PDA

View Full Version : 3.5e or Next?



Sm3gl
2018-06-10, 01:14 AM
Hello playground!

After a once off crazy dice throwing adventure one night while I was backpacking through Thailand; nostalgia and a desire to express some creativity has driven me to manifest a dungeons and dragons game.

I have convinced a group of my friends to give it a go, one or two of whom have played once before and am now writing an adventure to hopefully get them hooked.

However, now at the point of actually stating out the adventure and exploring different apps that might assist in my DM'ing I'm considering whether to forge ahead with my 3.5e routes or try Next as it seems to have a decent rap and there's lots of apps to assist a DM.

The adventure is a first level adventure for 4-5 characters and including a campaign plot hook that could go on to becoming an E6 campaign with adventure plots thought out up until level 6 and a certain open endedness available for continuing play.

Can playgrounders weigh in on my choice between 3.5e and D&D Next? Even all these years later (13 or more) I still remember so much about 3.5 but it seems in the modern world of apps I could benefit from some of the content generation and encounter management available from the apps for Next.

What do you think?
Stay with what I know?
Learn the new thing?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-10, 01:44 AM
First of all, it's 5e, not Next. Next was a dumb branding thing that everyone ignored.

3.5 is a horrendous broken mess with a dizzying amount of options for people that enjoy breaking the game over their knee. 5e is kind of bland and shallow and soulless. Pick your poison.

Sm3gl
2018-06-10, 02:24 AM
First of all, it's 5e, not Next. Next was a dumb branding thing that everyone ignored.

3.5 is a horrendous broken mess with a dizzying amount of options for people that enjoy breaking the game over their knee. 5e is kind of bland and shallow and soulless. Pick your poison.

As mentioned everyone's a newbie so not likely to try to break anything. Also it would be level 1 and an E6 campaign if it progresses (so maximum level 6).

Pathfinder is the other option that I would be comfortable with. I just want to weigh the learning that I would have to do for a newer system vs the free resources available for systems other than 3.5e.

hymer
2018-06-10, 03:17 AM
What do you think?
5e is a lot less work for the DM. At level 1 the difference isn't so big. But at lvl 6, it is significant. 5e is also a lot more forgiving on new players about workload, but if you add enough help to the new players, it's not like you can't make it work.


Stay with what I know?
That's what I would do in general. Kinda lazy, but you go with what you know.


Learn the new thing?
I suggest doing this, too. And then picking the one you prefer. But I suppose you don't have the time or inclination for both at this point.

My clear opinion is that 5e is my preferred system. Hardly flawless, but it's simpler and cleaner than 3.5. But not everyone agrees, obviously. The only way you can be sure is to try both.


As mentioned everyone's a newbie so not likely to try to break anything.
It's not like you have to try to break 3.5. :smallsmile: One guy plays a druid and happens to pick Natural Spell, and another plays a fighter going the Spring Attack route... Crying ensues. :smallwink:

Ignimortis
2018-06-10, 03:31 AM
As mentioned everyone's a newbie so not likely to try to break anything. Also it would be level 1 and an E6 campaign if it progresses (so maximum level 6).

Pathfinder is the other option that I would be comfortable with. I just want to weigh the learning that I would have to do for a newer system vs the free resources available for systems other than 3.5e.

Since Pathfinder is on the table, I would personally advise picking it. Its' SRD has everything you need to play.

Sm3gl
2018-06-10, 03:39 AM
5e is a lot less work for the DM. At level 1 the difference isn't so big. But at lvl 6, it is significant. 5e is also a lot more forgiving on new players about workload, but if you add enough help to the new players, it's not like you can't make it work.


That's what I would do in general. Kinda lazy, but you go with what you know.


I suggest doing this, too. And then picking the one you prefer. But I suppose you don't have the time or inclination for both at this point.

My clear opinion is that 5e is my preferred system. Hardly flawless, but it's simpler and cleaner than 3.5. But not everyone agrees, obviously. The only way you can be sure is to try both.


It's not like you have to try to break 3.5. :smallsmile: One guy plays a druid and happens to pick Natural Spell, and another plays a fighter going the Spring Attack route... Crying ensues. :smallwink:

What about 5e compared to Pathfinder?

Is there enough online free resources to play 5e or are material purchases required?

Thanks everyone for your feedback and help 😊

2D8HP
2018-06-10, 08:44 AM
What about 5e compared to Pathfinder?

Is there enough online free resources to play 5e or are material purchases required?

Thanks everyone for your feedback and help 😊


The

free Basic rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules),

and the

Systems Reference Document (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd)

are enough for a great game, read 'em, run Lost Mine of Phandelver from the Starter Set, and your pretty good to go!

If you're in Antarctica and can't get the Starter Set

here (https://merricb.com/dungeons-dragons-5e-adventures-by-level/)

is a big list of adventures, some are "pay what you want".

The same sorts of resources are available for Pathfinder, which is very nearly the same rules as 3.5 D&D.
.
AFAICT, the main difference between them is that 5e is a little easier to start as a new player because you don't have to select a Feat to play a Fighter.

KarlMarx
2018-06-10, 10:32 AM
I personally would probably go 5e for new players, starting at level 1, and not going past level 6. Even if all else were equal, 5e is much more front-loaded than 3.5 and to a lesser extent Pathfinder, so players will develop many of the hallmark features of their classes much faster and therefore will struggle less with the process of feats, spells, and prestige classes that a 3.5e character is distinguished by.

And, as mentioned, all is not equal between the two systems. 3.5e is much more breakable, and even with new players, there is a risk that the person who chooses Druid could well outshine much of the rest of the party. This will however be less of a problem given that the level is so low--some classes (read: Fighters and Monks, and maybe Rogues) will struggle even in the level 4-6 range next to cleric, druid, and wizard, but overall it'll be less of a problem than in a longer campaign where the low-tier classes become either irrelevant or an actual impediment to higher-tier characters. Furthermore, 3.5e characters are notably more fragile than those in both Pathfinder and 5e--I usually start any 3.5e campaign at 3rd level to avoid the issue.

However, 3.5e and to a lesser extent Pathfinder are much more flexible and even enjoyable in a lot of ways. As one of my old DMs pointed out, there's a certain satisfaction in knowing that you can turn your gnome wizard into a battleaxe-wielding berserker if you wanted to. For players who aren't going to optimize ridiculously, there's a lot of fun to be had, and as previously mentioned a lot of flexibility advantage. Pathfinder keeps a lot of these benefits while toughening up characters a bit and boosting lower-tier classes a little (more to give some satisfaction and tricks other than feats than to actually make them compete with higher tiers). However, there is less published material out there, which means that it's more hit-or-miss in terms of whether there exist skills, feats, etc. to describe a given character concept.

D+1
2018-06-10, 12:02 PM
Since players are all newbs anyway I'd say that your own inclinations are more important than theirs. E6 is certainly a good choice to solve almost all the serious issues with 3.5. Your own familiarity with what issues do remain with it will prevent them from becoming a problem. It is better that the DM be at least AS familiar with the rules as the players if not more so. If you're going to be teaching the players the rules yourself then it's better IMO that you not be engaged in learning them yourself at the same time. If it were possible I might say go ahead and join a very active 5E game for a while before bringing players in to start your own game so that you can learn it yourself to the point where you can run it with reasonable familiarity and competently teach it to others - but that's not likely to be practical. In which case, I'd say 3E.

As far as tools goes, there are plenty. 3E has been around since 2000 and is still heavily played (certainly in the form of Pathfinder if not also as 3.5 itself). But an E6 game again should reduce the need to rely upon software tools to assist in running the game. There's also the question of resources that you can provide to the players. If you can hand a few 3.5 PH's to the players because you already own them, that's a vote in favor, but if players would need to buy their own in any case or go online to SRD's then it becomes a wash between 3.5 and 5 on that score.

Your own familiarity with 3.5 should give it the edge for a one-shot or short-duration campaign, but 5E is (obviously) the current edition in print, and if any new players ARE going to stick with D&D for the long term, it might be better if they were to start with the current edition.

JNAProductions
2018-06-10, 12:38 PM
I'd recommend trying both. I prefer 5E to 3.P, especially when it comes to DMing.

But no reason you can't do both, running two separate adventures. Unless that's too much work for you, in which case, I'd advise 5E, for it being way easier to DM.

Grek
2018-06-10, 01:35 PM
5e is basically E6 spread out over 20 levels, with less content for it written up and no functional skill system or quality beastiary entries in the books. If you're willing to homebrew all of the stuff 5e is missing, AND you're fine with the baked in power level, it can be good. If either of those is untrue, don't bother.

JNAProductions
2018-06-10, 01:58 PM
5e is basically E6 spread out over 20 levels, with less content for it written up and no functional skill system or quality beastiary entries in the books. If you're willing to homebrew all of the stuff 5e is missing, AND you're fine with the baked in power level, it can be good. If either of those is untrue, don't bother.

5E is basically a more focused D&D experience, with a slower rate of content coming out but a much higher quality in each piece. (Modules notwithstanding.) It's much more intuitive to use, not requiring massive amounts of time spent looking at tables and delving books and instead focusing on actual gameplay, as well as having CR be a better indicator of what's actually going on. (Note: Read the rules on how CR actually works. A CR X monster is not supposed to have a chance of killing 4 Level X players in an ordinary encounter, and is mostly meant to drain resources.)

It does have less of a spread than 3.P, but it gains the ability to actually sit down and play without having to make sure everyone is on the same power level, even if they're the same level. A party in 5E of a Druid, Monk, Wizard, and Fighter will work just fine out of the box. The same thing in 3.P has a good chance of ending up with the Druid dominating, the Wizard doing well, the Fighter doing okay, and the Monk sucking.

Malimar
2018-06-10, 02:03 PM
5e is basically E6 spread out over 20 levels, with less content for it written up and no functional skill system or quality beastiary entries in the books. If you're willing to homebrew all of the stuff 5e is missing, AND you're fine with the baked in power level, it can be good. If either of those is untrue, don't bother.
I would like to emphasize that first thing and elaborate: probably don't try to apply E6 to a 5e game. E6 is a 3.5/PF thing; the core assumptions of the game, assumptions which E6 relies upon, differ in 5e. If you play 5e, just play with regular 1-20 leveling -- the power curve in 5e is extremely shallow, so, as Grek says, it's functionally already E6 if you're playing 1-20.

That said, if you are looking for an E6-style experience, unmodded 5e innately caters to it better than adding the post-hoc hack to 3.5 does.

Ignimortis
2018-06-10, 02:43 PM
5e is basically E6 spread out over 20 levels, with less content for it written up and no functional skill system or quality beastiary entries in the books. If you're willing to homebrew all of the stuff 5e is missing, AND you're fine with the baked in power level, it can be good. If either of those is untrue, don't bother.

Scathing and succinct. I would sig this, but I don't want to become a walking flamewar.

2D8HP
2018-06-10, 04:23 PM
5e is basically E6 spread out over 20 levels, with less content for it written up...


Both sound like good things to me.

Vendarien
2018-06-10, 10:06 PM
My vote is for 5e but it relay up to personal preference. 3.5 has so many more options and a lot more freedom, however it is a constant unwinnable struggle to keep everything balanced. 5e I feel is so much easier to keep balanced, and also does away with a lot of silly rules that I feel broke the immersion and bogged the game down. It does however have a lot less option to draw from. I believe however that it is also a lot easier to home brew for without breaking something, and too many people fail to realize that the written rules can easily be refluffed in so many different way to adapt to what you need them to do.

Aetis
2018-06-11, 12:51 AM
People who like 5e are gonna tell you to play 5e. People who like 3.5 are gonna tell you to play 3.5.

I'll tell you right now that system's not gonna matter to a good DM. You should just stick to what you know.

Mordaedil
2018-06-11, 12:59 AM
I prefer 3.5 and I'm going to tell you to give 5e a shot.

Not because I think it's better, but it's easier to introduce new people to and almost all of the resources you need to do a game are really easy to get a hold of and the players can even create characters without paying for anything by using DND Beyond.

oxybe
2018-06-11, 01:19 AM
I'm throwing my hat in the "whatever you're most comfortable running" category.

Now as for personal preferences, as a player or GM, if I was forced to choose i'd pick 3.5 over 5th. Not because I find it's the more solid game. Far from it. 3rd ed is a mess and neither 3.5 or pathfinder solved the issues inherent with the system.

But for all it's warts, I find myself far more engaged on a gameplay level with the 3e line of games. 5th ed just failed to grab my attention in any meaningful way. I'd rather play a broken, if fun, game then a solid, but boring, one.

Pelle
2018-06-11, 03:11 AM
To me it depends on the attitude of the players. Do you expect them to want to learn all the rules, or are they more than happy about being told what numbers to add and what to roll by the DM?

If the former, then I would choose 5e because it is easier for new players. If the latter, you can just cruise on your old knowledge of 3.5 if you don't want to learn any new rules.

Malimar
2018-06-11, 08:55 AM
People who like 5e are gonna tell you to play 5e. People who like 3.5 are gonna tell you to play 3.5.
I vastly prefer 3.5e but I'd still recommend 5e for newbies. In my opinion, 3.5e is a better game than 5e in the same way Dwarf Fortress is a better game than The Sims: ultimately it is, but you practically need a PhD in the game before you can start extracting fun from it. Using 3.5e as a newbie's first introduction to D&D verges on the cruel and unusual.

Rhedyn
2018-06-12, 02:47 PM
5e is also a broken mess. What's helping 5e in the balancing department is that it is newer and too light for many system breakers to bother playing and those that do break it tend to stop playing.

For AD&D, DM what you know because you'll be better doing that then the shiniest newer edition. (So 3.5 or Pathfinder)

If you are open to suggestions, I can recommend Savage Worlds with the Hellfrost setting or Rules Cyclopedia D&D (if old school dungeon crawling is your thing).

PairO'Dice Lost
2018-06-12, 04:48 PM
3e being overwhelming for newbies and 5e being a breeze is vastly overstated.

Pretty much every edition of D&D is simple to learn and play in the first 5 levels or so, and I've personally run games of B/X, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e that had new players in them (where by "new" I mean they haven't even play a cRPG and had to be introduced to the basic ideas of roleplaying and making characters) who were able to go from "What do you mean dice have more than 6 sides?" to playing their character well in just a few sessions, including someone who was able to get to the point of running a full casting-plus-melee-plus-companion 3e druid.

Conversely, I'm running a 5e game where there are multiple players who make every single damn roll by rolling 2d20 and looking at me with puppy dog eyes to tell them which die to use (or, usually, to reroll because they didn't have advantage or disadvantage) and which of the numbers on their sheet to add. No amount of streamlining can fix lack of player engagement and investment.

Both editions have complexity and customizability tradeoffs at low levels. Where 3e has the fiddliness of allocating skill points, 5e has more race- and class-based choices at 1st level, and both can deter new players who want to make as few choices as possible upfront to avoid being overwhelmed. Where 3e characters are relatively fragile at 1st and 2nd level, 5e characters often don't get to make meaningful character-building choices until 3rd, and both can deter new players who don't want to wait a few levels to play a "complete" character.

Personally, I favor 3e, because 5e has very little mechanical depth, has lots of holes in the rules that need to be filled in by the DM (and not in the "here's extensive guidelines but this is left to DM adjudication" way of AD&D, just "there's nothing solid here"), and never really goes anywhere interesting. Same with vanilla Fate, for me: amazing game for one-shots and short adventures, becomes bland and repetitive if you try to run the same game for more than 3-4 sessions, and only a great group and the really crunchy Fate hacks/adaptations can avoid that.

So the most important factor, really, is the DM's preferences. A good DM can adjust for 3e's issues and paper over 5e's holes, but they have to like and be invested in the system to do so. You can give both a try and see which you prefer, but if in doubt, stick with what you know: a game by an experienced, enthusiastic 3e DM beats a game by an inexperienced, uncertain 5e DM any day.

CircleOfTheRock
2018-06-13, 01:33 AM
5e is also a broken mess. What's helping 5e in the balancing department is that it is newer and too light for many system breakers to bother playing and those that do break it tend to stop playing.
Have you actually tried making a 5e character? (Not meaning to insult you, legitimately asking).

Rhedyn
2018-06-13, 06:24 AM
Have you actually tried making a 5e character? (Not meaning to insult you, legitimately asking).
Dozens and I played half a dozen. All half dozen of the 5e campaigns failed for our group (or we continued with a different system)

There is a good reason 5e gets a rep for most people not playing past level 7. The game kind of starts falling apart by then. We've never had a campaign survive past level 9 and we stopped playing it.

Edit: And no, I wasn't trying to break 5e, I put round pegs into round holes and that just happened to break everything. If I took my 3e approach of avoiding all broken stuff, I could play very little of the actual player options without hyper underoptimization.

2D8HP
2018-06-13, 07:25 AM
3e being overwhelming for newbies and 5e being a breeze is vastly overstated.....


Then please tell me an equivalent "training wheels class" that's as east to play as a 5e WD&D Champion Fighter or any TD&D Fighter

When I've asked at the 3.5 sub-forum I was deluged with suggestions of spell-casters and non-PHB classes.

The 3.5 Fighter forces me to choose Feats, and the Barbarian to deal with "Rage".

AFAICT, a 3rd level Ranger in 3.5 WD&D is simpler to play than a 5e WD&D Ranger, so that's a plus for 3.5, but both the 3.5 and the 5e Ranger scale up the complexity considerably after 3rd level.

I agree that 5e is more complex than many adherents argue it is, but having the Champion Fighter sub-class and, most importantly, having Feats be optional makes it easier for me to keep playing after 3rd level than 3.5.

Going both Ranger and Rogue could extend upwards the levels of how long I could play 3 5 without options fatigue and cognitive overload, if I could understand the 3.5 "Flanking" rules, but I don't so I don't.

I do agree that a Paladin 2/Ranger 2/Rogue 2 in 3.5 would probably be simpler to play (if one just accepts not Sneak Attacking ever) than a Battlemaster Fighter 6 or most of the 5e classes (the 5e Paladins can be suprisingly simple if one only "Smites" and doesn't cast spells, but AFAICT the 3.5 Paladins doesn't have that option).

But the thing is the class that is simple to play in 5e (Champion Fighter) is obviously that, but may still contribute to the Party success, at least to 10th level, and if you want high complexity and options in 5e the Wizard is an obvious choice (and as obvious for me to stay away from).

A simple "training wheels class" for 3.5 is not obvious to me, I just know that with Feats Fighter is not the "go to" class for me that it is with every other version of D&D.

3.5 lacks and needs "training wheels" (which I don't see in Pathfinder either).

Oh, and as a side rant, most "fixes" that I see for the Champion in the 5e Sub-Forum and the Homebrew Sub-Forum don't work for me, and they just look like "Battlemaster 2.0's", and I really hope that 6e doesn't go in that direction.

Pelle
2018-06-13, 07:55 AM
The 3.5 Fighter forces me to choose Feats, and the Barbarian to deal with "Rage".


Have you considered not selecting any feats at all, or spending all the feats on for example Toughness (+3HP). Sounds simple enough for you.

Faily
2018-06-13, 09:14 AM
I'd say Pathfinder, but that's mostly because I find it the most accessible of the options here with plenty of websites and apps to help out.

Also because I find Pathfinder to be the most customizable for people. If you have players who have new, talk to them about what sort of character they'd like to play and nudge them in the direction of Archtypes suitable for their idea. Like if a player says "I wanna play an elf magic user who focuses on nature and plants" you could point them to the Druid racial archtype for elves that gives them a Plant Companion instead of an Animal Companion.

If players are relatively new, there's no need to worry about imbalances or potential broken-ness, imo and ime, as it tends to be the more experienced players who break stuff. :smallwink:

2D8HP
2018-06-13, 09:39 AM
Have you considered not selecting any feats at all, or spending all the feats on for example Toughness (+3HP). Sounds simple enough for you.


Yes, but:


Except that 1 can still overshadow a fighter built in the same vein. Imagine a clueless fighter picking feats like toughness...



.....assuming a fighter that takes trap feats for bonus feats and toughness for character feats...


And when I asked Why don't I just play "Redgar"? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545698-Why-don-t-I-just-play-quot-Redgar-quot) the majority there and at other threads said "no", and many have even suggested playing a 3.5 Warlock instead, as if my wanting to play "a character like the Errol Flynn version of Robin Hood" somehow suggests playing Faust!

If you want to play a bow and sword wielding PC, then 5e just looks easier to learn to me.

If you want to play a spell-caster on the other claw, then both 3.5 and 5e look too complex for me, and I suggest playing 0e/1e or B/X instead.

Pelle
2018-06-13, 09:58 AM
Yeah. All those people dissuading you from just taking Toughness feats assume you want a character that can contribute equally as a spellcaster. Is that really important to you? If so, playing a Fighter at all is pointless in 3.5, unless the others are passive players or have pity on you and hold back...
If not, just take Tougness (or other passive benefits) and play along.

2D8HP
2018-06-13, 10:05 AM
Yeah. All those people dissuading you from just taking Toughness feats assume you want a character that can contribute equally as a spellcaster. Is that really important to you?


Not really, playing the kind of character I want to play is more important to me.


If so, playing a Fighter at all is pointless in 3.5, unless the others are passive players or have pity on you and hold back...
If not, just take Tougness (or other passive benefits) and play along.


Cool!

Thanks!

:smile:

PairO'Dice Lost
2018-06-13, 12:29 PM
Then please tell me an equivalent "training wheels class" that's as east to play as a 5e WD&D Champion Fighter or any TD&D Fighter

I wasn't saying that every 3e class has equivalent complexity to its 5e version, or that the average complexity level is lower for all classes. There are certainly players such as yourself who find any amount of choice or complexity to be too much and just want to hop in and roll dice without making any character-building decisions.

My point, rather, was that it's portrayed as though 5e is simplicity itself, 3e is a math test, and that 5e is the obvious choice for newbies, when in fact the levels of complexity for the various editions are similar enough at low levels that it comes down entirely to player tolerance for making choices and player and DM preference for rules philosophy. There are lots of people who find AD&D totally unapproachable, but you and I have no problems with it and you strongly prefer it, for instance.

For every player who finds the 5e Champion fighter desirable because you don't have to make decisions, there's one who finds the Champion fighter intolerable because you can't make decisions; for every player who prefers the 5e feat system because you have fewer but larger feats, there's a player who prefers the 3e feat system because you get them earlier and more often. I just hate to see people automatically recommending 5e because of the most-newbie-friendly perception when that's not the case.

Malimar
2018-06-13, 12:36 PM
The 3.5 forums do have a habit of suggesting gawdawful complex builds with half a dozen classes and full spellcasting and a million moving parts when somebody asks for suggestions for newbies. I don't know if they're sadistic or just dumb.

That said, if you can't handle flanking ("on opposite sides of the target" is not a difficult concept for Medium or smaller targets and only a little complicated for Large and larger ones) or rage (an irritating (hence why I never play barbarians) but very simple adding and subtracting a handful of piddly numbers), I don't think any edition of D&D is right for you.

MrSandman
2018-06-13, 01:14 PM
I'd suggest that it depends on the kind of game you want to play. If you're going to do a dungeon crawl, 5e is probably the best option, as it has simpler mechanics. If you want to do anything else, though, 3.P handles non-combat stuff (like having a decent skill system, or class abilities that you can use outside of a dungeon) a lot better.

Goaty14
2018-06-13, 01:15 PM
The 3.5 forums do have a habit of suggesting gawdawful complex builds with half a dozen classes and full spellcasting and a million moving parts when somebody asks for suggestions for newbies. I don't know if they're sadistic or just dumb.

The 3.5 forums also have a habit of 1) Being *much* more optimized than the average player (or table, for that matter), and 2) Squeezing the min/max synergies to the stratosphere, so it's likely any part of such a suggested build could be removed. Just my 2 cents (or points, for that matter).

It's been done to death, but I'm with the bandwagon of "go with whatever works best for you and your mates". Since it'd (if 3.5) E6, the ugly face of 3.5 won't show itself and it's pretty much a coin toss of which one you should choose.

Psyren
2018-06-14, 09:10 AM
The only way you can be sure is to try both.

Basically this.


People who like 5e are gonna tell you to play 5e. People who like 3.5 are gonna tell you to play 3.5.

I'll tell you right now that system's not gonna matter to a good DM. You should just stick to what you know.

I personally prefer PF (and SF) but I frequently recommend 5e. It depends on what the group wants, not what I want. I agree with your second statement though, with the caveat that "if you're willing to learn a new system, go for it!"

And to be honest, all three of the Big 3 have an easy learning curve anyway.


I vastly prefer 3.5e but I'd still recommend 5e for newbies. In my opinion, 3.5e is a better game than 5e in the same way Dwarf Fortress is a better game than The Sims: ultimately it is, but you practically need a PhD in the game before you can start extracting fun from it. Using 3.5e as a newbie's first introduction to D&D verges on the cruel and unusual.

If you can get a PF Beginner's Box though, that's a way to start with the harder system without as many problems personally.

Marden
2018-06-18, 02:24 AM
I would say it depends on who is in your group of players.

Younger folks who have never played anything before tend to do better with 5E.

Experienced roleplayers, older, and those who have played other games should do better with 3.5 or PF.

If you have a mix, then do what you're comfortable with, and go. No right or wrong answer, but it comes down to what's more fun for the players?

oxybe
2018-06-18, 06:36 AM
I'll chime in that 3rd ed is comparably harder to get into then 5th ed IF you throw every option at newbies... which I wouldn't do in either case.

Were I to be chained and forced to run both games for newbies, in both case I'd come with a handful of pregens, walk them through the character sheet and ask them to pick whichever character they'd like and if they want to switch a few things out then so be it, but I wouldn't introduce newbies to game with the character building part and all options available.

I'd tell them "each of you pick a character from these ones, you're all part of an adventuring company and you're currently on the road to the Town of Citiesburgh to speak with Sage Fumblebeard about the Creepy Tower Over Yonder you were hired to examine on the offchance a creepy necromancer or something has taken up residence" or tack-on an in-media-res with "And you get jumped by a group of haggard-looking bandits, arms at the ready!"

Once we've run them through the 2-3 session adventure, We'll see if they want to roll up new characters, modify the current ones or keep them as is and level up.

With anyone new to something, you try to ease them in.

More experienced players, or at least those with a head for mechanics, can probably figure out character building in either system by themselves, but even then, a bunch of pregens helps you get the newbies to the game much faster.

Yes 3rd ed is a heftier system then 5th, but in practice, not by a significant amount.

2D8HP
2018-06-18, 07:24 AM
....Younger folks who have never played anything before tend to do better with 5E.

Experienced roleplayers, older, and those who have played other games should do better with 3.5 or PF....


Um, I turn 50 years old next week and PF intimidates me, but most of my RPG experience was in the 1980's (many games, but AD&D, Call of Cthullu, D&D, and Traveller were probably the ones I played the most).

For those who grew up with 3.5 and/or PF I imagine it's easier (just as 1e AD&D is relatively easy for me despite being pretty wonky), but for someone (me) who played a lot of RPG's from 1978 to 1992, but none between 1993 and 2015, PF just doesn't seem that easy..


....Were I to be chained and forced to run both games for newbies, in both case I'd come with a handful of pregens, walk them through the character sheet and ask them to pick whichever character they'd like and if they want to switch a few things out then so be it, but I wouldn't introduce newbies to game with the character building part and all options available.....


Can you be my DM?

That's how I remember D&D being taught and played years ago, but mostly I see a "sink or swim" attitude now, with lots of "maybe your just not smart enough" comments.

With 5e I could suss out for myself a "training wheels" class and just play, and while I did encounter some obnoxious "how dare you reduce party effectiveness by not utilizing maximum optimization" type, other players told me "nah it's close enough", and I could just play, but with 3.5/PF I'm repeatably told that I "can't just play" and "have to study and make a build first", which is completely backwards to how I remember the game used to be, as it used to be one would play first, have fun, and then decide to study the rules further.

There's a lot that I see in 3.5/PF that looks appealing, but without an opportunity to learn the rules a little bit at a time in play I have too little free time to bother.

"Homework first, then you get to play" doesn't look like a way to grow the hobby to me.

Despite it's share of gatekeeping "How dare you not optimize!" players, 5e is a welcoming rules system to new players (where it fails is in encouraging new DM's).

There is supposed to be a revision of Pathfinder soon, and I hope they have a training wheels class in the new core rules.

CharonsHelper
2018-06-18, 07:55 AM
It's been done to death, but I'm with the bandwagon of "go with whatever works best for you and your mates". Since it'd (if 3.5) E6, the ugly face of 3.5 won't show itself and it's pretty much a coin toss of which one you should choose.

Yeah - both 3.5 & Pathfinder even moreso are pretty balanced for the first 8ish levels. It's really only when level 5+ spells come into play that the wheels start to come off. (And at most tables it's not bad until the teens.)


Yeah. All those people dissuading you from just taking Toughness feats assume you want a character that can contribute equally as a spellcaster. Is that really important to you? If so, playing a Fighter at all is pointless in 3.5, unless the others are passive players or have pity on you and hold back...

In an E6 game a fighter should be able to contribute fine (they do somewhat better in Pathfinder than 3.5 - but both are okay). They won't get all of the OOC goodness, but a decent fighter should be churning out a good chunk of damage, which is pretty much all you need at low levels. (Though - their bonus feats will become less useful in an E6 game as everyone keeps gaining more feats past level 6. And really - in an E6 game is the one time besides a level 1-3 one-shot where I might consider taking 3.5's Toughness.)

2D8HP
2018-06-18, 08:53 AM
I just noticed something 'bout the OP (emphasis added):


[...]Even all these years later (13 or more) I still remember so much about 3.5 but it seems in the modern world of apps I could benefit from some of the content generation and encounter management available from the apps for Next.[...]


"Apps for Next"?

What in the Abyss are those?

Psyren
2018-06-18, 03:22 PM
"Apps for Next"?

What in the Abyss are those?

Apps for 5th edition I'd assume. Stuff like D&D Beyond (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4BuL886bJA), or third-party stuff for Android, iOS, browser...

oxybe
2018-06-19, 12:13 PM
Can you be my DM?

That's how I remember D&D being taught and played years ago, but mostly I see a "sink or swim" attitude now, with lots of "maybe your just not smart enough" comments.

With 5e I could suss out for myself a "training wheels" class and just play, and while I did encounter some obnoxious "how dare you reduce party effectiveness by not utilizing maximum optimization" type, other players told me "nah it's close enough", and I could just play, but with 3.5/PF I'm repeatably told that I "can't just play" and "have to study and make a build first", which is completely backwards to how I remember the game used to be, as it used to be one would play first, have fun, and then decide to study the rules further.

There's a lot that I see in 3.5/PF that looks appealing, but without an opportunity to learn the rules a little bit at a time in play I have too little free time to bother.

"Homework first, then you get to play" doesn't look like a way to grow the hobby to me.

Despite it's share of gatekeeping "How dare you not optimize!" players, 5e is a welcoming rules system to new players (where it fails is in encouraging new DM's).

There is supposed to be a revision of Pathfinder soon, and I hope they have a training wheels class in the new core rules.

If you ever find yourself in Atlantic Canada, sure.

Honestly, if the DMGs (or their equivalent chapters) would prioritize teaching the game instead first and foremost (and i'm talking out of the DMG not a seperate "starter set"), the larger issue of how voluminous rules heavy games in general are perceived wouldn't be nearly as bad.

This is where I believe that TTRPGs should ape from videogames. There are a lot of really good tutorial stages that slowly release abilities to the players as they examine and test them in relative safety, and then unleash them on the world, and the main game, when they're comfortable.

Then again, a "DMG" by me would look nothing like any D&D DMGs before it. All that rules stuff i'd toss in the PHB and/or MM most of the DMG would focus on discussing the why and hows of being a GM and probably come across as a system neutral book more then anything. At least it would try, but i'm a very tired and snarky man, so I wouldn't be able to guarantee a helpful tone.

CharonsHelper
2018-06-19, 01:07 PM
This is where I believe that TTRPGs should ape from videogames. There are a lot of really good tutorial stages that slowly release abilities to the players as they examine and test them in relative safety, and then unleash them on the world, and the main game, when they're comfortable.


Levelling systems actually do that pretty dang well for players, but it's effect is much more limited on helping the GM.

Psyren
2018-06-19, 01:08 PM
With 5e I could suss out for myself a "training wheels" class and just play, and while I did encounter some obnoxious "how dare you reduce party effectiveness by not utilizing maximum optimization" type, other players told me "nah it's close enough", and I could just play, but with 3.5/PF I'm repeatably told that I "can't just play" and "have to study and make a build first", which is completely backwards to how I remember the game used to be, as it used to be one would play first, have fun, and then decide to study the rules further.

There's a lot that I see in 3.5/PF that looks appealing, but without an opportunity to learn the rules a little bit at a time in play I have too little free time to bother.

This is easily solved by someone more experienced building your character for you. Just state what you want to be able to do. I have yet to see a group for 3.5 or PF where everyone is green.

(I have seen this for Starfinder, but SF satisfies such an identifiable niche that at least one person is going to do the legwork to learn how to play and teach others to play.)

HouseRules
2018-06-22, 08:19 PM
How does Erick Lee Edwards' Open Game License change it's name to Custom Characters http://www.easydamus.com/Custom_Characters.pdf (in 2011) fro D&D 5E http://www.easydamus.com/Old_Custom_Characters.pdf (May 2010) after the introduction of Next. Yes, Edwards created an Open Game License game compatible with 3rd Edition, but names it 5E. Clearly skirting the edge of Copyright Laws? Not really sure, but it does not violate Trademark Laws since the Font are clearly different from Wizards of the Coast, and all of the material are derived from Open Game License.

If someone calls it D&D Next after 2014, remind that there's two Fifth Edition, an official one, and a third party one through the 3E's OGL by Erick Lee Edwards. Are you confusion this fake 5E with the real 5E?

Custom Character is a fake 5E that assumes all 11 base classes are balanced. There are points assignment to all class features. If Frank and K were to see this, they would clearly say that this would match the work and style of "Sean K. Reynolds".

Hawkstar
2018-06-24, 06:12 PM
In an E6 game a fighter should be able to contribute fine (they do somewhat better in Pathfinder than 3.5 - but both are okay). They won't get all of the OOC goodness, but a decent fighter should be churning out a good chunk of damage, which is pretty much all you need at low levels. (Though - their bonus feats will become less useful in an E6 game as everyone keeps gaining more feats past level 6. And really - in an E6 game is the one time besides a level 1-3 one-shot where I might consider taking 3.5's Toughness.)
To be fair, the designers of e6 noticed this problem for fighters, and they added a feat for fighters to increase their BAB to +8 to compensate, making them the indisputed champion of arms because it opened up a bunch of specialized feats that nobody else could get.

FabulousFizban
2018-06-25, 06:48 PM
mongoose publishing second edition runequest ftw

Marcotix
2018-06-27, 02:08 PM
First of all, it's 5e, not Next. Next was a dumb branding thing that everyone ignored.

3.5 is a horrendous broken mess with a dizzying amount of options for people that enjoy breaking the game over their knee. 5e is kind of bland and shallow and soulless. Pick your poison.

This is probably the most accurate summation of the worst aspects of both.

My 2 cents is if you're new to DND, go with 5e, the soul can be breathed into it with good play and story. Having started in 3.5 all I can say is that houserules are your friend.

2D8HP
2018-06-27, 02:19 PM
Judging from playing 0e, 1e, and 5e, and glancing at 2e to 4e, this post from another thread seems cogent:


.....As I've said before, every D&D edition is roughly as approachable for new players as any other from levels 1-5, they just have different pain points. You can think of it like "easy to play characters (A), easy to build characters (B), easy to make the character you want (C), easy to understand the base system (D), pick 2," really:
1e is A/B: easy to build and play, but it's not very customizable (!C) and the base system isn't very intuitive at all (!D).
2e is B/C: quick to build and more customizable with Player Options and such, but there's more moving parts to track in play (!A) and there are lot of different subsystems to figure out (!D).
3e is C/D: you can make any kind of character you want and the rules are unified and cover everything, but there are lots of rules to juggle round-by-round (!A) and new characters are complex to build (!B).
4e is B/D: intuitive and has few choices to make upfront, but it has more fiddiliness in play and requires more tactical thinking to start (!A) and those initial choices can be intimidating because the important differences are very subtle (!C)
5e is A/D: intuitive and easy to play, but building characters requires lots choices up front (!B) and there's not a lot of official material to support more character variety (!C).
(Obviously, going by this pattern, 6e will be A/C: once you understand the rules you can build and run anything with ease, but you need a PhD in RPGology to get there. :smallwink:)

So by pushing back level 1 choices, you're going to be making things easier for new players to learn and play, but harder for experienced players to make what they want, since they'd have fewer choices when initially building characters and would take longer to get certain capabilities. It's a valid design decision to make, but it is a tradeoff.

Rockphed
2018-06-27, 11:41 PM
I looked over the start of the 5e SRD. Somethings I noticed:

Everyone with a d4 or d6 hit die got bumped at least one hit die size. I don't know if warlocks were d4 or d6 in 3.5, but they are d8 now. Rangers got bumped to a d10.

All classes have at least 1 thing on every level.

Evasion is now what Improved Evasion used to be.

I think you can multiclass exactly like in 3.5, but all the classes I looked at had a capstone of some sort that made it unattractive.

High level spell slots are very, very hard to come by. Druids and Clerics have a single spell slot of everything above 5th level.

Abilities generally have a max of 20. Some things can raise abilities beyond that, but not ability increases.

On the other hand, there were 3 action options in base 3.5: full, standard, move. I saw reference to about 5 in the SRD. I know I saw "reaction", "bonus action", "attack action", and "use device action". While probably no more confusing than 4th editions standard, move, minor, I would need a while to parse all of it.

Psyren
2018-06-28, 12:02 AM
On the other hand, there were 3 action options in base 3.5: full, standard, move. I saw reference to about 5 in the SRD. I know I saw "reaction", "bonus action", "attack action", and "use device action". While probably no more confusing than 4th editions standard, move, minor, I would need a while to parse all of it.

You forgot "immediate" which would map to the reaction (except it's also used for AoOs I believe, and doesn't affect your actions next turn.)

Bonus action is analogous to a swift.

Hawkstar
2018-06-28, 12:29 AM
5e has a MUCH better action economy than 3e, by virtue of its simplicity.

3e has the hot garbage that is the Full-Round Attack, which means if you play a martial character and expect to be able to have a decent amount of damage output per turn, you need to either optimize the hell out of Charging, play a Tome of Battle class (Which was made after the designers realized that Full Attacks were a steaming pile of hot garbage), or butt-scoot around the battlefield at 5' per turn.

In 5e? All your attacks have the same attack bonus (No diminishing iteratives, meaning your first strike can miss, and your subsequent attacks can hit), and you can freely move your speed during any round you attack.

Mr Beer
2018-06-28, 12:49 AM
5e is objectively a better designed game than 3.5e and IMO the best edition of D&D to date. I started with AD&D so I say that with all due nostalgia.

PairO'Dice Lost
2018-06-28, 02:46 AM
5e has a MUCH better action economy than 3e, by virtue of its simplicity.

There's not really a big difference between the two editions on complexity. Firstly, full attacks aren't a good example of this, because full attacks vs. moving isn't an issue of complexity; "full attack or move" is a pretty simple calculus and usually has an obvious answer, compared to "do I move, attack A, move, attack B, attack B...or move, attack A, attack A, attack A, move...or....?" which can be hard for new players. It's more an issue of offensive power as to whether you can get off all your attacks in a round or not.

Secondly, regarding actual action complexity, 3e's standard/move/swift/immediate maps directly to 5e's action/move/bonus/reaction, and 3e has full-round and AoOs where 5e has object manipulation, so 5e may be slightly simpler (no full attacks or AoOs) but it comes at the cost of lowered tactical capability (fewer ways to AoO someone, no way to get more AoOs, harder to control area when everyone can move-attack-move) so it's not a strictly beneficial change.


5e is objectively a better designed game than 3.5e and IMO the best edition of D&D to date. I started with AD&D so I say that with all due nostalgia.

There's nothing wrong with 5e being your favorite edition, but "objectively better designed"? Yeah, no.

I'd say that every other edition was better designed than 5e overall--even 1e, because rules clunkiness and excessive verbiage aside, Gygax was an actuary and could actually do math, which is more than can be said for whoever was in charge of putting together 5e's core math, skill system, and the utter travesties that are CR calculation and encounter creation. There's basically nothing in 5e that is both unique to 5e and not either strictly better implemented than an equivalent in another edition or a common houserule that people came up when 3e was still in print.

Which isn't to say 5e is the worst edition, either. While I do think that every part of 5e was done better in another edition, no edition did everything better, so there are plenty of reasons to want to play 5e over a specific other edition (say, if you liked the simplicity of 1e, or at least 1e-without-all-the-optional-bells-and-whistles, but want something more readable and customizable), but let's not pretend 5e is the bestest edition ever.

Ignimortis
2018-06-28, 04:04 AM
5e has a MUCH better action economy than 3e, by virtue of its simplicity.

3e has the hot garbage that is the Full-Round Attack, which means if you play a martial character and expect to be able to have a decent amount of damage output per turn, you need to either optimize the hell out of Charging, play a Tome of Battle class (Which was made after the designers realized that Full Attacks were a steaming pile of hot garbage), or butt-scoot around the battlefield at 5' per turn.

In 5e? All your attacks have the same attack bonus (No diminishing iteratives, meaning your first strike can miss, and your subsequent attacks can hit), and you can freely move your speed during any round you attack.

This is about the only thing (also boss actions, but that's about it) that deserves backporting (doesn't impact balance at all, unless you're very low-OP) into 3.5, and it's done easily enough. Meanwhile, as a 5e Fighter you're doing what, like 10d6+35 damage per turn at level 20 if all of your attacks hit? Considering monster HP actually got higher compared to 3.5, you're just a slightly better 3.5 unoptimized fighter. Meanwhile proper classes or even good builds do more damage than that at level 10 in 3.5.

Besides, action/bonus action/reaction are pretty much standard/swift/immediate. Which is fine, I guess.


5e is objectively a better designed game than 3.5e and IMO the best edition of D&D to date. I started with AD&D so I say that with all due nostalgia.

While you did declare that the second part is your opinion, the first one claims objectivity. 5e is not a well-designed game. It might work well enough in most people's preferred environments of "level 1 to 12", but the CR system is broken, there are no good simplistic magic users (5e warlock is a terrible design) or any complex non-magic classes, short rest/long rest dichotomy is bad for the game unless you follow the guidelines (2/3 short rests per long rest, etc.) precisely or houserule it to actually work, etc.

TL;DR: IMO, the only three things 5e has going for it are:
1) Simplicity - it's very easy to make an okay character, which is good and should be the case most of the time.
2) Following the theme - you're fantasy lowish-end heroes. You stay in that niche for all 20 levels, never really outgrowing it. Which is not objectively good, because not everyone expects that level 20 should be a slightly buffer and very hard to kill level 1 (the more magic you have, the less this applies, if you have no magic, you are doing all the same stuff you did at level 1, only better). That's why people who liked D&D back in the 80s like 5e - it's pretty much a modernized AD&D without some fiddly bits about stopping adventures to become kings.
3) Brand recognition.

Psyren
2018-06-28, 10:52 AM
I personally like the idea of moving and attacking having a tradeoff vs. standing still and attacking. It rewards you for moving your character strategically and positioning them properly.

Where I think 3.5 (and PF) dropped the ball is in making the full-attack SO much stronger than a standard action one, and balancing basically every monster's defenses (hit points/DR/resistances especially) around that. With standard attacks being so useless, it's little wonder that everyone is rushing to try and get pounce, and consider most melee builds that lack it (or that lack a superior replacement, like Strikes) to be nigh-pointless.

Using Starfinder as a counterexample meanwhile, a full-attack is just one extra swing (two if you're a Soldier) and the monsters are calibrated around that. Haste doesn't grant any extra attacks anymore either (though it does let you move and full-attack). This gives everyone easy access to pounce, but again, the difference between having it and not having it is a lot smaller.

Mordaedil
2018-06-28, 04:05 PM
I mean, many multiple attacks in the first place assumes you've crossed over into level 11+, the fields of legends in D&D(assumed as legend lore works to identify characters of level 11+). Having the extra attacks be legendary isn't a bad thing, it's more a mistake how other classes (such as the cleric, through divine power) can access it.

Hawkstar
2018-06-28, 10:23 PM
I mean, many multiple attacks in the first place assumes you've crossed over into level 11+, the fields of legends in D&D(assumed as legend lore works to identify characters of level 11+). Having the extra attacks be legendary isn't a bad thing, it's more a mistake how other classes (such as the cleric, through divine power) can access it.

Nah. You end up with Multiple Attack nonsense at level 6 at the latest for any martial class. But where it's REALLY dumb is Two-weapon Fighting, which gives you an extra attack at level 1... and a multitude of drawbacks that make it clear it should be balanced around being a standard action (It's a bit more consistent than a two-handed power attack, at the cost of a feat)... but it's a full-round action instead.

Even if "Baseline Spring Attack" feels wonky for Front line Fighters, even 4e's "Move and attack" feels better.

Mystral
2018-06-29, 01:03 AM
As mentioned everyone's a newbie so not likely to try to break anything. Also it would be level 1 and an E6 campaign if it progresses (so maximum level 6).

Pathfinder is the other option that I would be comfortable with. I just want to weigh the learning that I would have to do for a newer system vs the free resources available for systems other than 3.5e.

My suggestion would be to start with pathfinder and look where your and your players' issues lie with the game, then perhaps migrate to 5e if it remedies those issues better.

Mordaedil
2018-06-29, 01:29 AM
Nah. You end up with Multiple Attack nonsense at level 6 at the latest for any martial class. But where it's REALLY dumb is Two-weapon Fighting, which gives you an extra attack at level 1... and a multitude of drawbacks that make it clear it should be balanced around being a standard action (It's a bit more consistent than a two-handed power attack, at the cost of a feat)... but it's a full-round action instead.

Even if "Baseline Spring Attack" feels wonky for Front line Fighters, even 4e's "Move and attack" feels better.
Man, I re-wrote that opening statement so carefully to be as clear as possible, I didn't think that people would wilfully misunderstand me on purpose. Yes, multiple attacks starts with dual-wielding or level 6, but one extra attack isn't going to kill anyone and it makes it a tactical choice of "do I move and attack or stand still and attack twice, but can't move", which was in my quote described as an interesting choice, but it got ridiculous later when you start getting around 4 attacks.

And if you play a dual-wielder laser-focusing in on the feats, you can get up to 7 attacks, which is, agreeably, ridiculous.

Hawkstar
2018-06-29, 02:02 AM
Man, I re-wrote that opening statement so carefully to be as clear as possible, I didn't think that people would wilfully misunderstand me on purpose. Yes, multiple attacks starts with dual-wielding or level 6, but one extra attack isn't going to kill anyone and it makes it a tactical choice of "do I move and attack or stand still and attack twice, but can't move", which was in my quote described as an interesting choice, but it got ridiculous later when you start getting around 4 attacks.

And if you play a dual-wielder laser-focusing in on the feats, you can get up to 7 attacks, which is, agreeably, ridiculous.

Except a Dual-wielder gets half-attacks, as they trade the powerful defense of a shield, or a two-handed weapon (Which does the same damage in one attack as as dual-wielding does in two, without the accuracy penalty or feat cost)

Knaight
2018-06-29, 05:01 AM
Except a Dual-wielder gets half-attacks, as they trade the powerful defense of a shield, or a two-handed weapon (Which does the same damage in one attack as as dual-wielding does in two, without the accuracy penalty or feat cost)

The defense of a shield anyways - +2 AC isn't that impressive.

CharonsHelper
2018-06-29, 06:39 AM
The defense of a shield anyways - +2 AC isn't that impressive.

Except that it's another defense item to enchant - eventually giving you +7 - which is very substantial.

Knaight
2018-06-29, 06:49 AM
Except that it's another defense item to enchant - eventually giving you +7 - which is very substantial.

By the time meaningful enchantment is kicking in AC is a marginal defense anyways, layered behind miss chances and similar that do the bulk of the defensive work.

CharonsHelper
2018-06-29, 07:21 AM
By the time meaningful enchantment is kicking in AC is a marginal defense anyways, layered behind miss chances and similar that do the bulk of the defensive work.

It really isn't. It's not hard to have AC keep up, though it does require significant investment.

By 17ish you should be able to get up to 44 AC without issue with mithril full plate, a shield, AoNA, RoP, & ioun stone. (1 higher in Pathfinder)

Throw Defending on some armor spikes can get you an extra +5 most of the time, get Haste cast on you (should be on virtually every round by that level) and you're at 50 without any character features used or any less common spells.

A 50-51 AC will pretty useful against nearly anything which attacks AC (admittedly there are a few 3.5 things with ridiculous accuracy which Pathfinder intentionally dropped - such as the tarrasque). Monks can go substantially higher, and they get a really high touch AC as well.

I'm always dubious of displacement style abilities, because by the time you can afford it, it seems like most of what you're fighting either has or can easily get True Seeing.


But anyway - even the +2 at level 1 isn't bad. If a foe otherwise will hit you on an 11, that +2 cuts the damage you'll be taking by about 20%.

Hawkstar
2018-06-29, 09:31 AM
The defense of a shield anyways - +2 AC isn't that impressive.
Ah... another problem with 3.5/Pathfinder. Completely gonzo math that forgets that the resolution system is a d20. At low levels, a shield that changes the to-hit number from 15 to 17 halves your expected damage. At higher levels, a shield can completely negate iterative attacks, and provides even a solid defense against the initial attack.

CharonsHelper
2018-06-29, 09:41 AM
At low levels, a shield that changes the to-hit number from 15 to 17 halves your expected damage.

Technically that would only drop it by 1/3. But - while I generally agree with you on the % - I'm not sure if that's a bug.

If you have a bell curve an extra +1 or +2 can have an even larger % effect - just at different points. On a 3d6, being hit on an 11+, increasing that to 13+ nearly cuts the damage you take in half.

Bohandas
2018-06-29, 10:21 AM
If you alrey know 3.5e and have the books there's no reason to toss away your time and money buying and learning 5e.

Even if you wanted to leave 3e and wanted to buy and learn a new system I would suggest Pathfinder as the one to switch to.

JNAProductions
2018-06-29, 10:25 AM
If you alrey know 3.5e and have the books there's no reason to toss away your time and money buying and learning 5e.

Even if you wanted to leave 3e and wanted to buy and learn a new system I would suggest Pathfinder as the one to switch to.

If they want a new system, why would you recommend Pathfinder? Pathfinder is really, REALLY similar to 3.5, intentionally so.

Bohandas
2018-06-29, 11:02 AM
Well, I meant If they want to leave 3.5 because of the places where it's broken

JNAProductions
2018-06-29, 11:03 AM
Well, I meant If they want to leave 3.5 because of the places where it's broken

You say that like PF isn't broken. It still has caster superiority by a country mile.

Knaight
2018-06-29, 11:05 AM
If you alrey know 3.5e and have the books there's no reason to toss away your time and money buying and learning 5e.

Even if you wanted to leave 3e and wanted to buy and learn a new system I would suggest Pathfinder as the one to switch to.

If you want to learn a new system you might as well learn a new system, instead of picking something basically identical. There's also no need to switch systems as a permanent thing; the commitment to a given system only lasts for one campaign, however long that is.

Rhedyn
2018-06-29, 11:27 AM
You say that like PF isn't broken. It still has caster superiority by a country mile.
And so does 5e.

The only question is to what extent given the context of the system.

3.5 requires heavy curation if you have knowledgeable players. Pathfinder much less so. As a general rule anything in the PRD or going to the PRD is fine (sans Chained Summoner).

5e is just the way it is and there is no good way to fix the brokenness without pure DM Fiat. It's benefit is what's broken in 5e would barely be a blip in Pathfinder or 3.5, but at the same time, monsters are just as strong as players in 3.X, while in 5e they are either laughably easy or unbeatable. You don't hit a sweet spot in 5e without taking the adventuring day recommendations very seriously and getting to encounters 4-6. The only way around that is to make up things monsters can do with DM Fiat.

CharonsHelper
2018-06-29, 11:46 AM
You say that like PF isn't broken. It still has caster superiority by a country mile.

It's actually not bad in Pathfinder until level 9ish.

Much less so than 3.5.

Ignimortis
2018-06-30, 01:59 AM
Ah... another problem with 3.5/Pathfinder. Completely gonzo math that forgets that the resolution system is a d20. At low levels, a shield that changes the to-hit number from 15 to 17 halves your expected damage. At higher levels, a shield can completely negate iterative attacks, and provides even a solid defense against the initial attack.

You mean, 5e isn't gonzo? Almost everything rides on the dice RNG. You can make a shield good in 3.5/PF if you build for it. You can't make the 5e math better unless you consider staying on the RNG for everything (10th+ level rogues excepted) at all times a good thing. 3.5/PF actual bonus numbers are a feature, not a bug. Maybe there should've been a few less bonus types for stacking, but being able to disregard the actual die roll is not a bad thing to have for something.





You say that like PF isn't broken. It still has caster superiority by a country mile.
And so does 5e.

The only question is to what extent given the context of the system.

3.5 requires heavy curation if you have knowledgeable players. Pathfinder much less so. As a general rule anything in the PRD or going to the PRD is fine (sans Chained Summoner).

5e is just the way it is and there is no good way to fix the brokenness without pure DM Fiat. It's benefit is what's broken in 5e would barely be a blip in Pathfinder or 3.5, but at the same time, monsters are just as strong as players in 3.X, while in 5e they are either laughably easy or unbeatable. You don't hit a sweet spot in 5e without taking the adventuring day recommendations very seriously and getting to encounters 4-6. The only way around that is to make up things monsters can do with DM Fiat.

5e has even greater caster superiority, I'd say, especially at low-OP levels. I can direct players to ToB/PoW classes/archetypes in 3.5/PF so that their martial characters are actually fun and have at least a few options which they can use almost all the time, like good movement, attack riders with crowd control and even maybe some supernatural effects.

I can't do that in 5e. You're a Fighter, get ready to auto-attack everything for 20 levels. Battlemaster is incredibly lacking (4 dice per short rest? I guess if they were per encounter, it'd be bearable, but short rests are bad), Eldritch Knight is a little bit better since you get spells. Barbarian is even worse - the only tactical choices you get are "do I rage or not" and "do I reckless attack or not?". Monk is slightly better due to pseudo-casting with Ki Points.

CharonsHelper
2018-06-30, 07:55 AM
I can't do that in 5e. You're a Fighter, get ready to auto-attack everything for 20 levels. Battlemaster is incredibly lacking (4 dice per short rest? I guess if they were per encounter, it'd be bearable, but short rests are bad), Eldritch Knight is a little bit better since you get spells. Barbarian is even worse - the only tactical choices you get are "do I rage or not" and "do I reckless attack or not?". Monk is slightly better due to pseudo-casting with Ki Points.

I will say - that's a feature not a bug. Some people LIKE abnegation play where they don't have to make major tactical choices.

Ignimortis
2018-06-30, 08:02 AM
I will say - that's a feature not a bug. Some people LIKE abnegation play where they don't have to make major tactical choices.

There are no "simple" magic-users like 3.5e's Warlock used to be (pick some invocations, use them at will, blast away with EB) and no "complex" martials like ToB initiators (keep track of your actions, consider your maneuvers prepared, consider your method of regaining them, etc.). I don't see how that's a feature that there is not a single class that would approach the complexity of magic-users without actually getting magic nor any magical class that would be actually really simple to play to its' full or almost full potential without bothering with spell choices and so on.

hymer
2018-06-30, 12:08 PM
There are no "simple" magic-users like 3.5e's Warlock used to be (pick some invocations, use them at will, blast away with EB) and no "complex" martials like ToB initiators (keep track of your actions, consider your maneuvers prepared, consider your method of regaining them, etc.). I don't see how that's a feature that there is not a single class that would approach the complexity of magic-users without actually getting magic nor any magical class that would be actually really simple to play to its' full or almost full potential without bothering with spell choices and so on.
The 5e sorcerer is a pretty simple magic-user, ending with a total of 15 known spells and 6 cantrips. The 3.5 warlock ends with 12 invocations, and a few other activated abilities like Detect Magic and that thing that gives them fast healing. They seem pretty close in terms of complexity, unless you go into UMD and/or crafting with the warlock. That can get really complex really fast.
As for there being no non-magical people in 5e, I agree with you there. That's sad. But then, I don't think there are any in ToB, either, so I don't feel that it's a loss compared to 3.5.

PairO'Dice Lost
2018-06-30, 12:43 PM
The 5e sorcerer is a pretty simple magic-user, ending with a total of 15 known spells and 6 cantrips. The 3.5 warlock ends with 12 invocations, and a few other activated abilities like Detect Magic and that thing that gives them fast healing. They seem pretty close in terms of complexity, unless you go into UMD and/or crafting with the warlock. That can get really complex really fast.

The sorcerer is the closest 5e gets, yeah. The main differences in the two is the tracking of resources: 3e invocations are fixed and infinite-use (so no preparing spells or tracking slots required), and 3e essence/shape invocations are either on or off where 5e sorcery points are expended, refreshed, and traded back and forth with spell slots.

The 3e warlock is the only real caster equivalent to the "beginner fighter" ("Here's your sheet, here are the handful of things you can do, you don't need to track anything but hit point changes, have fun") that D&D has had, so it's kinda funny that 5e is pitched as the best newbie edition but they don't have any extremely-newbie-friendly classes or subclasses.


As for there being no non-magical people in 5e, I agree with you there. That's sad. But then, I don't think there are any in ToB, either, so I don't feel that it's a loss compared to 3.5.

Warblades are entirely nonmagical, barring Martial Study to pick up a Desert Wind/Devoted Spirit/Shadow Hand maneuver. If this is that old thing about maneuvers just being another form of spellcasting, well, the things warblades can do are no more magical than a barbarian or fighter (and with Iron Heart and Tiger Claw they feel quite similar to those classes, too), and maneuvers and stances are no more spellcasting-by-another-name than Stunning Fist-based monk feats, factotum inspiration points, or barbarian rage are.

Ignimortis
2018-06-30, 12:45 PM
The 5e sorcerer is a pretty simple magic-user, ending with a total of 15 known spells and 6 cantrips. The 3.5 warlock ends with 12 invocations, and a few other activated abilities like Detect Magic and that thing that gives them fast healing. They seem pretty close in terms of complexity, unless you go into UMD and/or crafting with the warlock. That can get really complex really fast.
As for there being no non-magical people in 5e, I agree with you there. That's sad. But then, I don't think there are any in ToB, either, so I don't feel that it's a loss compared to 3.5.

I would like to preface this with a note about complexity: I don't mean "complex" as only "hard to understand". It's also "you get more choices and more options at any one moment in time, and they're mostly active options". Therefore, spellcasters are usually complex due to spells being a set of buttons to press and options to take, the effectiveness of which varies wildly between situations. Default fighters aren't, because their most effective option is usually "hit stuff".

Sorcerer is more complex than 5e wizard due to their spell selection potentially crippling them and their subclass features being heavily dependent on matching spells. They're a mix of "is hard to build properly" and "has a mediocre amount of options".
3.5 Warlock is incredibly less complex, unless you UMD stuff. In a low-OP party, always-on invisibility or at-will dimension door are pretty good, as are Xd6 touch attacks with rider effects or AoE, especially if you find a Chasuble of Fell Power.

ToB's Warblade is non-magical. He's a typical "just that good" armsmaster archetype. You get most of your powers through concentration of will and raw skill.

What I'm basically saying is that 5e has all martials dependent on their Extra Attack and either passive damage boosts (Brute/Champion Fighter, Barbarian rage damage) or active buttons with really minor riders (Battlemaster/EK Fighter, Hunter Ranger+spells, Paladin smite+spells).
They don't get unusual modes of movement, unusual sensory modes (blindsense/scent/etc.) they don't get any narratively useful powers (outside of spells) like invisibility, or intangibility, or even the ability to smash adamantine with their bare hands. Monks are an outlier - they get a REALLY GOOD crowd control (Stunning Strike), actual movement modes (waterwalking is minor, Shadow Monk teleports aren't, but are somewhat restrictive), and they generally have a bit more stuff to play around with.

Still, I would trade a 5e Fighter for a Warblade or a 5e Monk for a Harbinger in a heartbeat. I've had encounters which all of the 5e martials would've struggled to contribute in simply because they don't have any tools except hitting the target with a weapon attack.

2D8HP
2018-06-30, 01:03 PM
There are no "simple" magic-users like 3.5e's Warlock...
Ignimortis is right, 5e has no simple to play Magic-Users.


...it's kinda funny that 5e is pitched as the best newbie edition but they don't have any extremely-newbie-friendly classes or subclasses....

I regard 5e's "Champion" Fighter as that.

In-my-not-very-humble-opinion the "Champion" Fighter is 5e's biggest strong point. I hope PF 2e has an equivalent.

5e's weakest element (IMNSHO) is the lack of a beginners spell casting class.

PairO'Dice Lost
2018-06-30, 02:19 PM
I regard 5e's "Champion" Fighter as that.

In-my-not-very-humble-opinion the "Champion" Fighter is 5e's biggest strong point. I hope PF 2e has an equivalent.

5e's weakest element (IMNSHO) is the lack of a beginners spell casting class.

Yeah, I meant to say extremely-newbie-friendly caster classes and subclasses, with the comparison to the 3e warlock. The champion does "beginner fighter" pretty well.

Hawkstar
2018-06-30, 06:13 PM
Yeah, I meant to say extremely-newbie-friendly caster classes and subclasses, with the comparison to the 3e warlock. The champion does "beginner fighter" pretty well.

5e Warlock is as damn simple to play as a fighter. You have Eldritch Blast, and a few encounter-level abilities. And, 5e's casters are significantly easier and more simple to play than 3.5 or Pathfinder's (that said, I find Pathfinder's casters more fun to play, but that's because they have so many more options.)

Rhedyn
2018-06-30, 07:05 PM
I hope PF 2e has an equivalent.

At this point it looks like 2e won't have a PF 1e fighter equivalent let alone a 5e champion equivalent.

Hell just using a shield is more mechanics in 2e than a champion fighter.

2D8HP
2018-06-30, 09:40 PM
5e Warlock is as damn simple to play as a fighter....


Yes, a Battlemaster Fighter, which is noticeably complex, and feels a bit like playing a spell caster (the Eldrich Knight Fighter is a spell caster).

The Champion Fighter is just simpler to play than all other 5e classes.

FabulousFizban
2018-07-01, 08:38 AM
no one will make the case for RuneQuest? Not even for 6th Edition?

gooddragon1
2018-07-01, 08:43 AM
First of all, it's 5e, not Next. Next was a dumb branding thing that everyone ignored.

3.5 is a horrendous broken mess with a dizzying amount of options for people that enjoy breaking the game over their knee. 5e is kind of bland and shallow and soulless. Pick your poison.

Agreed. 3.5 has more options but is less balanced. Pick it if you can get your players to agree to civility and a gentleman's agreement. 5e has fewer options but is much better at balance. Pick it if your players need both the system and the DM to keep them in line constantly. 4e is if your players would cheat at multiplayer computer games if they could. It has even fewer options, but it's balance is absolute.

Lord Haart
2018-07-01, 09:03 AM
Fun thing is, 4e (later in its career) bothered to include a simplified, "press X to attack, press Y to attack with power" subclass both for fighters and for spellcasters (Slayer fighter and Elementalist sorcerer respectively; both being simpler than 3.5 warlock and nearly equal to 5e champion if you don't ignore that 5e champion still gets generic-fighter abilities like second wind and action surge). There were also some subclasses that came pretty close, being just a tad bit more complex (mostly martial ones, like the Thief and two ranger subclasses, but the Scald — a bard subclass, martially inclined but still a healer, a teleporter and a befuddler — was also on this level of complexity).

If it weren't outside the scope of this thread from the outset, i'd try to make a convincing argument for 4e.

Knaight
2018-07-01, 09:13 AM
no one will make the case for RuneQuest? Not even for 6th Edition?

Two very specific games are being asked about here - though if we were looking for something much broader RuneQuest still might take a while to make the list.

hymer
2018-07-02, 06:15 AM
The 3e warlock is the only real caster equivalent to the "beginner fighter" ("Here's your sheet, here are the handful of things you can do, you don't need to track anything but hit point changes, have fun") that D&D has had, so it's kinda funny that 5e is pitched as the best newbie edition but they don't have any extremely-newbie-friendly classes or subclasses.
So don't have the newbie play a caster. There are certainly newbie options in 5e, and who knows, there may be a newbie caster sometime, just like there ended up being in 3.5. In any case, this doesn't change how the editions cater to different tastes, and 5e is the more newbie friendly owing to its overall simplicity.
I have players who have played 3.5 for a decade, and only one of them can make a fifth level character correctly in the first go. That problem is much smaller in 5e, to the point where I barely need to look over PC sheets any more.


Warblades are entirely nonmagical, barring Martial Study to pick up a Desert Wind/Devoted Spirit/Shadow Hand maneuver. If this is that old thing about maneuvers just being another form of spellcasting, well, the things warblades can do are no more magical than a barbarian or fighter (and with Iron Heart and Tiger Claw they feel quite similar to those classes, too), and maneuvers and stances are no more spellcasting-by-another-name than Stunning Fist-based monk feats, factotum inspiration points, or barbarian rage are.
Well, I'm not sure there is a clear definition of what counts as magical: Bear with me: The ToB is very fond of using descriptive terms like "faster than anyone can see" or "superhuman levels" (quoting from memory). You can build a Warblade with no (Su) abilities, sure. But that guy can still choose to resist poison with the power of his disciplined mind, or run so fast he becomes a blur. That's a long way from the fighter of old, who could do nothing that someody else couldn't do, but who happened to be better at some of those things than anyone else. And since those things included hitting and dealing damage with weapons, he didn't need anything else to be useful to have along. The champion fighter retains that feel, at least until he starts regenerating below half health.
But I'm perfectly willing to set all that down to a matter of taste.


Sorcerer is more complex than 5e wizard due to their spell selection potentially crippling them and their subclass features being heavily dependent on matching spells. They're a mix of "is hard to build properly" and "has a mediocre amount of options".
3.5 Warlock is incredibly less complex, unless you UMD stuff. In a low-OP party, always-on invisibility or at-will dimension door are pretty good, as are Xd6 touch attacks with rider effects or AoE, especially if you find a Chasuble of Fell Power.
I can't agree with you on that. Both can be hard to build to a high standard, but it's way less complicated to build a competitive 5e sorcerer than 3.5 warlock, even without including crafting and UMD. Pick a damage spell at each spell level, and try not to get all the same damage type (though you can generally live with it if you do, as the resistance/immunity game isn't in 5e what it was in 3.5), and pick somthing fun for the rest.
Without extensive book knowledge, it's impossible to build a 3.5 warlock which can do anything like acceptable damage compared to other tier 4 builds (and without UMD and crafting, the warlock doesn't make it above tier 4 - I think you'll agree). You have to know the right feats from the right books, the exactly right invocations/blast effects, and the right prestige class options, and a way to circumvent the con problem.
With the sorcerer, everything you need to build a competent character is in the first book you get your hands on. The one thing you really need to worry about is spell selection, as there are no trap options in the rest of the stuff. And you can redo those spells as you level and learn. The floor and the ceiling are much closer to each other than they were in 3.5.


ToB's Warblade is non-magical. He's a typical "just that good" armsmaster archetype. You get most of your powers through concentration of will and raw skill.
I'll agre to disagree, as above with PairO'Dice Lost. There's a lot more of cartoonish level of capability there, than there is in the average fighter. What exactly you want to call it, I don't feel a need to quibble over it.


What I'm basically saying is that 5e has all martials dependent on their Extra Attack and either passive damage boosts (Brute/Champion Fighter, Barbarian rage damage) or active buttons with really minor riders (Battlemaster/EK Fighter, Hunter Ranger+spells, Paladin smite+spells).
They don't get unusual modes of movement, unusual sensory modes (blindsense/scent/etc.) they don't get any narratively useful powers (outside of spells) like invisibility, or intangibility, or even the ability to smash adamantine with their bare hands. Monks are an outlier - they get a REALLY GOOD crowd control (Stunning Strike), actual movement modes (waterwalking is minor, Shadow Monk teleports aren't, but are somewhat restrictive), and they generally have a bit more stuff to play around with.
Are you changing the subject? I don't follow where this is going.


Still, I would trade a 5e Fighter for a Warblade or a 5e Monk for a Harbinger in a heartbeat. I've had encounters which all of the 5e martials would've struggled to contribute in simply because they don't have any tools except hitting the target with a weapon attack.
5e (combat) encounters need not exclude people whose primary ability is to use their Action to harm the opposition with a weapon. The DM can do that, of course, but why would s/he? in 3.5, with the many, many options for rendering various forms of damage dealing negligible, the case was obviously different. But I don't think that was a good thing about the system, though it need not be a bad one, either. The right tone and mindset means a lot, as does the handling.


Ignimortis is right, 5e has no simple to play Magic-Users.

[...]

I regard 5e's "Champion" Fighter as [a beginner's option].
Since we're comparing to the 3.5 warlock, how do you feel about that? Compared to 5e spellcasters and the champion fighter, I mean.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-07-02, 07:34 AM
I've stayed out of this thread up till this point, but I want to chime in about the complexity of playing a spell-caster in 5e.

I routinely have brand new (to TTRPGs and to RPGs generally) people playing spell-casters--druids and wizards are the most common. That is, the most "complex" of the full casters. I had a warlock in a previous game. And none of them have struggled as long as they had spell cards at the beginning.

Having "spontaneous"-esque casting makes things way simpler. As does being able to mostly pick what looks good without worrying about traps. In 5e, the balance is close enough (while not being perfect) that you can generally just pick what fits a theme without being too far behind.

I do recommend (and use) the official-play rule that you can overhaul your character for free until level 5, including changing any facet of the character.

If you do use 5e, it's best to set aside all 3.5 mechanical mastery (you can retain a bunch of the fluff) and learn the 5e rules from fresh.

That all said, if you know and are more comfortable with 3.5, run that. It'll be a better experience if the DM knows the system well, IMO. That's a bigger effect than any system-specific variables.

2D8HP
2018-07-02, 11:47 AM
....Since we're comparing to the 3.5 warlock, how do you feel about that? Compared to 5e spellcasters and the champion fighter, I mean.


Without any table experience, and judging only from reading it, the 3.5 Warlock is a little bit simpler than 5e spellcasters, but more complex than the 5e Champion Fighter, which is more complex than the 0e Cleric, Fighting-men, and Magic Users from levels 1 to 10.

Ignimortis
2018-07-02, 12:54 PM
I can't agree with you on that. Both can be hard to build to a high standard, but it's way less complicated to build a competitive 5e sorcerer than 3.5 warlock, even without including crafting and UMD. Pick a damage spell at each spell level, and try not to get all the same damage type (though you can generally live with it if you do, as the resistance/immunity game isn't in 5e what it was in 3.5), and pick somthing fun for the rest.
Without extensive book knowledge, it's impossible to build a 3.5 warlock which can do anything like acceptable damage compared to other tier 4 builds (and without UMD and crafting, the warlock doesn't make it above tier 4 - I think you'll agree). You have to know the right feats from the right books, the exactly right invocations/blast effects, and the right prestige class options, and a way to circumvent the con problem.
With the sorcerer, everything you need to build a competent character is in the first book you get your hands on. The one thing you really need to worry about is spell selection, as there are no trap options in the rest of the stuff. And you can redo those spells as you level and learn. The floor and the ceiling are much closer to each other than they were in 3.5.


I'd say Metamagic has trap options (Empowered Spell is one, and Distant Spell is so niche that I've never seen a situation in which someone would say "ooh, I wish I had Distant Spell instead of my Twin/Quicken/Subtle/Heighten"), and Wild Magic is...rather weird, if mechanically sound in most abilities. I do agree that a warlock, unless built properly, is a mediocre tier 4 class, and competitive power level in 5e is much easier to achieve than in 3.5, unless other players are doing all in their power to optimize for the same thing you want to do, then you're screwed over even harder.



Are you changing the subject? I don't follow where this is going.


What I was trying to convey is that 5e exclusively lumps martials into "hits things a lot of times, doesn't do much else" pile and most spellcasters into "does whatever you build them to do and more" pile. Like 3.5's PHB, only the first pile actually matters now. There aren't any martials who have versatile toolkits, and there are no "spellcasters" who mostly exist to "do one thing well and not much else". Well, there's 5e warlock, I guess, but it still has the versatility to actually fill several roles in the party.



5e (combat) encounters need not exclude people whose primary ability is to use their Action to harm the opposition with a weapon. The DM can do that, of course, but why would s/he? in 3.5, with the many, many options for rendering various forms of damage dealing negligible, the case was obviously different. But I don't think that was a good thing about the system, though it need not be a bad one, either. The right tone and mindset means a lot, as does the handling.


Yes, they don't need to. Neither do 3.5's encounters. But 5e resolves to give those people (especially Fighter and Barbarian) almost nothing (Eagle Barb 14 is nice, but way late) but ways to hit a bit better and fight a little longer. Therefore, when they can't hit anything, their best use is to be portable half-cover that doesn't impede allies.

You're right about the tone and the handling, I guess. I've voiced my displeasure with 5e's steadfast adherence to "low-level fantasy heroes" power level already.

PairO'Dice Lost
2018-07-02, 01:14 PM
So don't have the newbie play a caster. There are certainly newbie options in 5e, and who knows, there may be a newbie caster sometime, just like there ended up being in 3.5. In any case, this doesn't change how the editions cater to different tastes, and 5e is the more newbie friendly owing to its overall simplicity.
I have players who have played 3.5 for a decade, and only one of them can make a fifth level character correctly in the first go. That problem is much smaller in 5e, to the point where I barely need to look over PC sheets any more.

I routinely have brand new (to TTRPGs and to RPGs generally) people playing spell-casters--druids and wizards are the most common. That is, the most "complex" of the full casters. I had a warlock in a previous game. And none of them have struggled as long as they had spell cards at the beginning.

I don't think newbies should have to play designated newbie classes, and as I've mentioned in several threads on comparative edition complexity I've had 5e players who can't figure out what a "d8" is 18 sessions into a campaign and 3e players who went from never playing an RPG before to playing a druid turning into bears while summoning bears while riding a bear in 2-3 sessions. I was just pointing out the irony of the supposedly-most-newbie-friendly edition not having a version of the most-newbie-friendly casting class like they did for fighters.


Well, I'm not sure there is a clear definition of what counts as magical: Bear with me: The ToB is very fond of using descriptive terms like "faster than anyone can see" or "superhuman levels" (quoting from memory). You can build a Warblade with no (Su) abilities, sure. But that guy can still choose to resist poison with the power of his disciplined mind, or run so fast he becomes a blur. That's a long way from the fighter of old, who could do nothing that someody else couldn't do, but who happened to be better at some of those things than anyone else. And since those things included hitting and dealing damage with weapons, he didn't need anything else to be useful to have along. The champion fighter retains that feel, at least until he starts regenerating below half health.
But I'm perfectly willing to set all that down to a matter of taste.

The warblade is no more magical than the 3e fighter even if you disregard (Su) tags. Firstly, (Ex) abilities can be "superhuman" too:


Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

Secondly, a 20th-level fighter character can beat the world record long jump literally without trying and almost double if it he's lucky (the record is 29 feet, or DC 29, vs. 23 ranks and a +10ish Str for a minimum of 34 and a maximum of 54 feet), survive a fall from terminal velocity and get up and walk away, spot invisible creatures more than half the time (DC 20 to hear a moving invisible creature, vs. Spot 11 ranks and +1ish Wis), and so on, and other martial classes who get notable class skills and utility class features can do more and better stuff. He can also match some of the warblade's tricks--for instance, he can't use Concentration to make a Fort save, but he is basically immune to most poisons (having a Fort of +18ish from base +12 and Con +6ish when only 4 poisons in the DMG have DCs above 18)--the warblade just gets them earlier.

All of the supernatural feel of the warblade and the mundane feel of the fighter come down to flavor descriptions; both are equally magical (in the real-world sense) and nonmagical (in the in-setting sense) when you look at what they can do; the flavor descriptions did more to make some people dislike ToB than any of the mechanics did.


5e (combat) encounters need not exclude people whose primary ability is to use their Action to harm the opposition with a weapon. The DM can do that, of course, but why would s/he? in 3.5, with the many, many options for rendering various forms of damage dealing negligible, the case was obviously different. But I don't think that was a good thing about the system, though it need not be a bad one, either. The right tone and mindset means a lot, as does the handling.

To expand on Ignimortis's response, the point was not that 5e martial classes are bad at their role as weapon-users, but rather that in both editions "hit bad guy with pointy metal stick" isn't always going to contribute. In the previous quote block he mentioned a few non-weapon-related tricks that a martial class might want:

They don't get unusual modes of movement, unusual sensory modes (blindsense/scent/etc.) they don't get any narratively useful powers (outside of spells) like invisibility, or intangibility, or even the ability to smash adamantine with their bare hands.
Those are all ToB maneuvers and stances that give good utility to martial adepts (Hearing the Air, Cloak of Deception, One with Shadow, and Mountain Hammer, respectively), and there are others as well (Leaping Dragon Stance for jumping around, Step of the Dancing Moth and Balance on the Sky for walking on liquids and air, Shadow Jaunt/Stride/Blink for short-range "moving really fast" that mechanically is teleportation, etc.).

If a 5e fighter is facing flying creatures with bows, he can't attack the creature because it can stay out of range (barring readied actions to shoot one with a bow when it comes within range), but a swordsage can take the fight to those creatures; if a 5e fighter needs to reach enemies atop a wall or across a moat or the like, he can't reliably get to them, but a warblade can jump that distance; and so forth. Whether you personally think it's an issue that the 5e martial classes lack utility is a different issue, but that's the gist of the issue.


Without any table experience, and judging only from reading it, the 3.5 Warlock is a little bit simpler than 5e spellcasters, but more complex than the 5e Champion Fighter, which is more complex than the 0e Cleric, Fighting-men, and Magic Users from levels 1 to 10.

I'm surprised you'd say the 1e MU is less complex than the Champion fighter or 3e warlock. Sure, they're not very complex, with the largely random spell selection, fewer mechanical widgets to work with, and more emphasis on DM resolution of spells, but you're still deciding on spells to prepare, tracking spells cast, and so forth where the fighter and warlock have no resource management at all.

2D8HP
2018-07-02, 02:19 PM
...I'm surprised you'd say the 1e MU is less complex than the Champion fighter or 3e warlock. Sure, they're not very complex, with the largely random spell selection, fewer mechanical widgets to work with, and more emphasis on DM resolution of spells, but you're still deciding on spells to prepare, tracking spells cast, and so forth where the fighter and warlock have no resource management at all.


That's mostly due to having less than four spells to cast per "day" during the overwhelming majority of my time playing Magic-Users, plus the much slower level advancement giving more time to get used to new abilities/spells/stuff to keep track of, and from my perspective the 5e Champion Fighter still has resources to keep track of (Action Surge, Second Wind, et cetera).

Though I may be biased in that it was just plain easier for me to memorize rules in the late 1970's and the '80's than now.

LeMooseImperium
2018-07-03, 11:42 PM
Ok.
They are two separate systems with a handful of similarities.
For a more balanced game (at least at the lower levels), 5e will be better.
However, if your players don't mind unbalanced stuff an weird character sheets, go 3.5.

Mendicant
2018-07-04, 09:49 PM
Whatever you're most comfortable with is your best option, but that said...

E6 Pathfinder is really not that complex, and it's all available online. Send them to the Paizo SRD site rather than d20pfsrd.com to cut down on option paralysis. The biggest stumbling block will be picking starting feats, so do some of that work yourself upfront and offer ~three suggestions per player based on what they say they want to do. Ignore traits, ignore archetypes, ignore other non-core stuff that will make their first foray feel too intimidating. All those can be introduced later if they get hooked.