Is there a version of dnd with the same power lvl as 3.5 and 5th edition but with actual dangerous combat...

Is there a version of dnd with the same power lvl as 3.5 and 5th edition but with actual dangerous combat? like in ad&d where combat was a state of failure if not well planed

No.

3.5 and 5e have vastly, VASTLY different power levels, user.

D&D 3.5 with Tucker's Kobolds DMing in effect, plus the DM optimizing his NPCs and playing them optimally as well.

D&D 4e can do it if you use MM3 math. MM1 was a bit low on the enemy damage/high on the enemy HP but MM3 got a lot more brutal with enemies having reactions just like players do. We just had a battle in my 4e game that had half the group nearly dead because people got cocky and didn't coordinate/plan stuff out.

>Tucker's kobolds
>In 3.5
I want this meme to die.

It's the style of DMing that counts, rather than the system used.

Cut everyone's health in half. NPC and PC alike, bam!

You are fake news. In some systems - like the one they were actually made for - Tucker's kobolds work, because even a measly kobold can theoretically harm you, if given enough advantages, and traps were actually a threat. So much so that whole dungeons could be made with traps, with barely any monsters at all! See Tomb of Horrors for that.
But in 3.5, kobolds are not going to hit shit, and such measly things as traps and walls can be easily bypassed by magic, and not even high level magic at that. In fact, you could bypass them without any magic at all! Adamantinum daggers for cutting through the walls are everyone's favourite.

Hence the words 'style of DMing,' and also the 'plus the DM optimizing his NPCs.'

I didn't just say "throw Tucker's Kobolds at them." You don't need to leap at the chance of proving someone wrong.

If you make every kobold literally Pun-Pun, it's no longer Tucker's Kobolds, is it.

Well he is saying something like dont give the pc the weapons necessary for avoiding tucker kobold encounter, there are systems where doing this is easier dont know whic but i know they existe

Yes. GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. You can either get into it now via the supplement line, or wait for the completely pre-baked ("ready-to-play", D&D-style) standalone "GURPS-powered" DF boxed set release.

Hence the lack of "Tucker's Kobolds" alone and instead, "Tucker's Kobolds style DMing," by which I mean this specific quote from the original telling:
>They were simply well-armed and intelligent beings who were played by the DM to be utterly ruthless and clever. Tucker's kobolds were like that.

You can stop trying to prove a point now.

I won't, until you admit that your idea will not work in 3.5.
So, how exactly do you plan to make an encounter against, say, four level 7 PCs?

Please state what classes and precisely what level of optimization.

In 5e the Kobolds can hurt the pics at any level

>such measly things as traps and walls can be easily bypassed by magic, and not even high level magic at that. In fact, you could bypass them without any magic at all! Adamantinum daggers for cutting through the walls are everyone's favourite.
3.5 gives players multiple ways to solve a problem, this is why it's the best edition.

yeah but any damage they make is meaningless with the short rest/long rest + magic stuff

if the system is d20 based or easier the better

>3.5e: rampant caster supremacy
>5e: rampant caster supremacy

I don't know user, I think you might be wrong.

So any answer for the thread question?

Easy mode "I win" buttons are not an interesting way of solving a problem, user. What's more this shit is rarely ever reflected in the settings, which creates a massive dissonance between fluff and crunch.

Kobolds collapse the tunnels, flee out back tunnels too small for party to squeeze through and simply leave. Party can phase through walls or fight, not both, and the kobolds are scattering.

Three weeks later the party is attacked by a group of moderate-high level kobold/lizardfolk/dragonite/scaly mercenaries hired by the kobolds.

Or the kobolds start taking hostages, and demand restitution or the hostages will die.

Or they convince a CR10 young adult dragon to fight you in return for their adulation and perpetual servitude.

see GURPS is actually great for OP, because regardless of how powerful your character is there's ALWAYS a risk of horrible death, no matter how weak the enemy.

I ready a story a while back about a character somebody played who was called the second greatest swordsman in the world. His fighting ability was insane, to the poont where he could fight opponents no one else in the party could. He still went down when he tried to fight 7 centaurs by himself though.

You should give it a shot.

The problem is that in gurps you cant generate a character as fast

I am now convinced the only reason people don't like 3.5 is because of their players.

You can make a character in ten minutes if you know what you want. Templates make it even faster.

True. The DM has to do most of the set up desu. The Dungeon Fantasy set that's coming out is supposed to be fixing that though

Holy shit I forgot how ass 3.5 art was

What the fuck is up with that monk's head? What the shit kinda sword is the (fighter?) holding? Why is his sheath between his legs?

Go deepthroat a cactus. This isn't Reddit, you won't get le upvotes for posting the smarmiest, most pandering comment.

Casters are OP compared to martials in both 3.5 and 5e but if you think they're anywhere similar in overall power-levels you're flat-out delusional.

is there a game with 3.5 power level but with good rules?

The thing is dont have a lot of experience with gurps

Legend.

Is it really good as people say? or it just got the martyr aura around it?

also
>no monster manual

It's like 3.5 if spellcasters were reined in, martials didn't need ToB because they already got cool stuff, trap options were largely a thing of the past, multiclassing was intuitive, feats were better balanced overall, and magic items were actually built into the system and balanced.

The main problems with it are the lack of MM, that if you don't use common sense you can make characters who are extremely annoying to play because you have too much shit to track at the same time, like a Shaman with Mechanist Savant and Combat Alchemist on top of their spellcasting tracks, and that it's not particularly friendly to new GMs.

Mutants and Masterminds

A lot of us don't like 3.5 because we think it's how those players got to be Those Players to begin with.

>3.5
>Past 6th level, the only effective way for PC's to hurt NPC's and vice versa is through save-or-dead effects
>Implying that's not actually dangerous
nigga what?

>rampant caster supremacy

Have you played 5e at ALL? Feats are gone, meaning metamagic abilities aren't an option for Druids, Clerics, Bards, and virtually any spellcaster that isn't a Sorcerer.

This alone completely decapitates the "rampant caster supremacy" myth from 3.5 that constantly gets perpetuated (even though thunderstones and tanglefoot bags can pose a serious hazard for level 14 and higher spellcasters that aren't spontaneous casters)

>metamagic
>necessary for casters in 3.x

Eschew materials? Gone. Improved Counterspell? Gone. Natural Spell? Gone. Silent spell? Gone. Quicken spell? Gone. Empower spell? Gone.

Also, technically there are still feats, but they're done differently, it's 5 AM and I didn't really word it properly. But those are all essentially gone for just any class to pick, and they even added specific abilities for characters to pick which are meant to counter spell casters.

It's not like 2nd Edition where casters were literally FUCKED, but there's a lot less leniency on them like with 3.5

The original Tucker's Kobold was the first layer of a wider dungeon the players wanted to explore. If we assume this to also be the case then the player a would not be able to effectively rest in either the Kobold area or others. If your GM is letting you rest in the middle of a hostile dungeon with no penalty , no chance of random encounters interuptting you or at all then it's the fault of your GM making it easy not the system. Short rests may be possible but long ones are pretty much out of the question in a hostile area.

As a person who played all versions of the game 5e's mostly ass.

The game is structured retardedly with it being HP rocket tag unless you tech tech to break the AC system (Which is can still do).

Casters are still pretty much supreme and are pretty necessary to not die instantly.

Not that user, and yet...
Only three of those feats matter, Silent, Empower and Quicken Spell, and only one other metamagic matters, Empower and Persist magic. Silent is niche and not needed, Empower is sometimes useful but not needed, Persistent magic is only useful if you want to break the game over your knee, and the only actual metamagic that mattered to every straight-caster was Quicken Magic, which was good because it broke the action economy - and really, most casters have an absurd number of tricks up their sleeve to do that.

That all being said, Casters are indeed much weaker in 5e than in 3.x, but that has more to do with their spell lists having less badly thought out gamebreaking bullshit in them, less access to gamebreaking badly thought out prestige classes, and other classes being stronger in general and thus more capable of punishing mistakes they make.

They're still a cut above the rest, they're just less high above them.

>I think you might be wrong
He's 100% right, what you mention has nothing to do with power levels. Is there still caster supremacy? yes, but what has that to do with powerlevels? 5e is dirty shank village edition in where even at 20 level a group of 20 bandits will rape you. For god sakes you cant even lift 10 tons at 20th level as a barb.

>and other classes being stronger in general
No, everybody is weaker in general in 5e, is just casters got nerfed even more to slightly even things.

Which make undead a whole ton more powerful-again. Making necromancers more powerful, making the casters more powerful. Again.

In general, you don't even need a HORDE to kill you. The average monster is designed to knock out 1 PC per round.

By 'stronger' I meant 'better at succeeding', rather than 'on a greater scale'. You're right that I said it badly, though.

As in, Runequest?