5e doesn't suck... but it doesn't really stack up well against 3.X

[Sidmen]

On the bounded accuracy thing, how come people say that you can battle kobolds and goblins at any level and it be reasonable in 5e but not in 3.P? You just give the kobold more levels.... In my campaigns most of the high-level enemies are humanoids with 0 LA.

Also, how are low-level monsters available for a higher range of levels when there is no advancement rules (at least so far) in 5e?

We're saying it is a boon because you don't HAVE to put in the work (as the GM) to make a goblin a threat to a higher-level party. In 3.5 you need to add class levels to the basic goblin stat block to make him threatening; that takes a lot of work every time you want to use a lower-level creature.

In 5e, you don't. You can still grab the generic Goblin from the Monster Manual and use him. I just did so (not with a goblin, but with a Needle Blight (CR 1/4)). Against a level 5 party of 5, 4 of these creatures effectively pinned down the group while they engaged a trio of CR 2 critters. The important thing is that the party can and did miss their attacks against these low level foes, and these foes could still hit them. The PCs numbers didn't inflate as much as they would have in 3.5.

[Psyren]

Personally, I find it utterly ridiculous that after only a handful of sessions a person goes from being in mortal danger from zombies, goblins, and kobolds - to riding around a wave of their blood on fashionable undead waterskis.

I don't think it's "ridiculous" at all. How many regular goblins or human skeletons should be a threat for an adult red dragon? 14? 40? 400? If a high-level adventurer can match that dragon's prowess (or outright transform into one even,) why should it be any different? How in 5e could you ever get a scene like this?

We're saying it is a boon because you don't HAVE to put in the work (as the GM) to make a goblin a threat to a higher-level party. In 3.5 you need to add class levels to the basic goblin stat block to make him threatening; that takes a lot of work every time you want to use a lower-level creature.

But the point is that I can power up that goblin if I want to - and if it really is too much work to do it, there are so many other monsters I can just pull out of the bestiary to use instead, making it a non-issue.

Besides which, 5e can be just as much work, just in the other direction. If I want to use a mid or high-CR monster they haven't statted up yet, I'm left on my own as to how to kludge and cram that monster into the brackets of bounded accuracy. For instance, an Ancient Red in 5e has a fly speed of 80ft. In Pathfinder it has 250. If I want to translate a 100ft. or 120ft. flier into 5e, how fast should it be? In PF the Tarrasque is stronger and tougher than an ancient red dragon. In 5e they are equal. How strong do I make a Colossus, or a Kraken? Have they done Balors and Solars yet? Any unique creatures like Aspects or Great Old Ones? In 3.5 and PF I have everything I need to locate or estimate stats for such beings, in 5e bounded accuracy creates too much stat parity.

[Milo v3]

In 5e, you don't. You can still grab the generic Goblin from the Monster Manual and use him. I just did so (not with a goblin, but with a Needle Blight (CR 1/4)). Against a level 5 party of 5, 4 of these creatures effectively pinned down the group while they engaged a trio of CR 2 critters. The important thing is that the party can and did miss their attacks against these low level foes, and these foes could still hit them. The PCs numbers didn't inflate as much as they would have in 3.5.

A generic goblin with no modification against a level twenty warlock, is that a fair fight in 5e? No, closest there would be to battling goblins at that level are goblin bosses which would get severely curb stomped.

3.P, give goblin 20 warlock/kineticist levels.

[Nagash]

That's not the only way in which they scale though
... bunch of meaningless crap.....

Lets take the fighter.

Over 20 levels he gets 6 pts better at his schtich (hitting people) compared to 20 pts better in 3e.

He gets 12 extra ability points, but in 3e he got 5 and magic boosters were easier to come by and there wasnt a 20 max cap so he realistically would advance a good 12 pts in addition to ability scores. At least. So thats 12 extra abilities with a 20 cap versus 17 ability points with no cap. meaning 3e let you make your character much better at what you actually want to do, rather then forcing you to spread points around like 5e. AND he doesnt have to sacrifice his feats to do it.

3 extra attacks same as 3e.

Reroll saves 3 times between long rests, which kinda sucks compared to all the save boosting feats fighters could take in 3e.

2 uses of weak sauce action surge. (free potion of cure light wounds, saving the 20th level fighter 100gp per use, which naturally will just break the bank of a 20th level character)

2 action surges between rests, which is 1 bonus attack twice a day...... sucks.

Compared to all the variety of a PF fighter with the feat choices the 5e fighter is a weaksauce joke. Sure they made all the other classes suck more too so the tier discrepancy isnt so bad, but everyone suck equally is NOT a good solution to the imbalance issue of 3e.

We're saying it is a boon because you don't HAVE to put in the work (as the GM) to make a goblin a threat to a higher-level party. In 3.5 you need to add class levels to the basic goblin stat block to make him threatening; that takes a lot of work every time you want to use a lower-level creature.

actually it takes about 90 seconds and with any decent digital monster builder, or even an excel spreadsheet that work is done FOREVER. It only needs to be done once and then you hit "save". You dont need to super optimize the enemy, you think about their class and culture, pick a few feats that seem logical, some skills that seem logical and save it. When you need a higher level one you copy and paste the low level one, add a few things and hit SAVE again on your program. Done.

I have monster spreadsheets going back to 2006. As long as you save your work its quick and easy as pie and only needs to ever be done once.

[PersonMan]

Playing a 3.5 campaign at the moment myself, I find the description of 'goblins are a threat for a few sessions then stop being one' inaccurate as well - even if you don't scale them* they can be a threat for several levels. I've been playing this game for about...2 years? And in that time we've only gained a handful of levels. If your games are a bloodbath of four or five on-CR combats every in-game day all the time, then you'd advance faster, but even then you'd still have more than "a couple sessions" in which goblins and orcs would be a threat. You're also mowing down something like 8 orcs every day, which will cause a very fast decrease in the local orc population. Unless you plan to kill literally every orc in an area, it likely can't sustain that level of loss for more than "a few levels".

*Which is as easy as saying "Elite Mook Goblin Fighter 3, +16.5 HP, +3 BAB, Toughness, Weapon Focus". If you fiddle with every skill point for a nameless enemy then the problem is you wasting your time with meaningless details that don't need to be filled out as much as it is the system being complex.

EDIT: Assuming you don't take easy power amplification templates like Lolth-Touched and toss them onto your monsters. Large attack bonus, large damage bonus, significant increase in HP, all for +1 CR. You can easily put together an elite orc mook with something like +9 attack, 2d6+7 damage, which is enough to be a threat in packs even if the PCs are of 6th level or higher.

1) The players never see what goes on behind the screens. It is a lot harder to run combats behind the screen than it is on the player side when it comes to tracking everything. Players usually only have to track the things they do and what affects them...DMs have to track everything. 3.x and Pathfinder, especially as the levels increase, require a lot of work on the part of the DM to run accurately. There are tons of feats, skills and conditions to track at any given moment. It's hard work and I was often exhausted after a few combats. Not so with 5e.

First: I apologize, I worded that badly - I have DMed 3.5, but not 5e.

That said, I disagree that 3.5 has a massive number of things to track at every moment. Perhaps it's just that my groups didn't do things in an overly complex way, but I never ran into a situation where I needed to track Toughness, Knowledge (Arcana) +17 and Sickened at the same time and I can't think of one in which I'd need to track feats, skills and conditions.

[Sidmen]

Its like talking with an alien species here.

I mention that I like how you can push a CR 1/4 creature to be a threat at levels 5-7 if you want, with no work, and I get responses that don't refute anything, but which somehow seemingly disagree with me.

[Milo v3]

Its like talking with an alien species here.

I mention that I like how you can push a CR 1/4 creature to be a threat at levels 5-7 if you want, with no work, and I get responses that don't refute anything, but which somehow seemingly disagree with me.

My point is that CR 1/4 creature is permanently going to be a CR 1/4 creature. With 3.5e I can have that CR 1/4 creature be a viable threat from first level to 20th. So I don't see having CR 1/4's at 5th level as impressive or a benefit in anyway. Just makes it seem like things are weaker overall if a level one commoner is a threat to a 5-7 level character.

[ProphetSword]

My point is that CR 1/4 creature is permanently going to be a CR 1/4 creature. With 3.5e I can have that CR 1/4 creature be a viable threat from first level to 20th. So I don't see having CR 1/4's at 5th level as impressive or a benefit in anyway. Just makes it seem like things are weaker overall if a level one commoner is a threat to a 5-7 level character.

And yet, they should be. In realistic terms, no matter how good you are at a style of fighting, a group of untrained armed men in large numbers should still be a danger to you. You will be better than they are, but a dozen or so of them can overwhelm you when they come at you from all sides. 5e illustrates this very well.

In 3.x, this would be a joke.

I guess it comes down to what kind of game you want to play. Neither is wrong. There is gritty reality, where you get better but, when caught unaware, can still face death at every turn. Or, there's god-like ability where you can wade through 1,000 orcs without ever feeling the sting of their swords.

Obviously some people wanted more reality, or 3.x modifications like E6 wouldn't exist.

[Madfellow]

Besides which, 5e can be just as much work, just in the other direction. If I want to use a mid or high-CR monster they haven't statted up yet, I'm left on my own as to how to kludge and cram that monster into the brackets of bounded accuracy. For instance, an Ancient Red in 5e has a fly speed of 80ft. In Pathfinder it has 250. If I want to translate a 100ft. or 120ft. flier into 5e, how fast should it be? In PF the Tarrasque is stronger and tougher than an ancient red dragon. In 5e they are equal. How strong do I make a Colossus, or a Kraken? Have they done Balors and Solars yet? Any unique creatures like Aspects or Great Old Ones? In 3.5 and PF I have everything I need to locate or estimate stats for such beings, in 5e bounded accuracy creates too much stat parity.

The Monster Manual and the Basic Rules DM Guide have guidelines for monster stats. They're based on its intended CR, its hit dice, and its size. You take that basic chassis and add whatever you feel is appropriate.

A generic goblin with no modification against a level twenty warlock, is that a fair fight in 5e? No, closest there would be to battling goblins at that level are goblin bosses which would get severely curb stomped.

They were talking about mobs of goblins, not individuals.

2 uses of weak sauce action surge. (free potion of cure light wounds, saving the 20th level fighter 100gp per use, which naturally will just break the bank of a 20th level character)

2 action surges between rests, which is 1 bonus attack twice a day...... sucks.

Compared to all the variety of a PF fighter with the feat choices the 5e fighter is a weaksauce joke. Sure they made all the other classes suck more too so the tier discrepancy isnt so bad, but everyone suck equally is NOT a good solution to the imbalance issue of 3e.

Nobody on the 5e subforum would call Action Surge "weak sauce." Quite the opposite, really, it's one of the most powerful abilities in the game. And the Fighter gets exclusive access to it at level 2. Action Surge gives you a second action in combat, which you can use for basically anything. You can move, attack, heal, or do whatever else your heart desires with it. It practically gives you a second turn. If you have multiple attacks, which the Fighter gets at level 5, Action Surge lets you double the number of attacks you make in that round.

Feats in 3.5 were a joke. If you took enough of them, sure you could do some nifty combat trick, but said tricks did not scale well with level and did nothing to help martial types who wanted to contribute as much as their spellcaster buddies.

3.5 spellcasters were basically gods. Bringing them back down to Earth so they're not wrecking the game balance is a good thing.

[Sartharina]

On the bounded accuracy thing, how come people say that you can battle kobolds and goblins at any level and it be reasonable in 5e but not in 3.P? You just give the kobold more levels.... In my campaigns most of the high-level enemies are humanoids with 0 LA.

Wait... every kobold in your setting becomes a high-level dragonslayer as the party progresses?

Also, how are low-level monsters available for a higher range of levels when there is no advancement rules (at least so far) in 5e?

Because they're a threat based on stat block alone - they can generally take at least two hits each, have a fair chance of hitting, and deal enough damage for even high-level characters to take notice. But mostly because they have a fair chance of hitting, and fair chance of high-level heroes missing them.

[Milodiah]

The thing about 3.5 group combat is that should you want to make your level 10 players face off against 40 run of the mill axe-and-loincloth orcs, you've either got 40 individual enemies for whom numbers somehow don't matter (plus everyone at the table including yourself hates you for being psychotic and putting 40 entries on the initiative list), or you use obscure rules from DMG II originally meant to simulate angry mobs to turn the 50 individuals into a single somehow-more-dangerous enemy that handles conspicuously like a Gargantuan-size ooze. It's a weird and mechanically awkward solution that in my opinion cuts to the heart of the issue- when you've got a situation in which an identical situation can be turned into two completely different ones by taking different paths through the rulebooks, then the issue rests 100% on the game system in question. Especially if the phrase "the angry mob dodges your arrow" can be uttered without intentional parody.

5e's actually starting to appeal to me more and more after reading this, but in the 7e Call of Cthulhu way...some of it sounds atrocious, but at the same time there are specific gems in it that I'd love to try backbrewing into 3.5. Obviously I want to wait until a decent amount of material is released for 5e, not having the DMG available at launch sounds ridiculous to me, but I'd certainly be more interested now than I was before...

[jaydubs]

In Final Fantasy VII, I can go from having a hundred or so hitpoints and doing a couple dozen damage per attack, to having 9999 hitpoints, doing 9999 damage with every attack, and casting all manner of super-powerful magic almost at-will. You can't do that in Baldur's Gate. Therefore, high level characters are just flimsy and useless in Baldur's Gate, and character progression is near non-existent.

To give another example, lets say I homebrew a ruleset that I call 3.XTREME. 3.XTREME is exactly the same as 3.5, except all numerical increases (BAB, saves, HP, # of attacks, etc.) are doubled. Does that mean 3.XTREME is better than 3.5, because it has bigger character improvement?

Of course not. That's a silly argument. And so is saying 3.x is outright better (rather than just appealing to a different preference on power levels) because it gives larger numerical bonuses, or has a higher maximum power progression. There are lots of good reasons to prefer 3.x over 5e. Many of them have been mentioned in this thread. But +20 > +6 is not one of them.

[Nicol Bolas]

Why does any of this matter?

If my DM tried to make me fight goblins for 20 levels I'd quit about 3 levels in.

[Milodiah]

Why does any of this matter?

If my DM tried to make me fight goblins for 20 levels I'd quit about 3 levels in.

...sigh.

It's about having the option to have a good fight with stuff of different CRs, as opposed to 'anything less than 2 levels below the players is just to annoy them'.

[Sidmen]

My point is that CR 1/4 creature is permanently going to be a CR 1/4 creature. With 3.5e I can have that CR 1/4 creature be a viable threat from first level to 20th. So I don't see having CR 1/4's at 5th level as impressive or a benefit in anyway. Just makes it seem like things are weaker overall if a level one commoner is a threat to a 5-7 level character.

Thanks. I was really having trouble understanding where some of y'all were coming from. I really don't consider making a new, different creature the same as being able to use something from the Monster Manual for longer. I mean, sure, you can see the evolution from a baseline goblin or kobold or whatever, but by the time you add three class levels you may as well just ignore the whole goblin part.

Oh, and I know it's just an off-the-cuff remark, but a commoner isn't even a threat against a level 1 character.

Really, what it comes down to is that a low-level combatant is going to be able to hit you with a good dice roll pretty much all the way through your character's life, while you won't be certain of hitting it (ALWAYS). It gets harder as you level, sure. But the attack bonuses and ACs don't explode like crazy. You'll be able to take more hits, and flat-out kill with less effort, but you won't be able to just sit back and laugh as your 30+ AC ignores the goblin attacks.

[Sartharina]

My point is that CR 1/4 creature is permanently going to be a CR 1/4 creature. With 3.5e I can have that CR 1/4 creature be a viable threat from first level to 20th.

Not in 3.5. You can make it stop being a CR 1/4 creature... but in 5e, a Skeleton with a bow is a skeleton with a bow at level 1 and at level 20. An Orc remains 6' of muscle from level 1 through level 20 (He CAN knock you on your ass no matter what level you are.)

A Pixie can be used to harrass and annoy a party at level 20 almost as much as at level 1, just out of the book.

As they level up, heroes gain the ability to take more hits and dish out more damage, but they still need to be wary of becoming outnumbered, and hits will stack up.

[Milo v3]

They were talking about mobs of goblins, not individuals.

That doesn't really change anything....
Mob of goblins can function in 3.5e just as well if not better, because I can scale the goblin mob to whichever power range I want using the advancement rules. If I want to make a mob that will be curbstopped, I can, if I want to make a mob that will be a challenge I can. In 5e, the only change you make to those goblins is increasing the number in the mob and deciding whether those goblins are goblins or goblin bosses.

Wait... every kobold in your setting becomes a high-level dragonslayer as the party progresses?

Whoa, slow down there strawman....

I'm saying kobolds are sentient beings, they can gain levels. If there are high-level humans and elves and dwarves, why wouldn't there be high level kobolds? Then from the fact that high-level kobolds can be expected to exist, there is no reason why those kobolds cannot be opponents at high-level.

Unless your suggesting that every human in your settings becomes a high-level dragonslayer as the party progresses, simply because they can gain levels?

EDIT:

Thanks. I was really having trouble understanding where some of y'all were coming from. I really don't consider making a new, different creature the same as being able to use something from the Monster Manual for longer. I mean, sure, you can see the evolution from a baseline goblin or kobold or whatever, but by the time you add three class levels you may as well just ignore the whole goblin part.

Oh, and I know it's just an off-the-cuff remark, but a commoner isn't even a threat against a level 1 character.

Really, what it comes down to is that a low-level combatant is going to be able to hit you with a good dice roll pretty much all the way through your character's life, while you won't be certain of hitting it (ALWAYS). It gets harder as you level, sure. But the attack bonuses and ACs don't explode like crazy. You'll be able to take more hits, and flat-out kill with less effort, but you won't be able to just sit back and laugh as your 30+ AC ignores the goblin attacks.

So a crappy guy who has a single fighter level always has a chance to hit a masterswordsmen, to me this goes against the flavour of a masterswordsman. It means no matter how skilled you are, a crappy weak guy can still hit you.

in 5e, a Skeleton with a bow is a skeleton with a bow at level 1 and at level 20. An Orc remains 6' of muscle from level 1 through level 20 (He CAN knock you on your ass no matter what level you are.)

I don't understand how this is a good thing.

[Alberic Strein]

Yeah, every 4 levels you get a +2 to stats or a feat. You have to choose, a decision that is not in 3.5.

(among other things)

Late to the party, but I would like to say that I LOVE that. It's not a malus, it's not a bad thing, it's an opportunity.

Maybe not the best ever, since I like feats and the amount of personalization they give your character (and hey, I can't really say no to +2 to stats) but the choice, the fact that this exists as a possibility is better than it not existing.

The fact that you have to choose and that the decision does not exist in 3.5 is an argument in favor of 5e, not against it.

I, however, hate with every fiber of my being the HP growth. I hated that about 4e, even though I like the edition a whole lot, even with its flaws, and I hated that about 3.5 or even PF.

Whether you're lvl1 or 10 a crossbow bolt that somehow bypasses armor (AC in a nutshell) has very good odds of killing you, not goes from '3/4 odds of dying' to 'shaved a bit of my hp' damnit.

I can buy the explications about it being more than your 'meat points' but then for the love of Amok don't refer to the full hp when those factors (proficiency, luck, will to live) don't apply.

(this is of course just me ranting, if you like having the king survive a bolt to the chest in the middle of his coronation because he took three levels of fighter, please do. It irks me but it's not 'wrong')

edit: Milo v3 > Wait, wasn't that a D&D thing as a whole?

Commoner 1 attacks masterswordsman with pitchfork. Nat 20. Cannot be confirmed, but auto hit, masterswordsman just got hit by the most absolute novice. He takes (level) shame damage.

[Sartharina]

Whoa, slow down there strawman....

I'm saying kobolds are sentient beings, they can gain levels. If there are high-level humans and elves and dwarves, why wouldn't there be high level kobolds? Then from the fact that high-level kobolds can be expected to exist, there is no reason why those kobolds cannot be opponents at high-level.

Unless your suggesting that every human in your settings becomes a high-level dragonslayer as the party progresses, simply because they can gain levels?

Demographics. If they have more than 10 levels, they're Legendary. Or did you miss that rule?

That doesn't really change anything....
Mob of goblins can function in 3.5e just as well if not better, because I can scale the goblin mob to whichever power range I want using the advancement rules. If I want to make a mob that will be curbstopped, I can, if I want to make a mob that will be a challenge I can. In 5e, the only change you make to those goblins is increasing the number in the mob and deciding whether those goblins are goblins or goblin bosses.

If you're scaling the mob of goblins so that they have 3 or more levels individually, then you're throwing a mob of Sergeants at the party. If you're scaling a mob so it has 6 or more class levels, it's a mob of Heroic goblins, or Goblin Cheiftans at the party. If you're throwing a mob of goblins with more than 10 levels individually, you're throwing a mob of legendary goblins at the party.

[Milo v3]

Demographics. If they have more than 10 levels, they're Legendary. Or did you miss that rule?

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo?????

How does that stop there being a legendary mercenary group of kobolds, or a tribe of goblins that every stays away from because they live and thrive amongst 13th level wild monsters? You are playing a fantasy game, if you cannot think of a way for a humanoid group to be legendary, you probably shouldn't be playing.

edit: Milo v3 > Wait, wasn't that a D&D thing as a whole?

Commoner 1 attacks masterswordsman with pitchfork. Nat 20. Cannot be confirmed, but auto hit, masterswordsman just got hit by the most absolute novice. He takes (level) shame damage.

Yes, but there is a difference between fighter level 1 attacks swordsman and does a scratch and fighter level 1 attacks swordsman and it's a threat.

[Milodiah]

You're missing the point by a mile.

It's not that we can't engineer a level-appropriate threat with deliberate work, it's that we shouldn't have to, and it strains credibility when we do constantly engineer level-appropriate encounters in situations where it wouldn't make sense just to make the game *look* balanced.

The City Watch, for example, aren't going to scale with the party's level to a heavy degree. Sure, there's a totally anachronistic 'anti-legendary SWAT team' that can perhaps be a unit of level 10 guys because such a thing kinda has to exist in D&D, but in 3.5 a high-level anything will roll his/her eyes at the DM when he mentions the half-dozen men with chain-mail shirts and halberds who are telling him/her to stop slamming that person's head into the wall, simply because either A) the DM is being consistent and these watchmen are still the same watchmen the PCs saw one month and 8 levels ago and are therefore no longer a slight threat, or B) the DM is being obnoxious and making them all somehow level up with the player characters just so some semblance of law enforcement can come when the PCs get rowdy.

[Gnomes2169]

Yes, but there is a difference between fighter level 1 attacks swordsman and does a scratch and fighter level 1 attacks swordsman and it's a threat.

Ummmmmm... A 2d6+3 damage attack from a 13 HP fighter is somehow a threat to a 213 HP fighter who's average damage 1-shots the other fighter how now? Being able to hit a target does not automatically make you a threat to it in any edition, and the rule is the same for 5e.

[Hytheter]

Lets take the fighter.

Over 20 levels he gets 6 pts better at his schtich (hitting people) compared to 20 pts better in 3e.

Again, +6 looks small compared to +20 but both numbers are proportionate to the scaling of the opposition. +6 under 5e's bounded accuracy isn't the same as +6 in 3.5. If you don't like Bounded Accuracy that's fine - it's a matter of opinion and there are people on both sides. But you can't just compare the raw numbers of each system without also considering the context in which those numbers are used.

He gets 12 extra ability points, but in 3e he got 5 and magic boosters were easier to come by and there wasnt a 20 max cap so he realistically would advance a good 12 pts in addition to ability scores. At least. So thats 12 extra abilities with a 20 cap versus 17 ability points with no cap. meaning 3e let you make your character much better at what you actually want to do, rather then forcing you to spread points around like 5e. AND he doesnt have to sacrifice his feats to do it.

Again, this comes down to the differences in the system's design philosophy and bounded accuracy. The 3.5 Fighter has no cap on abilities and tons of magic items - but without them he wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the system at all (and some would argue that he still doesn't). Besides which, relying on magic items isn't actually character advancement at all. 5e characters are designed to be able to stand at any level without extra help.
And yes, feats require you to give up some ability points. However, feats in 5e are both quite powerful and yet paradoxically less important - characters get enough class features that they don't necessarily need feats at all.

3 extra attacks same as 3e.

Reroll saves 3 times between long rests, which kinda sucks compared to all the save boosting feats fighters could take in 3e.

Indomitable is pretty bad. But then, the Save Boosting feats in 3.5 are also pretty bad (and they aren't Fighter Bonus Feats anyway).

2 uses of weak sauce action surge. (free potion of cure light wounds, saving the 20th level fighter 100gp per use, which naturally will just break the bank of a 20th level character)

I'm assuming you means Second Wind? d10+20 is obviously better than cure light wounds' d8+5. And it only takes you a bonus action; potions take an action to drink. It's not the most powerful ability in the world, but it heals a good portion of HP and saves you a trip the magic shop.

2 action surges between rests, which is 1 bonus attack twice a day...... sucks.

Action Surge isn't just one bonus attack... it's as many as 4, with the possibility of using any other action as well, which can include spells. It's a pretty powerful nova tool.

You also completely ignored all the subclass features, many of which are quite useful. Unless you're a Champion...

Compared to all the variety of a PF fighter with the feat choices the 5e fighter is a weaksauce joke

3.5e/PF also has a lot of feat taxes that don't exist in 5e, and you often need several just to make one particular trick work. For example, If you want to play a DEX fighter in PF you have to spend two feats for Weapon Finesse and Dervish Dancer just to get DEX to Attack and Damage rolls on a scimitar. In 5e you can just pick up the Scimitar (or other finesse weapon) and go. Not to mention that many feats barely have any scaling and are often terrible.

And again, I'm not trying to claim that 5e fighters are better than 3.5 Fighters. All I'm saying is that both advance in a meaningful and significant way which, considering the context of the system they exist in, is actually very similar. 3.5 has more feats, 5e has actual class features but either way they're constantly gaining new tools and tricks. Both gradually increase their general competencies in such a way that, while different from a purely numerical perspective, are roughly equivelant in the context in which they are used. They both have enough HP to survive a fall at terminal velocity and eventually gain the ability to make 4 or more attacks in a mere 6 seconds. And most important, both Fighters are epic heroes who can fight a dragon and live to tell about it. You wanted Beowulf? Too bad. You're better than Beowulf; after all, Beowulf was killed by the Dragon.

The only dramatic differences are a result of Bounded Accuracy. If you want rapid escalation of power, annihilating foes that you struggled against only a few levels ago and eventually becoming far more powerful than any known human, real or fictional, go 3.5. If you want a grittier experience in which in which weaker enemies remain threatening for a longer time, becoming an epic hero but not an unstoppable one, go 5e. It's a matter of preference and I'm in no way saying that one is right and one is wrong.

But don't sit there and tell me that the 5e Fighter is totally incompetent, failing to advance in any meaningful way, akin to a teenager with a katana even at level 20. Because that's bull****.

[Lanaya]

Making weak foes like goblins and common guardsmen a threat to the PCs in 3.5 is just as easy as it is in 5th. Just don't hand out a bunch of levels and each puny kobold can be a threat to your average PCs without any modifications. Once/if you want PCs to be strong enough that they can ignore kobolds, you can give them enough levels to make that the case. Obviously 5th edition works better for that brand of gritty low fantasy, but it's not like you're forced to make your PCs level 10 after two weeks of goblin slaying if you still want further goblins to threaten them.

[Forum Explorer]

Making weak foes like goblins and common guardsmen a threat to the PCs in 3.5 is just as easy as it is in 5th. Just don't hand out a bunch of levels and each puny kobold can be a threat to your average PCs without any modifications. Once/if you want PCs to be strong enough that they can ignore kobolds, you can give them enough levels to make that the case. Obviously 5th edition works better for that brand of gritty low fantasy, but it's not like you're forced to make your PCs level 10 after two weeks of goblin slaying if you still want further goblins to threaten them.

Except then you have to deny your players the extra stuff that comes with leveling. With 5e you don't have to deny your players anything, you don't have to put any extra work in, and it maintains realism of the game.

Yes, 3.5 can have low level characters be a threat, but always at a cost. Not really the case with 5e.

[Hytheter]

I was bored, and curious, and decided to some Maths. Obviously the 5e Fighter doesn't advance quite as highly as 3.5 Fighter, but I am curious how well he'd perform against large numbers of weak opponents as he levels.

The target is a number of Goblins, straight out of the Monster Manual. 7 HP, 15 AC, +4 to hit for 5 Damage, both melee and ranged.

Our player is a Fighter, first at level 1 then at Level 20. We're going to find out how many Goblins he can face and win.

Spoiler: Level 1 Fighter VS (x) Goblins

Show

At level 1 he's armed with a Greatsword and Full Plate Armor. Great Weapon Style. Point Buy; 15 in both CON and STR. But we'll be generous; he's a Mountain Dwarf, so both go up to 17. So he has +5 to hit, 18 AC and and 13 HP.

He needs a 10 or higher to hit 15 AC. Nice, an easy 50/50. He deals 2D6+3 damage, which requires a 4 or higher to drop a Goblin. That's two ones or a 1 and a 2, a 3/36 (~90%) chance to kill... but with Great Weapon Fighting he can reroll both ones and twos so let's be generous and say he kills every goblin he hits, letting him kill 1 goblin every two rounds on average.

The goblins need a 14 or higher to hit, a 35% chance. So they're doing an average of 1.75 damage per round per goblin, ignoring crits.

Let's be generous and say the Fighter wins initiative and drops a Goblin on the first turn.

9 Goblins will kill him in a single turn (8*1.75=14)
5 Goblins will kill him in 2 turns (4*1.75=7, 7*2=14)
Against 4 Goblins, he drops a second one in round three but they still kill him that round (3*2*1.75+2*1.75=14)
Against 3 Goblins he kills the last on round 5! finally... (2*2*1.75+1*2*1.75=10.5) but he's on his last legs.
Of course the rolls could go differently, letting him win against more, or killing him earlier, but in general he'll probably win against 3 or fewer Goblins.

Spoiler: 19 Levels Later... Fighter 20 VS (x) Goblins

Show

This time we'll be generous to the Goblins. The Fighter is a Battle Master (so he won't be regenerating like a Champion) but he foolishly blew all of his superiority dice showing off at the village nearby. He also neglected to take any feats, and he left his +2 Greatsword and Armor at home. But he has maxed his STR and Con, and has the same equipment he did at level 1. So he's got 18 AC and +11 to hit. His HP is 205 (on average), but he can restore 25 HP as a bonus action so it's essentially 230.

He's still one hit killing Goblins (obviously) but he now only needs a 4 or higher to hit them (85% chance). With four attacks per round, he's dropping 3.4 Goblins with every turn - twice that with action surge. For the goblins nothing has changed, they still do 1.75 damage per round.

If they get the initiative, 118 Goblins can kill him in one round before he even gets to use Second Wind (118*1.75=206), assuming they can all even see the Fighter through the crowd.
So let's drop to 50. They do 87.5. Action surge and Second Wind, 6 goblins down. 44 Goblins do 77, totalling 139.5. Action surge again. 38 Goblins do 66.5, taking him to a deadly 206.
40 do 70. 34 do 59.5. 28 do 49. After Second Wind, it's 153, but no more action surges. He can only kill 3 per round now. They kill him in 2 more rounds.
After 3 rounds 30 Goblins do (30+24+18)*1.75-25=101 damage. No more action surge. In the next five rounds it's (15+12+9+6+3)*1.75+101=179.5 damage, before he cleans them up. He won, with 25 HP to spare!
That's at least a 10x increase in Goblin slaying. But of course, I was rounding down for the Fighters attacks even when I should've rounded up. Using the actual 6.8 and 3.4 values in excel I get a max of 33.
If he had a +2 or higher weapon - likely at level 20 - he'd be missing only on a 1. So, he'd be killing 3.8 per turn or 7.6 with action surge, which bumps it up to 35 or maybe 36 with good rolls.
Defense is a bigger game changer. +2 Armor would drop Goblin damage to 1.25, which with the sword let's him kill 41 Goblins, or 39 without it.
What about feats?
Spending just a single feat on Heavy Armor Master makes things hilarious. Suddenly the Goblins 0.7 damage around, or 0.5 with Magic Armor. Kills 51 without magic items, 64 with them.
Throw Great Weapon Master into the mix, allowing a bonus attack on every round in which he doesn't use second wind, and he can kill 69.

I don't know about you, but I think 10-20x improved Goblinslaying counts as a significant improvement.

For the sake of comparison, and because it'll be fun let's see the 3.5 Fighter 20 vs some 3.5 goblins. This is gonna be bloody folks

Spoiler: Figher 20 VS Goblins, 3.5 Style

Show

3.5 let's you point buy 18s, so he'll have them for both STR and Con. No standard Race boosts both though. We'll boost his CON to 20 with Dwarfiness since STR probably won't matter here that much. As before, he left his magic stuff at home and somehow avoided taking any useful feats. But he does have a permanent +5 inherent bonus from magic items in both stats, and put his ability boosts in STR. That's 30 STR, 25 CON. He probably has enough DEX for the mod to AC with full plate. All in all he has 19 AC, 245 HP and Attack Bonus is +30/+25/+20/+15. Needless to say every non 1 is a hit and a ko against Goblins, so he gets 3.8 kills per round.
Said Goblins are much weaker than 5e Goblins with only +2 to hit (needs a 17!) and no damage mod on their D6 (let's pretend they have shortbows instead of d4 javelins, it'll hurt the fighter a little bit more more but ugh i'm not calculating two different damage dice) weapons. So they do... 0.7 per round haha this is gonna be a massacre.

Let's see... yep, 49, a noted improvement over the 5e guy (as expected).
Giving him a magic weapon doesn't do jack, but magic armor can easily make it so that Goblins only hit on a 20. That makes it 0.175 per round and let's him kill 101 Goblins.
After that no mere +1s are gonna make a difference, so let's do some feats... the classic Power Attack is worthless but leads on to Cleave and Great Cleave, which gives an extra ~3.61 attacks per round, for a total of 7.41. Assuming there are always 8 Goblins surrounding him at the start of the turn... 140. Whew.

On the other hand, if the Goblins stand far enough apart and just rain arrows, the 3.5 Fighter will be in trouble unless he has Spring Attack. Without it he'll have to either pull out his own Bow or be content with 1 kill per round since he can't move between Melee attacks. That at least is one small victory for the 5e Fighter. Plus, the 3.5 Goblins are obviously weaker despite having a higher challenge rating. On the other other hand, 3.5 has tons of Magic Items and the fighter gets way more feats, so who knows just how many Goblins he can solo, especially if he's explicitly optimised for horde slaying. Those poor defenseless Goblins.

In summary:
- 5e Fighter gets a lot better at Goblin Slaying as he level.
- 3.5 Fighter gets hilariously better at goblin slaying as he levels
- Hytheter has too much time on his hands

[Nicol Bolas]

...sigh.

It's about having the option to have a good fight with stuff of different CRs, as opposed to 'anything less than 2 levels below the players is just to annoy them'.

Yeah but...why?

Why are stronger heroes wasting their time cleaning up amateur threats?

When I play 3.5 and 4e, you deal with mundane things till level 5. At that point you're basically the Gandalfs and Hercules...es? of your world. Once you hit 6 you should be facing threats to cities, then regions, then countries, then worlds, then the universe, basically every 5 levels you should graduate in terms of epicness.

D&D shouldn't be modeled like a group versus an army. If you're ever fighting more than 20 of something at a time your DM has picked the wrong system to use.

[Madfellow]

In summary:
- 5e Fighter gets a lot better at Goblin Slaying as he level.
- 3.5 Fighter gets hilariously better at goblin slaying as he levels
- Hytheter has too much time on his hands

I admire your dedication, sir!

[Sartharina]

Yeah but...why?

Why are stronger heroes wasting their time cleaning up amateur threats?

Because they're not "Ameteur threats". They're a very real threat. And, they have treasure.

[McBars]

Because they're not "Ameteur threats". They're a very real threat. And, they have treasure.

To say nothing of the threat they pose to innocent catfolk everywhere