D&D 3E/3.5 5e: Is it really lower magic/less gonzo than 3e?

[Azgulor]

This thread is strictly meant as an attempt to increase my knowledge of 5e. I am only seeking educational/informational content regarding 5e in actual play across the higher levels of play.

After stating that PF2’s Legendary skill feat abilities were too over-the-top for my games on the Paizo forums, I received multiple references to “if you want a lower powered game, play 5e”.

I presume these comments are in reference to Bounded Accuracy or perhaps were just an effort to tamp down on tastes contrary to theirs. However, I haven't played 5e, so I have no true basis for comparison.

My impression of 5e is that it pulls influences from all prior editions of the game but I never got the sense that it was lower power than say, 3e. From what I can tell most/all classes have a spellcasting subclass option, bards are full 9th-level spellcasters, etc. This doesn’t strike me as lower-powered or lower-magic than 3e and 3e high-level play would definitely push/break the "boundaries of cheese" for what I prefer from fantasy RPGs. (Whether or not such 'cheese' has existed across most/all editions is immaterial.)

Any 5e podcasts that I have listened to did not give the impression of a lower power-level/curve than 3e or PF1, either. In fairness, few of those podcasts gave the impression that 5e’s power curve has substantially increased, either, and certainly not to the degree that PF2’s Legendary tier skill feats seem to be going for.

Examples of PF2’s Legendary tier skill feat unlocks that don’t “do it for me” would include stealing armor/clothes off a conscious character while they’re wearing it, surviving the vacuum of space based upon your proficiency/skill in Survival, or the ability to fall an unlimited distance under the acceleration of gravity and take zero damage.

I know Adventures in Middle-Earth modify 5e to be more low magic but...

Does vanilla 5e produce a more grounded swords-and-sorcery game than 3e?

Or does it preserve the high fantasy power level of previous games?

Or (worse, for what I want) does it ramp the power level up above what 3e provided?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There are a couple of ways in which 5E characters are less magical and/or less powerful than earlier editions:

1) Spellcasters have significantly fewer spell slots, especially at high levels. You don't get more spell slots for having a high ability score, and you basically never get more than one per day of any level 6+ spell.

2) Most non-instantaneous spells require concentration, and you can only concentrate on one spell at a time. You don't have to cast half a dozen buffs on the party, and track their independent durations, as a matter of course.

3) Magic items cannot be crafted or purchased. If they don't find magic items, then they won't have magic items. And even if they do find a lot of magic items, anything interesting requires attunement, of which you can only have three at a time.

4) Specifically in contrast to 4E, the natural course of events for any given PC is not that they will become a god.

There's also one aspect where 5E has much higher magic than 3E, being equal to 4E, and that is the presence of at-will magic (cantrips and rituals). A wizard in 5E will never resort to a crossbow or dagger, because they can fire off Ray of Frost or Chill Touch for level-appropriate damage every round.

 

[Blue]

Let me give an incomplete answer.

5e has cut down on the need and availability of "magic item christmas trees", where magic item pluses are part of character advancement math. Magic items are rarer, and pluses are not needed. It's much lower magic item then 3.x and 4e.

5e has cut down on the number of spells available to high level casters, especially reducing the number of most of the highest level slots to just one per day even at 20th level. An 18th level caster, for example, only has one spell slot of 6th through 9th level.

The buff-until-god of D&D 3.x is gone because most ongoing spells require Concentration. A caster can only Concentrate on one spell at a time.

Bounded accuracy and it's unnamed skill/ability check cousin have expanded the range where foes are viable to play against. This means a 5th level party could go against something much tougher and still have a chance, and that a horde of goblins can still be a challenge for higher level parties (assuming they aren't served in nice fireball radius).

There is a strong push to reduce the power on unexpected combos. Straight classed character are not only viable, they are probably more powerful than multiclassing. Cherry picking has been reduced (but not eliminated) btu moving a lot of "basic" powers to 3rd or 5th, and also giving out Ability Score Increases (ASIs) or feats every four class levels instead of every four character levels.

Some "high fantasy" bits like frequent combat-range teleports from 4e, have been removed or made much more infrequent.

Characters still fight dragons and demons with blades and spells, creating epic stories to tell.

 

[Lancelot]

1. No. Vanilla 5e is a vastly easier to play than 3e, but it is not much more grounded. You still have teleports and wishes and vorpal swords and demon lords. There are four areas that I can think of where you might consider it to be more grounded...

Firstly, creature summoning is less of a thing. In 3e, you could swarm the battlefield with summoned beasts. This made combat slower and more complex, and also hurt the balance for non-casters. I recall playing one campaign where my fairly optimized 5th level fighter was completely superfluous compared to the druid's summoned dire wolves. In 5e, summonings generally aren't "in combat" options due to casting times (1 minute or more), plus the spell can be terminated by breaking the caster's concentration, plus they can only maintain concentration on one spell at a time. For some, this might make 5e seem a little more "grounded".

Secondly, 3e's system of massive pre-combat buffs is largely gone... again, due to the concentration mechanic. Fewer characters (and bad guys) go into battle with 5+ spells already active. I'm not saying it's impossible with 5e, because some durational buffs aren't bound by concentration (e.g. mage armor, spiritual weapon). But it's far less common.

Thirdly, magic items expectations are much lower. You can play legitimate 5e with not even a +1 longsword at 10th level, and the game works. This is not true in 3e, where the numbers simply break without the expectations of gear. If you look at Paizo Dungeon issues in the 3e era, you see guardposts with 4 bugbears... each of whom is carrying +1 morning stars, +1 studded leather and potions of cure moderate. High level NPCs always carried stat-buffing items, because it's simply expected. So... 5e is more grounded, perhaps, because the entire economy doesn't rely on mass-production of magic items?

Finally, due to 5e's much slower release cycle, the game hasn't yet been corrupted by power creep. During the 3e days, the massive amount of new material released meant that inevitably there would be new spells or items or feats or class combos that were simply "better". It rewarded system experts, who could build combos that left your typical PH-only player in the dust. That, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Power gaming is fine if everyone is having fun. But it made life difficult for new players joining groups (who feel the lack of balance), and it was also pretty nightmarish to me as a DM where I have to stay one step ahead of all the players (and their thousands of potentially aberrant builds) to provide an adequately balanced and challenging adventure.

2. Yes, 5e preserves the high fantasy power level of previous games. You can summon a demon and set it to slay your enemies. You can teleport your entire party to another plane of existence. You can raise the dead. It's less complex than 3e, by far, but characters still feel powerful. Importantly, it reduces the gap between casters and non-casters. A non-caster in 3e was ridiculously inferior to a caster at high levels. It's less bad in 5e, although an experienced player will always find ways to make a caster shine more than a non-caster (regardless of version).

3. No, 3e does not in any way exceed the power levels of 3e... with one possible exception. There has been no attempt to provide statistics for gods in 5e yet, unlike every previous version. This might imply that 5e gods are too powerful for mortals to fight... which might suggest that the 5e gods have received a power boost. Or, more likely, it suggests that 5e has reduced the power levels of the characters. They're no longer capable of meleeing Thor to death and sticking mjolnir on their trophy wall.

 

[Caliban]

Probably the biggest limiter for general magic in 5e is the attunement slot limit. Every character has 3 attunement slots, and most (not all) of the really powerful magic items require attunement.

That being said, most classes have a way of being a spellcaster if you want to be one (Eldritch Knight for fighter, Arcane Trickster for Rogue, Path of the Four Elements for monk, even barbarians can get a few spells or spell-like abilities from their Primal Paths).

So it's harder to have multiple very powerful magic items used by the same character, but it's easier to get low to moderate magical abilities from your class if you want them.

 

[Istbor]

A lot of what tamps down 5e from becoming the gross monster of math that 3e was has been explained but others.

As a DM of 3e and 5e, the two being compared, I can say I find 5e so much easier to run and prepare for.

So many circumstantial bonuses that you could encounter in 3e (and pathfinder) have been taken out. That is in part what bounded accuracy is. No longer is there a race to out "to hit" monsters with ever growing AC. And likewise, characters need much less chance to hit to be effective to the more or less static AC values of 5e.

I simply love it. That, and I can concentrate on making cooler magic items that I know won't be thrown away for ever better magic items.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

By leaps and bound, yes. Magic is a pale shadow of what it was in 3e.

 

[Caliburn101]

Of course it is.

You don't even have to play to understand that - just read the 3rd Ed. rules and then the 5th, and you cannot miss the fact.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Does vanilla 5e produce a more grounded swords-and-sorcery game than 3e?

Or does it preserve the high fantasy power level of previous games?

Or (worse, for what I want) does it ramp the power level up above what 3e provided?

That's actually a pretty nuanced question. So, if you don't mind, I'll take it in order:

1. Does vanilla 5e produce a more grounded swords and sorcery game than 3e?

No. It doesn't. Well, IMO, it doesn't. Virtually every class is casting spells and casting spells very, very often. That right there pushes it out of S&S for me. Sure, those spells are a LOT less powerful than they were in earlier editions, but, in vanilla 5e, you're probably going to have at least two full casters, each with cantrips and more spells than they can realistically blow through in a given adventuring day. Which means that you are likely going to have spells being cast every single round.

That being said..

2. Does it preserve the high fantasy power level of previous games?

No, again, it doesn't. Yup, you're going to get spells being cast all the bloody time, but, the casters are MASSIVELY rolled back on what they can do. Clerics get virtually no offensive spells for example (although that does depend on which domain they have). You go from spell lists that are pages long to a full caster having maybe 15 choices of spells in any given level. And frequently less than 10 choices at high levels. So, AFAIC, they have really, really curtailed what casters can do.

3. Does it ramp up power beyond 3e?

No, not even close. Casters in 5e are powerful, but, not really all that powerful. Gone are the days when the caster could simply buff/summon himself an army and pretty much ignore the rest of the party. The range from top to bottom between the classes in 5e is really not that far at all.

 

[CapnZapp]

Does vanilla 5e produce a more grounded swords-and-sorcery game than 3e?

Or does it preserve the high fantasy power level of previous games?

Or (worse, for what I want) does it ramp the power level up above what 3e provided?

Any given magic effect is still there, give or take.

But the overall clutter of magic is gone.

Instead of having six buff spells and ten magic item effects, you have one or two buff spells and 3-5 magic item effects.

It also moves certain magic higher up in level. Teleportation and stuff still happens, just not at such a low level before. And not quite as often when it does happen.

So, no.

It does not change the magic level. It's still as far from sword & sorcery as before.

But those posters did not just blow hot air.

The game has scaled back magic significantly. Just not nearly to the level of Middle-Earth, say.