D&D 5e versus 3.5

[GrantDawg]

I am about to make the jump, and I was wondering how many of have, and what is your opinion about the differences?

[CarterNMA]

Why not 1e? I've been DMing a 1e campaign for the last 18 months or so. We are running 1e because the vast majority of us played that when we were kids. You can get all the books in PDF via RPGNow.com so there are no barriers to the "finding" the old books.

One of the critiques I've heard about the newer versions is that they are more roll-playing than role-playing.

Late DISCLAIMER: I've never played anything after 2e so I am not sure what the differences are between 3, 3.5, 4, and 5.

[thesloppy]

I used to play a ton of 3.5e over the years, and made the jump to 5e a couple years ago. It will be a relatively painless and positive experience if you've played before with any regularity.

I think 5e works a lot more efficiently. They streamlined a lot of things so that there's less of a feel that there's an explicit table for every action and the changes should be totally easy to grasp if you have experience with 3.5 and video games (which obviously had a lot of influence on 5e).

One of the big changes that works as a good example of 5e mechanics is probably the general idea of advantage and disadvantage: you're making a single ability/combat check by rolling two D20s and taking either the best value of those two rolls (advantage) or the worst (disadvantage). If you can understand that then everything else should be similarly simple.

[Abe Sargent]

I really, really, really dislike 5e. Playing it right now, have most of the books,etc. .I only play because others do. Could not dislike it more. I have played every edition of basic D&D, expert, companion, masters, immortal, 1st-5th editions, 2.5 player's options, 3.5, etc. Of them, 3rd and 3.5 aren't my favorite, and have some issues, but they are still massively better than 5e.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by CarterNMA

One of the critiques I've heard about the newer versions is that they are more roll-playing than role-playing.

.

I find that to be both true, and not true.

Take picking a lock. I have a mage with a 13 dexterity. As a mage without special training to pick a lock, I need rogue's tools to pick a lok in 5e, and I dodn;t get any bonuses. So I need to roll a 13 to pick a lock with it on a d20. If my DM wants to make it harder for me, then I he could make me roll with a disadvantage so I'd have to roll it twice. But then we move on. Similarity, a Rogue gets a bonus to teh roll since they know how to use it.

That's not dissimilar to 1st or 2nds non-weapon proficiency system, only the system isn;t as robust, you just toss a D20 on a generic skill like Arcane, religion, or History,and then move on. Want to know if you succeed at some skill or test? In old versions, you'd check your NWPs, and roll a die if necessary (not every one didnt) and here you just roll a die against a skill if it's relates, or a stat. So in theory, 5e can solve a "what happens in this RP situation" on it's own, without any loss of time spent examining rules.

[thesloppy]

What are your main complaints about 5e Abe?

[thesloppy]

..as you kind of alluded to, I do hate how often 5e can devolve into EVERY character in the party attempting to make an ability check in some crucial situation.

I.E. the DM says: "you come upon a strange artifact that you don't recognize, but it's covered in runes that do look familiar..."
Party magic user: "I want to make an arcana check to see if I can gain any further information."
Party cleric: "me too!"
Part druid: "me too!
Party rogue: "me too!"
Party fighter: "me too!"
Party hireling: "me too!"
Party fighting dog: "me too!"
Party quasit familiar "me too!"

That's not much fun or very realistic. I think a good DM can keep that in check to some degree, but it involves a lot more active work and focus. Lots of changes like that serve to make all the classes/races feel like unnecessary flavor, and it was slightly disappointing to me when I realized how similar all classes and their relative powers are (i.e. every class essentially has the functionality built in to let you do the same things, but with different names....like a ranged fire attack with a 30 yard range is probably available to every class as long as you massage it correctly), and 90% of functionality seems like it's shared across all the classes, just labeled differently. Combine that with the fact that every cjaracter can attempt any kind of ability check and it serves to make a lot of character design feel superfluous.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

What are your main complaints about 5e Abe?

I wrote an article on it! Hadn't edited it yet, or tired to find a publisher - here it is:


I wrote an article on this a few months ago! I haven't edited or submitted this yet, but here it is:


Five Things I Don’t Like about 5th Edition

No edition of D&D is perfect. 2nd? 3.5? 1st? Player’s Options? They all have issues. I have played every edition of the game from 1st to 5th, as well as the original D&D and the red box through immortal sets used as an intro set. No set is issue free. Yet there are several issues with 5Th Edition that have that seem to really vex me, and that are harder to fix than 3.5, 2.0, or previous sets. Let’s take a look at five issues I have with the edition that have not been fixed in the few years since the game was published.



1. The D20 Score and Roll are Everything in the System – There is Little Opportunity for Role-Playing - There are no mechanics that represent what you might know outside of your stats and a handful of generic skills, like animal handling and athletics. In previous editions, such as 1st and 2nd, you have non-weapon proficiencies that would help to flesh out your character. Even the original D&D basic box and others added skills in this line. You might know Alchemy or Herbalism, Tracking or Navigation, Calligraphy or Heraldry. Without this system, there’s no real way to navigate what your character knows and doesn’t know. There’s no real chance to role-play your character outside of the background, and class/race, and alignment options.

Here’s a good example of how this matters in real gaming. Imagine that your party is on the ocean on a boat. An enemy attacks the boat, and as a result of the battle, all of the crew dies, and only the party is left. How do you navigate the ship? If someone had navigation proficiency or a ship-handling skill of some sort, then they would know where to go. Otherwise, you would turn to something else, like divinatory magic, items, or something else. Maybe you could cast fly and fly up high enough to see what direction. In 5th Edition, you just d20 an INT or WIS roll and then move on. There’s neither an “Oh Crap” moment, nor a place to showcase your skills.

Other examples are here. Want to track an animal you saw? Trust me as someone who lived in the rural woods of West Virginia, you cannot track well unless you have learned how to under guidance and invested a lot of time into learning how to track. But here in 5E? Just toss a D20 to see if you can observe it’s tracks and follow it, even if you have never tracked before in your life. In 5E it’s just assumed that you know how to swim, read, write, ride steeds, and such. You only toss a D20 when an unusual thing happens with those skills like a rough swim or trying to do something unusual on a horse. 5E clearly just wants to get you into combat as quickly as possible, and the rest of the game is just baggage on the road to the next fight scene, so let’s just toss a D20 and move on and assume that all adventurers know swimming, riding, and reading/writing.


2. Every Character Can Do Everything – This was a big issue with 4e as characters often looked very similar to each other and could do similar things, and was all about combat. 5E has the issue, although to a lesser more hidden degree. This is also true (to an admitted lesser nature) with 5e.

According to the PHB, the items you begin with, you have been trained on how to use. You get your proficiency bonus on using them. So if I am a rogue, I begin with thief’s tools. I get a +2 prof bonus as a 1st level rogue on trying to pick a lock. Anyone else can still use those tools, they just don’t get a proficiency bonus.

So take my Mage, with his 13 DEX. That means that I have a 65% chance of picking a lock at first level, even though I have never been trained to use thief’s tools, and a Rogue has a 75% chance of picking a lock instead assuming the same stat. That’s not much of a distinction. Now, if DMs wanted to make it harder for me they could go outside the rules and make me roll with a disadvantage, so I would need to hit that 65% chance twice. I need to toss a 1-13 twice; which is a 42.25% chance of hitting. Thus, at first level, even with a DM given disadvantage which is not in the rules, I have more than a 40% chance of picking a lock with a 13 DEX even though I have not been trained on how to do so. It may not be as obvious, but there is much in the details that makes it a little 4E-esque at times.


3. They Have Not Added Much Since Release – Take spells. In early version of the game, additions like Eldritch Wizardry and Unearthed Arcana added hundreds of spells to the game. We had everything from Greyhawk Adventurers adding tons more spells to Dragonlance Adventures doing the same. In 2nd edition, we had spells in supplements like the Tome of Magic, Complete Wizard’s Handbook and even Volo’s Guide to All Things Magical. This continued in other editions too, like 3e that had tons of spells in various books like the Libris Mortis or the Book of Vile Darkness.

Now the PHB describes the 5E world in similar terms. In the Wizards spell description and Chapter ten in spellcasting, it mentions that thousands of Wizard spells have been catalogued. Yet the 5th Edition PHB has the smallest spell section of any core rulebook ever published. Just 12 9th level spells? Only 30 1sts? That ain’t much!

However, if there were a number of books that came later that fleshed out the spells, then this would be fine. Take these giant tomes that come out for various campaigns in 5e. If they added in a 100 spells a book for various classes and levels that represented tools to fight or aspects of that campaign? Then that would be fine. But nope. Today, 5 years after the edition has been in print – combined across every supplement ever, we have just 7 more 1st level Wizards spells to bring you up to a mighty 37 options. The 2nd Edition PHB alone, had 45 1st level spells. We have fewer than 20 options for 7th, 8th, and 9th level, five years into the game. The initial offerings of 5th Edition have been poor, and have remained so.

And this is not solely a spell-issue either. Take backgrounds. Across all sorts of supplements, we have 53 backgrounds. That may sound like a lot! But 10 of those are guild agents on Ravnica for MTG. Another 13 are the various House Agents on Eberron. 23 of those are variants of the same background. That leaves 30, many of which are duplicative (We have both Noble and Waterhavian Noble; Knight and Knight of the Order; Faction Agent and the 23 Agents above). The background options are not nearly as fleshed out as it may appear.

We are years into the latest edition of the most iconic and fleshed out RPG of all time, and we have no major additions to the suite of spells, backgrounds, and more.


4. Missing Rules For Obvious Things – 5E is missing rules that will need to be adjudicated. They are neither in the core rule book nor are they elsewhere.

For example, take the issue with the lack of spells cited above. The world is described as having thousands and thousands of spells. In previous editions of D&D, a Wizard could make Wizard spells (and a cleric could make cleric spells, etc.). There were rules on how much time, money, experience points, and such that creating a spell would cost. And the DM guide included info on how to adjudicate that or to create spells for the DM’s campaign. However, while the 5e DM Guide does have two pages on balancing spells, there are no rules on how to create them for players. And none have been added in the year’s since. Every edition has had them in various rules in the PHB or quickly in certain expansions (Like Eldritch Wizardry and Tome of Magic) I cannot craft spells without the DM either making up rules to make it happen, or just using older version of the game’s rules. And a DM is well within their right to veto spell-making altogether, because there are no rules for it, so I cannot do it as a player. There’s nothing to hang your hat on.


Now in some cases, previous rules existed that are a bit arcane. For example, the 2nd Edition rulebook The Castle Guide spent around 40 pages going over how to price and build a castle. That’s not something I’d expect for your basic core rules or for each edition of the game. But making spells? It has always been a key part of the Wizard identity, and it appears to be with the world building mentioned. So why not here too?


Want another example of some missing rules? Sure! How do I get followers, apprentices or henchmen? Do I even get them? What level, when, or how many?

I know that 5E wanted to give the DM’s more space to make up rules and such. And 3E has way too many rules that are very nuanced. I don’t want to waste time looking up how high a character can jump. But I think that 5E pushed the pendulum back in the other direction too far.

If you had wanted to rebrand 5E as a rules light experience that gives just the basics and then lets the DM and players take it from there, much like the red box or original D&D, then that would have been fine! But that’s not this edition. There are too many races, classes, additional race options in Monster Manuals, or anything else. This is not a stripping down to the bone set. And that makes this set feel like it’s missing a lot to me.


5. The 5E World Building is Very Inconsistent. Is Magic rife? Or very hard to find? Take magical items. Magic Potions of Healing are so common and cheap that a 1st level character can afford multiple. However, from the PHB you have:

“Aside from a few common magic items, you won't normally come across magic items or spells to purchase. The value of magic is far beyond simple gold and should always be treated as such."

Similarly, in the DMG, spell scrolls have very rare categorization. Think about that. This is a world with thousands of Wizard spells (mentioned in multiple places). Why would a simple spell scroll be very rare? As a one-shot magical item, in a world that’s supposedly rife with spells, wouldn’t that be common?

According to the DMG, a very rare magic item would take 50,000 gp and 5,000 days and require an 11th level spell-user to craft. For a simple spell scroll? (See page 200 for the scroll’s rarity and 129-30 for the making of magical items).

Consider magical items and spells. Why are some items so common 1st level characters can afford them, but they everything else is super rare and hard to make? Aren’t these inconsistent world building issues? Why are spells so rife that you have thousands recorded and yet you cannot have common spell scrolls? You get the idea. It’s very inconsistent.



As an FYI, this list was initially titled “Six Things I Don’t Like.” My 6th and final critique was that many of the rules were poorly written, such as some spell descriptions. As a part of my analysis, I examined the current working in the 5th Edition and then com[pared them to previous eduitions to demosntrae an issue that I thought was new. I was wrong. My impression was wrong. The modern description for something like the Sleep spell isn’t any less problematic than previous editions. Thus I removed my 6th point, as it was incorrect. I leave this comment here for you to demonstrate that I am not just someone who is older and hates everything new, or that will not challenge my own assumptions either. My goal was to be as rational and objective as possible in my critique. Hopefully I have done that well.

[Abe Sargent]

I also think that good storytelling on the behalf of any GM can work in any slate of rules. No set is perfect. As a GM, I try to create situations that would play to the rules set and allow for folks to shine. For example, there was a time in a 2nd edition campaign where, in a Jungle setting, the party is forewarned about an attack that a much larger village is about to launch on a much smaller village that they have been using as a base of operations. Using their week to plan, they used their Non Weapon Proficiencies to do everything from training locals to fight to building palisades to setting snares and traps. Everything from weaponsmithing and bowcrafting and fletching to carpentry, set snares, and others was useful. We had a mage using Alchemy and Herbalism to grab and make objects for quick healing, such as poultices and such. ( i got the idea from Seven samurai) I do think that a good GMs craft opportunities for the rules set's strengths, whatever they may be, to shine.

[thesloppy]

Ha! More detail than I ever could have expected, I'll scour it.

Edit: these all seem like pretty fair complaints to me.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

..as you kind of alluded to, I do hate how often 5e can devolve into EVERY character in the party attempting to make an ability check in some crucial situation.

I.E. the DM says: "you come upon a strange artifact that you don't recognize, but it's covered in runes that do look familiar..."
Party magic user: "I want to make an arcana check to see if I can gain any further information."
Party cleric: "me too!"
Part druid: "me too!
Party rogue: "me too!"
Party fighter: "me too!"
Party hireling: "me too!"
Party fighting dog: "me too!"
Party quasit familiar "me too!"

That's not much fun or very realistic. I think a good DM can keep that in check to some degree, but it involves a lot more active work and focus. Lots of changes like that serve to make all the classes/races feel like unnecessary flavor, and it was slightly disappointing to me when I realized how similar all classes and their relative powers are (i.e. every class essentially has the functionality built in to let you do the same things, but with different names....like a ranged fire attack with a 30 yard range is probably available to every class as long as you massage it correctly), and 90% of functionality seems like it's shared across all the classes, just labeled differently. Combine that with the fact that every character can attempt any kind of ability check and it serves to make a lot of character design feel superfluous.

Yeah, I would rule this as a GM that the party gets one roll, and then that's it. If your best Rogue can't pick a lock, your Wizard going to have a shot. If your best CHA character can't persuade a town guard to let someone go, your barbarian certainly won't either. Etc.

We've had this happen in my party too much. I have the party's second highest charisma (party of 6), and best persuade check (the other high CHA is a Warlock with intimidate). I missed a persuade roll last week, and our half-orc barbarian rolled a 19 and managed to pursude a town guard to let us go without an inspection by reasoning with him.

I would rule that after your first chance with your best at a certain subject, if you can't do it, no one can do it.

[Abe Sargent]

Here let's do something fun!

Here are my editions of D&D in order from least favorite to most favorite! Counting Basic-Expert-Companion-Master as BECM in one system together.


1. 4th. I appreciate how different it wanted to be. I appreciate that it wanted to push outside of the box and try to go down a different path. But it turned D&D into a tactical miniatures combat instead of an RPG. If you had wanted to release this as a different set of rules entirely, and called it D&D Battles or something, I think it would have been better received.
2. 5th. You see many of my reasons above.
3. 1st - I know that some folks may see this as high crimes and misdemeanors, but 1st is very hit or miss at times. While some things are great, others, like psionics, just never felt like good additions to the game. Some of the best additions to the game came in 1st, but in later supplements, such as Non-Weapon Profieicnes.
4. 2nd - 2nd edition - they tried to clean up a number of the issues of 1st edition and canonize abilities like profienccies. I also enjoy some of the changes made to the game, such as the removal of the assassin class, which never made flavor sense - any class can be paid to kill. It's a job, not a class, classes are more than jobs, they are ways of life. But 2nd didn't go far enough, and retianed some weird rules, like dual classing, racial class restrictions, and more.
5. BECM - With the many introductions in later sets, BECM was designed to be simple and easy to pick up, which meant there was a lot of space for Dms and players to run the game they wanted - which was always a good idea.
6. 3rd - I think 3rd has a lot of issues, but it did understand that this is a role-playing game, and as such, players should be free to tell their own story. Want a halfling paladin? Sure! Changing the way the silly rules for saving throws, simplifying armor, etc. Now I think the NWP system of 1st and 2nd edition was perfect, and should have been retained, feats were often poorly designed and campaign ruining, and the entire system was riddled with too many rules.
7. 3.5 - I barely think 3.5 is better. It is, sure. But not so much that it should get in the way of the other systems.

8. 2.5 (Player's Options) - My favorite, by far, was 2.5, which gave you so many options. I never liked how many of teh skills and tactics changes to combat made it much longer, but things in there like creating your own combat style to represent real life fighting ones was valuable, as were some of the advantages. The Skills and Powers, and Spells ones were both amazing. As a DM during this era, I would require my players to come in with a certain character identity,and then all of the spells, kit, NWP, traits and weaknesses, and more would all go back to their core concept, and they were not allowed to go outside of that to prevent any gaming of the system or rules lawyering.

I had hoped that 3d edition would get rid of classes altogether, and just have points for you to select various things, so I did just that, and assigned points totals for things like your HP dice, XP chart, which weapons and armor you could use, to hit bonuses, save chart, and more, in addition to other things, again, with the same requirement that you had to have a character concept and choose things within it. So you couldn't choose armor and magical Wizard abilities unless you had a legitimate character concept that combined those. It would also hurt your selection of other things as you couldn't get all of the schools of Magic that were chosen by a normal Mage.

[weegeebored]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I also think that good storytelling on the behalf of any GM can work in any slate of rules.

This. I don't want to GM a game with rules lawyers. As long as the story is good, the rules are applied fairly, and my players are having fun, those are the most important things imo. There is no perfect game system so a GM should use the rules as guidelines, not as the be-all-end-all.

This guy has some good videos even if you don't play D&D (which I don't). Here's one I particularly enjoyed -- Sandbox vs Railroad

[thesloppy]

i just started a game with a new DM, and I think 5e might be superior for that one particular use case, despite/because of it's issues.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

i just started a game with a new DM, and I think 5e might be superior for that one particular use case, despite/because of it's issues.

Sure. It's currently published, easy to find in stores, can have an entire campaign with just the purchase of a single book, many of the rules are free online, etc. Older 3.0 and .5 books are climbing in price as they are out of print. Sure!


Plus there are some things I think 5E does well, or was inspired by previous editions. Let's you take a level in any class (with the required stats) but not with worrying about creating a character early to aim for a certain prestige class is something I enjoy as players can be more organic with their classes.

[thesloppy]

The double-edged sword that practically everything outside of combat can be referenced with character sheets and a D20 at least seems more accessible for a new DM than constantly having to reference the PHB for charts and tables.

Personally, as a player the relative simplicity of 5e still appeals to me despite all of the totally valid issues above, but in general I also agree that all the shine wears off very quickly as soon as you get any measure of familiarity with the underlying system and mushy character builds.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by weegeebored

This. I don't want to GM a game with rules lawyers. As long as the story is good, the rules are applied fairly, and my players are having fun, those are the most important things imo. There is no perfect game system so a GM should use the rules as guidelines, not as the be-all-end-all.

This guy has some good videos even if you don't play D&D (which I don't). Here's one I particularly enjoyed -- Sandbox vs Railroad

Thanks for all the responses. In the end, I decided I am going to run 5e. The reason is basically this. I wanted something as simple as possible, without a host of rules in 100 different books. 5e is like a combo of the old basic set, but with more/better class and race choices.



I was just playing a game with old friends (3.5). It gave me the bug to play again, but the experience was ruined by a bad DM and the constant arguing over rules. The whole idea of a simplified system sounds wonderful to me now. The fact that I can just buy a full fleshed out campaign (a remake of Temple of Elemental evil no less) was the final decision maker. We played so many of those great modules when I was a kid, and the idea of being able to run my kids through them thrills me.

[Edward64]

Do you guys still play D&D with everyone together in a room or virtually nowadays?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Do you guys still play D&D with everyone together in a room or virtually nowadays?

Everyone together.

[thesloppy]

I played with some youngsters who were cool with Skyping in, but I won't stand for it.

[Edward64]

I played D&D way back when. Reading this page got me googling and I played this quite a bit also.

The Fantasy Trip Legacy Edition

Fond memories but hard to believe they think this can make money nowadays.

[weegeebored]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Do you guys still play D&D with everyone together in a room or virtually nowadays?

Not D&D, but I have a regular group that meets once a week. We game at a hotel, so if my players want to grab a drink at the bar or get some food they can do that. It's a mature group so no one gets stupid drunk. It's mostly gaming, but there is some socializing as well. I never tried virtual roleplaying but I looked into the Roll20 site once when I had some people who wanted to game but schedules/distances didn't make it possible to play in person.

[GrantDawg]

I tried a short encounter with 2 players last night using 5e. Mostly, it was just a quick test of the mechanics to see how it flows. Also, I haven't ran a game since 1988, so I need to break off some rust. It is a bit tricky in that I kept thinking about 3.5 rules and then had to stop myself. It is simpler, but it also requires the dm to set many rules himself. I hope that is going to encourage players to not stress the mechanics and just try to do whatever they want to do. I can see how in some groups that would be an issue, but it will not be with my current group. I told my players to just try what you want to do, and we'll figure out how it works. I am excited to try a bigger group next time.

[thesloppy]

Hope it was tons of funz!

[Thomkal]

For Red Nose Day, Steven Colbert sat down with Critical Role's Matt Mercer and had a little D&D adventure:


Critical Role‏Verified account @CriticalRole









Happy #RedNoseDay! @StephenAtHome’s mini-adventure with @matthewmercer is live! WATCH: http://youtu.be/3658C2y4LlA

[GrantDawg]

As a further update that I am sure no one really cares: We played about 8 hours yesterday with the full group, and I can say for the first time in at least 15 years it was a pure pleasure. The system really is easy to follow, and that helped with all very inexperienced players. We started the module that came with the starter set, and at first I was really worried because the first combat went poorly, and the second nearly killed one of the players in the very first round!



After that it was great. They foiled the next challenge without fighting. Then they found a secret back way to get straight to the boss fight, which they beat way too easy with good strategy. Then it was a cake walk through the rest of the dungeon, having fun trying new things in each encounter. Using the 3.5 system, we probably wouldn't have gotten half as far, not to mention having to constantly trying to remember/find rules for everything. I did have to look for rules a couple of times, but mostly it was pretty simple to come up with something on the fly.


I am so hooked. I wish I knew a group I could play with around here, because I would love to be a player and not have to just DM. The new edition really is rekindling my love for the game.

[thesloppy]

Awesome, glad it went so well!