my full 3.5 view of 5th edition

[Sploggle1]

Eventually I will release a video saying all of this but I will put this in a nut shell. And to clarify I run 3.5 but also use older elements. I am not a 3.5 fan boy, but that is the best new version of D&D so far. Pathfinder being a slight improvement here and their, but 3.5 being better than some
~Starting "Is 5e broken?" The question everyone asks. To 1,2,3,3.5 oh heck yes it is. If you put that 5e level 7 Rogue against a 3.5 version the 3.5 one will die, but If you run the game solely from 5e (Which I don't like, meaning scrap the 1,2,3 edition stuff) then it is not broken. Every class in 5e gets a huge buff at 17th level which is almost epic any way.
~The races I like the sub races, I don't like how their is no negatives for those races.
~The half elf finally got live in this edition however which I do like
~I also like how their are subtypes of the races without needing the MM
~The classes again if soley run on 5e don't look horribly broken, but get some really huge buffs from their archetypes, circles, paths, or fighting styles
~Barbarian got a buff now raging twice a day and not needing armor, druid got reduced losing a lot of it's old abilities, Rogue got loved yet again gaining a ton of abilities, Fighter is no longer a feat monger, and monk has been brought down just a touch which was needed. The ranger took a slight hit but an increase now getting spells at level 2 instead of 6.
~Personal issue (Where is my bardic knowledge, I loved it so much in 3.5)
~The xp is even lower in 5e giving the warcraft generation even more incentive to play. second being 300, 3rd being 900 and so on getting beyond 3.5 at 6th level. (This is not a reason not to buy it because xp is an easy thing to tweak)
~The Armor is something I personally don't like. I understand some having a dex limit, but the paladins are going to take a major hit only being allowed 18 ac with that armor and no dex bonus allowed.
~Sheilds (Guess what a sheild) no wood, steel, tower exc just sheild)
~Weapons you have hardly a selection in and the halflings are cheated out of a lot of them due to the heavy addition to 5th. No sizable weapons being small or medium like 3.5 just heavy. You also only half half that you could choose from in 3.5
~Adventuring gear is much the same except for the cluster of random prices.
~The feats got slashed and for a good reason. All the feats give the characters major buffs that a 3.5 player would go (Gimmie, gimmie)
~The spells I don't like, It's almost like they tried to re right every spell and make it toward a pc gamer mentality (Or warcraft generation) Cantrips can now do damage... a lot. one spell called fire bolt a d10 at level 0. And even better it gets more powerful the more levels you go. A good tenth of the spells are set up this way.
~Healing I do not like in this edition It goes toward the warcraft generation again. Now you can regain all your health on a full rest... im sorry but no
~Lastly you cannot transfer old character unless you want to spend hours reworking them from the ground up due to the mechanics being completely different.
~All and all is it a good product (Better than the last edition yes, but needs some improvement. It is definitely a step in the right direction) 3.5 out of 5

[TheOOB]

A quick note, your post is very difficult to read. A lack of paragraph breaks makes it difficult to see where one though begins and another ends.

Another thing, I think the very premise you're starting with is unfair. I feel like you're not treating 5e as it's own edition built from the ground up, but rather as some kind of mod or variant of 3.5. Comparing how a 5e rogue vs a 3.5 rogue would fair in a fight with eachother is meaningless and unhelpful. There are built under completely different rules systems, and other then some thematic and basic mechanical similarities they are very different from one another.

As for other issues you presented, while bardic knowledge isn't a thing, bards are proficient in three skills, half proficient in every skill, and with the college of lore they are proficient in three other skills and they have expertise, they can have as much knowledge as you want.

The XP system is different. I feel like the term "warcraft generation" is used in a pejorative fashion, which is silly because it would be silly to ignore the success of WoW, one of the best selling games of all time. It is true the first two levels go fast(about 1 session a piece), which goes into the 5e idea that levels 1-4 your "apprentice adventurers", still learning the skills that make you you. Later levels have a progression rate more like you may be used too.

For armor, while not liking that heavy armor doesn't allow for a dex bonus is a matter of personal preference, the game balance is pretty clear. Without magic you can only have a dex of 20, or a +5 bonus, which means it is impossible to get as high an AC with light or medium armor as with heavy. For shields, shield material hasn't had a mechanical effect for several editions, and in 3.5 90% of shield users just used a heavy shield, so they just streamlined things.

The weapons are a common gripe of the system, they were simplified and streamlined. Some players like it, some don't. Small races don't get as good of ability to use large weapons, which is consistent with how 3.5 did things.

Healing is also a matter of preference, but remember that a)hit points don't represent actual physical damage, and b)D&D is heroic fantasy and not the most gritty game system. There are good systems that model more realistic healing. D&D is more Conan, and less Song of Ice and Fire.

I am fairly certain there has been no edition of D&D where you could transfer a character from one edition to another, even for 3.0 to 3.5 it was better to rebuild your character from the ground up than it was to try to transfer them over.

[Sploggle1]

"Another thing, I think the very premise you're starting with is unfair. I feel like you're not treating 5e as it's own edition built from the ground up, but rather as some kind of mod or variant of 3.5. Comparing how a 5e rogue vs a 3.5 rogue would fair in a fight with eachother is meaningless and unhelpful. There are built under completely different rules systems, and other then some thematic and basic mechanical similarities they are very different from one another."

I am treating 5e as is own edition for one reason. If you look at 3.5 and then at 5 it appears broken when it's not. The same for 1e and 2e players. I am not denying that it has variants from 1,2,3 and 4e. But with this being a "Quad" system they had to find a balance and rewrite a lot of the old rules which don't make it it's own edition for say, but in other ways it does.

[pwykersotz]

"Another thing, I think the very premise you're starting with is unfair. I feel like you're not treating 5e as it's own edition built from the ground up, but rather as some kind of mod or variant of 3.5. Comparing how a 5e rogue vs a 3.5 rogue would fair in a fight with eachother is meaningless and unhelpful. There are built under completely different rules systems, and other then some thematic and basic mechanical similarities they are very different from one another."

I am treating 5e as is own edition for one reason. If you look at 3.5 and then at 5 it appears broken when it's not. The same for 1e and 2e players. I am not denying that it has variants from 1,2,3 and 4e. But with this being a "Quad" system they had to find a balance and rewrite a lot of the old rules which don't make it it's own edition for say, but in other ways it does.

To address one point, you level faster initially, but then it slows down. If you look at the top end, it takes nearly twice as much exp to hit level 20 in 5e than it did in 3.5.

[Falka]

(Scrubbed)

[MadBear]

Hey OP,

I'm getting the feeling that you're having trouble conveying your thoughts, either due to being a non-native English Speaker, young, etc.

With that said, your comparison is horribly flawed. You don't get to mix editions together to see if one is broken or not. A game being broken or not is entirely dependent on how it works within the system, not by pitting it against other systems.

You speak of the paladin's armor for example. An 18 AC is not what it was in 3.5. Do to bounded accuracy, you don't need a 25+ AC to compete in the AC game anymore. All modifiers are now smaller so that it isn't a race game in terms of to-hit vs AC.

In terms of not being able to transfer characters easily.... well yeah, it's 2 editions out from 3.5, and was never said to be backward's compatible.

Finally, in terms of spells. It's not a warcraft thing so much, as it's a better way to balance the spellcasters. Now spellcasters have far fewer spells, but cantrips allow them to contribute without resorting to "i pull out my crossbow" from from levels 1-5.


If you look at 3.5 and then at 5 it appears broken when it's not. The same for 1e and 2e players. I am not denying that it has variants from 1,2,3 and 4e. But with this being a "Quad" system they had to find a balance and rewrite a lot of the old rules which don't make it it's own edition for say, but in other ways it does.

First, this seems flatly wrong. A 3.5 character would pretty much murder any 5th edition character, since their attacks, abilities, AC, magic items, would be exponentially higher then a 5th edition character. Second, I don't know what you mean when you say "quad" system. The systems aren't interchangable. They don't connect to eachother, and they're not supposed to compete with eachother.

[rlc]

~Starting "Is 5e broken?" The question everyone asks. To 1,2,3,3.5 oh heck yes it is. If you put that 5e level 7 Rogue against a 3.5 version the 3.5 one will die, but If you run the game solely from 5e (Which I don't like, meaning scrap the 1,2,3 edition stuff) then it is not broken. Every class in 5e gets a huge buff at 17th level which is almost epic any way. I've always hated the way people on the internet use the term "broken" when talking about games, but this has to be the weirdest use of the term ever. This is a different game, so the power level is supposed to be different. That being said, at least you're not complaining about how there's less power inflation than previous versions.

~The races I like the sub races, I don't like how their is no negatives for those races.
~The half elf finally got live in this edition however which I do like
~I also like how their are subtypes of the races without needing the MM
I'm sure they'll be releasing other subraces in other books, but I agree, they introduced them right this time around.

~The classes again if soley run on 5e don't look horribly broken, but get some really huge buffs from their archetypes, circles, paths, or fighting styles
~Barbarian got a buff now raging twice a day and not needing armor, druid got reduced losing a lot of it's old abilities, Rogue got loved yet again gaining a ton of abilities, Fighter is no longer a feat monger, and monk has been brought down just a touch which was needed. The ranger took a slight hit but an increase now getting spells at level 2 instead of 6.
~Personal issue (Where is my bardic knowledge, I loved it so much in 3.5)
different game, different stuff. They're revamping everything.

~The xp is even lower in 5e giving the warcraft generation even more incentive to play. second being 300, 3rd being 900 and so on getting beyond 3.5 at 6th level. (This is not a reason not to buy it because xp is an easy thing to tweak)
The intention was a flatter system and for weaker monsters to still be a viable threat to stronger characters. I like it.

~The Armor is something I personally don't like. I understand some having a dex limit, but the paladins are going to take a major hit only being allowed 18 ac with that armor and no dex bonus allowed.
~Sheilds (Guess what a sheild) no wood, steel, tower exc just sheild)
~Weapons you have hardly a selection in and the halflings are cheated out of a lot of them due to the heavy addition to 5th. No sizable weapons being small or medium like 3.5 just heavy. You also only half half that you could choose from in 3.5
~Adventuring gear is much the same except for the cluster of random prices.Heavy armor also lets you ignore dex penalties.
There has been a lot of talk about weapons and armor on this forum and some people want more and some even think that with the way they did it, there should be less. Personally, I just think different weapons and armor should have different stats.
And I'm sure there will be more types of shields later.
I have nothing o ad about adventuring gear.

~The feats got slashed and for a good reason. All the feats give the characters major buffs that a 3.5 player would go (Gimmie, gimmie)
Yes, but I think it's the other way around. Feats as more powerful because you get fewer of them and you have to make a choice between that and a normal ability score increase.

~The spells I don't like, It's almost like they tried to re right every spell and make it toward a pc gamer mentality (Or warcraft generation) Cantrips can now do damage... a lot. one spell called fire bolt a d10 at level 0. And even better it gets more powerful the more levels you go. A good tenth of the spells are set up this way.
~Healing I do not like in this edition It goes toward the warcraft generation again. Now you can regain all your health on a full rest... im sorry but no
I don't see a problem with any of this. They wanted wizards to be able to still do things when they use up all of their spell slots. They also wanted Playing a party without a cleric to be viable.

~Lastly you cannot transfer old character unless you want to spend hours reworking them from the ground up due to the mechanics being completely different.
But at the same time, it takes considerably less time to convert from 3.5 to 5 than it would take to go the other way around. It would sometimes even take hours just to make a character from scratch in 3.5.

[HorridElemental]

But at the same time, it takes considerably less time to convert from 3.5 to 5 than it would take to go the other way around. It would sometimes even take hours just to make a character from scratch in 3.5.

Oh my, yes this.

Although I can make 3.P characters (10th -15th level) quickly, I know a ton of people that spent literally 10 hours making a 12th level wizard.

Someday 5e may take longer to make a PC but right now it is nowhere near 3.P.

[Sartharina]

I find D&D 5e to be MUCH better and more intuitive than 3e on almost all fronts.

Rogues and monks get the biggest systematic changes and overhauls. Pathfinder gave those classes a boost, but undermined the system they were built on and shoehorned them hard, locking them solidly into Tier 4 or 5 (Only one good, boring thing: Stand and deliver WTFPWNT damage.) The new system has constrained the damage output, but given them much-needed mobility and removed all their feat taxes - Dont' need Dual Wielding, because that's baked in. Don't need Finesse, because that's also baked in, and also applies to damage! And attack-move-attack allows them to actually feel mobile in combat. A mid-level monk, for example, can punch a guy, stun them, move, punch another guy, stun them, move, punch a third guy, stun them, and get the hell out of dodge and let his team mop up the mess.

Fighters and barbarians are no longer Uberchargers, but they stack up against the system well. They also have a lot of much-needed survivability, and no longer have the game struggling to keep up with them numerically (And causing it to leave others in the dust AC, Attack Bonus, and HP wise). They're also pretty mobile thanks to the system's changes.

Wizards have significantly fewer game-breaking spell slots, but their Arcane Recovery and Unlimited Cantrips means they don't need to rest as often to get those powers back.

The Bounded accuracy means that large, low-level parties can try to take on what would otherwise be high-level challenges, and, with a bit of luck, planning, and strategy, pull off a surprising (But likely costly) victory. You DON'T need to be level 15 to save the world from Orcus if you're feeling heroic enough, but being level 15 certainly helps. It also lets what would otherwise be 'low-level' adventures remain fun even at high levels. ("Hey, we never did get around to looting the Tomb of the Necrorancher" - "Wasn't that a level 3 module? We're level 9 now" "Let's do it anyway. It'll still be fun! We just do it as a few encounters now instead of a full adventure path.")

[HorridElemental]

Sadly if you are playing a Non-Caster you are playing a striker. I hope, without feats, we get some defender action soon.

Everything seems about who can dish out the most damage, a la rocket tag, than setting up interesting combats.

Unless you have a caster that is.

[Sartharina]

Monks are also controllers, and everyone has the durability to take their own hits.

[HorridElemental]

Monks are also controllers, and everyone has the durability to take their own hits.

Taking hits isn't what being a defender is. That is being a meat shield. The battle master had potential to be a defender but ended up a striker instead (goading attack is nice but after a few levels becomes lack luster).

Monks do have some controller action, but they need some throwing (Setting Sun) stuff and tweaking (moar Ki) for my taste but I do like them.

[Sartharina]

Being a defender means stopping others from taking hits. A very localized controller.

[Theodoxus]

Sadly if you are playing a Non-Caster you are playing a striker. I hope, without feats, we get some defender action soon.

Everything seems about who can dish out the most damage, a la rocket tag, than setting up interesting combats.

Unless you have a caster that is.

My human fighter with Sentinel going battlemaster for defender maneuvers, grabbing HAM at 4th and Shield Master at 6th is very much a defender. Even at 1st level, I was shoving opponents down, allowing both the warlock and rogue to range attack with advantage. My sword and board style didn't do a lot of damage, but nothing was moving past me, and getting a free attack as a reaction when a baddie struck at the monk was pure joy.

No, there are definitely defender capabilities available, and it's a very fun and satisfying playstyle. I'm quite happy I decided to go that way.

[HorridElemental]

My human fighter with Sentinel going battlemaster for defender maneuvers, grabbing HAM at 4th and Shield Master at 6th is very much a defender. Even at 1st level, I was shoving opponents down, allowing both the warlock and rogue to range attack with advantage. My sword and board style didn't do a lot of damage, but nothing was moving past me, and getting a free attack as a reaction when a baddie struck at the monk was pure joy.

No, there are definitely defender capabilities available, and it's a very fun and satisfying playstyle. I'm quite happy I decided to go that way.

Feats are optional, I want something in the core class that I don't need to get special permission from the DM to use.

As I said in the post you quoted...

"I hope, without feats, we get some defender action soon."

[Jacob.Tyr]

My human fighter with Sentinel going battlemaster for defender maneuvers, grabbing HAM at 4th and Shield Master at 6th is very much a defender. Even at 1st level, I was shoving opponents down, allowing both the warlock and rogue to range attack with advantage. My sword and board style didn't do a lot of damage, but nothing was moving past me, and getting a free attack as a reaction when a baddie struck at the monk was pure joy.

No, there are definitely defender capabilities available, and it's a very fun and satisfying playstyle. I'm quite happy I decided to go that way.
Yeah, Sentinel kicks ass. I really want to play a sentinel, Polearm mastery Battle Master. I didn't consider knocking enemies prone who were close enough for ranged attacks to benefit from advantage against prone enemies, but I'm now not sure if the reach is as much an edge as I thought.

[Falka]

Yeah, Sentinel kicks ass. I really want to play a sentinel, Polearm mastery Battle Master. I didn't consider knocking enemies prone who were close enough for ranged attacks to benefit from advantage against prone enemies, but I'm now not sure if the reach is as much an edge as I thought.

Combine it also with the Mageslayer feat and all the "Wizards are OP" rant goes down the drain.

Polearm Sentinels are really strong in this edition.

You can also go Eldritch Knight and combine some cantrips (Shocking Grasp for instance) with your fighting.

[hymer]

if the reach is as much an edge as I thought.

Getting an AoO when people gets within range, and them being reduced to movement 0 if you hit... I think the extra reach is worth it in a lot of cases. :smallsmile:

[rlc]

an eldritch knight with mage slayer might be even nicer because he can teleport over to the wizard, use his tons of attacks and get an opportunity attack no matter what happens. then again, that's more not defending, either.

[Pex]

The good thing about 5E I can say is I can play it. I still prefer Pathfinder, even 3E. There are some aspects of 5E I don't like (point buy, skills, spell slots). However, if an opportunity arose to play a 5E game, I could do so. I could not say the same of 4E. 5E has the versatility and differences of classes I like. Since there's only the PHB there is some limitation of choices, but I don't hold that against the game. Future books should expand them.