Results 91 to 120 of 413
Thread: Why play 3.5 anymore?
-
2016-02-15, 12:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Dragons are intelligent, have gold, they can have armies too, fairly easily.
Provided that the Dragon is operating alone, which seems like a losing game for a super intelligent being with tons of liquid assets.
I can't eat gold... A ton of gold isn't necessarily that useful to a kingdom, there are resources that are much easier to unload without crushing the economy, gold isn't always one of them.
Not true in any case or sense of the word. The government hires contractors all the time, they very rarely have overthrown any government. An adventurer doesn't have political contacts, like a lord does. He doesn't have local support (and can be killed by the militia of a small town), so he's not really in a position to seize power, a nobleman who has just killed a dragon, absolutely is.My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2016-02-15, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Gender
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
...Said druid has a railgun and is working towards a space station capable of orbital bombardment, but I didn't think those were relevant. Trust me when I say you really can do crazy stuff like this if you put your mind to it in 5th edition. Come up with a crazy idea that just might work as the magical item 'formula', the DM tells you whether it'd be Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare, or Legendary to craft, you pony up the time and cash, and boom. There you go.
"Hey, DM, could I build a permanent wall of fire?"
"Hm. Sounds like a Rare magic item. Go nuts."
If you want a convoluted magic item with unique effects and weirdness, you're going to have to run that by a 3.5 DM all the same as you would have to a 5e one. Fifth edition streamlines the magic item process a lot: If it's mostly working with effects in line with level 1-3 spells, it's Uncommon. 3-5, Rare. 6-8, Very Rare. 9, Legendary. As for shallowness of magic items... not really. Think of Eberron, the posterchild for magisteampunk. In Keith Baker's books, there are a large number of magic items never mentioned in any rules just for basic day to day living. They do not and would in no world ever get proper stats, because they don't matter on an adventure. Almost all of 3.5's magic item versatility boiled down to "is this poorly worded, or was it designed to be used for combat?" Turns out, 5th edition just tends to be more lenient about it, and the magic items are, frankly, cheaper than equivalent 3.5e items.
But yes. We're less likely to have spells that change the campaign world. Which 3.5 spells, in particular, had the kinds of effects that would permanently change the campaign world that you'd never see in fifth edition?
You can't, Asmodeus has immunity to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
As opposed to the, say, level 3 AD&D PC fighting a Vampire and winning with clever tactics rather than being completely unable to hit due to the ridiculous scaling of armor class and dying in one hit due to rocket tag as would happen in 3.5? Unbounded growth sounds fun on paper, but it restricts the kind of adventure you run, much as bounded accuracy, well, means that the impossible stays possible for more than just spellcasters.
-
2016-02-15, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
If the game does not support Smaug bathing Lake-town in fire without any risk of retaliation (baring Bard's plot device arrow), it is a bad fantasy game. Smaug should get to pillage, not be forced to use pawns to get what he wants.
I can't eat gold... A ton of gold isn't necessarily that useful to a kingdom, there are resources that are much easier to unload without crushing the economy, gold isn't always one of them.
Not true in any case or sense of the word. The government hires contractors all the time, they very rarely have overthrown any government.
An adventurer doesn't have political contacts, like a lord does. He doesn't have local support (and can be killed by the militia of a small town), so he's not really in a position to seize power, a nobleman who has just killed a dragon, absolutely is.
-
2016-02-15, 12:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Gender
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
-
2016-02-15, 12:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
While "the DM makes something up" does in fact allow you to do whatever you want in any game, it works in any game and requires no design time. Presenting it as a strength of 5e is insulting.
As opposed to the, say, level 3 AD&D PC fighting a Vampire and winning with clever tactics rather than being completely unable to hit due to the ridiculous scaling of armor class and dying in one hit due to rocket tag as would happen in 3.5? Unbounded growth sounds fun on paper, but it restricts the kind of adventure you run, much as bounded accuracy, well, means that the impossible stays possible for more than just spellcasters.
You're justifying bad design in 5e (bounded accuracy) by point to bad design in 3e (non-casters sucking). That's not a good argument, particularly when you realize that 5e came out a decade and a half after 3e, and should probably be a better product.
So the game handles an iconic fantasy moment by telling you to ignore the rules. And you paid money for this. In other news, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Just PM me your credit card information and I'll be good to go.Last edited by Cosi; 2016-02-15 at 12:42 PM.
-
2016-02-15, 12:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Smaug was killed in that attack, I think that's therefore a predictable and expected result.
Why wouldn't it?!? Seriously, why the flip, wouldn't the Dragon hire allies? He knows his own power and vulnerability.
Lots of folks do, which is why not all Superman or Thor stories have them tyrannically running the government, in fact that's the vast minority of such stories.
No I don't. Period. I have a lot of study of history. Simply being able to take over a country, doesn't really do much for you, just look at any failed coups. An adventurer killing a dragon won't make the king look weaker in a way that the adventurer will be able to exploit, but rather in a way that other nobles will. The same as we can see demonstrated historically.My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2016-02-15, 12:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
By one guy, with a plot device arrow. Not by the militia.
Why wouldn't it?!? Seriously, why the flip, wouldn't the Dragon hire allies? He knows his own power and vulnerability.
Lots of folks do, which is why not all Superman or Thor stories have them tyrannically running the government, in fact that's the vast minority of such stories.
No I don't. Period. I have a lot of study of history. Simply being able to take over a country, doesn't really do much for you, just look at any failed coups. An adventurer killing a dragon won't make the king look weaker in a way that the adventurer will be able to exploit, but rather in a way that other nobles will. The same as we can see demonstrated historically.
-
2016-02-15, 12:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Now I *REALLY* want to go work out Incantation-type rules, where the people of LAketown spend one hour every MArs-DAy and from sundown to sunup on the day of every new moon building up psychic energy to blanket the town in a Resist Fire effect.
Still doesn't let NPC militia mooks do anything to the dragon, but it's better than nothing, and more useful to LAketown than the Plant Growth spell effect most towns access, or longstridering the boats when they dock.https://thaumasiagames.blogspot.com/
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-Dad-is-the-DM
Homebrew quick-fixes for Cleric, Druid: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307326
Replacing the Cleric: The Theophilite packagehttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318391
Fighter feats: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310132
-
2016-02-15, 01:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
A regular non-magical arrow, with no special properties, no elvish enchantments. It's just as easy to surmise that the one guy was only able to defeat him because of all the other ones. Just because somebody gets a killing blow doesn't mean that they alone were the victors in a conflict.
I don't know, why do people need support fighting bees? Or ants? Enough of a small number of things can kill you? Also why is the Dragon fighting peasants? That doesn't seem to have much value. I mean historically dragons such as Smaug have died against peasants, so that seems like a losing game, particularly without any real gain from it.
That's certainly a debatable point. Probably why most people have reacted strongly and negatively to stories where he has. Because they don't agree with you.
The thing is, the King rules because the people don't rise up in rebellion, and the nobles don't. The king doesn't have enough force to stop everybody, there's never been an Empire where that's been the case. He just needs enough to keep enough people happy that they'll back him. That's where the support and politics come in.My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2016-02-15, 01:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
I myself like bounded accuracy. I'm really not a fan of ridiculous hyper-scaling, and like it to be possible (if difficult and prone to casualties) for a mob of low-level characters to defeat a single upper-level one.
-
2016-02-15, 01:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Gender
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
And the design of 3.5's "look, here are the rules for it so I can build it and there's not a thing you can do about it" is so much better?
Look, I get it. Fifth edition takes options away from the player, and you don't like that. But think about it from the DM's side of the screen. "Oh, this is a neat magic item I want to see in play. Let's drop it in with the loot." Players look at it, shrug, throw it on the pile of items they can sell at the store, makes the usual combination of +1 Flaming Frost weapon with GMW thrown on for the rest of the bonus. Player goes "Hey, how about that industrial revolution, can we do that?" when the DM wants to make a campaign about killing the dragon that's terrorizing a small town. Can't stop them, because it's in the rules.
Fifth edition has that rare balance of magic items having definitive stats separate from a character's individual power along with enough freeform rules to eyeball cool effects together without it breaking game balance. This is not the case in 3.5 or 4th edition. In fifth edition, I can make a cool, unique magic item and a custom monster to throw at the party in, what, five minutes. In 3.5, I can spend at least an hour making the monster, looking at magic item creation guidelines to eyeball the wealth by level of my cool custom effect, fret about how to add a bunch of other loot to keep other players at parity, then sigh with resignation when the players just chuck the magic item on the loot pile and sell it. Expressly putting "the DM makes something up" in a crunch heavy system is a strength of fifth edition, because it clearly shows where the rights of the player end and the powers of the DM begin. And frankly, they did it in such a way that makes the whole system easier for everyone involved.
And unbounded accuracy also stops your plucky PC from ever winning an arm-wrestling competition with the legendary dragonslayer, and keeps those plucky commoners or low level PCs with an iron arrow from ever having a chance to pierce the dragon's hide. Because really, since when should an underdog hero ever actually have a chance to win against a dragon? It takes a band of 4 heroes each only slightly weaker than the dragon banding together to kill it, obviously. Anything less might as well just slit their throats now.
Sure, right after you tell me how your level 1 characters would meaningfully impact a battle with a Huge, airborne dragon at level 1 in this exact same scenario. Go on, I'll wait. I've got this epic fantasy moment I can meaningfully contribute to without being a demigod to pass the time.
-
2016-02-15, 01:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Here.
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
I play 3.5e (actually, mostly Pathfinder) because I'm more familiar with the rules system, and because quadratic wizards are a feature, not a bug.
-
2016-02-15, 01:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Floating in the void
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
But the DM can simply say "don't do that b/c it'll break the game" and let the PCs do the work behind the things, only needing to ask when they're doing something outside of the specific rules and even then, it's usually something like "is this okay, if not what should I change". In 5e, the DM would have to create rules for everything not specified.
If the PCs don't wanna use a certain magic item, the DM shouldn't force it on them. Just have an NPC use it. And that last part is an issue of the players and DM having different views of how the game should go, which can be a problem regardless of system.
Also, who using Flaming and Frost?
You can't do the "just sell the item" thing in 5e not because the items are better, but because you can't sell magic items because they're so rare (which is another thing I dislike about 5e).
Why should someone just starting adventuring be able to defeat a legend without having earned that power already?
Why should they? It's like putting a couple of police officers against a battle tank, except the tank can fly.Avatar of Furude Setsuna, by Telasi.Originally Posted by Akagi
-
2016-02-15, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
-
2016-02-15, 02:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Floating in the void
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Avatar of Furude Setsuna, by Telasi.Originally Posted by Akagi
-
2016-02-15, 02:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Is "bounded accuracy" ever actually given a hard mechanical guideline, or is it just an aspiration to which, so far, the designers have mostly adhered? Because nothing I have seen in the PHB suggests that it's impossible for monsters to go up to 30+ AC, nor for bonuses not to be found to stack similarly high to attack. They just don't, currently.
Yes, it'd be power creep, but it would not be, unless I am missing something, actually breaking the rules of the game.
-
2016-02-15, 02:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Floating in the void
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Avatar of Furude Setsuna, by Telasi.Originally Posted by Akagi
-
2016-02-15, 02:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
So putting a dragon's AC at the extreme limit of "hittable" for PCs would, in fact, make it out of reach for peasants, I think, then.
If the peasants have attack bonuses of +2 or +3, an AC of 22 or 23 is enough to be out of their reach barring the nat 20 that always hits (even in 3.5).
-
2016-02-15, 02:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- Floating in the void
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
[QUOTE=Segev;20426101If the peasants have attack bonuses of +2 or +3, an AC of 22 or 23 is enough to be out of their reach barring the nat 20 that always hits (even in 3.5).[/QUOTE]
But a natural 20 is only a 5% chance, so an army of peasants can kill a dragon.Avatar of Furude Setsuna, by Telasi.Originally Posted by Akagi
-
2016-02-15, 02:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
A natural 20 is a hit in 3.5 too. As far as armies of peasants killing dragons go, the only difference is the DR, which is a difference in stat block, not a difference in the game rules. Some monsters in 5e do have resistance or even outright immunity to nonmagical weapons.
-
2016-02-15, 02:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Marlinspike
-
2016-02-15, 03:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- In my library
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
It's a design goal. Specifically, that enough orcs should be a legitimate threat that you can throw a load at a party of 5 level 20 PCs and they still have a chance of dying.
On the 'why hire adventurers when an army can kill it', here's my view:
King Geoff is having a little dragon trouble near the Here Be Dragons Mountains. He could send the army after it, but it escapes with several sheep before taking more than a couple of arrows, and the militias near the mountains have suffered heavy losses. Also, King Bob is eyeing his iron mines suspiciously. King Geoff decides to hire a few mercenaries better equipped to negate the dragon's advantage, and sends a message to King Bob.
-
2016-02-15, 03:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Yeah, for the "why not use an army to kill that dragon?" question to have a different answer in 5e than 3.5, the conditions that make killing that dragon possible for an army have to be different. I am not convinced that is the case, since both are relying on nat 20s and large numbers of actions to try to get them.
-
2016-02-15, 03:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Said arrow was in fact of dwarven craft, and handed down over generations to Bard, who fired it to kill Smaug because a bird told him the secret of Smaug's vulnerability.
I don't know, why do people need support fighting bees? Or ants? Enough of a small number of things can kill you?
Also why is the Dragon fighting peasants? That doesn't seem to have much value. I mean historically dragons such as Smaug have died against peasants, so that seems like a losing game, particularly without any real gain from it.
That's certainly a debatable point. Probably why most people have reacted strongly and negatively to stories where he has. Because they don't agree with you.
The thing is, the King rules because the people don't rise up in rebellion, and the nobles don't. The king doesn't have enough force to stop everybody, there's never been an Empire where that's been the case. He just needs enough to keep enough people happy that they'll back him. That's where the support and politics come in.
Yes!
The entire point of having rules is that they allow you to have a say in what happens. The reason we have hit points is so that when the DM says "rocks fall, everyone dies", we can say "no, how much damage did that do?". The reason we have CR guidelines is so that when the DM has an ancient dragon attack us at level one, we can say "dude, not cool that's an encounter for 20th level PCs". 100% of the reason rules exist is so that player can adjudicate what happens without argument about whether the DM thinks that is cool.
But think about it from the DM's side of the screen. "Oh, this is a neat magic item I want to see in play. Let's drop it in with the loot." Players look at it, shrug, throw it on the pile of items they can sell at the store, makes the usual combination of +1 Flaming Frost weapon with GMW thrown on for the rest of the bonus.
Player goes "Hey, how about that industrial revolution, can we do that?" when the DM wants to make a campaign about killing the dragon that's terrorizing a small town. Can't stop them, because it's in the rules.
Also, if you can't work in a dragon fight into a story about industrialization, you just aren't trying. It's immediately obvious that the dragon's innate power is going to be less relevant in a world with industrial technology, so it would presumably try to fight people pushing for that. Or maybe the PCs need the dragon's hoard for some reason (either capital to industrialize, or specific artifacts). Maybe the dragon runs a bank and is in conflict with the players because they're trying to introduce fractional reserve banking.
Expressly putting "the DM makes something up" in a crunch heavy system is a strength of fifth edition, because it clearly shows where the rights of the player end and the powers of the DM begin. And frankly, they did it in such a way that makes the whole system easier for everyone involved.
And unbounded accuracy also stops your plucky PC from ever winning an arm-wrestling competition with the legendary dragonslayer, and keeps those plucky commoners or low level PCs with an iron arrow from ever having a chance to pierce the dragon's hide. Because really, since when should an underdog hero ever actually have a chance to win against a dragon? It takes a band of 4 heroes each only slightly weaker than the dragon banding together to kill it, obviously. Anything less might as well just slit their throats now.
Sure, right after you tell me how your level 1 characters would meaningfully impact a battle with a Huge, airborne dragon at level 1 in this exact same scenario. Go on, I'll wait. I've got this epic fantasy moment I can meaningfully contribute to without being a demigod to pass the time.
Who knows? A few points:
1. Technically, 5e doesn't have bounded accuracy at all. You accumulate bonuses at some rate and therefore would eventually push random peasants off the RNG for anything those bonuses applied to. It's just the point that happens is level 30 not level 8.
2. Mike Mearls is designing it, and while he has stated (at various points) that bounded accuracy is supposed to be how the system "works", I have no real faith in his ability to keep to any particular design goals he nominally has.
3. Because of the way PC bonuses progress, bounded accuracy is largely here to stay for PCs even if someone prints a monster that has large AC, save, or attack numbers.
4. I don't think they're producing enough content for power creep to happen. There have been five rulebooks (as opposed to adventures) out thus far, and three of those are core books. FFS, they haven't released a campaign setting (unless Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is a setting book, but I have no idea if that's for FR, Eberron, or just generic pirates).
So putting a dragon's AC at the extreme limit of "hittable" for PCs would, in fact, make it out of reach for peasants, I think, then.
If the peasants have attack bonuses of +2 or +3, an AC of 22 or 23 is enough to be out of their reach barring the nat 20 that always hits (even in 3.5).
Second, while 3e had the 20 hits rule, it also had DR which made damage from peasants all but meaningless to adult dragons.
-
2016-02-15, 03:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
This is often the theory behind why part of the "prize" for killing the dragon was the King's daughter's hand in marriage. Sure, he might still off you for the throne, but at least he doesn't HAVE to, and can enjoy a life of "living like a King" without the responsibility if he's willing to be patient.
Like I said, I don't have the MM to pull the numbers from, so I'll take your word for this.
What's the AC of a "mere" Adult Red Dragon? What's its CR?
Do dragons not have resistance or immunity to physical non-magic weapons in 5e?
-
2016-02-15, 03:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
I mean, if I was a government, I'd probably try and hire some professional dragonslayers to kill a dragon than slaughter half my army doing it. It still makes no sense to throw an army against a dragon in 5e. Sure, a 5e peasant army has a better chance of killing one as a 3.5 peasant army, but it would still cripple the kingdom.
-
2016-02-15, 03:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Yep. "Half my kingdom and my kid" is a fairly typical prize for doing something the king needs done in fantasy.
Like I said, I don't have the MM to pull the numbers from, so I'll take your word for this.
What's the AC of a "mere" Adult Red Dragon? What's its CR?
Do dragons not have resistance or immunity to physical non-magic weapons in 5e?
Some quick calcs for militia versus dragon:
To hit on a 16+ (25% of the time), you need your militia to have +3 to hit. That's within the range for attribute scores, and proficiency bonus is +1 or +2 depending on how trained your troops are. It seems pretty reasonable to say militia hit 25% of the time.
I don't know 5e weapons stats, but assuming bows are still 1d8 damage, you get an average of just over 1 damage per militia per round (4.5 damage * .25 to hit).
It takes less than 300 dudes to kill an adult red dragon. A Roman Cohort (500 soldiers) could kill one with ease. I think that puts paid to the idea that an adventurer is a better tool for killing dragons in 5e than an army.
-
2016-02-15, 03:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
The most awesome game concept or mechanic you've ever seen is, for somebody else, absolutely bad design and a reason why they utterly hate that system. And for a different person, it's just okay; neither fantastically great nor completely terrible.
For me, the level advancement in 3.5 is a negative. When I play a superhero game, I want the characters to start that way. The part where Billy Batson meets an old wizard and gets transformed into the world's mightiest mortal should be covered in the very first issue, or possibly even a flashback. Conversely, I like characters who start the game as normal humans to finish as somewhat more skilled normal humans. Advancing from one to another is jarring, and especially so if there's no specific event in which the characters gain their superhuman abilities.
And as a DM, I find the sheer volume of options in 3.5 to be another negative because for the most part, they are player options, not world-building options. For example, it's hard to create a world in which magic requires extended rituals, so spells can't be cast during combat. Or one in which there are no dedicated spellcasters, but nearly everybody knows one or two spells. Or one in which there is only one spellcasting class. Or one where style specializations are enforced by prerequisites, so that you have to learn Burning Hands before you can cast Fireball. Or simply a world in which a person doesn't get better at fighting just because they become a master chef. (The idea of having every possible NPC have to fit into a class/level system really doesn't work for me.)
What I think of as negatives are, of course, positives to somebody else who likes those things.
-
2016-02-15, 03:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Gender
Re: Why play 3.5 anymore?
Last edited by Cazero; 2016-02-15 at 03:59 PM.
Yes, I am slightly egomaniac. Why didn't you ask?
Free haiku !
Alas, poor Cookie
The world needs more platypi
I wish you could be
Originally Posted by Fyraltari
-
2016-02-15, 04:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014