How different is 3.5 from 5e? What do you like about it?

[Uckleverry]

I'm ignoring it because I already addressed it. Your alternative is "the DM makes stuff up", which is worse because it's also weird (after all, the DM could make up exactly the rules you're objecting to) and it's inconsistent (because the DM can make up different things at different times).

But you didn't address it. You just said that yes, the rules have weird conclusions -- so these weird conclusions are, in fact, an assumed part of the world to you? The world works like that? You can pass down an object along a line of people in exactly six seconds no matter how long that line is? An encounter is a quantifiable thing in the actual world, not just a game term we use for game rules?

You insist that the rules of 3.5 are the rules of the world, but you haven't shown this to be true -- or shown it to make sense.. Because if we follow your logic, the rules are nonsensical and the world becomes something bizarre and unplayable for the large majority of people.


One would think there was a difference between "know the rules" and "know the function of every ability". You've claimed to know 3e. Can you tell me, without looking it up, what the class skill, subschool, and spells known for the purposes of Draconic feats are for a Fang dragon? What is the totem chakra bind of the Sphinx Claws soulmeld? How many 7th level Diamond Mind maneuvers are there? Which non-core gods grant the Evil domain? You seem to have a real difficulty with positions that aren't binaries.

I can check all of that because I'm familiar with where to look those up, or I remember them outright -- because I'm actually familiar with the rules of 3.5 D&D! Sphinx Claws totem bind gives you claw attacks, and the hands chakra bind gives you pounce, which is why it's one of the better soulmelds to bind. I know to go look at Tome of Battle to find Diamond Mind maneuvers. I actually play 3.5, and have since it's release all the way back in 2003. Because I know the rules, I know where to look for if I need the details on any rules.

But you didn't know where to look for those rules elements I asked about. In fact, those rules are very simple to find if you're familiar with 4e D&D and have play experience with it. I didn't ask for the number of level X wizard spells, or how many level X magic items there are -- that's just tedious busywork. But I asked you to tell me very simple rules, rules which you'd either know by heart or know instantly where to look for if you were familiar with 4e. There was no counting of lists, just either brief rules text or looking up an entry in a simple table. If you asked someone what the BAB of a 10 HD undead creature was in 3.5, and the person wouldn't even know where to look for that, would you then assume that the person was fully familiar with 3.5 -- familiar enough to credibly assess the various rules and features of the RPG to come to an objective conclusion about its design? If you asked that person why the BAB is +5, and that person couldn't tell you, couldn't immediately infer that it's half of 10 and thus undead use the lowest BAB progression?

You haven't known the rules of 4e throughout this discussion. You have clearly shown that you are not familiar with the system, and that you don't have proper play experience with the rules, from which you could draw knowledge on.

Which leads us to the following:

You are not familiar with the rules of 4e D&D, you have no experience with them, and you don't know what the rules consist of.

Thus, the entire premise of your argument that 3.5 is an objectively better designed system than 4e crumbles. You can't meaningfully and credibly compare 3.5 to 4e if you don't know what the rules of 4e are. You can't do that with any RPG rule set if you're not familiar with it!

This is such a simple and obvious concept, but you cannot admit it because it's a tough pill to swallow. Thus, you either ignore this point, or try to skirt around the obvious logic. You're completely free to dislike 4e -- or 5e or any other RPG -- but when you make a claim that X is objectively better designed than Y, people will call you out if you display clear ignorance of what Y is.


It's better that characters have predictable sets of abilities. If everything is a special snowflake made up by the DM on the spot, I can't know what their weaknesses are. Maybe all he can do is the city walls thing. Maybe he can also shoot stone hands at me, or summon earth elementals, or call on super strength.

You do what you do in 3.5 -- you roll skill checks, or you use your skills and abilities to find information. Assuming they follow the rules, the DM in 3.5 will not simply tell you what NPC X can do.


In order for levels to be meaningful, they have to be distinct. That's going to mean that sometimes a concept is too weak or too strong for a given level. That seems dramatically better than the alternative, where everyone has whatever abilities they want from 1st level and you have to try and balance a party comprised of Conan, Corwin, and a Pretender God.

But in 4e, you can add those story abilities independent of other, combat related abilities. This is a strength of any system -- being more flexible.


4e has no problem with low level. It has a problem with high level. You can't do the kinds of stories you can do with a party of 10th level or higher casters in 3e, and that's a problem because those are good stories.

And, pray tell, how would you know this, considering you have no experience with high level 4e, nor know the rules of high level 4e?


Those are abilities, or collections thereof. You can certainly play a Gish, or a divine spellcaster. You can play characters that approach the same concept as paragon paths. You can't use those exact abilities, but that's a stupid standard.

And what is a beguiler if not a collection of abilities, following your logic? Warblade? Why is a warden or an invoker just a collection of abilities, but a beguiler is not?


Actually, I think you will find that your points don't exist regardless of whether or not I acknowledge them. You're not really very good at this whole "arguing" thing, let alone more complicated topics like "game design" or "logic".

The bottom line is this -- if the rules so easily prove your point, why are you never willing to cite specific ones? If the abilities of 4e characters are so meaningful, why are you never willing to provide even a sentence's description of them? You are not behaving like the rules support you. You are behaving like you are lying through your teeth.

You can't will those points I raised into nothingness. Surely you realize this. You won't respond to them because it's inconvenient for you, and because it would show your weaknesses.

I am not lying through my teeth. I have repeatedly given you examples of abilities -- couldn't you look them up if you were familiar with 4e? That's right, you're not. So, once again, your entire premise of 3.5 being objectively better designed falls apart. You can't credibly come to such a conclusion if you don't know what 4e consists of.

It's why you absolutely refuse to show evidence to support your claim that 3e martials are functionally the same as 4e classes.

You also try to dismiss the point about E6 and my criticisms of aspects of 3.5. You either misread my post, or willfully misinterpreted it in an attempt to cast me in poor light. But the evidence is clear -- I showed you the exact quotes. You won't admit it, because it's too tough a pill to swallow.

[Svata]

So, I haven't actually played a 5th edition game, even though I own the books, but what exactly makes the tier difference in it? How is the fighter not less powerful than the wizard who has basically the same spells as they do in core 3.5 as far as I can see? Or what balances the cleric/druid for that matter more than 3.5 edition?


Less spells/day, and they're somewhat less powerful versions of the spells. Oh, and they don't auto-scale, you have to spend higher-level spell slots (which you get fewer of) to amp them up. That and fighters have actual class features.

[Cosi]

I noticed you for got about the whole "where are the 4e Pit Fiend's other abilities". Someone else even tried to help you by giving you an example of somewhere the rules allot new abilities to the 3e Pit Fiend outside its stat block. Where are the similar rules you insist exist for the 4e Pit Fiend?


But you didn't address it. You just said that yes, the rules have weird conclusions -- so these weird conclusions are, in fact, an assumed part of the world to you? The world works like that? You can pass down an object along a line of people in exactly six seconds no matter how long that line is? An encounter is a quantifiable thing in the actual world, not just a game term we use for game rules?

Sure. Because the alternative is that conclusions are still weird, but are no longer consistent. Your solution is strictly worse than following the rules.


I can check all of that because I'm familiar with where to look those up,

Okay, cool, you were wrong, I am in fact familiar with the rules of 4e because I can look stuff up too. Cool. I think I can safely ignore your ad hominems from here on out.

Of course, this whole thing was a diversion because even if I am in fact not familiar with the rules, the way for me to become familiar with them would be for you to tell me what they are.


You do what you do in 3.5 -- you roll skill checks, or you use your skills and abilities to find information. Assuming they follow the rules, the DM in 3.5 will not simply tell you what NPC X can do.

Except the DM can't tell you what a 4e NPC can do in advance, because those power lists aren't defined. Unless they are, and you've just been refusing to tell me for some reason?


But in 4e, you can add those story abilities independent of other, combat related abilities. This is a strength of any system -- being more flexible.

Cool, so 3e is better than 4e because it can do high level adventures.


And what is a beguiler if not a collection of abilities, following your logic? Warblade? Why is a warden or an invoker just a collection of abilities, but a beguiler is not?

A Beguiler is a collection of abilities. But it can be used to realize some character concepts. Notably, ones that can't be realized in 4e because that game things "summon angel" means "AoE defensive buff", since it doesn't believe in utility abilities.


You can't will those points I raised into nothingness. Surely you realize this. You won't respond to them because it's inconvenient for you, and because it would show your weaknesses.

You haven't raised any points. If you raise points, I'll totally respond to them.


I have repeatedly given you examples of abilities -- couldn't you look them up if you were familiar with 4e?

I did. You gave me a list of abilities, starting (IIRC, maybe it was just the first one I looked up) with Guardian Angel. When I looked it up, it was an AoE defensive buff. Since that utterly failed to refute my hypothesis that 4e abilities were all trivial and meaningless, I decided to not look up the rest because I'm not going to look up an entire list of abilities only to see that each one fails in exactly the ways I expect them too fail just because you're too lazy to write descriptions. I'm not going to do your work for you.


You also try to dismiss the point about E6 and my criticisms of aspects of 3.5. You either misread my post, or willfully misinterpreted it in an attempt to cast me in poor light. But the evidence is clear -- I showed you the exact quotes. You won't admit it, because it's too tough a pill to swallow.

Stop lying. Here's the post where you made your point about E6 (which, by the way, I quoted for you before, and you ignored):


Levels 1-20 are not mechanically robust -- E6 alone is a testament to this.

That's what you said. That E6 proves that the level system isn't working as intended. You then went on to mention some other problems you've identified. Here's my response:


No, E6 is a testament to levels working as intended. E6 is saying "I like the power level of 6th level, so I'm going to stay there". Saying that is a good thing! It means that you can have progression in campaigns that want it but not in campaigns that don't. 3e isn't perfect, but optional level caps are a good design, and should be part of the core game.

My point was that constraining advancement to only the part of the system that does what you want is a good thing, because it allows the system to be more than one thing to different groups of people (hey, there's that flexibility we like when we pretend 4e has it!). If you don't allow E6 or similar systems, the game can only support campaigns that run over the whole breadth of its content which means either that people will have to progress past their character concepts (a problem with RAW 3e and martials), or that the system cannot ever support high level abilities (a problem with 4e).

And if we look at the posts you're quoting, I don't actually use E6 to dismiss the points you're making. I agree with you that those problems exist. There are plenty of gotchas you could go for here. For example, there is actually a contradiction between my position that E6 (a homebrew system) is good for the game, and my position that your homebrewing new abilities for monsters doesn't reflect on 4e's balance. That's a fair objection, and it makes the case that 3e is better because it supports a wider variety of game types weaker. I could argue that the game allows you to end campaigns whenever you want, and you can thereby emulate some of E6 by RAW, but that's obviously weaker. I have also said that the game should include E6 as part of RAW, but that's not a terribly compelling argument in the debate between the merits of 3e and 4e.

Of course, making that argument would require admitting that you're lying about the non-combat abilities of 4e monsters, so I can assume you won't.

[Forum Explorer]

So, I haven't actually played a 5th edition game, even though I own the books, but what exactly makes the tier difference in it? How is the fighter not less powerful than the wizard who has basically the same spells as they do in core 3.5 as far as I can see? Or what balances the cleric/druid for that matter more than 3.5 edition?

I never really wanted to sit down and play 5th edition because of the way they wrote the spells section, but I think I'm missing something in the rules there.

Less spells per day that aren't as powerful. (For example, some spells last until the opponent makes a save vs them getting one save, and if they fail they are disable for several minutes) There is also the concentration mechanic, you can only have one buff up at a time and you can lose it if you take damage. Thanks to bounded accuracy you always have a significant chance of failing your concentration check. The inability to cast more then one spell in a turn. Wizards also have a bad allocation of saves, since they need to buff their intelligence.

There are also some new mechanics that really help Fighters (well all martial characters really), like everyone having the ability to move and attack without giving up any attacks. They get more stat increases (which also means more feats), and don't have less skills, so they can actually participate outside of combat. The fighters having one of the best mechanics in the game, action surge, which lets them go twice. They are also good at fighting since they actually get 4 attacks a turn (no one else can really do that). Finally, there are no dead levels, they get something every single level, though that's true for most classes.

Finally there are no trap options really.

But overall, the fighter is still less powerful then the wizard, just not as much, and they don't overshadow the fighters. The difference between a Tier 4 and a Tier 3, vs 3.5 where it's the difference between a Tier 4 and a Tier 1. (It's not a perfect metaphor, D&D 5e has much less clear Tiers and how they interact.)

[Kurald Galain]

Less spells per day that aren't as powerful. (For example, some spells last until the opponent makes a save vs them getting one save, and if they fail they are disable for several minutes) There is also the concentration mechanic, you can only have one buff up at a time and you can lose it if you take damage. Thanks to bounded accuracy you always have a significant chance of failing your concentration check. The inability to cast more then one spell in a turn. Wizards also have a bad allocation of saves, since they need to buff their intelligence.
On the other hand, everyone has four weak saves (out of six), and due to bounded accuracy, your chance of making a weak save goes sharply down as you level up. This means that casters can easily target a weak save, and repeated saves don't really matter if the odds are low enough.

[Bakkan]

One thing that I found really weird about 5e is that the mechanical value of humans as a race depends entirely on whether or not the DM will allow you to use the feat subsystem. If not, then humans are pretty bad, at least in core, since their only racial feature is +1 to all ability scores. This is less useful than the +2/+1 stat bonuses most races get, especially since abilities are capped at 20 anyway, and far less interesting than other racial features, e.g. gnomes' ability to make little clockwork toys.

On the other hand, if the DM does allow you to use the feat subsystem, then they quickly become the best choice for almost any character concept in core, since they can trade their relatively insignificant stat boosts for a feat at 1st level (along with an extra proficiency), while everyone else has to wait for 4th level. Since feats are one of the few ways of mechanically differentiating characters in 5e, and because many of them are build-defining, getting one at 1st level is a major advantage.


I never played much 4e, and I felt that the game was somewhat limited. You are describing something I didn't know was in it, a structured way to add non-combat abilities to creatures and characters. This interests me greatly, would you be able to direct me to a description of or guide to the process?

[Uckleverry]

On 4e stat blocks:

Page 101 of The Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea says that the quom can sense the shards of their dead deity/destroyed home realm if they’re within 15 feet of one. None of the quom stat blocks (pages 156-158) contain this ability.

Page 51 of Monster Vault describes how imps can grant the knowledge of spells to mortals. The imp stat block on the same page contains no such ability.

Page 208 of Monster Manual 3 says that xivorts can speak with bats and rats. None of the xivort stat blocks on pages 208-209 contain that ability.

Page 144 of Monster Manual 3 describes how the nerra can kidnap and create a physically identical copy of a creature but whose moral outlook is reversed. None of the nerra stat blocks (pages 145-147) contain that ability.

Page 10 of Draconomicon Metallic Dragons says that a metallic dragon can eat metal to increase its regeneration of lost scales. Not a single metallic dragon stat block mentions such ability. Page 15 of the same book mentions that ancient dragons have mastered planar rituals; not a single ancient dragon entry contains planar rituals.


Sure. Because the alternative is that conclusions are still weird, but are no longer consistent. Your solution is strictly worse than following the rules.

Check page 5 of the 3.5 Rules Compendium. Notice what t says about the rules: they can’t cover everything that can happen in a fantasy world. If, as you claim, the rules represent the rules and the physics of the world, why would the book say that the rules can’t, in fact, model everything -- that there are interactions beyond the rules? This strongly supports my claim that the rules of 3.5 are there for the game, the adventurers, and the world -- not just the world.

Playing by your logic, an encounter is actually a real thing in the world. Anyone can become an expert diplomat by slaughtering creatures. You can pass a baton 10 miles in six seconds by forming a line 10 miles long.


Okay, cool, you were wrong, I am in fact familiar with the rules of 4e because I can look stuff up too. Cool. I think I can safely ignore your ad hominems from here on out.

But you didn't look stuff up. You've also consistently refused to show evidence to support your claim that 3e martials are functionally the same as 4e classes. Is it that difficult to locate the evidence and present it?

You're desperate to divert from this issue. The fact is, you've consistently displayed unfamiliarity with the rules of 4e. This means that your basic premise of 3.5 being objectively better designed than 4e crumbles, as you cannot display the adequate familiarity to credibly assess 4e. You can't compare 3.5 and 4e with any degree of credibility in order to come to a conclusion that 3.5 is objectively better designed.


Of course, this whole thing was a diversion because even if I am in fact not familiar with the rules, the way for me to become familiar with them would be for you to tell me what they are.

If you're not familiar with the 4e rules, you cannot credibly compare 3.5 and 4e in order to reach your original claim of 3.5 being better designed. You know this simple fact, but you will not admit it.


Except the DM can't tell you what a 4e NPC can do in advance, because those power lists aren't defined. Unless they are, and you've just been refusing to tell me for some reason?

Of course the DM knows. The DM has created that NPC, has given it abilities. This is such an elementary concept.


Cool, so 3e is better than 4e because it can do high level adventures.

4e has fully functional high and epic levels. Its encounter building rules remain functional from level 1 to 30. It's much more playable at high and epic levels than 3e.

Moreover, how could you even know how high level 4e works if you have no experience with it, nor know the rules of high level 4e?


A Beguiler is a collection of abilities. But it can be used to realize some character concepts. Notably, ones that can't be realized in 4e because that game things "summon angel" means "AoE defensive buff", since it doesn't believe in utility abilities.

Here’s just one 4e character concept you couldn’t do in 3e:

You’re a shardmind, an immortal being of thought made physical. You’re a fragment of the Living Gate, the now-destroyed barrier between the cosmos and the Far Realm. You’re also a shaman, and thus you commune with the primal spirits for aid and power. Primal spirits are spirits of the mortal world whose purpose is to protect it from outside forces, including the Far Realm, the gods, and the primordials. You have a permanent spirit companion, through which you can invoke the primal spirits. Your spirit takes on the form of a vortex of dust and debris, although its appearance can change when you invoke the power of the primal spirits.

But your form was created a long time ago. During your original time, there was a magical calamity that flung you to the present day, and now you have to make sense of world changed by centuries. (You have the Ghost of the Past character theme, which includes mechanical abilities.)

As you explore the world, you form a bond with arguably the greatest primal spirit: the World Serpent. You protect the world from outside threats, and your primal evocations are empowered by the poison of the Serpent. (Paragon Path: Disciple of the World Serpent.)

Later, as your powers grow, you begin to unlock the keys to the entire cosmos. Ultimately, you become the master of time and space, able to traverse time itself -- maybe you go back to your original time? To the future where the Far Realm has nearly overrun the cosmos? (Epic Destiny: Keybearer.)


I did. You gave me a list of abilities, starting (IIRC, maybe it was just the first one I looked up) with Guardian Angel. When I looked it up, it was an AoE defensive buff. Since that utterly failed to refute my hypothesis that 4e abilities were all trivial and meaningless, I decided to not look up the rest because I'm not going to look up an entire list of abilities only to see that each one fails in exactly the ways I expect them too fail just because you're too lazy to write descriptions. I'm not going to do your work for you.

That's your way to refute someone's evidence? To just ignore it? It doesn't work like that you know.

Here are brief descriptions of some of the abilities I've listed and new ones I didn't include before (I can't include the entire description because of board rules):

Dimension Door: teleportation. Mordenkainen’s Mansion: extradimensional dwelling. Quick Portal: create a portal to a teleportation circle. Summon Shadow Serpent: conjure a serpent who can scout or spy for you, for example. Summon Proud Mastodon: summons a mastodon. Summon Balor: summon a balor demon. Spectral Image: create an illusion. Veil: disguise several targets through an illusion.

You also claimed that 4e characters don't have the ability to meaningfully impact the world through rules mechanics. Skill Challenges are a good example of how they indeed can do that. Check pages 24-27 of The Plane Below Secrets of the Elemental Chaos on examples how the PCs can: successfully bargain with an efreet; understand a chaotic slaad; repair a lightning skiff (a vessel used to travel in the Elemental Chaos); successfully sail the Sea of Fire and reach a desired destination. All of that is accomplished via mechanics.


Stop lying. Here's the post where you made your point about E6 (which, by the way, I quoted for you before, and you ignored):

That's what you said. That E6 proves that the level system isn't working as intended. You then went on to mention some other problems you've identified. Here's my response:

You're still misrepresenting my words, grossly so. Here's the conversation, again:


Not to mention epic levels! The CR system is woefully inadequate and doesn't produce accurate results. Class balance is terrible, and in order to work around this, you either ban classes or make extensive changes to classes and their abilities. Multiclassing rules don't produce balanced results.

Those problems aren't real, the DM can write new content. Also I had fun. Read the rules.


If those problems are not real, why do you suggest that martials should be given abilities equivalent to tier 1 casters in 3.5? Why did you comment that multiclassing in 3.5 doesn't work when combining spellcaster classes (in the LA thread)? Are a level 28 fighter and a level 28 wizard equal in abilities, equal in overcoming level-appropriate CRs? Are CRs at level 28 accurate in predicting how challenging an encounter is?

The problems are real, but they aren't real because of E6.

Where did I mention E6 with regards to: epic levels, the CR system, class balance, and multiclassing. Nowhere.

[2D8HP]

...3e does sword and sorcery fine if you stick to low levels.....


I understood that.

Thanks!

I find that true of 5e as well.

Old (TSR) D&D got better at Swords & Sorcery after 1st level (which was more like 1934's The Seven Geases by Clark Ashton Smith (http://www.eldritchdark.com/writings/short-stories/192/the-seven-geases) than the usual Howard or Leiber story). I thought that the old Stormbringer RPG was even better at Swords & Sorcery, but it had some other problems (the chief one being no tables!).



ICool, so 3e is better than 4e because it can do high level adventures...
......and a bunch of words comparing 3.5 to 4e D&D...




Here’s just one 4e character concept you couldn’t do in 3e....
.....and a bunch of words comparing 3.5 to 4e D&D...


Um... I'm going to ask this again, for "Human with a sword explores a fantastic world" adventures, is it worthwhile for me to buy the 3.5 or Pathfinder books, for any reason other than the plenitude of tables?

[JNAProductions]

Um... I'm going to ask this again, for "Human with a sword explores a fantastic world" adventures, is it worthwhile for me to buy the 3.5 or Pathfinder books, for any reason other than the plenitude of tables?

2d8, you're totally fine with 5E. You might be interested in 4E, since it lets you do some really cool things as just a guy with a sword, but 3.5 is almost certainly far too complex for what it's worth.

[Jormengand]

3.5 is, IME, basically a better version of 5e in almost every respect except that 5e is a little more balanced. A human with a sword can totally explore a fantastic world in 3.5, and 3.5 gives you more opportunities to be the guy who can take on, like, 50 people without breaking stride or busting out any spells. Pathfinder is just 3.5 but a little bit different, mostly for difference's sake. It fixes a few things and breaks a few things. 4e is a wargame with an ego.

[Forum Explorer]

On the other hand, everyone has four weak saves (out of six), and due to bounded accuracy, your chance of making a weak save goes sharply down as you level up. This means that casters can easily target a weak save, and repeated saves don't really matter if the odds are low enough.

True, but it's really hard to target something other then Con, Dex, or Wis. Cha is kinda common, kinda rare. Strength has a few I can think of, but only a few. Intelligence has like only one or two things that target it. Besides that, if it's an actually important monster/opponent it'll have Legendary Saves, and just ignore the weak saves.

[Kurald Galain]

Um... I'm going to ask this again, for "Human with a sword explores a fantastic world" adventures, is it worthwhile for me to buy the 3.5 or Pathfinder books, for any reason other than the plenitude of tables?

Maybe? Even at low level and for mundanes, Pathfinder offers a LOT more versatility and diverse options than 5E.

Of course, you don't need to buy books; the rules are all freely available online. For example, check out the archetypes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo-rogue-archetypes) for the rogue class (you pick one archetype at level 1, which gives you alternative class features), or the list of rogue talents (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo-rogue-talents) (which are knacks and dirty tricks unique to rogues; you learn one every other level). Most of this fits the Gray Mouser pretty well.

So instead of waiting for the argument here to decide which one is "objectively superior", check out for yourself if it's your cup of tea :smallcool:

[RoboEmperor]

Um... I'm going to ask this again, for "Human with a sword explores a fantastic world" adventures, is it worthwhile for me to buy the 3.5 or Pathfinder books, for any reason other than the plenitude of tables?

Depends.

Have fun without investing a ton of time learning the system, researching, etc.? 5e

Monster Variety? 3.5 by a long, long, looooooooong shot.
Eventually become strong enough to kill everything solo without spells (but with magic items)? 3.5 by a long, long, looooooooong shot.
Setting Variety? 3.5 by a long, long, looooooooong shot.
Race Variety? 3.5 by a long, long, looooooooong shot. Half human, half something else fills entire books (literally).
Equipment Variety? 3.5 by a long, long, looooooooong shot.
Class Variety? 3.5 by a long, long, looooooooong shot. There are tons of classes and PrCs for humans with a sword.
Special Mundane Attacks? 3.5 by a long, long, looooooooong shot. Feats and PrCs give a plethora of mundane special attacks.
Unique Character Traits? 3.5 by a long, long, looooooooong shot. Racial feats, regional feats, traits, flaws, heritage feats, etc. can make your character super unique and exactly to your liking.

3.5 has a steep learning curve, and it is worth it in my opinion, but as Forum Explorer showed in his previous posts, he was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of content available and the amount of time required to learn the system in order bring his character's strength up to mid-op or high-op level just to have a decent game as a mundane, so keep that in mind. Mundanes in particular do need to read a lot of books regarding magic items and read online builds for optimization.

3.5 is huge investment, huge reward, 5e is casual, easy to learn, easy to play, but less than hundredth of the content in 3.5. Unless ofc, your table is playing low-op, in which case 3.5 is just as casual, easy to learn, and easy to play as 5e.

[Knaight]

Um... I'm going to ask this again, for "Human with a sword explores a fantastic world" adventures, is it worthwhile for me to buy the 3.5 or Pathfinder books, for any reason other than the plenitude of tables?

No. There are other people for whom I'd answer "yes", but for you, no. Here's a brief list of reasons to go for 3.x specifically:

You like game play focused on interacting with the mechanics as the game (as opposed to them propping up the setting which you interact with).
You value having a lot of different ways to mechanically represent similar characters.
You want to play characters that still roughly fit adventurer archetypes, but that are also pretty weird.
You like mechanical complexity in a system.
You enjoy complex, competitive tactical battles.

I'm thinking this is about five downsides for you. For someone else, "Human with a sword explores a fantastic world" adventures could easily mean that they want to play a character who's a swordsmaster with a bit of flair, with some weird techniques like lighting their weapon on fire, maybe with some mild superheroics like throwing their foes fifty feet. It could mean they want a series of interesting tactical battles in the combat minigame against a variety of exotic foes, deploying a complex set of powers. For that person, I'd absolutely recommend getting 3.5, and also point them towards the Swordsage class. I might also point to a template or two, depending on whether or not they're feeling like throwing in a bit of a twist on being human.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Um... I'm going to ask this again, for "Human with a sword explores a fantastic world" adventures, is it worthwhile for me to buy the 3.5 or Pathfinder books, for any reason other than the plenitude of tables?
Nope. Of all the things that 3.5 does well, "just a guy with a sword" is not really one of them. Nor is "simple," which seems to be a major selling point for you.

I mean, I guess you could look at Pathfinder, if you're desperate for tables? Mostly because their stuff is all free online.

[2D8HP]

.


.


:


.


.


.


:smile:

Thanks guys!

It really seems that 5e is the equivalent of old "Basic" (or "Classic" as it was renamed in '94), and 3.5/Pathfinder is the equivalent of old "Advanced" Dungeons & Dragons, and it looks like it would be fun to play once I mastered the rules, but I don't much enjoy studying rules mechanics (fluff I like, the "Inner Sea Guide" is a hoot!). If I was the same kind of gamer as a was 35 years, I would leap into 3.x, but I don't have the free-time and mental agility I did then.

Tables playing Pathfinder are almost double those playing 5e in my area (and both far dwarf other games), so if chances to play 5e diminish (or it gets too dull), it now looks to me like 3.x has some benefits to go with the complexity.

[RoboEmperor]

:smile:

Thanks guys!

It really seems that 5e is the equivalent of old "Basic" (or "Classic" as it was renamed in '94), and 3.5/Pathfinder is the equivalent of old "Advanced" Dungeons & Dragons, and it looks like it would be fun to play once I mastered the rules, but I don't much enjoy studying rules mechanics (fluff I like, the "Inner Sea Guide" is a hoot!). If I was the same kind of gamer as a was 35 years, I would leap into 3.x, but I don't have the free-time and mental agility I did then.

Tables playing Pathfinder are almost double those playing 5e in my area (and both far dwarf other games), so if chances to play 5e diminish (or it gets too dull), it now looks to me like 3.x has some benefits to go with the complexity.

You don't have to master all the rules, just the ones regarding what you are interested in, and even then, if you get someone to build your character for you, you don't need to master any rules.

I mastered summoning and planar binding with the help of this forum, and had 0 clue about everything else. I knew less than half the magic items in the d20srd, was always surprised at what my fellow players were packing (healing belts in particular) and I managed to do fine. Didn't even know uberchargers existed until this year because of my significant lack of interest in mundanes. One of the players at my table is first time player. The DM built her Dungeon crasher for her, and she enjoys just roleplaying and smashing walls without ever touching the rule books. Another one of my players is playing a whisper gnome and maximized his AC sky high, and I still to this day have no clue what class he is playing, or how he boosted his AC, because only the DM needs to master all the rules and I have a significant lack of interest in mundanes, and I'm doing really fine in the campaign.

Building your character is the hardest part of 3.5, not playing.

The easiest way actually to get into 3.5 is using this very forum! Make a new thread, explain what you want to do, and people here will virtually build your character for you. You don't need to know what other people in your table are doing.

Honestly speaking, I have to this day never read a single 3.5 book in my life. At most I read 20 pages of the books that have what I am interested in, no more, so I am living proof you don't need to master the rules to play 3.5, just the rules regarding what you want to do.

[NecroDancer]

D&d 5e is a more "lean" version of 3.5 in my experience. For example in 5e you usually only have 2 feats by level 20 but feats tend to be more powerful (no feat chains at all). You also have mandatory archetypes for each class that determines a lot about your character mechanically (is your rogue a thief, assassin, arcane trickster, or swashbuckler? What school of magic does your wizard focus on? Etc). The magic spells are weaker and casters get less of them but they can still warp reality at high levels. Cantrips are weak spells that you can always use (at will powers) so a caster never technically runs out of magic. 5e also has bounded accuracy which prevents high level characters from becoming living gods. Magic items are also not integral for having a balanced character (magic weapons/armor don't have a bonus of more that +3).

However 5e has the benefit of being easy to pick up, without being condescending, balanced classes without them being all "samey" (I'm looking at you 4e), and you can't really build a "worthless character" unless you try.

5e has less splatbooks on purpose and is that's the intent (it's been almost 4 years and we are getting our second splatbook this November). I'm a fan of this because it means new players don't have to read 15+ books to make a character(avoiding 3.5's bloat).

I enjoy 3.5 for the multitude of options and the almost endless characters I can create but there are some serious flaws (such as the ranger, monk, fighter, and paladin being **** compared to the other 3.5 core classes). It's a major turn off for me if I learn that I'll need to take X prestige class and Y ability just to make a viable character. Regardless I still enjoy 3.5 because no character I make is ever truely the same or feels the same (and I enjoy the stupid ultimate magical power of an optimized wizard).

So in conclusion....

5e is the lean, well cooked, tasty piece of meat with almost 0 gristle but not as flavorful as other older meats.

3.5 is a potluck that has attracted a few but major flies.

4e (in my experience with the PHB a few years ago) is the bland army rations who's only good thing was the rituals.

[Cosi]

Page 51 of Monster Vault describes how imps can grant the knowledge of spells to mortals. The imp stat block on the same page contains no such ability.

As far as I can tell, there are no rules for this. It's nothing more than a flavor suggestion.


Page 208 of Monster Manual 3 says that xivorts can speak with bats and rats. None of the xivort stat blocks on pages 208-209 contain that ability.

Page 144 of Monster Manual 3 describes how the nerra can kidnap and create a physically identical copy of a creature but whose moral outlook is reversed. None of the nerra stat blocks (pages 145-147) contain that ability.

These don't seem terribly compelling, as they're from the monster entries. That is, perhaps, an argument that creature might have flavor hooks beyond their mechanical abilities, but not that there are additional Pit Fiend abilities hiding somewhere.


But you didn't look stuff up. You've also consistently refused to show evidence to support your claim that 3e martials are functionally the same as 4e classes. Is it that difficult to locate the evidence and present it?

The evidence that 4e characters don't have abilities not available to 3e martials is of course difficult to locate, because it is a negative claim.


Of course the DM knows. The DM has created that NPC, has given it abilities. This is such an elementary concept.

What, aside from the DM's personal honor, requires all abilities to be assigned (or at least knowable) before players encounter the creature? If the DM wishes, could he not give it new abilities after they do so?


You’re a shardmind, an immortal being of thought made physical. You’re a fragment of the Living Gate, the now-destroyed barrier between the cosmos and the Far Realm. You’re also a shaman, and thus you commune with the primal spirits for aid and power. Primal spirits are spirits of the mortal world whose purpose is to protect it from outside forces, including the Far Realm, the gods, and the primordials. You have a permanent spirit companion, through which you can invoke the primal spirits. Your spirit takes on the form of a vortex of dust and debris, although its appearance can change when you invoke the power of the primal spirits.

The Shardmind stuff sounds like flavor. Is there anything that stops me from having a 3e campaign where Warforged are flavored as fragments of the Living Gate, or having a 4e game which did not include a conflict between the cosmos and the far realm?

The Shaman seems like a reasonable match for a Druid with an ACF from (IIRC) Complete Mage that gives them an elemental companion. Alternatively, at sufficiently high levels you could use the Summon Elemental reserve feat.


But your form was created a long time ago. During your original time, there was a magical calamity that flung you to the present day, and now you have to make sense of world changed by centuries. (You have the Ghost of the Past character theme, which includes mechanical abilities.)

Ghost of the Past gives you some rerolls. If you're super pedantic, you could take luck feats, but it's not really all that different from having a +3 bonus to some stuff. Playing with the action point rules would also cover this to some degree.


As you explore the world, you form a bond with arguably the greatest primal spirit: the World Serpent. You protect the world from outside threats, and your primal evocations are empowered by the poison of the Serpent. (Paragon Path: Disciple of the World Serpent.)

The Fell metamagic feats allow you to add something reasonably approximating poison to your spells.


Later, as your powers grow, you begin to unlock the keys to the entire cosmos. Ultimately, you become the master of time and space, able to traverse time itself -- maybe you go back to your original time? To the future where the Far Realm has nearly overrun the cosmos? (Epic Destiny: Keybearer.)

teleport through time is a 3e spell.


Dimension Door: teleportation.

Yes, you can teleport ... 100ft. IIRC, the 4e targeting rules actually stop you from targeting stuff you can't see, so this doesn't even go through walls which makes it basically equivalent to normal movement but slightly faster. Even if I'm wrong about that, it's still not particularly different from the shadow jaunt line of maneuvers.


Mordenkainen’s Mansion: extradimensional dwelling. Quick Portal: create a portal to a teleportation circle. ... Summon Proud Mastodon: summons a mastodon. Summon Balor: summon a balor demon.

I don't see references to those on the list of powers I'm looking at.


Summon Shadow Serpent: conjure a serpent who can scout or spy for you, for example.

That's just an animal companion. Except worse, because it's not permanent.


Spectral Image: create an illusion. Veil: disguise several targets through an illusion.

Spectral Image fails if things touch it, it's not really an illusion so much as shouting "hey, look over there" -- the equivalent of a bluff check. Veil is just disguise.


You also claimed that 4e characters don't have the ability to meaningfully impact the world through rules mechanics. Skill Challenges are a good example of how they indeed can do that. Check pages 24-27 of The Plane Below Secrets of the Elemental Chaos on examples how the PCs can: successfully bargain with an efreet; understand a chaotic slaad; repair a lightning skiff (a vessel used to travel in the Elemental Chaos); successfully sail the Sea of Fire and reach a desired destination. All of that is accomplished via mechanics.

The DM determines skill challenges. The ability to do a thing when the DM lets you do that thing is not a meaningful ability.

[Uckleverry]

As far as I can tell, there are no rules for this. It's nothing more than a flavor suggestion.

These don't seem terribly compelling, as they're from the monster entries. That is, perhaps, an argument that creature might have flavor hooks beyond their mechanical abilities, but not that there are additional Pit Fiend abilities hiding somewhere.

Right, so whatever abilities 4e creatures have that are not included in the stat block are "flavor suggestions" -- no matter the description. The quom ability is just "flavor". If the 4e creature -- like the nerra -- can create exact, morally-reversed copies of people, that's "flavor". If a 3.5 creature had an ability in its stat block to create an exact, morally-reversed copy of a person, that'd be a concrete, non-flavor ability to you.

If 4e creatures are assigned abilities outside of their stat blocks, that directly proves my claim that 4e stat blocks do not represent the totality of the creature or its abilities.

As I predicted, no matter how much evidence I provide, your lack of intellectual honesty will prevent you from acknowledging it. You're incapable of engaging in an honest debate.


The evidence that 4e characters don't have abilities not available to 3e martials is of course difficult to locate, because it is a negative claim.

Your original claim was:

Well, 4e characters are all functionally 3e martials. So use that as a comparison point.

If you make such a claim, it's on you to provide evidence if you want your claim to be taken seriously. After all these posts, you've still failed to do that. You can try your best to avoid the responsibility, but it doesn't make it disappear. If you can't provide the evidence, your claim is unsound and can be discarded.


What, aside from the DM's personal honor, requires all abilities to be assigned (or at least knowable) before players encounter the creature? If the DM wishes, could he not give it new abilities after they do so?

In 3.5, what aside from the DM's personal honor requires all abilities to be assigned before players encounter the creature?

Listen to yourself. This is getting laughable at this point.


The Shardmind stuff sounds like flavor. Is there anything that stops me from having a 3e campaign where Warforged are flavored as fragments of the Living Gate, or having a 4e game which did not include a conflict between the cosmos and the far realm?

The Shaman seems like a reasonable match for a Druid with an ACF from (IIRC) Complete Mage that gives them an elemental companion. Alternatively, at sufficiently high levels you could use the Summon Elemental reserve feat.

Ghost of the Past gives you some rerolls. If you're super pedantic, you could take luck feats, but it's not really all that different from having a +3 bonus to some stuff. Playing with the action point rules would also cover this to some degree.

The Fell metamagic feats allow you to add something reasonably approximating poison to your spells.

teleport through time is a 3e spell.

What prevents you from re-flavoring an arcane class into a beguiler in 4e? What prevents you from re-flavoring a 4e fighter into a warblade? When does the druid channel spells through the elemental companion? Since when is the unreliable and imprecise 3e Teleport Through Time perfect mastery over time?


Yes, you can teleport ... 100ft. IIRC, the 4e targeting rules actually stop you from targeting stuff you can't see, so this doesn't even go through walls which makes it basically equivalent to normal movement but slightly faster. Even if I'm wrong about that, it's still not particularly different from the shadow jaunt line of maneuvers.

I don't see references to those on the list of powers I'm looking at.

That's just an animal companion. Except worse, because it's not permanent.

Spectral Image fails if things touch it, it's not really an illusion so much as shouting "hey, look over there" -- the equivalent of a bluff check. Veil is just disguise.

Ah yes, so when a 3e caster summons a creature to fight or scout, it's a "meaningful ability" with "impact", but when a 4e character does the exact same thing, it's just an animal companion. Or when a 3e character teleports, it's useful and meaningful, but when a 4e character does the same thing, it's just "normal movement".

According to your logic, whenever a 4e character does something a 3e caster does, the 4e ability is "flavor, meaningless, lacks impact, etc." but the 3e ability is super meaningful and has TONS of mechanical impact on the world.

And when the abilities are difficult to dismiss, you just can't find the references. Even though they're directly from the 4e Compendium, the repository for all official WotC-produced 4e content.


The DM determines skill challenges. The ability to do a thing when the DM lets you do that thing is not a meaningful ability.

Right... exact mechanics as represented by those skill challenges are simply up to the DM's whims, so they're not meaningful. While skill and spell descriptions in 3e are totally opposite and the DM abides by them and they directly influence the world through mechanics.

At this point you're just desperately trying to dismiss any and all evidence, showcasing a complete dearth of intellectual honesty.

And because you cannot engage in an honest debate, you ignore points like the 3.5 Rules Compendium entry I posted.

You also can't escape the simple and honest truth about your lack of familiarity with 4e and what it means concerning your original claim of 3.5 being the objectively better designed system. It may be too tough to accept, but you simply cannot reach that objective conclusion if you lack an understanding and knowledge of the 4e rule set.

Oh, and I see you ignore the whole E6 and your misrepresentation of my post thing. Did you know that even if you close your eyes, facts remain true and relevant?

[Florian]

Tables playing Pathfinder are almost double those playing 5e in my area (and both far dwarf other games), so if chances to play 5e diminish (or it gets too dull), it now looks to me like 3.x has some benefits to go with the complexity.

Hm... Pathfinder developed very differently then 3.5E by going back to AD&D and revamp the concept of "Kits" as "Archetypes" and also incorporated many things 4E players will also be able to recognize. At the same time, fewer multiclassing, dipping and PrC than 3.5E, as you´re encouraged to stick to your chosen class and add flavor to it, i.e. when playing the "classic dwarf fighter", you´ll want to use the dwarf-only Fighter archetype "Foehammer" on it and get going.

The "purely mundane" classes actually do have class features and are highly efficient in combat, at least against stock monsters. Be advised that they´re still "hard mode", at least when it comes to reaching some sort of peak performance that is, as usual, beyond the scope of the actual roles and CR system.

@Uckleverry:

You´re right, 3E is as horrible at simulation as 4E is, neither system generates any meaningful results.
I think that a lot of people tend to confuse the "general rules for anything" approach with some kind of physics, but gain a general sense of verisimilitude this way. It´s... like confusing Monopoly for an economic simulation....

[ahyangyi]

Hm... Pathfinder developed very differently then 3.5E by going back to AD&D and revamp the concept of "Kits" as "Archetypes" and also incorporated many things 4E players will also be able to recognize. At the same time, fewer multiclassing, dipping and PrC than 3.5E, as you´re encouraged to stick to your chosen class and add flavor to it, i.e. when playing the "classic dwarf fighter", you´ll want to use the dwarf-only Fighter archetype "Foehammer" on it and get going.

The "purely mundane" classes actually do have class features and are highly efficient in combat, at least against stock monsters. Be advised that they´re still "hard mode", at least when it comes to reaching some sort of peak performance that is, as usual, beyond the scope of the actual roles and CR system.

@Uckleverry:

You´re right, 3E is as horrible at simulation as 4E is, neither system generates any meaningful results.
I think that a lot of people tend to confuse the "general rules for anything" approach with some kind of physics, but gain a general sense of verisimilitude this way. It´s... like confusing Monopoly for an economic simulation....

That said, 3.5E has its ACL and UA alternative classes too. Turns out each iteration since AD&D has something akin to kits.

[Cosi]

Right, so whatever abilities 4e creatures have that are not included in the stat block are "flavor suggestions" -- no matter the description. The quom ability is just "flavor". If the 4e creature -- like the nerra -- can create exact, morally-reversed copies of people, that's "flavor". If a 3.5 creature had an ability in its stat block to create an exact, morally-reversed copy of a person, that'd be a concrete, non-flavor ability to you.

Yes, there are no rules for those abilities. 4e says nothing about them. You could say things, but that does not effect the quality of 4e, just as my decision to change the Wizard's spellcasting to Bard progression would not effect the balance of 3e.


In 3.5, what aside from the DM's personal honor requires all abilities to be assigned before players encounter the creature?

The fact that 3e creatures actually have non-combat abilities that you can know in advance.


What prevents you from re-flavoring an arcane class into a beguiler in 4e?

dominate person allows you to permanently turn enemies to allies in combat time. time stop allows you to, well, stop time. shadow walk allows you to freely travel to the Elemental Plane of Shadow. Rainbow Servant gives you access to all the Cleric spells in 3e. Just the raw number of options is higher than any 4e character.


What prevents you from re-flavoring a 4e fighter into a warblade?

I imagine that there might be some specific maneuvers, but overall not much. 3e being a superset of 4e in this respect doesn't mean there's no overlap.


When does the druid channel spells through the elemental companion? Since when is the unreliable and imprecise 3e Teleport Through Time perfect mastery over time?

What are the mechanical effects of those abilities? When 4e says "perfect mastery over time" what abilities does that grant?


Ah yes, so when a 3e caster summons a creature to fight or scout, it's a "meaningful ability" with "impact", but when a 4e character does the exact same thing, it's just an animal companion. Or when a 3e character teleports, it's useful and meaningful, but when a 4e character does the same thing, it's just "normal movement".

teleport does not have a 100ft range or a line of sight limit. I will freely admit that 4e's ability is as good as 3e's dimension hop, but that's not what I mean when I talk about teleportation.


And when the abilities are difficult to dismiss, you just can't find the references. Even though they're directly from the 4e Compendium, the repository for all official WotC-produced 4e content.

And again, rather than provide actual references, you continue to evade. If the abilities actually mattered, wouldn't you be a little more precise than "abilities from 4e are on the list of all 4e abilities"?


Right... exact mechanics as represented by those skill challenges are simply up to the DM's whims, so they're not meaningful. While skill and spell descriptions in 3e are totally opposite and the DM abides by them and they directly influence the world through mechanics.

Yes, things that are explicit are different from things that are not. Also, 2 is different from 4 and blue is not the same color as red.


And because you cannot engage in an honest debate, you ignore points like the 3.5 Rules Compendium entry I posted.

What point? Yes, the rules don't cover everything. That doesn't make the rules not the only thing that influence the world of 3e or 4e, as opposed to the world of your game. Can you make up new rules? Sure. But those rules don't change the quality of the game itself. And you can do that in either system. If you don't like how 3e handles long relays, you can change it. But you don't have to. But when 4e tries to resolve a relay, it enters a halt state. Someone could be happy with 3e allowing you to pass stuff across any number of people in one round. No one can be happy with 4e's nonexistent rules. Both games can be changed by people who are unhappy with them. 3e is objectively better.

[Kurald Galain]

What are the mechanical effects of those abilities? When 4e says "perfect mastery over time" what abilities does that grant?
The fluff indicates that you can teleport at-will to any place and any time you like. The mechanical abilities are as follows,
Once per day, teleport to a known permanent teleportation circle for free (normally this costs money). Casting time remains ten minutes.
Once per day when you die, you instead teleport to a known permanent teleportation circle.
Once per day, create an aura that puts random debuffs on everyone nearby, no save. It lasts while you concentrate.
At will, teleport a short distance whenever you roll very high on an attack.
As the capstone, become insubstantial at will; you can't end your turn in anything solid.


So the key of the debate appears to be that Uckle is looking at the description (you can teleport through time at will!) whereas Cosi is looking at the mechanics (the teleportation is not actually at-will, and its destination is sharply limited; nothing in the mechanics refers to time travel).

[ryu]

Ladies and gentlemen today we demonstrate the importance of specifics. Namely what you describe an ability as means nothing at all compared to what it is explicitly listed as actually doing. Further still if something is described grandiosely then doesn't actually have any mechanical explanation for what that grandiose use is, what its limits are, and so on you haven't outlined any ability at all. You've spent a bunch of text building unresolved hype for whatever random unrelated thing you actually explained it doing.

[Uckleverry]

Cosi, you've shown that you're completely unwilling to engage in a debate in good faith.

The basic premise of your initial claim -- the claim that 3.5 is objectively better designed than 4e (or 5e) -- has no basis since you're not experienced or familiar with 4e D&D. This unfamiliarity with the rules has been well established over the course of the thread. If you don't know a system, you can't credibly assess its features to come to an objective conclusion. You're not equipped to compare 3.5 and 4e with credibility.

Yeah, this conversation is over.

[Cosi]

I notice as soon as people pulled out mechanical descriptions of 4e abilities that conflicted with Uckleverry's lies about "total mastery of time", he gave up. It seems that my prediction that his unwillingness to provided detailed information was because that information didn't support his position has been borne out. Hopefully this will stop him from making the same claims later, but I doubt it.


The fluff indicates that you can teleport at-will to any place and any time you like. The mechanical abilities are as follows,
Once per day, teleport to a known permanent teleportation circle for free (normally this costs money). Casting time remains ten minutes.
Once per day when you die, you instead teleport to a known permanent teleportation circle.
Once per day, create an aura that puts random debuffs on everyone nearby, no save. It lasts while you concentrate.
At will, teleport a short distance whenever you roll very high on an attack.
As the capstone, become insubstantial at will; you can't end your turn in anything solid.


Okay, pretty much what I expected. Some moderately interesting abilities, but nothing approaching even partial mastery of time.

That said, this does conflict with my claim that 4e characters are the equivalent of 3e martials. I was wrong, and a substantially worse (fixed target list, long casting time) teleport is beyond their power. That said, this does pretty much confirm what I said about 4e not supporting high level plays. As an epic level ability you get a worse version of a spell 9th level 3e characters get.

[2D8HP]

...this does pretty much confirm what I said about 4e not supporting high level plays....


Um.. does that mean high level 4e isn't as fun, or PC's aren't as powerful?

I found playing 5e 11th level less fun than lower level play (too powerful, and too complex).

But I get the impression that you find high power more fun (some of my 5e co-players, however, were "tired of low levels", which I still enjoy), but I'm unsure, because I mostly don't understand what you're writing about.

You dislike 4e, but I don't at all understand why (I'm ignorant of the mechanics you cite).

To speak in terms I understand:

At first level in TSR D&D the odds were that my PC wouldn't survive, unless I adopted a paranoid "ten foot poles and bags of flour", style, and even then the odds weren't good, so I prefer 5e to TSR at first level. But by 11th level in 5e, the increased PC power, and mechanical complexity is too much for me, and I prefer TSR.

As well as 3.5, I'm curious about 4e, and you (and others) have devoted a lot of words to 4e that I don't understand, in this thread.

The OP has DM'd 5e, and is curious about using 3.5.

I (long ago) successfully DM'd TSR D&D (and GM'd other RPG's), but my very brief attempt at DM'ing 5e I regard as a failure, and I don't plan on repeating that attempt soon.

But as a player I'm enjoying 5e, Pendragon, and getting to play again (too briefly) TSR D&D, which was great fun.

Cosi (and others), since comparing 3.5 and 4e seems important to you, for the two in this thread (the OP and me) who have never played either 3.5 or 4e (but have played 5e), how about using terms that may be understood?

[Jormengand]

Um.. does that mean high level 4e isn't as fun, or PC's aren't as powerful?

Both. By "High-level plays", Cosi's referring to plays of an appropriate power level for a strong character. 4e doesn't support them because the ability scalings don't work properly. So PCs aren't as powerful at 20th level in 4e as at 20th level in 3e, but also level 20 in 4e isn't properly supported because it's "Like 1st level, only more so" rather than real advancement.

[2D8HP]

Both....


That's clear.

Thanks!

https://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Oona_zpstooqci2y.png "Yes! Good. Learning is happening." https://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/OonaMask_zpsp1pokqbj.png



..."Like 1st level, only more so"...


Hmmm. For TSR, that sounds bad (too lethal for PC's), but for 5e that sounds good.


Okay so,

TSR: Scary at 1st level, more fun at higher levels (for me).

5e: More fun at lower levels (for me)

3.5: Probably more fun at lower levels (for me)

4e: ?

[Grod_The_Giant]

4e characters start out as reasonably competent and survivable; probably more along the lines of 3rd level 5e characters. From there, you continue to get progressively more powerful combat powers, but you never get the same sort of game-changing powers that 3.5 casters do a matter of course. You don't get to raise armies of minions, or teleport across the world in a blink of an eye, or nullify major swathes of the monster manual in a single blink. There's also very tight numerical scaling-- your abilities increase at pretty much the same exact speed as your foes', so if you need to roll an 8 to hit an equal-level foe at level 1, you need to roll an 8 to hit an equal-level foe at level 30 as well. Add that to a poorly-executed "minion" mechanic*, and high-level play is... well, low-level play "but more so." Your level 30 powers are still all variations on a theme of "do some damage to some dudes with some secondary effect."

I think Cosi's main complaint is the lack of game-changers. 3.5 has a lot of spells that render lower-level challenges completely invalid. When you hit 9th level and your wizard learns Teleport, travel is no longer a challenge. The scope of the game explodes, because now everywhere in a thousand-plus mile radius is as easy to get to as everywhere else. The game changes, in a way that 4e's "oh no, now the tough things throwing fireballs at you are demons, not kobolds!" paradigm does less well.

(Note that this game-changing really only applies to 3.5 casters. Other classes will typically be doing exactly the same thing at 20th.)



*Minions have 1 hit point and immunity to splash damage/save-for-half type stuff, if I'm not mixing up too many different games and houserules in my head. They're meant to represent cannon fodder-- they have the attack and damage to still be threatening, but PCs can still mow them down like candy and feel like big damn heroes-- but used poorly they can considerably muddle the power scale.

------------

2D8HP, I think what you really want would be a 5e version of E6 play-- characters reach 6th level and then stop advancing, or advance only incrementally (extra ASIs every so many thousands of xp, say). Freeze the game in your sweet spot of survivability:complexity.

[2D8HP]

4e characters start out as.....


Thanks Grod the G.!