To switch to 5e or not?

[lsfreak]

I've been talking with some friends who are interested in learning/playing D&D. The issue is whether we use 3.5/PF or 5e as our basis. I have only briefly read through the PHB and parts of the DMG, and really like a lot of the features of 5e, but my really, really big hangup is character options. I love character building in 3.5, it's probably the main reason I enjoy DMing, as well as homebrewing up a bunch of stuff (especially to bring weak classes up to par). And when I play, I want to have a number of choices while I level, and even more choices in combat.

That's where my question comes in. I'm used to taking an E6 environment and then houseruling 3.5 classes to have more options, and earlier. By 3rd level paladins have per-encounter smite with multiple rider effects (some chosen when smiting, some chosen and fixed as part of leveling), a lay on hands that does more than just heal, immediate-action blessings, and a couple utility spells. I triple a sorcerer's spells known and give them an erudite-style X spells/day/level instead. ToB characters learn double the maneuvers and increase the maneuvers readied by half. But 5e seems to, if anything, go the opposite direction of this, and while it's better off than the 3.5 Core classes, is appears to be worse off than binders, ToB, and the other classes that I think are the glowing standards of 3.5. The lack of feats also compounds the scant advancement choices to make classes more homogenous from a character building point of view.

As a result, I'm kind of at a loss of what exactly to do. Like I said, there are a lot of features I *really* like about 5e – cantrips, advantage/disadvantage, the combat options, the skill sets, a much more sane distribution of spells, magic items, almost everything except the classes themselves. So I'm thinking about homebrewing up a bunch of things to make classes far more dense using a 5e baseline. There's some things that just aren't compatible with 5e's framework, e.g. the blessings I gave paladins included a bunch of little bonuses to attack or AC they could apply in different circumstances, which for the most part doesn't seem to be in the spirit of 5e. But I can't imagine it's going to be easy to twist 5e into what my preference would be, it's probably going to require stripping apart the classes and rebuilding them from the ground up, and it would mess with balance so much that I won't have anything to use as a base of comparison like I would in 3.5.

I suppose I'm not really sure how I hope people respond to this as it's kind of just a cry of frustration. I guess I'm just hoping people can give me arguments one way or the other why I should do one or the other, because I'm honestly at a loss to know which way I should go. The people I'm playing with don't really know enough about the game to make any kind of informed decision, and are both content to play a heavily-houseruled version of D&D either way.

[Zman]

Make the switch, especially if you are dealing with new players. There are a ton of character creation options and many more viable options that are at appropriate power levels. It is actively difficult to screw up a character in 5e. Good subclasses, intelligent multiclasses, streamlined gameplay, and so many viable options and strategies make 5e the clear choice.

After making the switch to 5e I can't imagine ever playing or DMing 3.P again. Like seriously, you'd have to pay me.

[Kane0]

Teaching new players? Thats easy. Use 5e.

If you like having all the options, go for a browse around the homebrew forums and just nab whatever you like. Once you get a bit familiar you'll be able to make your own additions pretty quickly and easily thanks to subclasses.

Try the stock options first, I think you'll find it less of a problem than you first perceive. If after a good honest try you still don't like the standard 5e approach increase the granularity via houserules or switch to 3.5, whichever you think is best.

[JoeJ]

I've been talking with some friends who are interested in learning/playing D&D. The issue is whether we use 3.5/PF or 5e as our basis. I have only briefly read through the PHB and parts of the DMG, and really like a lot of the features of 5e, but my really, really big hangup is character options. I love character building in 3.5, it's probably the main reason I enjoy DMing, as well as homebrewing up a bunch of stuff (especially to bring weak classes up to par). And when I play, I want to have a number of choices while I level, and even more choices in combat.

If what you like most is character options, why the heck would you play 3.5? Granted it has more options than 5e, but it's still extremely limited compared to games like Hero, or GURPS, or Mutants & Masterminds, where you buy each ability or skill or whatever separately.

[Flashy]

I think one aspect of the game that's really not apparent at first is how much archetypes really do set characters apart. They may seem like minor features, but they only rarely are. Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight Fighters, Diviner and Illusionist Wizards, Light and War Clerics, Land and Moon Druids all have features that shift their entire overall playstyle.

But at the end of the day you're right, there are fewer outright character options than 3.5. The system is much younger and much less focused on splatbooks, so that's sort of going to come with the territory. You have to decide if the features you really like outweigh the things you don't. I'd encourage you to try it. The classes aren't as limiting as they might seem.

[Raphite1]

I've started two different campaigns with totally new players in the last two years: one with Pathfinder (essentially 3.5), and one with 5th Edition.

ALL of the Pathfinder newbies started off frustrated at the rules for tons of fiddly pluses and minuses, overwhelmed by the plethora of options, and ultimately angry with the gross class imbalances that eventually became apparent. They don't play anymore.

ALL of the 5th Editions newbies picked up the game and were innovating battle strategies within two hours, loved tailoring the RP of the existing (sub)classes to their character ideas, and always felt like equal members of the team. Our game is still going strong, there's a waiting list of players who want in, and existing players have branched out and joined other games also.

It's very true that 5th Edition has fewer character options at present (though more have already been added, and will continue to be added), BUT the actual gulf between 5e and 3.5 is smaller than it seems. ALL of the 5e subclasses are viable and similar in power, whereas a large swath of the 3.5/3.P options are grossly weak or strong compared to others, and unsuitable for many games.

As others have said, there's already a bunch of decent 5e homebrew that you can snag, and you'll be able to cook up your own fairly easily after awhile.

[lsfreak]

If what you like most is character options, why the heck would you play 3.5? Granted it has more options than 5e, but it's still extremely limited compared to games like Hero, or GURPS, or Mutants & Masterminds, where you buy each ability or skill or whatever separately.

A combination of already knowing the rules, liking the system well enough, wanting it to still be small enough that I can see the whole thing, and most importantly afaik I've never met anyone who's even heard of the others.

[Kane0]

Sounds like 5e will work well for you mate. Give it a go, you and your new players won't be disappointed.

[JoeJ]

A combination of already knowing the rules, liking the system well enough, wanting it to still be small enough that I can see the whole thing, and most importantly afaik I've never met anyone who's even heard of the others.

Fair enough. In that case, I'll echo the others and say that 5e gives you more options than it initially looks like. Not only are the subclasses meaningfully different, but the lack of trap options makes any or all of them worth playing. And the backgrounds are not just fluff; they also provide meaningful options for your character.

[cobaltstarfire]

I would pick 5e.

As has been said a lot, 5e has quite a few options to work with when you consider the class paths. I'll echo the feeling that it's very hard to "mess up" your character as well.

3.P has more stuff, but in relative terms I don't think it really has that many options.

If you're familiar with 3.P, 5e should be easy to pick up, there are similarities (though there are also differences, approach it fresh because some of the diction has different meanings now than it did in 3.p).

It's much easier to remember and follow the rules for 5e than for 3.P, which means it'll be an easier time for new players.

Though if you don't want to invest in the system there is a "basic" version you can use for a test drive, or find a store that's running Adventurers League to get a feel of the system as a player. Or even try both out, no reason a group can't play with multiple systems.

[Monstar3014]

I agree with pretty much the entire thread. I tried to introduce a few people to pathfinder and it was terrible. They liked the idea, but there were too many floating bonuses and options that take a veteran to pilfer through and see what's good in combination with other stuff.

5th edition is completely different. Everybody got on board quickly and saw how their character excelled at what he or she wanted to do.

On the other hand, I played with a few options and combined them into a competent melee controller wizard that can wear armor and stealth. I don't do a lot of damage, but I'd rather set up the new people get giddy when they nuke or slice and dice stuff (which happens!)

At level 5 in Hoard of the Dragon Queen we are a:
Dwarven dual wielding ranger/ new player
Goliath two-hand fighter/ played since 2nd edition
Tiefling sorceress/ new player
Half Elf Paladin/ new player
Moon Elf L1Wizard/L4 Bard new player
and my High Elf L1 Fighter/L4 Abjurer Wizard played since 3rd edition

Everybody understands and enjoys the game.

Disclaimer: none of us are idiots, computer programmer, and a bunch of medical professionals. Not that it's really needed to play.

[Hyena]

Switch to 5e. I've used to play 3.5, then PF, then 3.5 E6, all to get a believable fantasy experience without supersonic wizard gods, something easy, but fun - and 5e gave it to me. I will never go back now.

[Belac93]

Make the switch.

[Kite474]

Much like the rest of these fine folks I recommend switching to 5e. It has quite a few problems but it does a lot of things right too. Be warned though If your players played things like Summoners, Inquisitors, Alchemist, and anything in the Advanced Class guide and Occult Mysteries book there is nothing like that in 5e so you would unfortunately have to home brew those yourself. Ultimately those coming from 3.F will find a better core, I imagine they will miss the splat content

[JNAProductions]

You know, I wonder what the response would be if you posted this in the 3.5 thread... :P

That being said, echoing the others-make the switch. Or, as someone said, play both, see which you like more.

[Waazraath]

I've been talking with some friends who are interested in learning/playing D&D. The issue is whether we use 3.5/PF or 5e as our basis. I have only briefly read through the PHB and parts of the DMG, and really like a lot of the features of 5e, but my really, really big hangup is character options. I love character building in 3.5, it's probably the main reason I enjoy DMing, as well as homebrewing up a bunch of stuff (especially to bring weak classes up to par). And when I play, I want to have a number of choices while I level, and even more choices in combat.

That's where my question comes in. I'm used to taking an E6 environment and then houseruling 3.5 classes to have more options, and earlier. By 3rd level paladins have per-encounter smite with multiple rider effects (some chosen when smiting, some chosen and fixed as part of leveling), a lay on hands that does more than just heal, immediate-action blessings, and a couple utility spells. I triple a sorcerer's spells known and give them an erudite-style X spells/day/level instead. ToB characters learn double the maneuvers and increase the maneuvers readied by half. But 5e seems to, if anything, go the opposite direction of this, and while it's better off than the 3.5 Core classes, is appears to be worse off than binders, ToB, and the other classes that I think are the glowing standards of 3.5. The lack of feats also compounds the scant advancement choices to make classes more homogenous from a character building point of view.

As a result, I'm kind of at a loss of what exactly to do. Like I said, there are a lot of features I *really* like about 5e – cantrips, advantage/disadvantage, the combat options, the skill sets, a much more sane distribution of spells, magic items, almost everything except the classes themselves. So I'm thinking about homebrewing up a bunch of things to make classes far more dense using a 5e baseline. There's some things that just aren't compatible with 5e's framework, e.g. the blessings I gave paladins included a bunch of little bonuses to attack or AC they could apply in different circumstances, which for the most part doesn't seem to be in the spirit of 5e. But I can't imagine it's going to be easy to twist 5e into what my preference would be, it's probably going to require stripping apart the classes and rebuilding them from the ground up, and it would mess with balance so much that I won't have anything to use as a base of comparison like I would in 3.5.

I suppose I'm not really sure how I hope people respond to this as it's kind of just a cry of frustration. I guess I'm just hoping people can give me arguments one way or the other why I should do one or the other, because I'm honestly at a loss to know which way I should go. The people I'm playing with don't really know enough about the game to make any kind of informed decision, and are both content to play a heavily-houseruled version of D&D either way.

I think your remarks are spot on. I loved 3.5 as well for the building options. But so far, 5e offered me enough in the way of interesting builds (though some classes are more suited for variaty in builds then others). I recently DM'd for a group of new people, first time using 5e... and it's really much easier then 3.5. So I'd give 5e a try. GL, whatever you choose.

[Celcey]

I highly recommend using 5e, for all of the reasons listed above. But if you're switching from one system to another, I would be careful just because certain terms mean different things in 3.x as they do in 5e, such as the charmed condition, so make sure you read through things carefully. Although the core concepts are similar, treat 5e as it's own game.

[Sigreid]

I love 5e and think your newbies will find it easier and smoother.

I think you won't like it as much and might wand to try GURPS as the king of options.

[Flashy]

You know, I wonder what the response would be if you posted this in the 3.5 thread.

Yeah, turns out everyone on the 5e forum likes 5e.

[downlobot]

I rotate dm for a group that's been playing 3.P longer than I've been playing tabletop. I have dmed pathfinder for them, and now we're playing lost mines of phandelver to try out 5e. Everyone likes 5e, but I might be the only one who prefers it. I don't want to go back to pathfinder, but several other players do, for the reasons you cited - character building is more involved (i.e., there are many more decision points). As a relatively new player, the decision points in pathfinder are difficult for me because of the glut of options - apparently nearly every other feat is a trap, and if it's not a trap it won't really come online to let you do cool stuff for another few levels, provided you continue to make the 'right' choices. As a relatively new dm, it's a nightmare. I have no idea how to challenge the party and I'm consistently feeling like someone (or several someones) is bored. It sounds like you have enough system mastery to make it work, but I, frankly, don't.

So the vets in my group do actually like 5e (where have all the fiddly bits gone? This is nice, quick and fun!). But they do miss the character customization - important note: this is not equivalent to saying characters are not interesting or powerful, but they're used to scouring through fairly major decisions at least every other level, often more often than that.

So this is not a recommendation to go either way. I prefer 5e. Several of my players enjoy the game, and we'll likely continue at some point, but they prefer pathfinder. Hopefully I won't have to dm that too much more :)

[Tehnar]

To play the devils advocate:


The "Its new and shiny" feeling fades fast. Low level 5e is not much different then 3.p, but as you level up its more of the same. With few options and classes there is no replayability.
Its essentially abandonware. WotC didn't write anything for 5e since the DMG, all content is put out by 3rd party publishers at the rate of 2 adventures per year. Adventures that even 5e fans declare they are middling at best.

[JNAProductions]

That being said, there's a crapton of homebrew, so if you use that, you should be good. (Including a couple of real high quality adventures.)

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm going to agree that you should make the switch, I love 5e, but bare in mind the complexity isn't as gone as it seems. Classes can be much more complex now, but I think my group might be the exception with them forgetting to use class abilities. Part of the reason I plan to personally stop DMing 5e completely, although I still love the game.

Character creation is easy to guide players through (roll and assign ability scores/point buy, pick race, pick class, pick subclass, pick background, assemble equipment), especially compared to games like Anima, Mutants and Masterminds, and GURPS (not that I have anything against those games, I love all of them).

There are even simpler fantasy RPGs out there (Dungeon World springs to mind, and both Fate and Qin could do D&D style fantasy okay), but if you know 3.5 well enough to run it, I suggest 5e for newbies. I really like the game, and wish I could try being a player in it (halberd wielding Paladin as my first character, as I've been wanting to do it for ages).

[WickerNipple]

I don't think 5e is necessarily a better game than 3.5 - but if you're going to be introducing newbies to D&D then you'd be mad to choose 3.5.

[Talyn]

To play the devils advocate:


The "Its new and shiny" feeling fades fast. Low level 5e is not much different then 3.p, but as you level up its more of the same. With few options and classes there is no replayability.
Its essentially abandonware. WotC didn't write anything for 5e since the DMG, all content is put out by 3rd party publishers at the rate of 2 adventures per year. Adventures that even 5e fans declare they are middling at best.


I have to disagree with both of those statements, but even if that second statement is true, 5e is much, much more "backwards compatible" to old 1st and 2nd edition modules. My current gaming group has used several 1st and 2nd edition modules more or less unchanged over the course of our current campaign, to great success.

[Envyus]

To play the devils advocate:


The "Its new and shiny" feeling fades fast. Low level 5e is not much different then 3.p, but as you level up its more of the same. With few options and classes there is no replayability.
Its essentially abandonware. WotC didn't write anything for 5e since the DMG, all content is put out by 3rd party publishers at the rate of 2 adventures per year. Adventures that even 5e fans declare they are middling at best.


None of this is true. Only Tryanny of Dragons has the middling thing going for it. All the other offical adventures have been. WotC does publish the adventures and lots of the Adventures have new stuff. Added on the Sword Coast Adventure Guide just came out which has lots of character options.

[Yuki Akuma]

None of this is true. Only Tryanny of Dragons has the middling thing going for it. All the other offical adventures have been. WotC does publish the adventures and lots of the Adventures have new stuff. Added on the Sword Coast Adventure Guide just came out which has lots of character options.

Don't forget all the stuff they publish on their website. There's practically a book's worth of content by now.

[Tvtyrant]

Switch to 5E, for sure. It is pretty cheap right now, and it maintains a rough power parity without using the same subsystem for every class.

I personally grew up on 3.5 and am more comfortable with it, but every one of my players prefers 5E and it is sooo much easier to learn/teach.

[Tenmujiin]

Its essentially abandonware. WotC didn't write anything for 5e since the DMG.

Between the sword coast adventurer's guide, monthly Unearthed Arcana releases and regular RaI/RaW clarificstions I honestly don't know how you came to that oppinion.

Sure WotC haven't put out a splat a month but not doing so was a stated design goal. I was expecting 2/3 splat a year though, not 0.5 (SCAG is mostly fluff).

Edit: I recomend at least running a couple of adventures in 5e before intorducing them to 3.5. 5e is MUCH easier to learn and if you normally do a tonne of homebrew then 5e makes it easier IMO.

[Tehnar]

I have to disagree with both of those statements, but even if that second statement is true, 5e is much, much more "backwards compatible" to old 1st and 2nd edition modules. My current gaming group has used several 1st and 2nd edition modules more or less unchanged over the course of our current campaign, to great success.

I don't see how its more backward compatible then 3.p. Aside from the whole THAC0 to BaB direct conversion, almost all of the monsters and traps in those editions have been published in the 3.p system, while that is not true for 5e. Which means you have to do more conversion work for 5e.


Between the sword coast adventurer's guide, monthly Unearthed Arcana releases and regular RaI/RaW clarificstions I honestly don't know how you came to that oppinion.

Sure WotC haven't put out a splat a month but not doing so was a stated design goal. I was expecting 2/3 splat a year though, not 0.5 (SCAG is mostly fluff).

Edit: I recomend at least running a couple of adventures in 5e before intorducing them to 3.5. 5e is MUCH easier to learn and if you normally do a tonne of homebrew then 5e makes it easier IMO.

ACG and any other adventure path (EE and Tyranny) has been written by 3rd party publishers (Frog god games, Kobold press etc.). All WotC does is publish a couple of articles a month on their webpage. WotC DnD team is down to 8 employees and none of them are designated to produce actual content (aside from the really poor train of thought articles you see on the Web).

As it stands now you get a meager pieces of crunch every 6 months. For someone who wants options for their characters that is a decidedly poor way to gain access to options.

[Zalabim]

Between playing your personally crafted custom fantasy game and 5E, I expect your personal game will fit your tastes better. For teaching new players, 5E will be easier. I also believe modifying 5E to fit your personally crafted custom fantasy game style will be easier than it was to do for 3.pf, though obviously with 3.pf it's already done. I also believe using 5E's general rules and modifying from there will give you better results than trying to graft favorable 5E features backwards into your 3.pf houserules.

5E combat math is a big part of this. The AC, DC, and attack bonus range is much tighter in 5E, which lends to more of an E6 feel out of the box. Also, moving around as an amount you can do in a turn (like a perfect spring attack) instead of as a specific action, making all your attacks with the same bonus, and not having touch, flatfooted, combat maneuver and every combination of the three in addition to AC for attacks are all really nice, subtle quality-of-life improvements.

[Cybren]

As a result, I'm kind of at a loss of what exactly to do. Like I said, there are a lot of features I *really* like about 5e – cantrips, advantage/disadvantage, the combat options, the skill sets, a much more sane distribution of spells, magic items, almost everything except the classes themselves. So I'm thinking about homebrewing up a bunch of things to make classes far more dense using a 5e baseline. There's some things that just aren't compatible with 5e's framework, e.g. the blessings I gave paladins included a bunch of little bonuses to attack or AC they could apply in different circumstances, which for the most part doesn't seem to be in the spirit of 5e. But I can't imagine it's going to be easy to twist 5e into what my preference would be, it's probably going to require stripping apart the classes and rebuilding them from the ground up, and it would mess with balance so much that I won't have anything to use as a base of comparison like I would in 3.5.


This isn't necessarily true- there's a couple of bits of advice either explicitly stated or hidden within the rules.


It's suggested that new character options or mechanics not grant advantage/disadvantage, because those are more meant to be a situational bonuses handed out in context of play, not rules minutiae you hunt for by exploiting game abilities
Some abilities do give numeric bonuses, either to a single roll, or to a static value. Things that apply only once or only for a single turn can be any number you want (like the shield spell, or defensive duelist both giving flat bonuses to AC, or sharpshooter and great weapon master giving a choice to take an attack penalty for a damage bonus -though some will argue those feats are over powered, that is not at ally related to memory issues.)
Some abilities give a bonus or penalty that sticks around for multiple turns, like bless or bane, or a one-use bonus to a character that wouldn't typically have one. These usually let you add (or subtract) a die roll, allowing the physical die to be a memory aid. (why is there a d4 on top of my sheet? Oh yeah bless!). Another example is bardic inspiration, where you can give a differently colored/size die to an ally to remind them they have a boon they can apply to a roll.
Rarely, some abilities just give a bonus pretty much always, provided a condition is met, such as a Paladin's Aura of Protection giving the paladin and allies within 10 (later 30) feet the paladin's cha mod to saving throws. By making it a paladin class ability, you make it the paladin's job to remind people to get the bonus. The game mechanic encourages you to position yourself in battle to use it, so it's difficult to 'forget' it exists.

[Socratov]

As a fewllow 3.5 'grognard' I can attest to the fact that 3.5 has more options. that said, 5e is so much simpeler and accessible that I recommend making hte switch. the clases as written are flavourful and within themselves offer at least 2 ways to enjoy the class, besides leaving lots of options open.

[Mad_Saulot]

The 5e DMG has entire sections dedicated to modifying and creating new classes, races, subraces, magic items, backgrounds, monsters, npcs. You'd love it dude. Make the switch, best edition ever.

[FabulousFizban]

yes, do it. 5e is great. wizards ****ing nailed it. except for the crit rules...

[Socratov]

yes, do it. 5e is great. wizards ****ing nailed it. except for the crit rules...

nah, WOTC dropped the ball on more occasions then you'd think, but generally speaking it's an improvement. A big improvement, but nowwhere near perfect yet.

[KorvinStarmast]

yes, do it. 5e is great. wizards ****ing nailed it. except for the crit rules... What do you think they goofed up with the crit rules?

[Knaight]

I'd recommend giving 5e a shot, particularly for the new players. With that said, it's not like you're locked into one system for all eternity. Give 5e one campaign of 12 sessions or so, then if you want to switch to 3.5 do it then.


To play the devils advocate:


Its essentially abandonware. WotC didn't write anything for 5e since the DMG, all content is put out by 3rd party publishers at the rate of 2 adventures per year. Adventures that even 5e fans declare they are middling at best.


As someone who has a non-D&D background, this just seems off. Sure, there isn't a splat-book mill, but the game is fundamentally a tool for the group, and it doesn't need constant updates, it can just constantly be applied to new projects and stay interesting that way. Running out of material is only really an issue if you only use published adventures; otherwise it's in about as much danger of being abandonware as chess is.

[mgshamster]

I'd recommend giving 5e a shot, particularly for the new players. With that said, it's not like you're locked into one system for all eternity. Give 5e one campaign of 12 sessions or so, then if you want to switch to 3.5 do it then.



As someone who has a non-D&D background, this just seems off. Sure, there isn't a splat-book mill, but the game is fundamentally a tool for the group, and it doesn't need constant updates, it can just constantly be applied to new projects and stay interesting that way. Running out of material is only really an issue if you only use published adventures; otherwise it's in about as much danger of being abandonware as chess is.

Additionally, 5e was - from the very beginning - a partial 3PP game. Kobold Press assisted with the PHB. To claim that WotC has abandoned the edition to third party publishers makes little sense when third party publishers have been instrumental to the creation of this edition.

It's the reason why I believe this edition was so well made - WotC collaborated with others in the industry for a better gaming experience.

[ad_hoc]

One thing to note is that in 3.x if you don't have the feat or the skill trick or whatever you either can't Do The Thing, or you get highly penalized for trying to Do The Thing.

In 5e you can just Do The Thing.

Backgrounds also enable a high amount of customization and I find that they are undervalued by those just coming to the system from previous editions.

[Vogonjeltz]

I've been talking with some friends who are interested in learning/playing D&D. The issue is whether we use 3.5/PF or 5e as our basis. I have only briefly read through the PHB and parts of the DMG, and really like a lot of the features of 5e, but my really, really big hangup is character options. I love character building in 3.5, it's probably the main reason I enjoy DMing, as well as homebrewing up a bunch of stuff (especially to bring weak classes up to par). And when I play, I want to have a number of choices while I level, and even more choices in combat.

That's where my question comes in. I'm used to taking an E6 environment and then houseruling 3.5 classes to have more options, and earlier. By 3rd level paladins have per-encounter smite with multiple rider effects (some chosen when smiting, some chosen and fixed as part of leveling), a lay on hands that does more than just heal, immediate-action blessings, and a couple utility spells. I triple a sorcerer's spells known and give them an erudite-style X spells/day/level instead. ToB characters learn double the maneuvers and increase the maneuvers readied by half. But 5e seems to, if anything, go the opposite direction of this, and while it's better off than the 3.5 Core classes, is appears to be worse off than binders, ToB, and the other classes that I think are the glowing standards of 3.5. The lack of feats also compounds the scant advancement choices to make classes more homogenous from a character building point of view.

As a result, I'm kind of at a loss of what exactly to do. Like I said, there are a lot of features I *really* like about 5e – cantrips, advantage/disadvantage, the combat options, the skill sets, a much more sane distribution of spells, magic items, almost everything except the classes themselves. So I'm thinking about homebrewing up a bunch of things to make classes far more dense using a 5e baseline. There's some things that just aren't compatible with 5e's framework, e.g. the blessings I gave paladins included a bunch of little bonuses to attack or AC they could apply in different circumstances, which for the most part doesn't seem to be in the spirit of 5e. But I can't imagine it's going to be easy to twist 5e into what my preference would be, it's probably going to require stripping apart the classes and rebuilding them from the ground up, and it would mess with balance so much that I won't have anything to use as a base of comparison like I would in 3.5.

I suppose I'm not really sure how I hope people respond to this as it's kind of just a cry of frustration. I guess I'm just hoping people can give me arguments one way or the other why I should do one or the other, because I'm honestly at a loss to know which way I should go. The people I'm playing with don't really know enough about the game to make any kind of informed decision, and are both content to play a heavily-houseruled version of D&D either way.

To be fair there are feats, it's just an optional rule.

Character differentiation takes place in several places, choosing race, background, class, ability scores, skills, and equipment.

In terms of classes, the archetypes provide for multiple distinct pathing options and most all have choices to be made along the way that serve to create variation.

I think you could plausibly create any concept with the 5e

[Knaight]

I think you could plausibly create any concept with the 5e

There are a number of concepts 5e is really, really bad at. For the most part, it's the same things 3.x is pretty terrible at, but it's still worth observing. The big thing is that neither of them handles noncombatant PCs well at all.

[Monstar3014]

To play the devils advocate:


The "Its new and shiny" feeling fades fast. Low level 5e is not much different then 3.p, but as you level up its more of the same.


Lol tell that to the level 1 sorcerer or wizard.

[gameogre]

Unless money is no worry for you. Unless you are unhappy with 3.5 for whatever reason. Unless you really just get hyped for NEW books and the fact that something is NEW gets you excited where as old and used but still great is just not exciting.

Unless one of those factors means something to you....Stick with the system and game you already have.

I chased the perfect game for decades and went from system to system, edition to edition in my quest only to end up with a entire library of books I hardly ever use and a startling discovery.

That discovery is simply this.

Game system's just don't matter. All of them are flawed and all of them have cool things. It's the game that counts. Not what rules you use at your table.

Classic D&D where Dwarf is a class or Dungeon Crawl Classics all the way to Fate Core or Pathfinder or D&D5E....all of those games are fine but will not add or take away from the fun had at your table because of the rules. Rules are just part of the game that if you are lucky go away from time to time and let you truly have a great time.

I do like D&D 5E and it's a awesome game. The same can be said for 3.5 though and if you already have spend the $$ and it makes you happy there is no reason to change.

[eugee]

I started playing D&D 31 years ago with the Mentzer Red Box. I've DM'd every edition a lot, and 5E is my favorite, hands down. Why?

0E: I played once, in college. It wasn't great. If I'd played in 1978 I would have found it amazing, I'm sure.

BECMI: Second favorite--nostalgia's sake mostly, and it was my first--probably because I was 10, and it was easier to grasp--after I tired of each edition going forward, I came back to BECMI lovingly.

1E/2E: Common-sense DMing, meaningful splat-books, and so... many... adventures... and amazing worlds/settings are born. This is the first D&D; 0E was the beta-testing.

3E/3.5/3.P: At first--it was amazing, and the customization was great. Then gimped-choices and broken math/combos... finally DMing even mid-level games was like doing homework. Plus, a bit of "player-empowerment" starts, where an expectation of what the DM can't do begins. I fled the system under a falling tidal wave of splat-books.

4E: M:tG:tRPG. I never got the video-game rants... it's a keyword based ruleset, specific beats general, just like every CCG in existence. Anyway, adventure/encounter building was much better than previous editions--but now the system runs on "player entitlement" and the DM is really just there to make tactical choices for the NPCs. Gameplay is mechanical, overly tactical, drowning in splat-books, and DMing is like playing M:tG against 5 friends all ganging up on you--but pretty balanced, since everyone is basically the same. It did some things right, but there was a lot that went wrong.

1E/2E just did a lot of **** backwards because there were sacred cows Gary was afraid to change. 3E was too much customization and led to pitfalls in character creation. 4E was a pile of feats and powers that all ended up equaling out on the same formula.

5E feels like 1E/2E, has the math/customization of 3.X, the balance and DM-ability of 4E, plus bounded accuracy.

[Anonymouswizard]

In 5e you can just Do The Thing.

And bards rejoiced. :smalltongue:

The 'do the thing' argument is strange. I've seen it used by several people to, in essence, big up their favourite system, such as saying that in M&M you 'do the thing' whereas in GURPS 'please fill out these forms in triplicate'.

For the record, not being able to do the thing isn't always bad, and isn't always good. I'm of the view that no matter what the ruleset says, you can do the thing if you can work out some way to do it with your powers. But 3.X have a large problem with water breathing mermaids, in the 'thing X now requires permission Y' way, the two big examples being throw ally and throw enemy. But in the case of 'throw fire from my eyes' you shouldn't automatically be able to do the thing.


Backgrounds also enable a high amount of customization and I find that they are undervalued by those just coming to the system from previous editions.

Being someone who has gone through several systems between 3.X and 5e, I find 5e's roleplaying mechanics sorely lacking. There's a lot that they are missing, and backgrounds, traits, flaws, and bonds could have much more mechanical oomph, but backgrounds are one of the things of 5e I'd port into any other edition.

[mgshamster]

What roleplaying mechanics were in 3.X? I've been playing those systems for years, and no one in my gaming group can think of any built in roleplaying mechanics.

Are you thinking of systems like FATE or 13th Age?

[Anonymouswizard]

What roleplaying mechanics were in 3.X?

Squat. Zilch.


I've been playing those systems for years, and no one in my gaming group can think of any built in roleplaying mechanics.

Are you thinking of systems like FATE or 13th Age?

I was thinking of 5e. It has traits, bonds, flaws, and inspiration, the most minor of roleplaying mechanics.

[mgshamster]

Squat. Zilch.

I was thinking of 5e. It has traits, bonds, flaws, and inspiration, the most minor of roleplaying mechanics.

Ok; I get what you're saying now. I completey misread you. I thought you were saying that 5e's roleplaying mechanic was sorely lacking.

What you're actually saying is that all these other systems are lacking the roleplaying mechanics presented in 5e.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ok; I get what you're saying now. I completey misread you. I thought you were saying that 5e's roleplaying mechanic was sorely lacking.

What you're actually saying is that all these other systems are lacking the roleplaying mechanics presented in 5e.

Closer the first time actually, I misread what you meant. To put it in as few words as possible:

I like that 5e is actually including roleplaying mechanics, it's great. I have played games like Unknown Armies and Fate, which have great roleplaying mechanics. Compared to those I find 5e sorely lacking, however, compared to most games, 5e is fine. It's actually slightly better than the cWoD.

Sorry for confusing you after you read me correctly.

[vector]

I've played pf quite extensively and just made the switch to 5th edition about a week ago and it seems fun. It was easy to pickup with a few new players and the rules are straightforward. I'm not entirely sure if it is better than PF, especially for veteran players, but it was engaging and I'm looking forward to the next session.

[Sigreid]

I've played pf quite extensively and just made the switch to 5th edition about a week ago and it seems fun. It was easy to pickup with a few new players and the rules are straightforward. I'm not entirely sure if it is better than PF, especially for veteran players, but it was engaging and I'm looking forward to the next session.

There isn't and can't be a "better" with these types of games (most games really). There is only I prefer this or that and someone with a different mindset is going to go a completely different direction with it. And that's o.k.

One of my absolute favorite systems is West End Games' D6 version of Star Wars. What I liked about it (aside from anything Star Wars being inherently greater than an equivalent thing that is not Star Wars :smallbiggrin:) was the flavor. The mechanics are fairly loose, but the tone is "We're making a movie here, don't let the rules slow down the action".

[djreynolds]

I like the game. I still play 3.5 and it is very different in terms of casters. I just posted about being able to buff multiple players. I find wizards, at least me, will have to buff a fighter because of low wisdom save and he will have to protect me so I can cast and I hope I can make my save. The dice fall hard in this game. More so than in 3.5. I fail saves all the time. There are lots of resistant to everything enemies and I have to make sure I prepare a good spell list that can leave the fighter up and let him do damage.

1 concentration spell up is tough to for 3.5 caster throwing out buffs all day. And it is very easy to lose concentration, especially without feats. Teamwork is very important.

[Nero24200]

As a 3.5/PF player, I very much like the look of 5E. It has a significantly stronger game base than PF in my opinion and the only real drawback the game seems to have is the lack of options available compared to 3.5/PF.

Having said that, the options that do exist in 5E are much better. In 3.5/PF about 90% of the feats, archtypes and other options I doubt are ever actually going to see the light of day in my group. There's a good reason for this, most of the options are pretty poorly thought out and so many more keep being added without the existing ones being fixed (I believe there's even a few requests for PF v2 on their forums just to try and fix some of the issues).

[Talakeal]

Might I inquire as to what a good roleplaying mechanic actually looks like in a game?

[Cybren]

Might I inquire as to what a good roleplaying mechanic actually looks like in a game?

Look at the bonds and alignment dungeon world, or beliefs and instincts in burning wheel

[gooddragon1]

I have the opinion that no system to date has exceeded 3.5

The systems before were too unforgiving. 4e would have been better as a computer game. I saw very little of 5e, but I've heard that it is somehow more abstract than 3.5? Like a rules light rpg? I suppose if I had to rank them it would be:
3.5=3.P>3.0=5e>2e>1e>∞>4e.

So 5e ties for second place right behind my favorite edition. It's not bad, but they haven't beaten the best. Conversely, I don't consider 4e D&D.

Whether to switch? Ask your group for input as well. Evaluate the rules. Run through a combat (on your own) to get into the meat of the system. Then maybe go further. Just my opinion anyways.

[Sigreid]

I have the opinion that no system to date has exceeded 3.5

The systems before were too unforgiving. 4e would have been better as a computer game. I saw very little of 5e, but I've heard that it is somehow more abstract than 3.5? Like a rules light rpg? I suppose if I had to rank them it would be:
3.5=3.P>3.0=5e>2e>1e>∞>4e.

So 5e ties for second place right behind my favorite edition. It's not bad, but they haven't beaten the best. Conversely, I don't consider 4e D&D.

Whether to switch? Ask your group for input as well. Evaluate the rules. Run through a combat (on your own) to get into the meat of the system. Then maybe go further. Just my opinion anyways.

It's not so much rules lite as rules flexible. It's designed as a framework that the DM can build their style of play around.

[gooddragon1]

It's not so much rules lite as rules flexible. It's designed as a framework that the DM can build their style of play around.

That doesn't sound good, but I'd like a clarification/and or an example before I think about moving it down a notch from that statement. Because from the very little I've seen of it, it deserves a little more scrutiny to have a fair evaluation.

[Sigreid]

That doesn't sound good, but I'd like a clarification/and or an example before I think about moving it down a notch from that statement. Because from the very little I've seen of it, it deserves a little more scrutiny to have a fair evaluation.

IMO: Between the rules with language that do allow interpretation and the optional rules you have solid guidelines for everything from a down and dirty gritty campaign where it takes weeks to heal properly from wounds and the casters need long breaks to recover their spells to a super high fantasy game including anime fighting and laser blasters and dragons. There's even plenty of rules for non-liner advancement through boons- special advantages and even powers that are achieved by accomplishing great deeds.

I don't think it's for everyone, but I really like it's flexibility.

Edit: There's also a whole lot less looking up obscure modifiers.

[gooddragon1]

IMO: Between the rules with language that do allow interpretation and the optional rules you have solid guidelines for everything from a down and dirty gritty campaign where it takes weeks to heal properly from wounds and the casters need long breaks to recover their spells to a super high fantasy game including anime fighting and laser blasters and dragons. There's even plenty of rules for non-liner advancement through boons- special advantages and even powers that are achieved by accomplishing great deeds.

I don't think it's for everyone, but I really like it's flexibility.

That sounds troubling. Like it's gone the opposite of what 4e did with 3.5 in terms of rules. It's still not bad. But now I'm beginning to think of it as D&D lite. Somewhere in between the novels that were printed based off the game and 3.5. That's not a terrible place to be, but I think I may need to re-evaluate my opinions of 5e by an intense scrutiny of this... interpretation allowance... you're mentioning.

Still, in much the way that 3.5 seems to be the pinnacle of D&D imo (because there is nothing you cannot build in while still maintaining a solid ruleset), 4e is the furthest depths to which they could sink. I think 5e is in no danger of even approaching that low bar.

[Sigreid]

That sounds troubling. Like it's gone the opposite of what 4e did with 3.5 in terms of rules. It's still not bad. But now I'm beginning to think of it as D&D lite. Somewhere in between the novels that were printed based off the game and 3.5. That's not a terrible place to be, but I think I may need to re-evaluate my opinions of 5e by an intense scrutiny of this... interpretation allowance... you're mentioning.

Still, in much the way that 3.5 seems to be the pinnacle of D&D imo (because there is nothing you cannot build in while still maintaining a solid ruleset), 4e is the furthest depths to which they could sink. I think 5e is in no danger of even approaching that low bar.

I don't think 5e is for everyone. If you tend to like everything explicitly spelled out, it might not be for you. I'm a fast and loose kind of guy, so it works well for me. And my group and I have been playing together for many years in many systems and we can get to common ground on interpretations pretty quickly. I much prefer not having to wait several minutes while people calculate all of their modifiers that apply to this round. But like I said, it can be as rules light or heavy as you want really. And you can hit a lot more character concepts without multi-classing than I think you could in 3.5 as the backgrounds (and fighters not being completely screwed on skills compared to everyone else) lets you be more flexible about what a particular class means to you.

[gooddragon1]

I don't think 5e is for everyone. If you tend to like everything explicitly spelled out, it might not be for you. I'm a fast and loose kind of guy, so it works well for me. And my group and I have been playing together for many years in many systems and we can get to common ground on interpretations pretty quickly. I much prefer not having to wait several minutes while people calculate all of their modifiers that apply to this round. But like I said, it can be as rules light or heavy as you want really. And you can hit a lot more character concepts without multi-classing than I think you could in 3.5 as the backgrounds (and fighters not being completely screwed on skills compared to everyone else) lets you be more flexible about what a particular class means to you.

You don't need to multiclass in 3.5. You can homebrew up a new class to do anything you can imagine. It is that reason that I question the need for fast and loose. 3.5 is both spelled out and mutable. The only direction they could go forward in my opinion is balance. It was so popular that a 3rd party company took over the mantle when wotc decided corporate greed was more important than their fanbase. When they took gold and threw it in the trash (http://geek-related.com/2010/09/15/mike-mearls-admits-dd-4e-blows/). We are discovering untapped design space to this day for 3.5. But as for 5e, again it's not bad. It's just not exceeding 3.5 from what you've told me so far. I need to see it myself to make a more accurate judgement.

Interesting point on the modifiers. But I fear a system that is so loose that it somehow gets around this problem (also, when games can take years to complete... I don't think that's as much of a problem really). Yet another thing to investigate.

[Sigreid]

You don't need to multiclass in 3.5. You can homebrew up a new class to do anything you can imagine. It is that reason that I question the need for fast and loose. 3.5 is both spelled out and mutable. The only direction they could go forward in my opinion is balance. It was so popular that a 3rd party company took over the mantle when wotc decided corporate greed was more important than their fanbase. When they took gold and threw it in the trash (http://geek-related.com/2010/09/15/mike-mearls-admits-dd-4e-blows/). We are discovering untapped design space to this day for 3.5. But as for 5e, again it's not bad. It's just not exceeding 3.5 from what you've told me so far. I need to see it myself to make a more accurate judgement.

Interesting point on the modifiers. But I fear a system that is so loose that it somehow gets around this problem (also, when games can take years to complete... I don't think that's as much of a problem really). Yet another thing to investigate.

Your points are all fair enough, and I've played more than my fair share of 3.5 and can have a ball with it. But I can also have a ball with Star Frontiers which has about 100 pages of rules total, including equipment. I will say on your home brew comment that in my opinion when you say you can home brew anything you want to meet your needs, that's still true. And from my viewpoint if you need a lot of home brew do get to where you want to be then the system didn't meet your need by default and really any system could have worked for the base. What you don't have in 5e is several years of them looking for a new cookie to sell you yet. :)

Also, keep in mind that what I'm saying is my perspective. I deal with aligning different people's perspectives all day every day at work and you'd be amazed how differently people interpret even very simple and direct things. Far more simple than a RPG that is attempting to let people simulate an experience in a fantastical reality of magic and monster.

[gooddragon1]

Also, keep in mind that what I'm saying is my perspective. I deal with aligning different people's perspectives all day every day at work and you'd be amazed how differently people interpret even very simple and direct things. Far more simple than a RPG that is attempting to let people simulate an experience in a fantastical reality of magic and monster.

That's... nice?


Your points are all fair enough, and I've played more than my fair share of 3.5 and can have a ball with it. But I can also have a ball with Star Frontiers which has about 100 pages of rules total, including equipment. I will say on your home brew comment that in my opinion when you say you can home brew anything you want to meet your needs, that's still true. And from my viewpoint if you need a lot of home brew do get to where you want to be then the system didn't meet your need by default and really any system could have worked for the base. What you don't have in 5e is several years of them looking for a new cookie to sell you yet. :)

Hold on a moment there. No, the important part of the system is that it works within a solid set of rules yet doesn't restrict, and that it also allows growth. As such, 3.5 is the pinnacle they have achieved. What they didn't manage is balance. That needs work. However, it's not a hassle to homebrew for 3.5. That's not the system, it's the components. And the easy nature of brewing for 3.5 is another thing that makes it so great. It can grow without making a new edition to fix the flaws it has. This is also why unless something strictly improves on 3.5 by doing everything it does with nearly the same specifications but also including balance, it's not going to exceed 3.5. I consider 3.P just about the same as 3.5. Speed at the cost of the rules was one of the mistakes of 4e. D&D is not a computer game, it takes it's time and provides an savory experience. Again, 5e isn't bad. But 3.5 is likely the pinnacle. Anything's possible, but I wonder if we will ever see anything as great printed in the future.

[Sigreid]

Anything's possible, but I wonder if we will ever see anything as great printed in the future.

Odds are if it did get reached or exceeded in your view, I would consider it over done. That's all I was getting at with the perspective comment as well. I'm just the opposite of you I think. 3.5/p is a fine system. I can have a great time in it, I just prefer 5e...at lest right now.

[endur]

Three books to compare: PHB,MM, DMG.

5e PHB is similar to 3.5E PHB. Yes, 3.5 has many more options, but both are customizable.

5e MM has different hit dice at low levels than 3.5 MM (examples: Orcs with 3 Hit Dice, Ogres with 7 Hit Dice, Ogre Mage with 13 Hit Dice). CRs aren't as based on Hit Dice in 5e as in 3e. 5e creatures have fewer special abilities and more focus on actions.

5e DMG is similar to 3e DMG in many respects, but has some differences.

I like 5e. MM is probably the most different book for me. in terms of differences: MM>PHB>DMG

[Rummy]

5e rules. To the OP: If you want more options, just give your players an extra feat at level 2.

[Envyus]

That sounds troubling. Like it's gone the opposite of what 4e did with 3.5 in terms of rules. It's still not bad. But now I'm beginning to think of it as D&D lite. Somewhere in between the novels that were printed based off the game and 3.5. That's not a terrible place to be, but I think I may need to re-evaluate my opinions of 5e by an intense scrutiny of this... interpretation allowance... you're mentioning.

Still, in much the way that 3.5 seems to be the pinnacle of D&D imo (because there is nothing you cannot build in while still maintaining a solid ruleset), 4e is the furthest depths to which they could sink. I think 5e is in no danger of even approaching that low bar.

Siegreid was doing a pretty bad job of explaining it. Why don't you actually read the books yourself instead of using 2nd hand sources.

But here is a plus it has over 3.5. In 5e all races and classes that are currently out are viable. They can all hold their own and they feel like their proper classes. It's combat is currently faster then all the other editions. While it does not have as many options as 3.5 (Given that it's not even two years old yet that is fair.) it does have quite a few options and variants.

It's also simpler then 3.5 and easier to get into. (Probably because most fiddly little bonus are gone.) But still I recommend you actually look at the rules youself.

[Anonymouswizard]

Siegreid was doing a pretty bad job of explaining it. Why don't you actually read the books yourself instead of using 2nd hand sources.

gooddragon1, I agree with this sentiment. I was really cautious until I was able to browse a PhB, at which point I immediately bought it. There's things I don't like about 5e, but they are different things than what I thought I'd dislike.

(In short, I think the classes should have been Warrior, Rogue, Mage, and Priest, with Druids, Sorcerers, Rogues, Paladins and that lot being subclasses).

I'll never run 5e again, because I prefer 2e for DMing, but it's the edition I'd like to play the most.


But here is a plus it has over 3.5. In 5e all races and classes that are currently out are viable. They can all hold their own and they feel like their proper classes. It's combat is currently faster then all the other editions. While it does not have as many options as 3.5 (Given that it's not even two years old yet that is fair.) it does have quite a few options and variants.

I think this is the key thing, all classes are competitive. Noncasters might be behind, but for the official classes it's more tier 4 versus tier 2 than tier 5 versus tier 1.

On the other hand, prepared casters are still tier 1, they just have access to only 4 world-changing slots a day. It makes me question the value of level 7+ spells for sorcerers (who get a pitiful number of spells known, at least let me get a handful from my origin). 5e is design so that tier 1 versus tier 2 isn't as big a deal, as for any given day a wizard will only have access to slightly more spells than a sorcerer (and less than a bard).

But the main thing is, fighters don't suck. Even the base of the class has some pretty neat tricks, from the awesome Action Surge to the neat trick of Second Wind (which could do with being slightly stronger), and then they get some of the nicer subclasses (especially Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight, although I also like the Champion because it manages to be simple and versatile without losing out on too much power). Characters in core-only 5e can fill at least as many roles as in core-only 3.5.


It's also simpler then 3.5 and easier to get into. (Probably because most fiddly little bonus are gone.) But still I recommend you actually look at the rules youself.

Still agreeing with this. I prefer other fantasy systems, but 5e has a good chance of becoming one of the greats.

[JoeJ]

One potential down side to 5e is that if you want a no-caster game (The PCs are all knights in shining armor, for example), there are very few character options. It can still work if the players understand that they have to distinguish their characters by personality rather than mechanics, but it's decidedly inferior to 2e, with all of the various kits. (Not that 3.5 is particularly good for this sub-genre either, however.)

[Waazraath]

One potential down side to 5e is that if you want a no-caster game (The PCs are all knights in shining armor, for example), there are very few character options. It can still work if the players understand that they have to distinguish their characters by personality rather than mechanics, but it's decidedly inferior to 2e, with all of the various kits. (Not that 3.5 is particularly good for this sub-genre either, however.)

What do we have in 5e for this type of game? If you're strict on the non-caster, that would leave:
- 1 barbarian subtype
- 2 fighter subtypes (1 more in SCAG)
- 2 rogue subtypes (2 more in SCAG)

That's outside unearthed arcana (with I think a spell less ranger subtype, among other stuff). Or am I forgetting something now?

That's not too much, but together with skills, races, weapon selection and (optional) feats, you can make quite some diverse characters. Not enough to play such a campaign a few times though.

[Jamesps]

What do we have in 5e for this type of game? If you're strict on the non-caster, that would leave:
- 1 barbarian subtype
- 2 fighter subtypes (1 more in SCAG)
- 2 rogue subtypes (2 more in SCAG)

That's outside unearthed arcana (with I think a spell less ranger subtype, among other stuff). Or am I forgetting something now?

That's not too much, but together with skills, races, weapon selection and (optional) feats, you can make quite some diverse characters. Not enough to play such a campaign a few times though.

It's probably enough to run a game from a DM's perspective, but most players I know would balk at having such a small range of options for classes.

You have a total of three classes and all of them had options removed. Players coming from games that allowed the full compliment are going to feel stifled as they come up with ideas they want to play.

It's unfortunate as I really like low magic worlds. But as is, if players are equally likely to choose any given option a standard five person party is going to have four casters.

[JoeJ]

What do we have in 5e for this type of game? If you're strict on the non-caster, that would leave:
- 1 barbarian subtype
- 2 fighter subtypes (1 more in SCAG)
- 2 rogue subtypes (2 more in SCAG)

That's outside unearthed arcana (with I think a spell less ranger subtype, among other stuff). Or am I forgetting something now?

That's not too much, but together with skills, races, weapon selection and (optional) feats, you can make quite some diverse characters. Not enough to play such a campaign a few times though.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Many fewer options than 2e, where they had an entire Historical Reference series of books showing different ways to make very low to no magic campaigns. As I said, it can be done if the players are willing to use personality rather than mechanics to make their characters unique, but it's far from optimal.

[Forum Explorer]

For new players? Certainly start in 5e. You might not stay if you find yourself (and your group) craving additional optimization and customization, but 5e might just be the easiest D&D game to pick up and play. In comparison it's a major headache to get into 3.5 and to teach it to new players. (I never played 4e, but I think 3.5 might be the hardest edition to learn/master)

Now personally, I think 5e is better in pretty much every way except for customization. But it's also very easy to pick up and use good homebrew. So if you are used to homebrewing, I think you'll find that it'll be easier to just add things and tweak 5e, then to switch back to 3.5 after you've been playing it for a while.

[Kane0]

It's probably enough to run a game from a DM's perspective, but most players I know would balk at having such a small range of options for classes.

You have a total of three classes and all of them had options removed. Players coming from games that allowed the full compliment are going to feel stifled as they come up with ideas they want to play.

It's unfortunate as I really like low magic worlds. But as is, if players are equally likely to choose any given option a standard five person party is going to have four casters.

My group is currently running a low magic game. I'm a monk and the rest include a ranger, witch hunter, fighter, rogue and barbarian presently. Its great fun and we dont feel lacking in any particular way.

[Knaight]

Still, in much the way that 3.5 seems to be the pinnacle of D&D imo (because there is nothing you cannot build in while still maintaining a solid ruleset), 4e is the furthest depths to which they could sink. I think 5e is in no danger of even approaching that low bar.
Honestly, you probably wouldn't like 5e anywhere near as much as 3.5. It's more for people who maybe liked 3.5, but who saw flaws with it. Throwing around terms like "the pinnacle of D&D" and only ever pointing out exactly 1 flaw suggests your not in the group. Meanwhile, I detested 3.5, and 5e getting far away from the design assumptions that went into it pushed it to the top for me, at least of the D&D pile.

[mephnick]

Yeah..."the pinnacle of D&D" being use to describe 3.5 made me physically choke. You're probably not the target audience for 5e.

[endur]

From a DM perspective, one of the big differences is that modules can have many fewer stat blocks in 5e than 3.5e. Compare the recent WOTC modules with any 3e or 3.5 module. More content and less wasted stat block space.

[Kane0]

Stat blocks are also easier on the eyes, and more intelligible. One more little thing that helps things run smoother.

[lsfreak]

Thanks all for the responses so far. I haven't been absent this thread, just quietly seeing how things go and what people bring up rather than posting. It looks like we'll be switching, both from what people have said here and what my players would like, though I still have some reservations.


Be warned though If your players played things like Summoners, Inquisitors, Alchemist, and anything in the Advanced Class guide and Occult Mysteries book there is nothing like that in 5e so you would unfortunately have to home brew those yourself. Ultimately those coming from 3.F will find a better core, I imagine they will miss the splat content
This is my biggest concern. Some of the major NPCs that I already had in place before an edition switch was brought up were things like a binder using flicker with shadow hand maneuvers, a warlock known for counterspelling (powered by Divine Defiance), a “monk” psywarrior/crusader using Instant Clarity to charge Deep Impact power attacks, and a totem rager. I don't think any of those cross over well, and even going into homebrew some are monstrous to tackle (coughincarnum).


You know, I wonder what the response would be if you posted this in the 3.5 thread... :P
Yea, I realized that after the first few responses, but given the board's one topic, one post rule I couldn't. Could have had it switched to the general roleplaying forum, but personally I tend to forget it exists and don't doubt others do as well if you're only playing one edition.


But they do miss the character customization - important note: this is not equivalent to saying characters are not interesting or powerful, but they're used to scouring through fairly major decisions at least every other level, often more often than that.


To play the devils advocate:


The "Its new and shiny" feeling fades fast. Low level 5e is not much different then 3.p, but as you level up its more of the same. With few options and classes there is no replayability.
Its essentially abandonware. WotC didn't write anything for 5e since the DMG, all content is put out by 3rd party publishers at the rate of 2 adventures per year. Adventures that even 5e fans declare they are middling at best.

These are concerns as well - not only a smaller number of overall customization options, but a low number of a) choices while leveling and b) different options while in combat as a non-spellcaster. Going to splats that have a lot of setting information but only the equivalent of a few ACFs is definitely a negative to me, and I have effectively zero interest in pre-made adventures. The lack of character options is a Big ThingTM for me. Though I definitely get that it'll be easier on the players than the reverse, starting out in 3.X and not only having an overwhelmingly huge number of options but also having to check with me on everything to see if I'm wanting to bring it up to par.

Also (not as a response to the quotes), I'm wondering how to get a higher-danger E6y feel, where no enemy ever completely outclasses the players (though there comes a point where you really have to mess up to die to some of them). Cut off at 10th or 11th level, possibly while gaining class features (not spells) twice as fast? Only gain hit points every other level? Anyone done this or heard what works well?

EDIT: Just spelling.

[Forum Explorer]

Also (not as a response to the quotes), I'm wondering how to get a higher-danger E6y feel, where no enemy ever completely outclasses the players (though there comes a point where you really have to mess up to die to some of them). Cut off at 10th or 11th level, possibly while gaining class features (not spells) twice as fast? Only gain hit points every other level? Anyone done this or heard what works well?

EDIT: Just spelling.

That's basically built in. Your ability to take abuse increases, but you are never immune to even the weakest monsters (except the Cockatrice, that thing is kinda useless at high levels), so you can grind even level 20's down with hordes of orcs.

You can optimize a way to be only hit by 20s but that's only available to level 18+ Wizards (Infinite shield spam)

[Socratov]

That's basically built in. Your ability to take abuse increases, but you are never immune to even the weakest monsters (except the Cockatrice, that thing is kinda useless at high levels), so you can grind even level 20's down with hordes of orcs.

You can optimize a way to be only hit by 20s but that's only available to level 18+ Wizards (Infinite shield spam)

This is indeed a thing and it's evident in what makes it so: while 5e and 3.5 start at the same level of deadliness etc., the powerceiling for 3.5 is a lot bigger. te bounded accuracy mechanic makes things a lot more lethal for 5e on later levels, where as in 3.5, if you are a caster and you're not invulnerable for everything past lvl 14 you're doing it wrong. And here is another core thing to 5e: it's a lot simpeler in terms of chassis: you can more easily and with considerably less effort, create a class/monster/encounter on the fly. Skills stay relevant and for that matter, so do the mundane characters (tiers exist, but aren't as clear cut and extreme as 3.5).

On the topic of little options, considering that 5e hasn't been out for too long and 3.5 has almost turned to fossil, it's no wonder that 5e hasn't reached the level of customisation 3.5 has. That does not mean no material is available as there are more then enough homebrew by multiple parties. And on top of that WotC have been pumping out materials in a steady stream now. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor was 3.5 and nor will 5e be.

[lsfreak]

Okay, let me put it this way. The caster messes up big time and a mob of, say, 30 townspeople (not just peasants, there will be some 1st-level NPC/PC-classed people with better ability scores present) bursts into the tavern with clubs and daggers with the intention of taking them. At 1st level in any edition, it's a TPK if it comes to blows. At level cap in 3.P it's laughable. But in E6, there's still a very real mechanical danger in that situation, it's probably not clear whether the party's going to get away without losses, and if the mob is riotous enough to not break in the first couple rounds there's probably going to be PC deaths. Assuming flight and long-range teleportation has been dealt with, does such a situation include mechanical danger (not just storytelling consequences) at high levels in 5E? If the PCs have to secure a relic a group of goblins stole, is there going to be a mechanical reason to be careful if there's twice and many goblins, all of a third of the PCs level? And if the PCs are ambushed by a dozen crossbowmen aiming at them with a decree for their detainment, is there going to come a time when the PCs wouldn't be suicidal to ignore them when most men-at-arms are 4th level or below? Because if not, then no, it's not really built in. From what I can tell, hit points swell too quickly for my tastes.

[mephnick]

Eh, Koboldclub says 12 CR 4s is still a "Hard" encounter at level 20, but once you get to that many enemies and that gap in level it's pretty hard to judge.

I'd say that no, it wouldn't be a deadly situation at all for 4 level 20 characters, purely because hit points scale so high like you said. The characters wouldn't be able to clear the room full of crossbow men in one action like they could in 3.5, but they'd likely beat the encounter without too much strain. If all 12 soldiers focused on a character in one round they might drop him. High level 5e parties are still miles ahead of e6 characters in 3.5, just not absurdly so.

[Kane0]

Assuming flight and long-range teleportation has been dealt with, does such a situation include mechanical danger (not just storytelling consequences) at high levels in 5E?
If the PCs have to secure a relic a group of goblins stole, is there going to be a mechanical reason to be careful if there's twice and many goblins, all of a third of the PCs level?
And if the PCs are ambushed by a dozen crossbowmen aiming at them with a decree for their detainment, is there going to come a time when the PCs wouldn't be suicidal to ignore them when most men-at-arms are 4th level or below?
Because if not, then no, it's not really built in. From what I can tell, hit points swell too quickly for my tastes.

It would. Even at level 20 your AC and saves are not beyond the humble +4 to hit or DC 12. You'd have to drop those peasants awfully fast (AoEs like fireball and circle of death) before the sheer amount of rolls connects and brings you down. A tavern full of hostile peasants is still a threat, if not particularly serious. You might need to spend a mid-high level spell slot, rage or short rest power or two to confirm victory.

Yes, because bounded accuracy. Even without a tuckers kobold scenario larger amounts of lesser creatures will whittle away your resources more consistently than single bigger enemies. 5e draws a little bit from 4e with its attrition approach to the adventuring day. Also goblins make very scary skirmishers thanks to rogue-like bonus action hiding.

So a level 4 human fighter could have a 16 Dex, Sharpshooter and or Crossbow master feats plus archery fighting, meaning about a +6 to hit you (twice with action surge) while ignoring cover and distance penalties. Each crossbow hit would deal 1d10 +3 or so and crit for another 1d10 on a 19 or 20, so each fellow has a 10% flat chance to hit regardless of the target's AC. Given decent dex their initiative, AC and dex saves should also be decent and their HP above the 3rd level fireball threshold with a heal up their sleeves each for 1d10 +4 HP.
Properly spaced and given the element of surprise i would expect the average party to back down almost instantly up to mid levels easily, though optimization and RP will vary this.

Level 20s in 5e are still pretty damn powerful, if only because they can take damage as well as they give it for a certain amount of time. You don't see the massive gap that 3.x had but there is still one present. If you like the E6 feel then a 5e game up until level 11 or so should feel plenty comfy enough. After that is when high level characters start to really ignore things like town guards pressing swords against their necks.

[Forum Explorer]

Okay, let me put it this way. The caster messes up big time and a mob of, say, 30 townspeople (not just peasants, there will be some 1st-level NPC/PC-classed people with better ability scores present) bursts into the tavern with clubs and daggers with the intention of taking them. At 1st level in any edition, it's a TPK if it comes to blows. At level cap in 3.P it's laughable. But in E6, there's still a very real mechanical danger in that situation, it's probably not clear whether the party's going to get away without losses, and if the mob is riotous enough to not break in the first couple rounds there's probably going to be PC deaths. Assuming flight and long-range teleportation has been dealt with, does such a situation include mechanical danger (not just storytelling consequences) at high levels in 5E? If the PCs have to secure a relic a group of goblins stole, is there going to be a mechanical reason to be careful if there's twice and many goblins, all of a third of the PCs level? And if the PCs are ambushed by a dozen crossbowmen aiming at them with a decree for their detainment, is there going to come a time when the PCs wouldn't be suicidal to ignore them when most men-at-arms are 4th level or below? Because if not, then no, it's not really built in. From what I can tell, hit points swell too quickly for my tastes.

Pretty much yeah.

Pissed off Peasants: Even at medium levels, this can be deadly. The highest AC in a group is likely going to be around 20 (and that might hold true for the entire game), everyone else will likely range from 14-18. Now the party can still easily win, because spellcasters are really good at handling hordes, but if they don't have those spells, or are low on resources, then they are in trouble.

Low leveled Goblins: Very much yes. Goblins have a very scary ability as a race (to Hide as a bonus action), which lets them ambush a party, do a round of attacks, and hide later on again. Again, the party has the tools to deal with them, but they are nasty anyways, and the party will have to be careful.

Guard Ambush: Again yes. If they are full HP, and full power they might be able to take the barrage but unless they burn a lot of AoE spells and abilities, the guards will likely win that fight (particularly if they are smart enough to target the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock first).

If you are wanting a game where the PCs feel threatened and in danger? Simply implement the gritty rules found in the DMG. Basically short rests now take 8 hours of rest, and you complete a long rest after a week. Even if you have a lot of HP, it becomes really tense if it has to last you a week of gameplay.

[Kane0]

If you are wanting a game where the PCs feel threatened and in danger? Simply implement the gritty rules found in the DMG. Basically short rests now take 8 hours of rest, and you complete a long rest after a week. Even if you have a lot of HP, it becomes really tense if it has to last you a week of gameplay.

Works particularly well for open world style games like PFs kingmaker since there is nothing stopping the PCs from just leaving and coming back later, and also means that travel across large distances over the course of a week can have dangerous random encounters that don't need to be packed together because of rests.

[OttoT]

You guys keep mentioning e6, well e6 is pretty much a complete conversion home brew so I'm not sure how you can compare something meant to make one system less broken then not counting the fact you could apply the same thing to 5e, not to mention the magic item difference between the two editions.

I forgot the most important reason to go 5e,
Flumph power!

[Goober4473]

This is my biggest concern. Some of the major NPCs that I already had in place before an edition switch was brought up were things like a binder using flicker with shadow hand maneuvers, a warlock known for counterspelling (powered by Divine Defiance), a “monk” psywarrior/crusader using Instant Clarity to charge Deep Impact power attacks, and a totem rager. I don't think any of those cross over well, and even going into homebrew some are monstrous to tackle (coughincarnum).

While you couldn't build a lot of these as regular characters (except the warlock; Counterspell is a warlock spell), it's very easy to build them as "monsters". The assumption in 5e is that most NPCs are not actually built the same way PCs are, largely in order to keep them from being too complicated. The back of the Monster Manual has a smattering of examples, and many of them have abilities PCs either can't get, or ones that work slightly differently. Under that design paradigm, you can give any abilities you want to your NPCs. It's just a different way of thinking and portraying a world.

[georgie_leech]

While you couldn't build a lot of these as regular characters (except the warlock; Counterspell is a warlock spell), it's very easy to build them as "monsters". The assumption in 5e is that most NPCs are not actually built the same way PCs are, largely in order to keep them from being too complicated. The back of the Monster Manual has a smattering of examples, and many of them have abilities PCs either can't get, or ones that work slightly differently. Under that design paradigm, you can give any abilities you want to your NPCs. It's just a different way of thinking and portraying a world.

Which I for one appreciate. While there are strengths for treating in-character resources as the same for both PC and NPC, I like being able to have abilities that make sense for the NPC's without worrying about whether or not they're appropriate for the PC's to get their hands on. I can give the tribal warriors exotic abilities that trip on their basic attacks without worrying about making them Battlemasters and them having Action Surge and a bunch of other Maneuvers.

[Mara]

As a DM, I'm spending more time drawing maps with real art tools and writing plotlines than I am looking up monster stats or helping my players not pick compete **** builds.

All the noobs in my group have already given me back stories and character sheets for level 3 characters. 2 of three were fullcasters and the other a paladin. 2 of them have never played any DnD before.

For those of us trying to care more about the game than the system, 5e's "rules are a necessary evil" approach works better than the PF's "immersion through the rules" approach.

If you NEED to know in your heart that the system you're playing is the objective best, then prepare for endless internet arguments.

[Kane0]

If you NEED to know in your heart that the system you're playing is the objective best, then prepare for endless internet arguments.

That should be put up on display somewhere.

[Socratov]

As a DM, I'm spending more time drawing maps with real art tools and writing plotlines than I am looking up monster stats or helping my players not pick compete **** builds.

All the noobs in my group have already given me back stories and character sheets for level 3 characters. 2 of three were fullcasters and the other a paladin. 2 of them have never played any DnD before.

For those of us trying to care more about the game than the system, 5e's "rules are a necessary evil" approach works better than the PF's "immersion through the rules" approach.

If you NEED to know in your heart that the system you're playing is the objective best, then prepare for endless internet arguments.


That should be put up on display somewhere.

I'd dub this Mara's razor.

[old school man]

I fell in love with this game back in 1979.
I had a blast with 1st edition AD&D and B/X D&D as well as BECM.
2nd edition AD&D came out and I had fun with it as well.
Next came 3.0 and then 3.5 and I still enjoyed the D&D game.
Then came 4th :smallfrown::smalleek::smallconfused:
I looked at it and said no.........
I have my old school stuff and believed I will just use it for gaming and that was it.
5E came out and I held my old school nose and didn't even give it a look see.
Then my wife stoped at a Gaming/Comic store looking for some out of print goodness for me and the guy told her that I needed to give 5E a look and that alot of old school player's have been coming back to the game.
Saying that 5E has an old school feel kind of like a 2nd edition AD&D mixed together with 3.5 but with out all of the math from the bad hot place.:smallbiggrin:
So I looked at some Youtube and I liked what I was seeing and hearing.
I was bitten by the D&D bug and picked up the PHB, DMG, MM, DM screen and Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
I am liking what I am learning and if I come across something that puzzles me I have all of the help I could ask for here.
So yes make the switch.
If an old school gargonoid like me can find himself liking a new D&D game that WOTC is putting out then anything is possible.
Again, make the switch.:smalltongue:




John

[djreynolds]

I fell in love with this game back in 1979.
I had a blast with 1st edition AD&D and B/X D&D as well as BECM.
2nd edition AD&D came out and I had fun with it as well.
Next came 3.0 and then 3.5 and I still enjoyed the D&D game.
Then came 4th :smallfrown::smalleek::smallconfused:
I looked at it and said no.........
I have my old school stuff and believed I will just use it for gaming and that was it.
5E came out and I held my old school nose and didn't even give it a look see.
Then my wife stoped at a Gaming/Comic store looking for some out of print goodness for me and the guy told her that I needed to give 5E a look and that alot of old school player's have been coming back to the game.
Saying that 5E has an old school feel kind of like a 2nd edition AD&D mixed together with 3.5 but with out all of the math from the bad hot place.:smallbiggrin:
So I looked at some Youtube and I liked what I was seeing and hearing.
I was bitten by the D&D bug and picked up the PHB, DMG, MM, DM screen and Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
I am liking what I am learning and if I come across something that puzzles me I have all of the help I could ask for here.
So yes make the switch.
If an old school gargonoid like me can find himself liking a new D&D game that WOTC is putting out then anything is possible.
Again, make the switch.:smalltongue:




John


You make me feel young. The flexibility is great, and though I whine constantly about not buffing up my casters, it really speeds up the game and its quite a challenge. Ritual spells and cantrips save spell slots. And the multiclass spell slots is very easy to learn.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

(snip) If you NEED to know in your heart that the system you're playing is the objective best, then prepare for endless internet arguments.

I'll echo earlier comments to give this statement a thumbs up.

For me, my favourite version of D&D is 4E and I've been playing since 1981 (as if that really matters). Obviously, I'm in a minority but that doesn't matter: I like it and my players like it. It does what we want in a game of D&D but clearly it's not D&D for a lot of people. And that's fine and certainly doesn't bother me.

But back to the original question.

5E is, for me, the natural successor to AD&D (both 1E and 2E) in a way that even 3.xE is not (and I note that both 3.xE and 4E had important lessons for 5E). I sometimes call it AD&D3E as a way of explaining to old-schoolers what I think it is like.

I cannot think of a better game for those who like earlier editions. It's better designed. The maths is far more solid. It's better organised. It's more logical. It's easier to teach (in short: roll high on a d20). But it still feels like AD&D in a good way.

I've run it and am happy to run it again.

[Ackbladder]

This is my biggest concern. Some of the major NPCs that I already had in place before an edition switch was brought up were things like a binder using flicker with shadow hand maneuvers, a warlock known for counterspelling (powered by Divine Defiance), a “monk” psywarrior/crusader using Instant Clarity to charge Deep Impact power attacks, and a totem rager. I don't think any of those cross over well, and even going into homebrew some are monstrous to tackle (coughincarnum).


Do your players actually care about all that crap? I get it - you enjoy character builds, and for you that is a big part of what makes GM'ing appealing. God bless, we all need to get something out of it, and the world needs more GM's.

But, unless your players are pretty unusual, I suspect they don't really care about any of that 'build' stuff. Your "binder using flicker with shadow hand maneuvers" is "that annoying shadow-wizardy guy". He could just as easily be a 5E Mage, perhaps with a few spells 're-fluffed' to be more shadowy. The players would be just as happy, and you could have more time to work on story and personalities, things that truly affect how much players enjoy your campaign.

Of course, this may not satisfy your own desire for mechanical tinkering, and if that is your chief joy in GM'ing then so be it. I just want to put forward the opinion that, in my experience, such stat tinkering adds very little value to the game from the players' perspective, and is basically a huge time sink.

One of the things I most enjoy about GM'ing 5E is that is realizes this and you now have a decent (and hopefully growing) roster of NPC stat blocks. That knight who is a pain in the ass to the party - he's now a Knight (p XX). Quit worrying about his stats and work on his personality, which is what really makes for a great game, IMO. If you want to keep the party on their toes, perhaps give him a unique ability or two as options. Much better than stressing about 2 pages of 3.X stat blocks, most of which will never, ever come up anyway.

Finally, to return this conversation to it's original tack: I'm a long time player (since the 70's) and a year or two ago I began GM'ing Pathfinder (the excellent RotRL adventure) for a group of 5 new (but mature) players. After getting to the end of Book 2, we decided to take an interregnum and try out 5E, with the excellent LMoP campaign. The players wiped in the final dungeon, and afterwards I asked for input on the two systems. I preferred 5E, but the AP's produced by Paizo were much, much better (except for the jewel of a mini-campaign that is LMoP), so I was kinda on the fence. All of the player's wanted to stick with 5E, and had no desire to return to Pathfinder. I was surprised it was so lop-sided.

Since then, I've grown to be much more fond of 5E, and even reading Pathfinder forums kind of exasperates me. I do miss the excellent AP's, and would likely play in one with the Pathfinder rules if the chance arose (good story and GM trumps good rules, IMO), but for the most part I've settled on 5E rules as decidedly superior.

5E is better balanced, has more than enough options to build most any reasonable fantasy character (with the exception of my favorite alchemist class being absent) and has no issues with trap options and fewer junk feats. As a GM, not having to rely on the christmas-tree Big-6 magic items allows me much more freedom - magic items can be rare, flavorful and fun, instead of just keeping the players from falling behind the power curve.

My only reservation is that the Wizards AP's are definitely lack-lustre compared to the Paizo efforts. They've been getting progressively better, but even OotA is pretty weak compared to most of the recent Paizo AP's.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have a cunning plan.

Switch to 5e.
Play for a while.
If you like it ... win.
If you don't like it, switch back to 3.5 or Pathfinder or whatever ... win.

This is a win-win situation.

[Arkhios]

I'm a long-time player from all the way through 3.5 to PF to 4E to PF to 5E over 13 some years, but I actually got my hands bloodied as a DM very late in PF, and when I decided to start a homebrew campaign in 5th edition, I had somewhat biased concerns on the very issue with ASI stuck with Class levels instead of Character levels. As the DM myself, I decided to go with this:

ASI's/feats from levels 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th would be tied to character level instead of class levels. Any extra ASI's/feats gained from Fighter and Rogue would still remain tied to said class' levels.

I think this isn't too big of an issue, in all honesty.

And I echo what everyone else has said before me: by all means, switch to 5e. It has a healthy amount of options. Not too much, but with a little imagination, it can work wonders with those "few" options, even compared to 3.5/PF plethora of options. I'd honestly say it's about quality overy quantity. (Plus, surely you have noticed the "publish first, fix later" design philosophy from Paizo by now? :P)

[old school man]

I have a cunning plan.

Switch to 5e.
Play for a while.
If you like it ... win.
If you don't like it, switch back to 3.5 or Pathfinder or whatever ... win.

This is a win-win situation.

Now that's a good positive attitude.:smallbiggrin:




John

[Malifice]

I'm a long-time player from all the way through 3.5 to PF to 4E to PF to 5E over 13 some years, but I actually got my hands bloodied as a DM very late in PF, and when I decided to start a homebrew campaign in 5th edition, I had somewhat biased concerns on the very issue with ASI stuck with Class levels instead of Character levels. As the DM myself, I decided to go with this:

ASI's/feats from levels 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th would be tied to character level instead of class levels. Any extra ASI's/feats gained from Fighter and Rogue would still remain tied to said class' levels.

I think this isn't too big of an issue, in all honesty.

And I echo what everyone else has said before me: by all means, switch to 5e. It has a healthy amount of options. Not too much, but with a little imagination, it can work wonders with those "few" options, even compared to 3.5/PF plethora of options. I'd honestly say it's about quality overy quantity. (Plus, surely you have noticed the "publish first, fix later" design philosophy from Paizo by now? :P)

Personally I like that feats are tied to classes and not character level.

It discourages dipping (which I generally find annoying). Its a real trade-off deciding to head into another class, and that sits well with me.

[old school man]

You make me feel young. The flexibility is great, and though I whine constantly about not buffing up my casters, it really speeds up the game and its quite a challenge. Ritual spells and cantrips save spell slots. And the multiclass spell slots is very easy to learn.

(Grumpy old man voice.)

You danged kids! Get off my lawn!:smalltongue:




John

[Arkhios]

Personally I like that feats are tied to classes and not character level.

It discourages dipping (which I generally find annoying). Its a real trade-off deciding to head into another class, and that sits well with me.

I agree it's a more meaningful choice as it is by default and by that it's alright. As a player I can live with it. But as a DM if you wanted to be more lenient on character growth, the ASI change doesn't do much damage, you wouldn't be getting any extra feats, but you wouldn't be "stuck" with your initial class either. I'm not a big fan of rebuilding a character on the fly, I prefer the aforementioned character growth. Sure, you began as a fighter, but you've adventured with this barbarian buddy of yours for years and his fighting style has appealed to you so much you've even adapted some of the same aspects. Restricting a choice like that by acknowledging you'd be "hurting" your initial progress, isn't particularly encouraging either. And as I understand, 5th edition does intend to encourage the growth.

PS. As the DM I still require my players to justify their multi-classing choices, so no dipping little this, little that, eventually having one or two levels of each possible class. Hell no.