Best/Worst Changes in 5e compared to earlier editions

[Willie the Duck]

The 3e designers have been relatively mum about exactly what their goals were (outside of the actual press release style material from the time). Given that Monte Cook is still living down a reputation in no small part based on that one System Mastery interview I'm sure someone has a link to, I really don't blame them. Clearly they were trying to modernize D&D, but exactly what that meant we can mostly only infer. Universal resolution mechanic seems likely. Semi-rigorous fictional world emulator--what with actual hit points and hardness for various types of walls, rules for creating things other than weapons and armor (stuff that 2e nonweapon proficiencies covered, that is), and so on. Putting PCs and NPCs on a similar framework (and despite the insane expansion of the monster stat blocks, it did resolve issues such as what happens if a monster gets hit with energy drain or other effect which only has player-facing consequences) is another guess. Overall my impression (very subjective) is that they just thought the basic D&D/AD&D engine had been played out and a direct 'AD&D, take 3' or the like would never sell, so they needed to try to capture the same audience, hit the same notes, etc., but with a new system. And along the way they were going to 'fix' whatever they saw as broken (or just worn out) about the old system.

[Pex]

You shouldn't be considering success rates, you should be considering the worth of failure. D&D provides no incentive for GMs to say that anything happens on a failed roll other than "You don't do it yet, try again", which is a waste of everyone's time.

Yes, that's one of 5e's best changes was to fix that, and also another industry standard nowadays.

3E fixed it first, in D&D, with Take 10 and Take 20. You don't have to keep rolling until you do it. When you can't Take 10/20 there are reasons/consequences why you can't.

[Alucard89]

What exactly is a nuclear wizard?

1 Hexblade/17 Evocation Wizard/2 Fighter abusing Magic Missle singe roll rule and stacking extra +11 damage per missle + Action Surge + Simulacrum + Simulacrum Action Surge. You can delete anything in 1-2 turns.

[king_steve]

1 Hexblade/17 Evocation Wizard/2 Fighter abusing Magic Missle singe roll rule and stacking extra +11 damage per missle + Action Surge + Simulacrum + Simulacrum Action Surge. You can delete anything in 1-2 turns.

I don't think this works, the Empowered Evocation only applies to 1 damage roll. Magic Missile doesn't say whether you roll damage once and apply it to each date or if you roll damage per dart, but I'm not sure how common it is to only use a single roll.

Despite that, if you roll damager per dart would be +11 for 1 date, then +6 for the rest, that still adds up to a lot of damage.

[Alucard89]

I don't think this works, the Empowered Evocation only applies to 1 damage roll. Magic Missile doesn't say whether you roll damage once and apply it to each date or if you roll damage per dart, but I'm not sure how common it is to only use a single roll.

Despite that, if you roll damager per dart would be +11 for 1 date, then +6 for the rest, that still adds up to a lot of damage.

No, EE applies to all Magic Missliles because RAW you roll ONCE for all magic missiles.

Here you have tweet: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/...30989894955008

It's because of how MM spell is worded.

So at level 6th MM you create 8x (1d4 + 1 + Curse + Empowered Evocation).

[Waazraath]

MADness of those builds if you use Standard Array or Point Buy is what makes them just no good choices. You can "make" any build you want, but you will feel like it costs you more than it was worth. 13 Wisdom to multiclass Wizard/Cleric - which race has both +1 INT/+1 WIS or +1/+2 to those?

Eh... trick question? Human, vhuman, half-elf, vedalken, githzerai, and at least 3 dragonmarked races?

You will end up having worse rounded stats or even being ASI behind with that. So yes, you can make them, but they are not worth the trouble. Same with Barbarian/Monk. You need DEX, CON, STR and WIS to multiclass and have relevant HP and/or armor.

Sure, if you roll stats and have 15+ everywhere - you can make every build. But for folks who prefer fair Point Buy for everyone at table - multiclass rulings just closes many thematic doors.

Sorry, but nonsense. Also with point buy, not having a 16 or higher in a primary stat by no means is the same as that a build isn't viable or relevant.

And I still stand by saying that RPG should not be balanced around min-maxers. For example I played 3.5 for a very long time and I was the only real min-maxer/powerbuilder in every table I ever played. Mostly casual/normal gamers still just go for the flavour and for "rule of cool" characters.

Same is with 5e. I have yet to meet another min-maxer than myself at 5e tables. Powerbuilders are miniority among players. Yes, they are visible once you have one, but most tables don't min-max at all.

Also the whole idea of "optional" rule for feats + multiclass is also idiotic to me. It's like cutting half of the game and saying "it's optional". Of course people with play with those. Feats and multiclass are what makes DnD so good and how 3 Fighters in party can be totally different characters mechanically.

I have played a lot of systems which were considered "balanced" or "harsh" and you can always min-max in most of them. People like me will always find a way, that's our quirk. So I don't think that rest of normal players base should pay a price for that. For me - it's silly way of balancing system.

Your experience is valid, but not the point. Personally, the potential disbalance in 3.x never bothered me either cause I play with friends that are either 1) casual gamers 2) harcore optimizers but nice enough to take the rest of the table in to account (resulting in beautifully made optimized buff bots that are really strong but mostly empower the casual gamers in the group, making it fun for everybody). But it's not about me either. It's about the many, many folks who have less fun that they could because disbalanced parties. Go look for some examples in any 3.x forum you'll find plenty. It's for those tables, and they rightfully got attention from the designers.

And I think it's a logial fallacy to claim that when a game prevents powergamers to disrupt the balance, it automatically closes a lot of options. Those 2 don't need to exclude each other.

What makes your claimes even less convincing is that the options you give that are supposed to be impossible in 5e are very logic, even from an optimizers point of view. Moon druid with a bit of monk (for extra AC in animal forms), monk with a dip of druid (versatility with little cost), pally with 2 levels war wizard (+2 to AC or +4 to save every round, in addition to a bonus to initiative, a familiar and some versatility).... etc. etc. Those are strong, solid builds, in no way hampered by the system.

And finally: any optimizer worth his salt should be encouraged by a challange: optimizing isn't (or imo: shouldn't) be about getting the strongest build possible, it's about making something optimal given certain parameters. Making that wizard/pally work is a challange and fun, not something you skip 'cause you can't have a 16 in str, cha AND int from level 1 onwards'.

[Petrocorus]

1 Hexblade/17 Evocation Wizard/2 Fighter abusing Magic Missle singe roll rule and stacking extra +11 damage per missle + Action Surge + Simulacrum + Simulacrum Action Surge. You can delete anything in 1-2 turns.

Oh... That one.
The guy that can do 100+ dmg on a single casting of Magic Missile at level 12.
Ididn't pick up the name.

TBH, one could consider the player earned this trick, by investing 1 level into Warlock and 9 levels into a Wizard school that up to this point is not so good compared to some others.
But it's sure this trick, once in line, quickly make every body else in the party feel redundant.

[FaerieGodfather]

So I have very strong negative feelings about 5e-- it is my least favorite edition by a wide margin-- but I'm not trying to insult or pick a fight with anyone who likes it. It's a good game that seems to do what it's designed to do very well, and I recommend it to people who've never played D&D before as the easiest game for a newbie to get into, and... unfortunately, the direction the entire D&D fandom appears to be moving for the foreseeable future.

Which is, you see, why I hate it. There are different editions of D&D that are more or less to my tastes, but 5e is the first and only D&D that feels deliberately designed to be the opposite of what I want from D&D and what I think D&D should be. I'm glad that the current edition of the game is the most popular ever-- for several reasons-- but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me that the one thing all the grognards and the new kids agree on is that the playstyle I grew up with isn't "real D&D".

Just a little context for the rest of my opinions, here.

Best Changes:

• Advantage/Disadvantage - a clean, simple, easy to remember mechanic that replaces dozens of fiddly little modifiers.
• Attribute Saving Throws - again, an elegant mechanic that splits the difference between AD&D's "what you're saving against" and 3.X's "how you're saving against it"; if there's more than one way to resist an effect, just use the one that makes sense
• Subclasses - this adds a lot of variety to every individual class and reduces (but does not eliminate) the need to add more main classes
• Feats - big, meaty character choices that open up new avenues of play; much better than their 3.X and 4e counterparts.
• At-Will Cantrips - PF did it first, but 5e's cantrips are much more substantial in utility and in combat.
• Pact Magic - this is just a great mechanic. Shame it's only one class.

Worst Changes:

• Bounded Accuracy - high-level characters simply do not feel different enough from low-level characters. unless they're spellcasters, of course. 3e and 4e were steps in the right direction, this is a huge step back.
  
  • ASI Cap - everyone's got the same 20 in their main score by 12th level, racial mods don't matter
  • Saving Throw Math - like 3.X, your best saving throws get stronger slower than level-appropriate save DCs. Unlike 3.X, your worst saving throws don't get better at all.
  • Skills - proficiency bonuses are too small, leading to too little difference beween trained/untrained and low-level/high-level.
• Cantrip Damage - at-will ranged attacks do more damage than melee or ranged weapons? practically the only thing based on character level instead of class level?
• Multiclassing -- Literally. Everything.

[Pex]

[*]Cantrip Damage - at-will ranged attacks do more damage than melee or ranged weapons? practically the only thing based on character level instead of class level?

That's not quite true. Except for Eldritch Blast they do deal more damage in one attack but not in one turn. When Cantrips are getting their second die warriors are getting their second attack. When Cantrips get their third die warriors are getting a boost to their attacks - extra damage or in Fighter's case another attack. When Cantrips get their next die you sort of have a point. Fighters get their fourth attack. Others get a boost somewhere. Weapon attacks always add modifier to damage. Cantrips only sometimes do. Since 5E lowered the number of spell slots spellcasters have Cantrips give them something to do in casting that sounds better than "I fire my crossbow" to conserve spell slots and still contribute meaningfully. You still don't have to like that, but using a Cantrip doesn't make a spellcaster a better warrior than a warrior.

[LordCdrMilitant]

What do you feel are the best and worst changes made to D&D in 5th edition?

I've only played 5e a little, but so far I would say I would say that that complete healing with an 8 hour rest bugs me the most.

I do like that they got rid of fire and forget casting. {The party is assailed by a horde of gibbering critters. The wizard throws a fireball and fries a sizable portion of them. The fighter says 'That was great, throw another one.' The wizard says 'Sorry, I forgot how. If we survive I can learn it again tonight.'}

Better:
Bounded Accuracy - Scaling is contained, it's okay to not be super min-maxed since you'll be able to get your main stat to 20 no matter what and you're no longer permanently gimped for not starting with a maximum possible score in one stat or playing a non-normal race/class combo that would have just been terrible in the past [Orc Wizard, for example], and there's room to spend your feats/ASI's on things that are actually fun and fluffy. Also, there's only so far that powergaing will go, even poorly optimized characters feel valuable. This is really the biggest improvement by far.
Sharpshooter & GWM - Martials have good damage output now! Also, makes damage output scale a little better [though this is still a problem of D&D].
Simple - Chargen is quick and easy. So is gameplay.
Fewer Classes - There didn't need to be so many classes, the existing classes cover things great, and are easy to learn.
No More Magic Item Christmas Tree - Magic Items are Magical again, and feel special for the GM to pick out as a special reward, not something for the players to bake in and assume for part of their builds.

Worse:
Bounded Accuracy - Spellsave DC's are so low that I often feel that offensive spells that don't do half on pass are basically not worth casting if the odds are at best like 50% that your turn and once-per-day resource will just be wasted.
Legendary Resistance - and thus was both bounded accuracy ignored, the player's most valuable resource pre-emptively wasted or creative combat maneuver idea pre-emptively kiboshed, all for the sake of never again having a story about how the GM's Big Scary was stunned or charmed or immobilized or tripped or pushed off a cliff and thus was killed without downing at least one PC.
Low Spell Slot count - Compounds with bounded accuracy and legendary resistance, spells are too valuable to waste when there's like a 50/50 chance of your once or twice per day ability just not doing anything.
No More Engineering or Knowledge Skills - Seriously, there's no less than 3 skills represent talking to somebody to get them to do what you want them to do that are all actually mechanically the same [Deceive, Persuade, Intimidate], but there's no skill for designing & building things or knowing facts about things other than what berries are safe to eat.
Advantage/Disadvantage - It doesn't matter how many times it stacks, as long as you have it, you have it. And if you have 2 sources of advantage, and one source of disadvantage, it's still a net wash. There's no discretization.
Skill Proficiency - Even more than ever, stats matter way too much in determining how good you are at a skill, and you're either proficient or not.
Fewer "Characterful" Options - For once, thanks to bounded accuracy, there's room to take options that are just fun. Unfortunately, there's not that many of those options to take, and many just don't scale that well.
Lots of Weapon Names, Not So Many Weapon Profiles - Basically what it says on the tin. There are a lot of weapons that are just the same as other weapons.

Unchanged Weaknesses:
Lots of HP - Combat is still a painful slog. HP still goes up faster than damage does, the gamestate doesn't change round to round meaningfully, and battles boil down into "move into contact, race to bottom, repeat".
DEX is The God Stat - Now it even adds to damage too!
5ft Squares - On one hand, it works nicely with 25mm/32mm Heroic scale wargaming models. On the other hand, 5' square is a really awkward size to consider a single person occupying and to limit movement too if you assume people are realistically proportioned and not wearing Space Marine shoulder pads while standing in a half-squat with their legs as far apart as physically possible.
Class/Level Based Character Progression - There's not a lot of freedom to deviate from your build in a mechanical sense so your build is kind of picked when you start your character as opposed to evolving naturally as the demands of the game an your character changes, and character improvements are infrequent and sharp versus frequent and small.

- publishing rate: I could do with more player options, and less settings / adventure modules 1-15. It's personal, but before one of my group finishes one, I'm years and years further, while player options for one shots or short campaigns always come in handy.

Definitely. I don't care about the "official" settings or preconned adventures, I don't run them, and all but one GM I know doesn't use them either. It's expected that a GM has her own game in her own setting.

[FaerieGodfather]

That's not quite true.

Yeah, all of this is fair-- I absolutely don't have a problem with at-will spells. I just find it troublesome that unless you're a warrior your cantrip spells are automatically going to be a better option than weapon combat, and that they are definitely going to be better than your lower-level daily spell slots. It's a weird and uncomfortable balance point for me.

[Pex]

Yeah, all of this is fair-- I absolutely don't have a problem with at-will spells. I just find it troublesome that unless you're a warrior your cantrip spells are automatically going to be a better option than weapon combat, and that they are definitely going to be better than your lower-level daily spell slots. It's a weird and uncomfortable balance point for me.

I'm confused by this. If you're a spellcaster your spells should be better than using a weapon. There are particular builds that allow a spellcaster to be decent in using a weapon, but I don't see how a wizard firing a crossbow or swinging a quarterstaff should be preferred over casting Fire Bolt. However, this thread is about opinions, so I don't fault you having a different perspective.

It is true Cantrips are better than a few 1st level spells, but the fault lies in those 1st level spells being garbage. Many 1st level spells remain useful through out the levels.

[Telok]

I'm confused by this. If you're a spellcaster your spells should be better than using a weapon. There are particular builds that allow a spellcaster to be decent in using a weapon, but I don't see how a wizard firing a crossbow or swinging a quarterstaff should be preferred over casting Fire Bolt. However, this thread is about opinions, so I don't fault you having a different perspective.

It is true Cantrips are better than a few 1st level spells, but the fault lies in those 1st level spells being garbage. Many 1st level spells remain useful through out the levels.

Actually a big part of it is the assumption that unless you're attacking and doing damage then you aren't contributing. Back in AD&D, yes people whine about only having one spell a day as a first level wizard, you were playing the "smart guy" of the group and could do more than just throw darts/shoot a crossbow. The game wasn't 'balanced' on attack+ac+damage = dps/hp = appropriate level encounter that is required to drain appropriate level resources to make a certain number of encounters a day.

The modern game style has made 0 hit points the only meaningful combat outcome and magic users aren't... something, magical maybe... unless they cast spells non-stop all day.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Actually a big part of it is the assumption that unless you're attacking and doing damage then you aren't contributing. Back in AD&D, yes people whine about only having one spell a day as a first level wizard, you were playing the "smart guy" of the group and could do more than just throw darts/shoot a crossbow. The game wasn't 'balanced' on attack+ac+damage = dps/hp = appropriate level encounter that is required to drain appropriate level resources to make a certain number of encounters a day.

The modern game style has made 0 hit points the only meaningful combat outcome and magic users aren't... something, magical maybe... unless they cast spells non-stop all day.

You don't have to be attacking [since healing and buffing are also valid contributions that mitigate enemy damage or let your team deal more damage], but if you're not adding to the race to the bottom in some way then yeah you're not really contributing.

Anyway, I don't like the paradigm of D&D combat [I would rather a system where maneuver is actually relevant, position matters more than damage, and the game state and tactics evolve meaningfully between rounds; or at least play rocket tag instead of this race to the bottom with absurd amounts of HP where there's no degradation in capability until sudden death], but it is what it is, and a wizard shooting a crossbow is pretty much non-contributing. Actually, a wizard shooting a cantrip is pretty close to non-contributing even with scaling cantrip damage.



As for being the smart guy, anyone can be the smart guy, not just the wizard, if they put points in INT. That's not even an exclusive product of 5e, since people often play characters that attack on one stat and have another feature or or skills that operate off another. Though 5e improves this, since it's way more possible to have multiple good stats with bounded accuracy making it noncritical to put all your points in one stat, and it's one of the best things about 5e.

I don't really believe in the idea that some classes contribute in combat, some classes contribute in social, and some classes contribute in exploration. It is my belief that everybody should always be participating in the game. This is a cooperative storytelling game, not a wargame, and people being sidelined because of "enforced role" is only slightly less bad than a person making a speech or dialogue and then declaring that another player whose CHA is better than theirs said it instead.

[EggKookoo]

The modern game style has made 0 hit points the only meaningful combat outcome and magic users aren't... something, magical maybe... unless they cast spells non-stop all day.

IMHO, that's a lazy DM problem. Sneaking past sleeping guards should be worth the same as killing them in combat, assuming you were killing them to get past them.

Heck, I had a sewer base set up with a secret door near the back that bypassed nearly the entire thing, and would let the party get to a hostage that they could theoretically rescue without a single fight. Had they done that, I would have awarded them the experience equivalent to taking out everything in it. They didn't notice the secret door and went around the long way...

[Alucard89]

Legendary Resistance - and thus was both bounded accuracy ignored, the player's most valuable resource pre-emptively wasted or creative combat maneuver idea pre-emptively kiboshed, all for the sake of never again having a story about how the GM's Big Scary was stunned or charmed or immobilized or tripped or pushed off a cliff and thus was killed without downing at least one PC.

I want to add on that.

What I don't like in 5e is how CC spells (apart from no-save CC like Forcecage or Reverse Gravity etc.) becoming really useless on higher tiers where every relevant enemy has immunity to charmed, exhaustion, frightened, poisoned. They also get Legendary Resistances, which are just unfair to players, especially casters.

Also I don't like changes to tons of CC spells that they allow repeating saving throws every turn + add another saves when target takes damage etc.

It promotes going for the damage at higher tiers, because every strong enemy boss is immune to hard CC, or for building character that can bypass mechanic (like Quicken Hold Person/Monster).

Many subclasses suffer a lot because of that on higher tier - like Conquest Paladin where every enemy is suddenly immune to being frightened or Enchanter Wizard where everything that is worth using slots has immunity to charm and so on.

I don't like that end-game enemies all have not only legendary resistances but also immunities to all kinds of CC. Makes unique playstyles suffer, while flat damage just gets stronger and stronger (Paladins, Warlocks, Sorlocks, Padlocks etc.) because they don't care about those things. Clever tactics are forgotten, it's just damage, damage or finding loopholes in mechanics (like posted by someone Telekinesis Lore Bard) to be able to do something else vs LR enemies.

[Pleh]

I want to add on that.

What I don't like in 5e is how CC spells (apart from no-save CC like Forcecage or Reverse Gravity etc.) becoming really useless on higher tiers where every relevant enemy has immunity to charmed, exhaustion, frightened, poisoned. They also get Legendary Resistances, which are just unfair to players, especially casters.

Also I don't like changes to tons of CC spells that they allow repeating saving throws every turn + add another saves when target takes damage etc.

It promotes going for the damage at higher tiers, because every strong enemy boss is immune to hard CC, or for building character that can bypass mechanic (like Quicken Hold Person/Monster).

Many subclasses suffer a lot because of that on higher tier - like Conquest Paladin where every enemy is suddenly immune to being frightened or Enchanter Wizard where everything that is worth using slots has immunity to charm and so on.

I don't like that end-game enemies all have not only legendary resistances but also immunities to all kinds of CC. Makes unique playstyles suffer, while flat damage just gets stronger and stronger (Paladins, Warlocks, Sorlocks, Padlocks etc.) because they don't care about those things. Clever tactics are forgotten, it's just damage, damage or finding loopholes in mechanics (like posted by someone Telekinesis Lore Bard) to be able to do something else vs LR enemies.

I actually see this as a feature, not a bug. End game threats really shouldn't be trivialized away with a single spell. That's not really rewarding, it just means only one player at the table got to actually play the last session of the game. You've had the whole campaign to trivialize encounters with clever tactics. Maybe let the big climax require more grit and actual teamwork.

Now, I could see an argument that maybe these effects should have a partial effectiveness. Maybe if Legendary Resistance cost the creature their next action, so the creature has to choose what's more important, eat the spell effect, or miss their next turn to act. They still have any Legendary Actions to make up for this. So players can use clever tactics to force an end boss to start burning their legendary abilities faster.

I'm not hurt that gandalf can't just enchant sauron into stopping his conquest of middle earth. Immunities near end game tell players not to rely on gimmicks exclusively. An oath of conquest paladin surely ought to be just as effective with smites and their sword as their fear gimmick. I'm playing an evil oath of conquest paladin (haven't gotten past 3rd level yet), and I think after several levels of making enemies wet their pants and run away before ever using my sword, my character would relish beating down a more worthy foe, who actually had a spine.

We shouldn't need to be able to enchant, poison, frighten, and paralyze every encounter into oblivion. It's cool to have a niche, less cool to need it to feel like you are able to have fun.

Small edit: I could see immunities having HP limits. Like they might weaken into resistance at half health and disappear at quarter health. There are plenty of tropes about wearing down the big bad until he is vulnerable to a killing stroke.

[Tanarii]

Technically the damage equivalent of Legendary Resistance is slapping on moar hit points.

[patchyman]

I actually see this as a feature, not a bug. End game threats really shouldn't be trivialized away with a single spell. That's not really rewarding, it just means only one player at the table got to actually play the last session of the game. You've had the whole campaign to trivialize encounters with clever tactics. Maybe let the big climax require more grit and teamwork.

I agree with this. In Tier 3 and Tier 4 casters already get options that allow them to pull ahead from martials. The fact that the occasional boss is immune to their schtick (while they can still contribute to the fight in other ways in other ways) isn’t unfair by a long shot.

[Alucard89]

Technically the damage equivalent of Legendary Resistance is slapping on moar hit points.

Yes, but then your awesome CC spells have a chance to work. It's less about killing as fast as possible (then just have 3 Paladins and any boss is dead in 2 turns) and more about giving satisfaction to other classes.

Same as Bards without taking damage spells or dipping have problems in adventures with undeads or enemies again immune to fear, charm etc.

While damage starts and stays at top all the time.

I don't think it would hurt to let bard CC dragon and look as awesome as Paladin smiting it to hell.

[EggKookoo]

Anyway, I don't like the paradigm of D&D combat [I would rather a system where maneuver is actually relevant, position matters more than damage, and the game state and tactics evolve meaningfully between rounds; or at least play rocket tag instead of this race to the bottom with absurd amounts of HP where there's no degradation in capability until sudden death], but it is what it is, and a wizard shooting a crossbow is pretty much non-contributing. Actually, a wizard shooting a cantrip is pretty close to non-contributing even with scaling cantrip damage.

Regarding the lack of degradation of capability, there is in a sense. The closer you get to 0 HP, the more likely you are to die. The degradation is handled by the reduction in HP.

Side note: I used to play oWoD, where you had health levels, and actions involved dice pools. You typically threw 6-10 d10s and counted "successes," which were results that met or beat a DC set by the GM. When you were injured and your health level was reduced, it imposed a die pool penalty based on how injured you were. This reduced the number of dice you had access to for your actions or attacks. It's one of those thing that sounds like a good idea, but in practice it was a pain. For one, we often forgot about them (and worse, we'd remember mid-fight that we're rolling too many dice and now the fight felt skewed). And also, it created a positive feedback loop where once you were injured, it became easier to injure you further as you had fewer and fewer available dice to use in your defense or damage. It wasn't really a race to the bottom the way D&D HP works, but rather a race to "first damage," which then usually made the rest of the combat superfluous.

D&D damage has a built-in survivability degradation that's not immediately obvious. If I have 60 HP, and you deal 6 points of damage, my relatively high level of hit points functions as a kind of damage resistance or avoidance. You just dealt 6:60, which is a minor flesh wound at most. Let's say you continue to deal 6 points of damage each round (you're a really consistent roller). Those 6 points become, relatively speaking, a greater and greater proportion of my available HP. Even though you're still dealing 6 points with each strike, the severity of the injury increases. When I'm down to 6 HP, your strike becomes devastating, hitting an internal organ or nicking a blood vessel or otherwise doing something so serious that it renders me incapacitated and possibly dying. Your last 6-pt strike dealt as much damage mechanically as your first 6-pt strike, but from my perspective that last one was the one that "got" me.

Another way of looking at that is that as my HP is reduced, there's a kind of intensity multiplier applied to any further damage. If my HP is restored during the fight via cure wounds or whatever, that multiplier is reduced. This is all wrapped up in how HP work, and the game doesn't burden players with having to keep track of that degradation. Sure, there's no degradation of offensive capability, but I think that's meant to represent things like adrenaline and delayed shock. Injuries don't always hurt immediately, and most combats last less than 30 seconds of in-game time.

[Tanarii]

Yes, but then your awesome CC spells have a chance to work. It's less about killing as fast as possible (then just have 3 Paladins and any boss is dead in 2 turns) and more about giving satisfaction to other classes.

I think you missed my point. Taking more damage to kill is often invisible to the players, at least at first. But it's there and it exists, contrived parties aside.

Visibility wise, it is the other way around from Legendary Resistance, which is highly visible immediately. But functionally, it provides the same protection, N number of extra rounds of actions.

Control-type casters aren't being singled out for punishment.

[Luccan]

I actually think legendary resistance is a good way to avoid arbitrarily high saves. The main difference is that Legendary Resistances can run out, so if you get the Lich to burn through them they're as vulnerable as any other undead (well, not all of them, but it is a boss). It's kind of meta to do so, but Legendary Resistances are meta so I don't see an issue.

And condition immunities are just a thing in D&D, it's not exclusive to 5e

[Alucard89]

And condition immunities are just a thing in D&D, it's not exclusive to 5e

Correct, but I hoped with less power-spike in 5e compare to previous edition - we will be able to spread it more.

For example if some enemies are immune to charm, maybe they should have disadvantage vs fear, or counterwise.

If creature has immunity to fire, maybe it should have vulnerability to cold or lighting? Etc.

Currently in Tier 3-4 tons of enemies just have immunity to everything, resistance to everything but no vulnerabilities.

So mybe it's not 5e "changes" but I hoped for them.

[stoutstien]

The good:
Very new player friendly. you can take the average person with zero experience with tabletop RPGs and have them create and start playing a character in less than 30 minutes with a rudimentary understanding of the rules.

Low buy-in needed. You got a PHB? Then good to go. Everything else is nice but unnecessary. Heck you can play a good game with the free stuff they put out.

The elimination of trap player options. You have to try really hard to make a useless PC.

There is no gear/weapon treadmill. At no point in time does a player need a +X weapon to maintain a relevant chance to hit.

Low level NPCs stay dangerous and relevant. The pack of kobolds with the dragon are a factor regardless of level. It also helps maintain a certain level of game world logic.

the balance point between all the player options are the closest they have ever been.

Rulings > rules

The middle ground:

Slow release schedule. I think it was a very good move for them to not rush a bunch of material out but at the same time I would like some more general material instead of the critical role/ acquisition Incorporated stuff.

Social media based Q and A. sage advice is great to have instant clarification of intentions of published materials but can also cause more confusion than it's worth.

Artwork. For the most part it's nice but reusing material seems lazy. Also radioactive cabbage patch kid halflings.

Skills. There is a reason they are a frequent point of contention.

The bad:

Not new DM friendly. 5e is probably the worse game to try to run without prior experience. Even the DMG is formated in a way to be more useful to players than the DM. Just about every 'bad' thing about 5e is rooted in this.

Formating. Everything from the order of setting up a new PC to lack of page references for spells is aggravating. If I had to pick one thing to change this would be it.

Building encounters and adventuring days based if exp and CR. It's a lot of fiddly math that amounts to nothing you wouldn't get from eyeballing it. Trying to balance out a game based on how deadly each encounter is a bad system that promotes nova damage and shorter recovery cycles.

HP bloat. They removed alot of the pointless numbers increasing with level but kept HP and damage doing it for some reason.

[ZRN]

The 3e designers have been relatively mum about exactly what their goals were (outside of the actual press release style material from the time).

There's a series of blog posts on ENWorld where 3e designer Jonathan Tweet talks about their process and goals, if you're interested.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with legendary resistances has these components

1) in the comparison between damage dealing and resistances, burning through damage is still the victory condition. So to deal with a creature with a lot of HP for martials the solution is deal more damage. Which is what they want to do anyway. They still feel like they’re contributing. But with legendary resistances, the Mages casting their save or suck spells are only ever contributing to the defeat if they actually do succeed in burning through those resistances before the creature dies. Which does not always happen. Actually I can think of several times in my own games which ended with the mage character effectively contributing nothing because the boss died before a single spell wasn’t resisted. Now this has a bit to do with the party composition. My group is a Rogue and a Fighter who have built their characters on dealing damage together, and one Wizard. Were my group to have an additional mage to burn through those resistances it probably wouldn’t feel as bad, since the resistances would be burned through twice as fast.

2) On a turn for turn basis it doesn’t feel good. The Fighter focused on damage chucking as much damage as they can against their meat sink of an opponent still feels like they’re contributing. In fact it feels like they’re contributing to the best of their ability. If they run in and Nova the enemy boss with a full Action Surge of attacks each stacked with as much bonuses as they could wrangle, they feel that they’re working to the best of their capabilities. And they’re going to to be rewarded at the end when someone knocks that last hit point away. While resistances feel like the boss is just saying no to the caster. For smart players it creates a situation where the caster is spending a few rounds trying to trick the boss to burn resistance on smaller spells. Which some might find rewarding, but even then only if their strategy is actually rewarded reasonably often. I.E. the villain isn’t nuked down before their spells start to work. And still others, you know, actually want to use their big new spells against the boss. That’s why they picked up all these cool new big spells in the first place.

As to Immunities, I’d be more upset with them, if this was a game that required precise focus in single strategies from the characters. Conquest Paladin not being able to fear a bunch of opponents is annoying seeing their primary strategy turned off, but the Paladin class still has a bunch of secondary effective options, like Smite. There’s always something they can do so they feel like they’re still effective in combat. Even if I do agree immunities can be over saturated at high level.

[ZRN]

I actually think legendary resistance is a good way to avoid arbitrarily high saves. The main difference is that Legendary Resistances can run out, so if you get the Lich to burn through them they're as vulnerable as any other undead (well, not all of them, but it is a boss). It's kind of meta to do so, but Legendary Resistances are meta so I don't see an issue.

I don't think it's necessarily "meta" for players to recognize the limits of an enemy's legendary resistances and try to work around them. You're "wearing down his defenses," just like you're "wearing down" his hit points.

It can add a lot more to the strategy element of boss fights, because players can try to "burn through" legendary resistances by using mid-tier effects, and the DM has to decide whether to resist them and risk getting hit by the big guns later. It's good that casters can't just end the fight in round 1, but it's also good that they're incentivized to use a variety of spells strategically. If you can force a BBEG to waste a legendary resistance against a low-level spell, you've usually done something strategically more interesting than just starting at your highest-level spell and working your way down.

[EggKookoo]

There's a series of blog posts on ENWorld where 3e designer Jonathan Tweet talks about their process and goals, if you're interested.

Oh no. There goes my productivity for the day...

[Alucard89]

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with legendary resistances has these components

1) in the comparison between damage dealing and resistances, burning through damage is still the victory condition. So to deal with a creature with a lot of HP for martials the solution is deal more damage. Which is what they want to do anyway. They still feel like they’re contributing. But with legendary resistances, the Mages casting their save or suck spells are only ever contributing to the defeat if they actually do succeed in burning through those resistances before the creature dies. Which does not always happen. Actually I can think of several times in my own games which ended with the mage character effectively contributing nothing because the boss died before a single spell wasn’t resisted. Now this has a bit to do with the party composition. My group is a Rogue and a Fighter who have built their characters on dealing damage together, and one Wizard. Were my group to have an additional mage to burn through those resistances it probably wouldn’t feel as bad, since the resistances would be burned through twice as fast.

2) On a turn for turn basis it doesn’t feel good. The Fighter focused on damage chucking as much damage as they can against their meat sink of an opponent still feels like they’re contributing. In fact it feels like they’re contributing to the best of their ability. If they run in and Nova the enemy boss with a full Action Surge of attacks each stacked with as much bonuses as they could wrangle, they feel that they’re working to the best of their capabilities. And they’re going to to be rewarded at the end when someone knocks that last hit point away. While resistances feel like the boss is just saying no to the caster. For smart players it creates a situation where the caster is spending a few rounds trying to trick the boss to burn resistance on smaller spells. Which some might find rewarding, but even then only if their strategy is actually rewarded reasonably often. I.E. the villain isn’t nuked down before their spells start to work. And still others, you know, actually want to use their big new spells against the boss. That’s why they picked up all these cool new big spells in the first place.

As to Immunities, I’d be more upset with them, if this was a game that required precise focus in single strategies from the characters. Conquest Paladin not being able to fear a bunch of opponents is annoying seeing their primary strategy turned off, but the Paladin class still has a bunch of secondary effective options, like Smite. There’s always something they can do so they feel like they’re still effective in combat. Even if I do agree immunities can be over saturated at high level.

Yup, I second on that. Each time I hear "LR is fixed resources that needs to be burnt" I am thinking "what kind of party did you have? 12 DEX Rogue and 13 STR Zealot Barbarian using crossbow?". From my experience so far any boss is lucky to be alive for more than 4 turns. Assuming people didn't min-max, they just know what to do with their class abilities.

For example our Wizard pretty much just tossed Haste on me (Vengeance Hexadin) and our Cleric tossed Holy Weapon on our XBE Battlemaster. There was no point for them to even try to do something with their spells because it was more efficient for us to Nova boss in 2 turns than trying to play around it's super saves + LR. Damage kills enemy- that's it. I don't think Wizard getting lucky Hold Monster or Dominate Monster would change much in terms of that. But it would change feeling for some classes.

Hence why Nuclear Wizard is such a good build. You can actually just piss on those LRs as caster and nuke the boss down.

It's too late for change now because system was balanced around the idea of LR, but I still don't like it. Damage will always work, that's the DnD thing. However, I don't think damage should be answer in Tier4 all the time when it comes to combat. Immunities + LRs just enforce the neverending race for more DPR.