PDA

View Full Version : Should we move from 3.5ed to 5ed



Liquor Box
2019-03-31, 11:49 PM
Hi All

Looking for some advice on the relative merits of 3.5 edition and 5th edition (or 4th edition).

I've played 2nd edition before, but most of the time I have played 3rd and 3.5. Now, we're looking at whether to go with a different edition for our next campaign. We'd have to obtain and understand the rules for the new edition, so it's only something we would do it we were likely to prefer it long term.

With 3.5, we like the number of options available for character creation (although we are not uber-optimizers), and prefer that all classes are based off the same template (unlike 2ed). We don't often play past level 10 or so, so we don't have too many issues with wildly differing power levels between classes. We probably tend more toward roll play than role play, but do enjoy some use of non-combat skills and solutions.

What is the major differences we would find between 3.5 and later editions? Which do you recommend?

Great Dragon
2019-04-01, 02:39 AM
5e has a more Basic D&D feel to it.

It has the 'basic chassis' that you might like.

Just remember to start simple (Player's Handbook only, with no feats or multiclasses): Keeping track of what a Subclass is and what it adds to the Base Class can be a challenge at first.

The biggest problem is remembering what Rules changed from 3e to 5e.

They got rid of Alignment restrictions for Classes (Paladin).

Concentration prevents stacking Fly with Invisibility.

Encourage everyone to get their own PHB, to prevent the game being slowed down when looking things up. Once experienced, the Players can add Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Sword Coast Adventurers Guide, and Elemental Evil Player's Guide for more Subclass options. Multiple copies is a good idea.
(I'd print the XGtE information out for them, so that DM info - like Magic Items - are not available.)

Only the DM needs the DMG and Monster Manual. Add Volo's Guide to Monsters and then Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes for new PC Races and Monsters, once the DM is used to running encounters.

Be warry of Homebrew, including Wizard's Unearthed Arcana. A lot of this is untested.

As the DM - Don't be afraid to make mistakes, or ask questions.

Maelynn
2019-04-01, 03:05 AM
Some of the old prestige classes are now subclasses you can choose at around level 3. They're more like specialisations now.

Combat has become a lot easier. Some people feel they 'dumbed it down', others are glad it's become more streamlined.

Rules in general have been simplified.

Many magic items require attunement, and a character has a maximum of 3 items they can be attuned to at any time. Players need to be a bit more selective, although 5e doesn't rely so heavily on magic items anymore so it's not really hampering.

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

As a player I switched from 3.5 to 4e and then to 5e, mostly because the DM of the group I joined used that version. I enjoyed 3.5, I disliked 4e, I like 5e. I'm content with using 5e and wouldn't want to go back to 3.5.

As a DM, the choice was easy because I only started last year when I already played with 5e. I can't really compare editions, but I do think that I would've had a harder time with 3.5 because of all the extra rules. I did read that 5e gives the DM more freedom to rule as they please when there's uncertainty.

Kurald Galain
2019-04-01, 03:06 AM
Looking for some advice on the relative merits of 3.5 edition and 5th edition (or 4th edition).
That depends entirely on your playstyle.

Broadly speaking, 3.5 is about (a) Specialist characters, (b) Extremely high amounts of customization, (c) Mid-level characters are vastly more powerful than at low level, and (d) the game is primarily built to be a world simulator; whereas 5E is about (a) Generalist characters, (b) Some customization, (c) Mid-level characters are only slightly more powerful than at low level, and (d) the game is primarily built to be easy to play. And for comparison, 4E has (a) Generalist characters out of combat but specialist in combat, (b) Pretty high amounts of customization, (c) Mid-level characters are markedly more powerful than at low level, and (d) the game is primarily built for tactical combat.

Metahuman1
2019-04-01, 03:11 AM
Well, I just finished a number of sessions were we were trying 5E out. I, was, on the whole, unimpressed. If you must try it, I strongly recommend you use the SRD by itself first to try before you buy. A few others in the group might want to do it again, but given there conduct I think it has more to do with being massive fans of something called "Critical Roll." than anything to do with actual 5th edition. I know if I ever Play 5E again, it means I lost a vote in the group and am sucking it up to keep the group cohesion for awhile till it's time to play something else.

It's, not as bad as 4th edition. And that's damning with faint praise if ever such a thing has been done.






If you want other systems to look at, PM me and I'll be happy to recommend a couple that are good at different things. I'm doing it this way in an effort NOT to derail the thread or unintentionally start a flame war.

2D8HP
2019-04-01, 07:03 AM
....What is the major differences we would find between 3.5 and later editions? Which do you recommend?


For me that Feats are optional and I don't have to select any to play a Fighter is reason enough, otherwise the

A Grognard's Guide to 5E D&D Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?358474-A-Grognard-s-Guide-to-5E-D-amp-D-Rules)

thread is a great resource for seeing the differences explained

Rhedyn
2019-04-01, 07:17 AM
Hi All

Looking for some advice on the relative merits of 3.5 edition and 5th edition (or 4th edition).

I've played 2nd edition before, but most of the time I have played 3rd and 3.5. Now, we're looking at whether to go with a different edition for our next campaign. We'd have to obtain and understand the rules for the new edition, so it's only something we would do it we were likely to prefer it long term.

With 3.5, we like the number of options available for character creation (although we are not uber-optimizers), and prefer that all classes are based off the same template (unlike 2ed). We don't often play past level 10 or so, so we don't have too many issues with wildly differing power levels between classes. We probably tend more toward roll play than role play, but do enjoy some use of non-combat skills and solutions.

What is the major differences we would find between 3.5 and later editions? Which do you recommend?
I would recommend 4e then if 3e is getting stale.

5e is not great for crunch or "roll play"

Aside from that you may want to look outside of D&D.

Chaosticket
2019-04-01, 09:41 AM
Move to a different Roleplaying game over 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons.

5th edition is boring to me as a Player and Dungeon Master. It doesn't have all the advanced and complicated rules from 1st-3.5 that allow you do things other than combat. 5th edition isn't good at combat either, playing like Checkers with Die rolls.

I suggest you look for a different game that has different settings and themes, and options. Savage Worlds or GURPS maybe.

Vampire the Masquerade 5th edition was released pretty recently. Its more about Roleplaying than Hack-And-Slash. White Wolf Games has the whole series "The World of Darkness" with different areas you can play as.

2D8HP
2019-04-01, 10:05 AM
A bit of pushback on the usual "5e is simplified D&D".

No, it's pretty damn complicated if you use all of the options.

The 48 pages of the "bluebook (https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Dungeons-Dragons-Game-Book/dp/B0084HAO0C)" that I first DM'd with in 1978 is what simplified Dungeons & Dragons looks like, and as far as games go I would rate 5e D&D as more complex than at least 90% of all games.

That 3.5 D&D may be more complex than 95% of all games doesn't make 5e "simple".

I think that one big reason to choose any version of D&D is that it is a fantasy adventure game with lots of players who have some familiarity with the rules, a gamer lingua franca, and the more players 5e has the more worthwhile it is to learn the gist of the rules, if you want to interact with them - for closed tables there's less incentive.

Faily
2019-04-01, 10:42 AM
I wouldn't invest in it to start with. Just use the very basic of stuff and give it a trial run to see how you like the changed mechanics and the way things flow. If you like it, good for you. If you don't, that's fine too.

I personally don't really like the simplified rules and character options in 5e, compared to 3.5/PF. Not a fan of advantage/disadvantage mechanic, and I found character creation to be kinda boring.

But in the end it's all about what you like and what your playgroup likes, so it doesn't hurt to just try it out.

Grod_The_Giant
2019-04-01, 10:49 AM
With 3.5, we like the number of options available for character creation (although we are not uber-optimizers), and prefer that all classes are based off the same template (unlike 2ed). We don't often play past level 10 or so, so we don't have too many issues with wildly differing power levels between classes. We probably tend more toward roll play than role play, but do enjoy some use of non-combat skills and solutions.
I'd suggest 4e. It shouldn't be too hard to find secondhand rulebooks.


Numerous options available for character creation? Check. I count 26 different classes and 20 variants in the list here (https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Class). You also choose a Paragon Path at 10th (which gives you unique powers) and an Epic Destiny at 20th (another set of unique powers). And you get to pick between several powers each time you level up. Plus races, feats, magic items... it was just as much of a content farm as 3.5 was, though there's a lot less third-party and homebrew.
Classes based off the same template? Check indeed. This is actually one of the main complaints leveled at 4e-- all classes are built on the exact same template. Whatever class, you get a "utility" power at 2nd, a per-encounter one at third... it's all very neat.
Don't play past level 10? Ehh. 4e goes up to level 30 by default, though I'm not sure how that stacks in terms of actual playtime.
Tend towards roll play? Check freaking plus. That's the other big 4e complaint-- that it's too combat oriented. Which is... fair. Combat is a meticulously balanced and tactical affair, with marks and forced movement and AoEs and all sorts of good crunchy stuff, and every character comes jam packed with options to throw around in a fight.


5e is best thought of as a slimmed-down 3.5, I think: lower power, less customization, quicker rules, and better balance. It's a good system for people who enjoy the experience of playing D&D but don't care so much about the mechanics; it's a bad system for those who like building and running complicated characters.

Also, as Rhedyn mentioned, you might move away from D&D altogether. What sort of different direction were you thinking for the new campaign? What do you like and dislike about 3.5?

Malphegor
2019-04-01, 10:57 AM
I'd say 5e is a good D&D system that just isn't as heavy as 3.5. That's not a bad thing, keeping track of 3e/3.5's rules is bonkers, and there is always some houserules involved. 5e is the kind of game you might get new people playing without being intimidated, 3.5 is a 'right let's get down to biznes with semantic debates', and AD&D is all 'y'all are wusses'.

I feel Wizards' writing style in fluff has gotten weaker, and a lot of the books I've seen for 5e seem pared down to minimalist/mechanical-focused books. Easier to use as an actual rulebook, but I don't feel whisked away to a potential fantasy land at a glance.

But... I would say play both! Make seperate character sheets for both systems, Try one, try the other, go for about 5 levels, see which one works for your group and your game, then stick with that.

2D8HP
2019-04-01, 10:59 AM
Without spending a dime


You can download a complete legal copy of the D&D Basic Rules from the WotC website here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules).


And for a few more free rules: Download the V5.1 Systems Reference Document (including the OGL) here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd)

The "Lost Mines of Phandelver" adventure in the 5e Starter Set (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/rpg_starterset) is a good one.

But there's thousands of games, I'm very partial to King Arthur Pendragon (https://www.chaosium.com/king-arthur-pendragon-core-rule-book-5-2-edition-hardcover/) myself.

hymer
2019-04-01, 11:28 AM
Without spending a dime
I heartily recommend following this advice. Try it for yourselves. Maybe you will be surprised by something nobody could foresee. It's not a difficult system to try on for someone coming from 3.5.

J-H
2019-04-01, 11:34 AM
There are plenty of good links and info already posted here. As someone who has a good degree of system mastery in 3.5, and a little bit of play time IRL on 5e, I will say that 5e is much, much faster and easier to run combats for. There are fewer trap options and every class can contribute well, versus the massive disparity between the CW Samurai and any T1 class.

The power level is definitely lower, so the feel of the game will change - but I think it is for the better.

Man_Over_Game
2019-04-01, 11:42 AM
3.5: Amazing character creation options, despite having many imbalances. Very "gritty" in terms of power level, since enemies and players use the same builds, but can often have mundane moments (where the Fighter attacks the same way he always has). Relies a bit less on tactics (adapting) and more on strategy (planning).
4.0: Amazing mechanics, but lacks much roleplaying support. Focused around tactical combat, 4e plays much like a game of Battle Chess, where everyone is based around the same chassis (of having At-Will special abilities, Per Encounter special abilities, and Per Day special abilities) and overall is a lot of great fun if you enjoy combat. RP-wise, it falls flat, and the system itself is very rigid. It does have a massive amount of content, and all of it unique. I still sometimes go back and look at how they designed certain classes/monsters for ideas of my own. You'd make the switch to 4e because you want epic, fun, interesting combat scenarios.
5.0: Best in show, but lacks content. 5e learned from its predecessors by focusing more on adapting than 3.5, without becoming rigid like 4e. Most of the classes and builds you can make are very balanced, however few options you have. While the number of subclasses have doubled over its last 5 years, the number of primary classes has stayed the same (at 12). However, with how the classes/subclasses are made, it's actually pretty difficult to create a character that doesn't match what you're looking for. More similar to 3.5 than 4e. You'd make the switch to 5e because you want gameplay to be faster and with fewer imbalances.

Corsair14
2019-04-01, 12:25 PM
I have played every edition since 1st extensively barring that dumpster fire that was 4th. 5th isn't bad but it is dumbed down. Your casters are spell chuckers with infinite powerful cantrips they can use over and over instead of having to manage resources. Rangers aren't very useful like they have been in the past. Proficiencies by the book are useless since everyone can do everything even if they have no skill in it. To get any attempt at classic DnD there is a lot of home brewing required to revamp both the classes and skill system to the point it matters. Alignment is out the window because apparently too many people complained it constrained their character instead of realizing it simply reflected the morals and ethics of the character and if they wanted to play a murder hobo then they should have played an evil character.

On the other hand it is stupidly easy to DM, it flows pretty fast, and is a great intro to role playing games.

Rhedyn
2019-04-01, 12:36 PM
I would argue against 5e being balanced well. For your group of "rarely plays above 10", you will notice far less how the game falls apart.

But otherwise 5e assumes 6 encounters per long rest and 2 short rest per long rest. It is an absolute slog to do that many encounters/combat and it bores me to tears. But once you break that, the game is hilariously unbalanced, but more fun for it. 3.5/4e are much more flexible in encounter pacing for "combat as sport" (as opposed to "combat as war" and you can google the difference if you care. 3e assumes 'combat as sport', but 5e has no problems with 'combat as war', which 3e couldn't really do well).

Faily
2019-04-01, 02:16 PM
I have played every edition since 1st extensively barring that dumpster fire that was 4th. 5th isn't bad but it is dumbed down. Your casters are spell chuckers with infinite powerful cantrips they can use over and over instead of having to manage resources. Rangers aren't very useful like they have been in the past. Proficiencies by the book are useless since everyone can do everything even if they have no skill in it. To get any attempt at classic DnD there is a lot of home brewing required to revamp both the classes and skill system to the point it matters. Alignment is out the window because apparently too many people complained it constrained their character instead of realizing it simply reflected the morals and ethics of the character and if they wanted to play a murder hobo then they should have played an evil character.

On the other hand it is stupidly easy to DM, it flows pretty fast, and is a great intro to role playing games.


This is pretty much a perfect summary of 5e for me.

Man_Over_Game
2019-04-01, 02:30 PM
I have played every edition since 1st extensively barring that dumpster fire that was 4th. 5th isn't bad but it is dumbed down. Your casters are spell chuckers with infinite powerful cantrips they can use over and over instead of having to manage resources. Rangers aren't very useful like they have been in the past. Proficiencies by the book are useless since everyone can do everything even if they have no skill in it. To get any attempt at classic DnD there is a lot of home brewing required to revamp both the classes and skill system to the point it matters. Alignment is out the window because apparently too many people complained it constrained their character instead of realizing it simply reflected the morals and ethics of the character and if they wanted to play a murder hobo then they should have played an evil character.

On the other hand it is stupidly easy to DM, it flows pretty fast, and is a great intro to role playing games.

I do agree that the skills have a pretty big problem.

However, one thing that I think is missing from your summary is why cantrips are that way. Sure, it sounds dumb that they can spam cantrips for moderate damage, but they also improved Fighters and other martial classes so that they can compete with the casters. An "infinite powerful cantrip" does less damage than a Fighter's attack.

So if cantrips are infinitely powerful, how powerful is the Fighter? Infinite+1?

They realized that people play Wizards to cast spells, and not casting spells kinda removes the point of being a Wizard. I definitely questioned why I had to use a crossbow as a Wizard in my first DnD game, and I'm sure many of us felt the same way. So rather than making everyone fit the system, they made the system fit everyone's expectations. I guess it feels odd when you compare everything to 3.5, but it makes sense from any other perspective.

That actually fits the biggest number of people who I've seen complain about 5e. They try to compare it to something they think is the same (like 3.5) rather than seeing it as its own game. So many 5e players have gotten used to people making that mistake that the #1 piece of advice I see on this kind of thread is to not repeat that mistake.

Kurald Galain
2019-04-01, 02:39 PM
They realized that people play Wizards to cast spells, and not casting spells kinda removes the point of being a Wizard.
Yes. 3E solved that with reserve feats (as well as the fact that mid-level spellcasters realistically don't ever run out), and both PF and 4E solve it natively from level 1. To claim that this is somehow an innovation of 5E is really missing the point.

Man_Over_Game
2019-04-01, 02:47 PM
Yes. 3E solved that with reserve feats (as well as the fact that mid-level spellcasters realistically don't ever run out), and both PF and 4E solve it natively from level 1. To claim that this is somehow an innovation of 5E is really missing the point.

I wasn't saying it was an innovation, I was trying to explain why it wasn't a problem.

3E has a solution for it. 4E has a solution for it. PF does it too. So why is it a problem that the same solution is in 5e?

Rhedyn
2019-04-01, 03:06 PM
So why is it a problem that the same solution is in 5e?
Oh I can field this one.

In PF you stop using cantrips after awhile because you have enough real spells.

In 4e, you have enough other powers that during low encounter days, you don't have to spam your at-will as much.

In 5e, you lack 4e's tactical depth, but you are still expected to spam cantrips most of the time from 1-20, which is boring. (3e reserve feats basically are not different, but you chose to get those).

Man_Over_Game
2019-04-01, 03:48 PM
Oh I can field this one.

In PF you stop using cantrips after awhile because you have enough real spells.

In 4e, you have enough other powers that during low encounter days, you don't have to spam your at-will as much.

In 5e, you lack 4e's tactical depth, but you are still expected to spam cantrips most of the time from 1-20, which is boring. (3e reserve feats basically are not different, but you chose to get those).

I'm not sure how bad of a problem that is, though. A level 10 Wizard, for instance, deals 2d10 damage with his Firebolt cantrip, but has access to 15 castings of non-cantrip spells, and 10 more levels of spells from Arcane Recovery divided however he wants (so if he wants two level 5 spells, or ten level 1 spells, it's the same budget).

If scaling is a concern, Burning Hands (a level 1 spell) deals 3d6 damage on a cone (half on a miss). Assuming Firebolt and Burning Hands miss 50% of the time, Firebolt is dealing 5.5 damage on a single target and Burning Hands is dealing 7.9 damage per target hit. And that's comparing the low level stuff. If we're talking upcasted 5th level Fireballs, you're looking at 26.25 damage per target in a 20 foot radius circle (with a 50% hit chance).

Grod_The_Giant
2019-04-01, 03:57 PM
In 5e, you lack 4e's tactical depth, but you are still expected to spam cantrips most of the time from 1-20, which is boring. (3e reserve feats basically are not different, but you chose to get those).
By third level, you should be able to drop at least one leveled spell in every one of your six expected encounters-- more if you save them for the significant fights. Even when reduced to "spamming cantrips," you're still probably choosing between 2-3 options every turn. Compared to the Fighter...?

Kurald Galain
2019-04-01, 04:02 PM
I'm not sure how bad of a problem that is, though. A level 10 Wizard, for instance, deals 2d10 damage with his Firebolt cantrip, but has access to 15 castings of non-cantrip spells
Well for comparison, a level five wizard in PF also has 15 castings of non-cantrip spells. A level five wizard in 4E (assuming four encounters per day) has 14 castings of non-at-will spells. So in terms of versatility and not spamming the same power over and over again, 5E is a pretty big step backwards.

Man_Over_Game
2019-04-01, 04:27 PM
Well for comparison, a level five wizard in PF also has 15 castings of non-cantrip spells. A level five wizard in 4E (assuming four encounters per day) has 14 castings of non-at-will spells. So in terms of versatility and not spamming the same power over and over again, 5E is a pretty big step backwards.

But in Corsair's same sentence, though:


Your casters are spell chuckers with infinite powerful cantrips they can use over and over instead of having to manage resources.

Would you say that the player has to rely more or less on managing resources with the fact that there are fewer spell slots? I really don't mean that condescendingly, but the fact that cantrips are better than in prior editions and that spell slots are less leaves an interesting balance on resource management that I'd like to hear your thoughts on.

redwizard007
2019-04-01, 05:02 PM
I am heartily amused that the last several posts have revolved around those poor, unloved, spell casters. Edition after edition they get the short end of the wand, and have to watch those awesome melee classes poke things with a stick. I'm sick and tired of not being able to challenge a god on their home plane.

Ok, seriously. I've been a dedicated cleric since 2nd edition, and 5th has been just fine. I don't find it particularly challenging, nor is it particularly easy. From what I've seen, the other casters seem to be in similar shape.

Kurald Galain
2019-04-01, 05:40 PM
Would you say that the player has to rely more or less on managing resources with the fact that there are fewer spell slots? I really don't mean that condescendingly, but the fact that cantrips are better than in prior editions and that spell slots are less leaves an interesting balance on resource management that I'd like to hear your thoughts on.

That's a fair question. I'd say that having an infinite resource means you'd have to do less resource management. This makes the game more easy to play and less tactical, which is of course a matter of taste. It's clear that ease of play is popular with many players.

Rhedyn
2019-04-01, 05:43 PM
By third level, you should be able to drop at least one leveled spell in every one of your six expected encounters-- more if you save them for the significant fights. Even when reduced to "spamming cantrips," you're still probably choosing between 2-3 options every turn. Compared to the Fighter...?I can only assume you are agreeing with me.

For a more exciting, but not more complex fighter, I would check out the Dungeon Crawl Classic RPG. Their BAB is basically a die (in addition to the d20). Each attack they declare some special thing they are trying to do. On a "BAB die" of 3 or higher, they succeed at that thing if they hit with their attack. So every round, they attack and do utility actions. Overall DCC is a great system if you do not mind the lack of character builds (and the sheer randomness) but still want to get that low level D&D fix.

Mordaedil
2019-04-02, 01:46 AM
I really prefer 3.5/PF rules for more indepth games where you can kinda take the reigns of the story a bit. You have an absolute ****-ton of options and there's almost no end to the variety of things you can accomplish and do in this ruleset, but they require a ton of investment to even figure out the odds and ends. It can be hugely demanding and making calls on "value" can be overwhelming and maybe distract from the intent of things.

5e is more or less perfect for a certain kind of game and one I enjoy quite a bit. In the investigative RPG, all party members can contribute something in pretty much any scenario. The druid can talk to the animals, the barbarian can track through the mud and the sorcerer can become an investigator.

I enjoy them both a lot, but I don't think saying "yes switch" or "no stay" is the right call. Give a game of 5e a try, see if your group likes it and take it from there. Just go in with an open mind and you'll see if you'd rather stick with 3.5.

Chaosticket
2019-04-03, 01:36 PM
I am heartily amused that the last several posts have revolved around those poor, unloved, spell casters. Edition after edition they get the short end of the wand, and have to watch those awesome melee classes poke things with a stick. I'm sick and tired of not being able to challenge a god on their home plane.

Ok, seriously. I've been a dedicated cleric since 2nd edition, and 5th has been just fine. I don't find it particularly challenging, nor is it particularly easy. From what I've seen, the other casters seem to be in similar shape.

This is the fundamental argument that has been going on for 40+ years. Spellcasters are supposed to start weak and get stronger. And they do but the editions keep changing the balance, by literally "taking away the magic". Back in 1st edition you could roll a 1 Hit Point for a Magic User class, that had 1 spell a day. Try surviving like that!

5th edition a Wizard and Sorcerer are much stronger at the start. Infinite Fire Bolt cantrips, like a 3.5 Warlock. Why is that bad? all your spells are worse, you get less of them, and you do the same thing all the time.

That's the fundamental problem with 5th edition. It took out the complex, powerful, and high level options, but not just for a few, but for everyone. Early on each 5e Class has what its going to be doing FOREVER. This isn't like 1-3.5 where you would unlock something and be AWESOME as a result.

5e is easy because you cant really fail. You don't have to look at which of the 50 Skills are useful and what for. You don't have to look up a Spell Compendium to know the uses of spells. Characters even basically get Extra Lives in the form of Death Saves.
Its so easy to know everything. There are few races, few classes, few items, few spells.
Its not like digging for precious metals. The gold is in the Core Rulebook.

3.5 is NOT a flawless game, but from the Player side if you don't like something you can look up different things. Different races, classes, items, spells, Variant Classes, Prestige Classes, and so on. So you aren't really stuck with anything.
From a DM side I can understand why you wouldn't want that as trying to keep Player's from escaping the Railroad would be harder.

Ive tried different 5e groups and they have same problems over and over. They just play it as a Combat Game with some roleplaying to pretend Players are making their own story. Feels like 5e was made by a DM that had Obsessive Control Issues.

So well...5e is great for DMs but I hate it as a Player. Ask your group. 5e isn't better, but if you don't play with the whole 3.5e toolbox of books and options then its not good for you. I still suggest you try other games first. Switching is a much simpler Edition of the same game probably wouldn't help. Trying a different Genre would be a stronger change.

Man_Over_Game
2019-04-03, 03:46 PM
This is the fundamental argument that has been going on for 40+ years. Spellcasters are supposed to start weak and get stronger. And they do but the editions keep changing the balance, by literally "taking away the magic". Back in 1st edition you could roll a 1 Hit Point for a Magic User class, that had 1 spell a day. Try surviving like that!

5th edition a Wizard and Sorcerer are much stronger at the start. Infinite Fire Bolt cantrips, like a 3.5 Warlock. Why is that bad? all your spells are worse, you get less of them, and you do the same thing all the time.

That's the fundamental problem with 5th edition. It took out the complex, powerful, and high level options, but not just for a few, but for everyone. Early on each 5e Class has what its going to be doing FOREVER. This isn't like 1-3.5 where you would unlock something and be AWESOME as a result.

5e is easy because you cant really fail. You don't have to look at which of the 50 Skills are useful and what for. You don't have to look up a Spell Compendium to know the uses of spells. Characters even basically get Extra Lives in the form of Death Saves.
Its so easy to know everything. There are few races, few classes, few items, few spells.
Its not like digging for precious metals. The gold is in the Core Rulebook.

3.5 is NOT a flawless game, but from the Player side if you don't like something you can look up different things. Different races, classes, items, spells, Variant Classes, Prestige Classes, and so on. So you aren't really stuck with anything.
From a DM side I can understand why you wouldn't want that as trying to keep Player's from escaping the Railroad would be harder.

Ive tried different 5e groups and they have same problems over and over. They just play it as a Combat Game with some roleplaying to pretend Players are making their own story. Feels like 5e was made by a DM that had Obsessive Control Issues.

So well...5e is great for DMs but I hate it as a Player. Ask your group. 5e isn't better, but if you don't play with the whole 3.5e toolbox of books and options then its not good for you. I still suggest you try other games first. Switching is a much simpler Edition of the same game probably wouldn't help. Trying a different Genre would be a stronger change.

I actually wish I could find 5e groups that liked combat a bit more. The last 2 major groups I was with might have had 1 combat every 2 sessions on average. With one session every two weeks, that's one fight a month. I gotta get my fix, man!

Malifice
2019-04-03, 10:38 PM
3.P's real game for many people is in the system mastery metagame. Actually playing it is secondary.

If you have a table with mixed levels of system mastery, it's a total nightmare to DM. Run a Pathfinder Core Monk, Rogue or Fighter next to an 'optimised' PC (traits, dips, spells, alternate class features, etc) and see what happens.

And even if you dont, a single rules lawyer can make it a nightmare, due to the exessive rules bloat leading to literally millions of rules interactions between different class features, traits, feats, spells, etc that can lead to weird interactions or overbalanced combos or whatever.

Flicking through splatbooks to look up various rule interactions of different abilities etc, and what stacks/ doesnt stack, and constant recalculation etc. I play games to have fun. Crunchy maths and referencing indexes and looking up rules isnt my idea of fun.

I'm not edition warring here; some people like that in a game for some reason. I was once one of them. More luck to you if you're reading this, and thats you.

The advantage of 5E is you can pick it up and be playing it within minutes, with next to no system mastery required, and even at tables with wildly different levels of system mastery it still works, and the gap is minimal. There is no such thing as a trap build (which in 3.P includes half the classes from the CRB). You can crunch the numbers between a TWF Champion Fighter (considered totally suboptimal) and a Wizard (generally considered top tier) and they function just fine together without outshining each other.

And if you want to give the Fighter more oomph, the game lets you do that by dialing in more encounters between long rests, and more short rests between long rests. If you feel the Wizard is lacking, you do the opposite.

The disadvantage of 5E is its simplicity can be a turn off for a lot of people (particularly in the area of skills) and while it provides some awesome tools for the DM with tweaking the Rest/ Resource recovery mechanics of DnD and being able to manage and tweak class balance accordingly (by adding or taking away rests and encounters per adventuring day), it can be a chore to have to frequently police the adventuring day to ensure class balance.

Every edition of DnD has suffered from the 5MWD to some extent of course, so in some respects that same charge can be levelled against any edition of the game. DnD is (and always has been) a resource management game (mechanically) in which you are expected to roleplay a character (the last bit is often optional!).

Personally it's my favorite edition of the game so far. I'd prefer it if the game moved away from 'daily/ short rest' abilities and towards all abilities being 'per encounter' abilities (with a recharge during combat - but at a cost - mechanic) so the game wasnt so locked into the sixish encounter/ 2 short rest adventuring day median, and can finally deal with the 5MWD once and for all however.

Man_Over_Game
2019-04-05, 12:11 PM
One interesting argument, that user 2d8HP brought up in another thread, was that 5e seems simple in comparison to 3.5, but it's actually quite complex compared to other editions.

The large-print 1994 'The Classic Dungeons and Dragons Rules and Adventures Book' has 128 pages. Dnd 5e has over double that.

I wouldn't consider 5e to be "simple". Rather, it's "manageable", which is a dramatic enough shift to how 3.5 can be in comparison. Comparing 5e to 3.5 is like comparing Rocket Science to Quantum Chromodynamics, and then saying Rocket Science is "simple".

redwizard007
2019-04-05, 04:34 PM
There is another aspect to this question that I haven't seen addressed yet. What type of game do you enjoy, not from a complexity stand point, but from 1-20 power curve?

I haven't gone high level yet, but it seems like the power curve is fairly low. This doesn't feel like 3.5, where Elminster, curse his name, can wipe out armies before breakfast. The difference between a level 3, 9, & 15th level character feels smaller than in previous editions. Like I said, my sample size is rather small, but it's a definite impression that I'm picking up.

noob
2019-04-05, 04:46 PM
Yes trying older editions might make the game simpler in amount of rules.
or you could even go as far as using grod's adaptation of dnd to mutants and masterminds.(if you have to learn a new system at least learn a system that will not induce confusion by being too similar and that is simple)
Or you can stay at the edition you are using if the group does not wants 5e specifically(if the majority of the members of the group explicitly asked for 5e it can make changing edition important).
In 5e characters not growing too far can be removed rather easily: make that at high level enough low level creatures have an harder and harder time attacking you(it is the main reason why high level 5e characters does not feels epic: a swarm of mooks can beat the most elite team while in fiction the usual rule is "less numerous is stronger").

zlefin
2019-04-05, 04:53 PM
Check your local library. sometimes local libraries have game books. mine had the ones for 5th ed, so I got to read them at some point (or at any rate, they're part of a group of libraries that pass stuff back and forth between each other).
that'd let you try out 5ed, if you're lucky they might also have a copy of one of the adventure modules.

noob
2019-04-05, 04:54 PM
Check your local library. sometimes local libraries have game books. mine had the ones for 5th ed, so I got to read them at some point (or at any rate, they're part of a group of libraries that pass stuff back and forth between each other).
that'd let you try out 5ed, if you're lucky they might also have a copy of one of the adventure modules.

Trying a system takes quite a lot of time so the question is: is the thread creator motivated to play 5e?

War_lord
2019-04-05, 05:59 PM
Hi OP,

I'd suggest either sticking with 3.5 or moving to Pathfinder, which is essentially a continuation of 3.5's design philosophy. The main strength of 5th edition is that it requires very little time investment to learn. The rules are written to be very broad so that there's a minimum of minutiae that might require mid-game searching. Character creation is simplified, there's very few ways to make a character who is actively terrible or actively superior to everyone else at the table without trying very hard. Over all, 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons is designed to be accessible to the average person, who only has limited time and interest to invest in roleplaying games. Not only is this smart from a business perspective, it's good for the hobby because it brings more people in, which will trickle down to increased sales for more niche systems.

But it makes it a poor game for those who have grown up on 3.5, because if you grew up on 3.5 the "system mastery" (a.k.a Ivory Tower) school of game design is what your group is used to. Which means they're heavily invested in the character building mini-game and "optimization". Which 5e rejects entirely, leading to angry 3.5 players when most of their reason for playing is gone.

This is not to bash either system, I just wanted to provide more context to some of the... visceral reactions 5e gets on this forum. 5e is a great game, it's just not appealing to the kind of people who pour over 3.5 optimization guides never realizing they fell for Monte Cooke's marketing trick. So from the description you give, it's not the right game for your table.


I wouldn't consider 5e to be "simple". Rather, it's "manageable", which is a dramatic enough shift to how 3.5 can be in comparison. Comparing 5e to 3.5 is like comparing Rocket Science to Quantum Chromodynamics, and then saying Rocket Science is "simple".

The issue with determining relative complexity between 5th edition and 3.5 is that 5th edition was written with the rational understanding that rules should be clear. 3.5 was deliberately opaquely written to create a false sense of "mastery" in players who actually took the time to comprehend it:


There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea. I was just reading a passage from a recent book, and I found it rather obtuse. But it wasn't the writer's fault. He was just following the lead the core books offered him. Nevertheless, the whole thing would have been much better if the writer had just broken through the barrier this kind of design sets up between designer and player and just told the reader what the heck he was talking about. -Monte Cooke

TL;DR: 3.5 was designed to farm addons to a small, very dedicated, fanbase. 5th edition is designed to sell as many core books as possible by maintaining a low barrier to entry.

noob
2019-04-06, 01:58 AM
Hi OP,

I'd suggest either sticking with 3.5 or moving to Pathfinder, which is essentially a continuation of 3.5's design philosophy. The main strength of 5th edition is that it requires very little time investment to learn. The rules are written to be very broad so that there's a minimum of minutiae that might require mid-game searching. Character creation is simplified, there's very few ways to make a character who is actively terrible or actively superior to everyone else at the table without trying very hard. Over all, 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons is designed to be accessible to the average person, who only has limited time and interest to invest in roleplaying games. Not only is this smart from a business perspective, it's good for the hobby because it brings more people in, which will trickle down to increased sales for more niche systems.

But it makes it a poor game for those who have grown up on 3.5, because if you grew up on 3.5 the "system mastery" (a.k.a Ivory Tower) school of game design is what your group is used to. Which means they're heavily invested in the character building mini-game and "optimization". Which 5e rejects entirely, leading to angry 3.5 players when most of their reason for playing is gone.

This is not to bash either system, I just wanted to provide more context to some of the... visceral reactions 5e gets on this forum. 5e is a great game, it's just not appealing to the kind of people who pour over 3.5 optimization guides never realizing they fell for Monte Cooke's marketing trick. So from the description you give, it's not the right game for your table.



The issue with determining relative complexity between 5th edition and 3.5 is that 5th edition was written with the rational understanding that rules should be clear. 3.5 was deliberately opaquely written to create a false sense of "mastery" in players who actually took the time to comprehend it:



TL;DR: 3.5 was designed to farm addons to a small, very dedicated, fanbase. 5th edition is designed to sell as many core books as possible by maintaining a low barrier to entry.

that is quite false. Many people playing 3.5 tries suboptimal character concepts for fun frequently(like "I am a barbarian with no spellcasting and no magical items to replace it and I pretend to be a wizard")
saying people play only optimized characters would be like saying "dnd 5e players always recruits armies and play a fullcaster (control weather is a must have to protect your army) or someone with huge social/assassination/quick striking and disengaging abilities"

J-H
2019-04-06, 07:57 AM
Items in 3.5 follow much more stringent rules, including a "You must be +1 to enter" requirement and an expectation that all the good stuff with flavor is either weak (Hawkfeather armor/owlfeather armor), or only available with your WBL hits a certain point.

Here are some items I made for 5e. I would not have a problem giving any of these to a 3rd level character in 5e, except possibly Fire Tooth (intended for a caster, but a Rogue or EK could get a lot of mileage). In 3.5, I'm not even sure how I'd price some of these. It'd be a lot of extra work.... itemization is much closer to the 2e ideal where you can throw unique abilities or traits all over the place instead of playing MIC Potato Head:

Cobra-head mace:
This mace has a head of hammered bronze, shaped to look like the head of a cobra with its hood flared out. You took it from the mummy of Azur-Khuresh. It does +1d4 poison damage on hit, and is considered magical.

Spider's Fang dagger
This dagger is made from the carved fang of some sort of huge spider, and the pommel is set with an emerald surrounded by mithril filligree. It grants +1 to hit and damage, and does 1d4 extra poison damage on hit.

Obsidian Edge
This dagger is made of obsidian, magically hardened to be less brittle. Twice per day, it can cast Blindness on-hit, save DC 12. (Make it a +1 or a +0 at your discretion).

Goldfinder
This +1 dagger can be used once per week to cast Locate Object, keyed towards the largest concentration of gold pieces within a 5' radius within 2 miles. It also gives the bearer advantage on Perception checks to detect pickpocketing attempts.

Fire Tooth
This +2 dagger appears to be just a hilt until it is drawn and the command word spoken. A bright flame then springs out of the hilt, coming out straight but always curving slightly upwards. It deals fire damage instead of piercing damage. Once per day, the magic of the blade can be invoked while held to cause a Fire spell to do 2d6 bonus damage.

Kurald Galain
2019-04-06, 04:28 PM
Here are some items I made for 5e. I would not have a problem giving any of these to a 3rd level character in 5e, except possibly Fire Tooth (intended for a caster, but a Rogue or EK could get a lot of mileage).
You could, of course, use the exact same items in 2E or 3E or 4E or PF without any problems. The ability to homebrew items has nothing to do with edition choice.

J-H
2019-04-06, 10:00 PM
3E has a lot more "rules" that you're supposed to follow regarding items, pricing, etc. Coming from 2nd edition (Baldur's Gate II) to 3.5 was quite a let-down when it came to how boring most items ended up being.

War_lord
2019-04-06, 11:47 PM
that is quite false. Many people playing 3.5 tries suboptimal character concepts for fun frequently(like "I am a barbarian with no spellcasting and no magical items to replace it and I pretend to be a wizard")
saying people play only optimized characters would be like saying "dnd 5e players always recruits armies and play a fullcaster (control weather is a must have to protect your army) or someone with huge social/assassination/quick striking and disengaging abilities"

No, it would not be the same, because the purpose of character creation in 5e is to create a character to play the game with. 3rd edition was designed so that "mastering" the character creation IS the game, much like how in MtG the purpose of the game IS building a deck that will wipe the floor with anyone who hasn't "mastered" the game. This feeling of "mastery" is created by deliberately obfuscating rules and filling creation process with deliberately bad options. You can say it ain't so, but the fact is that Monte Cook, one of the lead designers of 3rd edition has admitted that this was the case.

noob
2019-04-07, 05:49 AM
No, it would not be the same, because the purpose of character creation in 5e is to create a character to play the game with. 3rd edition was designed so that "mastering" the character creation IS the game, much like how in MtG the purpose of the game IS building a deck that will wipe the floor with anyone who hasn't "mastered" the game. This feeling of "mastery" is created by deliberately obfuscating rules and filling creation process with deliberately bad options. You can say it ain't so, but the fact is that Monte Cook, one of the lead designers of 3rd edition has admitted that this was the case.

At least where I play character building is not the most important part: efforts placed in making a characters have an utterly negligible impact on the game since afterwards resourcefulness and planning does 342232655425234 times more than having twice as big numbers everywhere.
The typical example of that is plans that involves flattening a whole building: having more optimized characters than single classed adventurers(with the repartition fighter, rogue,wizard,bard and cleric) with no feats will have a negligible impact on the ability to do building flattening with drops of shrunk items you unshrink mid air.
Neither optimized characters will help much with paying a spy to put rats with contingent dispel magic and turned in objects(so that their magical aura can be hidden with nystull magic aura) on an employee of a heavily guarded building in order to have a bunch of dispel magic trigger at once around the employee while it is in the building(thus allowing teleport infiltration within the building)
all it took was picking the indicated set of core classes and being single classed and taking no feats nor magic items and just buying the needed spells or spell scrolls(for a mercenary caster ideally to make linking the whole thing to you harder) as the plan progress (which is not part of character building if it is done mid game when you find you need those spells).
Or knowing you need to have a way to disengage fast and/or safely(teleportation for example is not enough reliable alone because there is many ways to counter it) when venturing in a dungeon and so not entering rooms too much deep in it until you made everything safe by building walls(the ordinary way if you do not have wall spells) next to the current walls(for avoiding trap and secret passage problems), destroying everything that could be an hidden monster(destroy all statues even those the gm did not mention before you asked if there was statues and do so with skeletons too and find a way to destroy columns from outside of the dungeon)
And/or start by flattening the dungeon.
Also always have the safest bases for resting (not taverns unless you can not get anything better but in taverns it is common to get your throat sliced during the night)

War_lord
2019-04-07, 08:42 AM
At least where I play character building is not the most important part

The way the game was designed, character building is the most important, that is not an opinion statement. Some people get it in their heads to try and play 5e as a politics simulator, that doesn't change the fact that it's a casual dungeon crawler.

noob
2019-04-07, 08:55 AM
The way the game was designed, character building is the most important, that is not an opinion statement. Some people get it in their heads to try and play 5e as a politics simulator, that doesn't change the fact that it's a casual dungeon crawler.

If the players are playing optimally character building is the least important part for solving problems.
By spending more time building your character you are spending less time creating additional tactics and counter tactics.
The way the game is designed results in this situation where time spent in tactics is better spent than time spent making your character more optimized.
The intent of the designers was to make character building important and they failed except when somehow everybody agrees to not use tactics and to ram the opponents personally and with no preparation.

Thrudd
2019-04-07, 03:05 PM
One thing about 5e is that it was designed in a more blatantly modular way. Many rules and mechanics are optional, and in some cases there are alternatives for different play styles. Feats are less frequent but more powerful, and are of optional inclusion. Multiclassing is also an optional rule: you can restrict it, by the book, if that's how you prefer your game. There are options for different ways to allow healing and spending down time to adjust the "grittiness" of the game.
There are few or no "trap options" that will make a character unviable later on. Keeping track of combat bonuses and penalties has been vastly simplified with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic- combat should be significantly faster than it was in 4e and in 3.5e. Simplifications of the skill system speed up gameplay. Introduction of backgrounds, ideals, bonds and flaws makes for better character building over just alignment.
It's a nice game. I'd give it a try. There's a lot to be said for ease and speed of play.

noob
2019-04-07, 03:40 PM
One thing about 5e is that it was designed in a more blatantly modular way. Many rules and mechanics are optional, and in some cases there are alternatives for different play styles. Feats are less frequent but more powerful, and are of optional inclusion. Multiclassing is also an optional rule: you can restrict it, by the book, if that's how you prefer your game. There are options for different ways to allow healing and spending down time to adjust the "grittiness" of the game.
There are few or no "trap options" that will make a character unviable later on. Keeping track of combat bonuses and penalties has been vastly simplified with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic- combat should be significantly faster than it was in 4e and in 3.5e. Simplifications of the skill system speed up gameplay. Introduction of backgrounds, ideals, bonds and flaws makes for better character building over just alignment.
It's a nice game. I'd give it a try. There's a lot to be said for ease and speed of play.

And so can be said of even simpler systems around.
I think dnd is heavy and that there is a lot of simpler modular games around.

Thrudd
2019-04-07, 06:19 PM
And so can be said of even simpler systems around.
I think dnd is heavy and that there is a lot of simpler modular games around.

Sure. But some folks like D&D and switching isn't in the cards. Personally, I'll go for a B/X/AD&D homebrew or clone over 5e for dungeon crawling adventures. But 5e is simpler than 3e, while maintaining a lot of the variety that 3e had. So if they aren't jumping to a generic or a truly rules light or narrative game, 5e has some advantages over 3e in the ease/speed department