D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

Regarding the Strength ability:

It is worthwhile to make Strength equal Size, then handle Athletics separately.

Elephant: Strength +6 = Huge, Athletics -2
Rabbit: Strength -3 = Tiny, Athletics +3

There are various mechanical ways to work these out. But the correlation between Size and carrying capacity, and distinction from body mobility, are important for concept and flavor.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The robust travel mechanics of A5E, as a non-controversial example that leaps immediately to mind. Personally I would add domain management, mass battles and war, and "courtly intrigue aka social combat" to the list at the very least.
martial artistry has rules for mass and social combat and complete class compendium claims it'll add rules for settlement building (though if that will go as far as domain management i have no clue). so that's another cool thing about a5e - lots of additional systems, whether from the gpg, sourcebooks, or, in this case, third party books.
 

The problem here is that with two tests that must be achieved to sneak, it makes it a lot harder for the stealthy PC. Now try to handle it with the rogue trying to sneak past multiple potential opponents - UGH! And that's ultimately the trouble with multiple checks being necessary to succeed at a task - it becomes harder to do.

It’s a sensible argument, but in practice I do not think it was really a problem. Let me explain…

The problem would be significant if we took 5e and just split stealth and perception into two skills each, while keeping everything else as is. But in 3.5, there were many other mechanics that interacted favorably with this.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that we consider the case of a character with a dex of 18 (+4), ok? Well, in 5e, a 1st level character proficient in stealth gets another +2, for a total of +6 (1.5x what the stat gave) in stealth, while a 20th level character gets a proficiency bonus of +6, for a total of +10 (2.5x the stat). If they have expertise too, then +16 (4x the stat).

Contrast with 3.5, where a 1st level character could put 4 ranks each into move silently and hide in shadows, for a total of +8 (2x what the stat gave). At 20th level, that character could have 23 ranks, for a total of +27 (>6x better than just the stat).

I’m assuming no stat increases to simplify the example, but even with ASIs, the point ends up being the same, which is that in 3.5 the training counted for way more than the "inherent" ability. Why does this matter though? Well, that should become clear in the next point…

In 5e, all characters have almost identical amount of skills. The "skill monkey" classes get a little bit extra from expertise, but it’s fairly limited. Compare with 3.5 where a rogue would get 8 skill points per level, a bard 6, and many other classes got just 2. This means that for a low-skills class, it was a big opportunity cost to invest in the two detection skills. Maybe you’d invest in just one of them but not both (e.g., the keen-eared fighter and the sharp eyed ranger, adding to the flair of these characters).

Because of all these factors, I would argue that a rogue was not necessarily penalized, since they had available to them plenty of resources (skill points) to invest in training the two aspects of their stealth significantly more than their adversaries could spend training on the two aspects of detection.

Now, if we scale the scenario to multiple opponents, it doesn’t really change much. Fighting multiple opponents would be harder. Going past them stealthily should also be harder (unless… being a lone guard is boring, but there is nothing else to do besides looking around, whereas two guards can have a much better time gossiping, gambling their wages on a dice game, or any other distraction!)
 

Regarding the Strength ability:

It is worthwhile to make Strength equal Size, then handle Athletics separately.

Elephant: Strength +6 = Huge, Athletics -2
Rabbit: Strength -3 = Tiny, Athletics +3

There are various mechanical ways to work these out. But the correlation between Size and carrying capacity, and distinction from body mobility, are important for concept and flavor.
One other reason why I like Abilty scores is that is provides a nice number for some formulas like carrying capacity.

Then with such big numbers you can get deep into multipliers like Size and Number of legs and arms.

I miss those bits of rules for bonus CPLD rules for being four legged or having more than 2 arms. I wish that became more universal.
 

Then with such big numbers you can get deep into multipliers like Size and Number of legs and arms.
I simplify this to be, the carrying capacity only refers to a humanlike bipedal. A quadraped counts as if one size larger for carrying capacity.

(Winged creatures count as one size larger for how much space they occupy, but the other stats, such as the carrying capacity, remain normal.)
 

Overall, I think 3.5 is my favorite edition… it was very flexible, which gave a lot of opportunity to express a lot of different character concepts.

Multi-classing in 3.5 is a bit better than in 5e, IMHO. Tying the ASIs to class progression in 5e is a design flaw IMHO, as it leads to weird anomalies like having fewer feats than pure class characters unless each of your classes is a multiple of 4 levels… and other oddities like being able to get two Epic Boons with a multi-class character but not with a pure class one… IMHO, ASIs should have been tied to character levels, just like proficiency bonuses, and cantrip progressions…

Spellcasting-wise, the preparation mechanics are a bit more convenient in 5e. It’s maybe a little "too easy" compared to the agony of prepping each individual slots in 3.5, but that’s ok, I’ll take the ease in this case 😂

BUT, 5e still has a bit of a hangover of the 3.5 concept of slots dedicated to a given spell. For example, the Magic Initiate feat, or the spells gotten from being an Elf, and several class features, work in a way where "xyz spell is always prepared and you can cast it once without spending a slot". IDK why they mixed that in… as if they were not fully convinced of the superiority of the flexible preparation mechanics. It’s fine, but a bit quirky…
 


I think 3.5’s "iterative attacks" where the 2nd attack of the round had -5 penalty, the 3rd had -10 and so on was unnecessarily complicated. So I’m happy they got rid of that…

On the other hand, I feel it’s a bit silly that only the fighter gets more than one extra attack in 5e. Sure, a fighter should have an edge at "fighting" compared to other warrior classes like the barb, pally and ranger, but I feel like the number of attacks being the only way to give them an edge is a bit unimaginative. Meanwhile, so many classes get fighting styles and weapon masteries… these are the types of features which should maybe have been a bit more exclusive to the fighter (or at least delayed to higher levels in the other classes).

The 3.5 AC system with regular AC, touch AC and flatfooted AC was the best, IMHO. Much more interesting than just a single number. Like, why does your metallic shield and full plate protect you from my shocking grasp? If anything, carrying all that naughty word should make it easier for me to shock you! (and in 3.5, it did).
 

I think that this is true for a lot of game engines, be they computer or tabletop, at least if they're "sufficiently" (whatever that means) complex. For instance, in 3.5E we saw a sweeping change, late in the life of the game, where a large swath of monsters that had polymorph (or a similar power) as a spell-like ability had it removed, either being replaced with the more finite "change shape" monster ability, or simply not replaced at all. (This was pointed out earlier in the thread by @Necropolitan ). That wasn't the only such implementation either; just look at the Battle Blessing feat from Complete Champion. Video games just have an easier time applying those patches.
4E removed all social abilities from monsters and 5E barely added any back in.

And 5E's also incredibly stingy about giving monsters Skill Proficiencies so you've got beings described as having incredible talents in certain areas surpassed by 1st level PCs with Proficiency.

A 1st level PC who maxed their Charisma score (17 for a +3 bonus) and is Proficient in Deception (+2 bonus for a total of +5 on Deception rolls) is nearly twice as good a liar as a Challenge Rating 9 Glabrezu (+3 bonus with a Charisma of 16), which has "guile" and "trickery" listed as some of its main tools.

Someone who went from running Find the Lady cons to adventuring a few days ago shouldn't be a better liar than a thousands of years old embodiment of betrayal.
 


Remove ads

Top