D&D 5E (2014) Sell this 3.5 grognard on 5e

[jgsugden]

The best reason to give it a try is: Low investment. You can give it a try for relatively low investment of time and effort as it is a more natural growth from 3.5 than 4E was.

 

[Shiroiken]

Okay,

I'm a D&D 3.5 grognard. I love my 3e.

While I love my 3.5 a lot, I'm at least halfway curious about trying or checking out 5e, as I realize it's not the 4e that got me to completely ignore WotC's offerings for a decade and my superficial first-glance impression of 5e when it came out (That it was oversimplified and dumbed-down, but at least closer to D&D's feel and heritage than 4e, may not be entirely representative) .

So, sell me on it. Why should I switch? I'm listening.

Probably can't. If you like 3E because of the detailed mechanics, you won't find it in 5E. It really is a more simplified system ("dumbed-down"), making it more readily accessible for new players. It has taken the core mechanics of 3E (the d20 system), add some of the better aspects of 4E, and gave it the feel of AD&D.

If the detailed mechanics weren't what appealed to you in 3E, then you'll find everything you liked from 3E present in 5E. Yes, there are aspects you probably won't like (probably related to the things added from 4E), but one of the best aspects of 5E is that it's pretty customizable. RAW really isn't much of a thing, and the DM is given a lot more leeway on how to handle situations.

I've taught a lot of older players 5E, and I've found that 3E lovers have the hardest time switching. If you really love 3E, but can't find a group, I'd suggest Pathfinder might be the better option for you than 5E. It kept the parts of 3E that most 3E players loved.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, sell me on it. Why should I switch? I'm listening.

1. More players.

2. There's more to talk about.

3. You're keeping current with what most people are.

4. The game itself, while far from perfect, is really good and easy to customize once you pick it up.

5. There is a low barrier to entry, yet a lot of extra material both official and 3PP.

6. You've "done" 3.5e, try something new! The worst that can happen is you go back.


EDIT- and if you do go back, you might end up taking a few of the mechanics with you. Who knows?

 

[R_J_K75]

Less reliance on magic items (third edition PCs without magic items are almost useless, especially non spellcasters; fifth edition PCs work perfectly without magic items).

I concur. I have run about 10-12 sessions of 3 players levels 1-2 in my current game and I've yet to give out a single magical item. Thinking about my previous 5E games, I gave out few magical items.

 

[Voadam]

It is a lot like 3e with some house rules designed to make it a little simpler and reduce power imbalance of casters and some of the high level imbalances.

Concentration means less spell stacking to track and it narrows (but does not eliminate) the LFEW (linear fighter exponential wizard) phenomena. It is a great mechanic that can be implemented in 3.5 as a UA style house rule if desired.

Fighters are not feat based, they get their own things.

Moving and full attacking as default so melee warriors can be more mobile.

AoOs only when you leave reach means everybody can charge in without getting tagged.

Bounded accuracy means low level stuff can be used in higher level games and have an impact.

Flat save instead of spell level based ones for spells means low level spells are still relevant at high levels.

Spells are (generally) designed to expect a failed save but not to full stop a combat.

Warlocks as a core PH class and not considered significantly lower tiered than other casters.

Multiclassing spellcasting is better integrated.

Paladins are a stronger class in 5e than in 3e. Smite in particular is better.

Less Christmas tree magic items. Atunement limits number of big magic items.

Skills do not have the +0 to +30 discrepancy they could have in high level 3.5.

All classes get at least two skills from class and two from class-independent background, things like Rangers and Rogues and Bards get more.

All classes get a subclass specialization between 1st and 3rd level that provides different class benefits at defined levels. For instance a fighter has an option for being a mechanically straightforward powerful number enhancer (extended crit range, etc.), a fiddly resource tracking bonus die technique option, and an eldritch knight spellcasting option out of the PH.

Feats are an optional subsystem (swap out a stat bump for a feat) with fewer more powerful feats. No feat tax for PCs and fewer fiddly bits to track with monsters.

Short rest mechanics allow more recharge power options than per day.

Hit die healing mechanic means there can be significant non-magical healing between combats in a day. A little similar to the reserve points from 3.5 UA.

 

[billd91]

(That it was oversimplified and dumbed-down, but at least closer to D&D's feel and heritage than 4e, may not be entirely representative) .

Simplified is not "dumbed down". Funnily enough, that was a charge levied at 3e for turning AC around from AD&D days. Now it gets passed down to whatever's new. And so it goes...

 

[slobster]

As another 3.x enthusiast, the way it broke down for me was this.

When I am playing 5E, actually sitting down and playing the game, there is almost nothing I miss about 3.x. The rules are simpler and more streamlined, and skills and noncombat abilities are designed such that it's easier to just describe what you are trying to do and then make the roll. Books come out much less often, arguments are less frequent, and immersion is higher. It's just a solid D&D experience from top to bottom.

When I am between games, planning my next level-up or looking at character options, I really miss the 3.x crunch. Sometimes. Other times I'm glad to not have to wade through a dozen sourcebooks to try and keep up with the other builds at the table (we have a minmaxy group that likes finding corner case cheese for fun, which is great but eventually got exhausting in the late 3.path era). But it does sort of feel like, mechanically, I tend to return to the same 2 ways to build a paladin, etc. Very different from the old days, and that's probably the one thing I occasionally get a twinge of nostalgia for.

Overall I've found that I enjoy the actual playing of 5E a lot, and that plus its accessibility make it my favored edition.

 

[payn]

Im a 3E/PF1 guy who has been through a 1-18 campaign in 5E.

I'll start by saying that the things that I see as roadblocks in 3E are system mastery (trap options/ivory tower design) and funky high level math. The higher levels are just too much a pain to run, IMO. Though I love me a game in the 1-12 levels. That is my sweet spot and when it becomes time to hang up the campaign and start over.

5E does a lot to stave off the system mastery issue. The problem is character building has become super dull. This could be seen as a feature by folks who just want quick leveling and a streamlined game. If the nuances of system mastery and the options they provide are important to you, 5E is likely to let you down.

5E is actually really easy to run all the way to the highest levels. Since the game has been streamlined and the math works better, its easier than ever to run a game. I think even 3E fans will recognize this as a strength of 5E. There are fewer rules systems in 5E, but the ease of generating your own content makes up for it.

tl:dr 3E/PF1 is the game I want as a player, but 5E is the game I want as a GM to run.

 

[Nebulous]

There's little I can say that other's haven't mentioned. I will say from the DM perspective (I don't play, I exclusively DM) is that the monsters can be oversimplified, but the simplicity of the 5e rules themselves make it very, very easy to modify monsters, even on the fly. Furthermore, there are third party source books like Tome of Beasts, Creature Codex and Expanded Monster Manual that make 5e enemies much more difficult and varied (EMM is one of the best thing i've ever bought for 5e; it takes every core book monster and adds a handful of variants).

Another plus of playing 5e this late in the game is that any and all faults and weaknesses have been viciously addressed by the fan community, and you can find an answer to anything online.

Another bonus is that the adventure paths are mostly quite good, especially if you start with Lost Mine of Phandelver, one of the great D&D adventures of all time, in any edition. You will find maps for everything, walkthroughs, enhancements, handouts, and complete Reddit breakdowns of every official 5e D&D module, and advice on which ones you would like and which ones to pass on.

 

[Oofta]

I can't think of much others haven't mentioned other than quadratic fighters and exponential casters.

My warrior types were not min/maxed power builds but they were all pretty effective, usually more so than anyone else at the table.

But they were put to shame by higher level casters, especially above level 12 or so. The party would be facing what appeared to be certain death and the caster would step up do some flim-flam can of whup ass and the monsters would just go away.

Casters are still quite powerful in 5E but the disparity isn't as great if you don't set up your games so that they can go nova every encounter.

I've run games up to level 20 and for the most part they still "work". That's not something I could say for 3.5.

I used to have to have a chart to track bonuses and double handfuls of dice (I don't remember the exact number, but it was over 50, all color-coded) for a single attack for both my fighter and my paladin with horse. There are some nice buffs in 5E but it's not as overwhelming as 3.x.

I do miss thinking about character builds and options, 5E is much more front loaded.

The other thing is that this is definitely a game of rulings over rules. Take a look at the stealth guidelines (they're in the free PDF). It's not a comprehensive list, just what situations you can try to hide from an opponent. I like it but it may sit wrong with some people.