Author Topic: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?  (Read 55572 times)

Offline DDchampion

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #80 on: May 02, 2015, 08:27:01 AM »
I'm not saying 5e is a bad system, far from it, just that, when cross-referencd with what I want from a game, it has more bad points than good points compared to 3.5

But it seems to me like some/several of those bad points are being made up by you.

There's no minotaur skeletons in 5e by RAW, point. The fluff text suggests that you may be able to make minotaur skeletons, but if the DM decides that it is possible and comes up with a minotaur skeleton stats. But nowhere says it would be a NPC-only ability. That's something that only comes up in your mind. There's zero words saying that a DM who decides to homebrew a 5e skeleton minotaur and a homebrew spell to create it should then decide said spells are NPC-only.

Besides, even with "just" small and medium-sized skeletons, animate dead is a very powerful spell in 5e, borderline OP. If you could also make skeletons out of everything and anything, it would be completely imba.

And even ignoring the above, in 3.5 there's dozens/hundreds of undeads that a PC can't create by themselves either, demanding either unique NPC abilities or with just fluff hints on how they're formed at all.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #81 on: May 02, 2015, 11:48:21 AM »
LordBlades: It seems your gripe is more about the campaign or module you're currently playing opposed to the ruleset you play it with.  Talking with your GM can change that requirement if you two agree on it.  I know it isn't changing the rules as written in the books, but the rules your group plays with are more important.
This is true, but following standard practice when we're talking about a game system we look at what's in the rulebooks.  Some light houseruling and smoothing over the corners makes sense, but if we're doing a lot of homebrew and kludging to make the game work, then that's a flaw (though not a fatal one) in the system.

P.S.:  at some point I'd love to talk about some 40k RPG-ing.  It's a setting a like, though never get to play, but the FFG systems kind of drive me nuts. 

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #82 on: May 02, 2015, 01:59:39 PM »
I'm not saying 5e is a bad system, far from it, just that, when cross-referencd with what I want from a game, it has more bad points than good points compared to 3.5

But it seems to me like some/several of those bad points are being made up by you.

There's no minotaur skeletons in 5e by RAW, point. The fluff text suggests that you may be able to make minotaur skeletons, but if the DM decides that it is possible and comes up with a minotaur skeleton stats. But nowhere says it would be a NPC-only ability. That's something that only comes up in your mind. There's zero words saying that a DM who decides to homebrew a 5e skeleton minotaur and a homebrew spell to create it should then decide said spells are NPC-only.

Actually there are. 'Point'. You might want to check your sources next time before you make this kind of posts.

The 5e MM has 3 skeletons: 'Skeleton' on page 272 and 'Minotaur Skeleton' and 'Warhorse Skeleton' on page 273. There's also explicitly stated under the Skeleton entry that 'skeletal undead can be created from the bones of other creatures besides humanoids'. Since PC Necromancers can't do that, but the book clearly states it can be done, the only conclusion I can draw from that statement is that only NPC Necromancers can.

Besides, even with "just" small and medium-sized skeletons, animate dead is a very powerful spell in 5e, borderline OP. If you could also make skeletons out of everything and anything, it would be completely imba.

That's debatable and far from a fact. It seems to me that, as it currently stands, Necromancers are barely playable past low levels, because you have to have an exponentially larger number of skeletons to stay competitive, and I doubt most play groups are OK with waiting around while you do your 30 minutes turn that involves moving 50 creatures and rolling 200 dice (numbers exaggerated ofc, but you get the point). Having the ability to focus on 2-3 larger and stronger creatures would make Necromancers more playable IMO.

And even ignoring the above, in 3.5 there's dozens/hundreds of undeads that a PC can't create by themselves either, demanding either unique NPC abilities or with just fluff hints on how they're formed at all.

Please give me an example of a 3.5 Undead that
-Could be crated by somebody that was not a Deity
-Creation was inaccessible to PCs but accessible to NPCs of playable races


P.S.:  at some point I'd love to talk about some 40k RPG-ing.  It's a setting a like, though never get to play, but the FFG systems kind of drive me nuts.
Out of curiosity, what is it that you dislike about FFG systems? Apart from Dark Heresy my experience has been pretty positive with most of them (Rogue Trader, Black Crusade and Deathwatch).
« Last Edit: May 02, 2015, 02:01:34 PM by LordBlades »

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #83 on: May 02, 2015, 02:10:57 PM »
Quote
P.S.:  at some point I'd love to talk about some 40k RPG-ing.  It's a setting a like, though never get to play, but the FFG systems kind of drive me nuts.
Out of curiosity, what is it that you dislike about FFG systems? Apart from Dark Heresy my experience has been pretty positive with most of them (Rogue Trader, Black Crusade and Deathwatch).

"Behold as you fail an easy task" is probably a start.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #84 on: May 02, 2015, 03:03:29 PM »
Quote
P.S.:  at some point I'd love to talk about some 40k RPG-ing.  It's a setting a like, though never get to play, but the FFG systems kind of drive me nuts.
Out of curiosity, what is it that you dislike about FFG systems? Apart from Dark Heresy my experience has been pretty positive with most of them (Rogue Trader, Black Crusade and Deathwatch).

"Behold as you fail an easy task" is probably a start.
That's a big one.  Driven, in part, by GM's natural reticence to give bonuses on things that should be easy or straightforward.  But, that's not the top of my list, actually.

I'll take the initiative and start a thread when I get the chance to avoid cluttering this one.  Warhammer 40k is, along with superheroes and Star Wars, kind of my holy grail RPG-wise:  I like it a lot, but get extremely little opportunity to really play with it.  The games are hard to start, find, or fall apart. 

Offline fearsomepirate

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #85 on: June 17, 2015, 01:23:16 PM »
Regarding the splat content, 5e is compatible enough with everything except 4e that you can easily mine the PDFs they have for sale at Wizards for stuff. I certainly don't feel like I need a new, 5e-specific Eberron book.

Regarding whether it's better than 3.5, I and the people I play with like it better. It's just so much more streamlined (touch/flat-footed AC are gone, bonuses are simpler, etc)  and less vulnerable to truly absurd depths of min/maxing, e.g. the sorts of builds in 3.5/PF where multiple feats and class options across multiple books can interact in such a way as to give you infinitely many attacks or something crazy like that.

Another thing people seem to like is how easy it is to dial up or down the complexity. The consensus is that the Battle Master fighter is the most powerful, but the Champion isn't exactly a wimp, and some players just want to roll a die without managing resources. I've got one guy at my table playing a Paladin, and all he ever does is Lay on Hands, Magic Weapon, and Divine Smite. And you know what? He's having a lot of fun and really kicking butt.

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #86 on: June 18, 2015, 04:09:15 PM »
5th edition isn't even a complete ruleset. Almost half of the rules are explicitly an encouragement to just make shit up.

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 #87 on: June 18, 2015, 04:21:30 PM »
 :) ... the stuff that does have real rules around it,
is absolutely positively and irrefutably superior
to 1e and 2e, on the simple point of math vs. no math.

Chances are wotc knows enough about the relative
game maths of 4e and 5e, they could put out a small
booklet or pdf, to do mass conversions of the 4e stuff.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline fearsomepirate

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #88 on: June 20, 2015, 06:45:17 PM »
The attempt to have an explicit rule for every conceivable thing is a dead paradigm in RPGs. You still have your GURPS fans, and Paizo's basically taken over 3rd edition but the new wave is to simplify things and have guidelines rather than crunch. 5e is still crunchier than, say, FATE, but it's still a distinctly more modern take on the classic game.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #89 on: June 20, 2015, 07:54:13 PM »
The attempt to have an explicit rule for every conceivable thing is a dead paradigm in RPGs.
How many counterexamples would you need to prove something is not "dead"?  Also, this is a silly read on 3E.  There's been a proliferation of rules-lite RPGs lately -- I think in part b/c they are easy and cheap to design.  And, that's fine, I've got no particular beef with them.  But, the World of Darkness, One Roll Engine, FFG, Savage Worlds, and so on have pretty much the same approach to rules as 3E D&D does. 

There might be a slight dialing of how much or how many rules there are -- Savage Worlds has fewer combat rules than 3E D&D does.  But,
the new wave is to simplify things and have guidelines rather than crunch
is by no means true.  Savage Worlds, for example, is as guidelinesy as 3E was, in the sense that it gives you a place to be flexible and estimate custom modifiers as well as telling you how to design the equivalent of your own feats and prestige classes, etc.  I don't even think the above quote is a fair representation of FATE, and it's pretty rules-lite.

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #90 on: June 21, 2015, 02:23:50 AM »
In many of the aspects where it lacks rules, 5e also lacks guidelines, or they are incredibly broad, like 'this is possible, now design the rules for it, GO!'
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 02:33:23 AM by LordBlades »

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #91 on: June 22, 2015, 02:10:39 PM »
In many of the aspects where it lacks rules, 5e also lacks guidelines, or they are incredibly broad, like 'this is possible, now design the rules for it, GO!'
this.

5e is an incomplete, half-assed product which was to be expected with Mearls.

Offline Gnomes2169

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Dragon derp
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #92 on: June 24, 2015, 12:03:37 AM »
In many of the aspects where it lacks rules, 5e also lacks guidelines, or they are incredibly broad, like 'this is possible, now design the rules for it, GO!'
this.

5e is an incomplete, half-assed product which was to be expected with Mearls.
... Could you give an actual example of this, please? The skill system lacking explicit examples isn't the end-all for declaring an entire system half-assed, and from doing all of the math possible in a system without 50bajillion splat books I can tell you that the math of the system is definitely well-thought out and balanced.  :-\
Erry day I'm derpening

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #93 on: June 24, 2015, 03:11:02 PM »
In many of the aspects where it lacks rules, 5e also lacks guidelines, or they are incredibly broad, like 'this is possible, now design the rules for it, GO!'
this.

5e is an incomplete, half-assed product which was to be expected with Mearls.
... Could you give an actual example of this, please? The skill system lacking explicit examples isn't the end-all for declaring an entire system half-assed, and from doing all of the math possible in a system without 50bajillion splat books I can tell you that the math of the system is definitely well-thought out and balanced.  :-\

Quick example: undead, more specifically skeletons: the MM clearly tells you that you can make skeletons out of almost anything, but fails to give you any kind of indication how. All it provides you is 3 examples. If you want to make a skeleton out of any different kind of creature, you need to figure out a 'skeleton template' all by yourself.

Hell, the whole MM is just a collection of monster entries, with 0 support regarding how monster rules actually work (like for example 'how is Natural Armor calculated?') or how to actually change/improve existing monsters.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 03:49:07 PM by LordBlades »

Offline Gnomes2169

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Dragon derp
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #94 on: June 24, 2015, 08:54:16 PM »
In many of the aspects where it lacks rules, 5e also lacks guidelines, or they are incredibly broad, like 'this is possible, now design the rules for it, GO!'
this.

5e is an incomplete, half-assed product which was to be expected with Mearls.
... Could you give an actual example of this, please? The skill system lacking explicit examples isn't the end-all for declaring an entire system half-assed, and from doing all of the math possible in a system without 50bajillion splat books I can tell you that the math of the system is definitely well-thought out and balanced.  :-\

Quick example: undead, more specifically skeletons: the MM clearly tells you that you can make skeletons out of almost anything, but fails to give you any kind of indication how. All it provides you is 3 examples. If you want to make a skeleton out of any different kind of creature, you need to figure out a 'skeleton template' all by yourself.

Hell, the whole MM is just a collection of monster entries, with 0 support regarding how monster rules actually work (like for example 'how is Natural Armor calculated?') or how to actually change/improve existing monsters.
Undead in general? Okay. Let's flip to page 282 of the DMG. There we have the stats for an NPC or created skeleton and zombie.

-Skeleton is +2 dex, -4 int and cha. The creature gains vulnerability to bludgeoning damage, immunity to poison damage and exhaustion and can't be poisoned. Oh, and has darkvision to 60ft and can understand (but not speak) languages it knew in life.
-Zombie  is +1 str, +2 con, -6 int, -4 wis, -4 cha. The creature gains undead fortitude, immunity to poison damage, can't be poisoned, darkvision to 60 feet and it can understand (but not speak) languages it knew in life.

As far as templates go... you wanted them, there they are. Other templates (such as vampire or lich) are either part of the creature's stat block, or just aren't made yet. Hoowever, they do have dracolich, half dragon, skeleton, zombie and vampire. They also have the creation of Slaadi and Mychonids, but those aren't exactly "templates" as such. The actual rituals for creating something other than what a PHB resource says you can is entirely up to the DM, however. Sort of like it was in every edition of D&D besides maybe 3.5, given players had some resources that they could draw on from the DMG and the DMG only (magic items, crafting and PrC's... and the 5e DMG has 2/3 of those as well, just not the expectation that all DM's will allow all of their players to draw on the DMG resources). The Monster Manual has always been the dominion of the DM.

As for monsters... well, let's tackle natural armor quick. It works just like light armor, where it sets the creature's AC to a certain amount and then adds in the critter's dex bonus. So it's not exactly rocket science to figure out. It's also stated on page 7 of the monster manual, under the heading "armor class." Next for changing and modifying monsters... Well, let's look in the DMG at pages 273-283. All of these pages are dedicated to the math behind creating and modifying monsters of certain CR's, and with tables for making NPC humanoids different based on race, or granting creatures certain abilities and how those abilities affect over-all CR.

As far as I can tell, the separation of monster advancement into the DMG had to do with spacing in the Monster Manual and reaffirming that the monster manual and DMG are supposed to be linked together as DM tools that players can have access to if the DM is willing to make it so. It's not like a player is exactly going to be an ancient red dragon or lich, and it might not fit the theme of a campaign to have a few months of downtime for item creation, so it makes sense to limit some things to the realms of DM approval or non-player options.

As well, it's a new system. Certain things are not yet present as options that a DM could make as their own conversion, but which will likely be added in later (Like a Monster Manual 2, likely with more templates, for example). A lot of the things that you find "unfinished" or "missing" just haven't been converted yet due to the lack of real manpower on the D&D staff as of right now, or are being rolled into new adventure paths to let you get a look at how they work in an "official" adventure. The adventure paths also have at least one free online companion that comes with them, with Tyranny of dragons more dedicated to monsters (and thus DM tools), and the Princes of the Apocalypse companion focusing on player options with new races and spells. I would not be surprised if the Underdark path comes with more shadowy, demonic options (or maybe even psionics), and if future paths continue the same trend.



Anyway, to answer the question of the thread: The major differences between 3.5 and 5e would be balance... but to a much greater degree, the difference is in player entitlement. Since I haven't exactly seen anyone going into this one, I'll explain what I mean for a second.

In 5e, as in 1e, 2e, and to a lesser degree 4e, there is a separation between what players have access to and what a DM has access to. While all players can X (core classes and spells, core races, etc), they do not necessarily have access to Y (knowledge on how to build "balanced" encounters or custom monsters, random loot table generation, special monster abilities, etc). The separation is supposed to just reaffirm the roles, both to make a DM's job easier and ti give the world a bit more of a fantastical edge to it, where not everyone can do everything, or where certain capabilities are just not possible for certain beings to comprehend (like an invisible stalker being perma-invisible, as someone already brought up in the thread). It can be abused by a DM, and was abused horribly by Gygax back in the day, but for the most part it's just there to make the story or combat aspects flow more smoothly. Things like a god of war granting their champion access to abilities or spells that PC's cannot normally achieve (and that are unbalanced in PC hands), or the creation of unique magical items that tie strongly into the game's plot, but that can't be replicated, are good examples of this separation.

3.X broke from this system by making every single creature, item, spell or plot-important device function along the same design. Every skill possible was codified and given circumstantial modifiers, every monster progressed like it had levels of monster X, and over all things were as complex as they could get. Players could police DM's and had massive control over the story's flow and direction in a way they never had before (or since). A DM could still make new or unique things if they wanted, but then that opened them up to being learned and used by players or rule-0 DM fiat land, and 3.X is the system where such a thing began to carry such negative connotations. Since everything ran along the same system, players had justification to feel entitled to quite a lot of the more broken things that were meant to be variants or DM tools, and as stated before by sooooooooooo many people, this could culminate in unforeseen ways to make quite a few unbalanced and "overpowered" options. Anything the DM could do, PC's could break better*.

This also led to far more work on the DM's end, as the rules for PC creation were often complex and incredibly involved, and all creatures and challenges basically functioned like PC's. Creature type led to different stat blocks, had different hit dice, ability score and size progressions, granted feats at different rates, had differing immunities and defenses, and forced a lot of work and memorization for what would likely only last 1-3 rounds of combat with a party. Keeping certain plot-device abilities out of the hands of a PC became a chore, and setting DC's for mundane challenges consisted of consulting mile-long pages of charts and tables, accounting for every variable and possibility. While it was "fair" and "consistent," such a system sacrificed convenience in the most ritualistic way possible, and forced a DM to spend a lot of time on mechanics that could have gone to story.

Personally, after having DM'd both, I have to say that 5e is far more easy to work with from a DM perspective, and less of a headache numbers wise for both me and my players. I don't have to worry about how many feats and ability score increases my monsters have, I can just make or find something challenging for my players in 15-20 minutes by fiddling with its HP, AC, proficiency bonus and ability modifiers as fits the monster, and maybe give it a unique ability or two if I spend another 5 minutes thinking about it. I don't have to worry about gaming the system to give the monster the best PrC's, items for their expected treasure horde wealth (likely magic items on their person to increase the challenge), or my players just steam rolling 4 hours of work on my BBEG because I forgot about one of their horrendously broken combos while designing the boss.

I'm alright playing 3.5, but don't think I'll go back to DMing it. It takes too much time building PC's as is in the system, I don't want to have that much out of game work as a DM ever again. I also don't want to have my players hijack the story the instant they hit level 6 or complain about enemies having tools that they lack, as that has taken up literal hours of game session in the past, and I am honestly just sick of it. The division between PC and NPC is something I wholeheartedly support. >_>

*Read to the tune of "Anything you can do, I can do better"
Erry day I'm derpening

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #95 on: June 25, 2015, 06:33:30 AM »
Regarding the separation of PCs and NPCs abilities, some make sense from an in-world perspective, others don't.

An invisible stalkers is permanently invisible becaus all invisible stalkers are. The PC can't have that power because he's not an Invisible Stalker. Same goes for a god's chosen. He has unique powers because of his god's favor. The PC doesn't have that power because he doesn't have the favor of said god.

Now see my undead example earlier (NPCs can animate more kinds of stuff than PCs can). The only reason the PC Necromancer can't learn to make warhorse skeletons is because he is not an NPC. It's this kind of abilities that bother me.

Offline TenaciousJ

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • AVENGE WAGON
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #96 on: June 25, 2015, 01:37:50 PM »
NPC "necromancers" don't have to be the same thing as PC "Wizards with the School of Necromancy Arcane Tradition."  Any equivalence between them should probably be removed in future printings of the player's handbook.  It's unfortunate that minion-based player concepts have been significantly de-powered compared to past editions, but I can say as a DM I'm pleased to avoid dealing with the headaches of a PC-controlled undead army.
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #97 on: June 25, 2015, 02:54:10 PM »
3.X broke from this system by making every single creature, item, spell or plot-important device function along the same design. Every skill possible was codified and given circumstantial modifiers, every monster progressed like it had levels of monster X, and over all things were as complex as they could get. Players could police DM's and had massive control over the story's flow and direction in a way they never had before (or since). A DM could still make new or unique things if they wanted, but then that opened them up to being learned and used by players or rule-0 DM fiat land, and 3.X is the system where such a thing began to carry such negative connotations. Since everything ran along the same system, players had justification to feel entitled to quite a lot of the more broken things that were meant to be variants or DM tools, and as stated before by sooooooooooo many people, this could culminate in unforeseen ways to make quite a few unbalanced and "overpowered" options. Anything the DM could do, PC's could break better*.
I want to be nice about this, but no.  First off, the idea that 3E has some sort of unified ruleset, as in there's no division between abilities (generally) available to PCs and those available to NPC-type monsters has to contend with literally books full of counterexamples with.  Monsters, generally, have played by their own rules, they have all these funky abilities with their unique rules to them.  It's true in a dizzying number of stat blocks.  They are designed in a certain way.  Sure, they make use of some common resources, such as feats, spells, and magic items.  But, this has been true in D&D since time immemorial.  Someone even older than me can tell us when Balors started carrying vorpal swords.  But, that can't be what you mean.  I haven't even touched a 5E Monster Manual, but I bet there are monsters with spells and spell-like abilities in it. 

NPCs typically function according to "PC" rules b/c it's odd to say that Elven Wizard Bob is somehow fundamentally different than Elven Wizard Mike.  This, was also true in earlier editions of D&D.  Elminster was some dual-classed nonsense back in the day, and if he's not an NPC then nobody is.  Back in 2E people were naturally chomping at the bit to become a Chosen of Mystra or the Magister or whatever NPC-esque abilities were floating around.   

Furthermore, I find it mind-boggling that everything you said somehow sprang into existence with 3E D&D.  What "tools" does 3E D&D give players to "police the game"?  Spells like Divination?  Those long predated 3E.  An actual ruleset?  I'm pretty sure that (a) predated 3E, despite what some people may recall, and (b) is overall a pretty good thing, and (c) applies extremely broadly. 

Hell, the annals of Grognardia are filled, and I mean fucking filled, with examples of "the DM gave this villain a powerful artifact, that I then plucked from his cooling fingers to hilarious game-breaking consequences."  Hell, in some regards this sort of shit just is D&D. 

Furthermore, if Gnome2169 is right, that means any game system with a kind of unified ruleset, which, again, D&D 3E is an extremely shitty example of, if it's even an example at all, somehow puts DMs at the "mercy" of the players.  That includes, off the top of my head, Mutants & Masterminds, Savage Worlds, World of Darkness (all iterations), FATE, Burning Wheel, One Roll Engine, GURPS ...  That does not match up with most people's experience with those games, as a rule.

What I think you're cueing off of is a cultural change in gamers, a reaction to the kind of Gygaxian DM-fiat that amounts to the idea that you might as well not bother bringing a character sheet anyway type of gameplay that was years coming.  That might, to some degree, have coincided with the rise of 3E as a popular system.  But, it's wrong to associate that with the system.  Furthermore, this tension has always existed in RPGs.  And, even in the very early stages of D&D there was always some sense of guidelines and implicit strictures -- people would say the equivalent of "that saving throw seems awfully hard for this kind of thing" or "a -5 b/c it's raining, really Tim?" -- one of 3E's moves, which predated it but was popularized by it, was being more transparent and standardized about them.  No more, no less.

The other stuff Gnome2169 says about 5E might be entirely true.  I defer to others, including him or her, in this regard.  But, the stuff I talked about above isn't, and borders on a kind of 5E propaganda.

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #98 on: June 25, 2015, 04:12:31 PM »
NPC "necromancers" don't have to be the same thing as PC "Wizards with the School of Necromancy Arcane Tradition."  Any equivalence between them should probably be removed in future printings of the player's handbook.  It's unfortunate that minion-based player concepts have been significantly de-powered compared to past editions, but I can say as a DM I'm pleased to avoid dealing with the headaches of a PC-controlled undead army.

Even in that case, there would be no logical in world explanation why a PC can't learn NPC Necromancy.

Also, if anything, Necromancers are more of a chore to run in 5e than previous editions, since now you are forced to run a horde of skeletons, whereas in 3.5 for example you could run 2-3 bigger things.