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

[TheSword]

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

Yes. This is due to the way skill difficulty is set... simply easy, medium, hard, very hard, exceptionally hard. DMs are empowered to rule that trivial tasks don’t require rolling and impossible or implausible tasks (like falling terminal velocity unscathed and surviving the void) can’t be rolled for. This double edged sword is at the heart of 5e. Good DM and the games awesome, poor DM and you’ll get quickly frustrated.

Of course a DM that wanted a dragon ball z style game could run it that way, but in essence the game is grounded in common sense.

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

In essence I think the high fantasy is style there - archmages, artifacts and outsiders. You can play a high fantasy Wheel of Time style game, particularly with the prevalence of spellcasting and the ease of gaining cantrips and low level magic.

As for power that is a tricky one. I find that the gonzo level of power with lvl 10 + characters curbstomping their way through every town is a thing of the past. Characters have to take a few more risks and are not invulnerable to lesser mortals.

However, crucially, all the PCs I have seen and played in 5e feel powerful (for their level) without feeling like I’m breaking the system. My elf rogue 5/fighter 1 is attacking twice per round (two weapon fighting), getting backstab on top of that, getting an extra hide/dash/withdraw if he doesn’t use his off hand weapon and can half the damage of an attack against him every round. Or if at range he can fling a 2d10 firebolt if he needs to as a high elf. Plus he can interact with an item and move up to his speed. I’ve found 5th ed characters can do a lot of stuff in a round... and it feels great.

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

See the answer above. Characters can do more stuff but each individual thing is less gonzo. Things like healing word can bring someone to consciousness as a bonus action. Is that powerful, maybe not on its own. However being able to do that and attack and do the other stuff is very useful.

My advice is to give it a go. If you want to run a campaign I suggest Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation or Princes of the Apocalypse. All three are excellent adventures/campaigns. Far superior to any Adventure Path from Paizo I’ve seen (and I’ve DM’d or played at least 8 and read most of the others)

 

[Zardnaar]

The math is a lot easier, some of the problems in regards to rocket tag and saving throws are similar to 3E though. A key difference perhaps 5E rewards min maxing the party over an individual the end results in regards to rocket tag for example are similar enough. Its a lot less deadly but it also kinda makes it a bit more boring unless the PCs get really unlucky or do really stupid things RAW its fairly hard to die in 5E.

The power level is lower but the monsters are a lot weaker. There is less options but the power levels of the PCs are higher in a lot of ways (see champion fighter vs 3E fighter).

Its kind of easier to tweak 3E as well to get a game you want but its still a major pain to run so its not really worth the effort required. In late 3.5 (post 4E) we played it and threw out the magic item buy and creation rules, actually improved the game.

I think people expect a perfect D&D though and it didn't exist. 5E is better than most of them but you can usually find some aspect of a previous edition that does something better than 5E in some way. We're finding it a bit boring not so much as a lack of options just the relative kid gloves treatment and how some spells are just so much better than the others eg hypnotic pattern and fireball vs everything else. Its less boring than 4E and less frustrating than 3R so it looks good in comparison. You also need to know what you are doing with some classes as well otherwise you might struggle (Warlock, Rogues to a lesser extent, Rangers, Monks).

 

[Mort]

Clerics get virtually no offensive spells for example (although that does depend on which domain they have).

Just a quick off topic quibble. Not sure where the above statement comes from.

Cantrips, they get Toll the Dead, ranged d8 or d12 damage with a will save.

1st Level they get inflict wounds, 3d10 damage, requires a hit but no save.

1st level also gets guiding bolt : decent range 4d6 damage AND gives advantage to the next hit.

2nd level gives spiritual weapon which, while it does less damage, is in every other way objectively better than the wizards 7th level spell mordenkainen's sword.

At least at low levels, they seem to do OK at damage dealing spells.

 

[Zardnaar]

Just a quick off topic quibble. Not sure where the above statement comes from.

Cantrips, they get Toll the Dead, ranged d8 or d12 damage with a will save.

1st Level they get inflict wounds, 3d10 damage, requires a hit but no save.

1st level also gets guiding bolt : decent range 4d6 damage AND gives advantage to the next hit.

2nd level gives spiritual weapon which, while it does less damage, is in every other way objectively better than the wizards 7th level spell mordenkainen's sword.

At least at low levels, they seem to do OK at damage dealing spells.

They runout of spells very fast if you are using things like guiding bolt. Blowing a daily spell to deal greatsword damage+rider that is unreliable is a terrible deal. Guiding bolt is decent later on when you need radiant damage (vs vulnerable to radiant undead) apart from that its marginal IMHO. Bless blows it out of the water for example. When you only have a handful of spells gambling on an unreliable spell (it misses) is bad.

Its what make light clerics so good. You get burning hands thats reliable and radiance of the dawn which is like having an extra 3 or 6 level 2 spells (level 3 at higher levels). Its also what makes life clerics so good they are so good at healing they can blow more spells on thins like guiding bolt.

 

[Tony Vargas]

After stating that PF2’s Legendary skill feat abilities were too over-the-top for my games on the Paizo forums,

Legendary feat abilities aren't even magic, and don't really have anything much to do with magic power levels, AFAICT.

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.

Anytime you hear "go play X," yeah, probably some of that goin' on.

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.

It scales differently in some areas, the same in others. PC Hit Points, for instance, just like 3e, through the same 20 levels. Stats, OTOH, cap much lower, at 20. Then there's BA, which essentially gives everyone a BAB (and Base Everythingelse Bonus) between +2 and +6.

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.)

5e casters are also more versatile, and face no limitation at all for casting in melee, and, while they can't optimize concentration checks to make them automatically, are called on to make them less often. They're also subject to the scaling differences. Save DCs, for instance, scale with /character/ (not caster) level rather than with slot level, OTOH, damage scales with slot level rather than caster level. Similar to 3e, classes have some good and some bad saves, but there are 6 saves, two good (gain that same +2-+6 bonus) and 4 bad (no bonus for level, at all). There are also far fewer spells to choose from.
So it's pretty muddy, but overall, casters are arguably more versatile, everyone's arguably 'less powerful' in some senses, and there's less opportunity for 'system mastery,' so the extremes of build are less extreme. For instance, even though it's pretty trivial to hammer an enemy save that hasn't scaled with level with a DC that has been, but that scaling's no more than +6, while in 3.x you could optimize untouchable save DCs.

Ultimately, though, in terms of what casters can do in concept, the game doesn't present a feel that's any "less magical."

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

Neither 3e nor 5e is at all "S&S" in the genre sense, no. Magic is far too available, dependable, & safe, among other things.

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

D&D hasn't exactly ever done 'High Fantasy' well, either, not in the genre sense - it's nothing much like Tolkien, for instance.

Now, one thing you may or may not care about is Magic Items. In 3e, as you know, there's assumed wealth/level and you can make/buy magic items by-the-book. In 5e, there is no assumed wealth/level, and magic items are placed by the DM, including opportunities to buy, and making an item is more old-school, the DM decides what you need, how long, and whether it works. So magic items aren't a build component the way they are in 3e.


If, ultimately, you're looking for the same basic, selectively-applied 'realism,' of a setting that is nothing so much as a sort of science-fiction-but-with-magic mashup, then, yeah, 5e is as much that way as 3e (or classic D&D back in the day). But, I doubt PF2 will stray from that paradigm, anyway, remember this is just playtest material, they have to toss out a few ideas they know will likely be unpopular so folks can vote 'em down and feel included in the process.

So "Don't Panic," but do let you displeasure be known... I mean, provide feedback.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

I really wouldn't go that far. Many of the most egregious issues with 3E were not evident from reading, and didn't really become noticeable until you had played most of a campaign. From just a simple read through the two PHBs, without any practical experience for what to look out for, the two games would look extremely similar in terms of content and scale.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.
snip

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?

My personal view, 5e is not more S&S than 3.xe, it is similar but different. You do not need magic items but other than that there is plenty of magic and so in my opinion it is high magic fantasy similar to previous editions.
I do not believe it is more fantastical than 3.x.

 

[gyor]

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.

Teleports are not that infrequent, example Horizon Walker, Shadow Monk, Shadow Sorcerer, Eladarin, High Elves with the Fey Teleportation feat, the upcoming Giant Soul Sorcerer, and so on. Plus Divine Souls, Dragon Blood line Sorcerers, Storm Magic Sorcerers, all have at will flight eventually.

And yes the amount of high level spell slots has been reduced, but you can still spam 6th level spell Forbiddence as a ritual if you have enough of the material component.

 

[gyor]

My personal view, 5e is not more S&S than 3.xe, it is similar but different. You do not need magic items but other than that there is plenty of magic and so in my opinion it is high magic fantasy similar to previous editions.
I do not believe it is more fantastical than 3.x.

I think it's more magical at low levels then 3e, because of can trips and rituals, a Wizard can spam Alarm and Unseen Servant and Firebolt, Minor Illusion, and mending as often as the Wizard wants, a 3e Wizard at first level would be out of magic far sooner.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Teleports are not that infrequent, example Horizon Walker, Shadow Monk, Shadow Sorcerer, Eladarin, High Elves with the Fey Teleportation feat, the upcoming Giant Soul Sorcerer, and so on. Plus Divine Souls, Dragon Blood line Sorcerers, Storm Magic Sorcerers, all have at will flight eventually.

Interestingly, a significant majority of your examples are non-core. That could be indicative of magic creep, with the game starting out less magical and becoming more magical over time.