Author Topic: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?  (Read 55571 times)

Offline Pippin

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« on: March 26, 2015, 01:28:44 PM »
Hello,

I'm a 3.5 player who has stopped playing for 2 years now. As fewer and fewer people use this version of D&D, and as the quantity of online resources shrinks as time goes by, I'm starting to worry.

Is D&D 5 nice enough to relinquish previous versions of D&D? Is it balanced? Are there a few classes that could become Batman? More particularly, how powerful are spellcasters in D&D 5?

Thank you for your time.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2015, 02:54:13 PM »
Which is more sour, apples or oranges?
When making an apply pie, do you prefer to use a heavy vignette or ranch dressing?

They do feel like they are the same game different system (vs 4th's left outfield pitch, yes pitch, the guy turned around and threw it away from the batter) but the largest complaint with 5th is it's dumbed down simplicity with no one where the options 3rd had. But, some of us realise it'll always be dumbed down simplicity but are with holding full judgement until some splat presents options. We're seriously still have core-books only right now becuase WotC's design model this go around is, like Marvel's cinema plans, highly involved with putting on adventures.

What is obvious is the rules already have several break points, a chunk of those you can find in our Fun Finds thread when I first got into reading 5th. But certainly at this point multi-class options are superior to any pure-class PC. 5th also plays the DM cop-out card a lot, far to much really. 3rd was like, "here are the rules to make a character, I hope it's cool." 5th is like "What the fuck do you think your doing? Ask your DM to sit down at the table, then ask him polity if you can play, then ask him what you're allowed to do." *sighs*

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2015, 02:58:45 PM »
When making an apply pie, do you prefer to use a heavy vignette or ranch dressing?
Given the context, this typo amuses me.  It makes it sound like it's more of a difficult comparison than what I presume the original intention was, making it sound like comparing 3E and 5E is dada-ist.

Offline TenaciousJ

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • AVENGE WAGON
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2015, 07:02:17 AM »
I am running a 5e campaign that has gone on since the beginning of January and the group is made of level 9 and 10 characters.  Both editions feel mechanically similar but 5e has much less number stacking on both sides of the table.

Is it nice enough to drop 3.5?  I don't know.  I like running 5e and it's a bit more streamlined.  Advantage/disadvantage is much easier to rule than trying to remember all the different edge cases that 3.5 has.  Low-op in 5e seems to work better than low-op in 3.5 since the base classes are closer in power and the classes were designed to work well with low base stats and no feats.  3.5 high-op is far more versatile and powerful than 5e.  For now I'm not bored with it but if WotC doesn't release much splat material for people who make custom campaigns, it's going to take a lot more homebrewing for me to keep making fresh material.  That's a problem that's going to take a couple years to have an impact for me at one 5 hour session a week.  For now I try to just judge 5e vs. 3.5 core, and I like 5e core more as a DM.  However, if I had a group of players who requested to play 3.5, I'd happily go back.

Is it balanced?  In what sense?  5e mundanes are much better off relative to where they are in 3.5.  My current impression is that monks got the biggest boost of the mundanes in 5e.  So far I think a character with spells is better off than a character without spells still, but the power gap is smaller and I think a party of 3 casters with 1 meat shield might be better off than a party of 4 casters.

Wizards are still most likely to be Batman, but Bard feels pretty close to that too.
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2015, 03:13:31 PM »
I think with 5e you can have brand new players walk right in and play.
That's a good thing.
With 3.Xe, new players might be treading water, or out-and-out sink. 
And not know that that's what's happening.

Clearly with only 1/2 a Splat's worth of expansion,
5e can't do the crazy+Fun stuff 3.5e C.O. cooked up.

4e had a build beat Orcus before the official release date of the game.
4e had a build beat a non-cupcake Orcus, maybe 2 months later.
5e C.O. hasn't had anyone bite on Tiamat yet.

Better?  idk
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Blightersbane

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2015, 04:52:05 PM »
what about 5e vs PF?

Offline TenaciousJ

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • AVENGE WAGON
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2015, 05:43:50 PM »
what about 5e vs PF?

If you want to play anything besides a 9th level caster, 5e >>>>>>>>>>>>> PF
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2015, 06:03:10 PM »
Pathfinder isn't that much more broken than 3.X (it has its own ToB thing, too), but the Pathfinder Society rules... @_@

Offline majicwalrus

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2015, 02:11:25 AM »
what about 5e vs PF?

I know a lot of diehard PF, but I prefer 5E to PF.  Combat is smoother and simpler and I really appreciate low level balance especially when trying to bring in new players.  Every PF campaign I've ever played with new players has always left them feeling like they were either underpowered when trying to play mundanes or overwhelmed when trying to play any caster at all.  With 5E a level 1-5 Wizard feels as useful and easy to understand as a 1-5 Fighter and a 15-20 Wizard feels powerful, but so does a 15-20 fighter. 

I have to agree with TenaciousJ - if you're playing PF it's too easy to break a game with a Synth Summoner and if you're trying to run a game with new players you're gonna spend the first several sessions trying to explain all of the goddamn bloodlines, oracle revelations, etc.  But I think a lot of what I like so much about 5E is that there aren't several thousand pages of expansion material out yet.  If you're playing PF or 3.5 you're looking at a new player tasked with choosing dozens of classes and prestiges. 

When my most recent 5E game started the DM sent out a survey to the new peeps playing that had about five questions.  Is your character the kind of character that likes to swing a sword and do lots of damage?  How does your character feel about magic?  Which would you prefer to do?  Would your character be a group leader?  Do you put distance between you and your foes?

Then she just sort of gave everyone an option that suited their play style and it worked out really well.  I'm sure a lot of my preference to 5E has to do with that though.   

Offline Ice9

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • Still frozen.
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2015, 03:05:01 PM »
Not IMO, but tastes vary. 

Personally speaking, 4 > 3 > 5 in terms of structure, but 3 > 5 > 4 in terms of what I'd actually play.  Mainly on the basis of how abundant and exciting the options within that structure are.  That said, given how much DM-adjudication is involved in 5E, I'd only play it with a DM I knew to be relatively compatible.

Re: PF - 3.0/3.5 is better overall, though PF has some nice elements.  But PF is in print, and PF has the d20PFSRD, and those are pretty large factors in running a game.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 03:07:47 PM by Ice9 »

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2015, 06:17:53 AM »
As somebody who's played 3.5 constantly for about 5 years, has discusssed 5e extensively woth friends (most of them ate playing 5e atm) and has read 5e from cover to cover (thinking about getting bwck into playing time permitting), I don't think 5e is better than 3.5, nor worseworse, just has different strong/weak points.
Here is my 2 cents about 5e:

Simplicity: means both easier to learn, but also less depth than 3.5. While that's to be expected since so far only core is out, I feel it has less depth than 3.5 core.

Balance: big plus, but not enough IMO. While sime classes are not rendered obsolete by the simple presence of other classes, the floor to ceiling distance is still big enough that an optimuzed character will still leave a non-optimized one in the dust.

Greater emphasis on DM authority: Huge plus with good DMs, huge minus with bad/inexperienced ones.

Unclear rules: 5e has a ton of vague rules that requires DM adjudicating without any clear hints of what RAI would be. Whether it's just sloppy writing or intentional anti-CO writing (the active 3.5 COBboards were the origin of most of the flak toward 3.5 balance, which in turn led to the ill-fated 4e. When half of any build is 'ask your DM' there's less substance for CO forum talk) is debatable.

And lastly, my biggest gripe with 5e: they carried on what I think was the absolutely worst idea from 4e: PCs are not part if the world. They operate by a specific set of rules that are vastly different from 'monster' rules. For example, as a PC Fighter you can't by the rules face off against an Orc fighter of similar ability. Your fighter abilities are PC only.

Offline keyes2k4

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2015, 10:49:28 AM »
And lastly, my biggest gripe with 5e: they carried on what I think was the absolutely worst idea from 4e: PCs are not part if the world. They operate by a specific set of rules that are vastly different from 'monster' rules. For example, as a PC Fighter you can't by the rules face off against an Orc fighter of similar ability. Your fighter abilities are PC only.

As somebody who hasn't yet played 5e if what you say is true I have serious issues with 5e now.  Though if I were to DM I'd probably find a way to put the PC's against NPC's using PC classes and really shake things up, because I fundamentally think that this difference is a poor design choice.  Is there some sort of lore within the system that justifies the difference in PC's versus monsters?

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2015, 11:11:56 AM »
And lastly, my biggest gripe with 5e: they carried on what I think was the absolutely worst idea from 4e: PCs are not part if the world. They operate by a specific set of rules that are vastly different from 'monster' rules. For example, as a PC Fighter you can't by the rules face off against an Orc fighter of similar ability. Your fighter abilities are PC only.

As somebody who hasn't yet played 5e if what you say is true I have serious issues with 5e now.  Though if I were to DM I'd probably find a way to put the PC's against NPC's using PC classes and really shake things up, because I fundamentally think that this difference is a poor design choice.  Is there some sort of lore within the system that justifies the difference in PC's versus monsters?

Well, there's the 'don't bury the GM under a mountain of abilities, feats, and unnecessary choices when you just want a few bandits' benefit. If you WANT to stat an NPC up as a PC with some different racial stuff or something, then you can do it. For everything else, you don't have to go through that three or four times just to have a bit of variety in an adventure. >_>

It's basically the exact same thing you're going to end up doing in 3.X, unless you have an awful lot of time (PbP comes to mind) or absolutely hate yourself: you don't NEED your big bad orc army to have fifteen levels of warrior and five feats and ability score increases and masterwork equipment bonuses etc. Get the numbers roughly accurate, and that's good enough.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2015, 11:18:00 AM by Raineh Daze »

Offline DDchampion

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2015, 11:15:17 AM »
Yeah, in 5e you can use either the ready-to-go orc grunt/captain from the Monster Manual, or stat them up from the ground, whatever you prefer.

Offline TenaciousJ

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • AVENGE WAGON
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2015, 01:12:21 AM »
Yeah, in 5e you can use either the ready-to-go orc grunt/captain from the Monster Manual, or stat them up from the ground, whatever you prefer.

I'm loving that aspect of 5e because I'm having a much easier time making humanoids that are a threat to the party without feeling like I'm making several fresh new characters for every session.  I just pick out some humanoids from the monster manual or princes of the apocalypse and tweak racial traits and maybe some stats or proficiency.  That way I can save humanoids with PC levels for special characters.
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2015, 08:55:01 AM »
5th edition is already dead. That's all you need to know.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2015, 09:07:59 AM »
5th edition is already dead. That's all you need to know.

Well, that's an enormous claim.

Offline bluephenix

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2015, 06:20:57 PM »
Personally speaking, 4 > 3 > 5 in terms of structure, but 3 > 5 > 4 in terms of what I'd actually play.  Mainly on the basis of how abundant and exciting the options within that structure are.  That said, given how much DM-adjudication is involved in 5E, I'd only play it with a DM I knew to be relatively compatible.
Could someone give some examples of which rules and portions of 5e structure are more vague than 3.5?
Granted its a simpler system, and the simplicity literally confused me for about an hour after I  read most of the PHB but its well worth it when you can go a session without players interrupting to ask semi-obvious questions or people disputing a rule that doesn't exist anymore.

Personally I prefer 5e to play and DM for when compared with 3.5 and pf and it may very well be my specific group but I personally haven't experienced any real vagueness when playing. Though I'm sure i'll be enlightened as to where that sentiment comes from shortly.

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2015, 05:08:03 AM »
And lastly, my biggest gripe with 5e: they carried on what I think was the absolutely worst idea from 4e: PCs are not part if the world. They operate by a specific set of rules that are vastly different from 'monster' rules. For example, as a PC Fighter you can't by the rules face off against an Orc fighter of similar ability. Your fighter abilities are PC only.

As somebody who hasn't yet played 5e if what you say is true I have serious issues with 5e now.  Though if I were to DM I'd probably find a way to put the PC's against NPC's using PC classes and really shake things up, because I fundamentally think that this difference is a poor design choice.  Is there some sort of lore within the system that justifies the difference in PC's versus monsters?

Well, there's the 'don't bury the GM under a mountain of abilities, feats, and unnecessary choices when you just want a few bandits' benefit. If you WANT to stat an NPC up as a PC with some different racial stuff or something, then you can do it. For everything else, you don't have to go through that three or four times just to have a bit of variety in an adventure. >_>

It's basically the exact same thing you're going to end up doing in 3.X, unless you have an awful lot of time (PbP comes to mind) or absolutely hate yourself: you don't NEED your big bad orc army to have fifteen levels of warrior and five feats and ability score increases and masterwork equipment bonuses etc. Get the numbers roughly accurate, and that's good enough.

None of the groups I've played in have done that, and I haven't done it as a DM, maybe that's why I'm having so much issue with it.  3.5 published adventures gave you 'Bob, fighter 5, with fighter 5 stats', not just 'Bob, no justification, stats to roughly challenge a 3rd level party'. As such we only considered naturally to keep doing so for our own campaigns. I also can't say I've ever found it particularly time-consuming and cumbersome once I got some experience with the system. It doesn't take me more than 5 minutes tops to sketch a non-spellcaster NPC. I actually find it easier to do so with class levels rather than eyeballing the numbers, because it's less thinking to do.

Let's say I do 'Bob, 5th level fighter': I have to pick his feats (I'd usually just pick a feat chain and go with it as far as possible,fill rest with generally useful stuff), the rest comes automatically (HP, Saves, BAB, Skills).

Now let's say I do Bob, no justification, stats to roughly challenge a 3rd level party': I need to decide: how many feats Bob has? Which ones? How many HP? What Saves? How well he attacks? I (purely personal preference) find this more tedious.

Anyway, back to the 5e PC vs. NPC distinction:

As a DM, you can of course give orcs Class Levels, despite there being no provision in the book to do so. It still doesn't change the fact that, unless you do them for all NPCs, most of them will still feel like operating under different rules than PCs. If you look at the NPC appendix at the end of the Monster Manual for example, many of the NPCs listed there have abilities PCs can't access. What happens when a player starts wondering 'why can't I get this ability that so many NPCs of my own race seem to have?'. It's a distincition that, to my group at least, makes the game feel less like a living breathing world, and more like a (video) game.

Could someone give some examples of which rules and portions of 5e structure are more vague than 3.5?
Granted its a simpler system, and the simplicity literally confused me for about an hour after I  read most of the PHB but its well worth it when you can go a session without players interrupting to ask semi-obvious questions or people disputing a rule that that doesn't exist anymore.

To give yo a quick example I enjoyed  discussing over some beers with my friends: there's a significant portion of the Druid class that's so vague it makes building your character and playing it impossible without a lengthy discussion with your DM:
-There's explicitly stated what happens with your normal form gear when you use Wild Shape, but no word regarding what happens with any gear you put on in Wild Shape when you revert to your normal form
-There's no explanation anywhere how natural armor works
-There's no clear answer whether for example taking the 'Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit etc.' action as a tiger constitutes taking the Attack action for the purpose of rules that key off taking the Attack action.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 05:17:54 AM by LordBlades »

Offline bluephenix

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2015, 07:16:53 AM »
Ah i see.
All those points are fair examples though I will say I think the reason GM abducation has become relegated to always become a lengthy discussion / debate is directly related to the fact that earlier editions of dnd were so rules heavy and content wide that a player who's always read up, could usually find some rule in book to deny what the DM wanted to do. Or simply because the DM doesn't know every class, prestige, feat and item by heart, it created this cenario where the player's knowledge base could be so outside the DM's because of all the extra content the DM would end up discussing it anyway.
This always makes people forget the rule stated near the beginning in most of the PHBs i've read that says the DM is god, if you don't like the game, leave.

Now, while a player should always know their shit, I feel like 5es vagueness give me the right as the DM to really be god. I try not to take it overboard and discussing out of session is fine, but this is usually how it goes in game.
Player: can I do this?
Me: No
Player: but Perfect strike says
Me: you can leave, or we'll discuss it after.
Or
Player out of session: "Can my alchemist take arcane strike?"
Me: hold on, let me read on it real quick... &15 mins later*
Player@ well?
Me: RAW no, But the maker on paizo admitted his original intent was to make the class a spellcaster and it makes the fluff less awkward to rangle out so i'll Go with the RAI this time and say yes.

That heartwarming cenario always brings a smirk to my lips but I'm a bit of a troll so thats natural for me. My main group who I run for though know how I run and note down questions in  game to ask afterwards and in turn when I play in a game even when the dm says grappling is  still a move action in pf I don't contradict them cos its his or her game and they can dern run it however they like and if their not open to changes I'd like out of session or their not presenting me with the game I want I drop out.

So... yeah, I'm just a fan of the system that goes, player ask for something, DM decides. end of  story even if DM takes 10 minutes to think about it out of session.