3.5e vs 5e [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Troacctid

2018-08-22, 05:30 PM

That's what I heard. Apparently, bounded accuracy allows skeletons with bows to gang up on monsters and kill them.
It's powerful to be sure, but it's not quite as powerful as it looks, because it's very hard to protect that many skeletons from AoE effects (which are pretty common), and there are of course logistical questions that have to be answered. You're much more likely to see a smaller squad of 4–6 skeletons providing additional action economy. I usually see animate objects and conjure animals more commonly in my games, since they're so quick to set up. Resistance/immunity to nonmagical weapon attacks is a real hurdle for these strategies though. You can get around it by conjuring animals like giant poisonous snakes that deal non-standard damage, or by collecting enough magic weapons to equip all your skeletons, or by being a Shepherd Druid, but it takes some investment.

So, it can teleport. Swordsages can do a lot more than that. Can 5e Monks make high DC saves? Bypass DR & Hardness? Deal a lot of damage with one attack?
1. They're the #2 best class for it, after Paladins.
2. It's 5e. What are DR and hardness? But also, yes.
3. I mean, technically yes? Not many attacks hit harder than Quivering Palm. But multiple attacks are actually more effective than a single attack in most situations. I guess you could multiclass as a Rogue?

ColorBlindNinja

2018-08-22, 05:53 PM

It's powerful to be sure, but it's not quite as powerful as it looks, because it's very hard to protect that many skeletons from AoE effects (which are pretty common), and there are of course logistical questions that have to be answered. You're much more likely to see a smaller squad of 4–6 skeletons providing additional action economy. I usually see animate objects and conjure animals more commonly in my games, since they're so quick to set up. Resistance/immunity to nonmagical weapon attacks is a real hurdle for these strategies though. You can get around it by conjuring animals like giant poisonous snakes that deal non-standard damage, or by collecting enough magic weapons to equip all your skeletons, or by being a Shepherd Druid, but it takes some investment.

I see.

1. They're the #2 best class for it, after Paladins.
2. It's 5e. What are DR and hardness? But also, yes.
3. I mean, technically yes? Not many attacks hit harder than Quivering Palm. But multiple attacks are actually more effective than a single attack in most situations. I guess you could multiclass as a Rogue?

Thanks for the information.

Also, there's no hardness for objects in 5e? :smallconfused:

zergling.exe

2018-08-22, 06:37 PM

3.5 late books (Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, etc.) had some pretty neat stuff that 5e hasn't put out equivalents for yet, simply because 5e is still fairly new. That said, you can sometimes reskin a 5e class to be kinda like a 3.5 idea.

So for example I really like the Sapphire Hierarch prestige class in Magic of Incarnum, but 5e hasn't dipped into that well yet.

But I could do a 5e cleric of order or knowledge, for example, that could have a Hermit background, and cover a lot of that ground, fluff-wise.

But as I said in the identical thread in the other forum, both 3.5e and 5e are better. 3.5e is better at 3.5e stuff and 5e is better at 5e stuff.

In the same period of time it's been since 5e released, 3e got an entire system overhaul and dozens of splatbooks. Even 4e had plenty of content by this point. 5e isn't "new" anymore, WotC is just not putting out much content for it. It's been a little over 4 years since the PHB dropped for 5e, with just under under that for the DMG and MM.

noob

2018-08-22, 06:58 PM

I think there is few significant differences between 5e and 3e and that both works fine as long as you manage to have everybody cooperating(the gm with the players and the players with each other(for the characters cooperation is not needed but they are not people in the same way the players and gm are)) which is what people should do in a rpg.

Troacctid

2018-08-22, 07:56 PM

In the same period of time it's been since 5e released, 3e got an entire system overhaul and dozens of splatbooks. Even 4e had plenty of content by this point. 5e isn't "new" anymore, WotC is just not putting out much content for it. It's been a little over 4 years since the PHB dropped for 5e, with just under under that for the DMG and MM.
It's true. If you start at the release of the revised core books in July 2003, we're almost past the entire run of D&D 3.5e. I think the only splats we'd be missing from the full post-update catalog would be Elder Evils, Exemplars of Evil, and Rules Compendium.

Luccan

2018-08-22, 07:58 PM

Neither is "better" in any objective sense. Both have good points, both have points that cause frustration for those that prefer the other system. At least neither is 4e, right guys?

Particle_Man

2018-08-22, 08:05 PM

It's true. If you start at the release of the revised core books in July 2003, we're almost past the entire run of D&D 3.5e. I think the only splats we'd be missing from the full post-update catalog would be Elder Evils, Exemplars of Evil, and Rules Compendium.

I think the game book making part of the company is smaller though.

Kyrell1978

2018-08-22, 08:10 PM

I am admittedly biased, but 3.5/pathfinder are my favorite. I enjoy the crunch and the character building mini-game.

RoboEmperor

2018-08-22, 08:11 PM

5e - entry point
3.5 - what all the non-casual 5e players eventually switch to

Deophaun

2018-08-22, 08:19 PM

5e broke the spine of my Kenku shadow empire. It shall never be forgiven.

Pleh

2018-08-22, 09:44 PM

In addition to this, 3.5e is better if you don't want to be exasperated at your lack of options after like 2-3 characters.

This is perfectly the problem with players moving from 3.5 to 5e. You left out the only word the mattered:

"3.5e is better if you don't want to be exasperated at your lack of mechanical options after like 2-3 characters."

5e aims to be a bit like a mad lib version. They give you a core set of functional mechanics and leave huge blanks to write in your own fluff.

5e doesn't have less options. It's simplicity grants flexibility for actually MORE options (instead of "how many legal mechanical combinations are meaningful" we have, "how many ways can I imagine this character using plain english"). There's definitely less Character Creation mini game to be had, so if you define your characters based mostly or only on their abilities, you will be exasperated at your 2 or 3 characters. 5e isn't played to it's full extent if you aren't writing flavor and fluff in every margin.

3.5 accomodates refluffing, but it definitely comes with a default fluff and flavor that is sometimes more optional than other times.

But let's not get carried away with 3.5's supposed character diversity, either. For all the thousands of permutations it has, there's still, what? Seven or so roles to fill? Most being handled best by about half a dozen variants on wizards or clerics?

It's not as diverse as it feels.

JNAProductions

2018-08-22, 09:52 PM

I vastly prefer 5E to 3E when DMing, because I can actually do it.

I largely prefer 5E to 3E when playing, because the simpler, more intuitive and balanced mechanics make for a more fun experience.

WITH THAT SAID! Neither is better. 3E has a greater variety of options, and, more to the point, a greater variety of POWER LEVELS. You can play 3E as superheroes from level 1, or peasants at level 20.

Whereas in 5E, you start off slightly better than average, and end more like Conan, but never reach the heights of insanity that you do in 3E. But, while it has less options for diverse power levels, what it DOES focus on, it does much better.

So, I guess in summary:

3E-unfocused, as in it tries to do too much and doesn't succeed especially well at any of it. But, there's a poopton of content available to use, and a good chunk is decent.

5E-much more focused, with everything pretty well balanced, but does not offer the sheer variety of experiences that 3E does.

RoboEmperor

2018-08-22, 11:07 PM

This is perfectly the problem with players moving from 3.5 to 5e. You left out the only word the mattered:

"3.5e is better if you don't want to be exasperated at your lack of mechanical options after like 2-3 characters."

5e aims to be a bit like a mad lib version. They give you a core set of functional mechanics and leave huge blanks to write in your own fluff.

5e doesn't have less options. It's simplicity grants flexibility for actually MORE options (instead of "how many legal mechanical combinations are meaningful" we have, "how many ways can I imagine this character using plain english"). There's definitely less Character Creation mini game to be had, so if you define your characters based mostly or only on their abilities, you will be exasperated at your 2 or 3 characters. 5e isn't played to it's full extent if you aren't writing flavor and fluff in every margin.

3.5 accomodates refluffing, but it definitely comes with a default fluff and flavor that is sometimes more optional than other times.

But let's not get carried away with 3.5's supposed character diversity, either. For all the thousands of permutations it has, there's still, what? Seven or so roles to fill? Most being handled best by about half a dozen variants on wizards or clerics?

It's not as diverse as it feels.

You are so, so wrong.

Take me for example. I've been trying to make a construct master since I started playing this game 4 years ago.

In 3.5 you can do something weird, unconventional, and crazy like devote your entire character to early access of ONE thing (for me it's a CL 20 animate objects) and make a build that revolves exclusively around that one shtick.

My sorcerer build focuses 100% on Assume Supernatural Ability to perpetually animate a gargantuan animated object. There is literally nothing in 5e that can come close to this.

The artificer build I'm hashing out right now is devoting 100% of its resources to an early access Wish to create constructs with and therefore overcome the high CL, gp, and crafting time costs of constructs. 5e has none of the sort.

3.5 =/= standard usage of standard classes. In 5e you can only use the standard classes in the standard way. To claim there is so little variety just means you haven't played with creative players.

OgresAreCute

2018-08-23, 01:21 AM

This is perfectly the problem with players moving from 3.5 to 5e. You left out the only word the mattered:

"3.5e is better if you don't want to be exasperated at your lack of mechanical options after like 2-3 characters."

5e aims to be a bit like a mad lib version. They give you a core set of functional mechanics and leave huge blanks to write in your own fluff.

5e doesn't have less options. It's simplicity grants flexibility for actually MORE options (instead of "how many legal mechanical combinations are meaningful" we have, "how many ways can I imagine this character using plain english"). There's definitely less Character Creation mini game to be had, so if you define your characters based mostly or only on their abilities, you will be exasperated at your 2 or 3 characters. 5e isn't played to it's full extent if you aren't writing flavor and fluff in every margin.

3.5 accomodates refluffing, but it definitely comes with a default fluff and flavor that is sometimes more optional than other times.

But let's not get carried away with 3.5's supposed character diversity, either. For all the thousands of permutations it has, there's still, what? Seven or so roles to fill? Most being handled best by about half a dozen variants on wizards or clerics?

It's not as diverse as it feels.

While I agree that a lot of 3.5 content is useless garbage, you're kinda toeing the line on a stormwind here. Mechanics and fluff aren't mutually exclusive. Personally, I like to have mechanics that back up my fluff, and if I wanted a more narrative-focused game, 5e wouldn't be my first pick.

Knaight

2018-08-23, 01:33 AM

That's true buuut they are also the best criteria soooooo...
Some of those criteria are totally irrelevant to a lot of people. For instance, I already have a base of players - far more than would fit in one group. Said base of players is already willing to try and learn new games.

5e doesn't have less options. It's simplicity grants flexibility for actually MORE options (instead of "how many legal mechanical combinations are meaningful" we have, "how many ways can I imagine this character using plain english"). There's definitely less Character Creation mini game to be had, so if you define your characters based mostly or only on their abilities, you will be exasperated at your 2 or 3 characters. 5e isn't played to it's full extent if you aren't writing flavor and fluff in every margin.
Let's not go too far here - the focus of 5e has shifted a bit away from mechanics relative to 3.5, and some of this shift has gone to the character side, but descriptions of 5e as "narrative" are roughly as hilarious as descriptions of 5e as "rules light" once you start comparing things that aren't D&D. If we neglect mechanical diversity and instead focus on the variety of characters (in a more literary sense) the system can model it's pretty easy to top it with basically any half decent generic system, including fairly light ones. Fate's stunts and aspects are far more versatile, d6 Fantasy far more versatile, so on and so forth. Heck, the options covered decently still don't cover noncombatants.

I'm not saying they necessarily should, either - focus is a fine thing. Some games are about basically anyone, some games are about the competitive street luging and subsequent bar bragging scene* specifically. Most have a level of specificity somewhere in between, and the variety is a nice thing to have. Claimsthat any edition of D&D is further on the generic side than they are are somewhat less nice to have.

*Xtreme Street Luge, specifically.

But let's not get carried away with 3.5's supposed character diversity, either. For all the thousands of permutations it has, there's still, what? Seven or so roles to fill? Most being handled best by about half a dozen variants on wizards or clerics?
There's more than that, but there's definitely a lot of technically different characters who play pretty similarly mechanically. One ubercharger looks a lot like another, and the vast majority of those permutations aren't particularly functional.

Ignimortis

2018-08-23, 01:43 AM

For Warblade, you can hit that level of effectiveness easily enough as a Battlemaster, possibly multiclassing as a Swashbuckler if you want the feel of powerful single strikes. For Swordsage, Shadowdancer and Arcane Trickster are good options.

Can't. You don't get AoE attacks, parrying magic/arrows (or good parrying in general), whatever Iron Heart Surge does at your table (at mine it removes any negative status condition with a duration), tunneling through walls with Mountain Hammer, 40-feet long leaps by level 5 due to Leaping Dragon Stance (8 ranks +4 from speed +10 feet free + 3 from barebones STR + counts as running without a headstart = 25 feet on a roll of 1, 45 on a roll of 20), etc.

Battlemaster is barely a Warblade. It's limited by uses and limited in scope. It's a 1st level Warblade with less sustainability.

Back on topic...
3.5/PF has mechanics for everything you could ever need, and the existing base is good enough to homebrew something adequate for those few things not covered. It's also incredibly broad in terms of power scales and levels. Level 20 is not "level 1, but bigger". Level 20 is a whole different game.

5e is a good low-to-medium power heroic fantasy game for a few campaigns. If you can stomach playing the same mechanical chassis for more than once in five years, it might last you longer than 2-3 runs.

Mordaedil

2018-08-23, 01:57 AM

At least Warlocks in 3.5 are actually fun.

Ignimortis

2018-08-23, 02:40 AM

At least Warlocks in 3.5 are actually fun.

You might be sarcastic, but I have a player who's played both 3.5 and 5e warlocks. He swears by the 3.5 version as the lower-power, small bag of infinitely-usable tricks-based pseudo-casters and despises the 5e design of "2 slots per short rest, here's your Eldritch Blast Turret License".

Mordaedil

2018-08-23, 02:51 AM

You might be sarcastic, but I have a player who's played both 3.5 and 5e warlocks. He swears by the 3.5 version as the lower-power, small bag of infinitely-usable tricks-based pseudo-casters and despises the 5e design of "2 slots per short rest, here's your Eldritch Blast Turret License".

I used blue text to be safe, but I meant it kind of tongue-in-cheek without really saying anything about my preference, because I do read a lot of negative things about 5e's warlock, which is a shame since I liked playing warlocks in 3.5.

They weren't particularly good, but boy were they fun, so I agree with your friend there.

Knaight

2018-08-23, 03:08 AM

You might be sarcastic, but I have a player who's played both 3.5 and 5e warlocks. He swears by the 3.5 version as the lower-power, small bag of infinitely-usable tricks-based pseudo-casters and despises the 5e design of "2 slots per short rest, here's your Eldritch Blast Turret License".

I'm on record as favoring 5e overall, but I'm not too fond of what they did with the Warlock. The caster with entirely at-will spells genuinely brought something to the table (starting with the option of playing a caster without dealing with the resource management aspects, though the Dragonfire Adept does that too), and the concept was also both distinct and a fairly classic one. 5e's short rest caster also has some of that going for it, but losing the 3.5 Warlock is a bit of a shame.

Rhedyn

2018-08-23, 07:09 AM

Can you provide an example, apart from the coffeelock, which is of questionable raw validity at best?

Ninja, can you define effectivity? 5e has nothing like ToB in terms of versatility in combat tricks (though battlemaster fighter and paladin are not that far off), but all melee classes contribute meaningfully to a fight, even in the pressence of full casters.
Bounded accuracy and over all lack of abilities of monsters/NPCs contribute a lot to what makes something busted in 5e but not in 3.5

1. Undead Swarms: Really strong in 5e, less useful in 3.5 without a stream of high CR corpses and even then you end up with a handful of OK combatants while 5e skeletons do plenty of damage from 1-20 and NPCs have far less tools to counter a small army.
The truly horrible aspect of this, is that in 5e you have a horde of boring humanoid skeletons and can't make anything cool.

2. Polymorph/wildshape: Just by themselves they add too much HP to your side of the fight and the enemies lack good counters. HP damage and HP mitigation win fights in 5e.
The Boring aspect: A twin polymorph from a Sorcerer of two Allies into Giant Apes both 1. Counters all behavioral arguments (Giant Apes have 7 int) and 2. Gives the sorcerer a really good reason to hide in another room and do nothing during any combat that the Giant Apes are winning.
The same is true for Conjure Woodland Beings to Summon Pixies to polymorph the whole party into Giant Apes. The Druid and Pixies should hide then and no longer do anything so the Giant Apes can win. The Devs actually "fixed" this one by saying that the DM picks what you summon. Which just obliterates summoning and summoned focused characters as a concept.
Have a Paladin stand next to your Giant Ape friends who run interference for your sharpshooter archer and you will be killing Pitfiends and other CR 20 or higher monsters by level 7.

3. Paladins: Save aura, smites, spells, healing. They are just really strong and act as a spring board for OP strats by cover most of the strats weaknesses

4. Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter: Organize a way to get advantage and suddenly you are doing 3-4 times the damage of a character without one of these feats. Most foes don't have abilities like Wind Wall and any other way to mitigate the damage, so these feats can effectively make your do damage equivalent to a party twice your size.
The Boring part: Now your martial must attack every round because doing anything else or anything dynamic is not worth it.

5. Rogues: Let me just be effectively invisible while hitting for good damage. Not really game breaking, but it's a good enough tactic that you do nothing else in combat.

6. Concentration: This should be a limiting factor right? All it really does is force you to concentrate on the one OP spell for the encounter and spam cantrips or hide. And boy are plenty of spells just busted. Here's a question, Do you think creatures can pass through a flaming sphere? If so, then what happens when they do? If not, guess who has a minor force wall at level 3?
So many spells are just poorly written, it's a almost a blessing that most monsters just don't have them.

noob

2018-08-23, 07:54 AM

Bounded accuracy and over all lack of abilities of monsters/NPCs contribute a lot to what makes something busted in 5e but not in 3.5

1. Undead Swarms: Really strong in 5e, less useful in 3.5 without a stream of high CR corpses and even then you end up with a handful of OK combatants while 5e skeletons do plenty of damage from 1-20 and NPCs have far less tools to counter a small army.
The truly horrible aspect of this, is that in 5e you have a horde of boring humanoid skeletons and can't make anything cool.

2. Polymorph/wildshape: Just by themselves they add too much HP to your side of the fight and the enemies lack good counters. HP damage and HP mitigation win fights in 5e.
The Boring aspect: A twin polymorph from a Sorcerer of two Allies into Giant Apes both 1. Counters all behavioral arguments (Giant Apes have 7 int) and 2. Gives the sorcerer a really good reason to hide in another room and do nothing during any combat that the Giant Apes are winning.
The same is true for Conjure Woodland Beings to Summon Pixies to polymorph the whole party into Giant Apes. The Druid and Pixies should hide then and no longer do anything so the Giant Apes can win. The Devs actually "fixed" this one by saying that the DM picks what you summon. Which just obliterates summoning and summoned focused characters as a concept.
Have a Paladin stand next to your Giant Ape friends who run interference for your sharpshooter archer and you will be killing Pitfiends and other CR 20 or higher monsters by level 7.

3. Paladins: Save aura, smites, spells, healing. They are just really strong and act as a spring board for OP strats by cover most of the strats weaknesses

4. Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter: Organize a way to get advantage and suddenly you are doing 3-4 times the damage of a character without one of these feats. Most foes don't have abilities like Wind Wall and any other way to mitigate the damage, so these feats can effectively make your do damage equivalent to a party twice your size.
The Boring part: Now your martial must attack every round because doing anything else or anything dynamic is not worth it.

5. Rogues: Let me just be effectively invisible while hitting for good damage. Not really game breaking, but it's a good enough tactic that you do nothing else in combat.

6. Concentration: This should be a limiting factor right? All it really does is force you to concentrate on the one OP spell for the encounter and spam cantrips or hide. And boy are plenty of spells just busted. Here's a question, Do you think creatures can pass through a flaming sphere? If so, then what happens when they do? If not, guess who has a minor force wall at level 3?
So many spells are just poorly written, it's a almost a blessing that most monsters just don't have them.
Somehow 5e gave up on the whole "a wizard of level 17 is an appropriate encounter for a level 17 party" and went all "ok now you are 4 level 13 adventurers so face that level 17 wizard it is totally appropriate" or even "you are 4 level 17 people so it is appropriate to face 4 level 17 wizards and even to do this multiple times in a single day"
3.5 however have tons of broken cring due to having too much additional content(the reason why 5e have so few problems with monster cring is that it does not gets as much content as 3.5)

Pleh

2018-08-23, 07:54 AM

You are so, so wrong.

Take me for example. I've been trying to make a construct master since I started playing this game 4 years ago.

In 3.5 you can do something weird, unconventional, and crazy like devote your entire character to early access of ONE thing (for me it's a CL 20 animate objects) and make a build that revolves exclusively around that one shtick.

My sorcerer build focuses 100% on Assume Supernatural Ability to perpetually animate a gargantuan animated object. There is literally nothing in 5e that can come close to this.

The artificer build I'm hashing out right now is devoting 100% of its resources to an early access Wish to create constructs with and therefore overcome the high CL, gp, and crafting time costs of constructs. 5e has none of the sort.

3.5 =/= standard usage of standard classes. In 5e you can only use the standard classes in the standard way. To claim there is so little variety just means you haven't played with creative players.

Meh. System warping optimization is a statistical outlier in 3.5 character creation. You give me three different ways to create 1 niche that next to no one uses and say it's variety? Sure, but not one that most people care about.

Remember that this forum is a microcosm with a disproportionate emphasis on optimization and system theory. Your construct master builds don't generally exist in the 3.5 market at large.

Fair enough that the opportunity to bend the system that far is a draw to 3.5 for people like the ones that frequent this forum.

But I don't agree that you can't make ANYTHING like your construct master in 5e. It just won't have as much bite and will be diversifying its resources. Play a Rock Gnome for tinkering with clockwork, then become a Transmuter Wizard. Animate Objects is a 5th level spell, but getting a CR 20 construct serving you is a late game advantage. I think it'd be a shiny toy for 15th level heroes (in 3.5) but it's not fun (just broken) if you're getting it much earlier than that. That's cheesy enough to merit adjusting CR so players are effectively a higher level party, fight tougher enemies, and get less XP for doing so.

EldritchWeaver

2018-08-23, 08:05 AM

I'm on record as favoring 5e overall, but I'm not too fond of what they did with the Warlock. The caster with entirely at-will spells genuinely brought something to the table (starting with the option of playing a caster without dealing with the resource management aspects, though the Dragonfire Adept does that too), and the concept was also both distinct and a fairly classic one. 5e's short rest caster also has some of that going for it, but losing the 3.5 Warlock is a bit of a shame.

IIRC, there is the Coffeelock build with infinite slots.

noob

2018-08-23, 08:14 AM

Meh. System warping optimization is a statistical outlier in 3.5 character creation. You give me three different ways to create 1 niche that next to no one uses and say it's variety? Sure, but not one that most people care about.

Remember that this forum is a microcosm with a disproportionate emphasis on optimization and system theory. Your construct master builds don't generally exist in the 3.5 market at large.

Fair enough that the opportunity to bend the system that far is a draw to 3.5 for people like the ones that frequent this forum.

But I don't agree that you can't make ANYTHING like your construct master in 5e. It just won't have as much bite and will be diversifying its resources. Play a Rock Gnome for tinkering with clockwork, then become a Transmuter Wizard. Animate Objects is a 5th level spell, but getting a CR 20 construct serving you is a late game advantage. I think it'd be a shiny toy for 15th level heroes (in 3.5) but it's not fun (just broken) if you're getting it much earlier than that. That's cheesy enough to merit adjusting CR so players are effectively a higher level party, fight tougher enemies, and get less XP for doing so.

Sorry but a cl 20 animate object(cl means caster level and animate object is a spell) can make cr 7 creature and in fact this creature is much weaker than many other cr 7 creatures.
Also the build you mentioned in 5e is just a super powerful wizard that can summon a bunch of weaklings if he wants to lose actions for no reason.
Unless you are thinking about minor servitor which is often considered as an op spell in 5e.
Do not forget 5e is just like 3.5 but with some slight balance changes and 20 times less content but the longer you wait the more 5e becomes like 3.5

Ignimortis

2018-08-23, 08:26 AM

IIRC, there is the Coffeelock build with infinite slots.

But it's cheesy enough for people to ban it, and I've seen it done. 3.5 warlock has its' infinite casting built in. It's not very good casting, but 5e default warlock is only good if the actual adventuring day guidelines are followed.

Meh. System warping optimization is a statistical outlier in 3.5 character creation. You give me three different ways to create 1 niche that next to no one uses and say it's variety? Sure, but not one that most people care about.

Remember that this forum is a microcosm with a disproportionate emphasis on optimization and system theory. Your construct master builds don't generally exist in the 3.5 market at large.

Fair enough that the opportunity to bend the system that far is a draw to 3.5 for people like the ones that frequent this forum.

But I don't agree that you can't make ANYTHING like your construct master in 5e. It just won't have as much bite and will be diversifying its resources. Play a Rock Gnome for tinkering with clockwork, then become a Transmuter Wizard. Animate Objects is a 5th level spell, but getting a CR 20 construct serving you is a late game advantage. I think it'd be a shiny toy for 15th level heroes (in 3.5) but it's not fun (just broken) if you're getting it much earlier than that. That's cheesy enough to merit adjusting CR so players are effectively a higher level party, fight tougher enemies, and get less XP for doing so.

I can't make a swordmaster build in 5e. I can make a "skilled swordsman" in 5e, but not a "swordmaster" because bounded accuracy and class design prevent that. There are specific archetypes in 5e, and the rules are bent towards them. There's a specific power level in 5e, and the rules are made to reinforce that. A trained level 3 warrior can still hit a supposed "Swordmaster" Fighter 20 and dodge his attack, and not only on the natural 20 or natural 1.

Each time that people told me "oh, but this is doable in 5e, you just have to do X" it was either me getting to play my concept 5 minutes per adventuring day or without mechanics backing me up. 3.5 just gave me tools and I could use them to play my character both in roleplay and in a mechanical sense all day long, if I wanted to.

Rhedyn

2018-08-23, 10:38 AM

I've played both kinds of Warlock, the 3.5 one is more fun, but the 5e Warlock is one of the better designed classes for 5e.

But I only consider the Monk and Warlock to be well designed classes in 5e.

Pleh

2018-08-23, 11:17 AM

What, so a game isn't diverse if bounded accuracy precludes broken builds? I dunno. I think you're just goal post shifting to justify your prejudice.

If you have to say, "my swordmaster concept shouldn't lose to level 1 warriors" in order to argue diversity of character concepts, I think your argument doesn't hold much water.

Troacctid

2018-08-23, 11:38 AM

Can't. You don't get AoE attacks, parrying magic/arrows (or good parrying in general), whatever Iron Heart Surge does at your table (at mine it removes any negative status condition with a duration), tunneling through walls with Mountain Hammer, 40-feet long leaps by level 5 due to Leaping Dragon Stance (8 ranks +4 from speed +10 feet free + 3 from barebones STR + counts as running without a headstart = 25 feet on a roll of 1, 45 on a roll of 20), etc.

Battlemaster is barely a Warblade. It's limited by uses and limited in scope. It's a 1st level Warblade with less sustainability.
The question wasn't whether you could replicate a Warblade's capabilities exactly. It was whether you could match its effectiveness. Battlemaster does that.

I'm on record as favoring 5e overall, but I'm not too fond of what they did with the Warlock. The caster with entirely at-will spells genuinely brought something to the table (starting with the option of playing a caster without dealing with the resource management aspects, though the Dragonfire Adept does that too), and the concept was also both distinct and a fairly classic one. 5e's short rest caster also has some of that going for it, but losing the 3.5 Warlock is a bit of a shame.
The 5e Warlock drew more from 4e's vision of the Warlock as a hex-happy single-target striker. The invocations were mostly sidelined accordingly. I agree that the 3.5e version is cooler.

ComaVision

2018-08-23, 12:17 PM

For the most part, any concept I think of can be done in 3.5e to some extent. That is definitely not true in 5e. It's not a matter of imagination or roleplay or even optimization, the options just don't exist.

I want to play a swordsmen that throws his huge blade like a boomerang at his enemies and has it bounce back to him. It's not even that crazy of an idea but it's something I have stuck in my head. I bring new players into TTRPG all the time, nearly every person I play with was introduced to TTRPGs by me and a lot of the time the first character idea they have could not be adequately represented in 5e. I, personally, do not like the idea of taking someone brand new to the hobby and explaining to them the limitations they need to adhere to.

Knaight

2018-08-23, 12:44 PM

For the most part, any concept I think of can be done in 3.5e to some extent. That is definitely not true in 5e. It's not a matter of imagination or roleplay or even optimization, the options just don't exist.

Right up until you want to play a noncombatant, in which case you can at best get a poor approximation by jumping through a bunch of hoops. Even for a combatant, take your example of "character" defined by a fighting style - M&M and HERO are both vastly better at that sort of powers focused design, to pick just two examples.

I, personally, do not like the idea of taking someone brand new to the hobby and explaining to them the limitations they need to adhere to.
There are still limitations there though - if this brand new person wants to play a space marine, there's going to be problems. There's some decent approximations with enough refluffing and ignoring the places the mechanics don't work too well (Warforged Warlock), but the character will still likely fundamentally not fit. That idea of playing a character that fits a particular setting is also one they're going to be familiar with, and generally one they'll find reasonable.

Ignimortis

2018-08-23, 01:19 PM

The question wasn't whether you could replicate a Warblade's capabilities exactly. It was whether you could match its effectiveness. Battlemaster does that.

Well then, a Shield Master Champion Fighter can do as well, as effectively, as a Battlemaster. Or a Barbarian. Martials in 5e are effective as damage dealers, it's just that Warblade is slightly more than a damage dealer even if we discount their OK class skills and skillpoints. Their capabilities contributed to their effectiveness beyond "I can do damage well".

What, so a game isn't diverse if bounded accuracy precludes broken builds? I dunno. I think you're just goal post shifting to justify your prejudice.

If you have to say, "my swordmaster concept shouldn't lose to level 1 warriors" in order to argue diversity of character concepts, I think your argument doesn't hold much water.

Power level factors into those things, doesn't it? I mean, technically the Hulk is just really strong and really tough. That's it. So is a 5e barbarian, but the best he can hope for mechanically is "a somewhat Hulk-like" feel, nowhere near the same concept.

The same applies to the posited "swordsman" concepts. If your mechanics limit even the best swordsman in the world to being about +15 to-hit on a d20 base away from a complete novice who doesn't even know how to hold a sword right, that limits the character concepts to "a very fine swordsman who would probably win a duel with a slightly inferior opponent and very probably win a fight against a significantly inferior one". There's no going higher than that, that's the limit in the world you make by 5e's rules.

Like I said earlier, 5e does low-medium heroic fantasy well. It doesn't do anything else particularly well, unless you explicitly break the system. I consider the ability to go higher or lower than that in power to contribute significantly to character concept diversity pool.

Rhedyn

2018-08-23, 01:49 PM

Well then, a Shield Master Champion Fighter can do as well, as effectively, as a Battlemaster. Or a Barbarian. Martials in 5e are effective as damage dealers, it's just that Warblade is slightly more than a damage dealer even if we discount their OK class skills and skillpoints. Their capabilities contributed to their effectiveness beyond "I can do damage well".

Power level factors into those things, doesn't it? I mean, technically the Hulk is just really strong and really tough. That's it. So is a 5e barbarian, but the best he can hope for mechanically is "a somewhat Hulk-like" feel, nowhere near the same concept.

The same applies to the posited "swordsman" concepts. If your mechanics limit even the best swordsman in the world to being about +15 to-hit on a d20 base away from a complete novice who doesn't even know how to hold a sword right, that limits the character concepts to "a very fine swordsman who would probably win a duel with a slightly inferior opponent and very probably win a fight against a significantly inferior one". There's no going higher than that, that's the limit in the world you make by 5e's rules.

Like I said earlier, 5e does low-medium heroic fantasy well. It doesn't do anything else particularly well, unless you explicitly break the system. I consider the ability to go higher or lower than that in power to contribute significantly to character concept diversity pool.You are a little too wrapped up in the die roll.

For example, if a master swordsman added +15 to the to-hit roll and +20 to the damage roll and struck all enemies within range with each attack, then that swordsman could slay hundreds of novice swordsman before they took him down.
Add in 10 DR/- and the swordmaster is nigh invincible.

The randomizer is only mildly important if other elements of design are at play.

Knaight

2018-08-23, 01:52 PM

You are a little too wrapped up in the die roll.

For example, if a master swordsman added +15 to the to-hit roll and +20 to the damage roll and struck all enemies within range with each attack, then that swordsman could slay hundreds of novice swordsman before they took him down.
Add in 10 DR/- and the swordmaster is nigh invincible.

The randomizer is only mildly important if other elements of design are at play.

Similarly four attacks per round and a big pile of HP counts for a lot here - the odds of losing a one on one are very, very slim. Even a half dozen or so go down pretty easily, and taking down a half dozen trained swordsmen routinely is more than enough to qualify as a swordsmaster to my mind.

Ignimortis

2018-08-23, 01:56 PM

You are a little too wrapped up in the die roll.

For example, if a master swordsman added +15 to the to-hit roll and +20 to the damage roll and struck all enemies within range with each attack, then that swordsman could slay hundreds of novice swordsman before they took him down.
Add in 10 DR/- and the swordmaster is nigh invincible.

The randomizer is only mildly important if other elements of design are at play.

Well, that's true enough, I guess, but 5e doesn't do those things either. One could try and work with some specific Ranger builds on the lines of Polearm Master + Sentinel + Tunnel Fighting style to almost replicate that...

And here we go again, we've got one specific thing that does what I need, but only some of the time and if I make major concessions to both the mechanical framework and look/feel of the concept.

Troacctid

2018-08-23, 03:56 PM

TotallyNotEvil

2018-08-23, 08:07 PM

One problem I have is that scenarios dealing with anything large scale break down a bit, or at least operate on a far different paradigm.

A 1000-hab backwater can fend off an Adult Red Dragon if, say, all the men practice with longbows once a week, with not much trouble.

It makes me feel as if the world has shrunk down, y'know? Scenarios like Faerun always bothered me in how small-scale it seemed, with the armies of powerful city-states numbering 3000, 4000 level 1-2 dudes.

Rhedyn

2018-08-23, 08:52 PM

Well, that's true enough, I guess, but 5e doesn't do those things either. One could try and work with some specific Ranger builds on the lines of Polearm Master + Sentinel + Tunnel Fighting style to almost replicate that...

And here we go again, we've got one specific thing that does what I need, but only some of the time and if I make major concessions to both the mechanical framework and look/feel of the concept.

Oh no, I'm not going to defend 5e. I was only pointing out that bounded accuracy does not by default create the problem you are talking about.

death390

2018-08-23, 09:56 PM

as others have said; both have thier upsides and downsides, but i personally won't play 5e until it gets more support because that is where 3.5 shines. the raw quantity of content in 3.5 is staggering.

so many archetypes can't be built in 5e without massive houserules, AND I HATE F#*@ing bounded accuracy.

list of things you can kind of reskin but just is not the same. Incarnum, shadowcraft mage (<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<), variations on standard classes beyond 4-5 archetypes, ect.

also a big problem i have with 5e is that there is no guideline for skills to let players estimate IF they can do something other than the dm assigning a number arbitrarily.

assign a DC to this climb check: you come to a cliff face that looks slippery from the moss encrusting it, upon looking closer you can tell there are many hand and footholds where the moss is sitting if slightly difficult to reach from one another.

in 3.5 it is easy for a player to estimate a DC +5 for slippery, and 15-20 for the actual check, in 5e it whatever the DM feels like could be as low as 10 could be as high as 25.

then bounded accuracy means that the rouge has about the same chance of failing to be stealthy as other characters because the increase in skill is so slow. hell a rouge the gold standard for skills in 3.5 goes from +2 to +6 over 20 levels!!! add on the fact that seems to be how much everyone gets then double for your expertise skills so +6 at most to be good at something?

Ignimortis

2018-08-23, 10:36 PM

The capabilities you described were "block, jump, break stuff, and avoid debuffs," all of which a 5e Fighter (or Barbarian) can do just fine either with its base abilities, subclass abilities, or feats.

I picked Battlemaster (with optional Rogue multiclass) as the example because it's the closest match for the feel of the Warblade. Obviously no class is a direct port of the Warblade, and even if there were such a thing, it would likely be different, just like all the other classes that made it into the PHB. Bards don't Inspire Courage anymore. Warlocks are more like the 4e version. Druids don't have an animal companion. Sorcerers don't have a familiar. Etc.

And if any character in 5e had 20 STR and proficiency in Athletics, he could do most of those things as well as a 5e Fighter. They don't get things to be notedly better at that than anyone else. They only get the incentive to focus on these things, not any actual improvement to them. The only unique thing is Indomitable to reroll saving throws. That's nice, I guess.

If we go that way, I could argue that a Bladesinger or a Hexblade, while slightly suboptimal and not exactly almost at-will (neither is a Battlemaster anywhere close to at-will, though), could do those things even better and closer to the Warblade. Shield spell for blocking is usually superior to BM's parrying and can actually work against arrows and targeted magic, Jump with 10 STR makes jumping better than Athletics proficiency or 20 STR. Avoiding debuffs is easier if you have a higher Wisdom save. Breaking stuff and doing large amount of damage with magic or Eldritch Smites is easy enough. And you can also get See Invisibility (blindsense, Hearing the Air), Haste (extra attacks, Raging Mongoose), etc.

The defining features of all initiators, maneuvers, can be basically described as "I get to do cool stuff outside of normal people's capabilities (not like Fighters) all day (not like Wizards)". And you can't replicate that in 5e, because everyone either has very limited resources for "cool stuff" or their "cool stuff" is actually "stuff anyone can do with these stats". Except if you're a Monk, but Monks have their very specific fluff and expectations.

Albions_Angel

2018-08-24, 04:32 AM

Lots of "from the players perspective" stuff here, and my own views on that are basically that after repeated trying, I dont like the advantage system and I still have too much I want to do in 3.5 for me to enjoy 5th.

From the DMs perspective though...

I HATE 5th with a burning passion. I am not the worlds best DM. I cant think on my feet too well, so my campaigns are very combat heavy and story focused.

While 5th says to the players "Heres a bunch of party roles, sort out your own fluff and dont worry too much, just ask your DM how this all works", to the DM it seems to say "Ok, here is a very limited rule space. Now you feel free to expand it, but we wont tell you how we got here, so you are on your own. Oh, also? Your players will NEVER KNOW how their own classes work because we didnt tell them, so you have to figure that out too".

At any given moment, I am trying to figure out what a spell means (the flaming sphere example above), determine how best to sort out several coincident sources of advantage and disadvantage should go together (well, this one cancels that one, but THAT one should simply be negated by this, but maybe this other thing happens first), wondering if I need to on-the-fly houserule in a bonus or advantage for 4 legged creatures being tripped (hell you can even trip an OOZE in 5th!), and try not to totally annihilate my players with a CR appropriate encounter OR be a push over for them.

And if you want a party to enjoy a wide variety of monsters at low level, good luck! Before, monsters had a clear base creature, and stacking NPC or PC classes on them had a known, understandable effect. So one monster (lets say a goblin) had 30 or 40 different variants, all easy to make, just with a single level in a class. In 5th, Player classes are so much more powerful than creatures that you cant do that. So you have to either find a variant creature in the books already premade, OR homerule one more or less from scratch. And thats MORE time I simply dont have.

5e is simply more effort than it is worth to run for me.

DeTess

2018-08-24, 05:43 AM

At any given moment, I am trying to figure out what a spell means (the flaming sphere example above), determine how best to sort out several coincident sources of advantage and disadvantage should go together (well, this one cancels that one, but THAT one should simply be negated by this, but maybe this other thing happens first), wondering if I need to on-the-fly houserule in a bonus or advantage for 4 legged creatures being tripped (hell you can even trip an OOZE in 5th!), and try not to totally annihilate my players with a CR appropriate encounter OR be a push over for them.

I'm no 5e DM, so I can't comment on your other issues, but the one I highlighted isn't an issue unless you made it one. Standard advantage rules it that if you've got both sources of advantage and disadvantage, you don't get either, no matter how many you've got of each.

Pleh

2018-08-24, 06:14 AM

RoboEmperor

2018-08-24, 07:43 AM

Meh. System warping optimization is a statistical outlier in 3.5 character creation. You give me three different ways to create 1 niche that next to no one uses and say it's variety? Sure, but not one that most people care about.

Remember that this forum is a microcosm with a disproportionate emphasis on optimization and system theory. Your construct master builds don't generally exist in the 3.5 market at large.

Fair enough that the opportunity to bend the system that far is a draw to 3.5 for people like the ones that frequent this forum.

It doesn't matter if most people care about it or not. Because 3.5 is capable of supporting niche builds that next to no one uses, among experienced players no two PCs are the same. I maybe a construct master but how about a demon master? Or chicken bomber? Master of shadows? Or Mario that kills enemies by jumping on their heads?

That's why I claim superiority. Freedom. Open World. Metric **** ton of playstyles NOT supported by wotc.

Now it's true most people we play with don't deviate from the standard playstyles and that's fine. It's why 5e is popular. But 3.5 is better because it lets you do things that you can't do anywhere else, including video games, and why a ton of 5e players eventually play 3.5, for more variety, versatility, power, and freedom.

death390

2018-08-24, 07:51 AM

I just see more people disliking 5e because it's not like 3.5, not because 5e is bad.

Skill DCs unknown/arbitrary by the DM? It makes you unhappy because you want more of a tactical game where you make strategic decisions based on statistical data. That's what the 3.5 system does. But it's terrible for people that want to escape numbers and roleplay the scenario. A real rock climber might be able to estimate their chances of success just by looking at a cliff face, but there's always going to be uncertainty for a person in a live scenario. So 5e offers that perpetual sense of uncertainty. It's not a flaw of the game, but a feature to help you roleplay, because the character certainly shouldn't make decisions based on skill DCs. It's not a thing for them. 5e has you playing as characters meant to represent people who have power. 3.5 often falls into the trap of making characters into pawns of an elaborate game of chess.

Same thing with rogues and stealth. That argument is overplayed. So you can't rely on skill points alone in 5e. That means you need to find cover between turns, think through what you carry and where you step, and do more optimization of decision making in game because you can't do as much optimization in character making. And don't forget a stealth based rogue has not only skills, but probably also advantage to stealth from somewhere. It's the same as with Rock Climbing from before. Even an expert can fail at this and even their educated guess at difficulty isn't reliable. So, do you take a chance at free climbing, or expend and possibly lose a portion of the party's rope supply to use a grappling hook (making the DC a known quantity)?

Just in general, you have to look at these limitations as opportunities to get in character, because your character isn't sure either.

"But that sucks." Not when you take a risk and manage to succeed anyway. Then it pays off a million times better.

People say they dislike bounded accuracy, but it worked really well for Dark Souls. There's no level at which the beginner enemies can't wreck your day if you get sloppy in handling them.

So, if you must needs have that tactical statistics in your game play (XCOM comes to mind), stick to 3.5 for its DC transparency.

i am no mountain climber but i for dam sure can tell if i can climb a wall or not. shear surface hell no, brick wall with no protrusions nope on that either, that semi-staggered pattern yes. you should be able to look at a climbable wall and say yeah i got this, or no way in hell lets go around. need 5+ hell yeah, need 15+ no way in hell

as for stealth, you are bonkers if you think you can hide in 3.5 with just skill points. it literally states that for one to hide (normally) you must have some kind of cover or concealment. the cases were you have a kind of extra skill that alters that is just that an extra skill; creating darkness for at will concealment, hide in plain sight feature, ect.

the point for example with stealth is that on an "average" roll of 10 the rouge only gets +3 from dex (should have that) +12 max with expertise in stealth and high level. congrats you can BARELY hide from a commoner with 0 proficiency bonus if he rolls 20 since you got a 25. but wait what if you don't have expertise in stealth because you chose another skill. then guess what that commoner just spotted you since you got a 19!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

all that bounded accuracy gets you is "everyone can fail" not "everyone can succeed". an average of +9 w/ d20 roll is ****. hell if you have an average of +9 on a climb check then you still arn't likely to get past that DC 20 wall more than half the time.

EDIT: also don't compare dark souls and Xcom to tabletop, the entire systems fall apart due to the fact that everything in a video game is set ahead of time. that DC 20 persuasion check will always be a persuasion check for example. also since dark souls is an action rpg video game it DOESN'T HAVE BOUNDED ACCURACY.

DeTess

2018-08-24, 07:52 AM

It doesn't matter if most people care about it or not. Because 3.5 is capable of supporting niche builds that next to no one uses, among experienced players no two PCs are the same. I maybe a construct master but how about a demon master? Or chicken bomber? Master of shadows? Or Mario that kills enemies by jumping on their heads?

That's why I claim superiority. Freedom. Open World. Metric **** ton of playstyles NOT supported by wotc.

Now it's true most people we play with don't deviate from the standard playstyles and that's fine. It's why 5e is popular. But 3.5 is better because it lets you do things that you can't do anywhere else, including video games, and why a ton of 5e players eventually play 3.5, for more variety, versatility, power, and freedom.

Would you say that 3.5e is strictly better for everyone because of this, or merely better for experienced players with the drive to know all the ins and outs of the system?

death390

2018-08-24, 07:57 AM

Would you say that 3.5e is strictly better for everyone because of this, or merely better for experienced players with the drive to know all the ins and outs of the system?

i know you wern't asking me but, it is better for both TBH. the divers get a wide range of quality to the system while the new players can pickup and go with most general stuff. not everyone needs to be the batman wizard. an evoker in a party of conan, drizzt clone, and a paladin is just fine if that's what they are looking for. the only downsides for new players are the "trap" things like run feat, metamagic as is, and some spell choices.

it depends on the group. 4 newbies +1 vetran. easy the vet can stear them clear of the traps. all newbies? still fine cause they will all probably make the mistakes.

Kish

2018-08-24, 07:58 AM

"But that sucks." Not when you take a risk and manage to succeed anyway. Then it pays off a million times better.
No. "The world's best tracker can randomly fail to track ordinary orcs in ordinary circumstances"--sucks. It sucks before you've rolled and it sucks after you've rolled no matter what you roll. Oh, it's a 17, this time your ranger doesn't fail at what they've spent their whole career practicing? Mysteriously fails to redeem the system.

DeTess

2018-08-24, 08:07 AM

i know you wern't asking me but, it is better for both TBH. the divers get a wide range of quality to the system while the new players can pickup and go with most general stuff. not everyone needs to be the batman wizard. an evoker in a party of conan, drizzt clone, and a paladin is just fine if that's what they are looking for. the only downsides for new players are the "trap" things like run feat, metamagic as is, and some spell choices.

The existence of trap choices* is actually why I think 5e is better for new players or mixed groups in which not everyone has the inclination to learn the system or the general RPG mentality to learn a pre-built high-op characters abilities. The optimal case would be 3.5e, where the veteran players help the newbies to build the character they want to build in such a way that everyone contributes, with no one player building a character that obsoletes everyone else, but if these forums are anything to go by, groups of mixed skill are far more likely to result in massive power gaps, either because the vets don't want to help, or because the new guys don't want to accept help.

*And the definition of what is and isn't a trap can vary wildly in 3.5e depending on your group. I've once played in a game where even a well-build warblade proved to have been a trap choice past the halfway point of the game

death390

2018-08-24, 08:14 AM

death390

2018-08-24, 08:16 AM

The existence of trap choices* is actually why I think 5e is better for new players or mixed groups in which not everyone has the inclination to learn the system or the general RPG mentality to learn a pre-built high-op characters abilities. The optimal case would be 3.5e, where the veteran players help the newbies to build the character they want to build in such a way that everyone contributes, with no one player building a character that obsoletes everyone else, but if these forums are anything to go by, groups of mixed skill are far more likely to result in massive power gaps, either because the vets don't want to help, or because the new guys don't want to accept help.

*And the definition of what is and isn't a trap can vary wildly in 3.5e depending on your group. I've once played in a game where even a well-build warblade proved to have been a trap choice past the halfway point of the game

true yet that is not a newbie game. high-op is not a newbie game. low/mid op is what newbie games would be unless they frequent forums like this and pull some random BS from somewhere. but then they are a powergamer and not really a newbie.

(have to head to programming class l8r for now)

RoboEmperor

2018-08-24, 08:23 AM

Would you say that 3.5e is strictly better for everyone because of this, or merely better for experienced players with the drive to know all the ins and outs of the system?

For Players
I'd say if you can't build the character in your mind in 5e, 3.5 is better.
If you can, 5e is better because it's easier and there's less of a power gap.

But if we're comparing systems...
3.5 can do everything 5e can while 5e doesn't have a chance in hell at doing even 1/10th of what 3.5 can, so 3.5 is better.

iTreeby

2018-08-24, 08:38 AM

THIS ^^^^

there comes a point in a characters career when they should be so good at things that they shouldn't need to roll because its so easy. what would have happened if aragorn had failed his skill check to trak the 50 uruk-hai that took off with merry and pippin. they dead. but he had done it for so long and there were so many of them there should never have been a chance for him to fail. yeah the rock climber could always fall but should he ever when its basically the easiest wall to climb ever? i mean isn't nat 1 already bad enough that 5% failure rate at all times for goodness sake.

i had this same issue with another person about cubicle 7's one ring rpg. it also has bounded accuracy DC 14 average on 1d12 + up to 5d6 depending of skill (exponentially more expensive per die). 12 is auto-succeed, 11 auto-fail. so max of 10 on the d12+whatever you get on the d6 +fate point cost to get attribute score. basically on 3d6 you get the average DC ~50% ofthe time; which is F-ing expensive.

If the DM is calling for a skill check, they are telling you it isn't a given you can do it with a 100 percent success rate. The DM shouldn't call for a skill check when you are doing something with garenteed success. I feel like this goes for both editions.

Ignimortis

2018-08-24, 08:49 AM

If the DM is calling for a skill check, they are telling you it isn't a given you can do it with a 100 percent success rate. The DM shouldn't call for a skill check when you are doing something with garenteed success. I feel like this goes for both editions.

And with 3.5 you usually know how much you need to invest in a skill for certain purposes, because they're written in the book.

Pleh

2018-08-24, 09:00 AM

No. "The world's best tracker can randomly fail to track ordinary orcs in ordinary circumstances"--sucks. It sucks before you've rolled and it sucks after you've rolled no matter what you roll. Oh, it's a 17, this time your ranger doesn't fail at what they've spent their whole career practicing? Mysteriously fails to redeem the system.

You're not even trying.

"After weeks tracking the orcs, consistently defied by poor luck with random animals and weather destroying the trail, at last! The orcs made a crucial error and you've finally got a clear trail. Now, you're gaining on them."

If you're playing an expert tracker and a few botched rolls means you rage quit the quest, you were never much of an expert tracker, were you? You knew the rough direction they were traveling, so it just takes you longer to search the next area to find the trail again.

And you could probably estimate the Skill DC of a rock wall in 5e. Just because the books don't itemize circumstance bonuses and penalties doesn't mean you can't prompt the DM for info. "How easy does the the cliff seem for climbing?"
"The surface is uneven, offering several potential handholds and footholds, but recent rainfall has left the rocks damp and moist. It seems doable, but somewhat hazardous."

And if we can't talk about xcom or dark souls because game events were scripted, where do we get off talking about how merry and pippen would have died? Those events were even more scripted than video games.

But my only point about xcom and dark souls was fundamental to game experience. In XCOM, you're looking at statistical data to make strategic choices. It's the same as in D&D. Knowing the DC is 15 tells you the percent chance of success your character has. In Dark Souls, the capacity for beginner monsters to make short work of end game heroes with well timed attacks indicates a weighted combat system that provides a similar challenge as 5e's bounded accuracy. It gives that harrowing sense that you always have to play smart and can't rely on being overleveled.

It seems 3.5 players are angry at having that reward taken from them (the certainty of overpowering the challenge). But when you know there's no way to lose, exactly how is it even a game anymore?

Do you not like 5e because it isn't easy to trivialize it?

Kish

2018-08-24, 09:00 AM

If the DM is calling for a skill check, they are telling you it isn't a given you can do it with a 100 percent success rate. The DM shouldn't call for a skill check when you are doing something with garenteed success. I feel like this goes for both editions.
One edition absolutely requires it for basic functionality; the other does not. A level 20 ranger in 5ed has a random chance of failing to track an ordinary orc warband unless the DM says "pfft, no"; a level 20 ranger in 3.5ed with 23 ranks in Survival cannot fail a roll of that DC.

You're not even trying.
You're correct about one thing: getting you to acknowledge how bad 5ed's rules are is something I am not truly trying, since sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!" is a tactic I have no illusions of somehow being able to overcome.

Have fun beating up on your...

Do you not like 5e because it isn't easy to trivialize it?
...strawmen.

Pleh

2018-08-24, 09:02 AM

One edition absolutely requires it for basic functionality; the other does not. A level 20 ranger in 5ed has a random chance of failing to track an ordinary orc warband unless the DM says "pfft, no"; a level 20 ranger in 3.5ed with 23 ranks in Survival cannot fail a roll of that DC.

And in 5e, the DM doesn't have to require a skill check, either. If they agree this tracker should have enough skill the challenge is no obstacle, don't make them roll. They just succeed and you move on.

hamishspence

2018-08-24, 09:09 AM

Problem is, 5e requires the DM to make this kind of call - whereas 3e doesn't.

OgresAreCute

2018-08-24, 09:10 AM

And in 5e, the DM doesn't have to require a skill check, either. If they agree this tracker should have enough skill the challenge is no obstacle, don't make them roll. They just succeed and you move on.

Player: "I'm going to try to track the guys."
GM: "Okay, the trail leads north."

Any DM/equivalent in any system ever can always use DM fiat. That isn't an argument.

Pleh

2018-08-24, 09:11 AM

Problem is, 5e requires the DM to make this kind of call - whereas 3e doesn't.

I disagree. The DM is still in charge of circumstance bonuses and penalties in 3.5, including ones the player and their character might not be aware of.

This aspect of the game is essentially identical.

Pelle

2018-08-24, 09:15 AM

Kurald Galain

2018-08-24, 09:19 AM

If the DM is calling for a skill check, they are telling you it isn't a given you can do it with a 100 percent success rate.

Precisely.

The DM is telling you that your character stats don't really matter, and that you're going to get a substantial chance of failure, solely because the rules expect you to have a substantial chance of failure on everything.

That's pretty limiting to player agency, if you think about it; and it invalidates quite a number of character concepts from books or movies.

AtS

2018-08-24, 09:22 AM

And with 3.5 you usually know how much you need to invest in a skill for certain purposes, because they're written in the book.

That's great! You like certainty in your gaming, and you're lucky to have found the system that tickles your itch for that in your games.

Can't we all just accept that people play tabletop games differently? Some people like certainty in their games; the ability create a character that is guaranteed to succeed. Others like to involve the luck of the dice in everything, irrespective of (but still influenced by) character ability. 3.5 caters to certainty and 5e caters to uncertainty, which means that the two systems have opposing design goals and can't really be compared on this axis because everyone's subjective opinions about which play style they like best are going to override any objectivity in the conversation. Ultimately, it boils down to what fine-tuned balance of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationionism you prefer. Everyone is going to have a different answer to that question, and it's great that there's a variety of D&D editions that achieve unique levels of each kind of engagement, so everyone can find a D&D that appeals to them.

Rhedyn

2018-08-24, 09:26 AM

Problem is, 5e requires the DM to make this kind of call - whereas 3e doesn't.

This is basically every problem of 5e compared to 3e summed up.

I don't consider 5e some great feat of designing. It's simpler because they make the DM do all the work that the rules did in 3e.

Classic edition defenses
AD&D: "THACO isn't that complicated"
3e: "Anyone can make a functional character."
4e: "The rules do not hinder roleplaying."
5e: "A bad DM would be bad in any edition!" - [I guess not being an expert rules developer somehow makes you a bad DM /s]

Kish

2018-08-24, 09:28 AM

5e does in fact not allow you to play any concept you can imagine, including a construct master or the best tracker in the world. If you absolutely need those options to play, then 3.5 is better for you. For a lot of people though, that's not really important.
More specifically: It doesn't let you play any character who is competent enough to not always have a chance of random failure (without relying on DM fiat).

A level 20 ranger with 23 ranks in Survival, in 3.5ed, might be the best tracker in the world, if the world is one where you can count the number of level 20 characters on the fingers of one hand (which isn't a bad thing), but they don't have to be. Either way, as you level, you go from a beginning tracker (insert any other skill here: climber, sneaker, pickpocket, swimmer...) to a master tracker. In 5ed, you go from a mediocre tracker (etc.) to a mediocre tracker. Or, alternatively, your primary class feature for any class is "+level to checks to convince the DM to invoke fiat in your favor!"

ThatMoonGuy

2018-08-24, 09:28 AM

Is it only a matter of certainty, though? A lot of people dislike 5e and the idea of Bounded systems because they limit how different you can be from anyone else. In 3.5e it was possible to make a level 5 character with a 20+ bonus to, say, Spellcraft. It took a lot of sacrifice and wasn't necessarily optimal but did allow you to represent someone who spent nearly all his time getting better at that one thing and thus became just that ridiculously good at it. That's not something 5e would allow me to do and not because there's not enough splats but because it's not that game's goal to do so.

Pelle

2018-08-24, 09:41 AM

More specifically: It doesn't let you play any character who is competent enough to not always have a chance of random failure (without relying on DM fiat).

Sure, but again, for a lot of people that's not important.

Kurald Galain

2018-08-24, 09:59 AM

Is it only a matter of certainty, though? A lot of people dislike 5e and the idea of Bounded systems because they limit how different you can be from anyone else.
Precisely.

Being markedly better at a skill than your teammates is something that's explicitly not allowed in 5E and for that matter 4E (except by tortuously redefining the word to its antonym). Pelle is correct that a lot of players don't miss it... but also a lot of players do. And as a result the "skill system" is one of the most controversial parts of 5E and 4E both.

Kyrell1978

2018-08-24, 10:03 AM

That's great! You like certainty in your gaming, and you're lucky to have found the system that tickles your itch for that in your games.

Can't we all just accept that people play tabletop games differently?

No way. I know how to have fun.......everyone else is having fun wrong. :smallwink:

Albions_Angel

2018-08-24, 10:08 AM

I disagree. The DM is still in charge of circumstance bonuses and penalties in 3.5, including ones the player and their character might not be aware of.

This aspect of the game is essentially identical.

Actually, while in 5e, the DM HAS to be in charge of those bonuses (from setting the DC often with no help from the books, to deciding on advantage, disadvantage, or a numerical bonus), in 3.5e, they can either make them up on the spot OR default to a well established system of rules. Lets stick with tracking shall we?

Lets say you are tracking a party of 20 Orcs across soft ground. They are 2 days ahead of you, and it rained last night, but otherwise no creatures have crossed the path. In 5e, there are no actual rules on setting a tracking DC. None. So, wing it I guess?

But in 3.5e:

Soft ground gives a base DC of 10.
The targets are medium size (+0) and there are 20 of them (every 3 additional is -1) so -6 = DC 4.
2 days ahead, so +2 = DC 6.
It rained last night. Now I didnt specify how long, but last night has to be <= 8 hours, so thats at most +8 = DC 14.

Now I could have eyeballed it. Average track would be 10. IE, a commoner with no training would get a 10 half the time. 20 orcs is a lot, traveling at speed, over terrain that holds the tracks well, with some degradation. So harder than average, but not too hard. I would have said 12. But thats not far off AND I CAN CHECK THAT NUMBER.

But wait, it gets better.

If I am moving at half my normal pace, ie, if I am not worried about catching up to the enemy, then thats the number I use. But I can move my normal marching speed for a -5 penalty, or at double my speed for a -20 if I need to really move fast. Its all there. And thats just in the SRD. Thats not counting environment books, examples, creature bonuses, etc. In 3.5, as a DM, I almost never have to guess. I never have to eyeball.

In 5th, I absolutely do. And thats something I am terrible at. Once I have a guide, I can extrapolate, but without that guide, I tend to wildly over or underestimate my players abilities.

In another thought, and this is totally personal (if you quote, please add this bit too, its important that this one is my experience), the simplicity of 5e really messed with group expectations in my experience. In the past 6 years, I have played with 4 groups in 20 games, 6 of which were 5e. 3 5e games I dmed, and 7 3.5e games. One group were very experienced 3.5e players who switched to 5th at the very end of my time with them. Another had played 4th and 5e for a few years when I joined. And then 2 groups of new players.

In every case, 3.5e games were taken far more seriously. Rule of cool was far less common, snacks at the table were not the focus but were more like packed lunches you ate quietly. Alcohol was not allowed. People payed attention. In every case, when we played 5th, be that the regular 5th players, the new players, or the old 3.5e players, people didnt take the system seriously. Everything was a comedy. People turned up to chat rather than to play. Games dragged.

Thats probably just a weird experience of mine, but it is strange.

Psyren

2018-08-24, 10:20 AM

*snip*

Its all there. And thats just in the SRD. Thats not counting environment books, examples, creature bonuses, etc. In 3.5, as a DM, I almost never have to guess. I never have to eyeball.

In 5th, I absolutely do. And thats something I am terrible at. Once I have a guide, I can extrapolate, but without that guide, I tend to wildly over or underestimate my players abilities.

^ This, and even more pertinently - why am I paying for a book where I just have to eyeball all the DCs and half the spell descriptions myself anyway? I can do that for free already. I'm paying for the guidelines and examples that have been playtested by actual game designers and analyzed by a large community. I'm paying to license the common programming language that I can place confidence in no matter who is DMing that week.

I can still enjoy myself playing 5e (I can enjoy most activities involving my friends really) but rules-heavy will always be my preference, and where I spend my gaming dollar.

Troacctid

2018-08-24, 11:37 AM

I can't believe people think it's easier to learn all the finicky modifiers for every still than it is to just pick 10, 15, or 20.

Also, whoever was grouching about rogues not being reliable at Stealth, do you realize how rare it is for monsters to have any proficiency in Perception? Most of the time you're up against like a DC 12. In rare cases you might need as high as 15, but that's unusual. And it's pretty common for environmental conditions to impose disadvantage on Perception, which reduces the DC by 5.

But if we're comparing systems...
3.5 can do everything 5e can while 5e doesn't have a chance in hell at doing even 1/10th of what 3.5 can, so 3.5 is better.
Can you find a weekly event at your local game store?

How fast can you teach the game to a new player? Can you keep them engaged without them feeling swamped by rules and math?

RoboEmperor

2018-08-24, 11:48 AM

Can you find a weekly event at your local game store?

How fast can you teach the game to a new player? Can you keep them engaged without them feeling swamped by rules and math?

That's like saying the Warcraft 3 editor is better than C++ at making games because it's easier. Better things are almost always harder to learn.

A recorder might be better for a child but ultimately any other wind instrument is superior to the recorder despite its harder difficulty to learn.

If we go by this logic Neverwinter Nights is better than both 3.5 and 5e since it's significantly easier for a new player to get into.

Knaight

2018-08-24, 11:49 AM

Lots of "from the players perspective" stuff here, and my own views on that are basically that after repeated trying, I dont like the advantage system and I still have too much I want to do in 3.5 for me to enjoy 5th.

From the DMs perspective though...

I HATE 5th with a burning passion. I am not the worlds best DM. I cant think on my feet too well, so my campaigns are very combat heavy and story focused.
It's a fundamentally different toolset as a GM - and for all that I dislike about 5e (and it is a pretty decent list of things, starting with how the core mechanics were clearly built combat engine first, and tend to be iffy when extended out to the rest of the game), I'd vastly prefer DMing it to DMing 3.5. It comes down to what you're comfortable with.

Personally, I'm not good enough at memorization to commit something like the 3.5 skill list and all its modifiers to memory, let alone a stat block. I'm also not fond of spending prep time on mechanical busywork or spending game time looking stuff up. Judgment calls though? Thinking on my feet? Those are my bread and butter. I want a minimalist framework that provides enough material to work with while getting out of the way, and 5e comes closer to that than 3.x.

It doesn't matter if most people care about it or not. Because 3.5 is capable of supporting niche builds that next to no one uses, among experienced players no two PCs are the same. I maybe a construct master but how about a demon master? Or chicken bomber? Master of shadows? Or Mario that kills enemies by jumping on their heads?

That's why I claim superiority. Freedom. Open World. Metric **** ton of playstyles NOT supported by wotc.
The support for these niche builds also does a lot of setting implication, and can be downright irritating to people trying to run something where they don't fit - it's not a clean case of just being better, but a case of being better for particular play styles and worse for others. Said others include those that don't particularly focus on builds at all.

RoboEmperor

2018-08-24, 11:55 AM

As an addendum to what I said, I've been constantly saying 5e is better for the nonhardcore people. Some people say this is what makes 5e the best and others like me don't, so we're arguing which is better, easier execution or high ceiling. IMO high ceiling is the best, but I guess Pleh and Troacctid believes easier execution is superior.

Kurald Galain

2018-08-24, 11:58 AM

Ignimortis

2018-08-24, 12:07 PM

Can you find a weekly event at your local game store?

How fast can you teach the game to a new player? Can you keep them engaged without them feeling swamped by rules and math?

No to the first one, because I don't have a local game store.

I taught 3.5's basics to 5 new players in a week, as in "what all these things on your charsheet do and when they're needed", and helped them work out what they wanted to play by concept, then offered them ways to achieve it. I've been DMing, with some breaks, for two years now, and since people still show up and ask me when the next game is, I'd say that rules didn't impact that.

Rhedyn

2018-08-24, 12:19 PM

As an addendum to what I said, I've been constantly saying 5e is better for the nonhardcore people.

I disagree. 5e is for nonhardcore players and hardcore DMs. It's one of harder D&D editions to DM well even though "the math is easier".

3e has a lot of clunk. But you can just buy an Adventure Path and run players through it without having to develop any rules or redesign the game. Sure good DMing talents help, but the game is fun by itself.

5e is not fun by itself. The DM has to make it fun. It has little clunk, but the quality of your game, the fun you have, is entirely depending on the DM's gut ability.

Psyren

2018-08-24, 12:27 PM

I can't believe people think it's easier to learn all the finicky modifiers for every still than it is to just pick 10, 15, or 20.

The point isn't that it might be hard for the DM to pick a value, but that (1) all three of these values give a substantial chance of failure to pretty much all PCs (except rogues/bards in the first case only), and (2) numerous DMs are not aware of that.

What Kurald said, and also:

1) Keeping track of the "finicky modifiers" is easier than ever, thanks to tools like Herolab, roll20, Google Sheets etc.

2) Picking 10, 15, or 20 isn't the problem; the problem is when the answer you get depends more on who is DMing that day than on the situation itself.

RoboEmperor

2018-08-24, 12:46 PM

I disagree. 5e is for nonhardcore players and hardcore DMs. It's one of harder D&D editions to DM well even though "the math is easier".

3e has a lot of clunk. But you can just buy an Adventure Path and run players through it without having to develop any rules or redesign the game. Sure good DMing talents help, but the game is fun by itself.

5e is not fun by itself. The DM has to make it fun. It has little clunk, but the quality of your game, the fun you have, is entirely depending on the DM's gut ability.

How can there be hardcore DMs in 5e when all the hardcore players switch to 3.5?

I've known DMs to stay in 5e because it's so much easier to DM in 5e because of the smaller power gap between experienced players and new players so they can focus mostly on story rather than encounter mechanics, but hardcore players all leave 5e because unless the player is virtually a roleplay exclusive player, they all want more and something new.

Rhedyn

2018-08-24, 01:06 PM

How can there be hardcore DMs in 5e when all the hardcore players switch to 3.5?
Anecdotal but most of the people in my group like playing 3.X, none of us want to GM it though. We gave 5e a spin, but it broke down too much as experienced and inexperienced DM's a like were prepared to run a game not be the game

We predominantly play Savage Worlds right now.

I do not think 5e is a good system. I think some 5e games have really good DMs.

Troacctid

2018-08-24, 01:28 PM

I disagree. 5e is for nonhardcore players and hardcore DMs. It's one of harder D&D editions to DM well even though "the math is easier".

3e has a lot of clunk. But you can just buy an Adventure Path and run players through it without having to develop any rules or redesign the game. Sure good DMing talents help, but the game is fun by itself.

5e is not fun by itself. The DM has to make it fun. It has little clunk, but the quality of your game, the fun you have, is entirely depending on the DM's gut ability.
Ranked from easiest to hardest:
1. DMing a 5e one-shot
2. DMing a 3.5e one-shot
3. DMing a 5e adventure path
4. DMing a 5e homebrew campaign
5. DMing a 3.5e adventure path
6. DMing a 3.5e homebrew campaign

No to the first one, because I don't have a local game store.

I taught 3.5's basics to 5 new players in a week, as in "what all these things on your charsheet do and when they're needed", and helped them work out what they wanted to play by concept, then offered them ways to achieve it. I've been DMing, with some breaks, for two years now, and since people still show up and ask me when the next game is, I'd say that rules didn't impact that.
It took you a whole week? Damn. Most of my new players pick up 5e in less than half a session.

ComaVision

2018-08-24, 01:31 PM

It took you a whole week? Damn. Most of my new players pick up 5e in less than half a session.

I've introduced many players to D&D 3.5e and I just help them make their first character, then we start playing. 3.5e is complicated for the people that want to get into it but it can do casual games just as easily (at least at lower levels).

ericgrau

2018-08-24, 01:33 PM

They are both very different. If you enjoy the character creation mini game, lots of character customization and many different subsystems, 3.5e is the system for you.

If you like a simpler system thats easier to teach to people new to rpg's, and that's (arguably) easier to balance, 5e is more your thing.

This. Plus I'd like to add that I like both a lot, unlike 4e which tried to do something simple but different. 5e got scared of alienating people and so tried to blend 2e through 4e. In spite of its attempts at being similar to 3.5e (and 2e and 4e), it is a much simpler system. So like everyone says it depends what you want.

My group is playing 5e right now and it's nice, but everyone is itching to get back into detailed character creation and everything-customization so we're going to go back to 3.5e next. After that, who knows.

IMO it's 100% up to you. Do you want simple (5e) or advanced (3.5e)? If they're both new to you then you might want to try 5e and then 3.5e. Like playing a game first on easy mode but with a bunch of options locked, and then playing again with a bajillion crazy options so you don't get bored.

Pleh

2018-08-24, 04:28 PM

To clarify (I've been running errands and unable to keep up with the ongoing, but it's not worth making another wall of text to follow every argument so far), I never meant to suggest 5e superior to 3.5. To me they seem like they are too different to compare, but at doing the things they're meant to do, they both do it well.

My disposition against 3.5 was more against the bias that overinflates people's opinions of 3.5. 5e fixes a lot of 3.5's problems. I always enjoyed how streamlined the system is and how they encourage adding complexity in a modular format. Pick your favorite parts of 3.5 and add them a la carte rather than worrying about helping new players put all the pieces together.

That's why it's ridiculous to me to preach about crafting master trackers and construct masters. Ultimately, you're just saying 3.5 can optimize for pedantically niche roles in the game. It's kind of like boasting that you can spit over a whole corn field. Cool story, but exactly how does that help anyone?

I find 5e easier to DM for than 3.5, precisely because 3.5 has all those unnecessary fiddly bits. Sure, I can do the bookkeeping to track them all, but in 5e, I don't need to. 5e encourages the DM to operate on intuition and offers some guidelines to inform that intuition. 5e says, "play the game YOUR way."

And then optimizing 3.5ers say, "but you didn't tell us how."

You come up with your own solutions. I really love the 5e monster manual. The stories and descriptions of the monsters are super helpful in developing encounters that use the monsters because now I understand the monster's origin and motivations far better than 3.5 ever bothered with. It's easier to modify their origins and motivations with the crystal clear descriptions in that book. So much so that I barely feel the need to add character levels or much modify the monsters at all. The monster doesn't need unique stats to be part of a unique encounter. I can focus less on the balance of the monster's HD and attack bonus and worry more about writing some dialogue for him to spit at the party between rounds of combat.

And why buy a book that tells you to play however you want? Same reason you might want a computer that just does what you tell it to do rather than one you have to constantly rummage through the back end to customize.

And again with the arguments about Bounded Accuracy: if the hero shouldn't have a chance to fail, 5e doesn't require a DM or player to impose a die roll. You can just auto win. I'm not sure why anyone needs to be told that for any system.

RoboEmperor

2018-08-24, 04:31 PM

That's why it's ridiculous to me to preach about crafting master trackers and construct masters. Ultimately, you're just saying 3.5 can optimize for pedantically niche roles in the game. It's kind of like boasting that you can spit over a whole corn field. Cool story, but exactly how does that help anyone?

It helps me because I actually play those pedantically niche roles in real games, 100% of the time. My builds aren't theoretical unplayable builds that I brag to people about. They are builds I use for an entire adventure levels 1-20.

Pleh

2018-08-24, 04:32 PM

It helps me because I actually play those pedantically niche roles in real games, 100% of the time. My builds aren't theoretical unplayable builds that I brag to people about. They are builds I use for an entire adventure levels 1-20.

Cool story, but it doesn't make 3.5 better at all. It just makes it the game for you and a statistically small number of other people. Go crazy and enjoy it, but don't try to say it makes one game better than another.

Albions_Angel

2018-08-24, 04:49 PM

Cool story, but it doesn't make 3.5 better at all. It just makes it the game for you and a statistically small number of other people. Go crazy and enjoy it, but don't try to say it makes one game better than another.

Hang on, thats exactly what you are doing. Maybe its not your intention, but you are totally saying 5th is better. You just used the argument that 3.5 isnt better because no one uses niche builds, were responded to with a counter example of someone using the very build you said people dont use, and then dismissed it with "cool story".

Its ok for you to think one version is more preferable. At the end of the day, thats what we are all doing. But you cant say you think they are different, then heavily favour one while trying to argue why people cant favour the other, THEN dismiss their arguments.

Also, saying 3.5e is only different in niche roles
3.5 can optimize for pedantically niche roles in the game [is] like boasting that you can spit over a whole corn field. Cool story, but exactly how does that help anyone? is disingenuous at best. 5e has no counterpart to Magic of Incarnum classes that can essentially swap out their gear at will. It has no equivalent of a binder, who can change class at will. It has no Magus/Duskblade which is an out of the box gish, a role so ubiquitous in TTRPGs that it has its own term.

By all means, favour 5th. You find it nicer to DM. You find the simplicity of the classes a breath of fresh air. But dont claim only high op theory crafters enjoy 3.5e. I dont theory craft. I cant. Im simply not that good. Theres still a binder of 20 characters on my shelf I want to try, many of which fulfill very specific party roles that are common concepts, but not covered well in 5th. And certainly dont claim you dont favour one system, then attempt to deconstruct or dismiss peoples defense of the other system.

Kurald Galain

2018-08-24, 04:57 PM

Also, saying 3.5e is only different in niche roles is disingenuous at best.

Yes. If your character concept is as simple as being the expert at some skill, then 5E is going to tell you that no, the mechanics don't allow that.

Now a lot of players are fine with being the best at their skill at all times EXCEPT whenever it's actually important in-game; but also numerous players don't like having an ability which is contradicted by the rules.

Albions_Angel

2018-08-24, 05:09 PM

Im sorry Kurald, Im not sure I follow. I meant my post as a direct answer to Pleh, and that particular line to read more like "Also, saying '3.5e is more diverse only for TO niche roles' is disingenuous at best."

Given thats what I meant it to read, I cant actually make sense of your comment. Would you mind expanding your point? I will edit my original post to read better.

Ignimortis

2018-08-24, 09:58 PM

Ranked from easiest to hardest:
1. DMing a 5e one-shot
2. DMing a 3.5e one-shot
3. DMing a 5e adventure path
4. DMing a 5e homebrew campaign
5. DMing a 3.5e adventure path
6. DMing a 3.5e homebrew campaign

It took you a whole week? Damn. Most of my new players pick up 5e in less than half a session.

That involved creating characters with them, filling out charsheets, and in general it was a long "session 0". Regardless of that, I'm pretty sure that at least two of them wouldn't be satisfied with 5e's options considering their characters.

By all means, favour 5th. You find it nicer to DM. You find the simplicity of the classes a breath of fresh air. But dont claim only high op theory crafters enjoy 3.5e. I dont theory craft. I cant. Im simply not that good. Theres still a binder of 20 characters on my shelf I want to try, many of which fulfill very specific party roles that are common concepts, but not covered well in 5th. And certainly dont claim you dont favour one system, then attempt to deconstruct or dismiss peoples defense of the other system.

Same. My OP-fu is only strong enough to make things work and in general knowledge of the less obscure tricks and useful feats, etc. I've got several concepts that won't work in 5e and will in 3.5e, and most of them aren't even spellcasters.

Kurald Galain

2018-08-25, 01:20 AM

Im sorry Kurald, Im not sure I follow. I meant my post as a direct answer to Pleh, and that particular line to read more like "Also, saying '3.5e is more diverse only for TO niche roles' is disingenuous at best."
I'm agreeing with you and also answering to Pleh :smallsmile: (with an example that is NOT a niche role and IS a reason why numerous people dislike 5E)

iTreeby

2018-08-25, 06:27 AM

Yes. If your character concept is as simple as being the expert at some skill, then 5E is going to tell you that no, the mechanics don't allow that.

Now a lot of players are fine with being the best at their skill at all times EXCEPT whenever it's actually important in-game; but also numerous players don't like having an ability which is contradicted by the rules.

In 5E any character can get expertise in any skill with a feat. Could you clarify what ability is controdicted by the rules?

Rhedyn

2018-08-25, 08:37 AM

death390

2018-08-25, 08:38 AM

In 5E any character can get expertise in any skill with a feat. Could you clarify what ability is controdicted by the rules?

expertise is not the answer to the problem. + 12 vs + 6 is still meh off of a d20. +12 with +3 from attribute still has 1 in 4 chance to fail a "hard" check DC 20. with opposed checks, expertise negates each-other, expertise vs not is a net 30% advantage, and this leads to the only real difference in skill being proficiency disparity. this is due the the fact that attributes probably only differ by 1 modifier.

AND it still doesn't address some peoples problem with "arbitrary" DC's. the exact same wall to climb, lock to pick, ect, can have different DC's based on how the DM is feeling at that point in time. the pr,oblem with bounded accuracy is that the variance on the die makes less of an impact; but at the same point that means that when DCs change by 1/4 of the die your chances of succeeding wildly. at least with 3.5 e general idea can be obtained even if it varies within 5 pts the larger quantity of skill point maximums mean that has less of an impact.

iTreeby

2018-08-25, 10:12 AM

expertise is not the answer to the problem
Kurald is saying only bards and rogues get expertise, that is factually incorrect. Any character that is human or half elf or half orc can also get expertise as a feat. I am not saying that the other points don't exist.

Personally I dont feel the need to build a character that fetishises success to the degree that i need to know I'll succeed on every x check I'm the campaign during character creation.

Personally I don't find that failure at a given skill/attack/save equals lack of player agency.

Personally I feel failure results in dramatic tension that improves the story.

Obviously not everyone feels these ways, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, in 5th edition any given race, or class can get expertise in any skill.

death390

2018-08-25, 10:20 AM

Kurald is saying only bards and rogues get expertise, that is factually incorrect. Any character that is human or half elf or half orc can also get expertise as a feat. I am not saying that the other points don't exist.

Personally I dont feel the need to build a character that fetishises success to the degree that i need to know I'll succeed on every x check I'm the campaign during character creation.

Personally I don't find that failure at a given skill/attack/save equals lack of player agency.

Personally I feel failure results in dramatic tension that improves the story.

Obviously not everyone feels these ways, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, in 5th edition any given race, or class can get expertise in any skill.

failure is fine to an extent, if the character is average then why should they not fail a 25-50% of the time with average or hard checks. but if part of the character is this is thier thing then why should they fail more than 25% of the time.

the investment of a character into some niche is good for many (not all) characters to give they more personality. same thing with flaws, a master thief who can pick a lock with a strand of hair yet is afraid of heights, thus sucks at climbing is a valid character. well 5e can get 1/2 of that right with just being bad at climbing, problem is he isn't much good at opening locks, due to bounded accuracy, either. at then end of the day if he has expertise in thieves tools but not climbing that's what 6pts difference?

in 3.5 you can focus on opening locks and when you get good enough to do it successfully most of the time can jump the difficulty to do it faster. 5e your lucky to open the lock at all.

JNAProductions

2018-08-25, 11:16 AM

I wasn't aware +17 (with a floor of 27) was only six points away from -1 (with a floor of 0).

Knaight

2018-08-25, 11:57 AM

Some people are bending over backwards to defend 5e's nearly non-existent skill system.

In reality, you people just prefer that approach to how clunky 3e's skill system is. If you had a skill system as simple as 5e's but gave characters real abilities like 3e's can, you would prefer that system.
Yes, clearly everyone who has different preferences than you is just lying about their preferences.

You might say you won't. You might say you prefer "DM writes the skill rules" but that is ridiculous if both systems are equally simple.
The DM doesn't write the skill rules - they decide when to call for a check, and how difficult that is. You clearly dislike this, but let me make this clear: I've played a lot of RPGs, more than enough to have a good sense of personal preference. This is pretty close to a requirement, and every time I GM something that breaks the requirement (including systems I generally like, e.g. Torchbearer) the time I spend looking up tables annoys me to no end.

There are two separate major criticisms of 5e's skill system, that have a tendency to get conflated. Breaking them out and treating them distinctly, we have:
1) There's too much decision making by the DM. (The specific problem people have with this varies).
2) The skill bonuses are too low.

I'd agree with the second entirely, for all that some of the hyperbole around it gets excessive. Inasmuch as I have a standard system it's Fudge, where an untrained character has a whopping 18.52% chance of doing as well as the best character does at their absolute worst (which is only 1.23% of the time). I like these numbers, but I actually reduced that range with a house rule years ago, to bring the variance down, such that the untrained character has only a 3.7% chance of doing as well as the absolute worst the best character can do, which they have only a 3.7% chance of doing. I like these numbers, and clearly 5e doesn't operate in this paradigm at all. The untrained character still has a +1 or so on average (slightly more, given the removal of racial penalties), which is a 20% chance of doing what the very best character can do at their worst, and that's with various ways the system pulls them closer if they're at similar level.

Kish

2018-08-25, 12:02 PM

Kurald is saying only bards and rogues get expertise, that is factually incorrect. Any character that is human or half elf or half orc can also get expertise as a feat.

...if the DM uses the feats optional rule.

Personally I dont feel the need to build a character that fetishises success to the degree that i need to know I'll succeed on every x check I'm the campaign during character creation.

Just so you know, when you caricature your debate opponents like that, the impression I get is 1) you know perfectly well that your argument is wrong, and 2) you're invested in winning to the point where trying to engage with you is pointless.

Something you might want to take into account. (It also happens to be rude as hell.)

There are two separate major criticisms of 5e's skill system, that have a tendency to get conflated. Breaking them out and treating them distinctly, we have:
1) There's too much decision making by the DM. (The specific problem people have with this varies).
2) The skill bonuses are too low.

Not quite. For me, the problem is that the numbers are much too close such that you're always mediocre, not that they're low. "The skill system's busted because my 18th-level ranger, who should be a master tracker, keeps failing to track orcs through mud" is neither better nor worse than "The skill system's busted because my 1st-level ranger, who should be a beginning tracker, keeps succeeding at tracking halflings over solid stone."

JNAProductions

2018-08-25, 12:03 PM

The vast majority of DMs do use feats.

That's sorta like saying that your 3.5 build doesn't work due to Multiclass XP penalties-yes, TECHNICALLY that's a rule, but how many DMs use that?

RoboEmperor

2018-08-25, 12:08 PM

JNAProductions

2018-08-25, 12:15 PM

DMs in high-op games imposing no leniency on players because they got enough powerful stuff.

Fair. Just like there are a small amount of DMs in 5E who don't use feats.

But, in far more games than not, you will see Feats, just like in 3rd, you'll only very rarely see multiclass XP penalties.

So it's disingenuous to claim that players won't have access to feats, in most cases. (Obviously if there's an Optimization thread that says "My DM doesn't use feats, how do I make this good?" then yeah, no feats, but it's not the default of actual play.)

ThatMoonGuy

2018-08-25, 12:25 PM

The vast majority of DMs do use feats.

That's sorta like saying that your 3.5 build doesn't work due to Multiclass XP penalties-yes, TECHNICALLY that's a rule, but how many DMs use that?

Wasn't AL itself discussing restricting player's to use only one of: optional system (aka, feats and multiclassing) or matterial from non-core sources?

Still, like many said, failure is just half the thing with a proficiency based Skill system. Other problems is, as many described, the fact that there's only so much difference you can create without granular skills. Back in 3.5e I could make a character who was a Wizard dedicated to crafting weapons and magical itens and could have he be very good at that very early on. I could also make a Wizard who didn't give two damns about that and who couldn't cast a coin to save his life. I could make a Wizard who was specialized in history, geography and linguistics and had a lot of dedication to those fields. Any character I built to be centered around those things could be extremely good as long as I was willing to let it be bad at many other things. Or I could be not that good at a bunch of things. If I played a Factotum, I could have one point in every skill in the game and while that may not be an extremely optimal choice, it was a possibility inherent to the system. I could focus on anywhere from a single to twenty skills and anything in between those.

And I think, at its core, that's the difference I feel between 3.5e and 5e. Not only because of age but also because of philosophy, 5e doesn't give you as much room for personalization. In exchange for that, it does seem to be an easier system to DM since you sort of always know what to expect from characters. One of my groups switched from Pathfinder to 5e precisely because that.

JNAProductions

2018-08-25, 12:32 PM

You do realize you can still have a Wizard who specializes in, say, History and Religion, just fine in 5E?

And what about poor Fighters, in 3.5? They get 2 Skill Points per level. They're not Int-based.

I mean, you could try to claim that Fighters in 5E only get two skills, and they're therefore equivalent, except Fighters actually get four skills (two from class, two from background) which is the minimum for any character, and moreover, each skill in 5E covers a broader range of activities than any given skill in 3.5. It can lead to some homogenization, such as if you're good at climbing, you're also good at swimming, but at least it lets Fighters and the like be competent at physical tasks, as opposed to 3.5, where you'd be lucky to have a Fighter who knows how to Swim, Climb, Ride, and Balance.

I guess that's kinda a difference between 5E and 3.5. In 3.5, you suck unless you invest in something. In 5E, everyone is baseline competent at things. And I like being competent. I like being able to try something I didn't necessarily specialize in and not be excessively punished for even daring to attempt that.

Edit: Also, to my knowledge, you can multiclass freely and take feats freely in AL. It's just that you can only use a max of one non-core book.

ThatMoonGuy

2018-08-25, 12:44 PM

Edit: Also, to my knowledge, you can multiclass freely and take feats freely in AL. It's just that you can only use a max of one non-core book.

I was quoting from memory, so I'll believe in you. I do recall the discussion but that might be just misremembrance.

You do realize you can still have a Wizard who specializes in, say, History and Religion, just fine in 5E?

And what about poor Fighters, in 3.5? They get 2 Skill Points per level. They're not Int-based.

I mean, you could try to claim that Fighters in 5E only get two skills, and they're therefore equivalent, except Fighters actually get four skills (two from class, two from background) which is the minimum for any character, and moreover, each skill in 5E covers a broader range of activities than any given skill in 3.5. It can lead to some homogenization, such as if you're good at climbing, you're also good at swimming, but at least it lets Fighters and the like be competent at physical tasks, as opposed to 3.5, where you'd be lucky to have a Fighter who knows how to Swim, Climb, Ride, and Balance.

I guess that's kinda a difference between 5E and 3.5. In 3.5, you suck unless you invest in something. In 5E, everyone is baseline competent at things. And I like being competent. I like being able to try something I didn't necessarily specialize in and not be excessively punished for even daring to attempt that.

I know you can specialize in things. Never claimed otherwise. What I do claim is that a model where you specialize by points lends itself to more options since you can mix and match things as you like. You could invest it all in one thing via a combination of SP and Feats or you could go for a very broad range of fields and all were equally valid choices, albeit with different consequences.

I also won't deny that Fighter had the short end of the stick. I don't hold 3.5e to be the absolute best system ever and it did make a lot of mistakes. But if you disregard specifics (like fighters having only 2SP/Level) and compare the two models, the 3.5e Skill system does give you more room for making decisions in a level by level basis.

Afgncaap5

2018-08-25, 12:44 PM

I'm perfectly willing to say that I think 5e is the superior system.

I *prefer* 3.5 because I know it so well, it has so much more content, and I can throw together a game in five minutes because I really don't need the core books at this point.

But yeah, 5e is better. Technically. I just don't wanna play it as often.

OgresAreCute

2018-08-25, 12:47 PM

I was quoting from memory, so I'll believe in you. I do recall the discussion but that might be just misremembrance.

Mr. Mearls made a poll on twitter whether or not variant rules like multiclassing and feats should count as the +1 from Core+1. I believe the result was a resounding "no".

JNAProductions

2018-08-25, 12:47 PM

ThatMoonGuy

2018-08-25, 01:00 PM

3.5 Skill System has more options and granularity... But how much of that is used?

Whenever I build a character, I just select skills I want to be good in and max them out, a number equal to base SP+Int Mod. I'm aware you CAN put, say, 5 ranks here and 7 there when you're level 10, but how often is that done? Outside of 5 ranks in a few for synergy bonuses or whatnot, which is basically just spending 5 SP elsewhere to get a bonus to the skill you actually want.

I do see it a lot in my tables. Sure, that's a very small sample and it may very well be the exception and not the rule but it's really a matter of mindset and campaign style. In urban campaings or those with lots of intrigue, certain skills which normally wouldn't be useful end up becoming important and characters then have to know how to do a bit of everything to be able to function properly.

Another thing I liked in 3.5e was skill requirements, skill tricks and Feats that used Skill points. DSP used that in very interesing ways on their PoW line but ToB had other cool things. That was a good reason for putting odd points in skills. You could do that with proficiency, I suppose, but since those are more like Feats it's hard to pick just the right value.

Kish

2018-08-25, 01:28 PM

3.5 Skill System has more options and granularity... But how much of that is used?

Whenever I build a character, I just select skills I want to be good in and max them out, a number equal to base SP+Int Mod.

After which, you are good at some things and bad at others, instead of, like in some hypothetical other system, mediocre at all pretty much regardless of where you put your skill points.

You seem to be addressing an argument I haven't seen anyone make.

Psyren

2018-08-25, 01:56 PM

After which, you are good at some things and bad at others, instead of, like in some hypothetical other system, mediocre at all pretty much regardless of where you put your skill points.

You seem to be addressing an argument I haven't seen anyone make.

Hey now, be fair! The DM can simply decide you're good at everything by choosing easy DCs :smallbiggrin:

(Incentive to buy the pizza I suppose)

iTreeby

2018-08-25, 03:31 PM

Just so you know, when you caricature your debate opponents like that, the impression I get is 1) you know perfectly well that your argument is wrong, and 2) you're invested in winning to the point where trying to engage with you is pointless.

Something you might want to take into account. (It also happens to be rude as hell.)

I'm not arguing anything. That's my point "people" are saying that I'm bending over backwards for 5th. I'm not. I just wanted to say "there are more ways to get expertise than you are saying" not "and that's why fifth is better"

Regardless of the edition I don't feel the need to play that type of character. In fifth it isn't an option! Keep telling me what I'm "arguing" and I'll tell you to eat an Irish baby.

Kish

2018-08-25, 04:37 PM

Hah. Seriously? You...are aware that your posts before your most recent one are still visible, right?

iTreeby

2018-08-25, 05:16 PM

Eat an Irish baby.

Calthropstu

2018-08-25, 07:17 PM

5e is easier to learn and easier to find a group for. It also has better game balance and organized play support. Thus, it is better. QED.

PF is very easy to find groups for. Easier even than 5e.

Kyrell1978

2018-08-25, 08:37 PM

Eat an Irish baby.

So.....should we eat the third or the fifth Irish baby?

Troacctid

2018-08-25, 09:38 PM

PF is very easy to find groups for. Easier even than 5e.
That might be true for a given local community, but 5e is objectively more popular worldwide.

Calthropstu

2018-08-25, 10:12 PM

That might be true for a given local community, but 5e is objectively more popular worldwide.

Maybe currently in sales, because it's new. But in games being run is another story. I live in Phoenix, which is a major city and pfs ALWAYS outshines the Adventurers league every week, sometimes by an amount of 4:1.

The game store I frequent also allows home games in the store and even that sees more PF games. I looked online a few weeks ago and games run was pretty solidly leaning PF.

Could have just been the sites I looked at though so eh?

CharonsHelper

2018-08-25, 10:48 PM

+12 with +3 from attribute still has 1 in 4 chance to fail a "hard" check DC 20.

To be nitpicky - you would only have a 1 in 5 chance to fail, as on a roll of 5+ you would pass. 1-4 is only 1/5 of the 20 numbers on a d20.

Ignimortis

2018-08-26, 12:01 AM

I wasn't aware +17 (with a floor of 27) was only six points away from -1 (with a floor of 0).

For that +17 and floor of 27 you have to be a 17th level character with at least 11 levels of rogue and maxed out ability score pertaining to the roll. Note that both 3.5 and 5e use the same base d20. A 3.5 character who wants to have +17 with a 27 floor has to be, well, maybe level 7 in any of the classes that have what they need as class skills? That's +10 from ranks alone, +5 can be easily gotten from a cheap +5 competence magic item, and you can have the requisite ability score at +5 if it's your main stat or at +2 if it's not. That's not counting synergy bonuses, hyperspecialization like Skill Focus, etc.

I have a level 6 warlock in my campaign who has +24 to Knowledge (Planes). Technically, he's already the most knowledgeable mortal person in the world on other planes, demons, etc. And I think that's a good thing.

I guess that's kinda a difference between 5E and 3.5. In 3.5, you suck unless you invest in something. In 5E, everyone is baseline competent at things. And I like being competent. I like being able to try something I didn't necessarily specialize in and not be excessively punished for even daring to attempt that.

That's a really strange thing to say. Since 5e and 3.5 basically use the same dice and about the same DCs for most mundane things, you suck at things about the same if you don't invest in them, and are supremely competent in something you invest into in 3.5, while...somewhat competent at that in 5e. Non-proficient skills are at -1 to +2 usually, same with zero investment in 3.5. You roll a d20, etc. You aren't likely to open a lock if you're not able to use lockpicks (Open Lock/Disable Device or Thieves' Tools). You aren't likely to know things that are outside of common knowledge (DC10, should probably be Easy to know).

With skills in 5e, unless I'm playing a high-level rogue, I don't feel like I'm baseline competent at something, more like I get to choose where I suck less and hope that the dice let me be cool once in a while.

3.5 Skill System has more options and granularity... But how much of that is used?

Whenever I build a character, I just select skills I want to be good in and max them out, a number equal to base SP+Int Mod. I'm aware you CAN put, say, 5 ranks here and 7 there when you're level 10, but how often is that done? Outside of 5 ranks in a few for synergy bonuses or whatnot, which is basically just spending 5 SP elsewhere to get a bonus to the skill you actually want.

As someone who usually has 6+ skillpoints to spend every level, I usually max out a few relevant skills to my concept and spend the rest on things that aren't essential, but are nice to have. My current PF character has maxed Acrobatics, Stealth, Craft (sketching) and Autohypnosis. Since I get 7 skill points per level, that allows me to get some OK Knowledges (Arcana, Planes), some social skills (mostly Bluff), and some one-offs that are better off trained (Ride, most knowledges).

JNAProductions

2018-08-26, 12:07 AM

See, I prefer to let players attempt things.

In 3.5, it's very easy to fall off the d20 roll. Take your level 6 Warlock-they have +24 to Planes checks. Compare that to someone of average or even above-average intellect (10-13) and no training, or the minimum 1 Rank to do hit DCs above 10.

Your minimum is 25.
Their maximum is 22.

Anything that you can possibly fail, they can never even try. Anything they can succeed on, you can never fail.

To challenge you means NO ONE ELSE gets to participate in that. And I don't like that.

This is a personal opinion, by the way-there's nothing inherently wrong with a system where an expert can do things impossible to the layman. I just find that it's less fun than letting everyone at least have a chance to contribute.

Calthropstu

2018-08-26, 12:52 AM

Psyren

2018-08-26, 04:36 AM

This is a personal opinion, by the way-there's nothing inherently wrong with a system where an expert can do things impossible to the layman. I just find that it's less fun than letting everyone at least have a chance to contribute.

Whereas I'd much rather have the verisimilitude myself, as Calthropstu more humorously illustrated.

Pleh

2018-08-26, 05:09 AM

Hang on, thats exactly what you are doing. Maybe its not your intention, but you are totally saying 5th is better. You just used the argument that 3.5 isnt better because no one uses niche builds, were responded to with a counter example of someone using the very build you said people dont use, and then dismissed it with "cool story".

No, I never said, "no one uses niche builds." That is an obviously false claim.

I said the number that do use niche builds is statistically small enough to be worth ignoring in the discussion.

Its ok for you to think one version is more preferable. At the end of the day, thats what we are all doing. But you cant say you think they are different, then heavily favour one while trying to argue why people cant favour the other, THEN dismiss their arguments.

It's not unreasonable for me to do any of that. I'm advocating 5e more heavily because other people are slanted so heavily against it, so if the goal is balance between the two, I have to argue in favor of 5e to put the two closer to equal.

And I can dismiss any argument that can be shown to be irrelevant. Statistical anomalies don't count as statistical evidence. We have to consider a larger data set than a single point. That is true regardless anyone's preference or side of the debate.

Also, saying 3.5e is only different in niche roles is disingenuous at best. 5e has no counterpart to Magic of Incarnum classes that can essentially swap out their gear at will. It has no equivalent of a binder, who can change class at will. It has no Magus/Duskblade which is an out of the box gish, a role so ubiquitous in TTRPGs that it has its own term.

Even on this forum, I've only ever seen MoI occasionally dipped to pick up a few optimization gimmicks (and ToM even less frequently used). Outside this forum, it seems like most 3.5 players barely recognize its existance (consequences of developing a standalone/replacement magic subsystem, I suppose; few want to learn it after taking the time to learn the first magic system). Between MoI and ToM, it seems little is really lost in neglecting them. And, as someone pointed out, 5e is gradually adding more content like this.

Ultimately, I don't see any real need for MoI in 5e. Binder could be cool, but why not just roll it in as a paragon path for Warlock? Those two classes were always pretty tight with each other.

As for gishes and duskblades, duskblades are pretty mediocre at best, aren't they? Can't you gish in 5e with multiclassing? Take sorcerer and fighter and call yourself "duskblade." It's about as good as when common 3.5 advice for monk building is, "play unarmed swordsage and call yourself monk," or for assassin, "play straight rogue and take money for hit jobs."

dont claim only high op theory crafters enjoy 3.5e.

Good news, that wasn't my claim.

My claim was that even in 3.5, niche roles tend to require theory crafting to make functional, but even without that, subsist of an insignificant number of data points and so aren't meaningful to quality comparisons, thus putting 5e and 3.5 on the same footing.

And certainly dont claim you dont favour one system, then attempt to deconstruct or dismiss peoples defense of the other system.

Why not? I can argue against poor argumentation without disagreeing with the premise used for its foundation.

The idea that 3.5 has more character options is irrefutable, as is the point that it makes some concepts viable where 5e doesn't.

But it's poor argumentation to then suggest that this makes 3.5 better than 5e. That depends rather greatly on how useful those extra options are. I dispute the notion that we can say, "because of MoI, ToM, and ToB, 3.5 is better."

That makes it more suited to very particular games and tables. It doesn't mean much regarding qualitative comparisons.

Kurald Galain

2018-08-26, 06:24 AM

Kurald is saying only

Kurald is saying that while there is a feature called expertise, this doesn't get you even remotely close to the skill level that a real-world expert would have. And while this is a matter of taste, personally I prefer my mid-level fantasy characters to be stronger than my real-world self and friends, not weaker.

lesser_minion

2018-08-26, 06:25 AM

Ok, so we're gonna build us a rocket to the moon. Are you ready farmer bob?
Ok time to perform open heart surgery. Are you ready farmer bob?
Ok, time to deactivate this nuclear warhead. Are you ready farmer bob?

Building a moon rocket is a team effort that takes years. And most of it isn't rocket science. With a little guidance and practice, Bob could almost certainly churn out a few parts for your moon rocket.
Heart surgery is, likewise, a team effort that doesn't involve that many heart surgeons. Again, there's almost certainly something Bob can do to help, rather than just trying not to get in the way.
A layperson disarming a nuke on a good roll is perfectly reasonable. They're actually fairly fragile, and basically impossible to set off by accident.
There aren't many rocket scientists, heart surgeons, and nuclear weapon technicians out there, and they aren't overwhelmingly better than anyone else at other tasks, not even tasks that relate to their specialities (as shown in the story about Einstein losing an argument with a bus conductor over his change). It follows that these people have decent scores in unusual skills (i.e., a bounded accuracy approach), not ludicrously high scores in commonplace ones (i.e., the unbounded approach).

Ignimortis

2018-08-26, 06:43 AM

Building a moon rocket is a team effort that takes years. And most of it isn't rocket science. With a little guidance and practice, Bob could almost certainly churn out a few parts for your moon rocket.
Heart surgery is, likewise, a team effort that doesn't involve that many heart surgeons. Again, there's almost certainly something Bob can do to help, rather than just trying not to get in the way.
A layperson disarming a nuke on a good roll is perfectly reasonable. They're actually fairly fragile, and basically impossible to set off by accident.
There aren't many rocket scientists, heart surgeons, and nuclear weapon technicians out there, and they aren't overwhelmingly better than anyone else at other tasks, not even tasks that relate to their specialities (as shown in the story about Einstein losing an argument with a bus conductor over his change). It follows that these people have decent scores in unusual skills (i.e., a bounded accuracy approach), not ludicrously high scores in commonplace ones (i.e., the unbounded approach).

I was under the impression that we're playing heroic fantasy with larger-than-life heroes. Just saying.

Albions_Angel

2018-08-26, 06:45 AM

Exactly. Sure, there arnt many brain surgeons. But the PCs are, by design DR STRANGE levels of good. Otherwise you are a commoner that never gains levels. Thats the point.

lesser_minion

2018-08-26, 07:52 AM

I was under the impression that we're playing heroic fantasy with larger-than-life heroes. Just saying.

That doesn't really support the idea that realism is an advantage of unbounded systems, does it?

Kish

2018-08-26, 08:14 AM

Tajerio

2018-08-26, 08:51 AM

Ok, so we're gonna build us a rocket to the moon. Are you ready farmer bob?
Ok time to perform open heart surgery. Are you ready farmer bob?
Ok, time to deactivate this nuclear warhead. Are you ready farmer bob?

Yeah, no.

I'm not here to defend 5e, having never played it, but this is a disingenuous response.

You've used three 20th-century or later models of technological/scientific endeavor to sustain your point about expert knowledge, even though 3.5 is clearly based on a late medieval pastiche. In that late medieval period, the accumulation of specialized knowledge required to differentiate the layman from the expert so starkly that the expert's absolute worst was better than the layman's absolute best did not exist, save perhaps in a very few niche fields (mathematics and theology spring to mind as examples, and even then it's dubious). In 3.5's assumed world, that kind of skill gap makes sense for things relating to magic and the breadth of the cosmos, like crafting magic arms and armor, knowing about the planes, etc. It does not make sense elsewhere, which has always been one of my problems with the system.

lesser_minion

2018-08-26, 09:29 AM

Not in and of itself. But the argument that the system where anyone, no matter how skilled, always* has a chance of random failure has more verisimilitide is honestly pretty goofy right out of the gate.

That 5e isn't especially realistic is not in dispute. But "more realistic than 3e" is not a high bar to clear.

And if legendary theoretical physicists can get their change wrong then there clearly are at least a few fields where "anyone, no matter how skilled, always has a chance of random failure".

Cosi

2018-08-26, 09:50 AM

Building a moon rocket is a team effort that takes years. And most of it isn't rocket science. With a little guidance and practice, Bob could almost certainly churn out a few parts for your moon rocket.

So if you trained him, he could make the skill check? Yeah, that's the 3e approach, not the 5e one. Your argument against the idea that people need skills to contribute is that if you gave someone skills, he could contribute. Think about why that doesn't make sense for a second.

Exactly. Sure, there arnt many brain surgeons. But the PCs are, by design DR STRANGE levels of good. Otherwise you are a commoner that never gains levels. Thats the point.

Yes. A lot of bad analysis around RPGs happens because people forget that the PCs are supposed to be a certain level of special.

That doesn't really support the idea that realism is an advantage of unbounded systems, does it?

Realism isn't important. Verisimilitude is. And the genre convention for epic fantasy is that it is in fact possible to be substantially better at things than normal people. See: pretty much every myth, and most modern fantasy stories. My personal favorite is Hindu mythology, which literally has a word for "warrior who can defeat over 200 million people in battle".

And if legendary theoretical physicists can get their change wrong then there clearly are at least a few fields where "anyone, no matter how skilled, always has a chance of random failure".

I wasn't aware that making change was a subfield of physics. When can I expect to collect my doctorate for my work as a retail cashier?

Faily

2018-08-26, 09:58 AM

I'm not here to defend 5e, having never played it, but this is a disingenuous response.

You've used three 20th-century or later models of technological/scientific endeavor to sustain your point about expert knowledge, even though 3.5 is clearly based on a late medieval pastiche. In that late medieval period, the accumulation of specialized knowledge required to differentiate the layman from the expert so starkly that the expert's absolute worst was better than the layman's absolute best did not exist, save perhaps in a very few niche fields (mathematics and theology spring to mind as examples, and even then it's dubious). In 3.5's assumed world, that kind of skill gap makes sense for things relating to magic and the breadth of the cosmos, like crafting magic arms and armor, knowing about the planes, etc. It does not make sense elsewhere, which has always been one of my problems with the system.

:smallconfused:

- Reading/writing (it took a long time before literacy was something common among the lower classes)
- Medicine
- Surgery
- Astronomy, or pretty much any field of science
- History (why yes, farmer Bob, tell me more about the Persian empire)
- Engineering

That's just at the top of my head but we could probably add things like economy, politics, and geography on the list too. It's sometimes really hard for us to really try to grasp how limited knowledge was in the older days when literacy was not only reduced, but books were not readily available for a majority of people, and education was non-existant for the majority of population. Whereas we today have benefitted from at least basic education and have a much broader circle of associates to share information with, not to mention the internet that makes it super-easy to learn new things.

And then in D&D settings you can add in other complicated subjects like Planes, Arcana, Dungeoneering, and all the weird **** that falls under Nature and Religion too. The 20th century examples above work just fine because for Farmer Bob a nuclear war-head and an arcane summoning circle linked to Baator is equally complicated and incomprehensible.

Rhedyn

2018-08-26, 11:11 AM

See, I prefer to let players attempt things...
...To challenge you means NO ONE ELSE gets to participate in that. And I don't like that

I don't consider rolling one check participating. You aren't making any choices.

Even the most boring fighter decides where to move, and who to attack.

Everyone rolling a notice check isn't participating. It isn't a decision. It's pointless clunk.

iTreeby

2018-08-26, 11:13 AM

Kurald is saying that while there is a feature called expertise, this doesn't get you even remotely close to the skill level that a real-world expert would have. And while this is a matter of taste, personally I prefer my mid-level fantasy characters to be stronger than my real-world self and friends, not weaker.

Oh, I was just confused because you said only bards and rogues got expertise. I'm not debating your preference. I'm glad to hear you are stronger than a 5e character.

Psyren

2018-08-26, 11:25 AM

That doesn't really support the idea that realism is an advantage of unbounded systems, does it?

Not "realism." Verisimilitude. Big difference.

I was under the impression that we're playing heroic fantasy with larger-than-life heroes. Just saying.

Exactly.

Kyrell1978

2018-08-26, 11:31 AM

Not "realism." Verisimilitude. Big difference.

There are a lot of people who don't understand this difference.

Troacctid

2018-08-26, 11:32 AM

Maybe currently in sales, because it's new. But in games being run is another story. I live in Phoenix, which is a major city and pfs ALWAYS outshines the Adventurers league every week, sometimes by an amount of 4:1.

The game store I frequent also allows home games in the store and even that sees more PF games. I looked online a few weeks ago and games run was pretty solidly leaning PF.

Could have just been the sites I looked at though so eh?
That sounds like an example of a local community.

Roll20 is the most popular virtual tabletop around, and it publishes statistics of which games are most played each quarter. At last count, 5e had more than twice as many active players and about six times as many active games as Pathfinder. http://blog.roll20.net/post/174833007355/the-orr-group-industry-report-q1-2018

Pleh

2018-08-26, 11:34 AM

:smallconfused:

- Reading/writing (it took a long time before literacy was something common among the lower classes)
- Medicine
- Surgery
- Astronomy, or pretty much any field of science
- History (why yes, farmer Bob, tell me more about the Persian empire)
- Engineering

I don't think there's been many DMs that compelled a skill check to read something unless it was encrypted, in which case it's not about literacy anyway.

Medicine and surgery very much do fall in the area where most unskilled people wouldn't try if there wasn't an urgent need for them to do so. However, a medeival farmer likely knows a couple common remedies for minor ailments and has enough experience with injuries and butchering meat to perform minor surgery if required. Odds of success aren't great, but its not auto fail bad unless it's challenging for a doctor, at which point you'll see the doctor lose patients too, just less often.

Science in the middle ages requires something of a disclaimer. It's not like the experts of the day had a substantially better understanding than the farmers. The farmer might not know how to prove pythagorean's theorem, but working on the same field his ancestors worked would likely make him a reasonable authority on the local geography, politics, economics (such as it is), and particularly meteorology. Lacking modern data on weather patterns, a farmer's almanac is probably the best you'll get in predicting the weather. It's pretty much the next best thing to modern meteorology: a journal of weather patterns that judge what is likely to happen based on what has happened before. If you insist it's important that Farmer Bob explain his understanding of astronomy, maybe he learned some from his cousin, Sailor Steve.

"Persian Empire, you say? Oh, yeah, they used to rule these fields. Still got one of their old watchtowers back in my far field. Yeah, my daddy showed me where they used to patrol through our land. They fought the battle of heroes on the farm just a league south...."

Engineering? Anyone who's been on a farm knows there's a ton of improvised engineering that goes on. They can't always afford to replace broken things, so it's common to jury rig equipment. And who do you think builds their homes and farms? There's no housing codes to worry about or wires or plumbing to account for. They get help from their family and friends, but each one of these people have rudimentary knowledge of how to make and fix things. Why? Because engineering as we think of it is an Industrial age concept. On the factory floor, we decided it was more efficient for one person to plan and another to build, rather than each person plan and build. In older eras, it was far more common for everyone to be more independent, something of a low level jack of all trades (at least all the trades relevant to their lives).

Scowling Dragon

2018-08-26, 12:01 PM

I mean to me an argument like this is comparing apples and oranges.
To me the issue is that the apple we are talking about is better (In my opinion) at being an apple then the orange is at being an orange.
Of course, in terms of game design, we are talking about a TRANSITION from apples to oranges so that's also an issue.

Personally, to me, 5e fails at being rules light. Its still very finicky and certain aspects of gameplay and base underlining functions which allow a GM to create things quickly and on the fly are still all over the place. Combat is still very detailed and everything else is still very anemic.

Character building is minimalistic and features very little distinction, even for rules light and low power worlds.
Closest design wise I would say the game spiritually feels like D&D 2e.

To me, at least 3e and even 4e feel like ambitious creations. Attempts at refining and furthering game design. Failures applenty but both attempted new things. I feel like they could exist as attractive systems even without the D&D name.
But 5e to me still feels very much unfinished and stuck together with duct tape design wise. To me it coasts much more on being familiar enough, playable enough, simple enough, without a central design philosophy.
Because its central design philosophy was SUPPOSED to be modularity, and Id say its a MASSIVE failure at that sort of thing. Nearly none of the early design decisions carry over that where discussed.

Which to me is very disapointing because that spoke of much ambition.

Tajerio

2018-08-26, 12:13 PM

:smallconfused:

- Reading/writing (it took a long time before literacy was something common among the lower classes)
- Medicine
- Surgery
- Astronomy, or pretty much any field of science
- History (why yes, farmer Bob, tell me more about the Persian empire)
- Engineering

That's just at the top of my head but we could probably add things like economy, politics, and geography on the list too. It's sometimes really hard for us to really try to grasp how limited knowledge was in the older days when literacy was not only reduced, but books were not readily available for a majority of people, and education was non-existant for the majority of population. Whereas we today have benefitted from at least basic education and have a much broader circle of associates to share information with, not to mention the internet that makes it super-easy to learn new things.

And then in D&D settings you can add in other complicated subjects like Planes, Arcana, Dungeoneering, and all the weird **** that falls under Nature and Religion too. The 20th century examples above work just fine because for Farmer Bob a nuclear war-head and an arcane summoning circle linked to Baator is equally complicated and incomprehensible.

I'd like to agree with what Pleh's said above, and add a few points of my own.

The first point is that the original issue was not "is an expert better than a layman?" but "is an expert at his abject worst better than the layman at his absolute best?" as is often the case in 3.5. Under those guidelines, none of your examples are really going to qualify, except possibly astronomy. Medieval medicine in particular was rubbish, perhaps even more so if the person was an expert, given the startling inaccuracy of foundational texts like Galen.

Secondly, I think I conceded the point already that in the specialized areas of magic and cosmology in 3.5, such a gap is defensible, but you are welcome to try to break down the opened door.

Thirdly, I actually am a historian of early modern Europe who has academically dabbled in the late medieval, so I have a pretty good grasp on how limited knowledge and education were. I think it's important, however, not to overstate the distance between the educated elite and the uneducated general population in response.

Lastly, I think the real point to take away here is that neither 3.5 nor 5e ought to be selling itself on its skills system--the one has so large a gap between the skilled and unskilled that verisimilitude is strained, and the other achieves the same effect by making that gap too narrow.

Luccan

2018-08-26, 12:14 PM

What's interesting is this thread is already 3x as long as the same thread in the 5e subforum. There's a joke about system bloat in there somewhere.

I personally think that if what you're looking for is a system that will run D&D, 5e has everything you need. If what you're looking for is 3.5, then you have to play 3.5 or PF. 5e is not a 3.5 clone. 3.5 runs D&D fine too, but it has a lot of finicky bits that aren't to everyone's taste and probably aren't entirely necessary.

lesser_minion

2018-08-26, 12:34 PM

So if you trained him, he could make the skill check? Yeah, that's the 3e approach, not the 5e one. Your argument against the idea that people need skills to contribute is that if you gave someone skills, he could contribute. Think about why that doesn't make sense for a second.

By 'guidance', I just mean spending an afternoon showing him how to operate a lethe. Expecting this to be represented by forcing Bob to expend extremely limited character build resources on Craft (precision parts) or some such doesn't seem like good game design to me.

Realism isn't important. Verisimilitude is. And the genre convention for epic fantasy is that it is in fact possible to be substantially better at things than normal people. See: pretty much every myth, and most modern fantasy stories. My personal favorite is Hindu mythology, which literally has a word for "warrior who can defeat over 200 million people in battle".

If you look at more closely related works, particularly video games, you'll find that the convention is for god-slayers to be capable of losing to wildlife. It follows from this that 3e is the edition of D&D in most danger of being marked down for failure to adhere to the applicable genre conventions.

I wasn't aware that making change was a subfield of physics. When can I expect to collect my doctorate for my work as a retail cashier?

That's exactly the point. The unbounded accuracy model is based on them both being checks in the same skill, with the more specialised/advanced forms requiring massively higher DCs. The sensible model recognises that although they're related, they're not actually the same thing.

Not "realism." Verisimilitude. Big difference.

The original examples looked like they were about realism to me. And even then, if "Farmer Bob" is a larger-than-life fantasy hero, then it's even less weird for him to be disarming nuclear warheads and helping out with moon rockets.

Cosi

2018-08-26, 12:43 PM

By 'guidance', I just mean spending an afternoon showing him how to operate a lethe. If you think that in 3e, this must be represented by forcing Bob to expend extremely limited character build resources on Craft (precision parts) or some such, then quite frankly that accords with my interpretation of neither the rules nor of how a set of RPG rules ought to work.

I think you'll find the number of spaceship parts made by farmers with a few hours training is zero. If you want to contest that, I'm going to need some actual citations.

If you look at more closely related works, particularly video games, you'll find that the convention is for god-slayers to be capable of losing to wildlife. It follows from this that 3e is the edition of D&D in most danger of being marked down for failure to adhere to the applicable genre conventions.

Games like WoW or Runescape tend to involve even tighter level scaling than D&D. But I'm also pretty sure that "like video games" was a complaint about 4e, so why do I care? The plot of Mistborn is that a bad guy found an infinite loop in the rules and used it to conquer the world. The protagonist wipes out a garrison of ~300 soldiers on a spontaneous mission. The fantasy genre does not have heroes who are only marginally more competent than random strangers. I could name dozens of additional examples, and no examples of protagonists who would lose to a random hobo a double digit percentage of the time. 5e is an abject failure at modeling anything remotely resembling heroic fantasy or D&D.

That's exactly the point. The unbounded accuracy model is based on them both being checks in the same skill, with the more specialised/advanced forms requiring massively higher DCs. The sensible model recognises that although they're related, they're not actually the same thing.

Did you read my post? "Make change" and "do physics" are not the same skill. Compare Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana).

death390

2018-08-26, 12:48 PM

To be nitpicky - you would only have a 1 in 5 chance to fail, as on a roll of 5+ you would pass. 1-4 is only 1/5 of the 20 numbers on a d20.

ah yes thank you, my mind is a bit wonky this week. classes started back up and morning classes + some extra (+extra long) overnight shifts have left me a bit brain dead.

lesser_minion

2018-08-26, 02:27 PM

I think you'll find the number of spaceship parts made by farmers with a few hours training is zero. If you want to contest that, I'm going to need some actual citations.

We're discussing what Bob might be capable of, not what similar people have done.

Games like WoW or Runescape tend to involve even tighter level scaling than D&D.

Such games adhere to the convention that their level scaling isn't representative of what's really going on in-universe, i.e., the level 70 elk in the expansion zone is not that different from the level 60 elk from the end of last expansion, or even the level 6 elk from the newbie zone. Some major MMOs will even adjust (or offer to adjust) your level to the zone you're in so that the level 6 elk is also a threat to your fully-geared god-slayer.

In any event, the universes of these games follow something like bounded accuracy, even when the mechanics don't.

But I'm also pretty sure that "like video games" was a complaint about 4e, so why do I care?

Tabletop game rules are expected to be much closer to the physics of the universe than they are in video games. The "video gamey" complaint had a lot to do with 4e violating that. While people usually aren't happy with MMOs where the elks north of the capital city are 75 levels higher than the ones to the south, I'm pretty sure it's the elk having higher stats than a god that bothers them, not the fact that they can still lose to one.

But aside from that, fantasy RPG video games definitely form part of the convention for D&D's parent genre, and while books and films can certainly inspire elements of TTRPGs, they don't have the same needs.

Finally, these do serve as a counter-example to the belief that bounded accuracy is incompatible with heroic/larger-than-life fantasy.

Cosi

2018-08-26, 02:47 PM

We're discussing what Bob might be capable of, not what similar people have done.

Yes, and Bob is not capable of doing precision machining without significant training. Training best represented by the investment of skill points.

In any event, the universes of these games follow something like bounded accuracy, even when the mechanics don't.

No they don't. Look at the cinematic at the end of Warcraft III: Frozen Throne. The Lich King specifically needs Arthas to stand against Illidan at Icecrown. He can't just send a bunch of ghouls to mob him. If anything, the setting is less bounded accuracy than the games. In Warcraft 3 gameplay, you totally can gank a max-level Demon Hunter with a big enough pile of ghouls. Sargeras is immune to mortal weapons. The old gods were powerful enough that killing one of them permanently damaged the world. The idea that the lore of WoW is in any way "bounded accuracy" based is absurd. I can't speak as much to Runescape, but IIRC the gods in that setting include planet crackers.

Finally, these do serve as a counter-example to the belief that bounded accuracy is incompatible with heroic/larger-than-life fantasy.

I'm confused by how a game where the second or third ranked big bad (IIRC there's at least one level above Sargeras revealed so far) is completely immune to mortal weapons is an example of a setting with bounded accuracy.

Psyren

2018-08-26, 02:51 PM

If you look at more closely related works, particularly video games, you'll find that the convention is for god-slayers to be capable of losing to wildlife. It follows from this that 3e is the edition of D&D in most danger of being marked down for failure to adhere to the applicable genre conventions.

You're painting a very incomplete picture here. 99% of the time, those wildlife are capable of challenging the godslayers because they themselves are powered up beyond the biology of wildlife in our world. Either the Great Evil is infecting the biome, or the bears in the Ancient Land have always been that strong, or both. World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy, Diablo, and tons of other examples illustrate this.

That's exactly the point. The unbounded accuracy model is based on them both being checks in the same skill, with the more specialised/advanced forms requiring massively higher DCs. The sensible model recognises that although they're related, they're not actually the same thing.

The fact that you consider bounded accuracy to be the "sensible model" speaks volumes about the likelihood of us coming to an accord on just about anything.

I tend to use them interchangeably, tbh.

And that's why you're wrong, but it explains the rest of what you're writing at least.

Cosi

2018-08-26, 02:57 PM

The fact that you consider bounded accuracy to be the "sensible model" speaks volumes about the likelihood of us coming to an accord on just about anything.

Also that the point he's making is in bad faith, because the complaint is that skills are too broad and the proposed solution is to change level scaling. The question of whether you can be good at Physics but bad at Change Making depends entirely on whether you have separate skills for Physics and Change Making. No edition of D&D does, because neither of those things is important enough to warrant it's own skill. But in a game where Einstein is actually an appropriate character (presumably one about playing 20th century intellectuals), it would be entirely appropriate for them to be separate skills as that would allow you to capture important genre moments, like the Einstein incident minion is harping on, or the tendency of professors to have less ability with classroom technology than their students. But that doesn't require bounded accuracy. A world where Einstein has +30 to Physics and +2 to Change Making produces the desired result every bit as much as one where he has +6 to a generic Mathematics skill, and has the benefit of explaining how he's managed to produce novel results in Physics.

Faily

2018-08-26, 03:26 PM

I don't think there's been many DMs that compelled a skill check to read something unless it was encrypted, in which case it's not about literacy anyway.

Medicine and surgery very much do fall in the area where most unskilled people wouldn't try if there wasn't an urgent need for them to do so. However, a medeival farmer likely knows a couple common remedies for minor ailments and has enough experience with injuries and butchering meat to perform minor surgery if required. Odds of success aren't great, but its not auto fail bad unless it's challenging for a doctor, at which point you'll see the doctor lose patients too, just less often.

Science in the middle ages requires something of a disclaimer. It's not like the experts of the day had a substantially better understanding than the farmers. The farmer might not know how to prove pythagorean's theorem, but working on the same field his ancestors worked would likely make him a reasonable authority on the local geography, politics, economics (such as it is), and particularly meteorology. Lacking modern data on weather patterns, a farmer's almanac is probably the best you'll get in predicting the weather. It's pretty much the next best thing to modern meteorology: a journal of weather patterns that judge what is likely to happen based on what has happened before. If you insist it's important that Farmer Bob explain his understanding of astronomy, maybe he learned some from his cousin, Sailor Steve.

"Persian Empire, you say? Oh, yeah, they used to rule these fields. Still got one of their old watchtowers back in my far field. Yeah, my daddy showed me where they used to patrol through our land. They fought the battle of heroes on the farm just a league south...."

Engineering? Anyone who's been on a farm knows there's a ton of improvised engineering that goes on. They can't always afford to replace broken things, so it's common to jury rig equipment. And who do you think builds their homes and farms? There's no housing codes to worry about or wires or plumbing to account for. They get help from their family and friends, but each one of these people have rudimentary knowledge of how to make and fix things. Why? Because engineering as we think of it is an Industrial age concept. On the factory floor, we decided it was more efficient for one person to plan and another to build, rather than each person plan and build. In older eras, it was far more common for everyone to be more independent, something of a low level jack of all trades (at least all the trades relevant to their lives).

Illiteracy is the major hurdle to overcome here. In 3.5, this would either be the Illiteracy imposed upon you from a class (Barbarian) or setting (as a GM can say "people of certain social standings in this setting cannot read or write" if they wanted a more true to real-life setting).

There's a huge difference in knowing how to treat sore muscles and blisters to treating someone who caught the flu, or something even worse. During the Black Death, people believed it was bad air that spread disease and such belief existed for a long time (hence the creation of pomanders). Inoculation was slow to spread (earliest records is something like 10th century Song Dynasty) and it took a really long time before that caught on. And surgery? That takes a whole lot more knowledge than just knowing how to butcher and carve meat - considering that a patient would likely bleed to death. Just in 3.5, providing care for injury is a DC 15, which means it's something most people aren't able to do (can be used untrained, but with a modificer of +0 or +1 for your average person, even at take 10 it isn't enough). Same with disease and poison.

"make him a reasonable authority on the local geography, politics, economics (such as it is)". Very *very* local. And I wouldn't say reasonable. Sure, Farmer Bob probably knows the geography of his land, and the nearby surrounding area, but if you asked him in the middle of the Holy Roman Empire for the direction to Paris, he could not help you. Politics? He might know who's the boss in his nearest town, maybe he knows who gets his taxes and the name of the king (or Emperor), but he probably wouldn't know the current situation between two nations, the current political situation of the royal family, or who even serves in a king's court. Which means that Farmer Bob can manage the DC 10 relevant Knowledge-checks (Local, Geography, Nobility) most of the time, but anything else is far above his knowledge and concern.

Ah yes. I will give credit to Farmer Bob for creating all the lovely vaulted constructions that revolutionized medieval architecture (sarcasm). Jury-rigging and fixing simple things is a DC 10, so with some help from a few others, Bob & co. can fix up the barn. Bob can't really construct more than a shed. Even waterwheels are the product of educated engineers.
When Bob's great-great-great grandpappy built the farm, he had help from people trained in just that (and not farming). Sure, he probably worked on it too, because anyone can lift and carry or hammer some nails, but actually construction and the amount of knowledge that goes into building something? Done by those with ranks in the skill, and maybe even a Skill Focus because they're respected craftsmen and it's how they make their living.

Now Bob can tell us all about how to make a field of turnips really grow, and when to pick the best mushrooms (and where), and like other people who live off of a profession dependant on the weather (like sailors), he's able to know a thing or two about the weather (actually just a DC 10 Survival check in 3.5 to accurately predict next day's weather, iirc). He probably knows how not to get ripped off when it comes to trading his goods at the market, and he probably thinks the taxes he pays are way too high.

Now, I'm not saying that 3.5 is a very realistic game or a very realistic skill-system, but I do think it gives a better representation at how an average person without education and/or training won't be able to do certain things. As Psyren says, it gives versimillutude. And Farmer Bob, like many others, can manage some simple tasks within certain fields, but he's never going to compare to someone who have spent their life dedicated to a field of study. That's like saying that I, at my best, having read through microbiology on Google and watched videos about it on YouTube, can can compare to an expert in the field when they're having a bad day? And that's with me having technological aids that transcends almost anything we see in D&D short of magic items that give Skill boosts (or boosts to the relevant Ability Score).

Tajerio

2018-08-26, 05:30 PM

Now, I'm not saying that 3.5 is a very realistic game or a very realistic skill-system, but I do think it gives a better representation at how an average person without education and/or training won't be able to do certain things. As Psyren says, it gives versimillutude. And Farmer Bob, like many others, can manage some simple tasks within certain fields, but he's never going to compare to someone who have spent their life dedicated to a field of study. That's like saying that I, at my best, having read through microbiology on Google and watched videos about it on YouTube, can can compare to an expert in the field when they're having a bad day? And that's with me having technological aids that transcends almost anything we see in D&D short of magic items that give Skill boosts (or boosts to the relevant Ability Score).

Again, though, unless I'm much mistaken JNAP started this particular sub-argument by complaining of the total non-intersection of outcomes. I think limiting the ability of unskilled people to do things that require skill is good. But dedicating one's life to a field of study in the medieval period on which 3.5 is based hardly ever made one a transcendent expert. Law, theology, and engineering (that's a good call) are the primary exceptions, with perhaps one made for long-distance trade and the accompanying finance. Elsewhere, the knowledge base was too small and too unreliable to allow people to become masters of the sort that is possible now, as with your microbiology example.

The verisimilitudinous idea is that 3.5's specialized and uncommon fields of knowledge (magic, the planes, bizarre creatures) roughly correspond to scientific fields in our own time, which is why, in D&D terms, experts in our own day at their worst can make skill checks we can't dream of at our best. But our scientific fields are built upon significant changes in intellectual culture, methods of networking, advances in technology, and means of storing data that aren't necessarily reflected in 3.5's medieval pastiche, for which "magic exists" is not an acceptably reasoned substitute. Some of that stuff's covered, but by no means all.

I also don't think it really makes sense to talk about 3.5 preserving verisimilitude, in large part because though we can reason analogically about superhuman physical qualities, we don't have any means of reasoning analogically about superhuman intellectual qualities (as nothing we know of has superhuman INT, WIS, or CHA), and so can't grasp them sufficiently to make them appear real or true in a game setting, but that's perhaps another argument.

blackwindbears

2018-08-26, 05:38 PM

This is basically every problem of 5e compared to 3e summed up.

I don't consider 5e some great feat of designing. It's simpler because they make the DM do all the work that the rules did in 3e.

Classic edition defenses
AD&D: "THACO isn't that complicated"
3e: "Anyone can make a functional character."
4e: "The rules do not hinder roleplaying."
5e: "A bad DM would be bad in any edition!" - [I guess not being an expert rules developer somehow makes you a bad DM /s]

I gotta be honest, I am a huge fan of 3.5, I play D&D for simulationism rather than a game (so less of a fan of ToB, but what are you gonna do). I have found 5e substantially easier to run. As a player I've found DM's making far fewer mistakes as well.

Kurald Galain

2018-08-26, 05:56 PM

In any event, the universes of these games follow something like bounded accuracy, even when the mechanics don't.

It strikes me that you're confusing the theoretical concept of bounded accuracy (i.e. there exists an upper bound on all numbers in any given setting) with the actual design of 5E's bounded accuracy (i.e. the EXTREMELY small difference between the most-skilled and least-skilled character at any given level, as compared to common fictional settings as noted by Cosi, as well as to practically any other RPG on the market).

The former is trivially true and only of academic interest. The latter is what everybody else is talking about, and your examples don't have anything to do with the latter.

EldritchWeaver

2018-08-26, 06:26 PM

Again, though, unless I'm much mistaken JNAP started this particular sub-argument by complaining of the total non-intersection of outcomes. I think limiting the ability of unskilled people to do things that require skill is good. But dedicating one's life to a field of study in the medieval period on which 3.5 is based hardly ever made one a transcendent expert. Law, theology, and engineering (that's a good call) are the primary exceptions, with perhaps one made for long-distance trade and the accompanying finance. Elsewhere, the knowledge base was too small and too unreliable to allow people to become masters of the sort that is possible now, as with your microbiology example.

The verisimilitudinous idea is that 3.5's specialized and uncommon fields of knowledge (magic, the planes, bizarre creatures) roughly correspond to scientific fields in our own time, which is why, in D&D terms, experts in our own day at their worst can make skill checks we can't dream of at our best. But our scientific fields are built upon significant changes in intellectual culture, methods of networking, advances in technology, and means of storing data that aren't necessarily reflected in 3.5's medieval pastiche, for which "magic exists" is not an acceptably reasoned substitute. Some of that stuff's covered, but by no means all.

I also don't think it really makes sense to talk about 3.5 preserving verisimilitude, in large part because though we can reason analogically about superhuman physical qualities, we don't have any means of reasoning analogically about superhuman intellectual qualities (as nothing we know of has superhuman INT, WIS, or CHA), and so can't grasp them sufficiently to make them appear real or true in a game setting, but that's perhaps another argument.

That makes me wonder. We have various attempts to employ the d20 system in more modern settings, which provide that kind of networking. Does this break your argument or would this imply that the d20 system is not able to support modern settings without overhauling the skill rules?

lesser_minion

2018-08-26, 06:52 PM

It strikes me that you're confusing the theoretical concept of bounded accuracy (i.e. there exists an upper bound on all numbers in any given setting) with the actual design of 5E's bounded accuracy (i.e. the EXTREMELY small difference between the most-skilled and least-skilled character at any given level, as compared to common fictional settings as noted by Cosi, as well as to practically any other RPG on the market).

My position is that what 5th edition's bounded accuracy was a good idea that wasn't implemented very well. I do not get the impression from the discussion here that that is an uncontroversial statement: I know that at least Cosi thinks that the whole thing should never have been considered in the first place, for example.

Cosi

2018-08-26, 07:23 PM

My position is that what 5th edition's bounded accuracy was a good idea that wasn't implemented very well.

I think (to echo Kurald's point) you need to clarify what it is you think "Bounded Accuracy" means, because you seem to think it means "physics and changemaking use the same skill check", which is not consistent with any definition of the term I or anyone I'm aware of would use. It's like saying that Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards is a result of the game having nine spell levels. Both "how many skills should there be" and "should experts consistently beat random strangers" are questions about the skill system, but they are not the same question.

And if you think having enemies who are wholly immune to mortal weapons is consistent with Bounded Accuracy, I'm not sure our positions actually differ much. You just seem to have latched onto a term describing a particular system without considering the system it was created to describe.

Knaight

2018-08-26, 08:04 PM

I think (to echo Kurald's point) you need to clarify what it is you think "Bounded Accuracy" means, because you seem to think it means "physics and changemaking use the same skill check", which is not consistent with any definition of the term I or anyone I'm aware of would use. It's like saying that Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards is a result of the game having nine spell levels. Both "how many skills should there be" and "should experts consistently beat random strangers" are questions about the skill system, but they are not the same question.

Expertise in physics implies expertise in math; it's a deeply mathematical science. That specialization is likely to imply less mathematical knowledge than a bonafide mathematician, but it still applies - and yet both the physicist and the mathematician can and do make careless, stupid arithmetic errors. This is realistic. Similarly in a more direct competition experts can and do lose to random strangers in basically any field. It's generally very rare, but not impossible. This is particularly true in the context of very, very small tasks, which is what individual rolls generally model.

This question was never about how many skills there should be, but instead about the capacity of an expert to fail miserably. Bounded accuracy makes that fundamentally possible in a way roll and add systems that don't use bounded accuracy doesn't. Which can be a strong positive (you really want that bit of realism) a strong negative (you explicitly don't want that bit of realism), or, more often, a trait you don't particularly care about one way or the other.

Of course, there are other ways to do that in a skill system. Dice pool systems consistently allow a chance of failure for even the best expert, though the odds of that actually coming up get really slim really fast, due to the nature of exponential decay functions. Exploding dice that can explode down the bottom of the range do this as well, an exception to the general rule about roll and add systems. Roll and keep systems often fit this, though there is some slight movement of the bottom range there, if one that shifts far slower than the probabilities involved.

Cosi

2018-08-26, 08:30 PM

Expertise in physics implies expertise in math; it's a deeply mathematical science.

"Math" is not a single unified field. Algebra, logic, topology, calculus, geometry, number theory, and arithmetic are all math. They are not all the same thing. A layman would probably classify Statistics as Math, but it's often a different department at universities. If your game was expected to provide an adequate model of Einstein's life, it wouldn't have a single "Math" skill in which he had a single bonus. It would have a lot of skills. minion's complaint is fundamentally not relevant to the question of bounded accuracy. It is a function of how skills are abstracted.

In any case, these errors occur less than one time in twenty. In Bounded Accuracy, they don't. Bounded Accuracy is a comedy of errors where world experts in mathematics give the wrong change frequently, and cashiers (who are necessarily less skilled) do so almost constantly.

Tajerio

2018-08-26, 08:44 PM

That makes me wonder. We have various attempts to employ the d20 system in more modern settings, which provide that kind of networking. Does this break your argument or would this imply that the d20 system is not able to support modern settings without overhauling the skill rules?

I haven't played anything like that, so I can't say--perhaps my argument doesn't hold up.

But generally I don't think the actual resolution mechanic of d20 is all that good for verisimilitude, because every number 1-20's equally probable, which doesn't correspond to the workings of probability in the world we know. And I doubt there's a satisfying and accessible way to change that within the system, on which the discussion above tangentially throws a little light.

Rhedyn

2018-08-26, 08:56 PM

I gotta be honest, I am a huge fan of 3.5, I play D&D for simulationism rather than a game (so less of a fan of ToB, but what are you gonna do). I have found 5e substantially easier to run. As a player I've found DM's making far fewer mistakes as well.
Do the levels you play/run at have 2 digits?

death390

2018-08-26, 09:19 PM

hmm the bounded accuracy of 5e as it is has a general upper limit in the zone of 30-40. expertise gives +12 +attribute doesn't go past +8 easily to me knowledge +d20.

if instead the bounded accuracy was more similar to BaB it could have been a better range. standard profficiency boost is +1 per 4 levels. if it was 1 per 2 levels for skilled individuals, 1 per 3 for standard, and 1per 4 levels for those less skilled with base of 2 that would have lead to +11 for skilled individuals, +8 for standard adventurer, and +6 for those with less time to to be skilled. with expertise that would have lead to +22/16/12 for specific skills. it would also have given a upper limit of ~40s for skilled individuals/ 35-45 for standard/ 30-40 for less skilled. this doesn't preclude anyone from attempting difficult things but would have allowed those who are specifically skilled to get the point of next to impossible to fail average tasks.

alas that would be homebrew and thus not up to discussion. but just a thought.

EDIT: the biggest part of 5e's bounded accuracy problem for me is the fact that its to easy for those who are "skilled" to fail just above average attempts. with a max of +12 in order to hit DC 20 it need 8 or above to do so, this is a 40% chance of failure with each point of attribute bonus only reducing this rate by 5%.

Knaight

2018-08-26, 11:37 PM

"Math" is not a single unified field. Algebra, logic, topology, calculus, geometry, number theory, and arithmetic are all math. They are not all the same thing. A layman would probably classify Statistics as Math, but it's often a different department at universities. If your game was expected to provide an adequate model of Einstein's life, it wouldn't have a single "Math" skill in which he had a single bonus. It would have a lot of skills. minion's complaint is fundamentally not relevant to the question of bounded accuracy. It is a function of how skills are abstracted.

Neither is physics - and yet every field of physics does imply familiarity with some of the same math, before getting into specialization, and arithmetic is absolutely part of that minimal baseline.

In any case, these errors occur less than one time in twenty. In Bounded Accuracy, they don't. Bounded Accuracy is a comedy of errors where world experts in mathematics give the wrong change frequently, and cashiers (who are necessarily less skilled) do so almost constantly.

That's not a matter of Bounded Accuracy, that's a matter of 1d20+X vs Y, and its various permutations.

Mindstab_Thrull

2018-08-27, 01:03 AM

Which is better? What is it better for?

I like both for completely different reasons.

- I like 5e because it's simplified without feeling like it's holding your hand. The idea of a class with d4 for hit points is all but gone; spells have a default effect in their default slot; if you can cast spells and know how to wear armor, you can cast spells in armor (good-bye ASF!); a metric ship-ton of modifiers to d20 rolls are replaced with advantage/disadvantage; and an AC of 20-30 is still not completely unreasonable at level 20.

- I like 3.x because, having been out as long as it has, there's a crazy amount of flexibility. I still play it now. In the last year I've had an effective Kobold Barbarian; a healing Sorcerer (who was a level away from picking up Raise Dead); a Catfolk Monk who is around the corner from running as fast as a Dragon can fly; and a list of other crazy ideas. I'm helping one player make a character who can potentially have 12 attacks a round by level 20 - WITHOUT help from Magic, Equipment, or any other "extraneous" things. I just concepted up a character who can get 9th-level arcane spellcasting with *no* spellcasting base classes. (Human type required, apparently, for the simplified version.) And we recently started *another* campaign where I have a character with 14 on Initiative - BEFORE die roll. And we're only level 2 there!

I can't say one is better than the other. But if you like the idea of breaking people's brains because "that shouldn't be a thing!" (see the Sorcerer who could heal party members - the only classes he had was Sorcerer and stuff that progressed it), play the 3.x version of the game. If you want to simplify the mechanics and get to the meat of the story faster, play 5e instead.

Just my two Sarpadian coppers worth
Mindstab Thrull

Calthropstu

2018-08-27, 02:00 AM

I refuse to play 5e because I swore off wotc. 4e and certain changes to mtg as well certain other moves they made left me with nothing but disdain for them as a company and I refuse to support them any further. I was delighted that PF supplanted D&D as the #1 rpg.

It's kinda sad that it is no longer the case, but I am not looking back. There are plenty of systems out there untainted by wotc, and PF is still one of the top games. I have plenty to look forward to.

Kurald Galain

2018-08-27, 02:39 AM

My position is that what 5th edition's bounded accuracy was a good idea that wasn't implemented very well.
FWIW I do agree with this.

This question was never about how many skills there should be, but instead about the capacity of an expert to fail miserably. Bounded accuracy makes that fundamentally possible in a way roll and add systems that don't use bounded accuracy doesn't. Which can be a strong positive (you really want that bit of realism) a strong negative (you explicitly don't want that bit of realism), or, more often, a trait you don't particularly care about one way or the other.
This should be qualified further. Specifically, should the expert have a capacity to fail miserably at expert-level problems, or at common easy tasks. Because the former is realism, and the latter is what 5E does.

hmm the bounded accuracy of 5e as it is has a general upper limit in the zone of 30-40.
In practice it's less than that: you should consider the levels that people commonly play at, not the maximum level in the book. Most campaigns never get anywhere near level 20, so look around level 6 instead.

death390

2018-08-27, 04:04 AM

FWIW I do agree with this.

~snip~

In practice it's less than that: you should consider the levels that people commonly play at, not the maximum level in the book. Most campaigns never get anywhere near level 20, so look around level 6 instead.

the true that does skew the numbers a lot but i honestly think that the median level numbers are actually worse to look at because they are so much lower. levels 6-8 are only +3 which means with expertise thats only +6. so +3 stat + 6 expertise puts the average at 19 which is still less than a above average difficulty the theoretical upper limit for that level section is ~30, but only 30-31 are actually feasable probably, and it would require stat ups to do so. more likely 30 is the upper limit with a +4.

for comparison a level 3 commoner (well aged :P) could take 10 and with a decent above average score of 12-14 could actually get 18. which is about the same as the 5e hero. mind you that is with something they are skilled in; climb and handle animal mostly. but even for cross class skills if they took advantage of thier skills could get 16s: stealth/ survival for hunters, bluff for a con man, appraise for a merchant, ect.

noob

2018-08-27, 04:12 AM

Ignimortis

2018-08-27, 04:32 AM

I think we might try to take 3.5 and add bounded accuracy then change spell slot progressions to make it like 5e ones then make most spells spend bonus actions then remove bonus spells based on stats and give the 5e class features to the classes in dnd 3.5 and we would have something that is 3.5 ish while having a significant portion of the changes people in 5e likes

5e is overbalanced around its' standard adventuring day. Everyone has to have some sort of resource, either per short rest or long rest. There are no refresh mechanics outside of that (unlike some of the better 3.5 classes with rounds/ability-based pseudo-cooldowns). Furthermore, you can't actually add bounded accuracy into 3.5, since it will require major overhauls of the skill system, to-hit and AC numbers, at least. The progressions are vastly different, and in some sense a level 20 5e character barely warrants a level 10 3.5 character, especially if they don't get specific things like spells or number of attacks.

Level 20 5e barbarian can be represented by a level 10 3.5 barbarian just fine — while the 3.5 version might be a bit less durable (then again, it's entirely possible for him to have 24 CON too, which is improved during his Rage), he will deal tons more damage (two attacks at 2d6+10? How about two attacks at 2d6+25, or if he's Power Attacking, that's more along the lines of 2d6+45, if he's not a charger). Sure, there won't be some tricks from totems (although you might pick some up, in fact), you can be a Runescarred Berserker for magic in runic tattoos and carvings or a Champion of Gwynharwyf for paladin-like holy wrath experience (my personal favourite, even if it is suboptimal).

Besides, most of the 5e crowd usually says that they like 5e not only because of the bounded accuracy rules, but also because it has much less content to sift through, which is also "balanced" (which is bulldrek, IMO, but w/e). That's what 3.5's main draw is — lots of content, which has different power levels and balance intentions.

lesser_minion

2018-08-27, 05:25 AM

Expertise in physics implies expertise in math; it's a deeply mathematical science. That specialization is likely to imply less mathematical knowledge than a bonafide mathematician, but it still applies - and yet both the physicist and the mathematician can and do make careless, stupid arithmetic errors. This is realistic. Similarly in a more direct competition experts can and do lose to random strangers in basically any field. It's generally very rare, but not impossible. This is particularly true in the context of very, very small tasks, which is what individual rolls generally model.

The point I was trying to make with the skills thing is that the moon rocket example assumes that rocket science needs to be a DC 35 check to keep laypeople from passing it, whereas it might be more realistic to think of it as a DC 20 check in a skill that laypeople don't have.

In the first case, you're basically enforcing unbounded accuracy, but if you gate off the rocket science behind a separate skill, a skill trick, a feat, or a class feature, then you can use the second case and be able to handle the scenario without sacrificing bounded accuracy.

While D&D isn't a game about rocket science and doesn't need to be able to handle this scenario, 3rd edition has things like using the balance skill to run over water, which could instead be dealt with using a lower DC and a separate investment of some sort.

And if you think having enemies who are wholly immune to mortal weapons is consistent with Bounded Accuracy, I'm not sure our positions actually differ much. You just seem to have latched onto a term describing a particular system without considering the system it was created to describe.

3e and 4e already had a trend of removing and watering down blanket immunities like this, which I agree with: completely throwing such things out altogether is taking it too far.

EldritchWeaver

2018-08-27, 05:54 AM

I like both for completely different reasons.

- I like 5e because it's simplified without feeling like it's holding your hand. The idea of a class with d4 for hit points is all but gone; spells have a default effect in their default slot; if you can cast spells and know how to wear armor, you can cast spells in armor (good-bye ASF!); a metric ship-ton of modifiers to d20 rolls are replaced with advantage/disadvantage; and an AC of 20-30 is still not completely unreasonable at level 20.

- I like 3.x because, having been out as long as it has, there's a crazy amount of flexibility. I still play it now. In the last year I've had an effective Kobold Barbarian; a healing Sorcerer (who was a level away from picking up Raise Dead); a Catfolk Monk who is around the corner from running as fast as a Dragon can fly; and a list of other crazy ideas. I'm helping one player make a character who can potentially have 12 attacks a round by level 20 - WITHOUT help from Magic, Equipment, or any other "extraneous" things. I just concepted up a character who can get 9th-level arcane spellcasting with *no* spellcasting base classes. (Human type required, apparently, for the simplified version.) And we recently started *another* campaign where I have a character with 14 on Initiative - BEFORE die roll. And we're only level 2 there!

I can't say one is better than the other. But if you like the idea of breaking people's brains because "that shouldn't be a thing!" (see the Sorcerer who could heal party members - the only classes he had was Sorcerer and stuff that progressed it), play the 3.x version of the game. If you want to simplify the mechanics and get to the meat of the story faster, play 5e instead.

Just my two Sarpadian coppers worth
Mindstab Thrull

Interestingly, Pathfinder provides solutions to some of your complaints in regards to 3e. Lowest HD is d6. No clue what "spells have a default effect in their default slot" means. There is the psychic casting, which allows spells to switch verbal and somatic components with thought and emotion components, so you can cast in armor without being divine. The rest is probably still the same as in 3e. But I'm not sure how many of your 3e builds work in PF, so YMMV.

Rhedyn

2018-08-27, 07:19 AM

Ignimortis

2018-08-27, 07:28 AM

Scots Dragon

2018-08-27, 07:35 AM

If 6e is more of an iteration rather than a complete redesign, I think we can expect more work on the ability check system to flesh it out more.

At the rate of revision, I wouldn't be all that surprised if the next edition did something drastic like switch from a class/level based structure to a point-buy structure with class and race templates along the lines of GURPS or something.

Ignimortis

2018-08-27, 07:43 AM

At the rate of revision, I wouldn't be all that surprised if the next edition did something drastic like switch from a class/level based structure to a point-buy structure with class and race templates along the lines of GURPS or something.

I very much doubt that. D&D loathes to kill its' sacred cows, otherwise it'd get rid of many elements already, like Vancian casting and Fighters not having anything special to do out of combat.

Kish

2018-08-27, 08:15 AM

They bragged that Vancian casting was mostly gone when 4ed was coming out.

It proved just a tidge less popular than anticipated.

Cosi

2018-08-27, 08:34 AM

6e will be a radical departure from the previous edition that is poorly implemented and incomplete, because that is what the last two editions were and is the only kind of product the current head of D&D is capable of producing. In the long run, the only way to get a good edition of D&D from WotC is by convincing the MtG team to work on it, because those guys actually do things like "playtest", "analyze their failures", and "introspect on their process".

I refuse to play 5e because I swore off wotc. 4e and certain changes to mtg as well certain other moves they made left me with nothing but disdain for them as a company and I refuse to support them any further. I was delighted that PF supplanted D&D as the #1 rpg.

What did they do to MtG that you didn't like?

3e and 4e already had a trend of removing and watering down blanket immunities like this, which I agree with: completely throwing such things out altogether is taking it too far.

Please tell me more about how "immunity to fire" is a watered down version of some previous ability that made you more immune to fire. Also, there's a whole subtype in 3e that makes you immune to nonmagical weapons.

I don't care about 4e because it was a garbage game and you'd get a better product by having the exact opposite core design principles.

Rhedyn

2018-08-27, 08:35 AM

5e is thin enough that progressive editions that everyone else does would just make more sense. The design space for 5e is really unexplored.

Basically how Savage Worlds does editions. I can use 2e supplements with the 4e core book and only be confused by why some edges are repeated.

lesser_minion

2018-08-27, 10:50 AM

Please tell me more about how "immunity to fire" is a watered down version of some previous ability that made you more immune to fire. Also, there's a whole subtype in 3e that makes you immune to nonmagical weapons.

1.0: Can only be harmed by +4 or better weapons.
2.0-2.5: Presumably the same as 1.0.
3.0: Damage Reduction 40/+4.
3.5: Damage Reduction 15/epic.

Looks pretty watered down to me.

3e also started introducing ways to e.g., deal fire damage to creatures that were normally immune to it.

Calthropstu

2018-08-27, 12:10 PM

1.0: Can only be harmed by +4 or better weapons.
2.0-2.5: Presumably the same as 1.0.
3.0: Damage Reduction 40/+4.
3.5: Damage Reduction 15/epic.

Looks pretty watered down to me.

3e also started introducing ways to e.g., deal fire damage to creatures that were normally immune to it.

Actually, 2e had that as well.

And 2e had creatures so immune to damage that it was ridiculous. I liked the downgrade for immunities to physical damage.

noob

2018-08-27, 12:18 PM

Actually, 2e had that as well.

And 2e had creatures so immune to damage that it was ridiculous. I liked the downgrade for immunities to physical damage.

If you want 2e like immunities in 5e it is really hard(maybe impossible).
In 3.5 it takes complex stuff such as starmantle cloak.

Pleh

2018-08-27, 12:29 PM

snip

A few people have been throwing around the forum favorite: Verisimilitude.

But that word only means "the seemingness of truth."

I think our discussion around farmer Bob has demonstrated that expectations of a common medieval farmer's competency will vary. Verisimilitude, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.

noob

2018-08-27, 12:31 PM

A few people have been throwing around the forum favorite: Verisimilitude.

But that word only means "the seemingness of truth."

I think our discussion around farmer Bob has demonstrated that expectations of a common medieval farmer's competency will vary. Verisimilitude, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.

Therefore for making a setting with verisimilitude I just need to make it happen within the eye of a gigantic beholder?
Would a setting within the eye of a beholder be interesting?

Deophaun

2018-08-27, 12:36 PM

Sould a setting within the eye of a beholder be interesting?
Depends on which eye. The telekinesis one would likely be very interesting. Disintegrate, not so much.

Luccan

2018-08-27, 12:48 PM

Therefore for making a setting with verisimilitude I just need to make it happen within the eye of a gigantic beholder?
Would a setting within the eye of a beholder be interesting?

Which eye? Depending on which, the setting might not have magic or it might be a pile of dust or something... Actually, a setting with worlds each taking place on a giant beholder's different eyes could prove interesting, if you extrapolated their powers a bit.

Cosi

2018-08-27, 12:55 PM

1.0: Can only be harmed by +4 or better weapons.
2.0-2.5: Presumably the same as 1.0.
3.0: Damage Reduction 40/+4.
3.5: Damage Reduction 15/epic.

Looks pretty watered down to me.

The bonus required to bypass DR/epic is higher than the one required to bypass DR/+4.

3e also started introducing ways to e.g., deal fire damage to creatures that were normally immune to it.

Okay what the hell do you think Bounded Accuracy actually is? Because your definition appears to include "skills are split very finely" and "Searing Spell exists". That's not remotely central to what people mean when they talk about Bounded Accuracy. If you can't articulate what it is you're defending, I don't really see the point in arguing with you.

Calthropstu

2018-08-27, 12:57 PM

@Cosi on mtg

Several things actually.
For one, the change in rotation lessened the number of cards available in their standard format while increasing the overall price. It was a blatant money grab while trying to disguise it as somethi g else.

Then, they decided to print all new cards with the exact same abilities so you could never reuse cards. Seriously, how many grizzly bear cards with different names do we need?

Finally, they got rid of the core sets which allowed for people to reuse cards.

The overall result is a significant price increase and fewer cards available for their most popular format.

Cosi

2018-08-27, 01:04 PM

For one, the change in rotation lessened the number of cards available in their standard format while increasing the overall price. It was a blatant money grab while trying to disguise it as somethi g else.

Which change to rotation? There have been two or three over the past few years. I think now that they're doing four big sets a year, they're are as many cards in Standard at a time as there were pre-Alara (with the exception of TSP/Lorwyn Standard, which I think is still the largest pool ever between having three large sets and Coldsnap). To be fair though, I never really played much in the rotating formats.

Then, they decided to print all new cards with the exact same abilities so you could never reuse cards. Seriously, how many grizzly bear cards with different names do we need?

I guess that's fair, but IIRC most functional reprints have been of pretty cheap cards. Grizzly Bears was never a tournament staple, so I struggle to think of a situation where replacing it with Runeclaw Bears would be especially important.

Finally, they got rid of the core sets which allowed for people to reuse cards.

Those are back now, unless you're talking about the change away from all-reprint core sets.

death390

2018-08-27, 02:37 PM

Bounded accuracy isn't the problem with the 5e skill system.

The problem is that the 5e skill system thinks giving a DC 20 for hard task is informative when they don't describe what a hard task is. If as a DM you know how hard you want something to be, then you have a functioning skill system. If instead of "hard trees" you have "trees" then you don't know the DC to climb them.

This problem and the one where experts fail basic task could be addressed with a section on "baseline abilities" and "trained abilities" where these sections describe what you can do without a check based on what you are or aren't trained in.

If 6e is more of an iteration rather than a complete redesign, I think we can expect more work on the ability check system to flesh it out more.

however you cannot do away with checks that are opposed checks. the only way to do so would be to say that yeah you have no way in hell of countering it. it COULD be reached in 3.5 but it was only really applicable to the super specialized.

for example Stealth vs spot/ perception/awareness in 5e at level the only difference between characters is expertise (+2-6) and attribute +/- ~4, so you could theoretically get a 10 point difference but that still means that 50% of the time the opponent can make the check against you, might be hard but still quite possible. mind you that is if they don't have counter expertise, perception is a pretty good skil to have expertise in i would say. when the counter expertise does happen then the advantage is only ~ 20%.

again the only big difference is level disparity. when your not going up against something comparable to yourself. and in that case whats necessarily the point? a simple commoner for example has passive perception of 10 meaning +0 to check. so theoretically a lvl 20 rouge with +3 from attribute and stealth expertise could be spotted by a high rolling commoner when they roll poorly. mind you that its not likely but the chance of failure is still there. this is a character that is the epitome of a rouge at this point. assuming that ties go to the defender (this case the commoner) that is a 13.75% chance for a commoner to spot the level 20 rouge, also assuming people are NOT using the auto-pass/fail on 20/1 respectively (numbers go up significantly at that point 23.25%)

Calthropstu

2018-08-27, 02:58 PM

however you cannot do away with checks that are opposed checks. the only way to do so would be to say that yeah you have no way in hell of countering it. it COULD be reached in 3.5 but it was only really applicable to the super specialized.

for example Stealth vs spot/ perception/awareness in 5e at level the only difference between characters is expertise (+2-6) and attribute +/- ~4, so you could theoretically get a 10 point difference but that still means that 50% of the time the opponent can make the check against you, might be hard but still quite possible. mind you that is if they don't have counter expertise, perception is a pretty good skil to have expertise in i would say. when the counter expertise does happen then the advantage is only ~ 20%.

again the only big difference is level disparity. when your not going up against something comparable to yourself. and in that case whats necessarily the point? a simple commoner for example has passive perception of 10 meaning +0 to check. so theoretically a lvl 20 rouge with +3 from attribute and stealth expertise could be spotted by a high rolling commoner when they roll poorly. mind you that its not likely but the chance of failure is still there. this is a character that is the epitome of a rouge at this point. assuming that ties go to the defender (this case the commoner) that is a 13.75% chance for a commoner to spot the level 20 rouge, also assuming people are NOT using the auto-pass/fail on 20/1 respectively (numbers go up significantly at that point 23.25%)

Exactly the point.

Why would a room of 20 farmer bobs be able to spot said rogue over 95% of the time? Why would every crowd be able to spot any and all pickpockets with unerring accuracy?
Yeah, no. 3.5/pf puts master pickpockets well out of range of the typical +0 character. By lvl 12 soneone dedicating decent resources to a skill can have +50 by lvl 12, which truly denotes a master craftsman. And some checks even hit 3 digits.
I see no reason a true master should fall to "random lucky guy.

Rhedyn

2018-08-27, 03:10 PM

however you cannot do away with checks that are opposed checks...
But that is wrong.

Let's say you have Basic, Journeyman, Expert, Master and Grandmaster Stealth and Perception abilities. Let's say these may be abilities you either learn in-game or during level up.

Let's then say that an Expert at Stealth can't be perceived by anyone with Journeyman or lower perception while the one sneaking is in concealment. If you have equal perception, make an opposed roll to break the tie. Better perception would always see them.

Bounded accuracy isn't THE problem. It's how it is being used that is causing problems. What I am suggesting here as an example is only a mash up of BECMI/RC D&D skill abilities and weapon mastery systems, which were a thing in Basic D&D.

death390

2018-08-27, 03:34 PM

But that is wrong.

Let's say you have Basic, Journeyman, Expert, Master and Grandmaster Stealth and Perception abilities. Let's say these may be abilities you either learn in-game or during level up.

Let's then say that an Expert at Stealth can't be perceived by anyone with Journeyman or lower perception while the one sneaking is in concealment. If you have equal perception, make an opposed roll to break the tie. Better perception would always see them.

Bounded accuracy isn't THE problem. It's how it is being used that is causing problems. What I am suggesting here as an example is only a mash up of BECMI/RC D&D skill abilities and weapon mastery systems, which were a thing in Basic D&D.

5e doesn't have that though, that would be a homebrew setup. not to mention that the journeyman should be able to spot the Master a couple times in training, (probably a 2 stage difference in my opinion; sucks to be expert though all can see you, you can see all though :P). but that depends on how you define the system in the first place.

Rhedyn

2018-08-27, 03:44 PM

5e doesn't have that though, that would be a homebrew setup. not to mention that the journeyman should be able to spot the Master a couple times in training, (probably a 2 stage difference in my opinion; sucks to be expert though all can see you, you can see all though :P). but that depends on how you define the system in the first place.
I didn't say 5e isn't the problem. I said bounded accuracy in of itself isn't the problem.

I am thinking that an iterative 6e, that builds on 5e rather than discarding everything like D&D normally does, could have a skill system like I described or something else entirely.

It's even possible to add what I am talking about as a variant rule in some splat book they release eventually and then a "Deluxe" PH reprint could have it baked in (Soft edition change, what Paizo should have done).

Cosi

2018-08-27, 03:47 PM

Rhedyn

2018-08-27, 03:55 PM

I don't understand why you would want to iterate on 5e. It's not a very good game. 3e was a solid game that could have been great if you put some work into iterating another edition. 5e is a half-baked rehashing of the first 6 or so levels of 3e spread over 20 levels of progression. There's nothing there to save or improve.

As a fellow loather of 5e, I understand where you are coming from.

But the reason they should iterate is obvious. They have buzz, they have a market, but they have a pretty poor game. Which is super easy to improve.
They could easily get away with decades of editions just by rewording rules better, let alone by addressing systemic problems like the skill rules.

lesser_minion

2018-08-27, 04:14 PM

The bonus required to bypass DR/epic is higher than the one required to bypass DR/+4.

DR 15/epic vs. DR 40/+4. The amount of damage reduction is what matters here, not the requirement to bypass it. They made a point of doing things like this in the 3.5 update:

The less obvious change is that it’s generally easier to break through a creature’s damage reduction even without the proper key. Most monsters subtract 5, 10, or 15 points of damage from most attacks, where prior to the revision this number might be as high as 40. A number like 40 tells players, “don’t even try it if you don’t have the right weapon.” A number like 15 sends the message, “You can try, but it’s going to be a lot harder.”

This quote comes from page 8 of the core rulebook update notes, which you can find here: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a

As for your next paragraph:

Okay what the hell do you think Bounded Accuracy actually is? Because your definition appears to include "skills are split very finely" and "Searing Spell exists". That's not remotely central to what people mean when they talk about Bounded Accuracy. If you can't articulate what it is you're defending, I don't really see the point in arguing with you.

Bounded accuracy means limiting the vertical growth of stats such as attack bonuses, skill bonuses, and AC, in order to simplify the maths of the game and allow content to be useful to more groups, and for longer. It also suggests a general philosophy -- not an absolute cast-iron rule -- of not trying to gate access to content by other means, such as through damage immunity.

I mentioned searing spell as an example of 3rd edition watering down immunities, in response to you asking about it. That does not mean that I think it's "central to what people mean when they talk about bounded accuracy", and you are the only person I'm aware of who thought it did. As for skills, yes, some of my previous comments on them were misleading, but I have already clarified what I meant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23326434&postcount=199).

Cosi

2018-08-27, 04:21 PM

DR 15/epic vs. DR 40/+4. The amount of damage reduction is what matters here, not the requirement to bypass it.

Alright then. Take a look at the total immunity being incorporeal still provides you to non-magical weapons.

Bounded accuracy means limiting the vertical growth of stats such as attack bonuses, skill bonuses, and AC, in order to simplify the maths of the game and allow content to be useful to more groups, and for longer. It also suggests a general philosophy -- not an absolute cast-iron rule -- of not trying to gate access to content by other means, such as through damage immunity.

Yes, and that is incredibly bad design. Because it means that there's no longer such a thing as progression. If your numbers never get big enough, or you never get the abilities, to trivialize low level challenges, you never stop being low level. 5e is a game in which no character is permitted to rise above 6th level in 3e terms. As such, it's a game that cuts out the vast majority of fantasy stories. You can't have Smaug conquering the Lonely Mountain. You can't have Thor routing the army of Thanos. You can't have Achilles be immune to the swords of his enemies. All those moments that someone might expect to be allowed to do in a fantasy story are impossible under Bounded Accuracy. And in exchange we can ... use Ogres for longer? Who cares! If you want to keep fighting Ogres, you can just not gain levels.

ColorBlindNinja

2018-08-27, 04:55 PM

Yes, and that is incredibly bad design. Because it means that there's no longer such a thing as progression. If your numbers never get big enough, or you never get the abilities, to trivialize low level challenges, you never stop being low level. 5e is a game in which no character is permitted to rise above 6th level in 3e terms. As such, it's a game that cuts out the vast majority of fantasy stories. You can't have Smaug conquering the Lonely Mountain. You can't have Thor routing the army of Thanos. You can't have Achilles be immune to the swords of his enemies. All those moments that someone might expect to be allowed to do in a fantasy story are impossible under Bounded Accuracy. And in exchange we can ... use Ogres for longer? Who cares! If you want to keep fighting Ogres, you can just not gain levels.

I agree with your assessment. Worse still, the system still seems to think that you can do these things.

lesser_minion

2018-08-27, 05:14 PM

Alright then. Take a look at the total immunity being incorporeal still provides you to non-magical weapons.

Yep, that's something 3rd edition didn't water down (4th edition did). It's also a unique ability of the creatures that have it. It's there because those creatures are special, not because they're high-level, and gaining the means to deal with such creatures is horizontal.

Yes, and that is incredibly bad design. Because it means that there's no longer such a thing as progression. If your numbers never get big enough, or you never get the abilities, to trivialize low level challenges, you never stop being low level.

Your personal opinion that only vertical progression matters is just that -- your personal opinion. Ignoring it is not "incredibly bad design". It's just not to your taste.

As such, it's a game that cuts out the vast majority of fantasy stories. You can't have Smaug conquering the Lonely Mountain. You can't have Thor routing the army of Thanos. You can't have Achilles be immune to the swords of his enemies. All those moments that someone might expect to be allowed to do in a fantasy story are impossible under Bounded Accuracy.

You're supposed to make your own dramatic moments in a tabletop RPG, not ape someone else's.
Dramatic moments require drama. If your enemies cannot threaten you and there's no cost to beating them, then there is no drama.
You don't need a thousand-page tabletop RPG to narrate your heroes effortlessly cutting down 200 million enemy fighters.

Cosi

2018-08-27, 05:28 PM

Your personal opinion that only vertical progression matters is just that -- your personal opinion. Ignoring it is not "incredibly bad design". It's just not to your taste.

No, your vision of Bounded Accuracy as pulling down things gated by abilities also opposes horizontal progression. You have explicitly rejected "bigger numbers" and "more abilities" as things that might provide new content, which means there is nothing that can do so.

You're supposed to make your own dramatic moments in a tabletop RPG, not ape someone else's.

Fantasy games are about emulating things you think are cool from fantasy. That's why it's not a Cyberpunk game, or a Space Opera game, or a Noir game. The genre of the game defines the things the game is supposed to include, and looking at examples of those things in other media is a valid way of exploring what a game should support. In any case, this is sort of irrelevant, as Bounded Accuracy forbids any dramatic moments, yours or others.

Dramatic moments require drama, which requires meaningful conflict. If your enemies cannot threaten you and there's no cost to beating them, then there is no meaningful conflict.

And yet, millions of people watched Avengers: Infinity War, and the filmmakers felt that the aforementioned scene with Thor was worth including. Perhaps there's an aspect of power fantasy that you're neglecting to consider.

If you want to narrate your hero killing 200 million enemy soldiers in pitched battle at no risk to themselves, you don't need a tabletop RPG for that.

You don't need a tabletop RPG to do anything at all. You could write a web serial, publish a book, or create a webcomic. Any of those could tell any of the stories you might tell in D&D. That doesn't make using D&D to tell those stories illegitimate.

ColorBlindNinja

2018-08-27, 05:59 PM

I knew I saw a quote like this from somewhere:

LEVELS 17-20: MASTERS OF THE WORLD

Adventures at these levels have far-reaching consequences, possibly determining the fate of millions in the Material Plane and even places beyond. Characters traverse otherworldly realms and explore demiplanes and other extraplanar locales, where they fight savage bator demons, titans, archdevils, lich archmages, and even avatars of the gods themselves. The dragons they encounter are wyrms of tremendous power, whose sleep troubles kingdoms and whose waking threatens existence itself.

They still expect you to have adventures like in the older D&D editions, but bounded accuracy makes it impossible for a single monster to threaten an entire kingdom.

This isn't just a matter of taste, this is a failure to meet stated design goals.

Troacctid

2018-08-27, 06:15 PM

I knew I saw a quote like this from somewhere:

They still expect you to have adventures like in the older D&D editions, but bounded accuracy makes it impossible for a single monster to threaten an entire kingdom.

This isn't just a matter of taste, this is a failure to meet stated design goals.
I've run multiple high-level 5e campaigns where the enemies threatened entire kingdoms. It's not that hard. Just use plot. Rise of Tiamat, Princes of the Apocalypse and Tomb of Annihilation are great examples, and they don't even go to level 20.

ColorBlindNinja

2018-08-27, 06:18 PM

I've run multiple high-level 5e campaigns where the enemies threatened entire kingdoms. It's not that hard. Just use plot.

So, the DM has to hand wave it because the rules don't support it?

PairO'Dice Lost

2018-08-27, 06:24 PM

Your personal opinion that only vertical progression matters is just that -- your personal opinion. Ignoring it is not "incredibly bad design". It's just not to your taste.

[...]

Dramatic moments require drama. If your enemies cannot threaten you and there's no cost to beating them, then there is no drama.
You don't need a thousand-page tabletop RPG to narrate your heroes effortlessly cutting down 200 million enemy fighters.

The point of a level-based system like D&D is that the game changes as you level. Long before people started explicitly naming tiers of play, you had low-level parties doing dungeon crawls and wilderness adventures, mid-level parties doing mass combat and domain management, and high level parties doing god-slaying and plane-hopping, all of which required different player skillsets and character capabilities--and, according to the quote ColorBlindNinja posted, this is still something the 5e designers claim 5e is intended to support. There aren't hard boundaries between level ranges, necessarily--you can subdivide each of those tiers, for instance by the fact that equipment and meat shields hirelings are very important at levels 1-3 but less so at levels 4-6, and you can engage in mass combat from low-mid to high-mid levels with smaller skirmishes on the low end and crazy massive battles on the high end--but the game should, and is expected to, change.

Importantly, with each level-up both the ceiling and the floor of your range of challenges rises. A single goblin is a dramatic foe at low levels, a handful are collectively a dramatic foe at low-mid levels, an army of goblins is collectively a dramatic foe at mid-levels, and beyond that they're background set dressing. The game doesn't lose all sense of drama at that point; rather, as the goblins fade out you start focusing on hobgoblin warcasters, a bugbear warchief, a half-fiend barghest, or the like, to stick with goblin-related foes. Similarly, at low levels a high-level hobgoblin general isn't a dramatic foe, he's a spot on the map marked "If you go here, you will probably die." No drama, no heroic speeches, just kersplat if you end up in his melee reach. Eventually you get to the point where you could beat him with favorable terrain and good planning, then to where you could have a chance in a fair fight, then where you have surpassed him, then when he's not even worth rolling for.

This sense of progression is worth a lot more drama--and is much better for storytelling--than the individual drama of individual goblins. How many stories have heroes returning to their hometowns only to find that they've outgrown it and can never recapture their youth? If you have a chance of killing a demon lord and a chance of dying to goblins at every single level, there's no dramatic progression; horizontal progression only takes you so far.

The same goes for non-combat tasks. A low-level thief might fail to pickpocket a random commoner, but as he grows in skill he should be able to pickpocket commoners with fair reliability and have a chance to pickpocket average guards, then he should be able to pickpocket average guards with fair reliability and have a chance to pickpocket particularly observant guards, and so on up to Skyrim levels of "By the way, I stole everything on your person in 6 seconds and you didn't notice a thing."

Contrast D&D with Shadowrun. In Shadowrun, there's basically no vertical progression, since (A) pretty much every character wants to max out their capabilities at game start due to scaling point costs and varying mission rewards, and (B) there's no level progression, so you can be a street samurai with zero social skills or a face with zero combat skills at any point value. Because of this, while you can have tons of fun running missions against Aztechnology or whomever for a whole campaign, the game is always "Shadowrunners doing missions against corps" with no expectation that you grow beyond that. Playing a campaign of Shadowrun is like playing a D&D campaign that starts at, say, 9th level and ends at 12th but lets you pick up lots more low-level feats and spells than normal.

Which is fine--a lot of people like playing at mid levels and would be happy to stay there--but when 5e claims it can handle the full level range (and concomitant gameplay changes) of classic D&D and then ends up topping out around 6th level or so and basically twiddling its thumbs from there, "But what about the drama!?" just doesn't cut it.

I've run multiple high-level 5e campaigns where the enemies threatened entire kingdoms. It's not that hard. Just use plot. Rise of Tiamat, Princes of the Apocalypse and Tomb of Annihilation are great examples, and they don't even go to level 20.

Speaking as a longtime DM as well, "just use plot" is the absolute worst most bleeping terrible possible solution to this problem. Partly because you can "because plot" anything you want so why should I pay for rules that tell me to do that, partly because gameplay-story segregation (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation) is insulting in a cooperative game and falls apart the moment you drop out of cutscene mode and start using the rules again, and partly because if fighting Generic Goblin #37 is not qualitatively different than fighting Tiamat because Tiamat just has a bunch of plot powers and you use plot coupons to counter her plot powers down to the point where the players can face here, then you have no sense of progression, as mentioned above.

Tainted_Scholar

2018-08-27, 06:28 PM

I've run multiple high-level 5e campaigns where the enemies threatened entire kingdoms. It's not that hard. Just use plot.

A level 1 character can save an entire kingdom if we use "plot" as an excuse. Besides, they types of adventures the writers think could occur in 5e can't.

"The dragons they encounter are wyrms of tremendous power, whose sleep troubles kingdoms and whose waking threatens existence itself."

This can't happen in 5e. If a big evil Red Dragon attacked a kingdom, it'd get shot down by archers. Monsters in 5e can't threaten an entire setting like the book claims.

lesser_minion

2018-08-27, 06:52 PM

No, your vision of Bounded Accuracy as pulling down things gated by abilities also opposes horizontal progression. You have explicitly rejected "bigger numbers" and "more abilities" as things that might provide new content, which means there is nothing that can do so.

No, I have not "explicitly rejected" more abilities as a form of progression. That is the exact opposite of what I've been saying. Please either retract this claim or provide the relevant quote so that I can clarify it.

As for the rest of your post, you are putting forward your personal tastes as if they're objective standards that other people are somehow wrong for not sharing. As long as you continue to do so, we're not going to agree on anything any time soon.

Troacctid

2018-08-27, 06:55 PM

So, the DM has to hand wave it because the rules don't support it?
The rules support it just fine. There are other ways to bring a kingdom to its knees besides stomping around like Godzilla.

Princes of the Apocalypse has elemental cults unleashing magical nukes and, if left unchecked, they'll open portals to the elemental planes all over the place, wreaking havoc throughout Faerun. Acererak in Tomb of Annihilation harnesses an atropal to create a device that captures the souls of every humanoid who dies in the Forgotten Realms, preventing anyone from being raised from the dead and gradually sapping the life out of anyone who was raised from the dead in the past. If he collects enough souls, the atropal will ascend to godhood and threaten to kill the other gods and destroy all life in the world. And in Rise of Tiamat, Tiamat...stomps around like godzilla, basically, AFAICT, but she's a massive wrecking ball with more immunities than the Tarrasque and a serious capacity for death and destruction, so she's pretty good at it.

Speaking as a longtime DM as well, "just use plot" is the absolute worst most bleeping terrible possible solution to this problem. Partly because you can "because plot" anything you want so why should I pay for rules that tell me to do that, partly because gameplay-story segregation (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation) is insulting in a cooperative game and falls apart the moment you drop out of cutscene mode and start using the rules again, and partly because if fighting Generic Goblin #37 is not qualitatively different than fighting Tiamat because Tiamat just has a bunch of plot powers and you use plot coupons to counter her plot powers down to the point where the players can face here, then you have no sense of progression, as mentioned above.
Or you could just write mechanics for it, like the examples I mentioned. Monsters can have abilities other than combat actions. There's even an explicit mechanic for "Regional Effects" of monsters, borrowing some of the technology from 3.5e's Elder Evils.

A level 1 character can save an entire kingdom if we use "plot" as an excuse. Besides, they types of adventures the writers think could occur in 5e can't.

"The dragons they encounter are wyrms of tremendous power, whose sleep troubles kingdoms and whose waking threatens existence itself."

This can't happen in 5e. If a big evil Red Dragon attacked a kingdom, it'd get shot down by archers. Monsters in 5e can't threaten an entire setting like the book claims.
Really? You're gonna shoot Tiamat down with archers? How?

ColorBlindNinja

2018-08-27, 07:04 PM

The rules support it just fine.

Which ones?

There are other ways to bring a kingdom to its knees besides stomping around like Godzilla.

But that should be a viable option, and under 5e, it isn't.

Princes of the Apocalypse has elemental cults unleashing magical nukes and, if left unchecked, they'll open portals to the elemental planes all over the place, wreaking havoc throughout Faerun. Acererak in Tomb of Annihilation harnesses an atropal to create a device that captures the souls of every humanoid who dies in the Forgotten Realms, preventing anyone from being raised from the dead and gradually sapping the life out of anyone who was raised from the dead in the past. If he collects enough souls, the atropal will ascend to godhood and threaten to kill the other gods and destroy all life in the world. And in Rise of Tiamat, Tiamat...stomps around like godzilla, basically, AFAICT, but she's a massive wrecking ball with more immunities than the Tarrasque and a serious capacity for death and destruction, so she's pretty good at it.

So that's one example that doesn't rely of plot fiat.

Or you could just write mechanics for it, like the examples I mentioned. Monsters can have abilities other than combat actions. There's even an explicit mechanic for "Regional Effects" of monsters, borrowing some of the technology from 3.5e's Elder Evils.

Any that would allow said monsters to counter an army?

Really? You're gonna shoot Tiamat down with archers? How?

Can you show us her statblock?

Troacctid

2018-08-27, 07:38 PM

But that should be a viable option, and under 5e, it isn't.
Why is it more viable in 3.5e?

So that's one example that doesn't rely of plot fiat.
What, adventures aren't allowed to introduce new items, monsters, or game mechanics without it being plot fiat?

Any that would allow said monsters to counter an army?
Sure. Here's the regional effects from the Prince of Elemental Air, Yan-C-Bin, as an example. https://imgur.com/0GiyLwq

ColorBlindNinja

2018-08-27, 07:44 PM

Why is it more viable in 3.5e?

:smallconfused: Because in 3.5 an army of commoners/warriors can't stop a Great Wyrm?

What, adventures aren't allowed to introduce new items, monsters, or game mechanics without it being plot fiat?

That's not plot fiat. Plot fiat is conducting a spell ritual that will kill the population of the world, and things of that nature.

Sure. Here's the regional effects from the Prince of Elemental Air, Yan-C-Bin, as an example. https://imgur.com/0GiyLwq

But that effect doesn't seem to be mobile. It'll only hurt the people in the vicinity.

EDIT: Elder Evils have much longer range effects and are powerful enough to defend themselves from armies.

I suppose so.

Thanks.

SNIP

I don't see anything that wouldn't stop a large army from killing her. The casualties would be horrific, but she would eventually be shot down if there were enough archers.

Calthropstu

2018-08-27, 07:48 PM

Troactidd, you might want to edit that spoiler out. It's not in the srd and is protected material. That said, ac 25?
No Sonic immunity? Yeah, she is so dead to any reasonably prepared army.

ColorBlindNinja

2018-08-27, 07:49 PM

Troactidd, you might want to edit that spoiler out. It's not in the srd and is protected material.

Duly noted, I edit it out of my response.

That said, ac 25?
No Sonic immunity? Yeah, she is so dead to any reasonably prepared army.

Or a large enough one.

EDIT: 12,000, or so by my calculations. Could be wrong, math isn't my strong suit.

Kish

2018-08-27, 08:08 PM

She's flat-out immune to piercing weapons; how many magic bows are you assuming this army has?

Why does a Chaotic Evil fiend have a home in the Nine Hells?

Troacctid

2018-08-27, 08:17 PM

:smallconfused: Because in 3.5 an army of commoners/warriors can't stop a Great Wyrm?
Dragons only go up to ancient in 5e. And when they're Big Bads, they're more along the lines of Iymrith or Klauth. I'd challenge anyone to read Chapter 12 of Storm King's Thunder and math out how many commoners it would take to successfully assault Iymrith's lair and kill her. And she's a schemer, not a Godzilla. Any monster that's gonna be stomping around Tokyo is gonna be immune to mundane weaponry, like the Tarrasque.

But that effect doesn't seem to be mobile. It'll only hurt the people in the vicinity.
Of course. How is an army going to kill him from 6 miles away?

I don't see anything that wouldn't stop a large army from killing her. The casualties would be horrific, but she would eventually be shot down if there were enough archers.
I'm looking through the NPC section in the Monster Manual right now. The only NPCs that can even deal damage to her at all AFAICT are the Druid (+4 to hit for 1d8+2 damage in melee), the Priest (+2 to hit for 3d6 damage in melee a limited number of times per day), and the Archmage (upcast magic missile 3/day for an average of 35 damage). I guess you could do the math to figure out how many of those you'd need to break through her 25 AC and fast healing 30, but I feel like you'll run out of NPCs before she runs out of HP, and anyway, there's a biiit of a divide between "Can be taken down by an army of commoners" and "Can be taken down by an army of 18th level spellcasters."

Why does a Chaotic Evil fiend have a home in the Nine Hells?
Scholars in-universe have wondered the same thing. According to Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes: "The most prevalent theory holds that her confinement is related to the end of the long war between the dragons and giants, that she was sequestered here by means of a mighty curse levied by a forgotten god of the giants she slew."

death390

2018-08-27, 08:43 PM

I didn't say 5e isn't the problem. I said bounded accuracy in of itself isn't the problem.

I am thinking that an iterative 6e, that builds on 5e rather than discarding everything like D&D normally does, could have a skill system like I described or something else entirely.

It's even possible to add what I am talking about as a variant rule in some splat book they release eventually and then a "Deluxe" PH reprint could have it baked in (Soft edition change, what Paizo should have done).

ah, i misunderstood. that said yes i agree with you that bounded accuracy is not a problem in of itself. rather the numbers defined within 5e's bounded accuracy are due to the low value of them.

to be fair 3.5 DOES have bounded accuracy it is simply insanely huge and limited by DM not being stupid or niche cases like jump (due to run speed check bonus).

yes there are skill boosting items in the game but how high is can you get a wizard to make one (or make it yourself) or even worse how big are some of the numbers listed for given spells. what DM would legitimately give someone a permanent magic item of glibness? its +30 to bluff and makes the lies immune to magical detection. without going insane with buffs 3.5 has a general upper limit on its skills. it's ~40+ attribute + magic items/buffs. 23 from ranks, +2 or so from synergy, ~15 if you sink all your feats into skill boosters (6 +2/+2's and skill focus). now in order to do some of the EPIC checks you require something else to jack up your skills higher or how could you balance on water (dc90), instill a suggestion why lying (DC +50), climb a perfectly smooth vertacle surface (dc70), disable a trap as a free action (dc+100), squeeze through a space too small for your head (DC80), heal hit points in a hour (dc50/100), ect. (+10 for epic skil focus but thats past 20)

Calthropstu

2018-08-27, 09:19 PM

Dragons only go up to ancient in 5e. And when they're Big Bads, they're more along the lines of Iymrith or Klauth. I'd challenge anyone to read Chapter 12 of Storm King's Thunder and math out how many commoners it would take to successfully assault Iymrith's lair and kill her. And she's a schemer, not a Godzilla. Any monster that's gonna be stomping around Tokyo is gonna be immune to mundane weaponry, like the Tarrasque.

Of course. How is an army going to kill him from 6 miles away?

I'm looking through the NPC section in the Monster Manual right now. The only NPCs that can even deal damage to her at all AFAICT are the Druid (+4 to hit for 1d8+2 damage in melee), the Priest (+2 to hit for 3d6 damage in melee a limited number of times per day), and the Archmage (upcast magic missile 3/day for an average of 35 damage). I guess you could do the math to figure out how many of those you'd need to break through her 25 AC and fast healing 30, but I feel like you'll run out of NPCs before she runs out of HP, and anyway, there's a biiit of a divide between "Can be taken down by an army of commoners" and "Can be taken down by an army of 18th level spellcasters."

Scholars in-universe have wondered the same thing. According to Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes: "The most prevalent theory holds that her confinement is related to the end of the long war between the dragons and giants, that she was sequestered here by means of a mighty curse levied by a forgotten god of the giants she slew."

She can be taken out by an army of commoners. 10,000 archers each with 5 sonic arrows will drop her.

Troacctid

2018-08-27, 09:20 PM

She can be taken out by an army of commoners. 10,000 archers each with 5 sonic arrows will drop her.
What's a sonic arrow? And where are you getting 50,000 of them?

Calthropstu

2018-08-27, 09:22 PM

What's a sonic arrow? And where are you getting 50,000 of them?

They don't have magic arrows in 5e?

druid91

2018-08-27, 09:24 PM

I've heard that animating an army of skeletons breaks 5e wide open.

Only on paper. TBH it's not hard to keep that contained without houseruling a thing. You just kill the skeletons. It's not hard. "The dragon breaths fire." and 90% of the skeleton army is ash.

Ignimortis

2018-08-27, 09:31 PM

Contrast D&D with Shadowrun. In Shadowrun, there's basically no vertical progression, since (A) pretty much every character wants to max out their capabilities at game start due to scaling point costs and varying mission rewards, and (B) there's no level progression, so you can be a street samurai with zero social skills or a face with zero combat skills at any point value. Because of this, while you can have tons of fun running missions against Aztechnology or whomever for a whole campaign, the game is always "Shadowrunners doing missions against corps" with no expectation that you grow beyond that. Playing a campaign of Shadowrun is like playing a D&D campaign that starts at, say, 9th level and ends at 12th but lets you pick up lots more low-level feats and spells than normal.

Well, not exactly. There are a few massive jumps in SR 5e...but they're gear-related. If your streetsam can get his hands on a suit of milspec armor, he's now a walking tank who's gonna shrug off everything aside from Panther Cannons and anti-materiel rifles. Your progression in Shadowrun is less explicitly "I'm level 15 now, you can't do jack to me" and more "I have so many contacts and nuyen in my pockets, I can get anything I need". It's 80% horizontal with a few spikes inbetween.

Needless to say, it's good. Shadowrun feels good like that. 5e almost doesn't do horizontal progression, and its' vertical progression is stunted in comparison to most other zero-to-hero games.