Two Sets of Rules, the Good and Bad?

[anthon]

So something irked me about 5e. There's two sets of rules. One for DMs and one for players. They aren't the same. Just run a creature with lair and legendary actions for instance.

in some sense, this is a bad thing, it produces a weird offputtish JRPG effect where the player character who you just did 9999 damage to defeat and join your side now has 320 hp. wtf.

in another sense, it's something i kinda crave in the way play styles unfold through out the game with regard to benedictions and maledictions.

There's a distinct dumbing down in 5e compared with prior editions in terms of healing and conditions. Poison, Blindness, etc.,

they are all optimized around some kind of instance based video game durations, and not at all like the old story based immersion durations of "permanent" that a lot of old editions had. Thus a healer is weirdly more like a novelty than a miraculous shaper of destiny. Not even the NPCs.

And yet, i get the distinction that even in new editions, there's this sort of fleeting value to combat only events, which are not shared by players. The balance of spell effects, penalties, buffs and debuffs are not equal, not exploited the same. Take an ability to have multiple attacks to 4. For a player, this means up to 4 attacks to divide among a horde of goblins or whatever,

so its DPS/4 targets, possibly in a swarm of 8+ targets.

Now flip this 4 attack thing to the swarm itself, and have them surround your dude.

its now DPS x 4 x 8 = 32 x DPS vs. your one character. Do you see what I did there?
even adjusted to +dps,

your dps is still being divided by multiple targets most of the time, (and DMs will increase monsters according to your combat prowess)
but flat out you got a max of +300% on +3 attacks,
but the DM is applying that +300 to 8 monsters, now its +2400%


I showed how player vs. the world in reverse can be grossly imbalanced.

Same thing can be operational with blinding or paralysis, poison, disease, lingering curses etc. If you curse a monster in battle, they might have a -2 or disadvantage for all of 30 seconds, maybe less. Maybe you kill them, maybe they run away, but your experience of their suffering, and its relevance, is minimal. It's advantage to you is minor, possibly 0. They might have heightened senses, tremor sense etc.

But you don't. When you go blind permanently, it screws up not just that one fight, that one experience, but all the future fights to come. It lingers, it ruins your day. It causes you to stumble where the monsters would not. You have to live to see the scene after this one, and so cursed, experience every moment of it.

This may be 3rd person equal, but experientially, it's not equal at all. The narrative flow of the DM with infinite encounters to hurl at the players, vs. the players having to live with the long term consequences of every little thing, it seems like some aspect of this could be mediated.

One possible way is to evaluate this two system mechanic of lair/legendary, and expand it to some notion of "player experience vs. NPC validity". Like spell level. A player character casting blind on some monster should be much easier than a monster casting blind on a player, not because it makes sense 3rd person objective - it doesn't - but because it means so much more and so much less, depending on who has it.

Concentration buffs can be the same way. Metaplot conditions as well.

This isn't something you can easily justify, but if you think on it, you'll get what im saying. Something does feel off when you can say

"when YOU use this power, its crap against your enemies... but
when THEY use the same power on you, it wrecks your whole world"
what the heck? Why is this?

And how do we fix it?

[Avonar]

I'll be honest, I'm struggling to see your point here.

So something irked me about 5e. There's two sets of rules. One for DMs and one for players. They aren't the same. Just run a creature with lair and legendary actions for instance.

in some sense, this is a bad thing, it produces a weird offputtish JRPG effect where the player character who you just did 9999 damage to defeat and join your side now has 320 hp. wtf.

Are you getting many cases of monsters joining you after a fight? And is the DM using different stats for them? Sure, that would be weird but it's a thing I've never, ever seen happen.

Also: You are humanoid people. Most creatures with legendary actions and the like are very much not. Granted, monsters tend to have highter HP pools that PCs but that's mainly to make sure fights actually last a few rounds.

in another sense, it's something i kinda crave in the way play styles unfold through out the game with regard to benedictions and maledictions.

There's a distinct dumbing down in 5e compared with prior editions in terms of healing and conditions. Poison, Blindness, etc.,

they are all optimized around some kind of instance based video game durations, and not at all like the old story based immersion durations of "permanent" that a lot of old editions had. Thus a healer is weirdly more like a novelty than a miraculous shaper of destiny. Not even the NPCs.

Well, there are creatures that can leave permanent effects on a person, or at least effects that go beyond a battle. These are usually curses and diseases, and while there may not be many, they do exist. Their prevalence is a DM decision. I definitely would not like to see every other fight leaving permanent conditions on characters. I don't want the healer to have to save up every spell slot because half the party gets permanently blinded each fight.

And yet, i get the distinction that even in new editions, there's this sort of fleeting value to combat only events, which are not shared by players. The balance of spell effects, penalties, buffs and debuffs are not equal, not exploited the same. Take an ability to have multiple attacks to 4. For a player, this means up to 4 attacks to divide among a horde of goblins or whatever,

so its DPS/4 targets, possibly in a swarm of 8+ targets.

Now flip this 4 attack thing to the swarm itself, and have them surround your dude.

its now DPS x 4 x 8 = 32 x DPS vs. your one character. Do you see what I did there?
even adjusted to +dps,

your dps is still being divided by multiple targets most of the time, (and DMs will increase monsters according to your combat prowess)
but flat out you got a max of +300% on +3 attacks,
but the DM is applying that +300 to 8 monsters, now its +2400%

I showed how player vs. the world in reverse can be grossly imbalanced.

Again, these are DM issues, not game issues. If the DM throws you up against 8 creatures all with 4 attacks, that's entirely on them, unless those attacks are very low damage. The solution here is simple: Don't throw your players against encounters that deal way too much damage for them.

Same thing can be operational with blinding or paralysis, poison, disease, lingering curses etc. If you curse a monster in battle, they might have a -2 or disadvantage for all of 30 seconds, maybe less. Maybe you kill them, maybe they run away, but your experience of their suffering, and its relevance, is minimal. It's advantage to you is minor, possibly 0. They might have heightened senses, tremor sense etc.

But you don't. When you go blind permanently, it screws up not just that one fight, that one experience, but all the future fights to come. It lingers, it ruins your day. It causes you to stumble where the monsters would not. You have to live to see the scene after this one, and so cursed, experience every moment of it.

I mean you are right that cursing or blinding a creature has no permanent effects, but that is the point. They are utility spells for combat purposes and as such have a short duration. However there are long-term effects that PCs can employ. An 8 hours long suggestion, a 30 day geas, 7 day contagion. I am glad to see that 5e has very few "save or your character is basically ruined" abilities, that would be the worst. And let's not forget that making an enemy miss 1-3 attacks during a fight can mean the difference between character dead.

This may be 3rd person equal, but experientially, it's not equal at all. The narrative flow of the DM with infinite encounters to hurl at the players, vs. the players having to live with the long term consequences of every little thing, it seems like some aspect of this could be mediated.

It seems like this might be where the problem lies. The players are not playing against the DM, the DM is not the antagonist, the DM should not be trying to just kill the characters they should be helping tell a story. And the story is about the PCs, not the monsters. We focus on the consequences for the PCs. We don't focus on the fate of the rest of the goblin clan that the raiders you all just killed were from.

One possible way is to evaluate this two system mechanic of lair/legendary, and expand it to some notion of "player experience vs. NPC validity". Like spell level. A player character casting blind on some monster should be much easier than a monster casting blind on a player, not because it makes sense 3rd person objective - it doesn't - but because it means so much more and so much less, depending on who has it.

Why? Blindness lasts 1 minute with a save every turn to end it. Why should it be so much more powerful in the hands of the PCs? It has the same mechanical effect for the same length of time.

This isn't something you can easily justify, but if you think on it, you'll get what im saying. Something does feel off when you can say

"when YOU use this power, its crap against your enemies... but
when THEY use the same power on you, it wrecks your whole world"
what the heck? Why is this?

And how do we fix it?

I'm afraid I absolutely do not get what you're saying. You seem to be equating D&D to a video game and that doesn't track for me. You've listed issues which are so easily fixed by the DM. You can choose to put in more creatures with debilitating conditions. You can choose to make the creatures save bonuses that much lower. You can choose what creatures to put into a fight. This isn't a video game where everything is set encounters.

And furthermore, you can't just reload your last save. A fight goes bad and your character dies? That character is dead. Maybe they can be brought back, maybe not.

[Jerrykhor]

I think you seem to be worried that just because the DM has unlimited Dragons, they will throw all of them at you. Yes, the quality of your game is highly dependent on the DM, so find a good one to play with. Problem solved.

[Ashe]

Totally agree with the existing replies. If you are having problems from your DM not knowing what the word 'fun' means, you find another game.

[Unoriginal]

If a Game Master wants to win a fight, they just win.

This isn't a 5e thing. ALL of tabletop RPGs inherently make the game master the master if the game.

A GM can throw 29 dragons at you. Each of those dragons can be immune to all damage and all conditions.

The RPGs that pretends the GM isn't all powerful and have to do X or are forbidden from doing Y are just wrong or lying to your face.

Now, because TTRPGs are a social activity meant for fun, a GM will usually have the brainpower to not deliberately be a jerk. A lucid GM does not try to "win", they try to offer the players an enjoyable experience (what that means depends on the people at the table, of course).

And if the GM does something the player find unacceptable, of if the player no longer has fun, and the GM refuses to change it, then the player should just leave.

[MoiMagnus]

You seems to be touching a lot of different points:

(1) Gameplay asymmetry. I am personally very fan of asymmetry. I have to admit that symmetry is a very potent way to reach fairness (since everybody plays with the same rules), but that's not the only one, and symmetry also comes with a lot a restrictions to the rules, making harder to reach the intended balance point and player experience.
Note: On of the major gameplay asymmetry of 5e is the fact that NPCs then to have higher HP but lower AC than PCs. This is because missing attacks is much more frustrating for a player (which see his entire turn reduced to nothing) than for a GM (which is piloting multiple other creatures), and on the other hand PC needing to heal mean that having a mountain of HP would be impractical on the long run, while monsters don't have this issue.

(2) Permanent injuries on PCs vs NPCs. That's unavoidable in lethal systems like D&D. But in a setting where killing your enemies is a big NO-NO (you have to bring them alive, and if possible unharmed, to the justice), you can bring balance to this: since both PCs and NPCs will be recurrent in the game, a permanent injuries inflicted to a NPC is permanently reducing their power for the remaining of the campaign.

(3) Healing & permanent injuries. One of the goal of 5e design is to ensure that the gameplay is not significantly different whatever class is chosen by the players. In particular, a team with absolutely zero healers should not suffer from permanent injuries more than a team with one. This let 3 options:
(a) Nobody every have permanent injuries, which is the simplest choice, hence the choice of 5e.
(b) Nobody ever heal permanent injuries, including magical healers. This choice would go against power-fantasy.
(c) Access to healing permanent injuries is common enough in the universe (through NPCs) that not having a healer in the team is not that much a problem. This choice would constraint settings to be high-magic.
=> As a positive consequence of choice (a), the potential healer of the group is not forced onto the role of heal-bot. If you ever design a RPG in which healer classes are expected to have a significant healing role, please take inspiration on 5e paladin (healing is separated from other resources like spells) rather than on 5e cleric (healing compete with other spells as they use the same spell slots).

[OldTrees1]

Gameplay asymmetry has downsides. Especially when it breaks verisimilitude. As a DM I don't like Lair actions or Legendary actions. However with the power growth curve being so rough (4->5 is bigger than 6->7) and bounded accuracy existing, there is insufficient grounding for designing enemies that don't break the action economy in enemy exclusive ways.

[diplomancer]

Gameplay asymmetry has downsides. Especially when it breaks verisimilitude. As a DM I don't like Lair actions or Legendary actions. However with the power growth curve being so rough (4->5 is bigger than 6->7) and bounded accuracy existing, there is insufficient grounding for designing enemies that don't break the action economy in enemy exclusive ways.

In what way do Lair Actions and Legendary Actions break verisimilitude? I don't get it.

[Eldariel]

I definitely concur and this is why I as a DM use the same rules for NPCs and PCs. This largely works (though Diviner specifically is a really annoying enemy). It incidentally fixes stuff like Magic Jar and some Polymorph-type effects and I find it makes the game feel more believable. I never found the need for separate rules as a DM - it might be my extensive 3e background but I find I can tinker most of what I want with rules and the rest I should just make as homebrew that's available to PCs and NPCs alike (of course, not everything is available to normal PCs by virtue of world building but there's theoretically nothing stopping players from doing anything the NPCs are doing).

One of the major things I find that makes things more believable is enemies escaping and suffering of the long-term conditions afterwards too. I also find having "backup PCs" (retainers, minions, etc.) available to alleviate the problem of your main PC getting hit by something that makes them unavailable for an extended period of time. I definitely prefer stuff like Blindness and powerful Curses being permanent rather than "few rounds and it's okay" - that's very gamist and it doesn't actually do that much of importance for combat balance either. All it does is ensures that the PCs and NPCs are largely undisturbed by the aftermath of combat, which is the very opposite of what makes those encounters (that end in stalemates) meaningful. In my games, enemies often escape rather than fight a clearly disadvantageous fight simply because they place their survival above trying to kill the PCs aside from obvious exceptions (undead/golems/etc. and Outsiders & Fey with their own, very different sets of priorities). Of course, the system doesn't cater to escaping but simultaneous action declaration solves that nicely.

In what way do Lair Actions and Legendary Actions break verisimilitude? I don't get it.

Available to NPCs but not PCs and functions depending on party size and such. They feel very much like patchwork fixes to issues in the system, Legendary Actions more-so than Lair Actions (which are largely just thematic but it's weird that a Wizard PC in their own magical tower or a Cleric in their hallowed temple lacks access to similar mechanics).

[Amnestic]

Available to NPCs but not PCs and functions depending on party size and such. They feel very much like patchwork fixes to issues in the system, Legendary Actions more-so than Lair Actions (which are largely just thematic but it's weird that a Wizard PC in their own magical tower or a Cleric in their hallowed temple lacks access to similar mechanics).

Players can't play as a tarrasque or an ancient red dragon either, is that a problem?

[diplomancer]

Available to NPCs but not PCs and functions depending on party size and such. They feel very much like patchwork fixes to issues in the system, Legendary Actions more-so than Lair Actions (which are largely just thematic but it's weird that a Wizard PC in their own magical tower or a Cleric in their hallowed temple lacks access to similar mechanics).

It's available to PCs through True Polymorph though, isn't it? As long as you really ARE that creature, and not just shapechanged into it, you have access. I also don't see how being dependent on party size is that much of an issue; to begin with, it's not THAT dependent, unless you either have a very small party, with no minions with their own initiative to boot, or a creature with A LOT of legendary actions. Secondly, even when that's the case, my verisimilitude is definitely not stretched by a creature of legend being more and more dangerous the more foes it faces.

[Eldariel]

Players can't play as a tarrasque or an ancient red dragon either, is that a problem?

Depends. They kinda can but it's a bit of a different ballgame at that point. Well, playing Tarrasque would probably not be very gratifying except as a one-shot but a game of Ancient Dragons could make for a very engaging Tier 4ish campaign.

[Amnestic]

Depends. They kinda can but it's a bit of a different ballgame at that point. Well, playing Tarrasque would probably not be very gratifying except as a one-shot but a game of Ancient Dragons could make for a very engaging Tier 4ish campaign.

Dunno why you'd think it'd be engaging any moreso than a fighter. Every turn would play out the same. It uses its frightful presence, then it tries to hit stuff. Maybe it uses its breath once or twice a fight? They're just big balls of HP.

[Eldariel]

Dunno why you'd think it'd be engaging any moreso than a fighter. Every turn would play out the same. It uses its frightful presence, then it tries to hit stuff. Maybe it uses its breath once or twice a fight? They're just big balls of HP.

Because it's an ancient dragon with a lair, a hoard, enemies, allies, thousands of years of experience, likely offspring, etc. Probably magic items and no real reason why they wouldn't have some spells too, as per spellcasting Dragons. That said, it's not the tactics that's necessarily interesting (indeed, 5e kinda sucks at making tactical combat interesting except for full casters, much like many of its predecessors) but the strategy: dragons as movers in multiversal politics and the direction of the world have a carved place of their own and how they go about using their vast resources to influence things - that part is interesting.

[Amnestic]

Because it's an ancient dragon with a lair

So what? If it's a campaign you're playing in their lair is over there somewhere and irrelevant. Which is probably why there aren't any rules for giving a PC lair actions, you know. Because PCs are meant to be doing adventures, not sat at home.

, a hoard, enemies, allies, thousands of years of experience, likely offspring, etc. Probably magic items and no real reason why they wouldn't have some spells too, as per spellcasting Dragons. That said, it's not the tactics that's necessarily interesting (indeed, 5e kinda sucks at making tactical combat interesting except for full casters, much like many of its predecessors) but the strategy: dragons as movers in multiversal politics and the direction of the world have a carved place of their own and how they go about using their vast resources to influence things - that part is interesting.

Except for the "thousands of years of experience" (which even then might be covered depending on your race) all of those apply to any T4 character. They'll have a huge amount of wealth, be world famous, have made tons of enemies+allies and a bunch of magic items.

All of the engaging stuff you mentioned is just 'being a high level'.

[Eldariel]

So what? If it's a campaign you're playing in their lair is over there somewhere and irrelevant. Which is probably why there aren't any rules for giving a PC lair actions, you know. Because PCs are meant to be doing adventures, not sat at home.

On Tier 4, there's precious little separating the two. You can be in your lairs "adventuring" and moving your pieces and you can use magic or whatever to be wherever you want to be the next moment. This goes for more standard PCs too; travel times and adventuring in general aren't really a thing you do on Tier 4 since Teleport-degree effects mostly make travel times irrelevant. It becomes more location-based.

Except for the "thousands of years of experience" (which even then might be covered depending on your race) all of those apply to any T4 character. They'll have a huge amount of wealth, be world famous, have made tons of enemies+allies and a bunch of magic items.

All of the engaging stuff you mentioned is just 'being a high level'.

Dragons kinda up the ante because of the sheer scope of their existence. High level PCs are of course cool but few of them have had that many brushes with primordial evils or far realms or whatever simply because their high level hood is so young. PCs level stupid fast and randomly go from zero to hero, making a bunch of powerful enemies and allies over their few relevant years of experience. Meanwhile, for a being of actual ancient power, we're talking about thousands of years of build-up and tension and probably a very delicate homeostasis between other movers of similar power. PCs are kinda like young usurpers but occasionally it's fun to step into the shoes of some established world shapers instead of trying to make new ones up. Dragons work quite well in that regard.

[Amnestic]

On Tier 4, there's precious little separating the two. You can be in your lairs "adventuring" and moving your pieces and you can use magic or whatever to be wherever you want to be the next moment.

Even if you've got access to teleport there's a solid chance you won't end up where you want to go unless you've got a linked teleport circle or an associated object - neither of which are likely if it's an adventure. You're more likely to be in the "seen casually" or "seen once" options, which have a 50-75% miss chance (including a not insignificant 'mishap' chance) and the moment you step(/teleport) out of your lair, you lose your lair actions.

[Eldariel]

Even if you've got access to teleport there's a solid chance you won't end up where you want to go unless you've got a linked teleport circle or an associated object - neither of which are likely if it's an adventure. You're more likely to be in the "seen casually" or "seen once" options, which have a 50-75% miss chance (including a not insignificant 'mishap' chance) and the moment you step(/teleport) out of your lair, you lose your lair actions.

If you're playing Dragons, you can bet your ass you'll have to defend your hoard though so you should be fine in that regard - you'll get to use your lair actions and defenses (one fun minigame). And distant viewing spells enable you to build up familiarity as necessary. Plus you're only ever a Word of Recall or a similar effect away from your lair for when it gets attacked.

[OldTrees1]

In what way do Lair Actions and Legendary Actions break verisimilitude? I don't get it.

Why do creatures have Legendary Actions? Are they quicker? Or did the authors just need to rebalance the action economy? In 5E it is the latter and that breaks verisimilitude for me. A Choker having extra reactions (or Aberrant Quickness) makes sense. A Dragon being super fast and scale with party size because the game needs to counter the party action economy? I don't like that.

Lair Actions are a bit weirder. If they are part of the creature, then see Legendary actions. Else, since they are not part of the creature, then it would make sense to have them separate from the creature with rules for how to create your own Lair Actions and passive Lair effects. With information on how those would effect the difficulty of the encounter. However 5E balance and power is so wonky that they avoided that headache by making them just a new type of out of turn extra action that creatures get for metagame considerations.

You can see how I dislike Legendary Actions more than Lair Actions on this issue.

There are pros and cons to asymmetry. As a DM I feel 5E went too far into asymmetry.

Players can't play as a tarrasque or an ancient red dragon either, is that a problem?

Savage Species was my favorite 3E book from both a PC and a DM perspective.

Oh and having Lair Action rules based on the lair rather than on the species would be a neat edition for whenever the PC's home base is attacked.

Or when two sides are fighting in someone else's lair. Maybe the PCs are fighting a Lich deep in the heart of a dead red dragon's volcano lair.

[Sorinth]

In terms of the asymmetry between PC class abilities and NPC abilities I think this is actually a good thing. I personally find building NPCs in 5e to be much faster and creates more engaging NPCs.

I do understand the lament of the PC who sees a cool NPC ability and wonders why they can't do the same. For example the Gladiator's Shield Bash ability, I can see a why a Fighter PC might think it sucks to not be able to Shield Bash. But keep in mind the simple truth is that with NPCs using player classes then that ability simply wouldn't exist so the PC fighter who wants to shield bash hasn't gained anything by having that symmetry.

[OldTrees1]

In terms of the asymmetry between PC class abilities and NPC abilities I think this is actually a good thing. I personally find building NPCs in 5e to be much faster and creates more engaging NPCs.

I do understand the lament of the PC who sees a cool NPC ability and wonders why they can't do the same. For example the Gladiator's Shield Bash ability, I can see a why a Fighter PC might think it sucks to not be able to Shield Bash. But keep in mind the simple truth is that with NPCs using player classes then that ability simply wouldn't exist so the PC fighter who wants to shield bash hasn't gained anything by having that symmetry.

This is the main positive to asymmetry. Being able to create NPCs faster due to simplified rules. Done well it even makes it easier to innovate new homebrew enemy abilities.

The PC lament over seeing a cool NPC ability can be addressed by creating more PC content. We could make a homebrew feat with a Shield Bash ability and some other neat things they saw.

So I can appreciate the merits of asymmetry, even as I criticize its downsides or when it goes further than optimal.

[stoutstien]

NPC generally follow the same rules as Players do. That's why they need LA and different ratios of defense and offense power. Without them 5e would be even more of a rocket tag game then it is now. In order NPCs to feel like a threat they would need to be able to dish out enough damage and effects to be scary before they have to retreat or die. If you build NPCs using purely PC options you will make it a game of chance to see who acts first and that would pretty much decide every encounter. Doesn't sound fair or fun to me.

[Sorinth]

This is the main positive to asymmetry. Being able to create NPCs faster due to simplified rules. Done well it even makes it easier to innovate new homebrew enemy abilities.

The PC lament over seeing a cool NPC ability can be addressed by creating more PC content. We could make a homebrew feat with a Shield Bash ability and some other neat things they saw.

So I can appreciate the merits of asymmetry, even as I criticize its downsides or when it goes further than optimal.

Is having the DM homebrew some sort of Shield Bash feat/ability a downside though?

Because I'm pretty sure somewhere along the way when making 5e they made the decision to encourage homebrewing. And having these non-PC abilities that should be learnable by the PCs is a great way of showing that off, whereas having more PC content would do the opposite, it would discourage that homebrewing element since the "feature" already exists.

[OldTrees1]

Is having the DM homebrew some sort of Shield Bash feat/ability a downside though?

Because I'm pretty sure somewhere along the way when making 5e they made the decision to encourage homebrewing. And having these non-PC abilities that should be learnable by the PCs is a great way of showing that off, whereas having more PC content would do the opposite, it would discourage that homebrewing element since the "feature" already exists.

I did not list it as a downside, I listed it as the path forward for that lament.

However relying on DMs homebrewing does have a downside. As a DM I am very open to homebrewing, however it is still more work on the Player and DM's part. So someone that wants a Shield Bash ability might not consider it worth the work of homebrewing.

So while there is a downside element here, I do not consider it as one of the top downsides for asymmetry. And I do consider faster NPC generation and innovation (homebrewing new NPC features) is the top upside for asymmetry.

[Grey Watcher]

As for magic in particular, it's not that permanent spells are GONE, they've just been made harder (you have to cast the same spell on the same area/object for a year, you have to spend a 9th level slot, etc.). To my mind, this makes it feel MORE magical, because it takes a lot of effort or superlative skill (as in only a few people in the world can do it) to pull off. It's rare and wondrous.

And the non-permanent durations don't feel any more arbitrary and video-gamey than previous editions have. If anything, I feel like concentration again makes committing to a spell more of a... commitment, as opposed to just loading up on (de)buffs like they're food at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

[Sorinth]

I did not list it as a downside, I listed it as the path forward for that lament.

However relying on DMs homebrewing does have a downside. As a DM I am very open to homebrewing, however it is still more work on the Player and DM's part. So someone that wants a Shield Bash ability might not consider it worth the work of homebrewing.

So while there is a downside element here, I do not consider it as one of the top downsides for asymmetry. And I do consider faster NPC generation and innovation (homebrewing new NPC features) is the top upside for asymmetry.

Honestly I didn't see you list any downsides (Though I may have missed some posts earlier in the thread). I also don't agree that requiring work to homebrew abilities as a downside. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's actually an upside for me since I like working on that kind of stuff. So having a game that expects and encourages homebrewing is way more fun/interesting to me. Though I suppose it does is exacerbate the problem of some players not meshing with their DM and not having much choice in who the DM is.

So what are the downsides of having NPCs have features that the PCs don't have access to?

[monkey3]

I agree with the OP. There are two sets of rules and it is annoying. Heck, take that same fiend with Legendary and Lair actions and Planar Bind it, and it loses them while in your service.

But it doesn't stop there. A Lich is an evil Wizard who has forgone his humanity and traded it in for more power and immortality as an undead. Oh, so can my wizard do that? No. For NPC only; no such option for you. Can I True Polymorph myself into one then? Haha, no Liches are CR21 and you will never be above 20.

Fine, lower level then. In dungeon of the Mad Mage there is a necromancer with a bunch of Zombie Minotaurs. Can I make them, or zombie beholder or skeletal warhorse like in the monster manual? No, NPC only.

[JNAProductions]

I agree with the OP. There are two sets of rules and it is annoying. Heck, take that same fiend with Legendary and Lair actions and Planar Bind it, and it loses them while in your service.

But it doesn't stop there. A Lich is an evil Wizard who has forgone his humanity and traded it in for more power and immortality as an undead. Oh, so can my wizard do that? No. For NPC only; no such option for you. Can I True Polymorph myself into one then? Haha, no Liches are CR21 and you will never be above 20.

Fine, lower level then. In dungeon of the Mad Mage there is a necromancer with a bunch of Zombie Minotaurs. Can I make them, or zombie beholder or skeletal warhorse like in the monster manual? No, NPC only.

You can-just because there's no RAW way of doing it doesn't mean that your DM can't work with you to let you become a lich.

I was in a campaign where someone did, in fact, become a lich.

Which is not to say there's no room for an official Libris Mortis style book in 5E, but if that's a goal your character has, a good DM will either work with you on how to achieve it, or let you know that that's not the type of game they want to DM.

[Amnestic]

Heck, take that same fiend with Legendary and Lair actions and Planar Bind it, and it loses them while in your service.

Pretty sure it does keep them when planar bound actually.

[MoiMagnus]

(which are largely just thematic but it's weird that a Wizard PC in their own magical tower or a Cleric in their hallowed temple lacks access to similar mechanics).

That's just because the game doesn't assume that the PCs will have a home base at all, there is no rule for it. But if there was rules for PC head quarters, lair actions would be a pretty reasonable feature to buy.

Lair actions are more "asymmetry by incompleteness" (the rule doesn't exist yet for one side) than a true asymmetry.

The legendary resistances are an equivalent to the Warlock's devil's luck (or any class features the PCs accumulate that protect them against spells), which are instead replaced by a bland effect for simplicity's sake (and/or designer laziness).

The legendary actions are indeed a patchwork, because as most RPGs D&D rely too much on action economy so an unbalance in number of actions per rounds and how they are spread through the round can turn the fight into something unbalanced. Verisimilitude-wise, I find it quite reasonable that peoples spread their actions through the whole round, rather than in one big chunk. The farther away you are from turn-base, the nearest you are from verisimilitude. [That's why readying an action should not cost a reaction, but that's another subject]
Though I get that it is kind of gamey to be synchronised with player's turn. A more rational approach would be to have one legendary action every 5 point of initiative or something like that, but that's would be annoying to deal with in practice.