Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Comparison to 3.5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DammitVictor" data-source="post: 8013934" data-attributes="member: 6750908"><p>For background, I got my start with AD&D (First Edition) in 1993 and didn't really switch over to Second Edition until 1997-1998. I went in for <em>Player's Option</em> as hard as possible-- most of my friends did not care for it-- and still have a tremendous fondness for the <em>Player's Option</em> rules that sadly does not extend to the AD&D rules underneath. Switched to 3.0 <em>and</em> 3.5 on their respective launch dates-- literally bought the first copies of the PHB sold at my bookstore and ran sessions those nights; burned out on 3.X and switched to non-D&D games (for professional reasons) around 2006 or 2007. Skipped 4e <em>almost entirely</em>-- one session total, during the 5e playtests-- but talked my friends into buying me the 5e core books for a game I ran for... over a year and a half.</p><p></p><p>I'm going to try to stick to value-neutral objective facts and my feelings <em>about</em> those objective facts-- I'm not interested in defending my position, and I'm <em>even less interested</em> in trying to tell someone they're wrong about having fun-- but I really honestly <em>hate</em> Fifth Edition in a way I've never hated any version of <em>Dungeons & Dragons</em> before, and I've only ever <em>hated</em> a couple of other games the same way.</p><p></p><p>Also, for perspective... until recently I would have said that AD&D <em>Player's Option</em> was my absolute favorite version of D&D, with <em>Pathfinder</em> being a reasonably close second with the right third-party/homebrew fixes. I've recently lost my taste for the AD&D mechanics... so I would say that my <em>ideal</em> form of D&D would be Classic (or a clone) with the <em>Player's Option</em> and/or <em>Pathfinder</em> supplements attached. I am designing my own personal "clone"/heartbreaker to this effect.</p><p></p><p>Starting with the negatives-- so that I can finish with the positives-- these are my complaints:</p><p></p><p><strong>Multiclassing:</strong> This is almost exactly the same system as 3.X, except that it doesn't have any of the years of support that 3.5 put into patching it-- there is no Mystic Theurge, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are <em>less-than-half</em> spellcaster archetypes for Fighter and Rogue, and there are no Feats for stacking class features. Spellcasting levels now <em>partially </em>stack in a way that doesn't address the multiclassing problem in 3.X, while Extra Attack no longer stacks at all.</p><p></p><p><strong>Proficiency Bonus:</strong> There is no difference in attack rolls between Fighters and Wizards, which I might be okay with. Proficient Saving Throws advance at the same rate... but non-proficient Saving Throws <em>do not advance at all</em>. 3.X characters get worse at their saving throws-- over time-- relative to level-appropriate threats... which I consider a problem, and which 5e made entirely worse. (Failing Saves is <em>less disastrous</em> than it is in 3.X, but the assumption is that you'll usually fail and <em>fail more often </em>at higher levels, and that doesn't work for me.) Skills are either Untrained, Trained, or Expertise... and <em>intentionally</em>, an Untrained character with a high ability score is capable of performing all of the same tasks as someone with Expertise, even if they are somewhat less likely to succeed.</p><p></p><p><strong>Bounded Accuracy:</strong> You have Ability Score Increases, like in 3.X/4e, but your Ability Scores are capped at 20 regardless of Race. Once you get your main ability scores up to 20, that's when you start trading in your ASIs for Feats. If Feats are allowed. This makes characters feel kinda samey and, combined with the skill problem, makes higher-level characters feel like, despite their advanced class features, they're not really more powerful or more competent than lower-level characters.</p><p></p><p><strong>Subraces:</strong> I've always hated subraces, dating back to the original Night of the Living Elves (AD&D, high school, nine players, eight and a half elves) and then some. In the 3.X era they became little more than a cheap excuse to always be able to play an Elf with a +2 bonus to the main ability score for your class. In 5e, despite still being <em>supposedly</em> representative of discrete subpopulations within the larger race... they are literally nothing more than racial variants optimized for different clases. (And Drow, of course.) </p><p></p><p><strong>Attack Cantrips:</strong> Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that spellcasters can do more magical stuff... and I maybe kinda like the flavor of <em>casting a spell</em> each and every round, instead of throwing darts until it's time for a showstopper. (I'm divided on this.) But the way cantrip damage scales, your <em>at-will, unlimited ranged attacks</em>-- regardless of class-- do more damage than either melee or ranged basic attacks from a character who doesn't have major damage-boosting class features.</p><p></p><p>I could go on, but these round out my major complaints. On a more positive note:</p><p></p><p><strong>Advantage/Disadvantage:</strong> Replacing all of the fiddly little +1/2 bonuses with the binary Advantage and Disadvantage makes gameplay much quicker and easier to make rulings on the fly... and making it so they <em>do not stack</em>, to prevent people from hunting down every possible source of Advantage or Disadvantage is legitimately the only part of 5e I would describe as a <em>stroke of genius</em>.</p><p></p><p><strong>Spellcasting:</strong> Using higher-level spell slots to cast more powerful versions of lower level spells is great, and it means classes don't have to be as picky about <em>knowing </em>or <em>preparing</em> so many spells of a certain level. Differentiating between classes that prepare spells versus classes that know spells is great... the way this interacts with Cleric Domains and Paladin Oaths is great. 4e did Ritual Magic better... but 5e <em>still does it</em>, unlike 3.X.</p><p></p><p><strong>Natural Healing:</strong> The use of Hit Dice, clearly derived from 4e's Healing Surges, is great for natural healing and overall resilience.</p><p></p><p><strong>General Warrior Buffs:</strong> You can take all of your attacks at your full attack bonus while moving. The penalty for climbing or jumping while wearing heavy armor is gone, and the penalty for sneaking in heavy armor is <em>much more reasonable</em>.</p><p></p><p><strong>General Spellcaster Nerfs:</strong> Concentration. No spell scaling unless you use higher slots. I know I already bitched about the Saving Throw thing... but the greatly reduced efficacy of Save-or-Die or Save-or-Suck spells compared to blasting or buffing your party.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't claim to be a big fan of 4e, but I will say that it had some solid ideas and that 5e generally picked the rights ones to keep-- but I wished they'd <em>kept them</em> instead of grinding them up and putting them in a can of cat food so the grognards didn't notice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hard disagree. Class-specific at-wills <em>for every class</em> was a much better design, and the way at-will powers worked/scaled was much more sensibile in 4th.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>100%.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And maybe +1/2 level to <em>everything</em> isn't great... but it's a hell of a lot better than +12 being <em>the very best in the world</em> and 20th level characters running around with honest-to-god +0 to <em>anything</em>. Of the three systems on display, 5e is easily and most obnoxiously the worst.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DammitVictor, post: 8013934, member: 6750908"] For background, I got my start with AD&D (First Edition) in 1993 and didn't really switch over to Second Edition until 1997-1998. I went in for [I]Player's Option[/I] as hard as possible-- most of my friends did not care for it-- and still have a tremendous fondness for the [I]Player's Option[/I] rules that sadly does not extend to the AD&D rules underneath. Switched to 3.0 [I]and[/I] 3.5 on their respective launch dates-- literally bought the first copies of the PHB sold at my bookstore and ran sessions those nights; burned out on 3.X and switched to non-D&D games (for professional reasons) around 2006 or 2007. Skipped 4e [I]almost entirely[/I]-- one session total, during the 5e playtests-- but talked my friends into buying me the 5e core books for a game I ran for... over a year and a half. I'm going to try to stick to value-neutral objective facts and my feelings [I]about[/I] those objective facts-- I'm not interested in defending my position, and I'm [I]even less interested[/I] in trying to tell someone they're wrong about having fun-- but I really honestly [I]hate[/I] Fifth Edition in a way I've never hated any version of [I]Dungeons & Dragons[/I] before, and I've only ever [I]hated[/I] a couple of other games the same way. Also, for perspective... until recently I would have said that AD&D [I]Player's Option[/I] was my absolute favorite version of D&D, with [I]Pathfinder[/I] being a reasonably close second with the right third-party/homebrew fixes. I've recently lost my taste for the AD&D mechanics... so I would say that my [I]ideal[/I] form of D&D would be Classic (or a clone) with the [I]Player's Option[/I] and/or [I]Pathfinder[/I] supplements attached. I am designing my own personal "clone"/heartbreaker to this effect. Starting with the negatives-- so that I can finish with the positives-- these are my complaints: [b]Multiclassing:[/b] This is almost exactly the same system as 3.X, except that it doesn't have any of the years of support that 3.5 put into patching it-- there is no Mystic Theurge, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are [I]less-than-half[/I] spellcaster archetypes for Fighter and Rogue, and there are no Feats for stacking class features. Spellcasting levels now [I]partially [/I]stack in a way that doesn't address the multiclassing problem in 3.X, while Extra Attack no longer stacks at all. [b]Proficiency Bonus:[/b] There is no difference in attack rolls between Fighters and Wizards, which I might be okay with. Proficient Saving Throws advance at the same rate... but non-proficient Saving Throws [I]do not advance at all[/I]. 3.X characters get worse at their saving throws-- over time-- relative to level-appropriate threats... which I consider a problem, and which 5e made entirely worse. (Failing Saves is [I]less disastrous[/I] than it is in 3.X, but the assumption is that you'll usually fail and [I]fail more often [/I]at higher levels, and that doesn't work for me.) Skills are either Untrained, Trained, or Expertise... and [I]intentionally[/I], an Untrained character with a high ability score is capable of performing all of the same tasks as someone with Expertise, even if they are somewhat less likely to succeed. [b]Bounded Accuracy:[/b] You have Ability Score Increases, like in 3.X/4e, but your Ability Scores are capped at 20 regardless of Race. Once you get your main ability scores up to 20, that's when you start trading in your ASIs for Feats. If Feats are allowed. This makes characters feel kinda samey and, combined with the skill problem, makes higher-level characters feel like, despite their advanced class features, they're not really more powerful or more competent than lower-level characters. [b]Subraces:[/b] I've always hated subraces, dating back to the original Night of the Living Elves (AD&D, high school, nine players, eight and a half elves) and then some. In the 3.X era they became little more than a cheap excuse to always be able to play an Elf with a +2 bonus to the main ability score for your class. In 5e, despite still being [I]supposedly[/I] representative of discrete subpopulations within the larger race... they are literally nothing more than racial variants optimized for different clases. (And Drow, of course.) [b]Attack Cantrips:[/b] Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that spellcasters can do more magical stuff... and I maybe kinda like the flavor of [I]casting a spell[/I] each and every round, instead of throwing darts until it's time for a showstopper. (I'm divided on this.) But the way cantrip damage scales, your [I]at-will, unlimited ranged attacks[/I]-- regardless of class-- do more damage than either melee or ranged basic attacks from a character who doesn't have major damage-boosting class features. I could go on, but these round out my major complaints. On a more positive note: [b]Advantage/Disadvantage:[/b] Replacing all of the fiddly little +1/2 bonuses with the binary Advantage and Disadvantage makes gameplay much quicker and easier to make rulings on the fly... and making it so they [I]do not stack[/I], to prevent people from hunting down every possible source of Advantage or Disadvantage is legitimately the only part of 5e I would describe as a [I]stroke of genius[/I]. [b]Spellcasting:[/b] Using higher-level spell slots to cast more powerful versions of lower level spells is great, and it means classes don't have to be as picky about [I]knowing [/I]or [I]preparing[/I] so many spells of a certain level. Differentiating between classes that prepare spells versus classes that know spells is great... the way this interacts with Cleric Domains and Paladin Oaths is great. 4e did Ritual Magic better... but 5e [I]still does it[/I], unlike 3.X. [b]Natural Healing:[/b] The use of Hit Dice, clearly derived from 4e's Healing Surges, is great for natural healing and overall resilience. [b]General Warrior Buffs:[/b] You can take all of your attacks at your full attack bonus while moving. The penalty for climbing or jumping while wearing heavy armor is gone, and the penalty for sneaking in heavy armor is [I]much more reasonable[/I]. [b]General Spellcaster Nerfs:[/b] Concentration. No spell scaling unless you use higher slots. I know I already bitched about the Saving Throw thing... but the greatly reduced efficacy of Save-or-Die or Save-or-Suck spells compared to blasting or buffing your party. I can't claim to be a big fan of 4e, but I will say that it had some solid ideas and that 5e generally picked the rights ones to keep-- but I wished they'd [I]kept them[/I] instead of grinding them up and putting them in a can of cat food so the grognards didn't notice. Hard disagree. Class-specific at-wills [I]for every class[/I] was a much better design, and the way at-will powers worked/scaled was much more sensibile in 4th. 100%. And maybe +1/2 level to [I]everything[/I] isn't great... but it's a hell of a lot better than +12 being [I]the very best in the world[/I] and 20th level characters running around with honest-to-god +0 to [I]anything[/I]. Of the three systems on display, 5e is easily and most obnoxiously the worst. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Comparison to 3.5e
Top