• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E Why does 5E SUCK?

houser2112

Villager
Dragon hide? That won´t work. It sets your AC to 13+dex... in your case at 17. Sorry.
This is one thing I hate about 5E, the move away from bonus-based calculations. If you wear armor (or have Wisdom so strong it acts as armor), making your skin itself be resistant to damage should do something for you, but here we have a feat that does just that (I'm not familiar with the feat, so I'll take your word that it works as you say), and yet it doesn't do anything for this character. Natural armor (this feat, the barkskin spell, and draconic sorcerer scales) should be additive with artificial armor.
 

UngeheuerLich

Adventurer
This is one thing I hate about 5E, the move away from bonus-based calculations. If you wear armor (or have Wisdom so strong it acts as armor), making your skin itself be resistant to damage should do something for you, but here we have a feat that does just that (I'm not familiar with the feat, so I'll take your word that it works as you say), and yet it doesn't do anything for this character. Natural armor (this feat, the barkskin spell, and draconic sorcerer scales) should be additive with artificial armor.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Stacking bonuses is what ultimatively broke 3.x for me.
 

Ragmon

Explorer
Sounds like you should look into Pathfinder 2.

The goal wasn't to make 3.5 but better.

They made something much better than they would have been.

I agree with some of those complaints, but the background part is nonsense, IMO.
Are there details out on PF2's system? If yes please link it.

Yea I get that, but what I was saying is that they should have just improved the 3.5 formula, but for reals this time (PF tried but it was really just D&D 3.75).

I guess they did, a lot of people love it. Is it better? I personally think its a rigid system, with very little character customization, specially post creation. But hey thats just me. If it appeals to new players and people who were scared of 3.5 "complicated" system, I'm all for it.

The background section is a joke.
The rules are (try to make it fit your character):
*Choose 2 Skills to gain proficiency in.
*Choose 2 languages, 2 tools or 1 of each to be proficient in.
*Make up feature that doesn't effect the game mechanically but help the character out in situations that are not all that important.

This would fit in as a side note. Then just give a huge list of example on 1 or 2 pages. Instead of just wasting pages on stuff that people would come up with, them self.

ALSO the Background section should be before Classes. Why? Cause now you have to flip back and forth between what class skills you get and what skill the backgrounds grant you (overlapping skill selection is what i'm getting at).

Eh, w/e. I'm not playing 5e any way....back to Shadowrun. :)
Just choose some background skills then move onto the class skills
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
Are there details out on PF2's system? If yes please link it.

Yea I get that, but what I was saying is that they should have just improved the 3.5 formula, but for reals this time (PF tried but it was really just D&D 3.75).

I guess they did, a lot of people love it. Is it better? I personally think its a rigid system, with very little character customization, specially post creation. But hey thats just me. If it appeals to new players and people who were scared of 3.5 "complicated" system, I'm all for it.

The background section is a joke.
The rules are (try to make it fit your character):
*Choose 2 Skills to gain proficiency in.
*Choose 2 languages, 2 tools or 1 of each to be proficient in.
*Make up feature that doesn't effect the game mechanically but help the character out in situations that are not all that important.

This would fit in as a side note. Then just give a huge list of example on 1 or 2 pages. Instead of just wasting pages on stuff that people would come up with, them self.

ALSO the Background section should be before Classes. Why? Cause now you have to flip back and forth between what class skills you get and what skill the backgrounds grant you (overlapping skill selection is what i'm getting at).

Eh, w/e. I'm not playing 5e any way....back to Shadowrun. :)
Just choose some background skills then move onto the class skills
Couple things:

You can make your own background, no need for DM permission on anything but the ribbon benefit if you want a unique one. So, anyone who didn’t get what backgrounds are/why they’re in the system can do exactly what you susggest.

Because class skill choices are more rigidly limited, it makes sense to do the class stuff before background.

3.5 wasn’t all that great, 5e is as similar to it as it needs to be.

There are classes that are on rails, and classes that aren’t. Other than feats, 3.5 was pretty much entirely on rails unless you had spells, after level 1. At least 5e adds backgrounds, subclass, and every class has at least 1 subclass with more frequent choices. The only point where 3.5 had more customization was having more feats.
 

Warpiglet

Explorer
Couple things:

You can make your own background, no need for DM permission on anything but the ribbon benefit if you want a unique one. So, anyone who didn’t get what backgrounds are/why they’re in the system can do exactly what you susggest.

Because class skill choices are more rigidly limited, it makes sense to do the class stuff before background.

3.5 wasn’t all that great, 5e is as similar to it as it needs to be.

There are classes that are on rails, and classes that aren’t. Other than feats, 3.5 was pretty much entirely on rails unless you had spells, after level 1. At least 5e adds backgrounds, subclass, and every class has at least 1 subclass with more frequent choices. The only point where 3.5 had more customization was having more feats.
Yeah, other than 1e, 3e is the only experience I had before 5e. We played 4e, once.

To the point, I see more choices within class for 5e (for good or ill depending on your opinion). Much more choice.

5e did away with the overly prescriptive niche prestige classes. Why? Becasue you can tailor your characters at a MORE granular level with 5e and with a small refluffing make yourself into almost anything.

I do not recall different paths or totems or whatever for barbarians in 3e. Am I wrong? And warlocks in 5e can be very very different from one another with pacts patrons invocations race feats and backgrounds.

I haven't even exhausted warlocks much less the other 5e classes...
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
I disagree wholeheartedly. Stacking bonuses is what ultimatively broke 3.x for me.
Ugh. This. A system where you have to keep track of three different AC ratings, and four or more different attack bonuses, some of those into the +50s because of all the stacking, is horrible to me. No thank you.

If it appeals to new players and people who were scared of 3.5 "complicated" system, I'm all for it.
This type of attitude? Where you're saying if people don't like your preferred system are either newbs or scared of complication? It can go pound sand. It illustrates one of the biggest problems 3e created for me: a group of fans who think they are intellectually superior to everyone else just because they like add modifiers up into the 50s or 60s for each roll. I have no problem with basic math, and neither do most people. 3e is more complex than other systems but that doesn't mean it's complex as a whole. Doesn't mean I like it, or am scared to deal with it. It's because I want to play a game rather than spend the whole time adding and subtracting dozens of modifiers every five seconds. 3e isn't complex to me. It's tedious. There's a difference, and for you to assume otherwise is not only arrogant, it's factually wrong.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Yeah, other than 1e, 3e is the only experience I had before 5e. We played 4e, once.

To the point, I see more choices within class for 5e (for good or ill depending on your opinion). Much more choice.

5e did away with the overly prescriptive niche prestige classes. Why? Becasue you can tailor your characters at a MORE granular level with 5e and with a small refluffing make yourself into almost anything.

I do not recall different paths or totems or whatever for barbarians in 3e. Am I wrong? And warlocks in 5e can be very very different from one another with pacts patrons invocations race feats and backgrounds.

I haven't even exhausted warlocks much less the other 5e classes...

5e's customization is much more frontloaded than other editions. I can, and have many times, converted my PCs from other editions that were multiclassed and was able to keep them one class in 5e because of the backgrounds and broader feats. Like my F/T halfling in 1e that is just a fighter in 5e with the urchin background and skulker feat. Those are all things that happen in the first couple levels of 5e. No need to spend a bunch of levels multiclassing. With backgrounds, it's done at 1st level. In a system that uses bounded accuracy, it's a mistake to discount the importance of the background system IMO. Being able to apply prof bonuses is a big deal.
 

Warpiglet

Explorer
Ugh. This. A system where you have to keep track of three different AC ratings, and four or more different attack bonuses, some of those into the +50s because of all the stacking, is horrible to me. No thank you.



This type of attitude? Where you're saying if people don't like your preferred system are either newbs or scared of complication? It can go pound sand. It illustrates one of the biggest problems 3e created for me: a group of fans who think they are intellectually superior to everyone else just because they like add modifiers up into the 50s or 60s for each roll. I have no problem with basic math, and neither do most people. 3e is more complex than other systems but that doesn't mean it's complex as a whole. Doesn't mean I like it, or am scared to deal with it. It's because I want to play a game rather than spend the whole time adding and subtracting dozens of modifiers every five seconds. 3e isn't complex to me. It's tedious. There's a difference, and for you to assume otherwise is not only arrogant, it's factually wrong.
I guess that is the thing, right? The nerd superiority is silly as hell. I can add. I can play wargames. Its just that D&D is different than the latter in some ways and a balance between fluidity and ease of use with options and strategies is superior for many. Not all.

Its on a continuum of preference. All the different attack bonuses is unnecessary complication in the modeling of fantasy stories/adventures with problem/riddle solving and role playing.

There is no right answer. Pathfinder is always there for people who want more of that stuff. It just did NOT add to the high-fiving, yelling and holy sh*t moments of my group's D&D excitement. 3 attacks with three different base attack bonuses does not make me feel more immersed in the character either.

I am smart enough to do it. I just don't want to.
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
Yeah, other than 1e, 3e is the only experience I had before 5e. We played 4e, once.

To the point, I see more choices within class for 5e (for good or ill depending on your opinion). Much more choice.

5e did away with the overly prescriptive niche prestige classes. Why? Becasue you can tailor your characters at a MORE granular level with 5e and with a small refluffing make yourself into almost anything.

I do not recall different paths or totems or whatever for barbarians in 3e. Am I wrong? And warlocks in 5e can be very very different from one another with pacts patrons invocations race feats and backgrounds.

I haven't even exhausted warlocks much less the other 5e classes...
yep, you’re exactly right. In 3e you pick a class and, unless you multi class, your only choices from then on are feats and how many skill points to put into your short list of class skills.

4e has the number stacking as well, though not nearly as much of it. Still, it was one of the few things I dislike about the system.

There is no right answer. Pathfinder is always there for people who want more of that stuff. It just did NOT add to the high-fiving, yelling and holy sh*t moments of my group's D&D excitement. 3 attacks with three different base attack bonuses does not make me feel more immersed in the character either.

I am smart enough to do it. I just don't want to.
Exactly. I didn’t enjoy 3.5 because the complexity was almost always an annoying complication, rather than something that added to the game. Also weird quality of life stuff like having to sacrifice being able to attack in order to start a Bard song or how slowly ranger features trickle in to the character over levels.

Didn’t help that I had a DM for a while that wanted bards to keeping using actions to continue singing (or it would end immediately), and thought they should have to use an instrument to use their songs, and various other stuff that just made the game less fun in the name of half baked simulationism.
 

Lord Mhoram

Explorer
If it appeals to new players and people who were scared of 3.5 "complicated" system, I'm all for it.
lulz.

I play Hero as my primary system, I scoff at the "complicated" 3.5 claims*. I also love 5E. People like different things.. some individuals like different things all by themselves. There is no one true system for anyone.

* Note playing to stereotypes, I actually find Hero less complicated in play than 3.5.. just Chargen is frontloaded with a LOT of choices.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
I'll even go so far to say that 3e isn't that complicated to begin with. It's just adding and subtracting integers from a single die roll--pretty much the same rule to resolve most everything. D20 + x + Y - z, etc. 1e is way more complicated. Just look at the DMG. Pretty much everything had it's own equation that wasn't like the others, and then after figuring all the modifiers, go look at a table. Because I prefer 1e to 3e doesn't mean I think 3e fans are newbs and/or not able to handle 1e. The only way in which 3e has more complexity is on character progression, and that's only really because 3e did a fairly poor job avoiding trap feats and avoiding system mastery from wrecking the experience of anyone at the table who didn't memorize the best builds.

So no, I don't think 3e is all that complex. Again, IMO, it's tedious. And I'm fully aware that's personal taste and not some objective declaration. If someone prefers that system, more power to them. Game on. Just don't act like you're somehow superior to other people.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
And yet you know that when he's calling the monk a martial character, he means it's not a spellcaster
He did start with:
some of the classes are, to me from what ive played, staight up inferior to anything that can use magic. i dont feel like im getting stronger when i level up given that, as a monk
Which is clearly contrasting the monk to classes that use magic - which is off, because 5e Monks /explicitly/ use magic, in the form of Ki. 5e Monks can also actually cast spells, fueled by Ki, but still spells.
considering im the only martial class in our group of five, two playing clerics with domains that allow heavy armor, and two wild magic sorcerers, i do feel as though i just dont do much, and considering im coming from pathfinder that has like ki powers and cool stuff like that, i am willing to admit i might be a bit biased.
'Martial' is typically used to describe classes that use weapons, or classes that don't use magic, and, given he's already classed his monk as not using magic... - again, something off. The Monk does use magic in 5e. It's schtick still emphasizes fighting unarmed. It's a bizarre irony of D&D, one that perhaps doesn't get much play because it has so much competition with other bizarre and ironic things, that the D&D Monk, the closest thing to a 'martial artist' isn't very martial, at all.

, and when he talks about missing Pathfinder's ki powers it's actually the diverse plethora of powes that he misses.
PF has a larger body of material out than any single edition of D&D, including the 3.5 it cloned. It's hardly surprising that an ed that puts out maybe one supplement containing some 'crunch' in a given year has fewer options than that. But it's not that the Monk lacks 'cool ki powers,' it's that he doesn't have as many choices.

Really, nobody does. There's fewer spells, fewer feats, fewer options for every class down the line.

[MENTION=6952435]Sleepy Mage[/MENTION], 5e characters are indeed built simpler than Pathfinder characters. I find they play exceptionally well though when I don't look to what's on my character sheet. I just do what a monk would do, and force the DM to adjudicate the results.
That's how the game is designed to be played!

Yea I get that, but what I was saying is that they should have just improved the 3.5 formula, but for reals this time (PF tried but it was really just D&D 3.75).

I guess they did, a lot of people love it. Is it better? I personally think its a rigid system, with very little character customization, specially post creation. But hey thats just me.
In a sense, 4e improved the 3.5 formula - the sense that they were both player-focused games & that 4e improved mechanical qualities like balance. 5e is not improving on 3e or 4e, even though it lifts many bits from each, it's mainly improving upon the classic game, which was far more DM-focused.

As such, 5e is arguably comparable to and better than TSR stuff, even as it trades heavily on evoking the 'feel' of that era. But, 5e's much harder to compare to 3e, and, since I appreciate the qualities that go into both DM- and Player- focus, contrasting as they may be, I find it very hard to label one meaningfully better than the other. 3e provides far more customization and much deeper play on the player side of the screen, while 5e gives the DM tremendous latitude to customize the rules maintain control of the play experience from his side of the screen. They're like two halves of a hypothetical great game.

If it appeals to new players and people who were scared of 3.5 "complicated" system, I'm all for it.
What appeals to new players is a community that doesn't present as hostile and divided as an active warzone. 5e - with some smoke, some mirrors, the odd platitude, and some otherwise highly questionable design decisions - delivered that, and it would be sheer folly to mess with that success by in any way trying to 'improve' or 'expand' it to appeal to the hard-core fans of 3.x/PF or 0/1/2e/Arduin/OSR that still resist it's siren call.
 

Ragmon

Explorer
Couple things:

You can make your own background, no need for DM permission on anything but the ribbon benefit if you want a unique one. So, anyone who didn’t get what backgrounds are/why they’re in the system can do exactly what you susggest.

Because class skill choices are more rigidly limited, it makes sense to do the class stuff before background.

3.5 wasn’t all that great, 5e is as similar to it as it needs to be.

There are classes that are on rails, and classes that aren’t. Other than feats, 3.5 was pretty much entirely on rails unless you had spells, after level 1. At least 5e adds backgrounds, subclass, and every class has at least 1 subclass with more frequent choices. The only point where 3.5 had more customization was having more feats.
The background section is a waste of effort, thats what I'm trying to get at, it takes up 15 pages on describing backgrounds. Short mechanics explanation + 1-2 pages of examples and done. That way, more work could have been put into other parts of the book...like the ranger for instance, or Class Labels for spell description.

Yea, but the backgrounds are even more rigid. 1 background has 2 fixed skills, while you can CHOOSE class skills, from a set list.

Well 3.5 had, class variants, racial substitution, alternate base classes and prestige classes, and you could multi-class freely (no attribute restriction). Tons of feats (yea most of them are useless) and templates for your race.
But the main thing for me is, you could customize your skill distribution after character creation.

Never say that any other edition had more customization then 3.5. Only PF has more, if we count it as 3.X Edition.
 

Ragmon

Explorer
I do not recall different paths or totems or whatever for barbarians in 3e. Am I wrong? And warlocks in 5e can be very very different from one another with pacts patrons invocations race feats and backgrounds.
I would like to point you to Unearthed Arcana.
Totems (as alternate base classes):
  • Jaguar
  • Ape
  • Bear
  • Boar
  • Dragon
  • Eagle
  • Horse
  • Lion
  • Serpent
  • Wolf
Horse Lord
Implacable
6 alternate class feature sets.
3 Racial substitutions class levels (Goliath, Halfling, Half-Orc)
 

Ragmon

Explorer
This type of attitude? Where you're saying if people don't like your preferred system are either newbs or scared of complication? It can go pound sand. It illustrates one of the biggest problems 3e created for me: a group of fans who think they are intellectually superior to everyone else just because they like add modifiers up into the 50s or 60s for each roll. I have no problem with basic math, and neither do most people. 3e is more complex than other systems but that doesn't mean it's complex as a whole. Doesn't mean I like it, or am scared to deal with it. It's because I want to play a game rather than spend the whole time adding and subtracting dozens of modifiers every five seconds. 3e isn't complex to me. It's tedious. There's a difference, and for you to assume otherwise is not only arrogant, it's factually wrong.
Nooo. I'm saying that I'm happy that 5e is much more simple and new player friendly. That is why more new players are trying it out. I'm glad that more people enjoy the same game as I do.

Also yes, tons of people don't play cause they find some RPGs complicated. Example, one of my friends loves D&D but wont play Shadowrun his explanation is that he doesn't want to deal with all the complicated rules. Other friend, he likes 5e cause its nice and simple.

I like 5e cause its easy to GM.

People are different and play for different reasons, and don't play some games for other reasons. Some of those reason are the systems complexity.

I love playing Dread, not because I suck at match, because it has a very simple system that I like.
 

Advertisement

Top