When people talk about 3E they tend to refer to 3.5 which seems to be seen as the penultimate version of that game or maybe Pathfinder. 3.0 Was not really around that long for various reasons and it had a few glitches in it especially with various splat books.
3.5 was actually the “fixed” version of 3.5. You could do most of the abuses of 3.5 in 3.0 just on a greater scale as 3.0 had the more powerful prestige classes, spells and feats. Pun Pun may be a silly example of 3.5 being broken but 3.0 had some very simple builds which really did break the game and were being used where Pun Pun is more of a theory crafting example.
Anyway 3.5 did tone a lot of things down but several things in 5E remind me of some of the cheese in 3.0.
1. Wonky saving throws. 3.0 you could end up with DC 40+ spell DCs if your threw enough splat book material at the game. 5E had similar wonky saves where you can flunk saves 75%+ of the time. The game breaks down with PCs vs NPCs as PCs can shore up their defences in various ways or have access to the right counter (generally magic) that NPCs lack. In effect this means the more spell caster you have in the party the easier the game is. Some classes are punished as well for example wizards more or less have no good saves (int being a rare save, wisdom being a tertiary stat at best) while other classes like the Rogue and Cleric/Druid gets good saves (saves that matter with primary stats matching up to a good save- dex, con wis).
2. Rocket tag. Basically this means who wins initiative tends to win the combat a lot on round 1 or 2. In 5E this means feats like Alert are good on spell casters so they can get bless up ASAP or cast a hold person spell. 4th level spell slots in 5E are a bit meh compared to level 3 and 4 spells but a hold person spell cast in a 4th level slot is kind of mean. Doesn’t get much better as you level up with spells like contagion floating around. Combines with wonky saves to see who can cast the 1st encounter defining/ending spell. Optimized martial PCs can focus fire a BBEG or nova with action surge and kill a BBEG before they even get to go. Tends to obsolete Rogue type PCs as their “spike damage” is less than half a fighters.
3. Large differences between optimised characters and non optimised characters. PC number 1 fights fair and takes a long sword and shield+ duellist fighting style and pumps strength to 20 and deals 1d8+7 damage with 3 attacks and some feat that doesn’t matter. PC number 2 takes the sharpshooter or great weapon feat and figures out a way to mitigate the -5 penalty to hit. and hits for 1d6+15 damage 4 times per round. Said PC deals X2,X3,X4 damage over the other PCs and other classes that deal “decent” or “moderate” damage like clerics get left in the dust with physical attacks.
4. Large differences in the power level of the same subclasses. I do not expect classes to be balanced in regard to other classes as that can be a campaign thing but it is weird when one subclass drastically outshines the other. For example Moon Druid>land druid, Lore Bard>Valor Bard, Battlemaster Fighter>the others, Light/Life/Tempest clerics> the others.
5. Wonky encounter guide lines. Mostly due to PC power levels relative to the monsters and the abundant healing. You more or less have to grind the PCs down with the old 6-8 encounters (or more). It takes 5 or 6 deadly+ encounters to grind my level 12 PCs down using a mixture of terrain, tactics, spells, etc.
6. Vast differences in challenge depending on party composition. Basically who can optimise a party the best or cram in the most spell casters. Or find basic synergies in the various class abilities.
7. Wonky multiclass rules with often front loaded classes. 3.5 at least tried to fix that. A single level of cleric for example can get you heavy armour proficiency, the Sorlock (Sorcerer XYZ.Warlock2) being notorious for some of the highest consistent DPR in the game all for the low low price of a 2 level dip. Starting as a fighter for example and switching to a spell caster can also get you armour proficiency and proficiency in con saves for a 1 level dip. And better saves in the wizards case.
8. Dex vs strength not being remotely balanced. In Basic D&D (no feats) dex is hands down better than strength. With the PHB and feats the highest damage martial types are dex based ranged PCs using bows and hand crossbows. Pathfinder has 2 types of ranged weapons- longbows and everything else. 5E manages to get to 3- longbows, hand crossbows and everything else.
9. Rules that are WTF? Grapple feat, stealth, several spells, casting spells as a gish without the warcaster feat and what you can do in a round can cause a few arguments. Not exactly helped by the lay out of the PHB or the index or the way spells are sorted along with a lack of what classes can actually cast said spell in the spell descriptions.
On the plus side it looks pretty just wondering if it is time for a .5 edition already.
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
I semi agree with some of your points. Im listing some of my own, these numbers are not necessarily directly corresponding responses to your points.
1ST) All editions 1st, 2nd 3rd, 3.5 and now Fifth resemble each other closely. 4th edition is the oddity and outlier. Fifth is more closely correlated with the historic structure of D&D, just like 3rd edition was. Hence it resembles it more than 4th.
2ND) Fifth edition is 2.34 as one of my one of my fellow pcs calls. It actually resembles 2nd edition slightly more than it does 3rd edition. Then it has alot from third in it. And a splash of 4th edition (battle master, legendary monsters, protection fighting style and a few other things).
3rd) Yes balance is not as good as i hoped between classes/subclasses. some of the examples you gave i question, i think valor bard is competitive with lore bard, and in some campaigns would be better. The ranger beastmaster is the one really terribly underpowered sub class. Figther champion is pretty lackluster, but decent built as a Half-orc especially at earlier levels. So yes clasess /subclasses differ in power, but still balance in fifth is better than 3rd, by a long margin.
4) Optimization always results in large power gaps, has in every single edition. I dont know that optimization and balance can existentionally go hand in hand together. At least, i have never seen it done. Having said that, nearly all the optimization features are optional , for example, in my game play we don't allow multiclassing, but do allow feats. We also help players who dont understand the system to build and play effectively. I have several brilliant power gamer friends, but we dont leave our not as rules savvey pcs lagging behind.
5) Party composition does indeed create issues. A four rogue party is sub optimal ,no doubt about it. Again, nothing new here, all editions had this drawback.
6) some feats, and abiltiies are just plain out problematic. Grapple is major issue unquestionably. The fact that you have people building half orc grapple bards indicates an issue. some class abilities should not interact with certain other abilities, even if it makes rules a bit more complex. I think the wish spell is so overpowered its just crazy. IF you have it, its mandatory to prepare basically. The rules surrounding stealth are unclear, thats an issue. Clarity is important.
This edition needs major errata, and im suprised because it has been in the works for a long time. I dont see how so many of these issues could have slipped through the cracks.
All this said, there is a chance fifth edition turns out to be the best edition of D&D yet. It has the advantage of learning from the legacy of errors of previous editions, and corrected alot of them. It just needs to fix itself a bit internally now. I woudlnt even call it 5.5- i would just publish fifth edition books with a strong errata update. An errata that applies to our already purchased fifth edition books.
Daydreamer80 wrote:
The figther DOES NOT SUCK with no feats. Long as your playing a battle master or eldrich knight :D.
YOu still have action surge, one of the best abilites in game. Good armor, good Hp. Fighters are fine.
Rogue is a difficult class to gauge, its decent if your group understands tactics well, and your dm is very accurate in outlaying the combat field in theathre of the mind, or if you use mini's. You really need to know where your martial allies are, so as to able to get near there opponents for sneak attacks.
I think adventures league forbids certain races/feats and multiclassing to make the game easier to balance around. I dont blame them for that, and if balance is something important to gameplay, taking optimization off the table DOES help out with it.
But, it bears repeating, fights are still a good class without feats, especially in Tier 1 and 2. They lack a little luster in t3 and 4. But thats a long way away in most games.
Daydreamer80 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
You can compensate for each others weaknesses. Other characters can do things to help out with the lack of saves on the fighter. Buffing him, dispel magic, etc. You could also not make your wisdom a dump score =).
Playing an elf gives you resistance to charm effects . Etc.
But yes, character classes have weaknesses, thats part of what balances them, and is part of why feats undermine that balance.
I basically agree. This all feels very half-baked. Question: Why do you consider lore bard>valor bard?
kalil wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Spends years posting threads saying Next is doomed to fail if it isn't like 3rd/PF.
Complainz Next is like 3rd/PF.
Daydreamer80 wrote:
Valor bard doesn't need Str at all. You just built a gimped one trying to exploit shield bash + expertise.
You also don't need max cha either, depending on what role you want to fill.
Idk, while i hate the concept, graple valor bards are actually really good via RAW.
At any rate, the point still stands, if you want to compare subclass's that are way different in power, compare Ranger -hunter, to Ranger-beastmaster. Now that is a problematic difference.
DaveDash wrote:
Valor bard can go for heavy armor and drop dex, no?
The main problem with 3e in this regard, which was actually an issue in 3.5 and Pathfiner and to an extent 4e was an absence of caps. In essence there was seemingly no ceiling to how high bonuses, difficulties, AC, Attack bonuses, skills etc.. could go. It was not uncommon for a monster to have a +30 attack rating for example or a player with a +15 on a skill check. Somethings however did have caps, like saving throws which had very few ways to push the numbers.
This creates a very swingy system which is largely responsible for the perception that 3rd edition as a whole, Pathfinder included is "unbalanced". Which is also why 3rd edition players will tell you that if your DM handles the system well, the unbalancing aspect of the game can be eliminated and the result is a great game. What DM's are really doing is effectively manually creating caps artificially and 99% of all 3rd edition conversation that have ever taken place anywhere on planet earth in regards to balance can be reduced to this effect. The game was unbalanced, because there where no mechanical barriers for anything.
5e is different in that these barriers exist, though as is always the case with any role-playing game, if you have players who play the game with a calculator in their hand, inevitably your game will be broken. No RPG can stand up to the scrutny of min maxing math wizards with the exception of perhaps 4th edition. 4th edition however handled the problem differently in that it was built with ever increasing numbers, which it solved by creating ever increasing difficulties. It is perhaps the only version of D&D that didn't break down mathmatically under scrutiny (at least considerably less so than any other edition) and may explain why it found its following.
To me however their are three important elements of a solid D&D edition that allow it to be balanced and fun with a 4th caveat possible if the first three are met.
First the game has to be easily changed. I need to be able to add and remove things without much effort and without losing the games core bolts.
Second it has to stick to the traditions. I believe in sacred cows, I want my sacred cows, I expect my sacred cows.
Finally it has to be fast and deadly, which has been my biggest beef with the last two generations of D&D as they where neither fast or deadly.
The 4th is that the game has to be fun and frankly I don't know how to define that. A game is either fun to play or its not. 4e in a lot of ways met all 3 of my conditions, or at least it could be adapted sufficiently to meet them, but it just wasnt fun so I don't know how to fix that. 5e however is the first D&D since AD&D that met all three of my conditions and was fun to play and noteably I find it more fun than AD&D though just as flexible, full of tradition and plenty fast/deadly.
Zardnaar wrote:
Xguild wrote:
kalil wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I agree with the save dcs not much else. And that is more of a high level problem. Still Id suggest changing it to 5+prof+stat mod.
I pretty much disagree with all your core claims. The claim that Dex is better than Str, for example, is a load of bologna...
Zardnaar wrote:
The reality is that Dexterity is in fact far more valuable than Strength. Strength does not sit on the same plain as the others. Constitution if not for hit point adjustments wouldn't either.
Intelligence is likely the most value stat in real life bar none. It is vastly more valuable than almost all the others. This is why in the past it like dexterity was overpowered. The reason is that the game designers were trying to reflect underlying truth instead of just write a game without concern for that underlying truth. Whether that is good or bad it is a fact.
Perhaps a different set of scores could be defined that would be better balanced. Not sure. It wouldn't be D&D for sure though if they did that.
If you manage to balance the six we got now then they won't resemble anything we can relate to in terms of realism.
Zardnaar wrote:
eleran wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Personally I think 3e is a better game than 3.5e and Pathfinder. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have to fix it in places.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
But I mean, if 3.5 is the penultimate, literally, isn't PF literally the ultimate (last)?
bawylie wrote:
Edition wars aside, the longest running edition was first.
2nd edition was 2nd longest running.
Its concievable that amongst current playerbase, the most commoly highly regarded edition is 3 /3.5
Personally i liked 4th, just took to long to run a session cause of how slow combat was.
Daydreamer80 wrote:
I would prefer to fix 3.0 than fix 3.5 or PF.
I think Zard's use of penultimate was a valid use even if some disagree. PF is a descendent of 3e. It's in the same family and it was published after 3.5e. That makes 3.5e the penultimate.
Even if you disagree it is a valid take and it was Zard's take.
I probably should have said definitive version then. 1E was not the longest running version of D&D that was Basic 1977-1996 and it is also the biggest selling version of D&D via the Mentzer red box. Calling BECMI in print from 1989-1996 may be a bit generous though but it did have limited releases after 1989.
I more or less look at PF as 3.5 anyway. I miss parts of 3.5 when I play PF although I tend to mix and match the rules anyway. If its niot drastically broken in 3.5 I'll probably let you use it in Pathfinder not that I have run Pathfinder since 2012 anyway and the last PF PDF I bought was Ultimate Campaign when it came out with some 3pp advenutres bought earlier in the year for conversion to 5E.
On the forums when people talk about 3E though they are generally talking about 3.5 though not PF or 3.0.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Honestly, Pathfinder did fix plenty of things that needed fixing(Fighters getting actual class features, Paladins getting Smite-per-enemy instead of Smite-per-use). Problem is, they also took too many steps back to be considered an improvement(Wizards are arguably even more overpowered, Druids are still better Fighters than Fighters on top of getting another better Fighter as a class feature, the Summoner being a thing, etc).
Even the new splatbooks have been a major disappointment. The Arcanist is even more overpowered than the Wizard(and to this day I'm convinced the Arcanist was a joke that was never meant to be actually put in), the Swashbuckler was hyped up majorly and is total trash(mostly because it suffers the same issues that any mobile full attacking class does in Pathfinder), and out of the new Occult Adventures material, the Kineticist got hyped, has a huge following, got tons of feedback, and absolutely none of that feedback had a say in fixing the class(most of the feedback being "This class is awesome fluff-wise, please stop making it do CON damage to itself as a class feature.")
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I've only been playing Psionic classes recently(mostly Aegis, aka Power Rangers/Iron Man/Kamen Rider/: The Class), and don't regret it for a second.
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
The best part of the ACG is the Slayer, imo. Gonna be starting a game Sunday and I'll be playing a Slayer with the Stygian archetype.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
I was going to go point by point through the list, but life is too short. Suffice to say that most of these don't apply to 5e, some don't even apply to 3.0 ("unbalanced subclasses?" Not even a thing in 3e), and Zardnaar continues to have a very odd understanding of this game and the math behind it.
I'm kind of agreeing with Brock (if not every detail of his suggested houserules) on 3e.
Zardnaar wrote:
mexrage wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
reius: that stereotype re: INT + depression is common but i don't believe it's been borne out by any studies.
blake_marlowe wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
I don’t agree with most of the main points, especially monsters not being challenging, it should be easy to threaten all but the most rule breaking parties, without having to “grind them down”
But either way, the great thing about this edition is the 20+ optional rules to tailor the game to make it fun, challenging, cool for everyone. I’d say with those rules you can make the game sweet no matter and the talk of a .5 edition is simply ludicrous.
This is simply a toobox edition not a standard one.
VeroMaestro wrote:
The 2 hander power attack feat for -5 to attack to get +10 damage is terrible design in a world of bounded accuracy.
Its basically +10 damage, virtually no cost to hit.
Daydreamer80 wrote:
guachi wrote:
Daydreamer80 wrote:
I have to agree that with bounded accuracy -5 is actually a pretty big hit to accuracy, not a freebie.
guachi wrote:
That's relying on things that aren't always "up". As an every round feat it isn't overpowered. When you combine it with stuff that gives you advantage or a bonus is actually when it shines. You can't always combine it(unless you are really min/maxing).
Plus a lot of what you are saying would also help someone not using the feat also hit more often.
Its not hard to get advantage or use bless. The sharpshooter one is even worse due the toe +2 accuracy bonus on the archery style.
I seem to rememebr people mocking me for claiming bless was broken. The -5/+10 feats are the main reeason although the spell is great all by itself.
My problem with Zaard's analysis is that he explictly dismisses theorycraft in favor of empirical evidence from his own table. But if you combine the statistical variance of 5e rules with the low sample size of any one player's experience it's not unlikely that you'll see results that make some rules or spells seem out of balance.
Personaly I would simply remove Sharp Shooter and GWF feat.
Agonizing blast should be based on warlock level. Ex.: +1 per 4 level
MC into a warpriest should give the same armor as MC into a fighter.
The attack Polearm master give when an ennemy move into reach should be a reaction not an opportunity attack.
That would block the major combo we have for now.
DaveDash wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
How is advantage trivially easy to get, anyway? I've not found that to be the case at all.
Anyone, who has experienced that phenomenon, care to elaborate?
Elfcrusher wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
If the players don't have a problem playing a cake walk game, then continue giving them a cake walk. If they complain that their uber characters steamroll everything, tell them maybe they shouldn't optimize so much. Why is it always on the DM to jump through hoops?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The point isnt about an arms race between the pcs and the dm. the dm can always produce challenges difficult enough. OBVIOUSLY.
The point is about how much some paths builds are compared to others, and whether the level of power produced, was in any sense intended or reasonable.
In my game to make things more managable we have banned multiclassing.
JohnLynch wrote:
Why does a feat called "Sharpshooter" lower you chance to hit anyway?
kalil wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
kalil wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
kalil wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Glad I ddn't miss the weekly Zard beat down.
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I think a big mistake people make is not realizing that the game only has to work for your group. Your DM can adjust or tweak a few things and if it's smooth sailing then it's all good. That is why so many of us enjoyed 3e. We just didn't have the problems some of you had. We liked the upside of the game. We may have our own quibbles but those quibbles are like any criticism we give for something we like. We aren't abandoning the game over it.
DMs can adjust encounter strength. Players can choose classes and powers that work for their group. In my experience power differences only really show up in a really noticable way when two players play nearly the exact same class. Otherwise the way a class works with the game, it's not really that big a deal because each class shines at different times and if there are differences in power it's not really noticable. At least that has been my own groups perspective.
Reius wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
1. On sharpshooter/crossbow expert obsoleting melee builds: so in your estimation, the main advantages of melee fighters should be that they do more damage and they don't have disadvantage against adjacent enemies, it would be fair to say? I'd add a couple more in there: generally better AC and opportunity attacks. Those opportunity attacks (and marking from the dmg if your dm is nice) are important because they're the main way a martial character exerts control over the battlefield. Sentinel and Polearm Master make them even better, and go a long way towards mitigating some of the drawbacks of melee characters that you mention. Plus, grappling is fairly powerful in 5e and it requires strength, making it another melee-specialist forte. Speaking in a vague "bellyfeels" sense, i've always felt that an archer should certainly do comparable damage to a melee fighter, and that the tradeoff he makes for his extra range is that he's weaker defensively, not offensively. So if anything, I'd be complaining that Heavy Armor Master isn't good enough, not that Sharpshooter is too good.
2. On 6-8 tavern brawls per day: you DON'T expect this? Time for a new DM! But really, you're expected to face 6-8 encounters a day, but dealing more damage per hit (at the cost of accuracy) certainly isn't the best or only way to deal with those encounters. Like, you know what that crossbow guy is not good at? Tanking. That takes a melee character, and preferably one with Sentinel. Healing, buffing, debuffing, staying alive, and controlling the battlefield all require tactics and capabilities beyond "leet dpr." There are plenty of feats that will add just as much to your party's chance of succeeding in combat as a boost to your damage output.
DaveDash wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Regarding crossbow expert: hand crossbows are a a very niche special, and *rare* weapon. This doesn't mean too much for getting one of the non-magical variety, since you can just buy one in a shop, but if magic items are randomly rolled or if any realistic system is used by your DM, magic hand crossbows will probably be exceptionally rare.
I think you will find the hand crossbow sharpshooter crossbow experts have some trouble when facing enemies that require magical weapons to damage and they don't have magical hand crossbows. (Sure, the party caster could be casting magic weapon, but there goes a valuable CONCENTRATION slot).
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
The level 12 game is on hold and I do not think I want to run it anymore. I suspect 5E works better without feats and the default assumptions do not work (6-8 encpunters per day, 2 short rests, the encounter building guidlines RAW.). I'll see what the group is up to tomorrow and what they want to do but due to some RL stuff not really in the mood to play games ATM.
Well they amy work I suppose if you like a lot of easy fights but one tends to get bored doing that and yeah sureit runs fast but so does 3.x if you use a heap of easy fights.
Orethalion wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
I think the only edition of D&D that was any kind of balanced was 4th edition though that edition sucked most of all from my point of view.
In 3rd edition they tried to fix stuff, in earlier editions they didn't bother to try.
.
5th edition is not balanced and there are quite a few things in it that I'd houserule but the game at it's basics is probably the best of any edition, so I like it despite many of the perceived flaws.
There is a rather large player base that thrives on finding loopholes and exploits, it wouldn't be very succesful without any to be found.
EzechielDantan wrote:
If you find Sharpshooter or GWM overpowered just change it in your next campaign so they can only trigger once per turn or round. Still worth getting for some builds, but noticably toned down - particularly at higher levels on fighters and on crossbow experts.
EzechielDantan wrote: