Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

StreamOfTheSky

2014-10-18, 12:45 PM

It's hard for me to compare the two because I have such little interest in 5E, I can't even be bothered to keep up on it in order to criticize it anymore. The long (3 year?) development time and constant little changes and new versions that all sounded unappealing did a good job of sapping any will I had to investigate into it. I'd suggest (reading; I don't even post there) the gaming den if you can handle more vulgar/aggressive posting style and want to see the absolute worst complaints that people can come up with about 5E. They will tear down and neurotically examine anything, and their 5E threads are all pretty long last I checked. Anyway, from what little I know of 5E...
- Having +1, -1 ability modifiers is a bad idea unless 5E scrapped the "bonuses on even numbers" thing, but I'm pretty sure they didn't
- Removing skills and basing things on ability checks (and abilities cap at 20 for +5) means the random luck of a d20 will always matter far more than how specialized you are at something
- Races look even more unbalanced than 3.5 ones, with some having net stat gains and pretty much every class having an ideal racial choice based on stats

3E offers a ton of customization and options, the unified d20 mechanic, a rich selection of skills and gradients of proficiency in them.... If you're familiar with 3E, you should already know what it has to offer. If you think "not much" I suspect it's because you've had nearly 15 years to scrutinize it and focus in on all its faults. 5E will surely lose its luster to you as well once it ceases to be shiny and new and untested. Any rules system will.

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-18, 12:46 PM

Frankly, it doesn't matter which system is better, so long as everyone plays the system (or systems!) that they most enjoy. I'm a big fan of huge systems with lots of interlocking, overly-complicated parts, so I'm naturally drawn to 3.5/PF. I don't yet know enough about 5e to figure out what I do and don't like about it, though.

ETA: For the record, I think 3.5 is better currently and will remain better for some time, at least in particular areas, but I don't really have anything concrete to back that up :smalltongue:

Psyren

2014-10-18, 12:48 PM

Speaking for myself:

1) It's still too "rules light" for my tastes. For example, the 5e Stealth rules don't provide any real guidance on cover (including moving between cover), hiding in crowds, sniping, or leaving cover to sneak up on a creature. Many of these situations are simply left up to DM discretion; but I don't buy a rulebook for it to tell me I have the final say, I already know that. I buy one to give me an impartial and playtested way of calculating the outcome. I would rather tweak something a designer came up with, than come up with a bunch of houserules that I can't count on being the same from table to table.

2) Advantage/Disadvantage, while fast, sacrifices too much nuance for my tastes. Someone who is firing at me in a dark room has the exact same penalties as someone firing at me in a dark room while squeezing through a tiny opening, and suffering from poison. Worse, if he then casts Faerie Fire on me to make me visible, that somehow negates the fact that he is squeezing and poisoned and all the modifiers cancel out.

3) I don't like that there are 6 saving throws - it's nearly impossible to make a character who is strong at all of them.

4) This one relates more to PF than 3.5, but the big draw is that PF is free (and more importantly, open - not the same thing) while 5e is not. If they have no plans to make it open at all, I'm not going to invest in it. I want to know that I don't have to buy new supplements every time a new spell or feat comes out that I want to discuss so I can see the exact wording for myself. I want SRDs and Wikis that won't get takedown notices if they post anything from outside of Basic. I want a variety of apps and tools. So far, 5e is not poised to deliver on any of these.

OldTrees1

2014-10-18, 12:56 PM

4) 3.5 allowed an Nth level character to have skills at a variety of levels. This granularity is absent from 5E.

Anlashok

2014-10-18, 01:32 PM

Seriously? The main argument for why 3.5 is better than 5e is because the game that is so new it doesn't even have a DMG out yet has less option than a game that has had material published for it for over 8 years (14 years now if you count PF and other d20 third party materials)?

You've missed the point. It's less the game not being new enough and more that the death of character customization is a built in feature of the game. It's a central, core mechanic of 5e.

Twilightwyrm

2014-10-18, 01:35 PM

The huge gap between the optimization floor and optimization ceiling in 3.5 rendered more options worthless than it left viable.

Yes and no. If you are aiming for the highest levels of optimization, than I would be inclined to agree with you, and 5e's (comparatively) balanced approach may work better for doing so in this regard (this will remain to be seen). On the other hand, depending on where you are your group play within that gap, a great many options become perfectly viable. Additionally, greater options that are meant to be combined with one another practically necessitates that many options, just based on what they were designed to work with and not work with, become non-viable. But that's not really the point, is it? The point is how we wish to define "meaningful options".

StreamOfTheSky

2014-10-18, 01:57 PM

Ansem

2014-10-18, 01:58 PM

There's really nothing to be reminded about, if you want to settle for less by all means do play 5e or any other edition. your choice.

Sartharina

2014-10-18, 02:10 PM

You've missed the point. It's less the game not being new enough and more that the death of character customization is a built in feature of the game. It's a central, core mechanic of 5e.

I find character customization in 5e to be much better - and characters function right out of the gate in 5e instead of having to wait until martial characters are worthless before they can do anything decent.

Galen

2014-10-18, 02:15 PM

The only reason I'm playing 3.5 right now is that I have an ongoing campaign that's been running for almost two years, and we don't want to neither kill it nor change systems mid-campaign. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered with 3.5 anymore.

Seerow

2014-10-18, 02:17 PM

I find character customization in 5e to be much better - and characters function right out of the gate in 5e instead of having to wait until martial characters are worthless before they can do anything decent.

1st level 5e characters are literally defined by pick race and class. You don't even get a feat until 4th level, and that's if you don't multiclass, and aren't compelled to give up that feat for a stat boost.

You can make the argument 5e is more balanced than 3e. Claiming it has better customization is ludicrous.

Petrocorus

2014-10-18, 02:29 PM

Speaking for myself:
3) I don't like that there are 6 saving throws - it's nearly impossible to make a character who is strong at all of them.

That remind me of 1st and 2nd edition saves, 6 or 7 saves, based on the source of attack (one against wand, one against spell, one against breath, etc..) Nearly incomprehensible for new players. 3rd ed was so much better. That was one of the thing that attracted me to 3.0 when people were still playing 1 and 2.

4) I want SRDs and Wikis that won't get takedown notices if they post anything from outside of Basic. I want a variety of apps and tools. So far, 5e is not poised to deliver on any of these.
If there are no SRD and no Wiki, they will have to compete against their own 3.5 and against PF. That one of the mistake they made with 4, i hope they're not stupid enough to repeat it.

- Removing skills and basing things on ability checks (and abilities cap at 20 for +5) means the random luck of a d20 will always matter far more than how specialized you are at something

That also remind me of 2nd ed and its non-martial proficiencies. Another thing 3.5 did well and that they shouldn't change.

3E offers a ton of customization and options, the unified d20 mechanic, a rich selection of skills and gradients of proficiency in them.... If you're familiar with 3E, you should already know what it has to offer. If you think "not much" I suspect it's because you've had nearly 15 years to scrutinize it and focus in on all its faults. 5E will surely lose its luster to you as well once it ceases to be shiny and new and untested. Any rules system will.

In My not-so-Humble-in-this-case Opinion, 3.5 core rules were very good, 3.5 perform to fix most of the problems of previous editions while keeping a lot of the feel. At least at first.
The main problem of 3.5 was the utter lack of balance. Which itself was mostly due to Magic, which itself was mostly due to the fact that too many spells were individually broken or badly worded. And to the fact that the multiclassing system dropped several of the limitation of caster, experience cost for levelling notably.
If they had taken 3.5 and done the (huge) necessary work to revised ALL the spells ever published in order to make them more balanced (or to ban when not possible) and add experience malus to casting class, that would have solved a lot of the problems of 3.5.

Revised some of the underpowered fighter feats (i'm looking at you dodge) and the different fighting style (TWF, Archery). And the 3.5 would well balanced.

Troacctid

2014-10-18, 02:33 PM

1st level 5e characters are literally defined by pick race and class. You don't even get a feat until 4th level, and that's if you don't multiclass, and aren't compelled to give up that feat for a stat boost.

You can make the argument 5e is more balanced than 3e. Claiming it has better customization is ludicrous.

Race, class, background, and subrace.

In 3.5, you don't really have the option to play a half-orc wizard or an ex-convict paladin because although half-orcs are a playable race and skills can be taken cross-class, those options are traps that will result in your character sucking at the thing they're supposed to be proficient at. That's not the case in 5th edition.

Petrocorus

2014-10-18, 02:38 PM

Anlashok

2014-10-18, 02:44 PM

And even then, a half-orc wizard is going to be moderately substandard, not an unplayable trap.

Saying "There are bad options in 3.5!" doesn't really make having no options better.

Seerow

2014-10-18, 02:46 PM

Race, class, background, and subrace.

In 3.5, you don't really have the option to play a half-orc wizard or an ex-convict paladin because although half-orcs are a playable race and skills can be taken cross-class, those options are traps that will result in your character sucking at the thing they're supposed to be proficient at. That's not the case in 5th edition.

You totally have the option to play a half-orc wizard. Wizards are good enough that a -2 penalty to int is only going to marginally inconvenience you, not make you an unplayable character. Not to mention the dozen caster classes that run off stats other than Int, all of which a half-orc can use fine (yes, even Sorcerer with the right subrace).

As for ex-convict paladin, that depends on what you think it takes to make an ex-convict, and what level you want it by. At first level you can have a set up with a decent number of skill points and able learner to have a bunch of thief-type skills at rank 2. If you're willing to accept waiting until second level a Rogue1/Paladin1 handles it great. Or if you go with more mutable fluff, you can even go Cleric with the right domains and even have trap finding as well as other expected skills right from level 1. There's probably another half dozen ways to do it as well, what will work best depends on what you think is most important for defining a Paladin and "ex convict". Having all of those different ways of representing a single concept is what makes 3.5 such a great system.

Troacctid

2014-10-18, 02:50 PM

Well, okay, with enough system mastery, sure. But 5e achieves that level of customization without any system mastery whatsoever. It makes customization easy instead of arcane and shifts the focus to gameplay.

Tommy2255

2014-10-18, 02:51 PM

I have only had limited exposure to 5e, but it seems to me that it's locked into a certain scale. There's no way to meaningfully represent both running around killing giant rats in an inn's basement and fighting level 80 horrors from beyond the veil of time and space in a system that limits all ability scores to 20 and never has any condition you can inflict worse than the equivalent of an Unluck spell and no buff better than rolling twice, take the better. It's arguably a better system for a traditionalist dungeon crawl, but it is less flexible. 3.5 is so flexible that it's entirely broken and just flopping around, and that means that it can fit any kind of story you want to tell.

Switching to 5e is like buying a new couch when your old one is stained and broken into a state of maximum comfort. It certainly looks nicer in the shop, or on the commercial with the irritatingly wholesome tv family, but it's going to be much less comfy to hang out alone in your underwear or sleep on it.

SiuiS

2014-10-18, 02:56 PM

So I've always loved 3.5e. It was the first edition I played, and I've played (with) it for years. Sure, I've only been in 4 or 6 actual adventures, but the scope of the rules leaves endless space for fun.

Then 5e came out, and I started looking at it. It's simple, it's easy to make characters, and doesn't have as many options to think about (yet).

So I find that most of the time I spend thinking about optimization and character building has shifted to 5e. I haven't looked at my 3.5e books in months.

Why is 3.5e better than 5e?

(No, I'm not questioning 3.5e's superiority, I'm actually asking you to remind me what's so great about 3.5e.)

5e and 3e are very similar where it counts. The heart of play is the same and, while simpler, 5e does a cleaner job of getting to that heart of play.

It just... Can't do anything else, where 3e can.

Don't even think of them as different games – all your 3e books can work in 5e. Think of them like different perspectives. 5e is closer to the storytelling system and all that means. Instead of DM v. Player all's fair antagonistic dialectic, you have this more mister Rogers feel of "let's sit down and play a game and tell a story". 5e hits certain high points that 3e hit.

If those high points are just some of many? 3e is better. If those high points are all that matter, though, being able to do other things well isn't important.

My truck can be a house and a siege weapon, but I don't care. Y'know?

Seerow

2014-10-18, 02:58 PM

Well, okay, with enough system mastery, sure. But 5e achieves that level of customization without any system mastery whatsoever. And that's a big plus at most tables.

The problem being 5e doesn't actually provide the same level of customization. Unless the extent of your creativity is splicing together Race + Class + couple of skills, 3.5e is going to be better able to realize a greater number of concepts. Even if you did feel restrained to only those things, you're missing out on a ton of classes compared to 3.5, which by itself opens up a ton of options, even before considering feats, prestige classes, etc.

And this is completely ignoring that if your concept involves being actually decent at any skill ever, you're forced to play a 20th level rogue (and still be worse off than a 9th level character from 3.5e even sans magic items/masterwork tools). Because 5e does a pretty good job of making sure the only way to do anything reliably is GM pity or Magic.

Jon_Dahl

2014-10-18, 03:05 PM

Until 5e has this (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) or better, I will not even look at it while I'm the DM. I'm willing to play it, though...
It's just a fact and it won't change even if someone threatened to DM 5e at gunpoint.

Troacctid

2014-10-18, 03:11 PM

Seerow

2014-10-18, 03:17 PM

Only if you think of customization in terms of the 3.5 ruleset that emphasizes feats and prestige classes. 5e's more rules-light approach means you don't need feats or prestige classes to translate your concept into mechanics the way you did in 3.5e, and lets those concepts come online earlier.

Meanwhile 5e has literally no way to represent many things mechanically at all. If you are happy rolling a Wizard and saying you're a fire mage, more power to you. That doesn't mean that 5e and 3.5 are equally customizable, because when a 3.5 Wizard decides he wants to be a fire mage, he can actually dedicate resources to making himself notably better at using fire magic than another wizard of equal level.

You can claim 5e is a more balanced system, or an easier/simpler system. I won't have any problem with either of those statements. Claiming that 5e is as customizable, or more customizable, than to 3e, is ridiculous. 5e simply doesn't have the breadth of material needed to compete on even close to the same playing field as 3e in that area. (Even if it did have the same number of options, the reduced number of feats per character and choices made at level up in general will likely drag it down and keep it less customizable, in favor of a tighter balance).

TheGeckoKing

2014-10-18, 03:18 PM

Most of the 3.5 rules you need are free and most of 5e's rules won't be (for all I know), and that's all I need to know to ignore 5e, especially with D&D books normally costing a bloody fortune.

Anlashok

2014-10-18, 03:21 PM

Only if you think of customization in terms of the 3.5 ruleset that emphasizes feats and prestige classes. 5e's more rules-light approach means you don't need feats or prestige classes to translate your concept into mechanics the way you did in 3.5e, and lets those concepts come online earlier.

Narrativism isn't unique to either system, so it's irrelevant here. It comes down purely to mechanics... and 5e is simply lacking there. It fails to allow you to customize within a class-race combination, fails to allow you to diversify and specialize outside those very narrow options provided to you and even fails to allow for particularly good competency.

Beyond that the game sucks at providing any meaningful character progression between the absurd dearth of feats and the flatlined scaling.

It's a good system if you want to play something e6ish but feel e6 is too complicated, I suppose, but if you want to play anything more high end you're better off with third or even fourth edition, because 5e is just not designed to accommodate highly competent, diversified, meaningfully powerful characters... unless you're a spellcaster.

Speaking of, the fact that the game doubles down on Caster vs Martial is a bit disappointing too.

Sartharina

2014-10-18, 03:27 PM

1st level 5e characters are literally defined by pick race and class. You don't even get a feat until 4th level, and that's if you don't multiclass, and aren't compelled to give up that feat for a stat boost.In 3.5, feats are "What do you suck slightly less at doing."

There are even a PrC that look like that."It's possible to build a character if you wait until the character is rendered obsolete by the spellcasters" is not strong praise for the system.
Narrativism isn't unique to either system, so it's irrelevant here. It comes down purely to mechanics... and 5e is simply lacking there. It fails to allow you to customize within a class-race combination, fails to allow you to diversify and specialize outside those very narrow options provided to you and even fails to allow for particularly good competency.I have yet to have this problem.

I have over 15 different Barbarians alone for 5e - I don't think there are even five viable unique barbarian concepts in 3e.

Seerow

2014-10-18, 03:35 PM

In 3.5, feats are "What do you suck slightly less at doing."

Wait you are defending 5e from the position that 3e characters suck at everything? lmao

I have over 15 different Barbarians alone for 5e - I don't think there are even five viable unique barbarian concepts in 3e.

I'm going to need to know what your threshold for "different" is.

Because if it's just changing out the background and race, you can easily accomplish the same thing changing out trained skills and race for a 3.5 barbarian. And then diversify further from there.

Anlashok

2014-10-18, 03:35 PM

"It's possible to build a character if you wait until the character is rendered obsolete by the spellcasters" is not strong praise for the system.I have yet to have this problem.
You realize that's exacerbated in 5e, right? You don't even have competency with a great deal of options until endgame... unless you have magic. A lot of your skill rolls are barely better than a naked d20 unless you have spells propping you up. At least a 3.5 skillmonkey can be functional without spells.

I don't think there are even five viable unique barbarian concepts in 3e.

wild tribesman, dwarven berserker, thuggish highwayman, Knight-errant, demonically possessed warrior... that's just off the top of my head. Probably a lot more if I actually could remember ACFs.

eggynack

2014-10-18, 03:42 PM

In 3.5, feats are "What do you suck slightly less at doing."
Depends on the feat, really. Melee feats suffer quite a bit from this issue, which is a shame, but it's hard to look at aberration wild shape or arcane thesis and say, "Yep, I'm only sucking slightly less right now."

Sartharina

2014-10-18, 03:43 PM

You realize that's exacerbated in 5e, right? You don't even have competency with a great deal of options until endgame... unless you have magic. A lot of your skill rolls are barely better than a naked d20 unless you have spells propping you up. At least a 3.5 skillmonkey can be functional without spells. 5e assumes competency. Several checks in 5e are "You just do this" that 3.5 is "Make a DC 15 check". Athletics is significantly easier in 5e than 3.5 (DC 15 jump lets you jump 15 feet in 3.5 In 5, you don't have to roll at level 1)

Wait you are defending 5e from the position that 3e characters suck at everything? lmao... how many feats does it take to get a rogue to be competent with a dagger in both melee and at range? What level does it come online? 5? 6? Level 1 in 5e.

I'm going to need to know what your threshold for "different" is.

Because if it's just changing out the background and race, you can easily accomplish the same thing changing out trained skills and race for a 3.5 barbarian. And then diversify further from there.

The difference being that doing so in 3e causes the character to suck.

Svata

2014-10-18, 03:49 PM

Seerow

2014-10-18, 03:52 PM

The difference being that doing so in 3e causes the character to suck.

Picking a different race or skills doesn't cause the character to suck. At worst it makes you slightly weaker in a specific area. If people only wanted to play the most powerful thing ever always, 5e would be nothing but different variants on Bard. 3e would be nothing but kobold paladins, or barring that Wizards/Clerics.

But that's not the case. People don't just play the strongest thing out there. Because it's more fun to pick and choose the things that make your character unique and stand out from that crowd. The soul of optimization is picking a concept that you like, and making it work in an average party. Seriously, someone in a thread on these forums was trying to help his girlfriend realize her character concept. She wanted a Dex Based Catfolk Magical Barbarian. You really can't get that much more specific than that, or further away from what a Barbarian typically is. Despite that, at least 3 different ways to represent that concept were presented, and a half dozen more that were close, but didn't quite meet the criteria.

You say there's less than 5 viable barbarian concepts, yet we had more than that number in concepts that fit "Dex Based Magical Barbarian", which is way way more specific than Barbarian. And of them were viable. Most coming online at a lower level than a 5e character gets to pick their first stat boost/feat. You literally do not have ground to stand on in claiming 5e is a more customizable system.

Psyren

2014-10-18, 03:52 PM

Yes, I forgot the oversimplified abomination that is advantage/disadvantage.

I am curious though....early on, the rule was that they couldn't counter each other on a ones-upmanship type deal, iirc. Like... if you had 3 sources of advantage but only one source of disadvantage...you get neither, same as if you had 1 source of each. I find that intolerably unfair and stupid, especially since rogue needs advantage to sneak attack so it sounds super easy to irrecovably get screwed by the system like that. Did they ever change it to a more logical "if you have both in equal amounts, you get neither, if you have more sources of one than the other, you get that"?

Sadly no - if you have 500 advantages and 1 disadvantage they still cancel out utterly. Basic:

"If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantages and only one grants advantage or vice-versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage."

It's pretty off-putting to me personally.

... how many feats does it take to get a rogue to be competent with a dagger in both melee and at range? What level does it come online? 5? 6? Level 1 in 5e.

Er, define "competent." Even a commoner can kill with a dagger at level 1.

TheGeckoKing

2014-10-18, 03:53 PM

This, combined with the aforementioned darkness giving disadvantage, means the rogue, meant for sneaking around in the dark and stabbing people in the kidneys, cannot stab people in the kidneys while sneaking around in the dark.

.......a 5e Rogue can't Sneak Attack in the dark? Are you being serious?

Anlashok

2014-10-18, 03:53 PM

Yeah, part of the absurdity in this argument is that for some reason Sarth is assuming maximum possible practical optimization for the 3.5 game as the minimum barrier of play, while the 5e game in the same argument has absolutely no optimization whatsoever.

eggynack

2014-10-18, 03:55 PM

The difference being that doing so in 3e causes the character to suck.
Again, going to need a threshold for difference here. Because minor changes in race or feat choice are definitely not going to make a barbarian suck to a significantly greater degree than a normal barbarian does. And really, it's hard for me to think of barbarians as not diverse at all when options like runescarred berserker, black blood cultist, bear warrior, champion of gwynharwyf, frenzied berserker, or hell, even straight barbarian 20 running street fighter, exist.

SiuiS

2014-10-18, 03:58 PM

The problem being 5e doesn't actually provide the same level of customization. Unless the extent of your creativity is splicing together Race + Class + couple of skills, 3.5e is going to be better able to realize a greater number of concepts. Even if you did feel restrained to only those things, you're missing out on a ton of classes compared to 3.5, which by itself opens up a ton of options, even before considering feats, prestige classes, etc.

And this is completely ignoring that if your concept involves being actually decent at any skill ever, you're forced to play a 20th level rogue (and still be worse off than a 9th level character from 3.5e even sans magic items/masterwork tools). Because 5e does a pretty good job of making sure the only way to do anything reliably is GM pity or Magic.

Hmm. I believe that the aggregate small changes make 5e better in this sense in that it is more hackable, and ends up doing what I do with 3e anyway. That is, I know I can build a five feat monster to so X at first level, I will not do that; I'll just build a 2 feat character who can do X with DM permission. I've never met a DM who found the argument "let me make up this power using these limits, because I can by the books do so much worse just to get to that same point and I don't want to derail things" unpersuasive.

Mileage and variance though. You like a higher grain than I do. I personally feel that 5e is the direction i we as hoping pathfinder would take, so make of that what you will.

Only if you think of customization in terms of the 3.5 ruleset that emphasizes feats and prestige classes. 5e's more rules-light approach means you don't need feats or prestige classes to translate your concept into mechanics the way you did in 3.5e, and lets those concepts come online earlier.

Aye, that.

It's really that simple. One side is perfectly satisfied with slapping 'noble background' onto a rogue and saying their actually a guild thief, the followers are guild flunkies and maybe they have political clout. Or heck, they're happy playing a fighter/wizard hybrid as a war priest if it fits the setting.

The other side would rather have a war priest class.

Both are cool. It's not really relevant to the discussion to complain that one person's idea of fun is not as valid as the other person's. Both funs are fun.

Most of the 3.5 rules you need are free and most of 5e's rules won't be (for all I know), and that's all I need to know to ignore 5e, especially with D&D books normally costing a bloody fortune.

The basic 5e rules are free, the system is easily spliceable, and every single 3.5 and pathfinder resource you have works for 5e with minimum fuss.

Accessibility is not a valid critique. Not to say you are critiquing it along those lines! I believe your basic statement to be perfectly cool; if you can't access it is not worth your time.

Narrativism

Hi! Your user name inspired me to mess with a player in a game I am in. Whenever there's a stray moment, something – an owl, a stag, his reflection, anything available – will look at him and say in a deep voice, "Anshalok." And flee. No one else will hear it and there's no information about it.

So, thanks. :smallsmile:

Narrativism isn't unique to either system, so it's irrelevant here. It comes down purely to mechanics... and 5e is simply lacking there. It fails to allow you to customize within a class-race combination, fails to allow you to diversify and specialize outside those very narrow options provided to you and even fails to allow for particularly good competency.

This is just silly. Your definition of "competency" is in question; a group can out the gate from character gen compete reasonably with the game system itself that's the definition of competency; able to succeed against the default with reasonable success and frequency.

So of course characters are competent. They don't have the exact same literal dice bonus as from other games, but they don't face the exact same literal difficulty numbers either. This is complaining that milk chocolate isn't dark enough chocolate for you a I it's just objectively bad chocolate.

Customization is a good point but depends on whether you want high grain customization or not.

"It's possible to build a character if you wait until the character is rendered obsolete by the spellcasters" is not strong praise for the system.

Pfff haha.

I have over 15 different Barbarians alone for 5e - I don't think there are even five viable unique barbarian concepts in 3e.

Eh. Viability also depends on benchmarks. At forum OP levels? No. But at a table there's a lot of stuff that is totally fine for a barbarian. You could have a party of barbarians who each fulfill a different role. 3e isn't a bad system by any means, and there are a lot of ways where 5e just does not measure up. The real argument is whether those ways matter, and the answer is "it depends on the person".

Psyren

2014-10-18, 03:59 PM

.......a 5e Rogue can't Sneak Attack in the dark? Are you being serious?

You can with darkvision or low-light (as in 3.5/PF) but if you don't... no.

otakumick

2014-10-18, 03:59 PM

The difference being that doing so in 3e causes the character to suck.

I hate the assumption that barbarians and rogues and whatnot suck in 3.whatever... they don't... they are hopelessly, hilariously outclassed by casters... but that is a complaint against balance, not against customization.

TheGeckoKing

2014-10-18, 04:07 PM

You can with darkvision or low-light (as in 3.5/PF) but if you don't... no.

ಠ_ಠwhatisthisidonteven

Alent

2014-10-18, 04:08 PM

Responding to the OP (I have no way of keeping up with the current conversation.), my own evaluation went something like this, point for point:

I really like this Advantage/Disadvantage thing, my group's last rogue in pathfinder made heavy use of the rogue tricks that effectively grant advantage on actions, but 5th threw the baby out with the bathwater with the implementation. It makes sense to use Advantage/Disadvantage to balance and smooth out things like the stupid bonuses (Glibness, Guidance of the Avatar, Truestrike), the little tiny Fiddlybits like the +1's and +2's and -2's that slow down in combat math (flanking, ACP, intimidate, etc), and the circumstance modifiers that the DM is left to figure out on his own, and then leave the static buff train to out of combat work. Using it to get rid of static bonuses entirely? Not cool. Even they noticed it doesn't work and reintroduced some static bonuses.

On the other hand, Skills don't exist anymore. I've seen what they replaced them with, I just don't think it's anywhere near the same. As a rules light thing for oneoffs/random dungeon crawls where nobody really wants to take the time to optimize it's great, but on a more serious campaign, I really would rather have the 3.5 system with houseruled extra skill points.

Most of the changes to magic I've houseruled into my 3.5 campaign project, and my players, as people who don't typically optimize magic to insane degrees, think it's better.

The changes to iterative attacks, attacking, and movement also got houseruled in to smooth out the rules on natural attacks and give melee nice things. I like the idea that nobody swings twice without a feature letting them swing twice, because it simplifies easy to misunderstand things like natural attacks not qualifying for iteratives. If everyone's on the same page (one attack per weapon) and specific overrides that, it eliminates a bunch of rules text without actually changing anything meaningfully. It's also just neat to watch people moving in combat.

I like the way 5th did Warlock by making Eldritch Blast a cantrip, I kind of like a few of the other classes like Monk, but in general I'm pretty meh on the classes. I do give 5th kudos for narrowing the tier gap, but even with baked in Eldritch Knight I still am hesitant to play singleclass fighter. I don't really feel like this edition is built with multiclassing in mind, but I haven't taken enough time to explore that line of thought yet. (Too many more important things fighting for time.)

I'm not a believer in the dead levels are bad camp, but I think putting characters' natural 4th/8th/etc. level ability increases on tables to hide dead levels just seems deceitful.

I find the racial +1 bonuses clever when you're using 3.5's 25 point buy. Maybe that's just me, but having an extra 2~6 points to spend where I want to get round numbers is convenient.

The lack of a DMG is keeping me from actually trying to run a game of 5th. I feel like playing 5th right now is paying for open beta- Anything I learn is going to be wrong in two months.

In the end, I see 5th being part of a palette along with PF to make your 3.5 game better: Pick and choose what you like, ignore the rest, add it to 3.5, grab your houserules, Adapt the edges so it's coherent. People were implying this to be the case during open playtesting, it doesn't seem to be any less true now. It's definitely made the campaign setting I'm working on better to have the magic changes in play.

Psyren

2014-10-18, 04:09 PM

ಠ_ಠwhatisthisidonteven

Yeah you would think rogues would have some kind of training from their class to overcome that, but no. There is a feat to do it in PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shadow-strike-combat), which rogues can pick up at level 2 (Rogue Talent -> Combat Trick -> SS) but as I don't have the 5e PHB I don't know if they came up with a solution there besides "find a way to see in the dark."

The feat is also nice because it applies not just to darkness, but also to things like blur and fog.

eggynack

2014-10-18, 04:14 PM

Eh. Viability also depends on benchmarks. At forum OP levels? No. But at a table there's a lot of stuff that is totally fine for a barbarian. You could have a party of barbarians who each fulfill a different role. 3e isn't a bad system by any means, and there are a lot of ways where 5e just does not measure up. The real argument is whether those ways matter, and the answer is "it depends on the person".
Actually, thinking on it some, I think it's possible to construct four barbarians, each held to reasonable forum optimization standards, that fill the four traditional party roles. Runescarred and champion take care of the arcane and divine roles quite well, constructing a good melee barbarian is trivial, and black blood cultist looks like it adds all of the scouting skills you'd want, which can be backed up by trapkiller. That last might be a bit of a stretch, but it's a close approximation, and you can always just go with an extra melee over a skill guy. Constructing two different and viable melee barbarians is about as trivial as constructing one is.

TheGeckoKing

2014-10-18, 04:19 PM

Yeah you would think rogues would have some kind of training from their class to overcome that, but no. There is a feat to do it in PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shadow-strike-combat), which rogues can pick up at level 2 (Rogue Talent -> Combat Trick -> SS) but as I don't have the 5e PHB I don't know if they came up with a solution there besides "find a way to see in the dark."

The solution is to have a ninja take a nightlight to the kneecaps of whoever writes a rule as stupid as this, and when they ask "What the hell is with the nightlight?", the ninja replies "'Because without it, I can't bludgeon you to death after my bedtime!"

Oh, and peripheral benefits aside, the PF writer who realized ninjas need nightlights but fixed it with a feat tax instead of errata needs his nightlight to be iron plated. :smallfurious:

heavyfuel

2014-10-18, 04:19 PM

ಠ_ಠwhatisthisidonteven

To be fair with 5e, Rogues can't also SA in the dark in 3.5. Darkness gives the target concealment, which makes them a not valid target for SA. Much like 3.5, if you have Darkvision you can now SA in these situations to your heart's content.

TheGeckoKing

2014-10-18, 04:21 PM

To be fair with 5e, Rogues can't also SA in the dark in 3.5. Darkness gives the target concealment, which makes them a not valid target for SA. Much like 3.5, if you have Darkvision you can now SA in these situations to your heart's content.

Yes, but I'm sure half the point of 5e (and PF, hence my annoyance) was to fix these things. If the writers are letting stupid things like this through the vetting process, gods help them when they write their own content!

Svata

2014-10-18, 04:34 PM

Troacctid

2014-10-18, 04:38 PM

Also, you must have advantage to SA. So, say you use Faerie Fire to light them up and negate the darkness. Still cannot kidney stab because of cancellation rules. 3.5? It negates the concealment, and you can kidney stab to your heart's content.

That's not correct. 5th edition Faerie Fire makes them shed dim light (negating the disadvantage from darkness) and gives attackers advantage against the target.

Anlashok

2014-10-18, 04:45 PM

This is just silly. Your definition of "competency" is in question; a group can out the gate from character gen compete reasonably with the game system itself that's the definition of competency; able to succeed against the default with reasonable success and frequency.
I actually agree with you, but I'm not the one who set the bar for competency. If the other side is going to call a half-orc wizard an unplayable trap or a paladin 4/some-prc 1 worthless because by the time it comes online casters already win everything then I think it's fair game.

That said, I do sort of think 5e skill checks can be too swingy and too much of a reliance on magic to help you be effective. That's a problem with d20 in general, but I feel it's exacerbated there.

Svata

2014-10-18, 04:45 PM

My mistake, then.

Psyren

2014-10-18, 04:46 PM

Yes, but I'm sure half the point of 5e (and PF, hence my annoyance) was to fix these things. If the writers are letting stupid things like this through the vetting process, gods help them when they write their own content!

My guess is that they want darkvision to matter (and for races who can see in the dark to be more inclined to... rogue-ing.) It's not so much an oversight as an intentional design decision.

It's not even one I have a major problem with - so long as you give races without darkvision a way to be rogues. PF did, but 5e did not.

Curmudgeon

2014-10-18, 05:24 PM

5e lacks granularity based on player choice. In 4e everything was adjusted by ½ character level. In 5e they've got a table for proficiency bonus instead of a formula. In neither case are there differences based on class choices (½ - full BAB), skill points, & c. That means that a Rogue can't be a whole lot more stealthy than characters of other classes; their best efforts (via Expertise) end up with only double the proficiency bonus.

Galen

2014-10-18, 05:32 PM

Max Caysey

2014-10-18, 05:38 PM

I've spent over a 1000 dollars and a lot of time buying as many books as possible for 3.x. I aint doing that again. And they well 4th ed happened, så basically Im done giving wotc any money.

Curmudgeon

2014-10-18, 05:39 PM

And how can a Rogue in 3.5 be more stealthy than, let's say, a Ranger or a Monk? Does a 3.5 Rogue has a class feature other than "Hide and Move Silently are class skills for you"?
Yes, it does. Skill Mastery lets the Rogue "take 10" on mastered skills, letting the Rogue know they can't flub their stealth checks. The Savvy Rogue feat (only available with 10 Rogue levels) changes the Skill Mastery result to "take 12" instead, guaranteeing above-average checks without rolling.

Flickerdart

2014-10-18, 05:41 PM

And how can a Rogue in 3.5 be more stealthy than, let's say, a Ranger or a Monk? Does a 3.5 Rogue has a class feature other than "Hide and Move Silently are class skills for you"?

And how can a Rogue in 3.5 be more stealthy than, let's say, a Ranger or a Monk? Does a 3.5 Rogue has a class feature other than "Hide and Move Silently are class skills for you"?

Rangers and monks are also stealth-focused characters, of course they'd be good at stealth. But is a 5e rogue at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 actually meaningfully stealthier than a wizard (who doesn't pump DEX) or an archer-based fighter (who does)?

This is not a rhetorical question, I have no idea.

Mr.Moron

2014-10-18, 05:42 PM

It isn't. It's just vastly more fiddly. Some folks enjoy that kind of thing. If you want lots of levers and knobs to turn in your mechanics, all of which produce wide varieties of results that vastly different in terms of both scope and kind you'll like 3.P.

If you want a handful of switches to flip in your mechanics, with slightly more narrow results that are still rather different in terms of scope, you'll probably like 5e more.

Troacctid

2014-10-18, 05:49 PM

Rangers and monks are also stealth-focused characters, of course they'd be good at stealth. But is a 5e rogue at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 actually meaningfully stealthier than a wizard (who doesn't pump DEX) or an archer-based fighter (who does)?

This is not a rhetorical question, I have no idea.

They have a class ability that lets them hide in combat as the 5e equivalent of a swift action at 2nd level, where anyone else needs the equivalent of a standard action. They also choose two skills to double their proficiency bonus on, so they can choose Stealth for that. The Thief archetype also automatically has advantage on all Stealth checks at 9th level. And sneak attack means that if they are hidden, they can use the advantage from it to deal extra damage. Edit: Arcane Tricksters can also make their mage hand invisible and use it to pick pockets and stuff, if that counts.

I haven't played 5e yet so I don't know how substantial these things are, but they seem nice.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-10-18, 05:50 PM

Yes, but I'm sure half the point of 5e (and PF, hence my annoyance) was to fix these things. If the writers are letting stupid things like this through the vetting process, gods help them when they write their own content!

It's true that in 3E and 5E, not being able to see in the dark will screw over a rogue (I never play a sneak attacking rogue w/o darkvision...NEVER...though I usually trade it for the bonus feats anyway). But I'd bet that you have more options in 3E than in 5E to obtain darkvision by means other than race, and 5E really should have fixed this by now as you said.

But I think people are getting hung up too much on the darkness thing alone. My point was: they simplified things so that most beneficial and harmful conditions now are on the (dis)advantage system. To me, that means there could be very many circumstances where one measly source of disdavantage will perma-screw the rogue out of sneak attacking because NO amount of advantages can trump it, only be collectively negated. That is horrible. I repeat, THAT IS HORRIBLE.

Especially since (again, iirc...I've been out of the loop for a while maybe they don't stack anymore) that means these two situations can both potentially happen:
Rogue in alternate universe 1 has 9 sources of advantage, 0 sources of disadvantage. He rolls NINE d20 and picks the highest.
Rogue in alternate universe 2 has 10 sources of advantage, 1 source of disadvantage. He rolls only ONE d20.

Flickerdart

2014-10-18, 06:11 PM

They have a class ability that lets them hide in combat as the 5e equivalent of a swift action at 2nd level, where anyone else needs the equivalent of a standard action. They also choose two skills to double their proficiency bonus on, so they can choose Stealth for that. The Thief archetype also automatically has advantage on all Stealth checks at 9th level. And sneak attack means that if they are hidden, they can use the advantage from it to deal extra damage. Edit: Arcane Tricksters can also make their mage hand invisible and use it to pick pockets and stuff, if that counts.

I haven't played 5e yet so I don't know how substantial these things are, but they seem nice.

Mm. Those aren't bad perks. What do those look like numbers-wise?

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-18, 06:18 PM

Especially since (again, iirc...I've been out of the loop for a while maybe they don't stack anymore) that means these two situations can both potentially happen:
Rogue in alternate universe 1 has 9 sources of advantage, 0 sources of disadvantage. He rolls NINE d20 and picks the highest.
Rogue in alternate universe 2 has 10 sources of advantage, 1 source of disadvantage. He rolls only ONE d20.

Advantage and disadvantage don't cancel on a one-to-one ratio? That is disgusting icky. Literally every other game I know of that uses an advantage/disadvantage mechanic has one-to-one canceling, and it works perfectly fine (and benefits players more often than it does monsters). I have a lot less interest in 5e now.

ETA: icky.

Seerow

2014-10-18, 06:19 PM

Mm. Those aren't bad perks. What do those look like numbers-wise?

Basically 5e rogue at level 20 has 2d20(take best)+17

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+11

5e rogue at level 1 has 1d20+5

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+4

5e non-stealth type has 1d20+0

heavyfuel

2014-10-18, 06:37 PM

Basically 5e rogue at level 20 has 2d20(take best)+17

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+11

5e rogue at level 1 has 1d20+5

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+4

5e non-stealth type has 1d20+0

On average:

- 30.82
- 21.5
- 15.5
- 14.5
- 10.5

So the lv 1 Rogue fares slightly better than a lv 20 dex focus character on average. It seems rather fair to be honest.

Troacctid

2014-10-18, 06:37 PM

Advantage and disadvantage don't cancel on a one-to-one ratio? That is disgusting. Literally every other game I know of that uses an advantage/disadvantage mechanic has one-to-one canceling, and it works perfectly fine (and benefits players more often than it does monsters). I have a lot less interest in 5e now.

I mean, it's a thing. I wouldn't call it disgusting. They obviously tried it different ways, and gave it a lot of thought and playtesting. (Advantage doesn't stack in the final version, by the way, you either have it or you don't, so StreamOfTheSky's comparison is inaccurate.) They went with this one because it makes calculations much, much quicker, which they felt most players would find more fun than the paradigm you see in earlier editions where this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377894-Church-Hat-Bonus-Collection-how-do-I-stop-it) tends to happen. Again, I haven't found a chance to play 5e yet, but that sort of grubbing for situational bonuses did bother me in 3.5 and 4th edition, and the way the advantage system is set up to avoid it seems reasonable to me at first glance.

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-18, 06:38 PM

As an aside: how do you mathematically calculate the average result from Xd6 best X?

ETA:

I mean, it's a thing. I wouldn't call it disgusting. They obviously tried it different ways, and gave it a lot of thought and playtesting. (Advantage doesn't stack in the final version, by the way, you either have it or you don't, so StreamOfTheSky's comparison is inaccurate.) They went with this one because it makes calculations much, much quicker, which they felt most players would find more fun than the paradigm you see in earlier editions where this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377894-Church-Hat-Bonus-Collection-how-do-I-stop-it) tends to happen. Again, I haven't found a chance to play 5e yet, but that sort of grubbing for situational bonuses did bother me in 3.5 and 4th edition, and the way the advantage system is set up to avoid it seems reasonable to me at first glance.

That's a fair point. I suppose "disgusting" is a bit of a strong term, but that was sorta how my initial reaction was. It mostly seems like it will skew the game towards removing disadvantages rather than adding advantages, when I feel it should be the other way around.

heavyfuel

2014-10-18, 06:50 PM

As an aside: how do you mathematically calculate the average result from Xd6 best X?

Use anydice.com.

Just type in the function "output Xd6" and it'll give you an average (right next to the text "Output 1" is where it shows the average)

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-18, 06:51 PM

Use anydice.com.

Just type in the function "output Xd6" and it'll give you an average (right next to the text "Output 1" is where it shows the average)

No, what I mean is, how does one go about figuring out the expected average from, say, 4d6b3? Or 2d20b2? I suppose I should've framed it as Xd6 best Y.

Galen

2014-10-18, 06:56 PM

Rangers and monks are also stealth-focused characters, of course they'd be good at stealth. But is a 5e rogue at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 actually meaningfully stealthier than a wizard (who doesn't pump DEX) or an archer-based fighter (who does)?

This is not a rhetorical question, I have no idea.
Assumption: "pump dex" means starting at 18 and increasing it whenever possible. "Not pumping dex" means starting at 14 and keeping it there.

Level 1: Archery Fighter +4, Wizard +2, Rogue +8
Level 5: Archery Fighter +5, Wizard +2, Rogue +11 and can hide as a swift action
Level 10: Archery Fighter +5, Wizard +2, Rogue +13 can hide as a swift action, and has advantage on Stealth (ie. rolls 2d20 and takes best)
Level 15: Archery Fighter +5, Wizard +2, Rogue +15 can hide as a swift action, and has advantage on Stealth
Level 20: Archery Fighter +5, Wizard +2, Rogue +17 can hide as a swift action, and has advantage on Stealth

Curmudgeon

2014-10-18, 07:01 PM

Basically 5e rogue at level 20 has 2d20(take best)+17
+12 is from Expertise with Stealth, which is extremely likely after 6th level for all Rogues.

Is the extra +5 from advantage due to Supreme Sneak? That's only available with the Thief archetype, which means only 1/3 of Rogues will have that.

Galen

2014-10-18, 07:03 PM

+12 is from Expertise with Stealth, which is extremely likely after 6th level for all Rogues.

Is the extra +5 from advantage due to Supreme Sneak? That's only available with the Thief archetype, which means only 1/3 of Rogues will have that.No, +5 is just Dex

Phelix-Mu

2014-10-18, 07:06 PM

To the OP's original topic, my personal experience:

I cut my teeth on 2e, and for over a decade had tons of fun with a system that, at times, was hysterically complicated, nonsensical, and otherwise dysfunctional.

When 3e came out, TSR had been languishing for years, and the whole thing was due for a revamp. 3e was good, and I played it for a good four years or so.

Then 3.5 came out. I resisted at first, because it involved buying books that largely made the books I had obsolete. But eventually there were just so many new, shiny things that were 3.5 that I switched, and largely didn't regret the choice.

Until they dumped 3.5 for 4e almost right away (at least from a 2e perspective).

I. Raged. HARD.

I admit, tears were shed. Unreasonable, illogical tears, to be sure. But D&D is that kind of game for me; I love it beyond reason, and it has a foundational place in my identity that can never be supplanted. I hated seeing them chuck a good thing, regardless of whether 4e was any good or not (and even then, the omens were bad).

So I stuck with 3.5.

And then, mere years later, 5e/Next is announced.

I laughed.

Because, at this point, screw you, WotC. They took something good, made something better, and then decided that, heck, the good is the enemy of the great. In pursuit of perfection and more book sales, they have roundly consigned D&D to the idiocy that is planned obsoletion.

So, why is 3.5 better?

Because it is the last in the line to honor its forefathers, rather than sell their corpses for spare parts.

Because it actually had a conversion mechanism to link it to the past editions, giving token acknowledgement to continuity.

Because they didn't burn down entire settings to justify its existence (mostly).

Because it has OGL, the SINGLE, best thing to happen to TTRPG in the last few decades.

Because I want you to stick it to WotC. Hehe. (No, seriously, I'm bitter.) :smallbiggrin:

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-18, 07:19 PM

Because it has OGL, the SINGLE, best thing to happen to TTRPG in the last few decades.

Now that you mention it... this is the big one. The Open Game License enabled Pathfinder, it allowed every other d20 system adaptation in existence, and it let third-party publishers reference rules text in published adventures and settings, so they no longer have to market things as "system-neutral" while referring to how the king's court wizard is a "12th-level magic-user". They can up and admit that he's a wizard, and give you his ability scores, and tell you what spells he usually prepares. And, through the SRD, it lets anyone, anywhere in the world that has internet access, play the game for free. That sort of generosity isn't going to be seen for a while, at least based on the total lack of open content from 4e.

Petrocorus

2014-10-18, 07:44 PM

Most of the 3.5 rules you need are free and most of 5e's rules won't be (for all I know), and that's all I need to know to ignore 5e, especially with D&D books normally costing a bloody fortune.
I remember someone making the argument that if you account for inflation and other economical thing, or if you calculate the price in number of minute of work at minimal wage, the new books were only a little more costful than 3.0.

Speaking of, the fact that the game doubles down on Caster vs Martial is a bit disappointing too.
So, the one thing that they had to fix above all. The one thing that everybody asked them to correct, the one thing that people dislike about 3.5, they made it even worse? Is that it?

"It's possible to build a character if you wait until the character is rendered obsolete by the spellcasters" is not strong praise for the system.I have yet to have this problem.

Of course the non-casting characters are rendered obsolete by the casters. This is the main problem of 3.X. We all know this. Balancing that was one of the reasons of rule changes in PF and the reason for the complete change of everything in 4E.
But that doesn't account against my argument that half-orc wizard and ex-convict paladin are perfectly possible and even quite competent at what they are supposed to do in 3.5.
And apparently, that particular problem is even worse with 5E.

Flickerdart

2014-10-18, 07:52 PM

Basically 5e rogue at level 20 has 2d20(take best)+17

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+11

5e rogue at level 1 has 1d20+5

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+4

5e non-stealth type has 1d20+0
So a rogue is +1-5 better than any random Dexterity guy at sneaking? That is a little bit depressing.

Seerow

2014-10-18, 08:05 PM

So a rogue is +1-5 better than any random Dexterity guy at sneaking? That is a little bit depressing.

Yeah, rogue gets to double their proficiency bonus, which is a scaling number from +1 to +6. They also get the advantage benefit and bonus action hiding, as others have noted.

They are legitimately the best in 5e at sneaking. But when comparing to an untrained character, I'd take a 10th level rogue in 3e over a 20th level rogue in 5e.

Troacctid

2014-10-18, 08:16 PM

But that doesn't account against my argument that half-orc wizard and ex-convict paladin are perfectly possible and even quite competent at what they are supposed to do in 3.5.
And apparently, that particular problem is even worse with 5E.

The point is, those things are all downside in 3.5. Half-Orc Wizards are simply worse than Wizards of other races. In 5th edition, that's not the case--half-orcs have no Int penalty and their racial ability to essentially ignore death once per day is good for any class and, I imagine, even better for a class that can use it to instantly skedaddle with dimension door.

So a rogue is +1-5 better than any random Dexterity guy at sneaking? That is a little bit depressing.
+2-6, actually, but small bonuses matter a lot more in 5e due to how the DCs scale and how much harder small bonuses are to get. Kind of like how Weapon Focus is terrible in 3.5 but one of the most important feats you can take in 4th edition.

GreyBlack

2014-10-18, 08:17 PM

To respond to the OP, I only need 3 letters.

OGL.

Thank you, good night.

eggynack

2014-10-18, 08:35 PM

squiggit

2014-10-18, 08:50 PM

3.5/PF is a better game for playing epic fantasy adventures, it's a better game if you like having a lot of knobs to turn and a glut of options at your disposal.

5e is a better game for grittier fantasy and if you want to be able to easily jump into a game quickly and simply. It's also better for FATE-like narrative driven rather than mechanics driven adventuring.

3.5 is a worse game because it has an overwhelmingly large number of bad options and breaks down heavily at a higher level of play.

5e is a worse game because it lacks granularity in character development and tends to have a very flatlined power scale.

And just for completionist's sake, 4e is somewhere in the middle, with high fantasy combat and narrative but constrained by low fantasy rules. Also tactical combat. So... pick that one for those.

Because it is the last in the line to honor its forefathers, rather than sell their corpses for spare parts.
I've never really got this one. Third and Fourth edition have more in common with each other than either does with OD&D or AD&D. The timeline is a bit off too.

The point is, those things are all downside in 3.5. Half-Orc Wizards are simply worse than Wizards of other races. In 5th edition, that's not the case.

Have to disagree here. Yeah, half-orcs no longer have an int penalty, but that doesn't make the great wizards, that just means the measuring stick is shifted, just like in 4e, the baseline becomes picking the race with the right bonuses instead.

You're still going to be hurting yourself by picking half-orc over high elf.

Troacctid

2014-10-18, 08:52 PM

Have to disagree here. Yeah, half-orcs no longer have an int penalty, but that doesn't make the great wizards, that just means the measuring stick is shifted, just like in 4e, the baseline becomes picking the race with the right bonuses instead.

You're still going to be hurting yourself by picking half-orc over high elf.

But unlike 4e, ability scores are capped at 20, so you can catch up.

Phelix-Mu

2014-10-18, 08:54 PM

I've never really got this one. Third and Fourth edition have more in common with each other than either does with OD&D or AD&D. The timeline is a bit off too.

There was an actual booklet with mechanics outlining how to translate a 2e character into 3.0; not perfect, to be sure, but it gave stuff for stat translation, proficiencies to skills, which classes were equivalent, etc. I know of no such consideration for 4e or 5e. Please enlighten me if I am wrong on this, though.

Pyron

2014-10-18, 09:04 PM

There was an actual booklet with mechanics outlining how to translate a 2e character into 3.0; not perfect, to be sure, but it gave stuff for stat translation, proficiencies to skills, which classes were equivalent, etc. I know of no such consideration for 4e or 5e. Please enlighten me if I am wrong on this, though.

I don't think there is. At least not for transitioning from 3.5 to 4e. I recall reading something from one of the designers (on a blog or forum) that said that coming up with a translation guide wouldn't be too much hassle and it was better for the player to wing-it.

Phelix-Mu

2014-10-18, 09:10 PM

I don't think there is. At least not for transitioning from 3.5 to 4e. I recall reading something from one of the designers (on a blog or forum) that said that coming up with a translation guide wouldn't be too much hassle and it was better for the player to wing-it.

Emphasis mine.

That right there says to me "we could've done some work to help our wonderful customers, but frankly, you've already paid us, so do it yourselves."

I admit to bias, but I really don't want a game that will be rendered obsolete inside of five years. I don't want to sink my time into fun that is bizarrely incompatible with all that other fun that I had. If fun is fun, I will stick to the fun I have, thanks, and keep my money.

EDIT: This is especially true considering no OGL in newer editions, meaning I will always have to fork over in order to even dip my toes in the supposed improvements. Maybe 5e is great; personally, it's not worth my dollars to find out.

Zweisteine

2014-10-18, 09:22 PM

There's really nothing to be reminded about, if you want to settle for less by all means do play 5e or any other edition. your choice.
This is highly siggable. Sadly, I have no space. Permission to use it if I ever do?

I like this discussion, but don't have time to make much of a response.

Though I came up with this allegory:

D&D is like Star Trek. The AD&D/1e is The Original Series, for obvious reasons, and the following movies are 2e. The Next Generation is represented by 3e, and Voyager is 3.5e, where they take the last version and make it better. I suppose Deep Space 9 is the smaller series of splatbooks released at the end of 3e, before 3.5. Fourth edition is Enterprise. And finally, 5e is shown in the reboot movies.

D&D is an allegory for Star Trek. 1e is TOS, and 2e is the accompanying movies. TNG is shown by 3e, and Voyager is 3.5e. DS9 is the series of splatbooks in between. 4e is Enterprise, and 5e is the reboot films.

Or maybe DS9 is 3.5, and Voyager is 3.5's many splatbooks.

(Yes, I know 2e is also AD&D.)

Short version
This one works because reboot has similar plot to original series:
3.5e feels like the original movies, and 5e is like the reboot.

(Somebody should sig that.):smallwink:

kardar233

2014-10-18, 10:47 PM

The Next Generation is represented by 3e, and Voyager is 3.5e, where they take the last version and make it better.

Them's fighting words.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-10-18, 11:04 PM

That's a fair point. I suppose "disgusting" is a bit of a strong term, but that was sorta how my initial reaction was. It mostly seems like it will skew the game towards removing disadvantages rather than adding advantages, when I feel it should be the other way around.

My interpretation, since A&D (sick of spelling it out) are used for so many things (including minor stuff like flanking) and it only takes a single D to wipe out any combination of A's....

1. I would never play a rogue. Ever. No, not even then. Way too easy to get hosed out of SA.
2. The optimal thing to do would be to ensure every PC gets one reliable source of A and the party can inflict one source of D on the enemy reliably. Either you enjoy the 2d20 take high/low deal, or you're negating suffering from it. Anything beyond that is a waste. Of course, smart enemies will also realize this, and so all fights with moderately intelligent NPCs will see A's and D's all completely negating each other and will never be used in any such combats.
3. Combined w/ the fact that many of the creatures too dumb to think of this (undead, oozes, etc...) tend to be the ones immune to sneak attack (unless 5E removed immunity to it wholesale), I repeat....never playing a rogue, nuh-uh!

And i think disgusting is appropriate. It's an intentionally dumbed down system made to be simple. Tracking the number of A's and D's and knowing if they are equal or not would not be hard. Instead, a singe D ruins everything irrevocably, unless you can remove the D, which will become the #1 priority of everyone, like you expected.

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-18, 11:17 PM

And i think disgusting is appropriate. It's an intentionally dumbed down system made to be simple. Tracking the number of A's and D's and knowing if they are equal or not would not be hard. Instead, a singe D ruins everything irrevocably, unless you can remove the D, which will become the #1 priority of everyone, like you expected.

Indeed. A quick and easy way to determine whether you have advantage or disadvantage would be to write down on a set of notecards the various conditions that give you one or the other (e.g. "flanking: advantage", "in darkness: disadvantage"), and match Adv cards with Dis cards. The one that you have more cards of is the one that you receive. There can't be too many different Adv/Dis-granting conditions (regardless of ways to gain said conditions), but this would be useful enough that I still feel like some 3rd-party publisher (or even WotC themselves) will print official sets of these cards.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-10-18, 11:26 PM

Indeed. A quick and easy way to determine whether you have advantage or disadvantage would be to write down on a set of notecards the various conditions that give you one or the other (e.g. "flanking: advantage", "in darkness: disadvantage"), and match Adv cards with Dis cards. The one that you have more cards of is the one that you receive. There can't be too many different Adv/Dis-granting conditions (regardless of ways to gain said conditions), but this would be useful enough that I still feel like some 3rd-party publisher (or even WotC themselves) will print official sets of these cards.

If it's an in person game, you can just write on index cards. Online like on maptools, you could just make some macro and a display for each character's token "A/D: 0/0" that you can click to add or subtract an A or D from them and just see the sheer number of each. Really, it's not that hard to manage.

Petrocorus

2014-10-18, 11:27 PM

They are legitimately the best in 5e at sneaking. But when comparing to an untrained character, I'd take a 10th level rogue in 3e over a 20th level rogue in 5e.
And let me guess, in the meantime, wizard get Invisibility and Fly as soon as before.

The point is, those things are all downside in 3.5. Half-Orc Wizards are simply worse than Wizards of other races. In 5th edition, that's not the case--half-orcs have no Int penalty and their racial ability to essentially ignore death once per day is good for any class and, I imagine, even better for a class that can use it to instantly skedaddle with dimension door.

But, as i said earlier, i believe that Half-Orc are supposed to be worse than others as wizard and better as fighter.
The same way the Dwarf are supposed not to be good as mountebank and good as fighter and crafter, and elves bad as tank but good as wizard or (fr)agile speedster.
The races have their different abilities, different cultures, and that normal that they are mechanically different.

Our vision are somehow twisted because we want to be able to play any concept we like and, as players, we naturally want this concept, our character, to be good at what he does and to be as good as any other character with the same role.

And because some races or sub-races were simply good at everything and sometimes the best at everything. And this is the part which is not normal.

It also is twisted because some race are good at doing something that other part of the rules have made lame or useless.
The elves are good at being agile fighters, dodging every one of your blow and sharp-striking you in the throat. The problem is that the design of fighting mechanics and of feats made this concept very complex and costful to implement and rather inefficient.
The half-orc are, according to fluff, very good frontline fighter and THF charging barbarian. The mechanics made this the best kind of BSF, so they will be better and more useful than the elf speedster, but they still will be over shadowed and made redundant by CoDzilla and other T1 classes.
So of course, we would like the half-orc to be good at being a T2 class like wizard or artificer, but they are just not supposed to be. And they still can be good CoDzilla.

According to me, this is not a downside of 3.5. Making every race to be as good as every other one at filling any role is just denying all they flavor and all they differences and cancelling their interest and the interest to have so many races is the downside. And it is as bad as the opposite extreme of 1st and 2nd, were races were just forbidden to enter different classes.

5e is a better game for grittier fantasy and if you want to be able to easily jump into a game quickly and simply. It's also better for FATE-like narrative driven rather than mechanics driven adventuring.
As far as i'm concerned, if i want a game to play grittier fantasy game with an easy system, i'd simply play Warhammer.
Or one of those old games using Chaosium Basic RP System. There still are players of RuneQuest out there.

Or maybe DS9 is 3.5, and Voyager is 3.5's many splatbooks.

I'd rather say it like this, yes.

Troacctid

2014-10-19, 12:11 AM

My interpretation, since A&D (sick of spelling it out) are used for so many things (including minor stuff like flanking) and it only takes a single D to wipe out any combination of A's....

1. I would never play a rogue. Ever. No, not even then. Way too easy to get hosed out of SA.
2. The optimal thing to do would be to ensure every PC gets one reliable source of A and the party can inflict one source of D on the enemy reliably. Either you enjoy the 2d20 take high/low deal, or you're negating suffering from it. Anything beyond that is a waste. Of course, smart enemies will also realize this, and so all fights with moderately intelligent NPCs will see A's and D's all completely negating each other and will never be used in any such combats.
3. Combined w/ the fact that many of the creatures too dumb to think of this (undead, oozes, etc...) tend to be the ones immune to sneak attack (unless 5E removed immunity to it wholesale), I repeat....never playing a rogue, nuh-uh!

And i think disgusting is appropriate. It's an intentionally dumbed down system made to be simple. Tracking the number of A's and D's and knowing if they are equal or not would not be hard. Instead, a singe D ruins everything irrevocably, unless you can remove the D, which will become the #1 priority of everyone, like you expected.

Sneak attack immunities have indeed been removed. And I bet tracking advantages and disadvantages individually would be harder than you think. That sort of thing tends to be more complex in practice than it sounds in theory. I suppose you haven't played much with the advantage rules?

You can still sneak attack by flanking, by the way. Actually, it's even easier than that--you just need at least one ally to be adjacent to the target. You don't need to be on the opposite side or even anywhere near them. You can be sniping with a longbow from 150 feet away and it counts.

And let me guess, in the meantime, wizard get Invisibility and Fly as soon as before.

Yes, but Rogues get Invisibility now too, and Overland Flight is gone, so you're only flying for 10 minutes at a time instead of all day. And both spells require concentration, although I'm not sure yet how relevant that is.

TypoNinja

2014-10-19, 12:13 AM

The huge gap between the optimization floor and optimization ceiling in 3.5 rendered more options worthless than it left viable.

I disagree, in part, and its something that tends to get overlooked in an optimization discussion.

I've never played a fully optimized character. My favorite character to date has been a Mystic Theurge, and he was still plenty powerful for the game we were in.

The closest thing to a fully optimized character I have is a monk 1/weretiger/warshaper who went for Shock Trooper. His damage output is like 1/3 that of a decent THF build and hes still scary strong enough that I may refrain from ever again using Heedless Charge.

The optimal choice is not required the vast majority of the time, there are lots of viable choices when the end goal is not maximum power output or perfect efficiency.

I once played a Fighter5/Master Thrower 5, he was hilarious. TWF dwaven throwing axes. He was in fact an inherited NPC (I joined a game in progress, so was simply handed an NPC to take over). He was hilarious, but he sure as hell wasn't optimized.

While I do agree there is a huge gap between the optimization floor and ceiling, I don't think the ceiling, or anywhere close to it, is the desired power level a lot of the time. Certainly any published adventure assumes as fairly low average optimization level.

Inevitability

2014-10-19, 12:36 AM

The main reason why I sometimes prefer 3.5 over 5e is, indeed, the customizability. In 3.5, I can play a winged ex-robot with a bunch of animals, vermin, and mushrooms growing on him who has physical power exceeding that of every living being alive and because of this has an army of very weak air elementals following him, and harvest enough fluff from all the books to come up with a way to have this make sense. (Long sentence)

In 5e, there are two books out, one of which is only useful for PC's.

Forrestfire

2014-10-19, 12:39 AM

I'll add my voice to the chorus of "full optimization is a bad way to compare". I have built and played a 'fully' optimized character just once. I say 'fully' because I could have gone for more, but it was unnecessary, so I stopped. This level 20 character had access to every psionic power in the game, all the spells she wanted, an absurdly powerful army of ice assassin minions (and independent clones of herself, with their own power point reserves), and was outright immune to everything that could harm her, up to and including all the listed divine salient abilities and complete erasure from the multiverse. Even if there were homebrewed divine salient abilities, she would still survive, because one of her clones lived in Sigil, outside of any gods' reach.

This is not the balance point we care about when discussing 3.5. It's nowhere close. The game died shortly afterwards, because when you start a game with the stated goal of an excessively optimized party, stuff breaks.

Mostly, I (and everyone else I know) play in games where the goal is to hover around T3, with casters being strong, but not fully God Wizarded, and martials being a bit outclassed at times, but able to keep up in combat and in their out of combat focuses.

Sartharina

2014-10-19, 12:47 AM

You can with darkvision or low-light (as in 3.5/PF) but if you don't... no.For those complaining about rogues not being able to sneak attack in the dark in 5e... You can't do that in 3e either. You can't make a sneak attack against anyone who has concealment in 3.5e, and darkness grants concealment.
In 5e, you can still sneak attack if you're hiding in darkness 100' feet away (As opposed to the 30' limit in 3.5 and pathfinder) and your foe's illuminated. Or, you can sneak attack with everyone in darkness if you have an ally keeping the opponent's attention. From 30' away. In 3.5, you can't (Because Darkness) and you're suffering a -4 to hit on top of that.

Also - in 5e, cover provides an AC bonus, not grants disadvantage on attacks through it. The big purpose of advantage, though, is to make adjudicating situations quick, easy, and intuitive, without having to evaluate and carefully balance every detail. And, it's easy to fix. If you'd rather have static modifiers, you can import static modifiers again. You could have Advantage/Disadvantage choose to be an aggregate of a situation instead of 'if yes/no'. The point of not having stacking is to stop the game from being bogged down by trying to force and count up all the cases of advantage and disadvantage. 3.0's DMG also had a similar paragraph about quickly adjudicating circumstance bonuses/penalties, first giving a ludicriously long chain of circumstances, and then giving a simpler interpretation of the situation.

Also - my problem with 3.5 is the floor, not the ceiling.

Yeah you would think rogues would have some kind of training from their class to overcome that, but no. There is a feat to do it in PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shadow-strike-combat), which rogues can pick up at level 2 (Rogue Talent -> Combat Trick -> SS) but as I don't have the 5e PHB I don't know if they came up with a solution there besides "find a way to see in the dark."

The feat is also nice because it applies not just to darkness, but also to things like blur and fog.A feat tax that came out about 10 years after 3rd edition was released to fix a problem with the rogue.
My interpretation, since A&D (sick of spelling it out) are used for so many things (including minor stuff like flanking) and it only takes a single D to wipe out any combination of A's....

1. I would never play a rogue. Ever. No, not even then. Way too easy to get hosed out of SA.All you need is someone beside whoever you're stabbing to get SA. It's MUCH easier to get hosed out of SA in 3.5 than it is in 3e.

2. The optimal thing to do would be to ensure every PC gets one reliable source of A and the party can inflict one source of D on the enemy reliably. Either you enjoy the 2d20 take high/low deal, or you're negating suffering from it. Anything beyond that is a waste. Of course, smart enemies will also realize this, and so all fights with moderately intelligent NPCs will see A's and D's all completely negating each other and will never be used in any such combats.Advantage and Disadvantage are much harder to consistently get than you seem to think they are. There ARE other boosts, such as +1d4 buffs from spells, and cover.

3. Combined w/ the fact that many of the creatures too dumb to think of this (undead, oozes, etc...) tend to be the ones immune to sneak attack (unless 5E removed immunity to it wholesale), I repeat....never playing a rogue, nuh-uh!Fun fact - 5e HAS removed immunity to sneak attack hholesale.
EDIT: This is especially true considering no OGL in newer editions, meaning I will always have to fork over in order to even dip my toes in the supposed improvements. Maybe 5e is great; personally, it's not worth my dollars to find out.

Or you could download the basic rules for free. They are the Big 4 classes(Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue) and races (Human, Halfling, Elf, Dwarf), basic rules, a bestiary, and encounter design guidelines.

Nagash

2014-10-19, 01:06 AM

Emphasis mine.

That right there says to me "we could've done some work to help our wonderful customers, but frankly, you've already paid us, so do it yourselves."

I admit to bias, but I really don't want a game that will be rendered obsolete inside of five years. I don't want to sink my time into fun that is bizarrely incompatible with all that other fun that I had. If fun is fun, I will stick to the fun I have, thanks, and keep my money.

EDIT: This is especially true considering no OGL in newer editions, meaning I will always have to fork over in order to even dip my toes in the supposed improvements. Maybe 5e is great; personally, it's not worth my dollars to find out.
{Scrubbed}

Sartharina

2014-10-19, 01:15 AM

Emphasis mine.

That right there says to me "we could've done some work to help our wonderful customers, but frankly, you've already paid us, so do it yourselves."

I admit to bias, but I really don't want a game that will be rendered obsolete inside of five years. I don't want to sink my time into fun that is bizarrely incompatible with all that other fun that I had. If fun is fun, I will stick to the fun I have, thanks, and keep my money.
Coming back to this point - 3.5 and 5e are surprisingly compatible, despite 5e's smaller level-based numbers.

D&D 5e is D&D. I can run any module from any edition except 4th (And that's because 4th's modules are terrible) in D&D 5e and have it work, as long as I update the bestiary used. The extensive fluff is also usable, and I'm working on translating some of the races and feats.

Galen

2014-10-19, 01:55 AM

And let me guess, in the meantime, wizard get Invisibility and Fly as soon as before.
Interesting that you should mention it, and funny you picked those specific two. Actually, no, they don't. Wizards don't get Invisibility and Fly. You really may want to read the 5E PHB. You might be pleasantly surprised at how much effort was put into balancing casters vs. mundanes, and not allowing the caster to just render mundanes obsolete. Yes, the basic concept of wizards altering reality and fighters hitting things with pointy sticks is still there, but believe it or not, you can actually play a Fighter in a party consisting or Cleric, Wizard, Druid and not be redundant.

georgie_leech

2014-10-19, 02:04 AM

So, the one thing that they had to fix above all. The one thing that everybody asked them to correct, the one thing that people dislike about 3.5, they made it even worse? Is that it?

Quibble: They fixed it in 4E, which WotC paid significantly more attention to in recent years, what with it, you know, being the system they were producing material for. A significant number of people complained that the relatively even power level between, say, Fighter and Wizard was a thing that bothered them.

Jigawatts

2014-10-19, 02:23 AM

I think it boils down to system mastery and optimization. People that really enjoy those features are going to be drawn to 3.5, because they can tinker and customize to their hearts content. Many will attempt to squeeze every ounce of power out of something and negate every weakness they can.

Then there are the groups that play more casually, that arent really concerned about optimization. They know the basics, take power attack when you wield a two-hander, cast fireball at the group of ice trolls, etc, but overall they are just there to participate in the story. People that play more for the story purposes or just to have some casual fun are going to more drawn to 5E.

The vocal minority that visit internet forums usually tend to be more the first group than the second.

A prime example is someone up thread said they disliked 5E saves because there is one tied to every stat and it was impossible to be good at them all, to which I would say, that was their intended purpose, they want characters to have weaknesses. There is a reason Superman is often considered to be boring as is, now imagine what they would say if he was immune to Kryptonite as well.

Sartharina

2014-10-19, 02:24 AM

In any case, my best answer might just be that 3.5 is a ridiculously screwed up little system, likely in excess of what exists in 5th edition. Sure, a normally working system might be a bunch of fun, but a system that's deeply exploitable, filled with unintended consequences and rules contradictions, gives me real room to dig my teeth in. We've been sitting on this system for years, poking and plugging away at its various intricacies, and I don't think it's anywhere close to fully understood or exploited yet.

Or, to make things simpler, and quote the Snowbluff Axiom, "All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players." It's an argument that holds up pretty well, I think.I'd rather have a game that works as intended at face value than one that's only fun for mechanics and munchkins.

I remember someone making the argument that if you account for inflation and other economical thing, or if you calculate the price in number of minute of work at minimal wage, the new books were only a little more costful than 3.0.

[quote]So, the one thing that they had to fix above all. The one thing that everybody asked them to correct, the one thing that people dislike about 3.5, they made it even worse? Is that it?They did fix casters vs. martials over 5 years ago. And everyone hated them for it. In case you didn't notice, there's another board between the 3e and 5e boards. In that edition, Fighters, Rogues, Clerics and Wizards are the best classes to play.

Of course the non-casting characters are rendered obsolete by the casters. This is the main problem of 3.X. We all know this. Balancing that was one of the reasons of rule changes in PF and the reason for the complete change of everything in 4E.
But that doesn't account against my argument that half-orc wizard and ex-convict paladin are perfectly possible and even quite competent at what they are supposed to do in 3.5.
And apparently, that particular problem is even worse with 5E.No, it's not worse with 5e. Casters are greatly reigned in - far more than in 3e. The problem with the Half-Orc wizard in 3e was the exponential cost of penalties to high ability scores, especially in Point Buy. In 5e, a Half-orc wizard still isn't the 'best' choice for a wizard - It doesn't have any racial bonuses to INT, putting it behind elves, its primary ability is to a Wizard dump stat, and one of its racial bonuses is useless for a save-forcing caster. However, its racial features do push it toward being a 'muscle wizard' not afraid to whack people with a big weapon when they get close, and the larger hit die over the 3e one gives him great enough survivability to consider going gishy.

And an ex-con Paladin functions right out the door at level 1. Everyone gets at least 4 skills in 5e, 2 of them being of whatever floats your character concept regardless of class. No more 2-Int Penalty Skill Points on Painfully Restrictive Skill Lists going around. (And Intellect Devourers discourage dumping int.)

And as for rogues not being the best at sneaking... you're looking at it from the wrong direction. The rogue's Cunning Action and other class features that interact with stealth make it the best for subterfuge, but any character can be good at sneaking and ambushing now if they're willing to spend the character resources.

Abilities are actually abilities in 5e.

The biggest advantages Pathfinder has over 5e are playable catfolk and Dreamscarred Press.

Psyren

2014-10-19, 02:37 AM

A feat tax that came out about 10 years after 3rd edition was released to fix a problem with the rogue.

Making your non-darkvision-having race as good in the dark as one that naturally has darkvision is worthy of a feat. The term "feat tax" often gets thrown around to disguise mere entitlement.

Or you could download the basic rules for free. They are the Big 4 classes(Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue) and races (Human, Halfling, Elf, Dwarf), basic rules, a bestiary, and encounter design guidelines.

I don't care what they include in Basic if there is no way to access the rest of it beyond shelling out. They might be turning a blind eye to that sort of thing with 3.5, but you can bet the takedown notices would be flying thick and fast if someone tried to make an equally handy online resource for 5e's spells. And if I can't easily discuss a system's material then they can do without my money until I can.

The biggest advantages Pathfinder has over 5e are playable catfolk and Dreamscarred Press.

And OGL and granular modifiers and active dev participation and backwards compatibility and...

squiggit

2014-10-19, 02:57 AM

I'd rather have a game that works as intended at face value than one that's only fun for mechanics and munchkins.
3.5 isn't though. It hasn't historically been even a little bit. Optimizers are a fractional minority of players.

You should really stop acting as though optimized 3.5 is the only 3.5. It does more to make your stance look absurd than it does to help further your position.

They did fix casters vs. martials over 5 years ago. And everyone hated them for it. In case you didn't notice, there's another board between the 3e and 5e boards. In that edition, Fighters, Rogues, Clerics and Wizards are the best classes to play.
I've never heard anyone say they hate 4e specifically because Fighters are good. It's silly to isolate one facet of a radically different gameplay experience and make an assertion that it in particular caused the game's downfall.

Making your non-darkvision-having race as good in the dark as one that naturally has darkvision is worthy of a feat. The term "feat tax" often gets thrown around to disguise mere entitlement.
Well. I actually sort of agree with the premise that it's a feat tax. A rogue being able to sneakily ambush a target in the dark does feel like something iconic and baseline, not something hidden behind a feat tree.

A feat tax that came out about 10 years after 3rd edition was released to fix a problem with the rogue

That said, dismissing it as a frivolous feat tax when your alternative is... nothing, is a bit silly.

T.G. Oskar

2014-10-19, 05:41 AM

Zwei, don't take this as an offense, since it's something born out of curiosity and worry, but I'm almost physically disgusted by the title of this thread.

I have a lot of 3.5 books, I have a lot of knowledge about the system, I've made extensive homebrewing to 3.5, and I still have a campaign I want to finish. And yet, I'm willing to give a chance to 5e, particularly because I feel it does things right. Merely suggesting that you need to be reminded that one edition is better than the other is what makes me almost physically disgusted; I don't think about which edition is better, because I treat them distinctly. It's goading people who prefer one edition over another to bash the system for one reason or another; this was already done between 3e and 4e, and it's an invitation to do it again.

I looked at 5e, not just at a glance, and I find that, for all the content it has (in effect, the only books it has is the PHB, the Monster Manual, the Starter Set and Hoard of the Dragon Queen, so that's roughly 4 books), it's pretty extensive. It's kinda unfair to compare the wealth of an entire system to the first three books of the other: might as well compare the d20 SRD without Expanded Psionics Handbook, Unearthed Arcana or Deities and Demigods to make the point. Saying "I can do whatever concept I want on 3.5 but I can't with 5e" is kinda unfair when you're considering Psionics and the Complete books to do so; after all, one of the big deals of 3.x discussion is just how unbalanced Core is in terms of the martial-caster divide, where a Druid is playable out of the box while a Fighter has to make careful consideration of its feat and skill choices to prevent falling behind. The Tier System has been under heavy fire in the 5e forum right here, but if you want to use that as a baseline: defined as an equal level of optimization, a group with the Big 4 (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard) will have difficulties playing together just going by Core since the 1st and 3rd players won't beat the 2nd and 4th players since they are assumed to have the same level of optimization. 5e is still unbalanced, but it takes steps to neutralize that.

As for OGL: it's still TOO early to see what's up with it. The last thing Mearls (what's the term TGD uses for him? I know there's three oft-used nicknames for Mearls & co., but they elude my grasp at the moment) mentioned about content was "wait until December" (I think). Indeed, it would be a mistake to ignore the impact of the OGL: that said, the Basic Rules are a nice step towards rekindling with the playerbase who found the Game System License a total and absolute disappointment. I'd love to see an improved OGL for 5e, and maybe unlocking some of the rules of the PHB, but for the most part, 5e is doing better than 4e to recapture the audience, even if it hasn't done enough. I'd say that, if I have to remind someone that 3.5 is better than 5e for any reason, I'd definitely agree with the OGL. Then again, the way they're outsourcing production, this might be the new way they deal with content.

I find that 5e isn't really a bad game (quite the contrary), which is another reason why I find the thread's purpose revolting; in fact, it makes me develop some kinship with 4e fans, since some of the claims are done without a careful reading of the rules. I don't intend to point at people, but just a cursory read (ironic, isn't it?) shows instances of doing so, and maybe those things would be dispelled if at least the Basic Rules were read a bit more. The design team did things with combat that would have been great in 3.5, and are often recommended as houserules: the way they handle the Attack action is a huge one. There's some odd choices and WTF? moments (such as the Stealth rules), but that doesn't mean the entire thing is bad without mentioning the good ones (Grapple being even simpler than in PF, Shove being flexible) and the things that are both good and bad (Prone no longer works to Lockdown, but it grants Advantage to melee attackers so it oddly balances out).

In the end, Zwei, I wouldn't focus any longer on which edition is best. I'd just say "play both". If you end up preferring 3.5 (or PF) to 5e, then good; if you prefer 5e to 3.5, I'd still do some mental exercises in terms of play and DMing to cater to those who don't want to transfer, and ideally, spend time with both. 5e is simpler to play and, depending on the DMG, easier to DM, so it can serve as a vacation for when DMing 3.5 starts to become exhausting.

After all, why not ask "remind me why 2e is better than any other edition afterwards?" I'm sure TGD would release a nifty essay proving so; I reckon they prefer things of 2e more than 3.5 after all. Then again, I might be wrong.

P.S.: I almost forgot, Rogues get Blindsense at 14th level, if my memory serves me right. Their Blindsense ability is an actual class feature, and it behaves much like Blindsight (in fact, I think it's actually Blindsight). Between Blindsight and Cunning Action, I had to do a double- + spit-take.

Stella

2014-10-19, 06:12 AM

The main problem of 3.5 was the utter lack of balance. Which itself was mostly due to Magic, which itself was mostly due to the fact that too many spells were individually broken or badly worded.
[snipped due to a lack of comprehension of what the sentence meant]
If they had taken 3.5 and done the (huge) necessary work to revised ALL the spells ever published in order to make them more balanced (or to ban when not possible) and add experience malus to casting class, that would have solved a lot of the problems of 3.5.

Better yet, had they done the not-so-huge necessary work to eliminate about 90% of the spells, and to ensure that the spells remaining were well worded and balanced, then balance would have been far easier to achieve almost immediately, with only minor changes to the bottom Tier classes needed to complete the job. It's the vast quantities of spells for every situation which make full casters so potent, not the fact that they get to cast spells at all.

In 3.5, you don't really have the option to play a half-orc wizard or an ex-convict paladin because although half-orcs are a playable race and skills can be taken cross-class, those options are traps that will result in your character sucking at the thing they're supposed to be proficient at. That's not the case in 5th edition.That's not accurate at all. A Half-Ork Wizard is still a Tier 1 caster, and that 2 points of INT doesn't mean much in the long run.

I'm not sure where you're going with the ex-convict Paladin, but I don't see that back story as being any real limitation to playing a Paladin either.

eggynack

2014-10-19, 06:21 AM

I'm not sure where you're going with the ex-convict Paladin, but I don't see that back story as being any real limitation to playing a Paladin either.
My vague understanding is that being an ex-con is somehow alignment constraining, in turn meaning that ex-con translates to ex-paladin. Doesn't really seem to follow in my view though, and even if it does, there are plenty of effective ways to build a character that fits that archetype. Blackguard and alternate alignment paladins are right there in the SRD, after all, and both crusaders and clerics can fill the general paladin role without an LG restriction.

Stella

2014-10-19, 06:52 AM

Yes, but I'm sure half the point of 5e (and PF, hence my annoyance) was to fix these things [Rogues who can't see in the dark not being able to sneak attack]. If the writers are letting stupid things like this through the vetting process, gods help them when they write their own content!
You think the point of 5e was to allow people who can't see in the dark to act completely competently in the dark just because they trained how to place knives in kidneys for a long time?

I think that would be too much like a video game! :smallyuk:

My vague understanding is that being an ex-con is somehow alignment constraining, in turn meaning that ex-con translates to ex-paladin. Doesn't really seem to follow in my view though, and even if it does, there are plenty of effective ways to build a character that fits that archetype. Blackguard and alternate alignment paladins are right there in the SRD, after all, and both crusaders and clerics can fill the general paladin role without an LG restriction.
Not to mention the enormous amount of examples from novels, movies, and even real life of people who were convicted/imprisoned unfairly, making them de facto ex-cons but saying nothing at all about their alignment.

eggynack

2014-10-19, 07:00 AM

Not to mention the enormous amount of examples from novels, movies, and even real life of people who were convicted/imprisoned unfairly, making them de facto ex-cons but saying nothing at all about their alignment.
Yeah, there're a ton of ways to pull off a lawful good ex-con, probably even if the crime was actually committed. Atonement exists for a reason, after all, both in spell and not-spell flavors.

Sartharina

2014-10-19, 08:30 AM

3.5 isn't though. It hasn't historically been even a little bit. Optimizers are a fractional minority of players.

You should really stop acting as though optimized 3.5 is the only 3.5. It does more to make your stance look absurd than it does to help further your position.It's not the optimization level - it's the presumed incompetence of low-level characters. The math is against everyone that's not a specific style thanks to Full Round Actions, piles of -2s and -4s tacked onto every action ever, basic competency spread over a dozen levels to discourage dipping, and other such mechanics.

I've never heard anyone say they hate 4e specifically because Fighters are good. It's silly to isolate one facet of a radically different gameplay experience and make an assertion that it in particular caused the game's downfall.[/quote]I have! Most of the complaints, though, are that a wizard isn't the god that it was in 3.5.

Well. I actually sort of agree with the premise that it's a feat tax. A rogue being able to sneakily ambush a target in the dark does feel like something iconic and baseline, not something hidden behind a feat tree.

That said, dismissing it as a frivolous feat tax when your alternative is... nothing, is a bit silly.The bigger point was the 10 year wait.

As for the problems with an ex-con Paladin - a convict would pick up and have certain skills required to survive either in a prison setting or on the run from the law. A 3.5 paladin's painfully few skill points and narrow skill list do not lend themselves to such a background.

The Insanity

2014-10-19, 09:08 AM

I like it better.

Gwendol

2014-10-19, 09:23 AM

It isn't a better game, just a different system. I think a simpler system shifts the focus from character building to development and adventuring. My experiences with 5e are largely positive.

Brookshw

2014-10-19, 09:37 AM

It isn't a better game, just a different system. I think a simpler system shifts the focus from character building to development and adventuring. My experience with 5e are largely positive.

The more I hear about 5e the more interesting it sounds. Sounds as if there are some nice refinements.

heavyfuel

2014-10-19, 09:47 AM

I have! Most of the complaints, though, are that a wizard isn't the god that it was in 3.5.

Really? Because most (well over 90%) of the complaints I've heard and read is that Mundane characters are vancian, 1 HP Fire Giants, Solos are weak despite their bonuses, and that the game feels too video-gamey. Honestly, I agree with all these complaits i've mentioned and their the reason I don't play 4e. However, only once I've read someone complaining they couldn't absolutely dominate the game with a Wizard like they could in 3e.

Overall, people did like martial and magical balance, they just didn't like other aspects of the game.

Stella

2014-10-19, 09:50 AM

Optimizers are a fractional minority of players.

You should really stop acting as though optimized 3.5 is the only 3.5. It does more to make your stance look absurd than it does to help further your position.
The issue isn't optimized play. I agree with you that this is a minority, or at least it hasn't ever been seen in any of the great many different 3.X games I've played in.

The issue is when a player who wrote "Wizard" on their character sheet happens to select a few spells which are effective, and so naturally keeps using them. Or the player who writes "Druid" on their character sheet, and so gets two actions per round as a class feature, one of which can be to cast spells. This happens, and I've seen it happen a lot.

The player who wrote "Fighter" on their character sheet will never stumble onto a similar means of separating themselves in effectiveness from the reset of the players. They can try to hold their own for a few levels at a cost of all of their Feats narrowly focused at a single goal, but those stop adding any synergy after a while, with "a while" being about 5th level or below. More spells of increasingly higher level and multiple attacks with an ever more powerful animal companion never stops adding synergy. And to make this work at all takes a deliberate and knowledgeable attempt on the part of the Fighter to remain relevant for as long as is possible, unlike the simple selection of a better class for the other players in this example.

So while highly optimized play shouldn't be a part of the discussion and comparison, the simple fact of the difference in power between a Tier 1 class and a Tier 4-5 class is quite valid to the discussion and comparison.

But really, there is a lot of freely downloadable content available that can give anyone curious a decent idea of what 5e looks like. Even just looking at the starter set characters (http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/StarterSet_Charactersv2.pdf) should be enlightening to anyone who hasn't looked at 5e at all. Flip to page two of the characters and read the level progression. You'll see a decent amount of additional competency for each class as they advance. Or look at the complete lists in the basic rules, available at the same site I linked above.

I don't know how it will play, because I haven't played it. But I'm looking forward to giving it a chance. A friend of mine has bought the PHB, and will probably be putting together an adventure for us soon.

Petrocorus

2014-10-19, 10:43 AM

A significant number of people complained that the relatively even power level between, say, Fighter and Wizard was a thing that bothered them.
I've never been interested in 4E, but from what i could gather on this boards, i was under the impression that what bothered people was not that Fighter and Wizard had the same power level but more or less the same mechanics, with powers/encounters.

Interesting that you should mention it, and funny you picked those specific two.
A lvl 2 spell and a lvl 3 spell combo which is infamous for completely rendering two skills obsolete. And a base class therefore half-obsolete.

No, it's not worse with 5e. Casters are greatly reigned in - far more than in 3e.

Some posts in this very thread gave me the impression of the contrary.

especially in Point Buy.

Point Buy is only one of the method, and it has its variants. There are other methods and from day 1 of BECMI, people have always homebrewed their own method. Granted, it's not a good point for 3.5.

And an ex-con Paladin functions right out the door at level 1. Everyone gets at least 4 skills in 5e, 2 of them being of whatever floats your character concept regardless of class. No more 2-Int Penalty Skill Points on Painfully Restrictive Skill Lists going around. (And Intellect Devourers discourage dumping int.)
I do totally agree that starting skill points and skill list was a problem and a downside of 3.5's skill system. This and the lack of skill points / lvl of some classes like Fighter and Pally. It would have been simple to fix that by changing the formula from (n+int) x4 to (n+int x2 + fixed value, and to allow everybody to chose some skills as class skill for the first level, or by many other ways. They never did.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-10-19, 11:01 AM

Does point buy still hard cap you to lower potential stats than rolling? And I think numerically the average rolls were better than the standard point buy, too.

I recall that, and it pissing me off.

Petrocorus

2014-10-19, 11:11 AM

Better yet, had they done the not-so-huge necessary work to eliminate about 90% of the spells, and to ensure that the spells remaining were well worded and balanced, then balance would have been far easier to achieve almost immediately, with only minor changes to the bottom Tier classes needed to complete the job. It's the vast quantities of spells for every situation which make full casters so potent, not the fact that they get to cast spells at all.

My point exactly. Spells like Spectral Hand, while not broken by themselves, should not exist because they are specifically designed to overcome one of the limitation of caster that was bringing (some) balance. The same for DMM.
And of course spells like the polymorph line, shivering touch, love's pain, mindrape for instance are clearly broken or at least too leniently worded. Eliminate this and you'll get much more balance.

The sentence you didn't understand (because i badly worded it) was about some limitations of casters in 1st and 2nd that 3.X dropped for several reasons.
One of them was the fact that every classes in previous ed had their own level progression with different XP cost for levelling. A Fighter 20 was less powerful than a Wizard 20, but with the same amount of XP than a Fighter 20, the Wiz was only lvl 11 or 12.
The dropped that because it would have messed with the new levelling and multiclassing system they implement in 3.0. Which is sad because it was a big balancing factor. Another example is that it was much more difficult for a non multiclassed wizard to be able to cast in armor or to get something to lower his AC significantly.

LTwerewolf

2014-10-19, 11:53 AM

I've never been interested in 4E, but from what i could gather on this boards, i was under the impression that what bothered people was not that Fighter and Wizard had the same power level but more or less the same mechanics, with powers/encounters.

We played 4e when it first came out, and I decided to play a wizard. It felt like playing a wizard. Combat took a long time, but that was ok, we were new and sometimes things take soem time to learn. So we finished a run from 1 to around 7 (some were 8) and decided to make some new ones. The new character I made was a warlock. It felt like playing a wizard. We started at level 5 and ended at level 12. Combat took longer and longer as we leveled up, despite how we learned the rules and didn't need to look most things up anymore.

The next run I played a fighter. It felt like playing a wizard. We started at 12 and got to 15. By level 15, combats took hours to resolve. It got to the point where you needed to kill something 6 times before it died. That doesn't really make for a fun experience, when every character I play feels identical. The other players said they had the same experience for the feel of their characters. One went Cleric->ranger->warlock, another went fighter->warlord->rogue, and they all felt the same.

aleucard

2014-10-19, 12:03 PM

Seerow

2014-10-19, 12:06 PM

The two biggest problems with 4e is what LTwerewolf just described, namely how it's easy to file off the serial numbers from all the abilities, chuck them into a bowl, and the only people who would be able to tell which goes where by more than pure luck are the people who make money on knowing this sort of thing, which is more memory than anything, and the fact that it plays like Tabletop Gaming for the World of Warcraft age, while completely ignoring what the actual audience of DnD likes. That plan failed for the same reason that MMO's that try to muscle in on WoW's territory do; namely, marketing to WoW players won't work while WoW remains viable.

For what it's worth, I like WoW. 4e's combat system was nothing like WoW. In fact, if it had been, the game as a whole might have gone over a lot better. If a typical non-caster in a TTRPG was half as competent as a bog standard Warrior out of WoW, I would be among the first to hail it as a great success.

Psyren

2014-10-19, 01:33 PM

Well. I actually sort of agree with the premise that it's a feat tax. A rogue being able to sneakily ambush a target in the dark does feel like something iconic and baseline, not something hidden behind a feat tree.

I don't consider a standalone feat, available at 2nd level (1st level for Slayers and Ranger) with no feat prereqs and printed in their second splatbook ever released to be "behind a feat tree."

Most of the complaints, though, are that a wizard isn't the god that it was in 3.5.

None of my complaints had anything to do with wizards not being gods. In fact, Wizards are still godly in 5e (and once they have spells that can target all 6 saves, they will warp encounters just as thoroughly as they do now.) They just have a lot less ammunition and so they are unlikely to try exercising that godhood more than a few times per day.

You can also restrict 3.P wizards in similar fashion just by throwing out bonus spells.

The bigger point was the 10 year wait.

If you're counting from 3e's release, doesn't that mean that 5e is 14 years deficient on this issue and counting? Because they have yet to provide a solution either.

Galen

2014-10-19, 02:16 PM

A lvl 2 spell and a lvl 3 spell combo which is infamous for completely rendering two skills obsolete. And a base class therefore half-obsolete.
Casters making whole mundane classes obsolete is 3.5e thing, not a 5e thing. Flying Improved Invisible Stoneskinned Wizard raining death on his enemies is gone. Well, it's not gone for you. Since you play 3.5....

Some posts in this very thread gave me the impression of the contrary.
{Scrubbed}

squiggit

2014-10-19, 02:23 PM

I don't consider a standalone feat, available at 2nd level (1st level for Slayers and Ranger) with no feat prereqs and printed in their second splatbook ever released to be "behind a feat tree."
Yeah, my mistake. Thought I remembered it having a feat prereq

Casters making whole mundane classes obsolete is 3.5e thing, not a 5e thing. Flying Improved Invisible Stoneskinned Wizard raining death on his enemies is gone. Well, it's not gone for you. Since you play 3.5....

{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

I'm not sure what you expect this ridiculous bitterness to accomplish.

Sartharina

2014-10-19, 03:25 PM

Some posts in this very thread gave me the impression of the contrary.Those posts are in error.

I do totally agree that starting skill points and skill list was a problem and a downside of 3.5's skill system. This and the lack of skill points / lvl of some classes like Fighter and Pally. It would have been simple to fix that by changing the formula from (n+int) x4 to (n+int x2 + fixed value, and to allow everybody to chose some skills as class skill for the first level, or by many other ways. They never did.Actually, INTx2 would have been worse on fighters and paladins, and overvalued the INT stat. The baseline skills, I feel, were too low. And even the classes that got a "lot" of skill points didn't really, especially in 3.5. And Pathfinder improved this a lot with skill consolidation, but 3.0 had the best Perform skill ever.

Wrenn

2014-10-19, 03:27 PM

Magic is reigned in with the concentration rule. Spells with ongoing effects (buffs/debuffs, fly, invisibility, etc.) are concentration spells. A spellcaster can only have a single concentration spell active at a time.

Rogue sneak attack is so much easier to gain than many of you seem to believe. Yes, advantage grants SA, but so does having an ally adjacent to your target. This grants SA to both Melee and Ranged attacks.

Advantage is not cumulative, no matter how many sources of advantage you have you only ever roll 1 extra d20. Same for disadvantage.

As far as the argument against rogues not getting SA when they are blind? Well, they're blind. But they do have a darkvision class feature built right in.

There are some legitimate arguments on this thread, but quite a few of them are made out of ignorance. I find this baffling considering you can read the rules for free.

Psyren

2014-10-19, 03:37 PM

Those posts are in error.

Assuming he meant mine, I'll be happy to receive clarification on any parts I got wrong (e.g. Advantage/Disadvantage, vision and light, the stealth rules, saving throws etc.)

As far as the argument against rogues not getting SA when they are blind? Well, they're blind. But they do have a darkvision class feature built right in.

Is that in Basic? Because the only thing I see is the Blindsense feature they get at 14, and that doesn't actually remove the concealment (along with being really late.)

Sartharina

2014-10-19, 03:38 PM

...Actually, I can't find a rule in 5e that says attacking someone in darkness conveys disadvantage.

Well, unless you're considered blind. But then again - rogues function just fine by creeping around in the (Far more common than absolute darkness) Dim Light, and ambushing from there. They can still sneak around in dim light, and don't suffer disadvantage on attacks against people they can see in said lighting.

Wrenn

2014-10-19, 03:46 PM

Darkness imposes the blinded condition. Auto fail on ability checks requiring sight, disadvantage on attacks, advantage granted to attacks made against you.

And you are correct, blind sense is not what I thought. It only makes you aware of hidden and invisible creatures within 10 ft.

ShneekeyTheLost

2014-10-19, 03:50 PM

Psyren

2014-10-19, 03:51 PM

Wrenn

2014-10-19, 04:05 PM

Why is 3.5 better than 5e? Because it works, it has worked, and will continue working long after its supposed obsolescence.

The OGL is another huge reason. Everything in 5e is closed source. You can't get the level of discussion about mechanics with 5e that you can with 3.5 because you can't cite sources, because everything is closed source. This discourages the sort of mechanics discussions that, ultimately, are good for the game. If the developer bothers listening to them.

Which is why I play Legend now. Basically, some people got together, had those discussions, and came up with a way to fix them. It's not perfect, no game truly is, but it's a damn sight more balanced than 3.5, and one hell of a lot more versatile than 5e.

Basically, 5e is preventing itself from ever becoming something better, in an attempt to make a quick buck. Long term fail for short term gains, which pretty much describes WoTC these days.

It's much too early to judge on this alone, not even all of the books are released yet. The Mearls has said to wait until the beginning of the year before an announcement regarding that will be made.

In a heavily obscured area (i.e. darker than dim light) your attacks have dis- Oh never mind, you added it.

But beyond that, any source of disadvantage shuts off your class feature. Entangled? No sneak attack. Poisoned? No sneak attack. Prone? no sneak attack. Feared? etc.

It shuts it off only if you are relying solely on advantage to begin with. As long as your ally is adjacent to your target you gain sneak attack regardless of advantage or disadvantage.

Psyren

2014-10-19, 04:26 PM

It shuts it off only if you are relying solely on advantage to begin with. As long as your ally is adjacent to your target you gain sneak attack regardless of advantage or disadvantage.

Not quite. If you have disadvantage and an ally is adjacent, that shuts it off too. Only if you are neutral and have an adjacent ally does it stay on.

Wrenn

2014-10-19, 04:35 PM

Not quite. If you have disadvantage and an ally is adjacent, that shuts it off too. Only if you are neutral and have an adjacent ally does it stay on.

I stand corrected. Completely missed that.

Psyren

2014-10-19, 04:39 PM

See, some of us HAVE read the rules, and simply don't prefer 5e even though we understand them :smalltongue:

But let me go on record and say I absolutely consider it better than 4e, and 2e for that matter.

My ranking, for what it's worth: 3.P > PF > 3.5 > 5e > everything else.

aleucard

2014-10-19, 05:02 PM

My ranking, for what it's worth: 3.P > PF > 3.5 > 5e > everything else.

Presumably by how you put this, 3.P refers to when you use material from both systems in a single campaign rather than just referring to them both at once (rather than typing out 3.5 and PF)? I'd love to play a game like that..... ;-; I've been trying to get into a game on roll20 for months.

otakumick

2014-10-19, 05:25 PM

Alent

2014-10-19, 05:25 PM

It's much too early to judge on this alone, not even all of the books are released yet. The Mearls has said to wait until the beginning of the year before an announcement regarding that will be made.

I hadn't heard that Mearls had said that, but I think that underscores my opinion that a decent percentage of what you learn about 5e's rules is going to be wrong in two months. :smallannoyed:

eggynack

2014-10-19, 05:38 PM

I can't answer for Psyren, but I say 3.P a lot myself... when I say it, it refers to 3.5 with a few cherry picked rules backported from pathfinder...
I think it can also mean the opposite. I suspect that which it means really depends on which game you suspect has the better base system, which for you would probably be 3.5, and for Psyren would almost certainly be PF.

Petrocorus

2014-10-19, 05:47 PM

Those posts are in error.

I see that now thank to the several answers on the matter.
I've started reading basic this morning, but i'm not going to invest time and money before the release of the DMG and more perspective on the rules as a whole.

Actually, INTx2 would have been worse on fighters and paladins, and overvalued the INT stat. The baseline skills, I feel, were too low. And even the classes that got a "lot" of skill points didn't really, especially in 3.5. And Pathfinder improved this a lot with skill consolidation, but 3.0 had the best Perform skill ever.
You seem to have missed the "+fixed value" part. I was meaning that the fighter, instead of having (2 + int) x4 could have something like (2 +int) x2 + 15 or (2 +int) x2 + 20, with the additional possibilities to chose 4 or 5 skills as class skill for the first level.
The +20 would be the same for everybody, downplaying the importance of class and Int in the starting skill set.
And yes, Fighters (and Pally) should have 4 / lvl anyway.

The OGL is another huge reason. Everything in 5e is closed source. You can't get the level of discussion about mechanics with 5e that you can with 3.5 because you can't cite sources, because everything is closed source. This discourages the sort of mechanics discussions that, ultimately, are good for the game. If the developer bothers listening to them.
I still think we should wait for that. They messed that up with 4E, i do hope they understood their mistake and will put some kind of OGL in place for 5E.

Does someone remember how long it took after the release of 3.0 for the release of OGL? Was it immediate?

otakumick

2014-10-19, 05:50 PM

I think it can also mean the opposite. I suspect that which it means really depends on which game you suspect has the better base system, which for you would probably be 3.5, and for Psyren would almost certainly be PF.

As I understand it, pathfinder is supposed to have some backwards compatibility built in so importing some things from 3.5 is fairly normal... I do prefer 3.5 as the base, I wonder how you figured that out :p largely because I hate golarion... the setting just irritates me... also like the vast majority of 3.5 and just like backporting a few streamlined things and fixes.

Wrenn

2014-10-19, 05:56 PM

I hadn't heard that Mearls had said that, but I think that underscores my opinion that a decent percentage of what you learn about 5e's rules is going to be wrong in two months. :smallannoyed:

He said that in a few interviews and I believe there was a Legends and Lore article about the possibility of an OGL, or perhaps a part of an article if not the whole. Basically, from what I gathered, it's still tied up in legal. I imagine it would be pretty difficult to persuade Hasbro to release the entirety of their product for free, especially after having done so in the past gave birth to what is now their biggest competitor. Mearls has said that their business model for this edition will steer clear of splat books in favor of high quality adventures and campaign settings. If that does indeed become the case, then convincing Hasbro could be easier. Regardless, I don't foresee the rules changing as much as you predict. In and of itself, it is a pretty tight game. Much more so than 4e was when it first released, I think we all remember the massive amount of errata that followed its inauguration.

Seerow

2014-10-19, 05:59 PM

Actually, INTx2 would have been worse on fighters and paladins, and overvalued the INT stat. The baseline skills, I feel, were too low. And even the classes that got a "lot" of skill points didn't really, especially in 3.5. And Pathfinder improved this a lot with skill consolidation, but 3.0 had the best Perform skill ever.

I actually agree with this. 3.5 had too many skills and not enough skill points per character. Pathfinder definitely took a step in the right direction in consolidating some skills and changing how cross class skills work.

Personally for my games, on top of some skill consolidation and using PF style crossclass skills, there's a +50% increase to skills per level across the board, and anybody with less than 9th level spells and only 2 skills per level gets doubled on top of that. (So Fighter gets 6 skill points per level. Wizard gets 3. Rogue gets 12). Then on top of that I separate out Knowledge/Profession/Craft/Perform as Background Skills, and everyone regardless of class gets 2+int mod of those skills. If someone wants more Background skills they can give up 1 regular skill point for 2 background skill points.

Even with all of that my players still complain they never have enough skills. Which is either representative of my players being really greedy or of 3.5 characters in general being horrendously skill rank starved.

nyjastul69

2014-10-19, 06:01 PM

...

Does someone remember how long it took after the release of 3.0 for the release of OGL? Was it immediate?

I believe the OGL and d20STL were both released with the 3.0 PH in Aug 2000. If they weren't, it wasn't long after, as WW released their Creature Collection in Oct 2000.

Milo v3

2014-10-19, 06:16 PM

Mearls has said that their business model for this edition will steer clear of splat books in favor of high quality adventures and campaign settings.

Hearing this has caused 5e to become near-useless to me, to be honest....

toapat

2014-10-19, 06:28 PM

There's no way to meaningfully represent both running around killing giant rats in an inn's basement and fighting level 80 horrors from beyond the veil of time and space

See, this is a problem. How can you really explain a character who started out as a chump and eventually became a near-omnipotent god who has fought on the scale of rats and now Cthulu & Co are at best a weekly occurance. This to me doesnt sound like a good design idea, it sounds like someone forgot to maintain a singular scale of what a character in this universe is

I have over 15 different Barbarians alone for 5e - I don't think there are even five viable unique barbarian concepts in 3e.

This is more a condemnation of exactly how blinding optimization can be, or how exactly little different works in 3.5 when compared to 5th. Either way barb in 3rd had more options if less significant variety within those options.

Relatively the point you were making is "At this point, the classes are more diversified and better balanced then in 3rd relatively"

Rangers and monks are also stealth-focused characters, of course they'd be good at stealth. But is a 5e rogue at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 actually meaningfully stealthier than a wizard (who doesn't pump DEX) or an archer-based fighter (who does)?

This is not a rhetorical question, I have no idea.

yes. between doubled proficiency, Cant roll worse then a 12 (i hate this math though, with 144/400 results being the same), and arcane trickster invisiblity, Rogues can and should be the stealthiest bastards.

I imagine it would be pretty difficult to persuade Hasbro to release the entirety of their product for free, especially after having done so in the past gave birth to what is now their biggest competitor. Mearls has said that their business model for this edition will steer clear of splat books in favor of high quality adventures and campaign settings. If that does indeed become the case, then convincing Hasbro could be easier. Regardless, I don't foresee the rules changing as much as you predict. In and of itself, it is a pretty tight game. Much more so than 4e was when it first released, I think we all remember the massive amount of errata that followed its inauguration.

Pazio-Pathfinder is basically a long chain of events that WotC/Hasbro created for themselves as opposed to some mistake. Someone was going to grab the OGL and ride the glory no matter what. Pazio and their devs were basically exiled from the company as opposed to carefully locked behind a few layers of ablative contract.

The only manditory errata that 5th really needs is that Dis/Advantage doesnt terminate but instead goes +X/-Y=Z as opposed to +X/-Y=0. Stealth needs to be replaced wholesale.

Wrenn

2014-10-19, 07:07 PM

Hearing this has caused 5e to become near-useless to me, to be honest....

Don't misunderstand, according to Mearls there will be splat books. They will be limited in number and play tested in hopes of reigning in the power creep of the past. I believe he had said 1, maybe 2, splats released a year. Focusing more on adventures and campaign settings to bring in profit will allow them to take extra care toward the quality of any future stat books. It would also make it more justifiable to give away their rules for free in an OGL. Some people seem to think an OGL is a light choice, an entitlement even, but that involves giving away a product that spent years in development, years of investment, for free. Personally, I don't understand how that can be viable at all.

Pazio-Pathfinder is basically a long chain of events that WotC/Hasbro created for themselves as opposed to some mistake. Someone was going to grab the OGL and ride the glory no matter what. Pazio and their devs were basically exiled from the company as opposed to carefully locked behind a few layers of ablative contract.

Yes, but without an OGL that would not have happened. That, in no small part, will contribute to a decision on a new OGL either way.

Milo v3

2014-10-19, 07:39 PM

Don't misunderstand, according to Mearls there will be splat books. They will be limited in number and play tested in hopes of reigning in the power creep of the past. I believe he had said 1, maybe 2, splats released a year. Focusing more on adventures and campaign settings to bring in profit will allow them to take extra care toward the quality of any future stat books.
I understand if other people want and like adventure paths and campaign setting books, but I never use them so they'd be near-worthless to me. So I'd be getting a tiny number of splatbooks with no benefit, when I can just play PF and get splatbooks every few months.

Anlashok

2014-10-19, 07:49 PM

They will be limited in number and play tested in hopes of reigning in the power creep of the past.

Huh? In both Third and Fourth editions the strongest stuff in the game was almost universally in Core. What power creep are they talking about?

OldTrees1

2014-10-19, 08:12 PM

Huh? In both Third and Fourth editions the strongest stuff in the game was almost universally in Core. What power creep are they talking about?

The designer and the player look into the house from different windows. Shapechange into a Zodar for a SU Wish can be seen as powercreep or as broken Core.

toapat

2014-10-19, 08:29 PM

Yes, but without an OGL that would not have happened.

The OGL warped what happened, It didnt change that the 3rd to 4th transition involved slash and burn tactics. Pazio's release and the number of devs they alienated during development created an environment to unify around.

Its more likely Whitewolf or another runner up would have had better success without the OGL from the 4th Ed divide then Pazio did.

eggynack

2014-10-19, 08:36 PM

The designer and the player look into the house from different windows. Shapechange into a Zodar for a SU Wish can be seen as powercreep or as broken Core.
Not really. Shapechange is ridiculously more powerful than just about anything else in the game, even without splat books. Zodar is probably the best use of the spell, but the numerous other uses are also fantastic. Also, the fiend folio came out before the 3.5 PHB, so... yeah.

Curmudgeon

2014-10-19, 08:37 PM

I still think we should wait for that. They messed that up with 4E, i do hope they understood their mistake and will put some kind of OGL in place for 5E.
They're taking a similar but somewhat different route, releasing rules subsets instead.

PlayerDnDBasicRules_v0.2.pdf
PlayerDnDBasicRules_v0.2_PrintFriendly.pdf
StarterSet_Charactersv2.pdf
DMDnDBasicRules_v0.1.pdf
DMDnDBasicRules_v0.1_PrinterFriendly.pdf

Wrenn

2014-10-19, 08:40 PM

I understand if other people want and like adventure paths and campaign setting books, but I never use them so they'd be near-worthless to me. So I'd be getting a tiny number of splatbooks with no benefit, when I can just play PF and get splatbooks every few months.

I can understand your viewpoint. I confess I'm the opposite, I find the sheer volume of 3.P to be overwhelming sometimes, so much so that I can barely keep track of it. I love the edition and always will, it's what I cut my teeth on. But at this moment in my life I'm enjoying the streamlined, simplified rules of other games, and 5e fits into that category while keeping that classic DnD feel that I love.

I suppose all I can say is to not write it off until it is fully released, the DMG is looking promising as far as customizing your game experience. At least give it a couple of sessions at your table, if only with the free basic rules. Theorycrafting can only go so far.

Milo v3

2014-10-19, 09:04 PM

I suppose all I can say is to not write it off until it is fully released, the DMG is looking promising as far as customizing your game experience. At least give it a couple of sessions at your table, if only with the free basic rules. Theorycrafting can only go so far.
Yeah... Probably not gonna use those free rules. Since my player number is firstly larger than four, and seem rather bored by the default archetypes since they are so sterotypical... So gonna have to wait a fair while before we can test it.

Stella

2014-10-19, 09:12 PM

[snipped for brevity] I decided to play a wizard. It felt like playing a wizard.
The new character I made was a warlock. It felt like playing a wizard.
The next run I played a fighter. It felt like playing a wizard.
It's difficult to argue with how someone feels, since that's their own personal experience. But the different abilities of the different classes were not just carbon copies of each other. The Fighter has martial flavored abilities, the Wizard has Wizard flavored abilities, the Warlock has Warlock flavored abilities, etc.
The real differences between a 3.5 Wizard and a 4e Wizard is that the 4e Wizard can't "supernova" down an encounter and then demand that the party allow her to sleep to regain her spells or suffer the consequences of having no magical support in any more encounters for the day. The 4e Wizard also can't dominate the spotlight by whipping out any number of spells which replace the class abilities of the people she is supposed to be adventuring with as an equal partner.
If better balance resembles "cookie cutter" to you, that might be because better balance pretty much means that the players are roughly equal in effectiveness, which 3.5 can never claim. But that doesn't mean that the flavor of each cookie has to be, or is, the same.

[snipped] the fact that it plays like Tabletop Gaming for the World of Warcraft age, while completely ignoring what the actual audience of DnD likes.
I played WoW for several years. 4e does not play like WoW, not even slightly. That slur is a rather old and tired one at this point.

That plan failed for the same reason that MMO's that try to muscle in on WoW's territory do; namely, marketing to WoW players won't work while WoW remains viable.
Hmmm, then when WoW "muscled in" on EverQuest's (and EverQuest II's) market, that should have been a complete flop, right? Oh, and EverQuest should have failed miserably because Neverwinter Nights was already in place, right?
And Star Wars: The Old Republic should never have gained a million subscribers in the first three days of it's launch since WoW was still around with its 6 or 7 million subscribers, right?

Whether you like it or not, 4e was a successful product. It sold out entirely in preorders and forced WotC to start a second print run (which I'm sure they were very happy to do!). I don't know how much money it has made for WotC, but if you're selling out a product, as long as you're not selling at a loss (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html), you've got a successful product.

And I won't bother to guess whether WotC decided to release 5e because 4e sales had slowed, or because of the simple fact that in order to maintain their revenue stream they either have to release a new version of an already existing product, or they have to develop and release a brand new product. Releasing a new product with a new brand is always going to be both more difficult, as you must create from whole cloth, and more risky, as you have no past history to use to judge the return on investment. So guess which one will have the most support in the board meetings?

They have the examples of the past successes of releasing new versions of D&D as an example to go on, as well as the examples of companies such as Games Workshop which also operate on the "new release every few years" model to keep their revenue stream going.

Milo v3

2014-10-19, 09:21 PM

Forrestfire

2014-10-19, 09:24 PM

Except that the flavor makes them not play the same, given that it's all wrapped into the mechanics. Fighters get melee-range and close powers, using their weapon dice. Wizards focus on ranged crowd control effects, and Sorcerers like to blast. I have played all these sorts of characters, and I don't feel like they play similarly at all.

You may as well say that, say, a 3.5 mailman sorcerer plays exactly the same as a 3.5 ubercharger barbarian, because they both use d20s to deal damage to something and take it out in one round. Or that a BFC wizard plays exactly the same as a lockdown tripper. Or that the Tome of Battle classes play exactly the same as spellcasters. It could be seen as being "samey" due to presentation, but in practice, there are huge differences, even if the end result is similar.

At least to me (and others). Obviously, your experience is different. To each his own.

Anlashok

2014-10-19, 09:24 PM

Flavour is irrelevant when they all Play the same.

Tell that to people who like playing Clerics more than Wizards in 3.5 then.

I mean, there's a point there that all the classes run on the same basic chassis, but it feels a bit goofy to whine about when we're comparing it to a system that... also has every class run off one of two possible mechanics. Especially if you're looking at Pathfinder, which doesn't have subsystems.

Leon

2014-10-19, 10:01 PM

The problem being 5e doesn't actually provide the same level of customization.

3.0/3.5 had about the same amount when it first came out. Its not until the the tidal wave of option books that you open to massive levels of customization.

At the basic level id say 5e has more customization options that 3.5 core did due to sub classes at the very least.

I played WoW for several years. 4e does not play like WoW, not even slightly. That slur is a rather old and tired one at this point.

yet Neverwinter proved very well that 4e was highly compatible with the MMO style

Seerow

2014-10-19, 10:13 PM

3.0/3.5 had about the same amount when it first came out. Its not until the the tidal wave of option books that you open to massive levels of customization.

This is at least partially true. But then again, when the argument is that 5e is more customizable than 3.5e, you have to take into account the massive amount more material that 3.5e has available to it. You also have to consider that the current plan for 5e seems to be fewer splat books with character options, and more focus on adventure paths and campaign settings (I don't have a source for this, going by what some of the pro-5e people in this thread have been saying), which means in all likelihood it will never actually catch up with 3.5 in breadth, and that is by design.

But ignoring that, even if 5e had literally the exact same number of options as 3.5 as a whole, with the way 5e is set up I would still feel comfortable calling it less customizable. Stat boosts/feats are rolled into one. You gain fewer of them total. They are tied to class level instead of character level. Backgrounds are a set of grouped skills that get trained, rather than letting you pick and choose what you want. All of this contributes to less variation between characters. The difference between having 5 options and 7 is pretty big. The difference between 3 and 7 because you needed to blow a couple on stat boosts is incredible. Needing to take your class levels in very specific increments to make sure you get all of your feats and bonus attacks also seriously messes with your cut off points. Imagine if every 3e class had to be taken in increments of 5-6 to get your extra attacks and feats, how many viable builds would be completely crushed? That is basically the situation you are looking at with 5e

I've actually been reading through some of the 5e optimization posts around the 5e forums, and am generally impressed by how much more flexible the game wound up than what I thought it would be from the playtest. But it is still far, far, less flexible than 3.5. The same level of customization just isn't there. And I find it hard to believe it ever will be. And the people trying to claim that right now 5e is more customizable than 3.5e are pants on head crazy, because that is so far from the truth I'm not sure we are even in the same plane of existence.

OldTrees1

2014-10-19, 10:14 PM

Not really. Shapechange is ridiculously more powerful than just about anything else in the game, even without splat books. Zodar is probably the best use of the spell, but the numerous other uses are also fantastic. Also, the fiend folio came out before the 3.5 PHB, so... yeah.

I was describing what trick of the light might make the dev's think there was a power creep.

Also, Fiend Folio came out after Shapechange, so... yeah. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2014-10-19, 10:19 PM

Presumably by how you put this, 3.P refers to when you use material from both systems in a single campaign rather than just referring to them both at once (rather than typing out 3.5 and PF)? I'd love to play a game like that..... ;-; I've been trying to get into a game on roll20 for months.

Yes, all of my PF games have allowed 3.5 material as well. My very first PF character was an Invulnerable Rager Barbarian with the Spirit Lion Totem for pounce. (APG + CC). This was before even the Ultimate X books debuted.

He said that in a few interviews and I believe there was a Legends and Lore article about the possibility of an OGL, or perhaps a part of an article if not the whole. Basically, from what I gathered, it's still tied up in legal. I imagine it would be pretty difficult to persuade Hasbro to release the entirety of their product for free, especially after having done so in the past gave birth to what is now their biggest competitor. Mearls has said that their business model for this edition will steer clear of splat books in favor of high quality adventures and campaign settings. If that does indeed become the case, then convincing Hasbro could be easier. Regardless, I don't foresee the rules changing as much as you predict. In and of itself, it is a pretty tight game. Much more so than 4e was when it first released, I think we all remember the massive amount of errata that followed its inauguration.

APs are great and all but eventually people will want more crunch, and even PF is forced to put some new rules in the APs. And if you do that, it becomes even more imperative that they create a SRD of some kind t keep track of it all, because any crunch buried in the APs will become a nightmarish task to catalog otherwise (and spoilerific to boot.)

Sartharina

2014-10-19, 10:59 PM

In a heavily obscured area (i.e. darker than dim light) your attacks have dis- Oh never mind, you added it.

But beyond that, any source of disadvantage shuts off your class feature. Entangled? No sneak attack. Poisoned? No sneak attack. Prone? no sneak attack. Feared? etc.

Meh. I like that Disadvantage shuts off sneak attack. But for that one area rogues have lost sneak attack, they've gained a lot more. You now CAN sneak around and stab people in areas not heavily obscured enough to impose blindness, unlike in 3.5/Pathfinder. You can Sneak Attack people from range if they aren't aware of you, making sniping possible. And, you can dart around far more effectively in combat. For the little they lost, rogues gained a hell of a lot in 5e.

The thing that sold me on 5e was the ability to play an effective lurking/skirmishing rogue skilled with daggers at both ranged and melee combat.

Of course... I will say that Pathfinder with Path of War, Psionics, and it's spellcasting system has managed to be what 4e could have been.

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-19, 11:19 PM

Meh. I like that Disadvantage shuts off sneak attack. But for that one area rogues have lost sneak attack, they've gained a lot more. You now CAN sneak around and stab people in areas not heavily obscured enough to impose blindness, unlike in 3.5/Pathfinder. You can Sneak Attack people from range if they aren't aware of you, making sniping possible. And, you can dart around far more effectively in combat. For the little they lost, rogues gained a hell of a lot in 5e.

[Nitpick: If someone's unaware of you in 3.5, they are flat-footed against your attacks and you can thus sneak attack. So they didn't gain anything in that respect]

*slinks back into shadows*

StreamOfTheSky

2014-10-19, 11:32 PM

Meh. I like that Disadvantage shuts off sneak attack.

Why do you hate rogues? Disadvantage is the catch-all negative status condition, rogues are going to be constantly screwed. How can you be happy about that?

But for that one area rogues have lost sneak attack, they've gained a lot more. You now CAN sneak around and stab people in areas not heavily obscured enough to impose blindness, unlike in 3.5/Pathfinder.

I think rogues should definitely be able to SA in non-total concealment. But there are many ways around this in 3E and PF, it just sadly requires some investment and/or splat book access.

You can Sneak Attack people from range if they aren't aware of you, making sniping possible. And, you can dart around far more effectively in combat. For the little they lost, rogues gained a hell of a lot in 5e.

The thing that sold me on 5e was the ability to play an effective lurking/skirmishing rogue skilled with daggers at both ranged and melee combat.

Those sound like things they can already do in 3E... There's already stealth skills and sniping rules. And tumble is well-known to be not that hard past the first few levels. Much bigger issues in PF where tumble is suicidally hard and everyone and their mother maxes the hell out of Perception, granted. You seem to have a pretty low view of what rogues could do in 3E....they're my favorite class and I've played a rogue in some form or another at least a dozen times, they can do all the stuff you just said, easily.

Of course... I will say that Pathfinder with Path of War, Psionics, and it's spellcasting system has managed to be what 4e could have been.

PoW and to a lesser extent psionics seem well done, the actual "core" paizo-created stuff I have far less flattering things to say about...

LTwerewolf

2014-10-19, 11:38 PM

It's difficult to argue with how someone feels, since that's their own personal experience. But the different abilities of the different classes were not just carbon copies of each other. The Fighter has martial flavored abilities, the Wizard has Wizard flavored abilities, the Warlock has Warlock flavored abilities, etc.

The bow ranger, the warlock, and the sorcerer were all ranged damage dealers with at will powers that did damage, encounter powers that did slightly more damage or more damage with a minor effect, and daily power with a good deal more damage or damage and some more important effect. To me that feels the same. The cleric and warlord were for all intents and purposes the same as well. You extend your healing surge, get a minor bonus, or move.

The real differences between a 3.5 Wizard and a 4e Wizard is that the 4e Wizard can't "supernova" down an encounter and then demand that the party allow her to sleep to regain her spells or suffer the consequences of having no magical support in any more encounters for the day. The 4e Wizard also can't dominate the spotlight by whipping out any number of spells which replace the class abilities of the people she is supposed to be adventuring with as an equal partner.
If better balance resembles "cookie cutter" to you, that might be because better balance pretty much means that the players are roughly equal in effectiveness, which 3.5 can never claim. But that doesn't mean that the flavor of each cookie has to be, or is, the same.

You are entirely entitled to your position on whatever you want to, but at no point did I ever mention anything about power levels, and would thank you not to put words in my mouth.

Wrenn

2014-10-19, 11:41 PM

APs are great and all but eventually people will want more crunch, and even PF is forced to put some new rules in the APs. And if you do that, it becomes even more imperative that they create a SRD of some kind t keep track of it all, because any crunch buried in the APs will become a nightmarish task to catalog otherwise (and spoilerific to boot.)

As far as an SRD is concerned, I was recently invited into the Dungeonscape beta. I can't remember the name of the company working on it, but it is a multi-platform (PC, Mac, Android, IOS) program that, when complete, will include a Char Builder, Encounter Designer, DM tools, a complete library of 5e rule books, all in one. So far only the character builder is being tested and they are still working out pricing with WoTC. But if it lives up to its promises it will be an impressive tool, more than just an SRD.

Added:

Why do you hate rogues? Disadvantage is the catch-all negative status condition, rogues are going to be constantly screwed. How can you be happy about that?

This really doesn't come into play as often as you believe, at least so far in my experience at the table. An example of a debuff spell; Bane, a cantrip, imposes a d4 penalty to the target's next attack roll or saving throw. The 2nd Level spell Bestow Curse, on the other hand, does impose Disadvantage.

Psyren

2014-10-19, 11:54 PM

Meh. I like that Disadvantage shuts off sneak attack.

Any source? It just doesn't make sense. Why can't I target a vital spot while I'm prone? Hamstrings are pretty near the ground last I checked, along with the iliac arteries. Why does being scared interfere with my ability to fight anything that much, not even just the thing I'm scared of? A rogue in 3.5/PF suffers none of these drawbacks.

But for that one area rogues have lost sneak attack, they've gained a lot more. You now CAN sneak around and stab people in areas not heavily obscured enough to impose blindness, unlike in 3.5/Pathfinder. You can Sneak Attack people from range if they aren't aware of you, making sniping possible. And, you can dart around far more effectively in combat. For the little they lost, rogues gained a hell of a lot in 5e.

The thing that sold me on 5e was the ability to play an effective lurking/skirmishing rogue skilled with daggers at both ranged and melee combat.

You can do every one of those things in 3.5/PF too as previously discussed. You may not know how but they're pretty easy to do.

As far as an SRD is concerned, I was recently invited into the Dungeonscape beta. I can't remember the name of the company working on it, but it is a multi-platform (PC, Mac, Android, IOS) program that, when complete, will include a Char Builder, Encounter Designer, DM tools, a complete library of 5e rule books, all in one. So far only the character builder is being tested and they are still working out pricing with WoTC. But if it lives up to its promises it will be an impressive tool, more than just an SRD.

"Pricing" - so like the books, I have to pay to even read any of the rules. And a character builder is not designed for browsing and coming up with ideas, it's designed for people who already know what they want to make and just want to put it together rules-legally.

georgie_leech

2014-10-20, 12:11 AM

The bow ranger, the warlock, and the sorcerer were all ranged damage dealers with at will powers that did damage, encounter powers that did slightly more damage or more damage with a minor effect, and daily power with a good deal more damage or damage and some more important effect. To me that feels the same.

Bow Rangers have a focus on multi-attacks and off-turn attacks, and have the greatest range; Warlocks impose really nasty status effects like forcing the opponent to attack its allies, forcing rerolls, or even flat out removing the target from the fight temporarily (as in, it's no longer in the game for a short time); Sorcerers tend to be AoE attacks and can ignore resistances, with the most reliable means of getting extra damage from their Striker damage feature (they just get a bonus, period). I'd argue there are more differences between the three than there are between, say, a Fighter and a Barbarian in 3.5.

The cleric and warlord were for all intents and purposes the same as well. You extend your healing surge, get a minor bonus, or move.

Ignoring all the Cleric Powers that smite foes with divine energy and grant Saving Throws or create Guardian Conjurations or create enduring zones that benefit allies or penalise enemies, and ignoring all the Warlord Powers that let you move allies and enemies around the battlefield or grant extra attacks or give great bonuses to focus firing, sure, they're exactly the same. If you also discount the Cleric's access to Channel Divinity feats and Rituals and the Warlord bonuses to Action Points, at least.

Sartharina

2014-10-20, 12:16 AM

[Nitpick: If someone's unaware of you in 3.5, they are flat-footed against your attacks and you can thus sneak attack. So they didn't gain anything in that respect]Unless they're 31+ feet away. Then you can't. In 5e, you can snipe someone from 150 feet away (Up to 600 if you're a Sharpshooter)

Why do you hate rogues? Disadvantage is the catch-all negative status condition, rogues are going to be constantly screwed. How can you be happy about that?Because Disadvantage isn't that easy to get, and can be quite easy to get rid of. Rogues have enough going for them that this is extremely unlikely - especially with their Cunning Action giving additional ways to do away with disadvantage/

I think rogues should definitely be able to SA in non-total concealment. But there are many ways around this in 3E and PF, it just sadly requires some investment and/or splat book access.While a Rogue in 5e can do so at level 1... anywhere if they're a Dwarf or Elf.

Those sound like things they can already do in 3E... There's already stealth skills and sniping rules. And tumble is well-known to be not that hard past the first few levels. Much bigger issues in PF where tumble is suicidally hard and everyone and their mother maxes the hell out of Perception, granted. You seem to have a pretty low view of what rogues could do in 3E....they're my favorite class and I've played a rogue in some form or another at least a dozen times, they can do all the stuff you just said, easily.You have to get in melee to sneak attack someone engaged with an ally in 3.5. Tumble kinda works, but shuts off your off-hand attack. And... I wouldn't consider any attack made from within charging range to be considered a 'snipe'.

Any source? It just doesn't make sense. Why can't I target a vital spot while I'm prone? Hamstrings are pretty near the ground last I checked, along with the iliac arteries. Why does being scared interfere with my ability to fight anything that much, not even just the thing I'm scared of? A rogue in 3.5/PF suffers none of these drawbacks.If you're prone, your body's not contortioned in the right way to stab people. And, it's trivial to stand up and stop being prone (As opposed to 3.P, where it would eat all your movement and get you smacked down again). If you're scared, you're flailing in desperation instead of aiming for vital organs. Essentially - if you're attacking with disadvantage, your aim's been compromised to the point of precluding precise strikes. The reason I like it is it works both ways - yeah, it sucks if you're a rogue and can't sneak attack... but if you're fighting a Bus Full of Ninjas, being able to shut down their sneak attacks can help make the fight more manageable.

You can do every one of those things in 3.5/PF too as previously discussed. You may not know how but they're pretty easy to do.
No, it's NOT easy to do, and it definitely doesn't work out-of-the-box in the same way it does in 5e. Spring Attack can't come online until at least 3rd level, and is generally a trap anyway. You can't flank or gain sneak attack damage easily with ranged combat (And are actively punished without Precise Shot), and you can't sneak attack beyond 60' (With a feat), or 30' normally in 3.5.

eggynack

2014-10-20, 12:26 AM

I'd argue there are more differences between the three than there are between, say, a Fighter and a Barbarian in 3.5.
Almost certainly, especially before ACF's, though maybe not after barbarian specific prestige classes. Still though, I think you're better off measuring the diversity of a system by the points furthest apart, or at least by the points furthest apart in a given niche. And though I don't know much about 4e, my suspicion is that the furthest away points in the melee archetype in 3.5 are further away than they are in some arbitrary comparison niche that I'm personally incapable of producing. After all, even without considering the classes that can melee as a byproduct of other awesomeness, the 3.5 melee niche includes everything from the warblade to the totemist to the psychic warrior to the wild shape ranger. Really high level of mechanical variety there.

squiggit

2014-10-20, 12:29 AM

The bow ranger, the warlock, and the sorcerer were all ranged damage dealers with at will powers that did damage...

I guess I'm just not seeing how that's any different than saying "The Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Cavalier, Magus, Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai, Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Slayer and Swashbuckler were all melee damage dealers who wanted to stand in one spot and full attack enemies every round". Or "The Wizard, Healer, Sorcerer, Archivist, Arcanist, Oracle, Favored Soul, Cleric, Wu Jen, Shugenja, Shaman, Druid, Cleric, Spirit Shaman, Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warmage all run on the same nine level casting mechanic, casting spells a certain number of times per day with powerful effects' or somesuch.

"Pricing" - so like the books, I have to pay to even read any of the rules. And a character builder is not designed for browsing and coming up with ideas, it's designed for people who already know what they want to make and just want to put it together rules-legally.

Pricing is a big one. They did the same with 4e: Release a piece of software that has every single bit of data on the game stored on it and organized and searchable... and then slapped behind a pretty damn expensive paywall. Also a character builder that has had the same bugs for five years.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 12:34 AM

While a Rogue in 5e can do so at level 1... anywhere if they're a Dwarf or Elf.

And this is different from PF how?

If you're prone, your body's not contortioned in the right way to stab people.

Bull, and also, what about slashing weapons? Or crossbows?

And, it's trivial to stand up and stop being prone (As opposed to 3.P, where it would eat all your movement and get you smacked down again).

No, just half your movement. Meanwhile PF rogues can stand up for free.

If you're scared, you're flailing in desperation instead of aiming for vital organs.

Fear focuses many people. Such as, say, professional killers/soldiers/adventurers. And why is there only one type of fear?

StreamOfTheSky

2014-10-20, 12:40 AM

...and you can't sneak attack beyond 60' (With a feat), or 30' normally in 3.5.

Again, a combination of your lack of knowledge of 3E and trying to unfairly compare the core 3E rogue with a rogue written a decade later with all sorts of lessons learned. The 1st level spell Sniper's Shot lets you sneak attack from any range. It's an Assassin (common rogue prestige class) spell and also on many other spell lists, or you just get a wand and Use Magic Device it. Is it core? No. Is it "in-class"? No. Why is that? Because the designers didn't realize the rogue needed these things at first, and they couldn't go back and significantly errata the core rules to add in all these missing class features. So they did the next best thing and applied hot fixes / patches through splat books. It's nice that in 5E they gave such things to a rogue by default, but it's wrong to claim a 3E rogue does not have access to them. 5E had the benefit of learning from 3E's (and 4E's) shortcomings.

Sniper's Shot spell, Penetrating Strike alt. class feature (deal half SA even to stuff immune), various weapon augment crystals and 1st level spells to ignore SA immunity of a certain type of creature entirely, etc... All were made to address these issues. It may not be as elegant a solution as having the abilities baked in, but they *are* solutions that exist.

Sartharina

2014-10-20, 12:43 AM

And this is different from PF how?The actually-relevant question is "How is 5e worse than Pathfinder in this regard?".

Bull, and also, what about slashing weapons? Or crossbows?The crossbow issue's more a problem with prone than it is with not being able to sneak attack. And you're still not in the right position to sneak attack if you've been knocked on your ass by a blow that knocks you down.

No, just half your movement. Meanwhile PF rogues can stand up for free.Not at level 1. And not at higher levels without paying dearly for the ability.

Fear focuses many people. Such as, say, professional killers/soldiers/adventurers. And why is there only one type of fear?
At least it's not as bad as in 3.P, when it usually means you're automatically Running For the Hills. And the fear that 'focuses' people is different from the condition. The fear that focuses people is called "Rolling initiative". The fear that imposes disadvantage is more extraordinary in nature.

StreamOfTheSky

2014-10-20, 12:46 AM

Not at level 1. And not at higher levels without paying dearly for the ability.

You're SEVERELY overvaluing rogue talents if you think spending one is "paying dearly"! :smallbiggrin:

Psyren

2014-10-20, 12:50 AM

The actually-relevant question is "How is 5e worse than Pathfinder in this regard?".

Because in PF, non-elves and non-dwarves can sneak attack in the dark without items using an easy-to-gain feat. Until such a feat exists in 5e, you're worse off without one of those races.

The crossbow issue's more a problem with prone than it is with not being able to sneak attack. And you're still not in the right position to sneak attack if you've been knocked on your ass by a blow that knocks you down.

But the penalty applies even if you drop prone willingly (which you would presumably do in the most beneficial way possible, e.g. with crossbow loaded and primed.) And yes, the problem is with the 5e prone condition, that's what I've been saying this whole time. (Applies disadvantage regardless of weapon or circumstance.)

Not at level 1. And not at higher levels without paying dearly for the ability.

It's quite cheap actually, and far more powerful than the 5e method (costs no movement and you can full-attack right after, or run away etc.) Or just stay prone and attack, at least in PF you can still SA that way.

At least it's not as bad as in 3.P, when it usually means you're automatically Running For the Hills. And the fear that 'focuses' people is different from the condition. The fear that focuses people is called "Rolling initiative". The fear that imposes disadvantage is more extraordinary in nature.

Your understanding of PF is still woefully deficient.
- Shaken, by far the most common form of fear, does not make you run anywhere. You simply take a penalty to attack, but you can sneak attack just fine.
- Frightened does make you run, but if you can't get away, you're free to fight (and again, free to sneak attack.)
- Panicked keeps you from acting, yes, but this degree of fear is very far from "usual."

Sartharina

2014-10-20, 01:27 AM

Because in PF, non-elves and non-dwarves can sneak attack in the dark without items using an easy-to-gain feat. Until such a feat exists in 5e, you're worse off without one of those races.That 'easy-to-gain feat' (Assuming you mean Shadow Strike) puts a human rogue on par with, not above, a 5e human rogue. You only get disadvantage in 5e for attacking someone with the equivalent of Total Concealment. The "Shadow Strike" feat does not work against Total Concealment.

It's quite cheap actually, and far more powerful than the 5e method (costs no movement and you can full-attack right after, or run away etc.) Or just stay prone and attack, at least in PF you can still SA that way.Maybe technically. But it's only a slightly bigger hurdle in 5e (And requires an ally) to SA from anywhere as well - and it's significantly easier to sneak attack with the aid of an ally in 5e than it is in 3e (Where you need flanking AND melee range. Or the ally to grapple him).

And in the converse - You can't automatically sneak attack a prone target in 3e. You can in 5e.

Troacctid

2014-10-20, 01:33 AM

And in the converse - You can't automatically sneak attack a prone target in 3e. You can in 5e.

Although that change happened with 4th edition.

Sartharina

2014-10-20, 01:59 AM

Although that change happened with 4th edition.

Nobody talks about 4th Edition. Not even those who play it (Seriously - the 5e forum here has over half as many posts since it was created as the 4e forum since it was created)

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-20, 02:14 AM

Nobody talks about 4th Edition. Not even those who play it (Seriously - the 5e forum here has over half as many posts since it was created as the 4e forum since it was created)

That's more a matter of the audience, though – the 4e CharOp and 4e General subforums on the WotC website have, combined, more than twice as many posts as the combined totals for the Previous Editions CharOp and Previous Editions General do. Add in the 4e Character Development and 4e Q&A subforums, and then 4e has three and a half times as many as 3.5 (because 3.5 is really the only thing discussed in Previous Editions).

Icewraith

2014-10-20, 02:32 AM

Again, a combination of your lack of knowledge of 3E and trying to unfairly compare the core 3E rogue with a rogue written a decade later with all sorts of lessons learned. The 1st level spell Sniper's Shot lets you sneak attack from any range. It's an Assassin (common rogue prestige class) spell and also on many other spell lists, or you just get a wand and Use Magic Device it. Is it core? No. Is it "in-class"? No. Why is that? Because the designers didn't realize the rogue needed these things at first, and they couldn't go back and significantly errata the core rules to add in all these missing class features. So they did the next best thing and applied hot fixes / patches through splat books. It's nice that in 5E they gave such things to a rogue by default, but it's wrong to claim a 3E rogue does not have access to them. 5E had the benefit of learning from 3E's (and 4E's) shortcomings.

Sniper's Shot spell, Penetrating Strike alt. class feature (deal half SA even to stuff immune), various weapon augment crystals and 1st level spells to ignore SA immunity of a certain type of creature entirely, etc... All were made to address these issues. It may not be as elegant a solution as having the abilities baked in, but they *are* solutions that exist.

With specific exceptions, the minimum level you can take the first level of a prestige class is six. A lot of the customization people claim 3.5 has doesn't come online until 6th level or later. The "patches" require you to have access to the material, your dm to ok it, and they generally cost character resources. Also note that even if you're packing ALL of those things there's more than a few things you still won't be able to sneak attack in 3.5.

Does having only one off-turn action per round limit your options as a player compared to 3.5? Yes. It also makes for wonderfully fast combats. If you just flip through the rulebook, 5e looks like a cut down 3.5 with all of the flaws and none of the features. However, when you actually read the ability descriptions, those flaws aren't actually there anymore. There have been a number of people complaining about things that 5e resolved that they assume work exactly the same as they did in 3.5 because they're called the same thing.

In most of the cases I've run into in actual gameplay, the 5e rules work better than their 3.5 equivalents and they're faster to resolve. The characters look weak numerically compared to their 3.5 counterparts, but the numbers they're rolling against are similarly compressed while retaining similar odds for success when facing challenging opponents.

Casters can still bend reality, but they have to be a lot more careful about when they do it because of significantly more limited resources. Buffzilla in all of its forms is dead. A lot of the problematic spells are there but the problems are by and large gone.

I wasn't impressed with 5e. It sounded like a watered down 3.5. But I've played a couple sessions and the difference is remarkable. There are a number of little balanced nuances to how many class abilities end up working out. For instance, most of the rogue sneak attack issues from 3.5 vanish in 5e when your target has an adjacent opponent (IIRC it doesn't even have to be your buddy, just hostile to your target), and you can sneak attack at longer ranges. The rogue's sneak attack damage is limited to once per turn (not round), which encourages team play in granting the rogue extra off-turn attacks while limiting its on-turn burst damage (which was always a headache when DMing and a well built 3.5 sneak attack rogue's success at dismantling opponents often puts selection pressure on the campaign to increasingly feature non-sneak attackable monsters). Even at first level, a dual-wielding 5e rogue ends up being a buzzsaw of death. A first level 3.5 dual wielding rogue is nowhere near as competent and is significantly more fragile.

While yes, a lot of the complexity is gone, the things you have to keep track of and add up and precalculate are also gone. People are decrying the decrease in (apparent) customization and immediately dismiss 5e because they haven't experienced the tremendous increase in playability for everyone and learnability for newbies. It's very noticeable.

Now, 5e does not and probably never will have 3.5's customizability in terms of sheer numerical options. Some of the overpowered and broken things in 3.5 are really fun to use precisely because they're overpowered and awesome. But, if the rest of the material has the overall level of quality that went into the feat list (lots of competitive options and few bad ones), 5e will probably draw level with 3.5 in terms of character options that you can take without fear of never using the ability or being outright sub-par to some other ability you could have gotten at the same time. It will do so fairly quickly.

3.5 I have a set of houserules that have the system running almost exactly how I want it. 5e in a few places may not run quite the way I want it to, but nothing except the intellect devourer so far has been close to broken and the updates came preinstalled. I've seen fairly large groups run it straight out of the box and everything works good enough and quickly. 5e is good enough at what it does that the thought of going back to a 3.5 or 4e campaign is losing its luster. Now I do have some awesome memories of 3.5 and 4e and some characters that wouldn't be replicable at the level of power they attained, at least not without some heavy modding, but those characters were also so good at what they did that they took a lot of gameplay challenges away.

Like... I can't really come up with any solid reasons besides options to go back to 3.5 or 4e. I thought I would be able to come up with more, but 5e so far has been smooth enough sailing that dealing with the different issues 3.5 and 4e have don't seem worth the loss of 5e's smoothness and playability.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 02:43 AM

That 'easy-to-gain feat' (Assuming you mean Shadow Strike) puts a human rogue on par with, not above, a 5e human rogue. You only get disadvantage in 5e for attacking someone with the equivalent of Total Concealment. The "Shadow Strike" feat does not work against Total Concealment.

Point, but it's also far easier for a 3.5/PF human rogue to gain darkvision than one in 5e.

Maybe technically. But it's only a slightly bigger hurdle in 5e (And requires an ally) to SA from anywhere as well - and it's significantly easier to sneak attack with the aid of an ally in 5e than it is in 3e (Where you need flanking AND melee range. Or the ally to grapple him).

But it's just as easy to turn off - all it takes is disadvantage, which a variety of conditions, situations, spells and even the DM's caprice can impose. Easy come, easy go?

And in the converse - You can't automatically sneak attack a prone target in 3e. You can in 5e.

Only at melee range, which is when your attacks gain advantage, and any source of disadvantage will cancel that out anyway.'

@Icewraith: For me, the bottom line is that the Basic PDF was their chance to sell me on the new edition. They haven't done so with that volume; it's not even due to a deficiency on their part either, the rules appear to be doing exactly what they intend for them to do. It's just not my game.. It might very well be the case that the PHB and DMG contain manna from heaven transcribed to rules format, but so long as they require investment up front for me to know for sure if the nuance and complexity I want are inside, I'm not going to bother. I made that mistake with 4e and will not do so again, especially when holding out makes the chances of them creating a SRD of some kind to cater to folks like me that much higher.

Curmudgeon

2014-10-20, 02:55 AM

Because in PF, non-elves and non-dwarves can sneak attack in the dark without items using an easy-to-gain feat. Until such a feat exists in 5e, you're worse off without one of those races.
When the Rogue is solo, certainly for some archetypes. However, in 5E cantrips are free, and Light lasts 1 hour. The party Cleric and Wizard can spend a couple minutes adding Light to pebbles before heading into a dungeon area, and those can be tossed ahead as the party advances. A Human Rogue with the Arcane Trickster archetype is self-supporting in that respect starting at level 3. This gives the Rogue the option to light up the areas ahead but leave some shadowy spots to the side. With control of the light sources I don't think the normal vision Rogue is noticeably worse off than one with 60' darkvision.

Phelix-Mu

2014-10-20, 03:10 AM

To me, it basically boils down to this:

Premise: No system is perfect.

Challenge: Have fun running and adapting an imperfect system to actual gameplay.

The Lesson: I don't need to spend money to do any of this if I don't want to. Whether I backport 5e gems into 3e, or hybridize the two, or cherrypick 3e into 5e, there is nothing WotC produces that I can't do on my own, given time and motivation.

Basically, the more money they ask for, the less likely I am to comply, because I can already provide the service they are providing for myself. Except for the pretty pictures and the fun of picking apart new rulestext.:smallamused:

Generally, though, I don't find their pitch compelling, not least of which because I can sense that 6e will drop all too soon, and then 7e. Unless I enjoy dancing to the edition shuffle and the planned obsoletion, I have no reason not to just staple together something that works for me and call it a day.

But it takes all kinds, so I understand that some people are more receptive than I.

T.G. Oskar

2014-10-20, 03:38 AM

I'll interject once more to clear, or at least remark, a few things I consider misconceptions.

The ability score/feat progression, for once (one of Seerow's comments). Indeed, non-humans get only five ability score increases (which can be turned into feats) over the course of their lives, except for Fighters and Rogues who get 7 and 6, respectively. What's not mentioned is that, overall, a character can get exactly the same progression it would have gained in 3.5. This is if you consider two things: an ability score increase in 5e is twice the progression of one in 3.5/PF (you get two points to place in the same ability score or in two different ability scores; 3.5/PF only gets one at the same levels, give or take), and a feat in 5e may count for up to three 3.5/PF feats.

Let's take for example a pretty well known build: any martial class (not merely Fighter) with Polearm Master, Sentinel and Heavy Armor Master. That's three feats, so I get only two ability score increases. That leaves me with 4 points and three feats, which if observed closely seems like little; however, Heavy Armor Master grants another ability score increase, which leaves you with five; that's exactly the same amount of points you'd get in 3.5/PF. In terms of feats, both Polearm Master and Sentinel have two or three distinct benefits that in 3.5 OR PF would count as separate feats: Sentinel has the Stand Still effect, the ability to negate Disengage (which would be like negating Withdraw in 3.5/PF) and the ability to make an attack in response to attacking another (sorta like the Come Get Me! rage power of PF, but I believe there's a feat that does the same). Polearm Master combines the ability to enable Opportunity Attack when entering (OA only enables when moving outside melee range while armed) and the extra attack with the side of the polearm. Alongside the benefit of Heavy Armor Master as a feat, the character would have the equivalent of 6 feats, which is pretty darn close to what 3.5 offered by default. Thus, even if it's only somewhat below the usual amount of 3.5 and much lower than what PF offers (though PF feats are diluted at times to create monstrous feat chains), they are equivalent.

Another thing involves the lack of "customization" between characters. Here, again, I feel it's unfair to compare a mature system that has loads of content with an immature system (in terms that it hasn't developed fully yet) that has improved upon things of the past while adapting other concepts for nostalgia. Using Sarth's complain about three ranged strikers in 4e feeling similar, and specifically the rebuttal ("I guess I'm just not seeing how that's any different than saying 'The Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Cavalier, Magus, Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai, Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Slayer and Swashbuckler were all melee damage dealers who wanted to stand in one spot and full attack enemies every round'."); that's 16 classes from the entirety of PF's run so far, which include the 10 classes that 5e lacks (9 if you attempt to equate Eldritch Knight to Magus) to the 5e PHB's 6 classes that work with martial combat (and that's not including College of War Bard or War Domain Cleric or Blade Pact Warlock...) It implies that the PHB should have had this right from the beginning, and since it doesn't, then it automatically sucks. Again, it's an implication, but it's what I gather from what I've read: we're speaking about the fraggin' PHB alone! The DMG hasn't even released (which might be a point for Pathfinder, if you want to use it), and you're comparing the three books released so far (PHB, Monster Manual and Hoard of the Dragon Queen) to...what, five books from Pathfinder (Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic and Advanced Class Guide) from the several books already released? That's a 5:1 advantage of the mature race, obviously. Considering that Archetypes appeared only after the Advanced Player's Guide was released, while 5e has Subclasses straight from the PHB, that's a LOT of content, and 5e hasn't even started. When 5e releases, IF it releases (and I'm sure customer pressure will make them release) splats with crunchy content, then chances are there will be a better comparison. Another thing I'd like to mention is Backgrounds: they aren't officially part of D&D up until the latter end of 3.5 (from PHB II afterwards) and maybe 4th (can't really tell), but they ARE part of the d20 System and probably one of the biggest surprises around (after all, they're almost expanded versions of the Occupations from the d20 Modern Core Rulebook and other splats), and they're as every bit a part of your build as race, subrace, class and subclass. Saying that one lacks choices because 5e doesn't have a Psion or Warblade or Oracle or Bloodrager or a similar class is asking too much at this moment, since neither of those classes were part of the Core release. I mean, Psion was part of Psionics Handbook, Warblade was part of Tome of Battle, Oracle was part of Advanced Player's Guide and Bloodrager is part is the Advanced Class Guide; as of this post, that is one of the first and one of the last books released of both editions. And that's somewhat debatable (most likely Psionics will come soon, the Battlemaster is similar but never equal to the Warblade, the Knowledge Domain Cleric and the way Domains work resemble the way Oracle Mysteries work, and Bloodrager should be done by blending Berserker Barbarian and Wild Sorcerer through multiclassing without too much hindrance).

If anything, I believe that, perhaps due to infancy or design, it's easier to get system mastery from 5e than it'd be from 3.5 or PF; that is, it's easy to see the good choices and the bad choices (yes, 5e has bad choices). Making a character is easy; attempt without system mastery to make a character in 3.5 or PF using Core only, and it'll take some time. It takes a while to build up knowledge of the system in 3.5 or PF, whereas it's easy to grok 5e character building to make a character to a desired level of satisfaction (since optimization is a relative term, while satisfaction is a subjective term). Perhaps once the system matures it'll be harder to understand, but the way subclasses, subraces and feats are designed means that it shouldn't be so hard. There's no feat chains, for once, which I presume everyone will agree is a big problem of 3.5 (and IMO the bane of Pathfinder in terms of how it devalues the extra feats for certain classes in most occasions, barring perhaps Two-Hander specialists with Power Attack as their main feat), which simplifies things. I should be angered at the lack of choices and the apparent limitation of choices, but it's the opposite; the way gears move in this edition are simpler. If I want an exercise in optimization to make a concept out of it, I probably look to 3.5 to work that out. That doesn't mean I can't make an interesting character in 5e just because I lack the tools I'd have in 3.5, though.

Which, in conclusion, is what irks me a bit of the thread's title (if I must rephrase again); it's an invitation for conflict, even though the request of the OP is legitimate (a reason why to keep the flame alive for 3.5, as mind is entranced by 5e). The request is valid, but the title made it an invitation for war, when I find that it's not bad to like both. Saying that I don't like system X or Y (I believe I've said I don't like 4e and that I'm not a fan of Pathfinder) is one thing, but actively saying "you shouldn't play it" is another, and being at both sides of the conflict has been...well, enlightening (to say a word) as to the extreme side of system/edition pride.

You may resume the almost entirely one-sided discussion about the Rogue.

Phelix-Mu

2014-10-20, 03:47 AM

@ T.G. Oskar: I agree that the thread title has provided a somewhat stilted lens through which to view the contrasts between the editions.

On the other hand, I also feel that, if I've bothered to play the game at all and have acquired proficiency, then a simplification in 5e, while not entirely unwelcome, is pretty much unnecessary. I'm glad there is a game that can attract more new players to the fold so that WotC can help them empty their wallets. It's also good that there is a game that can appeal to those with less system mastery or more lust for the storytelling aspect of the game.

Except, with my existing system mastery, I can actually already do that. If I want to dumb down 3.5, it's not impossible; depending on how dumb, it's not even hard. If I want to teach a new player, I can also do that. If I want a less mathematical, more narrative game, I can do that too.

The only thing I can't do is give WotC more money. That would be silly. I have a quality product that can already do almost all of what 5e does with a bit of legwork; anything it can't do, I can likely crowdsource from 5e forums and backport as a houserule/homebrew.

Gwendol

2014-10-20, 05:10 AM

Yahzi

2014-10-20, 05:54 AM

Admittedly, D&D has always handled long-lasting injury poorly. Being down a big chunk of your hit-points is a pretty lame approximation of a crippling injury.

But in 5.0, a PC cannot be injured for more than 12 hours. Have the fight of your life - finishing by hanging on at 1 hp - and after a good nap, you're right as rain again.

I realize that this increases the fun factor for the fighter, and in practice everyone got healed to full after every fight anyway. For people who play narrative games it's probably an improvement. But I run a simulationist game, and I can't wrap my head around a rules system that just flat-out says all injury disappears after sleeping a night.

I've done a fair amount of work making D&D 3.0 into a world that makes sense "behind the curtain" as it were. Doing that with 5.0 seems... harder.

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-20, 05:57 AM

The Insanity

2014-10-20, 07:03 AM

Gwendol

2014-10-20, 07:20 AM

Regarding the pricing: they're 8x10 hardcover books. Those things are danged expensive no matter who you buy them from. Paizo still tries to sell the CRB for $50 when it's all available online for free; if anything, that's more of a low blow than selling a book for $50 that you can't (legally and openly) access for free, because it suckers people who don't know about the SRD out of fifty bucks.

As I said, they're all trying to make a profit. Now, one can have an opinion on the viability of their strategy, but to say that 5e is somehow inferior because they're not making the game available for free (beyond the basic ruleset) makes little sense to me. The merits of respective system should be viewed without the shackles of price of said product.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 07:39 AM

I don't get idea that it is somehow bad that Wizards wants to exact payment for their products. Why shouldn't they? If you don't think the cost is worth it, don't buy it, but quit whining about the fact that they want to make a profit (because that is their reason for existence).

Their largest competitor found a way to turn a profit without paywalling their customers, that's why.

Regarding the pricing: they're 8x10 hardcover books. Those things are danged expensive no matter who you buy them from. Paizo still tries to sell the CRB for $50 when it's all available online for free; if anything, that's more of a low blow than selling a book for $50 that you can't (legally and openly) access for free, because it suckers people who don't know about the SRD out of fifty bucks.

I have access to the SRD and I still bought the books. The fact that you consider people who do so to be "suckers" only reveals your own lack of understanding of the many reasons why that is a legitimate avenue for anyone to pursue.

As I said, they're all trying to make a profit. Now, one can have an opinion on the viability of their strategy, but to say that 5e is somehow inferior because they're not making the game available for free (beyond the basic ruleset) makes little sense to me. The merits of respective system should be viewed without the shackles of price of said product.

If I can't access those merits to evaluate them (beyond Basic) without buying their pig in a poke first, then how can you claim price isn't relevant?

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-20, 07:45 AM

I have access to the SRD and I still bought the books. The fact that you consider people who do so to be "suckers" only reveals your own lack of understanding of the many reasons why that is a legitimate avenue for anyone to pursue.

Apologies if my wording offended you. The point of that part of my post was not that people who buy the books are suckers, but that it's sorta weird that to play PF you can either pay fifty dollars or zero, depending on whether you know about the SRD or not. I think I'll edit that bit out, since I seem to have offended people with it and wasn't really sure where I was taking that point anyways. Sorry! :smallredface:

ETA:

If I can't access those merits to evaluate them (beyond Basic) without buying their pig in a poke first, then how can you claim price isn't relevant?

Well, there are some... *ahem* alternative methods of viewing the full rules. But then, some may find those methods a bit too... morally questionable :smalltongue:

Gwendol

2014-10-20, 08:05 AM

If I can't access those merits to evaluate them (beyond Basic) without buying their pig in a poke first, then how can you claim price isn't relevant?

Basic is a sneek peak at the full rules, and there are ways to obtain the rules for perusal at least. Conventions or gaming events come to mind. Also, since the beta was relatively open, a lot of players have been able to follow the game development.
Price is relevant as to being fair in the eyes of the buyer, I disagree with the premise of WotC somehow being a bad company for wanting to make a profit from the games they develop.

Wrenn

2014-10-20, 08:07 AM

"Pricing" - so like the books, I have to pay to even read any of the rules. And a character builder is not designed for browsing and coming up with ideas, it's designed for people who already know what they want to make and just want to put it together rules-legally.

It will also contain the entire library of books in a sort of Wiki form.

But of course they will charge for it. What sort of entitlement do you need tell a person who has spent hours and hours of their life over the course of years to develop a product that they should provide said product, in full, for free? That sort of logic is completely mind boggling.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 08:11 AM

Apologies if my wording offended you. The point of that part of my post was not that people who buy the books are suckers, but that it's sorta weird that to play PF you can either pay fifty dollars or zero, depending on whether you know about the SRD or not. I think I'll edit that bit out, since I seem to have offended people with it and wasn't really sure where I was taking that point anyways. Sorry! :smallredface:

Paizo understands that the gating off access to the rules is not the primary reason people buy books. Yes, they were more or less forced to let people have access due to the way the OGL was worded (i.e. to hamstring potential competitors by making sure such newcomers could not hide any of their material from the masses that way), but the fact is that they took a gamble on a business venture anyway while knowing that, and even embraced it via creating their own PRD and keeping it updated.

Rather - many of us have day jobs that require staring at screens all day; many of those are willing to pay to not have to do that during our gaming time too. If I wanted to stare at a screen all the time when I gamed, I would be playing a video game. There is also an aesthetic quality to it - high-quality artwork, hefty bindings, even the feel and smell of paper - little things like that can draw you into an experience. When you are the guy at your group who has all the books, and you pile them up in a mini-tower around your chair, and you know exactly which one has the rule your friend or DM needs, you feel almost like an archivist. There is also a psychological aspect to it too - I've met both old- and new-school DMs who are skeptical of everything that comes from the internet, but show it to them on a page (even the exact same rule!) and they buy in much faster. (It doesn't help that the PFSRD is crammed with 3rd-party material and that not all of it is clearly labeled or delineated.)

Nooooot gonna quote or comment on the second part.

It will also contain the entire library of books in a sort of Wiki form.

But of course they will charge for it. What sort of entitlement do you need tell a person who has spent hours and hours of their life over the course of years to develop a product that they should provide said product, in full, for free? That sort of logic is completely mind boggling.

The same kind of "entitlement" that points out that their competition is doing it and somehow not starving. That's the beauty about competition, it means that if you're not willing to provide a service your competitor is then you'd better be making up for it in some other areas. As 4e proved, the brand name alone is not sufficient.

Basic is a sneek peak at the full rules, and there are ways to obtain the rules for perusal at least. Conventions or gaming events come to mind. Also, since the beta was relatively open, a lot of players have been able to follow the game development.
Price is relevant as to being fair in the eyes of the buyer, I disagree with the premise of WotC somehow being a bad company for wanting to make a profit from the games they develop.

Good thing that's not what I said then?

Also - if I'm at a convention, I don't have time to be learning a new game and I certainly don't expect a roomful of strangers to be teaching it to me. I'm playing something I already know so that I'm not slowing everyone else down. If no PF tables are available, I'll probably be playing Munchkin, or Elder Sign, or Fluxx or something.

Milo v3

2014-10-20, 08:16 AM

It will also contain the entire library of books in a sort of Wiki form.

But of course they will charge for it. What sort of entitlement do you need tell a person who has spent hours and hours of their life over the course of years to develop a product that they should provide said product, in full, for free? That sort of logic is completely mind boggling.

It's not entitlement, it is a comparison to a competitor. When the main competition is letting people look at the majority of their rules for free, people will notice when the rules aren't for free.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 08:36 AM

Telonius

2014-10-20, 08:45 AM

3.5 is better than 5e for at least 8 more levels. When this adventure path is done, I'll reconsider the options. :smallbiggrin:

Phelix-Mu

2014-10-20, 08:52 AM

I don't get idea that it is somehow bad that Wizards wants to exact payment for their products. Why shouldn't they? If you don't think the cost is worth it, don't buy it, but quit whining about the fact that they want to make a profit (because that is their reason for existence).

I'd still buy 3.5 products if they released them, because I own that stuff. But I see no reason to play the new edition hokey pokey with them, because it's going to go on forever.

It would be like me owning a perfectly functional model-year 2000 Corolla, then thinking that I should buy a new car that has no particular increase in value or efficiency, because it's new.

Now, if for some reason 5e is fun for me, or you, or there is plenty of disposable income involved, then more power to them. Capitalism rocks. [Redacted communist sympathizing.]

But if everything they offer in the new thing exists or can be conjured into existence in the old thing, then why am I investing? And beyond money, it's my time and effort that's valuable to me. I have scads of 3e system mastery; while learning a new system can be fun, it's not always worth it to shell out right away.

And hence I end up in Psyren's boat; if they can sell me on that there are actual things of value that I need their books for, maybe I will buy. But I could just as well do it myself, and if I have to pony up up front, then I rather think not.

I respect everyone else' right to an opinion, just my two cents, but I'd much rather that they make something new and creative than hand me mk. 3 basic rules, my third copy of the FRCS (non-compatible), my third copy of the bestiary (even if it has a few new things), and the botch-my-favorite-setting du jour.

Divide by Zero

2014-10-20, 08:58 AM

With specific exceptions, the minimum level you can take the first level of a prestige class is six. A lot of the customization people claim 3.5 has doesn't come online until 6th level or later.

That's still 3/4 of the level range disregarding Epic, and in my experience most people enjoy playing at mid levels the most anyway.

Gwendol

2014-10-20, 08:58 AM

It's not entitlement, it is a comparison to a competitor. When the main competition is letting people look at the majority of their rules for free, people will notice when the rules aren't for free.

Are we talking about Paizo? They've made a "me-too" product, which means not the same development cost and not the same initial risk bringing the product to market. I still fail to see why having to pay for a new product should be a factor when comparing the merits of the gaming systems (other than evaluating the worth for one self). And it still doesn't make WotC "bad". They offer a product at a certain price; we are all in our right to either accept or reject the offer.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 09:04 AM

Are we talking about Paizo? They've made a "me-too" product, which means not the same development cost and not the same initial risk bringing the product to market. I still fail to see why having to pay for a new product should be a factor when comparing the merits of the gaming systems (other than evaluating the worth for one self). And it still doesn't make WotC "bad". They offer a product at a certain price; we are all in our right to either accept or reject the offer.

Right, and I've rejected it. (Which apparently makes me "entitled" :smalltongue:)

As for less risk - D&D is a household name. If anyone can afford to take this kind of risk, it's them. They're not taking nearly the risk Pathfinder was. (Not to mention that Paizo had all kinds of legal risk to worry about, especially when they began porting over non-SRD monsters to PF and naming their archetypes after closed content classes.)

I'm not saying open up everything to the degree 3.5's core was - I would be very surprised if they did that - but whatever they plan to do, I and others are telling them right now that Basic isn't sufficient.

Gwendol

2014-10-20, 09:04 AM

I respect everyone else' right to an opinion, just my two cents, but I'd much rather that they make something new and creative than hand me mk. 3 basic rules, my third copy of the FRCS (non-compatible), my third copy of the bestiary (even if it has a few new things), and the botch-my-favorite-setting du jour.

I understand your position, I just object to this statement (and a few others, made in the same vein in this thread):

I'm glad there is a game that can attract more new players to the fold so that WotC can help them empty their wallets.

Gwendol

2014-10-20, 09:06 AM

Right, and I've rejected it. (Which apparently makes me "entitled" :smalltongue:)

As for less risk - D&D is a household name. If anyone can afford to take this kind of risk, it's them. They're not taking nearly the risk Pathfinder was. (Not to mention that Paizo had all kinds of legal risk to worry about, especially when they began porting over non-SRD monsters to PF and naming their archetypes after closed content classes.)

I'm not saying open up everything to the degree 3.5's core was - I would be very surprised if they did that - but whatever they plan to do, I and others are telling them right now that Basic isn't sufficient.

Yeah, because "New-Coke" was such a slam dunk.

Of course they took a risk and fielded a lot of development cost getting 3.0 on the market. Only in hindsight would that have been a given success.

Agincourt

2014-10-20, 09:09 AM

I understand your position, I just object to this statement (and a few others, made in the same vein in this thread):

I'm glad there is a game that can attract more new players to the fold so that WotC can help them empty their wallets.

If a company charges $30 and up for books, I expect them to be properly copy edited and to have corrections made in later print runs. They have not been doing this. I don't know of another way to interpret their corporate behavior than as a shameless money grab. Corporations are perfectly capable of fostering brand loyalty. WotC has too long been charging premium prices for shoddy products.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 09:12 AM

Yeah, because "New-Coke" was such a slam dunk.

And they clearly went bankrupt from it oh wait.

That's the thing about "risk" - sometimes you lose. That doesn't mean "don't try."

Of course they took a risk and fielded a lot of development cost getting 3.0 on the market. Only in hindsight would that have been a given success.

That's because there's no such thing as a "given success." Reward means risk.

Extra Anchovies

2014-10-20, 09:15 AM

Yeah, because "New-Coke" was such a slam dunk.

WotC's New Coke was fourth edition :smallbiggrin:

Psyren

2014-10-20, 09:16 AM

WotC's New Coke was fourth edition :smallbiggrin:

That was running through my mind :smalltongue: but actually, I'm glad they tried 4e too.

Phelix-Mu

2014-10-20, 09:18 AM

I understand your position, I just object to this statement (and a few others, made in the same vein in this thread):

If you bother to quote me at all, please use the actual text.

I'm glad there is a game that can attract more new players to the fold so that WotC can help them empty their wallets.

The redacted stuff is meant to be implied subtext that may or may not undermine the original statement, but hints at true feelings, if not actual truth. It's usually used in a joking manner. My apologies if this was not clear.

In this case, I am glad that there is a new game that can attract more players to the fold.

But, my implied feeling is that WotC will play this same card until the cows come home or I run out of money.

And I've decided that I've run out of money to spend on them rehashing the same basic product. My hobby is "playing the game" not "buying the game."

Gwendol

2014-10-20, 09:26 AM

In this case, I am glad that there is a new game that can attract more players to the fold.

But, my implied feeling is that WotC will play this same card until the cows come home or I run out of money.

And I've decided that I've run out of money to spend on them rehashing the same basic product. My hobby is "playing the game" not "buying the game."

Of course, but that does not make WotC any more evil than any other company trying to make a profit. Gaming books have near-infinite life-times after all, contrary to most computer games (can be a challenge to find an operating system to run it on after a (short) while).

Dimers

2014-10-20, 09:31 AM

@OP: The main factor for me is bounded accuracy. There's something to be said for "no characters suck", but bounded accuracy means that the price is "no characters are good." Take that stealthy rogue, for example. 20th level, every single relevant resource in the game piled on, and yet that specialist can still be outperformed by an untrained, unagile 1st-level nobody as a result of three die rolls. Two bad ones for the rogue, one good one for the schmuck. And that's for the most extreme example. Most classes don't have access to the abilities that can achieve a double-rolled +17 in their area of specialty. The schmuck can outperform them much more easily.

I personally feel that overly easy character creation in D&D is just encouraging a meatgrinder, but it's pretty obvious that's not how it plays out in real games.

Other than that, both systems have their ups and downs, and 5e is by no means a clear winner. So until there's something compelling a change, why spend extra time/money/learningcurve on a new system when you already have experience and materials for an existing one that covers its full range?

Agincourt

2014-10-20, 09:35 AM

Of course, but that does not make WotC any more evil than any other company trying to make a profit. Gaming books have near-infinite life-times after all, contrary to most computer games (can be a challenge to find an operating system to run it on after a (short) while).

I don't know if "evil" is the right word. Some companies give good customer service and some do not. Some companies put out a good product at a fair price. WotC has been falling short of that goal. It's not "evil" necessarily, but it is a bad deal for the consumer. I understand WotC is not a charity. Neither am I. I do not give my money to corporations just because they ask for it. They have to earn it.

atemu1234

2014-10-20, 09:37 AM

In short, 5e is ok, 4e was meh, and 3.5 was my favorite.

When it comes to 5e v 3.5, I like that 3.5 has such a wealth of compatible content, be it 3rd, 2nd or 1st party. It is released to public in ways that allow the public to make their own content, and every system they've made since lacks that aspect.

Segev

2014-10-20, 10:04 AM

The big thing about 3.5, to me, that 5e likely will never quite match is in the philosophy shift that 5e took. 5e is very carefully showing us RAI behind what it does, and then being deliberately colloquial with its RAW. It is clearly not meant to be examined for minute word choices and interactions, but rather with an eye towards what it's attempting to allow being clear from context. And if two DMs disagree, that's fine.

And that's a fine way to write a game. I actually appreciate that 5e is doing this.

However, 3.5 is in many ways like a puzzle: how can I achieve a given goal through my design of my character's build? Regardless of how many books are allowed, D&D 3.5 is very much a rules-as-written edition, and close parsing of the wording leads to interesting results. (Often broken and nonsensical ones, too, but still a lot of interesting ones.)

5e is a lot more straight-forward, and if they hold true to the tone, it will likely remain that way. There are likely to be far fewer "surprise" interactions or developments, as 5e is totally unafraid to simply say "no" when things interact in anything resembling an unexpected way. This has its merits, and for certain styles of play I will enjoy it. But the 3.5 willingness to say, "well, I guess that IS how these would combine," has its own charm.

Of course, implementation of certain subsystems (most notably psionics) will be interesting to see, and could give 3.5 another edge, depending on how they do it.

killem2

2014-10-20, 10:08 AM

1) 5E doesn't have as many options yet.

And 3.5 player's should care why? It's not our job for the producers of these games to make sure they have real content before release. They knew the **** storm they created with 4th edition, and how easily Pathfinder swooped up their 3.5 fan base by the thousands.

Would you go buy a car, be happy with it, then have your dealer sell you another car, and tell you, well it has just as many features, just not right now. That's ridiculous and you know it. 5e is another sad sad attempt to save the D&D face. Nothing more.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-20, 10:24 AM

5e is another sad sad attempt to save the D&D face. Nothing more.

How can you say it's a sad attempt before it's finished? :\
Let's keep an open mind and wait before judging :D

I personally won't play 5e until I can do what I want in that game. Currently my thing is semi-automatic crossbows so give me that and I'll play it! (quick-loading self-loading heavy crossbow) but until 5e gets the massive customization 3.5 has, 3.5 is better. After all, using killem2's example, would you rather use an old-ish car that can fly, teleport, travel into space, turn into a giant robotic kitten, etc. or would you rather use a brand new car that can't fly, teleport, travel into space, turn into a giant robotic kitten etc.?

Sartharina

2014-10-20, 10:27 AM

How can you say it's a sad attempt before it's finished? :\
Let's keep an open mind and wait before judging :D

I personally won't play 5e until I can do what I want in that game. Currently my thing is semi-automatic crossbows so give me that and I'll play it! (quick-loading self-loading heavy crossbow)Well, the Crossbow Mastery feat lets you use heavy crossbows to make iterative attacks freely, as well as dual-wield hand crossbows. No autofire, unfortunately.

Petrocorus

2014-10-20, 10:28 AM

It seems to me that one of the reasons people are disappointed with 5E is because many people didn't want a 5E, they wanted a Fixed-3.5 Ed, They wanted WotC to succeed at doing what Paizo had tried. Making a balanced and rule-consistent 3.5.
They wanted WotC to make tabula rasa of all the spells, feats, class features, PrC and lack of class features which make 3.5 unbalanced and to solve all the problems of rule consistency and potential abuses, but they didn't want WotC to change the base principle of the rules, the BAB, the Skills system, the Saves, the Feat system, base classes, principle of PrC etc.

This is the impression i get while reading this thread and some others. And honestly, i feel this way too.

As for the price, i think that WotC is of course perfectly entitled to want to earn money out of their work. And they don't own us an OGL or anything. I even said that i recently read a article about the fact that if we take into account the economical situation of 2014 compared to 2000, 5E is not that expensive compared to 3.0. (Source here (http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4065381) and here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353385-Cost-of-D-amp-D-Editions-then-and-now#ixzz2vUFBcvzl))
I do believe however that it will best for them to release some kind of OGL or free-to-play material because of the easy availability of that with their main competitors, which actually include their own 3.5 ed. They should also make an effort on the price of hardcover (they apparently are on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_8/176-4878089-2718653?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dungeons+and+dragons&sprefix=dungeons%2Caps%2C424)) because of the price of PDF editions of PF. They should try to focus on this kind of sell and also try to publish a kindle edition.

Seerow

2014-10-20, 10:56 AM

It seems to me that one of the reasons people are disappointed with 5E is because many people didn't want a 5E, they wanted a Fixed-3.5 Ed, They wanted WotC to succeed at doing what Paizo had tried. Making a balanced and rule-consistent 3.5.

Not necessarily. I mean, I was happy to buy and play 4e for years, despite preferring 3.5. My big dealbreaker for 5e was bounded accuracy, and the general decimation of high level play in general.

TGOskar: I'm not going to respond point by point to your wall of text, but I want to point out a couple of things (especially since you highlighted my post specifically)

1) The whole argument about which system is more customizable started because Sarathina made the absurd claim that 5e had more customization than the whole of 3.5e. If this argument hadn't been made, that whole line of discussion would have ended with someone early in the thread saying 3.5's strength is its huge amount of flexibility.

2) While 5e has feats in general that are broader than their 3e counterparts, it doesn't change the part where a 3e character has more choices to make overall, which is the main point I was getting at in that post. Basically your argument is that each 5e feat is a package of 2-3 feats you would usually want to take together anyway. That's fine. I personally would rather get feats more often and be able to pick and choose individual benefits of the feats instead. Because that gives you more points where you can make meaningful decisions, and provides a broader overall diversity of characters, even if the standard archtypes are going to want to take all of the benefits from their feats.

I have the same problem with 5e's backgrounds, where I would rather be able to pick my skills individually as I progress, rather than getting 3-4 skills at once as a part of a background, and then that background choice is the only one I make in the matter for my career. This is a point that is easier to houserule than the feats, but it doesn't change that the 5e character in the books will have fewer choices than a 3e character.

The argument against these points was that the 3e character's choices were all bad, or that rather than choosing what to be good at, they are choosing what to not suck at. And to a limited degree this may be true (ranged combat in particular bugs me in 3.5/PF, given you have a two feat barrier of entry to even bother with it. Because let's face it, this is a team based game, when you want to shoot someone, chances are they will be in melee with your team mates, if not in this fight, definitely in the next one). But most of the examples of that are overblown, and I tend to find high level 5e characters less capable than a mid level 3e equivalent, which is problematic to me.

Also, while a 5e dex based character has an immediate advantage over a 3.5e dex based character thanks to dex to hit and damage with no feat tax, I feel like that particular design decision has heavily devalued strength based characters in 5e.

Headrama

2014-10-20, 11:24 AM

Not a huge fan of the non-traditional races as p.c.'s so I prefer 5e.

Sartharina

2014-10-20, 11:47 AM

Except for the pretty pictures and the fun of picking apart new rulestext.:smallamused:The pictures in 5e are VERY pretty, though! Except the PHB's halfling art. You may want to staple a paper bag over that page.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 11:50 AM

The pictures in 5e are VERY pretty, though! Except the PHB's halfling art. You may want to staple a paper bag over that page.

I LOVE their Half-Elf Bard. And while Modrons still look weird/creepy to me, their Modron March with the PCs cowering under the overhang was cool too.

That Elf Wizard though... Somehow they made even Mialee look pretty :smallyuk:

OldTrees1

2014-10-20, 11:53 AM

1) 5E doesn't have as many options yet.
And 3.5 player's should care why? It's not our job for the producers of these games to make sure they have real content before release. They knew the **** storm they created with 4th edition, and how easily Pathfinder swooped up their 3.5 fan base by the thousands.

Would you go buy a car, be happy with it, then have your dealer sell you another car, and tell you, well it has just as many features, just not right now. That's ridiculous and you know it. 5e is another sad sad attempt to save the D&D face. Nothing more.

Um, that was a reason 3.5e is currently better than 5e.

That said, 5e does have real content, just not enough to compare to the whole of 3.5e.

Kaeso

2014-10-20, 12:00 PM

Psyren

2014-10-20, 12:13 PM

I think we can agree that most 3.5e prestige classes are filler that shouldn't even be there in the first place.

I think we can agree with no such thing. There are a ton of viable PrCs out there that simply get no screentime in CharOp because of the most famous few like Iot7FV and Incantatrix. Take a solid PrC like Exalted Arcanist - it loses a CL on entry so it is often backburnered and overlooked, but it can do things no other PrC in 3.5 can do. Look at any FR book - there are a lot of full-progression PrCs over there that simply don't get discussed, like Halruaan Elder and Hand of the Adama. The same is true for Eberron - I can count on one hand the times I've seen people discuss Escalation Mage or Silver Pyromancer, and that's largely because Planar Shepherd and Sovereign Speaker dominate Eberron PrC conversations so thoroughly. There are even some setting-agnostic ones that get ignored like Keeper of the Cerulean Sign. And I haven't even gotten to Dragon material yet, where we're still finding unknown toys nearly a decade later.

The best part - all of it is compatible with PF, every line. It would take a lifetime to commit all that to memory, but if you want to build something in 3.P the tools are there. Just about anything you can think of, save things that are not possible in d20 at all.

OldTrees1

2014-10-20, 12:14 PM

I'm still on the fence on 3.5e vs 5e but I'd just like to throw something in the discussion. The biggest pro-3.5e argument seems to be that there's a wide variety of options, but is that really the case? Sure, you have about 100 prestige classes to choose from, but how many of those are actually viable? Is anyone seriously going to consider a dwarven defender? I think we can agree that most 3.5e prestige classes are filler that shouldn't even be there in the first place. 5e has, as far as I've seen, less options but they're options that are all at least somewhat viable. And it's not unfair that 5e's options will increase with splatbooks. After all, what we have right now is just core.

Viability depends on which slice you, as the DM, take. If set up the game to have the Tier 3-4 slice to be viable, there is a lot of viable content.

However I agree with the rest of your post(5e having high percentage of viability per slice and 5e core compared to the whole of 3.5e being an unfair comparison).

Gwendol

2014-10-20, 12:55 PM

I guess one could compare Core content.

LTwerewolf

2014-10-20, 01:00 PM

I'm still on the fence on 3.5e vs 5e but I'd just like to throw something in the discussion. The biggest pro-3.5e argument seems to be that there's a wide variety of options, but is that really the case? Sure, you have about 100 prestige classes to choose from, but how many of those are actually viable? Is anyone seriously going to consider a dwarven defender? I think we can agree that most 3.5e prestige classes are filler that shouldn't even be there in the first place. 5e has, as far as I've seen, less options but they're options that are all at least somewhat viable. And it's not unfair that 5e's options will increase with splatbooks. After all, what we have right now is just core.

At first people didn't realize some of the broken possibilities in 3rd either. Given time, you'll see tiers become obvious and then you'll have people saying that noncasters are obsoleted in 5th. It just takes a couple extra levels in 5th to happen. Specifically the stat cap hurts mundanes more than full casters.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 01:10 PM

At first people didn't realize some of the broken possibilities in 3rd either. Given time, you'll see tiers become obvious and then you'll have people saying that noncasters are obsoleted in 5th. It just takes a couple extra levels in 5th to happen. Specifically the stat cap hurts mundanes more than full casters.

It's also nearly impossible for noncasters (I try to avoid the term "mundanes" as really only non-adventurers should have that moniker, though I occasionally slip) to optimize all 6 saves, though the DMG may change that with some items. Granted, the gap between a "strong save" and a "weak save" is much lower in 5e, but the more spells they print the easier it will be for casters to exploit those gaps. Just in Basic there arespells that target at least 4 saves, as well as spells that ignore saves completely and target your hitpoint total (Sleep, Power Word X.)

The Insaniac

2014-10-20, 01:58 PM

5e core compared to the whole of 3.5e being an unfair comparison.

I would actually argue that for this discussion, it's a perfectly fair comparison. Right now I would rather play 3.5 than 5e because 3.5 has so much more that I can do. This doesn't make 5e bad or mean that it won't have lots of goodies in the future. But at this point, if we're comparing how customizable characters are and which system gives more options, 3.5 wins hands down. That may change in the future but we aren't discussing the future at the moment.

Anlashok

2014-10-20, 02:03 PM

Is anyone seriously going to consider a dwarven defender?
Lots of people, and I've seen many of those same lots of people succeed and have fun with said class.

You're falling again into the trap of comparing highly optimized 3.5 with unoptimzed 5e and asserting that the latter has more options because of it.

And it's not unfair that 5e's options will increase with splatbooks. After all, what we have right now is just core.

The problem isn't just a lack of splats though. It's a systemic, intentional design choice to limit player options (binary skills and slow/restrictive feat choices). More splats won't change that.

Additionally, as said earlier, the design team has outright said they're going to try to nickel and dime people with APs rather than producing a significant amount of new content anyways, so even if we are worried about splats, we know there won't be much of it.

OldTrees1

2014-10-20, 02:07 PM

I would actually argue that for this discussion, it's a perfectly fair comparison. Right now I would rather play 3.5 than 5e because 3.5 has so much more that I can do. This doesn't make 5e bad or mean that it won't have lots of goodies in the future. But at this point, if we're comparing how customizable characters are and which system gives more options, 3.5 wins hands down. That may change in the future but we aren't discussing the future at the moment.

Clairification:
I do not think it is a useful comparison for a long term verdict. (I already listed the current gap as a short term reason to favor 3.5e over 5e but that was in a different post)

Kaeso

2014-10-20, 03:41 PM

You're falling again into the trap of comparing highly optimized 3.5 with unoptimzed 5e and asserting that the latter has more options because of it.

I'm not talking about optimization, but the fact that the dwarven defender utterly fails at what it was designed to do. It was a poorly designed prestige class, like many prestige classes in 3.5e. You get a bonus for standing still, yet you have no means of attracting enemies towards you or at the very least encouraging them to head your direction (unlike say the crusader). While 5e may have less options right now, I have the idea that at least all of them are viable. Sure, some classes may end up being superior than others, but as far as I can tell there's not a single route in 5e that's entirely unviable (unless you choose to take one level of every class available, which is just a very dumb move).

Vogonjeltz

2014-10-20, 04:20 PM

The more I hear about 5e the more interesting it sounds. Sounds as if there are some nice refinements.

I concur with Gwendol. I was skeptical of a new edition in light of how much I do like about 3.5 (and how much I disliked the mechanics of 4), but having played it for a few sessions now, I've had nothing but enjoyable experiences in each one.

Another initial concern I had was the lack of feats, but that's been washed out by the interesting options that happen within character classes.
One thing, the proficiency system is just so much better than the 3.5 skill system (less book-keeping and more intuitive, with characters actually getting to choose their advantages-not in the A/D sense-to a degree).

The biggest knock I have on 5 is what has been done with Paladins, but then again, I haven't played one in 5 yet either, so maybe I'd change my tune after.

To the original poster question: I don't think 3.5 is better than 5, I just have more nostalgia associated with 3.5 and more money invested in books for it. So I'd be happy to play a 3.5 game now, but I am beginning to think if someone offered me a choice of a 3.5 or a 5 game...I'd probably pick the 5 game.

The big thing about 3.5, to me, that 5e likely will never quite match is in the philosophy shift that 5e took. 5e is very carefully showing us RAI behind what it does, and then being deliberately colloquial with its RAW. It is clearly not meant to be examined for minute word choices and interactions, but rather with an eye towards what it's attempting to allow being clear from context. And if two DMs disagree, that's fine.

This was the most noticable and best thing that they did. Nit-picking and players attempting tortured readings for exploitative gain are by far the most irritating and least fun aspects of the 3.5 rules.

I disagree that 3.5 is meant to be rules as written, indeed the DMG goes to lengths saying it isn't and anything within is really just guidelines.