Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?

[noob]

I guess that's true if you don't have access to magic items. But you're honestly fine as long as you can get a level-appropriate Amulet of the Silver Tongue and Headband of Intellect.

Honestly, I suspect a lot of people who say "The math doesn't work" haven't actually done the math.

Do your barbarian needs a +X weapon And a belt of giant strength for hitting opponents?
No a core only barbarian does not needs two magic items for hitting opponents.(it can hit reliably with no magical equipment with the first iterative)
a truenamer with only core would need equipment for reliably hitting the needed dcs and yes it can hit reliably without equipment if you use some splat content(such as the paragnostic assembly or item familiars) but a barbarian using a comparable number of splats could kill stuff in one round with a non magical spoon.

[Kurald Galain]

Do your barbarian needs a +X weapon And a belt of giant strength for hitting opponents?
No a core only barbarian does not needs two magic items for hitting opponents.(it can hit reliably with no magical equipment with the first iterative)
a truenamer with only core would need equipment for reliably hitting the needed dcs and yes it can hit reliably without equipment if you use some splat content(such as the paragnostic assembly or item familiars) but a barbarian using a comparable number of splats could kill stuff in one round with a non magical spoon.

Funnily, some players will argue that the barbarian is utterly unplayable without those magic items, while at the same time overlooking that straightforward magic items fix the main issue with the truenamer

So yeah, I'd definitely agree that a lot of people who say "The math doesn't work" haven't actually done the math. Clearly if a character is fine with (e.g.) +12 to hit, he's not going to be crippled with only a +10 to hit.

[Mordaedil]

I had people telling me 15 years ago that a -4 penalty to attack bonus was an utterly unrecoverable penalty to attack, so who knows with some people. I don't think the average monster AC is that high, but it'd be an interesting thing to check, AC vs CR.

[Zombimode]

Pf made a large number of much needed changes. It made fixes to the grapple/ combat manuever system, removed a lot of immunities (particularly sneak attack), and made a lot of changes to spells to remove pure brokenness (particularly wish, shapechange, polymorph and numerous other highly abused spells).
They also have highly active 3rd party support and have easily surpassed 3.5e in pure content.
Xp costs are gone as well, and the power ceiling doesn't ever reach pun-pun level stupidity.

Eh, you know, most of the Things you listed are either nor really fixes or actually just downgrades for me.

The combat manuever Thing was adressed by Eldariel. To add: it fixes Grapple? You sure about this? Consensu in my Group is that PF grapple manges to be more fiddly and pretty much worse in ever regard than 3.5 grapple (which is for the most part pretty straight foreward: attack vs. touch to grab, then grapple vs. grapple for success (damage and grappled on success); then grapple checks for damage or grapple checks/escape Artist checks to escape; thats it).

Removal of immunities: thats a downgrade in my view, especially for sneak attack. SA damage is highly relevant and easily attainable for rogues (just Level up...). It is one tool in the rogues Toolbox. I like the fact that it is not universally applicable in 3.5 (or at least that you have to jump through some hoops). It fits the rogue archetype: you are resourceful and tricky, you have to Analyse your enemy, withdraw if needed, avoid the strenghts and target the weaknesses. You are not a one-trick Pony that can just brute-force through every obstacle using the same move. If you want to do this, you are not in the correct mindset to Play a rogue anyway.
You want to enhance the rogue class? Be my guest. But simply letting SA work against a larger class of creature is NOT the way to go.

That you can not create Pun-Pun or other hideous creations of theoretical optimization is of Zero relevance to me. No Person that I have any interest of sitting at the same gaming table with would use such a character anyways.
Instead that PF is more constrained and streamlined stifles my more creative attempts at Character Building.


Don't get me wrong, PF is totally fine. I would pick PF over 5e or 4e any day. But if have the choice between 3.5 and PF? 3.5 all the way.

[Troacctid]

Good luck to the 20th level Barbarian with no magic weapons trying to hit a typical CR 20 creature with AC 36 and DR 15, I guess.

[Scowling Dragon]

I had people telling me 15 years ago that a -4 penalty to attack bonus was an utterly unrecoverable penalty to attack, so who knows with some people. I don't think the average monster AC is that high, but it'd be an interesting thing to check, AC vs CR.

Actually its fine. Player Attack is miles ahead of monster AC by default. Assuming a stat of 20 and BAB of 20 by level 20, your talking about a 25 bonus to hit vs an avarage monster AC of 35.

50% chance. Wth no optimization, no rage, no fury, no spells on you, no extra items, no weapon focus,

[Mordaedil]

20th level barbarian has +20 to hit base. So a roll of 16 is needed. If we assume you had 15 starting strength and put all points into strength that lands you at +5. A roll of 11 is needed. If you have weapon focus, 10 is needed. If you charge, since you can't land a hit with most of your other attacks, that is an additional +2 to hit. Your rage gives you +8 additional strength for another +4 modifier. So you need to roll 4. That's without even a masterwork weapon.

Damage wise you land 1d12 + 13 damage. If you use power attack to boost it further, let's say you take -6 to hit so you have a 50/50 chance, that's +12 damage. You land a hit average of 26-37 damage. Reduced by 15 that is 11-22 damage per hit at a 50% chance to land it.

[Ignimortis]

20th level barbarian has +20 to hit base. So a roll of 16 is needed. If we assume you had 15 starting strength and put all points into strength that lands you at +5. A roll of 11 is needed. If you have weapon focus, 10 is needed. If you charge, since you can't land a hit with most of your other attacks, that is an additional +2 to hit. Your rage gives you +8 additional strength for another +4 modifier. So you need to roll 4. That's without even a masterwork weapon.

Damage wise you land 1d12 + 13 damage. If you use power attack to boost it further, let's say you take -6 to hit so you have a 50/50 chance, that's +12 damage. You land a hit average of 26-37 damage. Reduced by 15 that is 11-22 damage per hit at a 50% chance to land it.

That's also a part why I can never really "switch". 5e doesn't give you enough resources (or choices, or character build points - call them whatever you like).

This right here is basically no resources invested into attack besides ability score increases. You didn't buy a magic weapon, you didn't spend any feats optimizing to-hit, you've got a really mediocre starting STR score - all in all, this is a barebones character. There are tons of things you can do to make missing impossible except on a 1. There are tons of things you can do to get your damage in triple digits instead of 11-22. You've invested maybe 1/6th of your resources into attacking and still have a good chance to hit and do some damage - not a spectacular amount, but still.

If magic items are off the table for both cases...a level 20 Barbarian had 5 ASIs. Let's assume they're distributed as usual and that the barbarian started with 16 STR, as they often do. So that means 2 ASIs for +2 to STR, one for GWM, one to Fell Handed or Sword Mastery for +1 to-hit, and another one whenever, because I'm not sure what else can be done, which makes the 20 level increase pump him to 24 ST. The barbarian is at 6 (proficiency)+7 (STR)+1 (feat)=14 to-hit without a magic weapon. He can give himself advantage through Rage, sure. But the typical CR20 monster has 20 AC, so the barb misses on 5 or less, and if he uses GWM for damage, on 10 or less.

That's worse chances that a barebones 3.5 barbarian on a subpar chassis. And if his axe is non-magical, then he loses half the damage. He performs about the same as the 3.5 barb in the same conditions, but the 5e barb has invested 4/5 of his resources into attacking well, and the 3.5e barb has barely spent 1/6th. Add magic items and other resources into the mix, and the 3.5 barb comes ahead, because he can't miss on anything but a nat 1, and he does enough damage on his round to absolutely wreck the monster's day, and DR rarely even comes up.

[Knaight]

Actually its fine. Player Attack is miles ahead of monster AC by default. Assuming a stat of 20 and BAB of 20 by level 20, your talking about a 25 bonus to hit vs an avarage monster AC of 35.

50% chance. Wth no optimization, no rage, no fury, no spells on you, no extra items, no weapon focus,

50, then 25, then 5 repeatedly. Iteratives decrease.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually its fine. Player Attack is miles ahead of monster AC by default. Assuming a stat of 20 and BAB of 20 by level 20, your talking about a 25 bonus to hit vs an avarage monster AC of 35.

50% chance. Wth no optimization, no rage, no fury, no spells on you, no extra items, no weapon focus,

Yes, you're a non raging barbarian with a lowballed strength and without even a masterwork weapon, and you still manage.

It's funny how people somehow assume that "no magical items" also means "no bards, Heroism, Haste, or other common spells". High level players characters can be assumed to know the basics of tactics and teamwork, at the very least.

[Mordaedil]

Yes, you're a non raging barbarian with a lowballed strength and without even a masterwork weapon, and you still manage.

It's funny how people somehow assume that "no magical items" also means "no bards, Heroism, Haste, or other common spells". High level players characters can be assumed to know the basics of tactics and teamwork, at the very least.

I was low-balling it on purpose though?

[Kurald Galain]

I was low-balling it on purpose though?

Yes, that's my point.

And that makes these quotes really funny in combination:

Honestly, I suspect a lot of people who say "The math doesn't work" haven't actually done the math.

Good luck to the 20th level Barbarian with no magic weapons trying to hit a typical CR 20 creature with AC 36 and DR 15, I guess.

[Mordaedil]

Of course, that is just running the numbers one way too. You sacrifice 4 armor class to hit like that and that is going to burn when this monster with 36 AC hits back, with hits that I can only assume hurt as much if not more than what the barbarian is dishing out.

Also I didn't really run the math to be all kind of a "gotcha" thing, I just wanted to see how it worked out and it seemed to play off pretty well. It'd be a different story if I didn't rage or did not use power attack. Weapon focus was kind of superfluous too.

[Kurald Galain]

Of course, that is just running the numbers one way too. You sacrifice 4 armor class to hit like that and that is going to burn when this monster with 36 AC hits back, with hits that I can only assume hurt as much if not more than what the barbarian is dishing out.

Sure. But the question was whether a barbarian without magic items can make a viable contribution, not whether he can defeat on his own an encounter meant for the whole party.

[Mordaedil]

Sure. But the question was whether a barbarian without magic items can make a viable contribution, not whether he can defeat on his own an encounter meant for the whole party.

That's fair. Heck, with the right feats and some magical equipments, maybe he could solo such an encounter anyway. I'd need to know what monster this is though.

[Cosi]

I don't think "it's only as bad as the Barbarian" is a point in the Truenamer's favor. Also, it's still significantly worse, because even with the +skill items you only get a few uses of your crappy abilities a day.

Of course, the fact that you eventually stop being able to use your abilities is far from the only problem with the Truenamer. Several of the Truenamer's abilities straight up do not work. For example, archer's eye removes the penalties for a condition that does not impose penalties.

[noob]

I don't think "it's only as bad as the Barbarian" is a point in the Truenamer's favor. Also, it's still significantly worse, because even with the +skill items you only get a few uses of your crappy abilities a day.

Of course, the fact that you eventually stop being able to use your abilities is far from the only problem with the Truenamer. Several of the Truenamer's abilities straight up do not work. For example, archer's eye removes the penalties for a condition that does not impose penalties.

Depending on the readings some truenamer abilities can be cool like the ability to go from a wall to a floor and reciprocally as a free action(independently of the proximity to a wall or floor) or making a tower fall on someone or giving yourself protection against city damage(helps a lot against some blasters abusing the city spell metamagic) or just casting the equivalent of obscuring mist(a reliable battlefield control)
Or selling to people instantaneous boost utterances(so those boost lasts forever and can not be dispelled)

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think "it's only as bad as the Barbarian" is a point in the Truenamer's favor.

Sure it does. That elevates it from being the only class that's so horribly unplayable that it's completely below literally everything else in the entire game, to a middle-of-the-road tier-4 class. Given how very easy it is to tweak the numbers or get an item for it, people are really too trigger-happy with declaring things "unplayable".

[Grod_The_Giant]

Of course, the fact that you eventually stop being able to use your abilities is far from the only problem with the Truenamer. Several of the Truenamer's abilities straight up do not work. For example, archer's eye removes the penalties for a condition that does not impose penalties.

I find the actual utterance list to be more dysfunctional than the skill checks most days, yeah.

A better analogy, perhaps:

• 3.5 is a pile of raw ingredients. If you're a good cook, you can make something amazing. But if you're not experienced, it's easy to burn your food or over-salt it or something. (And if we're being unkind: some of the food is spoiled, and you don't have, oh, enough butter to make a lot of common recipes without extra skill)
• 5e is a standard pub-type restaurant where you can get a burger, hot dog, or pizza. The food is decent and quick and familiar, but they only have a few examples of each item. (And if we're being unkind: there's no drinks menu, so you have to play twenty questions with your server to find out what kind of beer you can get)
• 4e is advertised as "Wizard's Bar and Grill" but is actually, oh, a hibachi steakhouse. It's not necessarily bad so much as it's not what you expected. And the menu wasn't great when it first opened. (And if we're being unkind: all the dishes wind up tasting pretty much the same, and they only have water to drink)

[Ignimortis]

Sure it does. That elevates it from being the only class that's so horribly unplayable that it's completely below literally everything else in the entire game, to a middle-of-the-road tier-4 class. Given how very easy it is to tweak the numbers or get an item for it, people are really too trigger-happy with declaring things "unplayable".

That's the thing with 3.5 these days, almost everyone I know is quick to shout that it's horrible, unbalanced as hell and absolutely unplayable because of either of the following: various splats "that ruined everything" (ToB gets the most hate round these parts, probably because of "muh realism" and "too anime"), dominance of spellcasters (which isn't in play before double-digit levels, if your wizard player isn't a douche, and if he is, he gets to dominate the scene in 5e too, so what changed?), or some personal peeve like "class X isn't flavourful in my perspective, it's dumb and I don't like it.".

Yes, 3.5 is a little bit of a mess. Name one system that isn't. But it's the best at what it does - superpowered adventures in fantasy land. Nothing ever came close to it for me.

[Jormengand]

I don't think "it's only as bad as the Barbarian" is a point in the Truenamer's favor. Also, it's still significantly worse, because even with the +skill items you only get a few uses of your crappy abilities a day.

Of course, the fact that you eventually stop being able to use your abilities is far from the only problem with the Truenamer. Several of the Truenamer's abilities straight up do not work. For example, archer's eye removes the penalties for a condition that does not impose penalties.

Go complain to the vancian casters about how you only get to use each of your abilities ten times a day before you have to start rolling for them. Next you'll be wailing about how your healing abilities at level 1 heal a whole half a hit point less than the cleric's.

The only problem in the instance of archer's eye is the arguable ambiguity caused by Wizards mixing defined terms with common terms - you understand if you realise they're attempting to use the common idea of what a penalty (ie drawback) is, and no-one who's actually playing the game (because people don't actually drown people to heal them, iron heart surge the sun or break their vow of poverty by opening doors in real games either) is going to be confused about what that ability does.

[Cosi]

Depending on the readings some truenamer abilities can be cool like the ability to go from a wall to a floor and reciprocally as a free action(independently of the proximity to a wall or floor) or making a tower fall on someone or giving yourself protection against city damage(helps a lot against some blasters abusing the city spell metamagic) or just casting the equivalent of obscuring mist(a reliable battlefield control)
Or selling to people instantaneous boost utterances(so those boost lasts forever and can not be dispelled)

There are definitely ways to make a Truenamer less terrible. But those ways require the kinds of readings or optimization that smash other parts of the game into tiny pieces.

Sure it does. That elevates it from being the only class that's so horribly unplayable that it's completely below literally everything else in the entire game, to a middle-of-the-road tier-4 class. Given how very easy it is to tweak the numbers or get an item for it, people are really too trigger-happy with declaring things "unplayable".

Taking some work to be equal to the low end of the class scale is hardly "not unplayable". If you optimize a Truenamer you get something about as good as a not-optimized Barbarian or Warlock. Those classes aren't very good, and the fact that the Truenamer can get there with some effort is not a point in its favor. Everything is playable if you optimize enough.

Go complain to the vancian casters about how you only get to use each of your abilities ten times a day before you have to start rolling for them. Next you'll be wailing about how your healing abilities at level 1 heal a whole half a hit point less than the cleric's.

No, I'll be complaining about how you think "+5 to a skill check" is anywhere near color spray. Yes, limited uses don't make abilities terrible. But the Truenamer's abilities are terrible. Unless, of course, you willfully misinterpret or straight up lie about them. You wanna go over repair item again?

The only problem in the instance of archer's eye is the arguable ambiguity caused by Wizards mixing defined terms with common terms - you understand if you realise they're attempting to use the common idea of what a penalty (ie drawback) is, and no-one who's actually playing the game (because people don't actually drown people to heal them, iron heart surge the sun or break their vow of poverty by opening doors in real games either) is going to be confused about what that ability does.

So you think people are going to parse archer's eye as referring to the common English "penalty" but not iron heart surge as referring to the common English "condition"? I don't buy it. As I said, the kinds of readings that make the Truenamer playable are the kinds of readings that make other things broken.

In any case, "people get what they mean" does not make the editing of the Truenamer any less of a travesty.

[Seerow]

Yes, you're a non raging barbarian with a lowballed strength and without even a masterwork weapon, and you still manage.

Ignoring the absolute numbers and just looking at the swing that basic magic items provide, Magic Items are going to make up somewhere between +8 and +11 to hit by level 20, and around 11-15 to damage, even before looking at other enhancements besides +X Weapon and Strength Bonuses. And of course everyone's favorite melee feat power attack is nearly unusable if your hit bonus is that much lower. While yes you may theoretically be able to hit on a primary attack with a full BAB character, you're looking at a swing of half your RNG in terms of effectiveness. You may be able to do 'something' without it, but you are not going to be performing anywhere near what is typically expected of a character at that level.

Even more crippling though is if you start looking at defenses. A character with no magic items is looking at Saves in the "I fail on a 19" range at high level, and AC is laughable by mid-levels, with martial characters having few to no ways to supplement it.

[Sam K]

For the people here who largely play 3e/3.5e/PF, why didn't you switch over to 4e/5e when they came out?

My reason was the OGL. The wealth of content is my favorite thing about this game.

I don't need a reason NOT to switch, I need a reason TO switch. 4e/5e didn't provide a reason.

[Scowling Dragon]

Even more crippling though is if you start looking at defenses. A character with no magic items is looking at Saves in the "I fail on a 19" range at high level, and AC is laughable by mid-levels, with martial characters having few to no ways to supplement it.

Man its so convenient I recently spent a HECK of a ton of time combing over the Monster Data recently.

Indeed the biggest UTTER dependant is AC. Without magic Items for AC characters fall behind RAPIDLY fast. Because AC is 20 points worth of magic items.

However the saves are actually OK. With a Stat bonus of +2 your Good save will succeed at least 50% of the time even into the high 15s.
Its actually your bad save that's quite vulnerable though. That one is pretty weak at only 10% by the end.

[Eldariel]

I don't need a reason NOT to switch, I need a reason TO switch. 4e/5e didn't provide a reason.

I think this deserves underlining. Picking up a new system means countless euros (or crowns or yens or whatever your currency is) in buying the new books, countless hours in learning them and their content and figuring out what the rules actually mean and what kinds of options are available and which best for you, and countless more hours finding what is actually right for each group you play in, what kinds of houserules you'd like to play with, etc. I find it's absolutely not worth the trouble unless the new system is much better generally and in some personally relevant way, or if there are other considerations (only having local games available in the new system or such).

Man its so convenient I recently spent a HECK of a ton of time combing over the Monster Data recently.

Indeed the biggest UTTER dependant is AC. Without magic Items for AC characters fall behind RAPIDLY fast. Because AC is 20 points worth of magic items.

However the saves are actually OK. With a Stat bonus of +2 your Good save will succeed at least 50% of the time even into the high 15s.
Its actually your bad save that's quite vulnerable though. That one is pretty weak at only 10% by the end.

I really don't think 50% success rate on saves is okay on higher levels. AC is one thing, getting hit isn't nearly as dangerous as failing a save. Enemy still has to go through your HP barrier to kill you and most mundanes have decent, if not special amounts of health (a bit less than equivalent casters if going without magic items). We're talking about boatloads of save-or-dies-or-worse on that level; you need to be able to make your good saves consistently or be immune (which is actually the thing where not getting magic items hurts the most as a mundane), or you will end up dying to your generic Finger of Death or Disintegrate or Trap the Soul or Imprisonment or whatever (many monster abilities also replicate these, or mostly replicate these, though of course many also get them as actual spells or spell-likes).

[Kurald Galain]

Ignoring the absolute numbers and just looking at the swing that basic magic items provide, Magic Items are going to make up somewhere between +8 and +11 to hit by level 20, and around 11-15 to damage, even before looking at other enhancements besides +X Weapon and Strength Bonuses. And of course everyone's favorite melee feat power attack is nearly unusable if your hit bonus is that much lower. While yes you may theoretically be able to hit on a primary attack with a full BAB character, you're looking at a swing of half your RNG in terms of effectiveness. You may be able to do 'something' without it, but you are not going to be performing anywhere near what is typically expected of a character at that level.

The thing is, you are comparing a character WITH magic items to a similar character WITHOUT magic items, and concluding that the former is better. Obviously this is true. But that's only relevant if you have the kind of jerk DM that gives magic items to some players but not others.

The actual point of discussion is whether magic items are required. Clearly the game plays differently with less magic items (or with none, or with more) but different is not the same as unplayable.

As the discussion shows, yes you can absolutely play 3E without magic items. Just don't play it if some players get items and other players do not.

[Scowling Dragon]

I really don't think 50% success rate on saves is okay on higher levels. AC is one thing, getting hit isn't nearly as dangerous as failing a save. Enemy still has to go through your HP barrier to kill you and most mundanes have decent, if not special amounts of health (a bit less than equivalent casters if going without magic items). We're talking about boatloads of save-or-dies-or-worse on that level; you need to be able to make your good saves consistently or be immune (which is actually the thing where not getting magic items hurts the most as a mundane), or you will end up dying to your generic Finger of Death or Disintegrate or Trap the Soul or Imprisonment or whatever (many monster abilities also replicate these, or mostly replicate these, though of course many also get them as actual spells or spell-likes).

No that is reasonable which is why I actually quite like Trailblazer (In some parts). Its Action points system is really good for those critical "I roll or I die" without eliminating the threat.

[Jormengand]

No, I'll be complaining about how you think "+5 to a skill check" is anywhere near color spray. Yes, limited uses don't make abilities terrible. But the Truenamer's abilities are terrible. Unless, of course, you willfully misinterpret or straight up lie about them. You wanna go over repair item again?

Ah yes, repair item, that well-known utterance. Rebuild item restores items to their normal, undamaged state, which is probably at full charges, and is clearly intended (from the short description) to put them at perfect form and functionality which is generally considered to be at full charges.

Also, I don't know how you simultaneously seem to love rogues almost as much as full casters and think skill checks are completely pointless all the time.

So you think people are going to parse archer's eye as referring to the common English "penalty" but not iron heart surge as referring to the common English "condition"? I don't buy it. As I said, the kinds of readings that make the Truenamer playable are the kinds of readings that make other things broken.

In any case, "people get what they mean" does not make the editing of the Truenamer any less of a travesty.

I think people are going to play the game in a non hyper-RAW way, yeah, actually, based on what makes a lick of sense. And I know the editing was terrible - they had to errata in the perfected map DCs - but that doesn't actually make the class bad. And at least they did errata in the perfected map DCs, which puts them a step ahead of "Whatever Iron Heart Surge's deal is".

---

Also, if you want classes that don't work properly, you can go a lot worse than truenamer. I'm not sure what's up with soulknife having medium bab, a fancy sharp piece of metal as a class feature, and not much else. Warrior or - at low levels - even aristocrat can beat down a soulknife.

[Florian]

I think this deserves underlining. Picking up a new system means countless euros (or crowns or yens or whatever your currency is) in buying the new books, countless hours in learning them and their content and figuring out what the rules actually mean and what kinds of options are available and which best for you, and countless more hours finding what is actually right for each group you play in, what kinds of houserules you'd like to play with, etc. I find it's absolutely not worth the trouble unless the new system is much better generally and in some personally relevant way, or if there are other considerations (only having local games available in the new system or such).

There's another side to it. For example, when you like to play some casual games outside your regular gaming group or use that as an opportunity to get in touch with new players, then that means cons or organized play, most often both. Now when you want to participate, that means going with the change, as seen with the RPGA.