Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 7886372" data-attributes="member: 4348">First, I'm biased (as probably many of the gamers here are).  I am NOT a fan of 3.x overall.  I am not a fan of Pathfinder either.It should be no surprise then that I agree that 3.5 is FAR more broken than 5e.  There are things I dislike about how 5e went about doing things (for example, several things related to how restrictive bounded accuracy is, I think they could have doubled the proficiency bonus just fine, they already do it on a per class bases [for example, expertise] so extending it and not giving the exceptions would probably work out.That said, 5e is probably the least broken of many of the D&D systems.  It IS very bland in some ways as well, but it is not very broken in my opinion.3.X had classes out the wazoo, feats out the wazoo, and everything else taken to 11.  It's various campaign worlds had spunk, and you could dive deep into many of them with multiple sourcebooks for many of them (I have a ton of 3.X Forgotten Realms campaign setting books, and I still don't have everything that WotC put out for FR, I think I have all, if not almost all, of the dragonlance campaign, setting, and adventures that came out for 3.5, though most of that was NOT by WotC...etc...etc..etc.).It was broken in many ways all over the place. but I think it had spirit.  It also was much more like a boardgame (well, 3.5 was) than 5e, and much more restrictive in appearance of the rules (even if it proclaimed rule 0), making it more player centric and less DM friendly.I'd say that I prefer 5e any day over 3.X, but 3e did have some very interesting Campaign settings and adventures to read, and if you can convert them, interesting adventures to play, even with 5e.</blockquote>

Verification