I miss 3.5 but cant go back

[Albions_Angel]

Hi all

Im in a bit of an odd situation. Im part of 2 concurrent DnD groups. One started off as a new 5e game, and its left me feeling fairly hollow, which I initially put down to the DM who likes Rule of Cool (and I very much dont). Its not a bad game though and I have a laugh.

My other group, my main group, recently went from 3.5 to 5th. And that cemented it. I dont like 5th. I dont know why, but I just find myself missing things. I miss magic items, I miss real feats, I miss skills and skill tricks, I miss the options I had, I miss flanking, aid another, height bonuses, weapon sizes, a decent selection of enemies. Everything I see in 5th just makes me miss something in 3.5.

Im in my last year of a masters degree at uni, and will be moving Stateside after that to do a PhD. The town I am in currently doesnt have much in the way of a gaming scene. And I kind of dont want to desert either group, who I have grown close to over the last few years.

But Im not enjoying it any more. The group that started with 5th look at me in horror when I recount tales from my 3.5 adventures. "Its too complex", "theres too much maths", "how do you keep track of everything?". Meanwhile, my main group is enjoying the change of pace, a change I actually hate. We went into a scenario at level 1, killed enough stuff, and a tonne of it all at once, so that in any 3.5e game we would be almost at level 3. Only there is no multiplier for facing multiple enemies. So after a bit of a rant, the 5e board pointed out that the xp is correct and we are all still level 1.

Can I point out that in 5th, its so easy to die at low levels that it doesnt just seem common for chars to die, it almost seems like its expected for half the party to roll 2 or 3 characters before the game really gets going?

I dont know. I needed to write this, though it probably violates some forum rules as its not really relevant to anything. Its cathartic to admit that i dont like 5th, and that I miss 3.5, and that I am unhappy in my current groups.

Did anyone else try 5th and not like it? Im not looking for arguments about which is better. Im sure 5th fixes a lot of things, and will get better with more splat books, but thats not the point. I dont like the changes subjectively. I guess im just looking for the support of the community right now.

Sorry.

[GilesTheCleric]

I saw your thread in the 5e subforum, and did wonder a bit at the xp rules.

I've tried 5e twice (once during the playtest, and again after publication). It's a neat system, one that I frequently recommend to folks just starting out in D&D or TTRPGs in general. If beer+chips games were my thing, I'd play 5e like nobody's business. But, I already know how TTRPGs work, and I know how D&D works. I can write a spreadsheet to handle the numbers for me, or use dice rolling techniques or shorthand if I'm not worried about every +1.

I'm currently going through a somewhat similar transition, that of 3.5 to PF. I'm learning that the two systems just really aren't very compatible beyond the surface of having six ability scores, three saves, and AC. There's so many small (but significant) changes, both to mechanics and to design philosophy that make it an entirely different game to 3.5. It's both refreshing and disheartening.

The experience has taught me that I don't like a whole lot of change, and that I'm lazy. I have 3.5 system mastery, and it's going to take at least a year or two to get to what I'd consider competent at PF. My PF game is in less than three months, so I'm doing my best to cobble together a build. The game will still be fun, but I'm not sure how long it will be until I find the mechanics and my grip on them satisfying.

In terms of folks dying at low levels, that's a possibility in most any ruleset. However, it's your system mastery and TTRPG experience that help prevent it from happening. 5e has a much lower ceiling on how much system mastery you can pump in, so your odds relative to anyone else dying are that much smaller. 3.5, in contrast, is a game where you can fell drain sonic snap just about everything you see at level 1, or have an endless supply of animals companions to tank things for you. Dying isn't ever a combat worry if that's something you build the character towards in 3.5.

One thing you might be able to do if you're good chums with the folks you play with is to ask to play a 3.5 character in the 5e game. I've read that OD&D, 1e and 2e characters can all fairly reasonably be run in the same game, and I bet if you squinted a bit at 3.5, you could use it in 5e. The experience could even be very liberating -- since it's not much work in 3.5 to match the small numbers of 5e, you have plenty of space in your build for any kind of ridiculous concept you've been meaning to try.

I hope you can relate to my experience and find that you're not alone.

[JNAProductions]

Hi all

Im in a bit of an odd situation. Im part of 2 concurrent DnD groups. One started off as a new 5e game, and its left me feeling fairly hollow, which I initially put down to the DM who likes Rule of Cool (and I very much dont). Its not a bad game though and I have a laugh.

My other group, my main group, recently went from 3.5 to 5th. And that cemented it. I dont like 5th. I dont know why, but I just find myself missing things. I miss magic items, I miss real feats, I miss skills and skill tricks, I miss the options I had, I miss flanking, aid another, height bonuses, weapon sizes, a decent selection of enemies. Everything I see in 5th just makes me miss something in 3.5.

Im in my last year of a masters degree at uni, and will be moving Stateside after that to do a PhD. The town I am in currently doesnt have much in the way of a gaming scene. And I kind of dont want to desert either group, who I have grown close to over the last few years.

But Im not enjoying it any more. The group that started with 5th look at me in horror when I recount tales from my 3.5 adventures. "Its too complex", "theres too much maths", "how do you keep track of everything?". Meanwhile, my main group is enjoying the change of pace, a change I actually hate. We went into a scenario at level 1, killed enough stuff, and a tonne of it all at once, so that in any 3.5e game we would be almost at level 3. Only there is no multiplier for facing multiple enemies. So after a bit of a rant, the 5e board pointed out that the xp is correct and we are all still level 1.

Can I point out that in 5th, its so easy to die at low levels that it doesnt just seem common for chars to die, it almost seems like its expected for half the party to roll 2 or 3 characters before the game really gets going?

I dont know. I needed to write this, though it probably violates some forum rules as its not really relevant to anything. Its cathartic to admit that i dont like 5th, and that I miss 3.5, and that I am unhappy in my current groups.

Did anyone else try 5th and not like it? Im not looking for arguments about which is better. Im sure 5th fixes a lot of things, and will get better with more splat books, but thats not the point. I dont like the changes subjectively. I guess im just looking for the support of the community right now.

Sorry.

Don't be sorry-I'm a big fan of 5th over 3.5, and I'm not offended or anything. Honestly, you know what I would suggest? Go down to the subforum for Play By Post Games. There's plenty of 3.5 there. Play online, and have a blast!

As for your real life group, just say "Hey guys, I'm glad you're all having fun, but I'm just not a fan of this system. So I don't think I'll be playing any more. See you all [insert other times you see them here]!"

[Esprit15]

One possibility for converting 5e groups who shy away from the complexity, if you are so inclined, is to run a one off module for them. Ask them to just give it a shot, if they aren't interested, that's fine, but being dismissive because it looks hard is not going to do them any favors. I thought I would hate 5e on my first try, but I saw the appeal, and even noticed a mechanic or two that I liked, even if I viewed it as an inferior system overall. I thought Mutants and Masterminds would be way too complex, but a friend had me try it and I found it to be a pretty enjoyable system. The point is, have the groups calling it too complicated give it a shot before saying they think it's too hard for them.

[PersonMan]

Don't be sorry-I'm a big fan of 5th over 3.5, and I'm not offended or anything. Honestly, you know what I would suggest? Go down to the subforum for Play By Post Games. There's plenty of 3.5 there. Play online, and have a blast!

Do be aware that PbP is an entirely different experience from in-person playing. Roll20 offers something more like live tabletop play, but PbP is in my experience focused far more on character interaction, writing, description, etc. and moves incredibly slowly. They also tend to die very often - one or more people just stop posting, or replies come in more and more slowly over time, until there's no response at all.

If you get into PbP, you'll enjoy it best if you like applying for a game and making characters (or doing the pre-game setup work as the DM) and can gain at least some enjoyment from it even if your game dies after everyone introduces their characters.

[Âmesang]

I will readily admit that I love 3rd Edition, been playing it for the last decade or so, and I wasn't all that warm towards 5th (especially the $50 price tag on the Player's Handbook. :smalltongue: Yeesh). I think it might come from a combination of not only being so very familiar with 3rd Edition, but loving all of the options that are present, especially if something catches my eye that makes me think differently about something, giving me ideas I wouldn't have otherwise tried.

Granted I started playing just after 3rd Edition was revised so there was already plenty of material to work off of, unlike the still quite-new 5th. Be that as it may I've slowly been accumulating 1st and 2nd Edition material and would love to try that, and above all I actually liked 4th Edition (except for my habit of printing out a concise list of powers that I'd have to update over time — took me awhile to just plan my characters' powers a head of time and fill up a whole sheet).

The last group I played with are all for 5th Edition, at least with regards to its more… simplistic feel, I suppose? Might be why I enjoyed 4th, actually; 5th, to me, feels like a very simplistic 3rd, but 4th is so different in structure I don't even make any connection.

Now to be fair I only played 5th during its beta-taste phase, and I actually do have some Wizards-downloaded stuff including several different character sheets to choose from, and I wouldn't mind giving it another try… especially since I've heard that WORLD OF GREYHAWK® was supposed to be reset to 576 CY which means I could play as the parent of my favorite character and work on creating a similarly-classed character but with a differing personality (especially since the previous character was born in 575 CY; I'd imagine having someone to fight for as opposed to fighting for oneself would change one's outlook).

[Taejang]

There will likely always be things you don't like about 5e. But if you plan on playing it for awhile, don't just suffer through. Now that you've got the rant out (if that could be called a rant), start looking for ways you can enjoy 5e more. Below are suggestions, and others may have more.


I dont know why, but I just find myself missing things. I miss magic items, I miss real feats, I miss skills and skill tricks, I miss the options I had, I miss flanking, aid another, height bonuses, weapon sizes, a decent selection of enemies. Everything I see in 5th just makes me miss something in 3.5.
First, Flanking is an optional rule in 5e. Get your DMs to use it. Second, Aid Another is in 5e under a different name. "Working Together" in the PHB dictates skill checks (or Group Checks if the situation warrants), while the combat action Help covers the rest.

If there are things you want that aren't in the DMG or MM, there are rules in the DMG for making your own. Your own feats, your own spells, your own items, your own monsters, even your own races and classes. Until more supplements are made, I'd use those options. Take 3.5 items, monsters, etc and import them into 5e. As a DM, I've done that for several things; some conversions are very simple, while others require thought about balance or tweaks to abilities that no longer make sense, but so far I've been able to either create or import anything we wanted. As more material is released, these kinds of creations and imports won't be as frequent.

If it is the attunement concept you aren't fond of, that's harder to get around. There are discussions about that elsewhere, and I can't substantially add to them, so... yeah.

Height bonuses and weapon sizes, skills... yep, details like these got left out in the name of simplification. I'll bet you can name others like them, too. Beyond homebrew rules, there isn't much you can do about it.

Your actual options in combat are still as varied as your imagination. In 5e, I've had players smash a wine rack into a mummy lord, set a watchtower on fire with a hawk familiar, climb on and ride dragons, etc.

Unearthed Arcana (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles-tags/unearthed-arcana) may be of interest to you. It provides additional options and features, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. And it is from an official source, if not actually an official supplement, so there's a better chance your DMs will accept it than if you made it up yourself.


We went into a scenario at level 1, killed enough stuff, and a tonne of it all at once, so that in any 3.5e game we would be almost at level 3. Only there is no multiplier for facing multiple enemies. So after a bit of a rant, the 5e board pointed out that the xp is correct and we are all still level 1.
This comes down to player and DM expectations. The rate of experience gain is definitely different between the two editions, and that needs to be accounted for if your DM is designing encounters. As a DM, I find I often give the regular combat XP, but add additional XP for completing objectives and noncombat tasks (such as getting information out of an NPC). This approach is well-supported in 5e manuals and is not a homebrew rule. Your DMs have to balance between direct combat XP and other methods of getting experience, as well as learn to build encounters in 5e to match everyone's expectations. This takes time; try and be patient with your DMs, and communicate with them on the matter.


Can I point out that in 5th, its so easy to die at low levels that it doesnt just seem common for chars to die, it almost seems like its expected for half the party to roll 2 or 3 characters before the game really gets going?
Very true, no bones about it. Beginning encounters are a delicate balance; if you aren't fond of that balance, you can always ask to start campaigns at lvl 2, or possibly even lvl 3. If the rest of the table still wants to start at lvl 1, you failed your persuasion check. Jokes aside, as you all get more familiar with 5e, death will be more rare. Not because the task (not dying) becomes easier, it is still hard. But because your ability to use your characters within the system will improve. Some of this also comes down to DM experience with 5e encounters; some mechanics are quite powerful in 5e, like a goblin's hide ability, and an improperly balanced encounter may kill you through no fault of yours or the edition.

[LoyalPaladin]

You're not alone. There are plenty of people, myself included, that prefer 3.5 over 5th edition. But I definitely don't advise you to suffer through your dislike of it.

My primary group is going to be switching to 5th edition for the next campaign and I plan to at least stick it out for a few levels, after which I will reevaluate my system preference in comparison to the fun I'm having at the table. If the game causes me to wonder why I'm even there, I'll respectfully bow out of that table.

I think what I'm trying to say, is don't let the system kill the mood entirely for you. Half of D&D is still the roleplay experience, after all, it is a roleplay game. It's always fun to gather around with your friends and hang out, right? :smallsmile:

[LTwerewolf]

A group I was in tried out 5th, and I ended up thinking on so many occasions "this is specific thing is easier to do in 3rd" or "This is actually less complicated in 3rd" and VERY often "well I have very few character concepts to choose from because 5th doesn't really support very many." I also don't like a rules light system where dms decide things arbitrarily without consistency. To me, 5th is basically "the dm tells you a story and you have a vague interaction with that story." It's the same reason I don't like the vampire or werewolf games. I can hardly even call them games. I ended up starting up an entirely new group in order to go back to 3.P, and am having a lot more fun.

[Tenebris86]

My group has played 3.5 since the dawn of time (or a bit before, if my memory isn't too fuzzy) and had a brief stint into 5e, but couldn't stick with it. It all came down to the options, the building, the optimization of a character. Sure, 5e is fun and all, but the complexity, I think, is really what makes 3.5 fun to play. I set up 5e for a few friends every now and again, because they are new to the game and it is easy, but it really just isn't the same as 5e.

Btb, my group plays exclusively through Roll20, which I would recommend if you can find a good group to go through instead of PbP.

[Melcar]

Hi all

Im in a bit of an odd situation. Im part of 2 concurrent DnD groups. One started off as a new 5e game, and its left me feeling fairly hollow, which I initially put down to the DM who likes Rule of Cool (and I very much dont). Its not a bad game though and I have a laugh.

My other group, my main group, recently went from 3.5 to 5th. And that cemented it. I dont like 5th. I dont know why, but I just find myself missing things. I miss magic items, I miss real feats, I miss skills and skill tricks, I miss the options I had, I miss flanking, aid another, height bonuses, weapon sizes, a decent selection of enemies. Everything I see in 5th just makes me miss something in 3.5.

Im in my last year of a masters degree at uni, and will be moving Stateside after that to do a PhD. The town I am in currently doesnt have much in the way of a gaming scene. And I kind of dont want to desert either group, who I have grown close to over the last few years.

But Im not enjoying it any more. The group that started with 5th look at me in horror when I recount tales from my 3.5 adventures. "Its too complex", "theres too much maths", "how do you keep track of everything?". Meanwhile, my main group is enjoying the change of pace, a change I actually hate. We went into a scenario at level 1, killed enough stuff, and a tonne of it all at once, so that in any 3.5e game we would be almost at level 3. Only there is no multiplier for facing multiple enemies. So after a bit of a rant, the 5e board pointed out that the xp is correct and we are all still level 1.

Can I point out that in 5th, its so easy to die at low levels that it doesnt just seem common for chars to die, it almost seems like its expected for half the party to roll 2 or 3 characters before the game really gets going?

I dont know. I needed to write this, though it probably violates some forum rules as its not really relevant to anything. Its cathartic to admit that i dont like 5th, and that I miss 3.5, and that I am unhappy in my current groups.

Did anyone else try 5th and not like it? Im not looking for arguments about which is better. Im sure 5th fixes a lot of things, and will get better with more splat books, but thats not the point. I dont like the changes subjectively. I guess im just looking for the support of the community right now.

Sorry.

There no magic items in 5th? But how? Its in Forgotten Realms is it not? The very epitome of High Fantasy???

Anyways... never tried it, never will. Nor have I tried 4th. I see no reason from changing. How can we change. How can I remove abilities and feats that I have come to love over the last 14 year of playing with this character, from level 1. (Started in 2002).

My character would not be my character in any other edition unless my abilities carried over... without a nerf so strong that it negated the abilities.

Im sorry to hear, that you are not having fun, maybe you could express that to your old group? Maye pick op a session or two with your old characters?

[BWR]

I'm currently going through a somewhat similar transition, that of 3.5 to PF. I'm learning that the two systems just really aren't very compatible beyond the surface of having six ability scores, three saves, and AC. There's so many small (but significant) changes, both to mechanics and to design philosophy that make it an entirely different game to 3.5. It's both refreshing and disheartening.


Huh?
I guess we think of different things when we use the words 'compatible' and 'entirely different'. Because the two games are super-compatible. I mean, like you wouldn't believe. We've played Pf for years coming from 3.5 and throughout this time we would be doing things the way they worked in 3.5 until someone read the rules a bit more carefully and realized they work differently now. And the game didn't notice. The game ran just as smoothly even if you used the 'wong' mechanical bits or modifiers. There are differences, sure. Lots of mostly minor changes from one to the other, but take almost any element from one and use it in the other and it will run just as smoothly.
PF is not an entirely different game from 3.5, it's the same game with a new coat of paint and a few kinks worked out.

[GilesTheCleric]

Very true, no bones about it. Beginning encounters are a delicate balance; if you aren't fond of that balance, you can always ask to start campaigns at lvl 2, or possibly even lvl 3. If the rest of the table still wants to start at lvl 1, you failed your persuasion check. Jokes aside, as you all get more familiar with 5e, death will be more rare. Not because the task (not dying) becomes easier, it is still hard. But because your ability to use your characters within the system will improve. Some of this also comes down to DM experience with 5e encounters; some mechanics are quite powerful in 5e, like a goblin's hide ability, and an improperly balanced encounter may kill you through no fault of yours or the edition.

That's one of the problems the OP encountered -- they did ask the GM to start at a higher level (7th?) but then that ended up not happening after what sounds like plenty of civil talk about it.


There no magic items in 5th? But how? Its in Forgotten Realms is it not? The very epitome of High Fantasy???

5e is the inverse of 4e, in which magic items were even more explicitly tied to progression than 3e. In 5e, a +1 weapon is the best that has been published as far as I know, and they're geared to be extras to characters, not requirements. The monster design has changed somewhat to accommodate; I think the game doesn't require (or allow easy access to) flight for everyone until level 15 or something now. I think it really comes down to trying to remove numbers from the game, since traditional D&D magic items are either artifacts or +X weapons.


Huh?
I guess we think of different things when we use the words 'compatible' and 'entirely different'. Because the two games are super-compatible. I mean, like you wouldn't believe. We've played Pf for years coming from 3.5 and throughout this time we would be doing things the way they worked in 3.5 until someone read the rules a bit more carefully and realized they work differently now. And the game didn't notice. The game ran just as smoothly even if you used the 'wong' mechanical bits or modifiers. There are differences, sure. Lots of mostly minor changes from one to the other, but take almost any element from one and use it in the other and it will run just as smoothly.
PF is not an entirely different game from 3.5, it's the same game with a new coat of paint and a few kinks worked out.

They're "compatible", yes, but the differences become more and more magnified as you dig into the systems. It's not anything that you might notice if you're just porting things over roughly, but if you have a specific 3.5 build that requires a lot of OP tricks or that is focused on something unorthodox, it can be difficult to impossible to replicate in PF. Attempting to merge the materials from the two systems also results in a lot of abilities not working, not working as intended, or being heavily nerfed (or possibly buffed, though I haven't seen that yet aside from obvious things like 3.5 Polymorph -> PF Polymorph).

To keep this from going too off-topic, I'll summarize and say that the key difference is a design difference. 3.5 relies on PrCs, multiclassing, ACFs, and templates (and other more obscure rules) to make unique characters. PF had some PrCs, but rejected that system in favour of archetypes and encouraging single-classing. Templates are gone. ACFs are gone (archetypes don't have the same granularity or interaction between each other). Feats, despite being granted more often in PF, continue to include increasingly lengthy feat-chains, especially for martials who can't afford them without things like flaws, elder evils, taint, or feat-granting items to get around the squeeze. And those have been removed from PF. There's fewer races, and the new template-ish system that they have with favoured classes are restricted by class, rather than being open to everyone.

PF really relies on class abilities as the engine for everything, and most things in the game revolve around them. It means that if you don't get access to them, though, you miss out on everything that relies on them even if it might function for some other class feature. It's a system that provides no incentive to multiclass, and that has few benefits for folks who want to have a "design-your-own-class" via multiclassing. In PF, the designers have to make an archetype or VMC for you and your concept. If there isn't one, then you're in for a whole lot of surgery.

To be clear, I like PF's approach. I think it's a much less messy system than 3.5, and it really helps to highlight all of the great classes that Paizo and 3PP have created. I've liked PF classes as a whole better than almost every 3.5 class. PF's changes to combat maneuvers are on the whole good, I think. Archetypes and racial favoured class whatsawhoosits are useful systems. But it's just not compatible with 3.5 or 3.5's way of doing things, and it requires a different mindset and expectations when used to build a character.

Maybe I'll change my mind as I continue to dig into PF OP, but after spending 50+ hours on a build doing both research and asking knowledgeable folks for help, it seems this way to me.

[Dormammu]

The fun thing about a rules heavy system like 3.X/Pathfinder and earlier versions of D&D is the feeling of verisimilitude.

Things are just so insanely intricate you can't help but feel they are real. In later editions things are simple and board gamey. Don't get me wrong I love board games, but if I wanted to play board games I wouldn't be playing D&D.

I remember making a 4th edition Wizard, I asked the DM what spells I could cast outside of combat and he just blinked at me. This was the problem for me. The game doesn't suggest that there are any people in the world who aren't adventurers. Everyone is an adventurer. According to him there were no spells for making crops grow, or making food taste good, or creating bridges, there were only spells to do Xd6 Holy Damage.

It made me super sad.

My recommendation is that if you want to play a certain kind of game you need to run that kind of game.

[gtwucla]

In the same boat bruddah. I like 5e in concept, but it lacks complexity. Depending on your approach any rpg can feel gamey, but 5e seems written for people that prefer the gamey side of D&D. I had a similar experience with a D&D group I used to play with and me and one other guy had to excuse ourselves from the group. I'd say if you want to stick with the group you should offer to DM a game and try to get them into pathfinder. Not because it's better than 3.5, but it's similar enough to satisfy your want to play 3.5 and it would also be new to the group and therefore interesting enough to try out (I'm assuming this is so, since your coming straight out of 3.5).

[atemu1234]

The fun thing about a rules heavy system like 3.X/Pathfinder and earlier versions of D&D is the feeling of verisimilitude.

Things are just so insanely intricate you can't help but feel they are real. In later editions things are simple and board gamey. Don't get me wrong I love board games, but if I wanted to play board games I wouldn't be playing D&D.

I remember making a 4th edition Wizard, I asked the DM what spells I could cast outside of combat and he just blinked at me. This was the problem for me. The game doesn't suggest that there are any people in the world who aren't adventurers. Everyone is an adventurer. According to him there were no spells for making crops grow, or making food taste good, or creating bridges, there were only spells to do Xd6 Holy Damage.

It made me super sad.

My recommendation is that if you want to play a certain kind of game you need to run that kind of game.

I actually got into an argument with someone over which was better - we each played a couple games, 4e and 3.5e, and he said he preferred the simplified combat of 4e, but enjoyed the noncombat aspect of 3.5. In the end, he stopped playing 4e and kept playing in my 3.5 group.

[Crake]

Only there is no multiplier for facing multiple enemies

I feel compelled to point out that in 3.5 there was no multiplier for facing multiple enemies either. The whole 2 enemies = CR+2, CR+2 literally just doubles the amount of xp you get, so it's exactly the same as fighting a single CR appropriate monster individually, twice. The main thing is that 5e actually just gives pittance for xp, and all the monsters have massive HP pools to soak up damage to make the combat feel like it was harder.

To add my own personal experiences, a few of the people in my regular groups expressed an interest for 5e, especially one of them who is by far the worst DM I have ever had, so for all I care, he can run 5e forever onward and I wouldn't care (though he has yet to actually pick up and run a 5e game afaik). One of the others ran a 5e game for a bit, but after the first part of the adventure concluded, I left due to a mix of not enjoying playing with the other players and not liking the system. I can handle one of those being bad, but not both. Since then I've managed to convince that DM to move back to pathfinder at least (not quite 3.5, but good enough imo), and he's running a spheres of power game which we're all enjoying.

There's also a 5e game running every other week that a few of them play and seem to enjoy, but I'd rather not get involved with, so I instead just DM as many 3.5 games as I can manage, filling the empty slots from the people who moved to 5e with randoms online. Funnily enough, those randoms have proven to be much more interesting and enjoyable players to engage with, so even though it's an online game on roll20, I get much more fulfillment out of it.

I think, if you really like 3.5, just try offering to run a game, see how people feel about it, if nobody wants to join, then look for groups on roll20 or the like (don't go to the PbP games, I have yet to follow one that didn't fall apart miserably).

[Serafina]

First of all, on magic items:
The Dungeon Masters Guide lists over 250 magic items - not counting the variations of "type armor +1/2/3" or "weapon type +1/2/3", or some other varieties of items. Or artifacts or sentinent magic items.

Yes, the base assumption about magic items changed: There's no longer any expectation that a level 10 character will run around with +X to their stats/attacks/saves from magic items.
And you can no longer buy magic items by default, nor craft them. Thus, there's no guarantee of having magic items.

However, that doesn't mean that the GM can't be liberal with handing out magic items. And you could introduce magic item shops into the game without a problem - it'd just be more like that adventurers market in Athkatla in BG II, or the shop of a legendary smith, and they'd likely only sell a limited amount of things for high prices, or trade for other rare items.
But if you want your higher-level adventurers to be able to go and buy +1 swords, there's really nothing that stops that.

And magic items aren't really weaker in this edition.
A level 20 3.5 fighter (or other class with full BAB) would likely boost their attack from ~+30 to ~+35 with a magic weapon. An increase of about ~16%.
A level 20 5E fighter (or any class really) would at most boost their attack from ~+11 to ~+14 with a magic weapon. An increase of about 33% actually.
And if they get their hands on a belt of giant strength it might go up by up to +4 more. That's a huge boost - from +11 to +18, or a 66% increase.

Magic items are more special this edition. How rare they are depends on your GM.



Now, as for variety:

Feats aren't weaker this edition. There's less of them, but the edition is still young. But feats are actually stronger in general, and can offer more variety too - if you want to change things up a lot, a single feat like Lucky or Ritual Caster can very much alter your character concept.

Also, try multiclassing if you want variety. In general, this edition is pretty multiclass-friendly and can offer some great options.
Some classes are particularly good for enhancing your character concept via multiclassing.

Barbarian actually fits any non-spellcaster even with a short dip, and provides pretty good benefits. Want to be more reckless, or have a danger sense and combat focus? Barbarian multiclass.

Bard works well with any spellcaster. A 3-level dip won't cost you any high-level spells, but will provide skill proficiencies, a nice bonus action and most importantly skill expertise. This can easily represent travel experience, studied learning, a free spirit or any other number of things, though you'll need a minimum of charisma.

Fighter obviously goes with anything, that goes without saying.
Paladins are surprisingly dip-friendly. They go really well with Bards and Warlocks, but can also make fun combinations with Sorcerers or even with Rogues. Who says that a holy Warrior can't be more subtle, or throw around combat spells?

Rogues make good dips too, for Expertise and Cunning Action especially. And obviously, a trickier combat style can go with a lot of character concepts.

Now, that's just the obvious options. Point is, you can make some fancy combinations.


Just for a few examples, multiclassing in 5E has lead to such interesting combinations as
- A Paladin-based Pirate Captain. (hey, there are a lot of evil underwater races)
- A representation of Marvels Black Widow with Bard and Barbarian levels (though she does have a two-level Rogue dip too).
- A Magical Girl style Barrier Maiden
And I've yet to properly work with the new material in the later releases.

[Crake]

Feats aren't weaker this edition. There's less of them, but the edition is still young.

I think people need to stop using this excuse, 5th edition is coming up on 2 years now, and aside from the unearthed arcana stuff every month, and adventure modules, they have not actually published any splatbooks. In the past year and a half of development, has there actually been a single extra feat option? I'm legit asking, because I'm not actually aware of any, but I somehow don't think that their publishing strategy is revolving too much around character options, but rather adventure modules, and good luck convincing DMs to let you use options from modules they aren't running. When it comes to character options, 5e's RAW is basically "homebrew your own stuff", feats included.

[Albions_Angel]

SCAG is the first real splat book, and there was Elemental Evil (a pdf splat thingy) but neither added new classes, only a few archetypes, and both only added a few spells. I dont think either added new backgrounds or feats. And sure, there are feats and magic items, but feats are optional, so some DMs outright ban them, and even if they dont, its either feat or stat increase. As for magic items, again, its like they are totally optional. If I wanted to play a world with minimal magic, I would play a different system.

[Abithrios]

I spent some time in the 5E part of these forums and got the impression that I wouldn't like it as much as 3.5.

Bounded accuracy is a major design principle in the new version. If it just meant avoiding small conditional bonuses, then I might be for it. What it really means is that the most powerful heroes in the world with the greatest amount of natural talent (ability score) and training (proficiency bonus) possible are only about a dozen points better at any given task than someone with no experience and well below average natural talent. That is very small. My experience of the real world shows that some people are WAY better at things than I am. Even things that I way better at than the typical person off the street. In short, the skill system does not adequately simulate real world levels of skill. I want it to be able to simulate heroic and impossible levels of skill, without requiring levels in the one of the few designed skill monkey classes or similarly high investment.

I did think of a "fix" for that particular design goal I disagree with. Take the normal skill DC. If it is is twenty or lower, divide by two, rounded up. If it is twenty or higher, subtract 10. Roll a d10 instead of a d20. (For example, DC 10->5, 15->8, and 25->15). This causes the minimum possible change in difficulty for any character with a +0 on the roll and it never changes an impossible task into a possible one or vice versa (unless you have a negative modifier). All it does is make heroes more consistent at performing the kind of feats that they claim to be heroically good at.


Multiclassing has its own problems. If a martial multiclasses too early, that delays their access to extra attack. Enemies at the level when extra attack comes online have a sudden increase in hit points, so anyone who doesn't get their class's damage increase at that level will experience a drop in their lethality. Likewise, ability score increases/feats are tied to class level.

I like that feats are often powerful enough to define a build around, but if you want to actually do so, you either have to play a variant human or wait til you get to a high enough level to learn your main trick.

[Fizban]

A guy at work said he wanted to run 5e so I temporarily got interested and blew through the system. It was fun learning some new material but there's just not enough, and no matter what they might add they've removed the underlying design that allows truly interesting builds. I recently decided on an analogy for 3.5: it's like legos. You've got this big tub with a ton of different pieces from different sets dumped in and you can just have fun putting them together in different ways, and occasionally you make a new lego to throw in (if you homebrew), you can jam them together in ways that weren't meant to work but are awesome, and if you have friends over you can play with your lego constructions together. So 5e is like that starter box of primary color legos without any fancy bits and shaped so you can only put them together one way, only so much you can do. Well and the other problems but that's the creativity angle.

[SangoProduction]

The fun thing about a rules heavy system like 3.X/Pathfinder and earlier versions of D&D is the feeling of verisimilitude.

Things are just so insanely intricate you can't help but feel they are real. In later editions things are simple and board gamey. Don't get me wrong I love board games, but if I wanted to play board games I wouldn't be playing D&D.

I remember making a 4th edition Wizard, I asked the DM what spells I could cast outside of combat and he just blinked at me. This was the problem for me. The game doesn't suggest that there are any people in the world who aren't adventurers. Everyone is an adventurer. According to him there were no spells for making crops grow, or making food taste good, or creating bridges, there were only spells to do Xd6 Holy Damage.

It made me super sad.

My recommendation is that if you want to play a certain kind of game you need to run that kind of game.

Probably pointless to talk even slightly positively on 4e in the 3.5 forum but...the cantrips...the utility spells... you know, those kinda things. Not to mention anything that forces movement can be used out of combat as some ignore terrain.

And how does it say there are no non-adventurers? I assume you mean because the books mostly have rules for adventurers? That's kinda like going to a cow pasture and saying this proves that only cows exist.

And for the martial classes...well...in 3.5 they were exactly as you describe, nothing but combat, while in 4e they've got options in and out of combat.

[Grinner]

And how does it say there are no non-adventurers? I assume you mean because the books mostly have rules for adventurers? That's kinda like going to a cow pasture and saying this proves that only cows exist.

You are kind of on the right track, I think. I think what he was trying to say, in keeping with the rest of the post, wasn't that D&D 4e explicitly says that there are no non-adventurers, but he meant to convey how the rules, being extremely player character-centric, don't quite carry the same gravitas as D&D 3.5.

[SangoProduction]

You are kind of on the right track, I think. I think what he was trying to say, in keeping with the rest of the post, wasn't that D&D 4e explicitly says that there are no non-adventurers, but he meant to convey how the rules, being extremely player character-centric, don't quite carry the same gravitas as D&D 3.5.

That's still as I said, like going to a cow pasture and saying that proves only cows exist. How many times has someone actually used the NPC class rules of 3.5? In my games (both as a player and DM), that was precisely never. If you are the DM, unless they are important, you aren't going to write out stats for them...and if they were important, you wouldn't use npc classes.

You don't need stats for anything that doesn't involve mechanics.

[Grinner]

That's still as I said, like going to a cow pasture and saying that proves only cows exist. How many times has someone actually used the NPC class rules of 3.5? In my games (both as a player and DM), that was precisely never. If you are the DM, unless they are important, you aren't going to write out stats for them...and if they were important, you wouldn't use npc classes.

You don't need stats for anything that doesn't involve mechanics.

I think from his position, it doesn't matter whether anyone uses the NPC classes or not. What matters to him is that they exist.

You might think that's stupid. Fine. But that's beside the point.

[Crake]

That's still as I said, like going to a cow pasture and saying that proves only cows exist. How many times has someone actually used the NPC class rules of 3.5? In my games (both as a player and DM), that was precisely never. If you are the DM, unless they are important, you aren't going to write out stats for them...and if they were important, you wouldn't use npc classes.

You don't need stats for anything that doesn't involve mechanics.

You don't need to necessarily have every individual NPC statted out completely, though I actually do, simply because if you don't give detail even to the unimportant NPCs, then the players will always be able to tell who they need to talk to, because it's the NPC with a name, which I think is a terrible approach for players to take.

But even then, you can have just generic NPC stats for "NPC guard" "NPC smith" etc etc.

[SangoProduction]

You don't need to necessarily have every individual NPC statted out completely, though I actually do, simply because if you don't give detail even to the unimportant NPCs, then the players will always be able to tell who they need to talk to, because it's the NPC with a name, which I think is a terrible approach for players to take.

But even then, you can have just generic NPC stats for "NPC guard" "NPC smith" etc etc.

You can give detail to characters without stating them up. And I severely doubt you legitimately have even 100 commoners statted out, and have different personalities for them already figured out.

If players go, "I take a random person from the crowd, and slice their head off (and that's the only part you need stats for)." Well, unless they are really unlucky with the roll, they probably automatically do it by level 5 in either edition.

If they were looking for someone with a specific skill, they wouldn't go in to a random crowd, they'd go where people who had those skills would be...like the bakery or blacksmith or potion shop, and the question here is "do the pcs have the money for said skill", rather than anything else, unless you had said that the skill doesn't exist in the city.

If they just have a civil conversation, none of the stats come up at all.

[Crake]

You can give detail to characters without stating them up. And I severely doubt you legitimately have even 100 commoners statted out, and have different personalities for them already figured out.

If players go, "I take a random person from the crowd, and slice their head off (and that's the only part you need stats for)." Well, unless they are really unlucky with the roll, they probably automatically do it by level 5 in either edition.

If they were looking for someone with a specific skill, they wouldn't go in to a random crowd, they'd go where people who had those skills would be...like the bakery or blacksmith or potion shop, and the question here is "do the pcs have the money for said skill", rather than anything else, unless you had said that the skill doesn't exist in the city.

If they just have a civil conversation, none of the stats come up at all.

Yeah, but the point is that you DO actually use the NPC classes, like expert, commoner, adept, aristocrat and warrior. The blacksmith you go looking for is just gonna be an expert with skill focus craft (whatever), not some decked out got knows what PC classed ubermensch. While you might not stat out a whole crowd, the blacksmith, the general store owner, the alchemist, the bartender, these are all people who the player will interact with in some fashion, and should be, at least generally, fleshed out, and I would not imagine a single one of them would have PC class levels.

[YossarianLives]

I also disliked the high lethality of early levels in 5E. I ran a small adventure using the free 5E rules online and the players (a dwarven fighter and an elven wizard) got slaughtered in the first combat against 3 goblins. It was very anti-climatic, especially since the goblins didn't get particularly lucky or anything. It's just a dangerous system. When I asked the 5E board about it, they basically said that my players were incompetent idiots for not having a cleric in the party. I have no interest in playing a system where clerics are required for survival.

[SangoProduction]

Yeah, but the point is that you DO actually use the NPC classes, like expert, commoner, adept, aristocrat and warrior. The blacksmith you go looking for is just gonna be an expert with skill focus craft (whatever), not some decked out got knows what PC classed ubermensch. While you might not stat out a whole crowd, the blacksmith, the general store owner, the alchemist, the bartender, these are all people who the player will interact with in some fashion, and should be, at least generally, fleshed out, and I would not imagine a single one of them would have PC class levels.

And no one's saying you shouldn't flesh them out. I'm saying that you don't need *stats* to flesh them out. Players never see or otherwise interact with the stats of those NPCs unless they attack them. Give them personalities, not numbers. You can spend time on both, but the time on the numbers that will never be seen is not as valuable as the time spent on fleshing out the *person* that they are interacting with.

[Taejang]

I'm not out to convince anyone to change their mind about the edition; it is what it is. But I get the impression most of you have barely looked at 5e. Let's clear up some misconceptions.


There no magic items in 5th? But how? Its in Forgotten Realms is it not? The very epitome of High Fantasy???
There are tons of magic items in 5th, and every published adventure so far sprinkles them around liberally. The DMG is not written from a Forgotten Realms perspective; they tried to divorce the rules from the setting (though it still favors FR, especially the MM). The PHB and DMG both have specific examples from Greyhawk, Eberron, and even Spelljammer.

The published adventures are Forgotten Realms, and as appropriate, they have tons of magic items. But reading the DMG, it is quite understandable that you might assume 5e games have no or few magic items. That is an incorrect assumption.


5e is the inverse of 4e, in which magic items were even more explicitly tied to progression than 3e. In 5e, a +1 weapon is the best that has been published as far as I know, and they're geared to be extras to characters, not requirements. The monster design has changed somewhat to accommodate; I think the game doesn't require (or allow easy access to) flight for everyone until level 15 or something now.
You are both right and wrong here. 5e magic items are indeed extras, not requirements or expectations. But the DMG includes up to +3, and published adventures include things beyond +1. Furthermore, whether you like the bounded accuracy or not, a +3 weapon in 3.5 is definitely weaker than a +3 weapon in 5e.

5e Fly is a 3rd level spell, making it available to spellcasters long before character level 15. For magic items, Cloak of the Bat and Wings of Flying are both only rare magic items. The starting published scenario, Lost Mines of Phandelver, is for characters level 1-5 and includes rare magic items.


I remember making a 4th edition Wizard, I asked the DM what spells I could cast outside of combat and he just blinked at me. This was the problem for me. The game doesn't suggest that there are any people in the world who aren't adventurers. Everyone is an adventurer. According to him there were no spells for making crops grow, or making food taste good, or creating bridges, there were only spells to do Xd6 Holy Damage.
This may be the case in 4e, I've never played it and don't know. And if you meant only 4e, I apologize for thinking you were implying the same of 5e, but that doesn't hold true in 5e. Prestidigitation improves food taste, I can think of a half dozen spells that can make a bridge, and at least one druid spell, Plant Growth, makes crops grow better.


I think people need to stop using this excuse, 5th edition is coming up on 2 years now, and aside from the unearthed arcana stuff every month, and adventure modules, they have not actually published any splatbooks. In the past year and a half of development, has there actually been a single extra feat option? I'm legit asking.
It is no excuse, just fact. 3.5 has more than a decade of material behind it, compared to 5e and two years. Though I wish they had published more feats and another class by now, I by no means think you can compare 5e's supplemental material to 3.5. For the next several years, at least, 3.5 will have far more options available.

Elemental Evil and the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide are splat. Between the two, they add new races, class archetypes, backgrounds, and spells.


SCAG is the first real splat book, and there was Elemental Evil (a pdf splat thingy) but neither added new classes, only a few archetypes, and both only added a few spells. I dont think either added new backgrounds or feats.
SCAG added a great many new backgrounds. Elemental Evil added a few dozen spells.


What it really means is that the most powerful heroes in the world with the greatest amount of natural talent (ability score) and training (proficiency bonus) possible are only about a dozen points better at any given task than someone with no experience and well below average natural talent. That is very small.
Bounded accuracy means that dozen points is not very small, but very large. Let's break it down with real examples instead of assumptions based on reading the books without any play experience.

Check 5e's guidelines (http://i.stack.imgur.com/mkyce.jpg) for skill checks. A DC20 is hard. An average peasant will have no modifiers, meaning to get a DC20, they have to literally roll a 20, a 5% chance. An adventurer gets up to +6 if they are proficient, plus up to +5 from abilities, total +11. That means that, without any magic items, spells, or special features, the hero can roll 9-20 to succeed on a DC20. That 5% jumps to 55%.

Now if you happen to gain advantage on the skill check (which is not hard to do), you roll two die and take the highest. Then there are features that let you reroll dice (Portent, Lucky, Inspiration, etc), plus Expertise and a few other similar abilities. Pretty soon, a high level hero can roll two die with +11 modifiers (and maybe +16 modifiers or higher) and can reroll or otherwise manipulate failed rolls. Compared to the peasant who gets one roll at 5% chance.

"But," you say, "what if they don't have advantage, and expertise, and yadda yadda? They only have a 55% chance to succeed on something "hard"! Much less nearly impossible, which an epic level hero should be able to do!" I've been DMing 5e since it was released. Functionally speaking, the only time my lvl 13 PCs fail a DC20 skill check is when they aren't proficient in the skill. It is that easy to manipulate advantage, inspiration, and the various other factors involved. I haven't had a group at level 20 yet, so I can't speak to what heights they will eventually reach, but they have already managed rolls that are higher than the 30 required for a "nearly impossible" task, and none of them even have any magic items that impact skill checks.

Combat is much the same. A peasant will have an easier time hitting an enemy than matching a skill check, since few monsters in 5e have AC higher than 18 or 20. But the heroes will still hit more consistently, with more attacks, and for more damage, and for the right kind of damage (as many monsters are resistant or immune to nonmagical weapon damage). It's like comparing a .22 pistol and a 50 cal sniper rifle. Sure, the 22 pistol can hit something, but at a shorter range, with less penetration and less damage, than the 50 cal. If the 22 hitting makes the 50 cal seem less epic to you, that is a perfectly valid opinion. But it isn't because the 50 cal doesn't have qualitative and quantitative advantages over the 22.


I also disliked the high lethality of early levels in 5E. I ran a small adventure using the free 5E rules online and the players (a dwarven fighter and an elven wizard) got slaughtered in the first combat against 3 goblins. It was very anti-climatic, especially since the goblins didn't get particularly lucky or anything. It's just a dangerous system. When I asked the 5E board about it, they basically said that my players were incompetent idiots for not having a cleric in the party. I have no interest in playing a system where clerics are required for survival.
Whoever said that has a different opinion than I do. My group of players has gone from level 5-14 now without a cleric, druid, or paladin. Back when we did the Lost Mines of Phandelver, they did have a cleric, but she spent most of her time doing damage. 5e is very lethal at levels 1-2, but clerics are not required.

I think player expectations of goblins don't match the 5e version. 5e goblins are just straight up tougher than anyone thinks they should be. That the opening fight in the starter set is against goblins doesn't help the situation. Other enemies at that level, while tough, are much better opponents until the PCs are at least level 2.

[GilesTheCleric]

You are both right and wrong here. 5e magic items are indeed extras, not requirements or expectations. But the DMG includes up to +3, and published adventures include things beyond +1. Furthermore, whether you like the bounded accuracy or not, a +3 weapon in 3.5 is definitely weaker than a +3 weapon in 5e.

5e Fly is a 3rd level spell, making it available to spellcasters long before character level 15. For magic items, Cloak of the Bat and Wings of Flying are both only rare magic items. The starting published scenario, Lost Mines of Phandelver, is for characters level 1-5 and includes rare magic items.

It looks like there is more that I didn't know about, then. Last time I checked the DMG had not been published yet. I am glad to hear that flight is available to mundanes at a reasonable level ^^

[P.F.]

5e Fly is a 3rd level spell, making it available to spellcasters long before character level 15. For magic items, Cloak of the Bat and Wings of Flying are both only rare magic items. The starting published scenario, Lost Mines of Phandelver, is for characters level 1-5 and includes rare magic items.

I am guessing from context that "rare" in this instance means "relatively easy to find" or "encountered frequently at lower levels" and that magic items in 5e are by definition "rare," "very rare," and "unique," roughly equivalent to the "minor," "medium," and "major" magic items of d20/3.x?

[Crake]

It is no excuse, just fact. 3.5 has more than a decade of material behind it, compared to 5e and two years. Though I wish they had published more feats and another class by now, I by no means think you can compare 5e's supplemental material to 3.5. For the next several years, at least, 3.5 will have far more options available.

I'm not comparing 5e to where 3.5 is now, i'm comparing 5e to where 3.0 was 2 years after publication, and they had a whole load of splatbooks with all sorts of extra character options, prestige classes, feats and even skills available.


And no one's saying you shouldn't flesh them out. I'm saying that you don't need *stats* to flesh them out. Players never see or otherwise interact with the stats of those NPCs unless they attack them. Give them personalities, not numbers. You can spend time on both, but the time on the numbers that will never be seen is not as valuable as the time spent on fleshing out the *person* that they are interacting with.

There are reasons beyond combat that knowing the numbers could be useful. For example, if the players comission a weapon from the smith, knowing his bonus to crafting will determine how long he takes, the innkeeper may have knowledge local, which will help determine what sort of information the players might be able to learn from him, the general merchant should have an appraise skill, and likely both bluff and sense motive to prevent himself from getting stiffed, and also to get the best deal he can out of his trades. None of those things are combat related.

[Taejang]

I am guessing from context that "rare" in this instance means "relatively easy to find" or "encountered frequently at lower levels" and that magic items in 5e are by definition "rare," "very rare," and "unique," roughly equivalent to the "minor," "medium," and "major" magic items of d20/3.x?
5e has the following categories: common, uncommon, rare, very rare, legendary, artifact, and sentient. Artifacts and sentients are considered unique, while other item categories could have unique items. The extra categories don't fit perfectly into the 3.x system, making a direct comparison difficult. At a quick glance, I'd say minor and uncommon are roughly equivalent, with medium similar to rare, and major like a combination of very rare and legendary. 5e has more legendary items than you might think, so excluding them into another category that rarely gets attention (like fanmade 'epic') is probably not accurate.


I'm not comparing 5e to where 3.5 is now, i'm comparing 5e to where 3.0 was 2 years after publication, and they had a whole load of splatbooks with all sorts of extra character options, prestige classes, feats and even skills available.
That's a valid comparison. I didn't play back then, so I wouldn't know.

[SangoProduction]

There are reasons beyond combat that knowing the numbers could be useful. For example, if the players commission a weapon from the smith, knowing his bonus to crafting will determine how long he takes, the innkeeper may have knowledge local, which will help determine what sort of information the players might be able to learn from him, the general merchant should have an appraise skill, and likely both bluff and sense motive to prevent himself from getting stiffed, and also to get the best deal he can out of his trades. None of those things are combat related.

Craft skill doesn't change anything about crafting times, up until nearly epic levels in 3.5. By that time, craft skill doesn't matter because magic. Time is not a particularly useful measure outside of an encounter anyway.

The innkeeper has as much information as you want him to have. You should never roll when the story needs something.

You've got a point on the interaction skills...which are already included, here's a link. http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Skill Why would shop keepers not be keeping magic items to detect / pervent lies? It would seem the best place to invest your many thousands of gold that adventurers are giving you for magic items.

If you wanted them to have a chance of failing to know the value, just take a die and set an arbitrary number that they have to roll to succeed. (considering you're doing the same thing, even if you had it statted up in 3.5, as the base DCs for even were trivial for anyone taking 10, and it told you to just increase the DC if it's arbitrarily harder to identify than "exotic"). It was a rather silly rule and I've had 1 DM in nearly 2 decades of gaming who actually used it...and he used it as a psuedo-identify. And the second result you get when you Google "Appraise 3.5" is Does anyone actually use appraise? (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2adamu/does_anyone_actually_use_the_appraise_skill_35/)

The part where the players are actually interacting with the stat is when they actually have it, and have to use it to avoid getting swindled (which were like..the only liked comments in that reddit thread, save for a bard and a gem). But if you're swindling your players, well...you're hitting the wealth by level, and have to adjust accordingly, which is more trouble than it's worth.

I'll reiterate: your stats are not important, unless you are using them to interact with the players. Using them to wage imaginary number war against yourself is not useful, takes up game time, and doesn't add to the player experience.

[Segev]

In PF, the designers have to make an archetype or VMC for you and your concept. If there isn't one, then you're in for a whole lot of surgery.

I can agree with this; PF is far more inclined to suggest making an Archetype that somehow combines the (two, almost never three) classes you want into one. I actually tried my hand at making an archetype to combine Investigator and Occultist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?475212-Occult-Researcher-(Investigator-Archetype)) because the existing one to combine Psychic and Investigator didn't have what I liked from the occult rules, and trying to multi-class the two together would be disastrous ("Thou Shalt Not Lose Caster Levels" combined with two separate tracks of "points" to use on abilities that depend on class levels)!

5e has a similar philosophy, using various of its "focusing" choices (e.g. Mystic Knight vs. Champion; Circle of the Land vs. Circle of the Moon; Arcane Trickster vs. Assassin...) to simulate multi-classing, and even having what multi-classing it allows merge certain elements together. (I think that latter part is...ill-executed. 5e's multiclassing is overly complicated for too little return; 3.5 tends to reward front-loading or PrC hopping instead. Not sure where the "happy medium" really lies, but that's a topic for another thread.)

I do think PF's Archetype approach is an interesting one, especially since it's often as easy as trying to pick what you like from each class, figuring out which one has more of what you want, and seeing what you can shave from that one to "make room" for what you like from the other(s). Balancing it is still hard, of course, and it can require a fair bit of homebrew (unlike using the built-in multi-classing of 3.5), but it has somewhat better results when done well.

[GilesTheCleric]

And the second result you get when you Google "Appraise 3.5" is Does anyone actually use appraise? (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2adamu/does_anyone_actually_use_the_appraise_skill_35/)

IME, we use appraise every ~4 or 5 sessions. Whenever we discover some gems or art objects as treasure, we roll appraise to see what we think it's worth. I can see other folks skipping that, though, and agree that appraise isn't very useful.


I can agree with this; PF is far more inclined to suggest making an Archetype that somehow combines the (two, almost never three) classes you want into one. I actually tried my hand at making an archetype to combine Investigator and Occultist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?475212-Occult-Researcher-(Investigator-Archetype)) because the existing one to combine Psychic and Investigator didn't have what I liked from the occult rules, and trying to multi-class the two together would be disastrous ("Thou Shalt Not Lose Caster Levels" combined with two separate tracks of "points" to use on abilities that depend on class levels)!

5e has a similar philosophy, using various of its "focusing" choices (e.g. Mystic Knight vs. Champion; Circle of the Land vs. Circle of the Moon; Arcane Trickster vs. Assassin...) to simulate multi-classing, and even having what multi-classing it allows merge certain elements together. (I think that latter part is...ill-executed. 5e's multiclassing is overly complicated for too little return; 3.5 tends to reward front-loading or PrC hopping instead. Not sure where the "happy medium" really lies, but that's a topic for another thread.)

I do think PF's Archetype approach is an interesting one, especially since it's often as easy as trying to pick what you like from each class, figuring out which one has more of what you want, and seeing what you can shave from that one to "make room" for what you like from the other(s). Balancing it is still hard, of course, and it can require a fair bit of homebrew (unlike using the built-in multi-classing of 3.5), but it has somewhat better results when done well.

Your Occult Researcher looks like a good archetype; I like the light touch approach to changes, as well as making sure it's relevant to low levels. There really are a lot of point pool-based mechanics in PF. I don't know how many of them are tied to class level instead of character level, but that seems like it could be a good change. What do you think if PF had a variant rule like in 5e where your second class gets some automatic catching-up based on the level of your primary class? I think that's separate to the "focusing" choices you mention.

That's probably true, but I think having to make brew not as bad as it might seem, since brew in PF has more to help guide it than 3.5, and a new archetype isn't going to unbalance other areas of the game unintentionally like making a new feat, class, or PrC in 3.5 might. Archetypes do make building much easier. I think they also help to tie together mechanics and fluff better than 3.5 does, too. In 3.5 I constantly find myself using 4-8 classes per build, and then inventing the character's fluff irrespective of the names of the classes that I used. In PF, the name of the class and the archetype seems to better describe the type of character I'm making, which is a nice time-saver when discussing things.

[Crake]

Craft skill doesn't change anything about crafting times, up until nearly epic levels in 3.5. By that time, craft skill doesn't matter because magic. Time is not a particularly useful measure outside of an encounter anyway.

I'm not sure what craft skill you're looking at, but it very much so does affect the time crafting takes. I have had players comission a custom adamantine large greataxe because there were none for sale in the city, and wait a good few months for it to be complete. If the smith had been worse at his job, it could have take upward of a year.


The innkeeper has as much information as you want him to have. You should never roll when the story needs something.

That may be true in story based games, but I like to run open world status quo kinds of games, so the story is what the players make for themselves, and the world is what it is, so the innkeeper isnt going to just by lucky happenstance have the information they need.


You've got a point on the interaction skills...which are already included, here's a link. http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Skill Why would shop keepers not be keeping magic items to detect / pervent lies? It would seem the best place to invest your many thousands of gold that adventurers are giving you for magic items.

I run a fairly low magic world, so unless it's a high end shop that actually deals with magical items they would not have access to that kind of thing. While this does let players commit fraud to a degree around the mid levels, they would eventually be figured out and people would start to hunt them down, which, as I said, I run a very status quo world, may likely end very badly for the party.


If you wanted them to have a chance of failing to know the value, just take a die and set an arbitrary number that they have to roll to succeed. (considering you're doing the same thing, even if you had it statted up in 3.5, as the base DCs for even were trivial for anyone taking 10, and it told you to just increase the DC if it's arbitrarily harder to identify than "exotic"). It was a rather silly rule and I've had 1 DM in nearly 2 decades of gaming who actually used it...and he used it as a psuedo-identify. And the second result you get when you Google "Appraise 3.5" is Does anyone actually use appraise? (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2adamu/does_anyone_actually_use_the_appraise_skill_35/)

We have a different respect for the appriase skill, and that's fine, but I have appraise DCs set out for all the loot I give to the players, so knowing people's bonuses lets me know where i should put that "arbitrary" number on the dice for them to succeed.


The part where the players are actually interacting with the stat is when they actually have it, and have to use it to avoid getting swindled (which were like..the only liked comments in that reddit thread, save for a bard and a gem). But if you're swindling your players, well...you're hitting the wealth by level, and have to adjust accordingly, which is more trouble than it's worth.

I have had shopkeepers mis-appraise something and actually give the players MORE than it was worth, because they thought it was more valuable than it was.


I'll reiterate: your stats are not important, unless you are using them to interact with the players. Using them to wage imaginary number war against yourself is not useful, takes up game time, and doesn't add to the player experience.

I feel like we've gone into a bit of a meandering discussion here. The point of it all was that you were denying that anyone used the NPC rules at all. You may think that me statting out my NPCs is pointless, but I am living proof that you are at the very least wrong about nobody using the NPC rules.

[LTwerewolf]

I stat my mundane npcs as well and find it very handy. I'm quite happy to do it and don't like when I can't. I'm not having the wrong kind of fun in mine or my group's opinion. My group happens to consist of 2 dms and 12 players.

[icefractal]

The innkeeper has as much information as you want him to have. You should never roll when the story needs something.I think that's the point of dissension - to me, "at the speed of plot" is boring. Trip takes just long enough that you get there as the ritual is starting? Sage knows just enough to tell you about the MacGuffin but not enough to catch up to the BBEG 'too soon'? Rituals always conveniently need the particular ingredient found in the dungeon of appropriate challenge? Non-combat magic is fancy looking but somehow never anything that would change a pseudo-medieval status quo? Yawn, wake me later.

Now that's completely a personal preference thing. I'm not saying it's the one true path of gaming. But for those of us that do like that style - and as a GM, want to find out if the players' plan succeeds, not decide a plot in advance - then yes, having numbers and rules outside of combat is a useful thing.

[LTwerewolf]

I think that's the point of dissension - to me, "at the speed of plot" is boring. Trip takes just long enough that you get there as the ritual is starting? Sage knows just enough to tell you about the MacGuffin but not enough to catch up to the BBEG 'too soon'? Rituals always conveniently need the particular ingredient found in the dungeon of appropriate challenge? Non-combat magic is fancy looking but somehow never anything that would change a pseudo-medieval status quo? Yawn, wake me later.

Now that's completely a personal preference thing. I'm not saying it's the one true path of gaming. But for those of us that do like that style - and as a GM, want to find out if the players' plan succeeds, not decide a plot in advance - then yes, having numbers and rules outside of combat is a useful thing.

Well said.

[Abithrios]

I think that's the point of dissension - to me, "at the speed of plot" is boring. Trip takes just long enough that you get there as the ritual is starting? Sage knows just enough to tell you about the MacGuffin but not enough to catch up to the BBEG 'too soon'? Rituals always conveniently need the particular ingredient found in the dungeon of appropriate challenge? Non-combat magic is fancy looking but somehow never anything that would change a pseudo-medieval status quo? Yawn, wake me later.

Now that's completely a personal preference thing. I'm not saying it's the one true path of gaming. But for those of us that do like that style - and as a GM, want to find out if the players' plan succeeds, not decide a plot in advance - then yes, having numbers and rules outside of combat is a useful thing.

That makes sense as a playstyle, but requires a bit of a more detailed world. If the innkeeper doesn't know what you need to find out, then there has to be another clue somewhere else.

[gameogre]

After dang near 40 years of role playing and role playing games I have reached one conclusion, The rules don't really matter. It's the people and friends at the table that do.

I would never(now) leave a group over the rules. I can make any rpg work as long as I'm playing with friends and good people.

Do I like some editions and some role playing games far better than others? Sure! But even if I'm playing a game with rules I don't like I can still role play and have a blast with my friends who do like those rules.

When we changed to Advanced D&D we bickered a little. The change to 2E drew some blood and split the group for a few years. 3.0 gave us another split and mostly we refused to play it. 3.5 passed without being played and cost us good friends. When 4E came out we started playing 3.5 and loved it. 4E was hated till a friend ran us one of the best campaigns EVER with it. Pathfinder was loved then hated and now missed. 5E is on the rise but we started to play swords and wizardry and DCCRPG on the side.

Bah! All those years spent worrying about what game we were playing and it really didn't matter.

Don't let small things get in the way of Great times!

[Fizban]

That's still as I said, like going to a cow pasture and saying that proves only cows exist. How many times has someone actually used the NPC class rules of 3.5? In my games (both as a player and DM), that was precisely never. If you are the DM, unless they are important, you aren't going to write out stats for them...and if they were important, you wouldn't use npc classes.

You don't need stats for anything that doesn't involve mechanics.
Funny thing, the 3.5 DMG even includes rules for determining the highest level NPCs that can be found in each city. People complain about the generic medieval setting that's unchanged by magic like Remove Disease, but the rules that no one uses show quite clearly that the number of people capable of casting those spells are ridiculously few, even if all of them decided to play nice. An exponential regression: 1-4 people of the highest rolled level in each PHB class, then the next highest level person is half that level. The biggest cities in the world are lucky if they have one 16th level wizard or 18th level cleric. An adventuring party is literally the equivalent of all the most powerful people in a city walking around with three times the personal wealth, all of it sunk into personal magic items, specialized for anti-monster combat. It's only settings like Forgotten Realms and DMs who choose to send dozens of PC classed foes at the same level as the party that make it look like the world is broken for not having spells replace everything.

Eberron figured out the secret by the way: instead of using a class, use a feat. Everyone can take feats, and ECS says that 25% of the population has Dragonmark feats, rather than the fraction of a percent that normally has casting. That's enough that those level 1-2-3 spells can actually start impacting the world. As for 5e, it doesn't even uses classes for NPCs anymore, they're literally just fiat statistics of whatever strength and ability you find appropriate. Lets you make whatever encounters you want, but also makes it flat impossible to claim there's any consistency.

I also disliked the high lethality of early levels in 5E. I ran a small adventure using the free 5E rules online and the players (a dwarven fighter and an elven wizard) got slaughtered in the first combat against 3 goblins. It was very anti-climatic, especially since the goblins didn't get particularly lucky or anything. It's just a dangerous system. When I asked the 5E board about it, they basically said that my players were incompetent idiots for not having a cleric in the party. I have no interest in playing a system where clerics are required for survival.
Were you running a published adventure? From what I've evaluated those are ridiculously lethal, I can only assume they were tuned by players with perfect tactical ability who'd run the same module several times and could metagame the perfect routes. 5e also highly endorses sending massive groups of mooks, and if you only had 2 players then they wouldn't stand a chance thanks to goo 'ol bounded accuracy and action economy. That said, if you actually follow their own encounter balancing rules in the DMG and keep your players in mind it should be possible to run entirely without spellcasters-as long as the whole party is contributing properly every round and rotating positions so no one takes too much damage.

I am guessing from context that "rare" in this instance means "relatively easy to find" or "encountered frequently at lower levels" and that magic items in 5e are by definition "rare," "very rare," and "unique," roughly equivalent to the "minor," "medium," and "major" magic items of d20/3.x?
The rarities are common (more like consumable), uncommon, rare, very rare, and legendary. According to the DMG, a character created at 17th level or above in a game with standard magic item saturation will have one rare magic item (plus two uncommons and some cash they can't spend on anything useful), while a high magic character will have two rares and also one very rare. I untangled some of the random treasure tables and found the standard result to be about in line with what the tables were generating. While it may look like something is "only" rare, it's more accurate to say that they printed a lot of ultra rare items that looked cool but are so strong they should never actually show up. I haven't gone and read any of the modules in their entirety (in case I get to play one), but I would not be surprised if both modules and free DMs were handing out more than expected.

Cloak of the Bat and Wings of Flying together take up 2% of table G, though you roll 1d4 times so maybe 5% chance at most depending on how good you are at statistics comprehension. You have a 4% chance of rolling on table G on level 5-10, an 11% chance from 11-16, and should get 18 and 12 rolls respectively. Those are not very good odds for getting a flight item before endgame. You'll get some sort of rare magic item, but not the specific 2% chance you need. As always, random treasure is a bad idea and you'll have to hope your DM places the items you want since you can't buy and sell items freely. . . except I'm pretty sure a ton of DMs are allowing that anyway. Which I find hilarious.

[SangoProduction]

I'm not sure what craft skill you're looking at, but it very much so does affect the time crafting takes. I have had players comission a custom adamantine large greataxe because there were none for sale in the city, and wait a good few months for it to be complete. If the smith had been worse at his job, it could have take upward of a year.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#craft
It's literally an epic use of the skill to improve the crafting speed.

To drop the speed of making a mundane weapon from a year to a few months through the innate way of Craft, you'd need a check that approaches epic levels, because it's only +2 gp per week per bonus.


That may be true in story based games, but I like to run open world status quo kinds of games, so the story is what the players make for themselves, and the world is what it is, so the innkeeper isn't going to just by lucky happenstance have the information they need.

That really doesn't change the fact that knowledge skills are arbitrarily defined anyway, so regardless of statting them out or not, he still has the information you wanted to give anyway.


I run a fairly low magic world, so unless it's a high end shop that actually deals with magical items they would not have access to that kind of thing. While this does let players commit fraud to a degree around the mid levels, they would eventually be figured out and people would start to hunt them down, which, as I said, I run a very status quo world, may likely end very badly for the party.

Well then, have them invest a little in to appraise. The DCs are trivial, and no matter how well they lie, they know the exact price. Pawn shops don't hold a grudge against people who don't know the value of stuff. Lying to a vender is never really worth it.


We have a different respect for the appraise skill, and that's fine, but I have appraise DCs set out for all the loot I give to the players, so knowing people's bonuses lets me know where i should put that "arbitrary" number on the dice for them to succeed.

Bonus book keeping is great. I would never mention the price to a vender in this game as there's only 3 options: I thought it was of lower value, and the vender will correct me. I got the value right, and it's a fair deal, or I got the value high, and the vender corrects me. If you mention the price, then the first option changes to: you get a lower value.



I have had shopkeepers mis-appraise something and actually give the players MORE than it was worth, because they thought it was more valuable than it was.
You can still do that without using stats. Set a number you want them to need to roll under for it to happen.


I feel like we've gone into a bit of a meandering discussion here. The point of it all was that you were denying that anyone used the NPC rules at all. You may think that me statting out my NPCs is pointless, but I am living proof that you are at the very least wrong about nobody using the NPC rules.
It is typically accepted when people say absolutes like "nobody" or "never" that they mean the vast majority. But this was about NPC stats not being useful. But at any rate, we aren't convincing the other of anything, so this argument is pointless.

[SangoProduction]

I think that's the point of dissension - to me, "at the speed of plot" is boring. Trip takes just long enough that you get there as the ritual is starting? Sage knows just enough to tell you about the MacGuffin but not enough to catch up to the BBEG 'too soon'? Rituals always conveniently need the particular ingredient found in the dungeon of appropriate challenge? Non-combat magic is fancy looking but somehow never anything that would change a pseudo-medieval status quo? Yawn, wake me later.

Now that's completely a personal preference thing. I'm not saying it's the one true path of gaming. But for those of us that do like that style - and as a GM, want to find out if the players' plan succeeds, not decide a plot in advance - then yes, having numbers and rules outside of combat is a useful thing.

No one said anything about "speed of plot", or "nothing makes a difference". It was only "Oh, hey, I rolled a 1. That means you don't have information you need to continue the quest. Go bugger off now."

[Willie the Duck]

Did anyone else try 5th and not like it? Im not looking for arguments about which is better. Im sure 5th fixes a lot of things, and will get better with more splat books, but thats not the point. I dont like the changes subjectively. I guess im just looking for the support of the community right now.

I think, for me, the issue isn't whether 5e is a good game, so much as that 3e still is a good game (with some significant bugs), and 5e isn't really the replacement for 3e that I'd hoped it would be. I'd rather my group focus on finding a house-ruled set of 3e mechanics that we want to play than play 5e. On some small level, I'm disappointed that WotC didn't want to "fix" 3e so much as "replace" it, but then again that was what I felt about my precious 2e when 3e came out.

I think WotC has a very unpleasable fan base. I don't envy their conundrums. I'm glad they have a product that is doing 'okay.' I'd just rather institute my LWQW fixes and keep playing 3e.

[Segev]

Your Occult Researcher looks like a good archetype; I like the light touch approach to changes, as well as making sure it's relevant to low levels.Thanks! I'm still leery that it's got too much of both classes' good stuff, but it probably still is at least within the same Tier as Occultist.


There really are a lot of point pool-based mechanics in PF. I don't know how many of them are tied to class level instead of character level, but that seems like it could be a good change. Those I know of are all tied to class level. Ki points, Inspiration points, Focus points, etc.


What do you think if PF had a variant rule like in 5e where your second class gets some automatic catching-up based on the level of your primary class? I think that's separate to the "focusing" choices you mention. I'm not familiar with this "automatic catching-up" that 5e has, unless you just mean the fact that they've got a merged multiclass spellcaster spell slots chart. Can you elaborate?


Archetypes do make building much easier. I think they also help to tie together mechanics and fluff better than 3.5 does, too. In 3.5 I constantly find myself using 4-8 classes per build, and then inventing the character's fluff irrespective of the names of the classes that I used. In PF, the name of the class and the archetype seems to better describe the type of character I'm making, which is a nice time-saver when discussing things.
Depending on the concept, I can see just as much "Frankenstein" building in PF; basically, if you're looking at class features that don't have a unique resource to fuel them, the standard lego-blocks 3.5 approach is still just as valid.

[GilesTheCleric]

I'm not familiar with this "automatic catching-up" that 5e has, unless you just mean the fact that they've got a merged multiclass spellcaster spell slots chart. Can you elaborate?

Depending on the concept, I can see just as much "Frankenstein" building in PF; basically, if you're looking at class features that don't have a unique resource to fuel them, the standard lego-blocks 3.5 approach is still just as valid.

It must be those merged slots that I'm thinking of. Both times I've played 5e I've started at level one, and I haven't yet had enough incentive to make a full build. Most of what I know of 5e is from paging through my PHB a few times and lurking in the 5e forums.

It's true that you can still get your inner med student on in PF. I'm doing it right now with my warder build, though I don't know if Dragon Shaman 1/ Warder 6/ X 1 (I'm looking at Cryptic and 3.5's Martial Monk) really counts. It's more tame than the DS 1/ fighter 2/ MM 2/ variant style ranger 2/ LT barbarian 1 I would probably have used in 3.5, but I'm glad not to have to think about it so hard for this build. Thank you, DSP.

Edit: Is there not a mechanic in 5e where if you're eg. fighter 10/ wizard 1 that the wizard gets better-leveled slots? Is it only for a cleric 10/ wizard 1?

[Anlashok]

Personally my biggest problem with 5e was that the game pushes its whole DM adjudication angle really hard when I keep thinking that you can do that anyways in 3.5 or Pathfinder. Except in those games if the DM doesn't want to make something up there are actual rules to fall back on.

So its big 'advantage' always just comes off more strongly as developer laziness. I can just imagine a couple of Wizards developers in a conference room trying to figure out how to hammer out how a spell works before just deciding to make the DM figure it out, only for one of them to be inspired and realize they can make half a game and advertise the fact that it's incomplete as a 'feature'.

That and the sense of progression really sucks. The whole idea behind keeping enemies relevant is an interesting one, but at the same time it can make it seem like you're never really that much better than you were to begin with because a group of orcs can still wreck your day.

Unless you're a spellcaster of course.


Oh and speaking of spellcasters (and fake spellcasters), it's dreadfully hard in 5e to customize any character that isn't one. Archetypes are designed in such a way that many of them only have one real way to be built (or only two real options) and when you combine that with the way feats work in 5e and the lack of modular features other than archetypes you end up with very little you can actually use to differentiate your character mechanically.

Multiclassing can lead to interesting things though.

[Segev]

Is there not a mechanic in 5e where if you're eg. fighter 10/ wizard 1 that the wizard gets better-leveled slots? Is it only for a cleric 10/ wizard 1?

There is, but it only applies to the Fighter archetype (and Rogue archetype) that gets arcane spellcasting. You then treat it like a multiclass caster, but the fighter/rogue levels only count as 1/3 levels.

So a Fighter 9/Wizard 1 gets to work off of the level 4 multiclass caster row for spell slots per day, if he's taken the Mystic Knight (or whatever it's called) archetype.

[YossarianLives]

Were you running a published adventure? From what I've evaluated those are ridiculously lethal, I can only assume they were tuned by players with perfect tactical ability who'd run the same module several times and could metagame the perfect routes. 5e also highly endorses sending massive groups of mooks, and if you only had 2 players then they wouldn't stand a chance thanks to goo 'ol bounded accuracy and action economy. That said, if you actually follow their own encounter balancing rules in the DMG and keep your players in mind it should be possible to run entirely without spellcasters-as long as the whole party is contributing properly every round and rotating positions so no one takes too much damage.
No, it was an adventure I whipped-up myself. Since it was a new system I used the rules for balancing encounters.

[Endarire]

If you greatly dislike what you're doing, ask your group to run something else. Maybe 3.5, maybe Munchkin or something. Make it worthwhile for all the people involved.

Also, +1 to Roll20/Skype. These tools help a lot when wanting to run or participate in an online tabletop game!

[icefractal]

To drop the speed of making a mundane weapon from a year to a few months through the innate way of Craft, you'd need a check that approaches epic levels, because it's only +2 gp per week per bonus. It's quadratic, actually, since you can voluntarily increase the DC. So for example, working on the same project (DC 20) ...
* A blacksmith with +10 completes 40 gp of work a week.
* A blacksmith with +20 completes 90 gp of work a week.
* A blacksmith with +30 completes 160 gp of work a week.

Which is still massively too slow, considering the difficulty of getting +30. But it does vary by skill.

[Fizban]

No, it was an adventure I whipped-up myself. Since it was a new system I used the rules for balancing encounters.
Oh, well then, not much more to do for alleviating the russian roulette. The only other thing I can think of is IIRC 5e's bottom tier monsters still had a higher floor than 3.5's, but I think you could get away with fighting small animals in either edition. Even against a smaller number of monsters a group of two has less capacity for absorbing bad rolls but that's always the case.

[charcoalninja]

I can relate, I'm running a 5e campaign for some coworkers because they wanted to try out the system and are relatively new to D&D and all I can think every session is how much I wish it were Pathfinder. I can mitigate the differences easily enough on my end as DM since I'm busy doing so much anyway, and can convert monsters to be more interesting than the 5e standard of boring bags of hp, but man, I do not like 5e at all, by any measure. The only thing about it that I like is the Spellcasting system of prepared spells & spontaneous casting and the Warlock class. But then again, 3.5 / PF Psionics invented that casting mechanic and Warlock is easy enough to convert if I'm so inclined that really 5e IMO has nothing to offer.

[Kish]

Trust me, there are still 3.5ed games out there.

[P.F.]

I think, for me, the issue isn't whether 5e is a good game, so much as that 3e still is a good game (with some significant bugs), and 5e isn't really the replacement for 3e that I'd hoped it would be. I'd rather my group focus on finding a house-ruled set of 3e mechanics that we want to play than play 5e. On some small level, I'm disappointed that WotC didn't want to "fix" 3e so much as "replace" it, but then again that was what I felt about my precious 2e when 3e came out.

That's interesting, when my group switched from 2nd to 3rd we felt like Wizards had Canonized all the optional/house-rules we had already been using. Skill points instead of non-weapon proficiencies. "Zero-level spells" for things like Cantrip and read Magic/Detect Magic. Magic items rated by GP value instead of XP. No racial max levels ... the list goes on and on.

There was some griping about the "dumbing-down" of the game, and doubly so when 3.5 came out ("Burning hands was fine as a 120 degree arc, why on Earth do all spells have to have cookie-cutter AoE's?") but we accepted the rules and played on.

To a large degree, Pathfinder did the same thing to 3.x ... Zero-level spells at-will instead of times/day. All races have positive ability score bonuses. Options to trade out class features for different ones.

But 4e ... was unrecognizable as D&D. It was rather obviously set up to imitate an MMO. They gutted the 100+ page spellbook in favor of "Choose between (spell A) or (spell B)." The core rulebook had no Bard! What were they thinking!?!?

Now we played once and I had fun with whatever it was that I played, but we all lost interest pretty quickly after the novelty wore off. Like a cheap Merlot, 4e was okay but lacked complexity. It never really caught on with any of my friends.

[Zombimode]

And no one's saying you shouldn't flesh them out. I'm saying that you don't need *stats* to flesh them out. Players never see or otherwise interact with the stats of those NPCs unless they attack them. Give them personalities, not numbers. You can spend time on both, but the time on the numbers that will never be seen is not as valuable as the time spent on fleshing out the *person* that they are interacting with.


How much time do you need to write down "(Expert 3)"?

D&D 3.5 provides a framework where simple stats can be easily derived. If you have a clear idea what levels mean in your world you can even decide that on the spot. To give you an example: The PC interact with a merchant and for some reason they try to bluff the merchant and lets also assume that this interaction is of some importance.
Now, bluffing in D&D 3.5 calls for an interaction of stats. You don't know the merchants Sense Motive score. You its easy to determine: Tapping your hopefully consistent worldview you decide that the merchant is a level 3 Expert. For a Merchant, Sense Motive is a usefull skill. The way you have playe the merchant until now marks him as a somewhat cautious individual. Maybe has always the feeling that everybody is out to "get him". So having a "high" Sense Motive score would be fitting. But what is "high"? It means max ranks or almost max ranks. For a 3 HD creature that is 3 + 3 = 6. So maybe 6 or 5 ranks. Creatures with only NPC classes use the standard or focused array for ability scores, humanoids almost always the focused array. Applying the focused array is also very easy. The way you've described the merchant so far makes it clear that pysical abilities are not his highest focus, while Int and Cha are his strenghts. That leaves a +0 ability mod for Wis. Ultimatle you decide for 5 ranks, no skill focus or other skill enhancers, which leaves a final Sense Motive score of +5
In the same way you can determine the combat abilityies: 3*3,5 = 10 HP, 2 bab - 1 Str = attack +1, Saves +1 Fort, +0 Reflex, +3 Will

While it took me a couple of minutes to write this down, those decisions and calculations would take only a few seconds in real time. This is especially easy if you routinely use this framework. Incidantally, if can't make those calculations whithin seconcds, maybe you shouldnt GM for 3.5... Running even a moderately complex combat smoothly has high requirements on aritmethic ability, organisational skill and rules knowledge.

In all my years as a 3.5 DM I think I have never spend time on actally stating out non-combat creatures - because I don't need to. But this is not a lack of need for the stats. The stats are important. I just don't need to do it my self because the system does the work for me.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Logically, I can see a bunch of reasons why D&D Next is better than 3.5. It's more streamlined, with fewer broken bits. And yet, I find something dissatisfying about it; I'm not sure why. I can't see anything that's really been lost; the only thing I can say that I'd change back is giving warlocks more at-will abilities and no spell slots or 1/day abilities. And I definitely like some of the changes—multi-concept single-class characters and magic items being more special, for instance.


Personally my biggest problem with 5e was that the game pushes its whole DM adjudication angle really hard when I keep thinking that you can do that anyways in 3.5 or Pathfinder. Except in those games if the DM doesn't want to make something up there are actual rules to fall back on.
So its big 'advantage' always just comes off more strongly as developer laziness. I can just imagine a couple of Wizards developers in a conference room trying to figure out how to hammer out how a spell works before just deciding to make the DM figure it out, only for one of them to be inspired and realize they can make half a game and advertise the fact that it's incomplete as a 'feature'.
Huh, someone else who agrees with me on this.
If I wanted to improvise the rules for stuff, I'd save myself the $30-100 in rulebooks (depending on system and edition) and just freeform it or homebrew a system. That's one of the reasons I like GURPS as a game engine—it has rules somewhere for everything.

And to everyone talking about 3.5's complexity, I suspect you mean "depth". There is a difference, and here is a video explaining it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU).
I'm ambivalent. I've only played a little of 5th, and it honestly doesn't feel much different than 3.5—aside from freer access to low-level magic, more restricted access to magic items, etc. On the other hand, I've had 3.5 campaigns that were massively different from one another. The depth depends on more than system—in fact, I'd say the system is one of the lesser aspects of game depth! A GURPS or AD&D game run as a hack-n-slash dungeon crawl is going to be shallower than a FATE or D&D-4 game with a flexible GM and creative players.

Re: NPC classes and rules for NPC actions: It's important that they're there.
First off, anything which isn't even mentioned in the rulebook has the impression of being, surprise surprise, completely irrelevant. This is one of the reasons 4th Edition seems so MMO-ey; there's hardly a page which doesn't tie whatever's being discussed to combat. Mentioning how everyday people work in the rules given helps make things other than the adventurers exist in the minds of the users.
Second, the rules give the players some form of context. If a player can look at the rules and realize the dragon can kill 3-5 first-level warriors per full attack, its power is that much more comprehensible than if he only knew it had 4-5 attacks dealing a couple dozen damage each. If said player knows that most NPCs aren't going to have more than 4-5 ranks in any given skill, but a few masters can have 20, it puts their own capabilities into perspective. And so on.
Third—and this can't be understated—it helps tremendously in edge cases. How many goblins should it take to kill a courtier the PCs are trying to protect? Someone needs to forge a special sword quickly—how quick can they do it, and what are the penalties for rushing the job? It's like the rules for sundering or getting into armor quickly—ninety-nine games out of a hundred, any given bit won't come up, but when it comes up, it's good to have a starting point. And yes, you could improvise it, but see what Anlashok and I said about that.

[Segev]

I think the problem arises not because there is heavy reliance on DM adjudication, but because the reliance goes so far as to provide no guidelines.

If the rules even take the effort to explain a conceptual idea as to what is reasonable or expected, then punt to the DM to let him decide how precisely to implement that or rule on a given fiddly bit of mechanics, that's fine. The DM has rules and has an idea of what the intent was, and just has to close the gap on some specifics based on what's going on at his table right then and there.

One such problem area is the Fae background for Sorcerers. Wild Magic triggers "when the DM says so." No guidelines at all. It could fail to trigger at all because the DM just doesn't think about it or never feels like it.

A better rule would be "at least once every 4-6 castings, or when the DM feels it's appropriate." Now the DM can determine it happens every time if he feels like it, or he can roll a die in secret (d4 or d6 as he feels is getting better results for his game) to help remind him. (In practice, "roughly every sixth time" would work out statistically to it happening on a 6 on 1d6; it wouldn't be precise, but it'd be close.)


"A project can take hours, days, or even weeks depending on the complexity" isn't useful. Of course it could take any of those time periods, "depending on the complexity." Just a few examples, though, of what might take "hours" and what might take "weeks," and asking the DM to make a call based on how similar a given project looks, is enough to leave it to the DM's adjudication from there. It probably should have rules for determining how MANY hours/days/weeks, though, based on rolls. Because again, asking the DM to decide between 1 week and 8 weeks with no guidelines is really not giving any rules at all.

[Florian]

Logically, I can see a bunch of reasons why D&D Next is better than 3.5. It's more streamlined, with fewer broken bits. And yet, I find something dissatisfying about it; I'm not sure why. I can't see anything that's really been lost;

I think it´s two things that are "lost" right now and that are a good chunk of the enjoyment of the hobby as a whole:
- Missing system mastery. Too easy to learn and master, nothing to kneel into and get to know the ins and outs of the underlying mechanic
- Missing setting. For those who are not long-time fans of the realms or followed the meta plot, there simply is nothing there to talk, think, daydream or discuss about.

So it´s missing the "hobby besides the hobby"