Remind me why 3.5e is better than 5e

[Psyren]

Yes, but I'm sure half the point of 5e (and PF, hence my annoyance) was to fix these things. If the writers are letting stupid things like this through the vetting process, gods help them when they write their own content!

My guess is that they want darkvision to matter (and for races who can see in the dark to be more inclined to... rogue-ing.) It's not so much an oversight as an intentional design decision.

It's not even one I have a major problem with - so long as you give races without darkvision a way to be rogues. PF did, but 5e did not.

[Curmudgeon]

5e lacks granularity based on player choice. In 4e everything was adjusted by ½ character level. In 5e they've got a table for proficiency bonus instead of a formula. In neither case are there differences based on class choices (½ - full BAB), skill points, & c. That means that a Rogue can't be a whole lot more stealthy than characters of other classes; their best efforts (via Expertise) end up with only double the proficiency bonus.

[Galen]

5e lacks granularity based on player choice. In 4e everything was adjusted by ½ character level. In 5e they've got a table for proficiency bonus instead of a formula. In neither case are there differences based on class choices (½ - full BAB), skill points, & c. That means that a Rogue can't be a whole lot more stealthy than characters of other classes; their best efforts (via Expertise) end up with only double the proficiency bonus.

And how can a Rogue in 3.5 be more stealthy than, let's say, a Ranger or a Monk? Does a 3.5 Rogue has a class feature other than "Hide and Move Silently are class skills for you"?

[Max Caysey]

I've spent over a 1000 dollars and a lot of time buying as many books as possible for 3.x. I aint doing that again. And they well 4th ed happened, så basically Im done giving wotc any money.

[Curmudgeon]

And how can a Rogue in 3.5 be more stealthy than, let's say, a Ranger or a Monk? Does a 3.5 Rogue has a class feature other than "Hide and Move Silently are class skills for you"?

Yes, it does. Skill Mastery lets the Rogue "take 10" on mastered skills, letting the Rogue know they can't flub their stealth checks. The Savvy Rogue feat (only available with 10 Rogue levels) changes the Skill Mastery result to "take 12" instead, guaranteeing above-average checks without rolling.

[Flickerdart]

And how can a Rogue in 3.5 be more stealthy than, let's say, a Ranger or a Monk? Does a 3.5 Rogue has a class feature other than "Hide and Move Silently are class skills for you"?

And how can a Rogue in 3.5 be more stealthy than, let's say, a Ranger or a Monk? Does a 3.5 Rogue has a class feature other than "Hide and Move Silently are class skills for you"?

Rangers and monks are also stealth-focused characters, of course they'd be good at stealth. But is a 5e rogue at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 actually meaningfully stealthier than a wizard (who doesn't pump DEX) or an archer-based fighter (who does)?

This is not a rhetorical question, I have no idea.

[Mr.Moron]

It isn't. It's just vastly more fiddly. Some folks enjoy that kind of thing. If you want lots of levers and knobs to turn in your mechanics, all of which produce wide varieties of results that vastly different in terms of both scope and kind you'll like 3.P.

If you want a handful of switches to flip in your mechanics, with slightly more narrow results that are still rather different in terms of scope, you'll probably like 5e more.

[Troacctid]

Rangers and monks are also stealth-focused characters, of course they'd be good at stealth. But is a 5e rogue at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 actually meaningfully stealthier than a wizard (who doesn't pump DEX) or an archer-based fighter (who does)?

This is not a rhetorical question, I have no idea.

They have a class ability that lets them hide in combat as the 5e equivalent of a swift action at 2nd level, where anyone else needs the equivalent of a standard action. They also choose two skills to double their proficiency bonus on, so they can choose Stealth for that. The Thief archetype also automatically has advantage on all Stealth checks at 9th level. And sneak attack means that if they are hidden, they can use the advantage from it to deal extra damage. Edit: Arcane Tricksters can also make their mage hand invisible and use it to pick pockets and stuff, if that counts.

I haven't played 5e yet so I don't know how substantial these things are, but they seem nice.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, but I'm sure half the point of 5e (and PF, hence my annoyance) was to fix these things. If the writers are letting stupid things like this through the vetting process, gods help them when they write their own content!

It's true that in 3E and 5E, not being able to see in the dark will screw over a rogue (I never play a sneak attacking rogue w/o darkvision...NEVER...though I usually trade it for the bonus feats anyway). But I'd bet that you have more options in 3E than in 5E to obtain darkvision by means other than race, and 5E really should have fixed this by now as you said.

But I think people are getting hung up too much on the darkness thing alone. My point was: they simplified things so that most beneficial and harmful conditions now are on the (dis)advantage system. To me, that means there could be very many circumstances where one measly source of disdavantage will perma-screw the rogue out of sneak attacking because NO amount of advantages can trump it, only be collectively negated. That is horrible. I repeat, THAT IS HORRIBLE.

Especially since (again, iirc...I've been out of the loop for a while maybe they don't stack anymore) that means these two situations can both potentially happen:
Rogue in alternate universe 1 has 9 sources of advantage, 0 sources of disadvantage. He rolls NINE d20 and picks the highest.
Rogue in alternate universe 2 has 10 sources of advantage, 1 source of disadvantage. He rolls only ONE d20.

[Flickerdart]

They have a class ability that lets them hide in combat as the 5e equivalent of a swift action at 2nd level, where anyone else needs the equivalent of a standard action. They also choose two skills to double their proficiency bonus on, so they can choose Stealth for that. The Thief archetype also automatically has advantage on all Stealth checks at 9th level. And sneak attack means that if they are hidden, they can use the advantage from it to deal extra damage. Edit: Arcane Tricksters can also make their mage hand invisible and use it to pick pockets and stuff, if that counts.

I haven't played 5e yet so I don't know how substantial these things are, but they seem nice.

Mm. Those aren't bad perks. What do those look like numbers-wise?

[Extra Anchovies]

Especially since (again, iirc...I've been out of the loop for a while maybe they don't stack anymore) that means these two situations can both potentially happen:
Rogue in alternate universe 1 has 9 sources of advantage, 0 sources of disadvantage. He rolls NINE d20 and picks the highest.
Rogue in alternate universe 2 has 10 sources of advantage, 1 source of disadvantage. He rolls only ONE d20.

Advantage and disadvantage don't cancel on a one-to-one ratio? That is disgusting icky. Literally every other game I know of that uses an advantage/disadvantage mechanic has one-to-one canceling, and it works perfectly fine (and benefits players more often than it does monsters). I have a lot less interest in 5e now.

ETA: icky.

[Seerow]

Mm. Those aren't bad perks. What do those look like numbers-wise?

Basically 5e rogue at level 20 has 2d20(take best)+17

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+11

5e rogue at level 1 has 1d20+5

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+4

5e non-stealth type has 1d20+0

[heavyfuel]

Basically 5e rogue at level 20 has 2d20(take best)+17

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+11

5e rogue at level 1 has 1d20+5

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+4

5e non-stealth type has 1d20+0

On average:

- 30.82
- 21.5
- 15.5
- 14.5
- 10.5

So the lv 1 Rogue fares slightly better than a lv 20 dex focus character on average. It seems rather fair to be honest.

[Troacctid]

Advantage and disadvantage don't cancel on a one-to-one ratio? That is disgusting. Literally every other game I know of that uses an advantage/disadvantage mechanic has one-to-one canceling, and it works perfectly fine (and benefits players more often than it does monsters). I have a lot less interest in 5e now.

I mean, it's a thing. I wouldn't call it disgusting. They obviously tried it different ways, and gave it a lot of thought and playtesting. (Advantage doesn't stack in the final version, by the way, you either have it or you don't, so StreamOfTheSky's comparison is inaccurate.) They went with this one because it makes calculations much, much quicker, which they felt most players would find more fun than the paradigm you see in earlier editions where this tends to happen. Again, I haven't found a chance to play 5e yet, but that sort of grubbing for situational bonuses did bother me in 3.5 and 4th edition, and the way the advantage system is set up to avoid it seems reasonable to me at first glance.

[Extra Anchovies]

As an aside: how do you mathematically calculate the average result from Xd6 best X?

ETA:

I mean, it's a thing. I wouldn't call it disgusting. They obviously tried it different ways, and gave it a lot of thought and playtesting. (Advantage doesn't stack in the final version, by the way, you either have it or you don't, so StreamOfTheSky's comparison is inaccurate.) They went with this one because it makes calculations much, much quicker, which they felt most players would find more fun than the paradigm you see in earlier editions where this tends to happen. Again, I haven't found a chance to play 5e yet, but that sort of grubbing for situational bonuses did bother me in 3.5 and 4th edition, and the way the advantage system is set up to avoid it seems reasonable to me at first glance.

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.

[heavyfuel]

As an aside: how do you mathematically calculate the average result from Xd6 best X?

Use anydice.com.

Just type in the function "output Xd6" and it'll give you an average (right next to the text "Output 1" is where it shows the average)

[Extra Anchovies]

Use anydice.com.

Just type in the function "output Xd6" and it'll give you an average (right next to the text "Output 1" is where it shows the average)

No, what I mean is, how does one go about figuring out the expected average from, say, 4d6b3? Or 2d20b2? I suppose I should've framed it as Xd6 best Y.

[Galen]

Rangers and monks are also stealth-focused characters, of course they'd be good at stealth. But is a 5e rogue at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 actually meaningfully stealthier than a wizard (who doesn't pump DEX) or an archer-based fighter (who does)?

This is not a rhetorical question, I have no idea.

Assumption: "pump dex" means starting at 18 and increasing it whenever possible. "Not pumping dex" means starting at 14 and keeping it there.

Level 1: Archery Fighter +4, Wizard +2, Rogue +8
Level 5: Archery Fighter +5, Wizard +2, Rogue +11 and can hide as a swift action
Level 10: Archery Fighter +5, Wizard +2, Rogue +13 can hide as a swift action, and has advantage on Stealth (ie. rolls 2d20 and takes best)
Level 15: Archery Fighter +5, Wizard +2, Rogue +15 can hide as a swift action, and has advantage on Stealth
Level 20: Archery Fighter +5, Wizard +2, Rogue +17 can hide as a swift action, and has advantage on Stealth

[Curmudgeon]

Basically 5e rogue at level 20 has 2d20(take best)+17

+12 is from Expertise with Stealth, which is extremely likely after 6th level for all Rogues.

Is the extra +5 from advantage due to Supreme Sneak? That's only available with the Thief archetype, which means only 1/3 of Rogues will have that.

[Galen]

+12 is from Expertise with Stealth, which is extremely likely after 6th level for all Rogues.

Is the extra +5 from advantage due to Supreme Sneak? That's only available with the Thief archetype, which means only 1/3 of Rogues will have that.

No, +5 is just Dex

[Phelix-Mu]

To the OP's original topic, my personal experience:

I cut my teeth on 2e, and for over a decade had tons of fun with a system that, at times, was hysterically complicated, nonsensical, and otherwise dysfunctional.

When 3e came out, TSR had been languishing for years, and the whole thing was due for a revamp. 3e was good, and I played it for a good four years or so.

Then 3.5 came out. I resisted at first, because it involved buying books that largely made the books I had obsolete. But eventually there were just so many new, shiny things that were 3.5 that I switched, and largely didn't regret the choice.

Until they dumped 3.5 for 4e almost right away (at least from a 2e perspective).

I. Raged. HARD.

I admit, tears were shed. Unreasonable, illogical tears, to be sure. But D&D is that kind of game for me; I love it beyond reason, and it has a foundational place in my identity that can never be supplanted. I hated seeing them chuck a good thing, regardless of whether 4e was any good or not (and even then, the omens were bad).

So I stuck with 3.5.

And then, mere years later, 5e/Next is announced.

I laughed.


Because, at this point, screw you, WotC. They took something good, made something better, and then decided that, heck, the good is the enemy of the great. In pursuit of perfection and more book sales, they have roundly consigned D&D to the idiocy that is planned obsoletion.

So, why is 3.5 better?

• Because it is the last in the line to honor its forefathers, rather than sell their corpses for spare parts.
• Because it actually had a conversion mechanism to link it to the past editions, giving token acknowledgement to continuity.
• Because they didn't burn down entire settings to justify its existence (mostly).
• Because it has OGL, the SINGLE, best thing to happen to TTRPG in the last few decades.
• Because I want you to stick it to WotC. Hehe. (No, seriously, I'm bitter.)

[Extra Anchovies]

Because it has OGL, the SINGLE, best thing to happen to TTRPG in the last few decades.

Now that you mention it... this is the big one. The Open Game License enabled Pathfinder, it allowed every other d20 system adaptation in existence, and it let third-party publishers reference rules text in published adventures and settings, so they no longer have to market things as "system-neutral" while referring to how the king's court wizard is a "12th-level magic-user". They can up and admit that he's a wizard, and give you his ability scores, and tell you what spells he usually prepares. And, through the SRD, it lets anyone, anywhere in the world that has internet access, play the game for free. That sort of generosity isn't going to be seen for a while, at least based on the total lack of open content from 4e.

[Petrocorus]

Most of the 3.5 rules you need are free and most of 5e's rules won't be (for all I know), and that's all I need to know to ignore 5e, especially with D&D books normally costing a bloody fortune.

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.

Speaking of, the fact that the game doubles down on Caster vs Martial is a bit disappointing too.

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?

"It's possible to build a character if you wait until the character is rendered obsolete by the spellcasters" is not strong praise for the system.I have yet to have this problem.

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.

[Flickerdart]

Basically 5e rogue at level 20 has 2d20(take best)+17

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+11

5e rogue at level 1 has 1d20+5

5e non-rogue with dex focus at level 20 has 1d20+4

5e non-stealth type has 1d20+0

So a rogue is +1-5 better than any random Dexterity guy at sneaking? That is a little bit depressing.

[Seerow]

So a rogue is +1-5 better than any random Dexterity guy at sneaking? That is a little bit depressing.

Yeah, rogue gets to double their proficiency bonus, which is a scaling number from +1 to +6. They also get the advantage benefit and bonus action hiding, as others have noted.

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.

[Troacctid]

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.

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.

So a rogue is +1-5 better than any random Dexterity guy at sneaking? That is a little bit depressing.

+2-6, actually, but small bonuses matter a lot more in 5e due to how the DCs scale and how much harder small bonuses are to get. Kind of like how Weapon Focus is terrible in 3.5 but one of the most important feats you can take in 4th edition.

[GreyBlack]

To respond to the OP, I only need 3 letters.

OGL.

Thank you, good night.

[eggynack]

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.

[squiggit]

3.5/PF is a better game for playing epic fantasy adventures, it's a better game if you like having a lot of knobs to turn and a glut of options at your disposal.

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.

3.5 is a worse game because it has an overwhelmingly large number of bad options and breaks down heavily at a higher level of play.

5e is a worse game because it lacks granularity in character development and tends to have a very flatlined power scale.

And just for completionist's sake, 4e is somewhere in the middle, with high fantasy combat and narrative but constrained by low fantasy rules. Also tactical combat. So... pick that one for those.

[*]Because it is the last in the line to honor its forefathers, rather than sell their corpses for spare parts.

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.

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.

Have to disagree here. Yeah, half-orcs no longer have an int penalty, but that doesn't make the great wizards, that just means the measuring stick is shifted, just like in 4e, the baseline becomes picking the race with the right bonuses instead.

You're still going to be hurting yourself by picking half-orc over high elf.

[Troacctid]

Have to disagree here. Yeah, half-orcs no longer have an int penalty, but that doesn't make the great wizards, that just means the measuring stick is shifted, just like in 4e, the baseline becomes picking the race with the right bonuses instead.

You're still going to be hurting yourself by picking half-orc over high elf.

But unlike 4e, ability scores are capped at 20, so you can catch up.