D&D 5E Things I like and dislike about 5e...

[Tony Vargas]

And why should someone who has no idea what he is doing be kept "in the game"?
Imo this "everyone can do everything" philosophy which survived 4E hurts the chatacterization and devalues skills in general.

The idea is that everyone stays engaged with the game and derives more enjoyment than they would if the attention shifted to one player who had the right skills and was the only one playing for a while. It is, indeed, an old idea going back to storytelling and indie games, and an alternative to spotlight-style balance (and extreme examples thereof like Netrunners in cyberpunk games), that was used in 4e (Skill Challenges, though, not just untrained skills, were how it was implemented out of combat) and has not really been retained in 5e, which mostly goes for the more classic-D&D spotlight balance model, in which you participate when your character's specialty comes up, and let others have their fun in turn.

5e, though, did keep group skill checks and a gap between skilled & unskilled that was narrower than 3e's 23+ (and obviously, narrower than classic have-it/don't-have-it special abilities), in keeping with the Bounded Accuracy design goal. So you can have the DM call for, say, stealth checks from everyone, without the result being virtually guaranteed failure because there's at least one guy in heavy armor. But when it comes to a skill your party Rogue are Bard decided to take expertise in....

I finished a module fighting a ton of dragons. It was quite common. That is with three casters in the group. We never once broke Legendary Resistance. Not a single time with a bard, cleric, and wizard in the group. Not once did we even come close to breaking Legendary Resistance for the following reasons

(Summary: you decided not to try because you saw better ways of using your spell slots.) That does seem to obviate the details of the mechanic. A simple blanket immunity might be less cumbersome and have the same net effect.

3. Don't have time to use options that don't work due to the damage output of Legendary Creatures. You have to kill them fast or they kill you fast. No time to waste trying to break Legendary Resistance.

Well, yeah, 'faster combats' and all. Faster combats, less time for strategies to pan out, need fewer slots because there's fewer rounds to cast them in. None of that seems out of line for 5e's goals, though.

Even if you have to wonder how three highly experienced players playing the most powerful casters in the game that had a fairly easy time with the final encounter in Tyranny of Dragons managed not to break through Legendary Resistance even a single time in 16 levels. I'd bet that our experience is not unique.

I don't have to wonder: you did a cost/benefit and decided it was not a worthwhile use of spell slots. Not that you couldn't do it, just that it clearly wasn't worth it. If anything, that's indicative of a 'trap option,' albeit not in the usual sense - a 'gotchya' monster ability, then. A chance for players to take an obvious path to a solution, find it doesn't work (or works but is too wasteful of resources), and learn 'smarter play' from the experience. Not an entirely inappropriate design element for the more traditional direction 5e took.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't have to wonder: you did a cost/benefit and decided it was not a worthwhile use of spell slots. Not that you couldn't do it, just that it clearly wasn't worth it. If anything, that's indicative of a 'trap option,' albeit not in the usual sense - a 'gotchya' monster ability, then. A chance for players to take an obvious path to a solution, find it doesn't work (or works but is too wasteful of resources), and learn 'smarter play' from the experience. Not an entirely inappropriate design element for the more traditional direction 5e took.

That's right. Not worthwhile because trying to break Legendary Resistance is a waste of resources with a low percentage chance of success. Meaning there is no sure way of doing it, meaning "We couldn't do it in combat with even a 1% of success. I cannot be sure that we could break Legendary Resistance even 1 out of 100 times we attempted it. That is with three casters. That chance probably lowers with two casters and statistically nearly impossible with a single caster, probably 1 in a 1000 or more with a single caster, effectively immune.

Then again that doesn't mean we don't have other effective options, it just means that Legendary Resistance forces casters into particular strategies that are suboptimal because we eliminate all spells that allow a save from our list. That's a lot of spells. It makes us spectators in the toughest fights lobbing softballs while martials are throwing 100 mph fastballs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Still just looks like effective spotlight-style balance, though. Presumably, the DM will bring out such monsters only as often as needed to move the 'spotlight' off the caster long enough for others to do something.

 

[Celtavian]

Still just looks like effective spotlight-style balance, though. Presumably, the DM will bring out such monsters only as often as needed to move the 'spotlight' off the caster long enough for others to do something.

I don't know if that is true.

When does the spotlight shine on a caster?

1. AoE fights against foes strong enough to give the martials trouble.

2. Fights where the monsters are immune to martial damage (extremely rare).

Where do martials shine?

1. Fights against common trash monsters they can cut down quickly and easily using feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter.

2. Fights against nearly magic immune legendary creatures that form major encounters in adventures.

It seems martials are equally effective to casters in nearly every fight except where AoE damage is involved against relatively weak opponents and far more effective in the most important fights in an adventure. There are very few creatures resistance to martial damage, especially from a magic weapon, yet numerous creatures immune to various types of caster damage.

It seems like casters are pretty weak in the combat pillar of D&D in 5E, weaker than they've been in past editions. Archers are probably up there with casters in terms of overall versatility and power in 5E with the main difference being archers outright kill what they're fighting rather than affect it with something.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Taking away the -5/+10 balances the damage. My group won't let that happen. I sort of understand because all fighters and barbarians have is the ability to boost damage as far as offensive capability, the fighter more so than any other class.

Besides legendary creatures, casters are still powerful. I didn't say casters were nerfed. I said they were neutered in end game encounters due to the stack of limiting factors that balance them compared to other classes in other aspects of the game, but stack up to make them nothing but buff bots in battles against legendary creatures. In your game it won't be quite as bad without those -5/+10 feats. They are the reason the damage disparity is so large. With bounded accuracy, the =5 penalty is nothing at higher level with full buffs and resources available.

Yeah I prefer a tighter ballpark for damage capability for all PCs. I think the game plays better as a result. Everyone feels like they do moderate to good damage, no one does "crazy" damage (or at least crazy damage is restricted by limited resources, eg paladin smite or beserker barb).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know if that is true.

When does the spotlight shine on a caster?

Every time one of their spells overcomes a challenge or obstacle. Casters can do /lots/ of things others can't, every time they do, it's their game - and that's, really, most challenges other than straight-up, toe-to-toe combat. Even in combat, which is mostly just a focus-fire, DPR grind (and not a slow grind), if a spell turns the tide, sweeps away a numeric advantage that would be telling under bounded accuracy, renders an important enemy helpless for a round or two, removes or creates a battlefield constraint, or brings the right damage/effect the particular gotchya monster is vulnerable to, it's likely the highlight of the encounter.

There are very few creatures resistance to martial damage, especially from a magic weapon, yet numerous creatures immune to various types of caster damage.

Magic items aren't assumed in 5e, so what do you do when you need to hit the creature that only magic weapons will harm, have a caster cast, well, 'magic weapon.' Immune to one or several types of damage is just part of the fun: it's part of the caster challenge to bring the right damage or the right effect against the right save (or no save at all), like a puzzle. When you do - and, if you're reviewing the MM in detail, you're likely going to, a lot - that's your moment, too.

Of course, all that's going to vary with the party composition, campaign pacing and tone, nature of challenges and whether they're telegraphed at all, and all sorts of DM-specific and campaign-specific variables.

Having a number of mechanics that can shut down casters in a specific combat or vs a specific monster gives the DM a tool to bring other characters to the forefront if casters are, in his campaign, at that time, hogging the glory or dominating play or however you want to put just plain having more power & versatility, and happening to use it well.

When he doesn't need that tool, he can leave it in the box.

The idea that all, or even most, encounters should be something every class can participate fully in is antithetical to 5e's class design philosophy, where each class is mechanically distinct and 'best,' at something. I don't think that's really what you're trying to get at, but it was starting to feel like we were sliding in that direction....

 

[Celtavian]

Every time one of their spells overcomes a challenge or obstacle. Casters can do /lots/ of things others can't, every time they do, it's their game - and that's, really, most challenges other than straight-up, toe-to-toe combat. Even in combat, which is mostly just a focus-fire, DPR grind (and not a slow grind), if a spell turns the tide, sweeps away a numeric advantage that would be telling under bounded accuracy, renders an important enemy helpless for a round or two, removes or creates a battlefield constraint, or brings the right damage/effect the particular gotchya monster is vulnerable to, it's likely the highlight of the encounter.

True. We would never would have held on to the black dragon mask the dragon modules without wall of force and misty step. That is accomplishing the goal. I did banish I think three or four fiends permanently from the battle, which is as good as defeating them. Then again the martials killed three or four fiends permanently erasing them from existence.

I do get tired of holding my Johnson in Legendary Creature fights.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Even in that ToD climax battle you were in, the final victory was only possible because the casters were letting everyone fly, and blocking breath weapon damage. Even with most of their spells trumped, they still made critical contributions that not anyone could have made. DPR output, OTOH, is pretty nearly fungible.

I did banish I think three or four fiends permanently from the battle, which is as good as defeating them. Then again the martials killed three or four fiends permanently erasing them from existence.

Defeating as many enemies as three other characters (IIRC, it was a fighter/barbarian, paladin, and melee-oriented valor bard? that you called 'the martials' in that thread) combined doesn't seem too shabby.

(I'm continually taken aback by little changes that I miss: are devils called 'fiends,' again, I was sure I saw entries under 'devil,' and are extraplanar critters permanently slain just for dying on the prime material, or did that final battle take place on an outer plane?)

 

[Celtavian]

Defeating as many enemies as three other characters combined doesn't seem too shabby. (I'm continually taken aback by little changes that I miss: are devils called 'fiends,' again, I was sure I saw entries under 'devil,' and are extraplanar critters permanently slain just for dying on the prime material, or did that final battle take place on an outer plane?)

They don't go that in-depth, I imagine it is your option as to how that all works.

We only had two martials in our group. The fighter slew three or four (maybe more) fiends. I did not slay as many as three other characters. One fighter slew as many or more than I did. I think the paladin was fighting the dragon, so he didn't kill as many fiends individually.

 

[houser2112]

I like that it feels like an update of 2e, informed by lessons from 3e and 4e, rather than a continuation of 3e or 4e. Not that I don't like 3.5, Pathfinder or 4e - just that this edition "feels" like D&D in ways those don't.

4E was the only edition that didn't "feel" D&D to me, from glancing through the books. A trusted friend told me it was "a cute little game, but it's not D&D", which confirmed what I read.

I like that I'm mapping again, and experiencing the feeling of discovery that looking at a crude grid of squares provides. I'm also enjoying that the other players want to see the map, are leaning into the table to look at it, and are making conjectures about what unmapped areas could contain. Exploration is a huge part of my D&D experience.

I read things like this all the time, and I wonder why. There's nothing in 5E that I can see that would make a player suddenly enjoy these things. I enjoyed mapping and exploring in 2E, enjoyed them in 3E, and enjoy them in 5E.

I'm liking that my table is involved in cross-table roleplay again, and that we tend to refer to each other as Outlander or Noble or that annoying Charlatan, more than "great sword fighter" or "striker" or "controller".

This is another "either the players are into it, or they're not" kind of thing. I've played with hardcore roleplayers in the very crunchy Pathfinder, and with "Bob the human fighter" players in the DM-fiat-fest 2E.

The concentration mechanic works for me, too. Spells feel like a meaningful resource and choice, rather than just a routine set of things to cast in every fight.

I agree that the ability to stack buffs was ridiculous to a certain degree, but I feel Concentration went too far. At the very least, you should have a personal Concentration slot, and an "other" slot.

Like that character creation takes less than an hour, and doesn't involve a bunch of math and optimization choices. I'm also liking that I don't feel like I've made a bad choice for taking things for roleplaying reasons. Bounded accuracy makes it feel like I can be "suboptimal" without dragging down the group.

Diff'rent strokes. I actually enjoy spending time outside the game poring over lists for the perfect feat to fill out my character vision.