D&D 3E/3.5 Why 3.5 Worked

[Tony Vargas]

As much as I love 3.x and earlier editions. This has to be the least broken edition. It also has the least amount of crunch. Which helps it be less broken. Less parts to break.

5e does have less parts to break than any edition since 1e - not coincidentally, I think, the premier edition in the fad years - but unless you mean 'broken' in a different than usual way (ie as something other than 'imbalanced' or 'unplayable without constant DM invervention'), it's hard to see how 5e could claim any most/least or best/worst titles in that regard.

It's really a pretty middle-of-the-pack edition however you slice it, as befits something set out to be compromise of sorts.

...well, except $$$$, of course, it's clearly got a most/best thing goin' there, and who, in the boardroom, is going to argue with that?

Nope that's just you not wanting to realize your reference point makes you unable to appreciate the real and fundamental improvements of 5E over 3E as regards spells and magic.

But comparison only to 3e, when 5e draws upon all editions - and, y'know, to be fair, 3.x was, no contest, the most broken casters ever got - is missing a lot.

Fundamentally, 3.x and 5e casters get a lot of daily spells that they cast easily and with a fairly high degree of versatility. Less fundamentally, 3.x has more spells, added over a longer edition life cycle and a faster pace of release, and more of them are more readily abuseable. And, then, there's the relaxed limitations on casting. 5e actually makes it easier on casters. For just one obvious instance, they don't have to sweat being in melee, at all - no need for optimizing some skill check, there just plain aren't AoOs for casting, nor much in the way of mechanics to interrupt casting at all. There's also a major, if emergent difference in the attitude the two editions fosters, with 3.x getting a culture of reverence for RaW, and 5e for DM Empowerment.

And that's just the most favorable comparison - compare the facile play of 5e casters to the challenges casters faced in AD&D, for a less charitable instance.

 

[Helldritch]

5e does have less parts to break than any edition since 1e - not coincidentally, I think, the premier edition in the fad years - but unless you mean 'broken' in a different than usual way (ie as something other than 'imbalanced' or 'unplayable without constant DM invervention'), it's hard to see how 5e could claim any most/least or best/worst titles in that regard.

It's really a pretty middle-of-the-pack edition however you slice it, as befits something set out to be compromise of sorts.

...well, except $$$$, of course, it's clearly got a most/best thing goin' there, and who, in the boardroom, is going to argue with that?


But comparison only to 3e, when 5e draws upon all editions - and, y'know, to be fair, 3.x was, no contest, the most broken casters ever got - is missing a lot.

Fundamentally, 3.x and 5e casters get a lot of daily spells that they cast easily and with a fairly high degree of versatility. Less fundamentally, 3.x has more spells, added over a longer edition life cycle and a faster pace of release, and more of them are more readily abuseable. And, then, there's the relaxed limitations on casting. 5e actually makes it easier on casters. For just one obvious instance, they don't have to sweat being in melee, at all - no need for optimizing some skill check, there just plain aren't AoOs for casting, nor much in the way of mechanics to interrupt casting at all. There's also a major, if emergent difference in the attitude the two editions fosters, with 3.x getting a culture of reverence for RaW, and 5e for DM Empowerment.

And that's just the most favorable comparison - compare the facile play of 5e casters to the challenges casters faced in AD&D, for a less charitable instance.

Yep, casters in hand to hand combat were pretty much toast in earlier editions. Now, if you're caught in hand to hand, just cast a "save" spell and you won't have any trouble. Casters got their life improved a lot but they also lost a lot in 5ed. High level spells are pretty rare (spell slot wise). Even low level spell slots are a bit scarce. Of course cantrips are there to cope for this fact but they do not have the punch that spell scaling had. Being an at will cast more or less correct this little flaw but I would've like to see them better damage wise (maybe adding the relevant stat just like the warlock can do with EB would do).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep, casters in hand to hand combat were pretty much toast in earlier editions. Now, if you're caught in hand to hand, just cast a "save" spell and you won't have any trouble. Casters got their life improved a lot but they also lost a lot in 5ed. High level spells are pretty rare (spell slot wise). Even low level spell slots are a bit scarce.

Relative to 1e, 5e wizards, over and above their at-will cantrips, get more spells at low level, from 1st through 9th, pulling even at 10th, when both get 15 spells per day (slight difference, the 5e wizard gets one more 4th level spell, while the 1e one more 2nd level spell). Starting at 11th, the 5e wizard gets his next spell level a level before the 1e magic-user did, but the 1e spells/day balloon, since his low level spells keep going up, while 5e's stall out. By 18th both have 1 9th level spell, and the 1e wizard has more of each level below that than the 5e, firmly ahead.

Thing is, the 1e wizard's table goes up to freak'n 29. and technically doesn't stop there .... I mean, if you can get that many millions of exp....

...but, through the first half of the level progression the 5e wizard has more spells in total, more of his top level spells, complete control over what spells he knows, no threat of spells lost due to interruption nor any other meaningful restriction on casting, can even cast spells while maintaining concentration, casts all those spells spontaneously, and has at-will cantrips, including attacks.

It's a good time to be wizard.

Of course cantrips are there to cope for this fact but they do not have the punch that spell scaling had. Being an at will cast more or less correct this little flaw but I would've like to see them better damage wise (maybe adding the relevant stat just like the warlock can do with EB would do).

Damage is the one thing 5e tries to roughly balance, so if casters' cantrips weren't well below the damage baseline of the extra-attacking fighter, they wouldn't draw even towards the end of that 6-8 encounter day. We'd have to have an 11-20 encounter day or something.

 

[Helldritch]

Relative to 1e, 5e wizards, over and above their at-will cantrips, get more spells at low level, from 1st through 9th, pulling even at 10th, when both get 15 spells per day (slight difference, the 5e wizard gets one more 4th level spell, while the 1e one more 2nd level spell). Starting at 11th, the 5e wizard gets his next spell level a level before the 1e wizard did, but the 1e wizard's spells/day balloon, since his low level spells keep going up. By 18th both have 1 9th level spell, and the 1e wizard has more of each level below that than the 5e, firmly ahead.

Thing is, the 1e wizard's table goes up to freak'n 29. I mean, if you can get that many millions of exp....

Yes, but at the same time, the availability of magic was pretty much on the side of the 1st edition mage. Many mages were having not one or two wands but quite a few. No limitations on the amount of magic items you could be attuned to. Then they're was spell scaling (1st level magic missile, 1st level slot, 20th mage would do 10d4 +10 for one spell on its original slot. A fire ball would do 20d6, cast as a 3rd level spell.) the amount of damage a mage was able to do was astounding.

As for the experience, remember that you had 1 exp per gold pieces found. Jewelry and gems included. And treasure wise, 1ed was much more generous than 5ed.

...but, through the first half of the level progression the 5e wizard has more spells in total, more of his top level spells, complete control over what spells he knows, no threat of spells lost due to interruption, casts all those spells spontaneously, and has at-will cantrips, including attacks.

It's a good time to be wizard.

Yep, it's good to be a low level wizard. High level is meh... You're no longer the terror you once were. But at the same time, you have a lot more chance to get to the high levels. Mortality rate among low level wizard was quite big. They were the embodiment of what we call a glass canon.

Damage is the one thing 5e tries to roughly balance, so if casters' cantrips weren't well below the damage baseline of the extra-attacking fighter, they wouldn't draw even towards the end of that 6-8 encounter day. We'd have to have an 11-20 encounter day or something.

Maybe... Maybe... Still, I feel that the wizard (along with the sorcerer) is a bit underwhelming. A bit more punch would be appreciated. But I have no solution (that would be balanced) to provide here. I know that now, the game goes toward a better balance of classes, especially toward the martial ones. But I still feel that wizards should be a we bit stronger. Not by much, but still a bit higher.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, 5e is certainly less broken than 3.x, in the same sense that a sauna is a better refrigerator than an open-hearth steel mill. And, no, there's nothing subjective about Class Tiers or LFQW - the latter's not only objective, but quantitative.

You can objectively tell that one has a higher power level than the other, but not whether that equates to more or less broken. Broken is a subjective opinion unless it relates to mechanics that don't do what they are supposed to do, like the 4e issue and 3e CR.

That sounds like you're saying something that's irreparable can't be counted as broken, but something that has been fixed, can still can be labeled broken.

Incorrect. It sounds like I'm saying that a mechanic itself has to be broken in that it does not perform as it is supposed to perform in order to be objectively broken. It can be repairable or not. In 4e it was repairable. 3e's CR system was not repairable.

OK, that might be valid to compare to the level range on the cover of a TSR module, afterall.

Except that the mechanic was 4 PCs of that level could handle with I believe a moderate amount of resource use. Lower was supposed to be easier, and higher harder. The reality is that it completely failed to account for various class mixes, so it was useless as billed and therefore objectively broken.

It did have some vague use as a ballpark for the party, but it wasn't intended for that use.

 

[Maxperson]

Because characters of that level ought to be rare and exceptional, IMO. It's not that there can never be someone equal or above them. Those are the circles they walk in at those levels. But not EVERY fight should be with equivalent mages, otherwise the game is just a treadmill, not to mention having odd worldbuilding implications.

True, but a targeted dispel was almost as good, and it was only 3rd level.

 

[Helldritch]

Except that the mechanic was 4 PCs of that level could handle with I believe a moderate amount of resource use. Lower was supposed to be easier, and higher harder. The reality is that it completely failed to account for various class mixes, so it was useless as billed and therefore objectively broken.

It did have some vague use as a ballpark for the party, but it wasn't intended for that use.

CR was totally broken in 3rd. I killed a whole group with a CR 21 that was supposed to be an easy fight So I added a few extra to make it a hard fight. An errata later, that CR 21 became CR 25. That is when I stopped using the CR guidelines in 3rd...

 

[Helldritch]

True, but a targeted dispel was almost as good, and it was only 3rd level.

Anti-magic field. Way better to counter high level characters if you can catch them off guard.

 

[Maxperson]

CR was totally broken in 3rd. I killed a whole group with a CR 21 that was supposed to be an easy fight So I added a few extra to make it a hard fight. An errata later, that CR 21 became CR 25. That is when I stopped using the CR guidelines in 3rd...

I didn't even make it that high. Once the very first party I DMd 3e for hit about 4th level, I realized that CR 4 creatures varied wildly in power and the variance only got worse the higher you went and the more abilities/spells things got.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You can objectively tell that one has a higher power level than the other, but not whether that equates to more or less broken. Broken is a subjective opinion unless it relates to mechanics that don't do what they are supposed to do, like the 4e issue and 3e CR.

Class, race, & background are equally-weighted choices, and level advancement is also equal in 5e. It seems like they'd be intended to be equal in some sense. They're not.

But, if you want to restrict broken to functionality. Functionality can be judged pretty easily, but few rules are strictly non-functional, even the "4e issue," the original SC rules, functioned, they just got easier as they got more complex which was counterintuitive. 3e CR, is a toss-up between the CR system being non-functional, and rewards for system mastery being so extreme as to overwhelm an otherwise functional system. Arguably swaths of 1e & 5e are non-functional "RaW" but, just as arguably, they're not meant to be used that way.

I've also seen 'broken' used to refer to susceptibility to system mastery (3e is tops in that category, too, by a large margin, since it was designed to be), which is fair - breakable might be fairer.

And, of course, 'broken' is used as a synonym for "Imbalanced" (Again, 3e pulled out all the stops there, too.) The innate, quantifiable class imbalance of 3.5 is arguably the high point in a game notable for high degrees of class imbalance, but TSR editions were so... muddy in presentation and varied in implementation it's hard to say for sure whether they were a little worse or a lot better. Old-school balance was a balance of extremes, casters got lots of very powerful spells, eventually, but were extremely fragile, and getting a spell off successfully was a substantive undertaking. How that shook out varied. A tightly-reigned in AD&D campaign, with plenty of the right kind of magic items could see fair balance among classes, and if gave it credit for balance across a range of levels, maybe moreso.

Yes, but at the same time, the availability of magic was pretty much on the side of the 1st edition mage.

Oh, magic items were all over AD&D, yeah. Those treasure types and random tables, sure, you ended up with bushels of +1 swords and potions and protection scrolls, because the tables were weighted to weaker items, and to items of most use to Fighters &c, while wizardly items were comparatively rare (compared to the soon dirt-common +1 this that and theotherthing).

5e's magic-item independence does serve to make casters - and, that's every class and almost every sub-class - that much more critically important, though.

Then they're was spell scaling the amount of damage a mage was able to do was astounding.

5e does make an attempt at balancing overall damage over that 6-8 encounter day, yes. OTOH, the amount of damage a magic-user could absorb was quite low compared to a 5e wizard, d4 HD, CON bonus topping out at +2, HD topping out at 11, vs d6 HD, 20 of 'em, and CON bonus up to +5. The beefiest possible 1e magic-user, at 20th level, would have 75 hps (0.000095367% chance of rolling all those 4s). A fairly average 14 CON wizard would have over 100, and could with comparably improbable HD rolls, flirt with 200.

As for the experience, remember that you had 1 exp per gold pieces found. Jewelry and gems included. And treasure wise, 1ed was much more generous than 5ed.

I think comparing level to level is fair, even though you'd likely advance much, much slower through those high levels in 1e.

Maybe... Maybe... Still, I feel that the wizard (along with the sorcerer) is a bit underwhelming. A bit more punch would be appreciated. But I have no solution (that would be balanced) to provide here.

Me neither. As long as D&D is committed to maintaining the relative feel of the Big 4, rough single-target DPR parity over long days is the best that could be shot(npi) for.

I know that now, the game goes toward a better balance of classes, especially toward the martial ones. But I still feel that wizards should be a we bit stronger. Not by much, but still a bit higher.

In terms of single-target DPR, only. Blow up a few hordes of enemies, and it's a different story. And of course, the wizard's versatility is unmatched, thanks to neo-Vancian prep-and-cast-spontaneously.