New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 488
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Realm of Dreams

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by squiggit View Post

    I've never really got this one. Third and Fourth edition have more in common with each other than either does with OD&D or AD&D. The timeline is a bit off too.
    There was an actual booklet with mechanics outlining how to translate a 2e character into 3.0; not perfect, to be sure, but it gave stuff for stat translation, proficiencies to skills, which classes were equivalent, etc. I know of no such consideration for 4e or 5e. Please enlighten me if I am wrong on this, though.
    In my dreams, I am currently a druid 20/wizard 10/arcane hierophant 10/warshaper 5. Actually, after giving birth to a galaxy by splitting a black hole, level is no longer relevant.

    Extended Sigbox

    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    I've never been able to put my finger on how to describe you Phelix, but I think I have an idea now.

    You're Tippy's fluffy cousin...

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu View Post
    There was an actual booklet with mechanics outlining how to translate a 2e character into 3.0; not perfect, to be sure, but it gave stuff for stat translation, proficiencies to skills, which classes were equivalent, etc. I know of no such consideration for 4e or 5e. Please enlighten me if I am wrong on this, though.
    I don't think there is. At least not for transitioning from 3.5 to 4e. I recall reading something from one of the designers (on a blog or forum) that said that coming up with a translation guide wouldn't be too much hassle and it was better for the player to wing-it.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Realm of Dreams

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyron View Post
    I don't think there is. At least not for transitioning from 3.5 to 4e. I recall reading something from one of the designers (on a blog or forum) that said that coming up with a translation guide wouldn't be too much hassle and it was better for the player to wing-it.
    Emphasis mine.

    That right there says to me "we could've done some work to help our wonderful customers, but frankly, you've already paid us, so do it yourselves."

    I admit to bias, but I really don't want a game that will be rendered obsolete inside of five years. I don't want to sink my time into fun that is bizarrely incompatible with all that other fun that I had. If fun is fun, I will stick to the fun I have, thanks, and keep my money.

    EDIT: This is especially true considering no OGL in newer editions, meaning I will always have to fork over in order to even dip my toes in the supposed improvements. Maybe 5e is great; personally, it's not worth my dollars to find out.
    Last edited by Phelix-Mu; 2014-10-18 at 09:13 PM.
    In my dreams, I am currently a druid 20/wizard 10/arcane hierophant 10/warshaper 5. Actually, after giving birth to a galaxy by splitting a black hole, level is no longer relevant.

    Extended Sigbox

    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    I've never been able to put my finger on how to describe you Phelix, but I think I have an idea now.

    You're Tippy's fluffy cousin...

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    The Universe.

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansem View Post
    There's really nothing to be reminded about, if you want to settle for less by all means do play 5e or any other edition. your choice.
    This is highly siggable. Sadly, I have no space. Permission to use it if I ever do?

    I like this discussion, but don't have time to make much of a response.


    Though I came up with this allegory:

    D&D is like Star Trek. The AD&D/1e is The Original Series, for obvious reasons, and the following movies are 2e. The Next Generation is represented by 3e, and Voyager is 3.5e, where they take the last version and make it better. I suppose Deep Space 9 is the smaller series of splatbooks released at the end of 3e, before 3.5. Fourth edition is Enterprise. And finally, 5e is shown in the reboot movies.

    D&D is an allegory for Star Trek. 1e is TOS, and 2e is the accompanying movies. TNG is shown by 3e, and Voyager is 3.5e. DS9 is the series of splatbooks in between. 4e is Enterprise, and 5e is the reboot films.

    Or maybe DS9 is 3.5, and Voyager is 3.5's many splatbooks.

    (Yes, I know 2e is also AD&D.)

    Short version
    This one works because reboot has similar plot to original series:
    3.5e feels like the original movies, and 5e is like the reboot.

    (Somebody should sig that.)
    Jon Snow and Ghost avatar (not currently in use) by Gurgleflep 15370262 328.
    How to play a monster.

    I am currently Very Busy, and having limited D&D activity, so I am currently inactive.
    I got a long signature!
    DFTBA! Smilies!

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Zweisteine View Post
    The Next Generation is represented by 3e, and Voyager is 3.5e, where they take the last version and make it better.
    Them's fighting words.
    On creating medieval thermobaric detonations:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravens_cry View Post
    *strokes chin*
    Hmmm, I like the way you think.
    On rewriting your own past into a stable time loop of invulnerability:
    Quote Originally Posted by rockdeworld View Post
    Kardar233's Illithid:
    *strokes chin*
    Hmmm, I like the way you think.
    Quote Originally Posted by rockdeworld View Post
    kardar233's Tyr: So ok, it seems to me that your character evades death o_O. Congratulations *fanfare*

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies View Post
    That's a fair point. I suppose "disgusting" is a bit of a strong term, but that was sorta how my initial reaction was. It mostly seems like it will skew the game towards removing disadvantages rather than adding advantages, when I feel it should be the other way around.
    My interpretation, since A&D (sick of spelling it out) are used for so many things (including minor stuff like flanking) and it only takes a single D to wipe out any combination of A's....

    1. I would never play a rogue. Ever. No, not even then. Way too easy to get hosed out of SA.
    2. The optimal thing to do would be to ensure every PC gets one reliable source of A and the party can inflict one source of D on the enemy reliably. Either you enjoy the 2d20 take high/low deal, or you're negating suffering from it. Anything beyond that is a waste. Of course, smart enemies will also realize this, and so all fights with moderately intelligent NPCs will see A's and D's all completely negating each other and will never be used in any such combats.
    3. Combined w/ the fact that many of the creatures too dumb to think of this (undead, oozes, etc...) tend to be the ones immune to sneak attack (unless 5E removed immunity to it wholesale), I repeat....never playing a rogue, nuh-uh!

    And i think disgusting is appropriate. It's an intentionally dumbed down system made to be simple. Tracking the number of A's and D's and knowing if they are equal or not would not be hard. Instead, a singe D ruins everything irrevocably, unless you can remove the D, which will become the #1 priority of everyone, like you expected.
    Last edited by StreamOfTheSky; 2014-10-18 at 11:07 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky View Post
    And i think disgusting is appropriate. It's an intentionally dumbed down system made to be simple. Tracking the number of A's and D's and knowing if they are equal or not would not be hard. Instead, a singe D ruins everything irrevocably, unless you can remove the D, which will become the #1 priority of everyone, like you expected.
    Indeed. A quick and easy way to determine whether you have advantage or disadvantage would be to write down on a set of notecards the various conditions that give you one or the other (e.g. "flanking: advantage", "in darkness: disadvantage"), and match Adv cards with Dis cards. The one that you have more cards of is the one that you receive. There can't be too many different Adv/Dis-granting conditions (regardless of ways to gain said conditions), but this would be useful enough that I still feel like some 3rd-party publisher (or even WotC themselves) will print official sets of these cards.
    Please use they/them/theirs when referring to me in the third person.
    My Homebrew (PF, 3.5)
    Awesome Bone Knight avatar by Chd.
    Spoiler: Current Characters
    Show
    Cassidy Halloran, Human Scout
    William Gamache, Human Relic Channeler Medium
    Spoiler: Quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by AGrinningCat View Post
    Lay on hands? More like Lay your Eyes on this sick elbow drop!

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies View Post
    Indeed. A quick and easy way to determine whether you have advantage or disadvantage would be to write down on a set of notecards the various conditions that give you one or the other (e.g. "flanking: advantage", "in darkness: disadvantage"), and match Adv cards with Dis cards. The one that you have more cards of is the one that you receive. There can't be too many different Adv/Dis-granting conditions (regardless of ways to gain said conditions), but this would be useful enough that I still feel like some 3rd-party publisher (or even WotC themselves) will print official sets of these cards.
    If it's an in person game, you can just write on index cards. Online like on maptools, you could just make some macro and a display for each character's token "A/D: 0/0" that you can click to add or subtract an A or D from them and just see the sheer number of each. Really, it's not that hard to manage.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Petrocorus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    They are legitimately the best in 5e at sneaking. But when comparing to an untrained character, I'd take a 10th level rogue in 3e over a 20th level rogue in 5e.
    And let me guess, in the meantime, wizard get Invisibility and Fly as soon as before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    The point is, those things are all downside in 3.5. Half-Orc Wizards are simply worse than Wizards of other races. In 5th edition, that's not the case--half-orcs have no Int penalty and their racial ability to essentially ignore death once per day is good for any class and, I imagine, even better for a class that can use it to instantly skedaddle with dimension door.
    But, as i said earlier, i believe that Half-Orc are supposed to be worse than others as wizard and better as fighter.
    The same way the Dwarf are supposed not to be good as mountebank and good as fighter and crafter, and elves bad as tank but good as wizard or (fr)agile speedster.
    The races have their different abilities, different cultures, and that normal that they are mechanically different.

    Our vision are somehow twisted because we want to be able to play any concept we like and, as players, we naturally want this concept, our character, to be good at what he does and to be as good as any other character with the same role.

    And because some races or sub-races were simply good at everything and sometimes the best at everything. And this is the part which is not normal.

    It also is twisted because some race are good at doing something that other part of the rules have made lame or useless.
    The elves are good at being agile fighters, dodging every one of your blow and sharp-striking you in the throat. The problem is that the design of fighting mechanics and of feats made this concept very complex and costful to implement and rather inefficient.
    The half-orc are, according to fluff, very good frontline fighter and THF charging barbarian. The mechanics made this the best kind of BSF, so they will be better and more useful than the elf speedster, but they still will be over shadowed and made redundant by CoDzilla and other T1 classes.
    So of course, we would like the half-orc to be good at being a T2 class like wizard or artificer, but they are just not supposed to be. And they still can be good CoDzilla.

    According to me, this is not a downside of 3.5. Making every race to be as good as every other one at filling any role is just denying all they flavor and all they differences and cancelling their interest and the interest to have so many races is the downside. And it is as bad as the opposite extreme of 1st and 2nd, were races were just forbidden to enter different classes.

    Quote Originally Posted by squiggit View Post
    5e is a better game for grittier fantasy and if you want to be able to easily jump into a game quickly and simply. It's also better for FATE-like narrative driven rather than mechanics driven adventuring.
    As far as i'm concerned, if i want a game to play grittier fantasy game with an easy system, i'd simply play Warhammer.
    Or one of those old games using Chaosium Basic RP System. There still are players of RuneQuest out there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zweisteine View Post
    Or maybe DS9 is 3.5, and Voyager is 3.5's many splatbooks.
    I'd rather say it like this, yes.
    Que tous les anciens dieux et les nouveaux protègent la France.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam K View Post
    Sun Tzu never had tier problems. If he had to deal with D&D, the Art of War would read "Full casters or GTFO".
    Quote Originally Posted by King Louis XIII in The Musketeers
    Common sense is for commoners, not for [ PC ].

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky View Post
    My interpretation, since A&D (sick of spelling it out) are used for so many things (including minor stuff like flanking) and it only takes a single D to wipe out any combination of A's....

    1. I would never play a rogue. Ever. No, not even then. Way too easy to get hosed out of SA.
    2. The optimal thing to do would be to ensure every PC gets one reliable source of A and the party can inflict one source of D on the enemy reliably. Either you enjoy the 2d20 take high/low deal, or you're negating suffering from it. Anything beyond that is a waste. Of course, smart enemies will also realize this, and so all fights with moderately intelligent NPCs will see A's and D's all completely negating each other and will never be used in any such combats.
    3. Combined w/ the fact that many of the creatures too dumb to think of this (undead, oozes, etc...) tend to be the ones immune to sneak attack (unless 5E removed immunity to it wholesale), I repeat....never playing a rogue, nuh-uh!

    And i think disgusting is appropriate. It's an intentionally dumbed down system made to be simple. Tracking the number of A's and D's and knowing if they are equal or not would not be hard. Instead, a singe D ruins everything irrevocably, unless you can remove the D, which will become the #1 priority of everyone, like you expected.
    Sneak attack immunities have indeed been removed. And I bet tracking advantages and disadvantages individually would be harder than you think. That sort of thing tends to be more complex in practice than it sounds in theory. I suppose you haven't played much with the advantage rules?

    You can still sneak attack by flanking, by the way. Actually, it's even easier than that--you just need at least one ally to be adjacent to the target. You don't need to be on the opposite side or even anywhere near them. You can be sniping with a longbow from 150 feet away and it counts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    And let me guess, in the meantime, wizard get Invisibility and Fly as soon as before.
    Yes, but Rogues get Invisibility now too, and Overland Flight is gone, so you're only flying for 10 minutes at a time instead of all day. And both spells require concentration, although I'm not sure yet how relevant that is.
    Last edited by Troacctid; 2014-10-19 at 12:11 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Sartharina View Post
    The huge gap between the optimization floor and optimization ceiling in 3.5 rendered more options worthless than it left viable.
    I disagree, in part, and its something that tends to get overlooked in an optimization discussion.

    I've never played a fully optimized character. My favorite character to date has been a Mystic Theurge, and he was still plenty powerful for the game we were in.

    The closest thing to a fully optimized character I have is a monk 1/weretiger/warshaper who went for Shock Trooper. His damage output is like 1/3 that of a decent THF build and hes still scary strong enough that I may refrain from ever again using Heedless Charge.

    The optimal choice is not required the vast majority of the time, there are lots of viable choices when the end goal is not maximum power output or perfect efficiency.

    I once played a Fighter5/Master Thrower 5, he was hilarious. TWF dwaven throwing axes. He was in fact an inherited NPC (I joined a game in progress, so was simply handed an NPC to take over). He was hilarious, but he sure as hell wasn't optimized.

    While I do agree there is a huge gap between the optimization floor and ceiling, I don't think the ceiling, or anywhere close to it, is the desired power level a lot of the time. Certainly any published adventure assumes as fairly low average optimization level.
    A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Inevitability's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Arcadia
    Gender
    Intersex

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    The main reason why I sometimes prefer 3.5 over 5e is, indeed, the customizability. In 3.5, I can play a winged ex-robot with a bunch of animals, vermin, and mushrooms growing on him who has physical power exceeding that of every living being alive and because of this has an army of very weak air elementals following him, and harvest enough fluff from all the books to come up with a way to have this make sense. (Long sentence)

    In 5e, there are two books out, one of which is only useful for PC's.
    Creator of the LA-assignment thread.

    Join the new Junkyard Wars round and build with Cloaked Dancer and a companion creature!

    Interested in judging a build competition on the 3.5 forums but not sure where to begin? Check out the judging handbook!

    Extended signature!

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Forrestfire's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    I'll add my voice to the chorus of "full optimization is a bad way to compare". I have built and played a 'fully' optimized character just once. I say 'fully' because I could have gone for more, but it was unnecessary, so I stopped. This level 20 character had access to every psionic power in the game, all the spells she wanted, an absurdly powerful army of ice assassin minions (and independent clones of herself, with their own power point reserves), and was outright immune to everything that could harm her, up to and including all the listed divine salient abilities and complete erasure from the multiverse. Even if there were homebrewed divine salient abilities, she would still survive, because one of her clones lived in Sigil, outside of any gods' reach.

    This is not the balance point we care about when discussing 3.5. It's nowhere close. The game died shortly afterwards, because when you start a game with the stated goal of an excessively optimized party, stuff breaks.

    Mostly, I (and everyone else I know) play in games where the goal is to hover around T3, with casters being strong, but not fully God Wizarded, and martials being a bit outclassed at times, but able to keep up in combat and in their out of combat focuses.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Banned
     
    Sartharina's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    You can with darkvision or low-light (as in 3.5/PF) but if you don't... no.
    For those complaining about rogues not being able to sneak attack in the dark in 5e... You can't do that in 3e either. You can't make a sneak attack against anyone who has concealment in 3.5e, and darkness grants concealment.
    In 5e, you can still sneak attack if you're hiding in darkness 100' feet away (As opposed to the 30' limit in 3.5 and pathfinder) and your foe's illuminated. Or, you can sneak attack with everyone in darkness if you have an ally keeping the opponent's attention. From 30' away. In 3.5, you can't (Because Darkness) and you're suffering a -4 to hit on top of that.

    Also - in 5e, cover provides an AC bonus, not grants disadvantage on attacks through it. The big purpose of advantage, though, is to make adjudicating situations quick, easy, and intuitive, without having to evaluate and carefully balance every detail. And, it's easy to fix. If you'd rather have static modifiers, you can import static modifiers again. You could have Advantage/Disadvantage choose to be an aggregate of a situation instead of 'if yes/no'. The point of not having stacking is to stop the game from being bogged down by trying to force and count up all the cases of advantage and disadvantage. 3.0's DMG also had a similar paragraph about quickly adjudicating circumstance bonuses/penalties, first giving a ludicriously long chain of circumstances, and then giving a simpler interpretation of the situation.

    Also - my problem with 3.5 is the floor, not the ceiling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Yeah you would think rogues would have some kind of training from their class to overcome that, but no. There is a feat to do it in PF, which rogues can pick up at level 2 (Rogue Talent -> Combat Trick -> SS) but as I don't have the 5e PHB I don't know if they came up with a solution there besides "find a way to see in the dark."

    The feat is also nice because it applies not just to darkness, but also to things like blur and fog.
    A feat tax that came out about 10 years after 3rd edition was released to fix a problem with the rogue.
    Quote Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky View Post
    My interpretation, since A&D (sick of spelling it out) are used for so many things (including minor stuff like flanking) and it only takes a single D to wipe out any combination of A's....

    1. I would never play a rogue. Ever. No, not even then. Way too easy to get hosed out of SA.
    All you need is someone beside whoever you're stabbing to get SA. It's MUCH easier to get hosed out of SA in 3.5 than it is in 3e.

    2. The optimal thing to do would be to ensure every PC gets one reliable source of A and the party can inflict one source of D on the enemy reliably. Either you enjoy the 2d20 take high/low deal, or you're negating suffering from it. Anything beyond that is a waste. Of course, smart enemies will also realize this, and so all fights with moderately intelligent NPCs will see A's and D's all completely negating each other and will never be used in any such combats.
    Advantage and Disadvantage are much harder to consistently get than you seem to think they are. There ARE other boosts, such as +1d4 buffs from spells, and cover.
    3. Combined w/ the fact that many of the creatures too dumb to think of this (undead, oozes, etc...) tend to be the ones immune to sneak attack (unless 5E removed immunity to it wholesale), I repeat....never playing a rogue, nuh-uh!
    Fun fact - 5e HAS removed immunity to sneak attack hholesale.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu View Post
    EDIT: This is especially true considering no OGL in newer editions, meaning I will always have to fork over in order to even dip my toes in the supposed improvements. Maybe 5e is great; personally, it's not worth my dollars to find out.
    Or you could download the basic rules for free. They are the Big 4 classes(Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue) and races (Human, Halfling, Elf, Dwarf), basic rules, a bestiary, and encounter design guidelines.
    Last edited by Sartharina; 2014-10-19 at 01:02 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu View Post
    Emphasis mine.

    That right there says to me "we could've done some work to help our wonderful customers, but frankly, you've already paid us, so do it yourselves."

    I admit to bias, but I really don't want a game that will be rendered obsolete inside of five years. I don't want to sink my time into fun that is bizarrely incompatible with all that other fun that I had. If fun is fun, I will stick to the fun I have, thanks, and keep my money.

    EDIT: This is especially true considering no OGL in newer editions, meaning I will always have to fork over in order to even dip my toes in the supposed improvements. Maybe 5e is great; personally, it's not worth my dollars to find out.
    {Scrubbed}
    Last edited by Roland St. Jude; 2014-10-19 at 01:52 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Banned
     
    Sartharina's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu View Post
    Emphasis mine.

    That right there says to me "we could've done some work to help our wonderful customers, but frankly, you've already paid us, so do it yourselves."

    I admit to bias, but I really don't want a game that will be rendered obsolete inside of five years. I don't want to sink my time into fun that is bizarrely incompatible with all that other fun that I had. If fun is fun, I will stick to the fun I have, thanks, and keep my money.
    Coming back to this point - 3.5 and 5e are surprisingly compatible, despite 5e's smaller level-based numbers.

    D&D 5e is D&D. I can run any module from any edition except 4th (And that's because 4th's modules are terrible) in D&D 5e and have it work, as long as I update the bestiary used. The extensive fluff is also usable, and I'm working on translating some of the races and feats.
    Last edited by Sartharina; 2014-10-19 at 01:16 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    And let me guess, in the meantime, wizard get Invisibility and Fly as soon as before.
    Interesting that you should mention it, and funny you picked those specific two. Actually, no, they don't. Wizards don't get Invisibility and Fly. You really may want to read the 5E PHB. You might be pleasantly surprised at how much effort was put into balancing casters vs. mundanes, and not allowing the caster to just render mundanes obsolete. Yes, the basic concept of wizards altering reality and fighters hitting things with pointy sticks is still there, but believe it or not, you can actually play a Fighter in a party consisting or Cleric, Wizard, Druid and not be redundant.
    Last edited by Galen; 2014-10-19 at 02:02 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    georgie_leech's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post

    So, the one thing that they had to fix above all. The one thing that everybody asked them to correct, the one thing that people dislike about 3.5, they made it even worse? Is that it?
    Quibble: They fixed it in 4E, which WotC paid significantly more attention to in recent years, what with it, you know, being the system they were producing material for. A significant number of people complained that the relatively even power level between, say, Fighter and Wizard was a thing that bothered them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Jigawatts's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    I think it boils down to system mastery and optimization. People that really enjoy those features are going to be drawn to 3.5, because they can tinker and customize to their hearts content. Many will attempt to squeeze every ounce of power out of something and negate every weakness they can.

    Then there are the groups that play more casually, that arent really concerned about optimization. They know the basics, take power attack when you wield a two-hander, cast fireball at the group of ice trolls, etc, but overall they are just there to participate in the story. People that play more for the story purposes or just to have some casual fun are going to more drawn to 5E.

    The vocal minority that visit internet forums usually tend to be more the first group than the second.

    A prime example is someone up thread said they disliked 5E saves because there is one tied to every stat and it was impossible to be good at them all, to which I would say, that was their intended purpose, they want characters to have weaknesses. There is a reason Superman is often considered to be boring as is, now imagine what they would say if he was immune to Kryptonite as well.
    Last edited by Jigawatts; 2014-10-19 at 02:32 AM.
    Fighter/Mage/Thief avatar by Linklele

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Banned
     
    Sartharina's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by eggynack View Post
    In any case, my best answer might just be that 3.5 is a ridiculously screwed up little system, likely in excess of what exists in 5th edition. Sure, a normally working system might be a bunch of fun, but a system that's deeply exploitable, filled with unintended consequences and rules contradictions, gives me real room to dig my teeth in. We've been sitting on this system for years, poking and plugging away at its various intricacies, and I don't think it's anywhere close to fully understood or exploited yet.

    Or, to make things simpler, and quote the Snowbluff Axiom, "All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players." It's an argument that holds up pretty well, I think.
    I'd rather have a game that works as intended at face value than one that's only fun for mechanics and munchkins.

    [QUOTE=Petrocorus;18279475]I remember someone making the argument that if you account for inflation and other economical thing, or if you calculate the price in number of minute of work at minimal wage, the new books were only a little more costful than 3.0.


    So, the one thing that they had to fix above all. The one thing that everybody asked them to correct, the one thing that people dislike about 3.5, they made it even worse? Is that it?
    They did fix casters vs. martials over 5 years ago. And everyone hated them for it. In case you didn't notice, there's another board between the 3e and 5e boards. In that edition, Fighters, Rogues, Clerics and Wizards are the best classes to play.

    Of course the non-casting characters are rendered obsolete by the casters. This is the main problem of 3.X. We all know this. Balancing that was one of the reasons of rule changes in PF and the reason for the complete change of everything in 4E.
    But that doesn't account against my argument that half-orc wizard and ex-convict paladin are perfectly possible and even quite competent at what they are supposed to do in 3.5.
    And apparently, that particular problem is even worse with 5E.
    No, it's not worse with 5e. Casters are greatly reigned in - far more than in 3e. The problem with the Half-Orc wizard in 3e was the exponential cost of penalties to high ability scores, especially in Point Buy. In 5e, a Half-orc wizard still isn't the 'best' choice for a wizard - It doesn't have any racial bonuses to INT, putting it behind elves, its primary ability is to a Wizard dump stat, and one of its racial bonuses is useless for a save-forcing caster. However, its racial features do push it toward being a 'muscle wizard' not afraid to whack people with a big weapon when they get close, and the larger hit die over the 3e one gives him great enough survivability to consider going gishy.

    And an ex-con Paladin functions right out the door at level 1. Everyone gets at least 4 skills in 5e, 2 of them being of whatever floats your character concept regardless of class. No more 2-Int Penalty Skill Points on Painfully Restrictive Skill Lists going around. (And Intellect Devourers discourage dumping int.)

    And as for rogues not being the best at sneaking... you're looking at it from the wrong direction. The rogue's Cunning Action and other class features that interact with stealth make it the best for subterfuge, but any character can be good at sneaking and ambushing now if they're willing to spend the character resources.

    Abilities are actually abilities in 5e.




    The biggest advantages Pathfinder has over 5e are playable catfolk and Dreamscarred Press.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Sartharina View Post
    A feat tax that came out about 10 years after 3rd edition was released to fix a problem with the rogue.
    Making your non-darkvision-having race as good in the dark as one that naturally has darkvision is worthy of a feat. The term "feat tax" often gets thrown around to disguise mere entitlement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sartharina View Post
    Or you could download the basic rules for free. They are the Big 4 classes(Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue) and races (Human, Halfling, Elf, Dwarf), basic rules, a bestiary, and encounter design guidelines.
    I don't care what they include in Basic if there is no way to access the rest of it beyond shelling out. They might be turning a blind eye to that sort of thing with 3.5, but you can bet the takedown notices would be flying thick and fast if someone tried to make an equally handy online resource for 5e's spells. And if I can't easily discuss a system's material then they can do without my money until I can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sartharina View Post
    The biggest advantages Pathfinder has over 5e are playable catfolk and Dreamscarred Press.
    And OGL and granular modifiers and active dev participation and backwards compatibility and...
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    squiggit's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Southern Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Sartharina View Post
    I'd rather have a game that works as intended at face value than one that's only fun for mechanics and munchkins.
    3.5 isn't though. It hasn't historically been even a little bit. Optimizers are a fractional minority of players.

    You should really stop acting as though optimized 3.5 is the only 3.5. It does more to make your stance look absurd than it does to help further your position.

    They did fix casters vs. martials over 5 years ago. And everyone hated them for it. In case you didn't notice, there's another board between the 3e and 5e boards. In that edition, Fighters, Rogues, Clerics and Wizards are the best classes to play.
    I've never heard anyone say they hate 4e specifically because Fighters are good. It's silly to isolate one facet of a radically different gameplay experience and make an assertion that it in particular caused the game's downfall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Making your non-darkvision-having race as good in the dark as one that naturally has darkvision is worthy of a feat. The term "feat tax" often gets thrown around to disguise mere entitlement.
    Well. I actually sort of agree with the premise that it's a feat tax. A rogue being able to sneakily ambush a target in the dark does feel like something iconic and baseline, not something hidden behind a feat tree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sartharina View Post
    A feat tax that came out about 10 years after 3rd edition was released to fix a problem with the rogue
    That said, dismissing it as a frivolous feat tax when your alternative is... nothing, is a bit silly.
    Last edited by squiggit; 2014-10-19 at 02:59 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Zwei, don't take this as an offense, since it's something born out of curiosity and worry, but I'm almost physically disgusted by the title of this thread.

    I have a lot of 3.5 books, I have a lot of knowledge about the system, I've made extensive homebrewing to 3.5, and I still have a campaign I want to finish. And yet, I'm willing to give a chance to 5e, particularly because I feel it does things right. Merely suggesting that you need to be reminded that one edition is better than the other is what makes me almost physically disgusted; I don't think about which edition is better, because I treat them distinctly. It's goading people who prefer one edition over another to bash the system for one reason or another; this was already done between 3e and 4e, and it's an invitation to do it again.

    I looked at 5e, not just at a glance, and I find that, for all the content it has (in effect, the only books it has is the PHB, the Monster Manual, the Starter Set and Hoard of the Dragon Queen, so that's roughly 4 books), it's pretty extensive. It's kinda unfair to compare the wealth of an entire system to the first three books of the other: might as well compare the d20 SRD without Expanded Psionics Handbook, Unearthed Arcana or Deities and Demigods to make the point. Saying "I can do whatever concept I want on 3.5 but I can't with 5e" is kinda unfair when you're considering Psionics and the Complete books to do so; after all, one of the big deals of 3.x discussion is just how unbalanced Core is in terms of the martial-caster divide, where a Druid is playable out of the box while a Fighter has to make careful consideration of its feat and skill choices to prevent falling behind. The Tier System has been under heavy fire in the 5e forum right here, but if you want to use that as a baseline: defined as an equal level of optimization, a group with the Big 4 (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard) will have difficulties playing together just going by Core since the 1st and 3rd players won't beat the 2nd and 4th players since they are assumed to have the same level of optimization. 5e is still unbalanced, but it takes steps to neutralize that.

    As for OGL: it's still TOO early to see what's up with it. The last thing Mearls (what's the term TGD uses for him? I know there's three oft-used nicknames for Mearls & co., but they elude my grasp at the moment) mentioned about content was "wait until December" (I think). Indeed, it would be a mistake to ignore the impact of the OGL: that said, the Basic Rules are a nice step towards rekindling with the playerbase who found the Game System License a total and absolute disappointment. I'd love to see an improved OGL for 5e, and maybe unlocking some of the rules of the PHB, but for the most part, 5e is doing better than 4e to recapture the audience, even if it hasn't done enough. I'd say that, if I have to remind someone that 3.5 is better than 5e for any reason, I'd definitely agree with the OGL. Then again, the way they're outsourcing production, this might be the new way they deal with content.

    I find that 5e isn't really a bad game (quite the contrary), which is another reason why I find the thread's purpose revolting; in fact, it makes me develop some kinship with 4e fans, since some of the claims are done without a careful reading of the rules. I don't intend to point at people, but just a cursory read (ironic, isn't it?) shows instances of doing so, and maybe those things would be dispelled if at least the Basic Rules were read a bit more. The design team did things with combat that would have been great in 3.5, and are often recommended as houserules: the way they handle the Attack action is a huge one. There's some odd choices and WTF? moments (such as the Stealth rules), but that doesn't mean the entire thing is bad without mentioning the good ones (Grapple being even simpler than in PF, Shove being flexible) and the things that are both good and bad (Prone no longer works to Lockdown, but it grants Advantage to melee attackers so it oddly balances out).

    In the end, Zwei, I wouldn't focus any longer on which edition is best. I'd just say "play both". If you end up preferring 3.5 (or PF) to 5e, then good; if you prefer 5e to 3.5, I'd still do some mental exercises in terms of play and DMing to cater to those who don't want to transfer, and ideally, spend time with both. 5e is simpler to play and, depending on the DMG, easier to DM, so it can serve as a vacation for when DMing 3.5 starts to become exhausting.

    After all, why not ask "remind me why 2e is better than any other edition afterwards?" I'm sure TGD would release a nifty essay proving so; I reckon they prefer things of 2e more than 3.5 after all. Then again, I might be wrong.

    P.S.: I almost forgot, Rogues get Blindsense at 14th level, if my memory serves me right. Their Blindsense ability is an actual class feature, and it behaves much like Blindsight (in fact, I think it's actually Blindsight). Between Blindsight and Cunning Action, I had to do a double- + spit-take.
    Last edited by T.G. Oskar; 2014-10-19 at 05:42 AM.
    Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
    Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
    On Lawful Good:
    Quote Originally Posted by firebrandtoluc View Post
    My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.
    T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Banned
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    The main problem of 3.5 was the utter lack of balance. Which itself was mostly due to Magic, which itself was mostly due to the fact that too many spells were individually broken or badly worded.
    [snipped due to a lack of comprehension of what the sentence meant]
    If they had taken 3.5 and done the (huge) necessary work to revised ALL the spells ever published in order to make them more balanced (or to ban when not possible) and add experience malus to casting class, that would have solved a lot of the problems of 3.5.
    Better yet, had they done the not-so-huge necessary work to eliminate about 90% of the spells, and to ensure that the spells remaining were well worded and balanced, then balance would have been far easier to achieve almost immediately, with only minor changes to the bottom Tier classes needed to complete the job. It's the vast quantities of spells for every situation which make full casters so potent, not the fact that they get to cast spells at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    In 3.5, you don't really have the option to play a half-orc wizard or an ex-convict paladin because although half-orcs are a playable race and skills can be taken cross-class, those options are traps that will result in your character sucking at the thing they're supposed to be proficient at. That's not the case in 5th edition.
    That's not accurate at all. A Half-Ork Wizard is still a Tier 1 caster, and that 2 points of INT doesn't mean much in the long run.

    I'm not sure where you're going with the ex-convict Paladin, but I don't see that back story as being any real limitation to playing a Paladin either.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Stella View Post
    I'm not sure where you're going with the ex-convict Paladin, but I don't see that back story as being any real limitation to playing a Paladin either.
    My vague understanding is that being an ex-con is somehow alignment constraining, in turn meaning that ex-con translates to ex-paladin. Doesn't really seem to follow in my view though, and even if it does, there are plenty of effective ways to build a character that fits that archetype. Blackguard and alternate alignment paladins are right there in the SRD, after all, and both crusaders and clerics can fill the general paladin role without an LG restriction.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Banned
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGeckoKing View Post
    Yes, but I'm sure half the point of 5e (and PF, hence my annoyance) was to fix these things [Rogues who can't see in the dark not being able to sneak attack]. If the writers are letting stupid things like this through the vetting process, gods help them when they write their own content!
    You think the point of 5e was to allow people who can't see in the dark to act completely competently in the dark just because they trained how to place knives in kidneys for a long time?

    I think that would be too much like a video game!


    Quote Originally Posted by eggynack View Post
    My vague understanding is that being an ex-con is somehow alignment constraining, in turn meaning that ex-con translates to ex-paladin. Doesn't really seem to follow in my view though, and even if it does, there are plenty of effective ways to build a character that fits that archetype. Blackguard and alternate alignment paladins are right there in the SRD, after all, and both crusaders and clerics can fill the general paladin role without an LG restriction.
    Not to mention the enormous amount of examples from novels, movies, and even real life of people who were convicted/imprisoned unfairly, making them de facto ex-cons but saying nothing at all about their alignment.
    Last edited by Stella; 2014-10-19 at 07:00 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by Stella View Post
    Not to mention the enormous amount of examples from novels, movies, and even real life of people who were convicted/imprisoned unfairly, making them de facto ex-cons but saying nothing at all about their alignment.
    Yeah, there're a ton of ways to pull off a lawful good ex-con, probably even if the crime was actually committed. Atonement exists for a reason, after all, both in spell and not-spell flavors.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Banned
     
    Sartharina's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    Quote Originally Posted by squiggit View Post
    3.5 isn't though. It hasn't historically been even a little bit. Optimizers are a fractional minority of players.

    You should really stop acting as though optimized 3.5 is the only 3.5. It does more to make your stance look absurd than it does to help further your position.
    It's not the optimization level - it's the presumed incompetence of low-level characters. The math is against everyone that's not a specific style thanks to Full Round Actions, piles of -2s and -4s tacked onto every action ever, basic competency spread over a dozen levels to discourage dipping, and other such mechanics.

    I've never heard anyone say they hate 4e specifically because Fighters are good. It's silly to isolate one facet of a radically different gameplay experience and make an assertion that it in particular caused the game's downfall.[/quote]I have! Most of the complaints, though, are that a wizard isn't the god that it was in 3.5.

    Well. I actually sort of agree with the premise that it's a feat tax. A rogue being able to sneakily ambush a target in the dark does feel like something iconic and baseline, not something hidden behind a feat tree.

    That said, dismissing it as a frivolous feat tax when your alternative is... nothing, is a bit silly.
    The bigger point was the 10 year wait.


    As for the problems with an ex-con Paladin - a convict would pick up and have certain skills required to survive either in a prison setting or on the run from the law. A 3.5 paladin's painfully few skill points and narrow skill list do not lend themselves to such a background.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    I like it better.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

    It isn't a better game, just a different system. I think a simpler system shifts the focus from character building to development and adventuring. My experiences with 5e are largely positive.
    Last edited by Gwendol; 2014-10-19 at 11:16 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •