What are the main differences between 3.5 and 5E?

The problem isn't that 3.5's character creation is fun. It's that it's a complete clusterfuck of complexity without adding value beyond a certain point.

From what I can gather, people who play 3.PF enjoy those systems because of the complex character options.
5e is more stream-lined currently, but I can't shake the feeling that future splat-books will be filled with power-creep options

Not too difficult. The main hurdle is figuring out how to convert encounters over since a lot of more powerful 3e monsters have HP bloat and high AC.

Well, I fucked that post up.

Why does everybody hate 4e so much? Everybody bitched about 4e simplifying DnD, but 5e is a thousand times simpler and everybody sucks its dick.

First of all, I strongly advise you against converting anything, if you are not familiar with 3.5 and 5e. Just run a 5e module, or make some shit up yourself.

If you are dead set on converting, however, it should be possible, as long as you don't autistically try to transfer each unique monster and encounter to a completely different system - especially since you clearly aren't familiar with either.
Here's what your thought process should be.
>Hey, in this spot in the original module, the party is supposed to fight some drow with class levels. I have no idea what any of this means, but what is the closest match in 5e? Ahha, here are some drow in Monster Manual. Now, how many of them - and in what combination - does it take to challenge my party?
Aside from monsters, there's another thing - magic items. 3.5 assumes that each character will have loads and loads of magic items - sometimes up to twenty, and magic items are sold like candy in stores. 5e takes a much different approach, with magic items being far and far between - the entire party will likely have one or two between them all on level 6. So when running the module, you should really cut back on the number of magic items and hand them out only when you think it's necessary.

Nobody bitched about 4e simplifying DnD. We bitched about it being way too different. While 5e feels like a logical evolution of 3.5, with simplyfying, trimming the fat and making common sense changes, 4e feels like another game. Nothing is the same! Everything is different.

This.
And like I said, especially on the internet, the interest is not playing the game, it's playing with the numbers to see how far you can stretch the system.
>people who play 3.PF enjoy those systems because of the complex character options.
I played a lot of 3.PF, and the only reason I learned the system so well was because in order to make a half ass decent pc who doesn't hedge on magic, you have to know exactly what you are doing. I wish I knew the editions I truly enjoyed (2e, 4e) as well, but they were less fucked and didn't need encyclopedic knowledge to make the kind of pc I wanted.

mad cuz bad

Because it dared to do things differently.

There are some legitimate criticisms of 4e, both ways the system doesn't work well RAW, and playstyle conflicts that mean it's inappropriate for certain playstyles which earlier editions of D&D fit better (although arguably it still didn't fit very well).

But a lot of people got bad impressions from very surface level readings of the system, such as standard layout and formatting, and launched into tirades about all classes playing the same and all powers being identical, when the opposite was true.

4e is an excellent game for combat focused heroic action fantasy, with a few small math tweaks. That is what it does, and it makes no pretence about doing anything else. It is also very mechanically transparent, giving players a very clear explanation of how the rules work rather than concealing things or leaving them implicit, which some people found harmful to their sense of immersion.

tl;dr it wasn't a system for everybody and that made some people super mad for dumb reasons

Since you'll be playing 5e, you should come by /5eg/ for all the different things you'll find in the OP. You will especially love this
> astranauta.github.io/5etools.html
Which has all the character options and monsters.
> kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder
And this, which will solve your "What do I throw at my players?" problem forever.

>simply due to the amount of material published for it
you know that's its achilles heel, right?

How's /4eg/ doing?

>Nobody bitched about 4e simplifying DnD.
This is revisionism and fake news. Autists the world over kept calling 4e "babby's first system" and insisted that real men only played hardcore systems like Pathfinder.

I just don't like the 4E power system. It feels too video gamey for my tastes.

I always found this kinda odd. 4e always seemed like a very logical followup to me, with most of the things people claimed it was missing were things that D&D, RAW, had never really had in the first place.

3.5 has more options, builds, variety and mechanical crunch. It also has more verisimilitude in respect to the casually realistic nature of its mechanics simulating the real world. If you run it however look up the tier list and make sure all player classes are in the same tier or one below or above unless you want one player to be really gimped.

5E is a lot simpler to run but at the expense of being rather bland. It's also a lot more arbitrary with most of the rules needing house rules as the designers couldn't be bothered to include actual thought out mechanics and instead leave it up to the DM to decide things like how hard a task is or how something should work on the fly.

I'd go for 3.5 honestly..or even better Pathfinder which updates and modernises it with loads more options and some fantastic adventure modules.

Either way when starting run a module. The 5E starter module is great as is Pathfinders Rise of the Runelords.

I would recomend 5e to a new group since, because of the balance, it is very fucking difficult to

1-(and more importantly) make a useless piece of shit character that feels inferior to the rest of the part
2-its more difficult to completely wreck the game

the game requires much less knowledge, rules are simplified, supports narrative combat and character creation is streamlined

Personally, I would like 4e a lot more, if it was more like 5e. Specifically, in those aspects
>Feats should be awesome. If a feat exists exclusively to give you +1 on melee attacks, it's not a good system. Similiarly, feat taxes should not exist.
>No magic mart - magic items should be rare, and the game should be theoretically be possible without the party having any at all.
>Bounded accuracy runs contrary to 4e's idea of tiers, but I like it much better.

As long as those changes are made to some hypothetical 4.5e, I'll enjoy it.

It's really more boardgamey/wargamey than videogamey. Vidya took the mechanics from tabletop, not the other way around.

>Hey, guy, I know you're just starting out, but here's the tier list of 3.5...
>Yes, I'll explain what ToB is in a moment.
>Incarnum is... Look, if you'll just wait...
>Fighters are bad because... Look...
No normie should ever be introduced to the hobby through 3.PF.

Uniform formating pisses off the grogs

Norman and Mearls were playing quite a bit of WoW at the time 4e was developed and it shows.

Obviously tabletop games came first but games like WoW and diablo evolved beyond D&D and ended up influencing it in turn.

I don't understand how you mean "its more bland", but rather than that I would say that 5e not being bloated by rules for absolutely everything is a thing going in its favor, since rules lawyers had become a real problem for 3.5
to put an example this happened to me
>"I shoot an arrow at the bag of the kobold carrying the alchemist potions!"
>tell him to roll and he succeeds
>"The arrow hits the kobold and the greek-fire potions that he was carrying explode, killing the kobold"
>other player: "You can't do that, you haven't checked if he actually hits the potions, if he hits the greek fire and the table for explosion effects and damage"

I enjoy mechanical asymmetry in my games. Sue me.

What exactly do wow and 4e do the same?

The second point is available via inherent bonuses

Fair warning though, using inherent bonuses, while it does let you make magic items a lot rarer, and does let you function with none at all, it also buffs the hell out of two-weapon rangers, which is already the most powerful striker

Nothing. It's just this weird, dumb meme that keeps getting repeated.

All classes have the same number of abilities in the form of powers with different cooldowns.

How can you not see the similarity?

Well hold on

in WoW, there aren't "the same number of abilities", different classes have different rotations using different numbers of abilities.

Or at least, that's how WoW worked when 4e came out, I haven't played WoW for a long time so I have no idea how it works now

Because that's 1) not true, 2) not identical to WoW and 3) not unique to WoW

Every class in WoW has the same number of abilities.

It is true. It's not unique to WoW but it's a video game thing. I think it started with Diablo.

That's why I said 4e feels video gamey.

It's more of a board game and war game thing, though. I've never seen a vidya with anything close to 4e's mechanics, except maybe some strategy RPG's, while almost every mechanic in 4e can be directly traced to board games or wargames as a source of inspiration.

Wrong. Most classes have about 16, Druids, Monks, and Mages go up to 24. Misinformation just to suit your argument makes you look like a ponce.

Fair reason to not like 4e, especially when there are so few games out there that really have "mechanical asymmetry"

Well I haven't played many board or wargames so I can't say.

It definitely struck me as a mechanic taken directly from MMOs. That's the first thing that came to mind.

Plus given that Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan were so engrossed in WoW during the development of 4e it's not surprising that it rubbed off.

Pluss unless they've really changed things cool downs are all over the place based on class.

16? I haven't played WoW since Wrath but even back then most classes had around 30 abilities.

What's the point of a D&D fighter have 20 abilities? Just full attack and be done with it.

That's the other thing I hate about 4e: even the simplest encounter can take over an hour to resolve and some encounters can take up the entire session.

Sure but every class has their big cooldowns for those "oh shit" moments (daily powers in 4e) along with the shorter cooldowns (encounter powers).

>What's the point of a D&D fighter have 20 abilities? Just full attack and be done with it.

Because what's the point of me interacting with an encounter at all if I have no ability to make meaningful choices? I want options and the ability to interact with combat, not just stand in place rolling dice while other people get to have fun. And no, 'you can improvise' is not an excuse for systems providing a player with no tangible options when other players get plenty.

On combat length, it was a legit criticism with MM1/2 math, fights took too long and weren't particularly dangerous, but MM3/MV math fixed that.

It's also relevant to what was mentioned above, that it's a playstyle thing. 4e focuses on combat because it is a system for people who enjoy combat. If you don't want to spend 30-45 minutes on a fight, or a good hour or two on a huge boss battle, then 4e is not a system for you, and that's okay.

"Simple" encounters shouldn't happen in 4e, the game is designed so that every fight should be a major setpiece, random encounters are to be avoided

Which yes, does mean that fights take a long time, not saying you're wrong for not liking it, just pointing out that it's by design

>It definitely struck me as a mechanic taken directly from MMOs. That's the first thing that came to mind.

Honestly, I can't think of any of 4e's mechanics that are really MMO-like. MMOs are really opposed to 1/fight abilities.

I mean if you want options then why not pick a more complex class than a fighter?

Some people DON'T want options. They just want to play a simple class and not have to think tactically about every single action they take in combat. They just wanna roll 20s to smack stuff. What's wrong with that?

>What are the main differences between 3.5 and 5E?
5E Plays more like legacy D&D 3.5 does not.

>Which would you recommend for a new group and why?
3.5 if you already are financially invested in it, otherwise neither, look into cheaper legacy D&D clones.

>I mean if you want options then why not pick a more complex class than a fighter?

And what if someone wants to play a complex class without being a spellcaster?

4e also had Essentials classes for people who just want to hit a thing.

Nothing. But they shouldn't play 4e, or any combat focused game for that manner.

Having an 'easy class' is a shitty option, because it does nothing to get the people who might not like the idea into it anyway.

It also makes no sense because fighter also gives you the least amount of options out of combat, so it sucks even more for people who don't enjoy that part of the system.

Also, fuck, are you really telling me that the Fighter, a class with that name, makes sense as the designated option for people who don't enjoy combat?

And some people want to do crazy-awesome shit as a fighter or rogue and be fantasy superheroes

there's nothing "wrong" with it, it's just different strokes for different folks

Sure I get that.

I guess that when your typical encounter can last over an hour the game becomes more like a tactical wargame rather than a role playing game. Not that there's anything wrong with that but you can see why some people don't consider 4e to be "true" D&D.

I dunno man, if you can't see the similarities I've already pointed out then I don't know what more to say. We just fundamentally disagree on what an MMO-like mechanic is.

I guess so

I guess I've just always considered D&D to be a tactical wargame, roleplaying games are things like FATE or WoD

>I want to play the most mundane class in D&D
>complains about a lack of complexity

Who said that fighters don't enjoy combat?

Fighters are just mostly brawn. They're not brilliant tactical masterminds. That's kinda the theme isn't it?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Play 4e if that's what you enjoy dude. I'm just explaining why I don't like it.

>We just fundamentally disagree on what an MMO-like mechanic is.

Well, MMOs being based on RPGs means that a lot of stuff overlaps the two. Heck, 4e doesn't even have 'Cooldowns' in the mmo sense. No matter how long you keep fighting, that encounter power won't come back.

Honestly, I'd call 3.5 and 5e more MMO-like. Unlike 4e they actually have 'You must attack me' as features (For the Knight and a Rogue subclass respectively) that work like MMO aggro tables.

Encounters could last just as long, if not longer, in 3.PF though. They're just more swingy, with some ending almost instantly and others being an unbearable slog.

And, again, the MM3/MV monster math fixed that issue.

>Fighters are just mostly brawn. They're not brilliant tactical masterminds. That's kinda the theme isn't it?
No, it certainly is not.

'Mundane' is no excuse for lazy design.

And you've hit the nail on the head, although from the wrong direction. 'Fighter' is a shitty, niche way of defining a class, and the fact that they were bad at fighting just makes it even more laughable.

You're also confusing IC and OOC. Just because a fighter might be dumb muscle IC doesn't mean you can deny the player interesting and enjoyable combat options OOC.

>I want to play the most mundane class in D&D

That doesn't mean something can't have complexity to it. Complexity is not a synonym to 'Magical'. I mean, a weaponmaster would likely know how to do more stuff than Chandra in MTG.

You asked "What's wrong with that?" so I answered with an inverse example to show that there's nothing wrong with either viewpoint

Also, I'm not sure about you, but I think barbarians should be the "just brawn" class option, fighters being brilliant tactical masterminds sounds just about right to me,

Wizards put up an official guide
media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_Conversions_1.0.pdf

D&D has always been a roleplaying game. It does that quite well.

The problem with 4e is that everything gets bogged down with combat.

Check out Chris Perkins' Curse of Strahd YouTube videos. The first session is like 2 hours in length, not a single combat encounter has occurred and everyone is having a blast.

I don't know why people think that D&D is only for hack n slash.

>What's the point of a D&D fighter have 20 abilities? Just full attack and be done with it.

I wish i could punch people over the internet.

>The problem with 4e is that everything gets bogged down with combat.

4e doesn't really have any less non-combat than 5e does. Heck, 5e's backgrounds started life IN 4e.

It might seem odd but I enjoy it when casting a spell feels mechanically different from swinging a sword in a particular fashion. The moment they're boiled down to just different types of 'ability' is when I lose interest entirely.

This isn't me advocating 3.5's full-attack-every-turn mechanics. I want casters and martials to both be mechanically viable while feeling very different from one another.
3.5's Tome of Battle doesn't do it right, it just makes martial characters that use what are essentially caster mechanics.
While 4e levels the classes out, it also makes them feel mechanically homogeneous when it comes to how martial and caster characters use abilities.
5e gets closer than previous editions in the areas of balance, versatility and asymmetry but it's not close enough for me to feel satisfied.
For me, the Battlemaster archetype is as close as D&D in all of its iterations since 3e has gotten to a martial class on par with casters while feeling mechanically distinct. It has access to a diverse number of options in combat, it is roughly as efficient as most casters (without multiclassing or UA optimization) and it uses mechanics that make it feel very distinct from casters.

Because that's why OD&D and AD&D were designed for

you got some guys together and went dungeon crawling, your motivation was gold, maybe some roleplaying happened, but it was FAR from the focus

>The problem with 4e is that everything gets bogged down with combat.

With MM1/2 math. This was fixed. It was a problem on launch, granted, and the system deserves criticism on that front, but that it was solved should also be acknowledged.

Beyond that, it's a playstyle thing. Personally, if a fight is over in less than 45 minutes I'd wonder why the GM bothered to have it be a combat in the first place.

But I also think that its combat focus doesn't make it any less an RPG. Combat is key to storytelling in so many media, and it can also be in an RPG. How your character acts in a conflict, the decisions they make under pressure, can be far more effective at conveying a character as any amount of dialogue or NPC interactions.

>While 4e levels the classes out, it also makes them feel mechanically homogeneous when it comes to how martial and caster characters use abilities.

I'd honestly really disagree with that imo. While the baseline structure is the same, classes in 4e feel very different. A Swordmage and a Fighter are both sword-swingers and both defenders but the magic-based swordmage feels dramatically different/much more magical than the Fighter.

Hmmm, I can't imagine you enjoy many different RPGs then, especially since so many treat spellcasting as a standard roll, not too different from hitting a guy with a stick or making a sound argument

Shadowrun, L5R, GURPS, FATE, WoD

I mean, what even is there that treats magic as being mechanically separate aside from D&D and D&D knockoffs?

>Honestly, I'd call 3.5 and 5e more MMO-like
How are they more like MMOs than 4e?

That has not been my experience.

Holy shit did I just trigger the FIDF or something?

Look I have nothing against fighters or players who play them. It just always seemed to me that they were the "simple" class for people who didn't want to memorise dozens of spells and abilities and just wanted to roll dice to kill things with their +5 vorpal blades.

I'm sure you can build a master tactician fighter who uses various weapons and the environment in clever ways to defeat his foes.

It just seems to me that if you want to have tons of options in combat you'd probably enjoy playing a wizard or a cleric.

I think this is the point of contention. 4e uses a standard structure, but how classes interact with and make use of that structure is very, very different.

It's mentioned often enough, but the 4e differences between, for example, a Wizard and a Sorcerer are significantly more different to one another in 4e than in 3.5, if only by virtue of different 'spell lists'.

The idea that you'd need to play a caster to actually have interesting combat options (or, fuck, options at all) is one of the worst ideas D&D inflicted upon roleplaying as a hobby.

>How are they more like MMOs than 4e?

Actual MMO Aggro mechanics (You have no choice but to attack me) are built into 3.5 and 5e classes.

I didn't say they were very MMO like (Beyond the ways that most MMOs are based on RPG ideas) but it seems closer than 4e.

>It just seems to me that if you want to have tons of options in combat you'd probably enjoy playing a wizard or a cleric.

And if they want to have options and hit things with a blade? That's the point of contention, the idea that 'Magic = Complex' and therefore 'Non-magic = non-complex'. There should be room for both.

>It just seems to me that if you want to have tons of options in combat...don't play a fighter, the combat class
You fucking dumbass.

You did stumble into a minefield there

Fighters being able to do complicated and interesting stuff to show a level of mastery of combat rather than just hitting harder or more times is not a minor thing, people like the idea of being skilled swordsman, not just fast or strong, and being told "lol, if you want to do cool shit and not just hit whack things with a stick, play a caster" is why a lot of people took to 4e and still defend it now

A 4e wizard is as different from a 4e sorcerer as it is from a 4e fighter, when it comes to mechanical diversity.

But Aggro mechanics are a core part of 4E Defenders with their Marks. They're not "you have no choice" but they are more like PVP MMO aggro where "attacking anyone but me is highly inefficient". Back when I got into tabletop because Penny Arcade had their 4E podcast I wasn't aware of MMO aggro mechanics, so I didn't see the overlap, but now that I am more aware of them I definitely see the design overlap.

Yep. All the classes play extremely differently, with a strong mechanical identity that can be focused and enhanced in a number of interesting ways.

...But that's not how MMO aggro mechanics work at all.

You're right, they all play very differently because tactical grid based combat is actually a concern in that system, with positioning actually mattering.

It's not about the number of combat encounters it's the fact that resolving them is so much more tedious and time consuming in 4e.

>I enjoy it when casting a spell feels mechanically different from swinging a sword in a particular fashion

Agree 100%

A fighter is fundementally different from a wizard and should use completely different resources and mechanics.

What is it about playing a fighter that you enjoy?

What is it about playing a caster that you dislike?

You're telling me that you enjoy the playstyle of a caster but for some reason you seem deadset on playing a fighter. I don't get it man.

>Actual MMO Aggro mechanics (You have no choice but to attack me) are built into 3.5 and 5e classes.
You think that one mechanic is more MMO-like than 4E entire power and cooldown system? I mean I don't know what to say at this point...

See above.

I don't understand why you want to play a fighter that can do the same things as a wizard. Why not just play a wizard?

That's not actually aggro

A very important factor of marks is that the creature that's marked can choose to ignore it, taking a penalty to hit and receiving comeuppance from the defender

True "Aggro", where the creature must attack the PC with "aggro", is extremely rare in 4e, limited to I believe only one or two once-per day abilities

>They're not "you have no choice" but they are more like PVP MMO aggro where "attacking anyone but me is highly inefficient".

U wot m8. "You have no choice" IS how MMO aggro works. "Attacking anyone but me is inefficient" is a GOOD way to do aggro.

I don't dislike Casters. I dislike shitty, inefficient design. If you include an option in your game, it should actually be worth playing. Fighters in 3.PF are not.

4e powers don't have "cooldowns" in the MMO-sense

if they did, you'd be able to use them again once X-rounds had passed, but that's not how they work at all

That said, an RPG that actually uses MMO mechanics would be interesting, I wish Log Horizon had actually gotten fully translated

I disagree

it's fine having shitty options, as long as you explain "this option is shitty, only use it if everyone else is using shitty options"

the tier list should be official, not a fan-thing

>It's not about the number of combat encounters it's the fact that resolving them is so much more tedious and time consuming in 4e.

You consistently ignore the existence of the math fixes. Are you just trolling at this point?

>A fighter is fundementally different from a wizard and should use completely different resources and mechanics.
This is a mentality you don't see in a vast majority of games, and most of them that do have the same manner of issues concerning parity between the 2 archetypes D&D has.
That doesn't make it better, what it does is show that thematics and not actual game play matter to you.
Another user said it before "3e was made to be looked at, 4e was made to be played".

4e was a logical follow-up to the play-style of 3e. They asked how people played 3e (as some sort of epic adventure told in a series of set-piece battles) and then built around it.

Upon research, it seems that all the MMOs that use taunts like this in PVP are post 4E ones like SWTOR, so they're probably taking cues from 4E, rather than the other way around. I guess I mixed up the dates in my head.

Why the fuck would you include it if it's bad?

Either make it worthwhile, reduce the cost to make it equal to equivalent options, or just get fucking rid of it.

>You think that one mechanic is more MMO-like than 4E entire power and cooldown system? I mean I don't know what to say at this point...

About as much as Earthdawn's system is MMO like because all classes (Including fighting classes) get the same number of abilities.

4e also doesn't have a cooldown system. No matter how long the battle goes on, you are not getting that fireball back.

Being good at physical combat != having the most options in combat

Honestly I would like to see more distinction between different weapons so that a fighter using a rapier feels completely different to a fighter using a bastard sword or a warhammer...

Giving fighters 20 daily powers with stupid MMO-tier names just so they have "options" is just silly. Probably gonna catch some flak for that but I don't care at this point.

>it's fine having shitty options, as long as you explain "this option is shitty, only use it if everyone else is using shitty options"

THEN WHY INCLUDE SHITTY OPTION AT ALL? WHY SPEND INK, MAN-HOURS AND BOOK SPACE ON IT IF YOU CAN FILL IT WITH LESS SHITTY OPTIONS, OR GOD FORBID, MAKE SHITTY OPTION NOT SHITTY?

I'M DONE, I'M TROLLED SUCCESSFULLY, 10/10, GO FELLATE A CACTUS, GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIR.