Comparison of running 5e and 3.5e games?

[Feddlefew]

I'm a 3.5 DM, and I was wondering if DMing 5e is significantly different than DMing 3.5? If anyone wants to share their experiences, I'd be happy to hear them. :smallsmile:

[OldTrees1]

Whether there is a difference depends on how you DM'd 3rd. I have noticed that 5E expects the DM will be doing more tweaking to taste (the list of variants to flick on or off is a start) like a chef cooking something spicy to their own tolerance for heat.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

How 5e is different:
Less content. While this is clearly less fun for the player it's arguably simpler for the DM, and it means there's less of a gap between optimized and not optimized. But it also means you're expected to homebrew a lot more stuff.
Less searchable, at least for now. Big disadvantage IMO.
More balanced, and harder to break the math, by design. Characters can be more effective but not so much more that one character is completely obviated. Up until True Polymorph, at least.
Newer, and so there's less established knowledge collected.
5e tends to be deadlier IME, in that there are fewer ways to deal with enemies and (reliably) pick your battles; not to mention BA meaning it's harder to have semi-perfect defenses (back to breaking the math). Whether this is a plus or a minus depends on your game group.
Tied to the previous points - characters will fail at their specialized task more often. They'll fail when they're executing a good idea more often. And they'll succeed at dumb things more often. Because the d20 be swingy.

Note that both 5e and 3e are heavily based on what the DM decides to allow or do. Technically half of core and all the splats are optional. And both of them have imbalances. So IMO that's not where the difference lies.

[pwykersotz]

For me the difference is mostly in prep time. I have to do substantially less mechanical setup. 3.5 is an old and saturated system that's very tough to build a level-appropriate encounter for because the vastness of the content means optimization levels can be all over the place and parties aren't necessarily internally balanced. 5e is simple, sweet, and has a rich set of systems in the DMG for building creatures and encounters. I no longer spend hours building a BBEG that will be fought in 15 minutes. That's a bonus to me.

Winging DC's is also much easier. On a scale from trivial to impossible, how hard is it? They have a number for that. Don't worry about character level or party composition, set the DC and let them roll. Passive skills, group checks, auto success/fail based on certain criteria, all these things and more are RAW and easy. The alcoholic above :smalltongue: mentioned swinginess, this is partially true but (I believe) pessimistically stated. The d20 is a fickle mistress, but again, you as the DM decide the DC based on what factors you know. I routinely have locks that are auto-opened if you have proficiency in lockpicks, or strength checks to open stone catacomb doors that auto-succeed if you have a certain strength. This is all by-the-book.

If you love RAW, 5e will be a more difficult game. The books practically drip with advice to make it your game and they keep things a bit ambiguous on purpose. On the other hand, if you're looking for a customizable tool to express your adventure, it's a great toolkit.

The other main advantage I love is the divergence from "you can't do that because you don't have the feat". 5e expects that if you want to do something specific that the rules don't cover, the DM sets a DC and rolls with it. This makes it easier to tell the PC's "yes you can do that" without them being crazy optimizers, which I like a lot.

My opinion is that of someone who loves 3.5, but is having even more of a blast with 5e so far, and is infused with quite a lot of pro-5e bias. Take it as you will. :smallsmile:

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Disclaimer: I'm not pooping on your experience. I'm just replying with my own.
For me the difference is mostly in prep time. I have to do substantially less mechanical setup. 3.5 is an old and saturated system that's very tough to build a level-appropriate encounter for because the vastness of the content means optimization levels can be all over the place and parties aren't necessarily internally balanced. 5e is simple, sweet, and has a rich set of systems in the DMG for building creatures and encounters. I no longer spend hours building a BBEG that will be fought in 15 minutes. That's a bonus to me.5e's learning curve is more shallow, but since I've played 3.5 forever it's much easier for me to make an encounter in that system.
Winging DC's is also much easier. On a scale from trivial to impossible, how hard is it? They have a number for that. Don't worry about character level or party composition, set the DC and let them roll. Passive skills, group checks, auto success/fail based on certain criteria, all these things and more are RAW and easy.I'll agree with all of this except passive checks and when to use them. 3e was much clearer on how that worked, such that I've basically shoe-horned those rules in when I'm DMing. And when I'm playing I just have to hope the on-the-spot rulings conform with my expectations.
The alcoholic above :smalltongue:I'll take this moment to plug Mr. Bungle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bungle), in particular the more accessible California album.
mentioned swinginess, this is partially true but (I believe) pessimistically stated. The d20 is a fickle mistress, but again, you as the DM decide the DC based on what factors you know. I routinely have locks that are auto-opened if you have proficiency in lockpicks, or strength checks to open stone catacomb doors that auto-succeed if you have a certain strength. This is all by-the-book.It's by the book in a sense, but as a player it's hard to rely on the DM giving you the check, and honestly as a DM I'd prefer clearer guidance on this front. In the words of the Giant on 3.5 diplomacy and fiat,
In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.I'm thinking of putting this in my sig.

The rest we're pretty much in agreement. I just want more tools in the toolkit.

[pwykersotz]

Disclaimer: I'm not pooping on your experience. I'm just replying with my own.5e's learning curve is more shallow, but since I've played 3.5 forever it's much easier for me to make an encounter in that system.I'll agree with all of this except passive checks and when to use them. 3e was much clearer on how that worked, such that I've basically shoe-horned those rules in when I'm DMing. And when I'm playing I just have to hope the on-the-spot rulings conform with my expectations.I'll take this moment to plug Mr. Bungle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bungle), in particular the more accessible California album.It's by the book in a sense, but as a player it's hard to rely on the DM giving you the check, and honestly as a DM I'd prefer clearer guidance on this front. In the words of the Giant on 3.5 diplomacy and fiat, I'm thinking of putting this in my sig.

The rest we're pretty much in agreement. I just want more tools in the toolkit.

I think it's for another thread, but I'm curious as to the difficulty with passive checks.

But yeah, I can understand those sentiments. I even held those same opinions a few years back. I don't disagree with them at all, but I personally have changed since then. That's one part about D&D as a whole that I love, that people with entirely different ways of thinking can play the game under their own interpretations and I can hear about it and be amazed.

[Naanomi]

Combat runs quicker overall, so if you are use to a big battle or two taking most the night, plan more content

[bokodasu]

It's definitely easier. I put in less prep time and yet come out with more content. I'm enjoying it!

There is a learning curve - my group has been playing 3.5 together for about three years, so we're pretty entrenched. I've been spending more time looking for lists of "here are the things you need to pay attention to that work differently" and reminding both myself and my players of those than anything else.

I think the hardest things for the players are getting used to theater of the mind and doing away with the "you can't do that if there isn't a rule for it" mindset. I've been probably more lenient than I normally would with letting bizarre plans work, just to encourage the "hey, we can just do stuff even if there isn't a mechanic for it" idea. (I started DMing with Basic, so for me this is a joyous escape to freedom, but I can see how it would be unpleasant if you're more of a GURPS sort of player.)

There are some things I don't care for in the system (CRAFTING I AM LOOKING AT YOU HOW DID YOU EVEN GET IN THERE???) but overall I'm really enjoying it. Most of my players come from a tactical wargames background, so it's nice to give the storygames players more chances to shine, and even to push the wargamers into a little less of an all-combat all the time situation.

Bonus: If you happen to have a big stack of BECMI modules from when you were a small child, you can totally run them as written in 5e, just looking up the monsters in the 5e MM and making the occasional call on a skill roll vs "roll a d6 and this bad thing happens on a 1". (And remembering that a "turn" used to be 10 minutes.) So there's actually a ton of usable prewritten content out there!

[Feddlefew]

There are some things I don't care for in the system (CRAFTING I AM LOOKING AT YOU HOW DID YOU EVEN GET IN THERE???).
Can anyone elaborate? Also, are equipment prices still just as arbitrary as before?

(I'm watching the Acquisitions Incorporated 2014 podcasts to see what a game might look like right now. So far I like how much more dynamic combat looks.)

[bokodasu]

I think WotC forgot that someone was supposed to write crafting rules and they left a big placeholder "RULES GO HERE" instead.

There are things like tools giving you advantage on crafting rolls - but you don't roll to craft things. It's just a day per x amount of cost, which is different for magic and mundane items. You get things like a master armorer needing nearly a year to make one suit of platemail, but an untrained wizard can spend all the time it takes to learn a new skill using the downtime rules and STILL make 50 suits of platemail in the same amount of time. They're just completely nonsensical and useless. They're so bad, they made me go to the library and research how long it took to make actual historical platemail, just so I could be even more mad about them.

It would have been better if they'd said, "sorry, adventurers don't waste their time crafting things, you can't do that."

As far as how much things cost, the list is pretty much the same (if not exactly the same) as 3.5. And the fact that I am so enraged about the shoddiness of the crafting rules, which are really completely insignificant, does kinda show how overall impressed I am with how well everything works.

I'm enjoying the combat a lot - there's a lot of room for creativity and I feel like players have more options on a given turn, even though there might be fewer chances to act. Some of my players are unhappy with the severe reduction of AoOs, but I like being able to get through more than 2-3 encounters in a night. We did... I think 8 in three hours, also with other noncombat things happening.

[T.G. Oskar]

How 5e is different:
Less content. While this is clearly less fun for the player it's arguably simpler for the DM, and it means there's less of a gap between optimized and not optimized. But it also means you're expected to homebrew a lot more stuff.

That happens because only the three main books have been released. Compare the content in all three Core 3.5 Books and in all Core 5e Books. PHB has two more races (Dragonborn and Tiefling), added the Drow as a sub-race of Elf and gave more choices to play races, added the Warlock as a class, gave lots of choices to play old classes (2-4 kinds of Barbarians, easily over 5 varieties of Cleric, two different kinds of Bards and Druids, three very distinct forms of Fighter, three distinct forms of Monk, two wildly distinct forms of Ranger, three very distinct forms of Rogue, and different approaches for Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard). DMG has less crunch content in terms of no PrCs or sample NPCs, but about 15-20% of the book is basically Unearthed Arcana redux. The Monster Manual has a sizable content in terms of monsters, with NPCs and other beasts (including old faves like the Blink Dog) in shorter stat blocks. Not even the Pathfinder Core Rulebook has that many content. So it's less, but really condensed.


Less searchable, at least for now. Big disadvantage IMO.

Well, parts of it (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/players-basic-rules) are easier to search now. At least the parts that let you play the game. Pathfinder will have it beat if only because they have to make everything under the OGL.


Newer, and so there's less established knowledge collected.

I'd beg to differ in this part as well. There's enough knowledge to make very solid builds. Wizards are still kings of character building; it's just that Bards are dangerously aiming for the spot, followed closely by Clerics and Moon Druids. Fighters are playable, Paladins are really good this time, Monks are finally balanced (to an extent; they at least do their job right now), and the only class that is considered inferior is the Ranger; consensus has determined that the most challenging builds are the Champion Fighter and the Beastmaster Ranger.


5e tends to be deadlier IME, in that there are fewer ways to deal with enemies and (reliably) pick your battles; not to mention BA meaning it's harder to have semi-perfect defenses (back to breaking the math). Whether this is a plus or a minus depends on your game group.

Again, it depends. The benefit of Bounded Accuracy is that every plus counts. With all books, all options and all items accessible, it's easy to make monster builds. That you're not entitled to items and even rules is what makes it deadlier; 3.5 is always deadly at the earlier levels, and only later can you see that you're pretty much invulnerable until you get a rocket launcher to your face (SoDs). It does imply that monsters still guard some relevance at almost all levels, though eventually some stop being relevant. By 11th level, orcs are pretty much one-shotted by a well-built Fighter (and I don't mean a min-maxed Fighter, but one that at least has a good weapon and near-max Strength), and one Fighter can end up to 2-3 orcs per turn. That's no longer a true challenge, IMO. It's just that Orcs can still potentially land a good hit against a 10th level Fighter, something that's nearly impossible in 3.5.


Tied to the previous points - characters will fail at their specialized task more often. They'll fail when they're executing a good idea more often. And they'll succeed at dumb things more often. Because the d20 be swingy.

Advantage and Disadvantage are more important in 5e. Advantage on a specialized task is pretty much an auto-success, unless the two rolls are abysmal; likewise, disadvantage on a task they simply can't do means they really shouldn't. There are ways to raise those numbers even higher, but they're few and far between, and that's actually good.

That said, 3.5 has the advantage of being a mature, extensively-studied system. You'll see far more support for 3.5/PF than for 5e, though 5e is getting a pretty solid amount of homebrewed content and study right now. 5e cut all of the old edition's fat and gathered some of the meat, though in occasions it didn't care much about the quality of it; however, just as with every maturing system, it'll reach the point of bloat. It depends on the developers to see the speed of that bloat, but it's a given: Pathfinder is quickly approaching bloated status with all the splats, considering they released a book with 7 new classes and they're aiming for another book with 6 more (they just didn't went in making that many PrCs, and instead have loads of archetypes for each class). Other systems quickly approach bloat; that is a given fact, and an unavoidable one as well. Because of that, 5e runs faster and lets you prepare faster, but isn't as flexible in what you can do with the system (and with all Core books, it's still pretty flexible). 3.5e (and Pathfinder, too) have a very robust character creation system that, despite all the duds, rewards system mastery; in 5e, system mastery is almost intuitive to veterans, who'll quickly pick what choices are good and what choices are bad just by having a 15-minute read. A year from now, that'll be most likely a 30-minute read, and in three years from now most likely a day worth of reading.

In short: 5e is simpler because it's newer, slimmed down from earlier editions, but lacks the complexity and breadth of 3.5. If you like quick, simple games, 5e is better; if you like medium-difficulty systems with lots of content and an overwhelming breadth of options, 3.5 is definitely better. Neither are as hard to master as...say, GURPS or the Storyteller System or Shadowrun, but 3.5 can be daunting to newbies, whereas 5e isn't just because it's brand new. As an addendum, 5e relies more on the DM than 3.5 in terms of ad hoc rulings, playing on ambiguous wording which can be confusing to veteran players from 3.5 (or 4e).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think the heart of what you're saying is the following:

1. 5e is newer and therefore less "bloated" with fun content and options. So it's not fair to compare bloated 3.P with it. Wait a few years.
To this, I say... the relevant comparison right now, is what the editions look like right now. If, and I mean if, 5e actually publishes a lot of content for players, then the game will have changed, and so the comparison can change. But right now, we have what we have, so this is the relevant comparison. If someone was thinking of running either 3.P or 5e, they don't get to travel four years into the future and take those books... if they ever get to exist. Seriously, check the developer tweets if you want to feel pessimistic on that front.

2. 5e actually is well-studied.
Then why do I see multiple guides for the same class that contradict each other? A system can't be as well-studied as 3.5 with only this much time. Especially if it doesn't attract the mechanics-focused folk as much. And no, I don't want to see a bunch of homebrew that's going to be rejected out of hand by most DMs. I want to see published content.

3. Bounded accuracy makes monsters credible threats for longer, and makes things more deadly.
I'm pretty sure we're mostly in agreement on this part... except that advantage is nowhere near an auto-success and disadvantage is nowhere near an auto-failure.

Finally...
If you like quick, simple games, 5e Dungeon World is betterFTFY. 5e fills a fairly narrow niche between Dungeon World and 3.5.

[obryn]

IMO, 5e is better at everything that 3.x is good at, except for the quantity of content.

It's a cleaner, tighter, and better-designed system with a lot more thought put into the basic engine of the game.

With all that said, the basic structure of the game - from characters to monsters - is more similar to 3.x than any other edition, so picking it up shouldn't be hard at all.

[T.G. Oskar]

On the first part, note that I made a VERY specific comparison, since "Core-only" games in 3.5 are a thing (not a very numerous thing, but it's a thing nonetheless). Playing a "Core-only" game isn't entirely doing wonders to the breadth of options 3.5/PF has, compared to 5e which actually has some degree of variety on that regard. Second: if you can't build it, you can refluff it. Note that I don't agree to this proposal, since the concept of "refluffing" can go a bit extreme (see: Fighter -> Warblade, Monk -> Swordsage, and especially Paladin -> Crusader). The concept of refluffing to meet your desired concept comes from 3.5, which would make the oodles of content pretty much irrelevant; if you can refluff, say, a Battlemaster Fighter as a Samurai, or a Barbarian with the Sage (Alchemist) archetype as an Alchemist from PF to a certain extent, then there's no real difference between the content other than the mechanics of it. Claiming that it's "less fun" is relative to your appreciation of refluffing, homebrewing and altering your content: it's not easy to make an Artificer in Pathfinder unless you bring a 3rd Edition supplement (i.e. the Eberron Campaign Setting) and tweak it to the needs of the class, but that doesn't make Pathfinder any less interesting. Same thing for Warlock, Shadowcaster or Truenamer. So, why this is a problem in 5e, because it's not ready yet?

Also: isn't there going to be an Elemental Evil Adventurer's Guide? One that, while it doesn't have a defined date, it'll be released between Q1 and Q2 2015? There's also two races that are in the backburner, and will be freely released online (or perhaps subscriber content; nonetheless, they'll be released). What they've mentioned, and that's not entirely pessimistic, is that they'll do less splats.

Regarding point 2: since when do guides have to be in agreement on what they do? Guides in Pathfinder don't have to agree on what they do, or the content they include. What one individual considers a win other may consider a fluke: I, personally, don't see the reasoning behind having massive bonuses to critical confirmation rolls, but native PF players see this as a good thing to have. If I were to make a guide, at the moment I deal with Critical Focus, will I analyze it the same way? Will I analyze the concept of Combat Maneuvers the same way, specifically Drag (some people think it's awesome, I think it sucks). But, that's just me...and I can safely say I made a guide for at least one class that doesn't necessarily has to agree.

While to an extent it's personal experience, it does imply one thing: no two people think the same way. That there are differences in the guides doesn't hinder the fact that the game has been studied; the fact that there ARE guides proves my point. There are at least two guides for EACH class, plus guides for concepts such as reactions. Differences between the guides are mostly irrelevant, since they're essentially the result of potential bias or subjectivity on behalf of the guide writer; it would be unfair to say that a guide can't improve after some discussion, or that LogicNinja, Radical Taoist, Dictum Mortuum and all other well-known guide writers aren't biased OR that, being the oldest and most recognized writers (and thus given authority), are automatically correct and any other writer is automatically wrong in any disagreement. In this regard, to claim that the system hasn't been studied because the guides may contradict each other seems to undermine the fact that the system has been studied in the first place, and that's a grave mistake.

On the third topic: note how I formulate the answer. Advantage + specialization = "pretty much" auto-success. As you mentioned, the d20 is swingy, but statistics not as much. The lower the number you need to meet the DC, the higher the chances of success. Obviously, when talking about DC 30, advantage won't mean auto-success when you need a 10 or higher to roll. On a 5 or higher? You have two chances of getting 5 or higher, and 5 is a pretty low number. That requires a +25 on the number; without magic items or buffing spells, the highest you can achieve is +17 (ability score + proficiency bonus + Expertise), but once magic items and spells kick in, it's possible (an ability score boost that takes you closer to 30 means that +17 could reach +20, and from there it's just one Bless away). Even a +23 on the roll is amazing enough. But indeed, it requires super-specializing...that said, there is NO DC over 30, so most likely that'll be reserved for occasions where the DM is aiming for a near-impossible task. DC 25? With the mentioned stats, you need only a +8 (achievable). A DC of 20 or lower? Near-auto success with advantage.

Same thing with disadvantage. With a +0 on the roll, perhaps it might not be the case to "pretty much" auto-fail on a DC of 5. DC of 10 can fail. DC of 15? Rare to see how that wouldn't be pretty much a failure, since you need to roll pretty high to achieve it, and the roll is against you. Strange to see how you're working a general perception of things (Advantage...is an auto-success; Disadvantage...is an auto-fail), and that you even mention it's "nowhere near", when I was pretty specific on what could constitute an auto-success (Advantage + a task you specialize) and an auto-fail (Disadvantage + very low chances of success).


Finally... FTFY. 5e fills a fairly narrow niche between Dungeon World and 3.5.

Dungeon World is...the OGL-based system where you're basically doing ToTM? I thought at first that was rules for LARP, though I noticed later after missing the "Normal 10" notation and things like that. I'd compare it to Dragon Age (and by extension, the AGE System) in being a system easy to understand, which is saying a lot compared to 3.5/PF (which I consider rules-medium) or GURPS, ST System or Shadowrun (very rules-intensive, with varying degrees of story-weight). To me, 5e is a quick and simple game. Dungeon World? Not easy to me, at the very least.

[DDogwood]

Finally... FTFY. 5e fills a fairly narrow niche between Dungeon World and 3.5.

I dunno. I love Dungeon World, but it's a very different beast from any edition of D&D. 5e is very much more in the D&D tradition. I'd say that 5e is in a somewhat narrow niche between classic D&D (OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI) and 3.x, with its main competition being rules-light games like Castles & Crusades and BFRPG, or retro-clones like Labryinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry.

Dungeon World is in a totally different playground, although it's at the end that's closest to the D&D playground.

[heavyfuel]

They're so bad, they made me go to the library and research how long it took to make actual historical platemail, just so I could be even more mad about them.


So... How long does it take?

[Feddlefew]

So... How long does it take?
From a quick poke around the internet, it looks like most armor was made by teams of specialists, and a king-worthy suit would take one of these teams a year or so to make. But I don't know what Bokodasu turned up, so...

[Knaight]

How 5e is different:
[list] Less content. While this is clearly less fun for the player it's arguably simpler for the DM, and it means there's less of a gap between optimized and not optimized. But it also means you're expected to homebrew a lot more stuff.
It depends on the player. For people who like searching through tons of books, mechanical tweaking, so on and so forth it's less fun. For people who just want to get a character set up so they can get a game started, it's downright beneficial. I enjoy it more as a player than 3.5. Plus, if the less content-less fun assumption was generally solid, GURPS would be one of the best games ever because of its skill quantity. That's generally not considered a selling point.


From a quick poke around the internet, it looks like most armor was made by teams of specialists, and a king-worthy suit would take one of these teams a year or so to make. But I don't know what Bokodasu turned up, so...
Teams of specialists were generally employed, along with subcontracted workshops and similar - that wasn't an armor specific thing though, that was all over the place. As for armor taking a year or so to make, it depends. If you look at some workshops, their output is way, way higher than that at just about any time where the workshops are in place. I reccomend The Knight and The Blast Furnace for this, it's a pretty solid book that has a lot of information, along with lots of pictures of the armor in question.

[Feddlefew]

Teams of specialists were generally employed, along with subcontracted workshops and similar - that wasn't an armor specific thing though, that was all over the place. As for armor taking a year or so to make, it depends. If you look at some workshops, their output is way, way higher than that at just about any time where the workshops are in place. I reccomend The Knight and The Blast Furnace for this, it's a pretty solid book that has a lot of information, along with lots of pictures of the armor in question.

I'll have to check that book out.

I meant a year for king worthy armor including all the decorations and gilding that would go on it, not that a basic, no-frills suit would take an entire year. Sorry if I was unclear.

[Knaight]

I'll have to check that book out.

I meant a year for king worthy armor including all the decorations and gilding that would go on it, not that a basic, no-frills suit would take an entire year. Sorry if I was unclear.

Some of the workshops were pounding out lots and lots of extremely intricately decorated armor, which eventually included gilding once a good method was discovered. A Google image search for "Negroli armor" will pull up an example of what a lot of it looked like, and that's the output of one workshop under one master. That's the sort of thing that was eventually being produced in bulk, pretty quickly.

[Mrmox42]

they made me go to the library and research how long it took to make actual historical platemail, just so I could be even more mad about them.

Just out of curiosity - how long time did it take?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

On the first part, note that I made a VERY specific comparison, since "Core-only" games in 3.5 are a thing (not a very numerous thing, but it's a thing nonetheless).I think we can all agree that core only 3.5 is pointlessly bad.
Second: if you can't build it, you can refluff it.Yeah, you could do this with free form as well. I could also design my own system. And yet I don't. Sometimes people like mechanics that actually relate to the character at hand. That's easier to do when you have a wide variety of mechanics.
it's not easy to make an Artificer in Pathfinder unless you bring a 3rd Edition supplement (i.e. the Eberron Campaign Setting) and tweak it to the needs of the class, but that doesn't make Pathfinder any less interesting. Same thing for Warlock, Shadowcaster or Truenamer. So, why this is a problem in 5e, because it's not ready yet?Those are knocks on PF, not a way to vindicate 5e. The counter argument is that you can pretty easily port in the 3.5 content to PF because it was designed to be backwards compatible.
Also: isn't there going to be an Elemental Evil Adventurer's Guide? One that, while it doesn't have a defined date, it'll be released between Q1 and Q2 2015? There's also two races that are in the backburner, and will be freely released online (or perhaps subscriber content; nonetheless, they'll be released). What they've mentioned, and that's not entirely pessimistic, is that they'll do less splats.They're going to release a painfully slow trickle of campaign-specific splats, which will never match the breadth of 3e's content and options.
Regarding point 2: since when do guides have to be in agreement on what they do? Guides in Pathfinder don't have to agree on what they do, or the content they include. What one individual considers a win other may consider a fluke: I, personally, don't see the reasoning behind having massive bonuses to critical confirmation rolls, but native PF players see this as a good thing to have. If I were to make a guide, at the moment I deal with Critical Focus, will I analyze it the same way? Will I analyze the concept of Combat Maneuvers the same way, specifically Drag (some people think it's awesome, I think it sucks). But, that's just me...and I can safely say I made a guide for at least one class that doesn't necessarily has to agree.Another knock on PF. The longer the mechanics-focused community has been around, the more it comes to an agreement on basic points. Not full agreement, mind, but enough so that you don't have two guides telling you to go entirely different directions with the same character. Guide writers haven't even figured out that Polearm Master > +2 STR as far as offense is concerned. 5e will get there, as PF slowly has (especially once you started getting guides not originating from paizo boards), but not yet.
That there are differences in the guides doesn't hinder the fact that the game has been studied; the fact that there ARE guides proves my point. There are at least two guides for EACH class, plus guides for concepts such as reactions.I didn't say the game hasn't been studied; just not as much as 3e. There hasn't been as much time.
Differences between the guides are mostly irrelevant, since they're essentially the result of potential bias or subjectivity on behalf of the guide writer; it would be unfair to say that a guide can't improve after some discussion, or that LogicNinja, Radical Taoist, Dictum Mortuum and all other well-known guide writers aren't biased OR that, being the oldest and most recognized writers (and thus given authority), are automatically correct and any other writer is automatically wrong in any disagreement.There has been time to poke at the contradictions and biases in these guide writers. There has been time for actual gameplay and number-crunching to occur. Years. Not so for 5e.
In this regard, to claim that the system hasn't been studied because the guides may contradict each other seems to undermine the fact that the system has been studied in the first place, and that's a grave mistake.A grave mistake for a straw man to make. I only said 3e is better understood, not that 5e is a complete mystery.
On the third topic: note how I formulate the answer. Advantage + specialization = "pretty much" auto-success. As you mentioned, the d20 is swingy, but statistics not as much. The lower the number you need to meet the DC, the higher the chances of success. Obviously, when talking about DC 30, advantage won't mean auto-success when you need a 10 or higher to roll. On a 5 or higher? You have two chances of getting 5 or higher, and 5 is a pretty low number.It's 4%.
That requires a +25 on the number; without magic items or buffing spells, the highest you can achieve is +17 (ability score + proficiency bonus + Expertise), but once magic items and spells kick in, it's possible (an ability score boost that takes you closer to 30 means that +17 could reach +20, and from there it's just one Bless away). Even a +23 on the roll is amazing enough. But indeed, it requires super-specializing...that said, there is NO DC over 30, so most likely that'll be reserved for occasions where the DM is aiming for a near-impossible task. DC 25? With the mentioned stats, you need only a +8 (achievable). A DC of 20 or lower? Near-auto success with advantage.I'm not sure how representative this example is. Items that boost your stats over the cap don't even exist for dex/con/wis/cha. How about a level 4 character with 16 in the relevant stat and proficiency/expertise trying to complete a medium difficulty task, with and without advantage? That character has a +7, and the DC is 15, meaning she normally has a 65% chance to succeed, and with advantage about an 88% chance to succeed. A completely untrained commoner with a 10 in the stat has a 30% chance of success, and with advantage has a 51% chance to succeed. A character with a good stat and proficiency who happened to take a class without expertise (so, not rogue or bard) has a +5, making the chance of success 55%, or about 80% with advantage. That just seems swingy to me.
Same thing with disadvantage. With a +0 on the roll, perhaps it might not be the case to "pretty much" auto-fail on a DC of 5. DC of 10 can fail. DC of 15? Rare to see how that wouldn't be pretty much a failure, since you need to roll pretty high to achieve it, and the roll is against you. Strange to see how you're working a general perception of things (Advantage...is an auto-success; Disadvantage...is an auto-fail), and that you even mention it's "nowhere near", when I was pretty specific on what could constitute an auto-success (Advantage + a task you specialize) and an auto-fail (Disadvantage + very low chances of success).A commoner (+0) with disadvantage on a DC 15 task will succeed 9% of the time. A specialized low-mid level character (+7) with advantage on a DC 15 task will fail 12% of the time. That's non-negligible, and that's what I meant.
I dunno. I love Dungeon World, but it's a very different beast from any edition of D&D. 5e is very much more in the D&D tradition. I'd say that 5e is in a somewhat narrow niche between classic D&D (OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI) and 3.x, with its main competition being rules-light games like Castles & Crusades and BFRPG, or retro-clones like Labryinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry.

Dungeon World is in a totally different playground, although it's at the end that's closest to the D&D playground.Maybe it's just that the retroclones don't do it for me, but I don't see what DW doesn't bring to the table that they do. Either way 5e is filling a niche between the two groups.

[Tvtyrant]

The range of optimization is also different. A terrible 3.5 character might get stuck doing a few d6 a turn at level 20, and the high ranges of damage being Hulking Hurler and Ubercharger for thousands to millions of damage a turn. A terrible 5E character can still do badly, but the very best I can get out of the system for damage is 93 DPR average at level 20, with burst damage up to 513 in a turn with maxed dice but no crits (averages 301 damage on a burst).

[T.G. Oskar]

I think we can all agree that core only 3.5 is pointlessly bad.

Does that mean you can't compare core 3.5 to core 5e, because "core 3.5 is pointlessly bad" by consensus? Because, even if it's currently the only 1st party content, is what you're comparing in terms of what 5e currently offers.

I intentionally went with core 3.5 (and the Pathfinder CRB) for that reason - it's the expected minimum to play the game (technically, the Basic Rules are what you need to play the game, but that is closer to a "lite" version of the game). This is important for a latter argument you make:


They're going to release a painfully slow trickle of campaign-specific splats, which will never match the breadth of 3e's content and options.

Compare the "trickle" of options in the three core books with the options in the core 3.5 or PF books. Now, extrapolate - it's likely that you'll see a whole lot more condensed stuff than before, but spread out in less books. Note that I said "likely" - exactly how many books will 5e have on the entirety of its run will depend on how long it lasts and whether the mentailty will change, but it's a fair prediction.

Just like core 3.5 games are "painful" supposedly by consensus (there are still DMs playing Core games, after all; those kinds of threads appear every now and then; perhaps that's your support), it's fair to assume that's more of a pot shot to 5e than an actual argument. Again: you're comparing a complete edition to one that barely released its DMG, and suggesting that the latter's lack of content is a point against. What's worse, the suggestion comes with a caveat - to cover for the lack of content, the DM will have to homebrew, and that seems to be something you're biased against. You're free to correct me on that.


Yeah, you could do this with free form as well. I could also design my own system. And yet I don't. Sometimes people like mechanics that actually relate to the character at hand. That's easier to do when you have a wide variety of mechanics.

I insist: I don't like refluffing that much. However, just as the consensus that core 3.5 is bad, it's a given argument oft present in the forums that refluffing is a way to build a character. The argument is different: you don't refluff because the system lacks a key component, you refluff because you want to be mechanically superior. However, it IS an argument - you can build a character without needing the key component at all. Again: I don't agree with the idea, but I mention it for purposes of completeness. I'd evaluate or form homebrewed components as a patch instead, but again: I have the impression you are against homebrewing, or at least patching-wise.


Those are knocks on PF, not a way to vindicate 5e. The counter argument is that you can pretty easily port in the 3.5 content to PF because it was designed to be backwards compatible.

Again, correct me if you'd like, but this is an argument that's rapidly becoming fallacious. Indeed: originally, Pathfinder was built with backwards compatibility in mind. However, it is rapidly approaching a point where you have to evaluate it as its own system, as a different edition. Think the differences between d20 Modern and the 3rd edition of D&D, both 3.0 and 3.5; both use the same system, pretty much the same feats and skills, and yet, the two systems approached a point where they were highly incompatible - the approach to classes themselves was an immense reason why both are incompatible, despite being the same system.

Pathfinder is approaching that. Note the way DSP had to work the hurdle of losing the Concentration skill in order to do psionic focus. Note how Pathfinder's publisher, Paizo, doesn't accept DSP's psionics on Organized Play and instead promises their own take on psychic power, which is what Occult Adventures attempts to handle. Note how the differences in races, classes, feats and skills make them incompatible unless you port, but once you make a port of an item, it's no longer backwards compatible; it has to be modified to work. Unless you consider porting a form of "backwards compatibility"; other than 3rd party publishers doing porting, that'd be homebrewing IMO. To be honest, that's what homebrewers are currently doing; in fact, they're porting Pathfinder's classes into 5e (yes, I've seen a 5e Inquisitor in these very threads; no, that doesn't make this edition backwards-compatible with PF). But, again: you may want to correct me if you'd like; I just don't believe that Pathfinder is backwards compatible with 3.5 from the get-go. Certainly it's not as backwards-compatible as using a previous edition of Office on the latest Windows, or placing a PSX disc on a PS2 (or a GBA cart on a DS). Your definition of backwards compatibility may differ, but I draw the line at porting when it requires direct modifications.


Another knock on PF. The longer the mechanics-focused community has been around, the more it comes to an agreement on basic points. Not full agreement, mind, but enough so that you don't have two guides telling you to go entirely different directions with the same character. Guide writers haven't even figured out that Polearm Master > +2 STR as far as offense is concerned. 5e will get there, as PF slowly has (especially once you started getting guides not originating from paizo boards), but not yet.I didn't say the game hasn't been studied; just not as much as 3e. There hasn't been as much time.There has been time to poke at the contradictions and biases in these guide writers. There has been time for actual gameplay and number-crunching to occur. Years. Not so for 5e.

It takes a distinct point of view to break the established paradigm. I would mention about the Inquisitor, but that'd be personal experience and thus not exactly productive to argument: rest assured, as much as I can say, I don't agree much with Bodhi's guide to the Inquisitor, and that's on points where the guide actually deals with.

But, that's at most a tangential point. On to the point of contention: despite being newer, there are a lot of guides. Indeed, some of the guides will contradict, just as guides for PF will contradict. Perhaps there is yet need to approach consensus. However, I believe the system has reached a point where there IS consensus about things. You've mentioned one specific example of something that is implicit, though not "obvious": a feat, where available, will often be better than an ability score increase. There is a different approach, though: the optimal approach to ASI advancement generally ranges between 2 feats and maxing your main ability scores, enough to at least approach 20 in one. People are noticing how certain feats interact (see: Polearm Master + Sentinel), which spells seem to be the broken choices (look at the discussions regarding the flexibility of Simulacrum), amongst other things.

However, let's see this from a different perspective - I didn't make myself clear, and I defended from a point that was not entirely right from the beginning. Train of thought:

You say "new, therefore there's less established knowledge" -> I say "I digress: there is enough information to make good builds", and mention (to my impression) the consensus regarding the best and worst classes/subclasses -> You infer that I imply 5e is well-studied, and then counter with "well, why guides contradict themselves so much?" -> I counter with "well, even PF guides contradict themselves" -> Quote above.

Thus...is it possible that you misunderstood me when I mentioned that there is enough information, and made an inference to which I reacted reflexively? You later agree that 5e has been studied; just not enough. That can be a point of contention - to me, it is enough to have working knowledge of the system, but it could be developed more.


A grave mistake for a straw man to make. I only said 3e is better understood, not that 5e is a complete mystery.

Case in point: here is where (as far as I reckon) you admit that 5e has been studied (something that hasn't been studied can be inferred to remain a mystery). The contention lays on how well studied it is, which, after looking at the argument from above again, is really a moot point since we're aiming at different arguments here (the wealth of knowledge vs. the amount of knowledge necessary for working system mastery).


Items that boost your stats over the cap don't even exist for dex/con/wis/cha.

The Manuals of Quickness of Action and Bodily Health and the Tomes of Understanding, as well as Leadership and Influence, beg to differ. They both increase the score AND the cap, and permanently to boot. However, if you mean items like the Belts of Giant Strength or the Headband of Intellect? Far as I know, the only one item that provides temporary bonuses AND beats the score is the Belts of Giant Strength; the Headband of Intellect, the Amulet of Health and the Belt of Dwarvenkind all limit you to 19 on the score, and the Ioun Stones of Agility, Fortitude, Insight and Leadership limit you to the cap, so you definitely need the tomes to boost your scores over the cap.


How about a level 4 character with 16 in the relevant stat and proficiency/expertise trying to complete a medium difficulty task, with and without advantage? That character has a +7, and the DC is 15, meaning she normally has a 65% chance to succeed, and with advantage about an 88% chance to succeed. A completely untrained commoner with a 10 in the stat has a 30% chance of success, and with advantage has a 51% chance to succeed. A character with a good stat and proficiency who happened to take a class without expertise (so, not rogue or bard) has a +5, making the chance of success 55%, or about 80% with advantage. That just seems swingy to me.

[...]

A commoner (+0) with disadvantage on a DC 15 task will succeed 9% of the time. A specialized low-mid level character (+7) with advantage on a DC 15 task will fail 12% of the time. That's non-negligible, and that's what I meant.

Very well, I'll admit the d20 can be swingy. Explain again how, then, a character that does what it specializes into will "fail at their specialized task" more often? 65% for your first example means that, for a 4th level character that specialized on the task, failure comes roughly 2 out of 5 times. With advantage, that chance of failure is nearly 1 out of 10 times. Comparatively, a commoner with disadvantage will succeed only 1 out of 10 times.

Unless (and once again, correct me if I'm wrong), what you're really meaning is that you've removed predictability from the equation. This one I feel I might be wrong, and it's about the only one I'll admit to, but I'll explain nonetheless why I reached that conclusion: the existence of advantage and disadvantage really affect the chances of success on a task. This removes predictability because the difference between your chances of success with advantage, with disadvantage, and without any of the two is pretty large, compared to the difference when you add or remove a +1 to the total score.

However, I feel this might be wrong because it still doesn't address the differences between a specialist (high score, Proficiency Bonus + Expertise) and a non-specialist (average score, no proficiency bonus, no Expertise), and specifically how small they are. This may be because the bonuses don't scale that fast: the system is still predictable (so as long as Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't come into play, nor Bless/Bane which provide random bonuses), but the progression you expect between one level and another isn't as noticeable. The reason why I feel this, and why it's not that evident, is because you need a point of comparison, and it eventually all leads to 3e: the way skill ranks increase by level means that you can expect a certain progression that goes from "no success" to "auto-success" in a given amount of time.

Even then, it removes a certain aspect of predictability: the aspect where you can predict in how many levels you can automatically succeed at a given task, since Bounded Accuracy prevents that. All challenges remain relevant at all levels, and the main difference is that a higher level character is slightly more effective at the task than the other. However, once Advantage/Disadvantage comes into play, the dynamic changes: the specialized character has higher chances of success than the non-specialized one at nearly all times. Using your example - a character with the lowest proficiency bonus, expertise and Advantage already has more than 50% chance of success, and the change is pretty large. Someone without bonuses goes from low success to near-dead even, and someone without expertise but with advantage will approach very closely the one with Expertise. That's as much data as you can gather from that example: it proves your asseveration that the d20 is swingy, it proves the asseveration that Advantage =/= auto-success (and viceversa), but it doesn't really prove the core of your final observation in the first post - at most, it leads to "results inconclusive", since it's only a fraction of the data (the same thing I used to attempt to prove my point).