3.5e and 5e?

[Kaeso]

While I wouldn't call myself a veteran, I'm a pretty experienced 3.5e player. I've skipped over 4th edition because it felt really limited and dumbed down to me in comparison to 3.5. In this regard, 5th edition looks more promising. It still looks more limited than 3.5e, but it's possible that splatbooks will solve that problem in time. I've gotten my hands on the PHB through a friend and glossed through it, but I still feel a bit conflicted making the jump from 3.5 to 5th.

So what I would like to know isn't per se what edition is better (though of course you can always give me your personal opinion), what I'd really like to know is: what can 5th edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player. In other words, what reasons would you give me to take take the leap?

[Eslin]

While I wouldn't call myself a veteran, I'm a pretty experienced 3.5e player. I've skipped over 4th edition because it felt really limited and dumbed down to me in comparison to 3.5. In this regard, 5th edition looks more promising. It still looks more limited than 3.5e, but it's possible that splatbooks will solve that problem in time. I've gotten my hands on the PHB through a friend and glossed through it, but I still feel a bit conflicted making the jump from 3.5 to 5th.

So what I would like to know isn't per se what edition is better (though of course you can always give me your personal opinion), what I'd really like to know is: what can 5th edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player. In other words, what reasons would you give me to take take the leap?

None as yet for the experienced, but there will be. If your group is experienced at 3.5, you know what it takes to make it work and can enjoy 3.5's openness and variety, no need to go to 5e yet. If you have new players, do 5e - it's basically core 3.5, but simpler and better balanced, to the extent that 'core only' 3.5 is now completely pointless considering we basically have an improved core now.

The stage is set, however. This is basically 3.5 with the benefit of hindsight (basically what PF should have been as opposed to 3.more), so once a variety of material gets published it could/should supplant 3.5.

[Yorrin]

By contrast as a relatively experienced 3.5 player/DM what I get out of the system is a streamlined/simplified rules system that I can use to introduce new players to the game and widen my player base.

[Prince Zahn]

By contrast as a relatively experienced 3.5 player/DM what I get out of the system is a streamlined/simplified rules system that I can use to introduce new players to the game and widen my player base.

Pretty much this, as well as the added benefit that 5e was carefully thought out in the designing stage (as far as I can tell from reading the PHB, those 3 years of promotion and poll-taking didn't go to waste.) which means that any delicious new material that WotC will release will likely have less of a cheesy aftertaste while certainly being worthwhile and interesting options to consider.

basically I'm saying WotC is trying harder this time:smalltongue:

[Eslin]

Pretty much this, as well as the added benefit that 5e was carefully thought out in the designing stage (as far as I can tell from reading the PHB, those 3 years of promotion and poll-taking didn't go to waste.) which means that any delicious new material that WotC will release will likely have less of a cheesy aftertaste while certainly being worthwhile and interesting options to consider.

basically I'm saying WotC is trying harder this time:smalltongue:

Agreed except for the whole player feedback part. This edition certainly had the benefit of hindsight, but it pretty obviously was playtested either little or not at all (or they just ignored their playtesters)

[Madfellow]

5e offers a fresh new start. If you've been playing 3.5 for long enough, then you know all the ins and outs of making a good character and making the game work. 5e takes old concepts and delivers them through a streamlined new rule system. Try taking all your favorite old character concepts and remaking them as 5e characters. I think you'll be surprised at how easy and inviting 5e is.

[madmaxx]

I think 5e puts a greater emphasis on narrative and the player / DM interaction. It does so by removing some bookkeeping and being less specific which in turns makes the game more open.

My favorite example for this are the new skills. Instead of trying to have a skill for every possible situation (impossible), you now have broad skill categories that really do fit every situation. It also enables players to be more creative. Whereas previously you could either be a good swimmer, climber, or jumper, now you are just overall athletic. This opens up way more possiblities to handle a situation.

Having passive perception means that ambushes now actually work the way they are intended to. Instead of having the players make a spot check, which means that even when they fail the players will know something is up, its actually a suprise now.

The background and inspiration system greatly emphasizes roleplay and makes character creation easier for people who are not that experienced in roleplaying.

[Eslin]

5e offers a fresh new start. If you've been playing 3.5 for long enough, then you know all the ins and outs of making a good character and making the game work. 5e takes old concepts and delivers them through a streamlined new rule system. Try taking all your favorite old character concepts and remaking them as 5e characters. I think you'll be surprised at how easy and inviting 5e is.

Again, partial agreement with one point of contention. 5e is easy and inviting, a newcomer can create a competent character quickly and start having fun without tripping over anything - but 5e doesn't cover anything beyond a small fraction of my old favourites. That's not a bad thing, there's only been one book so far, but it's not a versatile system yet.

[Theodoxus]

Agreed except for the whole player feedback part. This edition certainly had the benefit of hindsight, but it pretty obviously was playtested either little or not at all (or they just ignored their playtesters)

Can you expound on this? This game was playtested by thousands of adoring fans. Each push was sent with detailed feedback forms. The game evolved directly from the feedback. What do you feel was underrepresented?

[Eslin]

Can you expound on this? This game was playtested by thousands of adoring fans. Each push was sent with detailed feedback forms. The game evolved directly from the feedback. What do you feel was underrepresented?

Wasn't involved in the playtesting - got a few packets, but everything looked kinda crap so I dropped it (glad it ended up decent).

Talking about this from looking at the game, it's kind of obvious there was little editing or feedback. Things like 1 hour short rests (no-one likes them, every single DM house rules to 15 or 30 minutes), terrible ranger capstone, superiority dice running out way too fast (related to the 1 hour rests issue) and a bunch of nonsensical or ambiguous wording. Are warlock invocations based on character or class levels? Why did they not clear that up prior to publishing?

When I got access to everything I sat down, read through the spell section in a few minutes and noticed contagion being brokenly overpowered and simulacrum endlessly chainable within that period. There is no way crap like that would have gotten through if there was much response to feedback

[rollingForInit]

Wasn't involved in the playtesting - got a few packets, but everything looked kinda crap so I dropped it (glad it ended up decent).

Talking about this from looking at the game, it's kind of obvious there was little editing or feedback. Things like 1 hour short rests (no-one likes them, every single DM house rules to 15 or 30 minutes), terrible ranger capstone, superiority dice running out way too fast (related to the 1 hour rests issue) and a bunch of nonsensical or ambiguous wording. Are warlock invocations based on character or class levels? Why did they not clear that up prior to publishing?

When I got access to everything I sat down, read through the spell section in a few minutes and noticed contagion being brokenly overpowered and simulacrum endlessly chainable within that period. There is no way crap like that would have gotten through if there was much response to feedback

If you had participated in the playtesting, you would see that a lot of stuff changed from the playtesting. There have been many improvements, a lot of balancing, etc.

No, everything isn't perfect, but if they were aiming for a perfect release 5e would've been in development indefinitely.

[Eslin]

If you had participated in the playtesting, you would see that a lot of stuff changed from the playtesting. There have been many improvements, a lot of balancing, etc.

No, everything isn't perfect, but if they were aiming for a perfect release 5e would've been in development indefinitely.

I'm aware of that - note that I'm not complaining about things like the beastmaster ranger being overall bad here, some stuff was always gonna get through.

I'm talking about the stuff that takes one brief reading of the PHB to notice, like warlock invocation level and that the ranger's pet can't multiattack.

[edge2054]

By contrast as a relatively experienced 3.5 player/DM what I get out of the system is a streamlined/simplified rules system that I can use to introduce new players to the game and widen my player base.

This.

I plan to introduce my kids to it this winter. 3.5 wasn't suited for this. 4th edition just wasn't DnD enough for me to get into.

It also plays faster and is way more balanced.

[rollingForInit]

I'm aware of that - note that I'm not complaining about things like the beastmaster ranger being overall bad here, some stuff was always gonna get through.

I'm talking about the stuff that takes one brief reading of the PHB to notice, like warlock invocation level and that the ranger's pet can't multiattack.

No idea what happened with the Ranger's pet, but the Warlock wasn't in the playtest, I think? At least not for a very long time.

You're also looking at it with an outsider's perspective. Perhaps the Warlock thing seemed perfectly clear to those writing the piece. But since it wasn't playtested, well ...

[cobaltstarfire]

So what I would like to know isn't per se what edition is better (though of course you can always give me your personal opinion), what I'd really like to know is: what can 5th edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player. In other words, what reasons would you give me to take take the leap?

If you want all the fiddly bits and rules, it doesn't really offer anything at all.

If you want a streamlined game that's faster and easier to play, with less table math 5e is a good edition to look at.


I've also heard from many veterans (of AD&D/2e, but moved on to other systems) that 5e is probably the best version of D&D they have seen/experienced. I think the only crowd I've heard a lot of negativity from are die hard 4e fans, and a small subset of 3.X fans who don't really seem to understand the changes that have been made to 5e to begin with.

Although there are quiet a few who also feel it's mediocre, or missed the mark in general. Although I feel a little like they were expecting more than they got. Hopefully later books will help bring the game up to be what they want it to be.

[LaserFace]

While I wouldn't call myself a veteran, I'm a pretty experienced 3.5e player. I've skipped over 4th edition because it felt really limited and dumbed down to me in comparison to 3.5. In this regard, 5th edition looks more promising. It still looks more limited than 3.5e, but it's possible that splatbooks will solve that problem in time. I've gotten my hands on the PHB through a friend and glossed through it, but I still feel a bit conflicted making the jump from 3.5 to 5th.

So what I would like to know isn't per se what edition is better (though of course you can always give me your personal opinion), what I'd really like to know is: what can 5th edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player. In other words, what reasons would you give me to take take the leap?

As someone who has experience with 3.x and 4, I enjoy 5E most because the simplicity of written rules allow for greater DM interpretation, and the balance in mechanics leave most of the crunch worry-free.

On simplicity: Much seems to be a bit open-ended, where DMs needn't feel so beholden to rules they may feel are unintuitive or misrepresent a situation. You spend minimal effort trying to figure things out, and can instead spend that energy on presentation of the scene or action, without really losing pace. You basically never have to the rulebook to figure out if a skill works a certain way, provided you've read through it once.

A lot more weight seems to fall on the shoulders of DMs, and language in the PHB clearly tries to separate what rules ought to be expected in play, and how a DM may make exceptions, exclude variants from their game, etc. The DM is expected to make reasonable judgments for the benefit of group, balancing verisimilitude and absurd theatrics as appropriate for the campaign.

On balance: You can also have just about anyone try to do anything they want, even if they didn't get a special feat, without looking like a fool. I know this can be hard in 3.x. For example, Grappling and Shoving are much simpler and more likely to be successful for your average character, with no investment of the PC beyond having the Athletics skill, and the use of an attack (and the risks associated with that). The game seems to support everyone at the table describing their actions and enjoying some benefit; there are no "traps" to my knowledge. You can't accidentally gimp your character because you tried to use the game's own mechanics to reinforce your concept. Classes, while having their own roles, seem well balanced overall.

[Eslin]

No idea what happened with the Ranger's pet, but the Warlock wasn't in the playtest, I think? At least not for a very long time.

You're also looking at it with an outsider's perspective. Perhaps the Warlock thing seemed perfectly clear to those writing the piece. But since it wasn't playtested, well ...

Which is what I said, obvious lack of playtesting/feedback. I like the edition in general, but it's a little weird that so many flaws or ambiguities made it through in a simple edition that apparently had a lot of time/experience/money/feedback behind it.

[Segev]

I will say this: As an experienced player who knows the rules and the finer points and details very well, I still like 3e more than I like 5e. This may or may not change as 5e develops and more books come out. But what I like in 3e that makes me like it more than 5e is at least in part familiarity, and in part simply the focus of the game on being a mental exercise, a math puzzle to build cool tricks.

5e has a lot going for it, and despite my preference for 3e, I would not balk at playing in a 5e game. It does the job of being a D&D game extremely well. It is streamlined and easy to grasp. There are flaws, and some design choices that are different from what I would have done, but it is very solid and I think it likely to honestly be better balanced and more robust at all levels. It will take less work on a DM's part to keep it balanced, while at the same time leaning more heavily on a DM's judgment for how certain things will work. But it provides insight into what the developers were thinking when they wrote the rules, so the RAI is easier to grasp and use as a guideline.

[SiuiS]

So what I would like to know isn't per se what edition is better (though of course you can always give me your personal opinion), what I'd really like to know is: what can 5th edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player. In other words, what reasons would you give me to take take the leap?

Everything. Once you understand the math and the reasons behind it, converting everything in your 3e books should be fine if you want to play an arcane archer, an incantator, or even a ghost faced ninja or whatever that was called.

[TheOOB]

5e is a much more elegant game that 3.5, that is it has a much more favorable depth to complexity ratio.

3.5 has an incredible amount of depth, that is there were tons of meaningful choices you could make to customize your play experience, but it was also increibly complex as there were a ton of rules spread over dozens of books, many of which where kind of obtuse. Further, with an almost complete lack of balance the game often devolved into hunting through the splat books for the most overpowered ones, while making most the options not worth taking.

5e probably has less depth, there are less options(though there are still quite a few and with increased balance most of them are viable), but there is also much less complexity. They rules, aside from a few ambiguous statements here and there, are much easier to understand, and most of the more complex bits are optional(eg feats and multiclassing).

I personally really like 5e, and my biggest reason is that unlike 4e every class feels unique, but unlike 3.5, barring some unfavorable multiclassing it's hard to make a character who isn't useful and powerful.

[Geoff]

While I wouldn't call myself a veteran, I'm a pretty experienced 3.5e player. I've skipped over 4th edition because it felt really limited and dumbed down to me in comparison to 3.5. Well, you were wrong. You missed out on 6 years of potentially awesome gaming, but, hey, that's punishment enough, so no need to belabor the point. ;P


In this regard, 5th edition looks more promising. Ironically, it's "limited and dumbed down" in comparison to 4e. Which is to say, it's simplified and streamlined (sorta, in some ways). 'Dumbed down' is really nonsense in context. If a game is easier to understand, that's a positive. 5e is a little easier to grasp than 3.5 was, it has fewer moving parts, it presents the player with fewer choices, and the rules punt to the DM rather than going into persnickety detail.


It still looks more limited than 3.5e, but it's possible that splatbooks will solve that problem in time. WotC has expressed plans to publish fewer books and focus more on adventures, so that's not a strong possibility.

But, then, if it did, it'd just lose some of that simplicity.


I've gotten my hands on the PHB through a friend and glossed through it, but I still feel a bit conflicted making the jump from 3.5 to 5th. Learn from your past mistake with 4e, set aside your prejudices or fear or change or whatever's holding you back, and give 5e a fair chance. Read the book, build some characters, play Encounters or AL or something with a DM who's actually positive about it, and then make a judgement.

My guess is that you'll find it's just fine, gives you plenty of choices, and is as much fun to play as any other ed.


what I'd really like to know is: what can 5th edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player. In other words, what reasons would you give me to take take the leap? The big advantage of 5e is just that it's a lot less cluttered - it's like playing core-only, while also pulling in some late-3.5 stuff, like the Warlock. Best of both worlds, in that sense.

[Ramshack]

Well, you were wrong. You missed out on 6 years of potentially awesome gaming, but, hey, that's punishment enough, so no need to belabor the point. ;P

Ironically, it's "limited and dumbed down" in comparison to 4e. Which is to say, it's simplified and streamlined (sorta, in some ways). 'Dumbed down' is really nonsense in context. If a game is easier to understand, that's a positive. 5e is a little easier to grasp than 3.5 was, it has fewer moving parts, it presents the player with fewer choices, and the rules punt to the DM rather than going into persnickety detail.

WotC has expressed plans to publish fewer books and focus more on adventures, so that's not a strong possibility.

But, then, if it did, it'd just lose some of that simplicity.

Learn from your past mistake with 4e, set aside your prejudices or fear or change or whatever's holding you back, and give 5e a fair chance. Read the book, build some characters, play Encounters or AL or something with a DM who's actually positive about it, and then make a judgement.

My guess is that you'll find it's just fine, gives you plenty of choices, and is as much fun to play as any other ed.

The big advantage of 5e is just that it's a lot less cluttered - it's like playing core-only, while also pulling in some late-3.5 stuff, like the Warlock. Best of both worlds, in that sense.

I agree, I see this thread pop up pretty frequently. I played 3.5 for years and years and like the OP I bought the 4e core books but decided it wasn't for me after a few games. The biggest mistake people make is trying to focus on the changes between 3.x and 5e. Like 5e is just another updated rules.

Treat it as it's own unique game like it deserves, give it a few play through and appreciate it for the ways that it's different and the ways it's familiar.

As a DM I really enjoy 5e much more. I've had 8 new players join my sessions and now host multiple campaigns. New players can grasp it easier and the veterans really enjoy the stream lined mechanics. Combat is much shorter and general the game flows much faster now.

[ProphetSword]

So what I would like to know isn't per se what edition is better (though of course you can always give me your personal opinion), what I'd really like to know is: what can 5th edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player. In other words, what reasons would you give me to take take the leap?

I've been playing D&D for over 30 years. A lot of what your asking will come down to personal preference. Every edition of the game has something to offer.

It really depends on what you want from a game of Dungeons & Dragons. Some people enjoy the number-crunching and rules-lawyering mini-game that comes from a session of 3.5 or 4th. Nothing wrong with that. You might be a player who enjoys keeping track of a lot of bonuses and having a ton of choices and options and rules to cover all the bases.

On the other hand, some players enjoy the heavy roleplaying and high exploration games that were popular during the 1E and 2E AD&D days. They are people who usually want the rules to get out of the way of the game so that they can get on to the actual adventure and not concern themselves with so much math to track. This is also a valid way to play the game.

5E is the middle ground. It's a bit of all of these things. It has high emphasis on DM rulings and quick gameplay, but has just enough mechanics to make things interesting for those that enjoy it. The intended goal was to bridge all of these gaming styles together, and I feel WotC was wildly successful in that regard.

As a 3.5 player, if you can let go of some of the heavy rules so that the game runs smoother and faster, you will probably like it. If you like having a lot of rules, then you should give it at least a session or two before deciding against it. In the end, all editions of D&D are good (even 4th) at what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it. Same is true for this edition.

[MaxWilson]

Here's a minor point, but:

The advantage/disadvantage mechanic is mechanically awesome for simulationists. No longer does a blind, drunk, 0th level commoner at long range have the same chance as a 1st level figher in broad daylight to hit an Ancient Red Dragon flying overhead, due to the lack of granularity in the "natural 20 always hits" rule. Advantage/disadvantage still doesn't have a lot of granularity itself, but at least it makes it possible to do great things like set yourself up, prone, behind 3/4 cover in order to get a real defensive advantage. That wasn't possible in prior editions of (A)D&D because modifiers were the only mechanic there was for adjusting difficulty. A straight d20 just doesn't have the bell curve shape necessary for modelling real-life tasks that people DON'T fail at 5% of the time. (For example, "driving to work without getting a ticket/in an accident" is modelled better at a DC 5 check with advantage for familiarity with the route than as DC 2 in a system without advantage.)

If it weren't for advantage/disadvantage in 5E I'd still be playing GURPS GULLIVER.

[archaeo]

Which is what I said, obvious lack of playtesting/feedback. I like the edition in general, but it's a little weird that so many flaws or ambiguities made it through in a simple edition that apparently had a lot of time/experience/money/feedback behind it.

I mean, how many "flaws" are there, really? Some of the things you mentioned aren't really flaws but purposeful design decisions (the Beast Master, which really does fine as it gains levels, would be a good example); others are obvious mistakes (wish/simulacrum chief among them). But honestly, there just aren't that many outright errors.

I'm also just not knowledgable enough about the release of 3e and 4e to make a good comparison, but isn't 5e doing pretty well at presenting a balanced version of D&D out of the gate compared to the previous versions? I know that 4e had its share of weirdnesses at release, including a few broken RAW combos and the infamously weird MM1 monster math, and there's no need in this thread to go into the myriad failures of 3.0.

I'd say that 5e more or less shows off what all that "time/experience/money/feedback" did. They had a really tough design goal: make a modern TRPG that also is unquestionably "D&D," with all the baggage that that name brings with it. I think Mearls & Co. more or less hit it out of the park on this score: 5e is D&D.

Which is all to say that it earns an unqualified recommendation from me, especially compared to 3.5/PF, which is just too heavy for me to really get into. Not only are the rules good, but they're written in a way that I think does an excellent job of inspiring players and DMs, providing a constant stream of plot hooks and campaign ideas. I've already got nearly 10,000 words of setting material written based on 5e, and I credit a lot of that creative work to the sheer spirit of fun and adventure that 5e brings to the table.

[Geoff]

I'm also just not knowledgable enough about the release of 3e and 4e to make a good comparison, but isn't 5e doing pretty well at presenting a balanced version of D&D out of the gate compared to the previous versions? Not really, no.

4e was just in another league, balance-wise, with it's neat role/source matrix and common AEDU class structure, almost like it wasn't even the same game anymore. 'Almost.'
5e isn't even aiming to be in that league.

3.5 gets a bum rap for being 'broken' but it wouldn't have been played so religiously 'RAW' if there wasn't something to all those rules. 5e is very similar in set-up and design to 3.5 in a lot of ways, like 3.5, it might get out of hand at higher levels or as you add more to it - or people might eventually realize that it's a little screwed up, now. Consider 3.0: when it came out, no one was like 'XOMG, Clerics are so broken,' it just seemed like they were boosted enough to finally be fun to play - but by the time 3.5 had been out a while, folks started to realize that 'CoDzilla' had been there since the PH1, and though not as obvious as weird, power-creeping, optimized builds, was just as imbalanced.

AD&D (1e, that is, which I all but memorized as a kid - 2e, I clearly don't remember as well as I thought, so I'll leave commenting on that to others)... AD&D also gets a bum rap for being "imbalanced," and yes, compared to 4e and many other non-D&D games, it was. But it did try to implement balance in a wide variety of ways that it left under DM control.

Where 5e looks good is in the context of AD&D. It's about as balanced as AD&D tried to be, but without resorting to as many delicate, DM-mediated 'checks & balances.' The clearest example, I think, is magic items. In AD&D, magic items were placed by treasure types and random rolls, and those random tables were carefully weighted to favor magic items useful to certain classes over others, to help balance those classes (ie without the right items, they were inferior), and the DM is warned to use those tables as a guide less the classes get out of whack. 5e sets its class balance sights on the assumption of no magic items. The DM can include items or not as he sees fit, but any imbalances they may introduce are his responsibility. Another good example is the exp chart. Like 3.5 and 4e, 5e uses one exp progression for everyone, so characters of the same level can be presumed to be of comparable power. AD&D used often quite different progressions, so that level, alone, wasn't a dependable indicator of effectiveness from one class to another.
(Then there's saving throws....)

[archaeo]

snip

Sorry, I think what I meant to say was, "Isn't 5e doing a pretty good job of presenting the designers' intent correctly?" which is an altogether different question, of course. I'm not really trying to take a stab at "balance," which strikes me as a design meme that isn't always useful in the way that forumites seem keen on. Instead, I'm saying that 5e is a pretty polished effort, and seems to have fewer glaring mistakes than previous editions had as they were first printed; I can't be sure that this is true, though, as I don't have as much experience with previous editions, and would love for someone to chime in with evidence about those first-printing errors.

Naturally, every TRPG is going to grow over time. Mearls & Co. have promised surveys next spring for a new round of rules clarifications and errata, and 5e will only get better as the handful of mistakes and vague rules get ironed out.

[Geoff]

Sorry, I think what I meant to say was, "Isn't 5e doing a pretty good job of presenting the designers' intent correctly?" which is an altogether different question, of course. Completely different.

And, really, the intent this time around has been more openly articulated and is so much harder than with any prior ed, I'm not sure it's a fair question to ask.

AD&D was meant for the more serious gamer, and it delivered lots and lots of rules that only a serious gamer could pour through and fix up. ;)

There were not exactly a lot of statements of intent with 3.0, for instance. Long after the fact, Monty Cooke came out and said that they intended to create optimal and trap choices to 'reward system mastery,' that they took that straight from M:tG. If that was the intent, yeah, they succeeded - it the intent was class balance, not so much.

4e had a few stated goals - better class balance and less 'static' combats, for instance - and it did deliver on them. But there was a lot more to it than that, and what they were 'really' trying to do is still debatable.

With 5e they've been loud and clear that it's meant to be a universal D&D for everyone who's ever been a fan of any edition. And I don't think it's met that goal, but I also don't think it was a realistic goal to begin with.


Instead, I'm saying that 5e is a pretty polished effort, and seems to have fewer glaring mistakes than previous editions had as they were first printed Well, that's a much less ambitious claim, and, yes, 5e spent something like three years in production, the last two with no current edition products competing for resources, and it had a huge open playtest. That's an unprecedented amount of time and effort to create a new set of core rules. Other editions were 'rushed' by comparison.

So, yes, 5e does have a certain amount of polish to it. It's the latest version of a 40yo game, and it feels like a very polished version of that original game. Familiar & refined rather than 'new & improved.'

[Finieous]

Instead, I'm saying that 5e is a pretty polished effort, and seems to have fewer glaring mistakes than previous editions had as they were first printed; I can't be sure that this is true, though, as I don't have as much experience with previous editions, and would love for someone to chime in with evidence about those first-printing errors.

I can't compare it to 4E, but compared to 3.0, I think 5E's underlying design is certainly much stronger. I very much disagree that there's evidence of a lack of playtesting. I do agree, however, that the editing is suspect -- content editing, I mean, not copy editing or proofreading. Perhaps this is one place where reduced resources show up.

[Pex]

I still prefer Pathfinder, but I suppose the mere fact that I do engage in some threads defending and criticizing various 5E rules on my opinions of the matter does suggest that I actually do like it, I really, really like it, as opposed to the "kind of" qualifier I wrote in some other thread. As to why I like it, I guess it's because it does retain enough 3E paradigm as to be familiar. It was the intent to combine all edition aspects. I do see some 2E and 4E elements. Even though I did not like 4E, it did have some ideas I do like which 5E incorporated. WOTC has at least succeeded that much with me.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Mostly i would say that 5e dispenses with a lot of fiddly bull**** and combat bookkeeping, making for a more enjoyable and smoother play experience. Not having to deal with skill points and differing conditional modifiers vastly reduces the time you spend hunting through character sheets.

[Socko525]

I think I saw a list around here somewhere, but is there a list/thread about the difference between 3.5 and 5?

I guess what I'd really need is a list of things that are "forget X from 3.5 as it is completely different in 5".

Things that came to mind from my fellow players from this weekend were: small creatures no longer getting a bonus to AC, no more 5' step and no more coup de grace.

I'm sure there has to be others who've experienced this as well

[silveralen]

I think I saw a list around here somewhere, but is there a list/thread about the difference between 3.5 and 5?

I guess what I'd really need is a list of things that are "forget X from 3.5 as it is completely different in 5".

Things that came to mind from my fellow players from this weekend were: small creatures no longer getting a bonus to AC, no more 5' step and no more coup de grace.

I'm sure there has to be others who've experienced this as well

This has happened in my group as well. Sometimes the other veteran or I will mention a rule only to realize it no longer applies.

[tcrudisi]

While I wouldn't call myself a veteran, I'm a pretty experienced 3.5e player. I've skipped over 4th edition because it felt really limited and dumbed down to me in comparison to 3.5. In this regard, 5th edition looks more promising. It still looks more limited than 3.5e, but it's possible that splatbooks will solve that problem in time. I've gotten my hands on the PHB through a friend and glossed through it, but I still feel a bit conflicted making the jump from 3.5 to 5th.

So what I would like to know isn't per se what edition is better (though of course you can always give me your personal opinion), what I'd really like to know is: what can 5th edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player. In other words, what reasons would you give me to take take the leap?

I'm a strict RAW player and ... I've never felt more limited in any D&D edition. I began with AD&D, so I'm speaking from quite a bit of experience.

3e was very open. 4e was limited in ways, but weapon users got cool things and casters lost cool things. 5e goes back to 3e in that regards: casters get their versatility back but weapon users lost everything. I tried to play a Rogue and I was just so disheartened. The other Rogue and the Barbarian felt the same way. Combats went quickly because we had no options: move and use the same attack every time. There was no strategic element to the game for weapon users, at least in combat. Out of combat, you would think trained skills would rule the day, but my trained skills weren't high enough to beat out the untrained people.

There are a lot of issues we are running into because the game doesn't give us a full rule set. Inspiration is a nice idea, but because the criteria for gaining it back are subjective rather than objective, the player can roleplay his heart out and never regain it. Gaining advantage is also often subjective, so you can have 8 people surrounding one bad guy and no character would gain advantage for it. Most people may love this, but I hate it. It doesn't feel open, it feels incomplete. I want to be able to go to another group, have them explain to me any house-rules they are playing with, and go from there. You can't do that with 5e. It would take a few sessions to get a feel for how they handle all the subjective rules. It makes the game feel so limited to me.

[Fwiffo86]

There was no strategic element to the game for weapon users, at least in combat.

The rest was cut for space....

I find exactly the opposite is true. Without having every action codified, our players are able to effect strategies instantly, adapt instantly, and move with the flow of the combat. There are only restrictions where they need to be. This has encouraged our players to do things that aren't listed in the rules. With the arbitration power back in the hands of the DM, the game is fast, furious, and significantly more fun to our band.

[INDYSTAR188]

While I wouldI've gotten my hands on the PHB through a friend and glossed through it, but I still feel a bit conflicted making the jump from 3.5 to 5th.

So what I would like to know isn't per se what edition is better (though of course you can always give me your personal opinion), what I'd really like to know is: what can edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player. In other words, what reasons would you give me to take take the leap?

My suggestion is to read the PHB, don't skim through it. 3.5 & 5e are two completely different games with some overlap, so I believe you can't make a decision without being personally informed.

At my table we have two min-maxers, a RP focused player, a wacky player who loves to goof off, and a player who loves to be the 'swiss-army knife'. 5e (as opposed to 3.5 & 4e) lets them all have fun at the same time.

True my min-maxers don't have as many options but now I don't have to worry they're going to be exponentially better than everyone else. My goofy player and RPer both get to be narratively creative because 5e encourages that by giving a lot of freedom to the DM. Finally the system offers enough options for my swiss-army knife player to feel content.

[Geoff]

I'm a strict RAW player and ... I've never felt more limited in any D&D edition. I began with AD&D, so I'm speaking from quite a bit of experience. "Strict RAW" does leave you limited in the early stages of a new edition, since there's just less to it. It's not surprising that you feel limited by 5e, as a player, considering only RAW. Once you try it as a DM, you'll see it's actually very open. All those places where RAW comes up short (no rule, or unclear rules or whatever) become the DM's playground.


3e was very open. 4e was limited in ways, but weapon users got cool things and casters lost cool things. 5e goes back to 3e in that regards: casters get their versatility back but weapon users lost everything. 3e put so much customization in the hands of the player, but it took a lot of optimization skill to tease out the good options from the traps. 4e had less mechanical customization and lower rewards for optimization, but it did make up for it with more of all that being 'balanced,' and by leaving 'fluff' wide open. 5e doesn't go back to 3e - it doesn't let the player customize that much 'RAW - but all the way to 1e, or maybe 2e: it's the DM who will customize your character by deciding what items he'll find, what permanent changes he'll undergo, and what he'll be able to do moment to moment.


I tried to play a Rogue and I was just so disheartened. The other Rogue and the Barbarian felt the same way. Combats went quickly because we had no options: move and use the same attack every time. There was no strategic element to the game for weapon users, at least in combat. Did you get to level at all? At 2nd the Rogue picks up cunning action, at 3rd (typically) you choose a sub-class, and more options open up. Once the fighter picks his sub-class/archetype the Eldritch Knight (as a caster) and even the Battlemaster (with CS dice that are a lot like the Essentials fighters' 'Power Attack') do get to do some 'cool stuff.'


Out of combat, you would think trained skills would rule the day, but my trained skills weren't high enough to beat out the untrained people. That's bounded accuracy - by the same token, your untrained skills don't force you to sit out whole swaths of the adventure. That's the idea, anyway.


Inspiration is a nice idea, but because the criteria for gaining it back are subjective rather than objective, the player can roleplay his heart out and never regain it. That aspect's just a matter of getting to know what plays well to your DM, so assuming your DM rewards inspiration, at all, you an eventually figure out what he's likely to reward it for - then it's just a question of is it worth it for the odd re-roll.

The problem I found with Inspiration is that PCs have a number of these traits, and the party a number of PCs, so, multiply those together for what the DM needs to keep track of make judgements about, continuously - or the DM can just let players point it out ("I have a fear of racoons, did I just earn inspiration?").

IDK if anyone else has tried 5e with a player who does the latter, but I personally find it breaks up and ruins the effect of the RP it's meant to encourage. Maybe I'm just not the best target audience for rules meant to 'reward RP.'


Gaining advantage is also often subjective, so you can have 8 people surrounding one bad guy and no character would gain advantage for it. Most people may love this, but I hate it. It doesn't feel open, it feels incomplete. There are many quite explicit ways to gain Advantage (or suffer or inflict disadvantage). Allies wanting to give each other Advantage just need to use actions to do so, instead of merely moving into flanking, since the game doesn't assume you'll be tracking position precisely enough for flanking (though it does assume you'll be doing so well enough to tell who gets caught in a 53-degree cone).


I want to be able to go to another group, have them explain to me any house-rules they are playing with, and go from there. You can't do that with 5e. It would take a few sessions to get a feel for how they handle all the subjective rules. It makes the game feel so limited to me. I think as the community gets a feel for what rules absolutely need DM calls or 'house rules,' you'll be able to go any table, find out how the DM rules on those, and any other house rules, and be good to go. You just won't ever change tables, hear "by the book, no house rules," and know what's going on.... ;)

[MaxWilson]

Combats went quickly because we had no options: move and use the same attack every time. There was no strategic element to the game for weapon users, at least in combat. Out of combat, you would think trained skills would rule the day, but my trained skills weren't high enough to beat out the untrained people.

This is one reason I love Eldritch Knights--they give Fighters an order of magnitude more interesting choices to make, both in-combat (roleplaying) and in character building (which is really a separate metagame from roleplaying).

That being said, my experience with low-level characters is that often the weapon-users are the only ones making any interesting choices at all, because they're the ones who have relevant feats. E.g. you're fighting a ridiculously tough enemy (level 3-4 characters fighting an enemy which would be Hard at level 10) in cramped tunnels. You've got a tank in front and someone has cast a Web on the enemy to even the odds (the enemy is a Hobgoblin Warlord with entourage, so poor Dex saves), but due to the cramped tunnels pretty much everyone except the guy in front has half cover or better from everyone else. Spellcaster is busy holding his Web spell, and the Druid has run out of shapeshifts due to tanking too much in the early fight... spellcasters are reduced to plinking away ineffectually with cantrips against AC 22 (AC 20 + 2 for half cover), but the fighter with Sharpshooter and Archery Style gets to choose every round between hammering away at the Warlord at +8 to hit + Bless bonus while ignoring cover, or targetting the goblin down the hallway with or without the +10 damage bonus, or hitting the paralyzed Hobgoblin Captain before he overcomes paralyzation and runs for help.

In the specific example I just gave, the spellcasters each basically got to make one or two interesting choices in that combat, but the Sharpshooter fighter got to make an interesting choice every round. I was playing the fighter so I may be biased here, but to me it was plenty fun. Fighters rock, and Eldritch Knights rock twice as much.

[tcrudisi]

"Strict RAW" does leave you limited in the early stages of a new edition, since there's just less to it. It's not surprising that you feel limited by 5e, as a player, considering only RAW. Once you try it as a DM, you'll see it's actually very open. All those places where RAW comes up short (no rule, or unclear rules or whatever) become the DM's playground.

I've done 3 sessions so far: 2 as a DM and 1 as a player. I've felt limited in both for the exact same reasons. I've even started a couple of threads here about those limitations, hoping for RAW answers. My wife and I used to play a lot of LFR in 4e. We like the ability to join new groups for a session, play, then leave. I currently do not feel as though 5e allows us that ability. And its annoying the crap out of me.

We did level up in the one I'm playing as - but that was at the end of the session. We'll begin as level 2 next session. I like the bonus actions that I'll get as a Rogue - but that still doesn't offer me anything strategically. Sure, I can spend a bonus action to move faster, but that does very little in this game. Where I position myself really doesn't matter that much. I might be able to block a door, but compared to previous editions where flanking did something? Or I had multiple ways of hindering my opponent? Or pushing them into unfavorable spots? To push them now, I can, but there are much fewer unfavorable spots, making the bull rush option ... less than ideal. I'm limited to "Here's my attack roll, here's my damage roll. Done." Arghomgwtf I want to strangle myself its so boring. And the other weapon users are saying the same thing - except for the young kid who plays with us (in the game I DM). He doesn't mind. It wouldn't surprise me to begin DMing in a session or two to find that every player had switched to a caster. My primary groups are just so used to having options and being able to make decisions during combat ... 5e doesn't have that. At least, it doesn't have it at very low levels for weapon users. If it does eventually give weapon users more options other than "which enemy do I want to use my basic attacks on?" then I haven't picked up on it, unfortunately.

Max: In your example, the choice the weapon user was making was "which target do I attack?" Everyone can make that choice in every combat. That's not my idea of having options. The casters have options - they can choose which spells to use. They have multiple options. Even if they are down to cantrips and weapons only, those cantrips are still at least 3 more options than weapon users have. The casters can use their spells and be creative with them. Weapon users pick up their old trusty weapon and choose who to attack. It's just ... I really want to like 5e. I read the book before DMing it and was genuinely excited. But with every passing session I keep thinking that 5e isn't for me. I'm so disheartened by it. It feels like its not been completed. Please, dear god, I hope the DMG fixes some of this. I get why some people feel that 5e isn't limiting - the fact that there aren't rules that cover every situation feels like an opportunity for the DM to step up and do what's best for the table. But my table has always followed strict RAW. Without those rules, we feel limited. The PHB wants me/us to make decisions based on subjective criteria. That's not how we play D&D. We want to roleplay within those rules. We want those boundaries. Without those boundaries there, we're finding the system to be incomplete. It limits us.

[Endarire]

5E is a system that, compared to 3.5, is less about the system telling you what to do and allowing the GM to decide.

3.5 is more about rules, rules, and more rules telling you what you need to do to be RAW legal, nevermind how sensical it may seem to an outsider. 3.5 forces GMs to decide on issues, major and minor, before play begins and during sessions. 3.5 is more about being a prepackaged game, or, as someone put it, a puzzle to solve.

[Fwiffo86]

Snipped for space

I believe if you have not tried the game at 3rd level or lower higher, you are still in the "training" phase of the game. You'll notice that the xp amounts rise drastically for 4th level.

Intentionally you will be learning the game during levels 1-3. level 3 is where many options become available to characters.

Incidentally, position is vital to Sneak attack. It is used on any target presently within 5' of one of your allies (or an enemy of the target).

[tcrudisi]

I believe if you have not tried the game at 3rd level or lower higher, you are still in the "training" phase of the game. You'll notice that the xp amounts rise drastically for 4th level.

Intentionally you will be learning the game during levels 1-3. level 3 is where many options become available to characters.

Incidentally, position is vital to Sneak attack. It is used on any target presently within 5' of one of your allies (or an enemy of the target).

I'm aware its early. I haven't stopped playing yet and I'm still giving it a shot. I'm hoping that more options open up, but from what I can tell, weapon users don't get more options, they just get more attacks.

Position is vital to sneak attack -- until you compare it to previous editions. Then you realize that only needing one ally adjacent isn't much. They only need to be adjacent, not flanking. And opp attacks are much harder to trigger in this game, so its ridiculously easy to get someone into that position. You don't need to use spells or powers - just simply walk to where ever you need to be. Plus, everyone is limited to one opp attack per round even in the worst case scenario.

I like strategy in my combats. Weapon users don't provide that like the ToB did for 3e or what weapon users inherently got from 4e.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Position is vital to sneak attack -- until you compare it to previous editions. Then you realize that only needing one ally adjacent isn't much. They only need to be adjacent, not flanking. And opp attacks are much harder to trigger in this game, so its ridiculously easy to get someone into that position. You don't need to use spells or powers - just simply walk to where ever you need to be. Plus, everyone is limited to one opp attack per round even in the worst case scenario.

The PHB rules are essentially targeted at theater of the mind, not at miniatures wargame.

if you want to use old flanking and zone of control rules, feel free. There'll be official variant flanking rules in the DMG.

players should be presented with choices like having to make checks to make optimum movements.

[MaxWilson]

Max: In your example, the choice the weapon user was making was "which target do I attack?" Everyone can make that choice in every combat. That's not my idea of having options. The casters have options - they can choose which spells to use.

Decisions I had to make as a level 4 fighter with Mobile + Sharpshooter:

1.) Do I focus fire on the hobgoblin warlord or go for one of the archers?
2.) Warlord is prone right now--do I fire at him while prone, fire at someone else, or hold my action until he gets up?
3.) I'm shooting at the hobgoblin captain in half-plate. Should I shoot normally or go for the -5/+10 gamble? I'm Blessed and I have a d4 Bardic Inspiration die in reserve.
4.) Uh oh, Xuan's in trouble. I tried to kill the captain, it didn't work. Should I spend my Action Surge to try to save him? (I did. Uselessly, because I missed.)
5.) Would now be a good time to use my Bardic Inspiration?

It's true that there are all variations on the same theme, "Is this an emergency/who should I kill next/how should I kill them?" But I would argue that I was doing something more interesting than the level 3 mage was, when he was just holding his Web spell and Dodging every round. (Couldn't use his Fire Bolt cantrip for fear of setting the web on fire and letting the Hobgoblin Warlord free.) I also had some spells in reserve (Shield, Mage Armor, Expeditious Retreat, Fire Bolt, Minor Illusion) but none of them played a role in the battle.

"Who/how should I kill next?" is a pretty interesting question really, especially when cover is involved. Otherwise games like BattleTech wouldn't even exist.

Edit: oh yeah, the fact that we were fighting hobgoblins made this fight more interesting, because with hobs you need to keep any of your allies from getting within 5' of two different hobgoblins at the same time or they get 2d6/3d6/4d6 extra damage. (That's why I Action Surged the hobgoblin captain, in hopes of preventing the Warlord from getting advantage and an extra 4d6. Didn't work, as mentioned, which cost Xuan Dai a cool 19 HP.) If these had been Ogres or something the fight would have been somewhat more boring.

Edit2: best tip I have for making combat exciting, "Go up against something ridiculously out of your league, CR-wise." As mentioned, that combat was effectively CR 10-14, way out of our league by the book with four level 4s and a level 3. And it was a blast, and we didn't even play optimally, which we'll correct next time. (Druid made some bad decisions. Should have cast Heat Metal early on instead of charging back into melee as a Dire Wolf after getting "killed" the first time.) Easy = boring.

[Galen]

what I'd really like to know is: what can 5th edition offer to an experienced 3.5e player.
1. I can play a Fighter in the same party as a Wizard and a Cleric, and be relevant.
While the basic concept of "wizards alter reality, fighter hit things" was maintained, the spellcaster domination to the point of making the mundanes irrelevant is gone. Mundanes are relevant, period.

2. I don't have to pay stupid feat taxes just to achieve basic competence level.
Spend a feat, Weapon Finesse just to be a non-horrible dex-based fighter? Spend two feats (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot) just be a non-horrible archer? And don't get me even started on the TWF feat line ... being forced to dip a barbarian level to get Pounce....
In 5e, no matter what fighting style you choose, basic competence is possible out of the box, with no taxes. Basically, they looked at all the stupid feat taxes, all the non-thematic dips that people are forced into just to be competent, and said "oh, you get all this by default!"

3. I like playing Rogues, and nothing in 5e is immune to sneak attacks. Yes, rogues don't have their main class feature shut down just because the DM likes undead or animated statues (nor do they have to pay stupid feat taxes to be able to sneak attack undead)

4. Monsters in 5e, starting from the lowly Goblin, have great iconic abilities, emphasizing what this monster is about. Something that 3.5 just tried to throw numbers on, and failed.
Goblins in 3.5 are fluffed to be stealthy.
Goblins in 5e are fluffed to be stealthy.
Goblins in 3.5 have mechanically +4 to Hide checks (throwing numbers on the problem. Doesn't really feel like an iconic "stealthy little bugger")
Goblins in 5e can make a Hide check once per round as a Swift Action*. Wow. Now that feels like an iconic stealthy little bugger.


* It's actually called "Bonus Action", but the concept is the same.

[ProphetSword]

We did level up in the one I'm playing as - but that was at the end of the session. We'll begin as level 2 next session. I like the bonus actions that I'll get as a Rogue - but that still doesn't offer me anything strategically. Sure, I can spend a bonus action to move faster, but that does very little in this game.

I've been running 5E for a while now (starting with the playtest), and I can tell you that if you feel that "Cunning Action" is useless, it's because you're not looking at it the right way. It allows you three options: Dash, Disengage or Hide. Here's a few suggestions of things you can do with it that make it interesting when playing a rogue:

1) Use some of your movement to move up on your opponent, attack them, then use the bonus action to disengage and the rest of your movement to move away. Basically, you rush up, attack and get away without an attack of opportunity against you.

2) If something is attempting to escape, your bonus action will give you fast movement to catch them. Move, Dash with your regular action, and dash again with your bonus action. Three times your normal movement.

3) Use a bow and attack your target (if an ally is near them, you will get sneak attack while doing this). Then, use your movement to move to somewhere that offers you total cover and use the bonus action to hide. Providing no one comes looking for you (which will happen a lot of enemies are engaged with other party members who can run interference) and the enemies don't detect you (which, if you taken expertise in Stealth, is hard to do), your next attack should be at Advantage. Rinse and repeat.

4) Like #2, if a monster is hampering you and getting in your way or has drained your hit points, use your bonus action to disengage, then move twice using your move and your action to dash. If they still keep following you, the following turn you can move, Dash and Dash again. If you get to a place where you have total cover and enough room to move and places to hide, you can hide and attempt to ambush them (example: turning a corner and running into a room and hiding behind a curtain...monster comes in and you get them).

Lots of options with those three abilities. Makes a rogue a real tactical option at the table.

[MaxWilson]

2) If something is attempting to escape, your bonus action will give you fast movement to catch them. Move, Dash with your regular action, and dash again with your bonus action. Three times your normal movement.

I'm AFB--do double Dashes stack? I thought it just set your move to twice normal, so doing Dash twice would do nothing.

Otherwise this is kind of a cool idea for Expeditious Retreat.

[Eslin]

I'm AFB--do double Dashes stack? I thought it just set your move to twice normal, so doing Dash twice would do nothing.

Otherwise this is kind of a cool idea of Expeditious Retreat.

Dash adds your movement to the amount you can move that turn, so multiple uses stack.

[ProphetSword]

I'm AFB--do double Dashes stack? I thought it just set your move to twice normal, so doing Dash twice would do nothing.

Otherwise this is kind of a cool idea for Expeditious Retreat.

Yes. If your movement is 30', it would work like this:

Regular Move: 30 feet
Regular Action: Dash for 30 feet
Cunning Action: Dash for 30 feet

30 + 30 + 30 = 90 feet

Each instance of dash adds your character's normal movement amount to the total they can move that turn.