ok 5th edition vs 3.5. is 5th more restritive

[Stormwolf69]

ok, I may be not read the right material for this but As a DM and as a player is it me or do it feel like the 5th edition is more restrictive when it comes to options than the 3.5 edition and I have to turn to homebrew to get out of problems. An example of this is well I have found no rules, for example, playing a succubus. one of my favorite monster races. Or materal that will inspire an evil campain.

[J-H]

5th edition has fewer options.
It's generally more home-brew friendly, and easier to homebrew for.

Building PCs & monsters is MUCH faster and simpler.
Actual play is much faster and simpler.
DMing is much easier as a result.

The optimization floors & ceilings are much closer together, so you're less likely to have one party member completely overshadowing another in every way.

[OldTrees1]

My 3.5 Library weighs more than 50lbs.
My 5E Library weighs less than 5lbs.
Both libraries are roughly equally incomplete.
Of course 5E is more restrictive, there is less of it.

Yeah monstrous races (when not diluted) are hard in 5E.


It's generally more home-brew friendly, and easier to homebrew for.
Really? The power curve is not smooth and not intended to be smooth (5th, 11th, 16th). Bounded Accuracy is too easily broken. Higher level races don't have precedent. There is a lot that 5E does to make it harder to homebrew for. Even encounter design is harder now (3rd had CR X + CR X = CR X+2 as a guideline due to the smooth exponential power curve).

[Christew]

ok, I may be not read the right material for this but As a DM and as a player is it me or do it feel like the 5th edition is more restrictive when it comes to options than the 3.5 edition and I have to turn to homebrew to get out of problems. An example of this is well I have found no rules, for example, playing a succubus. one of my favorite monster races. Or materal that will inspire an evil campain.
Succubus: https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/succubus

3/3.5e was less restrictive in the sense that it published way more material and therefore had more options available. 5e is less restrictive in that it has a rulings/rules philosophy baked in. If you can't find it for 5e (which, based on the Succubus/Evil campaign comments, it sounds like you haven't even attempted) just make it up based on similar material.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It doesn't have level-adjusted races like 3.5 did, probably because they want every race to be balanced against all the others. A Bugbear PC doesn't get an extra die of damage on every attack like the monster version does. 5e monsters have over twice as many HD as their CR, many have over 20 HD, which basically makes them unplayable if you try to use 3.5's ECL system.

For a 5e Succubus, make a winged tiefling fiendlock with pact of the chain.

[XmonkTad]

Stupid answer, but it's kinda both. AL for sure is more restrictive. There are fewer prescribed options for things in general because of a lack of material.

However, as has been pointed out, be use the ceilings and floor for optimization are so close together, and homebrewing requires much less math (and therefore preparation), there feel like more legitimate ways to play.

Let's say you wanted to play a pacifist. In 3E, you could open up the BoED, check out "Vow of Peace" and there you go. In 5e AL, you're out of luck. In a private 5E game, your DM would have a fairly easy time designing something for you. Of course, your DM could have done that in 3E as well, but it would always beg the question: why didnt you just take VoP?

[JackPhoenix]

Let's say you wanted to play a pacifist. In 3E, you could open up the BoED, check out "Vow of Peace" and there you go. In 5e AL, you're out of luck. In a private 5E game, your DM would have a fairly easy time designing something for you. Of course, your DM could have done that in 3E as well, but it would always beg the question: why didnt you just take VoP?

You know you don't need a special ability to play a pacifist, right? Just.... make a pacifist. It's not a good idea in either edition, both are still based mostly around combat, especially when AL is involved, but perfectly doable.

[Man on Fire]

I can pretty much make any character I want with a bit of refluffing in 5e. In 3.5 and Pathfinder your "endless possibilities" turned out to be a lie the moment you tried making an Orc who is anything but a dumb brute.

[Amnestic]

Let's say you wanted to play a pacifist. In 3E, you could open up the BoED, check out "Vow of Peace" and there you go. In 5e AL, you're out of luck. In a private 5E game, your DM would have a fairly easy time designing something for you. Of course, your DM could have done that in 3E as well, but it would always beg the question: why didnt you just take VoP?

There's...relatively easy ways to place a 'pacifist' in 5e. Just don't take any damage spells. VoP in 3.5 mimics an enchantment spell so just play an Enchanter wizard. Or a healbot/buffbot cleric or bard or divine soul sorcerer or something like that. It's totally doable.

Heck, VoP in 3.5 doesn't even prohibit doing damage, just 'harmful' damage while nonlethal is still okay. 5e makes this easier by not nerfing you if you choose to not kill enemies. You could easily play a 'pacifist' fighter in 5e who beats people unconscious with a stick, and satisfies the criteria of the 3.5 VoP.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It's generally more home-brew friendly, and easier to homebrew for.
.

I disagree, 3.5e had the same rules for monsters and PCs, and a very easy to understand templates. It was easier to balance homebrew based on what you already have instead of homebrew based on less in 5e.

[Toadkiller]

Hey look people disagreeing on the internet. Haven’t seen that before. :)

It is probably easiest to just play some 5e. It is mostly the same game as 3.5 (or those that came before it) but lots of details have obviously changed. With an experienced and flexible DM I think most concepts can be brought to life with passible accuracy.

[gkathellar]

If by restrictive you mean, "doesn't have the same ridiculously bonkers number of options," then yes, 5E is absolutely more restrictive. Some of that comes down to a greater effort being made to make all options relevant, and some of it comes down to 5E's diminished desire to provide rules to simulate every aspect of the universe, but regardless of the reasons, if that's your definition of restrictive, 5E fits it.

[Nifft]

In my experience with 3.5e, balance was a thing imposed by the group of players (including the DM) in spite of the rules.

In 5e, it seems more like the rules actually help maintain balance a bit.


DMs I've had who got burned by 3.x imbalance seemed to run more restricted subsets of the rules, hoping that would remove the imbalance (which it didn't since some of the worst offenders were in the Core books).

DMs seem more open to wider options in 5e, but also there are fewer official options around.


The more restrictive one might depend on which side of the screen you're on.

[Grod_The_Giant]

5e is certainly more restrictive in terms of character building (waaaay fewer choices and options), but arguably less so at the table (lots of tactics in 3.5 were actively detrimental if you didn't build for them).


Really? The power curve is not smooth and not intended to be smooth (5th, 11th, 16th). Bounded Accuracy is too easily broken. Higher level races don't have precedent. There is a lot that 5E does to make it harder to homebrew for. Even encounter design is harder now (3rd had CR X + CR X = CR X+2 as a guideline due to the smooth exponential power curve).
Eh. I've done a bunch of homebrew for both editions.

3.5 is easier in that balance is largely a matter of choice, so you have way more wiggle room when it comes to "how powerful do I make this?" You also had huge troves of existing material to draw on, which could be both a help (I can tailor the exact spell list I want) and a problem (I have to consider ten thousand kinds of interactions).
5e is easier in that there's consistent math and structure throughout the game (The tiers in particular are very useful when designing base classes-- you give significant boosts at 5th/11th/17th, and fill the levels between with incremental advancement). On the one hand, it's much easier to make a specific feat or subclass to fill a role that once would have required a prestige (or even base) class; on the other hand, it's really easy to overshoot the power ceiling.

[HolyDraconus]

Personally, 5th is more restrictive. 3.x had things actually outlined like how to make a 1-20 campaign where the only enemy is kobolds and how to increase their hit die and abilities to reflect that. 5th? Doesn't. Sure you can Homebrew, but that shouldn't be an answer to a lack of a written ruling. 5th does have a harder hit on spellcasters, and I begrudgingly respect that.

[JackPhoenix]

Personally, 5th is more restrictive. 3.x had things actually outlined like how to make a 1-20 campaign where the only enemy is kobolds and how to increase their hit die and abilities to reflect that. 5th? Doesn't. Sure you can Homebrew, but that shouldn't be an answer to a lack of a written ruling. 5th does have a harder hit on spellcasters, and I begrudgingly respect that.

If only there was some sort of a guide for dungeon masters that explains how to create custom monsters, and what stats should a creature of certain CR have.... oh wait.

[carnomancy]

I cut my teeth on 3.5/3.0. I have a great deal of love for aspects of it, but there was plenty that felt plenty restrictive in some places despite a wealth of content. An example; when I was new I knew nothing about the classes, but I did know that Dnd had Lizardfolk and I wanted to play one. The rules for level adjustment and racial hit die however, made sure that I was never able to play a Lizardfolk during my run of 3.5/3.0. The whole implementation of racial hit die and level adjustment ended up feeling like a passive aggressive means of punishing the player for trying to play something more uncommon. This would pop up in other areas of the game too.

Granted I have my frustrations with 5e too. That has more to do with the glacial release pace and what feels like a reluctance to pen anything new for the game. Oh, and their treatment of Psionics is a sore point, since it feels like what they've been releasing isn't drawing from what made it work for me in the past. Despite those criticisms, I admire the edition for being so much easier to get going and play.

[JNAProductions]

Personally, 5th is more restrictive. 3.x had things actually outlined like how to make a 1-20 campaign where the only enemy is kobolds and how to increase their hit die and abilities to reflect that. 5th? Doesn't. Sure you can Homebrew, but that shouldn't be an answer to a lack of a written ruling. 5th does have a harder hit on spellcasters, and I begrudgingly respect that.

Right, so a kobold that's advanced to 40 HD is a proper challenge for a level 10 party, right?
Or a Kobold Fighter 10 is the same challenge as a Kobold Wizard 10? That's what the rules say.

See, here's the thing-conceptually, I prefer 3.5's method of making/upgrading monsters. You have a base monster-say, CR 10. You apply this template, for +2 CR, and then add four hit dice, for another +2. Boom, it's CR 14.

In theory, that's great! It's perfect! It's way easier than manually making a whole monster! In practice, though... It didn't work like that. Your level 14 party might be a Monk, two Fighters, and a Barbarian who doesn't have Power Attack, or it could be a Warblade, a Druid, a Wizard, and a Psion. And for either party, that CR 14 monster is likely to be a bad challenge-either too tough or too weak.

[NigelWalmsley]

The different between 3.5 and 5e is basically that 3.5 contains a much larger number of options, but of the options 5e contains, a much larger percentage of them are live. If you are knowledgeable enough to avoid the footguns, 3.5 will allow you to do things 5e never will, but if you want to just pick a class and build a character, 5e will work better (though, frankly, unexamined 3.5 works pretty well too -- in almost every game, it takes at least a little poking to break things).


In theory, that's great! It's perfect! It's way easier than manually making a whole monster! In practice, though... It didn't work like that. Your level 14 party might be a Monk, two Fighters, and a Barbarian who doesn't have Power Attack, or it could be a Warblade, a Druid, a Wizard, and a Psion. And for either party, that CR 14 monster is likely to be a bad challenge-either too tough or too weak.

I don't think this is an especially strong criticism of CR. Yes, parties can vary in capability. But as long as CR is consistent, it doesn't really matter. If your party bats above CR, you can simply use higher CR monsters. If they bat below, you can use lower CR ones. As long as you can accurately assess the abilities of the party, and as long as monsters of a particular CR are comparable, CR provides a useful tool.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think this is an especially strong criticism of CR. Yes, parties can vary in capability. But as long as CR is consistent, it doesn't really matter. If your party bats above CR, you can simply use higher CR monsters. If they bat below, you can use lower CR ones. As long as you can accurately assess the abilities of the party, and as long as monsters of a particular CR are comparable, CR provides a useful tool.

Except CR isn't consistent. Compare the Kobold Fighter 10 to the Kobold Wizard 10. They're going to vary WILDLY in power, depending on how exactly they're built-but by the rules, they're both CR 10.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't think this is an especially strong criticism of CR. Yes, parties can vary in capability. But as long as CR is consistent, it doesn't really matter. If your party bats above CR, you can simply use higher CR monsters. If they bat below, you can use lower CR ones. As long as you can accurately assess the abilities of the party, and as long as monsters of a particular CR are comparable, CR provides a useful tool.

But the CR wasn't consistent. The kobold had the same CR with 10 levels of monk and 10 levels of optimised wizard, assuming their stat spread and WBL was the same. Anyone familiar with the system will tell you they wouldn't present anywhere near the comparable threat. It was worse when it came to higher-HD monsters and "associated classes". An example from the MM itself is that 14 levels of sorcerer would increase frost giant's CR by 7, due to 'not playing to the creature's strengths', and thus counting every level only for 1/2 extra CR, while it would only take 7 levels of fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger for the same CR increase. To anyone except the writers, it should be clear that frost giant sorcerer 14 isn't anywhere near frost giant paladin 7 power-wise, despite having the same CR.

[NigelWalmsley]

Except CR isn't consistent. Compare the Kobold Fighter 10 to the Kobold Wizard 10. They're going to vary WILDLY in power, depending on how exactly they're built-but by the rules, they're both CR 10.

That's double-counting class imbalance. The fact that a system produces imbalanced outputs from imbalanced inputs is not an argument that it is imbalanced. If you picked two classes that were balanced (e.g. Rogue and Warlock), you would observe that a Kobold Rogue 10 is roughly balanced Kobold Warlock 10. If you look at printed monsters, CR is largely consistent (though admittedly imperfect).

[DarknessEternal]

In 3.5, you could play literally any concept you could think of from any genre.

In 5e, you can play a D&D adventurer. Of course 5e is more restrictive.

How does this question even exist?

[JackPhoenix]

That's double-counting class imbalance. The fact that a system produces imbalanced outputs from imbalanced inputs is not an argument that it is imbalanced. If you picked two classes that were balanced (e.g. Rogue and Warlock), you would observe that a Kobold Rogue 10 is roughly balanced Kobold Warlock 10. If you look at printed monsters, CR is largely consistent (though admittedly imperfect).

But by saying 1 class level = +1 CR with no regard for what the class is, the system assumes outputs are balanced no matter the inputs (assuming we're talking about basic humanoids, not high-HD monsters, which has even more problems, see my previous post). That's clearly not the case. 3e CR isn't even consistent in the math that leads to determining what CR does something have... see the frost giant example: even if you assume only the numbers that impact its role as brute matter, for the same CR, 14 levels of sorcerer give it the same BAB and more HP than 7 levels of barbarian/fighter/paladin/ranger. While the fighter gets 5 feats, the sorcerer gets 3 feats and 7th level spells.

[OldTrees1]

But by saying 1 class level = +1 CR with no regard for what the class is, the system assumes outputs are balanced no matter the inputs (assuming we're talking about basic humanoids, not high-HD monsters, which has even more problems, see my previous post). That's clearly not the case. 3e CR isn't even consistent in the math that leads to determining what CR does something have... see the frost giant example: even if you assume only the numbers that impact its role as brute matter, for the same CR, 14 levels of sorcerer give it the same BAB and more HP than 7 levels of barbarian/fighter/paladin/ranger. While the fighter gets 5 feats, the sorcerer gets 3 feats and 7th level spells.

I have to agree with NigelWalmsley here, you are double counting class imbalance. Which is common when someone tries to use the non-associated class levels to apply associated class levels at a discount. Just because WotC thought Sorcerer was non-associated for a Frost Giant, does not mean your DM will make the same mistake. But adding Fighter levels on a Deva, that probably is non-associated, to a point, because you are losing spell level progression.

Personally I used monsters + templates or low ECL races + levels + templates. So I was playing it safe.

Sidenote: One thing I loved about the 3E CR system was being able to quickly construct an encounter with a variety of different CRs and have the EL of that encounter make sense.
EL 12 = EL 11 + EL 9 = EL 10 + EL 8 + 2 EL 7 = EL 10 + 2 EL 7 + 4 EL 4. A boss, 2 lieutenants, and some mooks.
Not only can't I do the 5E math quickly, it quickly explodes.
1 CR 10 = EL 10. 1 CR 10 + 2 CR 7 = EL 19. 1 CR 10 + 2 CR 7 + 4 CR 4 = EL 21.

[NigelWalmsley]

But by saying 1 class level = +1 CR with no regard for what the class is, the system assumes outputs are balanced no matter the inputs (assuming we're talking about basic humanoids, not high-HD monsters, which has even more problems, see my previous post).

No, it assumes that classes are of equal value. Which means that if classes are not of equal value (as they are observably not), it will not produce the expected outputs. Your car probably turns worse with a flat tire. That's not a problem with the steering, it's a reason not to drive with a flat.


see the frost giant example: even if you assume only the numbers that impact its role as brute matter, for the same CR, 14 levels of sorcerer give it the same BAB and more HP than 7 levels of barbarian/fighter/paladin/ranger. While the fighter gets 5 feats, the sorcerer gets 3 feats and 7th level spells.

Yes, Fighter and Sorcerer are not balanced. If you take two classes that are close to balanced, like Warblade and Warmage, you'll see that the result is much closer. Nonassociated class levels do have problems (notably, any creature with CR < 1/2 HD does stupid things with them). But pointing to the fact that Stone Giant Fighters are worse than nominally-equal Stone Giant Wizards doesn't prove anything useful, because we already knew that Fighters are worse than nominally-equal Wizards in general.

[gnomewerks]

I have to turn to homebrew to get out of problems.

I'm not directly answering your question but -
I'll offer 4 points to consider. They should be addressed in order.

1) You (and your group) need to have fun.
2) Playing games is a great way to have fun.
3) D&D is one of those games.
4) D&D doesn't mean a specific edition.

Find the right system for your style of play. If it's outside of the current edition, so be it. If it's outside of D&D, so be it. If it's outside of tabletop roleplaying, so be it. Sometimes, King of Tokyo (look it up) is the clear choice for a fun night of gameplay instead of a D&D edition that you have to tweak and twist to fit your vision of fun.

[Mork]

Counter argument, the more rules you have the more restrictive the system becomes, because every action is outlined.
For example, as far as I know there are no bonusses for jumping on top of someone in 5e edition. Making it possible for the DM to give a circumstancial bonus to everyone who does it.
In 3.5 there are very specific feats that give bonusses that grant you something for jumping on top of someone. Therefore if you don't have these feats, no bonus for you*

I have DM'ed a campaign of open legend, where there are way fewer rules, and whenever you try something the DM has to choose which ability comes nearest, this gives a lot of space for the players to do whatever they want. However it does put more strain on the DM to improvise. (which depending on the DM can be a curse or a blessing).


*I don't remember every rule in 5e and 3.5 and maybe the example isn't perfect for some reason I forgot, but I think the point stands.

[MeimuHakurei]

I would say 5th is way more restrictive due to the sheer amount of "5e isn't made for this" type of comments in this forum. Especially with the whole "6-8 encounters a day every day" mantra needed to maintain balance.

[WadeWay33]

Let's say you wanted to play a pacifist. In 3E, you could open up the BoED, check out "Vow of Peace" and there you go. In 5e AL, you're out of luck. In a private 5E game, your DM would have a fairly easy time designing something for you. Of course, your DM could have done that in 3E as well, but it would always beg the question: why didnt you just take VoP?

Redemption Paladin wants to know your location.

[ezekielraiden]

ok, I may be not read the right material for this but As a DM and as a player is it me or do it feel like the 5th edition is more restrictive when it comes to options than the 3.5 edition and I have to turn to homebrew to get out of problems. An example of this is well I have found no rules, for example, playing a succubus. one of my favorite monster races. Or materal that will inspire an evil campain.

If "restrictive" means "providing less official support," then yes, 5e is more "restrictive" than 3.5e. It's also, in that sense, more restrictive than 4e.

D&D has essentially been...not quite put on life support, but has had its budget radically curtailed. It is no longer aiming to produce content at anything like the speed it once did. WotC relies on third-party publishers heavily, and generally only has two (sometimes one, sometimes three) significant releases in an entire year. Consider that 5e has been out just shy of 6 years now (July 2014 launch), and since the core books, we've had: SCAG, XGtE, VGtM, MToF, E:RftLW, GGtR, and soon MOoT.* That's only slightly more than a single book per year since launch, and of them, both Volo's and Mordenkainen's are primarily focused on monsters rather than player-facing content. (I know that, technically, every book has had SOME kind of player-facing stuff, but SCAG and XGtE are the vast majority of player-facing content, Rising taking up the majority of the remainder, and Volo's having a few races and...that's about it.)

I still think people underestimate how much it meant that the orior-edition conversion document--a document, mind, that was both incredibly barebones and something not dissimilar to what people had already figured out--was delayed for over a full year because one person had jury duty. A critical document for supporting players in their transition to the new edition, delayed for ages and ages, because they apparently have so few staff that they couldn't spare a single person's time while the person who would normally do that was out for jury duty.

D&D just doesn't have the staff anymore to support more than 4 books in a single year (2 supplements, 2 major adventures), and that would be an extremely dense publishing year. All the talk of making lots of money is fine, but it's quite clear that D&D has had its budget heavily restricted compared to previous editions. With that kind of release schedule, supporting esoteric or niche desires (like full psionic rules or more niche racial options like outright devils/demons/etc.) is a very low priority, while releases that require lower effort (such as the third-party releases effectively supervised by WotC, or the M:tG releases that let the D&D team poach some manpower from the M:tG team) are a very high priority. It's not for nothing that we've gotten support for only one other WotC setting that isn't M:tG-related, AKA Eberron, a setting that several current employees have already written content for in one or even two prior editions.

*Note that I am not including AI, EGtW, nor the Stranger Things/Rick and Morty stuff. Because that stuff is pretty clearly divergent from the rest of 5e, though I could see some argument for Wildermount.


I would say 5th is way more restrictive due to the sheer amount of "5e isn't made for this" type of comments in this forum. Especially with the whole "6-8 encounters a day every day" mantra needed to maintain balance.

I mean, if several (sub)classes weren't designed so that their math only works out if you have about that many combats every day, it wouldn't be such a mantra.

And yes, I've crunched the numbers. Averaged out, naturally, since we're looking at average days over a long haul, not the peaks and troughs. The Champion can only keep up with the Battlemaster (to say nothing of the Eldritch Knight) if an average of ~7 combats a day happens. (Technically, it's more like a number of combat-rounds between short rests, and a minimum number of short rests per day, but "~7 combats a day" is a reasonably accurate gloss.) If you play the way regular folks often actually do, where it's closer to 2-6 combats per day and an average of 1-2 short rests as opposed to an average of 2-3, the Champion falls woefully behind in average damage (something like 20% less per day IIRC, it's been a while). Further, the long-rest-based classes become unequivocally dominant, sometimes able to field a spell proper every round of combat all day, and still have a few more left over for non-combat stuff. (E.g. by the time you get to about 10th level; it's even earlier for Wizards and Land Druids because they can recover a ton of spell slots with a short rest, which incentivizes spending slots when you aren't guaranteed to get more than one short rest in a day anyway.)

But when your bonus damage comes almost exclusively from having a 5% additional chance to roll twice as many dice (which isn't, generally, as good as 4e's old "deal maximum damage and roll some extra" method), you really need to have a lot of extra combat rounds so that said character rolls often enough to get those extra crits. And with how frenetically short 5e combats tend to be, you need more of them in order to get those attack rolls to happen, so....

Incidentally, this is part of what motivated that "Class Feature Variants" document we got a while back. Addressing the gap between how 5e actually is played, and how it was intended to be played, is something Crawford explicitly discussed in an interview around that time.

[JackPhoenix]

Personally I used monsters + templates or low ECL races + levels + templates. So I was playing it safe.

Sidenote: One thing I loved about the 3E CR system was being able to quickly construct an encounter with a variety of different CRs and have the EL of that encounter make sense.
EL 12 = EL 11 + EL 9 = EL 10 + EL 8 + 2 EL 7 = EL 10 + 2 EL 7 + 4 EL 4. A boss, 2 lieutenants, and some mooks.
Not only can't I do the 5E math quickly, it quickly explodes.
1 CR 10 = EL 10. 1 CR 10 + 2 CR 7 = EL 19. 1 CR 10 + 2 CR 7 + 4 CR 4 = EL 21.

That assumes EL makes sense in the first place. In 3e, CR and EL doesn't really tell you anything because they have no inherent meaning (well, there's some relation between CR and HD, but that's pretty useless). It's just a pointless, mostly arbitrary number with no indication how dangerous something is in a fight.

I'm not even sure what are you trying to prove with your 5e math, because EL is not a thing in 5e. CR 10, 2 CR 7s and 4 CR 4s is a deadly x2 encounter for level 12 group. You have a rough idea how dangerous it'll be, and the CR 4 creatures can actually contribute to the fight. You also know the PCs should be able to go through about 3-4 such encounters in a day.


No, it assumes that classes are of equal value. Which means that if classes are not of equal value (as they are observably not), it will not produce the expected outputs. Your car probably turns worse with a flat tire. That's not a problem with the steering, it's a reason not to drive with a flat.

Yes, Fighter and Sorcerer are not balanced. If you take two classes that are close to balanced, like Warblade and Warmage, you'll see that the result is much closer. Nonassociated class levels do have problems (notably, any creature with CR < 1/2 HD does stupid things with them). But pointing to the fact that Stone Giant Fighters are worse than nominally-equal Stone Giant Wizards doesn't prove anything useful, because we already knew that Fighters are worse than nominally-equal Wizards in general.

Which is kinda my point. The 3e's CR calculations are (as far as monsters with PC class levels are concerned) based on assumption that unequal classes are equal. It's not the only wrong thing about it... any veteran 3e GM will tell you the CR system there is completely useless.
5e CR calculations will at least tell you how challenging something should be to fight. They are not perfect... they don't properly account for abilities that don't directly relate to causing or taking damage, and you can create unbalanced things like glass cannons with way too much damage, or harmless blobs of HP with the same CR... but they are miles better than 3e's CR was, and actually serve the purpose they were made for unlike the 3e version.

[OldTrees1]

That assumes EL makes sense in the first place. In 3e, CR and EL doesn't really tell you anything because they have no inherent meaning (well, there's some relation between CR and HD, but that's pretty useless). It's just a pointless, mostly arbitrary number with no indication how dangerous something is in a fight.

CR and EL tell you a lot because they measure the challenge / danger of the encounter. Are you conflating's WotC's estimated CR vs the actual CR? A lot of the time WotC got close with its CR. However sometimes that infamous crab (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a) they are wrong. WotC has bad estimates in every edition, but the actual CR still has inherent meaning and can be manipulated to quickly design encounters, like in my example.

Now it is possible you will now mention the CR calculation rules in the 5E DMG. You might also mention the 3E CR calculation rules. You might even mention how the 5E Monster Manual does not use the 5E CR calculation rules and is just as "arbitrary" as the 3E Monster Manual. You might even mention that DMs learn to estimate the CR of monsters.


I'm not even sure what are you trying to prove with your 5e math, because EL is not a thing in 5e. CR 10, 2 CR 7s and 4 CR 4s is a deadly x2 encounter for level 12 group. You have a rough idea how dangerous it'll be, and the CR 4 creatures can actually contribute to the fight. You also know the PCs should be able to go through about 3-4 such encounters in a day.

EL is the CR for an encounter. It is an xp range in 5E. You take the adjusted difficulty xp of an encounter and it can be compared with the xp for a single CR N monster. https://dhmstark.co.uk/rpgs/encounter-calculator-5th/

As for what I demonstrated here is what I said: "Not only can't I do the 5E math quickly, it quickly explodes."
The 5E EL math uses an multiplier based on total number of monsters. It quickly explodes regardless of the CR of the creatures you add. This A) makes it harder to do the math quickly. B) makes the math less reliable. and C) makes it hard to design good encounters without vastly exceeding xp budgets.

Oh, and if you didn't notice, the change from exponential threat to bounded accuracy threat is the root of the changes in the math. That has its own pros and cons, I am just mentioning 1 con.

[monks_are_op]

ok, I may be not read the right material for this but As a DM and as a player is it me or do it feel like the 5th edition is more restrictive when it comes to options than the 3.5 edition and I have to turn to homebrew to get out of problems. An example of this is well I have found no rules, for example, playing a succubus. one of my favorite monster races. Or materal that will inspire an evil campain.

5e is a bit more restrictive, but a) please note that it's about a fifth of the size of 3.5, and b) it's better designed, more balanced, and quicker to learn. Also, the reason they don't have a succubus playable race is explained in the Monster Manual: planar creatures (including fiends [and thus succubi]) are basically stuck on their alignment. If a succubus ceased to be neutral evil, it would literally cease to be a succubus. Evil characters are usually not a good idea, so there aren't fiendish races.

[NigelWalmsley]

That assumes EL makes sense in the first place. In 3e, CR and EL doesn't really tell you anything because they have no inherent meaning (well, there's some relation between CR and HD, but that's pretty useless). It's just a pointless, mostly arbitrary number with no indication how dangerous something is in a fight.

That's really not true. The CRs of printed monsters are, generally speaking, quite accurate. Two CR 5 monsters are going to be approximately equal in terms of the difficulty to beat them. It's true that the monster advancement rules can throw a wrench in that, but they are a peripheral part of the CR system.


Which is kinda my point. The 3e's CR calculations are (as far as monsters with PC class levels are concerned) based on assumption that unequal classes are equal. It's not the only wrong thing about it... any veteran 3e GM will tell you the CR system there is completely useless.

That's the forum groupthink, but it's not accurate. There are a small number of well-known monsters that are inaccurately CR'd, but they are famous precisely because they are rare.

[OldTrees1]

That's the forum groupthink, but it's not accurate. There are a small number of well-known monsters that are inaccurately CR'd, but they are famous precisely because they are rare.

As one of those "veteran 3e GMs" JackPhoenix referenced, I can vouch that the CR system was generally accurate in 3E. A veteran GM's CR estimate was often better than WotC's CR estimates, but the vast majority fell within +/- 1 CR.

It was WotC's ECL estimates that were wildly inaccurate. And those were rather predictable precise in their inaccuracies.

[Chauncymancer]

As one of those "veteran 3e GMs" JackPhoenix referenced, I can vouch that the CR system was generally accurate in 3E. A veteran GM's CR estimate was often better than WotC's CR estimates, but the vast majority fell within +/- 1 CR.

I disagree. There are three uses for CR:
Is this monster, by itself, in a featureless plane, a meaningful combat for characters from level CR-4 to level CR+2?
Is this monster, by itself, in a featureless plane, going to consume 1/5 the resources of a level CR group?
Is this monster as difficult as other monsters in its CR?
And 3.5 fails all three.
A CR 3 ogre is not a meaningful combat challenge for all level 1 parties, it's a TPK for most of them. A CR 1 wolf can be one shot by a level 3 rogue.
A CR 7 aboleth and a CR 7 dire bear do not consume an equal number of party resources. Depending on magic item choices a CR 7 dire bear may not consume ANY party resources.
A Bugbear and a Bugbear Zombie are the same CR, but against a Rogue and an Enchanted the Bugbear is much more vulnerable, and against a Cleric and a Necromancer the Zombie is.