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

[Pex]

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.

That is evidence of its flaw. No class should absolutely require specific magic items in order to function. A fighter is going to need/get a magic weapon eventually, but he doesn't specifically need sunblade or frostband or vorpal or 9 lives steeler or +2 keen giantbane. The Truenamer must have those particular items or else it can't do what it's supposed to do.

At least the solution is easy. Get rid of the x2 multiplier in setting up the DC.

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.

Level 20 his BAB is +20, so already only needs to roll a 16 to hit.
Level 1 Strength is 18, easily done in Pathfinder/3E Point Buy. Add in 5 attribute increases he's at ST 23 for +6 to hit. So now he only needs to roll a Natural 10 to hit before a magic weapon comes into play. I haven't even counted for rage yet.

[Jormengand]

That is evidence of its flaw. No class should absolutely require specific magic items in order to function. A fighter is going to need/get a magic weapon eventually, but he doesn't specifically need sunblade or frostband or vorpal or 9 lives steeler or +2 keen giantbane. The Truenamer must have those particular items or else it can't do what it's supposed to do.

At least the solution is easy. Get rid of the x2 multiplier in setting up the DC.

It can have a tool of legend, an item familiar, or even a bunch of knick-knacks such as harper tokens rather than the greater amulet of the silver tongue in specific. Yes, it does sorta require items to boost its truespeak check (though, waddayaknow, there are ways around that too) but if nothing else there is a feat which lets you make material offerings to get a specific magic item rather than having to wade through magic marts (which, RAW, do actually exist, and IME most GMs ignore the city rules in favour of letting you just get stuff you want) anyway. Yes, gear-dependency is an issue, but it's far, far, far from truenamer-specific.

[Pex]

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.

To be fair to 5E you have it wrong. In 5E the barbarian doesn't need a whole lot of resources either. 5E monster ACs are significantly lower than in 3E on purpose because of Bounded Accuracy. He has a significant chance to hit for decent damage. He's doing 2d6 + 5 at 1st level while raging. He can invest in one feat for an added +10 damage. He's taking -5 to hit but getting to roll 2d20 and take the higher roll he has a decent chance of hitting. 5E warriors are not lacking the ability to land a punch and punch hard just by class features alone.

[Cosi]

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.

If you use the last charge of a wand, does it physically break? If the answer is no (spoilers: it is), then the act of using the charges is distinct from the act of breaking it, and repairing one does not repair the other. The issue is that you're assuming a priori that utterances can't be terrible and basing your interpretations on the goal of making them not terrible. The reality is that they are terrible, and doing things that are useless. rebuild item is supposed to let you repair things that get sundered.

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.

That doesn't seem like an accurate understanding of my position. I think Rogues (and the various other "roughly a d6 per two levels of damage on each attack" builds like Bardblades) are able to do enough damage to contribute in combat even with moderately optimized casters if they use TWF based strategies. This is in contrast to e.g. Truenamers who can't do enough anything to contribute ever with moderately optimized casters, and has absolutely nothing to do with skills. If you think the only thing a Rogue provides is a pile of skill points, of course it's not going to be very good, because a pile of skill points (and the associated skill checks) is simply not all that useful.

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.

But the Truenamer doesn't make sense, because the operation is undefined. There is no reasonable way to evaluate something that tells you to remove a thing that doesn't exist, because the thing doesn't exist and you consequentially can't remove it. Yes, you could parse that bit as if it was common English. But why are we parsing "penalty" but not "concealment" as if it was common English? Why are we not assuming "ignore" means what it "makes sense" for it to mean? Once we start throwing out the rules definitions because the result of using them is stupid, when do we stop? More importantly, how do we stop at a place that is consistent and how do we apply this new understanding of language in other contexts?

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.

Bad is not dysfunctional. The Truenamer gets picked on because it doesn't work, not just because it's bad. All the Soulknife abilities are well-edited meaningful game rules that simply happen to produce a thing that sucks. The Truenamer does not reach even that lowly standard.

[Jormengand]

If you use the last charge of a wand, does it physically break? If the answer is no (spoilers: it is), then the act of using the charges is distinct from the act of breaking it, and repairing one does not repair the other. The issue is that you're assuming a priori that utterances can't be terrible and basing your interpretations on the goal of making them not terrible. The reality is that they are terrible, and doing things that are useless. rebuild item is supposed to let you repair things that get sundered.

No, the issue is that I'm reading the text that actually appears on the page, which is "Normal, undamaged state" and "Perfect form and functionality." Never mind that it physically repairs the wand as well, it also restores its function, irrespective of how or when that was lost.

That doesn't seem like an accurate understanding of my position. I think Rogues (and the various other "roughly a d6 per two levels of damage on each attack" builds like Bardblades) are able to do enough damage to contribute in combat even with moderately optimized casters if they use TWF based strategies. This is in contrast to e.g. Truenamers who can't do enough anything to contribute ever with moderately optimized casters, and has absolutely nothing to do with skills. If you think the only thing a Rogue provides is a pile of skill points, of course it's not going to be very good, because a pile of skill points (and the associated skill checks) is simply not all that useful.

And if you think that skills are barely ever useful, I have some bad news.

But the Truenamer doesn't make sense, because the operation is undefined. There is no reasonable way to evaluate something that tells you to remove a thing that doesn't exist, because the thing doesn't exist and you consequentially can't remove it. Yes, you could parse that bit as if it was common English. But why are we parsing "penalty" but not "concealment" as if it was common English? Why are we not assuming "ignore" means what it "makes sense" for it to mean? Once we start throwing out the rules definitions because the result of using them is stupid, when do we stop? More importantly, how do we stop at a place that is consistent and how do we apply this new understanding of language in other contexts?

This is just an English language comprehension thing, which is why you're the only person who I've ever seen seriously claim that it's difficult to understand.

Bad is not dysfunctional. The Truenamer gets picked on because it doesn't work, not just because it's bad. All the Soulknife abilities are well-edited meaningful game rules that simply happen to produce a thing that sucks. The Truenamer does not reach even that lowly standard.

It does work if you don't expect 3.5 to be written the same way M:tG is. But if you want the list of classes that are dysfunctional, it's not just truenamer: barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, and wizard are all dysfunctional, which apart from sorcerer (and if you're going to say that truenamer is dysfunctional because of the utterances, sorcerer is also dysfunctional) leaves fighter, which is hardly a real class. Soulknife doesn't appear, but the one way of making it less awful beyond slapping a full-caster PrC on it, Soulbow, does. Knight also appears, for Pelor's sake! If you want "Bad and dysfunctional classes" you have a lot better to pick a bone with than truenamer for any reason except because you know that people saying crap about truenamer that implies that it's worse than it is annoys me.

[Ignimortis]

To be fair to 5E you have it wrong. In 5E the barbarian doesn't need a whole lot of resources either. 5E monster ACs are significantly lower than in 3E on purpose because of Bounded Accuracy. He has a significant chance to hit for decent damage. He's doing 2d6 + 5 at 1st level while raging. He can invest in one feat for an added +10 damage. He's taking -5 to hit but getting to roll 2d20 and take the higher roll he has a decent chance of hitting. 5E warriors are not lacking the ability to land a punch and punch hard just by class features alone.

That one feat you mention is already 1/5th of his resources. I've done the math in my post - they're not exactly lacking, but they're not really that much ahead of a naked featless 3.5 barb in percentages and damage per hit. It's not that barbarians need lots of resources - they just don't have much. Neither does anyone else. And if you don't devote most of them to damage, then you're losing at least 5% to hit, unlike 3.5, where your first two attacks can exceed the AC by so much that you can only miss by rolling a 1 or powerattacking for all of your BAB.

[Scowling Dragon]

Back to 5e and why it just doesn't do it for me:
It doesn't really advance the game, nor does it fix the problems of before.

Its not like 5e doesn't have trap options, or ways to get insta screwed as well.

Its idea to have spells keyed to each ability score was neat in theory, but that just meant 3 more ways to get hurt by something you couldn't protect against.

Its maths means that every class feels almost indistinguishable at the same skills, and most of its rules are just half baked.

Its a game thats unfinished.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Yes, gear-dependency is an issue, but it's far, far, far from truenamer-specific.

I would like to add to this that Truespeak is a skill. D&D skills are notoriously one-dimensional. Both the mundane combat system and the spellcasting system are much more complex than the skill system, and so encourage multiple different magic items to impact the same overall mechanical domain.

If you want to boost your melee ability, you can invest in to-hit, damage, rider effects, additional attacks, move+attack, flanking, tripping, critical hits, and more. Many of these are influenced by multiple different items, as well--for example, to-hit is boosted by strength, magic weapons, buff spells, and tactics.
If you want to boost your spellcasting ability, you can invest in metamagic and reducers, boosts to caster level and save DC, ways to get additional spell slots and ways to recover spell slots, arcane fusion and contingency, and a host of magical prestige classes.
If you want to boost your Truenaming... you need to boost one skill. That one skill grants more daily utterance uses, allows use of meta-utterance feats, enables uttering defensively, allows you to automatically beat SR, allows heightening, allows identification of utterances, and enables counter- and dispelling utterances. When it comes to truenaming, you need to know the utterances, and have a sky-high check.

Looking at Truenaming that way, it is obvious that's the system is going to have few different (magic) items to boost it, and those few items become highly emphasized, because no matter what exactly you want to do, +Truespeak is the way to go. Considering that skills were always heavily item-dependent (items are, depending on investment, between "a little worse" and "more important than" actual ranks), you can't blame that on the Truenaming system specifically. The problem was inherited from skills in general. Truespeaking is, in a sense, to 'blame' for using one skill so universally, but you can't blame the system for its basic assumption (for a system built to function on one skill, it's not bad).

[Troacctid]

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.

Which puts you at an average of about 8 damage a round against a dragon. And so I say—good luck.

(The Truenamer at this level is of course casting gate with about the same accuracy as each of your attacks.)

[Nifft]

Its a game thats unfinished.

Honestly that's pretty common in RPGs, especially D&D.

The astoundingly massive quantity of houserules & homebrew for 3.5e / PF ought to serve as an indication that some people considered those editions incomplete, too.

[Calthropstu]

Honestly that's pretty common in RPGs, especially D&D.

The astoundingly massive quantity of houserules & homebrew for 3.5e / PF ought to serve as an indication that some people considered those editions incomplete, too.

Actually, it has more house rules because it's the biggest edition of just about anything around.

[Nifft]

Actually, it has more house rules because it's the biggest edition of just about anything around.

You're claiming that popularity of a game is what causes houserules? And that "complete" games will get an identical number of houserules as "incomplete" games, if popularity were equal?

That sounds like a pretty shaky assertion -- can you back it up?

[Pex]

Honestly that's pretty common in RPGs, especially D&D.

The astoundingly massive quantity of houserules & homebrew for 3.5e / PF ought to serve as an indication that some people considered those editions incomplete, too.

False narrative.

1 thousand tables can each have one house rule. That gives the game 1,000 house rules but doesn't mean anything describing the game. If one table needs to have its own handbook of house rules, that's not a reflection of 3E but rather the group should admit to itself they don't like 3E and play something else. Their not playing 3E, however, has no meaning to all the playing groups who do play it.

[Calthropstu]

You're claiming that popularity of a game is what causes houserules? And that "complete" games will get an identical number of houserules as "incomplete" games, if popularity were equal?

That sounds like a pretty shaky assertion -- can you back it up?

Easily.

Whether a game is "complete" or not is thoroughly subjective. The more exposure a game has, the more likely someone with some problem with the rules will disregard, alter or otherwise do something to change them.
Since many disagree as to what rules should be in place in any given system, this truth is absolute. As such, more exposure = more house rules. Hell, take monopoly for example. How many times have you seen house rules for it? Are you arguing that is incomplete too?
In D&D's further defense, I would like to point out that it actively ENCOURAGES house rules. So great exposure + active encouragement = many house rules.

[Nifft]

False narrative.

1 thousand tables can each have one house rule. That gives the game 1,000 house rules but doesn't mean anything describing the game. If one table needs to have its own handbook of house rules, that's not a reflection of 3E but rather the group should admit to itself they don't like 3E and play something else. Their not playing 3E, however, has no meaning to all the playing groups who do play it.

Now THAT is a false narrative.

Making fixes for a game is absolutely not a sign that someone dislikes the game.

In fact, some people greatly prefer games in which they can tinker -- thus the overwhelming popularity of what I'd consider "unfinished" games (like D&D) is in part due to the fact that they invite creative expression.


It's like you're asking people to admit they don't like wargame models because they keep painting the things.

No, that's specifically a part of why those people like wargame models.

Work can be fun, especially creative work.

Easily.

Whether a game is "complete" or not is thoroughly subjective. The more exposure a game has, the more likely someone with some problem with the rules will disregard, alter or otherwise do something to change them.
Since many disagree as to what rules should be in place in any given system, this truth is absolute. As such, more exposure = more house rules. Hell, take monopoly for example. How many times have you seen house rules for it? Are you arguing that is incomplete too?
In D&D's further defense, I would like to point out that it actively ENCOURAGES house rules. So great exposure + active encouragement = many house rules.

I've played most editions of D&D, and I'd say they all have encouraged house rules.

According to you, "incomplete" vs. "complete" is subjective -- so I'm guessing that you'd say all editions of D&D are roughly equally complete?

[Doctor Awkward]

Truenamer works just fine without any rewriting at all AFAICT.

Truenamer can certainly be made to work--in an appropriately tiered game, with a lot of support from the DM-- but it's still very evident that the class was improperly designed and does not function in normal gameplay, despite playing exactly as its designers intended. (as is suggested by the sidebar on pg. 196 of Tome of Magic)


This is demonstrated best by the math behind the class's core mechanic: Truespeak checks.

You don't even need to go through the probability calculations. By setting a scaling DC for a skill check that is equal to twice your targets hit dice (or CR), it makes you less likely to succeed in your checks for the same Utterances you have always been using as you increase in level. Even keeping the checks within your own party, buffing your friend with an Utterance at level 5 requires a Truespeak check of 25. Affecting that same friend with that same Utterance at level 10 requires a check 35. Each time your party goes up in level, your DC to buff them effectively goes up by two for every one point you increase your skill.

At level 20, an NPC Truenamer made using the default array with a 15 Int, putting all of his level bonuses to Int, spending the money for a +5 Tome, and wearing a +6 Headband of Intellect can easily have an Intelligence of 31, with 23 ranks in Truespeak giving him a +33 to his check. However, his DC to affect another party member (or a CR 20 monster) is 55, which would require him to roll a 22. This means that even after the so-called "standard" magical items, he will still need something else to boost his skill check or it will be impossible to succeed on appropriate challenges.

...And then of course there is everything about the Law of Sequence... but that is a just a bad mechanic that makes the class annoying to play, rather than a broken one that outright stops it from functioning.

[Scowling Dragon]

Honestly that's pretty common in RPGs, especially D&D.

No I don't mean that way. Its not:

"Oh its got a bunch of good stuff but lets me finish what I want"

Like if D&D Editions where words it would be this:

3E:
Choice, Selection, Coolness, Power, Crap, Veriety, Garbage, Dung, Epic, rotten,empowering, entitlement

D&D 5e its like:
Stu__ , Selec____, C___ce, Mounted Co___t, Stea___,

Its not unfinished in the sense I can construct stuff with the lego bricks given, its more like its these just unfinished solid slabs.

Im a big fan of customization, but the rules are just FLABBY. Something like Pathfinders Ultimate Campaign Guide is an example of more choices for a GM like me who likes picking and choosing rules, despite it having tons of trash in it as well.
But D&D 5e is very ridgid in places, and making stuff FOR it requires a bunch more work then for 3E for instance.

[Pex]

Now THAT is a false narrative.

Making fixes for a game is absolutely not a sign that someone dislikes the game.

In fact, some people greatly prefer games in which they can tinker -- thus the overwhelming popularity of what I'd consider "unfinished" games (like D&D) is in part due to the fact that they invite creative expression.


It's like you're asking people to admit they don't like wargame models because they keep painting the things.

No, that's specifically a part of why those people like wargame models.

Work can be fun, especially creative work.

If you're rewriting the game system to suit your taste, the game system wasn't for you in the first place.

[atemu1234]

If you're rewriting the game system to suit your taste, the game system wasn't for you in the first place.

I disagree. Every game must be on some level tailored to the taste of the people playing it. The same goes for everything from Monopoly to Paranoia to D&D. Hell, video games nowadays have enough modded content that content creators are being forced to acknowledge it (especially for things like Skyrim).
In fact, a lot of games are now retroclones of older D&D editions and d20 systems, essentially meaning that what boils down to a bunch of homebrew and houserules can easily become games in their own right.

[Vaern]

I have an older friend who often goes on a tangent about how great AD&D was whenever I bring up gaming, and I kind of feel like he's stuck on the old stuff for the same reason I keep coming back to 3.5. That is, it's that he grew up with, it's what he's familiar with, and he's comfortable enough with the system to play whatever type of character he wants without having to spend a considerable amount of time brushing up on the mechanics, and that's basically how 3.5 is to me.

4E was just way too simplified. I can't say that playing it wasn't fun, but there were really only four classes: blaster, controller, healer, and tank. Each class had its own quirks, sure, but in the end every character felt the same as any other class of the same role.
At one point I played a board game based on 4E, and it honestly felt just like playing the actual pen & paper game. This wasn't because the board game was particularly well-designed, but rather because the 4E system is designed to make the pen & paper adaptation feel more like a strategic combat game rather than a proper RPG.
What I did like, though, was what their redesign of the classes did for martial characters. They had a wide variety of attacks and maneuvers available to them that made playing a fighter a bit more interesting than just deciding whether or not to use Power Attack. This pairs well with the fact that 4E doesn't encourage role playing at all, as you'll never notice the negative effects of stereotypically using charisma as a dump stat. I never really enjoyed playing a melee character past level 3 in 3.5, but it was a blast in 4E.

I've been playing a 5th edition game for a while now. So far it's been enjoyable, and at this point my only real complaint is that it's unfamiliar territory. I'm still at the point where I constantly need to thumb through the book to double-check how my class features and spells work. It's been fun, but I'd just rather be playing with a system that I'm familiar enough with to not be constantly second-guessing myself.
The best thing about 5th edition, I'd say, is that having to select a background, traits, flaws, and bonds as a part of creating your character really does a lot to flesh out the character's personality and draws the player into a deeper role-playing experience.
Playing 3.5 I've scarcely considered my characters' pasts, or their reasons for adventuring to begin with, or even really given them much of their own personality at all. There's such a large number of options available when developing your character mechanically that it's easy to forget to develop your character as a person. Then 4E made it even worse, seeming to focus almost exclusively on combat and basically degrading your character to a piece on a chess board. When my group started with 5E, I was impressed by the way my character's life and personality just fell into place as I was creating him.

That being said, I'd still choose 3.5 over the others if for no other reason than that I like to stick to my comfort zone, but I do see and appreciate the merits of the newer editions.

[Mordaedil]

Which puts you at an average of about 8 damage a round against a dragon. And so I say—good luck.

(The Truenamer at this level is of course casting gate with about the same accuracy as each of your attacks.)

It'd be nice to know what monster you were going on about specifically. But this isn't an optimized barbarian and is a low-ball estimate for a barbarian and it still lands an average of 8 damage as you put it. I also outlined the weaknesses it has, and recognized that pretty much everything could rip him to shreds in the meantime, but there are ways for barbarians to mitigate this as well, feats that can make them immune to fire at expense of becoming weak to cold while raging, the option to multiclass into frenzied berserker and be unable to die until the dragon is mauled into fine paste.

And if you don't really like their odds here, you could grab one of those feats that grants you a +20 to hit once and do a full power attack adding +40 to your damage and still land a pretty good hit. A player will have a lot more options from their feat choices than any given summon will have.

That said, you aren't wrong in that a caster using gate has the advantage on the barbarian. I mean, is that even a debate? I certainly don't mean to challenge that point of view.

[Kurald Galain]

It'd be nice to know what monster you were going on about specifically. But this isn't an optimized barbarian and is a low-ball estimate for a barbarian and it still lands an average of 8 damage as you put it. I also outlined the weaknesses it has, and recognized that pretty much everything could rip him to shreds in the meantime, but there are ways for barbarians to mitigate this as well, feats that can make them immune to fire at expense of becoming weak to cold while raging, the option to multiclass into frenzied berserker and be unable to die until the dragon is mauled into fine paste.

Tro is clearly moving the goalposts. Her initial point was that a level 20 barbarian without magical items couldn't possibly hit a "typical" CR 20 monster, and now that the math shows that it can easily do so, she's instead asking for that character to solo one of the strongest encounters meant for the whole party at that level.

There's no point in arguing against that, really.

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.

[death390]

my thoughts on 5e: wow this is stupid simple, where is the customization?, bounded accuracy can go die in a fire, i like the idea that spells get better using higher level slots, damage cantrips are like MMO auto attacks (nothing to do? meh use the default kinda like a reserve feat from 3.5), backgrounds suck they are too restrictive, and bounded accuracy can die in a fire.

have i said that bounded accuracy can die in a fire?

3.5 has so many options and yes many of them are traps, but just a small bit of system mastery and you can avoid the glaring ones. i like being able to make the crazy stuff like a one armed pixie barbarian, a lvl 3 shadowcraft mage, a shield ONLY using dwarf duskblade, and more. yet so many of those options are completely impossible.

there is no duskblade, only eldritch knight, which still doesn't fit the style i'm looking for. the idea of a illusion mage who makes them no longer just an illlusion but quasi-real via the plane of shadows is impossible since i can't see any shadow spells. while yes 5e "balanced" the classes the restrictions made to keep it that way stifle the creativity too far.

at this point if i HAD to play 5e because my group wants to for some reason. i'd say F*#k it and just go arcane trickster because there is nothing left that isn't stupid simple and boring. casters are supposed to be magical so why when i read 5e do i not see it?

and at the end of the day what is an RPG other than a forum of people who want to have a good time? hell how is 5e better than 3.5 when mundanes still just say "i go and hit it with my axe", the caster uses the same spells at a weaker power, and there is less of a pool of inspiration to draw from because of how restricted it all is?

[Scowling Dragon]

while yes 5e "balanced" the classes the restrictions made to keep it that way stifle the creativity too far.

Again not REALLY. Classes remain that are much better then others. And within those classes there are archetypes that are better then others.

Do you want to take half damage from all damage sans mental when raging? Or B: get an extra attack and be exsausted at the end?

[Arkhios]

my thoughts on 5e: wow this is stupid simple, where is the customization?, bounded accuracy can go die in a fire, i like the idea that spells get better using higher level slots, damage cantrips are like MMO auto attacks (nothing to do? meh use the default kinda like a reserve feat from 3.5), backgrounds suck they are too restrictive, and bounded accuracy can die in a fire.

have i said that bounded accuracy can die in a fire?

3.5 has so many options and yes many of them are traps, but just a small bit of system mastery and you can avoid the glaring ones. i like being able to make the crazy stuff like a one armed pixie barbarian, a lvl 3 shadowcraft mage, a shield ONLY using dwarf duskblade, and more. yet so many of those options are completely impossible.

there is no duskblade, only eldritch knight, which still doesn't fit the style i'm looking for. the idea of a illusion mage who makes them no longer just an illlusion but quasi-real via the plane of shadows is impossible since i can't see any shadow spells. while yes 5e "balanced" the classes the restrictions made to keep it that way stifle the creativity too far.

at this point if i HAD to play 5e because my group wants to for some reason. i'd say F*#k it and just go arcane trickster because there is nothing left that isn't stupid simple and boring. casters are supposed to be magical so why when i read 5e do i not see it?

and at the end of the day what is an RPG other than a forum of people who want to have a good time? hell how is 5e better than 3.5 when mundanes still just say "i go and hit it with my axe", the caster uses the same spells at a weaker power, and there is less of a pool of inspiration to draw from because of how restricted it all is?

...so, you'd rather have more than half of your class features from earlier levels (spell slots for a spellcaster tend to cover up most of your "class features") go to waste than have all of them still relevant regardless of your level? Well, if that's your choice... who am I to judge.

[Troacctid]

Tro is clearly moving the goalposts. Her initial point was that a level 20 barbarian without magical items couldn't possibly hit a "typical" CR 20 monster, and now that the math shows that it can easily do so, she's instead asking for that character to solo one of the strongest encounters meant for the whole party at that level.

There's no point in arguing against that, really.

You just quoted me mentioning the DR in the very same breath as the AC.

[Kurald Galain]

...so, you'd rather have more than half of your class features from earlier levels (spell slots for a spellcaster tend to cover up most of your "class features") go to waste than have all of them still relevant regardless of your level? Well, if that's your choice... who am I to judge.

I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying that low-level spells are useless to a high-level caster? If so, why? And why would that be true in one edition and not in another?

[Eldariel]

Tro is clearly moving the goalposts. Her initial point was that a level 20 barbarian without magical items couldn't possibly hit a "typical" CR 20 monster, and now that the math shows that it can easily do so, she's instead asking for that character to solo one of the strongest encounters meant for the whole party at that level.

There's no point in arguing against that, really.

While Trocc's point might've been misphrased, I don't think dismissing the entire matter based on that is fair as such. In general, I'd avoid arguing from an agenda. Let's look at the facts and leave agendas inside peoples' heads. A level 20 Barbarian has a decent chunk of HP, a decent to hit score, a fair Fortitude save, a bunch of skill points, and that's about it. The big issue is doing anything: while you might hit a CR appropriate enemy, you won't do so for a decent chunk of damage. Taking a 22 Str Orc Barbarian with +5 levels to Str and +8 Mighty Rage for a total of 35 Str, and assume Adamantine Guisarme and Improved Trip setup and we have a total of:
+12 Str, +16 to Trip
+33 to hit, +37 vs. tripped opponents
2d4+16 damage per hit

Attacking a Balor, the trip attempt is 50/50 so it's arguably not worth going for. Power Attacking for -8 we average 13.30 damage on a single hit and -6 on a full attack for 24.74. If we instead have Whirling Frenzy, the full attack damage becomes 29.92 at -5 Power Attack. With these numbers, the actual contributions of the Barbarian would be miniscule in such an encounter. Even in a party with Greater Magic Weapon and Enlarge Person it'd only be so good at 55.66 damage without trip (PA -5) or 75.89 against a tripped Balor (at -9) on a full attack...and the vulnerability to the Dominate Monster from the Balor would mean he'd likely be more of an asset to the enemy team, attacking characters without DR and with lower AC.

Overcoming DR, lacking accuracy and having terrible survivability are all significant hindrances to contributing against CR appropriate encounters. Of course, this simply means that a level 20 Barbarian shouldn't be taking on CR 20 encounters without magic items. It also means that level 20 Barb is extremely one-sided without items. The offense is actually decent, if not against CR 20 encounters, but the defenses are simply put horrible. Sure, your Fort-save is actually pretty good; assuming like 14 Con, it's around 22 while Raging for 255,5 average HP. And 22 Con + 12 base = +18 Fort-save. That's where it ends though; at best AC is around 22 while Raging, even with all the Morale-bonuses Will-save is only in the +12-+15 region and the Reflex-save is probably +8-+9 even with good stats. Balor's Dominate Monster has a 60%+ chance of being a one-shot, enemies can Power Attack for 20+ against him (even with his DR, that's going to hurt), he can't reach flying opponents without help, he can't deal with miss chances or illusions, he has no defenses against no-save effects, overall he just isn't playing the game expected of a level 20 character.

[Jormengand]

Oh no. Lord help us all. We're arguing about whether or not evil outsiders can melt steel barbarians.

[Kurald Galain]

While Trocc's point might've been misphrased, I don't think dismissing the entire matter based on that is fair as such. In general, I'd avoid arguing from an agenda.

If you want to avoid arguing from an agenda, you probably shouldn't be talking about a level 20 encounter, when the vast majority of campaigns never get anywhere near that level.