Worth it?

[Curbstomp]

I am a dedicated D&D 3.5 player who was incredibly disappointed with 4th Edition as was my entire play group. Is 5th Edition worth our time and money to switch to?

[akaddk]

I am a dedicated D&D 3.5 player who was incredibly disappointed with 4th Edition as was my entire play group. Is 5th Edition worth our time and money to switch to?

Stuffed if I know.

The fact that you make an effort to say that you're a "dedicated" 3.5 player, however, indicates that you're already not that willing to change editions regardless of what 5e is like.

Download the free rules, make some characters, play some games. If you like it, go and buy a PHB. If you don't, what've you really lost in trying it out? It ain't rocket science.

[Fable Wright]

I am a dedicated D&D 3.5 player who was incredibly disappointed with 4th Edition as was my entire play group. Is 5th Edition worth our time and money to switch to?
It's a subjective call, especially when things like time and money are involved. Mostly, it depends on the kind of game you want to run. Do you like Wizards being able to cast more than 1 6-9th level spell per day? Do you like rocket tag? Do you like fiddly systems, subsystems, and modifiers? Do you like blanket immunities? Do you like becoming immune to lower-level threats entirely? Do you like spending nearly as much time building your character as playing it? If your answer to those is yes, stick with 3.5. If not, and you still like the general feel of 3.5, try out a game of 5th edition and see how you like it. You can try the basic rules (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/PlayerDnDBasicRules_v0.2_PrintFriendly.pdf) free (DM material he (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMDnDBasicRules_v0.1_PrinterFriendly.pdf)re (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/HoardDragonQueen_Supplement1.pdf)), and if you like the look of the rules or a simple session, you can invest in the PHB to make a much wider variety of characters.

[obryn]

5e is like a less-broken 3e. If that interests you, then it's definitely worth picking up. (And it's worth picking up anyway because it's the new D&D.)

[Madfellow]

I'd recommend picking up the Starter Set (only $20) and trying it out before you decide.

[eastmabl]

I'd recommend picking up the Starter Set (only $20) and trying it out before you decide.

QFT.

I got the Starter Box for my 3.5 group, and we tried it out. We enjoy how many 3.5 feats were rolled back into the everyman rules (like weapon finesse), as well as the far simplified math. (Some of my players are about as good as Durkon at keeping track of bonuses and penalties).

[pwykersotz]

If you play around with the free rules and like what you see, then very much yes. I can tell you that I'm in the same boat. Dedicated 3.5 player and I'm loving 5e.

[ZeshinX]

5e looks like a fun system. After having read through my PHB, I'm finding I still prefer Pathfinder to 5e, but I would happily play a 5e game/campaign if that was the group's preferred choice.

5e is simple. By that I mean....simple. I do not mean dumbed-down, or for "stupid people" or any of that elitist mentality. It's a system that wants you to get to playing as quickly as possible.

Options are present, but are quite minimal (meaningful, but a very minimalistic approach has been taken). There is choice and options among the classes (archetypes, paths, specializations, whatever you'd like to call them), but beyond that I find customization to be....again, meaningful, but minimal.

I can't speak from experience yet, but I'm getting a sense that there's very little change as far as character advancement goes. Things will be very same-y throughout the levels (obviously you'll get more things you can do, be it new things or more of the same things), but generally the feel will be pretty much unchanging. I suspect this will get rather boring, but then again, it could very well make it more fun. Play will tell.

I find the skills/proficiencies to be rather....well, lacking. You don't really gain new proficiencies after 1st level. You kinda get what you get and are stuck with that. Some classes offer abilities that grant improved or more proficiencies, but this seems to be the exception (so it's not too often). That strikes me as remarkably odd...that you don't pick up new skills or become better at them. There's very little difference between proficient and non-proficient (just your proficiency bonus, which between 1st and 20th goes from +2 to +6). It's just weird to me. I suspect it works just fine....but it's a very odd feeling. Perhaps the DMG will offer options with a little more depth.

Overall, it's a little jarring if you like a LOT of options (even if many of the options are poo), but it's a decent system and looks like it'll be fun to play. At this point I still vastly prefer Pathfinder, but I wouldn't turn down a chance to play 5e.

[hawklost]

I will agree that it is simplier than 3e/PF. And I will admit, I actually enjoy trying to get the focus more on RP and less on "but the rules say". That is, of course, just my play style.

That said, you can gain more skills if your DM allows it

Training - You can spend time between adventures learning a new language or training with a set of tools. Your DM might allow additional training options

After 3e and PF, I got extremely tired of my DM or players only doing things that a rule said was possible.
-- Want to roll that guy up who is tripped in a carpet? Nope, no rules for that, guess you can't
-- Want to Drop a rock from the castle wall? Don't see anything for large rocks, so we will just say you threw it
-- Want to dive through the window through an enemies space cause it looks cool to do? Sorry, rules say you can't move through enemy spaces, so you can't

In 5e it again starts to tell the DM that he can do things that are not specific in the rules.
-- Want to dive through the window through an enemies space cause it looks cool to do? hmmm, well, there are no rules for doing that and you technically can't but I think I shall allow it, max a Dex save for getting through the Shattered window, then I will give the NPC an attack on you if he wants, then if he doesn't hit you with his hammer, you can be on the other side of him prone. Otherwise you might be stopped someplace before hand. (note, this happened in one of my 5e sessions, poor rogue failed his save and cut himself on the window, then got smashed in the face by a hammer, he was unconscious at the feet of the NPC, but it was still an awesome try)

Nothing stopped 3e or PF from doing it, but the more rules that came out, the more the players and DMs started not coming up with their own crazy ideas.

[akaddk]

Nothing stopped 3e or PF from doing it, but the more rules that came out, the more the players and DMs started not coming up with their own crazy ideas.

Not to mention that if you try and do something outside of the box, the players and DM's all pipe up with, "But statistically you'd be better off doing this other, really boring thing that you've done a thousand times before!"

Ugh.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

That said, you can gain more skills if your DM allows it

After 3e and PF, I got extremely tired of my DM or players only doing things that a rule said was possible.

These are two sentiments I see a lot from the "3e is a straightjacket of rules, 5e is freeing" folks, and I can't agree with either of them.

For the first: You can do anything if your DM allows it. Whether we're talking extra secondary skills in 1e, extra non-weapon proficiencies in 2e, extra skill points in 3e, or extra skill training in 4e, nothing stops a DM from saying "You spent a month between adventures working on your haikus? Congratulations, you get [the Poet secondary skill at -2/the Poetry-Writing NWP/4 free ranks in Perform (Poetry)/+2 on Streetwise checks when dealing with poetry fans]." So really, saying that someone's problem with 5e skills can be addressed by the DM isn't really saying anything.

For the second: Many people saying "you can't do X in 3e" don't really know the rules that well, because the examples you gave do indeed work in 3e:
Rolling someone up in a carpet? Grapple check to pin your target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#ifYoureGrappling), using an improvised weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#improvisedWeapons) (for which there are more detailed rules in Complete Warrior if you want them).
Dropping a rock on someone? Falling object rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#fallingObjects).
Diving through a window to go through an opponent's space? Low-DC Str check to bust through the window (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingItems) and a DC 25 Tumble check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm) (which should be fairly easy for a swashbuckler-y character who'd be inclined to do that in the first place).

Now, I'll admit that 3e rules can be complex and are scattered across multiple books, but (A) we're talking basic PHB skill and combat rules here, nothing esoteric at all, and (B) anyone who isn't creative enough to realize that immobilizing someone uses the grapple rules would most likely not be creative enough to do that in 5e either.

Thus, while 5e can certainly make those sorts of stunts easier if your DM is the type to disallow something because it's not an explicit example of something a feat or spell can do, the idea that 3e can't do any of those things is more rhetorical point than truth (and it cropped up plenty in the 3e/4e edition wars, so it's not just a 3e-vs.-5e thing, either).


Not to mention that if you try and do something outside of the box, the players and DM's all pipe up with, "But statistically you'd be better off doing this other, really boring thing that you've done a thousand times before!"

Ugh.

I found that to be more true in the 5e playtests than my normal games, actually. When all possible not-explicitly-defined actions boil down to "Which of the 6 attributes does it use, and do you have advantage or disadvantage?" I found players more likely to say "Don't try to do any fancy acrobatics, you have higher Str than Dex and advantage on Athletics checks, just knock him over!" Not to mention that it encourages you to try to persuade the DM that what you want to do falls under whatever attribute is your highest and whatever skill or attribute rolls you have advantage with.

[hawklost]

These are two sentiments I see a lot from the "3e is a straightjacket of rules, 5e is freeing" folks, and I can't agree with either of them.

For the first: You can do anything if your DM allows it. Whether we're talking extra secondary skills in 1e, extra non-weapon proficiencies in 2e, extra skill points in 3e, or extra skill training in 4e, nothing stops a DM from saying "You spent a month between adventures working on your haikus? Congratulations, you get [the Poet secondary skill at -2/the Poetry-Writing NWP/4 free ranks in Perform (Poetry)/+2 on Streetwise checks when dealing with poetry fans]." So really, saying that someone's problem with 5e skills can be addressed by the DM isn't really saying anything.

For the second: Many people saying "you can't do X in 3e" don't really know the rules that well, because the examples you gave do indeed work in 3e:
Rolling someone up in a carpet? Grapple check to pin your target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#ifYoureGrappling), using an improvised weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#improvisedWeapons) (for which there are more detailed rules in Complete Warrior if you want them).
Dropping a rock on someone? Falling object rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#fallingObjects).
Diving through a window to go through an opponent's space? Low-DC Str check to bust through the window (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingItems) and a DC 25 Tumble check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm) (which should be fairly easy for a swashbuckler-y character who'd be inclined to do that in the first place).

Now, I'll admit that 3e rules can be complex and are scattered across multiple books, but (A) we're talking basic PHB skill and combat rules here, nothing esoteric at all, and (B) anyone who isn't creative enough to realize that immobilizing someone uses the grapple rules would most likely not be creative enough to do that in 5e either.

Thus, while 5e can certainly make those sorts of stunts easier if your DM is the type to disallow something because it's not an explicit example of something a feat or spell can do, the idea that 3e can't do any of those things is more rhetorical point than truth (and it cropped up plenty in the 3e/4e edition wars, so it's not just a 3e-vs.-5e thing, either).



I found that to be more true in the 5e playtests than my normal games, actually. When all possible not-explicitly-defined actions boil down to "Which of the 6 attributes does it use, and do you have advantage or disadvantage?" I found players more likely to say "Don't try to do any fancy acrobatics, you have higher Str than Dex and advantage on Athletics checks, just knock him over!" Not to mention that it encourages you to try to persuade the DM that what you want to do falls under whatever attribute is your highest and whatever skill or attribute rolls you have advantage with.

I never claimed you Couldn't do those effects. I made the claim that as more and more rules came for special circumstances, the more some players and DMs became restrictive unless it was in the rules.

- using a Rug to grapple. That example fails by the rules. Grappling the enemy is fine, but (by the rules) you cannot use an improvised weapon to do anything but damage an opponent. So your basic rules have failed that example.
- Falling Object - Player looks at rules, looks at his ranged weapon. "Why would I attempt to drop a 100 lb object 30ft down when I could use my ranged weapon to do more damage? that is worthless, the rock doesn't even have a chance to knock the enemy prone if he is hit!" In this case, yes, the rules exist, but they are non-sensical compared to normal damage and have no added effects. Again, based on the rules, there is absolutely no reason to do this over doing a normal ranged attack.
- For the final one, jumping through a window and through an enemy. You can't do it normally. In my example, I said you can go through the window (that works) and the enemy gets an attack on you as a Reaction. In your proving I can do it, you gave me a DC tumble check (meaning Most players Cannot do it) or be stopped before the enemy. So the rules again, do not allow the action. There is no logical reason for someone who is running all out from something deciding to stop just because a guy with a sword might stab them when they are afraid of the thing behind them more. The player can't take a hit but go through anyways, they can't bull into the enemy (On accident), they can't do any of that by the Rules. They can only stop if they fail a DC25 Tumble Check (and if the enemy is right outside the window, they somehow break the window but bounce back inside because of the enemy standing on the other side).

You example actually proves the point. Instead of saying the DM can allow it because Rule 0 which gives them the right (Which in 3e is fully true as in 5e), you attempted to spend time looking up rules to the effect that did almost what the player wanted. How much time did it take you to look this up and how much time during a combat would you be willing to stop the game for just for it? Most likely a player or his DM would say "screw it" and just either make it up or not allow it because they know there was a rule somewhere to kinda do the effect and they didn't want to make a houserule to override the game rule.

[hawklost]

Not to mention that if you try and do something outside of the box, the players and DM's all pipe up with, "But statistically you'd be better off doing this other, really boring thing that you've done a thousand times before!"

Ugh.

In the last 5e game I played a player tried to use the Fighter and enemy who were grappling as a Spring board to get up to a roof. The DM allowed it because it sounded awesome and then proceeded to take less than a minute to decide what DC it would be and what negative/positive effects would occur because of it. It didn't really take much time and everyone around the table loved it. (BTW, the Rogue who did this failed completely the save and instead knocked them out of a grapple since the Fighter was the initiator and he Still didn't get onto the roof).

In 3e it would be fully possible for a DM to do the same thing, but there are rules that they might have to look up for entering an occupied space, figuring out the DC of the jump (without running first), figuring out other details. If they followed all the rules and didn't decide just to allow it, it would even technically be impossible.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I never claimed you Couldn't do those effects.

Indeed you did:

After 3e and PF, I got extremely tired of my DM or players only doing things that a rule said was possible.
-- Want to roll that guy up who is tripped in a carpet? Nope, no rules for that, guess you can't
-- Want to Drop a rock from the castle wall? Don't see anything for large rocks, so we will just say you threw it
-- Want to dive through the window through an enemies space cause it looks cool to do? Sorry, rules say you can't move through enemy spaces, so you can't

...all of which are incorrect.


- using a Rug to grapple. That example fails by the rules. Grappling the enemy is fine, but (by the rules) you cannot use an improvised weapon to do anything but damage an opponent.

In fact, the rules only say that you take a -4 to attack with improvised weapons and gives them damage values and threat ranges; it doesn't prohibit you from doing anything with them that you could do with any other weapon, including grappling. But just in case that's too vague for your liking, there's another ironclad way to do the carpet-wrap maneuver:


Entangle: Any sheetlike flexible object (such as a carpet or tapestry) can entangle an opponent with a successful ranged touch attack. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity, can move at only half speed, cannot run or charge, and may have difficulty casting spells (see the Concentration skill description, page 69 of the Player’s Handbook). Escaping from such an object requires a standard action and a DC 10 Escape Artist check. These objects are treated as two-handed weapons.



- Falling Object - Player looks at rules, looks at his ranged weapon. "Why would I attempt to drop a 100 lb object 30ft down when I could use my ranged weapon to do more damage?

A sandstone boulder 2 feet on a side weighs roughly 1200 pounds, and similarly-size sandstone, granite, or marble "boulders" were often used in castle construction. Roll one of those suckers over the average castle wall (30-40 feet high) and it will deal 9d6 damage.


- For the final one, jumping through a window and through an enemy. You can't do it normally. In my example, I said you can go through the window (that works) and the enemy gets an attack on you as a Reaction. In your proving I can do it, you gave me a DC tumble check (meaning Most players Cannot do it)

Au contraire--as I mentioned, the swashbuckler-y kind of PC who would want to do something like that would have an easy time of it. Let's say a level 3 rogue, scout, ninja, or similar skirmisher. 18 Dex, max ranks in Tumble, and at least 5 ranks in Jump has a +12 Tumble modifier, for a 50/50 success rate--not bad when a 1st or 2nd level character is a green warrior, common street thief, or barely-graduated apprentice. By 11th level when he becomes "legendary," the kind of person who should be pulling off crazy stunts like that on a regular basis, the same character should have Dex 22 or so and 14 ranks, giving him a +22 or a 90% success rate; in one or two more levels, he can't possibly fail the check.

And before you say that that's too late or requires too much training for most PCs, 5e isn't any better. Though there aren't any concrete DCs in 5e, let's be generous and assume it's only a Hard task, DC 20. A starting character with Acrobatics proficiency and max Dex has a +7, for a 40% success chance; compare this to a starting 3e rogue with a 20 Dex and 4 ranks, who has a +9 vs. DC 25 for a 25% chance, or a 35% success rate next level when he gets his synergy bonus, so they're fairly comparable even if the 5e rogue is slightly ahead. If both rogues wanted to really focus on tumbling, the 5e rogue can choose Acrobatics for one of his Expertise skills for a 50% success rate while the 3e rogue can pick up Skill Focus for a 40% success rate.

At 11th level, though, the 5e rogue still has 20 Dex and now has a proficiency bonus of +4 for a success rate of 55% without Expertise or 75% with it, neither of which match the above 3e rogue's 90% success rate (or 100+% with Skill Focus), and the numerous sources of skill bonuses in 3e only make the gap wider, earlier. A level 20 5e rogue with Expertise tops out at +17, giving him the 90% success rate that his 3e version had 9 levels ago. It gets better with advantage, of course, but it never hits auto-success rates, and consistently getting advantage on that sort of check requires spending a feat slot (a much more precious resource in 5e than 3e) or using the same sorts of tactics that a 3e rogue could also use to boost his chances...and this is all ignoring the 3e rogue's ability to pick up skill-boosting items or pump his Dex far past 20 and rocket even farther past the 5e rogue.

Basically, the further you get into the levels where you're supposed to be flashy, awesome, and superhuman like the window-crasher guy, the more the 3e rules do a better job of modeling that stuff than the 5e rules.


There is no logical reason for someone who is running all out from something deciding to stop just because a guy with a sword might stab them when they are afraid of the thing behind them more. The player can't take a hit but go through anyways, they can't bull into the enemy (On accident), they can't do any of that by the Rules.

Ahem. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#overrun) :smallamused:


You example actually proves the point. Instead of saying the DM can allow it because Rule 0 which gives them the right (Which in 3e is fully true as in 5e), you attempted to spend time looking up rules to the effect that did almost what the player wanted. How much time did it take you to look this up

I knew the rules off the top of my head, because knowing the basic skill and combat rules is kind of necessary to play a game; it took me longer to pull up the SRD links than it did to remember everything. And again, this isn't esoteric "You need to DM 3e for years before figuring it out" stuff, this is the easy stuff you pick up in your first session. And I'm not being hyperbolic there; when I started running for my current group last year, 6 of the players had never played RPGs before, but by the end of the first session they were able to remember rough DCs for jumping and swimming, how grappling and bull rushes work, and other basic stuff.

You're perfectly welcome to run things off-the-cuff instead of by the book, far be it from me to say that you're Doing It Wrong, but you are mischaracterizing the level of difficulty of looking up and remembering 3e rules.


In the last 5e game I played a player tried to use the Fighter and enemy who were grappling as a Spring board to get up to a roof. The DM allowed it because it sounded awesome and then proceeded to take less than a minute to decide what DC it would be and what negative/positive effects would occur because of it.
[...]
If they followed all the rules and didn't decide just to allow it, it would even technically be impossible.

The bolded portion is the main problem with this approach. Your DM said it sounded awesome and let the fighter do it without rolling, but another DM might easily decide "That sounds cool, but it'd probably be pretty hard, make that a DC 25, you fall prone if you fail" while a third might peg it at Hard with disadvantage and no other effects and a fourth might say it's just impossible and not allow a check. Not to mention that the very same DM might decide differently if not swayed by the Rule of Cool: would he have made the same ruling if the fighter were just jumping off some barrels, or made it harder because they're wobbly and unstable and there's no grappling ally to help him out?

And before trying it out, the fighter's player doesn't necessarily know which way the DM will rule, and "Can I jump onto the roof? No? How about if I use that guy as a springboard? No? How about if I use those barrels? No? How about...?" can take just as long or longer as flipping through the rules. I've played in enough 1e games with different DMs who were different degrees of sticklers for realism to know that unless you've played with the same DM for a while to get a feel for their playstyle, the "Mother May I" aspect of its (lack of) skill system can make action scenes drag on for a bit...as opposed to 3e and 4e, where the DCs are well-defined and players and DMs are on the same page, both during combat and also when building characters so they have benchmarks for making their characters able to pull of stunts like that.

Again, if the 5e method works for you, excellent, by all means play that way. But it's not a strictly superior approach for everyone by any means.

[hawklost]

So lets go down the list

First, I said you couldn't because the rules in the books don't have a response to them. Considering Rule 0 in the books is DM Can do anything I am technically wrong. Otherwise

-Is there a rule for wrapping someone up in a carpet? Nope, there are entagle rules, there are grapple rules, there are even improvised weapon rules, but none that allow a PC to wrap someone up in a carpet Without DM Deciding its Allowed. So, a DM must decide to do this, another DM might decide you are not allowed to.... notice something about that comment? DM might say, nope, you can't use the rug that is on the ground as an improvised weapon, or Sorry, there are no rules saying improvised weapons can be used for special attacks. Others might say you can but we get into DM decisions then. Funny how this works, you claim to only use Core books then have to pull out Splat books to prove your point. Proving that you require more and more rules to do something that before was DM calls.
-Is there a rule for Dropping large rocks? Yes, I missed that one because we never used it much. Now, a player must drop a 1200 pound rock to be effective at 10ft? Are you kidding me? A small pebble thrown by a sling does a hell of a lot more damage without requiring to be 200+ pounds. The rule exists I give you that, but it is a ridiculous number you need to be able to do basic 1d6 damage.
- Step 1, moving. Step 2, Breaking an Item (usually considered a STANDARD Action). Step 3, Overru.... wait, we don't have an Action left, you cannot move then attack (break window) then move again in this edition. Crap.... Also note that I said move through enemies space NOT attack enemy. A Overrun is an attack on someone, which is Not what I specified.

Now lets look at your Tumble requirement. In 3e you are specifying a very dex based character with Tumble and Jump abilities to do this. Great, what about the Wizard? Nope, its Trained Only Tumbling!.... What about a Str Fighter? Possible, but highly unlikely since his movement will probably have been reduced by armor. Also I note that you either use heavy dex based chars or high level chars, all trying to give yourself proof you can do it. In 5e, (and again, technically in 3e if DMs are willing to put books down for a story) it could be attempted by any character with even a high level DC. DC 20 being pretty hard in 5e, a Wizard with a +1 Dex has a 10% chance, even at a +0 has a small chance. Now in 3e, you require a minimum of 10 levels or Feats to be able to have a Wizard get a +5 to their skill check. So we have a lvl 10 Wizard who can do what a lvl 1 Wizard can in 5e.

Overrun. Great when you are moving, except it says nothing about Overrunning the Window and even if you did, you can't use it twice in a turn. So, you either have a character stop and attack the window, ending his movement but breaking it. Or he could Overrun the Window and then bounce immediately back in his same space since the enemy is right in the 5ft square behind it. Either way, the rules as stated do not allow you to bust through an object and over an enemy without using Tumble (which I just proved most characters who are Not dexy will not have high enough)

You remembered every single +2/-2 from every rule we just discussed. You remembered when you can and cannot use those rules? (Well, obviously not since you gave me links that will not work in the scenarios I gave). You remembered them in enough detail to be able to decide to do them without slowing combat? Even if You can remember all the rules, not everyone (most in fact) do not have a fine grasp of every rule in the books. They might know something would be cool to do but unless they knew the specific rules or the DM allows things that are not in the rules they won't even ask about them after the first 2-3 times of slowing combat by 10 minutes.

You are now claiming that a person asking questions to a DM takes just as long as looking through a book for specific rules that might or might not exist? Not only that, but flipping through Multiple books because who knows if they added in during a later Splat book instead of the PHB or DMG. A DM saying "hmmm..... Sure but it is hard" is a heck of a lot faster then "One sec, I know the rule is here somewhere on page XX, let me just look it up completely so I can make sure this idea will work...... cool, it can.... now I .... wait, you want to read the rules too to make sure you as a DM understand it? Here, ..... ..... "

Finally, if you play with a DM for a few sessions and try out ideas, you pretty much know the DMs personality. Assuming he is a good consistent DM, he will either allow loads of things, allow some with thought or allow very few to none that are not in the rules. If after a few sessions you cannot figure this out, either you don't pay attention during the game or the DM is random and not a good DM. And yes, of course I am arguing for a game that works for me, if I didn't feel it worked for me then I would be playing something else and not spending time on this forum. Also note that I did state in previous posts that 3e Got this way after adding more and more rules. I loved playing 3e before all the splat books came out. I even actually enjoyed the extra class choices the splats gave and the extra spells. I was just someone who noticed all the groups I played with started getting more and more restrictive as more rules came out. Originally it was, "Sure go ahead and do this" then it became "Is there a rule somewhere for that?" to "Sorry, unless there is a rule, we won't allow it".

Finally, you try to pretend that I am claiming the game is superior to all others. That is pure BS. I can bet (and win) that there is not a single system out there today, in the past or in the future that will have everyone enjoy it completely. There will always be people who don't enjoy it for one reason or another (too hard, too easy, too fast, too slow, too simple, too complex... you name it there will be people who see it as all those things). I don't even say that 5e is the best Table Top Game out there, which would be a ridiculous claim since I haven't played most of the TTgames out there.

Note: I get so tired of people who want a game with all the rules instead of an awesome story in game form. DnD is both and neither at the same time. I prefer a Story that we get to act out in Game form while you seem to prefer a Game that has some story to it. I see DnD as a way to have a crazy fantasy character run around doing things, nothing more. As a DM, I allow things that are far and away not in the book and as a player I attempt things that are far and away from the book. Why do I do this? After playing DnD for so many years with limits to the rules and feeling less and less imaginative, I decide to say screw it and just try things that only new players seem to try. It has greatly increased the enjoyment for me and all the groups who I game with (In the past I have played 4 games a week consistently, alas though, down to 2 consistently now)

[Totema]

This is about the dozenth or so "I play this system, would I like 5e?" thread I've seen in the past week or two, and the answer will invariably be to check out the free rules set and decide for yourself. We need to make it a sticky or something like a general forum FAQ that has a direct link to WotC's page for it.

[akaddk]

This is about the dozenth or so "I play this system, would I like 5e?" thread I've seen in the past week or two, and the answer will invariably be to check out the free rules set and decide for yourself. We need to make it a sticky or something like a general forum FAQ that has a direct link to WotC's page for it.

inorite!

I upvote this post.

[Lokiare]

Not to mention that if you try and do something outside of the box, the players and DM's all pipe up with, "But statistically you'd be better off doing this other, really boring thing that you've done a thousand times before!"

Ugh.

We don't make the rules we just break them... Into tiny pieces and make DMs cry.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Reply to hawklost, spoilered for length:


-Is there a rule for wrapping someone up in a carpet? Nope, there are entagle rules, there are grapple rules, there are even improvised weapon rules, but none that allow a PC to wrap someone up in a carpet Without DM Deciding its Allowed.

That's like saying "There are no rules for hitting someone with a sword, only rules for making attacks!" If you want to do something to someone in combat with an object that isn't a weapon, you use the improvised weapon rules. That's what "improvised weapon" means. If a DM says you can't use an improvised weapon as an improvised weapon, or adds a restriction against combat maneuvers that isn't in the rules, then he's going against the rules and you can point that out.


Funny how this works, you claim to only use Core books then have to pull out Splat books to prove your point. Proving that you require more and more rules to do something that before was DM calls.

It doesn't require Complete Warrior at all, I used that as a secondary citation in case you said "But the rules don't explicitly say you can use a carpet as an improvised weapon"...like you just did above. Note also that the Complete Warrior improvised weapon section is about suggesting strategies for warrior characters: it's not introducing a new subsystem, it's pointing out "Hey, here's some cool stuff you can do with the rules."


-Is there a rule for Dropping large rocks? Yes, I missed that one because we never used it much.

And this is basically my whole point: pretty much everyone arguing "you can't do X in 3e but you can in 5e" just didn't read the rules for it in 3e. And, frankly, it's kind of inexcusable; if you want to see if you can use a falling object to do damage, it makes a lot of sense to look under a Falling Objects header in the section about interacting with your environment before saying there are no rules for it, don't you think?


Now, a player must drop a 1200 pound rock to be effective at 10ft? Are you kidding me? A small pebble thrown by a sling does a hell of a lot more damage without requiring to be 200+ pounds.

1) A 1200-pound rock isn't "effective," it's "better than your weapon by far," since you were asking why anyone would bother with dropping rocks when you can always do more damage with your weapon and I was pointing out a case where you can do more damage, a lot more, with the rocks.

2) The small pebble is being accelerated a lot faster than gravity's 9.8 m/s2. Tell me, what does more damage to your kitchen floor: a plate accidentally knocked off the countertop, or a plate hurled at the ground with your full strength? The latter, obviously. That's why a heavy catapult deals 6d6 damage (the same amount as the 1200-pound rock dropped from less than 10 feet) despite only hurling a ~45-pound projectile.


- Step 1, moving. Step 2, Breaking an Item (usually considered a STANDARD Action). Step 3, Overru.... wait, we don't have an Action left, you cannot move then attack (break window) then move again in this edition. Crap....

Ah, you want to break the window and overrun the enemy in the same turn? I thought those were two separate examples, since you were talking about "running all out" without mentioning the window again.

If you want to dive through the window and move through the enemy on the same turn, use Tumble. I'm sure you've noticed that people making dashing entrances through the window tend to crash through, somersault to recover, and then usually leap up dashingly with rapier in hand, which is what Standard Action: Break Window + Move Action: Tumble looks like. Overrun is for when you're running at someone who's actively trying to block you.


Also note that I said move through enemies space NOT attack enemy. A Overrun is an attack on someone, which is Not what I specified.

An overrun is only an attack if they actively try to block you:


Step 2
Opponent Avoids? The defender has the option to simply avoid you. If he avoids you, he doesn’t suffer any ill effect and you may keep moving (You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by.) The overrun attempt doesn’t count against your actions this round (except for any movement required to enter the opponent’s square).


In 3e you are specifying a very dex based character with Tumble and Jump abilities to do this. Great, what about the Wizard? Nope, its Trained Only Tumbling!.... What about a Str Fighter? Possible, but highly unlikely since his movement will probably have been reduced by armor.

What about the wizard or heavily-armored fighter? Crashing through windows and rushing past opponents is something swashbuckler-y characters tend to do; heavy-armor fighters would probably bash through the window and keep on swinging, and wizards would probably hit both the window and the opponents with a lightning bolt or something.

You might as well complain "In 5e you have to specify a very martially-based character with class features to get lots of weapon attacks. Great, what about the Wizard? Nope, it's Fighter-Only Multiple Attacks! What about a Paladin? They get some attacks, but not as many as the fighter." You have to realize that "being good at skills" is essentially a class feature of roguish classes, so it's not surprising that to get a near-automatic success rate with a swashbuckling stunt you need to be a swashbuckling class.

And yes, we're talking near-automatic chances, not merely attempting it. If a 5% or 10% success rate is good enough for you, the equivalent of a 5e wizard proficient in Acrobatics is a 1st-level 3e wizard with max ranks in Tumble (2, since it's cross-class)...which, with the +3 Dex he'll probably have because wizards really only care about Int and Dex, gives him a +5 at 1st level. If this wizard cares about swashbuckling at all, Dex increases and skill-boosting spells are easy for him to get, to the point that he can outdo not only a 5e wizard but a 5e rogue in swashbuckling stunts.


You remembered every single +2/-2 from every rule we just discussed. You remembered when you can and cannot use those rules? (Well, obviously not since you gave me links that will not work in the scenarios I gave). You remembered them in enough detail to be able to decide to do them without slowing combat? Even if You can remember all the rules, not everyone (most in fact) do not have a fine grasp of every rule in the books. They might know something would be cool to do but unless they knew the specific rules or the DM allows things that are not in the rules they won't even ask about them after the first 2-3 times of slowing combat by 10 minutes.

Yes, I did remember all the various rules about these things--which don't include tons of fiddly +2/-2s, by the way, as much as that's the 3e stereotype. That's one of the benefits of standardized rules: combat maneuvers have the same general structure, size modifiers are universal and regular, etc., so not only are they easy to remember if you see the structure, but making rules for maneuvers not already covered is nice and straightforward. Not as straightforward as "pick an attribute, apply advantage/disadvantage, done," granted, but if you actually care about pushing around a massive creature being harder than pushing around a small one or the like, it's worth the minor additional effort.

And I'm wondering where you keep getting these 10-minute game stoppage examples. You want to interact with an object in your environment? Look in the Environment section. You want to do something in combat? Look in the Combat section. I can't do a test at the moment since I don't have any physical books on me, but flipping through pages until you see the "Combat" label on the side and then skimming for the combat maneuvers section shouldn't take anywhere near that long. As mentioned before I recently had to deal with teaching a half-dozen non-RPers 3e from scratch, and from when they started to when they started remembering these rules it didn't take them more than a minute or two, tops, to look things up.


You are now claiming that a person asking questions to a DM takes just as long as looking through a book for specific rules that might or might not exist? Not only that, but flipping through Multiple books because who knows if they added in during a later Splat book instead of the PHB or DMG. A DM saying "hmmm..... Sure but it is hard" is a heck of a lot faster then "One sec, I know the rule is here somewhere on page XX, let me just look it up completely so I can make sure this idea will work...... cool, it can.... now I .... wait, you want to read the rules too to make sure you as a DM understand it? Here, ..... ..... "

One benefit of the rules being standardized in the books is that you can look them up when it's not your turn, something I encourage my players to do so all of their turns go faster. Parallel processing for the win. :smallwink:


Finally, if you play with a DM for a few sessions and try out ideas, you pretty much know the DMs personality.
[...]
I was just someone who noticed all the groups I played with started getting more and more restrictive as more rules came out. Originally it was, "Sure go ahead and do this" then it became "Is there a rule somewhere for that?" to "Sorry, unless there is a rule, we won't allow it".

See the issue there with consistency? It's not just splatbooks coming out that can cause DMs to change their minds. I've seen DMs make similar tasks harder after a while because they didn't like PCs over-using the same tricks (heck, I've seen DMs complain that PCs were spamming the same feats, powers, and spells too much, much less improvised tricks), because they thought they made it too easy the first time, because the situation is different ("Last time you tumbled through a dumb giant's legs, this time it's a skilled elven warrior!"), or for other reasons. I've also seen them make similar tasks easier because they want a certain plan to succeed, because a given PC "should obviously" be able to do something even if they suck at it by the rules, and for other reasons.

A DM changing his mind isn't necessarily being spiteful, he's just being human.


Finally, you try to pretend that I am claiming the game is superior to all others.

Nope, I said you're claiming that you can do a few particular things in 5e that you can't in 3e (which is objectively false) and that leaving everything up to the DM is better for the game than having rules (which can be true for some groups but isn't universal by any means), that's all. As you were presenting 5e's method as the better one and saying "the more rules that came out, the more the [3e] players and DMs started not coming up with their own crazy ideas," I provided a counterpoint--and I, too, didn't claim that the 3e method is universally better, just that the implications it has within itself and versus 5e are not what you said they were.


I prefer a Story that we get to act out in Game form while you seem to prefer a Game that has some story to it.

:smallsigh: Yet another common sentiment, the idea that people who like crunchier rules prefer a game with "some" story attached, a thin veneer of flavor over "roll-playing." (I'm sure that's not what you meant to imply, but it's still irritating to see it characterized that way.)

I, and my group, also like coming up with crazy plans in D&D (and pretty much every other game we play), and we also rule in and homebrew up tons of stuff not in the books. The difference is that we see concrete rules as enabling more creativity than they prevent. Having actual rules that tell you how long and expensive it is to make a fortress (for which there are plenty of customization rules), outfit followers with arms and equipment, and make a sweet airship to head up your Flying Army of Doom, rather than just "ask your DM," can inspire lots of ideas and let you fiddle around with things between sessions which creates more engagement with the game.

If DM fiat is like a bunch of clay, crunchier rules are like Legos. You can see this even just looking at the long and detailed spell and magic item lists typical of D&D, as opposed to Ars Magica's "you have general skills in this type of magic, ask your GM what works" magic system and Fate's "here are the few perks an item can do, but you can say the item itself is whatever you want" item system. Would people have come up with the Psionic Sandwich trick, or decanter of endless water-powered jetpacks, or similar crazy ideas if they were starting from a blank lump of clay instead of fiddly around with a bunch of rules Legos seeing how they fit together? Maybe. But even if they did, those tricks Just Work in a crunchier system and can be more fun to pull off--it's a lot more interesting to come up with an interesting way to use a decanter and do all the fun stuff yourself rather than just saying "I want to make a jetpack, so I'll take my Creo Ignem fire magic and ask the DM how to do it."

[Wolfsraine]

I am a dedicated D&D 3.5 player who was incredibly disappointed with 4th Edition as was my entire play group. Is 5th Edition worth our time and money to switch to?

If you're into building cool unique characters and optimization, this is not the edition you want to play. Stick with 3.5. I'm gonna give this game a little more time, but I really dislike how simplified everything is and how dumbed down the numbers are.

It's like, look at this awesome spell, THUNDERWAVE! Last night I run into a group of slaves and denounce their captors and cast this spell, that supposed to be awe inspiring. 4 damage. 2 damage to the ones that saved. Very anti-climactic. I suppose that's why I always preferred static damage bonuses. Either way, I'm not really having a blast with it atm so it just might not be the edition for me.

[Curbstomp]

Thank you all for the responses. I have checked out the 5.0/Next rules, but am still on the fence whether they are good for long-term campaigns. For those who have played more than a couple of games I was wondering if you thought the monetary investment is worth it in 5.0 D&D. Is it (in your opinion) good for long term fun? Or is D&D 5.0 more of a one-shot game to pull out once in a while?

[MustacheFart]

Having been a dedicated 3.5 player myself I can make it really simple.

Answer this question:

Which do you enjoy more, the customization/building of a unique character mechanically or the roleplaying of a character?

If your answer is roleplaying then give 5e a shot. If it's the former than 3.5 is where you should be.

5e is a streamlined (some called it dumbed down) version of 3.5. It improves a lot but primarily focuses on the roleplaying of a character in my opinion.

[Theodoxus]

That really depends a lot on your personal background, how much you've spent on other systems, the mastery you have with them - the amount of unlearning the complexity of 3.x/PF for example has been an interesting experience. One of my gamer friends loves 5E for it's ease of use, stating he's finally able to grok the rules, where in our PF games, he routinely asks for clarifications. Another one, who has pretty much complete mastery of PF, finds 5E to be too simplistic and is forever bouncing off the eased up restrictions, like moving and fighting, no CMB/D, etc. He's having a much harder time of it, and feel far more comfortable in the PF system.

As for myself, I'm planning on melding the two systems; using 3.x depth of options along with 5E simplified framework. A lot of the 5E concepts I'd previously planned on using, but having them nicely codified and hardbound will make incorporating them much easier.

Like any gaming system, you can put as much or little effort into it as you'd like. The starter set, for instance, makes a nice one-off session for an afternoon or two. It's self contained, if limited in scope. So, again, only you can answer your own question, is it worth it. But hopefully this will help formulate the answer.

[Sartharina]

For the second: Many people saying "you can't do X in 3e" don't really know the rules that well, because the examples you gave do indeed work in 3e:
Rolling someone up in a carpet? Grapple check to pin your target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#ifYoureGrappling), using an improvised weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#improvisedWeapons) (for which there are more detailed rules in Complete Warrior if you want them).
Dropping a rock on someone? Falling object rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#fallingObjects).
Diving through a window to go through an opponent's space? Low-DC Str check to bust through the window (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingItems) and a DC 25 Tumble check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm) (which should be fairly easy for a swashbuckler-y character who'd be inclined to do that in the first place).Grappling to pin is an awkward thing, and takes a LOT of actions - and, unless you're optimized for grappling, it's a 50% chance to fail on any subsequent round, no matter what you do. If you ARE optimized for grappling, there's never a chance of failure, or risk. It's an all-or-nothing thing. And, the Carpet hurts your attempt to try to pin that guy (-4 from Nonproficiency HURTS)
2. I can give you that one, but a rock does pitifully low damage, and lacks riders that are likely desirable (Such as pinning someone under it)
3. DC 25 is Trivially Easy for someone who's optimized for it, but Impossible for someone who's not, but attempts to grab a novel opportunity that presents itself. The rules tell the Extremely Agile Fighter (Dex 18) who lacks the skill points to put cross-class into Tumble to GTFO and go home when the opportunity presents itself. The course of action he'd actually want to take is an Overrun, but in 3.5 that incomprehensively eats the Standard Action instead of merely costing Difficult Terrain movement - In 3.5, a guy who's running desperately from guards and tries to barrel through someone in his way is force to walking speed to get through him.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Grappling to pin is an awkward thing, and takes a LOT of actions - and, unless you're optimized for grappling, it's a 50% chance to fail on any subsequent round, no matter what you do. If you ARE optimized for grappling, there's never a chance of failure, or risk.

It's one attack action for the grapple and one for the pin; if you can make multiple attacks, you can do it all on one turn. As for a 50% failure rate, that assumes identical size, BAB, and Str; a level 6 fighter vs. a level 6 rogue, for instance, is +6 BAB plus a likely +4 Str against a +4 BAB and a likely +1 Str, for a 75% success chance on each check for the fighter. And I would point out that any character who decides to pass up a normal attack to grab someone and stick them in a carpet in preference to, say, smacking them on the head with a sap or entangling them with magic is probably a burly sort who would be fairly good at grappling to start with.


It's an all-or-nothing thing. And, the Carpet hurts your attempt to try to pin that guy (-4 from Nonproficiency HURTS)

And it's the same nonproficiency penalty you'd get when trying any sort of improvised action as opposed to one you're trained in, so if you're reduced to carpet-bagging someone it's no worse than any other tactic, really. The same applies to 5e, where every character is more likely to have Weapon Proficiency (Whip) or Skill Proficiency (Athletics) or the like than Tool Proficiency (Carpet).


2. I can give you that one, but a rock does pitifully low damage, and lacks riders that are likely desirable (Such as pinning someone under it)

See my reply to hawklost: large rocks (like the kind you'd actually be using to hold off wall-scaling enemies as a castle defender, as the scenario posited) actually deal quite a lot of damage. Pinning someone with it isn't automatic--though note it's not automatic for a giant's club or a dragon's claws, either, in either edition :smallamused:--but there are rules for collapsing stone on someone with cave-ins and such which could be used.


3. DC 25 is Trivially Easy for someone who's optimized for it, but Impossible for someone who's not, but attempts to grab a novel opportunity that presents itself. The rules tell the Extremely Agile Fighter (Dex 18) who lacks the skill points to put cross-class into Tumble to GTFO and go home when the opportunity presents itself.

To avoid an armor check penalty and get full benefit from his 18 Dex for acrobatic stunts, the Extremely Agile Fighter must be unarmored and unencumbered. Why, if the EAF is the type to run around unarmored and unencumbered in combat, is he not trained in Tumble, considering that if he doesn't have a high enough armor bonus to fend of AoOs he'd need a high enough Tumble modifier to avoid provoking them in the first place? And if the EAF is wearing plate armor with his 18 Dex, why is he trying an acrobatic stunt in the first place instead of a more forceful approach?

Once again, complaining that this (fairly contrived) example is a mark against 3e and 5e is like complaining that the fact that only fighter types in 5e get multiple attacks per round is a mark against 5e and for 3e because you want rogues and martially-inclined clerics to get multiple attacks too. If you want your character to do lots of acrobatic stunts, make sure he's good at acrobatics. If you want your character to make lots of attacks, make sure he has abilities granting him multiple attacks. Just because a character should be able to attempt anything doesn't mean he should be able to easily succeed at everything--and note that (A) the same fighter in 5e only has a 25% chance of success, not exactly an action hero success rate and (B) 3e uses actual bonuses, so a common +2 circumstance bonus can take the task from "impossible" to "5% chance" while 5e uses advantage for pretty much everything so something at "impossible" stays at "impossible" most of the time.

And finally, the running-through-an-opponent example is a poor one because everyone is looking at it from the slippery character's perspective and not the defender's. It's difficult to just waltz around combat avoiding AoOs and going through opponents' spaces because martial characters and beefy creatures are supposed to be able to protect their teammates and need to be able to stop creatures from slipping past them; if the party rogue has an excellent chance to rush through a hobgoblin warrior's space to shank the goblin shaman in the back rank, it's just as easy for a goblin assassin to slip past the party fighter and murder the party wizard in their own back rank.


The course of action he'd actually want to take is an Overrun, but in 3.5 that incomprehensively eats the Standard Action instead of merely costing Difficult Terrain movement - In 3.5, a guy who's running desperately from guards and tries to barrel through someone in his way is force to walking speed to get through him.

You can always move through the space of someone who lets you through, and it doesn't even cost difficult terrain movement in that case. As already mentioned, Tumbling through a space and Overrunning an opponent is used against an opponent, that is, someone who is specifically trying to prevent you from getting past. If a guy is desperately running from guards and there are bystanders in the way, and he yells "Coming through!" and they don't try to stop him, he can just push past and keep running. If they do try to stop him because they're law-abiding citizens and he's clearly a dastardly criminal, why should he just be able to keep on going instead of having to take the time to wriggle around them or barrel over them?

[emeraldstreak]

5e is like a less-broken 3e. If that interests you, then it's definitely worth picking up. (And it's worth picking up anyway because it's the new D&D.)

QFT.





10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars 10 chars