Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 98

Thread: 3.5e or Next?

  1. - Top - End - #31
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelle View Post
    Yeah. All those people dissuading you from just taking Toughness feats assume you want a character that can contribute equally as a spellcaster. Is that really important to you?

    Not really, playing the kind of character I want to play is more important to me.

    If so, playing a Fighter at all is pointless in 3.5, unless the others are passive players or have pity on you and hold back...
    If not, just take Tougness (or other passive benefits) and play along.

    Cool!

    Thanks!

    Grim specter of noogie hangs like shroud over us all


    Extended Sig




    PBP's

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Snazzy Avatar by Honest Tiefling!

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Then please tell me an equivalent "training wheels class" that's as east to play as a 5e WD&D Champion Fighter or any TD&D Fighter
    I wasn't saying that every 3e class has equivalent complexity to its 5e version, or that the average complexity level is lower for all classes. There are certainly players such as yourself who find any amount of choice or complexity to be too much and just want to hop in and roll dice without making any character-building decisions.

    My point, rather, was that it's portrayed as though 5e is simplicity itself, 3e is a math test, and that 5e is the obvious choice for newbies, when in fact the levels of complexity for the various editions are similar enough at low levels that it comes down entirely to player tolerance for making choices and player and DM preference for rules philosophy. There are lots of people who find AD&D totally unapproachable, but you and I have no problems with it and you strongly prefer it, for instance.

    For every player who finds the 5e Champion fighter desirable because you don't have to make decisions, there's one who finds the Champion fighter intolerable because you can't make decisions; for every player who prefers the 5e feat system because you have fewer but larger feats, there's a player who prefers the 3e feat system because you get them earlier and more often. I just hate to see people automatically recommending 5e because of the most-newbie-friendly perception when that's not the case.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Malimar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    a nice pond

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    The 3.5 forums do have a habit of suggesting gawdawful complex builds with half a dozen classes and full spellcasting and a million moving parts when somebody asks for suggestions for newbies. I don't know if they're sadistic or just dumb.

    That said, if you can't handle flanking ("on opposite sides of the target" is not a difficult concept for Medium or smaller targets and only a little complicated for Large and larger ones) or rage (an irritating (hence why I never play barbarians) but very simple adding and subtracting a handful of piddly numbers), I don't think any edition of D&D is right for you.
    Last edited by Malimar; 2018-06-13 at 12:39 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    I'd suggest that it depends on the kind of game you want to play. If you're going to do a dungeon crawl, 5e is probably the best option, as it has simpler mechanics. If you want to do anything else, though, 3.P handles non-combat stuff (like having a decent skill system, or class abilities that you can use outside of a dungeon) a lot better.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Goaty14's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malimar View Post
    The 3.5 forums do have a habit of suggesting gawdawful complex builds with half a dozen classes and full spellcasting and a million moving parts when somebody asks for suggestions for newbies. I don't know if they're sadistic or just dumb.
    The 3.5 forums also have a habit of 1) Being *much* more optimized than the average player (or table, for that matter), and 2) Squeezing the min/max synergies to the stratosphere, so it's likely any part of such a suggested build could be removed. Just my 2 cents (or points, for that matter).

    It's been done to death, but I'm with the bandwagon of "go with whatever works best for you and your mates". Since it'd (if 3.5) E6, the ugly face of 3.5 won't show itself and it's pretty much a coin toss of which one you should choose.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Going to see how well I am at making homebrew.
    Quote Originally Posted by Venger View Post
    killing and eating a bag of rats is probably kosher.
    Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking), and your humility is stunning

    "I hope that you don't get the impression that I would munchkin the rules if I was in a D&D world IRL... Even though I totally would" -Myself

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by hymer View Post
    The only way you can be sure is to try both.
    Basically this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aetis View Post
    People who like 5e are gonna tell you to play 5e. People who like 3.5 are gonna tell you to play 3.5.

    I'll tell you right now that system's not gonna matter to a good DM. You should just stick to what you know.
    I personally prefer PF (and SF) but I frequently recommend 5e. It depends on what the group wants, not what I want. I agree with your second statement though, with the caveat that "if you're willing to learn a new system, go for it!"

    And to be honest, all three of the Big 3 have an easy learning curve anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malimar View Post
    I vastly prefer 3.5e but I'd still recommend 5e for newbies. In my opinion, 3.5e is a better game than 5e in the same way Dwarf Fortress is a better game than The Sims: ultimately it is, but you practically need a PhD in the game before you can start extracting fun from it. Using 3.5e as a newbie's first introduction to D&D verges on the cruel and unusual.
    If you can get a PF Beginner's Box though, that's a way to start with the harder system without as many problems personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    AZ
    Gender
    Male

    smile Re: 3.5e or Next?

    I would say it depends on who is in your group of players.

    Younger folks who have never played anything before tend to do better with 5E.

    Experienced roleplayers, older, and those who have played other games should do better with 3.5 or PF.

    If you have a mix, then do what you're comfortable with, and go. No right or wrong answer, but it comes down to what's more fun for the players?

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    oxybe's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    I'll chime in that 3rd ed is comparably harder to get into then 5th ed IF you throw every option at newbies... which I wouldn't do in either case.

    Were I to be chained and forced to run both games for newbies, in both case I'd come with a handful of pregens, walk them through the character sheet and ask them to pick whichever character they'd like and if they want to switch a few things out then so be it, but I wouldn't introduce newbies to game with the character building part and all options available.

    I'd tell them "each of you pick a character from these ones, you're all part of an adventuring company and you're currently on the road to the Town of Citiesburgh to speak with Sage Fumblebeard about the Creepy Tower Over Yonder you were hired to examine on the offchance a creepy necromancer or something has taken up residence" or tack-on an in-media-res with "And you get jumped by a group of haggard-looking bandits, arms at the ready!"

    Once we've run them through the 2-3 session adventure, We'll see if they want to roll up new characters, modify the current ones or keep them as is and level up.

    With anyone new to something, you try to ease them in.

    More experienced players, or at least those with a head for mechanics, can probably figure out character building in either system by themselves, but even then, a bunch of pregens helps you get the newbies to the game much faster.

    Yes 3rd ed is a heftier system then 5th, but in practice, not by a significant amount.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e/PF or 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marden View Post
    ....Younger folks who have never played anything before tend to do better with 5E.

    Experienced roleplayers, older, and those who have played other games should do better with 3.5 or PF....

    Um, I turn 50 years old next week and PF intimidates me, but most of my RPG experience was in the 1980's (many games, but AD&D, Call of Cthullu, D&D, and Traveller were probably the ones I played the most).

    For those who grew up with 3.5 and/or PF I imagine it's easier (just as 1e AD&D is relatively easy for me despite being pretty wonky), but for someone (me) who played a lot of RPG's from 1978 to 1992, but none between 1993 and 2015, PF just doesn't seem that easy..

    Quote Originally Posted by oxybe View Post
    ....Were I to be chained and forced to run both games for newbies, in both case I'd come with a handful of pregens, walk them through the character sheet and ask them to pick whichever character they'd like and if they want to switch a few things out then so be it, but I wouldn't introduce newbies to game with the character building part and all options available.....

    Can you be my DM?

    That's how I remember D&D being taught and played years ago, but mostly I see a "sink or swim" attitude now, with lots of "maybe your just not smart enough" comments.

    With 5e I could suss out for myself a "training wheels" class and just play, and while I did encounter some obnoxious "how dare you reduce party effectiveness by not utilizing maximum optimization" type, other players told me "nah it's close enough", and I could just play, but with 3.5/PF I'm repeatably told that I "can't just play" and "have to study and make a build first", which is completely backwards to how I remember the game used to be, as it used to be one would play first, have fun, and then decide to study the rules further.

    There's a lot that I see in 3.5/PF that looks appealing, but without an opportunity to learn the rules a little bit at a time in play I have too little free time to bother.

    "Homework first, then you get to play" doesn't look like a way to grow the hobby to me.

    Despite it's share of gatekeeping "How dare you not optimize!" players, 5e is a welcoming rules system to new players (where it fails is in encouraging new DM's).

    There is supposed to be a revision of Pathfinder soon, and I hope they have a training wheels class in the new core rules.
    Grim specter of noogie hangs like shroud over us all


    Extended Sig




    PBP's

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Snazzy Avatar by Honest Tiefling!

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goaty14 View Post
    It's been done to death, but I'm with the bandwagon of "go with whatever works best for you and your mates". Since it'd (if 3.5) E6, the ugly face of 3.5 won't show itself and it's pretty much a coin toss of which one you should choose.
    Yeah - both 3.5 & Pathfinder even moreso are pretty balanced for the first 8ish levels. It's really only when level 5+ spells come into play that the wheels start to come off. (And at most tables it's not bad until the teens.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelle
    Yeah. All those people dissuading you from just taking Toughness feats assume you want a character that can contribute equally as a spellcaster. Is that really important to you? If so, playing a Fighter at all is pointless in 3.5, unless the others are passive players or have pity on you and hold back...
    In an E6 game a fighter should be able to contribute fine (they do somewhat better in Pathfinder than 3.5 - but both are okay). They won't get all of the OOC goodness, but a decent fighter should be churning out a good chunk of damage, which is pretty much all you need at low levels. (Though - their bonus feats will become less useful in an E6 game as everyone keeps gaining more feats past level 6. And really - in an E6 game is the one time besides a level 1-3 one-shot where I might consider taking 3.5's Toughness.)
    Last edited by CharonsHelper; 2018-06-18 at 08:00 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    confused Re: 3.5e or Next?

    I just noticed something 'bout the OP (emphasis added):

    Quote Originally Posted by Sm3gl View Post
    [...]Even all these years later (13 or more) I still remember so much about 3.5 but it seems in the modern world of apps I could benefit from some of the content generation and encounter management available from the apps for Next.[...]

    "Apps for Next"?

    What in the Abyss are those?
    Grim specter of noogie hangs like shroud over us all


    Extended Sig




    PBP's

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Snazzy Avatar by Honest Tiefling!

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    "Apps for Next"?

    What in the Abyss are those?
    Apps for 5th edition I'd assume. Stuff like D&D Beyond, or third-party stuff for Android, iOS, browser...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    oxybe's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Default Re: 3.5e/PF or 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Can you be my DM?

    That's how I remember D&D being taught and played years ago, but mostly I see a "sink or swim" attitude now, with lots of "maybe your just not smart enough" comments.

    With 5e I could suss out for myself a "training wheels" class and just play, and while I did encounter some obnoxious "how dare you reduce party effectiveness by not utilizing maximum optimization" type, other players told me "nah it's close enough", and I could just play, but with 3.5/PF I'm repeatably told that I "can't just play" and "have to study and make a build first", which is completely backwards to how I remember the game used to be, as it used to be one would play first, have fun, and then decide to study the rules further.

    There's a lot that I see in 3.5/PF that looks appealing, but without an opportunity to learn the rules a little bit at a time in play I have too little free time to bother.

    "Homework first, then you get to play" doesn't look like a way to grow the hobby to me.

    Despite it's share of gatekeeping "How dare you not optimize!" players, 5e is a welcoming rules system to new players (where it fails is in encouraging new DM's).

    There is supposed to be a revision of Pathfinder soon, and I hope they have a training wheels class in the new core rules.
    If you ever find yourself in Atlantic Canada, sure.

    Honestly, if the DMGs (or their equivalent chapters) would prioritize teaching the game instead first and foremost (and i'm talking out of the DMG not a seperate "starter set"), the larger issue of how voluminous rules heavy games in general are perceived wouldn't be nearly as bad.

    This is where I believe that TTRPGs should ape from videogames. There are a lot of really good tutorial stages that slowly release abilities to the players as they examine and test them in relative safety, and then unleash them on the world, and the main game, when they're comfortable.

    Then again, a "DMG" by me would look nothing like any D&D DMGs before it. All that rules stuff i'd toss in the PHB and/or MM most of the DMG would focus on discussing the why and hows of being a GM and probably come across as a system neutral book more then anything. At least it would try, but i'm a very tired and snarky man, so I wouldn't be able to guarantee a helpful tone.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e/PF or 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by oxybe View Post
    This is where I believe that TTRPGs should ape from videogames. There are a lot of really good tutorial stages that slowly release abilities to the players as they examine and test them in relative safety, and then unleash them on the world, and the main game, when they're comfortable.
    Levelling systems actually do that pretty dang well for players, but it's effect is much more limited on helping the GM.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e/PF or 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    With 5e I could suss out for myself a "training wheels" class and just play, and while I did encounter some obnoxious "how dare you reduce party effectiveness by not utilizing maximum optimization" type, other players told me "nah it's close enough", and I could just play, but with 3.5/PF I'm repeatably told that I "can't just play" and "have to study and make a build first", which is completely backwards to how I remember the game used to be, as it used to be one would play first, have fun, and then decide to study the rules further.

    There's a lot that I see in 3.5/PF that looks appealing, but without an opportunity to learn the rules a little bit at a time in play I have too little free time to bother.
    This is easily solved by someone more experienced building your character for you. Just state what you want to be able to do. I have yet to see a group for 3.5 or PF where everyone is green.

    (I have seen this for Starfinder, but SF satisfies such an identifiable niche that at least one person is going to do the legwork to learn how to play and teach others to play.)

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    How does Erick Lee Edwards' Open Game License change it's name to Custom Characters http://www.easydamus.com/Custom_Characters.pdf (in 2011) fro D&D 5E http://www.easydamus.com/Old_Custom_Characters.pdf (May 2010) after the introduction of Next. Yes, Edwards created an Open Game License game compatible with 3rd Edition, but names it 5E. Clearly skirting the edge of Copyright Laws? Not really sure, but it does not violate Trademark Laws since the Font are clearly different from Wizards of the Coast, and all of the material are derived from Open Game License.

    If someone calls it D&D Next after 2014, remind that there's two Fifth Edition, an official one, and a third party one through the 3E's OGL by Erick Lee Edwards. Are you confusion this fake 5E with the real 5E?

    Custom Character is a fake 5E that assumes all 11 base classes are balanced. There are points assignment to all class features. If Frank and K were to see this, they would clearly say that this would match the work and style of "Sean K. Reynolds".
    Last edited by HouseRules; 2018-06-22 at 08:21 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by CharonsHelper View Post
    In an E6 game a fighter should be able to contribute fine (they do somewhat better in Pathfinder than 3.5 - but both are okay). They won't get all of the OOC goodness, but a decent fighter should be churning out a good chunk of damage, which is pretty much all you need at low levels. (Though - their bonus feats will become less useful in an E6 game as everyone keeps gaining more feats past level 6. And really - in an E6 game is the one time besides a level 1-3 one-shot where I might consider taking 3.5's Toughness.)
    To be fair, the designers of e6 noticed this problem for fighters, and they added a feat for fighters to increase their BAB to +8 to compensate, making them the indisputed champion of arms because it opened up a bunch of specialized feats that nobody else could get.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Orc in the Playground
     
    FabulousFizban's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    mongoose publishing second edition runequest ftw
    May I borrow some bat guano?

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2016

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    First of all, it's 5e, not Next. Next was a dumb branding thing that everyone ignored.

    3.5 is a horrendous broken mess with a dizzying amount of options for people that enjoy breaking the game over their knee. 5e is kind of bland and shallow and soulless. Pick your poison.
    This is probably the most accurate summation of the worst aspects of both.

    My 2 cents is if you're new to DND, go with 5e, the soul can be breathed into it with good play and story. Having started in 3.5 all I can say is that houserules are your friend.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or 5e?

    Judging from playing 0e, 1e, and 5e, and glancing at 2e to 4e, this post from another thread seems cogent:

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    .....As I've said before, every D&D edition is roughly as approachable for new players as any other from levels 1-5, they just have different pain points. You can think of it like "easy to play characters (A), easy to build characters (B), easy to make the character you want (C), easy to understand the base system (D), pick 2," really:
    • 1e is A/B: easy to build and play, but it's not very customizable (!C) and the base system isn't very intuitive at all (!D).
    • 2e is B/C: quick to build and more customizable with Player Options and such, but there's more moving parts to track in play (!A) and there are lot of different subsystems to figure out (!D).
    • 3e is C/D: you can make any kind of character you want and the rules are unified and cover everything, but there are lots of rules to juggle round-by-round (!A) and new characters are complex to build (!B).
    • 4e is B/D: intuitive and has few choices to make upfront, but it has more fiddiliness in play and requires more tactical thinking to start (!A) and those initial choices can be intimidating because the important differences are very subtle (!C)
    • 5e is A/D: intuitive and easy to play, but building characters requires lots choices up front (!B) and there's not a lot of official material to support more character variety (!C).

    (Obviously, going by this pattern, 6e will be A/C: once you understand the rules you can build and run anything with ease, but you need a PhD in RPGology to get there. )

    So by pushing back level 1 choices, you're going to be making things easier for new players to learn and play, but harder for experienced players to make what they want, since they'd have fewer choices when initially building characters and would take longer to get certain capabilities. It's a valid design decision to make, but it is a tradeoff.
    Grim specter of noogie hangs like shroud over us all


    Extended Sig




    PBP's

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Snazzy Avatar by Honest Tiefling!

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Rockphed's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Near Giant Graffiti.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    I looked over the start of the 5e SRD. Somethings I noticed:

    Everyone with a d4 or d6 hit die got bumped at least one hit die size. I don't know if warlocks were d4 or d6 in 3.5, but they are d8 now. Rangers got bumped to a d10.

    All classes have at least 1 thing on every level.

    Evasion is now what Improved Evasion used to be.

    I think you can multiclass exactly like in 3.5, but all the classes I looked at had a capstone of some sort that made it unattractive.

    High level spell slots are very, very hard to come by. Druids and Clerics have a single spell slot of everything above 5th level.

    Abilities generally have a max of 20. Some things can raise abilities beyond that, but not ability increases.

    On the other hand, there were 3 action options in base 3.5: full, standard, move. I saw reference to about 5 in the SRD. I know I saw "reaction", "bonus action", "attack action", and "use device action". While probably no more confusing than 4th editions standard, move, minor, I would need a while to parse all of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wardog View Post
    Rockphed said it well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yuki Akuma View Post
    We should change the collective noun for crocodiles to "an abundance of crocodiles".
    Dragontar by Serpentine.

    Now offering unsolicited advice.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockphed View Post
    On the other hand, there were 3 action options in base 3.5: full, standard, move. I saw reference to about 5 in the SRD. I know I saw "reaction", "bonus action", "attack action", and "use device action". While probably no more confusing than 4th editions standard, move, minor, I would need a while to parse all of it.
    You forgot "immediate" which would map to the reaction (except it's also used for AoOs I believe, and doesn't affect your actions next turn.)

    Bonus action is analogous to a swift.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    5e has a MUCH better action economy than 3e, by virtue of its simplicity.

    3e has the hot garbage that is the Full-Round Attack, which means if you play a martial character and expect to be able to have a decent amount of damage output per turn, you need to either optimize the hell out of Charging, play a Tome of Battle class (Which was made after the designers realized that Full Attacks were a steaming pile of hot garbage), or butt-scoot around the battlefield at 5' per turn.

    In 5e? All your attacks have the same attack bonus (No diminishing iteratives, meaning your first strike can miss, and your subsequent attacks can hit), and you can freely move your speed during any round you attack.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    5e is objectively a better designed game than 3.5e and IMO the best edition of D&D to date. I started with AD&D so I say that with all due nostalgia.
    Re: 100 Things to Beware of that Every DM Should Know

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    93. No matter what the character sheet say, there are only 3 PC alignments: Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkstar
    5e has a MUCH better action economy than 3e, by virtue of its simplicity.
    There's not really a big difference between the two editions on complexity. Firstly, full attacks aren't a good example of this, because full attacks vs. moving isn't an issue of complexity; "full attack or move" is a pretty simple calculus and usually has an obvious answer, compared to "do I move, attack A, move, attack B, attack B...or move, attack A, attack A, attack A, move...or....?" which can be hard for new players. It's more an issue of offensive power as to whether you can get off all your attacks in a round or not.

    Secondly, regarding actual action complexity, 3e's standard/move/swift/immediate maps directly to 5e's action/move/bonus/reaction, and 3e has full-round and AoOs where 5e has object manipulation, so 5e may be slightly simpler (no full attacks or AoOs) but it comes at the cost of lowered tactical capability (fewer ways to AoO someone, no way to get more AoOs, harder to control area when everyone can move-attack-move) so it's not a strictly beneficial change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    5e is objectively a better designed game than 3.5e and IMO the best edition of D&D to date. I started with AD&D so I say that with all due nostalgia.
    There's nothing wrong with 5e being your favorite edition, but "objectively better designed"? Yeah, no.

    I'd say that every other edition was better designed than 5e overall--even 1e, because rules clunkiness and excessive verbiage aside, Gygax was an actuary and could actually do math, which is more than can be said for whoever was in charge of putting together 5e's core math, skill system, and the utter travesties that are CR calculation and encounter creation. There's basically nothing in 5e that is both unique to 5e and not either strictly better implemented than an equivalent in another edition or a common houserule that people came up when 3e was still in print.

    Which isn't to say 5e is the worst edition, either. While I do think that every part of 5e was done better in another edition, no edition did everything better, so there are plenty of reasons to want to play 5e over a specific other edition (say, if you liked the simplicity of 1e, or at least 1e-without-all-the-optional-bells-and-whistles, but want something more readable and customizable), but let's not pretend 5e is the bestest edition ever.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkstar View Post
    5e has a MUCH better action economy than 3e, by virtue of its simplicity.

    3e has the hot garbage that is the Full-Round Attack, which means if you play a martial character and expect to be able to have a decent amount of damage output per turn, you need to either optimize the hell out of Charging, play a Tome of Battle class (Which was made after the designers realized that Full Attacks were a steaming pile of hot garbage), or butt-scoot around the battlefield at 5' per turn.

    In 5e? All your attacks have the same attack bonus (No diminishing iteratives, meaning your first strike can miss, and your subsequent attacks can hit), and you can freely move your speed during any round you attack.
    This is about the only thing (also boss actions, but that's about it) that deserves backporting (doesn't impact balance at all, unless you're very low-OP) into 3.5, and it's done easily enough. Meanwhile, as a 5e Fighter you're doing what, like 10d6+35 damage per turn at level 20 if all of your attacks hit? Considering monster HP actually got higher compared to 3.5, you're just a slightly better 3.5 unoptimized fighter. Meanwhile proper classes or even good builds do more damage than that at level 10 in 3.5.

    Besides, action/bonus action/reaction are pretty much standard/swift/immediate. Which is fine, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    5e is objectively a better designed game than 3.5e and IMO the best edition of D&D to date. I started with AD&D so I say that with all due nostalgia.
    While you did declare that the second part is your opinion, the first one claims objectivity. 5e is not a well-designed game. It might work well enough in most people's preferred environments of "level 1 to 12", but the CR system is broken, there are no good simplistic magic users (5e warlock is a terrible design) or any complex non-magic classes, short rest/long rest dichotomy is bad for the game unless you follow the guidelines (2/3 short rests per long rest, etc.) precisely or houserule it to actually work, etc.

    TL;DR: IMO, the only three things 5e has going for it are:
    1) Simplicity - it's very easy to make an okay character, which is good and should be the case most of the time.
    2) Following the theme - you're fantasy lowish-end heroes. You stay in that niche for all 20 levels, never really outgrowing it. Which is not objectively good, because not everyone expects that level 20 should be a slightly buffer and very hard to kill level 1 (the more magic you have, the less this applies, if you have no magic, you are doing all the same stuff you did at level 1, only better). That's why people who liked D&D back in the 80s like 5e - it's pretty much a modernized AD&D without some fiddly bits about stopping adventures to become kings.
    3) Brand recognition.
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).
    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    I personally like the idea of moving and attacking having a tradeoff vs. standing still and attacking. It rewards you for moving your character strategically and positioning them properly.

    Where I think 3.5 (and PF) dropped the ball is in making the full-attack SO much stronger than a standard action one, and balancing basically every monster's defenses (hit points/DR/resistances especially) around that. With standard attacks being so useless, it's little wonder that everyone is rushing to try and get pounce, and consider most melee builds that lack it (or that lack a superior replacement, like Strikes) to be nigh-pointless.

    Using Starfinder as a counterexample meanwhile, a full-attack is just one extra swing (two if you're a Soldier) and the monsters are calibrated around that. Haste doesn't grant any extra attacks anymore either (though it does let you move and full-attack). This gives everyone easy access to pounce, but again, the difference between having it and not having it is a lot smaller.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    I mean, many multiple attacks in the first place assumes you've crossed over into level 11+, the fields of legends in D&D(assumed as legend lore works to identify characters of level 11+). Having the extra attacks be legendary isn't a bad thing, it's more a mistake how other classes (such as the cleric, through divine power) can access it.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordaedil View Post
    I mean, many multiple attacks in the first place assumes you've crossed over into level 11+, the fields of legends in D&D(assumed as legend lore works to identify characters of level 11+). Having the extra attacks be legendary isn't a bad thing, it's more a mistake how other classes (such as the cleric, through divine power) can access it.
    Nah. You end up with Multiple Attack nonsense at level 6 at the latest for any martial class. But where it's REALLY dumb is Two-weapon Fighting, which gives you an extra attack at level 1... and a multitude of drawbacks that make it clear it should be balanced around being a standard action (It's a bit more consistent than a two-handed power attack, at the cost of a feat)... but it's a full-round action instead.

    Even if "Baseline Spring Attack" feels wonky for Front line Fighters, even 4e's "Move and attack" feels better.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Siebenwind

    Default Re: 3.5e or Next?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sm3gl View Post
    As mentioned everyone's a newbie so not likely to try to break anything. Also it would be level 1 and an E6 campaign if it progresses (so maximum level 6).

    Pathfinder is the other option that I would be comfortable with. I just want to weigh the learning that I would have to do for a newer system vs the free resources available for systems other than 3.5e.
    My suggestion would be to start with pathfinder and look where your and your players' issues lie with the game, then perhaps migrate to 5e if it remedies those issues better.
    Thanks for Zefir for the custom avatar.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •