Author Topic: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?  (Read 55570 times)

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2015, 09:16:47 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.

'How many feats' is unnecessary. A straight low-level human fighter's pretty much the simplest case (I'd put it at +8, 40HP, and then just give any abilities vaguely LIKE the feats, which isn't far off manually building it, if it wasn't so trivial to do a fighter). Some sort of arcane knight type nonhumanoid creature at level 10? No thanks.

Or the example of a varied orc army. Why, exactly, would I want to do new mid-high level statblocks for what's a bunch of cannon fodder at this point? That's tedium.

Quote
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.

That stupid argument again? "It's video-gamey"? Even within the bounds of the 3.X you're going to get NPC's that can do things the PC's can't due to the sheer number of abilities. :/

I have no idea why people are so annoyed by NPC's not all having class levels etc., because there's only ONE edition that decided this was a glorious idea.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 09:31:24 AM by Raineh Daze »

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2015, 09:37:49 AM »

That stupid argument again? "It's video-gamey"? Even within the bounds of the 3.X you're going to get NPC's that can do things the PC's can't due to the sheer number of abilities. :/

I have no idea why people are so annoyed by NPC's not all having class levels etc., because there's only ONE edition that decided this was a glorious idea.

The thing is in 3.5 it's entirely possible to have NPCs with abilities PCs don't have. It is extremely difficult however to have NPCs with abilities one could not build a PC to have as well if so desired.

Not in 5e.

What I meant with video games is that they're the widest and best known category of games where the abilities and system of rules by which the protagonist(s) operate is completely different than the abilities and system of rules the NPCs operate. This IMO is a bad thing when you are trying to play a RPG, which is supposed to provide immersion in a fantasy world. Constant reminders of 'this is just a game, not a plausible world' break the mood of playing RPGs for me.

I could live with NPCs not having class levels (it would still bother me at an idea level, but not actually in game, as you don't really see a class/stat breakdown of your opposition anyway), what I can't really live with is NPCs having 'NPC only abilities' that a PC can't access, doubly so if we're talking of NPCs of playable races.


Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2015, 10:02:35 AM »

That stupid argument again? "It's video-gamey"? Even within the bounds of the 3.X you're going to get NPC's that can do things the PC's can't due to the sheer number of abilities. :/

I have no idea why people are so annoyed by NPC's not all having class levels etc., because there's only ONE edition that decided this was a glorious idea.

The thing is in 3.5 it's entirely possible to have NPCs with abilities PCs don't have. It is extremely difficult however to have NPCs with abilities one could not build a PC to have as well if so desired.

Not in 5e.

What I meant with video games is that they're the widest and best known category of games where the abilities and system of rules by which the protagonist(s) operate is completely different than the abilities and system of rules the NPCs operate. This IMO is a bad thing when you are trying to play a RPG, which is supposed to provide immersion in a fantasy world. Constant reminders of 'this is just a game, not a plausible world' break the mood of playing RPGs for me.

I could live with NPCs not having class levels (it would still bother me at an idea level, but not actually in game, as you don't really see a class/stat breakdown of your opposition anyway), what I can't really live with is NPCs having 'NPC only abilities' that a PC can't access, doubly so if we're talking of NPCs of playable races.

Not... really? There's no way PC's would be getting a lot of monster abilities without polymorph coming into it, and polymorph being used like that is both unreasonable, and not really in the spirit of 'you can build a PC to do this'. You could make an Invisible Stalker villain, and last I checked there's no 'the PC is now perpetually, undispellably invisible' ability. Genie wish granting, a lot of the weird elemental effects, and things that seem like enchantments on steroids. There's always abilities that are out of reach like that.

Exact abilities being out of players' reach doesn't matter. Unless there's some entire class of effects that PC's can't get through any combination of class features, which I don, 't think there is, there's not some huge gulf between NPC and PC. Everyone's operating on the same rules once the game's running, they're just not statistically built the same way--which is actually less video gamey than quite a few RPG's (they tend to have the PC and NPC's running off the exact same type of statblock, since that way the game only needs to handle one).

And... every other edition bar 3.X has this separation. It's no more video gamey than people with class levels being special in some way, which is pretty much enforced--there's a reason that 3.X has all those weaker NPC classes. So what if your race tends to have an abilitiy that you don't have? Your PC's obviously got a completely different skillset.

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2015, 11:00:28 AM »

And... every other edition bar 3.X has this separation. It's no more video gamey than people with class levels being special in some way, which is pretty much enforced--there's a reason that 3.X has all those weaker NPC classes. So what if your race tends to have an abilitiy that you don't have? Your PC's obviously got a completely different skillset.

PAO was a thing in 3.5 but that's beside the point. Fact was that, if an Invisible Stalker had an ability, he had it as both PC (assuming you could play it) and NPC. There was not one set of rules for Invisible stalker PCs, and another for Invisible Stalker NPCs.


There is a difference between 'my race tends to have an ability I DON'T have and my race tends to have an ability I CAN'T have, no matter I do. The latter bothers me.

For example:

REACTION
Parry. The captain adds 2 to its AC against one melee attack
that would hit it. To do so, the captain must see the attacker
and be wielding a melee weapon.

This is an ability NPC Bandit Captains, Gladiators, Knights and Nobles have, but no PC can ever learn outside DM fiat, and there's no in-world explanation for it.

What happens when you go to a NPC and ask him
'Teach me this!'
'I can't'
'But you taught Bob the Bandit and Nick the Noble'
'Well, I just can't teach you, you're....special?'
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 11:05:31 AM by LordBlades »

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2015, 11:06:59 AM »
... and the fighter nevertheless has a parry maneuver that, though the effect's different, is going to be viewed as the same thing in-universe. Or the Defensive Duellist feat, which is the same as that Parry, but adds your whole proficiency bonus. You can get the ability.

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2015, 11:15:34 AM »
... and the fighter nevertheless has a parry maneuver that, though the effect's different, is going to be viewed as the same thing in-universe. Or the Defensive Duellist feat, which is the same as that Parry, but adds your whole proficiency bonus. You can get the ability.

So if 2 things are called the same they're going to be viewed as the same in universe, despite them doing totally different things?

NPC Parry causes the attack to miss and requires a melee weapon and awareness of the attack, so fluff-wise you most likely deflect your opponent's attack with your weapon. Fighter Parry reduces the damage you take (but the attack still hits) and works when unarmed and/or unaware as well, so it's probably moving your body so the hit lands on your armor/ a non-vital spot. Totally different things IMO.

Defensive Duelist is closer IMO, but it only works with Finesse weapons, while NPCs can do it with Greataxes, and without needing a 13 Dex to do it.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 11:17:19 AM by LordBlades »

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2015, 11:25:08 AM »
Yes, parrying is going to be viewed as parrying in universe. It doesn't become a totally different thing just because you think that makes more sense. :/

I'll be honest: I think your opinion is ridiculous. You're saying the system's bad... because you lose immersion because you can't learn random NPC abilities as class options or as prewritten feats? If it's really that important, given that the DMG includes 'making new character creation options' as a section, the rules don't exclude the potential to learn it anyway. It just doesn't make sense to say that the worst part of the system is something that caused 3.5 even more balance issues and hasn't been in any other edition.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 11:43:58 AM by Raineh Daze »

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2015, 12:03:20 PM »
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.
I admit that this, especially the bolded portion, baffles me.  It makes it sound like it's the DM's game, and we're just inhabiting it.  If that's the case, then the space between D&D and fanfic is extremely small.  Further, it's inimical to how I think the game should run.  The gameworld consists of an environment that hopefully makes a bit of sense:  big dragons have armor like tenfold shields, it's hard to kill ghosts with the average stick, etc.  And, then everything comes together to create scenarios and interesting challenges and unanticipated responses, and so on.  If the DM's hand is on the wheel the entire time, then there's not much game there anymore. 

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.
...
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.
If that's the case, why are rulebooks that are several hundreds of pages long even needed?  It seems that a system at this level of adjudication could fit within something in the neighborhood of 40 pages, if that.  I'm not morally opposed to such a system -- I probably wouldn't be that interested in playing or even running it, but that's a taste of mine.  But, it seems odd and counterproductive to hold that up as an ideal and at the same time produce books chock full of rules that, I'm gathering, end up being vague or misleading.*  Either make it rules-lite and lean heavily on DM adjudication, or make whatever rules that you are going to write clear and to the point.  It seems like the game wants to have it both ways, but this tension can only lead to problems.

I also happen to think that putting cool ideas behind a "DM May I?" paywall stifles creativity.  Every cool combo or what have you that I'd come up with has to seek permission, which means I'm stuck building Amon the Swashbuckler the way the DM thinks I should buckle swashes.  Seeing as the main appeal, I think, from a system as fiddly and D&D has traditionally been** is coming up with new, interesting, and often unanticipated combinations of abilities, this seems like a problem. 


*Caveat:  I have only skimmed the 5E rules and played a playtest of it (which, to be fair, did not impress me with the system at all ...).  So, my judgments on these things are based on what people have been saying in threads like this. 

**Just to head off any arguments, D&D has been a fiddly combos-oriented system for a long time.  I'd go so far as to say it's part of it's brand identity.  Meaning this kind of thing isn't an advent of 3E, it just changed some of the bits that you could use. 

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2015, 12:21:53 PM »
A lot of the 'ask your DM' seems to come from wanting to keep the 'minimal' amount needed to play the game pretty low. Since you can get by with only a race/class combo... yeah, so many things could be inherently not included in a game.

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2015, 12:39:13 PM »
I'll be honest: I think your opinion is ridiculous. You're saying the system's bad... because you lose immersion because you can't learn random NPC abilities as class options or as prewritten feats? If it's really that important, given that the DMG includes 'making new character creation options' as a section, the rules don't exclude the potential to learn it anyway. It just doesn't make sense to say that the worst part of the system is something that caused 3.5 even more balance issues and hasn't been in any other edition.

It was however something I deeply enjoyed in 3.5 (feeling that NPCs were part of the same world as PCs, working by the same rules). Reading 5e just doesn't give me that feeling. To me, this is the worst part of 5e. It's purely subjective (as are all opinions) and based on reasons that make sense to me. You (or everyone else for that matter) doesn't need to agree to it.

Yes, parrying is going to be viewed as parrying in universe. It doesn't become a totally different thing just because you think that makes more sense. :/[/i].

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parry:

'to defend yourself by turning or pushing aside (a punch, a weapon, etc.)'

The Parry ability of the fighter allows you to use it let's say when strapped tightly to a chair as to be completely immobile, and/or against attacks you never saw coming. I'm not sure how that can be rationalized in game as 'parry' (the plain English usage of the word). You're also most definitely not 'parrying' (the plain English usage of the word) the attack since it still hits you, so it's neither 'turned', not 'pushed aside'.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2015, 12:49:51 PM »
Yes, parrying is going to be viewed as parrying in universe. It doesn't become a totally different thing just because you think that makes more sense. :/[/i].

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parry:

'to defend yourself by turning or pushing aside (a punch, a weapon, etc.)'

The Parry ability of the fighter allows you to use it let's say when strapped tightly to a chair as to be completely immobile, and/or against attacks you never saw coming. I'm not sure how that can be rationalized in game as 'parry' (the plain English usage of the word). You're also most definitely not 'parrying' (the plain English usage of the word) the attack since it still hits you, so it's neither 'turned', not 'pushed aside'.

Ignoring the weird scenario where you can use a combat ability whilst strapped to a chair (I'd rule you're incapacitated if that's the case, so no reactions for you), parrying it so that it does less damage is still pushing it aside from a lethal wound. Plus, you can potentially roll high enough to negate the damage entirely, which means it's missed. To an observer, your parrying would be better than a captain's--both of you sometimes avoid all damage, but you at least don't take the full brunt of it if your parrying fails.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 01:19:59 PM by Raineh Daze »

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2015, 01:43:14 PM »
Yes, parrying is going to be viewed as parrying in universe. It doesn't become a totally different thing just because you think that makes more sense. :/[/i].

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parry:

'to defend yourself by turning or pushing aside (a punch, a weapon, etc.)'

The Parry ability of the fighter allows you to use it let's say when strapped tightly to a chair as to be completely immobile, and/or against attacks you never saw coming. I'm not sure how that can be rationalized in game as 'parry' (the plain English usage of the word). You're also most definitely not 'parrying' (the plain English usage of the word) the attack since it still hits you, so it's neither 'turned', not 'pushed aside'.

Ignoring the weird scenario where you can use a combat ability whilst strapped to a chair (I'd rule you're incapacitated if that's the case, so no reactions for you), parrying it so that it does less damage is still pushing it aside from a lethal wound. Plus, you can potentially roll high enough to negate the damage entirely, which means it's missed. To an observer, your parrying would be better than a captain's--both of you sometimes avoid all damage, but you at least don't take the full brunt of it if your parrying fails.

Less weird scenarios:

-A fighter can Parry attacks he's not aware of.
-A fighter can do stuff like Parry huge greatswords empty handed.
-A fighter can Parry 4-6 times per combat (less if he uses superiority dice to perform other maneuvers). After that he ceases to be able to do that until he rests.

How do those relate to actual parrying?

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2015, 01:50:03 PM »
Yes, parrying is going to be viewed as parrying in universe. It doesn't become a totally different thing just because you think that makes more sense. :/[/i].

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parry:

'to defend yourself by turning or pushing aside (a punch, a weapon, etc.)'

The Parry ability of the fighter allows you to use it let's say when strapped tightly to a chair as to be completely immobile, and/or against attacks you never saw coming. I'm not sure how that can be rationalized in game as 'parry' (the plain English usage of the word). You're also most definitely not 'parrying' (the plain English usage of the word) the attack since it still hits you, so it's neither 'turned', not 'pushed aside'.

Ignoring the weird scenario where you can use a combat ability whilst strapped to a chair (I'd rule you're incapacitated if that's the case, so no reactions for you), parrying it so that it does less damage is still pushing it aside from a lethal wound. Plus, you can potentially roll high enough to negate the damage entirely, which means it's missed. To an observer, your parrying would be better than a captain's--both of you sometimes avoid all damage, but you at least don't take the full brunt of it if your parrying fails.

Less weird scenarios:

-A fighter can Parry attacks he's not aware of.
-A fighter can do stuff like Parry huge greatswords empty handed.
-A fighter can Parry 4-6 times per combat (less if he uses superiority dice to perform other maneuvers). After that he ceases to be able to do that until he rests.

How do those relate to actual parrying?

1) Reflexively knock it aside, it's a reaction
2) ... see above. You're not catching the damn blade
3) Why are the fighter's abilities limited like that in the first place? Maybe he just tries and it doesn't work? Maybe the way they do it is too difficult to pull off repeatedly as a fight tires you? That's got nothing to do with the thing at all.

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2015, 02:03:27 PM »
Yes, parrying is going to be viewed as parrying in universe. It doesn't become a totally different thing just because you think that makes more sense. :/[/i].

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parry:

'to defend yourself by turning or pushing aside (a punch, a weapon, etc.)'

The Parry ability of the fighter allows you to use it let's say when strapped tightly to a chair as to be completely immobile, and/or against attacks you never saw coming. I'm not sure how that can be rationalized in game as 'parry' (the plain English usage of the word). You're also most definitely not 'parrying' (the plain English usage of the word) the attack since it still hits you, so it's neither 'turned', not 'pushed aside'.

Ignoring the weird scenario where you can use a combat ability whilst strapped to a chair (I'd rule you're incapacitated if that's the case, so no reactions for you), parrying it so that it does less damage is still pushing it aside from a lethal wound. Plus, you can potentially roll high enough to negate the damage entirely, which means it's missed. To an observer, your parrying would be better than a captain's--both of you sometimes avoid all damage, but you at least don't take the full brunt of it if your parrying fails.

Less weird scenarios:

-A fighter can Parry attacks he's not aware of.
-A fighter can do stuff like Parry huge greatswords empty handed.
-A fighter can Parry 4-6 times per combat (less if he uses superiority dice to perform other maneuvers). After that he ceases to be able to do that until he rests.

How do those relate to actual parrying?

1) Reflexively knock it aside, it's a reaction
2) ... see above. You're not catching the damn blade
3) Why are the fighter's abilities limited like that in the first place? Maybe he just tries and it doesn't work? Maybe the way they do it is too difficult to pull off repeatedly as a fight tires you? That's got nothing to do with the thing at all.

1/2 Given, it's a possibility. It's still pretty far removed IMO from parrying with your weapon that NPC Parry and Derfensive Duelist seem to imply. Almost like if it was another ability altogether.
3) But somehow any of the NPCs with Parry or PCs with Defensive Duelist never tire, correct?

Also, a Champion or an Eldritch Knight can never learn to Parry with a non-finesse weapon (even if a bloody noble, or a bandit can) because reasons.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 02:05:49 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 #34 on: April 19, 2015, 02:13:22 PM »
Yes, parrying is going to be viewed as parrying in universe. It doesn't become a totally different thing just because you think that makes more sense. :/[/i].

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parry:

'to defend yourself by turning or pushing aside (a punch, a weapon, etc.)'

The Parry ability of the fighter allows you to use it let's say when strapped tightly to a chair as to be completely immobile, and/or against attacks you never saw coming. I'm not sure how that can be rationalized in game as 'parry' (the plain English usage of the word). You're also most definitely not 'parrying' (the plain English usage of the word) the attack since it still hits you, so it's neither 'turned', not 'pushed aside'.

Ignoring the weird scenario where you can use a combat ability whilst strapped to a chair (I'd rule you're incapacitated if that's the case, so no reactions for you), parrying it so that it does less damage is still pushing it aside from a lethal wound. Plus, you can potentially roll high enough to negate the damage entirely, which means it's missed. To an observer, your parrying would be better than a captain's--both of you sometimes avoid all damage, but you at least don't take the full brunt of it if your parrying fails.

Less weird scenarios:

-A fighter can Parry attacks he's not aware of.
-A fighter can do stuff like Parry huge greatswords empty handed.
-A fighter can Parry 4-6 times per combat (less if he uses superiority dice to perform other maneuvers). After that he ceases to be able to do that until he rests.

How do those relate to actual parrying?

1) Reflexively knock it aside, it's a reaction
2) ... see above. You're not catching the damn blade
3) Why are the fighter's abilities limited like that in the first place? Maybe he just tries and it doesn't work? Maybe the way they do it is too difficult to pull off repeatedly as a fight tires you? That's got nothing to do with the thing at all.

1/2 Given, it's a possibility. It's still pretty far removed IMO from parrying with your weapon that NPC Parry and Derfensive Duelist seem to imply. Almost like if it was another ability altogether.
3) But somehow any of the NPCs with Parry or PCs with Defensive Duelist never tire, correct?

Also, a Champion or an Eldritch Knight can never learn to Parry with a non-finesse weapon (even if a bloody noble, or a bandit can) because reasons.

1) No, it's not removed at all. If you're holding a weapon, you're going to be parrying with that, you just know how to parry with your bare hands. It's still parrying. Stop pedantically trying to redefine an ability to be something it isn't.
2) Or at least don't tire so much that, provided they're focusing on one person, they can continue to keep it up.  Though it IS less effective, since there's no guarantee it'll help at all.

Well, they never learn the fancy one-on-one parrying techniques, no. At the same time, your generic combat-trained noble or bandit captain's not had time to learn the full skill set of an equal-level fighter. It's like, shockingly, the NPC's generally have their own careers that PC's wouldn't have picked up, which have a few abilities that PC classes don't.

Your insistence that a fighter should be able to learn the +2 AC parry sounds more like an argument for turning it into a class buffet where you just pick abilities you want and stick them on a character even if there's no reason that they should be learning it.

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2015, 02:23:09 PM »
This has veered pretty far off topic and doesn't seem to be.going anywher, so let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

Offline Chemus

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1929
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2015, 06:54:15 PM »
Yes, parrying is going to be viewed as parrying in universe. It doesn't become a totally different thing just because you think that makes more sense. :/

I'll be honest: I think your opinion is ridiculous. You're saying the system's bad... because you lose immersion because you can't learn random NPC abilities as class options or as prewritten feats? If it's really that important, given that the DMG includes 'making new character creation options' as a section, the rules don't exclude the potential to learn it anyway. It just doesn't make sense to say that the worst part of the system is something that caused 3.5 even more balance issues and hasn't been in any other edition.

I'm gonna weigh in here, even though I don't know 5th, because I have strong opinions about PC vs NPC abilities. I'm of the opinion that the game system should make all opponents have the same toolset to work with. A great way to make this a happen is to charge all creatures the same for their feats, spells and other abilities. I feel that when the all creatures 'pay' the same for their abilities, then it's less likely that hard feelings about fairness come up. This does increase the onus of building unique or homebrew characters in large numbers, but if you're just slapping abilities on monsters willy-nilly instead, it comes across as 'cheating', at least sometimes.

3.5 has many abilities, templates, etc that are either difficult or impossible to get without DM fiat. Any template or creature without a listed LA is considered 'unavailable' for players, for example. If 5th increases the occurrence of this, then I'm not in favor.

I do concede that as the number of options increases, the chances of unexpectedly favorable or unfavorable combos also increases. Why is it OK for the DM's NPCs to have access to material that can be used unfairly, but not the Players' PCs? Is a DM automatically a more responsible person or player because he's running the game?
Apathy is ...ah screw it.
My Homebrew

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2015, 06:59:40 PM »
Yes, parrying is going to be viewed as parrying in universe. It doesn't become a totally different thing just because you think that makes more sense. :/

I'll be honest: I think your opinion is ridiculous. You're saying the system's bad... because you lose immersion because you can't learn random NPC abilities as class options or as prewritten feats? If it's really that important, given that the DMG includes 'making new character creation options' as a section, the rules don't exclude the potential to learn it anyway. It just doesn't make sense to say that the worst part of the system is something that caused 3.5 even more balance issues and hasn't been in any other edition.

I'm gonna weigh in here, even though I don't know 5th, because I have strong opinions about PC vs NPC abilities. I'm of the opinion that the game system should make all opponents have the same toolset to work with. A great way to make this a happen is to charge all creatures the same for their feats, spells and other abilities. I feel that when the all creatures 'pay' the same for their abilities, then it's less likely that hard feelings about fairness come up. This does increase the onus of building unique or homebrew characters in large numbers, but if you're just slapping abilities on monsters willy-nilly instead, it comes across as 'cheating', at least sometimes.

3.5 has many abilities, templates, etc that are either difficult or impossible to get without DM fiat. Any template or creature without a listed LA is considered 'unavailable' for players, for example. If 5th increases the occurrence of this, then I'm not in favor.

I do concede that as the number of options increases, the chances of unexpectedly favorable or unfavorable combos also increases. Why is it OK for the DM's NPCs to have access to material that can be used unfairly, but not the Players' PCs? Is a DM automatically a more responsible person or player because he's running the game?

It went back to the everything-except-for-3.X standard of 'NPC's aren't required to be built like players, because that's a stupid level of work'.

... and no, the DM shouldn't have to work with the exact same ruleset as the players, because there's no good reason to make NPC creation the same process as PC creation, but multiplied repeatedly. 'Fairness' is not the goal for monster creation, that's for intra-party stuff. If enemies are an appropriate challenge, then it's working. :/
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 07:50:48 PM 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 #38 on: April 19, 2015, 07:17:34 PM »
I do concede that as the number of options increases, the chances of unexpectedly favorable or unfavorable combos also increases. Why is it OK for the DM's NPCs to have access to material that can be used unfairly, but not the Players' PCs? Is a DM automatically a more responsible person or player because he's running the game?

Yes. Because the DM is supposed to run a whole world while the players only have to worry about one character each. The DM's responsability in a game is in a completely different level, and any tool to help make his/her job easier is a good tool.

Offline Psyga315

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Is D&D 5 better than D&D 3.5?
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2015, 08:40:58 PM »
My simple rule of thumb:

5 is easier to get into.
3.5 is more customizable... At least right now.