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

[Grod_The_Giant]

I assume you start at level 17 at least if you wanna play a dragon, get true polymorph, it does that forever, or just have a guy polymorph in your background, but really, playing a dragon would be SO unbalanced, you could reflavor the draconic sorcerer, thats what I would do.

Like I said, no edition of D&D that I've seen is as good at monstrous PCs as, say, Mutants and Masterminds, but 3.5 would at least let you say "sure, here's a dragon-type monster with a LA, meaning it's legal for player use, and also you can be an Ambush Drake using these rules over here."

[Cosi]

Considering just how many source books 3rd had, it was expected for them to continue that trend. I'm sure if 4th hadn't generated such ill will right off the bat, people would have been patient enough to wait for that stuff to come out later.

Sort of? The reaction when 4e announced that it was dropping without Monks, Half-Orcs, and Sorcerers was that people would wait until it had those things. But of course, by the time it did have those things, the jig was up and it was clear to everyone the game wasn't very good.

As for the mechanics, again, if people were willing to accept it, they could have voiced constructive criticism rather than hateful bile.

But the mechanics would still suck. You could fix that, but it would just mean doing a new edition.

If you insist on making 5e classes match 3e mechanics and management, why are you playing 5e?

I guess it depends on what you believe the point of a new edition is. Is 5e trying to be "3e (and 4e and 1e and 2e) but better" or a different take on the heroic fantasy genre? I think that people's expectation is that a new edition of D&D will provide an experience that draws on the best parts of previous editions, plus some new innovations, to create a more coherent whole. I think 4e and 5e failed to do that, and that expectation is why noob is looking to get direct mechanical correspondence.

If you're moving a class from 3.5 to 5e, the mechanics are not the goal of the translation. Just the character concept, most of which weren't that unique.

Character concept reflects mechanics. The Dread Necromancer's character concept involves having a lot of necromancy powers. If your system can't deliver a character with a lot of necromancy powers, you can't port a Dread Necromancer. Similarly, character concepts reflect things like resource management. The fact that a Warblade recharges his powers by taking a turn of not using them makes him play differently than he would if he had at-will or daily powers.

I generally defend 4E largely because it is what lots of players asked for. A balanced game.

No, it's not. It still has the Orbizard. It still has trap classes. Those classes aren't exactly the same, but they're there. Saying "at least 4e was balanced" is how you get stupid arguments like "balance is bad because 4e".

4e solved the problem of letting me run a Fighter and a Wizard in the same party, from level 1 through 30, and both of them feeling able to contribute to every encounter.

Sort of? You can now write "30" on your character sheet and have a balanced-ish Fighter and Wizard. But those characters are clearly not the equivalent of 30th level characters in 3e. They're closer to 10th level characters (and frankly, that's probably pushing it). You could make a 10th level Fighter (or Fighter type) that was balanced with a 10th level Wizard in 3e, particularly by the end. All 4e was cut out everything above that, slow progression, and substitute "Fighter" for "Warblade".

For example, you could get all published content for a small monthly subscription price, which was only necessary for one player per group to have in order to create and level-up characters using the WotC online character tool.

How do you reconcile calling this a failure with the success of Pathfinder's decision to offer all their content online for free?

A large professional company should be able to replace key personell regardless of circumstance but I am willing to cut them some slack on that one all the same. TSR/WoTC was never very professional in their management anyway.

WotC has a structural problem retaining top level IT talent because they are in the same area as Mircosoft and cannot afford the same pay or prestige as Mircosoft. As a result, their digital offerings tend to be disproportionately terrible (looking at you MTG Online).

Honestly, having been playing/running 4e for about a year now, Skill Challenges have been one of my favorite things about the system. The key is to allow player creativity. Religion to request miracles, Arcana to emulate all the out of combat spells people complain are missing (and the ones that never even got printed), Streetwise is the "I know a guy for that" skill. I've had Athletics used to suplex a train, Diplomacy/Nature to tame a fire beetle so the party princess could have an animal companion (against her own will), and Endurance to rip a chemical tube out of a Bane analog and just drain the damn tank.

Skill challenges presented a way to incorporate skills into a combat. One DM I played under had an enemy who rendered you weakened (half damage) and prone until you were able to impress him with your skills. I've run fights where you're up against a super powered enemy (the aforementioned Bane analog) and you have to choose between fighting him directly (using powers and such) or an in combat skill challenge where you disable his drug injectors, which make him incredibly powerful.

Almost none of that sounds like it involves any use of the mechanics 4e provides. What would stop you from doing this in 3e?

Like I said, no edition of D&D that I've seen is as good at monstrous PCs as, say, Mutants and Masterminds, but 3.5 would at least let you say "sure, here's a dragon-type monster with a LA, meaning it's legal for player use, and also you can be an Ambush Drake using these rules over here."

Some types of dragons (mostly the metallic ones) have innate alternate form abilities. Or you could play a were-Wyvern (admittedly, that takes some fudging, but only in terms of ignoring the restrictions on the Lycanthrope template).

[Vhaidara]

Almost none of that sounds like it involves any use of the mechanics 4e provides. What would stop you from doing this in 3e?

4e provides standard skill DCs for Easy, Medium, and Hard tasks at each level. 3e has no such guideline for skill DCs, and even if it did, skill optimization is so ridiculously borked that it wouldn't matter. I made a character who was reliably able to hit Diplomacy DCs of around 40 as early as level 6 (I forget exactly when he hit it, it's been a few years, but the core of the build was Warlock 1/Marshal 1/Binder 1).

Basically, 3e's skill system doesn't support the creation of this kind of encounter, because the numbers are completely off the rails and there is no baseline DC provided for the checks.

[Mordaedil]

Almost none of that sounds like it involves any use of the mechanics 4e provides. What would stop you from doing this in 3e?

Nothing at all, it is one of the things we've back-adapted for our campaign and one of the ideas my group liked about 4th edition.

Heck, rituals are also a neat idea, but both of them are really badly implemented, so we use 3.5 with both of these rules as "optional" additions. They are pretty heavily house-ruled though.

[Ignimortis]

4e provides standard skill DCs for Easy, Medium, and Hard tasks at each level. 3e has no such guideline for skill DCs, and even if it did, skill optimization is so ridiculously borked that it wouldn't matter. I made a character who was reliably able to hit Diplomacy DCs of around 40 as early as level 6 (I forget exactly when he hit it, it's been a few years, but the core of the build was Warlock 1/Marshal 1/Binder 1).

Basically, 3e's skill system doesn't support the creation of this kind of encounter, because the numbers are completely off the rails and there is no baseline DC provided for the checks.

Except there is? Each skill has DCs for its' uses listed. Also, Diplomacy is an outlier - it's a badly designed skill, where you get really strong results for easily achievable checks. But skill optimization is a good thing, because it actually lets you make an expert who will never fail at a simple task.

[Kurald Galain]

Except there is? Each skill has DCs for its' uses listed. Also, Diplomacy is an outlier - it's a badly designed skill, where you get really strong results for easily achievable checks. But skill optimization is a good thing, because it actually lets you make an expert who will never fail at a simple task.

Yes, that.

Just because it's theoretically possible to hyper-optimize one particular skill doesn't mean that the game is normally played that way, or that the DM is going to allow it. Plus this issue appears to have been fixed in Pathfinder.

That's not "ridiculously borked", that's having a known outlier with a known fix. Not a big deal.

[noob]

Except the pathfinder fix is even weirder: you can still diplomance the people as normal the only difference is that it lasts a few minutes.
Then there is unchained diplomacy which is weird too since it does not explicitly forbids diplomacy stacking(for up to two steps of change) and allows a change long enough for the 24 hours cool-down to refill.
And then the prcs that allows to get everybody to like you more at first(I believe that you could nearly reach the point where everybody is your friend and where when you go in front of the evil wizard who usually kills any trespasser in his tower he just does not likes you very much)
You might find yourself having interest failing in diplomacy in some cases: for example there is someone who dislikes you and that you want to annoy.
Fail diplomacy and he becomes hostile temporarily.
Bully him.
Then the duration ends and the shift is reverted and he is back to disliking you.(with most gms that would not fly but with the rules as written it would make sense)

[Vhaidara]

Except there is? Each skill has DCs for its' uses listed. Also, Diplomacy is an outlier - it's a badly designed skill, where you get really strong results for easily achievable checks. But skill optimization is a good thing, because it actually lets you make an expert who will never fail at a simple task.

And how about for the non-listed uses of the skills? 4e also has listed uses for skills, and then a table for level based DCs of non-listed skills.

Yes, I picked diplomacy, which is a particular outlier, but there are any number of skills that are eminently breakable in 3.x.. Built in Rules for +30 such items, spells like glibness giving obscene bonuses that make any printed DC irrelevant, etc

And you can still make a character who never fails at simple tasks. An Easy DC skill check (a simple task) scales from 8 to 24 when going from level 1 to level 30, a shift of 16 points. Since 4e skills add half of your level (round down), your modifier will increase, with no further investment, by 15 in the same time. A trained skill gets +5, so if you have training in a skill and NO other bonus, even from stat mod, you have about a 10% chance of failing the simple tasks. If your ability modifier is just +2, or if you pick up a +2 from anywhere else (themes, backgrounds, items, and feats are not uncommon sources) you become unable to fail easy DC.

[Kurald Galain]

And you can still make a character who never fails at simple tasks. An Easy DC skill check (a simple task) scales from 8 to 24 when going from level 1 to level 30, a shift of 16 points. Since 4e skills add half of your level (round down), your modifier will increase, with no further investment, by 15 in the same time. A trained skill gets +5, so if you have training in a skill and NO other bonus, even from stat mod, you have about a 10% chance of failing the simple tasks. If your ability modifier is just +2, or if you pick up a +2 from anywhere else (themes, backgrounds, items, and feats are not uncommon sources) you become unable to fail easy DC.

Yes, commonly failing at easy tasks is a 5E problem, not a 4E problem.

Of course, SCs were controversial right from the beginning and throughout the entire run of 4E, so there's probably some other problems there


Anyway, things that I like to have in a hypothetical skill system is (1) trained characters can more-or-less match real-world athletes at low level, which includes auto-succeeding on easy tasks; and clearly surpass them at higher level; (2) characters can learn new skills as they advance, without spending feats or similar resources on that; and (3) even at low level you can make a character that reliably succeeds at checks that untrained characters cannot make (because that's what professionals do in real life, and I want fantasy characters that can be better than that).

[Cosi]

4e provides standard skill DCs for Easy, Medium, and Hard tasks at each level. 3e has no such guideline for skill DCs,

Yes, it does. It was posted in this thread. I think twice. Yes, it doesn't have them per-level, but I think that's a good thing because it makes it objective. You don't go from a hard 1st level check to a hard 10th level check, you go from a difficult task to an impossible one, which is character progression.

Except the pathfinder fix is even weirder: you can still diplomance the people as normal the only difference is that it lasts a few minutes.

Diplomacy badly wants there to be a skill challenge system for it to plug into for major issues. As it is, everything from "convince someone to give you a deal on gear" to "convince someone to die for you" uses the same mechanism, which is dumb.

Anyway, things that I like to have in a hypothetical skill system is (1) trained characters can more-or-less match real-world athletes at low level, which includes auto-succeeding on easy tasks; and clearly surpass them at higher level; (2) characters can learn new skills as they advance, without spending feats or similar resources on that; and (3) even at low level you can make a character that reliably succeeds at checks that untrained characters cannot make (because that's what professionals do in real life, and I want fantasy characters that can be better than that).

I think that (somewhat ironically) the problem with the skill system is that it is trying to use the same mechanic for too many different things. There are a lot of different types of things that are covered under the skill system, and it doesn't really make sense to cover all of them under the same rules. For example:

1. Things that don't have gradations of ability, or things where PCs don't care about gradations of ability, or things where the game tracks gradations of ability in some way other than the skill itself. The obvious example is Speak Language, but things like Profession probably fall into this category as well. We don't care if you speak Dwarvish at a 9th grade or 10th grade level, and we probably shouldn't care how good you are at bartending. These should run off of a proficiency system of some kind where you can pick up new languages or professions (and probably weapons as well) with minimal effort between levels.
2. Things that have gradations of ability, but are not obviously correlated with level. It matters whether you know what kind of damage a White Dragon's breath deals, or when the portals to the abyssal realm of Orcus open, or what the difference between Orcish and Goblin court etiquette is, but there's no obvious reason why knowing those things should require you to be 10th level. The obvious answer is to remove level caps for these skills, but that only goes so far, and you need to thread the needle between "the sage you consult to learn the ancient prophecy is a 20th level Wizard who could do the adventure for you" and "everyone knows everything about everything".
3. Things that have gradations of ability that are obviously related to level in some fashion. Generally this means opposed skills. You should be able to sneak past low level guards easily at high level, and that involves having a Stealth modifier that scales with level. The current system is semi-okay for this, but it has two problems. First, the bonuses you get for level are piddly. No one cares about a +1 marginal bonus to Climb. Second, the bonuses you get from other stuff are absurd. jump gives you a bonus to your Jump check equal to the entire RNG. So you need to make level bonuses bigger and non-level bonuses smaller (and probably constant, so characters don't diverge wildly at high levels).

So when you try to do all of that in one system, you end up in a space that is non-optimal for each of the particular kinds of skill.

There are some other things to consider with skills too, of course. How many skills is a big one. The idea of rank or level based unlocks of skill-related powers is a cool one. You could probably have different degrees of level related scaling for different skills. There's also the problem of skills that generally require group participation to work (for example, if your whole party can't sneak at least passably well, the Rogue using Stealth means splitting the party). You also really should have a skill challenge system.

[Quertus]

Oh yeah, another thing I didn't like about 4E. The difficulty of a task cared about your level. If you wanted to swing on a chandelier somehow that chandelier knew you were level 15 instead of 2 so had a higher DC.

Unless that's "the difficulty goes down as you level", that sounds like another reason to never play 5e to me.

That critique is funny, as are the ones about minions and monsters using different rules than characters. That edition dropped any pretense of simulation, which is stupid in D&D anyways.

Why do you believe simulation is stupid in D&D?

No one had any problems switching from 1st to 2nd or from 2nd to 3rd.

I did have issues switching to 3e. 3e was the "successful attempt to simplify mechanical presentation & homogenize mechanics, and a foolish desire to sacrifice fun in a failed attempt at game balance" edition. I would have liked 3e better if it had just stuck to the first half. I still prefer 2e.

That's the biggest reason we were so hesitant to change, and those who did check it out were in the mindset to pick apart every flaw.

I mean, I went in blind, missing the ad campaigns entirely. I was foolishly optimistic that 4e had put the fun back in. Boy, was I ever disappointed.

1st through 3rd were flawed, too. In fact, 3rd was so flawed that they had to release an update to fix things. However, we liked those editions despite their problems because we were able to look past them.

3.5 broke more than it fixed. And I'm not much of a "look past the flaws" kinda guy. I get upset at my inability to roleplay a character 100% correctly, even when that character is me.

We gave no such law at to 4th, and thus, it sunk. It was no more flawed than any other edition, but now people were looking to hate it. I'm sure if WotC hadn't gone too far in the marketing, we would have gladly "upgraded" just like with every previous edition.

Yeah, no. I missed the marketing, and judged 4e the bland grey boring edition all on my own. 6e will really need to wow me to get me back.

5th failed to reclaim the gold partly due to the success of Pathfinder playing to nostalgia and hogging the 3rd fans and mostly because they refused to acknowledge their mistake with 4th. They tried to go backsies and say that 5th was an appeal to the old players, but they still put the new mechanics in, as well. They tried to have their cake and eat it, too. It didn't work, though, because they failed to mend the rift of broken loyalty with those who felt betrayed by 4th.

5e also failed in its own right, with things like no expectation of cool magic items, bounded accuracy, etc etc.

You're getting too hung up on details.

If you insist on making 5e classes match 3e mechanics and management, why are you playing 5e?

If you're moving a class from 3.5 to 5e, the mechanics are not the goal of the translation. Just the character concept, most of which weren't that unique.

How about I make a new, simple RPG. The mechanics are really simple: you declare am action, roll a d20, and, if you roll 15+, you succeed.

I start with just Fighter class. But you want to play a Psion. So, fine, I create the new "Psion" class: you can now write "Psion" on your character sheet in the class session.

If the mechanics are in no way the goal of the class, have I not just successfully allowed you to play a Psion?

This would be acceptable if the mechanics were at least their own interesting variant. Most 5e mechanics are dumbed down to the point of not even really being mechanics. Any player who wants to play something mechanically distinct from another player in a similar role is going to have a hard time making it work.

Does anyone disagree, or should I add that to my list of reasons to never play 5e?

AD&D/2e: "Here's what you can play. Make your character concept conform to the given abilities."

Hey, now, let's be fair. 2e had Skills & Powers, plus "rules" (such as they were) to create new classes from whole cloth.

[Ignimortis]

Unless that's "the difficulty goes down as you level", that sounds like another reason to never play 5e to me.

Note that the post you're quoting refers to 4e, which had a different problem (the DC scaled up to your level), but in 5e the DC stays the same. It's just that you're never good enough to accomplish a DC20 task without a chance of failure, unless you're a level 20 rogue or bard.

Does anyone disagree, or should I add that to my list of reasons to never play 5e?

Do it. It's pretty much true. You either play as someone with casting or someone without casting. Both have miscellaneous buttons, which are useful and sometimes even fun, but once you've played a caster, a STR-based martial and a DEX-based martial of a different class, you're done. Yes, there are different spells and different class abilities, but they all use a chassis of either "per short rest" or "per long rest".

[Necroticplague]

1. I started RPG’ing after 4e was out, so it’s not really a ‘move on’ for me.
2. I play 4e and 3.5e (as well as pathfinder).
3. Haven’t picked up 5e because the part of the game that interests me (character creation and formation of interesting combos) appears to have been reduced in favor or stronger archetype support, from what I’ve heard. I’ve figured this problem will remedy itself once it has more content (and thus, options), so I’m sure I’ll come around eventually.

[Grod_The_Giant]

5e also failed in its own right, with things like no expectation of cool magic items, bounded accuracy, etc etc.

5e doesn't require magic items in the same way that 3e/4e does; that doesn't mean you're not expected to have them. The "starting equipment at higher levels" table in the DMG says that even low magic campaigns should have a few; if you follow the guidelines for treasure hordes, you wind up getting way more than that. And because they're not part of the expected level scaling, and there's not a baked-in assumption that you can just walk into a city and buy a bunch of magic items, they actually feel more cool and special. Finding even something as dull as a +2 sword is exciting because it'll mean you're ahead of the curve for the entire game. 5e does magic items right.

Does anyone disagree, or should I add that to my list of reasons to never play 5e?

I do. 5e mechanics aren't as fun as 3.5 mechanics to theorycraft with, but I'd argue that (for the most part) they're superior to play with. They're much better at getting out of your way and letting you actually pretend to be an elf or whatever. Apart from skills not having fixed DCs (which, in all honesty, I suspect many GMs have never noticed), there's really not much more adjudication required than in previous editions.

[AnimeTheCat]

Do it. It's pretty much true. You either play as someone with casting or someone without casting. Both have miscellaneous buttons, which are useful and sometimes even fun, but once you've played a caster, a STR-based martial and a DEX-based martial of a different class, you're done. Yes, there are different spells and different class abilities, but they all use a chassis of either "per short rest" or "per long rest".

I mean, at the heart of it everything in 3.5e is "Per Long Rest". There isn't any "Per Short Rest". The only outliers are the per week, per month, per year random abilities that are out there. All spellcastings in 3.5e are "Per long rest" and things like rage and smite are "Per long rest".

I tried both fourth edition and fifth edition and they both seemed too simple to me. I think I just like all the finicky little fiddly bits. The "Imbalance" of 3.5e doesn't irk me as much as not being able to play what I want to play. I know that 3.5e has been out longer, but by this stage of 3.5e's life, there were a lot more books with a lot more information out. You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a new splat. I enjoy the multitude of books because there's no rule that says you have to use them all (and in my experience when you try to use them all things get to the unplayable level of inbalance).

I can agree amoung friends not to powergame, but I can't convince the DM that they need to make this laundry list of changes to a class, race, feat, skill, etc. to make my character concept viable. If I, as the player, can do it under my own power then it is done and unless the DM says "no" then I'm fine and within the rules.

I think what I like about 3.5e versus 5e is that there are so many rules, and while they don't all work in chorus they can serve as a pretty solid framework to tweak. 5e does leave a large amount up to the DM. For the DM, this can be great. For the player, this can really really suck.

[noob]

I mean, at the heart of it everything in 3.5e is "Per Long Rest". There isn't any "Per Short Rest". The only outliers are the per week, per month, per year random abilities that are out there. All spellcastings in 3.5e are "Per long rest" and things like rage and smite are "Per long rest".

I tried both fourth edition and fifth edition and they both seemed too simple to me. I think I just like all the finicky little fiddly bits. The "Imbalance" of 3.5e doesn't irk me as much as not being able to play what I want to play. I know that 3.5e has been out longer, but by this stage of 3.5e's life, there were a lot more books with a lot more information out. You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a new splat. I enjoy the multitude of books because there's no rule that says you have to use them all (and in my experience when you try to use them all things get to the unplayable level of inbalance).

I can agree amoung friends not to powergame, but I can't convince the DM that they need to make this laundry list of changes to a class, race, feat, skill, etc. to make my character concept viable. If I, as the player, can do it under my own power then it is done and unless the DM says "no" then I'm fine and within the rules.

I think what I like about 3.5e versus 5e is that there are so many rules, and while they don't all work in chorus they can serve as a pretty solid framework to tweak. 5e does leave a large amount up to the DM. For the DM, this can be great. For the player, this can really really suck.

There is in 3.5 the binder whose best abilities are per 5 rounds(and he gets one per vestige).(and none of his stuff is per long rest)
Then the crusader which have his abilities when he use different abilities(so you can control access to abilities by spending abilities faster or keeping in reserve the abilities you think might be more useful later)(basically that is a spellcasting you can use continuously and which have each given power be per random)(and none of his stuff is per long rest except for his smite attempts which are entirely negligible compared to the rest)
Then there is the warlock who gets his spells at will.(and none of his stuff is per long rest)

[Cosi]

5e does magic items right.

5e does them better. I don't think any system where a magic items powers can begin and end with "you get a numeric bonus to a stat" can be said to be doing things right. Your magic weapons should be Lightning Whips or Earthquake Hammers. Your magic armor should be Hurricane Plate or Shadow Helms. At no point should you be expected to get excited about "and now your numbers are bigger".

I mean, at the heart of it everything in 3.5e is "Per Long Rest". There isn't any "Per Short Rest". The only outliers are the per week, per month, per year random abilities that are out there. All spellcastings in 3.5e are "Per long rest" and things like rage and smite are "Per long rest".

Binder Vestige abilities are (IMHO) are per-encounter, at least the once per five rounds ones. Maneuvers also are sort-of on that timescale, in at least some cases.

[Kurald Galain]

5e doesn't require magic items in the same way that 3e/4e does; that doesn't mean you're not expected to have them. The "starting equipment at higher levels" table in the DMG says that even low magic campaigns should have a few; if you follow the guidelines for treasure hordes, you wind up getting way more than that. And because they're not part of the expected level scaling, and there's not a baked-in assumption that you can just walk into a city and buy a bunch of magic items, they actually feel more cool and special. Finding even something as dull as a +2 sword is exciting because it'll mean you're ahead of the curve for the entire game.

That's just marketing talk, though.

3.0 does require magic items, in the sense that certain monsters can only be hit by a +X or better magical weapon. 3.5 and PF have removed this rule, and for good reason. Forum talk notwithstanding, this means that they can be played just fine with little or no magic items. 4E has explicit rules ("inherent bonuses") to run campaigns without magic items, and IME it even plays better that way.

In all these games, it must mathematically be true that EITHER the DM has to compensate encounter difficulty depending on the amount of magic items, OR those magic items just don't do a whole lot other than flavor. It is clearly true in 3E/4E that a DM can hand out more magic items and not compensate, and then the players will be ahead of the curve for the entire game. It also clearly true in 5E that a DM can hand out more magic items and compensate, and then the players will NOT be ahead of the curve. This is simple math, it has nothing to do with differences between the games.

"You can play without magical items!" may sound innovative until you realize that that's what pretty much every non-D&D RPG has done since the 1980s.

[AnimeTheCat]

There is in 3.5 the binder whose best abilities are per 5 rounds(and he gets one per vestige).(and none of his stuff is per long rest)
Then the crusader which have his abilities when he use different abilities(so you can control access to abilities by spending abilities faster or keeping in reserve the abilities you think might be more useful later)(basically that is a spellcasting you can use continuously and which have each given power be per random)(and none of his stuff is per long rest except for his smite attempts which are entirely negligible compared to the rest)
Then there is the warlock who gets his spells at will.(and none of his stuff is per long rest)

Binder Vestige abilities are (IMHO) are per-encounter, at least the once per five rounds ones. Maneuvers also are sort-of on that timescale, in at least some cases.

Right, so there's no "recharge" time or mechanic. I know that there are oddballs, and I acknowledged that. The vast majority of things however "recharge" per day, which is essentially a long rest. 5e Has that kind of stuff too, such as Cantrips.

I suppose I should rephrase what I said to "At the heart of it, NEARLY every mechanic in 3.5e is 'Per Long Rest'".

[Velaryon]

That's just marketing talk, though.

3.0 does require magic items, in the sense that certain monsters can only be hit by a +X or better magical weapon. 3.5 and PF have removed this rule, and for good reason. Forum talk notwithstanding, this means that they can be played just fine with little or no magic items. 4E has explicit rules ("inherent bonuses") to run campaigns without magic items, and IME it even plays better that way.

In all these games, it must mathematically be true that EITHER the DM has to compensate encounter difficulty depending on the amount of magic items, OR those magic items just don't do a whole lot other than flavor. It is clearly true in 3E/4E that a DM can hand out more magic items and not compensate, and then the players will be ahead of the curve for the entire game. It also clearly true in 5E that a DM can hand out more magic items and compensate, and then the players will NOT be ahead of the curve. This is simple math, it has nothing to do with differences between the games.

"You can play without magical items!" may sound innovative until you realize that that's what pretty much every non-D&D RPG has done since the 1980s.

Technically, 3.5 doesn't require magic items, but DR/magic is pretty common and without magic items, martials can't bypass that without a buff from casters. Meanwhile, spells bypass DR automatically, even if all they're doing is dealing damage (poor design choice IMO). So if you play without magic items then you're actually increasing the caster/martial disparity. 3.5 D&D doesn't handle "low magic" games all that well unless you stick to low levels, ban casters, or exempt the PCs from the "low magic-ness," because monsters are all designed under the assumption that you're following WBL guidelines. You certainly can play that way, but doing so gimps fighters et. al. pretty badly against a lot of encounters.

[Kurald Galain]

Technically, 3.5 doesn't require magic items, but DR/magic is pretty common and without magic items, martials can't bypass that without a buff from casters.

DR doesn't mean you can't hurt the monster. DR means you'll deal five points less damage. Most fighters and barbarians can just smash through that with Power Attack. By the time you see monsters with DR 10 (which should be pretty high level) you deal enough damage to get through that as well.

So I'm really not seeing the issue here. 3.5 works just fine with little or no magic items.

[Velaryon]

I'm away from books right now, but I'm pretty sure there are a LOT of things with DR higher than 5. Yes, they can just do more damage to still hurt them, but lacking magic items means that any martial who doesn't have either Power Attack or some form of precision damage is going to be a lot less effective, while casters are affected much less.

So yes, you can do it if you don't mind that it hurts the characters who are already less powerful more than it hurts the ones who are already most powerful. YMMV whether that counts as "just fine," I suppose.

[Darrin]

Yes, commonly failing at easy tasks is a 5E problem, not a 4E problem.

But the DCs are set by the DM, so... I realize it's Oberoni territory, but can't the DM just set the DCs lower for the easy stuff?

Admittedly, I've only played about 4 sessions of 5E, and I suspect the DM is using the "Did you roll low/middle/high?" Task Resolution System (i.e., the "Eyeball" method) rather than actually using whatever DC might be in the book.

From a historical standpoint, D&D has *always* had a very klunky skill system:

In AD&D, it was a hodgepodge of obscure tables, the percentile system used by thieves, and basic "wing it/seat of your pants" kinda thing.

2E had Non-Weapon Proficiencies... but I don't remember how they worked.

3E finally had a formal skill system with skill points, but could quickly get extremely wonky if you weren't paying attention to it. You get some very bizarre results, like 20th-level rogues who can't find/disarm traps, or a 4th level commoner riding around a battletitan dinosaur. Among other things, the 3E skill system has scaling issues... can +0 through +23 really cover all the possibilities between mundane tasks and legendary superheroes? To use the "hot mess/hot rod" analogy... if you weren't paying attention to it, it could be unexpectedly vindictive and viciously punitive, but if you *really* knew how to push the right buttons, you could use it to rob a bank with a paperclip.

Pathfinder tried to split the "have it/eat it" cake between a skill-point system and a class-assigned skill list... and except for a few wrinkles, evened out a lot of the wonkiness from 3E. Classes were innately "good" at certain things, but there was enough optimization options that you still had enough room to differentiate between casual experts and legendary specialists.

4E tied everything to class level, and locked down the skill choices at 1st level. So they took the Pathfinder system and... made it worse? (I never played 4E, so I'm not that familiar with it.)

5E tries to split the difference between Pathfinder and 4E, and then attempts to cover up the really ugly spots with a lot of handwavium. 4E's "add your class level to everything" is still sorta there wrapped up into the Proficiency Bonus, and they've attempted to compress the scalability issues, but have loosened up on skill choices by abandoning the "you can't pick anything, you'll just f*** it up" mentality from 4E. I'm still new to 5E, but I think I might call it "Tolerable, just so long as you don't look *really* closely at it."

Of course, SCs were controversial right from the beginning and throughout the entire run of 4E, so there's probably some other problems there

I think Skill Challenges in some form are a good tool to have in your system toolkit, but it sounds like 4E's toolkit was so limited, it quickly turned into a "If you only have a hammer..." problem.

Anyway, things that I like to have in a hypothetical skill system is (1) trained characters can more-or-less match real-world athletes at low level, which includes auto-succeeding on easy tasks; and clearly surpass them at higher level; (2) characters can learn new skills as they advance, without spending feats or similar resources on that; and (3) even at low level you can make a character that reliably succeeds at checks that untrained characters cannot make (because that's what professionals do in real life, and I want fantasy characters that can be better than that).

I'm not sure there's any ideal system that can seamlessly bolt the entire breadth of mundane human capabilities to a level system that goes from Level 1 "I'm afraid of house cats" to Level 20 "I wiggle my fingers to make buildings explode." There's going to be some lumps in the gravy.

[Ignimortis]

Right, so there's no "recharge" time or mechanic. I know that there are oddballs, and I acknowledged that. The vast majority of things however "recharge" per day, which is essentially a long rest. 5e Has that kind of stuff too, such as Cantrips.

I suppose I should rephrase what I said to "At the heart of it, NEARLY every mechanic in 3.5e is 'Per Long Rest'".

There are no "fun" recharging mechanics in 5e. In 3.5, warblades have to hit an enemy to get their maneuvers back, and crusaders have their come back at random each round. In PF-based Path of War, every class regains maneuvers in their own way - kill an enemy, take a risky action, and so on. Binders and DFAs just recharge quickly, factotums get their powers "per encounter" (which doesn't work out to the same as "per short rest", because short rests are rarely useful). Warlocks and Truenamers are just at-will for everything, not only cantrips - even powerful effects like Greater Invisibility or AoE damage+debuffs.
Meanwhile, in 5e the best recharging mechanic is sorcery points, which are designed in a way that makes using them for spell slots a rarely useful thing. Other mechanics are...nonexistent, except for "if you've got nothing at the beginning of combat, gain one" at high levels. 3.5e/PF mechanics are always in play, from level one.

[JNAProductions]

DR doesn't mean you can't hurt the monster. DR means you'll deal five points less damage. Most fighters and barbarians can just smash through that with Power Attack. By the time you see monsters with DR 10 (which should be pretty high level) you deal enough damage to get through that as well.

So I'm really not seeing the issue here. 3.5 works just fine with little or no magic items.

Okay. A level X PC is supposed to have a 50/50 chance of soloing a CR X monster, correct?

So let's take, say, a Greater Air Elemental (CR 9). Can you build a Fighter that has a reasonable chance of soloing this guy, without any magic items?

[Pex]

Unless that's "the difficulty goes down as you level", that sounds like another reason to never play 5e to me.

In 5E the DC depends on who is DM that day. One DM says you just do it, no roll needed. Another DM says it's DC 10. A third DM says it's DC 15. A fourth DM says you can only try if you're proficient in Acrobatics, which would be officially against the rules since 5E does not distinguish between proficient/not proficient to do some task but is a common distinction added in by DMs.

[Kurald Galain]

Okay. A level X PC is supposed to have a 50/50 chance of soloing a CR X monster, correct?

You're missing the point.

What I am talking about is that 3E (and 4E and PF) are easily playable with little or no magical items. You appear to be talking about the relative balance between classes, which is a different topic entirely.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You're missing the point.

What I am talking about is that 3E (and 4E and PF) are easily playable with little or no magical items. You appear to be talking about the relative balance between classes, which is a different topic entirely.

Playable, yes. Easily playable, no-- you have to adjust every encounter for weaker-than-expected characters (unevenly weaker ones at that, given how screwed up balance is in the game), and you have to examine each monster you want to use to make sure that it's still going to be as difficult as originally intended-- does it have a lot of DR/magic? Are its defenses too high for unboosted attack rolls to get through? Is it incorporeal and thus immune to half the party?

[Ratter]

All you need to make a playable race in 3.5 is printed right in the monster manual, though? If you want to play it from level 1, you just have to look to Savage Species and use savage progression and boom, you're set.

It's literally as easy as playing with lego.

and all you need for a dnd 5e race is 2 stat increases, an ability you make up, and whether or not they have darkvision, they are both very easy to use.

[Calthropstu]

I love this explanation. I also absolutely love the archaeology aspect of PF/3.5, of needing to dive through six or seven books to make the character do everything they need to do and have all of the features they need.
4th edition is a bit of a sticking point with me. When it first came out, I was in a remote location and had great difficulty getting the books. I managed to get them, though, since my circle of friends back home were playing it. I had about twelve or so books in the end, and spent almost three days poring over them to create a cleric for the ongoing game I was to join. I made the power cards by hand, filled out the sheet by hand, all of it.
When I sat at the table, everyone else has pre-printed power cards. No big deal. Clearly they all just used the same generator. I say this because I had not heard about the online character creator. When I went to use a power, I got told that it did not work like I thought it did. That it had been nerfed and hit with errata.
I was shown the online tool and was shown that it took five minutes to make a character from scratch. That not only were my painfully tracked down overpriced books unnecessary, but also wrong.
I vowed to never give them another dollar.

4th itself is not so horrible. I will play it. 5th edition is also okay. I will play it. I will not run either of them because I am still angry at the publishers.

Same reasons for me. If i buy a book, I am using the book. I am not going online to look up how every one of my abilities should be used. I'm not getting nerfs. I paid for a book, not an rpg update system. Paizo, for the most part, seems to understand that. Most of its errata are odd case scenarios, clarifications on oversight or flushing out things they missed.