So... is 5th better or worse than the '3's, or merely different...

[wolfstone]

I collected all of the character creation sourcebooks I could find for the 3.0 and 3.5 editions of the game (figuring that they'll become harder and harder to find in physical form), as well as the three core books for 5th, and after looking them over, I'm not really 'sold' on 5th Ed. (most of my experience is with 4th, which is almost an entirely different game).

I tend to favor the Wizard and Rogue classes (mostly Wizard), and noticed that the wizard was really stripped down from 3rd to 5th eds. in terms of how many spells he can do per day and can no longer (apparently) boost concentration to prevent spell interruption. The 20 pt. max stat cap also seems rather unsatifactory to me.

However, as someone who's never played either 5th or 3rd (lack of players in my area) which edition is better to play? I'm asking for thoughts from people who have actual gameplay experience with both editions.

Thanks in advance for any helpful commentary. :)

[Grand Warchief]

From what I've seen so far, having played 3.5 extensively, I prefer 5e. yes it's simpler, yes a lot of the classes got "dumbed down" and yes the spell casters got hit pretty hard with the nerf bat. However, that was the intent of this edition. They wanted to level the playing field somewhat. Now a fighter is still scary to a wizard at level 20 on some levels. Being able to only concentrate on one spell at a time means the casters need to be more choosy with their spells. You don't have the shenanigans that 3.5 had. It's all going to come down to taste and preference, but I'm sold on 5e. :)

[Galen]

I'm asking for thoughts from people who have actual gameplay experience with both editions. Well, that would be me. I have played and DMed 3.x for over 10 years, including two very long campaigns (order of years each), and many shorter ones and one-shots. I have picked up 5e last year, and managed to play something like two dozens of game sessions - one-shots and short adventures, haven't had a chance to run a long game yet. That's the summary of my experience.

My conclusion is that 5e is overwhelmingly better than 3.5. It just provides for better play experience for the players, the DM, everyone. Given a choice, I would never voluntarily play or DM 3.5 over 5e.

[Yorrin]

I have played and enjoyed 3.5, 4e, and 5e. And each one is wholly different from the others. In terms of 3.5 vs 5e, 3.5 is far more complex and granular, and allows for very specific builds doing really cool things. 5e is far more streamlined and lets you get to the roleplaying really well without having to remember as many rules or worry about complex subsystems, and it's a much easier system to introduce new players to. Both are extremely fun.

[Myzz]

This edition is my favorite on the whole...

No Psionics yet, but I probably won't care if they don't include them since Psions always seem too OP (which is part of the reason I like them).

Many of the unique features I love, especially advantage/disadvantage.

My core problem with it stems from what seems a hurried release with little or no REAL editing. It feels like someone that knew nothing about DnD and how mechanics should work did the final edit. Read the fluff to wildshape then read the mechanic. The fluff reads like all wildshapes come before it, but the mechanic for all shapechanging has been altered, and does not mesh with how the fluff says wildshape works (and really becomes an issue for me when you look at how Disintegrate and Power Word Kill affect shapechanged creatures).

How feats released emphasize certain builds over others bothers me, see Great Weapon Master, Pole Arm master and Cross Bow Expert...

How Knowledge Clerics "...add your wisdom modifier to the damage you deal with any cleric cantrip." Well there is only one... If its meant to only affect that ONE cantrip just say that, if its meant to affect all cantrips you cast as long as you have the cleric levels required to use that ability, then why specify 'cleric cantrip'...

Using a Staff and a Shield as a better combo (specifically Shillelagh) than Sword and Board!

Most of my gripes are editorial in nature and require DM interpretation, which may have been the intent...


One of my players has lobbied hard for all wizards/spellcasters to add thier relevant abililty mod to cantrip damage... even after I pointed out that it takes 6 levels in Cleric or Sorcerer both of which are severly limited in what that bonus affects. And 10 levels as and Evocation Wizard... Warlock gets it with his preferred cantrip at level 2... but burns half his invocations at that level to do so and only gets to use it with that one cantrip...

Like I said, its fun so far. Both as a DM and a player... Excepting HoTDQ railroadiness into impossible CR encounters!

[Stan]

I think 3e hits its peak in Pathfinder - the vast majority of its rules are freely available in 2 SRD sites - Paizo and D20pfsrd. It's been so long since I've played vanilla 3e that it's hard to totally remember.

I like PF and 5e but prefer 5e overall.

1. character building is simpler in 5e but still has many options. 3e has many quirks that make some builds much more powerful than others. In 3e, if you compared someone who read up on all the chargen tricks vs. someone who picked whatever sounded cool without thinking about power, the former's character is likely 3-4 times as powerful. 5e still has this issue but it's much more toned down, to maybe 1.5 to 2 times more powerful.

2. Spell interruption occurs much less often in 5e due to much reduced attack of opportunity rules - casting does not normally trigger an attack in 5e.

3. In 5e numbers in general are toned down to keep things simpler. Bigger numbers doesn't automatically mean more fun - it's like video games where scores are in the millions instead of the thousands because they add more zeros. A max of 20 means that players don't have to worry as much about picking the ideal race/class combo and push everything into boosting their primary stat. They can max is fairly quickly and then move on to other things to have a more rounded character. This change reigns in the optimizers so the casual player doesn't have to sit at the same table with the 40 Int mage whose opponents fail every save or the character with super initiative who one round kills half the time but is useless the other half. But there is still plenty of room for making decisions in build and in combat. It also nerfs people who insist on having the maximum number of magic items that the books say they are entitled to and getting the exact items they want.

4. There are fewer spells but the low level ones aren't largely trash at higher levels because saving throws are different and there's still a very good chance that a save could fail for a 1st level spell. Plus you can cast spells at higher levels than their base so you have a few more options.

5. Overall, the lower amount of rules just makes it a quicker game. Many people I play with are not about rules optimization so they don't get lost in the rules and can have fun in combat and out.

[Chronos]

The biggest difference between the systems is that 3 is more complicated than 5. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of taste: Some people like complexity, some like simplicity.

Other than that, my biggest pro for 5th edition is that they did a lot to encourage role-playing, and my biggest con is that they for some reason decided they wanted to avoid "legalese", which makes the rules a lot harder to understand.

[Stan]

My core problem with it stems from what seems a hurried release with little or no REAL editing.

So it's a D&D book.
How long are the errata for 4e? How fast did they come out with 3.5 due to all the issues? And don't get me started on 1e where the same rule is covered in 3 places in 2 books, each with a different answer and which read like a journal with someone writing down the rules as they thought of them with no reformatting. 5e does have this but it'd be hard to say it's worse than past editions.

Part of the problem is it's hard to test all the parts as once with any complex system.



Like I said, its fun so far. Both as a DM and a player... Excepting HoTDQ railroadiness into impossible CR encounters!
I haven't played or even read it but I'm not surprised. It seems like WOTC has never been good at adventure writing and they're often major railroads or dungeons with only one path.

[Myzz]

So it's a D&D book.
How long are the errata for 4e? How fast did they come out with 3.5 due to all the issues? And don't get me started on 1e where the same rule is covered in 3 places in 2 books, each with a different answer and which read like a journal with someone writing down the rules as they thought of them with no reformatting. 5e does have this but it'd be hard to say it's worse than past editions.

Part of the problem is it's hard to test all the parts as once with any complex system.

I give 1st and 2nd editions a break, owing to so few gamers back then... RPG's have had a serious break out since 3.0 was even released. Gamer Geek isnt so geeky anymore as is becoming more mainstream. There are a LOT of people with a minimal amount of gaming that it shouldnt be as bad as it is in many cases...

AND the switch it made from the earlier version of the playtest to the final are startling. The play test packet I had vs what was released is 2 completely different not even related gaming systems...

Its still my favorite DnD version, although I'm not sure its my favorite TTRPG...

[Slipperychicken]

I like it, and I played PF and was pretty deep in the optimization community for 3.5e.

The simplification of skills and classes pleases me greatly, as does the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Also, the lower power-levels currently seem to correspond roughly to 3.5's tiers 3 and 4.

Stats are capped at 20, but that's part of bounded accuracy. The DCs in general are toned down a lot, and monster AC currently only goes up to 25 (IIRC only the Tarrasque goes that high). And that 20 is a soft cap too. Several things already break it, including the barbarian capstone, stat-tomes, and belts of giant strength. Also, monsters stats' are capped at 30.

The numbers look underwhelming to a 3.X player, but they're supposed to be lower, partly to help correct for 3.X numbers-bloat. DCs are supposed to max out at 3 being "almost impossible", with even the highest-skill characters having trouble hitting it. I say "supposed to" because one module features a giant DC 70 door.

The 5e Rogue looks pretty good so far. Sneak attacks are easier in 5e (IIRC nothing is immune to them), and they're very good at skills.

Magic looks stripped-down now, but I'll hold off judgement until people have more time to find the system's break-points. Remember that it took 3.X almost a decade to be as broken as it is today.

[Gwendol]

It's an improvement over 3.X, except in the area of options (where 3.5 overdid it). It plays better, combat is fast and deadly, and all classes have potential for some utility in general.

[Mr.Moron]

3.P is going to be better if you want a more interesting charOP space to play in, you want a wider variety of firm rules for things or if you want to be able to tune the game with a lot of different sub-systems.

5e I find is pretty much equal or better by another metric. If the above are important to you go 3.P, if they aren't go 5e.

[busterswd]

To me, this change kind of summarizes the transition from 3.5e to 5e in a nutshell:


In 3.5e, you can get various static numerical advantages to skills, attacks, stats, etc. through a variety of feats, circumstantial bonuses, buffs, races, splatbooks, etc. which can make or break your next roll.

In 5e, you get advantage or disadvantage to your next roll.



That's oversimplifying it, but that's how they've streamlined the system. They've ripped out a lot of the meaty (sometimes excessive) details in favor of a simpler system.

[TrollCapAmerica]

The toning down of magic is due to the Pun-Pun and Tippys of the world that did amazing beautiful and horrific things with 3.5s system. I still love it but 5E manages to give us less and through that give us more. Now a Fighter is a legitimate threat and the Monk is good for the first time ever. Wizards are still Wizards you just won't be crushing everything with infinite planer bound Solars from your time dilated demiplane with plans for the next millennia worth of encounters that you divined beforehand

[Submortimer]

I super love 5e, and I've been a die hard PF fan since that system came out. 5th is simple enough to keep character creation from taking three days of diligent planning, yet has enough crunch that a more skilled or knowledgeable player can take advantage of that fact. The focus shift away from magic items is great, and the backgrounds and subclasses make any build you want to try fun.

[themaque]

I've run and played in both 5e and did so extensively for 3.5 and pathfinder.

Personally, I think 5e is my current favorite. It highly encourages role playing vs. stat optimization but I still get the opportunity to feel awesome in my field of study.

I would play pathfinder again for a magic heavy super powerful game, but I would never willingly go back to 3.5.

in 3.5/Pathfinder I have a tendency to become a... Rules consultant. That sounds nice than the other phrase.

But in 5e? As long as everyone is having fun it's much easier to let thing slide and just have fun. The rules are there, but less important.

In Pathfinder you start a hero, become a superhero and retire a god.

In 5e you start a man, become a hero, and retire a super hero.

[Demonslayer666]

I've played almost every edition of D&D: Basic, Expert, AD&D, 2nd, 3rd, 3.1, 3.5, 4th and 5th, and even Pathfinder. I also have a list a mile long of other game systems I've played.

Wanna know which one is the most fun? The one that gets your friends together every week to play.
I know, I know, it's a cheesy answer, but I feel it's very true. :smallsmile:

Ways I think 5th is better than 3.5:
Character creation - especially the background stuff, more character detail? Yes please.
Class archetypes - 3rd level is a real treat that lets you differentiate your character from others of the same class.
Overall simplified rules - action management is simplified, combat is streamlined, and leveling is way easy. I really like advantage/disadvantage rules.

3.5 does it better:
Overall, 3.5 is very complex compared to 5th, which I like. Everything can modify stuff.
Combat tactics - defined combat, feats galore, lots of AOOs, 5 ft step, lots of actions to choose from. This is also a double edged sword. Combat can be overly complex when you have 16 different attack options with one weapon, and rolling damage takes a truck-load of dice.
BAB - fighters hit better than mages, imagine that.
Skills - you improve and/or learn skills every level.
Magic items - a huge array of rule breaking complexity, yay!
Healing - natural healing took a long time. I like realism (even in a world of magic and dragons). A human is a human, what we are, not some magical beast. Want to heal faster? Magic is needed. It urks me in 4th and 5th edition that everyone is now a cleric for free, yet it's not a magic ability. It's not hard for me to get past this for playability's sake. It is just a game.

3.5 took a while to get used to. I still forget at least one thing every combat. But I like that complexity. It's hard for some players to keep track of it all, and they don't like the long combats. 5th edition glosses over that and makes it more streamlined.

All that said, I have just as much fun playing 5th as I do 3.5. Each has its merits and flaws. If you made me pick one, I'd choose 3.5. If you told me we were playing 5th, I'd still be happy. If you said 4th, I'd probably pass. Heh.

[MadBear]

I like some of the granular choices that you can use to tweak out characters in 3.x/PF. One of my favorite characters was a grappling fighter/monk who in one turn gave an enemy the:

- grappled condition
- prone condition
- blinded them
- stunned them
- disarmed them
- re-positioned them
- and finally did a ton of damage

That kind of thing isn't possible in 5e.

With that said, I love 5e way more then 3.X. It's nice that you don't worry about the powerlevel between characters, because in 3.X you could often have characters that were worse then useless.

[some guy]

I collected all of the character creation sourcebooks I could find for the 3.0 and 3.5 editions of the game (figuring that they'll become harder and harder to find in physical form), as well as the three core books for 5th, and after looking them over, I'm not really 'sold' on 5th Ed. (most of my experience is with 4th, which is almost an entirely different game).

I tend to favor the Wizard and Rogue classes (mostly Wizard), and noticed that the wizard was really stripped down from 3rd to 5th eds. in terms of how many spells he can do per day and can no longer (apparently) boost concentration to prevent spell interruption. The 20 pt. max stat cap also seems rather unsatifactory to me.

However, as someone who's never played either 5th or 3rd (lack of players in my area) which edition is better to play? I'm asking for thoughts from people who have actual gameplay experience with both editions.

Thanks in advance for any helpful commentary. :)

If you played 4e, 5e might be the more familiar one for you. I played and DM'ed 3.5 for 10 years, played in 4e for around 2. I think they took a lot of the good innovations of 4e and put them in 5e. Wizards might be more stripped down in 5e, but I think the specializations in 5e give them much more flavor than in 3.5. The bonus actions rogues can perform in 5e make them very mobile, I like that. It feels to me that 5e is much faster to play than 3.5 (or 4e) as well, which I very much enjoy.
If you like a boat load of character options (many of them traps), 3.5 might be more up to your alley.

[Yagyujubei]

also having played both my group and I all prefer 5e as well for many of the reasons mentioned previously. The main thing is the simplicity and speed of mechanical play that leaves more time for RP and having alot of character story driven fun.

Yeah 3.5/3.P have so many options and choices that you can literally make anything you could ever dream of all written down in it's endless errata and splat, but there's nothing saying you can't just homebrew or adapt anything you could want from there to fit 5e.


5e is a slick, fast, and fully functional base that you can trick out as much as you want to make it into something more, but runs amazing by itself.

3.5/p is a overbloated, elaborate, slogging base that's such a jumble of rules and numbers that you have to trick it out as efficiently as possible or it will barely even run.

[SharkForce]

bear in mind... this is the 5e forums. you're going to get primarily people that like 5e more than other editions here.

[McBars]

Better, straight up, than 3.x.

FAR superior to 3.x core content.

Wizards, IMO, are MUCH more fun to play in 5e than 3.x. A very powerful class. They simply are better balanced with the other core classes now.

[Hyena]

5e is what 3.5 should have been. No unquestionable caster supremacy, no magic marts, no trap options. If I want to play a monk, I can play a freaking monk as opposed to swordsage or psychic warrior. It's simple, nice and pleasant to play.

[wolfstone]

If you said 4th, I'd probably pass. Heh.

One thing about 4th I love is that everyone has several abilities in the form of powers. Fighters can now maneuver, prone or stop enemy movement, so it's no longer "Just keep stabbing it until it dies!" like they feel in other editions. The powers system, while MMO inspired, put all classes on, if not an equal footing, then closer to it, IMO.

[Tvtyrant]

I play both (and AD&D) and I think 5E is the closest to what I want in a game. It is simplified, casters aren't as broken, and the ability for low level enemies to continue to matter through the game is wonderful.

[themaque]

I also wanted to mention, It depends on your own play style and game as well. I love 5e, but I have a good friend who I would NOT recommend the game to.

One of the positives (depending on who you talk to) about PF is that it is a universal system. The GM, Players, Monsters, all work and are built from the same system. Everything is clearly spelt out in the rules (mostly) and players have a very good grasp of what to expect in any situation.

5e relies on GM interpretation. There is less set DC's and less set way things SHOULD be. Everything is an option or can be interpreted. You need a level of trust with the GM and the players. Story and overall enjoyment should be the focus over rules and statistics and logistical planning. One group might allow the Variant human while another won't allow feats at all!

That drives some people up the wall. I've often had to move, often, and entering into new games it was nice to have a decent idea what to expect with a rules system. If I do This, then THIS will happen almost every time. 5e takes the power out of the books (or players hands) and gives it to the GM. I've seen it work, and I've seen it backfire.

Do you trust your GM? Do your Players trust you?

[Strill]

How Knowledge Clerics "...add your wisdom modifier to the damage you deal with any cleric cantrip." Well there is only one... If its meant to only affect that ONE cantrip just say that, if its meant to affect all cantrips you cast as long as you have the cleric levels required to use that ability, then why specify 'cleric cantrip'...

Because they plan to add more cantrips later obviously.

[Finieous]

3.x is much better for the "away from the table" game of building and optimizing characters (and arguing about them on forums).

5e is better for playing D&D.

[Tvtyrant]

Do you trust your GM? Do your Players trust you?

I don't think I would ever play with a group where we don't trust each other. No amount of hard or soft rules can change that.

[kaoskonfety]

I liked 3rd ed - but we played it fairly stright "core 3 books" with few add ons that weren't Ravenloft (loved what the Ravenloft books brought to the game) and typically heavily retricted prestige classes.

In full hind sight I think I preferred 2nd, but no one was playing past a few one shots/shortgames for a good long time...

5th feels better

- its way easier on the DM, I don't need to veto a huge array of books and have players chew me out that I'm hindering their fun or have to review every last character submission for various "RAW" exploits, far less to memorize, far less to look up mid play. some of this is the smaller amount of published material - but its mostly that they have handed the keys back to the DM - Feats, mutliclassing and several of the races are clearly SM controlled optional and player cannot "expect" I'll support whatever wacked rules the found in a bin some place - they cannot even expect to take toughness.

- its somewhat easier on the players, unified advancement and bonuses (are you proficient - Yes/No), no library of synergy bonuses, removal of wealth by level make higher level character building less of a shopping spree and more of "what do I want to play", a few nice roleplay aides in character generation (backgrounds), far fewer weapon choices to muddle though/try to optimize...


Better class balance across the board (has pros and cons) diluted caster top end power (mostly pros).

It's definitely cleaner and easier and I feel it's better.

[Galen]

If I want to play a monk, I can play a freaking monk
Amen. Goodbye 3.5e, where the DM is desperately trying to keep half the party from breaking his game, while the other half are forced to endlessly fiddle with optimization options just to stay relevant.

You want to play a <class>, you just play it. It's that simple.

[wolfstone]

Admittedly I tend to want to win fights or at least survive them. My 4th Ed. Tiefling wizard (Lvl. 8 pyromancer/control) has the max accuracy I can get on him due to my horribly low luck on die rolls.

I've had a little experience with older D&D editions (2nd, I think) and my characters both died during the first fight they got into, which made me very sad. One thing in 5th I don't like is the apparent lack of damaging spells. In 4th, I mix fire spells with control spells to give me more flexability in combat as to what I can do.

5th seems to go back to the way the 3s were in focusing on controlling effects and what damaging spells there are can't compare to the damage other classes can do. True, a wizard can put a group of minions to sleep, but I'd like the option of making them sleep or having them serve as kindling for my Fireball.

Granted, I might be mis-interpreting things in 5th, which is part of why I started this thread.

[Spacehamster]

5th edition is basicly a playable version of 3/3,5. :)

I like 3.5 but it kind of needs bit too much research for both players and DM to get good balanced pc's and balanced adventures. And at least in my group only me and like 1 or two people had time to actually put down that amount of time. :)

[Stan]

Wizards might be more stripped down in 5e, but I think the specializations in 5e give them much more flavor than in 3.5.

That reminds me - in 2nd and 3rd, there were the same 8 magic specializations. But there were really like 3 as the others were nigh unplayable due to lack of good spells. In 5e, the special abilities make abjurer, diviner, and necromancer more interesting than in earlier editions.

[SharkForce]

Admittedly I tend to want to win fights or at least survive them. My 4th Ed. Tiefling wizard (Lvl. 8 pyromancer/control) has the max accuracy I can get on him due to my horribly low luck on die rolls.

I've had a little experience with older D&D editions (2nd, I think) and my characters both died during the first fight they got into, which made me very sad. One thing in 5th I don't like is the apparent lack of damaging spells. In 4th, I mix fire spells with control spells to give me more flexability in combat as to what I can do.

5th seems to go back to the way the 3s were in focusing on controlling effects and what damaging spells there are can't compare to the damage other classes can do. True, a wizard can put a group of minions to sleep, but I'd like the option of making them sleep or having them serve as kindling for my Fireball.

Granted, I might be mis-interpreting things in 5th, which is part of why I started this thread.

there are damaging spells in 5th edition, generally speaking they are quite good if properly used (that fireball you mentioned can deal as much or more damage in a fight as the fighter, except all condensed into a single action and spread across many enemies), but are no longer the main focus of every class in existence.

but if you want to deal competitive damage with a caster consistently, you should either look at evoker wizard (takes a long while to get going, but atm you can deal max damage with your cantrips every time putting you in the same ballpark as the good DRP classes), warlock (almost the same as a ranged fighter build's max DPR), or sorcerer (if you quicken your damage cantrips you can cast them twice per round, giving you very good damage that is also fairly sustainable).

personally, that's the type of spellcasting that interests me least, but YMMV, and there's certainly room in 5e for both types of spells.

[Blackjackg]

It really depends on what you're looking for in a game. As far as I can tell, the beauty of 3.X (and to a lesser extent Pathfinder) was having a million different character customization options to make a character who's not only unique in personality, but on paper too. Of course, that's also its biggest failing because all those character options also leave a huge gap in power between optimized and unoptimized characters. Plus the math quickly becomes mind-boggling.

By the same token, 5e's relative simplicity is its own best and worst feature. Things are easier to calculate and manage, character power levels are a lot more... well, level, and the focus is more on making your character unique through their personality and stories. But if you're looking for tons of CharOp opportunities and unique abilities that make your party members' eyes pop, then you're out of luck.

It's a little like comparing apples and oranges, and on different days I may want different things, but on the whole I think 5e is the stronger game.

[calebrus]

By the same token, 5e's relative simplicity is its own best and worst feature. Things are easier to calculate and manage, character power levels are a lot more... well, level, and the focus is more on making your character unique through their personality and stories. But if you're looking for tons of CharOp opportunities and unique abilities that make your party members' eyes pop, then you're out of luck.

But that simplicity is exactly what makes creating those options so easy to do.
You want to play a teleporting rogue or monk a'la Nightcrawler?
OK, we create a subclass for rogue that can cast Misty Step a certain number of times per rest at level 3, and DDoor a certain number of times per rest at level 9, and Teleport a certain number of times per rest at level 17.
Or do the same with monk, change the levels, remove the limits per rest, and introduce a Ki cost.
Done and done.

The character options are only lacking in the official capacity, and probably not for long at that.
And we're in no real hurry for them when you consider how easy it is to tailor an idea to your immediate personal desires.

[Blackjackg]

The character options are only lacking in the official capacity, and probably not for long at that.
And we're in no real hurry for them when you consider how easy it is to tailor an idea to your immediate personal desires.

Fair enough! As long as you're willing to go off-menu, 5e is totally the better restaurant.

[Pex]

The objective answer is merely different. The subjective answer is based on the individual. I personally prefer 3E/Pathfinder, and it matters not one whit all the virtues those who prefer 5E heap on the system. They're welcome to enjoy 5E to their hearts' content. As for me I could enjoy a game of 5E. I have my gripes, but I can get over them or ignore them depending on the gripe something I could not say about 4E and thus haven't and would never play.

A player in my group prefers 5E precisely because it is simpler and has less fiddly bits. It fits his gaming style well. I see his frustrations in our Pathfinder games figuring out the math of bonuses and what you can and cannot do based on how far you moved. I prefer the greater complexity of Pathfinder. I like its crunch. I like the greater versatility it provides for characters, accepting 5E just came out with one book.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Stuff

This reminds me of the best description of 5E that ive ever heard.It is at worst everyones second favorite version of D&D.It has mostly minor quibbles and sometimes people prefer other versions but nobody outright hates it like they did Hasbros fake D&D or the way people that grew disillusioned with 3.5 enbraced other versions and liked to pretend nobody played anything but gamebreaking tier 0 classes

[archaeo]

Personally, I wish WotC had kept 4e officially in print and rebranded it as D&D Tactics, with 5e branded as Dungeon & Dragons. I tend to think these games complement one another rather than compete with one another. That said, I also think 5e is more or less a straight upgrade from 3e, retaining the heart of the edition while streamlining all of the complexity that takes away from the game at the table.


bear in mind... this is the 5e forums. you're going to get primarily people that like 5e more than other editions here.

I think it's worth noting as well that many of the negative voices that would have normally chimed in on a thread like this have either departed, as the post-release edition war has largely died down here, or have gotten themselves banned.

While I agree with virtually none of the following, in the interest of fairness, I'll provide a concise version of the critics' view:

1. 5e fails utterly at simulation, retaining all of the previous edition's faults (HP abstraction) while introducing numerous new ones, including various skill system problems (A 24 str Barbarian can lose in a strength contest with a 10 str Kobold) and other corner cases (peasants vs. dragons).

2. 5e's rules are written in a way that creates conflict at the table. So much of the system is left to the DM that players have no way of expecting that a character build that works at one table will work at any other. Players also have no way to form expectation about the skill system, as DCs are left so vague as to be meaningless.

3. While the system introduces many mechanics intended to balance the classes, it nevertheless fails to prevent a disparity between martial classes and caster classes. While DPR is roughly equivalent across classes over a given adventuring day, a purely martial character build will never have the wealth of options available to full casters. Complainants have especially focused on the overpowered Moon Druid and the underpowered Battle Master Fighter and Beast Master Ranger.

4. The game lacks anything approaching a viable magic item economy, much less specific guidance on how magic items should be handed out to the party or how one should adjust the XP budget between high-magic and low-magic campaigns.

I would say that's a pretty decent summary of the main complaints I've seen here. Frankly, I think all four are either overblown criticisms or outright falsehoods, but as I said: in the interest of fairness!

[SharkForce]

those points basically depend a lot on groups. some groups want to know what to expect before they come to the table (especially if they play most frequently at events where they don't have the same group every time, or don't have a lot of experience making judgment calls as a DM). a skill system with vague guidelines is not going to work as well for them. others have been playing with the same group for 20 years and are used to their DM eyeballing everything anyways, and a skill system with set difficulties and clear rules would be completely ignored anyways.

it's just a matter of what people are looking for. some people really like the simplified approach of 5e. some people feel like it leaves a lot of empty holes that they really wish had been properly filled in. for some, it's a bug, for others, it's a feature.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I personally prefer 3e, as I feel it's truer to "the D&D experience." People love to tout 5e as a very "old-school" experience and complain about how 3e's newfangled changes make it the odd edition out, but 3e is really a lot closer to AD&D and all but the very earliest versions of OD&D than 5e is, philosophically.
3e is the "pointlessly simulationist" edition? AD&D had extensive rules and guidelines on monster ecology, henchmen morale, keep/tower construction, disease progression, etc. from the start, and a large part of the game revolved around actually using that "pointlessly simulationist" stuff to avoid monsters, engage in mass combat, etc.
3e is the "bonuses outweigh the d20" edition? The AD&D fighter gained an effective +1 to attack at every level in a system where AC ranges from 10 to -10, to the point where a 17th-level fighter hits Asmodeus himself on an 11+ before any magic items (but only very-high-level fighters do, not any random peasant, as in 5e :smallwink:), and thieves ended up with a literal 99% base success chance for most of their skills.
3e is the "gear and money dependent" edition? XP-for-GP meant that everyone cared about every last copper piece, and every fighter wanted gauntlets of ogre power for that sweet 18/00 Strength.
3e is the "build > personality" edition? Kits, specializations, allowed racial multiclass combinations, the bard, and many more fiddly mechanics say hi, not to mention that 2e did the Complete X series of race and class books long before 3e did.
3e is the "ridiculous high-level gameplay" edition? The "I" in "BECMI" stands for the Immortals boxed set, where PCs ascend to godhood as a natural part of gameplay progression, and the original Demonweb Pits module had the party kill Lolth (with her whopping 66 HP) at 14th level.
I could go on for a while, but my point is this: some people play D&D because it's the first/only game they learned, because it's what everyone else plays, because it's the default fantasy game, etc. while some people play D&D because they like its specific tone, themes, playstyle, etc.; for the former group, 5e is certainly an excellent distillation of the default-D&D-fantasy experience, but for the latter group it doesn't work at all.

If I wanted a rules-light hardly-scaling D&D-like game, I can whip up a Fate Core fantasy variant in a day or so and run a campaign in that system (and I've run several successful one-shots like that). If I wanted a game that gives a reasonable facsimile of the D&D dungeon crawl experience with a lot less fiddliness, I can play Dungeon World. If I want to play a low-powered pseudo-medieval game I can run a game in a very faithful medieval-plus-magic setting using GURPS Fantasy. But if I want to play D&D-qua-D&D, for me 5e just doesn't cut it.


2. 5e's rules are written in a way that creates conflict at the table. So much of the system is left to the DM that players have no way of expecting that a character build that works at one table will work at any other. Players also have no way to form expectation about the skill system, as DCs are left so vague as to be meaningless.
[...]
I would say that's a pretty decent summary of the main complaints I've seen here. Frankly, I think all four are either overblown criticisms or outright falsehoods, but as I said: in the interest of fairness!

I would argue that this one is a very fair criticism of--and major problem with--the system, but that because it's not a huge concern for most players (who tend to find one group and stick with it) it's usually brushed aside. If you play with the same group for years, then you can pick up on the DM's and other players' idiosyncrasies relatively quickly and don't need to deal with cross-group compatibility; as long as you trust your DM (and you should, if they're going to run games for you for years), then everything will probably go swimmingly. If, however, you have one group with multiple rotating DMs with very different styles, change groups relatively frequently, or run or play standard-format games like Living Greyhawk or convention one-shots on a relatively regular basis (or, as in my case, all three), then standardization of rules and and minimization of scenarios requiring adjudication or fiat is very important to ensure things run smoothly.

Back in the day, one of the main selling points of 3.0 (for those who weren't decrying it as "dumbed-down tabletop Diablo," anyway) was that it standardized the rules to the point that all those old binders of houserules pretty much every group had to make to fill in the gaps in the rules were no longer necessary, and when moving from group to group it was possible to jump right in and play without needing to spend a whole session just learning how that particular group does skills or how they've houseruled kits for multi-classing or whatever. So any game that relies on lots of DM rulings is going to have to really impress me in other areas to get me to play it on a regular basis, but I can see why most groups these days wouldn't care much one way or the other.

[jaydubs]

I haven't read the whole thread, just posting a data point. Also, you're going to get some sampling bias from asking in the 5e forum.

But in my mind, they're just different. 3.x (I prefer PF, but they're all somewhat close to each other) has the advantages of having more material to explore. It's got more character options. More tactical options. More tactical gameplay. More fluff and lore already in existence. It's just a more intricate system, and sometimes you want that.

5e is much simplified. It's easier to learn, and faster to play once you've learned it. It's easier to DM for, and is less likely to get out of control at higher levels. It's harder to break the game, or make characters that are just plain terrible at what they're supposed to do. And it does all of that despite keeping mostly the same flavor.

So at the end of the day, it comes down to how much enjoyment the DM and players get from the technical, system mastery aspect of tabletops. If you want it, love it, can't live without it, play 3.x. If you hate it, wish the rules were simpler, so you could just get back to storytelling and RPing, play 5e (or maybe even play Dungeon World).

Myself, I like playing both. Because sometimes I feel casual and don't want to worry about dozens of different modifiers. And sometimes I want to build something intricate, and tricky, with multiple classes or archetypes.

[BootStrapTommy]

Spellcasting got stripped down to reduce caster supremacy.

Neither is better, their just different.

For a newby, I'd suggest 5e. It is simplified. And easier to learn.

3.x is more fleshed out. Much more to explore.

But personally, so does PF. But without quit the balance issues of 3.x

[Chronos]

On thinking about it some more, I think that the best parts of 5e could be ported to 3.5 a lot more easily than the best parts of 3.5 could be ported to 5. Or to put it another way, a hybrid system incorporating the best of both would look a lot more like 3.5 than it would 5. You could fairly easily bolt on the traits/bond/flaw system and inspiration onto almost any game, and backgrounds wouldn't be too hard to port over, either. On the other hand, things like fighters that are actually competent, or creatures with the lifting capability of an Earth gorilla, would break some of the core assumptions that 5e is built around.

[Pex]

On thinking about it some more, I think that the best parts of 5e could be ported to 3.5 a lot more easily than the best parts of 3.5 could be ported to 5. Or to put it another way, a hybrid system incorporating the best of both would look a lot more like 3.5 than it would 5. You could fairly easily bolt on the traits/bond/flaw system and inspiration onto almost any game, and backgrounds wouldn't be too hard to port over, either. On the other hand, things like fighters that are actually competent, or creatures with the lifting capability of an Earth gorilla, would break some of the core assumptions that 5e is built around.

3E/Pathfinder could certainly use the Advantage/Disadvantage system to cut down on the various ways to stack +1s and +2s from different named bonuses. While I have no issue with big numbers in the game, it wouldn't hurt to be able to lower them a tad because there aren't as many +# bonuses to stack.

5E is better with the concept of moving more than 5 ft in a round not screwing you over by denying various actions. I will acknowledge and be appreciative that albatross is gone.

[Milo v3]

I prefer 3.X because 5e lowered the potential capability of characters are too much for my settings.

[Baptor]

I prefer 5e to 3.Xe.

Many people have already given many good reasons, so I'll try to say something different. I will show why I prefer 5e through comparisons.

In 3.5e
I had a notebook several pages long full of houserules, most of which were to streamline complicated mechanics in 3.5 like grapple. To me and my group, 3.5e was virtually unplayable without our "fixes."

In 5e
I have five current houserules, and if I had to play the game without them it would work just fine. They are mostly little tweaks due to our player group being so small (just 2 players).

In 3.5e
I had to keep a running list of banned, allowed, or modified feats, PRCs, base classes, races, and the like.

In 5e
I feel just about everything is balanced and fine as is.

In 3.5e
Creating monsters or NPCs from scratch by the rules took hours and hours of tedious work.

In 5e
I can make you a legal creature from scratch in minutes if I have a pocket calculator.

In 3.5e
Everyone needed extra scratch paper to keep running tallys of bonuses and penalties from the dozens of spells and effects during a combat.

In 5e
Usually all you need to know is whether you have advantage or disadvantage.

[Solusek]

I like both editions quite a lot (3e and 5e).

3rd edition has many more mechanics and fiddling going on both with characters and in combat. If you love spending hours optimizing characters and coming up with just the right combinations of powers and abilities to make a badass character it will be more satisfying for you. However, the game is pretty poorly balanced. You will see that some classes, and some combinations *far* outclass others. A poorly planned out 3e character can end up being very weak and ineffective compared to a well built one.

5e is much simpler. The balance between classes is a lot better. Unfortunately, you lose lots of the fiddly bits of character creation and combat options that 3e gave you along the way, which I really enjoyed. Part of that may be due 5e being so new and not having any extra sourcebooks printed yet. I have a feeling it will always remain more streamlined than 3e was, though. It is a conscious design choice from the developers this time around.

Also, if you are interested in trying out 3rd edition please give Pathfinder a try instead. It is 95% the same core rules as 3e but with better balanced classes, spells and character options. It is just a better version of 3e in my opinion. Plus it is still extremely popular and being massively supported by Paizo whereas 3.5 has been out of print for a long time now.

[Knaight]

Personally, 5e is my favorite edition of D&D, hands down. If you like a fiddly game with lots of different subsystems to play with, you'll probably prefer 3e. Of course, at that point you can just switch entirely over to GURPS, and it will seem light by comparison.


This reminds me of the best description of 5E that ive ever heard.It is at worst everyones second favorite version of D&D.It has mostly minor quibbles and sometimes people prefer other versions but nobody outright hates it like they did Hasbros fake D&D or the way people that grew disillusioned with 3.5 enbraced other versions and liked to pretend nobody played anything but gamebreaking tier 0 classes

There are some people who really, really hate 5e. Granted, large chunks of them aren't going to like D&D regardless, but there are plenty of people in the D&D 3e camp who absolutely detest it.

[Baptor]

There are some people who really, really hate 5e. Granted, large chunks of them aren't going to like D&D regardless, but there are plenty of people in the D&D 3e camp who absolutely detest it.

I just don't get how folks can "detest" an edition and spew hate and flame over it. We don't allow that here, but on some forums its just nasty.

I mean I think all the editions have merit added something to the game. 4e wasn't my cup of tea but it added lots of new and cool ideas to the game we see in 5e (which I love). I could never "detest" the edition, nor any other for that matter. Even "dislike" would be too strong a word for me. "Not preferred," would be as far as I'd go.

It's not like one edition precludes you from playing another. Come on lets play!

[TrollCapAmerica]

I just don't get how folks can "detest" an edition and spew hate and flame over it. We don't allow that here, but on some forums its just nasty.

I mean I think all the editions have merit added something to the game. 4e wasn't my cup of tea but it added lots of new and cool ideas to the game we see in 5e (which I love). I could never "detest" the edition, nor any other for that matter. Even "dislike" would be too strong a word for me. "Not preferred," would be as far as I'd go.

It's not like one edition precludes you from playing another. Come on lets play!

Well I developed alot of hate for 4th.It seemed like a bad marketing scheme dreamed up by hasbro that failed in a few years while the actual game was still being played with old material or as PF. It still didnt stop me from constantly looking up info on classes/discussions and wondering why a guide I found starts by saying "YOU ARE TANK.TAUNT ENEMY TO DRAW AI AGGRO BEEP BOOP" before I realized its a 4th ed guide.Between that seeing too many 4E players not even name their characters and seeing the guys at the FLGS shill for it desperately left a bad taste in my mouth

The thing is I dont see any problems like that between 3.5/PF and 5E coming up.It looks like a much smoother transition and this is coming from a guy that refused to stop playing AD&D until around 2004/2005

[Rowan Wolf]

I think that by and by the best/better system is the one that works best at your table with your players/DM. There are merits and flaws to every system/edition, but so long as whatever you/your group to have fun then go for it.

Currently I am planning out a new 5e game, mostly because I (once my copy of the monster manual arrives) I have all the baseline stuff I could need to get the group playing. My group is going to be a mix of players with some having tabletop experience and other without so 5th edition will help eliminate some of the system mastery issue that tended to come up in 3/3.5 games that I played in/run.

[calebrus]

I just don't get how folks can "detest" an edition and spew hate and flame over it.

I detest 4e.
I always have, and I always will. That won't stop me from playing it with our group, though. If that's the game that the GM wants to run (we trade off) then that's the game that I'll play.
We're currently running a WoD Changeling game, a PF game, a 4e game, and a 5e game (mine). We trade off every few weeks/months. Right now we're back in the 4e game.
And I hate it.
I hate how every single character feels and plays exactly like every single other character, no matter what you try to do to differentiate them. RP wise, you can play what you want to. When combat starts, everyone is playing the same exact character, and it drives me absolutely insane.
I wasn't a big fan of 3e.
I dislike PF even more.
And I hate 4e.

2e and 5e are the editions of D&D that I love.

[Pex]

I just don't get how folks can "detest" an edition and spew hate and flame over it. We don't allow that here, but on some forums its just nasty.

I mean I think all the editions have merit added something to the game. 4e wasn't my cup of tea but it added lots of new and cool ideas to the game we see in 5e (which I love). I could never "detest" the edition, nor any other for that matter. Even "dislike" would be too strong a word for me. "Not preferred," would be as far as I'd go.

It's not like one edition precludes you from playing another. Come on lets play!

The General and 3E Forums say hi.

[Xetheral]

3.x is much better for the "away from the table" game of building and optimizing characters (and arguing about them on forums).

5e is better for playing D&D.

I find that a group's consensus on what game to play is largely driven by how fun the character-creation-minigame is. The more not-yet-played character concepts in a given system the group has laying around, the more clamor there will be to play that system.

Systems with serious gameplay problems but enjoyable character-creation (e.g., imo: SWSE, SR4, Abberant) can nonetheless be popular with players who like to fill out their stable of concepts in their spare time.

[wolfstone]

Also, if you are interested in trying out 3rd edition please give Pathfinder a try instead. It is 95% the same core rules as 3e but with better balanced classes, spells and character options. It is just a better version of 3e in my opinion. Plus it is still extremely popular and being massively supported by Paizo whereas 3.5 has been out of print for a long time now.

I actually DO own all of the source books for Pathfinder as well, which is part of my reason for having collected all of the 3.x books because (from what I remember, if correctly) that 3.x materials for characters could be used in Pathfinder, if with some tweaking to fit the PF rules.

On a completely unrelated note, I also collected all of the Whitewolf 'World of Darkness' source books as I loved the comcept of that gaming universe and I really love werewolves. E:3

[TrollCapAmerica]

I actually DO own all of the source books for Pathfinder as well, which is part of my reason for having collected all of the 3.x books because (from what I remember, if correctly) that 3.x materials for characters could be used in Pathfinder, if with some tweaking to fit the PF rules.

On a completely unrelated note, I also collected all of the Whitewolf 'World of Darkness' source books as I loved the comcept of that gaming universe and I really love werewolves. E:3

PF is nice but I cant help but feel its more like another sourcebook than another D&D edition

OWOD was also a heck of alot of fun.It was a complete mess mind you but a really fun mess and the 20th anniversary edition books particularly for Vampire were downright amazing

[Solusek]

I actually DO own all of the source books for Pathfinder as well, which is part of my reason for having collected all of the 3.x books because (from what I remember, if correctly) that 3.x materials for characters could be used in Pathfinder, if with some tweaking to fit the PF rules.


3.X stuff can be used with Pathfinder - I would mostly recommend against it, though. 3.X has too much random broken stuff in it's splat books that really shouldn't be used in Pathfinder for balance reasons.

Magic Item Compendium, Spell Compendium, Incantatrix prestige class (either of them), Ur-Priest prestige class, and so forth.

[Giddonihah]

When I started my campaign of 3.5, I first did a practice session. I had a bunch of new players, among older players and I had to teach em how to play as they ran through a dungeon.
Fast forward a few years to my next campaign and a practice session for 5th edition, except every player was new. The dungeon I sent them through was a modified and updated version of the 3.5 dungeon.
It was amazing how much easier a time I had with 5th edition in teaching the new players, and how much farther we were able to go in the single session.

I do miss the depth and mass of material that 3.5 has. But I don't miss how broken it got and how difficult it was to address the spellcaster gulf of power.

Anyways I don't I will ever DM a 3.5 game again. If I need a more streamlined game I will do 5th edition, if I want something with a whole lot of complexity I will either homebrew or bring in Pathfinder.
Pathfinder has better online resources than 3.5 at this point, and thats important for me if I have to take on new players who don't have the out of print books.

[Milo v3]

It has mostly minor quibbles and sometimes people prefer other versions but nobody outright hates it
I've heard a fair amount of hate about it from my friends, and I myself really really really don't like it. If my group and I had the option of playing 5e or nothing, we probably wouldn't play.

[McBars]

I prefer 3.X because 5e lowered the potential capability of characters are too much for my settings.

Pray tell what do you mean by that?

Because I find that characters in 5e are capable of incredible things, across almost the entire level range, and without being constrained to a short list of tier 1 and 2 classes, feat chains, and dipping/MCing.

[Milo v3]

Pray tell what do you mean by that?

Because I find that characters in 5e are capable of incredible things, across almost the entire level range, and without being constrained to a short list of tier 1 and 2 classes, feat chains, and dipping/MCing.

The power range in 5e is much smaller than in 3.5e and PF. 3.X's power ranges from "Average Joe" at low-levels to "Stronger than Most Gods in Myth" at high-levels. In 5e, it ranges from "average joe" to "slightly stronger joe" group of un-modified goblins can kill a 20th level character. This allows me to have campaigns that range from the players being low-powered gritty heroes to campaigns where every citizen is effectively a demi-god.

Also, "being constrained to a short list of tier 1 and 2 classes, feat chains, and dipping/MCing", has nothing to do with it, simply being a tier 3 or 4 class in PF is generally very powerful.

[Kurald Galain]

Because I find that characters in 5e are capable of incredible things, across almost the entire level range, and without being constrained to a short list of tier 1 and 2 classes, feat chains, and dipping/MCing.

The main issue is that all these "incredible" things that characters do can also be duplicated by a first-level nobody. To me, the main drawback of 5E is that most characters can never become noticeably good at any skill (compared to either their teammates or first-level nobodies). Even high-level rogues can only become good at dexterity-related skills, not at anything else.

I find this severely limits the usability of 5E outside of combat.

[Solusek]

The main issue is that all these "incredible" things that characters do can also be duplicated by a first-level nobody. To me, the main drawback of 5E is that most characters can never become noticeably good at any skill (compared to either their teammates or first-level nobodies). Even high-level rogues can only become good at dexterity-related skills, not at anything else.

I find this severely limits the usability of 5E outside of combat.

This is a good point and something I have recently noticed too.

Being trained in a skill, even as a very high level character (+6 proficiency bonus), only makes you a bit better at that skill than someone of similar ability scores but untrained (+0 proficiency). That seems ridiculous to me as far as emulating how much better a skilled person IRL or in fantasy fiction would be at something compared to an untrained person.

Now if you are a Rogue or a Bard and can double your proficiency bonus it starts to approach a more reasonable result for someone who is very skilled at a something. At least for those 2-4 skills they get to double. That shouldn't be something that *only* those two classes get to do though.

Bounded accuracy doesn't make much sense to me when it comes to some of the skills.

[Stan]

Being trained in a skill, even as a very high level character (+6 proficiency bonus), only makes you a bit better at that skill than someone of similar ability scores but untrained (+0 proficiency).

I've noticed that. One small change you can makes that helps a little is to modify the Skilled feat so that, if you select a skill you are already proficient in, you gain expertise in it. That way, you don't have to multiclass to get expertise.

[Xetheral]

I've noticed that. One small change you can makes that helps a little is to modify the Skilled feat so that, if you select a skill you are already proficient in, you gain expertise in it. That way, you don't have to multiclass to get expertise.

That's an excellent idea.

[Tehnar]

To all those claiming that 5e is balanced; I take it you have not played with a dedicated Necromancer or a Summon Woodland beings Bard/Druid. And if you claim that that doesn't matter because the DM can ban/enforce RP restrictions, good job you have just balanced 3.x as well.

5e is just as broken as 3.x, just in different ways.

[Solusek]

To all those claiming that 5e is balanced; I take it you have not played with a dedicated Necromancer or a Summon Woodland beings Bard/Druid. And if you claim that that doesn't matter because the DM can ban/enforce RP restrictions, good job you have just balanced 3.x as well.

5e is just as broken as 3.x, just in different ways.

You are right that both games have some outlier abilities/spells that can be taken advantage of. 3.X had them and 5e has them too.

The difference is that in 3.X normal run of the mill non-munchkin characters of some classes easily end up very very powerful compared to other classes. Because the balance between the classes just wasn't very good. In 5e the run of the mill characters of all classes are a lot closer to each other in contribution to the party.

[Mr.Moron]

To all those claiming that 5e is balanced; I take it you have not played with a dedicated Necromancer or a Summon Woodland beings Bard/Druid. And if you claim that that doesn't matter because the DM can ban/enforce RP restrictions, good job you have just balanced 3.x as well.

5e is just as broken as 3.x, just in different ways.

For every hole you have to patch in 5e, you need to patch 1d6+1 per source book in 3.P. I was kind-of sort of able to beat 3.P into shape with a lot of bans, mandating Tome of Battle, high point-buy and using custom created encounters almost exclusively.

In 5e I can get away with having folks use the standard array, throwing on a hero points system and vetting spell selections. All classes basically work out of the box, and I can more often then not pull a couple monsters straight out of the manual with no tweaking.

[themaque]

I don't think I would ever play with a group where we don't trust each other. No amount of hard or soft rules can change that.

Trust takes time to develop. If I'm just meeting you for the first time today, and that situation has happened a time or two, I am willing to give you a limited amount of trust. However, it's a comfort to know I have a little control over my own destiny. yes, you do so in 5e, but not to the degree most people play 3.P.

[Kurald Galain]

For every hole you have to patch in 5e, you need to patch 1d6+1 per source book in 3.P.

The popularity of Pathfinder Society (which forces people to play PF as written) suggests that no, you really don't need to patch anything. You personally want to patch certain things, and there's nothing wrong with customizing the system like that, but that doesn't mean that anything needs patching.

[Mr.Moron]

The popularity of Pathfinder Society (which forces people to play PF as written) suggests that no, you really don't need to patch anything. You personally want to patch certain things, and there's nothing wrong with customizing the system like that, but that doesn't mean that anything needs patching.

My post is about contrasting the level work to get around aspects common to both 3.P and 5e that many people find problematic. The "Needs" in that statement was directly addressing a point in a context where the premise is that both 3.P and 5e are similarly faulty because people are patching both. The presumption of a need to patch is valid because I'm taking part in exchange where it's already agreed both games have problems and the only thing in dispute is if they're broken equally.

Pointing out that there are other contexts: People who don't think the game has flaws, or that like the game enough to overlook them for organized play isn't relevant. What you're doing here is somewhere between obtuse semantic nitpicking, and the old fashioned "Well that's just YOUR opinion" non-statement.

[Kurald Galain]

My post is about contrasting the level work to get around aspects common to both 3.P and 5e that many people find problematic.

Here's the thing:

(1) On forums such as this one, there are a number of common complaints about 3E.
(2) 4E was made specifically to address these complaints. 4E was discontinued.
(3) PF was made specifically ignoring these complaints. PF has been the market leader in RPGs for several years now.
(4) Therefore, these "common complaints" are only relevant to a vocal minority, and not bothering the majority of the player base.

[Tehnar]

For every hole you have to patch in 5e, you need to patch 1d6+1 per source book in 3.P. I was kind-of sort of able to beat 3.P into shape with a lot of bans, mandating Tome of Battle, high point-buy and using custom created encounters almost exclusively.

In 5e I can get away with having folks use the standard array, throwing on a hero points system and vetting spell selections. All classes basically work out of the box, and I can more often then not pull a couple monsters straight out of the manual with no tweaking.

Compare core Pathfinder to 5e and you will see that you need to make a similar amount of patches.

[Mr.Moron]

Here's the thing:

(1) On forums such as this one, there are a number of common complaints about 3E.
(2) 4E was made specifically to address these complaints. 4E was discontinued.
(3) PF was made specifically ignoring these complaints. PF has been the market leader in RPGs for several years now.
(4) Therefore, these "common complaints" are only relevant to a vocal minority, and not bothering the majority of the player base.

If my post was about marketability, broader player preferences or the relative merits of 4E to pathfinder these might be somewhere on the same planet as relevant point. In the context you're presenting them, they're a total non-sequitur.

[themaque]

Here's the thing:

(1) On forums such as this one, there are a number of common complaints about 3E.
(2) 4E was made specifically to address these complaints. 4E was discontinued.
(3) PF was made specifically ignoring these complaints. PF has been the market leader in RPGs for several years now.
(4) Therefore, these "common complaints" are only relevant to a vocal minority, and not bothering the majority of the player base.

I wouldn't say PF ignored those complaints, just addressed them in a different manner.

During production of 4E they where very vocal about killing the sacred cow. trying to drop the game to the very core essence and drop the baggage that had been brought along through the years. They crafted a fine game, but in my opinion lost that D&D quality.

Pathfinder took a different approach, but instead refined and addressed problems but with the mindset of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My opinions on which worked out best should be obvious.

I think 5e is the middle ground between the two. It drops things that had bogged the game down, but kept the core alive. It is NOT for everyone.

I will gladly play 5e. Great for a lower power high story game.

I will gladly play Pathfinder. Great for a high power epic game.

I might play 4e. It ended up being to mechanical in combat and to vauge in story for me.

I won't play 3.5. Pathfinder is just BETTER to me.

I might play 2e Nostalgia, but I don't miss THACO.

[charcoalninja]

My personal favourite edition is 4th. For me it was the first edition of D&D that was truely freeing in that you could play any character you could imagine and they would be mechanically viable and interesting. I cannot understand the complaints about that edition that the characters play the same, because in my experience from playing Fighters, Warlocks, Clerics, Paladins and Invokers is that each and every one was a completely different play experience where there powers made them all feel unique and they accomplished different things. On top of that I could reflavour anything in the game with 0 mechanical issues allowing me to play a gnoll who's magical abilities were a bloody miasma that flowed around him or a ghost minotaur out to save his people from destruction. In any other edition the flavour of abilities are so heavily laden into the mechanics that you don't have that granularity. In 4e you can flavour your wizard as a specialised grenadier if you wanted to, while in 3.5 & 5e you have to worry about converting magical abilities to non magic and all of the mechanical issues that causes.

Between the two, 3.P and 5e, my favourite would have to be Pathfinder simply because you can do so much more with the system. I enjoy the mechanical robustness of the edition and find the limited character options of 5e to be very constraining. I like that 3.P models people who dabble in some skills, models people who are superhumanly effective in others and that it has an actual tier of power that narratively makes sense for gods and demonlords and the like. I like that the volume of feats, but also the volume of feats a character actually recieves, in Pathfinder is as big as it is, as I enjoy player choice and customization.

5e is certainly fun to play, but it wouldn't be my go to. I like a lot of the rules in it, but there isn't enough of them. Though I am very fond of the Marking rules as again, 4e is my favourite.

My ideal game would be a gestalt game where each player played a PF class and has a 4e class progression as well, with PF Mythic added in to stretch the PF side to 30 levels.

[Solusek]

I wouldn't say PF ignored those complaints, just addressed them in a different manner.

During production of 4E they where very vocal about killing the sacred cow. trying to drop the game to the very core essence and drop the baggage that had been brought along through the years. They crafted a fine game, but in my opinion lost that D&D quality.

Pathfinder took a different approach, but instead refined and addressed problems but with the mindset of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My opinions on which worked out best should be obvious.

I think 5e is the middle ground between the two. It drops things that had bogged the game down, but kept the core alive. It is NOT for everyone.

I will gladly play 5e. Great for a lower power high story game.

I will gladly play Pathfinder. Great for a high power epic game.

I might play 4e. It ended up being to mechanical in combat and to vauge in story for me.

I won't play 3.5. Pathfinder is just BETTER to me.

I might play 2e Nostalgia, but I don't miss THACO.

I wish there was a way to give xp on these forums =p

[wolfstone]

I agree on 4e being a fav edition. It's the one I understand best (and have researched the most from a combat-focused perspective) and made combat equal for all the classes. My only real gripe whas how some of the classes were given little to work with (Seeker and Runepriest primarily), or the 'essencials' classes, most of which were designed like 3.x edition classes with a few powers and, to me, weren't as playable as most other classes.

Fighters could control enemy position and movement, wizards could be blasters if they wished or manipulate foes in fun ways, rogues could give all kinds of penalties to foes, and rangers could be snipers or whirling dervishes.

Yes, 4e was mostly about combat, but made combat more balanced for everyone so long as you had a good enough accuracy to hit.

[Knaight]

To all those claiming that 5e is balanced; I take it you have not played with a dedicated Necromancer or a Summon Woodland beings Bard/Druid. And if you claim that that doesn't matter because the DM can ban/enforce RP restrictions, good job you have just balanced 3.x as well.

There are degrees of imbalance. 5e classes tend to have fairly close optimization floors and ceilings, and while there are still some spells that are out of hand (and wildshape has some real issues), the spread between classes is tightened. There are individual 3e splatbooks I'd consider better balanced than 5e (ToB in particular), but overall I don't buy them being the same.

It's also way harder to be overpowered by accident in 5e. In 3e, you take Leadership because it looks cool and you're pretty much there. You take a handful of cool sounding spells, and you're halfway there. In 5e, it takes concerted abuse of Summon Woodland Beings, necromancy, Contagion, or other spells. It's also much harder to fall way behind the power curve in 5e, whereas in 3e all you have to do is take a Fighter and take some of the feat recommendations seriously (I mean, Weapon Specialization? I have no idea how WotC even thought that was powerful.)

[MadBear]

To all those claiming that 5e is balanced; I take it you have not played with a dedicated Necromancer or a Summon Woodland beings Bard/Druid. And if you claim that that doesn't matter because the DM can ban/enforce RP restrictions, good job you have just balanced 3.x as well.

5e is just as broken as 3.x, just in different ways.

Your post seems to be a black and white assertion where I'll I'm seeing is 50 shades of Grey (Yes, I went there :smallwink:)

In all seriousness, no one is claiming perfect balance from any edition. People are asserting that 5e is more balanced compared to 3.x. And I'd say that is a fair assessment. That's not to say that 5e is free of flaws, or that 3.X doesn't have redeeming features, but 5e by far has a smaller powercurve falloff by comparison.

[charcoalninja]

Well 5e has the same offenders as 3.5 when you boil everything down:

Polymorph spells are unbalanced.
Wish / Miracle(Divine Intervension) are unbalanced.
Wildshape is unbalanced.
Targeting Weak saves assures victory (everyone but wizards are screwed against illusions for example). IE saves are unbalanced.
Simulacrum is unbalanced.
Summoning is unbalanced.

(So basically high level D&D is unbalanced lol.)

I think I hit all the major ones there. Sure the number of breaks in the system is less, but that's only because there's less in the system at all.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Well 5e has the same offenders as 3.5 when you boil everything down:

Polymorph spells are unbalanced.
Wish / Miracle(Divine Intervension) are unbalanced.
Wildshape is unbalanced.
Targeting Weak saves assures victory (everyone but wizards are screwed against illusions for example). IE saves are unbalanced.
Simulacrum is unbalanced.
Summoning is unbalanced.

(So basically high level D&D is unbalanced lol.)

I think I hit all the major ones there. Sure the number of breaks in the system is less, but that's only because there's less in the system at all.

Well the degree of separation is less inane as well. No Infinite Solar chaining no infinite wishes no Tippyverse etc

Hell I looked at the stats for 5E Tiamat and thought "Thats Its?Thats all she does?" then had to step back and realize that even without awesome magical tricks and options she could crush damn near anything with just flight legendary actions and big stats that wouldnt have fazed the average semi-optimized PC party in 3.5

[Doug Lampert]

This is a good point and something I have recently noticed too.

Being trained in a skill, even as a very high level character (+6 proficiency bonus), only makes you a bit better at that skill than someone of similar ability scores but untrained (+0 proficiency). That seems ridiculous to me as far as emulating how much better a skilled person IRL or in fantasy fiction would be at something compared to an untrained person.

Now if you are a Rogue or a Bard and can double your proficiency bonus it starts to approach a more reasonable result for someone who is very skilled at a something. At least for those 2-4 skills they get to double. That shouldn't be something that *only* those two classes get to do though.

Bounded accuracy doesn't make much sense to me when it comes to some of the skills.

The idea of bounded accuracy is to put the scaling on HP and damage. That way lots of low level monsters are still a challenge at level 20, but you've progressed because the damage and HP progressions mean it takes a lot more of them. Fine. You can balance combat with NO scaling of to-hit or AC.

But with skills? What's the idea here? I could see declaring that "adventurers are getting better at surviving and killing things, skills don't scale at all", and then STARTING with skills giving +5 or +10 (reasonable bonuses to represent "trained" and "expert").

I could see giving skill tasks a "resistance" and skill characters an "effectiveness" that work like HP and damage and making skill tasks thus work more like combat (which makes teamwork more valuable if "rounds" have a cost on skill tasks). That might be a nice system. (And note that it makes it possible for things like crafting to stay relevant at level 20 without needing to give characters huge bonuses to the d20 and you don't need DC 70 doors).

But you start at a nearly unnoticeable +2 for being "trained" at something, and progress over the next 19 levels to level 20 where you have a whopping +6. That's my great "epic hero", at level 20 he wins most (but not all) contests in his best skill against an untrained dweeb with a lower than average ability. Woot.

The only solution is not to play, don't use the skill system at all if the outcome SHOULD be obvious, just GM fiat that "of course" Grond the Barbarian with 24 strength and athletics beats Joe the 98 lb weakling at strength tasks. Pay not attention to the actuality of +13 vs. -2 not being a sure thing because the mechanics simply don't work for high skill or ability.

AFAICT the skills that "work" in 5th edition are exactly the ones usable in combat as attacks or defenses, because they scale with combat actions available.

Skills need more scaling than the proficiency bonus if they're going to scale at all and scaling with attacks gives that to them.

[Tvtyrant]

What if you simply rolled a d10 instead of a d20 and cut the DCs by half? That doubles the effect of your progression and is extremely simple to implement.

[BootStrapTommy]

3.X stuff can be used with Pathfinder - I would mostly recommend against it, though. 3.X has too much random broken stuff in it's splat books that really shouldn't be used in Pathfinder for balance reasons.

Magic Item Compendium, Spell Compendium, Incantatrix prestige class (either of them), Ur-Priest prestige class, and so forth. They really shouldn't be in 3.x for balance reasons either.

I'm convinced that nothing outside SRD in 3.x was play tested. At all.

[TrollCapAmerica]

They really shouldn't be in 3.x for balance reasons either.

I'm convinced that nothing outside SRD in 3.x was play tested. At all.

Meh the best stuff was still in core and most of the splats just made other things more playable.TOB probably should have replaced the Fighter Monk and Paladin totally

[McBars]

I think it's worth noting as well that many of the negative voices that would have normally chimed in on a thread like this have either departed, as the post-release edition war has largely died down here, or have gotten themselves banned.

I'd say by reading downstream from your post that they definitely arrived.


The objective answer is merely different. The subjective answer is based on the individual.

Really the one true answer to the OP's question.

Everything else is nothing more than the same voices (Galen, Myself, Archaeo, Milo, Kurald, Pex, et. al) giving the same opinions as those we've given on scores of other threads like this one....And there have been a ton, just search.

FWIW, I've been playing 20 years. I loved 3.x for all the fiddly options we never had in 2e, I grew to hate it for how those fiddly options ground play to a halt at most of the tables I played or DMed at while requiring me to dip into 6-7 different books to make a decent character or DM a session.

When I first read the 5e PHB, it seemed alien and I all but wrote it off. Then I actually played it.

The longer I play, the lazier I become. As such I love 5e; simple, fast, easy....and I honestly haven't experienced a lack of options, capability, and character power that many posters cite as reasons they dislike 5e. Granted 15th level is the highest I've played at, but interclass balance and individual class power works remarkably well from 1-15 in my experience and the experience of most DMs/Players I play with. Most important though is that the table spends less time referencing books, and more time playing.

I hope you'll give both editions a spin, as they've provided me with a decade and a half of fun.

[Xetheral]

However, as someone who's never played either 5th or 3rd (lack of players in my area) which edition is better to play? I'm asking for thoughts from people who have actual gameplay experience with both editions.

Thanks in advance for any helpful commentary. :)

Various posters have done a great job illustrating the strengths and disadvantages to each system. I’d like to dive a little deeper into how the complaints with each system differ. I’ll start with archaeo’s excellent synopsis of the common complaints with 5e:


While I agree with virtually none of the following, in the interest of fairness, I'll provide a concise version of the critics' view:

1. 5e fails utterly at simulation, retaining all of the previous edition's faults (HP abstraction) while introducing numerous new ones, including various skill system problems (A 24 str Barbarian can lose in a strength contest with a 10 str Kobold) and other corner cases (peasants vs. dragons).

2. 5e's rules are written in a way that creates conflict at the table. So much of the system is left to the DM that players have no way of expecting that a character build that works at one table will work at any other. Players also have no way to form expectation about the skill system, as DCs are left so vague as to be meaningless.

3. While the system introduces many mechanics intended to balance the classes, it nevertheless fails to prevent a disparity between martial classes and caster classes. While DPR is roughly equivalent across classes over a given adventuring day, a purely martial character build will never have the wealth of options available to full casters. Complainants have especially focused on the overpowered Moon Druid and the underpowered Battle Master Fighter and Beast Master Ranger.

4. The game lacks anything approaching a viable magic item economy, much less specific guidance on how magic items should be handed out to the party or how one should adjust the XP budget between high-magic and low-magic campaigns.

I would say that's a pretty decent summary of the main complaints I've seen here. Frankly, I think all four are either overblown criticisms or outright falsehoods, but as I said: in the interest of fairness!

In my opinion, archaeo is spot-on (and gets major kudos for so accurately representing viewpoints he doesn’t agree with). I’d like to point out, however, that his #1, #2, and #4 are categorically different types of problems than people have with 3e (and its derivatives).

The most-often repeated complaints about the "'3's'" stem from broken abilities and unbalanced classes. Those problems can be more-or-less (depending on playstyle) dealt with by table conventions, such as agreement (formal or informal) to make characters of roughly-similar power levels, or restrictions on available sourcebooks. Similar types of problems in 5e (e.g. Archaeo's #3, specific spells and feats, etc.) can be addressed with similar effectiveness for a given playstyle.

Addressing Archaeo’s #1, however, requires overhauling basic mechanics. Consider Kurald Galain’s chief complaint:


The main issue is that all these "incredible" things that characters do can also be duplicated by a first-level nobody. To me, the main drawback of 5E is that most characters can never become noticeably good at any skill (compared to either their teammates or first-level nobodies). Even high-level rogues can only become good at dexterity-related skills, not at anything else.

I find this severely limits the usability of 5E outside of combat.

The problem can be addressed (again more-or-less depending on playstyle), but it’s a different type of fix. Stan (in this thread), and posters in other threads have come up with various ways to address this issue, but each involve changing a basic mechanic (the skill system) to address a fundamental side-effect stemming from the adoption of bounded accuracy.

Addressing Archaeo’s #2 is also problematic: it can’t be addressed at all without a rewrite or (potentially voluminous) errata/rulings/houserules. So long as your group is composed of people naturally inclined to read the rules similarly, fantastic! But if your players are wired differently, then the DM’s rulings are going to confuse/disappoint some players, and unless your group has a fantastic memory, you probably want to write them down. Depending on just-how-differently your group tends to read things, that document might grow to be pretty long. For an example, consider how unwieldy the database of twitter rulings has become.

Archaeo’s #4 has a straight-forward, but very involved, solution: make up your own rules. A functional magic item economy isn’t easy to make—the “’3’s’” get a lot of flak for mistakes and imbalances. But in 5e you can’t either put up with the system’s flaws or tweak them to your preferences. For all practical purposes, adequate rules simply aren’t part of the system. Anyone who wants a functional magic item economy has to either create them whole-cloth, or tack-on rules piecemeal from another system.

Pointing out that three of the problems Archaeo identifies with 5e are more inherent to the system than the common problems with 3e (and derivatives) does not in any way mean 3e is the better system. 3e has fundamental problems too, particularly the steep (and high!) learning curve exacerbated by a large number of trap options.

But, as Kurald Galain illustrates quite effectively, we have empirical evidence that the common complaints (let alone the fundamental problems) with 3.x did not stand in the way of its widespread adoption:


Here's the thing:

(1) On forums such as this one, there are a number of common complaints about 3E.
(2) 4E was made specifically to address these complaints. 4E was discontinued.
(3) PF was made specifically ignoring these complaints. PF has been the market leader in RPGs for several years now.
(4) Therefore, these "common complaints" are only relevant to a vocal minority, and not bothering the majority of the player base.

Only (a LOT) of time will tell whether 5e’s problems interfere with its adoption (and longevity). It may simply be that for a wide range of groups and playstyles, the complaints Archaeo identifies simply aren’t problematic. If so, fantastic! But because three of those complaints are, as I argue, more challenging to address than the common complaints of 3.x, if enough groups find them distasteful, they may well drift away to other systems.

To the OP: If you aren’t fazed by a steep learning curve (and your willingness to collect all the books suggests not), then the popularity of 3.x strongly suggests that you’ll be able to make it work for you. On the other hand, if the harder-to-fix problems in Archaeo’s #1, #2, and #4 don’t bother you, 5e is far more accessible and will require significantly less time investment. Finally, if you’re comfortable in the game-design role, then even if those problems bother you, it may still be faster to adapt 5e than to learn the ins-and-outs of 3.x.

[Tehnar]

Xetheral, well done on your commentary.



To the OP: If you aren’t fazed by a steep learning curve (and your willingness to collect all the books suggests not), then the popularity of 3.x strongly suggests that you’ll be able to make it work for you. On the other hand, if the harder-to-fix problems in Archaeo’s #1, #2, and #4 don’t bother you, 5e is far more accessible and will require significantly less time investment. Finally, if you’re comfortable in the game-design role, then even if those problems bother you, it may still be faster to adapt 5e than to learn the ins-and-outs of 3.x.

I just want to add that problems #1,2 and even 4 are systematic. Fixing them means changing the fundamental basis 5e is built upon, namely bounded accuracy. Perhaps a easier option then is to play a system that doesn't have those faults.

[wolfstone]

My main issue with D&D in general is my abyssmal luck in die-rolling. I tend to get low results quite often, even with different dice, so I always try to max out my accuracy from the start to compensate for it. Nothing's worse that a fireball that coveres 25 squares (in a grid-formatted battle zone) and manages to miss 6 or more enemies (it's actually happened to me :( ), or casting sleep on 4 enemies who all save on their next turn. :(

My 4e Lvl 8 wizard has a +14 to hit (+16 for fire spells) and I also try to get Combat Advantage as much as possible for a further +2) just to be able to score a hit more than a third of the time.

When I first began reading the 5e PHB, I was saddened to see the max level was 20, the max ability modifier was +5, and most of the extra +1s were removed, which seems to make it much harder to hit a target with an attack.

The one thing I wish that 4e had done was allow a power other than an at-will to be used again and again in a fight. The methods for regaining the use of a power are rather far and few, and the one low-level armor (Verteran's, had it's power to restore the use of a daily taken away altogether. One thing the other editions does better is to allow more than a single use of a spell per day/extended rest.

I tried making a 3.x version of my tiefling wizard, but the spell wish-list was still over 30 spells long and that was with some whittling down. :P

That and I can't find anyone to play with and have no idea on how to go about finding a group in my area. I WAS playing 4e with a group, but the DM broke geek code by being married and having a second child within three years. :(

[Vogonjeltz]

However, as someone who's never played either 5th or 3rd (lack of players in my area) which edition is better to play? I'm asking for thoughts from people who have actual gameplay experience with both editions.

Thanks in advance for any helpful commentary. :)

Bottom line: I prefer 5th edition to any other.

Background info: I was more apprehensive about leaving 3.5 than I was about going to 3.5 from 3.0 or AD&D for 3.0;

Reasoning: The fatal flaw of 3.5 was that the system was so intricate there was the constant necessity of looking up rules to ensure they actually interacted or operated the way players or the DM remembered them working. This leads to even brief combats potentially taking a few hours to resolve.

Happy result: 5th Edition simplifies everything substantially with the massive benefit of the answer to almost any question of what to do is: The DM is going to make a judgment call. Assuming your DM isn't paralyzed by decision-making, this allows for fluidity and enables players to engage in off-roading much more easily.

As much as I loved 3rd edition (and invested in the books for it) I can't imagine ever going back.

[Gritmonger]

Regarding 5th edition skills: there's more in the toolbox than just the old endless plus stacking... you can apply advantage and disadvantage, which effectively add or take away enough to make a difference.

Expertise plus high level plus ability bonus plus advantage and you could be looking at + 16 and a bit more from advantage, and if the commoner is really inexpert and you've shown off for some psychological effects, they might start with disadvantage and no skill level and no ability modifier. While not an "I win" button, it would, I think, encourage even high level characters to look for situational modifiers and perhaps use their bonds for a possible inspiration.

[dev6500]

I'll admit, I cheated and read only the first and 4th page. My thoughts on which system is better?

In its final form, I like the dnd 3.5 better but there is a caveat to this conclusion.
Everyone has to be relatively well versed in the system. The DM and the players. When this happens, dnd 3.5 is an amazing system that allows you to have all sorts of rule supported character types who do something different and unique every game.


If we just compare core dnd 3.5 to core 5e like we have currently, I think it works out like this:
1. 3.5 has better clarified rules( I find that skills and several other sets of rules are overly dependent on the dm. )
2. 5e is slightly more balanced. Casters do not entirely destroy non caster classes.
3. 5e has too many saving throws. This basically imparts a level of MAD to every character. This is poor design and basically means that even defensively focused characters will still have multiple weaknesses as compared to dnd 3.5 where a defensive non-caster might be able to get themselves a high AC, a high touch ac, and pull off relatively good saves in 2 out of 3 saving throws without gimping the rest of their build. In 5e, AC is hard to boost, you only get 2 saving throw proficiencies out of 6, and with standard starting stats, you can likely only get 2 or 3 high stat bonuses. Meaning you will likely have a weak AC or 4 weak saving throws and even if you spend a feat/stat on resiliency(I think thats the feat that gives you procifiency in a saving throw), you still have 3 weak saving throws.
4. 3.5 is better for multiclassing. Melee class characters can multiclass without losing attack progression, stat bonuses and feats are based off of character level so you aren't forced into taking 4 level increments of a class to hold onto stat bonuses/ feats. More abilities stack which is better for multiclassing in general. Though for multiclassing, 5e is better because of simplicity.
5. If you like stacking effects or synergy between abilities, 3.5 is better. 5e has a very complicated stance toward different abilities stacking and can be confusing. Mage armor, monk/barbarian unarmored defense, wild shape do not stack but in contrast, ranger pets can wear armor and it stacks with their AC and also the ranger proficiency bonus they add to their AC. Things like this can be confusing since there does not appear to be a rhyme or reason to it.
6. 5e restricts magic items more thoroughly than 3.5 although this isn't a very big deal since any dm for 3.5 can restrict access to magic items and crafting feats as well without spending any amount of effort or time. So the magic mart isn't a hard issue to fix. But by core rules, the caster's ability to craft endless loot has been fixed in 5e. which is good.
7. In core 5e, classes have more level to level abilities of interest with archetypes.

So I find it a mixed bag. If your dm and group of player's are new to both dnd 3.5 and 5e, then 5e will be an easier system to pick up and enjoy. If your group knows both systems well, I prefer 3.5 because having more options is always better.

[Chronos]

Quoth Baptor, a couple of pages ago:

In 3.5e
Creating monsters or NPCs from scratch by the rules took hours and hours of tedious work.

In 5e
I can make you a legal creature from scratch in minutes if I have a pocket calculator.
This looks exactly backwards, to me. Or rather, you can create a monster in minutes in 5e because any collection of stats you can come up with is a valid monster. But there's nothing in the system to tell you which stats to put together. In 3.5, by contrast, it all came down to following a few simple rules: Pick a creature type, pick ability scores, and pick a number of HD, and you're most of the way there, since everything else derives from those. You might need to look up just what BAB an aberration gets, or something like that, but it's simple. With 5e, though... What attack bonus should this creature get? I dunno, eyeball it. What saves should it get? I dunno, eyeball it. What DC should its abilities be? I dunno, eyeball it. You end up having to make a separate decision for everything, and making those decisions is what really takes a lot of time.


Quoth Gritmonger:

Regarding 5th edition skills: there's more in the toolbox than just the old endless plus stacking... you can apply advantage and disadvantage, which effectively add or take away enough to make a difference.
Only in the middle of the range. Advantage and/or disadvantage becomes much less significant at the ends of the range, which is where the problem is most significant to begin with. Advantage will turn a 50% chance into a 75% chance, which is a big deal... but it'll only turn a 5% chance into a 10% chance, which is still probably in "don't bother" territory. Likewise, disadvantage will turn a 50% chance into a 25% chance, but it'll only turn a 95% chance into a 90% chance, which is still "don't worry" territory.

Put it this way: I'm trained in physics. As a result, there are questions in physics that I can get right pretty much all of the time, but which an untrained person will be pretty much unable to get right at all. Even with advantage and disadvantage, 5e just has no way of modeling that amount of disparity in skill. And it's not even like I'm a legendary physics hero of the ages, or anything: I don't even have a PhD. There are physicists who are as far beyond me as I am beyond the untrained commoner (that is, questions I wouldn't have a hope of getting right, they can get right consistently).

[Gritmonger]

Only in the middle of the range. Advantage and/or disadvantage becomes much less significant at the ends of the range, which is where the problem is most significant to begin with. Advantage will turn a 50% chance into a 75% chance, which is a big deal... but it'll only turn a 5% chance into a 10% chance, which is still probably in "don't bother" territory. Likewise, disadvantage will turn a 50% chance into a 25% chance, but it'll only turn a 95% chance into a 90% chance, which is still "don't worry" territory.

Put it this way: I'm trained in physics. As a result, there are questions in physics that I can get right pretty much all of the time, but which an untrained person will be pretty much unable to get right at all. Even with advantage and disadvantage, 5e just has no way of modeling that amount of disparity in skill. And it's not even like I'm a legendary physics hero of the ages, or anything: I don't even have a PhD. There are physicists who are as far beyond me as I am beyond the untrained commoner (that is, questions I wouldn't have a hope of getting right, they can get right consistently).


...and the +17 from expertise (+6 x 2) plus ability score (+5 for a 20 Int, sorry had it wrong before) doesn't factor in at that point?

If you're looking at DC20 Physics Problems, even Homer Simpson can accidentally get a number close to the mass of the Higgs Boson. It doesn't make it reliable, or consistent, or trustworthy.

If you take you (20th level character with 20 Int) versus a Commoner (0th level, no Int bonus) then roll 1d20 -

On average you'll be rolling 10 1/2 + 17 - so you'll easily make the check most every time. You'd have to roll a 1 or 2 to fail outright - failure, roughly, without advantage of 10% of the time.

The commoner will be rolling 10 1/2. And won't get it but 5% of the time. And that's without disadvantage.
Failure 95% of the time.

Factoring in disadvantage, and the commoner's chances go down to 2 in every thousand, based on this reading of the probabilities...
http://andrewgelman.com/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/

...while the +17 expert with advantage will roll a 3 or higher 99% of the time...

Nothing is a total slam-dunk anymore, nor is it patently impossible below DC20, but I guess that's bounded accuracy for you. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[AmbientRaven]

3.x is much better for the "away from the table" game of building and optimizing characters (and arguing about them on forums).

5e is better for playing D&D.


I love 5e.
It is MUCH more enjoyable to play. Especially wheny ou have new players in the group. it is easier to learn for a new player, and, makes games more fun as a DM.

My play group is 4 new players and 1 3.5 player. Everyone had the basics down quickly, and, not having to keep track of a million skill points, stacking effects ect makes the game easier.
Classes may feel dumbed down, but to me they feel more natural.
The classes are more balanced. Fighter types are more in line with casters now and stand a much better chance, and, all classes can be built in funw ays.
The 'weakest" class is still strong (infact our parties ranger has more kills than the other 4 combined)

all in all I am a HUGE fan of 5e

[Kurald Galain]

...and the +17 from expertise (+6 x 2) plus ability score (+5 for a 20 Int, sorry had it wrong before) doesn't factor in at that point?

If you can only model an average forum user (who self-admittedly isn't a grandmaster of his field) as a legendery twentieth-level rogue then your system has issues, yes.

In RPGs, I like playing characters that are better than my real-life self, not characters that are worse.

[Gritmonger]

If you can only model an average forum user (who self-admittedly isn't a grandmaster of his field) as a legendery twentieth-level rogue then your system has issues, yes.

In RPGs, I like playing characters that are better than my real-life self, not characters that are worse.

Uh, no, that was not what I was doing.

I was demonstrating that at top level, a 20th level rogue or bard or multiclass who had taken a single level of rogue could easily outclass the commoner in nearly every case (nearly one in a million against), which was part of the complaint. The idea that no level of skill was enough to always outdo a commoner.

If you're talking lower level, then a rogue at first level might have +6 or +7 in his back pocket, and shouldn't expect to always outdo a commoner.

And even then it depends on the DC of the check. Even a first level character at least has a shot at a 25 DC, versus the commoner who does not have a prayer.

[Kurald Galain]

I was demonstrating that at top level, a 20th level rogue or bard or multiclass who had taken a single level of rogue could easily outclass the commoner in nearly every case (nearly one in a million against), which was part of the complaint. The idea that no level of skill was enough to always outdo a commoner.
Check your math. It's not every remotely one in a million; the actual odds are one in sixty seven.

And yes, the problem is that a trained/veteran adventurer cannot reliably beat a commoner at anything. Only a legendary top-level rogue or bard is allowed to be that competent at skills, and then only at skills related to his primary ability. Contrast this with most other RPGs, which have no problem being a low to moderate level adventurer (of any class) to be good at skills (on any ability).

It's simply that some of us like our characters to be actually good at skills, in the sense that characters in common fiction are often good at skills. While this is clearly not the only way to play RPGs, it is also clearly a way that 5E does not allow.

[Gritmonger]

Check your math. It's not every remotely one in a million; the actual odds are one in sixty seven.

And yes, the problem is that a trained/veteran adventurer cannot reliably beat a commoner at anything. Only a legendary top-level rogue or bard is allowed to be that competent at skills, and then only at skills related to his primary ability. Contrast this with most other RPGs, which have no problem being a low to moderate level adventurer (of any class) to be good at skills (on any ability).

It's simply that some of us like our characters to be actually good at skills, in the sense that characters in common fiction are often good at skills. While this is clearly not the only way to play RPGs, it is also clearly a way that 5E does not allow.

I'm not sure what you mean by "good at skills."

A first level character is going to be hitting a DC10 skill level on a relatively frequent basis while a commoner will run about 50%. And higher DC's are even more out of a commoner's reach. But not impossible, except for DCs greater than 20. I'd call that good. Not perfect, not infallible, not even expert at first level, but not as bad as a commoner.

I might have made a mistake not mentioning advantage and disadvantage with regard to 20th level with advantage vs. commoner with disadvantage, where there's a 99% chance of the 20th level getting 20, while a two in one thousand chance of the commoner getting 20 - so the combination of 20th less than 20 and commoner with 20 in a case of advantage and disadvantage is not that high, not 1 in 67. It was trying to take the extreme scenario, to see if it was still as possible for a commoner to beat the highest level of achievement, roughly.

This also presumes attributes are not somehow enhanced beyond 20 (not applicable with normal advancement, but possible with magic) which might skew it still more.

And of course it is still not guaranteed. Nearly so, but not totally.

When I work professionally, I am generally good at my job. Better than a nonexpert. But I'm hardly infallible, unless my job is not challenging at all. And not every nonexpert is completely terrible either.

What comes into play in some of this is extremely narrow fields of knowledge, where gnomes, for instance, have some advantage on checks regarding mechanisms.

So, I'm not quite sure what you're expecting. You could pull in the old mechanics of taking 10 or taking 20.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not sure what you mean by "good at skills."

You're good if you can reliably perform an easy task. You're an expert if you can reliably perform a hard task. Fair?

[archaeo]

In my opinion, archaeo is spot-on (and gets major kudos for so accurately representing viewpoints he doesn’t agree with).

Thank you, Xetheral.


Only (a LOT) of time will tell whether 5e’s problems interfere with its adoption (and longevity). It may simply be that for a wide range of groups and playstyles, the complaints Archaeo identifies simply aren’t problematic. If so, fantastic! But because three of those complaints are, as I argue, more challenging to address than the common complaints of 3.x, if enough groups find them distasteful, they may well drift away to other systems.

I tend to disagree fundamentally with the idea that 5e is difficult to master or difficult to tame to an individual table's needs. Is it the simplest possible TRPG? Of course not -- part of D&D's charm under the auspices of WotC is its genuine attempt to marry crunch and simplicity. I would argue that 4e and 5e broadly accomplish this, though both games have wildly different goals in mind.

The critiques I brought up, in my opinion, are largely matters of taste. Not everyone is going to like the skill implementation, the class balance, or the scarceness of the rules. Generally, I think these are all great strengths of the system. Let me turn those critiques around:

1. Skllls: The 5e system eschews all of the bookkeeping and scaling in favor of a simplified skill paradigm that focuses on providing ease of use. Skills are easy to keep track of and are largely dependent on core parts of your stats and class rather than serving as a massive subsystem. The corner cases that exist only impact the game when the DM departs from common sense in order to follow the rules blindly, which the system goes out of its way to tell you to avoid.

2. Rule Clarity: Frankly, I find flexibility for individual tables more important than continuity across tables. I also think people shouldn't play TRPGs with one another if they don't have the decency to communicate about the rules. There is no competitive D&D league, no ladder to climb; the goal should be harmony and fun, and I don't think it's onerous to expect DMs and players to abide by that goal. Furthermore, rule clarity will only go up as time goes on, especially given WotC's stated mission of treating the rules as a living document.

3. Class Balance: Out of the box, the PHB provides enough class balance for virtually every table. The system also provides a ridiculous wealth of options to tweak this balance to your liking via the PHB and DMG. A given table should have very little difficulty finding a set of optional rules or incredibly simple house rules to tweak things if necessary.

(Also, 3.5: Class Effectiveness: The system openly tells you, in the first pages of the PHB, what the tiers of play are across levels. Starting at level 1 is a choice, not a mandate, and I feel that 5e's combat becomes significantly more crunchy and interesting at higher levels. Starting at level 3 or 4 is an incredibly reasonable option.)

4. Magic Items: Again, the DMG does not actually skimp on this. It provides pretty robust guidelines for a simple magic item economy should one desire it. It also gives broad expectations of magic item acquirement over a campaign, tweaks for low and high magic campaigns, and enough guidance to enjoy simplified trade in items. It also seems to be super clear to me that it's an area the developers are planning to further explore in future supplements.

I think 5e already has an admirable amount of flexibility, a simple system that offers easy tinkering owing to the simplified mechanics that even an idiot like me can grasp, and a fairly bright-looking future that promises further development and refinement.

However, it's already super clear where I stand on the edition, so I'll leave it at that.


It's simply that some of us like our characters to be actually good at skills, in the sense that characters in common fiction are often good at skills. While this is clearly not the only way to play RPGs, it is also clearly a way that 5E does not allow.

Personally, I think you could easily achieve this in 5e with just the options presented in the DMG. The less granular skill systems (Background Proficiency and Personality Trait Proficiency) would probably allow DMs and players far more flexibility in defining their areas of expertise. Alternately, Hero Points seem like a fine way to ensure that players will always have the ability to enjoy the upper hand in skill contests and checks, and tweaking the number of them and the ways in which they can be used seems easy enough to me.

Edited to add:


You're good if you can reliably perform an easy task. You're an expert if you can reliably perform a hard task. Fair?

If a DM feels a character can reliably preform a task, the rules specifically tell the DM to not call for any roll at all. The DMG goes into a fair amount of detail into when, how, and why DMs should call for a check.

It is also worth noting that a failure does not have to be described as the character's personal failure, and it's entirely possible for experts to mess up or make mistakes.

[Stan]

re: rogue vs. commoner, you have to take into account reliable talent. At 11th, level (assuming 20 dex), the minimum result for a rogue on a dex skill they're proficient in is 19, 23 if they have expertise. By 20th, those numbers increase to 21 and 27. The rogue can easily get to a point where their min is greater than the commoner's max and they win every time.

I don't have much problem with 1st level commoners being nearly as good as heroes in skills in many cases (no expertise or special skill tricks such as the rogue and the bard). The difference between a hero and a commoner isn't who can make a better horseshoe or who is a better salesperson.



It is also worth noting that a failure does not have to be described as the character's personal failure,

I've had similar arguments for years. How could a 20th level fighter ever miss a goblin? How could an expert climber ever slip? The roll represents variability and the PC is not the only source of variability. Someone might lose their footing in the chaos of battle or some material might be defective, etc.

[Kurald Galain]

1. Skllls: The 5e system eschews all of the bookkeeping and scaling in favor of a simplified skill paradigm that focuses on providing ease of use.
In no edition of D&D do skills require bookkeeping or are they hard to use. This was really not a part of the game that needed to be simplified.


If a DM feels a character can reliably preform a task, the rules specifically tell the DM to not call for any roll at all. The DMG goes into a fair amount of detail into when, how, and why DMs should call for a check.
So what you're saying is that the skill rules don't actually work, and that the DM should be aware of when exactly they don't work, and tell the players not to use them in those cases.

That's a bunch of extra steps that wouldn't be necessary if the skill system actually gave the results that it should (you know, like in most RPGs; it's not that hard to write a system that does that).

[Kurald Galain]

re: rogue vs. commoner, you have to take into account reliable talent. At 11th, level (assuming 20 dex), the minimum result for a rogue on a dex skill they're proficient in is 19, 23 if they have expertise. By 20th, those numbers increase to 21 and 27. The rogue can easily get to a point where their min is greater than the commoner's max and they win every time.
Precisely. So the only character in 5E that can become good at skills is a rogue or bard, and then only at high level, and then only on skills related to dexterity (or charisma, in the bard's case).

As opposed to other systems for heroic fantasy, where you can easily make a character that's good at something. Because that's what heroes are.

[Stan]

Precisely. So the only character in 5E that can become good at skills is a rogue or bard, and then only at high level, and then only on skills related to dexterity (or charisma, in the bard's case).

Class has a big effect - those are the skill monkey classes. But it doesn't have to be their primary ability score - that is likely to make a difference of 2-3 pts.

But you're moving the goalpost. The above example is not being good at a skill. It's being so damn amazing that others won't even bother trying. A +5 difference is enough to have a serious impact on the outcome.

[Kurald Galain]

But you're moving the goalpost. The above example is not being good at a skill. It's being so damn amazing that others won't even bother trying. A +5 difference is enough to have a serious impact on the outcome.

No, I'm not. Once again, "You're good if you can reliably perform an easy task. You're an expert if you can reliably perform a hard task. Fair?"

These are normal human skill levels; it's not even olympic or nobel prize level. Most heroic RPGs on the market allow any character to be good right from the beginning, and expert about halfway through their career. By contrast, in 5E you can become good only around level 13, and you can never become an expert except if you're a rogue or bard, and in both cases this only works for skills tied to your primary ability score. And we're still not talking about olympic or nobel-prize skill levels, either.

[Solusek]

Precisely. So the only character in 5E that can become good at skills is a rogue or bard, and then only at high level, and then only on skills related to dexterity (or charisma, in the bard's case).

As opposed to other systems for heroic fantasy, where you can easily make a character that's good at something. Because that's what heroes are.

So this is getting waaaay off topic now (sorry), but my first thoughts on how to 'fix' this skills problem is such:

1.) Gives Rogues and Bards their Expertise in two skills as normal.
2.) Give all other classes expertise in two skills at somewhere around level 7-9.
3.) Give Rogues and Bards Double Expertise (3x proficiency) in two skills at the time they currently get their two additional expertise skills (So that they end up with 2x regular expertise and 2x double expertise skills).
4.) Now adjust DC's of things in your game to compensate.

This wouldn't be perfect, but it would go a long way towards at least making all higher level characters significantly better than the average untrained person in a couple of areas.

[archaeo]

In no edition of D&D do skills require bookkeeping or are they hard to use. This was really not a part of the game that needed to be simplified.

Uh? Compare the skills in the PHB with the material in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/skills.htm). Or open up your 3.5 PHB and honestly tell me that those rules are easy to use. They're certainly comprehensive! Look at that ridiculous table for class skills! Look at the table entitled "Skill Synergies," I mean, jeez. It may lead to beautiful simulationism, and I'm sure if you're used to playing with those rules (or whatever part of those rules the table actually uses, because c'mon) it works fine, but I would absolutely loathe having to explain this mess of rules to anyone at all.


So what you're saying is that the skill rules don't actually work, and that the DM should be aware of when exactly they don't work, and tell the players not to use them in those cases.

No, I'm saying that the skill rules include the provision for the DM to use common sense and a modicum of awareness to decide when it's necessary or desirable to ask players to roll a skill check. The times when you say "they don't work" are exactly those times when the DM should think, "it makes no sense to call for a check because the outcome is not in question." That's the skill system working, as far as 5e is concerned; you don't have players roll useless checks that only confirm that, yes, 100% of the time they accomplish this task or win this opposed check.


That's a bunch of extra steps that wouldn't be necessary if the skill system actually gave the results that it should (you know, like in most RPGs; it's not that hard to write a system that does that).

Saying, "You don't need to roll, you just do it" or "It's impossible for your character to do this" doesn't really strike me as "a bunch of extra steps," dude.

[Milo v3]

No, I'm saying that the skill rules include the provision for the DM to use common sense and a modicum of awareness to decide when it's necessary or desirable to ask players to roll a skill check. The times when you say "they don't work" are exactly those times when the DM should think, "it makes no sense to call for a check because the outcome is not in question." That's the skill system working, as far as 5e is concerned; you don't have players roll useless checks that only confirm that, yes, 100% of the time they accomplish this task or win this opposed check.
But because of how small the modifiers are, the outcome is in question. Thus necessitating a roll, thus giving the chance that the expert will fail at something simple and the unskilled will get perfect through luck.

Also, if your DM is just going to do that, why bother having a skill system at all?

[themaque]

But because of how small the modifiers are, the outcome is in question. Thus necessitating a roll, thus giving the chance that the expert will fail at something simple and the unskilled will get perfect through luck.

Also, if your DM is just going to do that, why bother having a skill system at all?

Because the game is enhanced by at least a small bit of randomness and not everything laying in the hands solely of the GM. If you don't agree with this system, that's fair, but it doesn't mean the system is broken.

3.P was made to have a distinct and scaling system of DC's for almost any action you could think of, almost independent of GM action. This put players and GM's on neutral terms in regards to such things 80-90% of the time. the 15th level thief could roll his slight of hand against the blind man, but his skill is so high he can't fail. If he is trying to do the same thing to the 14th level paladin, he has a high enough DC he might fail.

This system is designed for GM's to make judgment calls for most things, and only make a call when it's close enough to require that bit of random luck. GM says The master thief doesn't even need a roll to steal from a blind man, but it's pretty close when he is trying to pick the pocket of the chief constable, and thus requires a roll.

If you and your GM like/trust each other this can be a lot of fun! But you do have to be working in the right paradigm.

If you want something more concrete stick to Pathfinder.

Neither is wrong and both can be fun. You can be highly effective without having a concrete +36 to a roll but it sure does give you a fuzzy feeling to have that concrete proof of awesome.

[mephnick]

There are passive scores for every check though. You can automatically pass any medium skill check at level 1 with proficiency. You can "reliably" pass any hard check at level 20. Without rolling. Something you aren't trained in isn't reliable. I don't get what the issue is?

[Chronos]

And if it's so easy to just say "You're good at this, you don't need to roll", then why didn't WotC do it, instead of foisting it off on the DM? They were able to pull it off in previous editions. In 3rd, if your skill modifier plus one was at least equal to the DC, then you didn't need to roll. That's what "you're so good that you don't need to roll" means. Where is the comparable point in 5e?

And even if we can roughly model the difference between me and an untrained commoner using a high-level skill-based character, where then does a Feynman or an Einstein fit on that scale? We can't make them higher level than me, because we're already assuming for some reason that I'm level 20. We can't make them smarter than me, because we're already up against the ability score cap. We can't give them expertise-like abilities, because we've already given those all to me.

[kaoskonfety]

Off topic but... still on topic...

Recalling non-weapon proficiency rules and looking at this feels like we are arguing over gas or electric heat in our new 2 story home when last year we were living out of a box.

Good times.
3rd simulated highly varied skill level and high level competence well and it was one of the big bell and whistles for the edition. I think I shall miss it a bit.
5th does not bother with this... and I don't care. Because when I'm looking at a fighter with persuade and deception, I'm looking at a dedicated warrior, skilled at combat, defence and tactics. Who can lie and negotiate. Not someone running an Oceans Eleven con - that's the bard over there talking the duke into pardoning your party of the slaughter of 20 men in that "misunderstanding". Could you fighter manage it? Yes, on a good day, on most days with some smooth role play for advantage or inspiration. The Bard will do it most days, sometimes even if they are exhausted and fresh from the prison cells. The charisma dumped assassin would have an outside shot, but would be better served avoiding the situation entirely.

The fact that you NEED to multi class into bard or rogue to be that good at something is a bit off putting - several people seem to be allowing feats to do it in a limited fashion (so your fighter can also be a con man, he was brushing up on that instead of Pole arm Mastery, which seems neat and fairly balancing)

[themaque]

And if it's so easy to just say "You're good at this, you don't need to roll", then why didn't WotC do it, instead of foisting it off on the DM? They were able to pull it off in previous editions. In 3rd, if your skill modifier plus one was at least equal to the DC, then you didn't need to roll. That's what "you're so good that you don't need to roll" means. Where is the comparable point in 5e?

The comparable point is where the GM and player agrees it to be.

Because time and time again this edition is written to give the judgment call to the GM. With half the rules being optional, skills being run on a case by case basis, these rules are a rough framework that the GM uses to make the game his own. The way I run my campaign could be drastically different how YOU run your game and we are both using things RAW.

More than any other edition, this feels built around Rule 0. This really only breaks down if you lose trust between GM/Player or are trying to create concrete rules to argue over on message boards.

[mephnick]

In 3rd, if your skill modifier plus one was at least equal to the DC, then you didn't need to roll. That's what "you're so good that you don't need to roll" means. Where is the comparable point in 5e?

Passive score. It's literally the exact same thing.

[Kurald Galain]

To quote The Giant, "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."

[mephnick]

To quote The Giant, "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."


Man, I'd hate to see the Giant try and play the dozens of actual rules-lite TTRPGs out there, many of which are quite popular. 5e gives you tons of rules comparatively.

[themaque]

And if you want everything spelled out to the Nth degree stick to pathfinder. No harm no foul.

Mechanically it isn't broken, just working in a different paradigm.

I play Pathfinder and 5e Simultaneously on different nights, and each game scratches a different itch.

[Stan]

To quote The Giant, "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."

It's not a binary situation; it's a scale. How many rules do you need? On one end, the whole things would be "This is an rpg. Have Fun!" The other end is 50 thick tomes to cover every situation, including formulas for calculating every possible outcome. It's a matter of taste and different editions fall on different points of the scale. At least 21st century D&D is more coherent on this issue than earlier editions, picking how specific they wanna be rather than being overly specific on some points and blank on others.

I find lack of rules clarity to be largely an issue in forums and with rules lawyers trying to force raw over rai. At the table, it rarely comes up in my experience. With 3e/PF, we often wind up fudging a situation than taking the time to look it up so we could keep the action moving. To me, that suggests the system had more rules than we needed. Maybe that's due to our advanced age - our failing facilities can't remember as much and we grew up on 1e so are used to improvising.

It's not entirely fair to compare 3e and 5e on amount of rules. So far, 5e doesn't have an aggressive release schedule. But give it time, and 5e will have the fullness of rules (or a bloated mess, depending on perspective) that 3e has. 2e was relatively clean until they foisted skills and powers on us.

One thing I think I think most people will agree on is that almost no one should be playing 3e at this time. If that's the style you like, Pathfinder does it better.

[obryn]

Addressing the OP, I would play or run 5e. I would not run, and don't enjoy playing, 3.x or any of its offshoots. (Although, I must note, I'd rather play or run 4e or RC/BECMI D&D than either.)

5e pretty much operates on the 3.x paradigm, and it does it with cleaned-up, less-broken rules.

[Mr.Moron]

But because of how small the modifiers are, the outcome is in question. Thus necessitating a roll, thus giving the chance that the expert will fail at something simple and the unskilled will get perfect through luck.

Also, if your DM is just going to do that, why bother having a skill system at all?

I've always kind of considered the roll part of a skill check to representing needing to do that thing quickly, with no intermediary errors, or with some other constraint that makes for tight allowances on success.

Put another way the range of results on the die do represent a range of possibilities but the entirety of that range (rolling) is not always part of the equation.

Consider searching for something in a pile of containers. Given 5 minutes you could separate and easily turn each container upside down. Given 1 minute you've got to feel around and have some way of making a guess or narrowing possibilities

If the object is simply sitting in one of the containers say, it's sure fire thing. Simply looking through each container is enough to find it. You might call this an easy task at DC 10 to do in 1 minute. However if you have 5 minutes there isn't any reason to call for a skill check no matter how poor your modifier is. Even a cross-eyed 7 year old with a modifier of -5 (Needs 15+) is going to find it in that time. There is no need to ask for a check from anyone.

If the object is in a hidden compartment in one of the containers, simply looking through them isn't enough. This might be a moderate task at DC15. Given 5 minutes someone reasonably familiar (+5, a starting PC) can probably be assumed to find it no check needed, they're bound to hear the telltale rattle in that item. However someone less skilled (+2) might need to roll in any circumstance, or maybe the threshold where we can waive the roll for them is at 8 or 9 minutes. Even the reasonably familiar PC +5 needs to roll at 1 minute, but someone good (+9) might not be asked for a roll until they need to do it in 30 seconds.

The die is an abstraction and a very fuzzy and broad one a that. If your character successfully searches that pile of containers with 10+5 and finds it in the 6th container out of 20 he picks up in that process, how much of choosing the first 5 wrong was luck, pressure or skill? Would getting an 16 mean you found in the 5th instead of 20th, does it change if that 16 was because you rolled 1 higher or had a modifier 1 higher? There isn't an answer for any of those questions, the game doesn't provide them.

Now 3.P tried to formalize this effect somewhat by having discrete options to "Take 10" or "Take 20" and they've discarded those rules here. I don't think that means that the general principle that accounted for those mechanics as outlined above is invalid in any way. They've just moved it to the realm of subjective call where sometimes you can "Take 9" or "Take 8" or "Take 17" or whatever if it seems like the difficulty and circumstances make it likely your character wouldn't have to roll. In keeping in the general spirit of the game the "Take 10" effect is now a ruling, not a rule and can be a applied a bit more liberally or conservatively as it fits the game world.

I'm not really trying to defend the skill system here, which I too find falls a bit short though for very different reasons than you guys. I'm just not sure that the idea the outcome of the same DC15 check must be in question for Ms.+8 under the same circumstances it is for Mr.+3 holds up unless you look at the die as some kind of physical law within the universe rather than as an abstraction meant to give a way to provide for failure in adventuring situations.

[Kurald Galain]

Man, I'd hate to see the Giant try and play the dozens of actual rules-lite TTRPGs out there, many of which are quite popular. 5e gives you tons of rules comparatively.

It's about quality of rules, not quantity. The dozens of popular rules-light TTRPGs still give tools to use in the game; whereas 5E gives you tools that don't actually work (i.e. the skill rules that don't let anyone become good at a skill, except for top-level rogues/bards) with the added blank check (i.e. the note that DMs may ignore said rules).

[INDYSTAR188]

Uh? Compare the skills in the PHB with the material in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/skills.htm). Or open up your 3.5 PHB and honestly tell me that those rules are easy to use. They're certainly comprehensive! Look at that ridiculous table for class skills! Look at the table entitled "Skill Synergies," I mean, jeez. It may lead to beautiful simulationism, and I'm sure if you're used to playing with those rules (or whatever part of those rules the table actually uses, because c'mon) it works fine, but I would absolutely loathe having to explain this mess of rules to anyone at all.


+1. I was going to respond to his post with this. How many skill points do you get and what skills should you put them into? What's the point cost for an untrained skill? I mean its just silly. There are options for alternate skill systems (as you pointed out) in the DMG. I don't think it's necissarily the perfect skill system but it definitely works for games at my table.

And regarding untrained, common folks being able to beat master craftsmen... as DM there are certain things I would say a person simply cannot do. Or rather, there are certain things a person cannot succeed at. The system uses the d20 which implies there is some swinginess in results but its not always necissary to roll the d20.

To OP: I have enjoyed what little 5E I've DM'd so far. My preference for D&D systems at this point is: 5E -> 4E -> not playing -> 3.P. I find the 3rd edition system to be very complicated and it seems to promote confusing rules (like grapple) and discussions about how X works with Y. Also, I find that my players want to use obscure options from sourcebooks I might not have and are familiar with most of the material where I am not (it can be very onerous to read and requires significant time investment).

Conversely, I find 4E and 5E to be easy to understand, DM, and play. I think there is a place for 3.P and I don't disparage people for wanting to play it, but I cannot DM it.

[wolfstone]

Yeah, after reading some of 3.5 PHB, I admit that all the math is rather mind-boggling, esp. to a person like me for whom math has always been the worst subject. Even some of the high DPR number crunching in 4e leaves me feeling lost. It sounds as if 5e really cut down on the math by a wide margin, compared to the 3s, if I'm interpreting things correctly.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, after reading some of 3.5 PHB, I admit that all the math is rather mind-boggling, esp. to a person like me for whom math has always been the worst subject. Even some of the high DPR number crunching in 4e leaves me feeling lost. It sounds as if 5e really cut down on the math by a wide margin, compared to the 3s, if I'm interpreting things correctly.

While I fully agree that 3E is overcomplicated in several areas, its skill system really is not an example of them. "Each time you level up, you can distribute four points among your skills" is not exactly rocket science.

[Knaight]

They really shouldn't be in 3.x for balance reasons either.

I'm convinced that nothing outside SRD in 3.x was play tested. At all.
The cleric, druid, and wizard along with several of the most broken spells in the game are in the SRD. It's not the high point of D&D balance, and a lot of stuff outside it looks significantly better in that regard, even if it wasn't play tested as much.


This looks exactly backwards, to me. Or rather, you can create a monster in minutes in 5e because any collection of stats you can come up with is a valid monster. But there's nothing in the system to tell you which stats to put together. In 3.5, by contrast, it all came down to following a few simple rules: Pick a creature type, pick ability scores, and pick a number of HD, and you're most of the way there, since everything else derives from those. You might need to look up just what BAB an aberration gets, or something like that, but it's simple.
Sure, you pick things and a bunch of stuff is derived from it. I don't see how this is a simplifying factor - it just adds a ton of hoops to jump through to get your end result, and you end up playing with the feat list, the attribute scores, the number of hit dice, so on and so forth until you get what you want. I'd consider it far easier to just skip to the end result, decide how the creature should be, and implement it. The decisions may be the hard part (though I'd contest that being anywhere near universal, I find that part fairly easy), but they're also the interesting part. Implementation is just long and tedious.


In no edition of D&D do skills require bookkeeping or are they hard to use. This was really not a part of the game that needed to be simplified.
Cross class and class skills. Rank assignments per levels with varying skill caps. Making a high level character with variable int through their levels. The 3e skill system was a mess - it makes GURPS look like it has a simple and easy to deal with skill system, and GURPS is a system which has something like six different skills for fighting with different kinds of swords.

[Elderand]

While I fully agree that 3E is overcomplicated in several areas, its skill system really is not an example of them. "Each time you level up, you can distribute four points among your skills" is not exactly rocket science.

That's disingenuous to the extreme given that the skill system in 3e is vastly more complicated than just "put 4 points amongst your skills"

[sammyp03]

There are a lot of different ways to play D&D and a lot of different approaches. Some people want to treat the game like some kind of religion and the handbooks as sacred texts filled with the wisdom of the ancients; if you’re not using that, you’re not really playing D&D. To a certain degree, this attitude makes sense because it allows for consistency among different groups. Newbies learn a single set of rules and then can play with anyone running a campaign, the game is reasonably well-balanced, and you can let the numbers take a back seat to storytelling.

Things were different when I started playing. The handbooks used to say things like “we’re not trying to tell you how your campaign is going to work. We’re just giving you ideas.” They didn’t have rules for how much magical treasure to award, how to do XP, or even a challenge rating system for monsters. Every campaign was highly individual to the group running through it. And while I’m not calling for a return to AD&D (THACO, anyone?), I do think the attitude of “these rules are more like suggestions based on what worked for us” has influenced me as a DM a great deal.

So I’ve never been shy about changing something to work better. If I’m running a campaign about the saviors of the universe battling epic monsters at the edge of time, I’ll incorporate different rules than if I’m running a campaign about street-level adventurers looking for their next treasure hoard to pillage.

I think each DM should change ways certain rules work so that the game they are running is more enjoyable because that is why we play in the first place right?

[Kurald Galain]

That's disingenuous to the extreme given that the skill system in 3e is vastly more complicated than just "put 4 points amongst your skills"

Don't be ridiculous. The internet (and these forums over here) are full of complaints about 3E, and "oh noes, I can't figure out the skill system" is rare to the point of nonexistence.

[INDYSTAR188]

Don't be ridiculous. The internet (and these forums over here) are full of complaints about 3E, and "oh noes, I can't figure out the skill system" is rare to the point of nonexistence.

There's a difference between complaining a system is not learnable and saying, within the context of a conversation comparing editions of D&D, that the 3.P skill system is more difficult to learn and use than 4E or 5E.

[wolfstone]

While I fully agree that 3E is overcomplicated in several areas, its skill system really is not an example of them. "Each time you level up, you can distribute four points among your skills" is not exactly rocket science.

To be clear, I mean 3.x in general, and not just in regards to skills.

[Elderand]

Don't be ridiculous. The internet (and these forums over here) are full of complaints about 3E, and "oh noes, I can't figure out the skill system" is rare to the point of nonexistence.

And where did I say that was the case ? Oh that's right I didn't, all I did was call you out on your misrepresentation of the simplicity of the 3rd edition skill system.

[mephnick]

I'd probably just let all skill checks use passive scores. Anyone, not just rogues/bards, could easily have a passive check of 20+ in skills they choose proficiency in at max level. That's automatically passing hard skill checks, which seems like it fits within Kurald Galain parameters. There's nothing in the rules that says only perception and stealth get passive scores.

[Zyzzyva]

There's a difference between complaining a system is not learnable and saying, within the context of a conversation comparing editions of D&D, that the 3.P skill system is more difficult to learn and use than 4E or 5E.

Yeah, speaking as a guy who's mostly only run 3.X with introductory parties, the skill system is absolutely the place where I most often broke down and just said "write a four here and a two here and move on." It's giant and full of fiddly math. It's certainly fine once it's been internalized, but I think 5e made a perfectly fine flexibility-simplicity trade off.

[Mr.Moron]

Don't be ridiculous. The internet (and these forums over here) are full of complaints about 3E, and "oh noes, I can't figure out the skill system" is rare to the point of nonexistence.

That's because people posting on forums are likely to be system experts. The complexity and learning curve are problems someone's already overcome by the time they start posting here. That's why the complaints you might see about it are more along the lines of "bloated +70 modifiers make the all the DCs pointless" or "I don't like that you can't make magic items with crafting skills and need to be a caster". Those are the kind of issues that remain relevant for the extremely advanced player of the type found discussing the game on internet forums.

The problem comes up in discussion when contrasting the merits of the two systems because people either GM for, or play with newbies. Maybe because they remember learning the skill system was hard and 5e was a way easier time. They're also likely to see their previous system mastery in a new context as a fiddly headache they don't have to deal with anymore even if they did "Get it" at the time.

[mephnick]

My new player experience with 3.5 skills:

"Sorry, you can't attempt that knowledge check, you aren't trained."

"Oh..that sucks..well I'll put a bunch of points in it!"

"Sorry, you have to spend double the points and it will never really be relevant because the skill system is based on classes that don't need to spend double the points."

"...Well that's stupid."

Or:

"Sorry, you don't know what that thing is. You don't have knowledge nature."

"But..it's a tiger. How can my character not know it's a tiger?"

"Yep, it sure is. The rules say you don't know it's a tiger. Sorry."

[Elderand]

List of complexities in 3.p when it come to skills.

Variable amount of points per level to spend based on int and class per level.
Skills that need to be trained or not, with some skill having some use being usable untrained while other need training.
Cross class skill cost compared to class skill cost.
Synergy bonus.
Variable racial bonus.
Feat influence varying from small bonus to new class skill to skill being prerequisites.

Then, depending on which version of 3.p you're talking about you have more or less skills, different cost or benefits for cross class and class skills, whether or not change to int are retroactive when it comes to number of skill points, whether or not such change are retroactive only when natural or also when the result of magic items.

Compared to 5th edition where the only question is whether you add your proficiency bonus or not, or sometimes double it.

Yeah 5th edition can be swingy as hell when you insist on using it in corner case the book goes out of it's way to say you shouldn't and just go with the common sense result.

Now you can legitimatly argue about preferring a different system, one that you can keep rolling for every situation rather than only when there is some legitimate doubts. But arguing that is not the same as saying the skill system in 5th edition doesn't work. It works, it just doesn't do what you want it to.

And ignoring what the book tells you to do and bullheadedly using the system for something it wasn't meant to do and then claim that as proof it's broken is like arguing a hammer is a bad tool because you can't fix a broken window with it.

[Mr.Moron]

Well to be fair a Tiger is kind of an odd thing to know about from an RP perspective too, assuming your usual kind of vaguely medieval-england-europey-ish setting and your average vaguely commoner-background PC. It's giant orange striped cat that's kind of weird when you think about it. It's probably fair if even someone with a healthy knowledge check doesn't even know what it is.

[kaoskonfety]

My new player experience with 3.5 skills:

"Sorry, you can't attempt that knowledge check, you aren't trained."

"Oh..that sucks..well I'll put a bunch of points in it!"

"Sorry, you have to spend double the points and it will never really be relevant because the skill system is based on classes that don't need to spend double the points."

"...Well that's stupid."

Or:

"Sorry, you don't know what that thing is. You don't have knowledge nature."

"But..it's a tiger. How can my character not know it's a tiger?"

"Yep, it sure is. The rules say you don't know it's a tiger. Sorry."

this was always a sticky one
- what do you mean the DC to know what an elder dragon IS is (whatever dumb ass number it was), I identified a wyrmling last week!, bigger bads needing higher rolls was a bit silly in several cases - on a bad roll the ranger fails to identify a Bear... hilarious Aragorn.
- Spot check rules (and general vision rules)... that left you unable to see a forest fire prior to the round it is killing you

Good times.

I note I cannot locate another thread like this in the 3rd ed sub-forum. I wonder how different the balance of 3rd vs 5th supporters would be over yonder...

[Xetheral]

Now you can legitimatly argue about preferring a different system, one that you can keep rolling for every situation rather than only when there is some legitimate doubts. But arguing that is not the same as saying the skill system in 5th edition doesn't work. It works, it just doesn't do what you want it to.

And ignoring what the book tells you to do and bullheadedly using the system for something it wasn't meant to do and then claim that as proof it's broken is like arguing a hammer is a bad tool because you can't fix a broken window with it.

In the context of this thread I don't feel anyone is arguing the 5e skill system is broken. The back-and-forth on the skill system arose from apparent disagreement over the legitimacy of the complaint about the drawbacks of 5e's skill system.

It seems you agree that disagreement over which system is better is legitimate, but you object to the characterization of 5e's skill system as being unable to model certain situations. You therefore feel that preference for 3.x on those grounds is illegitimate. Is that correct?

[Elderand]

In the context of this thread
It seems you agree that disagreement over which system is better is legitimate, but you object to the characterization of 5e's skill system as being unable to model certain situations. You therefore feel that preference for 3.x on those grounds is illegitimate. Is that correct?

Not quite. What I object to is very much a subtle matter of presentation so forgive me if I cannot convey it articulatly immediatly. English is not my first language and subtle concept may be difficult for me to convey.

What I object to is people saying: In 5th you have these nonsense situation where a master crafter lose a contest with a 3 year old using wet clay.
I object to that because it's not true, if you do what 5th edition tell you to do, you don't bother with a skill roll because the result is obvious.

So the situation does not come up anymore than it would in 3rd edition. The way to arrive to the expected result is different but you arrive there none the less.

What I don't object to is instead saying: In 5th edition you have to go outside the skill system in some situation whereas in 3rd you can stay entirely whithin it.

It is perfectly valid to argue over which solution you prefer. It is not valid to pretend the solution given by 5th is invalid.

Which skill system you prefer is not amatter of which is better (as in, has less problems) because they want to do, at a very basic level, very different things.
One Aim to be fast and simple with sometimes the need to ignore it because not everything will fit in, while the other aim to cover every situation but at the cost of complexity and sometime abberant results as well.

There is no best system, there is only a question of which goal you prefer and which problems you can live with. And that doesn't apply only to the skill system but to the entire games.

[Xetheral]

Not quite. What I object to is very much a subtle matter of presentation so forgive me if I cannot convey it articulatly immediatly. English is not my first language and subtle concept may be difficult for me to convey.

What I object to is people saying: In 5th you have these nonsense situation where a master crafter lose a contest with a 3 year old using wet clay.
I object to that because it's not true, if you do what 5th edition tell you to do, you don't bother with a skill roll because the result is obvious.

So the situation does not come up anymore than it would in 3rd edition. The way to arrive to the expected result is different but you arrive there none the less.

What I don't object to is instead saying: In 5th edition you have to go outside the skill system in some situation whereas in 3rd you can stay entirely whithin it.

It is perfectly valid to argue over which solution you prefer. It is not valid to pretend the solution given by 5th is invalid.

Which skill system you prefer is not amatter of which is better (as in, has less problems) because they want to do, at a very basic level, very different things.
One Aim to be fast and simple with sometimes the need to ignore it because not everything will fit in, while the other aim to cover every situation but at the cost of complexity and sometime abberant results as well.

There is no best system, there is only a question of which goal you prefer and which problems you can live with. And that doesn't apply only to the skill system but to the entire games.

Thanks for clarifying! I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand your position better.

There's part of your reply that I'd like to address further:


It is perfectly valid to argue over which solution you prefer. It is not valid to pretend the solution given by 5th is invalid.

This could simply be an issue of language confusion, but many people would consider a solution that doesn't solve a given problem to indeed be an invalid solution. And it's not a simply a matter of pretending: some people don't find adequate the suggested solution of not rolling under some circumstances. In particular, there are no guidelines on when not to roll, and that exacerbates the complementary problem that with instinct-guided DCs players have no way of knowing how good they are at a given skill until they learn the style of a particular DM. (And even then, not all DMs are consistent.)

[obryn]

Gosh, I'm of two minds here.

First is that skill systems in D&D are - in general - awful. Adding in a discrete skill list alongside your class, race, level, background, potential feats, etc., just doesn't make good sense to me anymore. So by simplifying and de-emphasizing skills, 5e is going in the right direction.

On the other hand, boy, a high-level Ranger should be able to climb slick, wet stone without a problem. Instead, because the actual math used in 5e's skills is so wonky, it is a big problem.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

On the other hand, boy, a high-level Ranger should be able to climb slick, wet stone without a problem.

Why exactly should anyone be able to do that without a problem? That sounds like exactly the sort of situation where even an expert would need to take care.

[Chronos]

What I object to is people saying: In 5th you have these nonsense situation where a master crafter lose a contest with a 3 year old using wet clay.
I object to that because it's not true, if you do what 5th edition tell you to do, you don't bother with a skill roll because the result is obvious.
The problem is that, with the 5e rules, it's not obvious. In 3e, where the master would have a bonus 20 or more higher than the toddler, it would be.

And at just what point does it become obvious, anyway? Let's say that we have a long line of craftsmen lined up, from another toddler to an eight-year-old who's helping out around the workshop to an apprentice to a journeyman to a master and so on. The toddler tries his luck against them one at a time. At some point on the line, you say "yeah, the professional just wins". But what about the guy right before that point? You jump abruptly from the toddler having a pretty high chance of success (less than 50%, but still pretty high) to zero chance at all.

[McBars]

To quote The Giant, "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 care not one whit about the Giant's playing preferences.


While I fully agree that 3E is overcomplicated in several areas, its skill system really is not an example of them. "Each time you level up, you can distribute four points among your skills" is not exactly rocket science.


Don't be ridiculous. The internet (and these forums over here) are full of complaints about 3E, and "oh noes, I can't figure out the skill system" is rare to the point of nonexistence.

Don't be so snide; the system obviously is not too difficult for people to use. Just look at some of the people playing 3.x, one clearly does not need to be a MENSA member.

I find the 3.x skill system to be a royal pain in the ass to use though and I suspect when others on here say they are "overly complicated" that is what they mean as well; I want to play an RPG not fill out and track items on a 1040EZ form.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The problem is that, with the 5e rules, it's not obvious. In 3e, where the master would have a bonus 20 or more higher than the toddler, it would be.

And at just what point does it become obvious, anyway? Let's say that we have a long line of craftsmen lined up, from another toddler to an eight-year-old who's helping out around the workshop to an apprentice to a journeyman to a master and so on. The toddler tries his luck against them one at a time. At some point on the line, you say "yeah, the professional just wins". But what about the guy right before that point? You jump abruptly from the toddler having a pretty high chance of success (less than 50%, but still pretty high) to zero chance at all.

You'll have to define what the contest is before anyone can answer that question. Personally I have no idea what this hypothetical opposed check craftsman competition could be.
But I suspect the answer lies somewhere along the lines of the 3 year old not having the skill to even make an attempt, or the contest being of such a simple nature that the master's expertise confers him no real advantage.

If the contest does lie somewhere in between, then yes you'd need a roll off, and each participant would have a chance of winning. That's why you're making them roll for it, because they have a chance to succeed.

[McBars]

you'll have to define what the contest is before anyone can answer that question. Personally i have no idea what this hypothetical opposed check craftsman competition could be.
But i suspect the answer lies somewhere along the lines of the 3 year old not having the skill to even make an attempt, or the contest being of such a simple nature that the master's expertise confers him no real advantage.

If the contest does lie somewhere in between, then yes you'd need a roll off, and each participant would have a chance of winning. That's why you're making them roll for it, because they have a chance to succeed.

craft battle!

[themaque]

And at just what point does it become obvious, anyway? Let's say that we have a long line of craftsmen lined up, from another toddler to an eight-year-old who's helping out around the workshop to an apprentice to a journeyman to a master and so on. The toddler tries his luck against them one at a time. At some point on the line, you say "yeah, the professional just wins". But what about the guy right before that point? You jump abruptly from the toddler having a pretty high chance of success (less than 50%, but still pretty high) to zero chance at all.

Your toddler will fail against anyone and everyone until you get to another small child. The "obvious level" is when it starts to get close enough that you NEED a die roll to differentiate between that random chance?

Even in 3.P I mostly didn't even need a roll until it really mattered or was a life or death occurrence. Or just wanted to show off my high numbers added to the D20.

[Elderand]

This could simply be an issue of language confusion, but many people would consider a solution that doesn't solve a given problem to indeed be an invalid solution. And it's not a simply a matter of pretending: some people don't find adequate the suggested solution of not rolling under some circumstances. In particular, there are no guidelines on when not to roll, and that exacerbates the complementary problem that with instinct-guided DCs players have no way of knowing how good they are at a given skill until they learn the style of a particular DM. (And even then, not all DMs are consistent.)

Yes but the solution given in 5th edition does solve the problem. It may be a fuzzy variable solution, but it's still a solution.
So in the end it is as I said, a matter of what you prefer, some will be happy with the 5th edition solution, some will prefer an in-skill system solution that 3rd edition offer.

Discussing the validity of the solution based on different criterion is alos a valid topic of debate though.
If you consider a solution is only valid when it is an emerging property of the skill system, you won't consider the 5th solution to be valid.
On the other hand if all you want is a way to deal with abberant result and care not one whit whether it is whithin the skill system or not then the 5th solution is valid.

But you have to specify these things when you discuss the issue.
If you specify your criterion and preference then it's a valid answer, just saying 5th is broken and 3rd isn't is a non answer. It's the equivalent of "Because I said so".

Sorry but I'm not sure how to handle multiquotes so Obryn.


On the other hand, boy, a high-level Ranger should be able to climb slick, wet stone without a problem. Instead, because the actual math used in 5e's skills is so wonky, it is a big problem.

That's not a problem with the system. That's a conflict between what you expect and what the system can handle.
People need to realise that overall, 5th edition is less high powered than 3rd was. That's not a problem of the system, that's the paradigm. Just like Exalted Paradigm is to have ridiculously high powered, or for gurps to be usable with all settings.

It's a valid reason for not enjoying the system, but it's not a fault of the system.

[obryn]

Why exactly should anyone be able to do that without a problem? That sounds like exactly the sort of situation where even an expert would need to take care.
Well, ideally, that's where the system should come in.

5e doesn't give you much here. It has contests as straight d20 vs d20 rolls, which is where probability goes to die. :smallsmile: It gives weird Autosuccess variant rules, too, which ignore both Proficiency and Expertise, and are gated behind the DM wanting to use them in the first place.

What's more, the DCs are off. IMO, high-level characters should have a really good shot at beating the "Nearly Impossible" DC at stuff they're proficient in. Instead, unless you have some double-proficiency, a DC of 30 gives you - at best - a 10% chance of success. That's not quite as heroic as I'd prefer.

[obryn]

That's not a problem with the system. That's a conflict between what you expect and what the system can handle.
People need to realise that overall, 5th edition is less high powered than 3rd was. That's not a problem of the system, that's the paradigm. Just like Exalted Paradigm is to have ridiculously high powered, or for gurps to be usable with all settings.

It's a valid reason for not enjoying the system, but it's not a fault of the system.
The Wish spell still exists. As does Meteor Swarm. Climbing up a slippery rope is nothing in comparison.

It is a problem with the system, because the designers were not conscious of the power levels found inside the system itself.


You'll have to define what the contest is before anyone can answer that question. Personally I have no idea what this hypothetical opposed check craftsman competition could be.
This is an issue with opposed d20 rolls more than it is an issue with 5e in particular.

[Zyzzyva]

You'll have to define what the contest is before anyone can answer that question. Personally I have no idea what this hypothetical opposed check craftsman competition could be.

Athena: "That's why Arachne won! We were using 5e skill rules instead of 3.X skill rules! :smallfurious:"

[JFahy]

The Wish spell still exists. As does Meteor Swarm. Climbing up a slippery rope is nothing in comparison.

It is a problem with the system, because the designers were not conscious of the power levels found inside the system itself.

This reminds me of a quote from 2001, where they say they can build systems that are
proof against accident or stupidity, but they can't build one that's proof against deliberate
malice.

I don't understand the complaints about breaking a game with Wish. It feels like you give
someone a car, and they complain because it's possible to drive the car off a cliff. Yes,
of course the system fails if you apply all your effort to making it fail and refuse to make
any effort to keeping it from failing... :smalltongue:

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The Wish spell still exists. As does Meteor Swarm. Climbing up a slippery rope is nothing in comparison.

It is a problem with the system, because the designers were not conscious of the power levels found inside the system itself.

You're shifting the debate now to casters vs mundanes. Or even just magic vs skills in 5e. Climbing up a slippery slope is nothing when you use magic. Spider climb is specifically designed with that task in mind.

[themaque]

What's more, the DCs are off. IMO, high-level characters should have a really good shot at beating the "Nearly Impossible" DC at stuff they're proficient in. Instead, unless you have some double-proficiency, a DC of 30 gives you - at best - a 10% chance of success. That's not quite as heroic as I'd prefer.

THIS right here is the core difference in our opinions of the system. I've said it before and I'll say it again

3.P you start out as Heros, Become Superheroes, and end as gods.

In 5e You start as people, become exceptional, and end as Hero's.

The difference in scale is monumental.

If you are approaching this rules set within the paradigm that a 20th level character should be a god, than YES these rules FAIL.

If you look at them as Human's, exceptional but human non-the-less, than the fact that much of this REMAINS so difficult is fitting with the story.

[obryn]

You're shifting the debate now to casters vs mundanes. Or even just magic vs skills in 5e. Climbing up a slippery slope is nothing when you use magic. Spider climb is specifically designed with that task in mind.
When you make mundane skills this unreliable and spells this reliable, caster vs. mundane is kind of the elephant in the corner. :smallsmile:


THIS right here is the core difference in our opinions of the system. I've said it before and I'll say it again

3.P you start out as Heros, Become Superheroes, and end as gods.

In 5e You start as people, become exceptional, and end as Hero's.

The difference in scale is monumental.

If you are approaching this rules set within the paradigm that a 20th level character should be a god, than YES these rules FAIL.

If you look at them as Human's, exceptional but human non-the-less, than the fact that much of this REMAINS so difficult is fitting with the story.
Nobody's expecting a 20th level character to be a god. "Climbing Slippery Ropes Reliably" isn't exactly a divine domain, you know? :smallwink:


This reminds me of a quote from 2001, where they say they can build systems that are
proof against accident or stupidity, but they can't build one that's proof against deliberate
malice.

I don't understand the complaints about breaking a game with Wish. It feels like you give
someone a car, and they complain because it's possible to drive the car off a cliff. Yes,
of course the system fails if you apply all your effort to making it fail and refuse to make
any effort to keeping it from failing... :smalltongue:
You're misunderstanding the concern. At 17th level, a Wizard can cast Wish. At 17th level, a Ranger can't reliably climb a slippery rope without resorting to spells. That's the core issue; it's the inconsistency in the system's internal power levels.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Well that's just a conceit of 5e, everyone is an average or above-average (sometimes significantly so) mortal, until you use magic. It's the thing in this fiction which allows you to surpass mortal capabilities. So yeah, if you don't use it you'll be more limited.

[themaque]

climbing a slippery slope isn't impossible granted, but you said they should have a Really good Shot at Nearly impossible DC 30. 10% at something Nearly impossible doesn't sound out of reason.

Approaching it to be comparable to 3.P is wanting them to be gods.

This coming from the guy who can EASILY make DC 30 to 50 by level 10 in my chosen fields.

[obryn]

Well that's just a conceit of 5e, everyone is an average or above-average (sometimes significantly so) mortal, until you use magic. It's the thing in this fiction which allows you to surpass mortal capabilities. So yeah, if you don't use it you'll be more limited.
That's pretty terrible, and certainly seems like a failure of game design for a system which has both magical and non-magical characters at level 20!


climbing a slippery slope isn't impossible granted, but you said they should have a Really good Shot at Nearly impossible DC 30. 10% at something Nearly impossible doesn't sound out of reason.
I'd say what a 1st level character should find Nearly Impossible is categorically different from what a 20th level character does. Getting a whole 10% chance is hardly heroic. That's barely any progression at all.

With combat, you have escalating HP, feats, #attacks, etc. making up for the fact that your numbers aren't scaling that much. This allows a sense of progression while keeping bounded accuracy. With skills (and, to a large extent, saving throws), you don't have those non-d20 buffers to fall back on. You only have the raw check.

[Icewraith]

Part of the issue is that 3.5 resolved EVERYTHING via d20 roll. The GM made judgement calls that strongly influenced the rules or could basically determine the outcome of the die (you get a... uhhh... +20 circumstance bonus..."), but you still rolled the die.

5e says, basically, "Don't roll in any scenario where the outcome was never really in question in the first place." It's less clear generally but it's far faster and easier to apply in any specific scenario that may come up at your table.

Really, if you talk about 5e characters not being able to be competent, you're probably setting the DC too high. If there's a possibility a normal person could fail at it, with significant consequences, it's a DC 5. If there are environmental factors making things hard, impose disadvantage. If a character is climbing a cliff, the DC isn't necessarily increased just because the cliff is high, instead the character has to make multiple rolls to reach the top of the cliff. If it's raining or something, disadvantage.

A very difficult cliff to climb- mostly sheer, tiny handholds, might be a dc15. If it's only 15 feet tall (half his speed), Joe commoner can get up it with two good rolls. (Remember, you can't move diagonally through corners, nor can you hover in the air unsupported without flight/levitate) If there's two hundred feet of cliff, Joe commoner is eventually going to biff a roll and fall to his death, or if he does make it, it will be an amazing feat!

[calebrus]

I'd say what a 1st level character should find Nearly Impossible is categorically different from what a 20th level character does. Getting a whole 10% chance is hardly heroic. That's barely any progression at all.

There's your problem.
You're comparing the two on a sliding scale based on level, but that's not how skills work in 5e, and therefore that's not how you should compare them.
Don't look at "what a 20th level character" would consider nearly impossible.
Look at the task, independent of who is attempting it, and base the DC off of that.
In 5e, getting better at something actually means that you get better at it, because DCs don't scale.
The common man has zero chance of accomplishing a nearly impossible task. Heck, he has almost zero chance of accomplishing a very difficult task even when he has help.
A master of his craft still has issues with nearly impossible tasks, but they are within reach, when they weren't for the common man. He's got about a 50/50 shot at something that's very difficult, whereas the common man has almost no chance even with assistance.

5e's skill model is actually really good. But if you compare it in a way that is illogical (like scaling your expectations for a 20th level character when there is no scaling of DCs) then it seems to not make sense, but that's because you're using a nonsensical tool for comparison.

How good is that lock that needs to be picked?
This is a question that has no bearing on the level of the person attempting to pick the lock.
How well is that trap hidden?
This is a question that has no bearing on the skill level of the person looking for the trap.

That's how all skill DCs should be approached, and that's why 5e's skill system works very well (once you realize that DCs are determined independently from the skill level of the person attempting them).

[Fwiffo86]

The Wish spell still exists. As does Meteor Swarm. Climbing up a slippery rope is nothing in comparison.


Not to be argumentory, but What magic does by definition is accomplish the impossible yes? Summon fire from now where, alter reality to your whim? Are you really expecting a non-magical action to be comparable to that?

How on earth is climbing a slippery rope in any way related to wish? Are you really attempting to say that because wish exists, climbing this rope should be easy for someone of equivalent level? I can't get behind that argument at all. They are two completely unrelated scenarios.

Skill check or not, I can't find any common ground for this position.

[themaque]

I'd say what a 1st level character should find Nearly Impossible is categorically different from what a 20th level character does. Getting a whole 10% chance is hardly heroic. That's barely any progression at all.


So you're saying that things that should be difficult to a 1st level character, should be obviously overcome by a 20th?

So you change the scale as things level? Instead of having ONE set DC The DM set's a difficulty according to your character and the situation? I do believe you just described how 5e handles the situation.

[Kurald Galain]

5e says, basically, "Don't roll in any scenario where the outcome was never really in question in the first place." It's less clear generally but it's far faster and easier to apply in any specific scenario that may come up at your table.

A simple specific scenario that is common at game tables: the party attempts to sneak past some enemy. However, the party happens to include an average human, a nimble elf, and a clumsy dwarf. Those are common archetypes, after all.

So as a DM, do you (1) say the elf doesn't need to roll and automatically succeeds, (2) the dwarf doesn't need to roll and automatically fails, (3) both of the above, (4) let all three PCs roll but give them different DCs, or (5) accept that there's about a 20%-25% chance that Clumsy McLoudendwarf turns out to be stealthier than Sneaky McElfsson?

The same principle applies to any other skill that multiple PCs possess, of course.

[calebrus]

A simple specific scenario that is common at game tables: the party attempts to sneak past some enemy. However, the party happens to include an average human, a nimble elf, and a clumsy dwarf. Those are common archetypes, after all.

So as a DM, do you (1) say the elf doesn't need to roll and automatically succeeds, (2) the dwarf doesn't need to roll and automatically fails, (3) both of the above, (4) let all three PCs roll but give them different DCs, or (5) accept that there's about a 20%-25% chance that Clumsy McLoudendwarf turns out to be stealthier than Sneaky McElfsson?

The same principle applies to any other skill that multiple PCs possess, of course.

This is what group checks are for.
Everyone rolls (against the enemy's perception, passive or otherwise). If half the party succeeds, then the ones that succeeded help the ones that didn't and the entire party succeeds.
If less than half the party succeeds, then there were too many people to help, and the entire party fails.

[themaque]

So as a DM, do you (1) say the elf doesn't need to roll and automatically succeeds, (2) the dwarf doesn't need to roll and automatically fails, (3) both of the above, (4) let all three PCs roll but give them different DCs, or (5) accept that there's about a 20%-25% chance that Clumsy McLoudendwarf turns out to be stealthier than Sneaky McElfsson?


Good question. To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails.

[calebrus]

Good question. To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails.

Exactly.
This is another place where 5e's skill system is awesome.
The big dumb fighter in plate isn't guaranteed to screw you on a stealth mission anymore. As long as there are enough stealthy people to take care of him and help him out, he can sneak around with them.

[obryn]

That's how all skill DCs should be approached, and that's why 5e's skill system works very well (once you realize that DCs are determined independently from the skill level of the person attempting them).
DCs are never independent numbers existing in the world, divorced from skill checks. They have no meaning apart from skill checks. The skill level of the person attempting them gives you the chances for success.


Not to be argumentory, but What magic does by definition is accomplish the impossible yes? Summon fire from now where, alter reality to your whim? Are you really expecting a non-magical action to be comparable to that?

How on earth is climbing a slippery rope in any way related to wish? Are you really attempting to say that because wish exists, climbing this rope should be easy for someone of equivalent level? I can't get behind that argument at all. They are two completely unrelated scenarios.

Skill check or not, I can't find any common ground for this position.
No. It's because Ranger Ralph and Wizard Wes are both 18th level, and that should mean something. That's not unrelated; that's very related.


So you're saying that things that should be difficult to a 1st level character, should be obviously overcome by a 20th?

So you change the scale as things level? Instead of having ONE set DC The DM set's a difficulty according to your character and the situation? I do believe you just described how 5e handles the situation.
No, it's significantly not how it handles the situation because of that 'easily overcome' bit. Your skill bonus improves by 4-7 points over your entire career. What's difficult for a 1st level character is marginally less difficult for a 20th level character. What's impossible for a 1st level character becomes merely remotely possible for a 20th level character.

e: And just to remind everyone, despite all this, I think 5e is a far superior system to 3.x/PF. Like, there's not even a contest; 3.x/PF is terrible. I think this is a very valid concern, however. Look, I expect D&D to be about dungeons and dragons, not fiddly skills - so 5e's vocal *shrug* about the topic is largely okay with me. This is pretty far down on my (rather sizable) list of complaints about the system.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

That's pretty terrible, and certainly seems like a failure of game design for a system which has both magical and non-magical characters at level 20!

I find it to be disingenuous to pretend that the non-caster classes don't have access to magic. They do, it's part of the world. They just don't cast spells.

And what, specifically, is the failure you're alluding to? The designers chose, purposefully, to create the dichotomy between magic and not-magic, and lo and behold there is a tangible difference between the two. At what part did the designers fail?

[Solusek]

Even getting beyond the absurd examples where a baby goes up against a master craftsman in a skill challenge, the strangeness of the skill system comes up for my table all the time starting from the very first session we played.

We have a big party of 7 PCs. Only one character in the party is trained in Knowledge History. He is not a Wizard so his int is only a moderate +1 bonus.

Whenever something Knowledge History related comes up in our game everyone at the table rolls. Most of the time it's one of those 6 untrained characters who gets the best result at the table - and no, we don't have anyone in the group with higher than a +1 int bonus, so that's not why this is happening. It's because 6 untrained characters rolling a d20 will usually beat out a single trained character due to the importance of the d20 versus how big of +skill bonuses exist.

It makes it so investing skill choice into something so you can shine in that area at your table is kind of useless in cases where the whole party gets to roll. Unless you have Expertise and can get your bonus in that skill up to a significant number there is a very high chance someone else is just going to roll better than you. In this case the history buff character actually knows less about whatever topic than some other untrained character does the majority of the time.

The same situation happens with the Sorcerer and Kn:Arcana or the Druid and Kn:Nature or the Cleric and Kn:Religion. They aren't actually the one figuring out the challenge in their related skills, it's one of the other random characters who just happened to hit a higher d20 result. It just feels bad to me at the table...

[calebrus]

DCs are never independent numbers existing in the world, divorced from skill checks. They have no meaning apart from skill checks. The skill level of the person attempting them gives you the chances for success.

How good is that door locked?
Did an apprentice locksmith make it, like you'd find in most homes? DC 10
Did a regular locksmith make it, like you'd find in a shop/store? DC 15
Did a master locksmith make it, like you'd find in a noble's home? DC 20
Did a master locksmith get commissioned to make it for a noble's vault? DC 25
Is it a master locksmith's greatest creation, like you'd find on a king's vault? DC 30

It doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 20, the DC is what the DC is.
As you gain levels, experience, and wealth, you're more likely to come across individuals who also have more experience and wealth, and they can therefore afford better locks, thus raising the DC in some cases. But a lock's DC is a lock's DC is a lock's DC, regardless of the skill level of the person attempting to pick it.

The skill level of the person attempting the task has no bearing on the difficulty of the task in question. The skill level of the person attempting the task only has a bearing on how likely he is to succeed.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Even getting beyond the absurd examples where a baby goes up against a master craftsman in a skill challenge, the strangeness of the skill system comes up for my table all the time starting from the very first session we played.

We have a big party of 7 PCs. Only one character in the party is trained in Knowledge History. He is not a Wizard so his int is only a moderate +1 bonus.

Whenever something Knowledge History related comes up in our game everyone at the table rolls. Most of the time it's one of those 6 untrained characters who gets the best result at the table - and no, we don't have anyone in the group with higher than a +1 int bonus, so that's not why this is happening. It's because 6 untrained characters rolling a d20 will usually beat out a single trained character due to the importance of the d20 versus how big of +skill bonuses exist.

It makes it so investing skill choice into something so you can shine in that area at your table is kind of useless in cases where the whole party gets to roll. Unless you have Expertise and can get your bonus in that skill up to a significant number there is a very high chance someone else is just going to roll better than you. In this case the history buff character actually knows less about whatever topic than some other untrained character does the majority of the time.

The same situation happens with the Sorcerer and Kn:Arcana or the Druid and Kn:Nature or the Cleric and Kn:Religion. They aren't actually the one figuring out the challenge in their related skills, it's one of the other random characters who just happened to hit a higher d20 result. It just feels bad to me at the table...

I don't find that strange at all. Even if one is by far the smartest guy in a room of 7 people, one shouldn't expect to be the only one who knows about any given topic in all of history. It's not like the "untrained" PCs have gone their whole life learning nothing and have minds like empty vessels.

[themaque]

No, it's significantly not how it handles the situation because of that 'easily overcome' bit. Your skill bonus improves by 4-7 points over your entire career. What's difficult for a 1st level character is marginally less difficult for a 20th level character. What's impossible for a 1st level character becomes merely remotely possible for a 20th level character.

I see the confusion, you see, Me and Calebrus didn't agree with you, but I disagreed for entirely different reasons.


While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement
costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless
a creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the
DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or
one with few handholds requires a successful Strength
(Athletics) check. Similarly, gaining any distance in
rough water might require a successful Strength
(Athletics) check.

Notice that in the listed rules you don't even need to MAKE a check unless it's particularly difficult. I agreed that what should be nearly impossible for a 1st level character should be challenging for a 20th level character. The DM set's the DC so he would give that lvl 1 commoner a DC 30 but your experienced mountain climber a 20.

In this way he is not only better at dealing with challenges he is better at overcoming the challenges presented.

But that does depend on how the DM interprets the challenges. Does this mean it's a broken system? No, but It is a reasonable reason to dislike it.

[themaque]

snip

I think this worked great in 3.P but not the best way to approach 5e.

[calebrus]

Whenever something Knowledge History related comes up in our game everyone at the table rolls.

Don't let them.
I don't.
That's skill spamming, it doesn't make any sense, and it slows the game down.
If someone asks a question that a knowledge check could answer, that person, and only that person, gets to make a check. Someone else can chime in before the die is rolled if they want to (and the person with the relevant ability/proficiency is almost always the one to speak up).
If they do, then either that person can make the check, or the original person can make the check with advantage (due to assistance from the second).
But one die roll is made, and only one. Once that die roll is made, either they know it or they don't.

If the wizard (or bard or whoever), with the requisite knowledge doesn't know it (or can't help you figure it out) then no one in the group does and no one in the group can.


I think this worked great in 3.P but not the best way to approach 5e.

Ummm.... it's the opposite.
Skills in 3e were designed to scale with level, and DCs were designed to scale right along with them.

[obryn]

I find it to be disingenuous to pretend that the non-caster classes don't have access to magic. They do, it's part of the world. They just don't cast spells.

And what, specifically, is the failure you're alluding to? The designers chose, purposefully, to create the dichotomy between magic and not-magic, and lo and behold there is a tangible difference between the two. At what part did the designers fail?
The part where the text of the book doesn't refer to this at all leads me to believe this was not the design goal. Where the rules and goals disagree, that's a design failure.

[ChubbyRain]

e: And just to remind everyone, despite all this, I think 5e is a far superior system to 3.x/PF. Like, there's not even a contest; 3.x/PF is terrible. I think this is a very valid concern, however. Look, I expect D&D to be about dungeons and dragons, not fiddly skills - so 5e's vocal *shrug* about the topic is largely okay with me. This is pretty far down on my (rather sizable) list of complaints about the system.

This, so much this.

Though I find it off putting that so many people turn a blind eye to the issues of 5e and if you merely question something about 5e (or have a very valid complaint) then you somehow hate 5e, D&D, WotC, and gamers everywhere.

[themaque]

Ummm.... it's the opposite.
Skills in 3e were designed to scale with level, and DCs were designed to scale right along with them.

Except that almost all the DC's in 3e where right there in the book with all the modifiers, adjustments, and synergies all laid out if you wish to find them.

5e it's mostly the DM's call on the situation.

I think this is starting to need it's own thread if we keep going on this one specific problem.


This, so much this.
Though I find it off putting that so many people turn a blind eye to the issues of 5e and if you merely question something about 5e (or have a very valid complaint) then you somehow hate 5e, D&D, WotC, and gamers everywhere.

I'm not saying it's perfect, I just disagree with WHY. At no point do I feel that anyone here has anything but love for games in general, why else even come on these boards?

[obryn]

How good is that door locked?
Did an apprentice locksmith make it, like you'd find in most homes? DC 10
Did a regular locksmith make it, like you'd find in a shop/store? DC 15
Did a master locksmith make it, like you'd find in a noble's home? DC 20
Did a master locksmith get commissioned to make it for a noble's vault? DC 25
Is it a master locksmith's greatest creation, like you'd find on a king's vault? DC 30

It doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 20, the DC is what the DC is.
As you gain levels, experience, and wealth, you're more likely to come across individuals who also have more experience and wealth, and they can therefore afford better locks, thus raising the DC in some cases. But a lock's DC is a lock's DC is a lock's DC, regardless of the skill level of the person attempting to pick it.

The skill level of the person attempting the task has no bearing on the difficulty of the task in question. The skill level of the person attempting the task only has a bearing on how likely he is to succeed.
I'm aware. But the DC is nothing but a way of determining the odds of success in relation to the skill bonus math. If your skill check modifiers aren't scaling at a good pace, there's little feel of progress with a 1-20 flat rng. If you start with a +5 to a proficient skill and end at +11, that's not substantial.

This is illustrated in Solusek's point. A +6 is basically the difference between the best and worst in a 1st level party.

[calebrus]

Except that almost all the DC's in 3e where right there in the book with all the modifiers, adjustments, and synergies all laid out if you wish to find them.

Tell that to the DC 50 trap that was exactly the same trap you saw at level 2, except that the DC 50 trap does five times the damage.
The DCs scaled right along with the damage and the level of the character attempting to resolve them, which was why you could have one level 20 character in a party auto-succeed and another level 20 character auto-fail without ever needing to roll a die.
That can't happen if the DCs don't scale, and that can't happen in 5e.


If you start with a +5 to a proficient skill and end at +11, that's not substantial.

+30% increased success rate across the board, which makes previously simple tasks unfailable, and which makes previously difficult tasks simple, and which makes previously impossible tasks merely difficult.... isn't substantial?

That's where you and I disagree.
Proficiency essentially lowers the relative (via DC vs skill) differential by one step. Expertise lowers the relative difficulty by two steps.
I'd call that substantial. But that's only true if you do not scale the DCs by level (because they are not intended to).

[MadBear]

The problem is that, with the 5e rules, it's not obvious. In 3e, where the master would have a bonus 20 or more higher than the toddler, it would be.

And at just what point does it become obvious, anyway? Let's say that we have a long line of craftsmen lined up, from another toddler to an eight-year-old who's helping out around the workshop to an apprentice to a journeyman to a master and so on. The toddler tries his luck against them one at a time. At some point on the line, you say "yeah, the professional just wins". But what about the guy right before that point? You jump abruptly from the toddler having a pretty high chance of success (less than 50%, but still pretty high) to zero chance at all.

At this point I think you're pointing out a legitimate flaw in the system with 5e. It's a situation that goes back to DM discretion.

On the flip side, in 3.X you had a situation where the skills of some characters got so astronomically high that you needed to artificially inflate the DC's to keep it competitive, or where the skills checks became trivial, to the point of not even bothering with them.

Neither system is perfect, and both have flaws. I happen to like 5e's skill system better, flaws and all compared to 3.X. Especially since I DM for High School students, who can't remember their homework, let alone remembering all the fiddily little +1 bonuses stacked from multiple different places, and situational bonuses, and synergy bonuses...... yeah I'll take the streamlined if somewhat flawed 5e over that.

[Milo v3]

I personally don't understand the point of tonnes of "Use Rule Zero" throughout the system. If I wanted to play a rules light game or freeform I'd just do that to begin with.

[calebrus]

I personally don't understand the point of tonnes of "Use Rule Zero" throughout the system. If I wanted to play a rules light game or freeform I'd just do that to begin with.

You're not using Rule 0.
You're using the chart on page 174 of the PHB. That chart exists independently of the level or skill of the character attempting the task.
There's no Rule 0 here.
How difficult would the task at hand be for the common person?
John Q public sets your difficulty.
That's all you need to gauge to pin down the DC of any given task.
It doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 20. It doesn't matter if you are proficient or not. John Q Public sets the difficulty, and your level and skill change how likely you are to succeed.

[ChubbyRain]

I personally don't understand the point of tonnes of "Use Rule Zero" throughout the system. If I wanted to play a rules light game or freeform I'd just do that to begin with.

I liked 4e's version of rule 0. If you don't know it, DM make a fair ruling (usually around the +2/-2 system and stuff). Then talk to your group later about the issue or find the real ruling.

I feel 4e 1-10 and then 20-30 would be fantastic if it was bounded accuracy.

[themaque]

You're not using Rule 0.
You're using the chart on page 174 of the PHB. That chart exists independently of the level or skill of the character attempting the task.
There's no Rule 0 here.
How difficult would the task at hand be for the common person?
John Q public sets your difficulty.
That's all you need to gauge to pin down the DC of any given task.
It doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 20. It doesn't matter if you are proficient or not. John Q Public sets the difficulty, and your level and skill change how likely you are to succeed.

That's a fair interpretation of the system, but not the only one, nor I feel the best one.

That is how 3.P handled it. Sure that trap might have a DC 50 but that is certainly NOT the same trap you encountered at level one put together by big ears the goblin. That's the trap set forth by Viscourg the ruthless! A masterwork lock had a set DC. Climbing a wall of THIS setup with THIS texture resulted in THIS DC. jumping a 10 foot gap is THIS DC with THESE variables giving you a specific DC.

This is a much more rules light system where "GM Fiat" is expected and encouraged. The DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, as represented by a Difficulty Class. It doesn't give a reference as to what that difficulty MEANS. Your interpretation is 100% as valid as mine. Except for the fact that you are obviously wrong. :smallwink: (Joke, don't take offence) And I think THAT would be a problem with the system, like MadBear pointed out. So much relies on the whim of the GM and how you both interpret the rules.


And if you don't like rules light systems Milo v3, than this system is NOT for you.

[calebrus]

And if you don't like rules light systems Calebrus, than this system is NOT for you.

Where did that come from? :smallconfused:

[themaque]

Where did that come from? :smallconfused:

Typo, Corrected. Sorry buddy.

[Elderand]

And if you don't like rules light systems Milo v3, than this system is NOT for you.

I think that's really the crux of the problem right there.

AT some point people will have to accept that 5th edition is relatively rule light and meant to have a lot of dm oversight rather than slavish adherance to rules no matter how nonsensical or disrupting the result.

DM oversight is not a bug in 5th edition, it's an intended feature.

[Pex]

Ummm.... it's the opposite.
Skills in 3e were designed to scale with level, and DCs were designed to scale right along with them.

That's 4E.

Skills in 3E had fixed DCs except for opposed rolls. Eventually on some tasks you autosucceeded on a Natural 1. It was a problem on social skills for some people, fixable by house rule making them opposed rolls or a clearer understanding that success on a Diplomacy roll is not Dominate Person.

[calebrus]

That's 4E.

Skills in 3E had fixed DCs except for opposed rolls. Eventually on some tasks you autosucceeded on a Natural 1. It was a problem on social skills for some people, fixable by house rule making them opposed rolls or a clearer understanding that success on a Diplomacy roll is not Dominate Person.

Once again, tell that to the DC 50 trap.
Some things were straight DCs that didn't scale by level, but the ones that really mattered almost always scaled.

[Milo v3]

And if you don't like rules light systems Milo v3, than this system is NOT for you.

Except I do like Rules Light Systems. But, I'd rather play an actual rules light system over a Half-rules light system like 5e.

[Icewraith]

I'm aware. But the DC is nothing but a way of determining the odds of success in relation to the skill bonus math. If your skill check modifiers aren't scaling at a good pace, there's little feel of progress with a 1-20 flat rng. If you start with a +5 to a proficient skill and end at +11, that's not substantial.

This is illustrated in Solusek's point. A +6 is basically the difference between the best and worst in a 1st level party.

If the DC scales with the skill check there's never any actual progress though. If you approach DCs from a character skill level, you're always going to go "how difficult should this be for the character?" and set the DC equal to 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, or 18, add the character's skill bonus, and tell them that's what the DC is, then see how they roll.

You're also compressing the skill range. The set of modifiers you can get on most d20 rolls ranges from -1 to +11. A character's trained skill that happens to key off their primary attribute will start at +5, their other trained skills will probably be between +1 and +4 and eventually increase to +5 through +9. Disadvantage and advantage are worth -5 and +5 respectively.

Now, keep this in mind: any skill that requires specialized knowledge and study, only proficient characters should be rolling. Other characters might be able to aid at the DM's discretion. A DC 5 check in such a category represents a check that a trained but not gifted or experienced person has a small chance of failing. Let's take performance as an example.

DC 5-8 - Perform most classical piano pieces at a recital.
DC 10- Flawlessly perform all the piano/organ music for a traditional wedding service. Miss by 5 or more and people actually get mad at you for screwing up the wedding.
DC 15 - Rachmaninoff
DC 20 - "Flight of the Bumblebee" at double speed.
DC 25 - "Flight of the Bumblebee" at quadruple speed while accompanying yourself on the kazoo.
DC 30 - Simultaneously play both guitar parts and the bass part from Dragonforce's "Through The Fire And The Flames", transcribed onto a completely different instrument, backwards.

[Chronos]

Quoth MadBear:

On the flip side, in 3.X you had a situation where the skills of some characters got so astronomically high that you needed to artificially inflate the DC's to keep it competitive, or where the skills checks became trivial, to the point of not even bothering with them.
And what's wrong with that? If you spend your whole life working to become good at something, you should be able to do it trivially.


Quoth calebrus:

Once again, tell that to the DC 50 trap.
Some things were straight DCs that didn't scale by level, but the ones that really mattered almost always scaled.
Show me one single trap, in any published rulebook or adventure, that scaled with level. None of them did. Now, there are traps at a variety of DCs: A trap laid by the archlich Acercerak is of course going to be harder to defuse than one set by that idiot orc in the woods. But if a high-level rogue comes across the orc's trap, he's just going to laugh, and if a low-level rogue wanders into the Tomb of Horrors, he's going to die. The orc's trap didn't get harder just because the PC was high level, and the Tomb of Horrors didn't get easier just because some newb went in.

In fact, the system in this discussion where DCs change with level is actually 5e. Except they change the other way: If a character is really good at something (by 5e's standards of "really good"), then they don't need to roll and just auto-succeed, even though they couldn't do that if they had to try for the same DC that the low-level character would.

[calebrus]

A trap laid by the archlich Acercerak is of course going to be harder to defuse than one set by that idiot orc in the woods.

And why, pray tell, is that true?
I'll tell you why that's true. It's true because the lich is an higher CR than the orc is.
So what is the relationship between CR and level?
Trap DCs scaled by CR, which is EXACTLY the same as saying that trap DCs scaled by level.

[Chronos]

They scale by the level of the creature setting them. They don't scale by the level of the PCs.

[Finieous]

5e's skill system isn't an effective simulation of human (or nonhuman) skill, any more than hit points are an effective simulation of human mortality. It's better than AD&D's nonweapon proficiencies, I guess, but if simulation is what you want, it's going to be like nails on a chalkboard. I'm happy with the simplicity and fluid use in play it gives me, and the "just-enough" character differentiation and niche protection...but there are more simulationist past versions of me that would have been very dissatisfied with it.

D&D 5e is pretty gamey from cover to cover, it seems to me, and I think it has a pretty consistently executed design philosophy. I think it was a good choice not to bolt on a more simulationist skill system to that, but mileage will obviously vary. Don't think anybody's wrong, here.

[calebrus]

They scale by the level of the creature setting them. They don't scale by the level of the PCs.

When did I say that they scaled by the level of the PCs? I said they scaled by level. That level, in this case, happened to be the CR of the creature. If a party is appropriately leveled for the creature, then it is also appropriately leveled for the trap.
Guess what that means?
It means that trap DCs scaled by level.

[Xetheral]

They scale by the level of the creature setting them. They don't scale by the level of the PCs.
When did I say that they scaled by the level of the PCs? I said they scaled by level. That level, in this case, happened to be the CR of the creature. If a party is appropriately leveled for the creature, then it is also appropriately leveled for the trap.
Guess what that means?
It means that trap DCs scaled by level.

More specifically, the trap DC is based on the trap itself. Higher-level characters have access to (and the skills to use) better traps, and therefore the DC and the CR are strongly correlated. That's quite different from saying that trap difficulty scales with CR of the creature setting it.

The only previous edition I'm aware of where there was any scaling of DC's based on character level is 4e (and even that is contested by some posters). 3.5 definitely used fixed DCs by RAW. 5e appears to use fixed DCs based on the text, but a lot of posters here in other threads have suggested that DCs should scale inversely with character level. Of course, even if 5e does use fixed DC's, there is still the problem that what DCs are being used is based only on DM whim, making it very hard for players to know how good their character is (in both a mechanical AND a IC sense).

[mephnick]

The skill system in 3.5 was completely pointless. Halfway through the game you either had enough ranks to make any jump in the universe, or you had no ranks and couldn't jump a crack in the sidewalk. If you were a bard/rogue you might have the flexibility to be ok at lots of things, but that's about it. For most classes you might as well have just said at character creation "I always pass these 4 skills, I never pass these 25 skills." and then throw out skill ranks completely.

[ChubbyRain]

The skill system in 3.5 was completely pointless. Halfway through the game you either had enough ranks to make any jump in the universe, or you had no ranks and couldn't jump a crack in the sidewalk. If you were a bard/rogue you might have the flexibility to be ok at lots of things, but that's about it. For most classes you might as well have just said at character creation "I always pass these 4 skills, I never pass these 25 skills." and then throw out skill ranks completely.


My god was that terrible. I always used the variant rule system in unearthed arcana with some slight tweaks. It was more akin to 4e skill system but was more expansive.

[obryn]

+30% increased success rate across the board, which makes previously simple tasks unfailable, and which makes previously difficult tasks simple, and which makes previously impossible tasks merely difficult.... isn't substantial?

That's where you and I disagree.
Proficiency essentially lowers the relative (via DC vs skill) differential by one step. Expertise lowers the relative difficulty by two steps.
I'd call that substantial. But that's only true if you do not scale the DCs by level (because they are not intended to).
So it effectively lowers the difficulty by 1 step. Over your entire adventuring career. The time in which you went from Magic Missile to Meteor Swarm, climbing a wall went from Hard to ... Moderately Hard. How astounding.


That's 4E.
It's not even 4e.


If the DC scales with the skill check there's never any actual progress though. If you approach DCs from a character skill level, you're always going to go "how difficult should this be for the character?" and set the DC equal to 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, or 18, add the character's skill bonus, and tell them that's what the DC is, then see how they roll.
Nope, not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that the DC and the skill bonus are interlocked and you can't meaningfully talk about DCs absent some knowledge of the skill check bonuses.


The skill system in 3.5 was completely pointless. Halfway through the game you either had enough ranks to make any jump in the universe, or you had no ranks and couldn't jump a crack in the sidewalk. If you were a bard/rogue you might have the flexibility to be ok at lots of things, but that's about it. For most classes you might as well have just said at character creation "I always pass these 4 skills, I never pass these 25 skills." and then throw out skill ranks completely.
This - I might add - is another big problem. (Skills in 3.x are pretty awful, altogether, both for this and other reasons.) But the fact that 5e avoids it by running to the other extreme isn't necessarily to its credit.

There's other potential tools in the toolbox - from Advantage to minimum rolls to added skill dice and so on - which can improve reliability, increase the range, and yet still avoid the godly/useless dichotomy of 3.x's skills.

[calebrus]

So it effectively lowers the difficulty by 1 step. Over your entire adventuring career. The time in which you went from Magic Missile to Meteor Swarm, climbing a wall went from Hard to ... Moderately Hard. How astounding.

Well that was an oversimplification to prove a point.
The reality is that an average Joe will likely have a +2 to a roll (from a stat only.... maybe.... if he's lucky) while a professional will have about a +10 or so (from an higher stat and proficiency), and an expert will have a +17 (from a much higher stat, and expertise).
These lower the effective difficulty by two and three steps respectively, which certainly is substantial, even if you want to joke about it.

[ChubbyRain]

Well that was an oversimplification to prove a point.
The reality is that an average Joe will likely have a +2 to a roll (from a stat only.... maybe.... if he's lucky) while a professional will have about a +10 or so (from an higher stat and proficiency), and an expert will have a +17 (from a much higher stat, and expertise).
These lower the effective difficulty by two and three steps respectively, which certainly is substantial, even if you want to joke about it.

I don't think anyone is playing average Joe in a typical d&d game. Why would you even bring that up? That is a horrible argument when you are playing a fantasy game about heroes that are above the common person.

Sorry but no, it wasn't an over simplification. It was an accurate description of what the game gives us.

The best a straight fighter can be at shoving a large or smaller creatures (assuming medium sized fighter) is +11. They simply are not allowed to even attempt to shove a huge or larger creature without DM fiat holding their hands.

Meanwhile the wizard can become a dragon (which can be permanent) and gain straight up immunity from being shoved or grappled by said fighter (immunity to all medium or smaller creatures using Athletics is nice). Plus you know, they have all the abilities that come along with being a spell casting dragon.

[obryn]

Well that was an oversimplification to prove a point.
The reality is that an average Joe will likely have a +2 to a roll (from a stat only.... maybe.... if he's lucky) while a professional will have about a +10 or so (from an higher stat and proficiency), and an expert will have a +17 (from a much higher stat, and expertise).
These lower the effective difficulty by two and three steps respectively, which certainly is substantial, even if you want to joke about it.
It's no surprise that expertise - which does, indeed, give bigger bonuses - makes it look better. That is, after all, one possible solution. But expertise isn't available to all (or even most) player classes. (NPCs, of course, can have whatever the narrative demands.)

The disappointment isn't between the -1 and the +11, though. It's between the +5 or +6 and the +11.

[calebrus]

I don't think anyone is playing average Joe in a typical d&d game. Why would you even bring that up? That is a horrible argument when you are playing a fantasy game about heroes that are above the common person.

Because anyone with no training and above average stats will be at a simple +2, which may very well be a PC in many cases.
Heck, a PC might be at -1 if they're using a dump stat and aren't proficient.
Average Joe = PC with a crap stat in that area and no proficiency in that skill.
It's a very valid comparison.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I think my principle problem with the skills system is that it's too unified. It's a little easier to understand that way but it does have some problems.

Knowledge skills should have been split off into their own thing - ideally, many knowledge checks should require proficiency (or bardic knowledge) to even make. This would have been an ideal place to give an explicit bonus to the INT stat. And perhaps physical skills should have been split as well... It's weird that the Expertise classes are better at Athletics than the monk, fighter, or barbarian.

The system does depend heavily on intelligent use of DCs, advantage, and auto-fails/success by the DM. I haven't read teh DMG but the PHB does not go into this in sufficient detail.

IMO DMs should also make liberal use of 'gradient DC' and ad-lib the result based on what the check result is rather than relying on pass/fail.

[MadBear]

And what's wrong with that? If you spend your whole life working to become good at something, you should be able to do it trivially.
.

cool, sounds like you like that system. Me and my group didn't. It made it so that you usually needed to be either all in on a skill or don't bother. It also meant that you needed a bit of system mastery to milk different synergies with a skill for all it was worth.

Put another way. Someone who knows the system inside and out could build a character around stealth that was practically impossible to dectect ever. Meanwhile someone with little/no system mastery could make a character that couldn't compete in the slightest.

I used to like the system myself, but I just don't like it nearly as much as 5e.

So to answer your question "what's wrong with that", I guess I'll just say that I don't enjoy that system nearly as much.

[ChubbyRain]

cool, sounds like you like that system. Me and my group didn't. It made it so that you usually needed to be either all in on a skill or don't bother. It also meant that you needed a bit of system mastery to milk different synergies with a skill for all it was worth.

Put another way. Someone who knows the system inside and out could build a character around stealth that was practically impossible to dectect ever. Meanwhile someone with little/no system mastery could make a character that couldn't compete in the slightest.

I used to like the system myself, but I just don't like it nearly as much as 5e.

So to answer your question "what's wrong with that", I guess I'll just say that I don't enjoy that system nearly as much.


The problem is that both system are extremes that try to do something that don't need extremes.

[mephnick]

I agree they went too far the other way. I feel they could have made an easy ranks system that still worked with bounded accuracy. Then again, I'm sure it was discussed and trashed, so what do I know.

[Pex]

Once again, tell that to the DC 50 trap.
Some things were straight DCs that didn't scale by level, but the ones that really mattered almost always scaled.

See, progress. Now you admit some things were straight DCs and not everything scaled. As to what really matters, that's subjective to the individual campaign.

3E certainly did have high DC numbers. Their existence doesn't take away from lower DCs also existing in the same adventure. Published modules might be a different story, but the only 3E published module I ever played was Sunless Citadel so I wouldn't know about that for high level modules. I only played in DM homebrew where it was a feature my character could autosucceed on many tasks at some level >> 1, even to hit an opponent or succeed on a saving throw using Aura of Perfect Order stance from Tome of Battle.

5E prefers keeping the numbers low. That's not an inherently bad thing, but the bounded accuracy module strains credulity when it comes it skills for many people. For some people it's a feature, for others a bug. Same thing with autosuccess in 3E. Some find it a bug a character can never fail at a task while others find it a feature to have the fun of investing the resources and levels to eventually get to that point and then enjoy the spoils of autosuccess that results.

[obryn]

I agree they went too far the other way. I feel they could have made an easy ranks system that still worked with bounded accuracy. Then again, I'm sure it was discussed and trashed, so what do I know.


5E prefers keeping the numbers low. That's not an inherently bad thing, but the bounded accuracy module strains credulity when it comes it skills for many people. For some people it's a feature, for others a bug. Same thing with autosuccess in 3E. Some find it a bug a character can never fail at a task while others find it a feature to have the fun of investing the resources and levels to eventually get to that point and then enjoy the spoils of autosuccess that results.
This is all because there's an insistence in 5e on modeling "good at a skill" with static bonuses to a d20 roll. It leads to both problems. If the numbers are too high, we get godly/pathetic discrepancies before too long. Too low, and you get no sense of progression. And frankly, given the flat RNG of a single d20, I don't know if there's an ideal middle ground.

Which is why other ways to model expertise can work so much better while maintaining bounded accuracy - minimum die rolls, advantage, limited numbers of auto-success uses, re-rolls, etc.... Ah, well, that's not 5e. :smallsmile:

[archaeo]

First, I think it's super abundantly clear that people have different feelings about the way skills are supposed to work, and that if it's a huge dealbreaker, it's a huge dealbreaker. So it goes!

I'm just guessing that most of the problems people are identifying are conceptual or theoretical problems. I'd be interested to know if one of the big critics of the skill system has actually seen it in play and been disappointed by it. Personally, I'm guessing that most of these problems aren't really so serious at the table.


This is all because there's an insistence in 5e on modeling "good at a skill" with static bonuses to a d20 roll. It leads to both problems. If the numbers are too high, we get godly/pathetic discrepancies before too long. Too low, and you get no sense of progression. And frankly, given the flat RNG of a single d20, I don't know if there's an ideal middle ground.

Presumably, this is why they thought they'd introduce the proficiency die? I'm not mathy enough to know how this actually affects the probability math, but I know you are. Does using that optional rule do much to alleviate the problem? It certainly doesn't solve the swingyness of skills, but it also seems like it would provide non-static bonuses in a way that would at least change things up.

[Chronos]

The 3.5 skill system as a whole wasn't broken or nonsensical. A few specific skills were, but most of them worked just fine. Jump was broken because the d20 roll mattered too much (according to the rules, I, an untrained human with a Str penalty, could sometimes jump 18 feet, and sometimes fail to jump even 1 foot). Diplomacy was broken because what it accomplished (when it worked) was too powerful.

But the stealth skills, say, or the perception skills that opposed them? They worked just fine. If a first-level rogue tries to sneak past the castle guards, there's a pretty good chance that she'll get caught. If he tries to sneak into a dragon's lair, she will be caught, without a chance. If that rogue then goes out into the world and becomes a Great Hero of Renown, and then comes back to that castle and attempts to sneak past the exact same guards, she'll be able to do it without even a second thought, and if she tries to sneak past that dragon, she'll have a very good chance. This is how it ought to be.

Yes, this does get to a point, eventually, where some tasks are assured of success. But you can't say that's a problem compared to 5e, when the 5e rules explicitly say that you should get to that point. The difference is, in 3e, that point is well-defined, and you approach it gradually (when you're almost at that point, you'll have a 95% or 90% chance). In 5e, though, it's unclear just where that point is, and when you do get to wherever it is, you do so abruptly (jumping straight to 100% from 60% or 70%).

[archaeo]

The 3.5 skill system as a whole wasn't broken or nonsensical.

I'm not sure that anybody is claiming that it was broken, but that it was a complicated subsystem that added a lot of makework for a relatively minor gain in simulationism. It's time-consuming to learn, it's time-consuming to DM.

Of course, if you already know how it works by heart, then both of those flaws aren't really a big deal!


Yes, this does get to a point, eventually, where some tasks are assured of success. But you can't say that's a problem compared to 5e, when the 5e rules explicitly say that you should get to that point. The difference is, in 3e, that point is well-defined, and you approach it gradually (when you're almost at that point, you'll have a 95% or 90% chance). In 5e, though, it's unclear just where that point is, and when you do get to wherever it is, you do so abruptly (jumping straight to 100% from 60% or 70%).

5e simply isn't all that interested in a smooth progression of skill acquisition. It considers the d20 a pretty wide RNG, because it is, and accepts the swinginess because it's more interested in skills as component of the game (which is already pretty swingy!) as opposed to skills as an element of the simulation.

If you like the way 3.5 handled skills, I can't imagine that it would be very hard to simply bolt the 3.5 system onto 5e. You barely have to make changes; just ignore skills from backgrounds and use the class skills as written in the SRD. You only have to come up with some skills for Warlocks, which doesn't strike me as super arduous.

[obryn]

Presumably, this is why they thought they'd introduce the proficiency die? I'm not mathy enough to know how this actually affects the probability math, but I know you are. Does using that optional rule do much to alleviate the problem? It certainly doesn't solve the swingyness of skills, but it also seems like it would provide non-static bonuses in a way that would at least change things up.
The higher dice introduce a noticeable curve, but the lower ones don't. It also increases the range, though, which eliminates any gains in reliability to beat a certain DC. If you got both bonus and dice, it'd be better.

[Tonden Ockay]

I collected all of the character creation sourcebooks I could find for the 3.0 and 3.5 editions of the game (figuring that they'll become harder and harder to find in physical form), as well as the three core books for 5th, and after looking them over, I'm not really 'sold' on 5th Ed. (most of my experience is with 4th, which is almost an entirely different game).

I tend to favor the Wizard and Rogue classes (mostly Wizard), and noticed that the wizard was really stripped down from 3rd to 5th eds. in terms of how many spells he can do per day and can no longer (apparently) boost concentration to prevent spell interruption. The 20 pt. max stat cap also seems rather unsatifactory to me.

However, as someone who's never played either 5th or 3rd (lack of players in my area) which edition is better to play? I'm asking for thoughts from people who have actual gameplay experience with both editions.

Thanks in advance for any helpful commentary. :)



If you want a game that

Doesn't over power players

Still gives Player's a good amount of options.

Gives DM's more freedom with out having a rule for every little thing

Uses the D20 system

That is the current supported edition

Then Yes it is

[ProphetSword]

Same thing with autosuccess in 3E.

The thing is, autosuccess exists in 5e as well...I just don't think people realize it. The DM is only supposed to call for a roll if the outcome is in doubt. If there's no doubt and there is enough time to accomplish the task, success is supposed to be automatic.

For example, I often hear people complaining that a novice adventurer has a chance to make better armor than a trained blacksmith. Except it shouldn't be that way. The blacksmith shouldn't be rolling at all...he should be autosucceeding due to his training, and the novice adventurer should be having a difficult time. This should be reflected by the blacksmith not needing a roll to make a difficult piece of armor and the novice adventurer having to hit a high DC.

When I run my games, I don't always call for rolls. If a character wants to climb a tree, for example...if he has plenty of time and he isn't a clumsy oaf with a Dexterity score below 6, I just let him climb the tree. Not everything requires a roll and the DM shouldn't expect that it does.

[ChubbyRain]

I think the issue is the d20, it has lost its purpose. With small numbers it is too swingy and luck determines more of your success than anything else.

My biggest issue with the skill system as is (and the attack roll system) is that luck (d20) matters way to much for way to long in your PC's career. You character isn't effecting the game as much as the d20 is. When you get higher numbers or expertise and higher numbers then your character starts to have an actual impact in the game, but till then you are just a player rolling a d20 and hoping you are lucky.

Because of the large gap from d20, you don't get to determine what you do, the d20 does. Magic gets around this because you either always have an effect or you force someone else to roll the d20 (you can make an attack roll but why give up control?). They are no longer in control, you force them to allow the d20 to determine what their character does. Because there is such a huge gap for most of the career of your character and all that.

So the game doesn't really start unill later levels.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The fact that someone else is making a check instead of you is chimerical. You could be the one rolling against their save dc and the game would function exactly the same.

The only way for luck not to matter is if the DM arbitrarily determines the result of all skill checks rather than relying on dice.

[mephnick]

I still think using passive scores for every ability is the way to go, which also include some automatic successes. If you have a +5 Dex and a +5 prof to acrobatics, guess what? You auto-succeed at dc 20 hard acrobatics checks unless something might throw you off (disadvantages). That should make you feel pretty powerful. If you only have a +3 Dex and a +3 prof to acrobatics you auto-succeed at medium checks, but could fail hard checks. So if someone was having an armour building contest (or some other ridiculous contest proposed here), the person with a passive success on hard checks would automatically beat someone with only a passive success at medium checks. I think passive scores are under-utilized. The books say to use them for any situation that makes sense.

[Knaight]

Why exactly should anyone be able to do that without a problem? That sounds like exactly the sort of situation where even an expert would need to take care.
5e characters go well beyond expert in some ways. A high level D&D fighter can get in a fight against several dozen foes and often come out just fine - in reality even an expert is in a lot of danger with a 3 on 1, and a 6 on 1 almost always goes to the 6. In combat and magic, characters have real advantages. In a skill check a level 1 of some class (other than Rogue) is pretty competitive with a level 20 of the same class at their best skill. In combat? Not even remotely. Magic? Even less remotely.


Well that's just a conceit of 5e, everyone is an average or above-average (sometimes significantly so) mortal, until you use magic. It's the thing in this fiction which allows you to surpass mortal capabilities. So yeah, if you don't use it you'll be more limited.
Again, look at the combat system. Look at the sort of things high level martial characters are expected to fight, and expected to win against. Significantly above average doesn't cover the sheer difficulty of killing them, or the amount of hurt they can put out.


I think that's really the crux of the problem right there.

AT some point people will have to accept that 5th edition is relatively rule light and meant to have a lot of dm oversight rather than slavish adherance to rules no matter how nonsensical or disrupting the result.

DM oversight is not a bug in 5th edition, it's an intended feature.
Nonsense. The problem with the skill system has absolutely nothing to do with it being rules light (which is a tenuous claim to begin with, 5e may be rules light in comparison to 3.5 or 4e, but it's still a 1000 page game), it has to do with the fairly small change in probabilities over the course of even a long campaign, with only a clumsily implemented automatic success tool. WR&M is a rules light D&D like system - and it's actually rules light, with a whopping 40 pages of base content and less than 200 pages even with the expansions. The skills also vary between characters, from +0 to +8 for starting characters alone. It's also an exploding d6 system, which means that you can theoretically roll very high, but the highly competent characters are an entire die explosion above the low skill characters. In an opposed roll there is less than a 1/6 chance of a +0 character even getting to the bonus on a +8 starting character, but still a meaningful chance of them winning. Fudge is rules light, and in an opposed test even the lowest skill character can theoretically beat the highest. It's just curved, so they have a .12% chance of tying and a .02% chance of actually winning. A bit closer, and the odds start getting drastically better.

There are some difficulties getting 5e to work this way. The d20 roll and add system does impede it a bit, since the easiest way to both keep to a close scale and have skill differences matter is to use a curved distribution of some sort. If the die curve were 5d4 instead of 1d20 even a +6 difference starts looking pretty hefty (the odds of doing at least as well as someone +6 above you drops from 22.75% to 3.22%, with a +11 it goes from 9% to .03%). Heck, in opposed rolls a +2 is worth almost as much as a +6 would be, and accuracy remains nice and bounded.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

...I don't think you understand what bounded accuracy means. Even someone totally outmatched had a 5% chance of hitting in 3.5. A bell curve where you can start venturing into "0.2%" odds of losing a roll is the exact opposite of remaining bounded.

If you so ridiculously outmatch someone at something they have no conceivable chance of beating you, the DM should just arbitrarily succeed you.

[Knaight]

...I don't think you understand what bounded accuracy means. Even someone totally outmatched had a 5% chance of hitting in 3.5. A bell curve where you can start venturing into "0.2%" odds of losing a roll is the exact opposite of remaining bounded.

It remains above 0, and those are deliberately picked from extreme cases. Also, even in 5e there's the case of someone with the Rogue's expertise, level 20, and max attributes against someone with +0. The odds of the person with +0 winning are a whopping 0.25%. That one case of a +17 really does represent someone extremely good quite well. It's just that just about everyone else is restricted to a +11 at best.

As for that 5% chance of hitting, hardly. There's a 5% chance of getting past AC defenses, yes. 3.5 has so many defenses past that though - miss chance, substantial DR, so on and so forth. Maximum damage of zero is pretty common in that system really. 5e put the kibosh on that, which I am entirely a proponent of. 3.5 also has 0% chance for skills, it just gets to the point where one character can have a 0% chance of skills, get a +20 bonus, and still have a zero percent chance of skills, while another character of the same level can have a 100% chance at the same task. Again, that's pretty ridiculous, and 5e needed to tone that down. I'd just argue that they went a bit far. It's hard for low level characters to be any good at any skill at all, while the differences between them in combat and magic gets very stark very fast. Going up several levels gets you an extremely marginal benefit to a scant handful of skills. Yet look at the experience budget - several levels is worth a great deal there, suggesting what happens with combat stuff.


If you so ridiculously outmatch someone at something they have no conceivable chance of beating you, the DM should just arbitrarily succeed you.
This is what has been suggested as an actual patch for opposed rolls over and over again. That arbitrarily being given a success exists is being used to cover for how the system generally doesn't produce it. The system actually approaching it shouldn't be a problem. The goal of bounded accuracy was nominally that everyone could succeed at most every task, and that everyone could fail at most every task. That actually didn't get implemented, because of a handful of outliers. What did get implemented is the game outside of those outliers having skill rolls be dominated by random chance, with character ability pretty much sidelined.

Meanwhile, actual bounded accuracy systems have been achieved in other games. To use another Fudge example, there's a fan-made variant where you don't roll and add, but instead you roll 4 dice + 1 per the absolute value of your skill (-4 to +4, in practice -2 to +3). Every character is in a -4 to +4 range, and every character can theoretically roll any of those numbers. However, the odds do meaningfully shift. The best in the world have a 26% chance of accomplishing the hardest tasks, and only a 2.4% chance of failing an average one. Someone who is highly talented still has a shot at the hardest task, with a cool 10% chance, but they also have a 10% failure chance for a more typical task (though the failure chances do get nice and low for really easy things the untrained pull of routinely). It's bounded, it works, it doesn't have abrupt and weird jumps in place when the GM has to decide on an auto-success where prior odds were 70-90% or so.

Again, implementing this in D&D gets tricky, because of the d20 and add mechanic, and the DC mirroring the way everything else works (AC, Saves). It's not like the 5e skill system is flawed because the designers missed something easy and obvious. It's flawed because the core mechanics of the game, which they really couldn't afford to change make it difficult to implement a good system, and because the very solid system that was employed for non-skill tasks and which probably should be kept for symmetry purposes isn't well suited. They were in a bit of a corner design-wise, and I don't envy that position.

[toapat]

Meh the best stuff was still in core and most of the splats just made other things more playable.TOB probably should have replaced the Fighter Monk and Paladin totally

paladin was viable years before tob was published, and people still refuse to admit that.

when it comes down to the fact, 5th ed is the better edition, not because 3.5 isnt good, but because what makes the first wotc era good is what condemns the system. pathfinder doesnt understand this, and 4th was trying to be something else entirely but failed to not become the overly complex system that takes hours of work to make enjoyable. Is 5th as rich as prior editions? no its not that old and they dont intend to do that to nearly the same degree. And while the game has issues, such as scale ruining the balance or the intelect devourer, the warts do not number nearly as high atm.

[Gritmonger]

The fact that someone else is making a check instead of you is chimerical. You could be the one rolling against their save dc and the game would function exactly the same.

The only way for luck not to matter is if the DM arbitrarily determines the result of all skill checks rather than relying on dice.

...which is not itself antithetical to this edition; witness the damage numbers given for weapons, attacks, spell effects, and so-on. Solid numbers next to die rolls - making the die-roll seem optional compared to a fixed value.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It remains above 0, and those are deliberately picked from extreme cases. Also, even in 5e there's the case of someone with the Rogue's expertise, level 20, and max attributes against someone with +0. The odds of the person with +0 winning are a whopping 0.25%. That one case of a +17 really does represent someone extremely good quite well. It's just that just about everyone else is restricted to a +11 at best.

You WANT a system that breaks bounded accuracy - like expertise does - but you claim that it keeps things 'nice and bounded'. You can't have both!

Having meaningful bounded accuracy means having a meaningful chance to fail in a skill contest. That means the dice roll needs to play a big part. There's no real way around that without giving up on it.


Someone who is highly talented still has a shot at the hardest task, with a cool 10% chance, but they also have a 10% failure chance for a more typical task (though the failure chances do get nice and low for really easy things the untrained pull of routinely).
The problem is that probability has really weird interactions with tasks. Namely, it makes no sense. For the most part, someone either has the skill to do something or they don't. Unfortunately if you do everything as passive checks (in 5e parlance) then gameplay gets really deterministic and weird. Which is why the luck factor exists in the first place.

In 5e you are assumed to have baseline competence for many tasks so you just don't roll for them. Climbing and jumping are good examples; in 3.5 they were totally check based which resulted in utter nonsense like Chronos cited earlier. In 5e you have baseline competence in both and rolling is only required for extraordinary situations or for taking risks. It is up to the DM to arbitrarily determine when these extraordinary situations exists and what DCs are involved. DM judgement is fundamental to the system because otherwise baseline competence and roll-checks have a tough time coexisting.

Arbitrarily deciding when and where skill checks should occur results in better flowing gameplay that is more likely to meet player expectations of a fantasy world rather than a game-world.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in 5e in this respect is that it fails to delineate a mechanical difference between a proficient and non-proficient skill other than than the level dependent bonus. For example, I think characters should probably be blocked from making knowledge checks that they lack either a bonus in or a background reason for.

[Beleriphon]

My new player experience with 3.5 skills:

"Sorry, you can't attempt that knowledge check, you aren't trained."

"Oh..that sucks..well I'll put a bunch of points in it!"

"Sorry, you have to spend double the points and it will never really be relevant because the skill system is based on classes that don't need to spend double the points."

"...Well that's stupid."

Or:

"Sorry, you don't know what that thing is. You don't have knowledge nature."

"But..it's a tiger. How can my character not know it's a tiger?"

"Yep, it sure is. The rules say you don't know it's a tiger. Sorry."

I alwasy felt the difference was in the latter scenario the character doesn't know anything about tiger biology, not that they literally can't identify the at all (short of somebody having never seen anything like it). I figure anybody should be able to identify any given animal, or substance or whatever, that is reasonably common. Knowledge skills have always been a bit wonky, but that's largely true of any edition of D&D just because of what they tend to be used for: identifying and killing dangerous things.

[Yenek]

Knowledge skills should have been split off into their own thing - ideally, many knowledge checks should require proficiency (or bardic knowledge) to even make. This would have been an ideal place to give an explicit bonus to the INT stat.

Really? Because this houserule makes INT even more useless for characters like Roy.

[Knaight]

You WANT a system that breaks bounded accuracy - like expertise does - but you claim that it keeps things 'nice and bounded'. You can't have both!

Having meaningful bounded accuracy means having a meaningful chance to fail in a skill contest. That means the dice roll needs to play a big part. There's no real way around that without giving up on it.
No, meaningful bounded accuracy means that everyone is operating within a restricted range, and that it is possible for the dice to bring in unlikely events. That doesn't mean that they need to have a gigantic probability of happening. There's a huge difference between 0% and 2.5%, and even at the extremes where failure is unlikely there's the matter of degrees of success at all times.

Expertise operates by turning the failure chances of a lot of different tasks, all of different hardness, to 0%. That's antithetical to bounded accuracy. Drastically diminishing failure chances so that they get in the low single digit percentages? Totally fine. Besides, bounded accuracy is primarily a goal within the combat system, to preserve the danger of low level threats, where sheer numbers matter due to the resource mechanics involved. Skills don't have a resource mechanic, that frees them up a bit.


The problem is that probability has really weird interactions with tasks. Namely, it makes no sense. For the most part, someone either has the skill to do something or they don't. Unfortunately if you do everything as passive checks (in 5e parlance) then gameplay gets really deterministic and weird. Which is why the luck factor exists in the first place.
It makes perfect sense. Putting aside how people either having the skill or not is questionable at best, as people do screw up, or make things of varying quality, or succeed or fail on the same task based on transient variables - there's the matter of skills being broad. In aggregate, this character might have an amazing Knowledge History, and this other character a terrible one. That doesn't necessarily mean that on this particular thing that character is better, as it's very possible that it happens to be outside of their area of expertise and a point of specialized narrow knowledge for the second character. It's unlikely, but possible.


Perhaps the biggest flaw in 5e in this respect is that it fails to delineate a mechanical difference between a proficient and non-proficient skill other than than the level dependent bonus. For example, I think characters should probably be blocked from making knowledge checks that they lack either a bonus in or a background reason for.
Except for it makes perfect sense for someone with no real training who is by no means proficient to have a smattering of knowledge they've picked up doing other things, and for that smattering to occasionally contain exactly what's needed.

[Kurald Galain]

And what's wrong with that? If you spend your whole life working to become good at something, you should be able to do it trivially.
Precisely. The fact that characters eventually become good at their skills is a design feature of 3E.

It is clear that not everybody likes that feature, and that's fine, but in terms of game design this particular feature is clearly working as intended.



My biggest issue with the skill system as is (and the attack roll system) is that luck (d20) matters way to much for way to long in your PC's career. You character isn't effecting the game as much as the d20 is. When you get higher numbers or expertise and higher numbers then your character starts to have an actual impact in the game, but till then you are just a player rolling a d20 and hoping you are lucky.
I completely agree.



Nonsense. The problem with the skill system has absolutely nothing to do with it being rules light (which is a tenuous claim to begin with, 5e may be rules light in comparison to 3.5 or 4e, but it's still a 1000 page game), it has to do with the fairly small change in probabilities over the course of even a long campaign, with only a clumsily implemented automatic success tool.
And Knaight is quite correct that BA has nothing to do with whether or not a system is rules-light (and also, that 5E really isn't rules light by the normal meaning of the term).

[Pex]

The thing is, autosuccess exists in 5e as well...I just don't think people realize it. The DM is only supposed to call for a roll if the outcome is in doubt. If there's no doubt and there is enough time to accomplish the task, success is supposed to be automatic.

For example, I often hear people complaining that a novice adventurer has a chance to make better armor than a trained blacksmith. Except it shouldn't be that way. The blacksmith shouldn't be rolling at all...he should be autosucceeding due to his training, and the novice adventurer should be having a difficult time. This should be reflected by the blacksmith not needing a roll to make a difficult piece of armor and the novice adventurer having to hit a high DC.

When I run my games, I don't always call for rolls. If a character wants to climb a tree, for example...if he has plenty of time and he isn't a clumsy oaf with a Dexterity score below 6, I just let him climb the tree. Not everything requires a roll and the DM shouldn't expect that it does.

The problem arises when the DM and players have different expectations of what shouldn't need a roll. DM decides is an answer but causes a problem of player resentment if the player never gets his way the more this happens. The problem gets worse when players (including DMs) play the game with other groups who have a different threshold of what doesn't require a roll. The blacksmith always beating the baby in crafting a sword will be default throughout, unless it's a plot relevant baby. It is not so clear cut for the ranger wanting to climb a greased-up pole while orcs are attacking.

[calebrus]

It is not so clear cut for the ranger wanting to climb a greased-up pole while orcs are attacking.

Really?
Climbing a greased and slippery pole while being attacked?
That's the example you give of something that might be auto-success? Because that would never be auto-success.

Climbing a greased pole, a difficult task in any circumstances (DC 20).... while you're being attacked. Being attacked arguably raises the DC by a step. So DC 20 or 25.
And you think that this should be auto-success under any circumstances?
No wonder you don't like 5e's skill system.... because your expectations are unreasonable.
Only a handful of people, the best climbers in the entire world, Olympic level, might find that a simple task.

Auto-success, at our table, is measured by passive scores. If you could you succeed with your passive score and don't have sufficient distractions then you auto-succeed.
Kind of sounds like taking 10, huh?

[Kurald Galain]

Only a handful of people, the best climbers in the entire world, Olympic level, might find that a simple task.

Precisely.

In a heroic fantasy system, I expect moderate-level characters to be able to match Olympic feats, and high-level characters to easily surpass them. For example, like Heracles and Cuchulainn.

[Forum Explorer]

Yup, a good factor to look at is time and pressure. Like crossing a thigh-high stream. Outside of combat? Auto-success. It might take some time, and maybe you slip and fall once or twice, but you'll make it across eventually without anything actually bad happening. But if you are sprinting across to attack the archers on the other side? Well make an athletics check to keep your balance in the river.


But anyways, I much prefer 5e's skill system over 3.P (but I don't really like much of anything from 3.P these days). It was trivially easy to master a skill in 3.P with enough investment and at that point they just auto-succeed at everything check, or everyone else autofails.

Also the idea that it burned certain classes like fighter that got crap skill points to begin with.


5e might be swingy, and get weird scenarios occasionally (though I'd like to point out that you seem to mostly be complaining about PvP, something that normally only occurs with Stealth and Persuasion) but it's a big improvement on the crazy optimization that 3.P could (and did) do to break skill checks in half. That's not to say it's perfect, just better then 3.P. I'm not sure what system I'd use instead though.

[obryn]

Really?
Climbing a greased and slippery pole while being attacked?
That's the example you give of something that might be auto-success? Because that would never be auto-success.

Climbing a greased pole, a difficult task in any circumstances (DC 20).... while you're being attacked. Being attacked arguably raises the DC by a step. So DC 20 or 25.
And you think that this should be auto-success under any circumstances?
No wonder you don't like 5e's skill system.... because your expectations are unreasonable.
Only a handful of people, the best climbers in the entire world, Olympic level, might find that a simple task.

This is what I was talking about earlier, with the system not being conscious of its own power levels.

At 17th level, the Wizard is casting wish. And we're worried about Rangers out-climbing Olympic athletes? Really?

[Beleriphon]

Precisely.

In a heroic fantasy system, I expect moderate-level characters to be able to match Olympic feats, and high-level characters to easily surpass them. For example, like Heracles and Cuchulainn.

I think 5E is working on a slightly different paradigm than your expectations. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure Heracles and Cu Chulainn weren't exactly renowned for their incredible skills at acrobatics or ability to climb stuff like a spider moneky. They were probably best done as high level D&D fighters, who incidentally are very good at things like throwing, running and beating problems into submission.

5E very much falls into the amazing, but human range of skills (until pretty high levels), where as you seem to be wanting to go well into the inhuman (Inhuman :smallwink:) range. Maybe that's the disconnect, rather than the skill system being at fault. I really think its just you want to do one thing with the skill system, and the game works on a different set of assumptions.

[calebrus]

Precisely.

In a heroic fantasy system, I expect moderate-level characters to be able to match Olympic feats, and high-level characters to easily surpass them. For example, like Heracles and Cuchulainn.

Moderate-level?
No.
By definition, if only a handful of people in the entire world are capable of the feat with years of training, then we're talking very high level, including expertise.
Not "moderate-level" by any means.

High level with a +5 to the stat = passive score around 20.
Easy.
With expertise, even easier with a 26 passive.
Moderate level we're looking at maybe a 17 passive (with 20-21 for the expert). Still doable, but not for lack of effort. And certainly not as an auto success while under attack, except *maybe* for the expert).

Like I said, unrealistic expectations.
You want Olympic level capabilities and feats to auto-succeed, during moderate levels, while actively being attacked. Not reasonable. Not reasonable at all.
And that's why you don't like 5e's skill system, because your expectations aren't reasonable.

[ProphetSword]

In a heroic fantasy system, I expect moderate-level characters to be able to match Olympic feats, and high-level characters to easily surpass them. For example, like Heracles and Cuchulainn.

So does a character like Raistlin from the Dragonlance game fit into this scheme? Not everyone is a physical dynamo of Olympic proportions, and you shouldn't expect that they would be.

[Pex]

Really?
Climbing a greased and slippery pole while being attacked?
That's the example you give of something that might be auto-success? Because that would never be auto-success.

Climbing a greased pole, a difficult task in any circumstances (DC 20).... while you're being attacked. Being attacked arguably raises the DC by a step. So DC 20 or 25.
And you think that this should be auto-success under any circumstances?
No wonder you don't like 5e's skill system.... because your expectations are unreasonable.
Only a handful of people, the best climbers in the entire world, Olympic level, might find that a simple task.

Auto-success, at our table, is measured by passive scores. If you could you succeed with your passive score and don't have sufficient distractions then you auto-succeed.
Kind of sounds like taking 10, huh?

Ergo, the problem. You and others think no one should ever autosucceed climbing a greased pole while orcs are attacking. Myself and others do think a character should be able to do that. In 3E/Pathfinder it's determined by your total Climb modifier compared to the DC. At some point a character can do this on a Natural 1. In 5E, it's up for grabs. It's never or when you're level X or you have to be a certain class or whether the DM is in a good mood or whatever.

[Dimers]

So does a character like Raistlin from the Dragonlance game fit into this scheme? Not everyone is a physical dynamo of Olympic proportions, and you shouldn't expect that they would be.

Raistlin was not what you would call unskilled himself. He made insight and bluff checks that beat Tiamat handily. EDIT: The point being, some people want a game system that can represent amazing levels of non-magically-enhanced skill, regardless of which skill is under discussion.

[archaeo]

EDIT: The point being, some people want a game system that can represent amazing levels of non-magically-enhanced skill, regardless of which skill is under discussion.

The game can easily do that, though. It literally requires knocking 5-10 off the printed baseline DCs.

This is the thing I don't really get. Making the desired change here is the work of maybe five minutes, tops. Either a) you lower DCs across the board, b) give bigger skill bonuses to PCs, or c) eschew the 5e system and replace it with, say, the 3.5e system, which can be bolted into place without any trouble. Alternately, you can d) simply work with the system's understanding of how DMs should call for skill rolls, since it has anticipated these problems and provided an extremely simple way of handling them: don't roll for things that you think should automatically succeed.

I can understand it if you're determined to knock 5e down a few pegs because it wasn't designed, by default, to do exactly what you want. But the only way these solutions don't work is if you're at a table where nobody agrees with how you want to run a game, which does not strike me as the system's fault.

[Milo v3]

Just wondering, do people actually consider 5e rules light?

[Zyzzyva]

Just wondering, do people actually consider 5e rules light?

Yes!

Compared to 3.X/every other edition of D&D. Compared to, say, Fate? No. On the whole spectrum of RPGs? No. But in a thread specifically about comparing 5e to 3.X, I think calling 5e "the rules-light D&D edition" is perfectly legitimate.

[themaque]

Just wondering, do people actually consider 5e rules light?

Compared to the vast majority of games that I DO play? yes. Compared to every game ever made? it may be on the low end of average.

I think it's a fair enough title, especially considering it's D&D and the past few editions.

[themaque]

And that's why you don't like 5e's skill system, because your expectations aren't reasonable.

his expectations aren't inherently unreasonable, but they are definitely unfulfilled with this rules system.

Saying the rules are wrong for not fulfilling them isn't fair, but saying you don't like them because of it is.