like the most after they run out of options to click on.

If simplicity/light rules had been the first option it might be the one sitting at 100%.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sorta surprised that so many people are voting for advantage/disadvantage.

I mean - it's a fine mechanic and all, but it's just not that special.

It's the closest thing to a genuinely new idea 5e has seen implemented so far. It's also a neat mechanic because, as good as Advantage is, it /seems/ even better when you actually use it.

If you roll a single die with a +5 modifier, that's every bit as good, statistically, as having Advantage. But, with the modifier, the player can see that at most most 25% of rolls hit because of the modifier, the other 75% either miss in spite of it, or would have hit anyway. With Advantage, OTOH, unless you roll two different-colored dice, or roll sequentially, and mentally tag one of them as the 'regular' roll and the other as the 'advantage' die, any time one die comes up higher than the other, it'll look like Advantage was a benefit, and any time the lower die would miss, it looks like you hit 'because of advantage,' making it look like a benefit about twice as often as it actually is (that is, if you roll two identical dice at once, then the 'advantage die' may come up lower, but because you aren't differentiating, it looks like rolling two dice 'helped'). It ups the excitement of using Advantage without correspondingly upping the power of it.

It's just a very player-positive mechanic. I first noticed that with Avengers in 4e, who got to roll two dice and take the highest when attacking their chosen 'Oath of Enmity' target, relative to the already very popular 'Elven Accuracy' re-roll. The two were mathematically identical, but the Avenger's ability /seemed/ to deliver more often for the above reason.

Let me put it this way - I'm sure the game would be affected much more drastically if it were missing bounded accuracy than if it were missing advantage/disadvantage.

Bounded Accuracy has definite effects on the game, but they're mixed. It means anyone can try anything at any time, because the d20 is never overwhelmed by large bonuses or super-high DCs. It also means you can fail at something you're supposed to be good at at any time. It means the same monsters are still a threat in large enough numbers, even at high level, and that a party can at least put some damage on a higher level monster. It also means that your sense of getting 'better' as you level can seem minimal.

The magic system is really good. It's good not just because it's reasonably balanced with low-magic classes,

It's not reasonably balanced with the non-caster classes. Balance isn't a hard-coded thing in 5e. It's a roving spot-light largely under the DM's control.

but also because it's diverse and because it's relatively small. People actually *recognize* each others spells sometimes, and that helps tie players into the world.

I couldn't agree less. ;P Seriously, lack of differentiation and variety is a good thing? I can see how magic being a fungible, consistent, known-quantity in the setting would evoke a sense of verisimilitude or 'connection to the world,' but it'd also undercut it feeling, well magical. In that sense, the D&D magic system has always been a bit of a negative, it doesn't really feel magical and doesn't model magic in genre. though it's become one of those lovable flaws through long familiarity, of course. 5e did go as far as it dared in making Vancian casting less clunky and genre-contrary, and potentially less frustrating and more fun (depending on your style preferences), though, and it deserves some recognition for that.

Which brings me to the Rate of publishing. I think it's outstanding that the rate is relatively low. Not only does that hopefully mean the content that *is* released is well-thought out, it *also* keeps the game world small enough for players to sort of understand.

It hasn't been this 'slow' since the early 80s, and, I have to agree, it'll help keep the game from collapsing under it's own weight the way late 2e and 3.5 did (well, for me - everyone has a different threshold of bloat).

 

[eamon]

It's the closest thing to a genuinely new idea 5e has seen implemented so far.

I don't think that's fair. Both because advantage (as you point out) isn't really all that new; and because there are lots of other new-ish thing in 5e. Then again I don't think novelty is a laudable goal, here.

...

It's just a very player-positive mechanic.

That's a clever observation! Advantage is rewarding to get. I'm not sure how big or long-lasting that psycho-trickery effect is, but it's an interesting perspective.

Bounded Accuracy has definite effects on the game, but they're mixed. It means anyone can try anything at any time, because the d20 is never overwhelmed by large bonuses or super-high DCs. It also means you can fail at something you're supposed to be good at at any time. It means the same monsters are still a threat in large enough numbers, even at high level, and that a party can at least put some damage on a higher level monster. It also means that your sense of getting 'better' as you level can seem minimal.

Effects are definitely mixed - it's a basic choice that influences all kinds of things in the way a campaign evolves. In general it strikes me as an aspect of the game with lots of upside, few downsides, but in any case with a lot of impact (in contrast to advantage, which is entirely unobjectionable, but doesn't change the game much). Even with bounded accuracy, I don't think that the sense of getting better seems minimal. In a way, bounded accuracy *enhances* the sense of progress, because it's actually possible to revisit old foes and see how much you've advanced. Unlike 3e and even moreso 4e, a significant level gap in a combat is still playable. I'd like to draw a corollary to your observation about advantage here... In all three editions, fighting a dramatically underlevel foe simply poses no risk. Even in 5e that's the case, because although attack bonuses etc. don't change as much (and they still do change quite a bit), hit points and other abilities do to such a degree that an encounter that was challenging at low level or even forced you to retreat will at high level be a cakewake. The point is that even though there's still a huge power gap as levels rise, the fact that low level creatures can at least make a dent makes a world of difference. Instead of a boring, onesided fight in which only one side ever hits and it's just a question accumulating enough damage, the fight may involve an actual exchange of blows - it's just that the higher level creatures will shrug off piddling damage they receive, and the lower level creatures will be blown to bits. Also, the fact that *groups* of creatures do provide a threat mean that you can really showcase to players how they've advanced. Whereas early in their campaign they might have needed all their strength to take down just one ogre, at level 10 even half a dozen will be much easier (and in my experience the DMG slightly exaggerates the extra difficulty of multiple monsters, so I'd expect an actual level one party to have much more difficulty dealing with 1 ogre than a level 10 party would have to deal with 10 ogres, even though the encounter building guidelines suggest otherwise). Player's love encountering foes that (nearly) bested them and teaching them a lesson; and bounded accuracy actually makes those encounters playable.



On the topic of magic:

It's not reasonably balanced with the non-caster classes. Balance isn't a hard-coded thing in 5e. It's a roving spot-light largely under the DM's control.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it's reasonably balanced in the sense that the DM doesn't need to try hard to keep all players relevant. A wizard doesn't render a fighter moot, nor the other way around, even if the DM isn't paying too much attention.

Seriously, lack of differentiation and variety is a good thing? I can see how magic being a fungible, consistent, known-quantity in the setting would evoke a sense of verisimilitude or 'connection to the world,' but it'd also undercut it feeling, well magical.

Any system of player magic is going to undercut the "magical" feeling in the way you describe. Magic is almost by definition unexplainable and unknown, and a player-controlled magic is kind of the opposite. But I strongly disagree with the notion that 5e's system lacks differentiation. Differing PC's don't have identical magical repertoires; they build it from identical components. Even in 3.5 the average spell tended to have multiple nearly identical copies with minor, boring differences. And 4e took this notion much further. It's not differentiation if all those spells differ in name only. I don't see the connection to verisimilitude, but the great advantage of a small yet diverse spell list is that players get to know those spells well, thus tying them more deeply into the game - not least, the DM. That also lets the game designers get away with significantly more complex spells that if each and every class had all their abilities separately described. It's very hard to adjudicate a spell you've never really heard of, so naturally if the spell list is huge, the spells must be fairly simply and the DM interpretations more literal and less nuanced. It's also harder to balance, so if you're going to be designing spells by the thousands, there's going to be an underlying system. And if that's the case, you might as well codify that simpler underlying system, rather that waste all that valuable time, paper and player attention. So, it is precisely 5e's small spell list that enable greater differentiation and variety, not less.

It hasn't been this 'slow' since the early 80s, and, I have to agree, it'll help keep the game from collapsing under it's own weight the way late 2e and 3.5 did (well, for me - everyone has a different threshold of bloat).

Yeah. I'm not sure if you played 4e, but that was similarly bloated (almost 10000 powers, and over 3000 feats...). No idea how big 3e became by comparison, but Jabba the hut would surely have been impressed. Let's be honest, there's a good chance over the years it'll happen again to some extent, but for now, I'm pretty happy - and perhaps with this new caution, at least the worst consequences will be avoided.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think that's fair. Both because advantage (as you point out) isn't really all that new; and because there are lots of other new-ish thing in 5e. Then again I don't think novelty is a laudable goal, here.

We can have different opinions on how laudable novelty is, but either way, coming up with new stuff never seemed like a major 5e goal, while capturing the feel of the classic game was a biggie. Even so, new - or new-seeming - stuff stands out.

That's a clever observation! I'm not sure how big or long-lasting that psycho-trickery effect is, but it's an interesting perspective.

From watching folks play avengers in 4e, and getting advantage in 5e, it's pretty solid. I'm not even worried about 'spoiling' it by pointing it out.

The point is that even though there's still a huge power gap as levels rise, the fact that low level creatures can at least make a dent makes a world of difference.

Nod. It's rather like the effect minions had. You can have 'lesser' monsters in a combat, and they're not strictly just scenery. The 'numbers porn' or 'treadmill' is just on the hp side instead of the attack/defense side. It's a workable enough way of making both 'lesser' and 'more powerful' monsters available regardless of level, just one that minimizes the creation of monster stat blocks by the developers rather than the effort of designing an encounter.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it's reasonably balanced in the sense that the DM doesn't need to try hard to keep all players relevant.

There's a range where it works out. Enough encounters/day to make casters careful in managing their spells, enough straightforward combats to make DPR the way to go some of the time, enough non-combat challenges for those who didn't focus on combat, etc... Some DMs naturally tend to run in that range. Others need to remind themselves to now and then.

Any system of player magic is going to undercut the "magical" feeling in the way you describe. Magic is almost by definition unexplainable and unknown, and a player-controlled magic is kind of the opposite. But I strongly disagree with the notion that 5e's system lacks differentiation. Differing PC's don't have identical magical repertoires; they build it from identical components.

There's not that many unique spells for each class. The Wizard and Cleric are tops, with 33 and 27, respectively, followed by the Druid and Bard at 17 each, after that it's single-digits until you get to the poor Sorcerer at 0 unique spells to it's name. Then you consider that that classes with the most unique spells are all neo-Vancian. Yeah, not a lot of differentiation, at all. Contrast that with the vast spell lists 3.5 eventually accumulated, or the unique list of 'powers' for each 4e class (and each monster tending to have a couple of more or less unique abilities). 5e does deliver familiarity that way, which is a plus for it's prime target audience, though, so it's not all bad.

I don't see the connection to verisimilitude, but the great advantage of a small yet diverse spell list is that players get to know those spells well, thus tying them more deeply into the game

That's verisimilitude, yes. The world is familiar to the players, through their characters. There's consistency. The NPC wizard may be statted more like a monster, but he casts magic missile. PC casters share many of the same spells.

It's less magical, but builds a more specific feel of the world.

Yeah. I'm not sure if you played 4e

Lol!

Let's be honest, there's a good chance over the years it'll happen again to some extent, but for now, I'm pretty happy - and perhaps with this new caution, at least the worst consequences will be avoided.

It's a danger of the way D&D has always been designed - with long lists of things (classes, spells, items, monsters, etc), and the only way to do something new is to add to the lists. Eventually they get to long. I'm glad that, this time, they seem to be adding things more slowly.

 

[Headbomb]

So hard to pick only three...

I went with Advantage, Backgrounds, and Bounded accuracy, but really, I would rank those in 'tiers'

First tier

* Simplicity/light rules, which includes
** Advantage/disadvantage
** Bounded accuracy
** Magic system (SANE MULTICLASS MAGIC FTW)
** Proficiency system
The consequence is a greatly improved speed of play, and creates that "rulings over rules" effect in many situation, or makes it much easier to see what would be the appropriate check (stat or skill, proficiency or not, advantage or not) for a situation. This is only hampered by half my party not knowing their damned characters.

*Backgrounds
After the roleplay unfriendly 4e mess, the backgrounds were like being repeatedly punched in the face by awesome. A fighter than knows something about stealth? Barbarians with a knack for thievery? Intimidating wizards? Bring it on. But the best is the background features, that give you out-of-combat bonuses like contact networks, guild memberships, or just being better at a specific task like finding food in the wilderness that help you define your character.

*Old-school "feel"
This is intangible, but they nailed it.

*Magic items not required/no "Christmas tree"
A direct consequence of the bounded accuracy system. Not sure where I stand on attunement, but it forces you to make choices about your big items/special powers. Can no longer swap a +5 AC ring for a Fire Immunity ring in mid-combat.

Second tier
*Art direction/production values
It's really, really nice, but it's kind of the cherry on top, rather than the main course.

*Inspiration mechanic
It's fun, but not-critical. We do use the mechanic, but we'd have just as much fun without I think. It's a good optional rule that can be used or not used depending on the hardcoreness of the campaign.

* Rate of release/number of books
I like the slow releases. I feel this lets WotC polish things correctly, and make books worth have plenty of high quality content worth owning. Faster releases with the same quality would be fine, but I think the slowness is required for such quality.

Dislike

* Concentration
This is the only rule I really don't like. Bear's endurance as a concentration effect that lasts for 1 minute, with an early end if the caster takes damage? I get that 3.5 was a buff-fest, but it would have been much simpler IMO to just say you can only maintain 1 concentration spell at any given time. Making concentration rolls upon taking damage is just too often and really annoying to track. If I were to DM, I'd houserule that part.

* Economy
Way too much of it depends on DM rulings.

No opinion/never encountered
* Legendary creature mechanic
* Published adventures

 

[Xaelvaen]

Toned-down magic items (or the lack of necessity thereof).
Old-School Feel
Bounded Accuracy.

I prefer magic items being stories worthy of an adventure all on their own.

I've been playing DnD for over 20 years now, so change is hard - 5e made it easy.

I bloody hate changing my numbers on character sheets, so much. 3.5 fighters and 4e were awful here.

In truth, there's nothing about 5e I don't like, though I do miss classic 'Multiclassing' from second edition demihumans. I can live without it for all this, however.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One of the great things about 5e is how it lifted some of the best bits from prior editions.
One example is Backgrounds.

*Backgrounds
After the roleplay unfriendly 4e mess, the backgrounds were like being repeatedly punched in the face by awesome. A fighter than knows something about stealth? Barbarians with a knack for thievery? Intimidating wizards? Bring it on.

Backgrounds were lifted and expanded from 4e, which had tons of them as player options, and you could do exactly those things with 'em, too. You could even have multiple backgrounds, you just picked one to get the explicit mechanical benefits from.

Any 'soft'/RP benefits or fluff remained, such as...

But the best is the background features, that give you out-of-combat bonuses like contact networks, guild memberships, or just being better at a specific task like finding food in the wilderness that help you define your character.

5e further expanded backgrounds into more character-defining detail, which, also, was something 4e had done but with a separate option, 'Themes' (and 2e, had done, before, with Kits), though those (both, in the case of some kits) went farther in letting you pull in higher level abilities, as well. 5e looks to be picking up on and going above and beyond that level of customization by re-introducing a 3.5 sub-system: Prestige Classes.