Pros and Cons of each edition

[Jormengand]

what?

You heard me. I enjoy actually being able to use my earth-shattering arcane might more than once a day, thanks.

Really? That doesnt sound like a very good thing... I mean all it is is taking away crits and fumbles and adding more AC, that seems to really only hurt the game, if you disagree, please tell me.

"Taking away" fumbles which were never there doesn't seem to be a major issue. And yes, I like my high-level characters high-level. No-one wants to hear the story of the master samurai who got his arse handed to him by a peasant with a yari and some good rolls.

[Ratter]

You heard me. I enjoy actually being able to use my earth-shattering arcane might more than once a day, thanks.

But, I mean, feeling like a high level wizard and being able to do god like feats constantly are not the same

"Taking away" fumbles which were never there doesn't seem to be a major issue. And yes, I like my high-level characters high-level. No-one wants to hear the story of the master samurai who got his arse handed to him by a peasant with a yari and some good rolls.

I mean, sure, but by the brutal overpowered-ness of a high level character, why dont they just send them to ohko the enemies armies in any given conflict?

[2D8HP]

what?

Really? That doesnt sound like a very good thing... I mean all it is is taking away crits and fumbles and adding more AC, that seems to really only hurt the game, if you disagree, please tell me.

Nope, it took a year for me to understand what folks meant, but I like "Bounded Accuracy".

You heard me. I enjoy actually being able to use my earth-shattering arcane might more than once a day, thanks.



"Taking away" fumbles which were never there doesn't seem to be a major issue. And yes, I like my high-level characters high-level. No-one wants to hear the story of the master samurai who got his arse handed to him by a peasant with a yari and some good rolls.

Actually peasants beating the high and mighty is totally my jam, I'm a much bigger fan of The Seven Samurai than I am of Avengers: Age of Ultron.

[Cosi]

I mean, sure, but by the brutal overpowered-ness of a high level character, why dont they just send them to ohko the enemies armies in any given conflict?

For the same reason that the US doesn't fight wars using tanks.

That is, they totally do and it is a reasonable and expected part of the setting that battles over objectives high level characters care about are largely decided either by high level characters or by armies of monsters sufficiently powerful that high level characters can't kill them en mass without risk. Armies of normal humans are useful for policing territory and enforcing laws, not for invading kingdoms ruled by high level Wizards.

[Jormengand]

But, I mean, feeling like a high level wizard and being able to do god like feats constantly are not the same

I mean, if I ever want to play a guy who can lob a couple of level-appropriate abilities and then proceed to hide in the corner for the rest of the day, I'll play a first-level character, not 5e.

I mean, sure, but by the brutal overpowered-ness of a high level character, why dont they just send them to ohko the enemies armies in any given conflict?

You mean to tell me that small bands of heroes fighting off tons of enemies isn't a standard fantasy trope? This is news to me.

[2D8HP]

....I'll play a first-level character, not 5e....

I'd say that first level 5e PC's are approximately as powerful as third level 1e PC's.

[Jormengand]

I'd say that first level 5e PC's are approximately as powerful as third level 1e PC's.

Eesh. First-level 3.5 characters are already deficient at basic real-world human competence, 5e ones are worse, and I shudder to think what 1e ones are like.

(I tried building myself in 3.5 once and it turns out I need at least 3 levels just to get all my skills sorted).

[Ratter]

You mean to tell me that small bands of heroes fighting off tons of enemies isn't a standard fantasy trope? This is news to me.

They dont win by default, whats the point of fighting if you win every single time, all thats used for is being able to say "I can kill infinite goblins," it would be a pointless encounter, and wizards can almost always do something, they just arent gods, you guys are talking about high level, so lets assume 16, you dont have a lvl 9 spell but are high level, thats 18 spells+5 infinite cast spells, thats enough to get you through 18 easy encounters or the reccomended dosage of 6 medium encounters, with spells to spare, thats a wizard. Casting wish 3 times a day, thats a god.

[Jormengand]

They dont win by default, whats the point of fighting if you win every single time, all thats used for is being able to say "I can kill infinite goblins," it would be a pointless encounter, and wizards can almost always do something, they just arent gods, you guys are talking about high level, so lets assume 16, you dont have a lvl 9 spell but are high level, thats 18 spells+5 infinite cast spells, thats enough to get you through 18 easy encounters or the reccomended dosage of 6 medium encounters, with spells to spare, thats a wizard. Casting wish 3 times a day, thats a god.

If you're still fighting goblins, only more of them, at level 20, then there's a problem. Really, now, what's the point in advancement if it's of the order of magnitude of "And now I can fight slightly more green nuisances before I keel over and die?"

[2D8HP]

If you're still fighting goblins, only more of them, at level 20, then there's a problem. Really, now, what's the point in advancement if it's of the order of magnitude of "And now I can fight slightly more green nuisances before I keel over and die?"

Frankly I just prefer PC's that are closer to mortal.

I want to play the Gray Mouser, not Thor (nothing wrong with wanting to play Thor, or Dr. Strange, et cetera, it's just not my thing).

[Jormengand]

Frankly I just prefer PC's that are closer to mortal.

I want to play the Gray Mouser, not Thor (nothing wrong with wanting to play Thor, or Dr. Strange, et cetera, it's just not my thing).

That's literally what low levels are for, though. You can absolutely play low-level concepts, but when 5e doesn't let you play high-level concepts and 3.5 lets you play high or low level concepts, there's a clear winner in terms of system versatility for a start.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'd say that first level 5e PC's are approximately as powerful as third level 1e PC's.

I guess the idea that your PC should start out as a complete chump is a holdover from older editions. IMO however you feel about late game PCs being superheroes, 3e/4e PCs starting out with a basic level of competence is a point in favor of those editions.

[Knaight]

That's literally what low levels are for, though. You can absolutely play low-level concepts, but when 5e doesn't let you play high-level concepts and 3.5 lets you play high or low level concepts, there's a clear winner in terms of system versatility for a start.

On the other hand, this allows the smaller region covered to be better defined. At a high level of abstraction levels basically correspond to a range with a bunch of tick marks in it. Size of the range and closeness of tick marks is opposed, and while you can add more tick marks there's a mechanical weight to doing so. This creates a balancing act, and different people have different preferences in terms of number of marks, distance between marks, and size of the scale. Designs that work well for some preferences don't necessarily work well for others.

[2D8HP]

I guess the idea that your PC should start out as a complete chump is a holdover from older editions. IMO however you feel about late game PCs being superheroes, 3e/4e PCs starting out with a basic level of competence is a point in favor of those editions.

5e PC's seem plenty powerful to me at first level, and actually one of my complaints with many 5e games is that the DM's have the PC's get too powerful, too fast.

But I tend to prefer Call of C'thullu to Champions so different strokes.

[Jormengand]

On the other hand, this allows the smaller region covered to be better defined. At a high level of abstraction levels basically correspond to a range with a bunch of tick marks in it. Size of the range and closeness of tick marks is opposed, and while you can add more tick marks there's a mechanical weight to doing so. This creates a balancing act, and different people have different preferences in terms of number of marks, distance between marks, and size of the scale. Designs that work well for some preferences don't necessarily work well for others.

Still, I don't see that adding different degrees of chumpitude takes away from the essential problem of never not being a chump.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

5e PC's seem plenty powerful to me at first level, and actually one of my complaints with many 5e games is that the DM's have the PC's get too powerful, too fast.

But I tend to prefer Call of C'thullu to Champions so different strokes.

It doesn't take a Champions character to contend with a common street thug at the beginning of the game. 5e PCs might look like their numbers are okay, but that's only because the baseline numbers for all combatants (especially health) have increased. If the PCs are still weak relative to the most basic threats, they are chumps, period.

[Cosi]

3e characters probably are too weak at 1st level. Built off the elite array, a 1st level character built for melee combat is looking at something like a +4 attack bonus (+1 BAB, +2 for 15 STR, +1 for Weapon Focus/Racial Bonus/Whatever), an AC on the order of 15 (+3 or 4 from armor, +1 or 2 from DEX), and maybe 10 HP. That just doesn't leave a lot of space at the bottom for weaker things, and there are a lot of things that I think probably should be weaker than a 1st level character.

I think a trained soldier is probably a reasonable reference point for what a 1st level martial character should be. Taking that as a reference, I think there are probably two-or-three levels of thing that are weaker than a 1st level character, but not so weak as to be non-threatening (and hence not need stats). A soldier can probably win a fight with an untrained civilian, who in turn would win a fight with a dog, who would win a fight with a housecat, but none of those are such curbstomps that I would expect a 100% victory rate or no injuries to the winner. 3e just doesn't leave you enough room for stuff to be weaker than a 1st level character (which is why you get stuff like housecats killing Wizards).

[magicalmagicman]

3e characters probably are too weak at 1st level. Built off the elite array, a 1st level character built for melee combat is looking at something like a +4 attack bonus (+1 BAB, +2 for 15 STR, +1 for Weapon Focus/Racial Bonus/Whatever), an AC on the order of 15 (+3 or 4 from armor, +1 or 2 from DEX), and maybe 10 HP. That just doesn't leave a lot of space at the bottom for weaker things, and there are a lot of things that I think probably should be weaker than a 1st level character.

All 1st level characters have an additional 10hp. 1st level characters are intended to extensively use the stabilization rules. Everyone gets one shotted, but through teamwork no one dies and everyone struggles together until you escape chumphood. Only a TPK encounter will truly result in PC death, unlike higher levels where PCs can get one shotted 100 to -10.

[Knaight]

Still, I don't see that adding different degrees of chumpitude takes away from the essential problem of never not being a chump.

This is what I mean about preferences (along with being unable to identify other preferences). You have little to no interest in the low power version of the game. Tick marks there are totally pointless for you, and that design actively opposes your preference.

Meanwhile, I'd usually prefer that entire campaigns stay within your chumpitude range, as that's what interests me, with stuff outside that range maybe showing up occasionally in certain campaigns.

[Cosi]

All 1st level characters have an additional 10hp. 1st level characters are intended to extensively use the stabilization rules. Everyone gets one shotted, but through teamwork no one dies and everyone struggles together until you escape chumphood. Only a TPK encounter will truly result in PC death, unlike higher levels where PCs can get one shotted 100 to -10.

Eh. My problem is that it is stupid if fighting a cat has any real chance of killing you. I'm not particularly physically fit, but I am 100% confident that I would win a fight with a cat. I would almost certainly get hurt, and I'm not morally willing to kill a cat, but I don't think I'd have any physical problem doing that. It's not really better if the housecat just knocks me unconscious and my friends stabilize me.

Basically, it's a verisimilitude issue, not really a balance issue. Housecats don't kill people. Even dogs don't have any real chance of killing armed, trained people one-on-one.

[Jormengand]

This is what I mean about preferences (along with being unable to identify other preferences). You have little to no interest in the low power version of the game. Tick marks there are totally pointless for you, and that design actively opposes your preference.

Meanwhile, I'd usually prefer that entire campaigns stay within your chumpitude range, as that's what interests me, with stuff outside that range maybe showing up occasionally in certain campaigns.

If you want low-level-5e levels of chumpitude in 3.5, you can have them. You can build a soulknife and then poke out your eyes with your own mind blade, say. I just don't see why on earth anyone would enjoy that.

[2D8HP]

Still, I don't see that adding different degrees of chumpitude takes away from the essential problem of never not being a chump.

It doesn't take a Champions character to contend with a common street thug at the beginning of the game. 5e PCs might look like their numbers are okay, but that's only because the baseline numbers for all combatants (especially health) have increased. If the PCs are still weak relative to the most basic threats, they are chumps, period.

This is what I mean about preferences (along with being unable to identify other preferences). You have little to no interest in the low power version of the game. Tick marks there are totally pointless for you, and that design actively opposes your preference.

Meanwhile, I'd usually prefer that entire campaigns stay within your chumpitude range, as that's what interests me, with stuff outside that range maybe showing up occasionally in certain campaigns.

If you want low-level-5e levels of chumpitude in 3.5, you can have them. You can build a soulknife and then poke out your eyes with your own mind blade, say. I just don't see why on earth anyone would enjoy that.

Eh. My problem is that it is stupid if fighting a cat has any real chance of killing you. I'm not particularly physically fit, but I am 100% confident that I would win a fight with a cat. I would almost certainly get hurt, and I'm not morally willing to kill a cat, but I don't think I'd have any physical problem doing that. It's not really better if the housecat just knocks me unconscious and my friends stabilize me.

Basically, it's a verisimilitude issue, not really a balance issue. Housecats don't kill people. Even dogs don't have any real chance of killing armed, trained people one-on-one.

I do agree that 0e/1e PC's could sometimes be killed by a housecat (not likely but possible), and that first level in old D&D was often too much of a "meat-grinder", but I haven't found that to be true of 5e, and that few 5e DM's actually work to make the foes more dangerous challenges.

I guess I'm one with @Knaight in preferring playing "chumps".

"God-Wizards" just aren't my jam.

[Knaight]

If you want low-level-5e levels of chumpitude in 3.5, you can have them. You can build a soulknife and then poke out your eyes with your own mind blade, say. I just don't see why on earth anyone would enjoy that.

You're missing the point. The use of a wider power scale means that any individual part is less well supported. If you're playing a game with characters at a largely human scale to low end pulp heroes 3.5 is just a bad fit. 5e is a better (if still bad) fit.

That example character does a good job demonstrating it - you're talking about a character who is still an effective warrior, who fights while blind with a blade made of psychic energy. The entire concept there is way out of scope for that style of game.

[magicalmagicman]

You're missing the point. The use of a wider power scale means that any individual part is less well supported. If you're playing a game with characters at a largely human scale to low end pulp heroes 3.5 is just a bad fit. 5e is a better (if still bad) fit.

That example character does a good job demonstrating it - you're talking about a character who is still an effective warrior, who fights while blind with a blade made of psychic energy. The entire concept there is way out of scope for that style of game.

3.5 has more level 1-10 material than 5e has in their entire edition.

[Knaight]

3.5 has more level 1-10 material than 5e has in their entire edition.

That's both true and irrelevant. The relevant areas are more like levels 1-6 of 3e (hence e6), and 1-10 of 5e. Regardless of the quantity of material having six big building blocks and that's it is clunky. This is a matter of structure, and having more content for that structure doesn't actually resolve structural matters in any way.

[magicalmagicman]

That's both true and irrelevant. The relevant areas are more like levels 1-6 of 3e (hence e6), and 1-10 of 5e. Regardless of the quantity of material having six big building blocks and that's it is clunky. This is a matter of structure, and having more content for that structure doesn't actually resolve structural matters in any way.

I don't get your argument. You can simply limit classes to the ones you deem fun and ban all the ones that don't fit your idea of a good game.

Are you saying that 5e is the superior edition because power gaming optimizers can't get as powerful in 5e than in 3.5?

[Tvtyrant]

I don't get your argument. You can simply limit classes to the ones you deem fun and ban all the ones that don't fit your idea of a good game.

Are you saying that 5e is the superior edition because power gaming optimizers can't get as powerful in 5e than in 3.5?

No, he is saying that 5E has more power gradations because its first 10+ levels are the same as 6 levels in 3.5. You can have a longer period of meaningful advancement, just like if you made an E10 game where you gained a new spell level every level and an additional attack every other level it would be functionally the same powerwise as 3.5 but would have less gradation.

[Kish]

3.5 is less balanced than 5th, and slightly more complex. There, the problems with 3.5 by comparison to 5th end.

The skill system is actually there, with DCs you don't have to make up on the spot because they're actually written in the damn book. The classes mostly actually do something worth doing and your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip. Advancement is a meaningful thing (for example, at high levels in 3.5 you can actually pass DC 10 checks 100% of the time without being a rogue or pumping the relevant stat) and you stop being threatened by lucky level 1 characters after a while. While the class imbalance is significant, even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys. Oh, and there's just more of it, so you don't have to worry that your character concept doesn't exist (your concept is that you steal famous dead people's souls and tack them onto your body for magical power? There's a class for that!).

You left out the part where 5ed has explicit, universal-except-for-humans-and-part-humans racial morality, such that a nonevil orc has to struggle constantly against evil instincts.

I suppose whether that's a pro or a con depends on one's point of view (you can tell mine from context, I'm pretty sure).

[Telok]

But I tend to prefer Call of C'thullu to Champions so different strokes.

Funny, I prefer CoC and Champions to any WotC version of D&D. They, and AD&D 1e, are honest about what's going on. In CoC you play normal people who confront things they can't solve with simple violence. In Champions you play superheros who are not threatened by random mooks (unless you do a low point game, but then you still know what's going on). In AD&D you start out as a farm kid with hand-me-down gear or a wizard apprentice with a single spell, you are the mook. But as you advance the levels have titles, including Superhero and Archmage. Zero to superhero, right in the level charts.

[Knaight]

I don't get your argument. You can simply limit classes to the ones you deem fun and ban all the ones that don't fit your idea of a good game.

Are you saying that 5e is the superior edition because power gaming optimizers can't get as powerful in 5e than in 3.5?

I'm not calling 5e the superior edition at all. What I'm saying, in convenient list form:
1) Different games are good for different things. You wouldn't use Exalted to run a game of normal people, and you wouldn't use Everyone is John to play hyper-competent characters.

2) Scope, degree of focus, and minimization of mechanical load are all somewhat opposed to each other. A game with an extreme scope (with degree of character power being the particular scope we're looking at here, but the principle is broader) is generally going to have a lower degree of focus for a smaller part of the scope, or is going to have a lot of extra mechanical load to have that focus everywhere.

3) Given this, for the specific context of trying to run a more grounded, lower powered game 5e is a better fit than 3.x. It's not a good fit (I'd shy far away from any D&D edition there, massive power growth is one of the major distinctive traits of every edition), but it's better.