MnM 3e vs DnD 5e

So lads, a friend of mine recently recommended that after our current campaign of 5e we switch over to using Mutants and Masterminds in the future. What are yours two cents on this? Also general MnM 3e vs DnD 5e discussion.

Other urls found in this thread:

drive.google.com/open?id=0Bwu7qRgOIpEkV0Rud3NBRFlqOHM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Do you mean for playing a fantasy game or for a superhero game?

Because it does fantasy a lot better than you might think (let's face it, DnD is just fantasy superheroes anyway).

checked

Checked again holy shit.

Huh, didn't notice that at fir-

NANI?! DOUBLE QUINTS

To avoid derailing this topic to hell, I should also mention that, please, for the love of god, do not try and use DnD 5e for Supers games. DnD is fine and all for the typical fantasy archtypes, but if you want any flexibility required for running a superhero, you're not going to find it there.

It's for fantasy style games because our group refuses to play anything outside of fantasy other than the Warhammer RPG's.

...

No my group despite all their flaws aren't that retarded to try and make 5e work for everything.

...well all bar one of us.

Then I will tell you this:

Mutants and Masterminds 3e is a pretty good system for running fantasy. I know that some people have used it to replace 3.5 in running Eberron games, or to just replace 3.5 in general. The reason why it is so appealing is because it allows you to do so much without having to rely on magic (a fighter can have a fuckton of skills that are even useful in combat, doesn't have to pay massive feat taxes to have access to maneuvers, and can just be fucking strong as fuck).

However, it is because of the amount of customization that it can be a bit tricky to understand at first. It still isn't nearly as complicated as GURPS is, and there are plenty of archtypes in the Deluxe Handbook's character generator to serve as example for character builds that you can reflavor (in fact, it's a part of the system's Descriptor mechanics). Power Profiles is also a godly supplement loaded with good advice for players and GMs on how to create a ton of powers, one of them being magic.

Quads of truth

Fpbp

YES! FUCKING DO IT, OP!

Mutants and Masterminds is the only reason why the statement "all D20 systems are trash" is incorrect.

I've been looking through M&M recently. Is there any difference between what's in the DC adventures player book and the regular Deluxe Third Edition, besides the setting and how DC can name drop Superman?

M&M is an upgrade from 3.5 for sure, but it's still a lot clunkier than 5e, so I wouldn't say it's a clear cut decision.

M&M's characters are more robust/"clunky," but the actual mechanics are much simpler and more graceful. Especially combat.

I can't say I disagree that I wish some of the rules were at least fixed in an 3.5 version (such as the awful construct rules) but at the same time, the clunkier aspects are something that isn't too hard to fix if you as a GM have good judgment. (Such as not allowing Reaction Teleport to grant immunity to any parry and dodge attack you can see or letting players playing Constructs at least get some sort of save when dealing with Affects Objects...or just ban the Affects Objects modifer or have the player keep their stamina ranks).

With 5e, sure, it's probably more "stable", but it's also A LOT more boring (for me) and still suffers from the martial and caster divide in some aspects even though casters don't 100% invalidate martials as they did before.

What's the difference between M&M 3e and 2e? I have both, and I think I'm enjoying 2e more, but I'm affraid that there's something obvious that I must be missing.

Wish that some of the 2e rules carried into 3e (like ahem CONSTRUCT RULES) but from my friend's experiences 2e is especially easy to break. Also that ability score format is BLECH compared to 3e's clear cut version.

Kind of wish there was another version of MnM that mixed the best aspects of both, or just another supplement that cleaned some of the messiness up (perhaps the new handbook will contain some stuff, but not getting my hopes up).

Deluxe Edition cleans up some of the mistakes of the first Handbook and contains a random character generator, Other than that, they're pretty much functionally the same.

I am still surprised how many anons approve of MnM around here.

Mutants and masterminds is okay as a system

I want to fall in love with a woman as lovely as Mutants and Masterminds

One of the builds I made for a player in my past fantasy game

My instinct is to say "no" but actually that could work out really well. I'd recommend doing their "street level" if you want fantasy starting characters.

The base points they start you off with will make you ~lvl 10 in D&D terms.

M&M is a slower and clunkier game but it's far more interesting than 5E's bland bullshit, especially if we're talking about playing Fighters in both systems. You could model every single thing a Battlemaster does in M&M and not have even scratched the surface of what you can have a martial do.

If you just want a more interesting D&D you could just play 4e...

beito desu

This. M&M is probably really worth it for fantasy, but bear in mind Power Levels do not work exactly the same as levels in D&D, as in, in M&M you actually start pretty high.

It works wonderfully, but there's some things you need to know before doing so.
Character generation is a lot clunkier, because it's a point-buy system. Have your friend help everyone with chargen if he's got experience.
That said, combat is fluid and elegant, at least once everybody knows what their characters do and how it works.
Do not, I say again do not equate power level to D&D character level. You want to start at PL 8 for D&D level 1-6 or so, PL 10 for levels 7-12, PL 12 for levels 13+. The system breaks down horribly at low power levels, and gets shaky when you start pushing towards PL 20.
Complications are a GMs best friend. Use them, love them, rejoice in them.

The mechanics totally break down below PL 7 or so, because the range on the d20 overwhelms your bonuses. Never, ever, go below PL 6 for PCs, and that's already dangerously pushing it.

I think you're off with your estimation of levels but you're still right overall. M&M has 5E-tier unreliable checks at low PLs. You don't want that in a game where degree of success mechanics are the standard instead of relegated to their own playpen. Sure, you might have Ultimate Effort or Skill Mastery to make that not as true for certain things, but it's better off to avoid low PLs for PCs entirely.

I'm semi-sreious.

Yeah, you COULD run D&D in M&M, but if your problem is just that 5e is boring, and you are willing to go with more complexity, why not? It doesn't have M&M's balance problems and fiddly character building, and is actually meant to run D&D.

>board game

It's not really fun user

3.5/5/m&m all have a bit more freedom than 4e

If you really wanted to play a balanced game just play risus or Strike or something

I'm aiming for accuracy with 5e levels, 5e plays things much lower-key than prior editions.
I'm not remotely accurate for 3.5 or 4e levels, but OP's considering a transition from 5e to MnM.

>3.5/5/m&m all have a bit more freedom than 4e

They don't, though.

It's just a meme. The only freedom they have over 4e is that you are allowed to make shit and overpowered characters to a much more extreme degree.

Maybe, if you absolutely must rely on ToM because a grid gives you rashes or something...

It's more that PL6 and 7 map to low levels moreso than 8. 8 is where your Conans and the like are.

3.5 has like hundreds of books
That's a bunch more content then 4e which I have never seen anything other than the core at the stores.

4e has a shitload of books
My friend has been buying them for cheap online

4e probably has ~30 counting from the Wiki. 3.5 has ~50-70 books.

That's fairly significant

Sure, but PL 6-7 is also in "d20 means more than your character" territory.
It's like how 5e is a clusterfuck at first level. The rules support it, and it's a "starting place", but it sucks so nobody who knows better ever does it.

>"lol, why do you want to play overpowered characters :^)"
>"Yes, I am completely incapable of making a distinction between mechanical breadth and muh powergaming"
Cease. You've literally been making this strawman argument for 10 years.

user, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. 3.5 has much more books total than 4e, if we are going by quantity of books alone.

That being said yes, 4e is more interesting in the sense of tactical minis game, but I don't think OP is aiming for that. M&M and 5e are fairly more centered on the narrative, specially M&M, and it does have more character creation freedom than 4e by far.

Well, M&M has even less books, so by that logic...

Anyway, 4e has less books, but each book is more content packed, and has no re-released material. The presented options are also, on average, more varied.

You are just supposed to use electronic tools (Character builder and compendium; or their pirate versions, the CBLoader and funin.space), instead of buying all the books anyway.

Yeah, but half of those books is shit, if not more. I mean, if you cut out all the bad shit, you still got a lot of material, true, but I'm not sure if it's more than 4e.

You do realize d&d is built like a video game as it is a level based class System.

You need more books to do more unless you are good at hombrew and who respects homebrew.

Even if the book is bad, at least you have more stuff,

And "the books are more dense" is a fallacy I'd like to see some sources m8

Also I really shouldn't have to buy online tools to play a game.

The whole m&m issue is that m&m is point based system, and that makes it so that m&m doesn't need more books to have a bunch of replay ability.

Okay, so what mechanical breadth is 4e missing then?

5e is only more narrative focused in the sense that its combat mechanics are garbage and things aren't presented in green, red and black boxes. Its skill mechanics are the same (except the skill list is worse, and the bonuses are smaller, and there are no things like skill power utilities), 4e also has backgrounds/themes, so what else is there?

M&M has more freedom of creation, but if you are creating D&D characters anyways, then what's the point?

>3.5/5/m&m all have a bit more freedom than 4e

Not really. The only difference is that they don't have moves that create awkward verisimilitude moments.

You also completely ignored the user's suggestion given the context of OP's request.

user you were the only one claiming that 4e has more books as if it was better. M&M also has a LOT of books if you count Power Profiles as books, but generally, it doesn't 'need' more books. The game itself is pretty much an engine to create powers, wereas D&D requires more books for more spells, and in the case of 4e, for powers.

>You are just supposed to use electronic tools (Character builder and compendium; or their pirate versions, the CBLoader and funin.space), instead of buying all the books anyway.

You can as easily use Herolab for M&M, this is a nonargument. Also stop moving your goalposts, first you were like "Yeah a friend of mind is getting shittons of books for cheap", and now you are "Oh, but you don't need them, anyway.."

Also the books being shit, you are partially right. But you are neglecting to cut the shit from 4e, too. Splatbooks are highly subjective, with normally 2-3 books being agreed upon being terrible.

4e has some virtues and with a tweak in the math it can be fun AF to actually play, but I don't think it's what OP wants, and I definitely don't think you are doing it a service the way you are defending it.

>it has more books, it must be a better system!

>M&M has more freedom of creation, but if you are creating D&D characters anyways, then what's the point?

You are creating FANTASY characters, not D&D characters. Big difference.

Also 5e is more narrative focused period. The problem 4e had is some utility powers were things you should obviously be able to do, so this created a problem if the rules: The implication that, if you do not have a power to do X, you outright cannot do X. Thus, RAW, 4e was much much more rigid.

Read 4rry user was the first to claim that more books was better

>wereas D&D requires more books for more spells, and in the case of 4e, for powers

You don't need those other books in any way, shape, or form.

>I don't think it's what OP wants

You know this because...?

>You do realize d&d is built like a video game as it is a level based class System.
>Even if the book is bad, at least you have more stuff,

More bad stuff you have to navigate.

This is not a good thing. Run into things like a planar shepherd and a vow of poverty monk in the same party because of it.

>And "the books are more dense" is a fallacy I'd like to see some sources m8

It's the presentation and the layout. 4e is dense as heck.

>Also I really shouldn't have to buy online tools to play a game.

You don't. You CAN just use the books. CBLoader and funin.space got your back if you don't want to, and they are a lot more convenient. Either way, it's not worse than buying the books, and is overall cheaper, and a lot more organized.

>You can as easily use Herolab for M&M, this is a nonargument. Also stop moving your goalposts, first you were like "Yeah a friend of mind is getting shittons of books for cheap", and now you are "Oh, but you don't need them, anyway.."

>4rry user was the first to claim that more books was better

We are two different anons.

The claim was made here.

>3.5 has like hundreds of books

Not from where I commented.

The 3.5 fag was the one to start Book Wars 2017

Just put in a sticky that says "don't be super rigid"

>But I can't make a half half orc half lizardman bard/wizard/monk with max ranks in use rope! No character options!
>I won't accept the fact that 4e is indisputably easier to reflavor and homebrew functional and balanced material for
>I won't accept that the 4e version of my character will be 100x more capable of contributing to the game
>The outcome and the way it plays don't matter. I must have these 3e-isms on a sheet of paper.

Just fuck right off.

I don't, that's what I said "I don't think". But considering this was a thread that started because a friend of OP wanted to try specifically M&M and OP wanted to know if it can do fantasy well, I don't think it's such a wild guess. Also because 5e and M&M are midway in the narrativist / gamish axis (5e being more gamish), and 4e is entirely gamish in nature.

You don't need them, but if you don't have them, you have less character options. This is NOT true in M&M where the power profiles are just stuff done with the core as examples, as the core is thought out to be a power-builder rather than a big list of powers.

>Suggest a system out of the blue
>Get mad when people don't like the suggestion
>"FUCK YOU IT'S JUST BETTER"

Is 4e the new GURPS?

>The implication that, if you do not have a power to do X, you outright cannot do X. Thus, RAW, 4e was much much more rigid.

It's implication, but not a law. If you have a power, you can just do shit better/more reliably. You can always make a skill roll to attempt an action that approximates a power (if you can justify why you should be able).

4e is actually a LOT better than 5e about this, where you have basically 0 guidelines for making stuff up on the fly.

Don't lump us in with 4e

Gurps is generally considered "pretty good" 4e is great to its fans and bad to everyone else

>Okay, so what mechanical breadth is 4e missing then?
Classes that break from the same structure of at-will power encounter power daily power. Other than the psion, that is; that class was a good first step onto making 4e good.

3.5 was popular because playing your character felt good, even if they weren't OP. Those really out-there classes like the Incarnum, psychic, and Tome of Magic classes were drastic breaks from the traditional class style, and each of them is a box of new experiences and new ways of looking at the game. Shit, even 3.5's scores and scores of mostly-forgetable prestige classes all had something that made them at least slightly interesting - some mechanic or option that was unique to them, even if it was sub par.
As a tangent, this is why 3.5 fans threw a bit of a fit when Tome of Battle came out. With classes that were basically just reskinned casters, they were worried that DnD was going to become a game where the mechanical differences between characters would be homogenized to the point of being meaningless. As it turns out they were right.

M&M is in the same boat as 3.5, only it has reasonable balance for all of the shit that was unpayable in 3.5. Now you can play an elemental or a giant or a mindflayer without having to pay through the nose. Now you can play an artificer or someone else who's equipment is part of their character without using shitty homebrew you found online. Now you can play that concept you always wanted to play without refluffing an existing class and/or taking a bunch of feat taxes.
And to top it all off, you can have all that mechanical breadth and depth in a system that is without a doubt the most graceful our of any other d20 system on the market
.

>where you have basically 0 guidelines for making stuff up on the fly.

You are outright lying. You are comparing a houserule to 5e's rules, first and foremost, even though it's a sensible one any GM should use, it's still not fair. And second, 5e outright fucking tells you "Yo remember you can come up with your own shit to do in your action during combat"

It's got flaws but these are flaws any reasonably experienced gamer and GM can easily fix, and it makes d20 combat fast without being too abrupt and very fun.
I've heard it called "the programmer's system" because the system itself is highly versatile and the only real limit is basically how well you can code (which is to say, work the rules) to get the affects that you want.

pic related

>ANNOTHER strawman
What a fucking joke.

>this is why 3.5 fans threw a bit of a fit when Tome of Battle came out. With classes that were basically just reskinned casters
You mean they threw a fit because they were too retarded to comprehend that the mechanics backing them were drastically different in application and access to effects despite similar appearances?

I'm not defending anti-ToB people. I quite liked the supplement, and I think that each class had enough in it to distinguish it from classes that came before. I'm just explaining why they were upset.

That being said, "the mechanics backing them were drastically different in application." is one of the biggest over-exaggerations in this whole thread. I would be shocked if there were even 5 maneuvers that could do something that a spell couldn't.

I subconsciously hate 4e

It has horrible mix of the 3.5 rough aesthetic and the 5e computer aesthetics.

I just can't even.

>I would be shocked if there were even 5 maneuvers that could do something that a spell couldn't.
That's a mark against spells being able to do anything more than it is against maneuvers. It's also wrong: spells don't let you weaponize Concentration checks, set someone's initiative to yours-1, give you stacking AC bonuses each time you're missed, give you stacking bonuses to attack and damage each time you crit, or let your entire party charge a single target at once for free.

>give you stacking AC bonuses each time you're missed, give you stacking bonuses to attack and damage each time you crit
Manouvers, not stances. not boosts or counters either.

That's oddly specific, but okay.

>Damage and stun flat-footed enemies only
>Stop enemies specifically from being able to full attack if you hit them
>Tornado Throw in its entirety

Not that oddly specific. We were talking about old mechanics being implemented differently. boosts and stances and counters are new mechanics.

But whatever. You win this one, user. Defending the ToB shitshow is not a hill I'm willing to die on.

The more relevant question now is if/how you're gonna tie this back to the broader argument about 4e's mechanical breadth. Because I think I know what you're gonna say, and I'm working on what I'm gonna say back

I don't know because I never made any arguments for or against 4E.

Well okay, never mind then.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but it'd be really nice if Veeky Forums had IDs right now.

3.5 has hundreds of books, but 90% of the material is unbalanced trash so it's a wash-out anyways.

Post your martial MnM builds

>5e
>"If an action isn't covered by the rules, have the DM make something up"
>4e
>"If an action isn't covered by the rules, have the DM make something up. Here's a handy table to show a guideline about what the results and difficulties of a level appropriate skill roll could be"

This is what I mean by 0 guidelines.

I love 4e because it has Warlords.

Herolab was a pain in the ass when I tried to use it last. Is it any better now?

What were you struggling with? It's probably been through a lot of patches since then. That includes some of the free supplement updates.

Either way, I've used it for creating dozens of characters, so obviously in my opinion it's pretty good.

It was clunkier and slower than putting the character together myself. That's kind of a problem when the point of chargen tools is to take a load off the player.

Here, have a WIP Martial Artist that don't suck shit.
Though, the formatting is a bit iffy since it's a WIP.

That's pretty hard to read but the variable for combat advantages is something I usually don't see people do.

The alternative is shelling out a good quarter of your post-defense points to have a crapton of specialized circumstantial advantages when you're only going to use two or three of them in any given turn. Which is fucking retarded when you could just buy a variable instead.

On this topic, I am planning on being the GM for my group's upcoming MnM game, but I haven't ever really GMd for the system. Can anyone direct me towards a guide on how to be a good GM for it, or a video of some kind? Besides just reading the book.
We were also planning on using Emerald city instead of coming up with a setting.

From an older topic:

This is what the GM Guide in a nutshell says for fighting villains:
>1. If you're planning on having a singular mega boss, for the love of god give them Reaction and AoE attacks, especially the former
>2. If not going that route, then have some minions block off the heroes, it even gives rules on minions taking the hit and attacking of the PCs try to get past them on Reaction. If not minions,
>3. Let Villains use Hero Point benefits in exchange for giving the Players Hero Points afterwards.

Also, make sure that there's more to be done besides "beat down the villain" if you want your encounters to be interesting. This is a system about saving the day, and beating up the villain is only half the job among stopping that bomb or catching toppling buildings.

Yeah I am a huge proponent of environmental features in my DnD games, so I will be sure to include fun stuff to use/avoid in my games. It's going to be a campaign, though.

You need one of these?

Naw. I've got ways to make it look pretty, just haven't bothered yet since it's not a finalized design. So I just exported the spreadsheet as a .pdf even if it does look ugly.

Thanks anyways though, I know a guy who will love that.

What's everyone's favorite archetype?
I'm partial to the Battlesuit. Plenty of room to bolt on more guns as you progress.

Shapeshifters and Whizzards. The ability to pull a huge variety of powers out of your ass with variable/power stunts is really, really fun - so long as it's not breaking the campaign over your knee.

>MnM 3e
2e was better.

Not so, Legend is d20.

Because it had more content, which is easily portable between systems anyways.

M&M 3e doesn't have Council of Fishes, obviously the inferior game.

>Council of Fishes
What's that?

Oh hey, another Mutants and Masterminds thread, another chance to plug my shitty PC builds.

drive.google.com/open?id=0Bwu7qRgOIpEkV0Rud3NBRFlqOHM

For when you want to play DC/Marvel heroes, but don't want to deal with your players whining that Superman is at least 3 power levels ahead of everyone.

I know you've probably been asked a dozen times, but how do you get your sheets to look like that? And is there a template?

I'm still mad we never got a good Warlord equivalent in 5e, and likely won't at this rate.

Mearls hates them so you were never going to get one.

Also, thank you for these builds. This will be a very good point of reference for some fellow players of mine.

"Why would you want to play a cheerleader?"