D&D 5E (2024) Martials and Magic. Two Years of Testing.

[Maxperson]

That is not how vancian prep works.
Take a reasonable level people actually play with regularity like level 5 & the 3.5wizard is going to have the following spell slots
L0: 4 (Listed for completeness)
L1: 3
L2: 2
L3: 1
A 2024 5e wizard will have 9 prep slots to spread across 4 3 & 2 first second & third level slots. The slot count is equal but the 5e wizard can do things like prepare shield and three second or third level spells from the 4 neovancian prep slots gained by the 4 first level slots after saying "Hey shield is the only 1st level spell I cast without going to ritual like detect magic, floating disk, unseen servant comprehend languages & find familiar". the 3.5 wizard needs to decide "do I want to prep shield more than once or would I rather prep a spell like [those 5e ritual spells]". If the 3.5 wizard decides that they do want to prep one of those spells instead of shield they can't use the spell slot itself for shield like the 5e wizard and the spell slot is unusable if there's no situation that calls for casting it

Bump the PC to higher levels woth more numbers to copy & the skew of spell levels almost entirely dedicated to preparing spells from other level spells just goes up the higher you get

Dude. I'm telling you EXACTLY how it worked. You prepped spells by spell level. You had to memorize things multiple times if you wanted to cast them multiple times. Even if spread out over all my levels I have 10 purely utility spells and 15 spells that are utility/combat like invisibility, I still have more purely combat spells like fireball, cone of cold and finger of death than a 5e wizard has in total to use on combat and utility.

You are simply wrong about this. A 20th level 3.5e wizard will vastly outperform a 5e wizard of the same level, especially since the 3.5e wizard can take reserve spell feats and have unlimited cantrips, too!

 

[Maxperson]

Didn't claim no one made it. Up to your group what splats you use.
I dont think to many groups make it. Or do 27 hour sessions.

What do 27 hour sessions matter? My groups made it to level 20+ with 4 hour weekly sessions.

 

[Zardnaar]

What do 27 hour sessions matter? My groups made it to level 20+ with 4 hour weekly sessions.

We are both hard core players and not representative.

We are probably both older and played multiple editions.

 

[Emerikol]

Its 2026 not the dark ages.

That is right. Game designers ought to understand that not everyone likes the same sort of play experience. They knew when making 5e that people would object to second wind. You could twist the system pretty hard to get back to a traditional playstyle but then they poison pilled the base fighter. It's pure stupidity. No one in your group has to play the basic fighter.

A player today should be able to use second wind and basic attacking, 7 year olds can handle more. If not I am 100% fine with "destroying them" when this means they need to learn to handle mechanics.

You are confusing an inability to play something with a desire to play it.

Also people who want a simple fighter but dont play it themselves, their oppinion does ot count anyway. "Other people should have fun doing X" is not something one should encourage, rather the opposite.

I have lots of players who want a simple fighter. It was actually the most popular class in my D&D campaigns.

D&D has traditionally tried to be the all inclusive game that most people can enjoy. I won't play it at this point. It's riddled with dissociative mechanics. They could have done it differently and included a lot of others and not excluded anyone else.

 

[Emerikol]

Heh, I would probably bail if someone told me they planned for their game to go for more than 40 sessions. One of my more recent games finally ended after about 45 sessions, and I felt that had gone on for way too long.

Barring something outside the game disrupting it, I intend for a D&D game to at least reach higher levels. And even though that took 5 years of game time in 1e, I can't imagine it taking less than 40 sessions even in the games we have today. We may not make it that far but I don't plan for failure. Sometimes things happen and the group has to disband but I don't plan for it to happen.

 

[Zardnaar]

Second winds not ideal imho.

Its a comparatively simple ability by modern standards. Not as simple as B/X. Pick your poison.

How many choices one makes is ultimately complex-simple spectrum. If you want ootions you have to add moving parts.

Something like weapon specialization is remarkably simple snd effective though.

Ironically such fighters relatively speaking crude thr modern ones in effectiveness. Take that as killing. Death is still the best debuff.

Weapon specialization may be a bridge to far or could be tweaked.

 

[Emerikol]

We are both hard core players and not representative.

We are probably both older and played multiple editions.

Why care about the lowest common denominator? I'm sure more people play in adventure league than in real campaigns but I don't even consider that real roleplaying. Let's not follow the masses over a cliff.

A campaign should be a campaign. It shouldn't end in a month or even two.

 

[Zardnaar]

Dude. I'm telling you EXACTLY how it worked. You prepped spells by spell level. You had to memorize things multiple times if you wanted to cast them multiple times. Even if spread out over all my levels I have 10 purely utility spells and 15 spells that are utility/combat like invisibility, I still have more purely combat spells like fireball, cone of cold and finger of death than a 5e wizard has in total to use on combat and utility.

You are simply wrong about this. A 20th level 3.5e wizard will vastly outperform a 5e wizard of the same level, especially since the 3.5e wizard can take reserve spell feats and have unlimited cantrips, too!

Technically correct. Most games dont go to 20th level.

Rereading 3.5 alot of things are actually optional.

4E died a miserable whimpering death. I think one reason was online assumptions about 3.5 were flawed.

I suspect most players by default are casual, they don't play the higher levels. Most of the 3.5 abuses were forum theory crafting imho.

 

[tetrasodium]

Dude. I'm telling you EXACTLY how it worked. You prepped spells by spell level. You had to memorize things multiple times if you wanted to cast them multiple times. Even if spread out over all my levels I have 10 purely utility spells and 15 spells that are utility/combat like invisibility, I still have more purely combat spells like fireball, cone of cold and finger of death than a 5e wizard has in total to use on combat and utility.

There is no spell level with ten slots in 3.5, the 3.5 wizard doesn't prepare ten or fifteen anything even at level 2p when they prepare 4 level zero spell slots 4 level 1 spell slots 4 level 2 spell slots and so on. You are still mixing and matching where it's convenient to support your original claim and trying to ignore that comparing the raw count of slots across editions is not a comparison tripping over it's own laces at the starting line

You are simply wrong about this. A 20th level 3.5e wizard will vastly outperform a 5e wizard of the same level, especially since the 3.5e wizard can take reserve spell feats and have unlimited cantrips, too!

Put down the roller skates. You haven't cleared the starting line yet to move on to discussing how they "perform", this is entirely about your bonkers choice of measuring stick for that performance of raw spell slot count back in 422. The 5e wizard has fewer spell slots than the 3.5 wizard had because the 5e version uses neovancian prep & is no longer preparing spells slot by slot

 

[Maxperson]

Technically correct. Most games dont go to 20th level.

Rereading 3.5 alot of things are actually optional.

4E died a miserable whimpering death. I think one reason was online assumptions about 3.5 were flawed.

I suspect most players by default are casual, they don't play the higher levels. Most of the 3.5 abuses were forum theory crafting imho.

I agree with you that most of the 3.5e problem builds were online theory crafting issues and not ones typically found in actual play. what I don't agree with is that casual = low level. Casual players just really don't give a fig about super optimization and are there to have fun and play the game. They can do that at low, mid, and high levels.

In my opinion, most, perhaps even the vast majority of the reason for why games don't go to high level is 1) lack of support by WotC, and 2) life gets in the way. Folks move. School gets out for the summer. Johnny gets sick and after weeks of not playing the others have moved on to something else. And more.