What do you think were the best changes in D&D 5/Next so far?
And what about this new system you really dislike?
I love this new magic system where spells normally don't escalate with your level, and you can prepare something useless without too much worry.
I like 5e's overall simplicity, without too many calculations to get in the way.
But I hate the new healing rules, where everyone go from 1 to full in just 8 hours without any magical, or even medical aid! If a farmer is hit by an arrow in the morning and don't fall uncouncious, at night it is like nothing happened! It's feels too "metagamed".
And I hate that a skill bonus tops at +11 for most characters! If I'm at 20th level I still have 15% chance of failing in simple everyday stuff! (Average tasks DC 15) And that is if we talk about the skill I'm proficient in and use my best ability score!
What the hell !?
Even so I'm aproving 5e so far!
What do you think? What's the best and the worst for you?
DCs for skills are fixed. It's functioning properly if it's the same DC at 20th level. Because lifting the gate over your head is exactly as difficult at 1st level as it is at 20th level. The DCs don't scale with level (though your proficiency bonus does). You won't be seeing DC 30 skill checks at 20th level just because you're 20th level.
I'm generally unimpressed by the bard. But it's a rare exception.
Most of my complaints are format related (spells) or absent content (buffing bard, summoning wizard), and a few unavailable options (Dex or two-weapon barbarians, weapon based monks). Plus the price. The books are WTF expensive and even worse in Canada.
I'm impressed by pretty much everything else.
Mistwell wrote:
I think that overall, this is an awesome edition of D&D. But the devil is in the details, and I think that there are some details that didn't get the attention they deserve.
The great things:
Classes and subclasses.
Backgrounds!
Races and subraces. I dig the gnome, elf, and halfling subraces especially.
Legendary monster powers, legendary monster lair powers.
Less steep scaling for to hit vs. AC and save DC vs. save bonus. (I really like that I can have orcs fight 8th level characters without giving them levels in barbarian or the like).
Magic items that feel magical and rare.
Vancing spell casting that is also flexible.
Adding in the cool things from 4th edition-- warlocks and teiflings (and dragon born, I suppose, though I never really liked dragon born).
I really like their accepting, intelligent statement on the gender and sexual orientation of a character.
Including all of the races from the 3.5 edition players handbook.
An awesome recommended reading list.
Killer barbarians.
Appendix on Pantheons.
Great Art. I love the digital watercolor style in many of the pieces.
Bards as full, 9 level casters.
Arcane Tricksters are cool.
Feats have a more explicit power level in that they are equal to a +2 to one state, or +1 to any two stats.
Wardens and Avengers as Paladin subclasses. (Both were very cool 4th edtion classes, and I like that they are core in 5th)
The overall design philosophy'is awesome. The direction that they want to take D&D into is great. But the handbook itself seems like it was written without enough time to take proper care of a few of the details that accompany this innovative direction.
A few of the details that I think were skimped on:
The bard's spell list. It was so cool that bards were full casters. There are so many great ideas for spells that could appear on a full caster bard's list. But the list as it stands seems half baked. Spells that should not be bard spells (except as gained, and an individual bard might desire, through their dabbling into the magic of other classes: stinking cloud, modenkainens sword). Spells that could be added straight from other classes list as these spells are quite bardic include: mass healing word, slow, haste, dominate beast, conjure woodland beings, conjure fey, divice word, hereos feast (as least as likely a bard spell as mordenkainens mansion), wish. But I would have include some higher level spells that were dinstinctly bard spells-- shout, killing joke, some kind of harmonic dissonance spell that caused structures to collapse, a spell that compelled dragons to dance, or the like.
Rangers. It feels like hunters and beast masters should have all of their abilities rolled into one class. Beastmasters would then have higher CR, bigger beast companions, or more companions (packmasters, if you would). Where are the princess monoke style dire wolf riders? Where are the eberron style halfling dino riders?
Sorcerer's spell list is weird. Why shouldn't a white/silver dragon sorcerer get wall of ice?
The warlock invocations that are basically extra spells known, except you can only use them 1x/day? It seems like they shoudl just be at will powers, or once per short rest powers for the most part. If one wants to add warlock spells, just put them on the warlock list.
Humans should be even more flexible. +1 to every stat, or exchange a +1 for a proficiency or 2 languages, or exchange two +1 bonuses for a feat.
Evokers 6th level power should have to do with evocation cantrips. Like advantage to attack with them, or something. As it stands, getting a weak bonus when the evoker uses a *conjuration* cantrip is just silly.
One thing I appreciate about 5e is that every race and every class makes an appearance (initial PHB at least). They didn't hold back. There are so many options, I haven't even had time to check everything out just yet (haven't made it thru the Bard yet 
).
Wish the PTBs hadn't decided to go with the Realms as default. I say that as a longtime fan of the setting. It upsets me because I appreciate not only setting specific lore but also D&D lore in general. Annoying mish-mash, in progress. Never realized there was a difference til now (in my mind at least).
I'm curious: Was there any backlash among Greyhawk fans when that setting was used as default for 3e?
I have a lot in common with the OP.
I hate the healing. I dislike the dissociative mechanics on the martial classes. I like the game otherwise.
The game is good overall. I like how fast it plays and how streamlined it is. I think it is much better than all other editions of D&D.
That being said, nothing in the game wows me. There is simply nothing I find myself excited about in regards to 5e.
At the moment ...
I love the simplified rules. I especially love the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, and the inclusion of backgrounds and FATE aspect-like personality traits.
I don't like the fiddly monster CR/XP encounter budgeting system or the poor caster monster statblock formatting. This stuff is one of the things I think 4e got right, and I'm sad to see them take a step backwards in this regard. More work for the DM is not a good thing. My guess is they're hoping everyone will stump up for DungeonScape, with its hotlinked statblocks and encounter calculators and whatnot. Oh, and I really dislike the big-headed, little-footed depiction of halflings in the PHB.
At the moment, I like pretty much everything about the game. I know, however, that within a few years I will find some major faults. I always do. Here is to hoping that this time around those faults won't burn me out! Honestly though, I don't think they will. I have spent a lot more time combing through this edition, looking for stuff to dislike, as I didn't want to buy into another edition that I would end up not liking (at least as a D&D/RPG game). I didn't find much. I didn't find anything to curb my enthusiasm for the game. Almost all of the issues I found in the playtest got fixed. So, my 5 good things: pretty much everything. My 5 bad things: pretty much nothing. I am too lazy to give more details right now. :P
vowtz queried:what do you think were the best changes in D&D 5/next so far?
Artifact wrote:
I really like the art and design of 5e. (Aside from that red flame thing on the lower left of each book cover and the gnome and halfling illos...Wow those are bad.)
I'm not going to lie; I think 4e did many things right and many things wrong, but 5e didn't use enough of the 'right' of 4e for my tastes. (ie: I prefer 'attacker always rolls' over 'saves', and I prefer the 4e-style handling of monster stat blocks and encounter building.) I'm also waiting for expanded grid combat rules; even though I won't always use grid-based combat. I don't like what I perceive as caster superiority, although it's way better than every D&D edition aside from 4th. In play, I might not mind, however. We'll see.
I'll still play, and probably run, 5e eventually. I just need my psionic fix, more class and race options, Dark Sun and Eberron...
Advantage/disadvantage is inspired. Rules for 'down time' is cool, and making backgrounds required in PC creation is cool too. I like the lower numbers; ie: +3 is huge now...No +20 or whatever. I like magic items being in the hands of the DM, and not expected. I like how I don't have to buy sequel PHBs to have classes/races like a monk, a gnome, etc. (Yeah, 4e fouled that up.)
Aww, you don't like the red flame thingy . . . but they're so cute.
5e is ON FIRE!
The good stuff.
Art is generally very good except the halfling/gnomes
Overall book layout
The Bard class
Backgrounds
The bard class
Most of the classes
The bard class
Race design overall is very good even on races I do not like.
Basic D&D and PHB D&D as options/mix and match
The bard class
Easy enough to run
New and shiny
Fun for the most part
Stuff I do not like.
Spell layout is really bad.
No feat at level 1 unless you are a human.
Rules are unclear in places or at least not simple. Thief bonus actions, rules around casting with somatic components
Some fo the feats seem to be feat taxes such as warcaster and feats for strength based characters
Dexterity is an uber stat/dex to damage
rapier as a 1d8 weapon, should be d6 feeds into dex= uber stat
Thieves tools seem to be a little unclear
To many dump stats
Heal rate
Encounter desiign rules
Barbarian class as a rager
overall easy mode feel
blake_marlowe wrote:
This is by far the best edition of D&D.
Things I love:
The balance. This is what my generation -- the video game generation -- brought to the table with 4E. 4E wasn't entirely balanced, especially when the bloat set in, but it was infinitely more balanced than 3.5 where a Wizard at 1st level was a 1-off loser but by 10th level could decimate an entire town with a single fireball while the fighter was still just hitting **** all game long.
The simplicity. No more skill points, mass feats, or stacking bonuses raising AC and To Hit into the 30's and higher. Bounded Accuracy was the best decision they made, and as Seti said Advantage/Disadvantage was inspired.
Things I dislike:
The Ranger. I have so far only had a single Ranger in a party with me, level 1, so I may be, and hope to be, surprised as my experience grows, but they seem seriously underpowered. Especially their level 20 ability where you occasionally get to add you WIS modifier to attack or damage on a single attack per round. Compare that to War Cleric where you get Resistance to slashing, bludgeoning and piercing damage, or the Oath of Ancients Paladin who gets Regen 10 hp per round, action spells become bonus action, and enemies within 10 have disadvantage on saving throws against the paladin's spells. Serious disparity in power there.
Other than that, I love everything about 5E. There is always room for improvement, but they really did a wonderful job here.
Oh right... the one thing I hate...
Worst. Halfling art. Ever.
Give me Bilbo or give me death!
Things I like...
* Simpllied rules, especially in skill ranks, advantage/disadvantage, combat, spells, saves, proficency levels, etc.
* Class based system but with lots of individual choices within classes. Paths, selections, differences, etc. Classes are unique with unique abilties, rather than merely a collection of feats, yet... not a heap of similiar powers with different names.
* Simple multi-classing system, especially with spell casters sharing slots.
* Focus on roleplaying and non-combat skills. Backgrounds, flaws, race descriptions, class descriptions, roleplaying tips, etc. Removal of the grid system. (I use a battlemap, but I don't like thinking squares.)
* Ritual casting, higher level spell slots, preparation systems, etc. add flexibility, easy tracking, and yet is simple.
* Standard races and classes. No campaign specific rules forcing folks to reinvent their settings.
* Short and long rests rather than healing surges and silly five minute rests. Ability for some classes to regain abilities over an hour a few times a day.
* Nice books. No meta-font, no micro-printing, no full-page art work and white space taking up the room. Simple, efficient, with good art work.
Things I don't like...
* Non-magical healing. Ability to get massive amounts of hit points back after and hour or all per night.
* Book fell apart after less than a month.
* No chapter indentifiers on the page header or footers.
* Minor rules issues. (All version have these, but on something this simplied, I didn't expect WotC to overlook obvious questions or not have official FAQs or erratas.)
* Books were not released at once, nor campaign settings, nor a lot of modules.
* Naming and branding of the books. Looking through a game store, you can tell what is 4E and what is 5E.
* Web site. Useless. Talks about Daggerfall, online games, magic, etc. You scroll through piles of big tiles which tell you nothing. Rather than a simple place listing and explaining what 5E, what is coming, what you can buy, etc. and separating it entirely from 4E content, you get everything massed together. Online searches get you PDFs, adventures, etc. which I'm not sure what version of D&D they are for. So... won't buy them.
BW0222 wrote:
BW0222 wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Vowtz wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I am overall very positive, so I am not ready to list disappointments yet (insufficient play experience so far also do not help). The positives that stand out to me are:
Inclusiveness in representation and gender statement.
Character generation as a whole, but in particular Backgrounds that actually matter over the adventuring career.
Bounded accuracy and advantage-disadvantage for upholding it.
From previews and excerpts I am also excited about the quality of the Monster Manual.
- Vargtass
what I like
- Skills and proficiency bonus
- ease of character generation
- backgrounds- especially personality traits
- advantage/disadvantage
what I don't like
- no inspiring warlord class - the battlemaster fighter isn't the same, nor the valorous bard
- I preferred the healing surges from 4th edition
- monsters who die after being hit once, preferred the minion rules in 4th edition
- automatic hits on spells, then target saves
- low HP at 1st level
- lack of world books
- abandoning of Points of Light setting
- staggered release of core rules
all in all I don't mind 5th edition but I see it as just an updated version of 3.5, I'm still uncertain whether I want to continue investing my money in it, or just go back to 4th edition which I enjoyed.
Overall, I do think 5e is far and away the best version of D&D.
Things I like:
- Paladins are mechanically competent and distinct straight out of the gate. I'm just plain tickled to death about that after they were utterly inept through all of 3e and a poorly designed mess even at their best in 4e.
- The Bard, just in general.
- Actually pretty much all the classes except Sorcerer and Ranger.
- Advantage and disadvantage.
- Resistances and vulnerabilities simplified, also making them scale well.
- The way skills and ability checks work.
- The brisk speed at which it runs, especially combat. A very AD&D-type feel there. Also that theater-of-the-mind combat is viable once again.
- Alignment handled more or less just right. It's present, and back to the classical nine, but mechanics are still mostly separate from it.
- Pretty much all the races except for the Default Human.
- Bounded accuracy in general.
- The spellcasting system in general. Using higher-level slots for upcasting, using slots to cast any prepared spell and be flexible over the course of the day, DCs scaling with proficiency that allow multiclass characters and half-casters to still be effective with their spells.
Things I don't like:
- The Sorcerer. It's probably not even poorly designed, and it can be pretty effective, but it just doesn't appeal to me.
- The Ranger. This one, on the other hand, has some problems. While I wouldn't quite go so far as to call it the 4e Paladin of 5e, it's definitely missing quite a few somethings.
- The Default Human. Definitely tame compared to all other races. Even in a game without feats, I'd probably house-rule a replacement based on the Variant Human, and replace its free feat with a floating +2 to a single stat that can even be placed on top of a stat you applied a +1 to, making it the only race that can add +3 at the start.
- The spell lists in the back of the book. Definitely should've at least been grouped by schools, and probably had components listed, too.
- While I like the Battlemaster Fighter overall, it could stand to use some higher level maneuvers that require you to spend multiple superiority dice and result in things like stuns, whirlwind attacks, ongoing damage and maybe at the VERY highest levels save-or die.
- Dual-wielding too limited by default. You should've at least been allowed to use a non-light weapon in the main hand by default.
- Rogue Sneak Attack limited in melee to finesse weapons. Should allow light weapons as well, even if they're not finesse.
- A few spells that are just a little too strong to the point they're ridiculous. (Contagion, Polymorph, True Polymorph.) Also Wall of Force and Forcecage having absolutely zero non-magical counters.
I like pretty much everything.
My only real complaint is the spell DCs at the higher levels. Chances are your spell DC is 19, and save bonuses on your bad saves are likely +1-4, You shouldn't need to roll that high to save. Yeah its cool for the spell caster to pull the spell off, but I think it sucks to fail pretty much every fort save as a mage. I liked 2e and earlier save chances where your odds to make your save got easier as you raised in levels. I'd rather see the high level fighter consistently save vs the dominate spell than see the mage pull off cool tricks.
In general, 5e seems like a pretty great edition.
The good:
- Bounded accuracy - The higher numbers in 4e had no real meaning and just made things more complicated
- Meaningful wildshaping - 4e wildshaping wasn't very interesting
- Backgrounds - Specifically the addition of traits/flaws/ideals/bonds
- The removal of AEDU
- DungeonScape sounds promising
- I doubt I'll ever run a game without magic items, but having less than you got in 4e is definitely a good thing
The bad:
- Multiclassing - I liked 4e hybrids much more; it let you start your character concept from the beginning rather than needing to put 2 or 3 levels into one class before you get anything from the other.
- Multiclass ability score restrictions and proficiencies - I get the balance implications, but I really don't think that Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 should have different requirements and proficiencies to a Wizard 1 / Fighter 1.
- Races should have their stats as the first thing in their entry. Things like ability score increase, age, alignment, and size take a few paragraphs and give a very good outline of what the race is. I've never seen a new player who cared much about their race beyond the mechanical implications. You're new to the game and you have lots of things to learn, so there's no way you're going to read 2 or 3 pages about a race. And if you are going to read those pages, you should still skip to the stats and read those first so you can use them as a context for the rest of the race description.
- The ranger, as already outlined by others
- The removal of using an accuracy modifier on weapons i.e. different weapons having a +2 or +3 proficiency bonus as an additional way of differentiating weapons on top of differing damage dice.
- The feat selection. As a rule, feats add something new to your character instead of just giving you bigger numbers as an ability score increase does. But I don't actually like many of the feats. Each character concept will have 1 or 2 feats that I'll take as soon as possible, but then I'll just be getting boring mechanical improvements for the rest of my career.
- CR1 = 4x level 1 PCs is dumb. CR1 = 1x Level 1 PC was great in 4e.
- Hiding the CR in the middle of the monster's stat block is also dumb. The CR is the most important thing I need to know about a monster after its name. If I need to, I can fudge everything else based on the name and CR of a creature. Its not like there's anything else in the top right of a stat block, its literally just empty space now.
- PHB chapter 6 (multiclassing and feats) should be swapped with chapter 4 (personality and background).
- Changing from attacker always rolls back to the old style of saves was mechanically pointless and logically unintuitive.
- There isn't much tactical depth to combat.
- We're back to caster supremacy in terms of sheer versatility compared to the guy who has no extra capabilities but it simply much stronger.
LIKES:
- Advantage/disadvantage
- Overall streamlining of the system
- Action economy
- Concentration
- Proficiency
- Cantrips
- Warlock class
- Bard class
- Backgrounds
- Inspiration
- Spells scaling per slot
- 'Big Feats' (in principle)
DISLIKES:
- (Neo)Vanciant system for all spellcasters but the Warlock
- Reliance on magical healing and healer classes
- HD are a poor substitute for healing surges
- Lack of customization along progression for non-spellcasters
- Saving Throws instead of NADs
- Some spells are outright broken
- Casters superiority is still there from mid level up
- Battle Master subclass maneuvers are underwhelming
- Multi-attacks used for scaling martial damage
- OA limited to 1/round
- Attacks scaling with Proficiency but AC does not
- Adventuring day assumed to have 6-8 fights in as a benchmark for classes balance
The return of more 1st edition style mechanics.
The ranger.
The gnome art.
Spellcasting mechanics.
The fighter being awesome again.
General visual style.
I love the return to 1st edition style power descriptions, where you actually have to read the power to figure out what it does.
The lethality is nice and high.
Short rests are now an hour. YAY!
Don't like:
The halfling art.
General lack of SOD mechanics. This is partially mitigated by spells having high base damage.
Instant long rest heals.
Like:
How they developed a diverse range of casting mechanics, while still maintaining flexibility
Maintaining some of the diversity found in monsters found in previous editions
Maintaining some of diversity of magic items from previous editions
Dislike:
A lack of flexibiltiy in martial classes
A lack of a mechanic for martial classes to build up a tool box, versus having to trade things out
Limited maneuvers without much thought or imagination to make them more interesting (i.e. what they did with spells).
A bias towards a universal long rest mechanic, where martial and caster classes should work off of different time frames for recovery
Placing to much of the healing role on a class versus spreading it out to each character via mechanics like second wind
High level spell DC versus ability scores
A ritual system that is as boring as the 4E version. They could do so much with it.
The rest of the game being too basic, without the ability to add complexity accross the board, e.g. increase the range of bounded accuracy so you can add more detailed armor, mastercraft items, etc.
demon_idol wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Vowtz wrote:
I totally agree with you on the healing rules.
Hate
1. The healing / resting rules and all forms of non-magical healing (Second Wind, Hit Dice, Long Rests, etc)
2. Lack of optional rules in the PHB, I expected much more.
3. Transmuter's iconic power is Raise Dead which is a necromancy spell, shouldn't that be a transmutation spell?
4. Some spells have the wrong school IMO.
5. Hate the battemaster, I think most of its contrived powers should be default combat actions (Trip, disarm, etc) for everyone.
6. No generalist wizard.
7. Rogue skills: Open Locks and Disarm Traps have been merged under thieves tools. I'd much rather be able to specialize.
8. High hit point totals for monsters and PCs.
9. Failure to fix the ability score progression which makes odd numbered ability scores pointless.
10. The removal of common monster type abilities. For example, some undead can be Frighened, Charmed, and Fatiqued and others can't.
11. Halfling and Gnome art
12. PHB organization makes it a poor game manual. No headers and footers.
13. Some weapons should have more than one damage type
14. The class descriptions should be more to the point.
Like
1. The removal of the Skill Rank system. As the DM I hate reviewing / fixing character skill point allocation. As a player I hate building characters using them. I'm glad this is gone.
2. Skills Checks that now work off the appropriate ability
3. Saving Throws using ability scores. (I hated Ref, Will, Fort)
4. The return of open ended magic and the return of powerful spells.
5. OoA / Reaction limit
6. Bonus action rules. - which removes the use of a minor action every freaking turn.
7. Extra Attacks for the fighter.
8. Backgrounds
9. Traits, Flaws, etc all things that add to role playing
10. The return of descriptive monsters (like 2e)
11. Big Feats - no more feat trees
12. The removal of magial items from the PHB.
13. Monsters, Magial items, traps using PHB spells.
mellored wrote:
Vowtz wrote:
Vowtz wrote:
i'm gonna stsart a new thread re: healing in 5e. i think it would be helpful to avoid thread derailment.
blake_marlowe wrote:
i figured it's easier for everyone that way, you know?
for those interested, please find that thread here
I have to say I'm surprised by all the negativity surrounding non magical healing. It's debatable whether it was done better in 4e, for sure, but it was always weird in earlier editions how recovering HP was always so dependent on magic. Who wants to be forced to have a full time HP battery in the party?
I also think that for people looking for a grit, a modular injury system makes a lot more sense than just making HP overly-precious.
Einlanzer wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Like
The new spell system
Bound accuracy
The overall feeling of each class and subclass.
Dont like
The Polearm master-Sentinel feat combo
Some rules are written in a poor way: polymorph/wild shape, Somatic spell casting.
The cunning action that include the dash action.
The Strength and the Dex fighter mixed in one class.
The Cleric domain spell list, I cant figured out a cleric casting fireball!
What I don't like:
1) Artifical class features. I find that many class features are about as boring as flat bonuses. I get it that people don't like dead levels but to me, a dead level is better than a class mechanic that only brings complexity.
2) Limited number of skills known. The more skills you have in the party, the more creative non-combat challenges are. 1e worked well when your character could do everything. Why limit the number of skills?
3) Number porn. The numbers are bloated just to keep the 3e/4e ability score bonuses. This means more damage, more dice to roll, etc... The math would have worked just as well with smaller numbers but the game wouldn't have slowed down as much at higher level when you roll dozens of dice of damage.
4) I'm a bit disappointed with the complex fighter. The battlemaster is not as interesting to play as a tome of battle class.
5) Advantage/Disadvantage. I really like how easy and simple it is but the bonus is just too big. Dice pool mechanics work a lot better in games that use d10 or d6s.
6) Oversimplification. Some things are just too simplified/streamlined. Streamlining mechanics are the way to go for the default stuff but it's also nice to have tools that the DM can use to add complexity. For example, poison can be more interesting than what it is. If the DM is not comfortable with the complexity, there are other non-poisoneous monsters in the MM. Difficult terrain can be more interesting and if the DM is not comfortable with it, they can design their encounters in normal terrain. Etc... D&D for dummies is great but it's even better with dials that the DM can use to add complexity.
What I really like:
1) Character options. I really like how character options are organized in 5e. You don't have fiddly little moving parts like in 3e/4e. Instead, you add flavor to your character by selecting whatever sounds cool. You can still optimize but it doesn't look as bad as in 3e/4e.
2) It's a D&D game. I like D&D more than any other RPG out there. I can't really explain why I prefer D&D but I get bored with other games after a year or two and I still love D&D after 25 years. 5e has all the D&Dism that make D&D enjoyable for me.
3) The PHB is a very pleasant read.
4) Transparent simple rules logic. I find it very easy to get the big picture in 5e. This makes my life as a DM easier because my intuition and understand of the rules often allows me to guess what's in the book instead of spending time looking for the specific detais in the rules.
The rest of 5e is just a bunch of mechanics that aren't any better or worse than the alternatives. They do the job without getting in the way of fun.
mellored wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
frbelanger wrote:
dmgorgon quoth:
i think non-combat challenges should be open to all party members and everyone should have the means to contribute in a unique way. this was possible in 2e because everyone would pitch in using their NWP. for a diplomacy challenge the party would have skills like negotiation, bartering, fast-talking, story telling, oratory, leadership, etc. the character with the highest charisma didn't always dominate the situation.
I've been overwhelmingly happy with 5E.
My only complaints so far might be that 1st level druids are decidedly weaker than all other 1st level casters. Once you hit 2nd level it evens out, but 1st level sucks for a druid. Everyone gets some spizzells, call it a wash. Then everyone gets a fancy ability--clerics and wizards a domain or school, sorcerers and warlocks wonky stuff, bards get inspirey things.
Druids? A secret language. For when they meet another druid. As a DM, I am now going to be compelled to work druids into every 1st level campaign, just so this ability MIGHT see the light of day.
Oh yeah, and although default human is now balanced (it took the entire playtest to convince WotC they were OP), if you crunch the points the alternate human it's underpowered. My house rule is they get 1 extra ability point or feat, which balances it out to 6 ability points equivalent.