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

shadowkat678

2017-08-19, 02:59 PM

5th edition and 3.5 are two completely different editions.
I've played 3.5 a lot but i can't say the same thing about 5e: i started this May with a group of friends as a cleric and then (he wasn't that lucky) as a bard.
Coming from years of 3.5 i can say that 5e is far too simple too learn for my tastes but it is ok: while i like optimizing (not powerplaying, that's a word you'll hear a lot if you start playing 3.5) some of my friends are more likely to enjoy the game without caring about specific feats or build paths; and that's great.
But 3.5 has far more rules, options, possibilities both for the DM and for the player. Often rules come with exploits and strange things, but you shouldn't mind a lot about details if you just wanna have a look.
Certainly forums can help.

You asked for rules and compatibility and I can say (for my experience) that they are completely different.
CR (more strict in 5e), feats (optional rule in 5e) and actions in combat come to mind.

If I had to suggest you one edition i'd say 3.5

Yeah. That's the impression I'm getting so far.

What would you say you think, from what you've experienced and heard, the two are like dealing with story vs combat? I tend to really like RP, and pure hack and slash is probably my least favorite types of games to play. I've heard people talking about how D&D is naturally geared towards high magic combat heavy games, although I've had sessions with no combat whatsoever in 5e. Looking at 3.5e, there seems to be a lot more options for out of combat skills, instead of them all being tied to a few.

Which I like so far and seems like it would work for a wider range of game types. As someone who loves playing thieves, I really like the idea of being able to put points into Use Magic Device instead of waiting till 13th level if I want to play a character that really likes her magic trinkets. Or put points into climbing when my strength score isn't the best and I really don't need to focus on any other skills in that area.

The various types of knowledge also seems really cool, since certain characters would know more about magic lore, while others who grew up in the city would rely on street smarts probably would know more local things that would be important. The cross-class skill also seems like a pretty neat idea.

And do you think there's ANY rules that could be brought over and implemented as a home brew? I haven't gotten past the skill part yet in the handbook, but from what I read on the form I get the implication that the turn moving thing is way different. And I really like being able to move 10 ft, attack, disengage, and then go for cover in a good spot. You know. Being a squishy. And it seems like 3.5e rogues are even squishier than 5e in terms of HP.

Bakkan

2017-08-19, 03:07 PM

3.5 is a far more complex and intricate system than 5e. 3.5 multiclassing, for example, allows for quintillions of possible level progressions to 20, and the 100+ sourcebooks mean that you can always find new and interesting stuff.

I find that I vastly prefer 3.5's skill system to 5e's check system. There is a vast degree of customization and optimization possible. One of the places this becomes the most obvious is comparing 3.5's skill check modifiers to 5e, which has a strict bound on how good a character can be at something. For instance, if I want to make an Ultra-Grandmaster chess player, the best player in the world, using the two systems, in 5e I could get a bonus on my Intelligence check equal to +5 (for my 20 Int, can't go higher than that) + 6 (For my proficiency bonus at level 20) for a +11. This means that even if my Ultra-Grandmaster chess player is playing an average human who barely knows the rules (+0 check bonus), the grandmaster loses 9% of the time, and draws 2.25% of the time. If my Ultra-grandmaster found a way to double his proficiency bonus, he still can't guarantee a win. Attack rolls and combat checks behave similarly. Thus in 5e, it's basically impossible to become so much better than a 1st-level peasant that success on a single check is a foregone conclusion. In 3.5, on the other hand, at level 7 I could have a bonus on my Knowlege(chess) check of +10 (skill ranks) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 5 Int (old age) + 2 (Masterwork tool) for a total of +20, ensuring success over the guy who just learned the rules yesterday.

I like playing at a wide variety of power levels and capabilities, and I like seeing my character grow from weakling to demigod. 5e doesn't offer that, and 3.5 does. I would strongly recommend 3.5 for you.

EDIT: Regarding combat vs. out-of-combat, you're absolutely right. There are hundreds of spells and abilities in 3.5 that are designed only for out-of combat use, which makes your character much more capable of interacting mechanically and meaningfully with the world around them.

shadowkat678

2017-08-19, 03:17 PM

Hm. How do you balance things and prevent power maxing in story focused games? That's one thing I really don't like about what I hear about older editions. Feels like it would get into the meta gaming territory. I expect that some characters would probably know about a troll's fire resistance, since it's something they're KNOWN for and they're adventurers. But it takes away the fun for everyone else when every puzzle is solved by the guy with maxed int who knows all the history of everything they go against. I really want to balance challenge with roleplay and the freedom of characters to customize.

Also, I tend to play with leveling based on plot points, instead of xp. Tends to prevent grinding or leveling up right before the boss. Would that cause any issues in 3.5?

I also REALLY like 5e character backgrounds and how they add to character backgrounds and individual skills they would have gained from it, which it seems 3.5 doesn't have. Do they have some other equivalent, or has someone made a homebrew that could fit in with 3.5?

Maybe I should just go ahead and ask what things will be missing that 5e did really well, and if anyone has come up with a homebrew solution already that I can look at?

SCOTTEPIPPEN

2017-08-19, 03:27 PM

Yeah. That's the impression I'm getting so far.

What would you say you think, from what you've experienced and heard, the two are like dealing with story vs combat? I tend to really like RP, and pure hack and slash is probably my least favorite types of games to play. I've heard people talking about how D&D is naturally geared towards high magic combat heavy games, although I've had sessions with no combat whatsoever in 5e. Looking at 3.5e, there seems to be a lot more options for out of combat skills, instead of them all being tied to a few.

Which I like so far and seems like it would work for a wider range of game types. As someone who loves playing thieves, I really like the idea of being able to put points into Use Magic Device instead of waiting till 13th level if I want to play a character that really likes her magic trinkets. Or put points into climbing when my strength score isn't the best and I really don't need to focus on any other skills in that area.

The various types of knowledge also seems really cool, since certain characters would know more about magic lore, while others who grew up in the city would rely on street smarts probably would know more local things that would be important. The cross-class skill also seems like a pretty neat idea.

And do you think there's ANY rules that could be brought over and implemented as a home brew? I haven't gotten past the skill part yet in the handbook, but from what I read on the form I get the implication that the turn moving thing is way different. And I really like being able to move 10 ft, attack, disengage, and then go for cover in a good spot. You know. Being a squishy. And it seems like 3.5e rogues are even squishier than 5e in terms of HP.
For my experience RP versus combat depends om the DM's style; each DM has to adapt to fulfill his players' demands but he has to have the freedom to work with its style.
RP doesn't really have rules (just alignement and social-skills/spells related) and it is as important as combat. You can have a great time playing with or without combat, the editions' differences are marginal in this case.
But if you wanna play real D&D you gotta bring combat in to spice things up and that's where editions begin to divide: 5e has straightforward combat and 3.5 has much deeper mechanics and rules (it doesn't mean it is more realistic).
Answering the first question, you can surely adapt stories but not really combat, and I suggest you to mix up combat and RP.

Talking about magic heavy games in 3.5 you should take a look at the "tier list" of classes and prestige classes (another important rule of 3.5, they are specific classes with requirements that make up a lot of the 3.5 variety): magic users will always rule in 3.5.
I'm not sure about 5e though, i saw a tier list once but i can't remember, but i seem to remember that Valor bards are t1 followed by Oath paladins and Tempesti/Light clerics.
You can easily find them online.

Skills are pretty cool you are right and as a rogue/thief-type of lover myself Iove to have variety and options: you can make a trapfinder, a face (social encounters specialist), a sneaky one, an acrobat etc...
but you'll never have enough skills though (8+Intelligence for the rogue, so 11ish at the start of the game and x4 at level one, also choosing a human will give you +1 skill point per level and +4 at level one); you still won't have enough of them but that's where the challenge come from.

About HB I could suggest you to introduce the class paths from 5e: that would spice things up without ruining the combat.
You gotta be careful though because a lot of class path features aren't present in 3.5 and you should have a deep enough game knowledge to bring HB to another game, it could destroy the experience itself.

DeTess

2017-08-19, 03:28 PM

Hm. How do you balance things and prevent power maxing in story focused games? That's one thing I really don't like about what I hear about older editions. Feels like it would get into the meta gaming territory. I expect that some characters would probably know about a troll's fire resistance, since it's something they're KNOWN for and they're adventurers. But it takes away the fun for everyone else when every puzzle is solved by the guy with maxed int who knows all the history of everything they go against. I really want to balance challenge with roleplay and the freedom of characters to customize.

Also, I tend to play with leveling based on plot points, instead of xp. Tends to prevent grinding or leveling up right before the boss. Would that cause any issues in 3.5?

1. This either comes down to the DM putting in some specific restrictions and/or houserules, or just a gentleman's agreement. For a story-focussed game, i think most people should be able to agree to not outright break the game.

2. Regarding creature stat metagaming, that's an issue with every edition, though a GM could get around it by putting in custom creatures.

3. RE: puzzles, this is again not an edition specific issue. If the DM designs puzzles to be solved by a simple skill-check, it's not really a puzzle. With an actual puzzle, the best knowledge checks are going to do is give you hints.

4. No, using milestones is not an issue at all with 3.5. I've never played a 5e or 3.5 campaign in which actual XP was tallied. Levels where always just granted at appropriate moments.

SCOTTEPIPPEN

2017-08-19, 03:37 PM

I have tried both milestones and XP methods and i enjoy XP more.
I had issues with XP given only by defeating mobs so I made my own formula for XP from combat and I introduced XP for RP so that the total XP given at the end of the session would effectively rapresent how much did the player (obviously RP XP was given personally) actually worked to make the session great in all its aspects.

shadowkat678

2017-08-19, 03:47 PM

SCOTTEPIPPEN

2017-08-19, 03:55 PM

Seems a lot to keep up with though. Especially with someone who's pretty bad at being organized.
Not really, i have made a very simple yet effective C++ program with the combat-related formula.
Then i have a self-made table with % (they are listed but when "grading" RP you have to keep in mind that the judgement is purely subjective) if there was combat in the session, and if it was just pure RP I kinda improvise, often I'll try to give as input some CR (they must be appropriate for the quality of the RP, if someone sucked i would insert a lower CR) and see what happens; if i'm not satisfied of the result I'll add a small % to fix things up.
Also i am a DM in a dungeoncrawl-type of campaign, and even if RP is present (a lot), pure RP sessions are just a rare delicacy.

Drakevarg

2017-08-19, 05:36 PM

For me, the main factor that made me stick to 3.5 instead of converting to 5e (which really isn't unacceptably different and is indeed better in many respects) is that 3.5 is a far better simulationist system. At least outside of the realm of spell nonsense, 3.5 has a lot of mechanics that operate on consistent rules that allows for easy adaptation from one preference to another. It's far more reliable than most other systems I've looked at in terms of saying "X is like so because of factors Y and Z" instead of "X is like so because we said so."

Is this universally true? Of course not. The mere existence of TO is proof enough of that. But when it comes to homebrew and houseruling, I find 3.5 to be a much more stable system for deciding how to change things and understanding clearly what effect it will have. 5e for me is in that uncomfortable middle ground between 3.5e's "we have rules for nearly anything you can think of" and nWoD's "we have just enough rules to provide a basic framework and you can just make up everything else as you go along." When you have minutely defined rules for some tasks and essentially nothing for others, it just makes it feel like the game is trying to box me in to certain activities. I hated 4e for this and while 5e is certainly better it's still not what I like.

emeraldstreak

2017-08-19, 05:57 PM

Pex

2017-08-19, 06:19 PM

I do like 5E and play it, but I prefer Pathfinder. There is only one major thing and one minor thing I like about 5E more than Pathfinder. The major thing is no 5 ft step and everyone has Spring Attack. You can move before, during, and after whatever it is you want to do as far your speed allows. You are never forbidden to do anything you can do just because you move or will move more than 5 ft. It is a liberating experience. The minor thing is damage spells are bit more relevant. They're fine in Pathfinder, but they appear to have a bit more impact in 5E.

Pathfinder is better for me in versatility of options as you gain levels, Point Buy implementation, skill use, interaction with magic items, interaction with spells.

Thunder999

2017-08-19, 06:39 PM

With respect to milestone leveling instead of XP it's mostly OK, but there are a few spells that cost XP which you'd have to find a way to deal with.

SCOTTEPIPPEN

2017-08-19, 06:55 PM

With respect to milestone leveling instead of XP it's mostly OK, but there are a few spells that cost XP which you'd have to find a way to deal with.
You can deal with them by simply replacing the XP with some kind of focus/gold.
If you hire someone to cast a spell for you you pay the spell and, if it has an XP cost you must pay an additional X gp where X is the (XP spent)*5.

Crake

2017-08-19, 07:03 PM

The one thing I like about 3.5 over 5e is consistency. Everything uses the same rules, unlike in 5e where monsters and players for example use a decidedly different set of rules. This makes it really hard to, for example, have a player character as a monster. As mentioned, skills and DCs are entirely based upon the DM's arbitrary decisions, and could easily vary from DM to DM for the exact same task, leaving you unsure as to where your character stands, and the whole philosophy of 5e's proficiency bonus system making the dice matter more than the character just doesn't sit well with me.

But honestly, the biggest thing about 5e that annoys me is the lack of official options. The 5e DMG was basically a "how to homebrew" guide for the DM, and wotc just took that as free reign to completely avoid publishing new content, instead putting the onus on the DM to make their own, which is something I find really distasteful. I remember for the first couple of years, whenever this was brought up in a discussion around 5e vs 3.5, people would always say "5e isn't anywhere close to 3.5's development cycle", but if you compare 5e to 3.5 at every stage of their developments, 5e has been consistently far behind on published material, and the published material that HAS been released has been 90% modules rather than supplemental rules.

What that basically means is that if you have a character idea in mind and 5e doesn't cover it, you're forced to beg the DM to put together some homebrew to match your idea, or just pigeon hole yourself into the one of like, 30 character options available.

Drakevarg

2017-08-19, 07:16 PM

The one thing I like about 3.5 over 5e is consistency. Everything uses the same rules, unlike in 5e where monsters and players for example use a decidedly different set of rules.

A thousand times this. Trying to make sense of the contradiction is what made me give up trying to learn 5e.

shadowkat678

2017-08-19, 08:17 PM

A thousand times this. Trying to make sense of the contradiction is what made me give up trying to learn 5e.

Can you guys expand on that? I haven't checked out the monster manual or GM guide for this yet.

Drakevarg

2017-08-19, 08:59 PM

Can you guys expand on that? I haven't checked out the monster manual or GM guide for this yet.

I haven't looked at 5e in about a year so I can't be sure about the specifics, but I think it's actually a trend that might've started towards the end of 3.5. You'd start seeing statblocks for creatures that were intended as prebuilt variants, but oftentimes they wouldn't actually bother coming up with what that variant did differently that provided its new stats. It existed as an isolated pile of numbers that have nothing to do with a "build." Normally creatures, like players, are a clearly defined assemblage of race + attributes + feats + template + class. Which means you can reliably predict how things will change when you slot them in or out. When that doesn't happen, then you lose the ability to transfer things from monster-use to player-use.

5e, if I'm recalling properly, does this as standard procedure. The delineation between what a creature is capable of naturally (meaning except when otherwise noted you could expect any member of the species to perform similarly) or as a result of training or other conditions is poorly established. The system blatantly doesn't care, because the statblock isn't supposed to represent a living creature existing in a world where it could be doing any number of things, it's suppose to represent an aggressive pinata for the players to cut down and loot.

Crake

2017-08-19, 09:06 PM

Can you guys expand on that? I haven't checked out the monster manual or GM guide for this yet.

Monster HD and character levels are practically interchangable in 3.5, skills and saves are all calculated in the same way, combat rules all function the same way no matter who's using them, there are no arbitrary limitations on characters that are ignored by monsters, such as PCs being limited to 20 in an ability. Conversely monsters in 5e can have 12HD but only have a proficiency bonus of +3 because proficiency for monsters isn't calculated the same as it is for players. Then when you want to start giving monsters class levels, things start to get even more complicated.

In 3.5 it's easy, if you give a monster class levels, then everything is easy and straightforward to calculate, because it's exactly the same as making a multiclass character, treating the monster HD as a "monster class".

shadowkat678

2017-08-19, 09:19 PM

Monster HD and character levels are practically interchangable in 3.5, skills and saves are all calculated in the same way, combat rules all function the same way no matter who's using them, there are no arbitrary limitations on characters that are ignored by monsters, such as PCs being limited to 20 in an ability. Conversely monsters in 5e can have 12HD but only have a proficiency bonus of +3 because proficiency for monsters isn't calculated the same as it is for players. Then when you want to start giving monsters class levels, things start to get even more complicated.

In 3.5 it's easy, if you give a monster class levels, then everything is easy and straightforward to calculate, because it's exactly the same as making a multiclass character, treating the monster HD as a "monster class".

What's HD? I've seen that a few times but I don't think 5e has anything called that.

Drakevarg

2017-08-19, 09:24 PM

What's HD? I've seen that a few times but I don't think 5e has anything called that.

Hit Dice. For players, is the basis of how much HP you get per level, and is indirectly the factor by which pretty much everything else is calculated. In 3.5, this is also true for monsters with their racial HD. In 5e though, it pretty much is just there to decide how many times you need to punch it in the face before it goes away, and the other stats are just decided on a "because I said so" basis.

ryu

2017-08-19, 09:31 PM

What's HD? I've seen that a few times but I don't think 5e has anything called that.

Hit Dice are a function of level or some cases Monstrous hit die. They determine how many dice you get to roll for your natural total HP, how many feats you get before bonus feats from various sources add more, how many skill points you have, the maximum number of ranks you can have in a skill, and what sorts of abilities you unlock for having levels in a given class. They're the fundamental block of power everyone and everything from the most omnipotent of wizards to the most basic of commoners have in some degree. Though in addition to all of that different classes and monsters roll different types of dice for HP. Wizard get D4s and have the lowest HP of most classes from HD alone barring special circumstances. Fighters have D12s and precious little else.

shadowkat678

2017-08-19, 09:31 PM

Hit Dice. For players, is the basis of how much HP you get per level, and is indirectly the factor by which pretty much everything else is calculated. In 3.5, this is also true for monsters with their racial HD. In 5e though, it pretty much is just there to decide how many times you need to punch it in the face before it goes away, and the other stats are just decided on a "because I said so" basis.

Ah. Hit Dice. I just haven't seen the abbreviation.

ryu

2017-08-19, 09:33 PM

Ah. Hit Dice. I just haven't seen the abbreviation.

Yeah... This game has a lot of those and this forum still more. Shouldn't take more than a moment to explain most of them though.

Pleh

2017-08-19, 09:40 PM

I like 5e better than 3.5, but my group plays 3.5, and I like it fine.

I like 5e because it has a tremendously low maintenance. It requires almost no work to get going (though, to be fair, this is also part of the problem others talk about with customizing encounters being a bit more aggravating). I've been playing about 10 years and most of the time, the classic, out of the box adventures hold up pretty well for my needs. Taking out the quintillion possible factors just frees the group to focus on the story and roleplaying rather than trying to justify all the character options the player spent hours cobbling together.

It's just a relief to be have a lightweight system alternative.

"But you can play 3.5 without going crazy"

Not in my experience. Every time my group sets out to do that in 3.5, at least one person ends up pushing the optization envelope "because they found this one cool thing." Then the rest of the party invariably follows. It is always lost step by step, level by level, so the gentleman's agreement is never broken, just gently bent over and over to make an origami swan.

Nothing wrong with those games, just that they aren't really "3.5 without the crazy stuff." It always manages to seep in.

5e gives a lot of control by just saying, "no" to a lot of crazy things.

Crake

2017-08-19, 09:44 PM

Hit Dice are a function of level or some cases Monstrous hit die. They determine how many dice you get to roll for your natural total HP, how many feats you get before bonus feats from various sources add more, how many skill points you have, the maximum number of ranks you can have in a skill, and what sorts of abilities you unlock for having levels in a given class. They're the fundamental block of power everyone and everything from the most omnipotent of wizards to the most basic of commoners have in some degree. Though in addition to all of that different classes and monsters roll different types of dice for HP. Wizard get D4s and have the lowest HP of most classes from HD alone barring special circumstances. Fighters Barbarians, knights and warblades have D12s and precious little else.

Must have been thinking of a houserule you guys play with, cause fighters don't have d12 :smalltongue:

One of the other things I really hate about 5e that I was just reminded of by reading Pleh's post above is that levelup feels really unsatisfying. I remember times when I leveled up and literally got nothing aside from a few extra hit points. That's not fun at all. In 3.5 every level you at least get something, even if it's just saves, bab and some skillpoints. Something, anything to make your character better at what they do, rather than just being able to take an extra hit.

I have a joke about level 5 in 3.5 though, that it's the saddest level, because unless you're a full bab class, or multiclassing, you only get skillpoints and hp at that level, no bab, no saves, no feat (plus class features if you get any that level).

ryu

2017-08-19, 09:53 PM

Must have been thinking of a houserule you guys play with, cause fighters don't have d12 :smalltongue:

It's called pity dice. It was done so NPC fighters would make slightly better meat for hire. Also ALL NPC fighters take that variant that adds a bunch of class skills because they can't afford being blind and deaf.

Edit: Saves, BAB, Feat progress, Skill points, New methods of telling reality to shut up and sit down, New MAGNITUDES of such, and also your pet shoulder critter becomes slightly more useful.

martixy

2017-08-19, 11:15 PM

What do you like about it?

Above all, the range.

The ability for one system to accommodate anything from pitiful schmucks to literal demigods.

Make you feel that transition.

ksbsnowowl

2017-08-19, 11:26 PM

I also REALLY like 5e character backgrounds and how they add to character backgrounds and individual skills they would have gained from it, which it seems 3.5 doesn't have. Do they have some other equivalent, or has someone made a homebrew that could fit in with 3.5?

Core 3.5 doesn't really have this, but there are aspects like this in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting / Player's Guide to Faerûn (3.0 and 3.5 treated them slightly differently; PGtF was the 3.5 update to FR's Regions), primarily with Regional Feats, and bonus starting equipment packages depending on your region. Some of those regional feats can actually add extra weapon proficiencies or skill bonuses to your character, and one or two will give you additional class skills (usually Knowledge skills).

Also, Pathfinder (which is a 90% similar derivative of 3.5) usually does story-related Background Traits with minor bonuses for their Adventure Paths. For example, I'm gearing up to run Curse of the Crimson Throne after my 17th level PC's finish the last module in our current campaign. The Player's Guide for that Adventure Path has 5 different Background Traits that each player can choose from, and each has flavor about something that happened in your past and had a major effect on you as a person. Each trait gives a minor bonus that is about half as powerful as a feat (+1 to a saving throw, or +2 bonus to one skill; feats would be +2 to a save, or +2 to two related skills), and each trait actually had two options (based upon if the background flavor text applied to you personally, or to a friend/relative of yours; see below). These Background Traits are an extra little bonus that all PC's get going into the Adventure Path.

Here is an example of one Background Trait having two different options; as a PC you would only get to pick one.

Framed
Someone you know and love was accused of murder...

Family Honor: The person framed was a family member, perhaps a father or brother. You managed to trick the [false witness] into revealing the truth with your skilled tongue, and thus gain a +2 bonus on Bluff checks.
Dropout: You were the one accused. Although you were eventually freed when a friend confronted the fisherman and got the truth, the damage had been done. You were forced to leave your [mage school] or church. As a result, you were forced to self-train and promised yourself you would become better at your chosen profession despite the spurning of your peers. You gain a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks.

Also, to touch again upon the "monsters are the same as PC's" in 3.5 thing... I'm primarily a DM, so I'm used to reading monster stat blocks. When I do get a chance to play, oftentimes I'll show up with a typed-up and printed-out "character sheet" that is actually laid out like a monster stat block. It works, because all the same info is there as would be on a character sheet.

Florian

2017-08-20, 02:17 AM

Can you guys expand on that? I haven't checked out the monster manual or GM guide for this yet.

In 3E/PF, everything uses the same "building blocks". Same core mechanics, same skills, feats, spells, and so on. Monsters basically follow the same rules as characters, with a "monster" representing more or less "a class". Should I want to use a "Medusa Assassin", then I look at the "Medusa class" and see if I can slap on the "Assassin class" and build my custom monster from there, more or less exactly like I´ do with a regular character.

Besides that, 3E/PF is more "simulationist". DC are keyed to the task and stay largely unchanged. Climbing a tree will always have the same DC, breaking down a wooden door will have the same DC, and so on.

Uckleverry

2017-08-20, 03:36 AM

3.5 was designed during a time where the understanding of tabletop RPGs as a whole wasn't as developed as it is today. Unlike later editions and games, the designers of 3.5 didn't have a clear vision and grasp of what their rules ultimately would produce during play. It's a more archaic system, building off even more archaic systems.

5e's encounter building and enemy challenge rules are said to be inaccurate, particularly as the party gets to higher levels. 3.5 is MUCH WORSE in this regard. The idea of using the same rules for both PCs and monsters/NPCs makes a lot of sense conceptually (and can give those goody symmetry feelings), but in practice the results are pretty terrible.

In fact, 3.5 as a rules system kind of falls apart mathematically at higher levels -- meaning DCs, bonuses, AC, etc. lack the consistency that they have at lower levels. Again, 5e is sometimes criticized for the same thing, but 3.5's problems in this area are way, way worse.

3.5's rules assume tracking XP. It's difficult to use a story-based leveling approach because 3.5 XP is used as a resource. Spells and psionic powers can sometimes require expending XP, and you need to spend XP to craft even the lowliest scrolls and potions.

An issue with the attempted simulationist approach is that it's nigh impossible to account for everything one could do with rules. Thus, 3.5's so-called simulation makes for a very strange simulation that doesn't really make sense. Ultimately, it's a simulation if you close your eyes and pretend that it's one. The rules make much more sense if you treat them as rules for adventurers, not the world as a whole.

There are tons of differences between 3.5 and 5e. Healing is one -- 3.5 doesn't have the concept of short rests, but it does have cheap healing wands. PCs can start every fight at full health because they're healed to full HP using disposable magic. Also, differences between class abilities can make for massive gulfs in competence -- especially at mid to high levels. Class balance is abysmal in 3.5.

In fact, if you don't use spells or their equivalent, you lack the ability to shape the world and the story, particularly at higher levels (spot the pattern?). No other edition, older and newer, has as big of a gap between what a non-magic user and a magic user can accomplish. It does mean that spellcasters can be a lot of fun to play in 3.5 (and complex) -- but at the expense of the mundane fighters and other similar classes.

Now, does this all mean that I consider 3.5 a failure and a terrible game? No. It can be a lot of fun to play and run. But -- that assumes system mastery and familiarity with its weaknesses and strengths. I've played the edition for over a decade, so I know its ins and outs. I can tweak it here and there to make for a better playing experience. However, there's no escaping the fact that 3.5 just isn't a particularly well-designed game as a whole.

Reading your replies, I would honestly recommend that you stick with 5e. I think it's a better fit for what you're looking for in D&D. It won't be too difficult to adjust 3.5 adventures to 5e -- just remember to cut down on the magic items to a big degree!

Endarire

2017-08-20, 03:52 AM

3.5 and 5e, having played both, are drastically different.

3.5 is a planner's edition. You can plan characters, campaigns, and concepts for days, months, or years and fine tune details based on the approximately 500,000 pages of official content (including books, modules, web articles, and magazines). You have options. This also means that your group needs to decide how to interpret the thousands of options you may use and the tens or hundreds of options you will.

5e is very much about speed of learning. It's very much pick up and play without focusing on the rules very much. There are fewer ambiguities. Experienced players don't need clarifying on tens of topics via hundreds of questions.

Both editions have their perks. I prefer 5e's simplicity sometimes (because it's less work), but I've also enjoyed the notion of playing a character who can solo the game or break the game if he chooses.

3.5 has more options for playstyle, too. You could turn it into a turn-based strategy game like Civilization or a turn-based Dungeon Keeper. Characters can have minions easily via animate dead, etc. You can be a shopkeeper. You can make a tremendous profit by the rules without adventuring (like with an Elf who worked 100 years and saved his Profession check money).

Regarding high-level balance in a 3.5 game that lasted 18 months for which I was the primary GM, it was playing both sides of the table. I typically made party characters and challenged them based on what seemed appropriate according to my vision of the plot, changing pregenerated foes as prudent. I usually sent the group against casters who could do similar tricks. My rules was no enemy level 9 spells until the group could, then it was even - but often otherwise casters could use the same spells as the party or up to 1 spell level higher. It also helped that the group was generally new at 3.5, willing and able to learn,, and trusting of me as GM. I wanted the group to succeed.

shadowkat678

2017-08-27, 03:26 PM

Recherché

2017-08-27, 03:59 PM

High level 3.5/pathfinder characters are really frigging powerful, much more so than high level 5e characters. For reference points the highest power characters in Lord of the Rings hit about level 6 in 3.5 and Hercules is around level 12.

There are two main ways you deal with this. I generally like to play along with it. Make the threats as ridiculously powerful as the players and remember that the things that were challenges 5 levels ago are trivial. And don't be surprised if the players conquer a country or two by themselves. One of the best examples of this style is a campaign journal called Tales of Wyre (http://talesofwyrearchive.blogspot.com/2014/01/zip-archive-of-all-story-updates-happy.html?m=1); that group starts with a succubus being a threat and by the end they've taken over planes and are personal friends with gods.

The other way to deal with the high power curve in 3.5 is to just not let PCs reach high levels. Slow down advancement, institute a level cap and/or end the campaign before the PCs reach ludicrous levels. There's a while family of variant rules called "e6", "e8" and the like that declare that level as the highest that PCs can reach and then allow people to use XP to purchase feats or other advances that aren't levels.

shadowkat678

2017-08-27, 04:25 PM

Endarire

2017-08-27, 04:32 PM

If you want a level cap, you tell them the level cap pre-campaign. "We're only going to level 6 or 8 or... and if we would gain another level, you instead gain a feat."

Kurald Galain

2017-08-27, 04:37 PM

Another way of handling it is the Adventure Paths. They're pre-written to work all the way from level 1 through 16 or so, or you can tell your players you'll only be doing the first three books and end at level 8.

(not all AP are equally good, of course, but that's a different topic)

shadowkat678

2017-08-27, 04:37 PM

If you want a level cap, you tell them the level cap pre-campaign. "We're only going to level 6 or 8 or... and if we would gain another level, you instead gain a feat."

I like the feat idea. Do you have any other ideas of what to do for them so it doesn't feel stagnant after the cap gets reached?

Also any Adventure Paths wouldn't work, because I'm now planning this for a origional campaign.

Endarire

2017-08-27, 05:41 PM

D&D 3.5 E6 Rules (https://esix.pbworks.com/f/E6v041.pdf)

Also, if you want to get a rough idea of the power of 3.5 characters in 5e, then triple or quadruple the number of spells casters get AND remove the requirement to maintain Concentration on spells that normally would.

Sam K

2017-08-28, 03:44 AM

5th edition is a theme park.

3.5 is a sandbox.

5th ed is welcoming. You just pay admission, get on the ride you like and ride it. The bumper cars are bumpy, the roller coaster is rolly and sometimes a bit scary (but it's well maintained, so not really), and then there's cotton candy! Usually everyone has a good time. Sometimes there's a new ride, but while you can pick your ride, and sometimes get lots of rides, then in the end you can't change them much. You get the rides someone else built and you make the most of those.

3.5 can be over whelming and confusing. You get a bucket and a bunch of sand. What should you do with it? You have to decide! You can build a castle! Or you can dig a really deep hole. Or maybe you bury yourself up to your neck in sand? Maybe your sand castle becomes a sand city, and then your friend builds an army of sand-people led by a sand-dragon who lays siege on your city. And once you get bored with that, you can build a sand-city-sand-dragon-hybrid! Of course, you may have a jerk of a friend who stomps on your cool sand city and then kicks sand in your face. But that's not really a problem with sand boxes, it's a problem with you playing with jerks.

What I'm saying is, 3.5 is a lot more complex. You get more options and can build pretty much anything you like, but you need to have an idea of what you want to build and what you like. And if you play it with jerks, it's easy for them to ruin everyones fun - much easier than in 5th ed. So if you have cool friends and like building cool stuff together, 3.5 may be for you. If you just want to ride bumper cars but don't want them too bumpy because one of your friends would commit vehicular manslaughter on the rest of you if you let him get away with it, 5th ed is probably a better choice.

Crake

2017-08-28, 04:03 AM

I like the idea of a level cap, although I wonder how you'd tell that to a new group of players and how they'd handle it.

Generally, as a DM, I say to my players "This is what I'm interested in running, this is how I'm running it, who wants to play". 9/10 my players will agree to my limitatons, because a) they consider me a good DM, and believe that I can make the game fun, and b) they realise that by me putting in limitations it means I have a theme in mind, and that's how I want to/feel comfortable running my game, and they accept that as part of the package of playing with me as their DM. After all, a sour, grumpy, bitter DM will never be a good DM, and DMs become sour, bitter and grumpy by constantly doing things to please others, and never doing anything for themselves.

Point is, if you're worried about how your players are going to react, you're being too soft. Tell them that this is what you're running, and that they can build whatever they want within those limitations. If they're not interested, so be it, someone else will be happy to take their place, and they can come to the next game that appeals to them instead.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-28, 04:19 AM

Pleh

2017-08-28, 05:01 AM

I like the feat idea. Do you have any other ideas of what to do for them so it doesn't feel stagnant after the cap gets reached?

Also any Adventure Paths wouldn't work, because I'm now planning this for a origional campaign.

Well, here's a question for you. How often will your group meet? How many encounters per session? How difficult will these encounters be (relative to party level)?

These questions will tell you how much material you need to plan. A level cap doesn't feel too bad when the bad guys are designed to challenge the players at the intended level.

Set yourself goals for where you'd like the story to take these characters. Plan your encounters to grant sufficient XP to get them there in a reasonable amount of time (not too fast or too slow).

My reason for saying this is, in my 10 years of playing 3.5, I've never finished a campaign. Very few of my PCs made it to level 10. Whether life made people move away or we just got tired of the one story, we kept switching over and over. Not that every group struggles with this, but it's something to keep in mind. Your concerns about level cap may not ever come up if the campaign runs out before you even get there.

lord_khaine

2017-08-28, 05:38 AM

Mordaedil

2017-08-28, 06:00 AM

I mean, there's really not that many limits in 5th edition, but it lacks in content what 3.5 edition spent nearly a decade building up, which is quite something.

There's a lot of bonus content, like more than any other edition so far. It's also incredibly robust, but I do recommend you use your common sense when making the rulings, because the wording in the written text can sometimes be a bit unclear and you can essentially build a master thesis on the depths of the system itself.

It is a fun system to learn though and it is actually easier than you'd think to teach to others as well, thanks to video games of the system available.

NWN and NWN2 both use some of the rules and have manuals that explain the rules in a very casual way, making it easy to get into and can serve as a diving board into learning the more complex systems of 3rd edition. And you can mod them to support some extra rules with the Player's Resource Consortium packs, but they are kinda complex to set up, but worth it if you do.

It was playing them online that got me into D&D and roleplaying to begin with, so sorry if I shell them a little extra hard.

The only way any game can come close to competing with 3rd edition for me is if it became class-less and offered as much indepth systems.

Knaight

2017-08-28, 06:31 AM

They're fairly similar games - 3.5 is basically 5e altered to be much more finnicky, much higher power, and with vastly more expansions. Both of them are good systems if you like RPGs primarily to interact with the games as systems, both of term are terrible systems if you want something minimalist as background framework while interacting primarily with the setting, and while 3.5 is more tightly defined than 5e and requires fewer subjective judgements from the GM in the course of play the actual difference there is dramatically overstated. It's still worth learning 3.5 as if it were a different system instead of assuming that they're similar (that will lead to rules being off), but to be blunt a lot of the people hyping how different they are have little to no experience with RPGs that aren't D&D.

Crake

2017-08-28, 06:40 AM

My reason for saying this is, in my 10 years of playing 3.5, I've never finished a campaign. Very few of my PCs made it to level 10. Whether life made people move away or we just got tired of the one story, we kept switching over and over. Not that every group struggles with this, but it's something to keep in mind. Your concerns about level cap may not ever come up if the campaign runs out before you even get there.

I feel your pain. I have a slightly different problem in that most of my games get to a point where everything just becomes too hard to keep track of and the players just give up and ask for an epilogue ending, so we can move on and try something new. It's kinda annoying from a creative standpoint, but it's why I now run e6 almost exclusively. The low levels keep things challenging, while not getting too mind boggling, with wizards activating trap cards and contingencies and all this and that, which seemed to be something my players disliked quite a bit. So instead of playing the wizards like chumps, which didn't sit well with me, I instead just ran e6 and it's been pretty smooth sailing ever since.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-08-28, 06:57 AM

They're fairly similar games - 3.5 is basically 5e altered to be much more finnicky, much higher power, and with vastly more expansions.
Basically this. Both games are built around similar frameworks and play out in roughly the same way (once you get a grasp on the rules). 3.5 is basically adding a bunch of complexity to 5e, skewing the balance well in favor of spellcasting, then writing a huge amount of new material.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-28, 07:19 AM

I mean, there's really not that many limits in 5th edition

Well, the obvious limit to everything in 5E is that you'll never be able to do something that a first-level character cannot do (other than higher-level spells), because that's what bounded accuracy means. Almost all character progress is either becoming 5% better at something after five levels, or gaining advantage on something. This is in stark contrast with 3E/3.5/PF.

So an important decision point between 3E and 5E is whether or not you like bounded accuracy, which is strictly a matter of taste.

Cosi

2017-08-28, 08:48 AM

5e's encounter building and enemy challenge rules are said to be inaccurate, particularly as the party gets to higher levels. 3.5 is MUCH WORSE in this regard. The idea of using the same rules for both PCs and monsters/NPCs makes a lot of sense conceptually (and can give those goody symmetry feelings), but in practice the results are pretty terrible.

3e's monster system is dramatically better than 4e's or 5e's, because it makes monsters an understandable part of the world. If monsters don't follow rules that are largely "like the PCs", you get stupid crap like 4e where monsters don't drop the equipment they nominally carry. That's dumb and bad, and you should not support it.

In fact, 3.5 as a rules system kind of falls apart mathematically at higher levels -- meaning DCs, bonuses, AC, etc. lack the consistency that they have at lower levels. Again, 5e is sometimes criticized for the same thing, but 3.5's problems in this area are way, way worse.

5e is rightly criticized because instituting Bounded Accuracy means you never reach high levels. 5e math works as well as E6 3e math, because that's all 5e actually is -- E6 stretched over twenty levels.

An issue with the attempted simulationist approach is that it's nigh impossible to account for everything one could do with rules. Thus, 3.5's so-called simulation makes for a very strange simulation that doesn't really make sense. Ultimately, it's a simulation if you close your eyes and pretend that it's one. The rules make much more sense if you treat them as rules for adventurers, not the world as a whole.

GNS nonsense is nonsense. Is 5e not simulating something? Is 3e not a game? Of course not!

In fact, if you don't use spells or their equivalent, you lack the ability to shape the world and the story, particularly at higher levels (spot the pattern?). No other edition, older and newer, has as big of a gap between what a non-magic user and a magic user can accomplish. It does mean that spellcasters can be a lot of fun to play in 3.5 (and complex) -- but at the expense of the mundane fighters and other similar classes.

You're looking at this wrong. Yes, 3e casters are stronger than 3e mundanes. But it's not like 3e mundanes are massively weaker than other editions. Yeah, the 3e Fighter's combat numbers are slightly worse than the AD&D Fighter's, and Leadership is a feat and not a class ability. Huge power drop, that. The whole gap comes from giving casters the ability to reach a higher level of power, and that is a good thing. Would it be a better thing if mundanes also reached that power level? Absolutely. But looking at it as "class balance is broken" is the wrong perspective.

If you want a level cap, you tell them the level cap pre-campaign. "We're only going to level 6 or 8 or... and if we would gain another level, you instead gain a feat."

E6 is a good idea, extra feats after 6th level in it are not. If you want to stop advancement, stop advancement. Don't kind of stop advancement. Giving everyone a feat means that strategies that can be advanced by a pile of feats (for example, meta-magic blasters) keep getting better and other strategies (for example, things martials do) just get more versatile.

Basically this. Both games are built around similar frameworks and play out in roughly the same way (once you get a grasp on the rules). 3.5 is basically adding a bunch of complexity to 5e, skewing the balance well in favor of spellcasting, then writing a huge amount of new material.

5e is already skewed in favor of casters, because casters get animate dead, and bounded accuracy means casting animate dead makes you win the game. In most editions of D&D, you can make a reasonable character by following one of two rules:

1. Make some kind of Wizard (3e: take save or dies, 4e: make an Orbizard, 5e: make a Necromancer).
2. If you can't make a Wizard, make a martial character that adds damage bonuses to multiple attacks (3e: Flask Rogue, 4e: Ranger).

Acting like caster supremacy is 3e problem is apologizing for the massive design failures of 4e and 5e. The difference between 3e and other editions isn't that it's broken, it's that it lets high level characters do cooler things.

Zanos

2017-08-28, 09:12 AM

3.5's rules assume tracking XP. It's difficult to use a story-based leveling approach because 3.5 XP is used as a resource. Spells and psionic powers can sometimes require expending XP, and you need to spend XP to craft even the lowliest scrolls and potions.
No it isn't. Just award XP in "you level up" chunks. Amount that people have spent on other things is deducted from that. Done.

Story based advancement is dumb anyway, because it denies that D&D is fundamentally a game where the PCs have agency and encourages railroading, and also denies the PCs rewards for overcoming difficult encounters.

Drakevarg

2017-08-28, 10:14 AM

Story based advancement is dumb anyway, because it denies that D&D is fundamentally a game where the PCs have agency and encourages railroading, and also denies the PCs rewards for overcoming difficult encounters.

Only if you do it poorly, on pre-scripted points. Any decent DM should expect the players to go off-script, so story-based advancement should happen at appropriate story beats (successfully completed a journey, made it out of a hazardous location, found out something important, whatever), not because your notes say "when X happens, the players level up." A railroader is going to control that occurrence anyway, XP or no: if they want the party to level up on plotpoint X and only on plotpoint X, they'll simply contrive it so no combat happens until then.

Knaight

2017-08-28, 10:52 AM

Story based advancement is dumb anyway, because it denies that D&D is fundamentally a game where the PCs have agency and encourages railroading, and also denies the PCs rewards for overcoming difficult encounters.

Even putting aside how D&D tends to have loot, it only "denies the PCs rewards for overcoming difficult encounters" if you assume that there should be a direct mechanical reward on a per encounter basis. Not including that at all isn't the same as denying it.

JNAProductions

2017-08-28, 12:14 PM

5E is a much simpler system. It's more balanced (in 3.5 parlance, pretty much everyone is solidly T3) and more intuitive, and has less bloat.

3.5 is a much more complex system. It has many more options, which can lead to shenanigans, but with experienced players/DM and a willingness to work with each other instead of against each other, you can do a lot more than you can in 5E (without brew).

In 5E, the d20 always matters. Even the highest bonus (barring magic items) has a DC that can be failed on a 2 and someone with a slight penalty (-1, to be exact) can succeed on a 20. (It's DC 19.)

In 3.5, the d20 can stop mattering except to specialists. By level 10, you have 13 skill ranks, probably +4 or +5 ability, easily +8 or so item of competence, and maybe some other bonuses. That's more than +20, meaning something that's difficult for the specialist (with their +26 bonus) is completely impossible for someone without ranks and other miscellaneous bonuses, and something difficult for the untrained person is unfailable to the trained person.

Note that neither of those are better than the other-some people prefer to have the d20 stay relevant, others prefer that character builds matter much more than hot dice.

Overall, it depends what you're looking for which you'd want to play. Beer and pretzels style, sit down, roll dice, have fun? Play 5E. Complex, math-heavy and billions of options? Play 3.5. Deeply nuanced stories, rewarding, tactical gameplay, and an awesome time? Play whichever edition your DM is more familiar with and get a good DM.

Pleh

2017-08-28, 12:25 PM

Story based advancement is dumb anyway, because it denies that D&D is fundamentally a game where the PCs have agency and encourages railroading, and also denies the PCs rewards for overcoming difficult encounters.

It's just a different tool. Some tools do certain jobs better than others.

If I were using SBA, I'd split it with regular advancement, so players stillbget xp for whatever, but only half what they normally would. Completing milestones grants the other half their due.

SBA is totally unnecessary, in any case, but it's just a tool, so how good or bad is mostly in how you try to use it.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-28, 03:04 PM

In 5E, the d20 always matters. Even the highest bonus (barring magic items) has a DC that can be failed on a 2 and someone with a slight penalty (-1, to be exact) can succeed on a 20. (It's DC 19.)
More realistically speaking, the d20 matters and your character's skill does not. A trained person will lose from an untrained person about 30% of the time. It is quite common for the dumb barbarian to know facts that the learned wizard doesn't, or conversely for the weak wizard to physically break a door that the barbarian fails to smash through.

Cosi

2017-08-28, 03:16 PM

I fundamentally don't get bounded accuracy. I don't see the point of having a level system when high level people struggle with the same tasks as low level ones. If you just want people to get more abilities, just give them more abilities.

No it isn't. Just award XP in "you level up" chunks. Amount that people have spent on other things is deducted from that. Done.

Story based advancement is dumb anyway, because it denies that D&D is fundamentally a game where the PCs have agency and encourages railroading, and also denies the PCs rewards for overcoming difficult encounters.

Those are downsides. But there are also downsides to XP-based advancement. For example, it gives people an incentive to find and slaughter every enemy in the castle, rather than pursuing their actual objective. XP itself also ends up being used as a currency, which also ends up being bad because it rewards people who can guess (or know) when the campaign ends.

The best solution is for the DM to hand out levels at milestones in the story, whatever that story happens to be. So if the PCs pick up on his hints to go battle the mad priest of the old gods, they get a level when they beat him. But if they instead go off to do an intrigue adventure in the imperial court, they get a level when the unmask the members of the conspiracy. Or whatever.

A compromise might be to simply hand out levels every fixed number of sessions.

BassoonHero

2017-08-28, 04:08 PM

I hate the 3.5 XP system. It's way too much number-crunching for too little gain, and XP expenditures only make it worse.

I use a simple system. XP is awarded at the end of the session, generally 2-4. You need 12 XP to level up. You can set the pace of advancement very easily by changing this number.

XP costs are completely replaced with gold costs.

Closer to the topic: I wish that 3.5 were better balanced. I wish that high-level characters were less dependent on magic loot. But I don't like bounded accuracy and I definitely don't like replacing the infinite complexity of 3.5 with inflexible pre-made options and advantage/disadvantage. Pathfinder tried, but I don't feel that it succeeded. Grod's house rules seem like a good starting point (I can't link them due to low post count).

Zanos

2017-08-28, 05:09 PM

Those are downsides. But there are also downsides to XP-based advancement. For example, it gives people an incentive to find and slaughter every enemy in the castle, rather than pursuing their actual objective. XP itself also ends up being used as a currency, which also ends up being bad because it rewards people who can guess (or know) when the campaign ends.
XP is awarded for overcoming threats. That includes bypassing them. Sneaking past the guards gives you XP for defeating them, assuming that guards were blocking your objective.

Hurnn

2017-08-28, 05:43 PM

In a lot of ways 5th is like 3.5 for dummies. I personally like 5th and if someone or a group was just starting out I would say 5th is the way to go, way less rules intensive much lower learning curve, much harder to inadvertently screw yourself.

If on the other hand it's not your first rodeo, you like rules complexity, and unlimited options 3.5 is great. It is my personal preference. I love the d20 system even if parts were implemented poorly to very poorly, and class balance is terrible (both things you can improve/fix with some effort). I really like the options and flexibility available. Also Things generally feel more challenging than in 5th or the edition that shall not be named.

There are some caveats:
The amount of available material is mind boggling, there is so much you can not possibly remember it all and the weird interaction things may have.
It is also pretty easy to break the game inadvertently, or on purpose.

Cosi

2017-08-28, 06:32 PM

XP is awarded for overcoming threats. That includes bypassing them. Sneaking past the guards gives you XP for defeating them, assuming that guards were blocking your objective.

How is that different from milestone XP then? When you complete your task, you get an arbitrary pile of XP, regardless of your actual tactics (after all, anything you didn't face head on was necessarily bypassed). Now the DM just has to figure out the XP values for the castle's scullery maids and dogs, instead of just saying "level up".

Jack_Simth

2017-08-28, 07:06 PM

Hm. How do you balance things and prevent power maxing in story focused games?
Gentleman's agreement that you're all there to have fun, that fun is expected to take a particular form, and any action that's liable to cause problems for the expected form of fun should be skipped. As a specific example, in a re-recruitment thread, my group included:

NOTE: These are provided as target optimizations to be in the ballpark with, not as records to beat. You'll notice, for instance, that Darshee Elazumin Dazeiros is a highly Charisma-focused build... that does NOT have a +6 Charisma Enhancement item. There's a reason for that. High optimization is not a problem; low optimization is not a problem. A problem happens when there is a high degree of difference in optimization levels within a party. The optimizer who can solo Great Wyrms in one round should not be in the same party as the Monk that can barely hit a tree. Neither is a "wrong" build - they just don't belong in the same party. Try to belong in our party.

As long as everyone is in the same ballpark (including the DM), it's not usually overly difficult for the DM to adapt challenges to match.

But then, that's the case in any game played for fun, when it boils down to it.

I expect that some characters would probably know about a troll's fire resistance, since it's something they're KNOWN for and they're adventurers. But it takes away the fun for everyone else when every puzzle is solved by the guy with maxed int who knows all the history of everything they go against.
...

If they're doing it with in-character rolls and asking, then they've paid character resources to be able to do it. If it's getting too out of hand, raise the difficulty of the knowledge checks.

If they're doing it with out-of-character knowledge, then you can enforce knowledge checks by expedient of randomizing things whenever someone starts working that way. The Half-orc barbarian with an Int of 6 puts away his +2 Flaming Burst Greataxe in favor of his +1 Shocking Burst Greatsword when facing the iron golem? Whatever. 2d6 (Slow, Heal): 1:Fire, 2:Frost, 3:Shock, 4:Acid, 5:Sonic, 6:Force.

[/QUOTE]

I really want to balance challenge with roleplay and the freedom of characters to customize.
The above gentleman's agreement really does solve most things, provided you can largely trust your friends.

Also, I tend to play with leveling based on plot points, instead of xp. Tends to prevent grinding or leveling up right before the boss. Would that cause any issues in 3.5?
An amount of wealth gain is also expected.

Pleh

2017-08-28, 08:01 PM

How is that different from milestone XP then? When you complete your task, you get an arbitrary pile of XP, regardless of your actual tactics (after all, anything you didn't face head on was necessarily bypassed). Now the DM just has to figure out the XP values for the castle's scullery maids and dogs, instead of just saying "level up".

Pretty sure the DMG defines xp rewards this way (doesn't matter how you get past the guard, that is). I'm afb, sorry to not be able to cite the page. Maybe I'll add it later if no one else gets there first.

I think you're inventing problems that don't exist, though. Say in your "castle" example, there are multiple ways to get to your objective within. Milestone XP says you get a set amount of XP upon reaching your objective. But counting XP per encounter doesn't add all the experience of every possible path and encounter, only the ones you were forced to interact with and navigate.

You add the XP for every scullery maid and dog which the party had to get past. This is only the ones that could have detected the party on their route to the objective, not any of the others they might have encountered on a different route.

For example, say the party did some research and found the following routes into the castle: straight through the front gate (encountering the guards), sneaking through the sewers (encountering rats, servants, and traps), vaulting over the wall (physical challenges... and probably the guards again), or magicking in (attracting the attention of the castle's defensive mage).

Milestone XP says, "you get X amount of XP regardless how you reach the objective".

Regular XP says:

"you get Guard Reward xp for getting in through Front Gate route (no matter how you get past the guards)

OR Rats + Servants + Traps xp for getting in through sewer (no matter how you get past them)

OR Guards + physical challenges xp for going over the wall

OR possibly no xp for magicking (since it provokes an encounter, but hasn't been resolved yet)"

The advantage here for using milestone xp is expediency, simplicity, and making sure the party stays the same level.

Regular XP lets the players decide if they want an easier route with less XP or a more challenging route with greater rewards (and more dire consequences).

TotallyNotEvil

2017-08-28, 11:02 PM

I've always used story-based advancement.

Item crafting? Do away with XP. Most spells that require it funciton just as well with just gold, or a little bit more of it to make up for the XP price. Never had a problem. Gate or Wish or Genesis would need some tweaking, of course, but that is hardly a concern for most games.

And honestly, high-level issues do get a bit overblown here. The players will get away with exactly what you let them.

If it's a "no need for fighters, I will just Planar Bind a dozen Balors" game, the druid is probably in his time-bubble and the cleric's hammerblows get confused with direct divine smiting.

Realistically, the wizard player has probably read Logic Ninja's Guide and plays some decent BFC, the Barbarian has never felt the need for more damage, the Rogue was thrilled to find Daring Outlaw, the cleric is just all-around useful.

If you (or your players) like to do some legwork, there are some trivial solutions to this "problem". Sorcerers, Favoured Souls, Beguillers, Dred Necros, Warmages, Spirit Shamans, Warlocks, Dragon Fire Adepts, Duskblades, Warblades, Crusaders, Swordsages, Totemists, Psions, and so on and so forth. Hell, something as simple as a Craven Rogue, or Whirling Barbarian, or Wildshape Ranger, goes a long way.

There are some splats out there that are just plain cool, like Frostburn or Sandstorm.

One of my biggest dislikes for 5E is how characters feel so... Generic. Not only the "there are few options", but the whole bounded accuracy thing, well, characters tend to end up looking all the same, doing mostly the same things.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 04:21 AM

3e's monster system is dramatically better than 4e's or 5e's, because it makes monsters an understandable part of the world. If monsters don't follow rules that are largely "like the PCs", you get stupid crap like 4e where monsters don't drop the equipment they nominally carry. That's dumb and bad, and you should not support it.

See, this is why you should stop talking about systems you don't know much about. For example, I have only cursory experience with Shadowrun, so I don't offer my views on the system's perks and features as I don't truly know them.

4e creatures have equipment listed on the stats. They "drop" them. Please stop with these misleading falsehoods.

Moreover, 4e's design doesn't treat stats -- whether PC or NPC -- as the totality of a creature's abilities. A specific individual can be represented with different stats, depending on the context. This can be immensely freeing as a DM.

Acting like caster supremacy is 3e problem is apologizing for the massive design failures of 4e and 5e. The difference between 3e and other editions isn't that it's broken, it's that it lets high level characters do cooler things.

You keep saying that 3e's design is massively better than either 4e's or 5e's, yet the latter two systems are not the subject of endless topics on how their various aspects could be fixed. You're free to prefer 3.5's design, but that's subjective, and it's not a good look when you criticize systems inaccurately. You need to know the systems first before you can criticize them properly.

Sam K

2017-08-29, 04:28 AM

You keep saying that 3e's design is massively better than either 4e's or 5e's, yet the latter two systems are not the subject of endless topics on how their various aspects could be fixed. You're free to prefer 3.5's design, but that's subjective, and it's not a good look when you criticize systems inaccurately. You need to know the systems first before you can criticize them properly.

That COULD well be because people who enjoy discussing tweaking/fixing/improving systems tend to favour complex systems.

Not saying 3.5 doesn't have issues though, but I genuinely favour a broken system that can be fixed to let me build what I want, over a working system that lets me build what someone else wants.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 05:07 AM

That COULD well be because people who enjoy discussing tweaking/fixing/improving systems tend to favour complex systems.

Not saying 3.5 doesn't have issues though, but I genuinely favour a broken system that can be fixed to let me build what I want, over a working system that lets me build what someone else wants.

Right, but my point was that if 3.5 has problems in several aspects of its rules -- problems that persist to this day after over a decade -- but 4e and 5e don't, how on earth do you claim that 3.5's design is much better than the other two's?

I'm not saying this as an outsider who hates 3.5. I like it, but I also know that it's deeply flawed and requires curation and system mastery to make the best out of it.

ryu

2017-08-29, 05:14 AM

Right, but my point was that if 3.5 has problems in several aspects of its rules -- problems that persist to this day after over a decade -- but 4e and 5e don't, how on earth do you claim that 3.5's design is much better than the other two's?

I'm not saying this as an outsider who hates 3.5. I like it, but I also know that it's deeply flawed and requires curation and system mastery to make the best out of it.

Because I, and I presume the person you're talking to, would much prefer a small paper cut to an injury necessitating the amputation of a foot. The simple response to claiming 3.5 has problems and still vastly preferred to its successors is that those successors have problems that are considered to be worse. 3.5 needn't be perfect. It just has to be better than the things it's preferred over.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-29, 05:28 AM

Right, but my point was that if 3.5 has problems in several aspects of its rules -- problems that persist to this day after over a decade -- but 4e and 5e don't, how on earth do you claim that 3.5's design is much better than the other two's?

The main thing to realize is that only a tiny minority of 3.5 players hang out at message boards such as this one. That means that what people commonly complain about on these forums has very little relation to what the majority of players experience.

It also means that if you create a wholly new edition based on such forum complaints, then it won't necessarily be popular. That's one of the problems with 4E, and the reason why 5E's design process was so different.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 05:41 AM

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 05:46 AM

I am not saying you can't prefer 3.5 and its design.

But how can you claim that its design is objectively better than systems that do not have as many issues, systems that run better without adjustments? That's silly.

Because, looking at the objective side of game design (which exists, the same way there are objective measurements of a film's quality such as some of the parameters of the camerawork which you can put actual numbers on) those measures which you can actually, well, measure end up better off in 3.5. Those which you can't, a lot of people still happen to prefer.

The Extinguisher

2017-08-29, 05:56 AM

Because, looking at the objective side of game design (which exists, the same way there are objective measurements of a film's quality such as some of the parameters of the camerawork which you can put actual numbers on) those measures which you can actually, well, measure end up better off in 3.5. Those which you can't, a lot of people still happen to prefer.

Examples would be nice here.

Personally, most of the things people here are saying are problems with 5e are things I like about it. Ive never been a fan of level based systems, but I think 5e does levels right. My character is always capable at being themselves, leveling up just makes them a little better at it.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 06:09 AM

Because, looking at the objective side of game design (which exists, the same way there are objective measurements of a film's quality such as some of the parameters of the camerawork which you can put actual numbers on) those measures which you can actually, well, measure end up better off in 3.5. Those which you can't, a lot of people still happen to prefer.

Folks who really like and enjoy 3.5 have spent over a decade coming up with fixes and changes to improve the system.

Folks who enjoy 4e/5e don't try changing the rules to the same extent.

Take Car A and Car B. Car A has issues with its engine, but it has other features that appeal to some people. Car B has no engine issues and needs way less repairs, but it lacks some of those features that draw fans of Car A to their vehicle of choice.

It'd be ludicrous to claim that Car A is objectively better designed than Car B.

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 06:16 AM

Folks who really like and enjoy 3.5 have spent over a decade coming up with fixes and changes to improve the system.

Folks who enjoy 4e/5e don't try changing the rules to the same extent.

Take Car A and Car B. Car A has issues with its engine, but it has other features that appeal to some people. Car B has no engine issues and needs way less repairs, but it lacks some of those features that draw fans of Car A to their vehicle of choice.

It'd be ludicrous to claim that Car A is objectively better designed than Car B.

The difference is that "Car A" (3.5) doesn't actually have engine issues. It has issues with a gimmick that it's sorta nominally supposed to provide but that quite a lot of people don't care about (balance) and which can be sorted out without messing about with it physically (people play a wizard/cleric/druid/psion game or a warblade/bard/dread necromancer/swordsage game).

Car A is driven by thousands of people, seven of whom have chosen to add things to fix the percieved problems. Car B is driven by 4 people and a donkey. One of those people has added a thing to fix the percieved problems. And you're looking at that and going "But more people have tried to fix car A, so it must be more broken!" No, car A is just the only one actually worth driving when you do fix it. Car A is also easier to fix - it has problems with its electronic windows (but you can wind them down manually), and Car B has issues with its critical existence.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-08-29, 06:25 AM

All I'm saying is that I enjoy both 3.5 and 5e, and I've proposed systemic changes for both of them.

Sam K

2017-08-29, 06:44 AM

Examples would be nice here.

Personally, most of the things people here are saying are problems with 5e are things I like about it. Ive never been a fan of level based systems, but I think 5e does levels right. My character is always capable at being themselves, leveling up just makes them a little better at it.

Seems like you're the target audience for 5e. It's silly to claim one system is better than the other, because people's needs are different. Some people like the simplicity of 5e, some like the flexibility of 3.5. Would be a boring old world if we were all the same, wouldn't it?

Kurald Galain

2017-08-29, 06:46 AM

Recherché

2017-08-29, 06:50 AM

Combined strawberry and chocolate ice cream is clearly the best possible option. Pistachio ice cream is an abomination before Pelor though!

The Extinguisher

2017-08-29, 07:32 AM

Seems like you're the target audience for 5e. It's silly to claim one system is better than the other, because people's needs are different. Some people like the simplicity of 5e, some like the flexibility of 3.5. Would be a boring old world if we were all the same, wouldn't it?

That's the problem with complaining that one game system is objectively better than another. They both are aiming for different things for different people.

And let's be honest, this isn't even a matter of chocolate vs strawberry ice cream. This is the difference between chocolate and a slightly different type of chocolate.

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 07:36 AM

And let's be honest, this isn't even a matter of chocolate vs strawberry ice cream. This is the difference between chocolate and a slightly different type of chocolate.

Apart from the class names, the fact that they're d20-based class and level systems and some of the names of things ("Feats" in 3.5 work sorta the same as "Feats" in 5e, "Skills" don't work the same at all and "Proficiency" really doesn't work the same at all), 3.5 and 5e aren't really very similar games at all in a lot of ways.

The Extinguisher

2017-08-29, 07:44 AM

Apart from the class names, the fact that they're d20-based class and level systems and some of the names of things ("Feats" in 3.5 work sorta the same as "Feats" in 5e, "Skills" don't work the same at all and "Proficiency" really doesn't work the same at all), 3.5 and 5e aren't really very similar games at all in a lot of ways.

They really are. They're both high fantasy level based systems, designed to power up a character through a mix of combat, dungeon crawling, and a light amount of non combat encounters. The fundamental gameplay loops, reward systems, and expected play patterns are the same. 3.5 is higher power than 5e, but that's about it.

Compare to systems like Fate, Dark Heresy or Chuubo's Wish Granting Machine and you see just how similar D&D games are

2D8HP

2017-08-29, 07:44 AM

It is obvious that chocolate icecream is objectively better than strawberry icecream. Objective!

Combined strawberry and chocolate ice cream is clearly the best possible option. Pistachio ice cream is an abomination before Pelor though!

Eh... I still prefer vanilla ice cream, to both.

And I'd still rather DM using TSR rules.

Would it be fair to describe 5e as diluted 3.x with 4e sprinkles?

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 07:47 AM

The difference is that "Car A" (3.5) doesn't actually have engine issues. It has issues with a gimmick that it's sorta nominally supposed to provide but that quite a lot of people don't care about (balance) and which can be sorted out without messing about with it physically (people play a wizard/cleric/druid/psion game or a warblade/bard/dread necromancer/swordsage game).

If balance is a secondary concern, why immediately suggest a fix by curation of classes? Did you know that neither 4e or 5e require this curation?

No engine issues? Works perfectly well from 1-20 and into epic levels? The CR system remains an accurate tool from 1-20 and into epic? A CR 15 NPC monk, a CR 15 NPC cleric, and a CR 15 true dragon are equally challenging? E6 became a popular option because levels 7+ work well? All multiclassing combinations are effective and good? All feats are good choices?

Car A is driven by thousands of people, seven of whom have chosen to add things to fix the percieved problems. Car B is driven by 4 people and a donkey. One of those people has added a thing to fix the percieved problems. And you're looking at that and going "But more people have tried to fix car A, so it must be more broken!" No, car A is just the only one actually worth driving when you do fix it. Car A is also easier to fix - it has problems with its electronic windows (but you can wind them down manually), and Car B has issues with its critical existence.

You're suggesting that popularity is inherently linked to good design. Following that logic, TSR era D&D is objectively better designed. 5e too, since by all available metrics, 5e has exceeded 3.5 in popularity.

Mordaedil

2017-08-29, 07:48 AM

Keep in mind when you critique one game system for being simple, some people might take that as a personal offense as if it implies that they are "simple people who only understand simple things", which I understand isn't really what any of you mean at all.

The fact of the matter is simply that 3.5 was made during an era when WotC was in its most capitalistic and tried hardcore to produce as much content as possible to sell as many books as possible, which actually ended up setting them back a bit, because tabletop gaming was extremely niche and people just couldn't afford new books at the pace they printed them, especially a problem for younger audience.

4th edition took a different approach, trying to aim at a wider audience while trying to avoid dumbing down as much as possible (like, really, they did, the rules for 4th edition are maybe less complex than editions prior, but they are still demanding to learn for somebody who isn't into reading) and 5th edition found a better settled complex mechanics simplified printing medium. I don't know if 5th edition is earning them bank or not, but it's the happy modicum they came to for now. Maybe 6th edition will be different and I'll have to find a different way to phrase this.

Point is, 5th edition isn't going to be as complex as 3rd edition because it simply wasn't printed during those years. It might be fine to call 3rd edition "excessive" as a counter to 5th editions "simple" attribute. For less damning praise, I suggest calling 5th edition "precise" in its rules. It might not be, and it might be disagreed upon, but I think it works as a compromise, as someone who has only really played 3rd edition. I own the books for 4th and 5th, but I've never played a game because the rules rub me the wrong way. Instead, I've adopted the rules I did like backwards.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-29, 07:55 AM

If balance is a secondary concern, why immediately suggest a fix by curation of classes? Did you know that neither 4e or 5e require this curation?

Forum dicussions on 4E and 5E are both full of "this class is OP / worthless / better than that other class" and similar discussions, suggesting that both of them require about as much "curation" as 3E does.

It turns out that most of the actual problems people have with any of these editions are pretty much the same as with any of the others. The main discussion is about whether people love, hate, or don't care either way about simulationist mechanics (3E), disassociation (4E), and/or bounded acc (5E).

And then there's a lot of "I like <edition A> but not <edition B> and therefore I'll claim that <problem X> makes <edition B> unplayable while pretending the same problem doesn't exist in <edition A>", and you can fill these in with any permutation of editions really :smallbiggrin:

Svata

2017-08-29, 08:01 AM

I like both 3.x (inc. PF) and 5e. Both have their share of issues.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 08:36 AM

Forum dicussions on 4E and 5E are both full of "this class is OP / worthless / better than that other class" and similar discussions, suggesting that both of them require about as much "curation" as 3E does.

And how much experience do you have playing all of the above? Do you think that all three editions have the same balance issues between classes?

It turns out that most of the actual problems people have with any of these editions are pretty much the same as with any of the others. The main discussion is about whether people love, hate, or don't care either way about simulationist mechanics (3E), disassociation (4E), and/or bounded acc (5E).

And then there's a lot of "I like <edition A> but not <edition B> and therefore I'll claim that <problem X> makes <edition B> unplayable while pretending the same problem doesn't exist in <edition A>", and you can fill these in with any permutation of editions really :smallbiggrin:

The current discussion is the result my response to one poster (Cosi) claiming that 3e design is fundamentally and objectively better than both 4e and 5e design.

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 08:54 AM

They really are. They're both high fantasy level based systems, designed to power up a character through a mix of combat, dungeon crawling, and a light amount of non combat encounters. The fundamental gameplay loops, reward systems, and expected play patterns are the same. 3.5 is higher power than 5e, but that's about it.

Compare to systems like Fate, Dark Heresy or Chuubo's Wish Granting Machine and you see just how similar D&D games are

Obviously D&D is more similar to D&D than D&D is to Fate. But D&D is a lot more different from D&D edition-to-edition than practically any other RPG is. In fact, there are a lot of systems which aren't D&D which are more like D&D than D&D is.

Also, "Designed to power up a character" is barely true in 5e, or at least it's not true in remotely the same way as in 3.5. It's a zero-to-competent progression rather than a zero-to-oh-my-god-where-did-the-universe-go-put-it-back-quick-before-anyone-epic-notices progression.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-08-29, 09:10 AM

Obviously D&D is more similar to D&D than D&D is to Fate. But D&D is a lot more different from D&D edition-to-edition than practically any other RPG is. In fact, there are a lot of systems which aren't D&D which are more like D&D than D&D is.

Also, "Designed to power up a character" is barely true in 5e, or at least it's not true in remotely the same way as in 3.5. It's a zero-to-competent progression rather than a zero-to-oh-my-god-where-did-the-universe-go-put-it-back-quick-before-anyone-epic-notices progression.
Having played both 3.5 and 5e, I can promise you that-- discounting Tippy-type crazy high-op madness-- they feel the same in play. They both have classes, races, ACFs, spell slots, multiclassing, daily abilities, attrition, ability scores... You do feel a sense of advancement in 5e; it just scales by class features and hit points/damage instead of by numbers.

(And for reference, Bounded accuracy can also easily be yanked out of 5e-- add a level/CR-based bonus (such as Proficiency again) to AC, DCs, saves, and any skills and weapons you're proficient in and boom. High-level characters have a significant advantage over low-level ones again, while equal-level challenges are unaffected)

Would it be fair to describe 5e as diluted 3.x with 4e sprinkles?
Nah. I honestly can't see much 4e in the thing. 5e is a diluted, smoothed-out 3.5.

Svata

2017-08-29, 09:15 AM

Nah. I honestly can't see much 4e in the thing. 5e is a diluted, smoothed-out 3.5.

that completely forgot to include a saves system.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 10:12 AM

Regular XP lets the players decide if they want an easier route with less XP or a more challenging route with greater rewards (and more dire consequences).

Regular XP gives you an incentive to find every encounter you can beat, regardless of whether you "should" from a tactical perspective. If you avoid that, it just is milestone XP. Yes, it has the choice you mention, but you'll still search down for every encounter weaker than the path you picked and you can't really tell from a PC's perspective whether the XP is different for a given path.

4e creatures have equipment listed on the stats. They "drop" them. Please stop with these misleading falsehoods.

Yes, but PC's can't use them, because their uses are "exception based design" that PCs are not privy to (see the Kobold that has a special ranged attack and the house-ruling required to port that to PCs).

Moreover, 4e's design doesn't treat stats -- whether PC or NPC -- as the totality of a creature's abilities. A specific individual can be represented with different stats, depending on the context. This can be immensely freeing as a DM.

No, it is immensely stupid. The thing where the some monster can be a 1-HP minion or a 100-HP solo depending on situation is dumb. It makes objective questions like "what happens if an ogre fights an ogre" or "what happens to orcs during storms" hard to answer for no reason.

You keep saying that 3e's design is massively better than either 4e's or 5e's, yet the latter two systems are not the subject of endless topics on how their various aspects could be fixed. You're free to prefer 3.5's design, but that's subjective, and it's not a good look when you criticize systems inaccurately. You need to know the systems first before you can criticize them properly.

4e was literally subject to more than a dozen revisions by the designers to fix one subsystem (Skill Challenges). The only thing in 3e that comes close is polymorph. Yes, more people talk about 3e than 4e. Maybe that is because (as sales data suggests), it is a better game that people enjoy more. No one is doing lengthy analysis on the mechanical flaws of Racial Holy War. Do you really think that makes it mechanically flawless?

Right, but my point was that if 3.5 has problems in several aspects of its rules -- problems that persist to this day after over a decade -- but 4e and 5e don't, how on earth do you claim that 3.5's design is much better than the other two's?

Necromancers win 5e forever. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55851&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=37) Also the rest of that thread for other cheese.

4e has the Orbizard, the Yogi Hat Ranger, and other cheese.

But how can you claim that its design is objectively better than systems that do not have as many issues, systems that run better without adjustments? That's silly.

Define "run better". 3e "runs better" if you want a game where you can have mechanically meaningful interactions with the world. 4e "runs better" if you want a tactical miniatures wargame, but Warhammer is sitting right there. 5e is just 3e with less content and a worse leveling system.

Personally, most of the things people here are saying are problems with 5e are things I like about it. Ive never been a fan of level based systems, but I think 5e does levels right. My character is always capable at being themselves, leveling up just makes them a little better at it.

But that is a paradigm which is fundamentally incompatible with dramatically different power levels in the same game, which D&D's "zero to hero" paradigm requires.

You're suggesting that popularity is inherently linked to good design. Following that logic, TSR era D&D is objectively better designed. 5e too, since by all available metrics, 5e has exceeded 3.5 in popularity.

The best citation I have seen for this is "Mike Mearls said it on twitter this one time". I ... don't find that compelling. All the official press releases have obvious holes in the marketing speak if you look for them.

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 10:42 AM

Having played both 3.5 and 5e, I can promise you that-- discounting Tippy-type crazy high-op madness-- they feel the same in play. They both have classes, races, ACFs, spell slots, multiclassing, daily abilities, attrition, ability scores... You do feel a sense of advancement in 5e; it just scales by class features and hit points/damage instead of by numbers.

Having also played both of them, I don't think they feel the same at all. In 3.5 you're able to beat up armies at medium levels. At high levels in 5e, moderate numbers of low-level mooks still pose a genuine threat to you, partially because they can hit you on a number which isn't 20 and partially because you haven't cast a spell which turns everything they can do to you off because those don't exist. Those are just examples.

Knaight

2017-08-29, 10:44 AM

Obviously D&D is more similar to D&D than D&D is to Fate. But D&D is a lot more different from D&D edition-to-edition than practically any other RPG is. In fact, there are a lot of systems which aren't D&D which are more like D&D than D&D is.

Sure, but a lot of those systems that aren't D&D are either deliberate clones with some tweaks (Pathfinder, Retroclones) or things that deliberately draw from the D&D style (Torchbearer). IF youlook at other games that are designed for somewhat similar stuff but aren't either an homage or basically homebrew they get different. Take Burning Wheel, a system explicitly designed around a fairly similar milieu. It has elves and dwarves, warriors and mages, complex combat rules, etc. It's also way further from D&D than any D&D edition is from any other - and that's despite me choosing something that is not only also fantasy but that is also a similar style of fantasy.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-29, 10:46 AM

the latter two systems are not the subject of endless topics on how their various aspects could be fixed.
I invite you to take a look at the 4E forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?58-D-amp-D-4e) and the 5E forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?63-D-amp-D-5e-Next) which are, in fact, full of topics on how their various aspects could be fixed. :smallbiggrin:

So yeah, issues encountered in <edition> are pretty much the same as issues encountered in <other edition>, other than the debate about whether people love, hate, or don't care either way about simulationist mechanics (3E), disassociation (4E), and/or bounded acc (5E).

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 11:36 AM

Yes, but PC's can't use them, because their uses are "exception based design" that PCs are not privy to (see the Kobold that has a special ranged attack and the house-ruling required to port that to PCs).

This is false. If a kobold drops a spear, you can pick it up and use it.

No, it is immensely stupid. The thing where the some monster can be a 1-HP minion or a 100-HP solo depending on situation is dumb. It makes objective questions like "what happens if an ogre fights an ogre" or "what happens to orcs during storms" hard to answer for no reason.

And this is why you don't understand 4e. The rules are not trying be the rules of the world.

A 4e stat block for an enemy is not a listing of all its abilities -- it lists abilities relevant to the combat encounter. It can have other abilities, anything the DM sees fit to give it. The creature exists beyond a simple stat block. Again, the stats are not trying to exhaustively list everything a creature does.

How does a writer determine what happens to orcs in a storm, or what happens if an ogre fights and ogre? They decide based on the needs of the story. If the PCs are relevant to the fight, you can give the creatures stats.

Because the enemy creation rules don't use the same rules as PC creation, preparing enemy stat blocks in 4e is massively faster. In addition, you don't have to create convoluted class combinations to achieve specific results -- you just give the creature the abilities you want it to have, that's it. If the ability requires numbers, there are simple and fast-to-use enemy creation rules for the mechanics. Also, because a specific creature and creature types can have different stats depending on the context, you can use more enemy types in adventures -- at higher levels, for example, the enemies that were tough a good while ago can be represented as weaker enemies, but with stats that can still provide a challenge.

4e was literally subject to more than a dozen revisions by the designers to fix one subsystem (Skill Challenges). The only thing in 3e that comes close is polymorph. Yes, more people talk about 3e than 4e. Maybe that is because (as sales data suggests), it is a better game that people enjoy more. No one is doing lengthy analysis on the mechanical flaws of Racial Holy War. Do you really think that makes it mechanically flawless?

Yes, they fixed it -- and now it works. This is yet more example of you not being familiar with the game. The rules in 4e work now, especially since the designers put the effort into fixing the aspects that were lacking. You think this is a weakness of the design? That its shortcomings were eliminated?

Necromancers win 5e forever. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55851&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=37) Also the rest of that thread for other cheese.

4e has the Orbizard, the Yogi Hat Ranger, and other cheese.

Optimization is relative. In 3.5, the difference between the most optimized builds and the least is humongous -- it's almost like playing a different game. The difference between the most and the least optimized characters in 5e and particularly in 4e is much, much smaller.

Define "run better". 3e "runs better" if you want a game where you can have mechanically meaningful interactions with the world. 4e "runs better" if you want a tactical miniatures wargame, but Warhammer is sitting right there. 5e is just 3e with less content and a worse leveling system.

The thing is, how do you know that you can't have mechanically meaningful interactions with the world in 4e? You've shown how little you know of the game. I have played it since release (as I have 3e). You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole and accuse it of being stupid because it doesn't fit. It's not supposed to.

The best citation I have seen for this is "Mike Mearls said it on twitter this one time". I ... don't find that compelling. All the official press releases have obvious holes in the marketing speak if you look for them.

5e is massively -- massively -- more popular on both Fantasy Grounds and Roll20. Those two platforms have tens of thousands of users combined.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 11:40 AM

I invite you to take a look at the 4E forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?58-D-amp-D-4e) and the 5E forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?63-D-amp-D-5e-Next) which are, in fact, full of topics on how their various aspects could be fixed. :smallbiggrin:

So yeah, issues encountered in <edition> are pretty much the same as issues encountered in <other edition>, other than the debate about whether people love, hate, or don't care either way about simulationist mechanics (3E), disassociation (4E), and/or bounded acc (5E).

The changes and fixes are relative. In 3.5, people are trying to change what classes can fundamentally do; what races fundamentally get; how the game could actually work from level 1 to level 20. In 4e and 5e, the fixes are small number adjustments. If you knew the systems, you'd also know this. I have experience with all three, particularly 3e and 4e, and the changes the players attempt to make are day and night in scope.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-08-29, 11:57 AM

The changes and fixes are relative. In 3.5, people are trying to change what classes can fundamentally do; what races fundamentally get; how the game could actually work from level 1 to level 20. In 4e and 5e, the fixes are small number adjustments. If you knew the systems, you'd also know this. I have experience with all three, particularly 3e and 4e, and the changes the players attempt to make are day and night in scope.

In part (speaking as someone who plays 5e) because most of the systems and subsystems (races, classes, etc) just work out of the box. There are no truenamers, no 3.5e monks, no LA (and a simpler way of creating/modding races). Most of the spells are workable as well (true strike being a notable exception). There's a small handful of things that are just non-functional, and a few that are disappointing from a numbers perspective. But overall, there aren't major gaping problems. People may disagree as to the design intent, but most things work as designed. Whether that design is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal taste.

In general, by ditching the "must have a common framework for everything" mentality and simplifying the general principles, 5e becomes quite modular. There are a few things that have large consequences (adding stacking numerical bonuses, for example), but those don't break the system--they can be balanced by adjusting the encounters. Most other subsystems (since they're already exceptions) can be replaced by variants with few ripples.

5e is also (from my perspective) much more conducive to role-playing flow. I don't need a spreadsheet to keep track of various skills/dcs/abilities. Instead of referring to tables that may or may not match the my mental picture of the scene (and then add situational modifiers) as a DM, I think of how hard the outcome should be and pick a DC within a defined range (10-20, with rare 20+ and exceptionally rare <10). Most things just happen (or don't if they're impossible). Making enemies is easy--the stat block only represents what they do in combat. The rest of the time, there's no problem giving them rituals, abilities, or roleplaying them as per their individual personality.

This is, of course, only my opinion. YMMV.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 12:00 PM

This is false. If a kobold drops a spear, you can pick it up and use it.

Look at the Kobold Slinger. Look at it's special ammo. How does a PC use it? How much does it cost? Is it part of the loot? No one knows, because the game is a bad video game port and enemies are just mobs. Go read any of the dozen edition war threads on TGD. These problems have been established for the better part of a decade, the fact that you think I just "don't get it" is not reflecting well on you.

And this is why you don't understand 4e. The rules are not trying be the rules of the world.

The rules are the rules of the world. The fact that you think this is something the game can opt out of represents a fundamental failure on your part to grasp the nature of the rules. There is not a portal into Faerun through which we can peer that provides an alternative to the rules. I mean, you can make stuff up, but at that point why are you giving WotC money?

A 4e stat block for an enemy is not a listing of all its abilities -- it lists abilities relevant to the combat encounter. It can have other abilities, anything the DM sees fit to give it. The creature exists beyond a simple stat block. Again, the stats are not trying to exhaustively list everything a creature does.

This approach to the game destroys role-playing. If the rules and the abilities of creatures are not known, I cannot know what the effects of my character's actions will be. If I cannot know that, how can I answer the fundamental question of role-playing -- what would my character do?

Because the enemy creation rules don't use the same rules as PC creation, preparing enemy stat blocks in 4e is massively faster. In addition, you don't have to create convoluted class combinations to achieve specific results -- you just give the creature the abilities you want it to have, that's it.

99% of the time, monster creation speed is irrelevant. You use pre-stated monsters which are equally quick in every edition. Also, you can totally make stuff up in 3e. Just make a template.

Yes, they fixed it -- and now it works. This is yet more example of you not being familiar with the game. The rules in 4e work now, especially since the designers put the effort into fixing the aspects that were lacking. You think this is a weakness of the design? That its shortcomings were eliminated?

What were the original problems with skill challenges? I ask, because I doubt you have sufficient understanding of what went wrong to successfully identify a fixed version.

Optimization is relative. In 3.5, the difference between the most optimized builds and the least is humongous -- it's almost like playing a different game. The difference between the most and the least optimized characters in 5e and particularly in 4e is much, much smaller.

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

The thing is, how do you know that you can't have mechanically meaningful interactions with the world in 4e?

You literally said that the world is just "whatever the DM makes up".

5e is massively -- massively -- more popular on both Fantasy Grounds and Roll20. Those two platforms have tens of thousands of users combined.

You know that's not actually that big of a number, right?

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 12:21 PM

Look at the Kobold Slinger. Look at it's special ammo. How does a PC use it? How much does it cost? Is it part of the loot? No one knows, because the game is a bad video game port and enemies are just mobs. Go read any of the dozen edition war threads on TGD. These problems have been established for the better part of a decade, the fact that you think I just "don't get it" is not reflecting well on you.

The special ammo is listed in the equipment. They do what they say they do (attack penalty, ongoing fire damage, and immobilization). Why do you insist on coming up with imaginary, false examples of shortcomings that don't exist?

The rules are the rules of the world. The fact that you think this is something the game can opt out of represents a fundamental failure on your part to grasp the nature of the rules. There is not a portal into Faerun through which we can peer that provides an alternative to the rules. I mean, you can make stuff up, but at that point why are you giving WotC money?

There are many RPG rules systems whose mechanics do not attempt to detail the physics of the actual world the players pretend to inhabit. This is such a fundamental concept of RPG design. Or do you think that the various Powered by the Apocalypse games attempt to detail how the entire world works with their rules?

This approach to the game destroys role-playing. If the rules and the abilities of creatures are not known, I cannot know what the effects of my character's actions will be. If I cannot know that, how can I answer the fundamental question of role-playing -- what would my character do?

You know what your abilities do when you use them on the creature. How is this difficult to grasp?

99% of the time, monster creation speed is irrelevant. You use pre-stated monsters which are equally quick in every edition. Also, you can totally make stuff up in 3e. Just make a template.

And how long does it take to create the template? What if you're a new DM? How fast is it to reference the stat block of a high level wizard or a balor in 3.5 vs. 4e? It's much, much faster with 4e because only the abilities relevant to the resolution of the encounter are present in the 4e stat block -- other abilities can be added to fit the needs of the adventure and the story. It's very simple, and it works incredibly well -- I've used the system to great success for about a decade now.

What were the original problems with skill challenges? I ask, because I doubt you have sufficient understanding of what went wrong to successfully identify a fixed version.

The math was the issue. The success/failure rate didn't work as it should.

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

3e martials can summon angels and demons? Turn invisible? Create illusions? Create portals? Summon fire and lightning? They have daily abilities?

You literally said that the world is just "whatever the DM makes up".

That has no bearing on how you interact with the world using the rules. You roll skill checks, use abilities. You travel, you explore. I've played the game since its release -- trust me, you have mechanically meaningful interactions with the world all the time.

You know that's not actually that big of a number, right?

And your evidence to support the claim that 3.5 is more popular is?

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 12:26 PM

And this is why you don't understand 4e.

You've shown how little you know of the game.

You can't just say that someone doesn't understand 4e just because they don't like it and think it's stupid. I mean you can, but we'll just laugh at you.

Sure, but a lot of those systems that aren't D&D are either deliberate clones with some tweaks (Pathfinder, Retroclones) or things that deliberately draw from the D&D style (Torchbearer). IF youlook at other games that are designed for somewhat similar stuff but aren't either an homage or basically homebrew they get different. Take Burning Wheel, a system explicitly designed around a fairly similar milieu. It has elves and dwarves, warriors and mages, complex combat rules, etc. It's also way further from D&D than any D&D edition is from any other - and that's despite me choosing something that is not only also fantasy but that is also a similar style of fantasy.

I'm not even talking about obvious clones - yes, Pathfinder is more like 3.5 than 3.5 is like 5e. No duh, Pathfinder pretty much is 3.5. Nor am I pointing out that Stars Without Number is very similar to the older editions of D&D and d20 modern is very similar to 3.5 and so forth.

The similarities between 3.5 and 5e almost all appear between them and some other game - for example, you roll a die and compare it to a target number as a success-failure mechanic. That's the same as in FATE, except that the roll is 1d20 rather than 4d3-4. You level up in your class, which is the same as in all types of RPGs. Yes, the sacred cow that is vancian casting is alive and well, but not much else (apart from the nomenclature) is specific enough to tie D&D together as a cohesive feature. Essentially, the only features which are emblematic of D&D edition-wide are the ones which exist for no real reason except to be emblematic of D&D.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-29, 12:28 PM

In part (speaking as someone who plays 5e) because most of the systems and subsystems (races, classes, etc) just work out of the box.

Basically what you're saying is that, while 5E has lots of discussion on how to improve the system, that is not a problem for most players.

And the same is true for 3E: it has lots of discussion on how to improve the system, and none of that is a problem for most players. Same thing, really.

The Extinguisher

2017-08-29, 12:35 PM

Having also played both of them, I don't think they feel the same at all. In 3.5 you're able to beat up armies at medium levels. At high levels in 5e, moderate numbers of low-level mooks still pose a genuine threat to you, partially because they can hit you on a number which isn't 20 and partially because you haven't cast a spell which turns everything they can do to you off because those don't exist. Those are just examples.

This is a difference of scale, not of design. 3.5 is a much higher power level than 5e true, but the design intent is the same. Besides some fringe things (like anything to do with economy which 5e doesn't touch) the play pattern is the same.

I'll give you that the various editions of D&D are more different then most RPGs, but they're all, even 4e, fundamentally the same game.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 12:35 PM

The special ammo is listed in the equipment. They do what they say they do (attack penalty, ongoing fire damage, and immobilization). Why do you insist on coming up with imaginary, false examples of shortcomings that don't exist?

How much do they cost? Do they require proficiency? Do they have weight? Can they be crafted?

There are many RPG rules systems whose mechanics do not attempt to detail the physics of the actual world the players pretend to inhabit. This is such a fundamental concept of RPG design. Or do you think that the various Powered by the Apocalypse games attempt to detail how the entire world works with their rules?

Apocalypse World is a bad game. Here's a thread (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=410442) explaining it's problems, ignoring the biggest one ("success" is sometimes defined as "new enemies").

You know what your abilities do when you use them on the creature. How is this difficult to grasp?

Maybe I would like to plan, which would involve having some knowledge of how abilities likely behave?

And how long does it take to create the template? What if you're a new DM?

I dunno, I can't imagine "pick abilities, eyeball cost" is going to vary dramatically between editions. It's the same process.

How fast is it to reference the stat block of a high level wizard or a balor in 3.5 vs. 4e?

Yes, if you take things out the game contains less things. Great insight. Now, how often can the 4e balor use its implosion SLA. Oh, it doesn't have those things? 4e monsters have less abilities and are less interesting because they are videogame mobs instead of actual enemies. Claiming that this is a simplicity gain is stupid, the 3e balor would be easier to read if you took away half of its abilities.

The math was the issue. The success/failure rate didn't work as it should.

Can you be more specific? Do you think the issue was just that the numbers were wrong, and could have been fixed by moving them down (or up on the PC's end)?

3e martials can summon angels and demons? Turn invisible? Create illusions? Create portals? Summon fire and lightning? They have daily abilities?

3e has ritual systems. Barbarian have daily abilities. Also "daily abilities" is not as meaningful as you are pretending it is.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-08-29, 12:48 PM

The similarities between 3.5 and 5e almost all appear between them and some other game - for example, you roll a die and compare it to a target number as a success-failure mechanic. That's the same as in FATE, except that the roll is 1d20 rather than 4d3-4. You level up in your class, which is the same as in all types of RPGs. Yes, the sacred cow that is vancian casting is alive and well, but not much else (apart from the nomenclature) is specific enough to tie D&D together as a cohesive feature. Essentially, the only features which are emblematic of D&D edition-wide are the ones which exist for no real reason except to be emblematic of D&D.
I'm... I'm utterly baffled at this assertion. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, except perhaps that "D&D has no unifying identity except for things that I'm ignoring." Vancean magic is a major part of the D&D "feel;" the lack of that is probably the single biggest reason why people complain that 4e isn't D&D-y. The "classes as rigid progressions that can be mixed-and-matched-to-taste" thing is a strong common element as well. While attack/AC/skill* numbers are static, and the system breaks down if you push too far outside the comfort zone**, you do have a strong element of "zero to hero," with escalating damage, hit points, defensive abilities, and magic. And, yes, all the classic fluff, the trademark spells and races and names are still intact, because those are a key part of D&D being D&D too.

5e isn't as intense as 3.5 can be, but I think 90% (or more) of tables will never see the difference.

*I do very much dislike the way that 5e handles skills; it's in desperate need of some formal "proficiences as permissions" and/or "skills do more at higher tiers of play" rules.
**Which all RPGs do, 3.5 included. Hell, pushing 3.5 outside its comfort zone can sometimes mean "putting a mix of core classes in the same party."

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 12:50 PM

This is a difference of scale, not of design. 3.5 is a much higher power level than 5e true, but the design intent is the same. Besides some fringe things (like anything to do with economy which 5e doesn't touch) the play pattern is the same.

The scale is part of the design. I can't write Cthulhu-style games where Cthulhu is a massive cosmic threat that can't be dealt with in high-level 3.5 or pathfinder because the players are so used to dealing with cosmic horrors that Cthulhu actually possesses a meaningful statblock in Pathfinder. He can't be killed, unless you take away his ability somehow, but he can be dealt with. I can't write the story of the Gatewatch from Magic the Gathering in low-level 3.5 or any-level 5e because the events of Battle for Zendikar/Oath of the Gatewatch rely on concepts like "The Gatewatch are so much more powerful than the other humans around them that four people turn the tide of a massive battle" and "Cosmic horrors are interactable-with in a way that doesn't involve 1d4 players being eaten per round."

I can't tell the story of Cthulhu being an undefeatable, insidious horror if you can fight Cthulhu, and I can't tell the story of the players fighting Ulamog and Kozilek if you can't fight Ulamog and Kozilek. The difference is that because 3.5 has a real progression and 5e doesn't, the kinds of stories you can tell over different levels change as you level up - low-level characters are scared of Cthulhu and high-level characters can fight him. Low-level characters make up the army that are getting their faces eaten by Ulamog and Kozilek; high-level ones are the Gatewatch who can actually fight them. They don't change as you level up if the Gatewatch aren't allowed to be any more powerful than just sending, like, 100 more dudes to fight Ulamog and Kozilek. The scale is very much part of the design.

I'll give you that the various editions of D&D are more different then most RPGs, but they're all, even 4e, fundamentally the same game.

Not really. The differences vastly outweigh the similarities.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 01:00 PM

How much do they cost? Do they require proficiency? Do they have weight? Can they be crafted?

There are rules in 4e to determine the usage of improvised abilities and items. Require proficiency? That's a 3.5 concept. They can be crafted if you craft them -- there are rules to craft items, including alchemical items. Their cost would be tied to how good they are.

Apocalypse World is a bad game. Here's a thread (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=410442) explaining it's problems, ignoring the biggest one ("success" is sometimes defined as "new enemies").

So when you play 3.5, a whale that's dropped from the sky doesn't go splat? After all, the rules say that it doesn't, and you insist that the rules are there to define the world. It's part of the physics of the world that line of 100 kids equipped with crossbows will hit a target 700 ft. away 5% of the time on average?

Maybe I would like to plan, which would involve having some knowledge of how abilities likely behave?

And what prevents you from doing that in 4e? Players do this all the time -- I can attest to it as I actually play the game and know its rules.

I dunno, I can't imagine "pick abilities, eyeball cost" is going to vary dramatically between editions. It's the same process.

Except that in 4e there are rules to tell how much damage a level N enemy should do, how many HP it should have, etc. All adjusted for roles. The results work, and you will know how dangerous your custom enemy will be. This process is much lengthier and produces much less predictable results in 3.5.

Yes, if you take things out the game contains less things. Great insight. Now, how often can the 4e balor use its implosion SLA. Oh, it doesn't have those things? 4e monsters have less abilities and are less interesting because they are videogame mobs instead of actual enemies. Claiming that this is a simplicity gain is stupid, the 3e balor would be easier to read if you took away half of its abilities.

Why does the 4e balor need a 3.5 spell when it has other abilities? This doesn't make a lick of sense.

3.5 creatures often have large lists of spell-like abilities so that they can do various things that make sense for the type of monster, including abilities mainly relevant to the story (divinations, long-range travel abilities, etc.). 4e creatures can have ALL of that, as required by the adventure and the story. You want your 4e balor to animate the dead? It can do that. You want it to magically scry on the party? It can do that. The rules are there to resolve challenges, not to constrain you in how you design your enemies.

Can you be more specific? Do you think the issue was just that the numbers were wrong, and could have been fixed by moving them down (or up on the PC's end)?

The probabilities were off. The skill DCs were not properly aligned with expected PC skill bonuses.

3e has ritual systems. Barbarian have daily abilities. Also "daily abilities" is not as meaningful as you are pretending it is.

You claimed that 4e classes are functionally 3e martials. I have played these two systems for several years. 3e martials cannot do everything that 4e classes do. Barbarian is a single 3.5 class. The 3e ritual system is half-done, an Unearthed Arcana extra.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 01:05 PM

You can't just say that someone doesn't understand 4e just because they don't like it and think it's stupid. I mean you can, but we'll just laugh at you.

So if someone claimed that 3.5 is a bad system because wizards have a better BAB than fighters or because it's impossible to scribe scrolls, you wouldn't question that person's understanding of 3.5?

Everyone is completely free to dislike 4e (or any system). But if you continue to claim factually incorrect statements and then use those as evidence of the game's shortcomings, that does bring into question your understanding of the rules. This should be rather obvious.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 01:12 PM

They can be crafted if you craft them -- there are rules to craft items, including alchemical items. Their cost would be tied to how good they are.

Or, in other words, "make some stuff up". And there you have it. Things in 4e aren't real. They're video game items, with predefined interactions, and if you want to do other things you have to make stuff up. And at that point, why am I giving Mike Mearls my money?

So when you play 3.5, a whale that's dropped from the sky doesn't go splat? After all, the rules say that it doesn't, and you insist that the rules are there to define the world. It's part of the physics of the world that line of 100 kids equipped with crossbows will hit a target 700 ft. away 5% of the time on average?

Sure. If you don't like that, play with different rules. Don't make stuff up, because then I can't interact with the world.

And what prevents you from doing that in 4e? Players do this all the time -- I can attest to it as I actually play the game and know its rules.

Your paradigm of "sometimes I make stuff up" makes planning impossible. Or rather it makes it meaningless, because there's always the "see if the DM allows it" step. If the rules can change at any time on the DM's whim, my actions are meaningless. The fact that you had fun doesn't change that.

Why does the 4e balor need a 3.5 spell when it has other abilities? This doesn't make a lick of sense.

And so does you claiming that parsing the shorter 4e statblock is easier.

4e creatures can have ALL of that, as required by the adventure and the story. You want your 4e balor to animate the dead? It can do that. You want it to magically scry on the party? It can do that. The rules are there to resolve challenges, not to constrain you in how you design your enemies.

Oh really? How does it do that? What can I do, as a PC, to know its capabilities in advance and plan around them?

Also, literally the entire point of having rules is constraint. If you want to not be constrained, play free-form.

The probabilities were off. The skill DCs were not properly aligned with expected PC skill bonuses.

Wrong. The problem was that counting failures gave the group an incentive to have only the player with the best bonus participate, which was exactly opposite the goals stated for the system. Here's a more detailed explanation (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49652).

You claimed that 4e classes are functionally 3e martials. I have played these two systems for several years. 3e martials cannot do everything that 4e classes do. Barbarian is a single 3.5 class. The 3e ritual system is half-done, an Unearthed Arcana extra.

"I played it" is not a mechanical argument.

Show me evidence. Show me rules. You've already said you change the rules when you don't like them, why should I take your word on what the rules do?

Pleh

2017-08-29, 01:38 PM

Regular XP gives you an incentive to find every encounter you can beat, regardless of whether you "should" from a tactical perspective. If you avoid that, it just is milestone XP. Yes, it has the choice you mention, but you'll still search down for every encounter weaker than the path you picked and you can't really tell from a PC's perspective whether the XP is different for a given path.

Interesting. In my 10 years of playing 3.5, I had never seen players actually try to farm the game for XP like this (even though I've rarely, if ever, seen a rigidly pure milestone system).

Seems like it would betray versimilitude to hunt down every extra bit of XP rather than just take what you're given and move on to your next objective. I've only seen that kind of grinding in video game rpgs.

Knaight

2017-08-29, 01:42 PM

The similarities between 3.5 and 5e almost all appear between them and some other game - for example, you roll a die and compare it to a target number as a success-failure mechanic. That's the same as in FATE, except that the roll is 1d20 rather than 4d3-4. You level up in your class, which is the same as in all types of RPGs. Yes, the sacred cow that is vancian casting is alive and well, but not much else (apart from the nomenclature) is specific enough to tie D&D together as a cohesive feature. Essentially, the only features which are emblematic of D&D edition-wide are the ones which exist for no real reason except to be emblematic of D&D.
If you're willing to zoom out far enough you can make all games look similar enough that none appear particularly similar to each other, but that's disengenuous. The specifics of a d20 as opposed to a heavily curved roll and add system matter. The use of classes and levels, neither of which are particularly common elsewhere matters - then there's the specifics. Both use the same attribute system, involving both the same six attributes and a really weird attribute/bonus system calculated off the same formula that doesn't crop up elsewhere much at all. Both use hit points which dramatically increase with level, both tie hit points to classes with hit dice, both use a combat system made to fit a grid, with the same sort of initiative system, the same sort of attack vs. AC system (and fairly similar inputs into what does and doesn't help AC), and fairly similar save systems. Both have a heavy combat focus, both use a fairly idiosyncratic experience system involving both very large numbers for the XP and tying them to encounter rewards, both have an entire book dedicated to opposition which is mostly monsters, many of which are basically the same. Vancian casting is another point of similarity, but it's not particularly special in that regard - and where a lot of these hold for every edition of D&D, Vancian has a giant exception carved out for 4e.

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 01:56 PM

If you're willing to zoom out far enough you can make all games look similar enough that none appear particularly similar to each other, but that's disengenuous. The specifics of a d20 as opposed to a heavily curved roll and add system matter. The use of classes and levels, neither of which are particularly common elsewhere matters - then there's the specifics. Both use the same attribute system, involving both the same six attributes and a really weird attribute/bonus system calculated off the same formula that doesn't crop up elsewhere much at all. Both use hit points which dramatically increase with level, both tie hit points to classes with hit dice, both use a combat system made to fit a grid, with the same sort of initiative system, the same sort of attack vs. AC system (and fairly similar inputs into what does and doesn't help AC), and fairly similar save systems. Both have a heavy combat focus, both use a fairly idiosyncratic experience system involving both very large numbers for the XP and tying them to encounter rewards, both have an entire book dedicated to opposition which is mostly monsters, many of which are basically the same. Vancian casting is another point of similarity, but it's not particularly special in that regard - and where a lot of these hold for every edition of D&D, Vancian has a giant exception carved out for 4e.

Yes, a lot of the numbers-maths is the same, but the kinds of stories that the two games tell (and all of the numbers-maths which actually tells you what kind of game you're playing, particularly that with any relevance to bounded accuracy and the fact that advancement doesn't really advance anything anything like as much in 5th) are all completely different. The fact that the XP numbers have two extra zeroes strapped on the end for no reason is a similarity, sure, but it's not actually a similarity which does anything except make the numbers that come out of the DM's mouth sound different when they tell the players how much XP they got and the numbers on the players' character sheets have two extra circles on the end of them.

In particular, the answer to the question "What happens when Archwizard McArchwizardington tries to solo 5000 faceless soldiers?" is vastly different. The answer to the question "Does climbing a rocky cliff face present a challenge to Fighter Twentiethlevelington McGuywhotrainedclimb?" is different, because 6+STR is a vastly different number from 23+STR, so the DC 20 climb check that stopped bothering the 3.5 fighter sevenish levels ago can still be failed fairly often by the 5e fighter - DC 20 being challenging but possible for a first-level fighter in either system. This is what I mean by "5e doesn't have any real advancement" - things that were challenges at 1st level don't stop being challenges at 20th, they just become less challenging challenges by a fairly pathetic amount.

In short, what actually happens is vastly different between the two systems, even if a lot of the numbers and acronyms you say aren't.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 02:06 PM

Or, in other words, "make some stuff up". And there you have it. Things in 4e aren't real. They're video game items, with predefined interactions, and if you want to do other things you have to make stuff up. And at that point, why am I giving Mike Mearls my money?

The rules for "making stuff up" are there. Want to manipulate your spell into doing something you've never done before. The mechanics exist. Want to craft something unusual? There are rules for that. In fact, these rules are simple and robust, because the entire framework of 4e is robust and can withstand going above and beyond your prescribed abilities.

Your original claim was that you can't pick up items off enemies and use them. You can. You didn't know the rules.

Sure. If you don't like that, play with different rules. Don't make stuff up, because then I can't interact with the world.

The difference here is that 4e doesn't pretend to cover everything -- its rules don't define the world. The world makes much more sense that way. Take the whale dropping example -- in 4e, the whale will go splat since the rules for falling and damage are made for encounters with PCs.

In your version of a 3e world, two wizards can cast mage armor and know each other's level based on the duration of the spell. They can then know each other's wealth, as NPC wealth is in the rules -- rules of the world. You can go and kill goblins, orcs, and trolls, and become an expert in history or the workings of the planes -- after all, you gained XP and leveled up, spending skill ranks in the appropriate Knowledge skills. This is a world that makes sense? And you claim that 4e's monsters are videogamey? The creatures in your world know the rules of the game and live their lives according to them!

Your paradigm of "sometimes I make stuff up" makes planning impossible. Or rather it makes it meaningless, because there's always the "see if the DM allows it" step. If the rules can change at any time on the DM's whim, my actions are meaningless. The fact that you had fun doesn't change that.

You can roll knowledge skill checks. You can gather information on the enemy, using your skills and abilities and simply through your stated actions. The rules don't change on a whim -- you continue to fundamentally misunderstand the design principles of 4e. There are explicit rules for all of this. They do exist, even if you don't know about them.

And so does you claiming that parsing the shorter 4e statblock is easier.

This doesn't have relevance to what I said. Why is a 4e balor worse because it doesn't have a 3.5 spell? It has other abilities.

Oh really? How does it do that? What can I do, as a PC, to know its capabilities in advance and plan around them?

It does it because the DM says it does. Just like how, in 3.5, you decide how many levels of sorcerer NPC X has. How is this difficult to grasp? You have plenty of options to find out about a specific creature's abilities. How does a 3.5 PC find out about a specific character's abilities?

Also, literally the entire point of having rules is constraint. If you want to not be constrained, play free-form.

When planning for an adventure, how do you create a human NPC that has the ability to shape the earth and skills in swordsmanship? What if you want the NPC to have the ability to transform the terrain through magic -- say, raise massive walls to protect a city -- and also combine martial ability with earth-based battle magic?

In 3.5, you can give the human class levels in an appropriate class, maybe levels in one or more prestige classes too. Raising massive earth walls is high level magic, thus you need to give him several levels in a spellcasting class, which also gives the NPC a whole bunch of other non-earth spells -- abilities that don't fit the vision for the character. Good martial ability AND high-level magic requires a high-level character -- thus, it would be much more appropriate for a high-level game.

In 4e, you create a stat block that gives the NPC weapon attacks and magical earth-based attacks -- no extras needed to muddle up the concept. Raising the massive walls is something you don't need to add to the stats, because it's a story ability. This NPC is so in tune with the earth that he simply does it through whatever magical source you deem appropriate. Also, you can utilize this NPC at any level, because adding that earth wall magic doesn't require a high-level creature.

That's what I mean by constraints. Following the rules, 4e allows much more freedom when designing characters and monsters for an adventure.

Wrong. The problem was that counting failures gave the group an incentive to have only the player with the best bonus participate, which was exactly opposite the goals stated for the system. Here's a more detailed explanation (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49652).

That wasn't the real problem... you'd know it if you played the game. The problem was that the DCs were off, and you'd end up with much more successes or failures depending on the length of the challenge. It's fixed now though -- the system works.

"I played it" is not a mechanical argument.

Show me evidence. Show me rules. You've already said you change the rules when you don't like them, why should I take your word on what the rules do?

Change the rules when I don't like them? I don't change them -- I follow the rules! I haven't come up with all this stuff on my own -- these are the guidelines on how to run 4e.

Again, how are 4e classes functionally the same as 3e martials, when 3e martials don't have abilities to summon angels/demons, teleportation, divination magic, illusions, etc.?

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 02:10 PM

In 4e, you create a stat block that gives the NPC weapon attacks and magical earth-based attacks -- no extras needed to muddle up the concept. Raising the massive walls is something you don't need to add to the stats, because it's a story ability. This NPC is so in tune with the earth that he simply does it through whatever magical source you deem appropriate. Also, you can utilize this NPC at any level, because adding that earth wall magic doesn't require a high-level creature.

I mean, in 3.5 you can just tack abilities onto a creature without following the class-level system. You're the DM; you can do whatever you like! But that's as far as I can tell exactly what Cosi means by just making things up. Yes, you can strap a wall of earth at-will SLA on someone in 3.5 too, because you're the DM and you can do what you like.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 02:22 PM

Your original claim was that you can't pick up items off enemies and use them. You can. You didn't know the rules.

And you can't. You can't sell them, for example.

Take the whale dropping example -- in 4e, the whale will go splat since the rules for falling and damage are made for encounters with PCs.

So if I turned into a whale, I wouldn't go splat? And this is a more consistent solution in your mind?

In your version of a 3e world, two wizards can cast mage armor and know each other's level based on the duration of the spell.

I mean, unless one of them has a Orange Ioun Stone. Or Mage Slayer. Or Rogue levels and Practiced Spellcaster. Or Extend Spell. But yes, the world of 3e is consistent. This is not a bad thing.

And you claim that 4e's monsters are videogamey? The creatures in your world know the rules of the game and live their lives according to them!

Do you think D&D is a real place? Do you think there are some trolls somewhere living their own lives? Of course not! These creatures are fictional, and they "live" an existence that is necessarily defined by rules.

This doesn't have relevance to what I said. Why is a 4e balor worse because it doesn't have a 3.5 spell? It has other abilities.

My point is that you can't compare something with less abilities to something with more abilities and act like that proves a point about the system. A bullet-pointed list of three items is shorter than a numbered list of five items. That doesn't mean bullet points inherently make lists shorter.

It does it because the DM says it does. Just like how, in 3.5, you decide how many levels of sorcerer NPC X has. How is this difficult to grasp? You have plenty of options to find out about a specific creature's abilities. How does a 3.5 PC find out about a specific character's abilities?

In 3e, class abilities are predictable in advance. I may not know that a particular person is an 8th level Druid, but I know what kinds of classes exist and what kinds of abilities they have. And generally, by the time I'm actually engaging with something I know what it is. Your proposed solution is that the DM makes some stuff up. And sure, he could do that all in advance. But he could also not. If DMs were always perfect, we wouldn't need rules.

In 3.5, you can give the human class levels in an appropriate class, maybe levels in one or more prestige classes too. Raising massive earth walls is high level magic, thus you need to give him several levels in a spellcasting class, which also gives the NPC a whole bunch of other non-earth spells -- abilities that don't fit the vision for the character. Good martial ability AND high-level magic requires a high-level character -- thus, it would be much more appropriate for a high-level game.

wall of stone is a 5th level spell on the Cleric list. divine power is a 4th level spell on the Cleric list. You can get both those spells as a 9th level Cleric, and you can just not cast the other Cleric spells that are not sufficiently "earth-y" or "martial-y".

It's almost like you haven't ... played the game. You really should have picked a more difficult challenge than "Gish". There are like eighty different kinds of Gish in 3e.

That wasn't the real problem... you'd know it if you played the game. The problem was that the DCs were off, and you'd end up with much more successes or failures depending on the length of the challenge. It's fixed now though -- the system works.

So the real problem wasn't that the rules did the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do? How am I supposed to argue with you if you don't think "this creates an incentive that is the exact opposite of the incentive I nominally want" isn't a game design problem?

Again, how are 4e classes functionally the same as 3e martials, when 3e martials don't have abilities to summon angels/demons, teleportation, divination magic, illusions, etc.?

4e classes don't have those either. They have rituals which are, by virtue of permanent cost, functionally scrolls.

2D8HP

2017-08-29, 02:41 PM

...5e is a diluted, smoothed-out 3.5.

Getting to play D&D again with 5e has been great, and if I learn 3.5/Pathfinder I could double potential tables, but....
....full "bells & whistles" 5e is just too much for me to handle DM'ing, and judging by what people post about how 3.5 compares, it seems like 3.x would be even more cumbersome.

Is it?

I learned TSR D&D (and Traveller, and Call if Cthullu, and Champions, and...) decades ago when I had a young agile mind (and B/X snd BRP are pretty well imprinted), but sometime around 30 years ago, I tried to learn GURPS, and I found that I either lacked the mental agility, or the patience to study complex rules anymore, and more recently I'm finding that I just don't much enjoy the character creation "mini-game" anymore, and prefer "close-enough-to-what-I-want-to-play" pre-gens.

Should I bother to try 3.x?

The Extinguisher

2017-08-29, 02:46 PM

Jormengand, I'm at a loss to what you're arguing with me about. Im not trying to say that the systems are interchangeable and I haven't made any value judgement on any system. Just that for all their differences they're very similar games especially compared to other game systems. Heck, this all started cause I was just joking about the ice cream flavour analogy.

I think everyone in this thread (myself included) needs to take a step back and realize that just because someone likes a game that you don't, or that someone wants to play a game differently then you do, that doesn't make that game bad or that person wrong for preferring it.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-08-29, 02:47 PM

Getting to play D&D again with 5e has been great, and if I learn 3.5/Pathfinder I could double potential tables, but....
....full "bells & whistles" 5e is just too much for me to handle DM'ing, and judging by what people post about how 3.5 compares, it seems like 3.x would be even more cumbersome.

Is it?

I learned TSR D&D (and Traveller, and Call if Cthullu, and Champions, and...) decades ago when I had a young agile mind (and B/X snd BRP are pretty well imprinted), but sometime around 30 years ago, I tried to learn GURPS, and I found that I either lacked the mental agility, or the patience to study complex rules anymore, and more recently I'm finding that I just don't much enjoy the character creation "mini-game" anymore, and prefer "close-enough-to-what-I-want-to-play" pre-gens.

Should I bother to try 3.x?
If you find 5e clunky, I'd avoid 3.5/Pathfinder like the plague. Even the simplest base classes require you to choose a bunch of feats (off a far larger list than in 5e) and keep track of a bunch of magic items just to fill out the base requirements, to say nothing of being effective. Lists of spells known tend to be much larger. And the basic system-- how things like actions and combat maneuvers and all work-- is more complicated too.

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 02:50 PM

Jormengand, I'm at a loss to what you're arguing with me about. Im not trying to say that the systems are interchangeable and I haven't made any value judgement on any system. Just that for all their differences they're very similar games especially compared to other game systems. Heck, this all started cause I was just joking about the ice cream flavour analogy.

I mean I wasn't aware that I was really arguing with you. You said a thing, I responded by saying that thing wasn't really accurate, and I ended up talking to a lot of other people about it.

The Extinguisher

2017-08-29, 02:54 PM

I mean I wasn't aware that I was really arguing with you. You said a thing, I responded by saying that thing wasn't really accurate, and I ended up talking to a lot of other people about it.

Yeah okay. That's fair. Maybe I just been in too many arguments on the internet lately and read too much into it. My bad.

The fact that this discussion is happening in between an argument probably didn't help either

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 03:01 PM

And you can't. You can't sell them, for example.

You can continue to claim that, but it's factually untrue. This isn't something up to opinion or interpretation -- you literally can do this.

So if I turned into a whale, I wouldn't go splat? And this is a more consistent solution in your mind?

You are playing a PC, the rules are different for PCs because this is a game about adventurers in a fantasy world. It's perfectly consistent with the rules.

I mean, unless one of them has a Orange Ioun Stone. Or Mage Slayer. Or Rogue levels and Practiced Spellcaster. Or Extend Spell. But yes, the world of 3e is consistent. This is not a bad thing.

Do you think D&D is a real place? Do you think there are some trolls somewhere living their own lives? Of course not! These creatures are fictional, and they "live" an existence that is necessarily defined by rules.

Earlier you said that 4e enemies are bad because they're "videogame mobs". All creatures in your interpretation of 3.5 rules know that they exist in a game world -- that's videogamey. Your claim is that the pinnacle of RPG design is where the world is aware of the rules of the game -- XP, CR, levels, etc. -- yet you also dislike "videogamey" elements. Your example of objectively good design is videogamey.

My point is that you can't compare something with less abilities to something with more abilities and act like that proves a point about the system. A bullet-pointed list of three items is shorter than a numbered list of five items. That doesn't mean bullet points inherently make lists shorter.

A shorter list of things is inherently faster to reference than a longer list. Your claim was that the 4e balor is inherently worse design because it doesn't have a 3.5 spell. Is a demon in Shadowrun inherently worse design because it doesn't have 3.5 spells?

In 3e, class abilities are predictable in advance. I may not know that a particular person is an 8th level Druid, but I know what kinds of classes exist and what kinds of abilities they have. And generally, by the time I'm actually engaging with something I know what it is. Your proposed solution is that the DM makes some stuff up. And sure, he could do that all in advance. But he could also not. If DMs were always perfect, we wouldn't need rules.

This has no bearing on the ability of a 4e PC to get information on an enemy. Doesn't a 3.5 DM "make stuff up", aka, decide on what class, level, and race a certain NPC is?

wall of stone is a 5th level spell on the Cleric list. divine power is a 4th level spell on the Cleric list. You can get both those spells as a 9th level Cleric, and you can just not cast the other Cleric spells that are not sufficiently "earth-y" or "martial-y".

It's almost like you haven't ... played the game. You really should have picked a more difficult challenge than "Gish". There are like eighty different kinds of Gish in 3e.

And the earth-based battle magic? Wall of stone doesn't create large walls unless cast repeatedly -- what if you want the NPC to have created these massive walls in one display of great power? What if the NPC sacrificed some part of himself to do it? What if I don't want his abilities to be divine in nature? Why isn't he using all the other spells, even though he has them? Why would he restrict himself to earth spells? What if you don't want the NPC to have martial ability that's dependent on magic?

Constraints. When you follow the rules, creating NPCs in 3.5 has many constraints. Your vision for an NPC will be constrained by the rules -- unlike in 4e.

So the real problem wasn't that the rules did the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do? How am I supposed to argue with you if you don't think "this creates an incentive that is the exact opposite of the incentive I nominally want" isn't a game design problem?

This issue is not relevant, now is it? The skill challenge system was fixed several years ago. How is it an example of bad design when it doesn't exist anymore?

4e classes don't have those either. They have rituals which are, by virtue of permanent cost, functionally scrolls.

They do. They literally do -- outside the ritual system. Again, you do not know the rules of 4e. You continue to give example after example. Why do you then insist on criticizing imaginary rules?

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 03:12 PM

I mean, in 3.5 you can just tack abilities onto a creature without following the class-level system. You're the DM; you can do whatever you like! But that's as far as I can tell exactly what Cosi means by just making things up. Yes, you can strap a wall of earth at-will SLA on someone in 3.5 too, because you're the DM and you can do what you like.

But you're still working within the constraints of the spell system, which defines the world. What if your vision for an NPC includes a magical ability that doesn't correspond to any spell? You have to create the spell, because the PCs should, by the rules, have access to the same magic. You're constrained when you come up with concepts for NPC characters and monsters, because you're working within the rules that also attempt to define how the world works.

And how does this SLA affect the NPC's CR? Again, it's more involved and complex compared to 4e.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 03:13 PM

You can continue to claim that, but it's factually untrue. This isn't something up to opinion or interpretation -- you literally can do this.

Really? They have a listed price? Where, exactly, is it listed?

You are playing a PC, the rules are different for PCs because this is a game about adventurers in a fantasy world. It's perfectly consistent with the rules.

By definition whatever the rules say is consistent with the rules. If that's all you mean, your definition of "consistent" adds nothing to a conversation.

Earlier you said that 4e enemies are bad because they're "videogame mobs". All creatures in your interpretation of 3.5 rules know that they exist in a game world -- that's videogamey. Your claim is that the pinnacle of RPG design is where the world is aware of the rules of the game -- XP, CR, levels, etc. -- yet you also dislike "videogamey" elements. Your example of objectively good design is videogamey.

Could you please point to the part of 3e that indicates characters are aware they're in a game?

This has no bearing on the ability of a 4e PC to get information on an enemy. Doesn't a 3.5 DM "make stuff up", aka, decide on what class, level, and race a certain NPC is?

A DM makes selections, but the choices from which selections can be made are known. And yes, 3e DMs can make stuff up. But they don't have to the way 4e DMs do. This is, by the way, also a point against out-of-the-box playability of 4e. In 3e I can look at a monster, see that it has animate dead, invisibility, and scrying, and use those as seeds for an adventure. Because 4e monsters are videogame mobs, I can't do that with them.

And the earth-based battle magic? Wall of stone doesn't create large walls unless cast repeatedly -- what if you want the NPC to have created these massive walls in one display of great power? What if the NPC sacrificed some part of himself to do it? What if I don't want his abilities to be divine in nature? Why isn't he using all the other spells, even though he has them? Why would he restrict himself to earth spells? What if you don't want the NPC to have martial ability that's dependent on magic?

Guess what: 4e NPCs don't have those abilities either! In fact, they have even less abilities than our Cleric.

Also, yes, any game will necessarily be finite in size, and will therefore necessarily exclude things. This doesn't seem like a good tack for you, because "I can name kinds of earth-based gishes your game doesn't have" seems less compelling than "the PHB doesn't have Barbarians or Gnomes".

Constraints. When you follow the rules, creating NPCs in 3.5 has many constraints. Your vision for an NPC will be constrained by the rules -- unlike in 4e.

Oh my god, when I play a game, I have to follow the rules of the game! Do you expect to be able to play a game of Magic with Pokemon cards? Do you get mad that you can't be a Spartan in CoD?

This issue is not relevant, now is it? The skill challenge system was fixed several years ago. How is it an example of bad design when it doesn't exist anymore?

You didn't know what the issue was. Why should I believe you when you say they fixed it? Certainly there were several revisions that didn't fix it. Which one do you think is good? Where can I find it?

They do. They literally do -- outside the ritual system. Again, you do not know the rules of 4e. You continue to give example after example. Why do you then insist on criticizing imaginary rules?

You wanna cite something somewhere? No?

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 03:37 PM

Really? They have a listed price? Where, exactly, is it listed?

Why do they need a listed price to be picked up and used? What's the listed price of the red shawl I gave an NPC? You reference similar items and use that price. Again, your claim was that they can't be picked up and used -- they can.

Could you please point to the part of 3e that indicates characters are aware they're in a game?

According to your interpretation of 3.5, creatures are aware of levels and XP. They know that by killing creatures, they can become better at history, or anything else completely unrelated to killing creatures. I gave examples of strange interactions (like the kids shooting crossbows), and because the rules then define how the world works -- all rules -- it follows that the creatures know about every single rule in the game. Thus they exist in a world that is a game.

Note, this is your interpretation. I and I'd wager the large majority of people who play 3.5 don't ascribe to this idea.

A DM makes selections, but the choices from which selections can be made are known. And yes, 3e DMs can make stuff up. But they don't have to the way 4e DMs do. This is, by the way, also a point against out-of-the-box playability of 4e. In 3e I can look at a monster, see that it has animate dead, invisibility, and scrying, and use those as seeds for an adventure. Because 4e monsters are videogame mobs, I can't do that with them.

Unlike in your interpretation of 3.5, creatures in 4e are not their stats. They exist as beings beyond those -- the stats are simply one mechanical representation. The books have lore and flavor for creatures, and often the abilities of creatures can inspire adventures and challenges. You don't have to make stuff up, but if you want to change or add something, it's very easy and supported by the rules.

Guess what: 4e NPCs don't have those abilities either! In fact, they have even less abilities than our Cleric.

4e NPCs have exactly the abilities you want them to have. When you need mechanics for those abilities, simple-to-use rules exist to make it happen.

Also, yes, any game will necessarily be finite in size, and will therefore necessarily exclude things. This doesn't seem like a good tack for you, because "I can name kinds of earth-based gishes your game doesn't have" seems less compelling than "the PHB doesn't have Barbarians or Gnomes".

Barbarians and gnomes exist in 4e. If your point was that the PHB1 of 4e is worse because it doesn't have those two elements, is the PHB of 3.5 worse because it doesn't have warlocks, warlords, eladrin, or tieflings?

Besides, the point I'm still making is that you're constrained in 3.5 when it comes to putting a vision of an NPC into mechanics.

You didn't know what the issue was. Why should I believe you when you say they fixed it? Certainly there were several revisions that didn't fix it. Which one do you think is good? Where can I find it?

You wanna cite something somewhere? No?

Guardian Angel, Angelic Messenger, Summon Fire Warrior, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Dimension Door, Mordenkainen's Mansion... the list goes on.

The fixed version of skill challenge DCs can be found in the Rules Compendium.

How do you claim to know what the issue was or how 4e works when you don't even know those abilities I just listed?

2D8HP

2017-08-29, 03:55 PM

If you find 5e clunky, I'd avoid 3.5/Pathfinder like the plague..

Thanks GtG, I'll take that to heart.

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 03:56 PM

Why do they need a listed price to be picked up and used?

Cosi: You can't sell them.
You: That's factually untrue.
Cosi: Then what's their listed price?
You: Why do they need a listed price for you to do something which isn't selling them?

Can you not see what the problem is with your reasoning here? :smallconfused:

Cosi

2017-08-29, 03:58 PM

Why do they need a listed price to be picked up and used?

Is selling something not a form of use?

According to your interpretation of 3.5, creatures are aware of levels and XP. They know that by killing creatures, they can become better at history, or anything else completely unrelated to killing creatures. I gave examples of strange interactions (like the kids shooting crossbows), and because the rules then define how the world works -- all rules -- it follows that the creatures know about every single rule in the game. Thus they exist in a world that is a game.

The laws of physics describe how our world works. You are a creature in our world. Do you know all the laws of physics?

Unlike in your interpretation of 3.5, creatures in 4e are not their stats.

Yes, they are. D&D creatures do not exist. All they are is what the game says they are. You can add things, but you can do that in any game, so it is not a defense of 4e. Also, it's a bad idea that hurts role-playing and verisimilitude.

4e NPCs have exactly the abilities you want them to have. When you need mechanics for those abilities, simple-to-use rules exist to make it happen.

And those mechanics are where? Page citation please.

Barbarians and gnomes exist in 4e. If your point was that the PHB1 of 4e is worse because it doesn't have those two elements, is the PHB of 3.5 worse because it doesn't have warlocks, warlords, eladrin, or tieflings?

You're missing the point. 3e has more content than 4e. Where's the 4e Warblade? The 4e Beguiler? The 4e Dragon Shaman? The 4e Truenamer? The 4e Archivist? For that matter, where's the 4e Unseen Seer? The 4e Green Star Adept? The 4e Shadowcraft Mage? Where's 4e's Lord of the Uttercold? 4e's Greenbound Summoning? 4e's Arcane Strike?

Sure, you can argue those things aren't all unalloyed goods for the game. But if your complaint is that there are things 3e can't do, it seems to me that there are vastly more things 4e can't do.

Besides, the point I'm still making is that you're constrained in 3.5 when it comes to putting a vision of an NPC into mechanics.

And the point I'm making is that this is a good thing, and a necessary part of having rules. If you want to be able to do whatever you want, why does Mike Mearls need several hundred of your dollars? Was your imagination utterly barren before 4e revealed the possibility of making stuff up to you?

Guardian Angel

Hahahahahaha.

This is a joke right?

Your "angel summoning" is a one round AoE defensive buff? That's what "summon an angel" means to you? "I have invoked the might powers of the divine! Tremble before my ability to make one or two of my allies slightly harder to hit!"

Yeah, that's totally unlike anything 3e martials can do. Wait, no, it's exactly like a think the 3e Marshal can literally do. Actually, the Marshal's is better, because it's a bigger AoE and lasts longer.

The fixed version of skill challenge DCs can be found in the Rules Compendium.

Okay, so the solution to "not the problem". So you're done right? You've admitted you don't understand what the problems with 4e even are.

How do you claim to know what the issue was or how 4e works when you don't even know those abilities I just listed?

Yes, the mighty "AoE defensive buff" clearly rebuts any of my points about 4e characters being terrible one-dimensional jokes that have no non-combat utility.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 04:00 PM

Cosi: You can't sell them.
You: That's factually untrue.
Cosi: Then what's their listed price?
You: Why do they need a listed price for you to do something which isn't selling them?

Can you not see what the problem is with your reasoning here? :smallconfused:

Why did you cut off the rest of the paragraph. Cosi claimed that you cannot pick up and use items that monsters and NPCs have -- that's not true. You can.

You determine the price of an item that doesn't have a listed price by comparing it to items of similar value. Just like in 3.5, if there's an item (like a red shawl) that doesn't have a listed price you compare it to similar items and assign the price. Or can you not sell or interact with items that don't exist anywhere in the books published for 3e?

Zanos

2017-08-29, 04:12 PM

But you're still working within the constraints of the spell system, which defines the world. What if your vision for an NPC includes a magical ability that doesn't correspond to any spell? You have to create the spell, because the PCs should, by the rules, have access to the same magic. You're constrained when you come up with concepts for NPC characters and monsters, because you're working within the rules that also attempt to define how the world works.

And how does this SLA affect the NPC's CR? Again, it's more involved and complex compared to 4e.
...Why would you need a game system to tell you that you can do what you want? You can always do whatever you want.

You said that you can just add an ability to raise a magic earth wall to an 4e NPC as a "story ability", which either means that the ability does nothing in combat or you actually need to give it mechanics, in which case it would affect the encounters XP budget and I have no idea what point you're even trying to make.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 04:12 PM

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 04:13 PM

You determine the price of an item that doesn't have a listed price by comparing it to items of similar value. Just like in 3.5, if there's an item (like a red shawl) that doesn't have a listed price you compare it to similar items and assign the price. Or can you not sell or interact with items that don't exist anywhere in the books published for 3e?

The problem is that in 4e, you have an item that is clearly intended to be a game mechanic object, like a sword rather than like a shawl, which is missing some essential parameters for its use by a PC because it's not meant to be used by a PC because it's arbitrarily classed as a "Monster object" in effect. Effectively, you have to make things up in order for the item to work. A red shawl isn't an object covered by the rules at all, sure, but you can't just leave the damage die off a greatsword and claim it's an object that exists in the game. And the claim was never that a red shawl was a game object at all, but kobold sling bullets are.

In the same vein, a monster which doesn't have stats which tell you what happens when it's doing anything but combat disallows you from using that monster outside of combat without making stuff up on the fly. This means that 4e is just lacking noncombat rules for those monsters - it doesn't mean that you making stuff up is in any way a real ruleset for them. And what things do when they're not in combat can be important even for a combat-centric game.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 04:20 PM

Is selling something not a form of use?

Sure, and I also explained how you can assign prices to items that don't have a listed price -- but you cut off that part from your quote. You still claim that you can't pick up and use items off creatures in 4e?

The laws of physics describe how our world works. You are a creature in our world. Do you know all the laws of physics?

People in our world do know the laws of physics. In addition, there are immortal beings of vast intellect far surpassing anything we have in a 3.5 fantasy world. They would -- following your logic -- know about the rules of the world. The rules of a game.

Yes, they are. D&D creatures do not exist. All they are is what the game says they are. You can add things, but you can do that in any game, so it is not a defense of 4e. Also, it's a bad idea that hurts role-playing and verisimilitude.

Creatures of a book don't exist either, and neither do they have rules -- but it doesn't mean they don't have meaning in the story. It doesn't hurt roleplaying or verisimilitude because (again) the rules do not attempt to model the physics of the entire world. The writer of a book doesn't have to come up with stats for creatures or characters to write a good story. The stats for 4e creatures exist to facilitate resolving encounters -- because the stat blocks are made for that.

And those mechanics are where? Page citation please.

In the rules and guidelines on creating NPCs and monsters? Are you for real? You claimed that 4e NPCs don't have such abilities -- where's your evidence?

You're missing the point. 3e has more content than 4e. Where's the 4e Warblade? The 4e Beguiler? The 4e Dragon Shaman? The 4e Truenamer? The 4e Archivist? For that matter, where's the 4e Unseen Seer? The 4e Green Star Adept? The 4e Shadowcraft Mage? Where's 4e's Lord of the Uttercold? 4e's Greenbound Summoning? 4e's Arcane Strike?

Sure, you can argue those things aren't all unalloyed goods for the game. But if your complaint is that there are things 3e can't do, it seems to me that there are vastly more things 4e can't do.

Where's the 3.5 invoker? Swordmage? Assassin from level 1? You are aware that 4e has a massive amount of published material?

In addition, a 4e PC isn't always constrained by their sheet. There are rules to express improvisation -- for example, you could try casting a blinding spell using Light, or create a sheet of ice with an ice spell. If you want to do stuff like that in 3.5, you need specific spells and abilities.

And the point I'm making is that this is a good thing, and a necessary part of having rules. If you want to be able to do whatever you want, why does Mike Mearls need several hundred of your dollars? Was your imagination utterly barren before 4e revealed the possibility of making stuff up to you?

It's good that you have to make concessions when creating NPCs? Really? Wouldn't a well designed RPG help you put your vision into working mechanics, without having to compromise because the rules don't support what you want to do?

Hahahahahaha.

This is a joke right?

Your "angel summoning" is a one round AoE defensive buff? That's what "summon an angel" means to you? "I have invoked the might powers of the divine! Tremble before my ability to make one or two of my allies slightly harder to hit!"

Yeah, that's totally unlike anything 3e martials can do. Wait, no, it's exactly like a think the 3e Marshal can literally do. Actually, the Marshal's is better, because it's a bigger AoE and lasts longer.

That is just one such spell -- there are literally 138 summoning powers in 4e. I'm not going to detail every single one here (that's against the rules of the board too). And you ignored the other spells I listed.

Okay, so the solution to "not the problem". So you're done right? You've admitted you don't understand what the problems with 4e even are.

But you've just showed that you didn't know about all the various non-ritual abilities that you claimed didn't exist in 4e. And you claimed that you can't pick up and use items off creatures in 4e -- when you obviously can. You claimed that a 4e NPC couldn't have those various earth-related spells -- when they indeed can. You didn't even know how the skill challenge system was fixed, or where its updated rules are.

How can you thus claim to have an understanding of the rules?

Yes, the mighty "AoE defensive buff" clearly rebuts any of my points about 4e characters being terrible one-dimensional jokes that have no non-combat utility.

Disguise Self, Invisibility, Mordenkainen's Mansion... the list goes on. And skills are actually useful in 4e, from level 1 to 30. There's even a great mechanical framework to make use of them and give PCs tons of non-combat utility -- skill challenges.

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 04:28 PM

Actually, 3e has listed prices for clothing. Here they are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm). A shawl seems like a good fit for Cleric's Vestments or perhaps Courtier’s Outfit. Man it's almost like you Don't Play The Game (TM).

Isn't that what I just said -- you compare an item that isn't specifically listed in goods to something similar. Please read my posts before responding.

The problem is that in 4e, you have an item that is clearly intended to be a game mechanic object, like a sword rather than like a shawl, which is missing some essential parameters for its use by a PC because it's not meant to be used by a PC because it's arbitrarily classed as a "Monster object" in effect. Effectively, you have to make things up in order for the item to work. A red shawl isn't an object covered by the rules at all, sure, but you can't just leave the damage die off a greatsword and claim it's an object that exists in the game. And the claim was never that a red shawl was a game object at all, but kobold sling bullets are.

In the same vein, a monster which doesn't have stats which tell you what happens when it's doing anything but combat disallows you from using that monster outside of combat without making stuff up on the fly. This means that 4e is just lacking noncombat rules for those monsters - it doesn't mean that you making stuff up is in any way a real ruleset for them. And what things do when they're not in combat can be important even for a combat-centric game.

Sling bullets exist in the rules for weapons. There are rules to determine what happens when you interact with a creature outside combat (skills and powers, skill challenges). You may not know about the rules' existence, but they do exist.

...Why would you need a game system to tell you that you can do what you want? You can always do whatever you want.

You said that you can just add an ability to raise a magic earth wall to an 4e NPC as a "story ability", which either means that the ability does nothing in combat or you actually need to give it mechanics, in which case it would affect the encounters XP budget and I have no idea what point you're even trying to make.

The particular ability I gave as an example wouldn't be used in combat, because raising a massive wall to protect a city is not something you use in a typical battle. The point that I was making is that in 4e, it's easier to give NPCs various abilities that don't need to be used in battles -- abilities that don't make the NPC harder to fight in a battle. The NPC I presented would have earth-related abilities -- maybe burrowing fast through the ground, creating blocks of earth to pummel enemies, raising small walls to divide the battlefield, trapping enemies in stone, etc. etc.

Zanos

2017-08-29, 04:31 PM

The particular ability I gave as an example wouldn't be used in combat, because raising a massive wall to protect a city is not something you use in a typical battle. The point that I was making is that in 4e, it's easier to give NPCs various abilities that don't need to be used in battles -- abilities that don't make the NPC harder to fight in a battle. The NPC I presented would have earth-related abilities -- maybe burrowing fast through the ground, creating blocks of earth to pummel enemies, raising small walls to divide the battlefield, trapping enemies in stone, etc. etc.
Because the players might want to, obviously, interact with that. Even if it's not strictly combat. What if I want to dispel it? Tunnel through it? Transmute it? Fly over it? Using an established magic effect lets you easily answer all those questions. And I don't think the answer to those questions should be "whether or not I feel like letting the PCs do it."

But nothing about 3.5 stops you from creating uninteractive set pieces if you really want to.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 04:35 PM

Sure, and I also explained how you can assign prices to items that don't have a listed price -- but you cut off that part from your quote. You still claim that you can't pick up and use items off creatures in 4e?

Yes. You can add things to the rules (such as prices). But you can do that for anything in any game. So the ability to do it for some thing in some game is meaningless.

People in our world do know the laws of physics. In addition, there are immortal beings of vast intellect far surpassing anything we have in a 3.5 fantasy world. They would -- following your logic -- know about the rules of the world. The rules of a game.

Uh, sure? Like, I don't know how you could tell the rules of the world were the rules of a game even if you knew all of them. Like, does realizing that spell slots have levels come with some information about WotC? How do you know our world isn't a game?

Creatures of a book don't exist either, and neither do they have rules

Yes they do. They have very simple rules. They do the things in the book.

It doesn't hurt roleplaying or verisimilitude because (again) the rules do not attempt to model the physics of the entire world.

The notion that you can just hand wave things like "what if monsters fight each other" is exactly what it means to hurt verisimilitude.

The writer of a book doesn't have to come up with stats for creatures or characters to write a good story.

Yes, single author fiction is different from cooperative storytelling. Authors follow different processes from gaming because authors don't have another voice in the mix with different ideas. The reason we have rules is to resolve disputes between different narrative visions. "Does the Pit Fiend have undead minions" is such a dispute, and the rules of 4e clearly resolve it as "no it does not". You may house rule something different, but then we are no longer talking about 4e rules.

In the rules and guidelines on creating NPCs and monsters? Are you for real? You claimed that 4e NPCs don't have such abilities -- where's your evidence?

I cannot prove a negative. I ask you to present a page citation for a 4e monster with non-combat abilities explicitly alloted to it roughly equivalent in narrative impact to those provided to the Pit Fiend, which can be found here in the SRD (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Pit_Fiend) or on page 57 of the original 3.5 Monster Manual. In case you are unwilling to look, it's pertinent non-combat abilities are create undead (allowing for the creation of a variety of undead minions), greater teleport, persistent image, invisibility, and wish.

Where's the 3.5 invoker? Swordmage? Assassin from level 1? You are aware that 4e has a massive amount of published material?

You really think 4e has more content than 3e? That seems like an extraordinary claim, for which you should provide some extraordinary evidence.

In addition, a 4e PC isn't always constrained by their sheet. There are rules to express improvisation -- for example, you could try casting a blinding spell using Light, or create a sheet of ice with an ice spell. If you want to do stuff like that in 3.5, you need specific spells and abilities.

No, both 3e and 4e characters have the same ability to request DM pity. You do notice it less in 3e because they have actual abilities to fall back on, but that's not really the damning criticism of 3e you think it is.

It's good that you have to make concessions when creating NPCs? Really? Wouldn't a well designed RPG help you put your vision into working mechanics, without having to compromise because the rules don't support what you want to do?

The rules limit you. There are advantages to that, as I hope I have made clear. I get that you don't like that. What I don't get is why you still want rules.

That is just one such spell -- there are literally 138 summoning powers in 4e. I'm not going to detail every single one here (that's against the rules of the board too). And you ignored the other spells I listed.

Yes, when the first option you listed was "minor defensive buff", I assumed you were not arguing in good faith. What is the single most impressive (in terms of strategic impact) power that is offered to a member of a 4e class?

Cosi

2017-08-29, 04:36 PM

Isn't that what I just said -- you compare an item that isn't specifically listed in goods to something similar. Please read my posts before responding.

I noticed you dropped the important part of that post, where I pointed out that you are basically claiming any flaw in 3e makes it worse than 4e.

Please respond to that.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-29, 04:51 PM

The fixed version of skill challenge DCs can be found in the Rules Compendium.
Ah yes, the version that says that failing at a skill challenge should have the exact same results as succeeding, except you lose some healing surges or get a penalty in the next combat. The version where merely being trained gives you a base 70% success rate before bonuses, and that explicitly gives full XP for failing. The version that WOTC is on record for saying it should "die in a fire".

Great fix, that :smallbiggrin:

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 05:04 PM

Yes. You can add things to the rules (such as prices). But you can do that for anything in any game. So the ability to do it for some thing in some game is meaningless.

Ok, and how is this relevant to the point? There are plenty of items with listed prices in 4e, including mundane goods. How is this any different than 3.5?

Uh, sure? Like, I don't know how you could tell the rules of the world were the rules of a game even if you knew all of them. Like, does realizing that spell slots have levels come with some information about WotC? How do you know our world isn't a game?

You yourself said that creatures in your version of 3.5 know about levels, XP, the probabilities of hitting targets, etc. These rules are very gamey -- they produce silly results like whales surviving falls from the sky and kids being able to shoot targets at 700 ft. away with predictability. You claimed that the rules of a well-designed game are the rules of the world. The creatures in the world could thus discover the probabilities of dice, the amount of hit points, how many points of damage a dagger or a sword does, etc. This leads into a world where the beings there know every single rule, and those rules are extremely gamey.

Yes they do. They have very simple rules. They do the things in the book.

The notion that you can just hand wave things like "what if monsters fight each other" is exactly what it means to hurt verisimilitude.

Yes, single author fiction is different from cooperative storytelling. Authors follow different processes from gaming because authors don't have another voice in the mix with different ideas. The reason we have rules is to resolve disputes between different narrative visions. "Does the Pit Fiend have undead minions" is such a dispute, and the rules of 4e clearly resolve it as "no it does not". You may house rule something different, but then we are no longer talking about 4e rules.

How does an author decide what happens when two ogres fight, if those ogres don't have stat blocks? The author simply decides based on the needs of the story. Same thing in 4e, except when you involve the PCs -- then you can give the ogres stats.

According to your logic, giving a level 8 sorcerer the feat Power Attack is a house rule if there's not a single statted level 8 sorcerer with that feat in any 3.5 book. It's not a house rule to add abilities to 4e creatures if the rules say that you may add abilities to creatures as you see fit -- and use provided mechanics when interacting with PCs.

I cannot prove a negative. I ask you to present a page citation for a 4e monster with non-combat abilities explicitly alloted to it roughly equivalent in narrative impact to those provided to the Pit Fiend, which can be found here in the SRD (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Pit_Fiend) or on page 57 of the original 3.5 Monster Manual. In case you are unwilling to look, it's pertinent non-combat abilities are create undead (allowing for the creation of a variety of undead minions), greater teleport, persistent image, invisibility, and wish.

I don't need a specific page citation because the rules don't work like that. You don't understand how to create monsters and NPCs in 4e, that much is clear. Please read 4e DMG and DMG2 if you want to learn more about this. (I can already tell you that Pit Fiends can have equivalents to all of the above if you so wish, as they are non-combat abilities.)

You really think 4e has more content than 3e? That seems like an extraordinary claim, for which you should provide some extraordinary evidence.

I didn't say more, I said tons. For example, there are well over 9,000 published powers and over 3,000 feats. Where's your evidence to support that 3.5 has more published material? You didn't provide any.

No, both 3e and 4e characters have the same ability to request DM pity. You do notice it less in 3e because they have actual abilities to fall back on, but that's not really the damning criticism of 3e you think it is.

Not true. There are specific rules in 4e to resolve improvisation. They don't exist in 3.5. Didn't you know this?

The rules limit you. There are advantages to that, as I hope I have made clear. I get that you don't like that. What I don't get is why you still want rules.

I'm just curious why you think that an RPG that constrains your imagination is a better tool to explore a fantastical world full of adventure.

Yes, when the first option you listed was "minor defensive buff", I assumed you were not arguing in good faith. What is the single most impressive (in terms of strategic impact) power that is offered to a member of a 4e class?

Wait, you don't know? I thought you knew about the Yogi Hat ranger?

There are so many abilities in 4e, I'm not sure I could select one single ability that's above all others. There's a rogueish epic destiny that gives you a passive Stealth score, which means that no one whose Perception (rolled or passive) beats it can see you, unless you so desire.

You claimed that 4e classes are functionally similar to 3e martials. I showed you several abilities that are not something a 3e martial class could do. You continue to ignore every piece of evidence and claim the opposite of what's in 4e rules. You've made up your mind about the rules, even if reality disagrees with you. How could anyone have a credible basis on criticizing rules that they demonstratively don't know or understand?

Grod_The_Giant

2017-08-29, 05:04 PM

Thanks GtG, I'll take that to heart.
Fate might be worth looking into if you want to learn another fairly popular game (though well behind various D&D editions, admittedly).

Uckleverry

2017-08-29, 05:09 PM

I noticed you dropped the important part of that post, where I pointed out that you are basically claiming any flaw in 3e makes it worse than 4e.

Please respond to that.

My position is to object to your claim that 3.5 is an objectively better designed system than either 4e or 5e. There are several fundamental issues with the mechanics of 3.5 that I've posited over and over again.

I don't claim that 3.5 provides less enjoyment or that it's a bad system. I claim that 3.5 has deep flaws, and players have to make more adjustments to 3.5 than to 4e or 5e in order to play a fully functional rules system.

Ah yes, the version that says that failing at a skill challenge should have the exact same results as succeeding, except you lose some healing surges or get a penalty in the next combat. The version where merely being trained gives you a base 70% success rate before bonuses, and that explicitly gives full XP for failing. The version that WOTC is on record for saying it should "die in a fire".

Great fix, that :smallbiggrin:

Cite on the "die in a fire"?

Also, you are aware that there are countless examples of skill challenges in 4e sources that have other penalties aside from healing surges or combat penalties? How many 4e books have you read, and how many skill challenges have you run?

Cosi

2017-08-29, 05:18 PM

You claimed that the rules of a well-designed game are the rules of the world.

Not "a well designed game". Any game. That's how games work. You can change those rules at your table, but then we are no longer talking about the game. We are talking about your houserules.

How does an author decide what happens when two ogres fight, if those ogres don't have stat blocks? The author simply decides based on the needs of the story. Same thing in 4e, except when you involve the PCs -- then you can give the ogres stats.

I thought you were all about the world only existing as PCs interact with it. Why would we need rules for resolving events that don't involve PCs in such a a paradigm?

According to your logic, giving a level 8 sorcerer the feat Power Attack is a house rule if there's not a single statted level 8 sorcerer with that feat in any 3.5 book. It's not a house rule to add abilities to 4e creatures if the rules say that you may add abilities to creatures as you see fit -- and use provided mechanics when interacting with PCs.

3e characters get defined feats from defined lists. Is there a defined paradigm for giving 4e monsters new abilities? If so, where may I find it? Protip: the DM making it up doesn't count.

I don't need a specific page citation because the rules don't work like that. You don't understand how to create monsters and NPCs in 4e, that much is clear. Please read 4e DMG and DMG2 if you want to learn more about this. (I can already tell you that Pit Fiends can have equivalents to all of the above if you so wish, as they are non-combat abilities.)

No, they don't. You can add them, but those are house rules. The merits of your house rules do not reflect on 4e any more than the merit's of houserules to 3e reflect on that game.

If your assertion that 4e Pit Fiends have abilities that, given your pathetic evasions, they clearly do not is valid, then my assertion that 3e is perfectly balanced because you can write new abilities to make it so is equally valid. If houserules absolve games of their problems, no game has any problems.

I didn't say more, I said tons. For example, there are well over 9,000 published powers and over 3,000 feats.

Those numbers seem super sourced.

Not true. There are specific rules in 4e to resolve improvisation. They don't exist in 3.5. Didn't you know this?

Hey, more unsourced assertions. Is the rule "the DM makes something up"? Because spoilers: that's not a rule. Or rather, that's a rule in every game ever and relying on it doesn't make 4e

I'm just curious why you think that an RPG that constrains your imagination is a better tool to explore a fantastical world full of adventure.

It is a better tool to play a game. Because that is what a Role Playing Game is for. A saw is a really bad tool for serving a formal dinner. But if I decide I want to make some bookshelves, I'm clearly not looking to do that.

There are so many abilities in 4e, I'm not sure I could select one single ability that's above all others. There's a rogueish epic destiny that gives you a passive Stealth score, which means that no one whose Perception (rolled or passive) beats it can see you, unless you so desire.

Oh my god, it's invisibility, a literal 2nd level spell. I mean, I guess it might be persistent or something which makes it like an 8th level ability. Congratulations, the best 4e ability is as cool as an option that isn't even taken by all the 3e characters it's offered to.

I showed you several abilities that are not something a 3e martial class could do.

Yes, the mighty ability of "AoE defensive buff". Totally not something any 3e martial can do. Super special.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-08-29, 05:31 PM

Here's a challenge for those that believe that 3.5's PC/NPC transparency (all game entities are built with the same rules) provides better verisimilitude:

Make me the archetypal used-carriage salesman. He should have the following features:

No more combat ability (BAB, HP, saves, weapon and armor proficiencies) as a level 1 commoner. He has no combat training at all and would die as quickly as any regular joe.
He can "sell matches on the Plane of Fire." His ability to persuade people to buy his items at favorable terms is legendary (compared to other humans).
Race is human.
All this is innate--no magical items or SLA's (etc) involved at all.
He is charismatic, not intelligent.

As I understand it, the cap for a single skill at level 1 is 4. With an INT mod of 0, he has 8 skill points. Putting the cap into Profession (Salesman) [does such a thing exist?] gets him a +4, +6 with a feat that he can't take because it requires 5 ranks. With a wisdom mod of +0, he's pretty stuck. This guy is OK at selling, but hardly legendary. Adding class levels (to up the skill cap, etc) gives him better combat ability (which he doesn't have). Oops.

In 5e, I can simply say that this one guy has triple proficiency bonus (+6) to checks made to sell stuff, and does so at advantage (worth about +3 or so). This makes him up there with a level 10+ PC. Done.

Funneling everything into the PC mold leaves a lot of room you can't cover without a profusion of new, single-use templates/classes/feats. The rules of the game are not and never have been the rules of the fictional universe. They're merely a playable way for players to interact with the imagined universe. The rules are the user interface, not the underlying reality. This is just as true for 3.5 as it is in any other edition--the player community of 3.5 is just in denial about it. If you think otherwise, find me rule citations in 1st party materials that say that the game rules are the underlying physics.

2D8HP

2017-08-29, 05:31 PM

Fate might be worth looking into if you want to learn another fairly popular game (though well behind various D&D editions, admittedly).

Thanks.

I do own FATE, as well as the other new-ish games of Savage Worlds, 7th Sea, and Warbirds, but as far as open tables, it's been 5e D&D, Pathfinder, Numenera, and Star Wars (the last three I haven't checked out yet).

Except for 5e, I don't seem to be any better at picking what's popular than I did in the late 1980's or early 1990's (when I failed in convincing anyone to try Pendragon or Castle Falkenstein, or to play '70's rules D&D again).

I think my game tastes are just perpetually out-of-step.

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 05:38 PM

ClericalTank

2017-08-29, 05:41 PM

There's some cool adventures and I kinda want to try to run some of the oneshots. I'm debating if I should just learn 3.5, or find some way to convert. So I got a player handbook PDF for 3.5 in order to check it all out and so far the edition looks pretty cool.

I love all the additional options. Seems a bit more complicated, but I like complicated. There also seems to be a lot of 3.5 material and extra books.

To someone who's only played 5e here (except for 3 AD&D games at a Con) what do you like about 3.5 better? What would you keep in mind if you switched from 5e to 3.5, and what rules from 5e that could be seen as improvements that someone wouldn't want to leave behind (like being able to split up your turn actions) could be implemented without messing things up unintended?
Right, so I'm not experienced enough to say anything that will contribute to "Which is the best edition of D&D". I am willing, however, to raise some extra points.

Do you and/or your group members believe that 3.5 could be a FUN system? That's the true question. Nothing else matters in entertainment, and D&D is no exception. If you are planning on learning 3.5 on your own, I'm gonna toss you a wooden sword labeled "Core Only" and tell you how going alone is dangerous. If you find the right group, however, 3.5 will let you mechanically create interesting scenarios.

My usual DM just threw me the idea of an Illiterate Sorcerer who thinks he is a wizard, and he pumps the skill that forces other people to admit it, thinking that he's proving to people that he truly is a wizard by drinking "truth potions". It sounds hilarious, but it is mechanically possible in every respect. There's rules for Traits in one of the books, which allows anyone to become illiterate in exchange for +1 to a skill; there is the fact that Bluff is (normally) a class skill; there's the potion/spell glibness (which is in the sorcerer's spell list, naturally); and there's the fact that most commoners still need ranks in Arcana to be able to tell the difference anyway.

My point is that I favor 3.5 very heavily (and am possibly blind because of it), and that's because I have fun. I like the idea of "think of a theme; now here's a list of feats, classes, ACFs, Multiclassing, PrC's, and magical item enhancements that fit that theme mechanically; now think about how the heck you wanna act with all that fancy stuff!" That said, I think about my fellow party members every now and again, and that's the secret to fun in campaigns I've been in thus far: If your character can't help EVERYONE be broken and overpowered, then at least he should help them not suck (my favored class is cleric, so it's kinda my thing either way).

You should keep in mind, though, that mundanes do get a little...well, not super epic. Don't get me wrong, a fighter with feats spent in Combat Focus and specializing in a Weighted Greatsword can still do some impressive damage and get some neat stuff going besides, but that requires a little bit of work. Besides which, sheer damage doesn't really DO much else. Sphere of Ultimate Destruction, on the other hand, is a single spell that deals massive damage in an area until the initial target is dead; with no concentration required, the Sphere will follow said target for one round(iirc) per level. One standard action, near infinite damage, and while that's an example of the damage that spellcasters can output, it is nowhere near what they are fully capable of. Buffs can also get a bit out of hand, to say the least; I can't think of a single buff spell in 3.5 that requires complete concentration to maintain in the way most buffs work in 5e. And, while we're on the topic of spells, you'll want to get used to how each class handles spells...and probably get rid of at least 30% of those stipulations. Some people say that makes the game more video game-ey, while I simply call it "not having to get up at 12:00 AM just to prep my evil spells for the day."

Another thing to keep in mind: warn your group if you want to run Tomb of Horrors. Some people still shudder at the words "reflex save".

On the topic of stuff you might want to keep between 5e and 3.5, Dwarves could really use that extra 5' of land speed...:smallbiggrin:

With everything said and done, just do what you feel like you will have the most fun with. Don't slog through 300+ books and web enhancements if you don't want to.

At any rate, you've got the lovely regulars here at GitP who LOVE to help people with optimizations, DM stuff, and more! (Myself excluded; I'm mostly just here for the Play-by-Post.:smalltongue:)

Grod_The_Giant

2017-08-29, 05:53 PM

I don't claim that 3.5 provides less enjoyment or that it's a bad system. I claim that 3.5 has deep flaws, and players have to make more adjustments to 3.5 than to 4e or 5e in order to play a fully functional rules system.
I think one could rightfully argue (as Cosi seems to be) that 3.5 is a more all-encompassing rules system-- that is to say, one that has rules to cover more of the world, particularly where it relates to NPCs and noncombat actions. An objectively larger game, perhaps. But conflating "size of the ruleset" with "quality of the ruleset" is purely subjective.

3.5 is an excellent game for people who get deep into mechanics, who like characters who are very powerful and have a lot of mechanical agency, and who enjoy playing combat-as-war against a foe who follows the same sorts of rules.
4e is an excellent game for people who get deep into tactics, who like characters to be tightly balanced and have strong roles, who have lots of cool combat powers, and who enjoy playing combat-as-sport against foes who also have cool combat powers.
5e is an excellent game for people who don't get deep into things, who like to keep their game simple and the mechanics out of sight.

Thanks.

I do own FATE, as well as the other new-ish games of Savage Worlds, 7th Sea, and Warbirds, but as far as open tables, it's been 5e D&D, Pathfinder, Numenera, and Star Wars (the last three I haven't checked out yet).

Except for 5e, I don't seem to be any better at picking what's popular than I did in the late 1980's or early 1990's (when I failed in convincing anyone to try Pendragon or Castle Falkenstein, or to play '70's rules D&D again).

I think my game tastes are just perpetually out-of-step.
I've heard good things about Numenera, which I think is also fairly light?

Cosi

2017-08-29, 05:54 PM

In 5e, I can simply say that this one guy has triple proficiency bonus (+6) to checks made to sell stuff, and does so at advantage (worth about +3 or so). This makes him up there with a level 10+ PC. Done.

Except... that's only a +9 bonus. The RNG is twenty numbers long. He's good at selling. He's better than most people. But he still fails a majority of the time at checks most people can't succeed at. He's not "legendary" at selling, because in 5e bounded accuracy means no one is legendary at anything.

EDIT: I'm dumb, I forgot that advantage isn't actually a +3 bonus, it's reroll. So it's really only +6. That means, IIRC, that there's nothing this guy can do that's out of the reach of a random dude with natural talent (+4 stat) and some training (IIRC, the basic proficiency bonus is +2). That's what "legendary" looks like in 5e -- slightly more consistent results than a talented novice.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-29, 06:05 PM

In 5e, I can simply say that this one guy has triple proficiency bonus (+6) to checks made to sell stuff, and does so at advantage (worth about +3 or so). This makes him up there with a level 10+ PC. Done.

So this guy fails at average skill checks 16% of the time, and at hard skill checks 42% of the time. Mind you, a hard task is something that still can be accomplished by every adventurer if they try long enough. So if this guy was a sales manager at my IRL company he'd probably get fired for not making his targets. How exactly is that legendary?

PhoenixPhyre

2017-08-29, 06:14 PM

You're not trying hard enough. A ninth-level commoner with the noncombatant and shaky flaws gets the same combat ability as a level 1 commoner (he has a higher BAB, but that doesn't actually help him in the slightest because he gets a penalty equal to his BAB on all attacks anyway), and with a constitution penalty and the quick trait gets a grand total of half a hit point per level, for a total of 4 hit points - not outside the domain of a first-level commoner. He also gets 12 skill points maximum in each class skill and an impressive seven feats to spend on what he chooses.

Nice try, but not quite there. For one thing: CR 1 sleep. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) The commoner gets affected 100% of the time, this guy 0%. That's a substantial combat difference. In addition, you had to use a) variant rules (flaws), b) tie yourself to very specific fluff (frail, not shaky) which doesn't describe your average used-car salesman at all, c) add a bunch of class levels and then subtract off most of the other stuff. It still doesn't cover saves (a level 9 commoner has better saves than a level 1 commoner) or the many feats you'd pick up along the way. All this to model something that is trivial in all other editions of D&D and in real life. Thanks for proving my point.

Except... that's only a +9 bonus. The RNG is twenty numbers long. He's good at selling. He's better than most people. But he still fails a majority of the time at checks most people can't succeed at. He's not "legendary" at selling, because in 5e bounded accuracy means no one is legendary at anything.

So this guy fails at average skill checks 16% of the time, and at hard skill checks 42% of the time. Mind you, a hard task is something that still can be accomplished by every adventurer if they try long enough. How exactly is that legendary?

You both are missing one key phrase: legendary compared to other humans. At +9 (or better--advantage is often considered as much as +5), he's as good as any adventurer who hasn't specifically built for this thing (and most can't, as selling stuff is more probably a straight CHA check, not a skill check at all. Thus, most adventurers don't get proficiency, and bards only get at most a +8 (+5 CHA + 1/2 proficiency from Jack of all trades) and that at 20th level). Compared to the assumptions of the system, he is legendary.

Y'all also haven't shown any evidence that the rules of the game are supposed to be the physical reality of the game world. That's entirely in your heads to begin with, so...

Kurald Galain

2017-08-29, 06:18 PM

You both are missing one key phrase: legendary compared to other humans.
No, we're really not. He's going to fail regularly at things that any human can do by trying long enough. He's no Kelsier or Roo Avery, that's for sure.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 06:20 PM

Y'all also haven't shown any evidence that the rules of the game are supposed to be the physical reality of the game world. That's entirely in your heads to begin with, so...

I don't understand the underlying logic behind "you don't have to follow the rules" as a defense of a ruleset. Even if you win, your whole point is basically that it doesn't matter what game you play, because you can always just play Magical Tea Party instead. Which, sure I guess, but it seems like a pretty awful reason to prefer 5e or 4e over 3e.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-08-29, 06:20 PM

Nice try, but not quite there. For one thing: CR 1 sleep. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) The commoner gets affected 100% of the time, this guy 0%. That's a substantial combat difference. In addition, you had to use a) variant rules (flaws), b) tie yourself to very specific fluff (frail, not shaky) which doesn't describe your average used-car salesman at all, c) add a bunch of class levels and then subtract off most of the other stuff. It still doesn't cover saves (a level 9 commoner has better saves than a level 1 commoner) or the many feats you'd pick up along the way. All this to model something that is trivial in all other editions of D&D and in real life. Thanks for proving my point.
I mean, if we're making things up, we can do that for 3.5, too. Here, have a new feat:

Legendary Professional
Prerequisite: 4 ranks in Profession (Any), Skill Focus (Any Profession)
Benefit: Pick one Profession skill you have Skill Focus in. You gain a +1 bonus to that skill for every year you spend practicing it. After ten years, the progression slows to +1 for every five years.
Special: Longer-lived races learn more slowly than Humans. Dwarves gain the bonuses at half speed, and elves at 1/10th. Other long-lived races should be adjusted accordingly.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-08-29, 06:25 PM

No, we're really not. He's going to fail regularly at things that any human can do by trying long enough. He's no Kelsier or Roo Avery, that's for sure.

That's by system design. Legendary doesn't mean infallible--otherwise car salesmen or politicians wouldn't lose. It just means they're WAY better than the average person. And +9 (when the average person is +0 and an adventurer is +5 if he's a face) is a huge advantage. And triple proficiency is one of the dials that can be turned. I can set it wherever I darn well please (or just declare a bonus). That freedom allows a) easier and b) more accurate descriptions of people. Or, most of the time I don't even need to mechanically resolve this person's skills at all.

And note--a hard check (DC 20) is something that an average person should fail 95% of the time. He fails about half the time (at most, advantage isn't as simple as a +3 static bonus). It also means that he acts normally even when others are at disadvantage (an enormous bonus). All of this with no work. 3.5e requires substantial work, and can't even do it right. You end up pulling all the other artifacts of higher levels along for the ride.

This is only one of many such things. You can't model bloodline abilities (things that only one family of humans can do, a staple of fantasy fiction) very well--you have to end up making a special template and doing a bit of a dance (and thus breaking the NPC/PC transparency a bit). All other editions you can, trivially. Advantage--all other editions.

Jormengand

2017-08-29, 06:27 PM

All this to model something that is trivial in all other editions of D&D

Clearly not, since you failed.

At +9 (or better--advantage is often considered as much as +5), he's as good as any adventurer who hasn't specifically built for this thing (and most can't, as selling stuff is more probably a straight CHA check, not a skill check at all. Thus, most adventurers don't get proficiency, and bards only get at most a +8 (+5 CHA + 1/2 proficiency from Jack of all trades) and that at 20th level). Compared to the assumptions of the system, he is legendary.

At +6 advantage, he can make a DC 20 check (which is a fairly hard one) on a 14 re-rolling, which is a 57% chance. A 3.5 character with no relevant ability modifier, no levels, and an arbitrary restriction on how good he can be in combat in a world where practically everything is trying to eat your face still gets a +7, which passes on a 13, which is a 35% chance. That's before you take into account any of the other things he could possibly do to boost his profession check (I know how to do it for truespeak but I sure as hell ain't diving for every profession bonus I can find because I don't care that much).

More to the point, 3.5 doesn't handle being arbitrarily crap well. Well, good? Honestly that's a selling point for me. Yes, you cannot be good at wisdom-based things with no wisdom unless you invest some other kind of resource into being good at that wisdom-based thing (in the second instance you can probably change the key ability to charisma, most likely). Yes, advancement that was probably gained via beating up goblins makes you better at combat. No, you cannot be so good at one thing that you pass all challenges based on it and yet so bad at everything else you can't contribute to them. Yes, that's a pretty decent selling point of 3.5: you cannot make a character which is only good at exactly one thing ever because 3.5 isn't a game about people who only do one thing ever and people who only do one thing ever don't really exist.

Also, used car salesmanship is probably bluff-dependant, especially if you're a charisma character. Why you're expecting me to build a wisdom-based character with no wisdom is beyond me.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-08-29, 06:33 PM

I don't understand the underlying logic behind "you don't have to follow the rules" as a defense of a ruleset. Even if you win, your whole point is basically that it doesn't matter what game you play, because you can always just play Magical Tea Party instead. Which, sure I guess, but it seems like a pretty awful reason to prefer 5e or 4e over 3e.

Well, that's an awfully dismissive way of saying you can't refute the point--you've claimed that the rules of the game are the rules of the underlying fantasy universe. I've challenged you to come up with evidence that that's true. You've not provided any. The rules aren't what you think they are. They never have been, they never will be. This has to be the case, or there could only be one setting possible. No edition of D&D except 3.5 has this obsession--and the rules don't even say that that's how they should be understood.

I'm following the rules of my edition, which explicitly do not require NPC/PC transparency and in fact recommend that NPCs follow different rules than PCs. If you can't understand that...I don't know what to say.

I mean, if we're making things up, we can do that for 3.5, too. Here, have a new feat:

Legendary Professional
Prerequisite: 4 ranks in Profession (Any), Skill Focus (Any Profession)
Benefit: Pick one Profession skill you have Skill Focus in. You gain a +1 bonus to that skill for every year you spend practicing it. After ten years, the progression slows to +1 for every five years.
Special: Longer-lived races learn more slowly than Humans. Dwarves gain the bonuses at half speed, and elves at 1/10th. Other long-lived races should be adjusted accordingly.

But a level 1 commoner can't take that feat--they don't have the bonus feats required. And anyone that's not 1st level can't meet the other requirements. Note that in 5e, I'm not "making things up" (going outside the rules). I'm using the rules for creating custom NPCs/monsters as described in the DMG. It specifically cautions against using PC rules to build NPCs. Their roles are asymmetric. You can't apply the rules of one to the other without creating issues and (for me at least) breaking verisimilitude into a million pieces.

More to the point, 3.5 doesn't handle being arbitrarily crap well

What about truenamers? Or monks? Numerical bonuses are not comparable across editions. Not to mention, I've met plenty of super charismatic salesmen that were crap in most other ways. They were just really good at their one specific job. That's something that can't be modeled in 3.5, but can be in other editions (by straight fiat if needed, which isn't against the rules of the other editions.)

Kurald Galain

2017-08-29, 06:37 PM

Legendary doesn't mean infallible--otherwise car salesmen or politicians wouldn't lose.
Maaaaybe you should look up what the word "legendary" means. An average salesman or politician isn't anywhere near "legendary".

I can set it wherever I darn well please (or just declare a bonus).
Well see, you can do this in every RPG ever. That's basically the point of RPGs. It's rather silly that you claim that this is possible in one RPG but not in others.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-29, 06:50 PM

This is likely too late to matter much, but you did post this in the 3.5 Forum. You will get a bias'd opinion in return. Just like you would if you posted it in the 5th edition forum.

Anyways, the way I see the difference is the tools provided and the difficulty in running a game.

3.5 gives you many tools, but it's much much harder to run a game. Lots of those tools can break the game, or don't work well with each other, or simply aren't balanced with other tools. So it takes a lot of effort on the part of the DM to control those tools. I have friends who have written entire manuals of houserules and fixes in order to balance the game.

5 has less tools, but they all work together pretty well. The DM mostly has to focus on making a story and then extending that tool use. It's much easier to do, and it's much easier for the DM to make a new tool on the fly then to figure out 3.5's massive library of options.

If you are new to being a DM, or to 3.5, I'd say run 5th. And that's the inclusive or there. I would only run 3.5 if I felt I needed those specific tools to run a certain type of game that I simply couldn't do in 5th. Like a game where the party started as Lemures and rose to be Princes of Hell.

Cosi

2017-08-29, 06:51 PM

That's by system design. Legendary doesn't mean infallible--otherwise car salesmen or politicians wouldn't lose.

Can you name a used car salesman? Like, literally one used car salesman. Because I sure can't. Even if you can, I very much doubt that he's a used car salesman I can also name (that kind of general notability seems like a minimal requirement for "legendary" status -- you and I could probably both name the same heroes of greek myth). There just aren't legendary used car salesman.

There might be legendary politicians or generals, but they seem to largely compete against other legendary politicians and generals. You know who Eisenhower is, but you also know who Rommel is. You know who Lincoln is, but you also know who Davis is. It seems quite likely that if you put Rommel in charge of the German army in WWII and some random dude in charge of the allied army, Rommel would probably win quite consistently even though he factually lost. There's some (admittedly, super shaky) evidence for this in Alexander the Great. He fought nobodies -- at least, nobody as famous as him -- and he never lost a battle. It seems that when "legendary" people face people who aren't "legendary", they do in fact always win.

Well, that's an awfully dismissive way of saying you can't refute the point--you've claimed that the rules of the game are the rules of the underlying fantasy universe. I've challenged you to come up with evidence that that's true.

What else could it possibly be? Your options are "some fixed rules" and "DM makes stuff up". If you go with "DM makes stuff up", you don't actually need to be sold a product to do that. At least, I don't. Maybe you do. If you do, I'm sorry. So if you want to have a game that people buy, you go with rules. Because that's the value you can actually add.

This has to be the case, or there could only be one setting possible.

Well that's certainly not true! For one thing, the rules are non-deterministic (at least, insofar as dice rolls in our universe are non-deterministic). Even if the rules absolutely dictated the starting conditions, there would be variation because of changes in results. Of course, the rules don't dictate starting conditions, merely operating parameters. A world could be peopled with whatever you wanted, and then simulated by rules of your choosing.

I'm following the rules of my edition, which explicitly do not require NPC/PC transparency and in fact recommend that NPCs follow different rules than PCs. If you can't understand that...I don't know what to say.

No, I got that. I was just point out that you failed the challenge you set for yourself. Of course, it's not "NPC/PC transparency" 3e has, it's "NPCs that follow predictable rules and are therefore predictable game elements".

But a level 1 commoner can't take that feat--they don't have the bonus feats required.

Unless they're Human (or that one Halfling subrace, or possibly some other things). Or have flaws. Or are an Elf (or some other race with racial bonus feats) using the Dark Chaos Shuffle. That last is admittedly improbable, but you already didn't object to the use of flaws.

That's something that can't be modeled in 3.5, but can be in other editions (by straight fiat if needed, which isn't against the rules of the other editions.)

Really? 3e characters have to have the same number of ranks in all skills? I guess I've been playing wrong for a while.

And you can fiat stuff in 3e. My position isn't that it's impossible, it's that it's bad for the game and should be avoided. Like major imbalance. Nothing is going to stop you from putting a Commoner in the same party as an Incantatrix. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Elkad

2017-08-29, 07:53 PM

Interesting. In my 10 years of playing 3.5, I had never seen players actually try to farm the game for XP like this (even though I've rarely, if ever, seen a rigidly pure milestone system).

Seems like it would betray versimilitude to hunt down every extra bit of XP rather than just take what you're given and move on to your next objective. I've only seen that kind of grinding in video game rpgs.

Whether it's grinding out every last experience point, or every last copper piece, my groups sure do it.
"BBEG is dead! Now we take20 - with Aid Another of course - on every square of the dungeon (including floors and ceilings) to make sure we didn't miss any loot or encounters. And go back through it with Detect Magic, and Detect whatever-else-we-can-cast. And summon a burrowing something to check outside the walls. While most of us do that, one of us goes back to town to rent a wagon train, so we can get all this moldy furniture and bad goblin ale out."

Of course I probably had a part in teaching them that, when I was on the other side of the table.

TotallyNotEvil

2017-08-29, 08:01 PM

RoboEmperor

2017-08-29, 08:42 PM

JNAProductions

2017-08-29, 08:47 PM

There are too many dumb things in this post to list individually, but in general, said first level npc seems only slightly worse at selling things than your homebrewed one.

"This arbitrary character with homebrewed abilities is better than a first level commoner" ain't a great argument.

HP, BAB and saves are a consequence of having more HD. You seem to not be getting that.

If you want a "legendary salesman", having more HD than the literal human minimum would be expected.

It also seems a level three or so commoner would be about as good as a mid-teens 5E one.

Why? Why should sales ability be directly equated with combat ability? I do agree-this theoretical ubersalesmen is probably higher than level 1. He's likely seen a scrap or two in his years, but at the same time, he's still no fighter. In the 3.5 system, assuming he's level 3, has one synergistic skill, took the relevant skill feat, and Skill Focus, he's looking at (6 ranks, +2 synergy, +2 feat, +3 focus) a +13 (plus Charisma mod) bonus. That's damn good-but not what I'd call 3rd edition legendary. Consider that literally ANY player can replicate this with 17,000 GP (a +13 competence item) assuming they have the same score in the relevant stat. And if they actually bother to put ranks in, but nothing else, they're equal to him at level 10. That's far from legendary tier.

This can be solved by making him high level-let's say 15. 18 Ranks, +2 synergy, +2 feat, +3 focus, for +25 and Charisma mod. But now, even if those were all Commoner levels, he has about 15 times the HP of an ordinary man, meaning it's nigh-impossible to one shot this guy with an ordinary weapon in ordinary hands (he'd have, assuming an 8 in Con, 23 HP) meaning that you'd need a high rolling crit to kill him with a weapon. In addition, he's got much better saves than ordinary, and a better BAB. He's no match for even a much lower PC, but for a commoner? He's pretty damn handy in a fight.

Zanos

2017-08-29, 09:05 PM

Knaight

2017-08-29, 09:22 PM

Not "a well designed game". Any game. That's how games work. You can change those rules at your table, but then we are no longer talking about the game. We are talking about your houserules.

I thought you were all about the world only existing as PCs interact with it. Why would we need rules for resolving events that don't involve PCs in such a a paradigm?
Nobody has talked about the world only existing as PCs interact with it. What has been talked about is the use of a rules set as a specific model brought out only around the PCs, because it's not needed elsewhere. To be really reductive, one of the roles of the rules is to resolve interactions where multiple people would have a say, and thus provide a neutral resolution method (the old "I shot you", "No you didn't" argument). If the PCs aren't there, suddenly that's largely superfluous.

Well see, you can do this in every RPG ever. That's basically the point of RPGs. It's rather silly that you claim that this is possible in one RPG but not in others.
You can do this in any RPGs - but some are designed not to work well with it, and some cultivate a culture where it's strongly recommended against. D&D 3.5 is in that class, although my preferred example for it is Burning Wheel.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-29, 09:31 PM

5e = Standard generic stereotypes of classes. Mages blast. Fighters Bash. The End. You want to do something other than bash or blast? NOPE. You can't.

3.5e = Anything you want. Summoner, Shapeshifter, Demon Master, Necromancer, Shadow Master, Chicken Bomber, copying anime characters like Frieza or videogame characters like Bowser, etc. If you put your mind to it, you can do virtually everything in 3.5. You can play as a Monster, emulate Ryu from streetfighter, etc.

Result: DMs who like Lord of the Rings go for 5e. They don't have to worry about balance. They just slap on a story and that's it. PC characters are so boring, mundane, uncreative, generic, and simple they can't possibly do anything other than blast and bash. Players cannot become the strongest entity in the world, not even close. You will always remain a weakling, cowering before the power of monsters no matter what you do.

Players who like to do epic things play 3.5. I'm talking about slaying Demon Lords or Archdevils, becoming a god, enslaving armies of fiends or raising armies of undead, become a master of shadows, etc. Players here can eventually become the strongest entity in all the planes.

So there ya go. DMs who want Players to be weak forever play 5e, Players who want to be special, unique, play fun stuff, sometimes dabble in the dark arts or become ludicrously powerful play 3.5. 5e is an even more dumbed down version of 3.5 than pathfinder was.

edit: EXAMPLE

An evil necromancer is attacking a kingdom with his own undead army. What do you do?
5e: Find a secret passage that leads to the back of the army and assassinate the leader with some ancient artifact because you are so pathetically weak a bunch of undead will not only slaughter you, but you need to borrow other people's power to even have a hope of winning through assassination.
3.5: Take the army head on with your own army or power, no secret passage bull****. You fear no army because your entire party is badass. No cheap assassination bypass army through secret passage crap. You need no artifact, artifacts are for cowards martials

See this is what I'm talking about when I'm saying bias. You can do epic adventures just fine in 5th edition. In fact, I'd argue they are more epic because you can't just casually stroll through an army of skeletons and zombies and take zero damage. You have to actually try and be more clever then just brute force the problem with abilities and spells. Now DMs can ramp things up so things stay challenging and epic in 3.5, but honestly it starts to sound like the adventures of Superman after a while with foes being able to snuff out the sun or being the collection of god fetuses brought together by Asmodeus and backed by all the legions of Hell. (Though my favorite BBEG has to be a human skeleton where every single bone was an epic level demi-lich.)

Take Tiamat from Rise of Tiamat for example. In 5th edition is nigh unbeatable. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379445-Tiamat-unbeatable-by-a-standard-4-person-party) In order to win you need to make sure she isn't summoned at all, or at least, not summoned at full strength. In 3.5? I've seen uber-charges deal damage that would one shot her, and well before the build hits epic levels. And that's considered a weak build.

Also fixed it for you. :smalltongue: Try and play a non-caster without magic items and see how well it goes for you. :smallwink:

Zanos

2017-08-29, 09:38 PM

JNAProductions

2017-08-29, 09:41 PM

I can count on one hand the number of games I've played where someone ubercharged for several hundred damage and the DM was cool with it. There's a massive disconnect between what the forums think is acceptable at the average table and what actually is.

FWIW, there's an infinite wish exploit in 5e core.

There is one. That comes online at 17th level. How many are there in core 3.5, and when do they come online?

And I'm kinda confused by what you're saying. It almost sounds like you're saying 3.5 has a lot of broken stuff that's not really acceptable at a table, whereas in 5E there's really one thing that's truly broken (Wish-Simulacrum chaining) and then just some things that are frowned upon. (Minionmancy, for instance, while not broken, gives too much time to one player.)

ryu

2017-08-29, 09:47 PM

There is one. That comes online at 17th level. How many are there in core 3.5, and when do they come online?

And I'm kinda confused by what you're saying. It almost sounds like you're saying 3.5 has a lot of broken stuff that's not really acceptable at a table, whereas in 5E there's really one thing that's truly broken (Wish-Simulacrum chaining) and then just some things that are frowned upon. (Minionmancy, for instance, while not broken, gives too much time to one player.)

A big system with power options ranging from nothing to everything is naturally going to have a wide number of options that many tables actively see as too powerful to use, or too sucky to bother wasting time with depending on the temperament of the table. Being able to play for groups of deities pretending to be humans, to the most pathetically weak beings in humanoid society is a strength. Not a weakness. No, the only weakness 3.5 has is that it's not more forthcoming about what is and isn't powerful. Because of this new players expecting one experience may easily blunder into another.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-29, 09:49 PM

I can count on one hand the number of games I've played where someone ubercharged for several hundred damage and the DM was cool with it. There's a massive disconnect between what the forums think is acceptable at the average table and what actually is.

FWIW, there's an infinite wish exploit in 5e core.

Not really the point. I wasn't talking about broken builds there, but just standard builds. I'm pretty sure the people in this thread could easily come up with a combo, using core only, to crush the 5e Tiamat. Because 3.5 gets to ridiculous (IMO) levels of power very quickly. The fact that it's not possible for that build to exist in 5e was the point.

Though JNA's point is very true as well.

JNAProductions

2017-08-29, 09:51 PM

A big system with power options ranging from nothing to everything is naturally going to have a wide number of options that many tables actively see as too powerful to use, or too sucky to bother wasting time with depending on the temperament of the table. Being able to play for groups of deities pretending to be humans, to the most pathetically weak beings in humanoid society is a strength. Not a weakness. No, the only weakness 3.5 has is that it's not more forthcoming about what is and isn't powerful. Because of this new players expecting one experience may easily blunder into another.

I can agree that the multitude of options is a strength of the system, if that's what you like. 5E is a smaller system, both relatively and totally.

But it's not purely good. It makes 3.5 hard to get into, easy to screw up, and just kinda bloated in general.

To (most of) the people on this thread, who have experience with multiple editions of D&D:

Can we agree that both 3.5 and 5E are fun systems, but highly different? They have different strengths and weaknesses, and aren't necessarily good at telling the same stories/having the same adventures. (Note that it doesn't have to be fun for you-you're free to dislike 3.5/5E all you like. But you should be able to agree that neither system is bad, and both systems are fun for a lot of people.)

I know that not EVERYONE is going to agree to that, but I'd like to check that most people are willing to agree on a simple thing.

ryu

2017-08-29, 10:02 PM

With all that has been described to me of 5th both by proponents, detractors, and proponents calling the phrasings of people somewhat neutral accurate, I would never play in the system for even a single session. The entire point of a tabletop RPG is to be capable of doing things complex to a degree that a videogame simply couldn't or for which no game has been made. 5th ed by all descriptions is less complex than many games I played in the ps1 era, and thus simply doesn't scratch any game related itch I couldn't better serve with a simple videogame or the boardgame Munchkin if all that was desired was simple interaction between a group of friends.

Pleh

2017-08-29, 10:20 PM

Whether it's grinding out every last experience point, or every last copper piece, my groups sure do it.
"BBEG is dead! Now we take20 - with Aid Another of course - on every square of the dungeon (including floors and ceilings) to make sure we didn't miss any loot or encounters. And go back through it with Detect Magic, and Detect whatever-else-we-can-cast. And summon a burrowing something to check outside the walls. While most of us do that, one of us goes back to town to rent a wagon train, so we can get all this moldy furniture and bad goblin ale out."

Of course I probably had a part in teaching them that, when I was on the other side of the table.

You remind me my experience is likely self inflicted as well. I had a player start searching for loot in a pile of bones immediately upon entering a dungeon, so I threw in a trap that hit them in the head with a gold ingot for 1d4 damage (mundane trap with no auto reset).

With all that has been described to me of 5th both by proponents, detractors, and proponents calling the phrasings of people somewhat neutral accurate, I would never play in the system for even a single session. The entire point of a tabletop RPG is to be capable of doing things complex to a degree that a videogame simply couldn't or for which no game has been made. 5th ed by all descriptions is less complex than many games I played in the ps1 era, and thus simply doesn't scratch any game related itch I couldn't better serve with a simple videogame or the boardgame Munchkin if all that was desired was simple interaction between a group of friends.

Mechanically. 5e is simple mechanically. It was trying to make the crunch transparent so it wouldn't get in the way of the rest of the game (which is still free to be as complex as you want).

ryu

2017-08-29, 10:35 PM

You remind me my experience is likely self inflicted as well. I had a player start searching for loot in a pile of bones immediately upon entering a dungeon, so I threw in a trap that hit them in the head with a gold ingot for 1d4 damage (mundane trap with no auto reset).

Mechanically. 5e is simple mechanically. It was trying to make the crunch transparent so it wouldn't get in the way of the rest of the game (which is still free to be as complex as you want).

If I'm going to go the whole nine yards and get out paper, books, miniatures, mats, dice, possible screens, writing utensils, and other assorted nonsense it had certainly better be for a game with more complexity than just whatever I can bring to it.

You want to talk simplicity? Munchkin is mainly a simple card roleplaying game with the occasional use of simple six sided dice. I've managed to fully explain the rules to an entire group of friends who'd never touched any sort of roleplaying before even as I was shuffling cards and dealing. We had a completely self contained experience with tactical card manipulation, actual player agency in a competitive game, and in less than a full minute of setup time including explaining the rules. If you want to argue something's merits on simplicity THAT is your competition as far as roleplaying games are concerned. If we leave that genre cards against humanity should take about thirty seconds or so.

2D8HP

2017-08-29, 11:02 PM

...So there ya go. DMs who want Players to be weak forever play 5e, Players who want to be special, unique, play fun stuff, sometimes dabble in the dark arts or become ludicrously powerful play 3.5....

But doesn't a game need both a DM, and players?

...I couldn't better serve with a simple videogame or the boardgame Munchkin if all that was desired was simple interaction between a group of friends.

You may be right, but my (limited) post 80's video game experience, has shown me that they give me headaches.

I haven't played Munchkin (maybe I should check it out?), but I have played Car Wars, Dungeon! , and Risk, which while a bit fun, don't quite scratch the same itch as either TSR, or WotC 5e D&D, or RuneQuest for that matter.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-29, 11:06 PM

ryu

2017-08-29, 11:14 PM

But doesn't a game need both a DM, and players?

You may be right, but my (limited) post 80's video game experience, has shown me that they give me headaches.

I haven't played Munchkin (maybe I should check it out?), but I have played Car Wars, Dungeon! , and Risk, which while a bit fun, don't quite scratch the same itch as either TSR, or WotC 5e D&D, or RuneQuest for that matter.

Depends on your answer to whether this scenario is fun or not.

You are forced to fight one of the strongest enemies in the entire game, a dragon with a native power of 20. If you end up losing the fight with it you die which loses you all equipment, race, class, and other such cards and are made to build all your power again from essentially nothing. You were in the lead and as such everyone else at the table is buffing this monster as hard as they can. You play every possible buff, advantage, and equipment optimization you can bring to the fight and reach a battle strength of 160. All other players do the same for the dragon and manage to take the dragon to 180 THE HORROR! Luckily for you they forgot that you had the wizard class which has the special ability to discard their entire hand to win a fight with a monster automatically at the cost of not being eligible to level up after the fight even if you normally would. You still get all the treasure the fight would drop and don't die. You now get to draw FORTY treasure cards because monster buffs always increase the treasure haul of a monster and they buffed it hard.

Fun or not fun?

Edit: NONSENSE! There's treasure, monsters, leveling up, complex strategy, exotic races, magical items, and the deepest of lore. How is that not an RPG?

Forum Explorer

2017-08-29, 11:49 PM

Edit: NONSENSE! There's treasure, monsters, leveling up, complex strategy, exotic races, magical items, and the deepest of lore. How is that not an RPG?

The part where you aren't playing a role? :smalltongue: You are a string of items, classes, and abilities, nothing else. Kinda like a Munchkin now that I think about it. :smallwink:

ryu

2017-08-29, 11:55 PM

The part where you aren't playing a role? :smalltongue: You are a string of items, classes, and abilities, nothing else. Kinda like a Munchkin now that I think about it. :smallwink:

AND races. Besides that doesn't make it not an RPG. It just means your role is sillier and respects the fourth wall less than usual. Besides advocates of 4th and 5th have been claiming that making up random things in place of things you desire make up all the flaws of any given system. Spending five extra seconds a turn to embellish action with fanciful stories is easy and you're only making up fluff rather than the actual meat of anything.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-30, 12:52 AM

AND races. Besides that doesn't make it not an RPG. It just means your role is sillier and respects the fourth wall less than usual. Besides advocates of 4th and 5th have been claiming that making up random things in place of things you desire make up all the flaws of any given system. Spending five extra seconds a turn to embellish action with fanciful stories is easy and you're only making up fluff rather than the actual meat of anything.

No, it kinda does. Sure you can turn it into a role playing game by acting stuff out, but that's improv. I mean they managed to make a fairly successful anime out of Yu-Gi-Oh, it's kinda the same thing. But the base game very much is not that.

While D&D (throughout all editions) is more then a string of fights in pretty much every case. Not literally every case, I've heard stories of people who just roll of encounters then fight them and that's all they did, but usually there are rules, with varying degrees of complexity and thoroughness, for interacting with characters and events socially and in a more complex way then 'I play my Win card'. There is a story with many characters, NPC and PC alike, who are interacting in a fictional world. Playing an RPG is hopefully more then just it's raw mechanics and the roll of the dice.

ryu

2017-08-30, 01:26 AM

No, it kinda does. Sure you can turn it into a role playing game by acting stuff out, but that's improv. I mean they managed to make a fairly successful anime out of Yu-Gi-Oh, it's kinda the same thing. But the base game very much is not that.

While D&D (throughout all editions) is more then a string of fights in pretty much every case. Not literally every case, I've heard stories of people who just roll of encounters then fight them and that's all they did, but usually there are rules, with varying degrees of complexity and thoroughness, for interacting with characters and events socially and in a more complex way then 'I play my Win card'. There is a story with many characters, NPC and PC alike, who are interacting in a fictional world. Playing an RPG is hopefully more then just it's raw mechanics and the roll of the dice.

Yeah there also tends to be a bunch of random extraneous fluff attached to the actually interesting part of the game where you're fighting, building your power in one way or another, or preparing for fighting. I should know. I amuse myself by playing the most patently absurd personalities possible to not be bored during the talky bits.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-30, 01:32 AM

Yeah there also tends to be a bunch of random extraneous fluff attached to the actually interesting part of the game where you're fighting, building your power in one way or another, or preparing for fighting. I should know. I amuse myself by playing the most patently absurd personalities possible to not be bored during the talky bits.

Whatever your preference man. It's not mine, but the more power to you.

ryu

2017-08-30, 01:46 AM

Whatever your preference man. It's not mine, but the more power to you.

Hey man, whenever people talk about role playing games there's this really odd pattern where roles are described almost entirely in terms of what they do in combat. This is further strengthened when you look at how much rules support there is in combat or preparation for combat as opposed to literally all other things combined. It's a combat with talky bits, not a talky game with combat bits. You can make it something else if you want, but what it starts out as is pretty clear.

Uckleverry

2017-08-30, 01:57 AM

Not "a well designed game". Any game. That's how games work. You can change those rules at your table, but then we are no longer talking about the game. We are talking about your houserules.

This isn't some universal truth about all tabletop RPGs. There are tons of RPGs where the rules never even pretend to cover the physics and inner workings of the world the game takes place in. Moreover, you've shown a lack of understanding of RPG design in the first place. You refuse to understand how other games are designed -- that's a serious flaw in your capability to analyze games. Also, your recent post about 3.5 LA and how you've now come to the conclusion that it doesn't work is very telling. The designers at WotC realized this a decade ago -- you're not blazing through some new game design territory. The fact that you don't understand this shows how little you know about RPG design.

I thought you were all about the world only existing as PCs interact with it. Why would we need rules for resolving events that don't involve PCs in such a a paradigm?

I have literally never claimed this. You don't understand how the rules work, so how can you ever begin to assess them in the first place?

3e characters get defined feats from defined lists. Is there a defined paradigm for giving 4e monsters new abilities? If so, where may I find it? Protip: the DM making it up doesn't count.

Yep, there is. In DMG, DMG2, Monster Manuals, and other books. But because you don't know the rules of 4e, you don't know this -- again, how can you thus even start to assess its various features?

No, they don't. You can add them, but those are house rules. The merits of your house rules do not reflect on 4e any more than the merit's of houserules to 3e reflect on that game.

If your assertion that 4e Pit Fiends have abilities that, given your pathetic evasions, they clearly do not is valid, then my assertion that 3e is perfectly balanced because you can write new abilities to make it so is equally valid. If houserules absolve games of their problems, no game has any problems.

How would you ever know what is a house rule in 4e monster creation and what's not? You don't know the rules!

I know the system -- I know both 3.5 and 4e -- as I've both read the books and played the game for years. You haven't. Where's your basis on saying what a 4e Pit Fiend could have or couldn't?

Those numbers seem super sourced.

Taken directly from the Compendium. You still haven't posted a single piece of evidence to support your claim that 3.5 has more published material. This is a trend in your posting.

Hey, more unsourced assertions. Is the rule "the DM makes something up"? Because spoilers: that's not a rule. Or rather, that's a rule in every game ever and relying on it doesn't make 4e

These rules exist in the books, you know. Even if you don't know about them, they do exist. Again, where do you base your ability to argue about the aspects of 4e rules when you don't know where the rules are or how they work?

It is a better tool to play a game. Because that is what a Role Playing Game is for. A saw is a really bad tool for serving a formal dinner. But if I decide I want to make some bookshelves, I'm clearly not looking to do that.

You're arguing that the more constraints a game has, the better it is.

Oh my god, it's invisibility, a literal 2nd level spell. I mean, I guess it might be persistent or something which makes it like an 8th level ability. Congratulations, the best 4e ability is as cool as an option that isn't even taken by all the 3e characters it's offered to.

Yes, the mighty ability of "AoE defensive buff". Totally not something any 3e martial can do. Super special.

Yes, it has become very clear that you don't actually know the rules of a system you criticize.

We're arguing from different places: I have years of experience with both 3.5 and 4e. You only have experience with 3.5. What makes you think you have any credibility in trying to argue about various aspects when comparing these two systems?

Where do you think you draw credibility in assessing what's good or bad in 4e? You have shown that you don't know where the rules are, how they work, and what their design principles are. Imagine trying to discuss the various features of 3.5 with a person who's never played the system and who doesn't know the rules.

Uckleverry

2017-08-30, 02:06 AM

I think one could rightfully argue (as Cosi seems to be) that 3.5 is a more all-encompassing rules system-- that is to say, one that has rules to cover more of the world, particularly where it relates to NPCs and noncombat actions. An objectively larger game, perhaps. But conflating "size of the ruleset" with "quality of the ruleset" is purely subjective.

3.5 is an excellent game for people who get deep into mechanics, who like characters who are very powerful and have a lot of mechanical agency, and who enjoy playing combat-as-war against a foe who follows the same sorts of rules.
4e is an excellent game for people who get deep into tactics, who like characters to be tightly balanced and have strong roles, who have lots of cool combat powers, and who enjoy playing combat-as-sport against foes who also have cool combat powers.
5e is an excellent game for people who don't get deep into things, who like to keep their game simple and the mechanics out of sight.

What Cosi is arguing is that 3.5 is a fundamentally and objectively better designed RPG than either 4e or 5e -- only because he doesn't understand how different RPGs actually work, how the designers want them to work in the first place.

My claim has never been that you can't have a great and fun game with any edition -- you can, and I have had. I have actually played them.

My position is that 3.5 is not objectively better designed than 4e or 5e. Nor do its rules attempt to model the inner workings, the physics, of the fantasy world in question. 3.5 also has some serious mechanical issues that need fixing, adjustment, or outright tossing away in order to run a smoother, more fun game. Levels 1-20 are not mechanically robust -- E6 alone is a testament to this. 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.

Both 4e and 5e fare far better with regards to these fundamental mechanical elements. Those two games possess, at their core, more robust design. As they should, because they were created when the industry as a whole had reached a much better understanding of how tabletop RPGs work in the first place.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-30, 02:12 AM

Hey man, whenever people talk about role playing games there's this really odd pattern where roles are described almost entirely in terms of what they do in combat. This is further strengthened when you look at how much rules support there is in combat or preparation for combat as opposed to literally all other things combined. It's a combat with talky bits, not a talky game with combat bits. You can make it something else if you want, but what it starts out as is pretty clear.

Combat is a major focus of the game, certainly. It's just not the entire game, and like the spices in a meal, those little additions outside of combat elevate it from bland and mediocre (seriously, as a pure combat game D&D is actually really boring in comparison to say, MtG or Warhammer, or any some fighting games really) to something that is world famous.

ryu

2017-08-30, 02:21 AM

Combat is a major focus of the game, certainly. It's just not the entire game, and like the spices in a meal, those little additions outside of combat elevate it from bland and mediocre (seriously, as a pure combat game D&D is actually really boring in comparison to say, MtG or Warhammer, or any some fighting games really) to something that is world famous.

Clearly you've never had the pleasure of experiencing the stupidly complicated four-dimensional super chess that is is high level caster combat with most all those stifling gentlemen's agreements never formed to begin with. When the simple act of deciding what you're going to do this turn in a game where time is mutable, servants are numerous, and resources arbitrarily high takes minutes at a time, ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, you have an experience that none of those other things come close to duplicating.

The information gathering stage of the battle takes literal months of in-game time only for the actual fight to be over and done with in a matter just a few extremely well planned seconds.

RoboEmperor

2017-08-30, 02:26 AM

See this is what I'm talking about when I'm saying bias. You can do epic adventures just fine in 5th edition. In fact, I'd argue they are more epic because you can't just casually stroll through an army of skeletons and zombies and take zero damage. You have to actually try and be more clever then just brute force the problem with abilities and spells. Now DMs can ramp things up so things stay challenging and epic in 3.5, but honestly it starts to sound like the adventures of Superman after a while with foes being able to snuff out the sun or being the collection of god fetuses brought together by Asmodeus and backed by all the legions of Hell. (Though my favorite BBEG has to be a human skeleton where every single bone was an epic level demi-lich.)

Take Tiamat from Rise of Tiamat for example. In 5th edition is nigh unbeatable. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379445-Tiamat-unbeatable-by-a-standard-4-person-party) In order to win you need to make sure she isn't summoned at all, or at least, not summoned at full strength. In 3.5? I've seen uber-charges deal damage that would one shot her, and well before the build hits epic levels. And that's considered a weak build.

Also fixed it for you. :smalltongue: Try and play a non-caster without magic items and see how well it goes for you. :smallwink:

See, here's the thing though. Eventually I want to be stronger than tiamat. Post-campaign, in epic levels I never get to play, i want my character to be able to achieve strength greater than tiamat. I don't want to pull cheap tricks like disrupt summoning for a weakened tiamat. I want to take her head on at full strength and win in my own way, which is usually minionmancying fiends. Fighting a weakened Tiamat is no different than bypassing a necromancer's army. It's what weaklings do, and while some people like to play that way, a smart non-brute force character using tricks like these to win, 5e forces this playstyle on everyone, which is what I hate about 5e. There is no option for you to take tiamat head on because 5e caps your strength so hard, no matter what build you do, you will always be a weakling forced to pull cheap tricks.

Anyways my main beef with 5e is that it feels like they're forcing you to play their way only, and I especially hate the standard stereotypes. It's the main reason I left video games and switched to PnP. If I'm gonna play a basher or a blaster, I rather play Skyrim or some other game that automates the combat system and has actual graphics. The reason i play PnP is to do things I can't do in videogames, like summoner, shadowcraft mage, demon master, etc.

But doesn't a game need both a DM, and players?

Whenever I hear people talking about how good 5e is, it was always DMs who say that. I have yet to meet an experienced player who prefers 5e over 3.5. From my experience, DMs who want to emulate some kind of fantasy novel they wrote with the system go 5e because players are weak and therefore, cannot go out of control, and perform exactly how they want them to. These DMs don't really care about combat and like the fact the player is limited and predictable.

Players on the other hand, like freedom and power. 3.5 gives more freedom and power, so it's understandable that I have never met an experienced player who prefers 5e over 3.5 yet. I've seen new players prefer 5e because of its simplicity, and I've heard mundane lovers preferring 5e over 3.5, but in the end, gish builds win the mundane lovers over. Whenever I see a player switch over from 5e to 3.5, they're like "OMG You can do this? This is so awesome? How about this? THis too? OMG OMG OMG" and they never switch back because they fall in love with all the crazy things they can do.

3.5 DMs from my experience are either DMs who used to be players, or DMs who are too lazy to learn a new system.

So that's why I said what I said. From my experience it was always DMs who praise 5e, Players who praise 3.5, so I said DMs like 5e and Players like 3.5

Mordaedil

2017-08-30, 02:46 AM

You still haven't posted a single piece of evidence to support your claim that 3.5 has more published material. This is a trend in your posting.

I mean, there are 60 rulebooks for 4th edition to the 69 published for 3rd.

ryu

2017-08-30, 02:52 AM

Jormengand

2017-08-30, 03:27 AM

What Cosi is arguing is that 3.5 is a fundamentally and objectively better designed RPG than either 4e or 5e -- only because he doesn't understand how different RPGs actually work, how the designers want them to work in the first place.
You know that when your best argument is crying "But you don't understand!" at someone who clearly understands, you look severely weak?

Both 4e and 5e fare far better with regards to these fundamental mechanical elements. Those two games possess, at their core, more robust design.

*Bursts out laughing.*

5e, for a start, doen't have a real skill system. The only reason you (and others, apparently) think the systems are robust is that you're adding homebrew to them as you go along. The difference is that I can fix the balance issues (if you think that's an issue) in 3.5 just by... using the tome of battle, bards, psychic warriors and fixed-list casters.

Mordaedil

2017-08-30, 03:38 AM

While we're at it let's talk sizes of those books. How many pages does the average book have in the ''rules lite'' editions. I wouldn't be surprised if it was less.

I don't think that really matters, D&D 3.5 was very beneficial to us consumers, but hurt WotC's wallet because they put so much cost and sunk it into the rulebooks, something they'd learn from and cut down on for 4th edition.

I don't fault them for making a good business decision, even if it meant 4th edition players got "less" for what they spent money on. And good god, some of these books were a complete waste of print and I still suffer buyers remorse for 4th edition.

ryu

2017-08-30, 03:45 AM

I don't think that really matters, D&D 3.5 was very beneficial to us consumers, but hurt WotC's wallet because they put so much cost and sunk it into the rulebooks, something they'd learn from and cut down on for 4th edition.

I don't fault them for making a good business decision, even if it meant 4th edition players got "less" for what they spent money on. And good god, some of these books were a complete waste of print and I still suffer buyers remorse for 4th edition.

I think any even half-sane person would readily accept that saying 3.5 was TOO GOOD in terms of content compared to its successors is just outright states which has better content. Yes there's logical business reasons that 4th and 5th had more buyers remorse. The fact this is acknowledged at all makes my argument for me better than I'd ever need to.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-30, 04:12 AM

I don't think that really matters, D&D 3.5 was very beneficial to us consumers, but hurt WotC's wallet because they put so much cost and sunk it into the rulebooks,

LOLWUT?

3.0 / 3.5 have been extremely profitable for WOTC, and were profitable enough to skyrocket an unheard-of new publisher (Paizo) to the rank of #1 bestseller for several years (and still #2 now). Although of course the entire RPG business is small fry when compared to Magic the Gathering or the Pokemon cardgame.

Svata

2017-08-30, 04:16 AM

You know that when your best argument is crying "But you don't understand!" at someone who clearly understands, you look severely weak?

*Bursts out laughing.*

5e, for a start, doen't have a real skill system. The only reason you (and others, apparently) think the systems are robust is that you're adding homebrew to them as you go along. The difference is that I can fix the balance issues (if you think that's an issue) in 3.5 just by... using the tome of battle, bards, psychic warriors and fixed-list casters.

Also, the actively getting less able to make saves as you go along is a problem.

Pleh

2017-08-30, 04:46 AM

If I'm going to go the whole nine yards and get out paper, books, miniatures, mats, dice, possible screens, writing utensils, and other assorted nonsense it had certainly better be for a game with more complexity than just whatever I can bring to it.

Sure, but you admit this is argument from personal preference, not to be conflated with the average player's preference.

You want to talk simplicity? Munchkin is mainly a simple card roleplaying game with the occasional use of simple six sided dice. I've managed to fully explain the rules to an entire group of friends who'd never touched any sort of roleplaying before even as I was shuffling cards and dealing. We had a completely self contained experience with tactical card manipulation, actual player agency in a competitive game, and in less than a full minute of setup time including explaining the rules. If you want to argue something's merits on simplicity THAT is your competition as far as roleplaying games are concerned. If we leave that genre cards against humanity should take about thirty seconds or so.

Le snip

NONSENSE! There's treasure, monsters, leveling up, complex strategy, exotic races, magical items, and the deepest of lore. How is that not an RPG?

Hey man, whenever people talk about role playing games there's this really odd pattern where roles are described almost entirely in terms of what they do in combat. This is further strengthened when you look at how much rules support there is in combat or preparation for combat as opposed to literally all other things combined. It's a combat with talky bits, not a talky game with combat bits. You can make it something else if you want, but what it starts out as is pretty clear.

I don't think this argument warrants all that much consideration (as is so often the case with hyperbole), but it does remind us the problem of having the discussions in this thread upon ill-defined concepts of what an RPG is (and isn't).

I was figuring RPGs to fall into two categories: the ones the players play their roles sincerely, and the ones they just play the game as just a game.

Munchkin provides no structure to roleplay sincerely, doing so is all homebrew. In fact, the point of the game is rather to mock viciously any sincerity otherwise attributed.

5e tends to encourage sincere roleplay over any kind of meta game at all. Magic tea party? Sure, but this tea party has international rules and support.

Clearly you've never had the pleasure of experiencing the stupidly complicated four-dimensional super chess that is is high level caster combat with most all those stifling gentlemen's agreements never formed to begin with. When the simple act of deciding what you're going to do this turn in a game where time is mutable, servants are numerous, and resources arbitrarily high takes minutes at a time, ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, you have an experience that none of those other things come close to duplicating.

The information gathering stage of the battle takes literal months of in-game time only for the actual fight to be over and done with in a matter just a few extremely well planned seconds.

The real reason to play 3.5: quadratic, high level full casters.

Because anything else can be found in any other system.

I think any even half-sane person would readily accept that saying 3.5 was TOO GOOD in terms of content compared to its successors is just outright states which has better content. Yes there's logical business reasons that 4th and 5th had more buyers remorse. The fact this is acknowledged at all makes my argument for me better than I'd ever need to.

Now, it is different to call a system a good system versus a financially successful one. Sometimes crap sells real well. That doesn't make it good, it makes it profitable (see also, Michael Bay films).

Likewise, having more content does not equate to better content.

At the end of the day, I have no interest in 4D wizard chess. Just a bunch of stupid, pointless ways to point your finger and win.

If I wanted to point and win, I'd play magic tea party, or just write Mary Sue fanfiction.

ryu

2017-08-30, 05:05 AM

I take issue with this idea that I'm being hyperbolic. No. Everything I have stated in this thread is my direct, literal opinion. You can say it's an extreme opinion. You'd even be right. But to claim any of what I have said here is exaggerated is false. I don't have any respect for the talky bits, 4D chess is why I play the game, I'd respond to any of my circle of friends wanting me to try 4 or 5 with why not munchkin instead, and so on.

I also take issue with the idea that meta characters are insincere. This is not the case. In a game of munchkin the players ARE the characters by simple expedient of filling exactly the mindset that is dripping from every pore of artwork, every written word, and even the basic concept of turn all forms of power and adversity into simple cards. It's quite possibly the single most cohesive roleplaying experience in the entirety of media and I'm fully prepared to argue that. Fight me.

Further still 4D chess isn't an automatic win or a mary sue situation by any means. That's for when you far outclass your opposition. What was being discussed was enemy combatant with access to exactly the same scale of tools. It's not becoming more powerful than the game. It's lifting restraints on ALL parties involved such that the relative power is still equal. In fact it's actually harder to win in this environment where forgetting any of several dozen different things will be the end of you.

Mordaedil

2017-08-30, 05:28 AM

I think any even half-sane person would readily accept that saying 3.5 was TOO GOOD in terms of content compared to its successors is just outright states which has better content. Yes there's logical business reasons that 4th and 5th had more buyers remorse. The fact this is acknowledged at all makes my argument for me better than I'd ever need to.
That's okay, I wasn't arguing against your point.

LOLWUT?

3.0 / 3.5 have been extremely profitable for WOTC, and were profitable enough to skyrocket an unheard-of new publisher (Paizo) to the rank of #1 bestseller for several years (and still #2 now). Although of course the entire RPG business is small fry when compared to Magic the Gathering or the Pokemon cardgame.
Don't forget we live in an era where a million selling video game can be seen as a failure to its publisher. Paizo didn't launch from the pockets of WotC, they saw what WotC had done with 3.5 and decided that they could do it better and quite frankly they did by being smarter with their books and having fewer releases that were packed with content.

WotC spent more money printing the books and selling them than their MtG and Pokemon games as you said, which is why 4th edition and eventually 5th edition have become things, their management was completely misguided on what the audience wanted or how to expand that audience.

The problem is that they wanted to reach mainstream and I don't really think they managed to do that. D&D is more mainstream than it has ever been, and it's still a really niché hobby. In business terms, that is a huge failing. It's not really something we see.

ryu

2017-08-30, 05:36 AM

The problem with attempting to mainstream something is that you'll almost inevitably show hallmarks of design by focus testing, please your core audience less than before, and not necessarily get anywhere near enough new people to make up for it.

The smart way to play it is to find a niche you're capable of serving well and serving it so thoroughly well that your product becomes mainstream by simple expedient of the niche being served generating an impossible never ending hype storm where no one ever shuts up, or is unwilling to come to the defense of the product. These would be things like the Souls series, Undertale, FNaF, and so on. Keep in mind I actually applaud all of those games. I was just pointing out how hype works.

Pleh

2017-08-30, 07:25 AM

First off, I don't feel like trying to prove opinions to people that hold them. It's just not going anywhere regardless who is right/wrong on any given point, because they're opinions.

That said, your literal opinion can still be hyperbolic. Any numbers of ideas in your brain/heart/soul/mind/etc can still be fallacious despite being quite sincerely and honestly held; no one is immune to innocently believing things that are false and opinions can still actually be built on false premises.

You've basically admitted your opinion is hyperbolic, just that you don't think the exaggeration is inaccurate. The reason I see hyperbolism is when it is so exaggerated as to close off other viewpoints. For example, I could play a talky campaign or a smashy campaign and enjoy it both ways, but you were saying a game with low mechanical agency is hardly worth playing (even if the agency is put back in elsewhere).

Don't get me wrong, I believe you when you say you have no love for talky games with combat bits. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't make it a bad game, just bad for how you and specifically people like yourself want to use the game.

While your opinion is strongly held on tiny forums like this, it might be less so in the larger, silent community.

The problem is that they wanted to reach mainstream and I don't really think they managed to do that. D&D is more mainstream than it has ever been, and it's still a really niché hobby. In business terms, that is a huge failing. It's not really something we see.

And here is more what I see. Wizards had to think about the future of D&D. 3.5 has an intense learning curve even at Core. Jumping green to the game into a campaign loaded with all splats amd mags is overwhelming (to say the least).

Continuing the 3.5 trend would have only continued to narrow the market more and more, when the franchise needs to grow to stay afloat. Reducing that first step into the hobby was becoming a necessity fairly rapidly.

Could they have done so without bounded accuracy? Sure, I think so, but everyone who wants 3.5 still has it, so little is lost in working to broaden the market.

If they get enough growth, then they can afford to start investing a lot more fanservice addons.

Mordaedil

2017-08-30, 07:28 AM

I'm glad we all agree.

Eldariel

2017-08-30, 07:54 AM

The fundamental flaw in their strategy for all this time has been excessive fear of alienating segments of their old fanbase too much. After 4e it's natural enough but they attribute the failings of 4e to different things than the people who didn't want to play the game did (as we often see in threads discussing the system). In 5e they were afraid to make the standard warrior-classes power-based á la ToB in spite of what a huge success the book was on the other hand, specifically because a vocal segment announced they wouldn't play the game if it did that. It's impossible to cater to everybody; they'd do much better if they just ignored niche segments and went with a simple system of superficial simplicity with underlying complexity - keeping different classes feeling different all with their own depth and scope. 3.5 actually does a decent job at that, which is why it has endured so well I suppose, though sadly PHB is a poor example of the upsides of the system (50% of the book is "spells"...). A 3.75 could break the bank if it was done in a daring enough manner (not superconservatively like PF, even though the success of PF speaks for the demand for such a system).

Cosi

2017-08-30, 08:32 AM

See this is what I'm talking about when I'm saying bias. You can do epic adventures just fine in 5th edition. In fact, I'd argue they are more epic because you can't just casually stroll through an army of skeletons and zombies and take zero damage.

This is the first time I've heard weakness described as epic.

You have to actually try and be more clever then just brute force the problem with abilities and spells. Now DMs can ramp things up so things stay challenging and epic in 3.5, but honestly it starts to sound like the adventures of Superman after a while with foes being able to snuff out the sun or being the collection of god fetuses brought together by Asmodeus and backed by all the legions of Hell. (Though my favorite BBEG has to be a human skeleton where every single bone was an epic level demi-lich.)

So that doesn't appeal to you. Cool, don't play it. Why are you trying to take it out of the game? I don't think 1st level adventures where you go into a dungeon and fight kobolds and giant rats are appealing. But I'm not saying they shouldn't exist.

Take Tiamat from Rise of Tiamat for example. In 5th edition is nigh unbeatable. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379445-Tiamat-unbeatable-by-a-standard-4-person-party) In order to win you need to make sure she isn't summoned at all, or at least, not summoned at full strength. In 3.5? I've seen uber-charges deal damage that would one shot her, and well before the build hits epic levels. And that's considered a weak build.

If you think 3e BBEGs get one-shot by uberchargers, you don't understand how high-OP games work.

Moreover, you've shown a lack of understanding of RPG design in the first place. You refuse to understand how other games are designed -- that's a serious flaw in your capability to analyze games.

You're the one who thinks Apocalypse World and 4e are well designed. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

Also, your recent post about 3.5 LA and how you've now come to the conclusion that it doesn't work is very telling.

I've known that for a while. If you look back through my posts, you'll see the same issue in the form of "make casting PrCs full casting" show up a bunch of times. I posted a thread because I saw a couple threads about people trying to make LA work by assigning all creatures a LA and wanted to point out the futility of doing so.

You don't understand how the rules work, so how can you ever begin to assess them in the first place?

This is rich coming from the person who doesn't understand the problems with Skill Challenges and has apparently picked a solution the designers wanted to "die in a fire" as a fix.

Yep, there is. In DMG, DMG2, Monster Manuals, and other books.

You want to give a page citation? I'm not going to read at least five entire books to see if you know what you're talking about.

Taken directly from the Compendium. You still haven't posted a single piece of evidence to support your claim that 3.5 has more published material. This is a trend in your posting.

As someone points out, there are more 3e books than 4e. Also, I have in fact posted citations (e.g. the Pit Fiend), as well as references to discussions you should have familiarized yourself with before insisting that established conclusions about the faults of 4e are just people "not reading the rules".

These rules exist in the books, you know. Even if you don't know about them, they do exist. Again, where do you base your ability to argue about the aspects of 4e rules when you don't know where the rules are or how they work?

I have repeatedly asked you to tell me where the rules are. Your failure to do so indicates to me that rules making the claims you support are not, in fact, in evidence.

You're arguing that the more constraints a game has, the better it is.

Again, you're shifting the goalposts. Constraints are important. That doesn't make all constraints good. Food is important. That doesn't mean I eat constantly.

Yes, it has become very clear that you don't actually know the rules of a system you criticize.

Except I do, and you don't know how incentives work.

What Cosi is arguing is that 3.5 is a fundamentally and objectively better designed RPG than either 4e or 5e -- only because he doesn't understand how different RPGs actually work, how the designers want them to work in the first place.

If someone sells you a car that explodes when you drive in reverse, whether that was their intent or not shouldn't matter to your opinion of their product. Similarly, when designers repeatedly produce systems that do the exact opposite of what is nominally intended (e.g. Skill Challenges), you don't need to ask them before you say they screwed up.

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

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.

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.

Uckleverry

2017-08-30, 01:15 PM

You're the one who thinks Apocalypse World and 4e are well designed. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

Your argument on why 3.5 is an objectively better designed RPG hinges on the idea that the rules of an RPG should model the rules of the entire game world. You claim that objectively good RPGs follow this paradigm, yet you have provided no evidence to support your claim. The rules of a well-designed RPG model the rules of the world, you say -- based on what?

Moreover, if we then proceed with your logic that the 3.5 D&D rules model the rules of the world, we end up with the following:

- When creatures fight, they act and move in turns.
- If you form a line of people 10 miles long and give a baton to the person at one end of the line, the people in the line can move the baton from one person to the other all the way to the other end in exactly six seconds. People move a baton 10 miles in six seconds using their hands.

You have provided no evidence to support why 1) the 3.5 rules in fact assume that they model the rules of the world, and 2) why this is an inherent quality of good RPG design.

This is rich coming from the person who doesn't understand the problems with Skill Challenges and has apparently picked a solution the designers wanted to "die in a fire" as a fix.

No cite on the "die in a fire" yet.

You still haven't explained why you'd have credibility in assessing the rules and design of 4e. You have no experience with the system, and you don't know the rules (you constantly ask for sources on the rules of 4e for example). A movie critic who never watches the movies he's reviewing is not a credible critic.

You want to give a page citation? I'm not going to read at least five entire books to see if you know what you're talking about.

I have repeatedly asked you to tell me where the rules are. Your failure to do so indicates to me that rules making the claims you support are not, in fact, in evidence.

Whenever I provide evidence in the form of 4e rules, you ignore it and continue to claim contrary to the provided evidence. I gave several examples of abilities that 3e martials do not have and which 4e classes can have, but you ignored them and continued to insist otherwise. If I provide a source, you ignore it if it doesn't align with your imagined version of the rules.

As someone points out, there are more 3e books than 4e. Also, I have in fact posted citations (e.g. the Pit Fiend), as well as references to discussions you should have familiarized yourself with before insisting that established conclusions about the faults of 4e are just people "not reading the rules".

There are also 66 issues of WotC produced Dragon and Dungeon for 4e. Moreover, your original claim with regards to this point was that there are several classes and prestige classes that exist in 3.5 but not in 4e, that there are so many classes that cannot be played in 4e. There are also whole bunch of classes, races, and other rules elements that exist in 4e but not in 3.5. There are no swordmages, invokers, wardens, seekers, avengers, vryloka, shardminds, character themes, paragon paths, epic destinies, inherent bonus rules, or boons in 3.5, among others. They're two different RPGs, both with tons of published content. It's natural that one has something the other other doesn't, and vice versa.

Also, with regards to the Pit Fiends abilities and how it's a house rule to assign non-combat abilities to the creature in 4e:

If 3.5 had a rule on how to assign hair color to NPCs, yet 4e lacked it, assigning hair color in 4e would thus then be a house rule according to your logic. The rules are different -- creatures in 4e can be assigned non-combat abilities as appropriate for the creature, the adventure, and the story.

Again, you're shifting the goalposts. Constraints are important. That doesn't make all constraints good. Food is important. That doesn't mean I eat constantly.

I am not moving goalposts. Your claim was that 3.5 is better than 4e because you're constrained by the rules when putting a vision of an NPC into mechanics.

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.

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?

Do you honestly think that a level 15 soulknife and a level 15 wizard are equally challenging, as per the rules on CR?

Why does the DM simply write new content if the existing content is not an issue?

Uckleverry

2017-08-30, 01:29 PM

I mean, there are 60 rulebooks for 4th edition to the 69 published for 3rd.

While we're at it let's talk sizes of those books. How many pages does the average book have in the ''rules lite'' editions. I wouldn't be surprised if it was less.

There are also 66 issues of WotC produced Dragon and Dungeon for 4e, full of content. This content is as official and viable as the content found in published books. It's included in the 4e Compendium.

The Compendium includes 116 character themes, 77 class entries, over 9,000 powers, over 3,000 feats, over 5,000 creature entries, 577 paragon paths, 115 epic destinies, over 3,700 item entries, and so on. That's not a rules system with little content.

You know that when your best argument is crying "But you don't understand!" at someone who clearly understands, you look severely weak?

Cosi's argument is based on the idea that an objectively well-designed RPG has rules that model the world. He has provided no evidence to support this claim. He has provided no evidence to support the claim that the rules of 3.5 are supposed to model the rules and physics of the world in the first place. His understanding also goes against pretty much the entirety of the RPG industry -- the RPG industry as a whole doesn't think that a well-designed RPG should always be created with the intent of modeling the entire world through its rules.

He doesn't understand 4e rules because he, simply put, doesn't even know the rules. For example, how could you understand how 3.5 works and what its rules are if you have no experience with it and have not read the rules of the system?

*Bursts out laughing.*

5e, for a start, doen't have a real skill system.

What's your evidence to support this claim?

The only reason you (and others, apparently) think the systems are robust is that you're adding homebrew to them as you go along. The difference is that I can fix the balance issues (if you think that's an issue) in 3.5 just by... using the tome of battle, bards, psychic warriors and fixed-list casters.

What's the homebrew I add to 4e to make it robust? What's your evidence to support the claim?

Knaight

2017-08-30, 02:08 PM

Can we agree that both 3.5 and 5E are fun systems, but highly different? They have different strengths and weaknesses, and aren't necessarily good at telling the same stories/having the same adventures. (Note that it doesn't have to be fun for you-you're free to dislike 3.5/5E all you like. But you should be able to agree that neither system is bad, and both systems are fun for a lot of people.)
No. I'm good with both being fun systems (for people who like them), and neither of them being bad systems. Highly different though? No. There's much more breadth in RPGS than the D&D crowd likes to acknowledge, and once you've played Microscope, or Fiasco, or Shock: Social Science Fiction, the D&D editions start looking really similar. There are differences in strengths and weaknesses between editions, but there's also a gigantic pile of strengths and weaknesses that are pretty constant.

AND races. Besides that doesn't make it not an RPG. It just means your role is sillier and respects the fourth wall less than usual. Besides advocates of 4th and 5th have been claiming that making up random things in place of things you desire make up all the flaws of any given system. Spending five extra seconds a turn to embellish action with fanciful stories is easy and you're only making up fluff rather than the actual meat of anything.
Bolding mine. That statement right there is the core disconnect - for a lot of people the "fluff" is the actual meat of RPGs, and the crunch is a support framework for it. Munchkin is a board/card game where all interactions must be system-first, which fundamentally doesn't work for setting first roleplaying.

Hey man, whenever people talk about role playing games there's this really odd pattern where roles are described almost entirely in terms of what they do in combat. This is further strengthened when you look at how much rules support there is in combat or preparation for combat as opposed to literally all other things combined. It's a combat with talky bits, not a talky game with combat bits. You can make it something else if you want, but what it starts out as is pretty clear.
Whenever people talk about D&D, sure. However, D&D is an extremely combat heavy game, and even then a lot of this is terminology more than anything. The term "role" is generally used specifically as jargon for discussing the combat system, where other discussions tend to involve terms like "character" or "setting" or "archetype".

Cosi

2017-08-30, 03:19 PM

The rules of a well-designed RPG model the rules of the world, you say -- based on what?

That's the only thing they can be. That's the only objective place to look. We can talk about the modifications you make to 4e to make it run (like, for example, the "stone walls" power you want people to have), but those modifications are clearly not an intrinsic part of 4e because they can be found nowhere in the books, nor can they be produced consistently entirely from rules therein (subject to arguments about Kolmogorov complexity and the like).

Moreover, if we then proceed with your logic that the 3.5 D&D rules model the rules of the world, we end up with the following:

- When creatures fight, they act and move in turns.
- If you form a line of people 10 miles long and give a baton to the person at one end of the line, the people in the line can move the baton from one person to the other all the way to the other end in exactly six seconds. People move a baton 10 miles in six seconds using their hands.

Argument ad absurdium. Yes, the rules have weird conclusions. Did you know the rules our world follows are sometimes weird? There's an entire field out there called Quantum Mechanics?

Also, is this really better than the observable reality in the world being that things travel as fast as the DM wants them to? Because that's the alternative you're proposing. Instead of consistency, the DM makes something up and hopes it works. Shouldn't creatures notice that sometimes horses travel at 300HP (when the DM needs the PCs to move quickly) and other times at 3MPH (when he needs them to move slowly)?

You still haven't explained why you'd have credibility in assessing the rules and design of 4e. You have no experience with the system, and you don't know the rules (you constantly ask for sources on the rules of 4e for example). A movie critic who never watches the movies he's reviewing is not a credible critic.

Did you know that 3e has a Jedi class in the PHB?

Oh you don't believe me? I guess that must because you haven't read the rules, rather than because I'm making something up. I'm asking for citations, because the rules I have read for the game we are discussing did not seem to contain the clauses you are claiming they do. If you really believe I'm wrong because I haven't read the rules, shouldn't you point me to some rules I can read to stop being wrong?

Whenever I provide evidence in the form of 4e rules,

This has happened once. You tried to pass off "AoE defensive buff" as "summon angel". I laughed at you. It was great. All the other times are just you saying "if you read the 4e books, you'll find the rule." And yeah, it is presumably true that the rules of 4e are located somewhere in the rulebooks of 4e, but you haven't really narrowed it down.

So again, I ask you, what page describes the process of granting creatures in 4e non-combat abilities?

epic destinies, inherent bonus rules

3e has both epic destinies (http://web.archive.org/web/20090218080723/http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080428) and inherent bonuses (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm). Man, it's almost like you Didn't Read The Rules (TM).

If 3.5 had a rule on how to assign hair color to NPCs, yet 4e lacked it, assigning hair color in 4e would thus then be a house rule according to your logic. The rules are different -- creatures in 4e can be assigned non-combat abilities as appropriate for the creature, the adventure, and the story.

But they don't actually have them in the 4e rules, right? There's no list of abilities the Pit Fiend has, is there? Because if there's not, the specific choice you make is not a part of the rules of 4e. Just like the hair color of your PC isn't part of the rules.

Or if there is, show me a page citation.

I am not moving goalposts. Your claim was that 3.5 is better than 4e because you're constrained by the rules when putting a vision of an NPC into mechanics.

What are you, some kind of Sith? Some constraints can be better than no constraints even if total constraint isn't good.

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.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-30, 03:23 PM

Clearly you've never had the pleasure of experiencing the stupidly complicated four-dimensional super chess that is is high level caster combat with most all those stifling gentlemen's agreements never formed to begin with. When the simple act of deciding what you're going to do this turn in a game where time is mutable, servants are numerous, and resources arbitrarily high takes minutes at a time, ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, you have an experience that none of those other things come close to duplicating.

The information gathering stage of the battle takes literal months of in-game time only for the actual fight to be over and done with in a matter just a few extremely well planned seconds.

I've had the displeasure of DMing for a sorcerer who literally took an entire session of flipping through books to find the most optimal spells when he leveled up.

I've also had the displeasure of being the DM of a Druid and a Fighter and trying to keep things fun for both of them.

See, here's the thing though. Eventually I want to be stronger than tiamat. Post-campaign, in epic levels I never get to play, i want my character to be able to achieve strength greater than tiamat. I don't want to pull cheap tricks like disrupt summoning for a weakened tiamat. I want to take her head on at full strength and win in my own way, which is usually minionmancying fiends. Fighting a weakened Tiamat is no different than bypassing a necromancer's army. It's what weaklings do, and while some people like to play that way, a smart non-brute force character using tricks like these to win, 5e forces this playstyle on everyone, which is what I hate about 5e. There is no option for you to take tiamat head on because 5e caps your strength so hard, no matter what build you do, you will always be a weakling forced to pull cheap tricks.

Anyways my main beef with 5e is that it feels like they're forcing you to play their way only, and I especially hate the standard stereotypes. It's the main reason I left video games and switched to PnP. If I'm gonna play a basher or a blaster, I rather play Skyrim or some other game that automates the combat system and has actual graphics. The reason i play PnP is to do things I can't do in videogames, like summoner, shadowcraft mage, demon master, etc.

Whenever I hear people talking about how good 5e is, it was always DMs who say that. I have yet to meet an experienced player who prefers 5e over 3.5. From my experience, DMs who want to emulate some kind of fantasy novel they wrote with the system go 5e because players are weak and therefore, cannot go out of control, and perform exactly how they want them to. These DMs don't really care about combat and like the fact the player is limited and predictable.

Players on the other hand, like freedom and power. 3.5 gives more freedom and power, so it's understandable that I have never met an experienced player who prefers 5e over 3.5 yet. I've seen new players prefer 5e because of its simplicity, and I've heard mundane lovers preferring 5e over 3.5, but in the end, gish builds win the mundane lovers over. Whenever I see a player switch over from 5e to 3.5, they're like "OMG You can do this? This is so awesome? How about this? THis too? OMG OMG OMG" and they never switch back because they fall in love with all the crazy things they can do.

3.5 DMs from my experience are either DMs who used to be players, or DMs who are too lazy to learn a new system.

So that's why I said what I said. From my experience it was always DMs who praise 5e, Players who praise 3.5, so I said DMs like 5e and Players like 3.5

And that's fine. In Mutants and Masterminds you pretty much have to play as a superhero, and in WoD you can't have a Mage and a Hunter on the same team. Different systems for different strengths. I just take umbrage with saying a different system's playstyle is BADFUNWRONG simply because it isn't your preference.

When I play D&D, I want to be playing a character like my favorite fictional characters who win against nigh impossible odds through cleverness, bravery, and sheer determination. I don't want to play as someone who can make Superman piss himself in fear.

I'm both a player and a DM, and I wouldn't play or DM 3.5 ever again. Even making characters in 3.5 simply takes far too much of my time. And it takes so much effort to make sure that I'm being balanced with the rest of the party, so I never feel like I actually have access to all that many options.

In 5th I can play whatever I want and know that it will work out with the party, more or less. I can't play as literally anything, but there are enough options for me to not get bored with the system.

In my experience 3.5 is for people with lots of time. They can, or they want to, spend dozens to hundreds of hours crunching numbers and streamling their characters and gear. 5th edition is for people who just want to sit down and play with nothing but a handful of dice and a character sheet. It's simply so much harder to run and play 3.5, to the point where it feels more like work then a game.

This is the first time I've heard weakness described as epic.

So that doesn't appeal to you. Cool, don't play it. Why are you trying to take it out of the game? I don't think 1st level adventures where you go into a dungeon and fight kobolds and giant rats are appealing. But I'm not saying they shouldn't exist.

If you think 3e BBEGs get one-shot by uberchargers, you don't understand how high-OP games work.

I consider Superman to be the most boring character ever written, and I'd rather read a story about a lone Guardsmen facing down a Daemon Prince then the adventures of Guilliman. Elminister is garbage and almost the definition of a Mary Sue.

Basically, yeah, I do consider weaker characters punching above their weight to be much more epic then a battle between two equals, no matter how powerful those equals may be. In fact, very quickly in fact, the more powerful they get, the more their conflict feels like pointless spectacle and flash. Low key and subtly is much more interesting to me.

I don't play it. When 5th came out, I left 3.5 whistling and sold my books without hesitation. 5th edition very much gave me what I wanted. But since this is the 3.5 forum, I felt like a 5e fan should show up and provide a dissenting opinion in this thread.

If the DM isn't prepared for it they can. But the point was more showing how easy and quick the optimization rises in 3.5.

The Extinguisher

2017-08-30, 03:29 PM

Uckleverry

2017-08-30, 04:12 PM

That's the only thing they can be. That's the only objective place to look. We can talk about the modifications you make to 4e to make it run (like, for example, the "stone walls" power you want people to have), but those modifications are clearly not an intrinsic part of 4e because they can be found nowhere in the books, nor can they be produced consistently entirely from rules therein (subject to arguments about Kolmogorov complexity and the like).

You still haven't backed up your claim. You say it, but there's no evidence. If you make such a claim about what objectively good RPGs are, you have to actually provide evidence to support your claim.

Argument ad absurdium. Yes, the rules have weird conclusions. Did you know the rules our world follows are sometimes weird? There's an entire field out there called Quantum Mechanics?

Also, is this really better than the observable reality in the world being that things travel as fast as the DM wants them to? Because that's the alternative you're proposing. Instead of consistency, the DM makes something up and hopes it works. Shouldn't creatures notice that sometimes horses travel at 300HP (when the DM needs the PCs to move quickly) and other times at 3MPH (when he needs them to move slowly)?

You yourself said that the rules of 3.5 are supposed to model the physics of the world. Now that the rules create strange interactions, you back pedal. You are wildly inconsistent. What's the point where you ignore the weird conclusions? Where do the rules of the world begin and the weird conclusions end? Where's the dividing line?

Did you know that 3e has a Jedi class in the PHB?

Oh you don't believe me? I guess that must because you haven't read the rules, rather than because I'm making something up. I'm asking for citations, because the rules I have read for the game we are discussing did not seem to contain the clauses you are claiming they do. If you really believe I'm wrong because I haven't read the rules, shouldn't you point me to some rules I can read to stop being wrong?

This has happened once. You tried to pass off "AoE defensive buff" as "summon angel". I laughed at you. It was great. All the other times are just you saying "if you read the 4e books, you'll find the rule." And yeah, it is presumably true that the rules of 4e are located somewhere in the rulebooks of 4e, but you haven't really narrowed it down.

So again, I ask you, what page describes the process of granting creatures in 4e non-combat abilities?

No, the 3e PHB doesn't have a Jedi class. I know the rules. This is the key difference between your position and mine.

I provided you with several different examples of abilities that 4e classes can have, but which 3e martial classes don't. You still ignore the examples.

Let's try again: Dimension Door, Quick Portal, One Hundred Doors, Mordenkainen's Mansion, Mental Haven, Gray Legionnaires, Hounds of the Hunt, Invisibility.

You still have not explained how you could have any credibility in assessing a rules system you have no experience with and whose rules you don't know. You continue to ignore this point over and over again.

3e has both epic destinies (http://web.archive.org/web/20090218080723/http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080428) and inherent bonuses (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm). Man, it's almost like you Didn't Read The Rules (TM).

Those are not the inherent bonus rules of 4e. Again, you do not know the rules. What happened to character themes, paragon paths, wardens, shardminds, etc.? You ignore them because they don't fit the imaginary version of the rules you've concocted.

But they don't actually have them in the 4e rules, right? There's no list of abilities the Pit Fiend has, is there? Because if there's not, the specific choice you make is not a part of the rules of 4e. Just like the hair color of your PC isn't part of the rules.

Or if there is, show me a page citation.

The stat blocks of 4e monsters only contain abilities relevant to the resolution of a combat encounter. The game does not attempt to quantify the entire breadth of abilities a creature has in one stat block. You have made a claim: a 4e creature's abilities are the totality of the stat block. Provide evidence.

What are you, some kind of Sith? Some constraints can be better than no constraints even if total constraint isn't good.

You're still arguing that it's better that an RPG limits your ability to put your vision of an NPC into mechanics that accurately represent said vision.

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

I never said such a thing. You said that those are not real problems. Now you're saying they're real. How do you expect to be taken at face value?

ryu

2017-08-30, 04:14 PM

Okay first, clearly we have a distinct lack of knowledge about what the term hyperbolic means. Hyperbolic has nothing whatsoever to do with right, wrong, agreement, disagreement, or even how extreme a position is. It has only to do with when an opinion or position is presented in an exaggerated manner relative to what it actually is. This also means that it's actually near impossible to get hyperbolic about an actual position if said position is on the extreme ends of a spectrum. Basic English lesson over lets get on to another issue.

Why, oh why, would you ever have people take care of leveling up, one of the most complicated things a real character with choices can do, in the middle of a session? It's something where you can literally take hours puzzling over thousands, and I do mean THOUSANDS of choices, and you don't think it should be done off session time where people can take as long as they want without bothering anyone?

Forum Explorer

2017-08-30, 04:26 PM

Why, oh why, would you ever have people take care of leveling up, one of the most complicated things a real character with choices can do, in the middle of a session? It's something where you can literally take hours puzzling over thousands, and I do mean THOUSANDS of choices, and you don't think it should be done off session time where people can take as long as they want without bothering anyone?

Because the dude wanted to double check the stuff with me constantly anyways because he was really bad at optimization. Also I wasn't about to let him borrow my books.

Yes, I do think it should be done on their own time. With their own books, and not using my time to give him advice. But sadly that's not the world I live in.

ryu

2017-08-30, 05:00 PM

Because the dude wanted to double check the stuff with me constantly anyways because he was really bad at optimization. Also I wasn't about to let him borrow my books.

Yes, I do think it should be done on their own time. With their own books, and not using my time to give him advice. But sadly that's not the world I live in.

Ah failure of circumstance rather than failure of decision making. Carry on then. I wouldn't even have helped with the optimization advice. point them at a forum to ask for ideas in their off time complete with book and page number. Always delegate work to people who'll do it for free when the opportunity arises.

Cosi

2017-08-30, 07:54 PM

There are lots of games that don't bother modeling the whole world, just what's relavent for the game. That doesn't make them bad. You can't state that one game is objectively better than another because the system provides more simulation elements.

Yes, you can. I can't state that you will have more fun with 3e, but I can say that 3e objectively has more and better mechanical tools than 4e for developing the world, and because the reason to buy a game at all is to get mechanical tools, it is therefore objectively better.

You yourself said that the rules of 3.5 are supposed to model the physics of the world. Now that the rules create strange interactions, you back pedal. You are wildly inconsistent. What's the point where you ignore the weird conclusions? Where do the rules of the world begin and the weird conclusions end? Where's the dividing line?

I never said "ignore weird conclusions". I said two things:

1. Sometimes the rules of reality are weird.
2. The proposed alternative of "the DM makes things up" will produce observations that are at least as weird.

If you bothered to read things instead of immediately jumping to the defense of anything that lets DMs be lazy and tyrannical, you'd know that already.

No, the 3e PHB doesn't have a Jedi class. I know the rules. This is the key difference between your position and mine.

And yet, when asked to cite rules to support your position, you reply with "the relevant 4e rules exist in some 4e book". Which is rather terminally unhelpful, since all 4e rules exist in some 4e book (for a sufficiently lenient value of "book"). Gimme some page numbers. Where can I find the section on giving Pit Fiends new abilities? Surely there's something you read that lead you to believe you can do that in 4e. Why not tell me where it is so I can start agreeing with you?

I provided you with several different examples of abilities that 4e classes can have, but which 3e martial classes don't. You still ignore the examples.

You named a bunch of abilities. I checked one, and it was an AoE defensive buff, which is in fact an ability 3e martial characters have, which you would know if you Read The Rules (TM). Provide some freaking descriptions. Saying "it's an AoE defensive buff" is not going to get you sued for copyright violation.

You still have not explained how you could have any credibility in assessing a rules system you have no experience with and whose rules you don't know. You continue to ignore this point over and over again.

Well, yes, I've ignored you lying about the things I do and don't know because it's an ad hominem and an attempt to deflect away from defending your actual points. Even if I had never read a single word of any 4e book, the correct argumentative tact would still be "cite rules that prove I'm wrong" rather than "repeatedly declare my ignorance". So, show me the money. Where are the rules for giving creatures non-combat abilities?

Those are not the inherent bonus rules of 4e. Again, you do not know the rules. What happened to character themes, paragon paths, wardens, shardminds, etc.? You ignore them because they don't fit the imaginary version of the rules you've concocted.

I mean, yes, the inherent bonus rules are different in 3e and 4e because they are different games. By that standard, 3e and 4e are absolutely incomparable in terms of content because neither contains any piece of content that is presented identically in the other. Do you think there is some relevant mechanical difference I should know about? Perhaps you could detail it for me.

The stat blocks of 4e monsters only contain abilities relevant to the resolution of a combat encounter. The game does not attempt to quantify the entire breadth of abilities a creature has in one stat block. You have made a claim: a 4e creature's abilities are the totality of the stat block. Provide evidence.

Whatever rules are in the 4e books concerning Pit Fiends are the totality of the abilities 4e gives Pit Fiends. You might give them additional abilities at your table, but this is rather obviously not a function of the rules of 4e, just as my ability to write a balanced Fighter class does not negate the imbalance of the existing one in 3e. Either 3e is balanced because you can count newly written content made by DMs, or 4e monsters don't have non-combat abilities because you can't, or there is some list of Pit Fiend abilities you are refusing to cite despite the fact that it would win this argument. Pick one, or stop wasting everyone's time.

You're still arguing that it's better that an RPG limits your ability to put your vision of an NPC into mechanics that accurately represent said vision.

It's necessary that limits are placed on people's vision. That's what it means to have a cooperative storytelling game. The rules are a formalization of those limits. This is the single most basic point in all of game design, and the fact that you need it explained to you only further proves that you are projecting your own failings onto anyone who will listen to you.

I never said such a thing. You said that those are not real problems. Now you're saying they're real. How do you expect to be taken at face value?

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

That seems like a pretty clear statement of the position that E6 proves there are flaws in 3e's level balance. That is something you said, which you are now lying about. If I can't trust you to accurately represent the things you have personally said, why on earth should I trust your claims about what other people (specifically, the people who wrote 4e books) have said?

Forum Explorer

2017-08-30, 08:05 PM

Ah failure of circumstance rather than failure of decision making. Carry on then. I wouldn't even have helped with the optimization advice. point them at a forum to ask for ideas in their off time complete with book and page number. Always delegate work to people who'll do it for free when the opportunity arises.

It's hard to ignore a friend asking for help in person. Also, this being 3.5, I did have to stop him from making really bad optimization choices. Like wanting to do a Sorcerer/Warmage build so he wouldn't run out of spells.

Cosi

2017-08-30, 08:22 PM

When I play D&D, I want to be playing a character like my favorite fictional characters who win against nigh impossible odds through cleverness, bravery, and sheer determination. I don't want to play as someone who can make Superman piss himself in fear.

And when I play D&D, I want to be playing my favorite characters, who do things like war against the gods and conquer hell. Clearly, we can't both be happy at the same time. But couldn't we both be happy with a game where PCs are Conan at some levels and Corwin at others? Why does your desire have to displace mine?

I consider Superman to be the most boring character ever written, and I'd rather read a story about a lone Guardsmen facing down a Daemon Prince then the adventures of Guilliman. Elminister is garbage and almost the definition of a Mary Sue.

Superman is boring when he's written poorly, but any character is boring when he's written poorly. If you give Superman a problem that reduces to "punch a guy", obviously that's going to produce a boring story. But stories like Superman: Red Son work because they don't do that. They give Superman a problem where "punch him real good" isn't always the best solution.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-30, 08:32 PM

And when I play D&D, I want to be playing my favorite characters, who do things like war against the gods and conquer hell. Clearly, we can't both be happy at the same time. But couldn't we both be happy with a game where PCs are Conan at some levels and Corwin at others? Why does your desire have to displace mine?

Superman is boring when he's written poorly, but any character is boring when he's written poorly. If you give Superman a problem that reduces to "punch a guy", obviously that's going to produce a boring story. But stories like Superman: Red Son work because they don't do that. They give Superman a problem where "punch him real good" isn't always the best solution.

If we aren't playing the same game anyways, why shouldn't I use a system that better meets my needs then trying to shoehorn 3.5 into something it's not? Besides I do like facing down epic dragons and entire armies, it's just that doing so is trivial for 3.5 characters, and still a major challenge for 5e characters at high levels.

More importantly, I simply stopped having fun with 3.5. All of the optimization and character building just felt like work.

Eh, I'm not going to bother tracking it down regardless. There's no need to force myself to try and enjoy Superman when there are so many other superheroes I can read about instead. Same for 3.5.

Drakevarg

2017-08-30, 08:39 PM

The Extinguisher

2017-08-30, 08:39 PM

Yes, you can. I can't state that you will have more fun with 3e, but I can say that 3e objectively has more and better mechanical tools than 4e for developing the world, and because the reason to buy a game at all is to get mechanical tools, it is therefore objectively better.

That may be why you buy games, but it's not why I buy games. I don't actually care one but about developing a world mechanically. You're reason to buy games is not everyones, and that certainly doesn't imply objective quality.

If we sit down at a table, only to discover that we don't want to play the same game, one of us needs to leave or make a compromise. That's why talking about what game you want to play before hand is important.

ryu

2017-08-30, 08:43 PM

That may be why you buy games, but it's not why I buy games. I don't actually care one but about developing a world mechanically. You're reason to buy games is not everyones, and that certainly doesn't imply objective quality.

If we sit down at a table, only to discover that we don't want to play the same game, one of us needs to leave or make a compromise. That's why talking about what game you want to play before hand is important.

So why give someone else money when you clearly already intend to do all the work yourself? No seriously. How many hundreds of dollars are you willing to throw in an incinerator in exchange for texts you'll barely use?

The Extinguisher

2017-08-30, 08:51 PM

So why give someone else money when you clearly already intend to do all the work yourself? No seriously. How many hundreds of dollars are you willing to throw in an incinerator in exchange for texts you'll barely use?

I mean, I know I spend too much on games, but this is a bad point. Because funny enough, when I play a game that doesn't give me rules on how to build a house, I don't build houses in that game. When I play a game like Lasers and Feelings, I only need to care about those two things*

I like 3.5, I play a lot of it. But it's biggest sin is trying to do so much more than what it's good at, and teaching a generation on role players that your game needs to cover everything and do anything.

*Ignore that Lasers and Feelings is a free game the point works with anything

Cosi

2017-08-30, 08:53 PM

This argument basically hinges on the assumption that low-power players are willing to simply stop progressing at an arbitrary point, but if you like interdimensional mage epics then you can play as long as you want. So no, we can't both be happy if you get to play as you like but I have to stop exercising at a certain point because if I get any better with an axe I'll start cleaving time and space with it.

I don't get to play "as long as I want". I get to play in the part of the game that supports interdimensional mage epics. And you get to play in the part of the game that supports mundane axe-wielding. If I start at 1st level, I have to play a character compatible with your axe wielder until we reach the interdimensional mage epics part of the game. What is your alternative to that kind of split? That I just never get the game I want because that would mean you are not 100% catered to 100% of the time?

Because if that's your alternative, I don't see the point of talking to you since you have already decided the desires of anyone other than yourself are fundamentally illegitimate. Frankly, with that kind of attitude, I'm surprised you get anyone to play with you.

That may be why you buy games, but it's not why I buy games. I don't actually care one but about developing a world mechanically. You're reason to buy games is not everyones, and that certainly doesn't imply objective quality.

Why are you buying games if not for the rules? For the fluff? Wouldn't you be better served buying actual novels then?

If we aren't playing the same game anyways, why shouldn't I use a system that better meets my needs then trying to shoehorn 3.5 into something it's not?

Because there is only ever one edition of D&D getting content at a time, and if that edition can only ever be one kind of game, one of us is always not going to be getting content.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-30, 09:16 PM

So why give someone else money when you clearly already intend to do all the work yourself? No seriously. How many hundreds of dollars are you willing to throw in an incinerator in exchange for texts you'll barely use?

I had to put a lot more work into 3.5 then I do for 5th. I think I mentioned this before, but I know someone who wrote an entire rulesbook worth of houserules and tweaks to 3.5. Like, if you printed it out, it would easily be the size of the DMG.

Because there is only ever one edition of D&D getting content at a time, and if that edition can only ever be one kind of game, one of us is always not going to be getting content.

True, though Pathfinder is still supported is it not? Also how much content do you need?

But for a long time I wasn't getting the product that I wanted. Now you aren't. Eventually that'll likely reverse once again. Editions rise and fall, and things go on.

RoboEmperor

2017-08-30, 09:22 PM

If we aren't playing the same game anyways, why shouldn't I use a system that better meets my needs then trying to shoehorn 3.5 into something it's not? Besides I do like facing down epic dragons and entire armies, it's just that doing so is trivial for 3.5 characters, and still a major challenge for 5e characters at high levels.

This is not true. Optimized character v.s. unoptimized monster, sure, but Optimized character v.s. optimized monster, not a chance. A properly optimized dragon is virtually impossible to kill. All the tricks PCs have monsters do it better, be it ubercharging, boosting touch AC sky high, boosting hitpoints sky high, etc. Put in craft contingency and you gotta go full out TO to take em out.

Normal encounters, optimized spellcaster on the enemy's side is ludicrously devastating. Black Tentacles win encounters for you? Well Black Tentacles causes TPKs when cast on you, unless ofc, you prepared yourself for it. High-Op games are very dangerous, not steam roll I win like you think it is.

ryu

2017-08-30, 09:22 PM

I had to put a lot more work into 3.5 then I do for 5th. I think I mentioned this before, but I know someone who wrote an entire rulesbook worth of houserules and tweaks to 3.5. Like, if you printed it out, it would easily be the size of the DMG.

True, though Pathfinder is still supported is it not? Also how much content do you need?

But for a long time I wasn't getting the product that I wanted. Now you aren't. Eventually that'll likely reverse once again. Editions rise and fall, and things go on.

I mean, if you've already done the work to build an entire set of new rules such that the new paradigm you play under suits you perfectly why spend additional time and money buying a new system and beating it into the shape you want? At that point I begin to suspect you've more interest in beating systems into shape than playing your ideal game. Planning to beat whatever the hell 6th is into the same shape AGAIN when it comes out someday?

Drakevarg

2017-08-30, 09:29 PM

I don't get to play "as long as I want". I get to play in the part of the game that supports interdimensional mage epics. And you get to play in the part of the game that supports mundane axe-wielding. If I start at 1st level, I have to play a character compatible with your axe wielder until we reach the interdimensional mage epics part of the game. What is your alternative to that kind of split? That I just never get the game I want because that would mean you are not 100% catered to 100% of the time?

Here's the thing, though: You can only get so low-level. Once you're playing a first level Commoner you're about as useless as you're ever going to get. Most people usually skip this part and play from their personal estimation of "competent" onwards. By contrast, there isn't a point where you can't get any stronger. 21 switches over to Epic, which has a very clear shift in rules and tone and expectations. It's arguably a different game at that point, one of gods and realms and impossibility. Problem is, Mr. Wizard has been playing that game since 15 or so, and everybody else just has to either follow him around as his backup band or wait another six levels for the rules to say they're allowed to punch physics in the teeth too.

In other words, if you want to play interdimensional mage epics, you can skip the levels where you pretend to be mortal and still be able to power up indefinitely without any real change in tone, aside from the rules shift between 20-21. Or start at 1 so you can get that zero-to-hero thing in. But if somebody wants to play Conan, then they either have to stop advancing at some point, or feel hopelessly quaint because they're quite good with a sword but the guy next to him can stop time. And shoot lasers. And teleport. And summon demons. And, and, and.

Basically, if one playstyle is valid from 1-10 and the other is valid from 11-Infinity, perhaps there's some imbalance there. Optimally, the two shouldn't even exist in the same ruleset. At least not any more than World of Darkness and Exalted are in the same ruleset.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-30, 09:46 PM

I mean, if you've already done the work to build an entire set of new rules such that the new paradigm you play under suits you perfectly why spend additional time and money buying a new system and beating it into the shape you want? At that point I begin to suspect you've more interest in beating systems into shape than playing your ideal game. Planning to beat whatever the hell 6th is into the same shape AGAIN when it comes out someday?

That's actually why he has no interest in leaving 3.5. I wasn't willing to put that effort in, and learning 5th was super easy (learning 4th was not super easy, so I didn't bother with it), so I switched to 5th.

Who knows where 6th will fall on the spectrum.

Graysire

2017-08-30, 10:44 PM

I'm a very low OP DM/Player, Fireball is my 3rd level spell of choice, etc.
I have a relatively small amount of 3.5 books(which is still nearly 30, but I can never seem to find half the stuff people talk about here anyway)

Recently a database I was using for my 3.5 stat blocks was purged. This brought some interesting thoughts to my mind, it was painful and took hours to make characters to fit some of my concepts, and when I did, they were never used because campaigns never got high enough level. The amount of cross referencing I had to do to make a character was often debilitating and painful.

Initially I hated 5e's monster creation system because of how freeform it was, I enjoyed the solidity of 3.5's mechanics, but I hate 3.5's encounter building, and love 5e's encounter building. It's also so much easier for me to keep track of what I can do as a player, or what my players can do. My players haven't come up with a concept that they've been unable to achieve in either edition.

For me it's felt that while 3.5 is very structured and organized, that very structure can make it feel like making anything is slowly trudging through mud.
5e, because of how it's written, makes me feel much more free to make my own things, and makes it feel easier to do so.

2D8HP

2017-08-30, 10:46 PM

Depends on your answer to whether this scenario is fun or not.

You are forced to fight one...

Yeah, that doesn't sound more fun, I'd rather play TSR D&D, low level 5e D&D, Traveller, or Pendragon.

See, here's the thing though. Eventually I want to be stronger than tiamat...

I don't. I've played Champions, Cyberpunk, and Vampire, and I really didn't enjoy playing them as much as old D&D

40 years after I first saw the D&D "bluebook" I still prefer just playing a "guy with a sword encountering a fantastic world. I was and remain someone who'd rather play Robin Hood, Sinbad the Sailor, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser type characters rather than Martian Man-Hunter, Dr. Strange, or Thor

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PiTSyZbIjAg

...I don't think 1st level adventures where you go into a dungeon and fight kobolds and giant rats are appealing...

I do.
I much prefer playing 5e D&D at 1st level rather than at 11th level (the highest level I've had a 5e PC), but not in TSR D&D (1st level PC's were frighteningly fragile unlike 1st level 5e PC's, which are already amazingly hard to kill).

I've had the displeasure of DMing for a sorcerer who literally took an entire session of flipping through books to find the most optimal spells when he leveled up....

I'm not surprised. 5e Spell-casting PC's are too complex (whatever happened to the spells your Magic-User learned was part of the treasure you found?).

...couldn't we both be happy with a game where PCs are Conan at some levels and Corwin at others?...

Google failed me.

Who's Corwin?

...stories like Superman: Red Son work because they don't do that. They give Superman a problem where "punch him real good" isn't always the best solution.

Is that the one with Kal-El landing in Stalin's Russia instead of Kansas?

That was good.

...Because there is only ever one edition of D&D getting content at a time, and if that edition can only ever be one kind of game, one of us is always not going to be getting content.

:confused:

Aren't there "retro-clones" doing TSR, and Paizo doing 3.5 adventures?

It does sound like 3.5 is more of what I don't like about higher-level 5e (and some other games) i.e. Superheroics, rather than human-scale PC's exploring a fantastic world, which is what I'm looking for.

Uckleverry

2017-08-31, 03:26 AM

I never said "ignore weird conclusions". I said two things:

1. Sometimes the rules of reality are weird.
2. The proposed alternative of "the DM makes things up" will produce observations that are at least as weird.

If you bothered to read things instead of immediately jumping to the defense of anything that lets DMs be lazy and tyrannical, you'd know that already.

You have yet to back up your claim that the rules of 3.5 are there to model the rules of the world. You made that claim, but provide no evidence. Citations in the books? Where?

Moreover, if we follow your premise that they do, we end up in a situation where a line of people can pass an object in one round, no matter how long the line is. Do you assume then that your version of the 3.5 world allows for such actions to happen? It's a known fact in the world that an object can be passed down a line in exactly six seconds, no matter the length of the line? A barbarian of sufficient level can rage several times a day, but only once per encounter -- thus, an encounter is a quantifiable thing in the world?

Where have I said that DMs should have the benefit of being both lazy and tyrannical?

And yet, when asked to cite rules to support your position, you reply with "the relevant 4e rules exist in some 4e book". Which is rather terminally unhelpful, since all 4e rules exist in some 4e book (for a sufficiently lenient value of "book"). Gimme some page numbers. Where can I find the section on giving Pit Fiends new abilities? Surely there's something you read that lead you to believe you can do that in 4e. Why not tell me where it is so I can start agreeing with you?

Well, yes, I've ignored you lying about the things I do and don't know because it's an ad hominem and an attempt to deflect away from defending your actual points. Even if I had never read a single word of any 4e book, the correct argumentative tact would still be "cite rules that prove I'm wrong" rather than "repeatedly declare my ignorance". So, show me the money. Where are the rules for giving creatures non-combat abilities?

Your claim is that 3.5 is an objectively better designed RPG than 4e. What makes you credible in comparing the two systems, when you are not familiar with 4e in the first place? How can you make those meaningful comparisons between them to come to your conclusion? You still have not explained this simple issue. How can you credibly assess a system whose rules you don't know?

Again, to drive home the point: you made the claim that 3.5 is an objectively better designed system than 4e. How can you assess that when you don't know what 4e consists of?

You named a bunch of abilities. I checked one, and it was an AoE defensive buff, which is in fact an ability 3e martial characters have, which you would know if you Read The Rules (TM). Provide some freaking descriptions. Saying "it's an AoE defensive buff" is not going to get you sued for copyright violation.

You made the claim that 3e martials are functionally the same as 4e classes. I provided several examples of abilities, which 3e martials cannot have. You keep on ignoring them. Whenever I post factual evidence, you ignore it. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. I have provided evidence to support mine -- but you ignore the evidence.

I mean, yes, the inherent bonus rules are different in 3e and 4e because they are different games. By that standard, 3e and 4e are absolutely incomparable in terms of content because neither contains any piece of content that is presented identically in the other. Do you think there is some relevant mechanical difference I should know about? Perhaps you could detail it for me.

You yourself started this. You said that there are several different 3e character concepts that cannot be created in 4e because 4e lacks those classes. The reverse is also true -- there are many character concepts in 4e that cannot be created in 3e. Both systems have tons of content. What was your original point in the first place?

Whatever rules are in the 4e books concerning Pit Fiends are the totality of the abilities 4e gives Pit Fiends. You might give them additional abilities at your table, but this is rather obviously not a function of the rules of 4e, just as my ability to write a balanced Fighter class does not negate the imbalance of the existing one in 3e. Either 3e is balanced because you can count newly written content made by DMs, or 4e monsters don't have non-combat abilities because you can't, or there is some list of Pit Fiend abilities you are refusing to cite despite the fact that it would win this argument. Pick one, or stop wasting everyone's time.

You haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that a 4e stat block is the totality of the creature's abilities. You made the claim, now provide evidence.

It's necessary that limits are placed on people's vision. That's what it means to have a cooperative storytelling game. The rules are a formalization of those limits. This is the single most basic point in all of game design, and the fact that you need it explained to you only further proves that you are projecting your own failings onto anyone who will listen to you.

Thus, your opinion then is that a roleplaying rules system with more constraints and limits is the better rules system? The more limitations on what actions and what abilities creatures in the game can do and take, the better?

That seems like a pretty clear statement of the position that E6 proves there are flaws in 3e's level balance. That is something you said, which you are now lying about. If I can't trust you to accurately represent the things you have personally said, why on earth should I trust your claims about what other people (specifically, the people who wrote 4e books) have said?

You said this:

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

I never said that the problems exist because of E6. I never said that E6 causes those issues. You are arguing against an imaginary position.

Moreover, you yourself posted a response to my listing of the various issues with regards to: class balance, the CR system, multiclassing rules, and overall functionality of levels from 1-20 and into epic. Your response was that these are not real problems. Then immediately after that you said that they are real problems. You contradicted yourself.

Cosi

2017-08-31, 07:29 AM

21 switches over to Epic, which has a very clear shift in rules and tone and expectations. It's arguably a different game at that point, one of gods and realms and impossibility. Problem is, Mr. Wizard has been playing that game since 15 or so, and everybody else just has to either follow him around as his backup band or wait another six levels for the rules to say they're allowed to punch physics in the teeth too.

This seems like you agreeing with my point, but arguing I'm wrong because the game doesn't implement it perfectly. Would you be okay with the game being divided into "Epic" and "Not Epic", with "Epic" requiring you to have abilities at least as powerful as a mid-OP 3e Wizard does at, say, 15th level? What about an earlier division called "Paragon" where you have to compete with a 9th level 3e Wizard?

But if somebody wants to play Conan, then they either have to stop advancing at some point, or feel hopelessly quaint because they're quite good with a sword but the guy next to him can stop time. And shoot lasers. And teleport. And summon demons. And, and, and.

Or they can give Conan some abilities that compete with lasers and demon summoning. If that would make Conan no longer Conan in some important way, isn't that an indication that Conan is a character whose power progression is inherently limited and should eventually be forced to change or stop progressing? Defining your character by the abilities you don't have and then asking why you can't progress indefinitely without changing your character seems strange to me.

Optimally, the two shouldn't even exist in the same ruleset. At least not any more than World of Darkness and Exalted are in the same ruleset.

If you want to be able to do zero to hero stories, you have to have imbalanced concepts (this is not the same as imbalanced characters) in the same ruleset. If I want to be able to go from "too weak to challenge Conan" to "too strong for Conan to challenge", Conan can't exist as a balanced member of my party and I can't be happy in a game that is either "low power all the time" or "high power all the time".

Who's Corwin?

Corwin is the main character of (the first part of) Rodger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber. He and his siblings have what amounts to at-will plane shift, and some other random utility options. He's not the ceiling of power that I think the game should reach, but he's clearly better than Conan and his name also starts with C.

Aren't there "retro-clones" doing TSR, and Paizo doing 3.5 adventures?

Yeah, but those are either bad (Pathfinder) or much more obscure than D&D. Like it or not, the majority of gaming happens at tables playing D&D.

You have yet to back up your claim that the rules of 3.5 are there to model the rules of the world. You made that claim, but provide no evidence. Citations in the books? Where?

You have yet to suggest any alternative mechanism by which the world of 3e could be modeled. You've suggested a mechanism by which the world of Uckleverry's table could be modeled, but that does not in fact change the nature of 3e.

Again, to drive home the point: you made the claim that 3.5 is an objectively better designed system than 4e. How can you assess that when you don't know what 4e consists of?

When did you stop beating your wife?

You made the claim that 3e martials are functionally the same as 4e classes. I provided several examples of abilities, which 3e martials cannot have. You keep on ignoring them. Whenever I post factual evidence, you ignore it. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. I have provided evidence to support mine -- but you ignore the evidence.

Wait, your point is that there are abilities 4e characters have that 3e martials don't? That's it? Not that those abilities have some kind of distinct mechanical impact, just that they literally exist? Again, you're right, but your point is so trivial as to be meaningless.

You haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that a 4e stat block is the totality of the creature's abilities. You made the claim, now provide evidence.

I can't prove a negative. If those abilities are really out there, why can't you give me a page citation. As I see it, the line of argument you've taken points to one of two things:

1. The abilities don't exist, and you know it, so you're trying anything you can to make it look like you aren't lying through your teeth.
2. The abilities do exist, but you are so monumentally lazy that you won't cite them to prove you're right.

Seeing how long you've been arguing, 2 seems less than plausible.

So, show me them money: if these abilities exist, where can I find them?

Thus, your opinion then is that a roleplaying rules system with more constraints and limits is the better rules system? The more limitations on what actions and what abilities creatures in the game can do and take, the better?

Do you eat? I assume you do, since you appear to be alive. Therefore, you must logically consider food to be preferable to starvation. Thus, since you like some food, you must eat constantly.

I never said that the problems exist because of E6. I never said that E6 causes those issues. You are arguing against an imaginary position.

You said E6 is proof those problems exist. It's not. E6 is something that should happen in any game with progression, because progression inevitably means that some archetypes will be surpassed, and some peopel will want to play with those archetypes.

magicalmagicman

2017-08-31, 07:34 AM

Everything done in 5e can be done better in 3.5.

All the arguments I heard so far were "There's less stuff so its easier to balance."

So i guess the only reason you'd play 5e is if you don't want to be creative, and you don't want others to be creative too, so you play the system with the lowest skill cap so you reach the cap without much effort and other people can't surpass you no matter how hard they try.

2D8HP

2017-08-31, 08:05 AM

...Corwin is the main character of (the first part of) Rodger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber...

Thanks!

I've read Zelazny's Dilvish, the Damned (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilvish,_the_Damned) stories, but I never got around to Amber.

Everything done in 5e can be done better in 3.5.

Really? From what I've read in this and other threads in this Forum, what 3.5 is better at is Naruto style comic book-ish hijinks, which is not what I'm interested in. I'm more into Fritz Leiber style Swords & Sorcery adventures.

All the arguments I heard so far were "There's less stuff so its easier to balance."

Makes sense to me, why is that false?

So i guess the only reason you'd play 5e is if you don't want to be creative, and you don't want others to be creative too, so you play the system with the lowest skill cap so you reach the cap without much effort and other people can't surpass you no matter how hard they try.

What does "creative" have to do with skill caps?

For the record, I enjoy playing low level 5e D&D, but as a DM/GM I prefer the TSR D&D or Chaosium BRP rules, because those rules are already well imprinted on my mind, whereas new rules are harder for me to remember.

Is there anyway that 3.5 is better at the kind of Robin Hood/Sinbad/Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser adventures I like?

RoboEmperor

2017-08-31, 08:25 AM

Really? From what I've read in this and other threads in this Forum, what 3.5 is better at is Naruto style comic book-ish hijinks, which is not what I'm interested in. I'm more into Fritz Leiber style Swords & Sorcery adventures.

I think you made his point for him. You can have "Fritz Leiber style Swords & Sorcery adventures" in 3.5 as long as you voluntarily don't munchkin. Core-only mundanes can't stray far from the standard stereotypes they represent, but because you don't want to munchkin, and because if other people munchkin your build is worthless, you like 5e because it forces all players to play nonmunchkin builds because munchkinery is not available in 5e.

So in other words, 5e is "normal", 3.5 is "normal" all the way to "wacky", you don't play "wacky", you don't want others to play "wacky" so you pick the system that is restricted exclusively to "normal".

I have never seen naruto, and I have never seen Naruto style comic book-ish hijinks in 3.5. The mundanes I played with were... dungeoncrashers, various forms of AC skyrocketing builds, Shifters, and barbarians, far from anime-ish. I personally play either a Shadowcraft Mage or a Planar Binding Master and Summoner, also not anime-ish. More dark-ish anti-hero fear/horror-ish, but not anime-ish.

Zanos

2017-08-31, 09:00 AM

In my experience new players are more into goofy wacky hijinks than old veterans. I think it's more who you play with than edition, but in general if your character concept starts with "Wouldn't it be funny if..." I raise an eyebrow.

Drakevarg

2017-08-31, 10:36 AM

This seems like you agreeing with my point, but arguing I'm wrong because the game doesn't implement it perfectly. Would you be okay with the game being divided into "Epic" and "Not Epic", with "Epic" requiring you to have abilities at least as powerful as a mid-OP 3e Wizard does at, say, 15th level? What about an earlier division called "Paragon" where you have to compete with a 9th level 3e Wizard?

Sure, if the game had a clear, observable shift in rules across the board ("the wizard can skip that part now" is not across the board). Then it'd be different subsets of the same game, like how d20 Modern and d20 Future can theoretically sit in the same room but probably shouldn't.

Or they can give Conan some abilities that compete with lasers and demon summoning. If that would make Conan no longer Conan in some important way, isn't that an indication that Conan is a character whose power progression is inherently limited and should eventually be forced to change or stop progressing? Defining your character by the abilities you don't have and then asking why you can't progress indefinitely without changing your character seems strange to me.

Because wanting to punch bigger monsters doesn't imply that I also want to yell holes in space-time?

If you want to be able to do zero to hero stories, you have to have imbalanced concepts (this is not the same as imbalanced characters) in the same ruleset. If I want to be able to go from "too weak to challenge Conan" to "too strong for Conan to challenge", Conan can't exist as a balanced member of my party and I can't be happy in a game that is either "low power all the time" or "high power all the time".

So D&D's core purpose, in your mind, is to allow you to experience your evolution from casters being weaker than martials to casters being all-powerful, and that balancing that to martials would kill the fantasy for you?

Zanos

2017-08-31, 11:03 AM

So D&D's core purpose, in your mind, is to allow you to experience your evolution from casters being weaker than martials to casters being all-powerful, and that balancing that to martials would kill the fantasy for you?
I think he's saying that character progression isn't static. A character starts weaker than Conan and ends up stronger than Conan, so a character that's exactly as strong as Conan from 1-20 doesn't fit.

Part of why I don't like 5e is that 1st level monsters can still threaten a high level party. Which I don't really think should happen.

2D8HP

2017-08-31, 11:20 AM

...D&D's core purpose, in your mind, is to allow you to experience your evolution from casters being weaker than martials to casters being all-powerful, and that balancing that to martials would kill the fantasy for you?

FWIW in old TSR D&D, all the classes were weaker at first level than their 5e equivalents, but Magic-Users were even more significantly weaker.

Mages did become the most powerful class at high levels, but levelling-up took much longer..

How slow?

D&D IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE DM

By Gary Gygax April 1976

Successful play of D&D is a blend of desire, skill and luck. Desire is often initiated by actually participating in a game. It is absolutely a reflection of the referee's ability to maintain an interesting and challenging game. Skill is a blend of knowledge of the rules and game background as applied to the particular game circumstances favored by the referee. Memory or recall is often a skill function. Luck is the least important of the three, but it is a (actor in successful play nonetheless. Using the above criteria it would seem that players who have attained a score or more of levels in their respective campaigns are successful indeed. This is generally quite untrue. Usually such meteoric rise simply reflects an incompetent Dungeonmaster.

While adventurers in a D&D campaign must grade their play to their referee, it is also incumbent upon the Dungeonmaster to suit his campaign to the participants. This interaction is absolutely necessary if the campaign is to continue to be of interest to all parties. It is often a temptation to the referee to turn his dungeons into a veritable gift shoppe of magical goodies, ripe for plucking by his players. Similarly, by a bit of fudging, outdoor expeditions become trips to the welfare department for heaps of loot. Monsters exist for the slaying of the adventurers — whether of the sort who "guard" treasure, or of the wandering variety. Experience points are heaped upon the undeserving heads of players, levels accumulate like dead leaves in autumn, and if players with standings in the 20's. 30's and 40's of levels do not become bored, they typically become filled with an entirely false sense of accomplishment, and they are puffed up with hubris. As they have not really earned their standings, and their actual ability has no reflection on their campaign level, they are easily deflated (killed) in a game which demands competence in proportionate measure to players' levels.

It is therefore, time that referees reconsider their judging. First, is magic actually quite scarce in your dungeons? It should be! Likewise, treasures should be proportionate both to the levels of the dungeon and the monsters guarding them. Second, absolute disinterest mast be exercised by the Dungeonmaster, and if a favorite player stupidly puts himself into a situation where he is about to be killed, let the dice tell the story and KILL him. This is not to say that you should never temper chance with a bit of "Divine Intervention," but helping players should be a rare act on the referee's part, and the action should only be taken when fate seems to have unjustly condemned an otherwise good player, and then not in every circumstance should the referee intervene. Third, create personas for the inhabitants of your dungeon — if they are intelligent they would act cleverly to preserve themselves and slay intruding expeditions out to do them in and steal their treasures. The same is true for wandering monsters. Fourth, there should be some high-level, very tricky and clever chaps in the nearest inhabitation to the dungeon, folks who skin adventures out of their wealth just as prospectors were generally fleeced for their gold in the Old West. When the campaign turkies flock to town trying to buy magical weapons, potions, scrolls, various other items of magical nature, get a chum turned back to flesh, have a corpse resurrected, or whatever, make them pay through their proverbial noses. For example, what would a player charge for like items or services? Find out, add a good bit, and that is the cost you as referee will make your personas charge. This will certainly be entertaining to you and laying little traps in addition will keep the players on their collective toes. After all, Dungeon masters are entitled to a little fun too! Another point to remember is that you should keep a strict account of time. The wizard who spends six months writing scrolls and enchanting items is OUT of the campaign for six months, he cannot play during these six game months, and if the time system is anywhere reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neighborhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of foolishness. Ingredients for scroll writing and potion making should also be stipulated (we will treat this in an upcoming issue of SR or in a D&D supplement as it should be dealt with at length) so that it is no easy task to prepare scrolls or duplicate potions.

When players no longer have reams of goodies at their fingertips they must use their abilities instead, and as you will have made your dungeons and wildernesses far more difficult and demanding, it will require considerable skill, imagination, and intellectual exercise to actually gain from the course of an adventure. Furthermore, when magic is rare it is valuable, and only if it is scarce will there be real interest in seeking it. When it is difficult to survive, a long process to gain levels, when there are many desired items of magical nature to seek for, then a campaign is interesting and challenging. Think about how much fun it is to have something handed to you on a silver platter — nice once in a while but unappreciated when it becomes common occurrence. This analogy applies to experience and treasure in the D&D campaign.

It requires no careful study to determine that D&D is aimed at progression which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D&D. While D&D is pretty flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing something entirely different — perhaps their own name "Dungeons & Beavers," tells it best.*It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.

By requiring players to work for experience, to earn their treasure, means that the opportunity to retain interest will remain. It will also mean that the rules will fit the existing situation, a dragon, balrog, or whatever will be a fearsome challenge rather than a pushover. It is still up to the Dungeonmaster to make the campaign really interesting to his players by adding imaginative touches, through exertion to develop background and detailed data regarding the campaign, and to make certain that there is always something new and exciting to learn about or acquire. It will, however, be an easier task. So if a 33rd level wizard reflects a poorly managed campaign, a continuing mortality rate of 50% per expedition generally reflects over-reaction and likewise a poorly managed campaign. It is unreasonable to place three blue dragons on the first dungeon level, just as unreasonable as it is to allow a 10th level fighter to rampage through the upper levels of a dungeon rousting kobolds and giant rats to gain easy loot and experience. When you tighten up your refereeing be careful not to go too far the other way.

I played TSR D&D from the late 1970's to the mid to late 1980's, and I never had a PC reach 20th level, nor did any of the PC's of my co-players.

I think he's saying that character progression isn't static. A character starts weaker than Conan and ends up stronger than Conan, so a character that's exactly as strong as Conan from 1-20 doesn't fit.

Part of why I don't like 5e is that 1st level monsters can still threaten a high level party. Which I don't really think should happen.

That sounds like a good thing to me.

Besides Pathfinder tables being so plentiful (and that the "Inner Sea setting looks interesting), is there any reason to switch?

Cosi

2017-08-31, 11:35 AM

Thanks!

I've read Zelazny's Dilvish, the Damned (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilvish,_the_Damned) stories, but I never got around to Amber.

Pretty much everything by Zelazny is great. In particular, Lord of Light is worth checking out.

Really? From what I've read in this and other threads in this Forum, what 3.5 is better at is Naruto style comic book-ish hijinks, which is not what I'm interested in. I'm more into Fritz Leiber style Swords & Sorcery adventures.

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

Because wanting to punch bigger monsters doesn't imply that I also want to yell holes in space-time?

Again, that is just how levels work. You are always going to get some things you don't want to get when you level up. If you want to be able to progress your character in exactly the way you want, play a point-based system.

So D&D's core purpose, in your mind, is to allow you to experience your evolution from casters being weaker than martials to casters being all-powerful, and that balancing that to martials would kill the fantasy for you?

I think he's saying that character progression isn't static. A character starts weaker than Conan and ends up stronger than Conan, so a character that's exactly as strong as Conan from 1-20 doesn't fit.

That's a big part of it. Conan doesn't really advance much. He's pretty much always a Barbarian who is good at fighting, and wanders around doing various pulp-y fantasy things. That's a fine way to run an adventure or even a campaign, and you can have a lot of fun with it. But it is a paradigm that is defined by its limitations. So it seems to me that complaining about Conan eventually being surpassed by people who continue to advance is a totally unfair complaint to make, because you are the one who came to the table with a concept that is defined by its limitations. I don't want to be more powerful than martials per se. But I do want to be at a level of power Conan doesn't reach.

Forum Explorer

2017-08-31, 12:03 PM

This is not true. Optimized character v.s. unoptimized monster, sure, but Optimized character v.s. optimized monster, not a chance. A properly optimized dragon is virtually impossible to kill. All the tricks PCs have monsters do it better, be it ubercharging, boosting touch AC sky high, boosting hitpoints sky high, etc. Put in craft contingency and you gotta go full out TO to take em out.

Normal encounters, optimized spellcaster on the enemy's side is ludicrously devastating. Black Tentacles win encounters for you? Well Black Tentacles causes TPKs when cast on you, unless ofc, you prepared yourself for it. High-Op games are very dangerous, not steam roll I win like you think it is.

Which leads to the worst issue I have with 3.5 which I call the Tier 1 show. If you are playing a Tier 1, all too often the game becomes about you and your fellow Tier 1's (and 2s.), while everyone else is sidelined. It takes serious effort to make sure that doesn't happen on behalf of the DM and the players.

I think you made his point for him. You can have "Fritz Leiber style Swords & Sorcery adventures" in 3.5 as long as you voluntarily don't munchkin. Core-only mundanes can't stray far from the standard stereotypes they represent, but because you don't want to munchkin, and because if other people munchkin your build is worthless, you like 5e because it forces all players to play nonmunchkin builds because munchkinery is not available in 5e.

So in other words, 5e is "normal", 3.5 is "normal" all the way to "wacky", you don't play "wacky", you don't want others to play "wacky" so you pick the system that is restricted exclusively to "normal".

I have never seen naruto, and I have never seen Naruto style comic book-ish hijinks in 3.5. The mundanes I played with were... dungeoncrashers, various forms of AC skyrocketing builds, Shifters, and barbarians, far from anime-ish. I personally play either a Shadowcraft Mage or a Planar Binding Master and Summoner, also not anime-ish. More dark-ish anti-hero fear/horror-ish, but not anime-ish.

No, the wackiness isn't the entire problem, you can keep things 'serious', and even normal looking behind the scenes, but it's this huge deception and self-delusion that your characters couldn't wipe out a horde of orcs with their eyes closed and using a rusty crowbar.

Also this is the first thing I thought of when you said Planar Binding Master/Summoner (https://youtu.be/ci_Xh2jTykA?t=43). Also shadow magic stuff is very very animeish. I can link you to a top 10 anime shadow magic video if you want.

Everything done in 5e can be done better in 3.5.

All the arguments I heard so far were "There's less stuff so its easier to balance."

So i guess the only reason you'd play 5e is if you don't want to be creative, and you don't want others to be creative too, so you play the system with the lowest skill cap so you reach the cap without much effort and other people can't surpass you no matter how hard they try.

Having a high level of skill mastery has nothing to do with creativity. And for someone like me? It's easier to be creative in 5th edition. I don't need to have six to seven books spread out in front of me as I piece the rules together to make something work. Instead I need one book for comparison, and then I just make something up before getting it approved by the DM.

Yeah it's homebrew, and yes 3.5 has that too. But it just feels like 5e is so much more supportive of that sort of thing, not necessarily in tools provided but with the whole attitude that the rules aren't the end all of what you can and should do.

Uckleverry

2017-08-31, 01:07 PM

You have yet to suggest any alternative mechanism by which the world of 3e could be modeled. You've suggested a mechanism by which the world of Uckleverry's table could be modeled, but that does not in fact change the nature of 3e.

Where is the citation that says that the rules of 3.5 D&D are meant to represent the rules and physics of the world? This is a claim you made, and it's crucial to your overall argument -- now provide the evidence.

Also:

If we follow your premise that they do, we end up in a situation where a line of people can pass an object in one round, no matter how long the line is. Do you assume then that your version of the 3.5 world allows for such actions to happen? It's a known fact in the world that an object can be passed down a line in exactly six seconds, no matter the length of the line? A barbarian of sufficient level can rage several times a day, but only once per encounter -- thus, an encounter is a quantifiable thing in the world?

When did you stop beating your wife?

You have claimed that 3.5 is an objectively better designed system than 4e.

Your argument rests on the basis that you've analyzed and assessed the rule sets of both 3.5 D&D and 4e D&D, and that you've come to an objective conclusion that 3.5 is the better designed system. How can you reach a credible conclusion if you don't know what the rule set of 4e D&D consists of? How can you meaningfully compare the two systems when you don't know the rules of the other?

Is your opinion that a person does not need to know the rules of a system in order to credibly assess its various features and elements?

Wait, your point is that there are abilities 4e characters have that 3e martials don't? That's it? Not that those abilities have some kind of distinct mechanical impact, just that they literally exist? Again, you're right, but your point is so trivial as to be meaningless.

You made the claim that 3e martials are functionally the same as 4e classes. How are they functionally the same? Where's your evidence?

Is it your claim that teleportation, illusions, summons, energy creation and manipulation, and flight lack distinct mechanical impact when compared to what abilities 3e martials possess?

I can't prove a negative. If those abilities are really out there, why can't you give me a page citation. As I see it, the line of argument you've taken points to one of two things:

1. The abilities don't exist, and you know it, so you're trying anything you can to make it look like you aren't lying through your teeth.
2. The abilities do exist, but you are so monumentally lazy that you won't cite them to prove you're right.

Seeing how long you've been arguing, 2 seems less than plausible.

So, show me them money: if these abilities exist, where can I find them?

You have made the claim that the stat block of a 4e creature is the totality of the creature. You have not shown evidence -- where are your page citations?

Moreover, if it were true, would the creatures not have an audible voice if not mentioned in the stat block? What is the color of a human guard's skin and hair -- it's not mentioned in the stat block.

Do you eat? I assume you do, since you appear to be alive. Therefore, you must logically consider food to be preferable to starvation. Thus, since you like some food, you must eat constantly.

How is this relevant?

I asserted that when putting a vision of an NPC or a monster into mechanical statistics, 3.5 -- when its rules on NPC and monster creation are followed -- places more constraints on how accurately the vision can be created through the rules of the game. You seemed to agree and then also say that it's good that 3.5 places more constraints than 4e. Your argument is thus that the more constraints an RPG places on your ability to represent your imagination through the rules, the better. According to you, the objectively better designed RPG is more constraining on the DM's imagination.

You said E6 is proof those problems exist. It's not. E6 is something that should happen in any game with progression, because progression inevitably means that some archetypes will be surpassed, and some peopel will want to play with those archetypes.

What archetypes? Why should it happen?

This was the conversation -- I've included the parts you quoted and your responses. You can go back to check:

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.

As you can see, your initial reply was that the problems weren't real. Then immediately after that -- when talking about the exact same issues, with no mention of E6 -- you say that they are real problems.

Which one of these two completely opposite positions is your current one?

And also:

I mean, yes, the inherent bonus rules are different in 3e and 4e because they are different games. By that standard, 3e and 4e are absolutely incomparable in terms of content because neither contains any piece of content that is presented identically in the other. Do you think there is some relevant mechanical difference I should know about? Perhaps you could detail it for me.

You yourself started this. You said that there are several different 3e character concepts that cannot be created in 4e because 4e lacks those classes. The reverse is also true -- there are many character concepts in 4e that cannot be created in 3e. Both systems have tons of content. What was your original point in the first place?

What indeed was your original point? You have not clarified at all.

Cosi

2017-08-31, 01:28 PM

Where is the citation that says that the rules of 3.5 D&D are meant to represent the rules and physics of the world? This is a claim you made, and it's crucial to your overall argument -- now provide the evidence.

Where is the citation that they aren't? You have yet to outline what the alternative position even is, let alone why I should believe you.

Is your opinion that a person does not need to know the rules of a system in order to credibly assess its various features and elements?

When did you stop beating your wife?

You made the claim that 3e martials are functionally the same as 4e classes. How are they functionally the same? Where's your evidence?

Both classes lack meaningful non-combat options.

Is it your claim that teleportation, illusions, summons, energy creation and manipulation, and flight lack distinct mechanical impact when compared to what abilities 3e martials possess?

"Summoning" in this context apparently means "AoE defensive buff", which is a thing 3e martials do in fact have. You are going to have to go into some actual detail here. I don't understand why you refuse to. Apparently, I only disagree with you because I haven't read the rules. If that's the case, shouldn't you try to give me some rules to read so I can learn how wrong I am?

You have made the claim that the stat block of a 4e creature is the totality of the creature. You have not shown evidence -- where are your page citations?

You're asking me to prove a negative -- that there are no places other than the stat bock where a 4e creature's abilities are detailed. That can't be done. What can be done is proving a positive statement -- that there are such places. Presumably your belief that I am wrong comes from some 4e rules. Where can I find those rules?

Moreover, if it were true, would the creatures not have an audible voice if not mentioned in the stat block? What is the color of a human guard's skin and hair -- it's not mentioned in the stat block.

Yes, you can assign creatures hair colors. But precisely because the rules do not say what they are, the particular choices you mean are irrelevant to a discussion of the rules. If my DM made all humans in his 4e campaign have red hair, would "I couldn't play a blonde" be a fair criticism of 4e?

I asserted that when putting a vision of an NPC or a monster into mechanical statistics, 3.5 -- when its rules on NPC and monster creation are followed -- places more constraints on how accurately the vision can be created through the rules of the game. You seemed to agree and then also say that it's good that 3.5 places more constraints than 4e. Your argument is thus that the more constraints an RPG places on your ability to represent your imagination through the rules, the better. According to you, the objectively better designed RPG is more constraining on the DM's imagination.

If you are starving, it is good to eat. If you are full, it is not good to eat. Your position is that because I think having more constraints than 4e is good, I must think all levels of constraint are good. The analogy between these positions should be obvious.

What archetypes? Why should it happen?

Archetypes like "mundane sword guy" that define themselves in terms of abilities they don't have. If characters continue to accumulate abilities, those archetypes will necessarily be surpassed.

As you can see, your initial reply was that the problems weren't real. Then immediately after that -- when talking about the exact same issues, with no mention of E6 -- you say that they are real problems.

Oh I see, you confused my satire of your inane babble with an actual argument. The first post of mine is mocking your tendency to deflect criticism of printed rules with appeal to homebrew, claim that I didn't read the rules when I make valid criticisms you can't rebut, and appeal to the fun you've had with the system. I would think you would be familiar with the non-arguments that comprise the totality of your posts, but I suppose that is more credit than someone who still defends 4e deserves.

Uckleverry

2017-08-31, 02:21 PM

Where is the citation that they aren't? You have yet to outline what the alternative position even is, let alone why I should believe you.

How do I prove a negative?

The alternative position is that the rules are a combination of pure game rules and rules for adventurers, with some aspects meant to present how the world works.

And since you still insist on ignoring this, I'll post it again:

If we follow your premise that they do [model the rules of the world], we end up in a situation where a line of people can pass an object in one round, no matter how long the line is. Do you assume then that your version of the 3.5 world allows for such actions to happen? It's a known fact in the world that an object can be passed down a line in exactly six seconds, no matter the length of the line? A barbarian of sufficient level can rage several times a day, but only once per encounter -- thus, an encounter is a quantifiable thing in the world?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Your claim is that 3.5 is an objectively better designed system than 4e. The basis of this would be that you've assessed and compared these two rule sets, and then come to the conclusion. But how can you credibly compare them if you don't know the rules of the other system?

Is your opinion that a person does not need to know the rules of a system in order to credibly assess its various features and elements?

Here's the deal: We both know the only sensible and logical answer to that question. You do indeed have to know the rules of a system in order to credibly and meaningfully assess it. But you can't admit it because it would completely destroy the fundamental basis of your argument that 3.5 is an objectively better designed system than 4e.

Your primary argument thus lacks a sound and rational basis. You cannot escape this fact, no matter how many times you ignore it.

Both classes lack meaningful non-combat options.

Still no evidence. Your argument is not sound or convincing.

"Summoning" in this context apparently means "AoE defensive buff", which is a thing 3e martials do in fact have. You are going to have to go into some actual detail here. I don't understand why you refuse to. Apparently, I only disagree with you because I haven't read the rules. If that's the case, shouldn't you try to give me some rules to read so I can learn how wrong I am?

I haven't refused to do it. I have provided you a list of example abilities, but you keep ignoring those abilities. Here we go again:

Dimension Door, Quick Portal, One Hundred Doors, Mordenkainen's Mansion, Mental Haven, Gray Legionnaires, Hounds of the Hunt, Invisibility.

Whenever I post direct evidence, you ignore it if it doesn't agree with your position.

Why am I supposed to provide you with the rules you are claiming to have analyzed and assessed? Shouldn't you already know the rules?

You're asking me to prove a negative -- that there are no places other than the stat bock where a 4e creature's abilities are detailed. That can't be done. What can be done is proving a positive statement -- that there are such places. Presumably your belief that I am wrong comes from some 4e rules. Where can I find those rules?

I am not asking you to prove a negative. You made the claim that the 4e stat block contains everything a creature is -- you have not given a single piece of evidence to support this.

Yes, you can assign creatures hair colors. But precisely because the rules do not say what they are, the particular choices you mean are irrelevant to a discussion of the rules. If my DM made all humans in his 4e campaign have red hair, would "I couldn't play a blonde" be a fair criticism of 4e?

They are not irrelevant to the discussion of the rules, because you have stated that the 4e stat block is the totality of the creature. If it's the totality, where are all those other aspects of the creature?

If you are starving, it is good to eat. If you are full, it is not good to eat. Your position is that because I think having more constraints than 4e is good, I must think all levels of constraint are good. The analogy between these positions should be obvious.

Your claim was that constraints are a crucial element of RPGs, and because 3.5 places more constraints on the DM than 4e when it comes to putting the vision of an NPC into mechanics, it's the better system. How is this a fundamental truth of RPGs -- that more constraints lead to a better game? You haven't showed evidence.

Archetypes like "mundane sword guy" that define themselves in terms of abilities they don't have. If characters continue to accumulate abilities, those archetypes will necessarily be surpassed.

4e allows that concept to continue well past level 6 without other concepts outpacing or outclassing it.

Oh I see, you confused my satire of your inane babble with an actual argument. The first post of mine is mocking your tendency to deflect criticism of printed rules with appeal to homebrew, claim that I didn't read the rules when I make valid criticisms you can't rebut, and appeal to the fun you've had with the system. I would think you would be familiar with the non-arguments that comprise the totality of your posts, but I suppose that is more credit than someone who still defends 4e deserves.

So your defense of your contradictions is that one was intended as satire and the other seriously. Which parts of your posts are meant seriously, and which parts are not serious? How can you expect to be taken at face value if your tone is inconsistent?

Moreover, where did I mention E6 with regards to the mentioned topics? Your claim was that I'd used E6 as evidence with regards to the problems of: epic levels, the CR system, class balance, and multiclassing. I showed you the quotes, and this did not happen.

And you still refuse to clarify your original point:

I mean, yes, the inherent bonus rules are different in 3e and 4e because they are different games. By that standard, 3e and 4e are absolutely incomparable in terms of content because neither contains any piece of content that is presented identically in the other. Do you think there is some relevant mechanical difference I should know about? Perhaps you could detail it for me.

You yourself started this. You said that there are several different 3e character concepts that cannot be created in 4e because 4e lacks those classes. The reverse is also true -- there are many character concepts in 4e that cannot be created in 3e. Both systems have tons of content. What was your original point in the first place?

Even if you ignore it, the question still remains: what indeed was your original point?

Cosi

2017-08-31, 02:48 PM

The alternative position is that the rules are a combination of pure game rules and rules for adventurers, with some aspects meant to present how the world works.

Which aspects of the rules are "for adventurers" and which aspects are "how the world works". I don't recall seeing such a distinction in the rules for e.g. classes or items in 3e.

Your claim is that 3.5 is an objectively better designed system than 4e. The basis of this would be that you've assessed and compared these two rule sets, and then come to the conclusion. But how can you credibly compare them if you don't know the rules of the other system?

Do you really not get what I've been trying to say yet? "When did you stop beating your wife" is a classic example of the fallacy "Begging the Question", which is what you are doing when you claim I don't know what the rules of 4e are.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. You made the claim that the 4e stat block contains everything a creature is -- you have not given a single piece of evidence to support this.

On page 65 of the Monster Manual, statistics are presented for a Pit Fiend. These represent the statistics of a Pit Fiend. There, that's where it says what the abilities of a Pit Fiend are.

They are not irrelevant to the discussion of the rules, because you have stated that the 4e stat block is the totality of the creature. If it's the totality, where are all those other aspects of the creature?

It is the totality of what 4e says about the Pit Fiend. You can say other things about Pit Fiends in your games. You can have them rule mortal kingdoms, or sire lineages of Warlocks, or any number of other things. But those are not things 4e says about Pit Fiends, and are therefore utterly irrelevant to a discussion of the merits of 4e as a game.

Your claim was that constraints are a crucial element of RPGs, and because 3.5 places more constraints on the DM than 4e when it comes to putting the vision of an NPC into mechanics, it's the better system. How is this a fundamental truth of RPGs -- that more constraints lead to a better game? You haven't showed evidence.

Constraints are necessary to have meaning. If everything is possible, no meaningful interactions can occur. Your decision to pick up a sword could result in you holding a sword, or it could result in you holding a fish, or it could end the world. Without some constraints on how the state of the game can evolve, there is no game.

4e allows that concept to continue well past level 6 without other concepts outpacing or outclassing it.

Yes, and it does this by removing those concepts. Which you can do by playing E6. I would venture to say that support both low power and high power games is objectively better than supporting only one kind of game.

Even if you ignore it, the question still remains: what indeed was your original point?

What needs to be clarified? I said "there are concepts 4e can't do that 3e can", you said "here is a list of 4e abilities that aren't in 3e". That's not a counterargument. That's not anything. What character concept can you actualize under 4e rules but not 3e ones?

The Extinguisher

2017-08-31, 03:02 PM

Yes, and it does this by removing those concepts. Which you can do by playing E6. I would venture to say that support both low power and high power games is objectively better than supporting only one kind of game.

More rules doesn't always mean better rules. I'd much rather play a game that does one thing well then a game that does lots of things mediocrely. Especially when I what I want to is that one thing

But 3.5 providing more options doesn't make it an objectively better game, just a game with more options.

Uckleverry

2017-08-31, 03:36 PM

Which aspects of the rules are "for adventurers" and which aspects are "how the world works". I don't recall seeing such a distinction in the rules for e.g. classes or items in 3e.

Because it's the only way to interpret the rules if you want them to make sense. Like I posted several times already (you keep ignoring it -- that doesn't make it go away, no matter how much you want):

If we follow your premise that they do [model the rules of the world], we end up in a situation where a line of people can pass an object in one round, no matter how long the line is. Do you assume then that your version of the 3.5 world allows for such actions to happen? It's a known fact in the world that an object can be passed down a line in exactly six seconds, no matter the length of the line? A barbarian of sufficient level can rage several times a day, but only once per encounter -- thus, an encounter is a quantifiable thing in the world?

Do you really not get what I've been trying to say yet? "When did you stop beating your wife" is a classic example of the fallacy "Begging the Question", which is what you are doing when you claim I don't know what the rules of 4e are.

Ok, so you actually do claim to know the rules of 4e? If so, why didn't you know about all the powers and abilities I've been providing as examples? Why didn't you initially know what the inherent bonus rules of 4e are?

What is the attack bonus of a level 7 artillery type enemy using the most up-to-date rules? Why is it that number? What does the leader subtype of an enemy creature mean? How many levels should you not exceed when adjusting monster levels? How many and which level magic items should a party of 7 PCs receive per level?

On page 65 of the Monster Manual, statistics are presented for a Pit Fiend. These represent the statistics of a Pit Fiend. There, that's where it says what the abilities of a Pit Fiend are.

It is the totality of what 4e says about the Pit Fiend. You can say other things about Pit Fiends in your games. You can have them rule mortal kingdoms, or sire lineages of Warlocks, or any number of other things. But those are not things 4e says about Pit Fiends, and are therefore utterly irrelevant to a discussion of the merits of 4e as a game.

The claim you made was that those statistics represent the exhaustive totality of the creature. Based on what rule? Where is the rule?

Constraints are necessary to have meaning. If everything is possible, no meaningful interactions can occur. Your decision to pick up a sword could result in you holding a sword, or it could result in you holding a fish, or it could end the world. Without some constraints on how the state of the game can evolve, there is no game.

So, when putting the earth-magic controlling human swordsman in to mechanics, it's better that you have to also give him spells that don't fit the vision? It's better that you're restricted when it comes to how high or low level an adventure you add him to? It's better that you have to portray his martial swordsman abilities as magical, even if you don't want this?

Yes, and it does this by removing those concepts. Which you can do by playing E6. I would venture to say that support both low power and high power games is objectively better than supporting only one kind of game.

What stops you from ceasing leveling at any level in 4e? A non-magical 4e class will stay perfectly competitive with magic-wielding classes, even well past level 6. In fact, you can play a fully zero-magic campaign in 4e, and the rules still work. Or you can include only some amount of magic, to your taste.

What needs to be clarified? I said "there are concepts 4e can't do that 3e can", you said "here is a list of 4e abilities that aren't in 3e". That's not a counterargument. That's not anything. What character concept can you actualize under 4e rules but not 3e ones?

Remember how I said you ignore any evidence I provide. I did not provide a list of 4e abilities. You cannot play a warden, a swordmage, a shardmind, an invoker, or any of the 4e paragon paths in 3e. I specifically listed several different classes, races, and other elements. But you continue to ignore any and all factual evidence I provide because they go against your conceived notions.

You can keep ignoring my points, but they won't cease to exist. This is a very simple fact of reality.

Once again:

If we follow your premise that they do [model the rules of the world], we end up in a situation where a line of people can pass an object in one round, no matter how long the line is. Do you assume then that your version of the 3.5 world allows for such actions to happen? It's a known fact in the world that an object can be passed down a line in exactly six seconds, no matter the length of the line? A barbarian of sufficient level can rage several times a day, but only once per encounter -- thus, an encounter is a quantifiable thing in the world?

Why are you incapable of responding to this? It doesn't speak well of your argumentative abilities.

You also still haven't provided that evidence to the notion that both 3e martials and 4e classes "lack meaningful non-combat options." Is it so difficult? Are you not capable of doing it?

You also asked for details on the abilities. I gave you a list, which you insist on ignoring. Here it is once again:

Dimension Door, Quick Portal, One Hundred Doors, Mordenkainen's Mansion, Mental Haven, Gray Legionnaires, Hounds of the Hunt, Invisibility.

And again: Why am I supposed to provide you with the rules you are claiming to have analyzed and assessed? Shouldn't you already know the rules?

And even more points you ignore because you seem incapable of responding to them:

So your defense of your contradictions is that one was intended as satire and the other seriously. Which parts of your posts are meant seriously, and which parts are not serious? How can you expect to be taken at face value if your tone is inconsistent?

Moreover, where did I mention E6 with regards to the mentioned topics? Your claim was that I'd used E6 as evidence with regards to the problems of: epic levels, the CR system, class balance, and multiclassing. I showed you the quotes, and this did not happen.

How many times will you ignore all of these? You can't debate a topic if you refuse to respond to it -- that's equal to conceding.

Cosi

2017-08-31, 04:14 PM

More rules doesn't always mean better rules. I'd much rather play a game that does one thing well then a game that does lots of things mediocrely. Especially when I what I want to is that one thing

But 4e doesn't actually do one thing well. Combat is grindy and uninspired, skill challenges don't work, and that is the whole system.

Because it's the only way to interpret the rules if you want them to make sense. Like I posted several times already (you keep ignoring it -- that doesn't make it go away, no matter how much you want):

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).

Ok, so you actually do claim to know the rules of 4e? If so, why didn't you know about all the powers and abilities I've been providing as examples? Why didn't you initially know what the inherent bonus rules of 4e are?

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.

The claim you made was that those statistics represent the exhaustive totality of the creature. Based on what rule? Where is the rule?

That is the labeled stat block for a Pit Fiend. It represents a Pit Fiend. If you think something else represents a Pit Fiend, please tell me where to find it.

So, when putting the earth-magic controlling human swordsman in to mechanics, it's better that you have to also give him spells that don't fit the vision?

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.

It's better that you're restricted when it comes to how high or low level an adventure you add him to?

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.

It's better that you have to portray his martial swordsman abilities as magical, even if you don't want this?

This one I will freely admit is a problem. That said, it's a problem because the people who don't like powerful casters insist that anything which can compete with them is itself magic (although there's a terminology issue there).

What stops you from ceasing leveling at any level in 4e? A non-magical 4e class will stay perfectly competitive with magic-wielding classes, even well past level 6. In fact, you can play a fully zero-magic campaign in 4e, and the rules still work. Or you can include only some amount of magic, to your taste.

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.

Remember how I said you ignore any evidence I provide. I did not provide a list of 4e abilities. You cannot play a warden, a swordmage, a shardmind, an invoker, or any of the 4e paragon paths in 3e. I specifically listed several different classes, races, and other elements. But you continue to ignore any and all factual evidence I provide because they go against your conceived notions.

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.

You can keep ignoring my points, but they won't cease to exist. This is a very simple fact of reality.

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.

Drakevarg

2017-08-31, 04:23 PM

That is the labeled stat block for a Pit Fiend. It represents a Pit Fiend. If you think something else represents a Pit Fiend, please tell me where to find it.

Fiendish Codex II. Diabolic pacts and so forth. Not mentioned anywhere in the Pit Fiend statblock, but a big part of their schtick.

RoboEmperor

2017-08-31, 08:00 PM

Which leads to the worst issue I have with 3.5 which I call the Tier 1 show. If you are playing a Tier 1, all too often the game becomes about you and your fellow Tier 1's (and 2s.), while everyone else is sidelined. It takes serious effort to make sure that doesn't happen on behalf of the DM and the players.

No, the wackiness isn't the entire problem, you can keep things 'serious', and even normal looking behind the scenes, but it's this huge deception and self-delusion that your characters couldn't wipe out a horde of orcs with their eyes closed and using a rusty crowbar.

I think you're speaking from theory not experience. In the games I've been in this was never an issue. Better players helped optimize newer player's mundane builds, and the casters all went for versatility rather than power, allowing mundanes to shine. I have yet to meet a person who actually goes a TO build or an ubercharger. A mailmain in real life goes a normal human sorcerer, not dragonwrought kobold incantatrix.

And even if your party does go full TO, all lesser tier characters can stay relevant with the correct equipment and builds, so even in a "tier 1 show", tiers 2-5 can still perform very well. In fact they can out power tier1s, they just lack versatility. Just because you don't have the skills to do so doesn't make it true.

Also this is the first thing I thought of when you said Planar Binding Master/Summoner (https://youtu.be/ci_Xh2jTykA?t=43). Also shadow magic stuff is very very animeish. I can link you to a top 10 anime shadow magic video if you want.

I can give you 10,000 animes that has a fighter with a sword pulling impossible stunts. That doesn't make the fighter anime. When I go shadowcraft mage I go for the nightmare mood. Ignorance is bliss because once you recognize the monster as a shadow creature, it gets stronger.

And if you're saying the demon summoner/binder/master is an anime archetype rather than standard western fantasy, then I guess I cannot have a conversation with you.

Having a high level of skill mastery has nothing to do with creativity. And for someone like me? It's easier to be creative in 5th edition. I don't need to have six to seven books spread out in front of me as I piece the rules together to make something work. Instead I need one book for comparison, and then I just make something up before getting it approved by the DM.

Yeah it's homebrew, and yes 3.5 has that too. But it just feels like 5e is so much more supportive of that sort of thing, not necessarily in tools provided but with the whole attitude that the rules aren't the end all of what you can and should do.

Everything is easier if you toss out the rules and go homebrew. "5e has nothing but that can be solved by homebrew!" >.>. You can do that in 3.5 too, except in 3.5 you don't need to because there are books for those. Just because you can get what you want within the rules across 7 books doesn't mean you can't do homebrew. 3.5 is superior because you can do what you want without homebrew, while you're saying it is a necessity in 5e, making the character you want to play homebrew exclusive meaning you gotta beg DMs for your character everytime instead of just looking at the allowed booklist.

Again, you made his point for him. You like playing a simple weakling, you don't want other players to be stronger than you and you don't want to spend the time/effort to turn your character into a complex poewrhouse, so you pick the system with the low skill/power cap to force everyone else to be simple weaklings even if they spend 100times more time/effort than you. Which is fine, this is not a bad thing, but its wrong to say only 5e can be "serious" "non-anime-ish" while 3.5 can't, because 3.5 can and can do it better than 5e and without homebrew.

Forum Explorer

2017-09-01, 12:01 AM

I think you're speaking from theory not experience. In the games I've been in this was never an issue. Better players helped optimize newer player's mundane builds, and the casters all went for versatility rather than power, allowing mundanes to shine. I have yet to meet a person who actually goes a TO build or an ubercharger. A mailmain in real life goes a normal human sorcerer, not dragonwrought kobold incantatrix.

And even if your party does go full TO, all lesser tier characters can stay relevant with the correct equipment and builds, so even in a "tier 1 show", tiers 2-5 can still perform very well. In fact they can out power tier1s, they just lack versatility. Just because you don't have the skills to do so doesn't make it true.

I can give you 10,000 animes that has a fighter with a sword pulling impossible stunts. That doesn't make the fighter anime. When I go shadowcraft mage I go for the nightmare mood. Ignorance is bliss because once you recognize the monster as a shadow creature, it gets stronger.

And if you're saying the demon summoner/binder/master is an anime archetype rather than standard western fantasy, then I guess I cannot have a conversation with you.

Everything is easier if you toss out the rules and go homebrew. "5e has nothing but that can be solved by homebrew!" >.>. You can do that in 3.5 too, except in 3.5 you don't need to because there are books for those. Just because you can get what you want within the rules across 7 books doesn't mean you can't do homebrew. 3.5 is superior because you can do what you want without homebrew, while you're saying it is a necessity in 5e, making the character you want to play homebrew exclusive meaning you gotta beg DMs for your character everytime instead of just looking at the allowed booklist.

Again, you made his point for him. You like playing a simple weakling, you don't want other players to be stronger than you and you don't want to spend the time/effort to turn your character into a complex poewrhouse, so you pick the system with the low skill/power cap to force everyone else to be simple weaklings even if they spend 100times more time/effort than you. Which is fine, this is not a bad thing, but its wrong to say only 5e can be "serious" "non-anime-ish" while 3.5 can't, because 3.5 can and can do it better than 5e and without homebrew.

Nope, that comes from experience when I had a druid and the fighter in the same party. The druid never was challenged by anything, while the fighter was frequently knocked below 0 hp. And there was no real hardcore optimization going on, the druid simply took a magic armor from the item compendium that would still provide AC bonuses when transformed, and as a result had an AC of 30+ while the fighter was stuck around the low 20s. And I simply didn't have the skills to deal with it.

Sure, when there is an equal amount of skill in the players, or rather, the players are skilled enough. That often isn't the case. 3.5 is a very hard system to master, and the more skilled players/GM aren't always willing to put the effort and time in teaching newbies how to be better at it. Like I said, by the time I quit 3.5, I found playing to be nothing but a chore because it was simply too difficult for me to find fun in it.

Nah, I mostly just found that statement to be very funny. What does something being 'anime' even mean? I mean, you talk about horror stuff, but anime can do horror very well, so that's not it. Over the top powerful is the only thing I think classifying a game as 'anime' as, which 3.5 pretty much ends up as once you get to high levels. If you mean anime like tropes, well, anime is a really broad genre, full of just as down to earth stuff as any Western media can be. I get the feeling you mean stuff like Bleach or Naruto when you call something anime-like.

I would say it's as Eastern of a concept as it is a Western one. It's in no way not anime, however you are defining that term.

No, I'm saying in 3.5 I felt my creativity was stifled and chained by all the rules and splatbooks. I was so concerned with making sure I was following the rules, and putting so much effort in making sure my character was both strong enough and not too strong, that I didn't really get to do anything crazy. Because by that point the concept behind the character no longer mattered, just the raw numbers, the spells, and how they interacted with the rules. It was bloody depressing, and I never felt like I was allowed to move beyond the rules, ever.

In 5th I feel free and liberated to do whatever I want, including ignoring the rules altogether, and I feel like it's much easier to get permission from the DM to do something unique and interesting. I'm not saying 5th edition needs to be fixed at all, just that I don't feel trapped by the rules, and I actually care about my characters as more then just a jumble of numbers.

And no, I'm not saying that every 3.5 player feels like that, or is a 'rollplayer' instead of being a roleplayer. It's just how I personally felt, and it's why I personally prefer 5th over 3.5.

Sure, and no, not 'serious' or 'non-animish'. Low power, or perhaps I should say, lower power. You can have silly slapstick games where you play as gnomes sabotaging each other for grant money, or animish games where you're a little girl empowered by a forest fairy to go fight evil, but you can't play as someone out to exterminate all divinity to absorb their power for themselves and remake the world in their image and to actually do that by the rules. You simply don't get strong enough. You can't play as Superman basically.