D&D 3E/3.5 Comparison to 3.5e

[Ancalagon]

I play a weekly pathfinder game, and I dearly wished it was in 5e (even though it might cripple my character). The amount of minutia, fiddling and tracking required is ridiculous. We have one new ish player who's bad at math, and one who's mental acuity has declined a bit with age (great guy though), and they are both struggling with pathfinder. 5e is far less "in the way" of adventuring.

I also see people talk about the far greater choices that 3.x/pathfinder offer... but many of these choices are traps. The difference between an optimal character and a shoddily designed one are immense. In 5e, almost every choice is valid - some are a little better than others, but even a casually made character will be pretty decent. In fact, you have to really work at it to make a bad character.

 

[Ancalagon]

Initially when it came out I was very impressed with 3e. They really had cleaned things up and innovated. It took time before the flaws became apparent. 5e has flaws too. But I can live with them a lot easier than 3.X's flaws.

 

[Umbran]

Fourth Edition was not a Bad Game, it just was not D&D...

Mod note:
Please...

"... for me." Even better - "...does not scratch the D&D itch for me". Not a single person here has the position to declare it not-D&D overall. And yes, the qualifier does matter on this one, due to history. There are far too many people more than willing to take edition warring potshots at each other to this day, that if you don't add the qualifier, you will look like one of those to someone, and arguments will start. Just don't state the position as if it were absolute, please.

 

[Horwath]

Fourth Edition was not a Bad Game, it just was not D&D, it did not really evolve from earlier editions. Proficiency slots, feats, and even backgrounds have precedents that go all the way back to AD&D, 4E made unprecedented changes, practically starting from scratch. It was just too big a change...

4th edition did a lot of good changes, but it was mixed with lots of bad ones, so in general it was viewed as a bad game overall.

But 5E should have taken more from 4E, they took some things and make them better or worse:

At-will cantrips/powers, better in 5E than in 4E.

Healing surges in 4E are better mechanics than HDs in 5E.

5min recharge encounter powers are better that 1hr long short rest (1hr is NOT a short rest).

return to 3E-like spells and spells slots is far better than dull, bland "Daily" powers/spells in 4E.

+1/2 level bonus on EVERYTHING, no matter what, is the worst mechanics I have ever seen in any D&D game, 5E's +2 -> +6 proficiency is biggest improvement over 4E and 3.5E B.A.B. and skill ranks.

Not to mention HORRIBLE art work in 4E PHB. 5E is still not on 3E level, but still much better than 4E.

 

[Samloyal23]

Mod note:
Please...

"... for me." Even better - "...does not scratch the D&D itch for me". Not a single person here has the position to declare it not-D&D overall. And yes, the qualifier does matter on this one, due to history. There are far too many people more than willing to take edition warring potshots at each other to this day, that if you don't add the qualifier, you will look like one of those to someone, and arguments will start. Just don't state the position as if it were absolute, please.

My only point was that it was so drastically different from previous editions it was essentially a different game. You can see the arc of development that led to 3E. 4E jumped off that track. It was like they started from scratch. A lot of people just could not relate it to what they were used to playing. New gamers who had not experienced earlier editions generally liked it. There were definitely good ideas in the game. My only issue with the game was the restrictions in character generation at level 1.

 

[Umbran]

My only point ...

Mod Note:

From the Terms and Rules: "If you really, really disagree with a moderator's position on a moderating issue, please don't argue about it on the boards. "

Using a moderator's post to get one last shot in at an edition does very little to convince us that you aren't an edition warrior yourself. You probably want to let it drop now. Really.

We expect that any further discussion of the moderation will go to Private Message with a member of the staff. Thanks.

 

[teitan]

5e does have online support. D&D Beyond does allow use of the character generator for free.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Not to mention HORRIBLE art work in 4E PHB. 5E is still not on 3E level, but still much better than 4E

I don't share that opinion. I would agree though that the artwork in the 4e Players Strategy Guide departed away from the rest of the 4e style; and that I was not appreciative of that.

 

[Grazzt]

The main issue with 3rd Edition is... that is completely breaks down at mid- to high level.

Yep. And If I remember correctly, this is one of the things that spawned the E6 variant way back in the day.

 

[Imaculata]

As a 3.5 player and DM, my bias is obviously skewed towards 3rd edition. However, I can honestly see positives in both systems. 5e has less number crunch, but I happen to like number crunch. It has less character options, skills, feats and magic items, but I really like that stuff. 5e does away with the +1, +2, +3, but I like that stacking powers can lead to a bigger bonus, rather than a flat advantage. I also love how deadly and unexpected combat can be in 3.5. However, I really like how 5e added a wider use for many spells, and their legendary actions and lair actions rules for creating boss battles. I will be sticking with 3.5 because of the stuff I just mentioned, and because of the treasure trove of material. The OGL just offers so much compatibility with stuff like Pathfinder. But I will borrow stuff from 5e from time to time. It definitely is the easiest edition to get into D&D, if you are just starting.