Generally, yes - items that boost save dc are exceptionally uncommon and rare, compared to items that boost attack rolls; there's only a very small handful in the system at all, in fact, and most of them are very high grade items. - similarly, there are more spell effects and other perks that boost or assist attack rolls, than there are effects to raise save dcs, or penalise the targets, and sources of advantage on attack rolls are massively more common than sources of disadvantage on saves (and enemies having advantage on saves is increasingly common as you increase in levels, too).
I do feel that it is worse, unquestionably, in the case of spell preparation; it reduces your ability to be tactical about what you're doing because it reduces your flexibility, and that's just abjectly a bad call, in my personal opinion on this matter. I know that at each of my tables and groups, no-one is at all interested in going back to having to prepare a specific number of spells for each level; they want to know how many spells they can prepare, and pick tactically for themselves which they will be, and if that means they are only using their second level spell slots as up-cast fodder for the 1st levels they have prepared, that's their choice. If the current new document sticks, this rule will be universally boycotted at every single one of my game groups, in favour of 5e's current rules, each independently of one another, and I don't run any of those tables.
Quote
As to your "guessing a DM's mind incorrectly," I'll argue only bad DMs wouldn't allow a player to change their Help action if it turned out that a different check is required. "Hey DM, wouldn't my character have known that Check B was actually required? I intended to help [do this task] which is still being done; can't my Help action still apply?"
Which is the way it currently works, as the base rules... You help someone, and the dm calls the check required when the moment comes up, if a check is warranted. So why in any holy hell would you create a rule system in which it doesn't work that way, and then require DM fiat to homebrew *around* the rule you just made?
No, wait, I retract that... current rules don't necessarily require a check, or even suggest it in the base rules, that's just common practice... and I think I'm happy with the addition of the help action causing a roll of some sort to say how effectively you help them, yes. But it should always provide *some* degree of help, regardless of the roll, because you are still sinking a cost to assist someone else, and that's something to encourage in a team and party game. My main gripe is that the player playing the game should be able to simply opt to help another character, without having to correctly guess the Dm's mind, no matter how obvious it may seem. Help in combat is uncommon at most of my tables, but help in general is quite common - but generally only one person can help with the help action on a specific task.
I will add, to movement - I get what you're saying about it being consumed proportionally (you've used 15 fee t of your 30 land speed on land, so you have 30 of your 60 left when you dive into the water to swim), I don't disagree that from a technical stand point, that makes more sense, realistically... but my contention is that it creates a layer of complexity, math, and confusion that takes away more than it gives; the wood elf with a speed of 35 has run 15 feet before getting to the water, and they have a swim speed of 40 thanks to a ring; how much swimming movement have they got left, if it's proportional? If it took more than 2 seconds to have a firm answer there, then it's too messy for the action (just moving around in combat) to be worth the realism it gives. Direct simultaneous use keeps the numbers clear, direct and simple, while still being at least *roughly* well-tracking. That's my feeling, anyhow.
