Why would I choose this over 3.5?

So this is a genuinely honest question, one that many people will ask.  Right now I see most of the mechanics being extremely similar to 3.5, the classes themselves are nearly identical.  

The only reason I can offer is if you're a wizard then you get at-wills? 

Right now I play mostly 4e and enjoy it, though do some 3.5.  From the current state of the playtest (which I know will grow radically and I understand this is designed to be a simplistic core) I'm not seeing much different from 3.5, especially to warrant the dropping of all existing 3.5 resources and rebuying books etc.  Does anyone else see any other big gains over 3.5 (I probably missed many little details, which is the purpose of this thread)?
Most of the details are yet to come.  This is a very early version, and largely incomplete.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Completely understood, though I still think it's a valid question.  Based off of these core rules vs the 3.5 core rules what gain is there in this new edition?

The equation may completely change when more details come and I'm open to that, but in being genuine in our testing and feedback I think we have to ask that question consistently (much like we might ask why someone would move from 4e or earlier editions before 3.5)... even if the answer right now is "I see no big reason to change as it currently stands"... I'm also just curious if I missed some other big gain in this core ruleset over 3.5.
The reason appears to be that you can run combats in 15-20 minutes instead of over an hour.  The math is way more balanced(though the math is the most subject to change, but I already see it's much better then 3.5e).  It is much less complicated and therefore easier for new players to understand.  It encourages role playing by moving most of your abilities off of your character sheet and encourages you to just "do what your character would do" by making nearly everything that isn't an attack a DM arbitrated ability check.

From what I understand of the rest of the system, even at character creation it will encourage players to think of their characters in terms of characters and not "builds" in that you choose Backgrounds and Themes which give you a package of abilities related to your background and character concept instead of allowed you to pick and choose individual skills and feats(though, it will offer an optional feature to pick and choose those for the people who really like that).

Basically, much easier to DM and play is the real reason behind it.  With more balance.
im not convinced that this is easy to dm personally, but i am spoiled with 4e
Well, I'm going to wait and see.  From what I've heard, there is a level of backwards compatability.  If this is the case, I should be able to convert my 3rd edition and 4th edition books to DDN.  I'm a bit hesitant myself, but let's see where all the feedback after playtesting leads.

An undead spectre occasionally returning to remind the fandom of its grim existence.

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
The reason appears to be that you can run combats in 15-20 minutes instead of over an hour.  The math is way more balanced(though the math is the most subject to change, but I already see it's much better then 3.5e).  It is much less complicated and therefore easier for new players to understand.  It encourages role playing by moving most of your abilities off of your character sheet and encourages you to just "do what your character would do" by making nearly everything that isn't an attack a DM arbitrated ability check.

From what I understand of the rest of the system, even at character creation it will encourage players to think of their characters in terms of characters and not "builds" in that you choose Backgrounds and Themes which give you a package of abilities related to your background and character concept instead of allowed you to pick and choose individual skills and feats(though, it will offer an optional feature to pick and choose those for the people who really like that).

Basically, much easier to DM and play is the real reason behind it.  With more balance.



As intersting as I find that, where and what is actually giving you these impressions from the playtest?  The spells seem very similar to 3.5, attack rols seems very similar, maybe I missed something in the math that you mentioned but I'm not seeing the difference.
Right now my main game is PFRPG. I think I would rather run this cause it seems to be a lot more simpler. Math is less complex, character sheets are nice and clean. I like it. I have yet to run, but I am really liking what I see. I love pathfinder, but it is a complex game. If this is just 1/3 simplier it is a better game to me.
Attack rolls have worked basically the same in every edition.  (Sure, THACO vs hit chart vs additive, but it's all the same basic thing.  You roll a d20, add your mods, and ask the DM if you hit.)

The spells are actually extremely different from 3.5.  In 3.5, 99% of spells scale with caster level.  The same is not true here.  The only spell I've seen scale with caster level is Magic Missile, though I've only skimmed it, most of them certainly do not.  The fact that casters in 3.X gain more spell slots per level, AND each slot becomes more powerful, is the reason that they have quadratic scaling.  That's being taken out here, they just get more slots, so it's linear scaling.  Which is a good thing for the game.



It's certainly going to look similar to 3.5 on its face, especially at this point, where we can't really see anything but the most core of core.  But characters are designed completely differently, built differently, get their abilities in different ways, and so on.  Monsters work differently.  It really only shares the basic d20 resolution mechanic and ability scores with 3.5.  Other than that, the things that look similar are really just skin deep.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
You shouldn't choose this over 3.5. 3.5 is a complete game with a huge catalog. This is an alpha rules set. The only reason to use this packet is to playtest. It's not a preview or an expostion, it's an invitation to get your hands dirty.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />As intersting as I find that, where and what is actually giving you these impressions from the playtest?  The spells seem very similar to 3.5, attack rols seems very similar, maybe I missed something in the math that you mentioned but I'm not seeing the difference.


Spell DCs don't add the spell level, so if you have a 16 Int, all fo your spells are DC 13 regardless of the level.  This means that there will be very little min-maxing of DCs to make them impossible.  The spells that completely incapacitate enemies only work on very low hp creatures.  You have less spell slots as a Wizard so less times per day that your spells can dominate encounters.  Getting hit makes it difficult to cast a spell next turn, further lowering the power of Wizards.  Spells target AC when you make attack rolls, so there is no getting around people's defenses by using "touch attacks".

As for stuff from all the articles they've posted:

Attack bonuses and such don't scale(or scale very slowly).

You can't choose feats by default, so you can't purposefully choose the best ones, reducing power gaming.


Attack rolls have worked basically the same in every edition.  (Sure, THACO vs hit chart vs additive, but it's all the same basic thing.  You roll a d20, add your mods, and ask the DM if you hit.)

The spells are actually extremely different from 3.5.  In 3.5, 99% of spells scale with caster level.  The same is not true here.  The only spell I've seen scale with caster level is Magic Missile, though I've only skimmed it, most of them certainly do not.  The fact that casters in 3.X gain more spell slots per level, AND each slot becomes more powerful, is the reason that they have quadratic scaling.  That's being taken out here, they just get more slots, so it's linear scaling.  Which is a good thing for the game.



It's certainly going to look similar to 3.5 on its face, especially at this point, where we can't really see anything but the most core of core.  But characters are designed completely differently, built differently, get their abilities in different ways, and so on.  Monsters work differently.  It really only shares the basic d20 resolution mechanic and ability scores with 3.5.  Other than that, the things that look similar are really just skin deep.



Good points, though most of them are theoreticaly since we don't have higher level progression and spells to truly understand how they scale (only a concept).
As much as I like what I hear from the devleopers, I stopped taking promises of game development at face value a long time ago.  I judge what I see, not what I hear.

Spell DCs don't add the spell level, so if you have a 16 Int, all fo your spells are DC 13 regardless of the level.  This means that there will be very little min-maxing of DCs to make them impossible. 




Note that all saving throws are also d20 + Stat mod.  So your chance to fail a saving throw is always 50% + 5% * (your save stat mod - their magic ability mod).

It's not like 3.X with base saves increasing versus increasing DCs creating an arms race.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
You shouldn't choose this over 3.5. 3.5 is a complete game with a huge catalog. This is an alpha rules set. The only reason to use this packet is to playtest. It's not a preview or an expostion, it's an invitation to get your hands dirty.




Yes, this. The point is, regardles of what our first impressions of a reading of this document, we are supposed to actually play test it, then ask questions like "what aspects of this is better/worse than edition x, what do I like, what do I not like, what could be done better in this system." 

It is not the final product by any means, and its not a preview or advertisment of DnDN, it is our inventation to try it out and see what we think. And I stongly belive the best way to judge a game honestly is to actually play it.  
Personally, if the playtest rules are any indication, I'd choose Next over 3.5 simply for all the things they seem to be doing with Backgrounds and Themes. Lots of really novel ideas there and a lot of possibilities for character development.

Also, I really like a lot of the fixes to individual spells. And the flatter math. And the simpler, more freeform skill system. 
Our goal right now is to make Next a game that we would play over AD&D, 3.5 or 4e. That's the point of the playtest.
Our goal right now is to make Next a game that we would play over AD&D, 3.5 or 4e. That's the point of the playtest.



The docs are not set in stone,
you are right therefore not to moan.
The goal for next D&D
is to play like 3 or 4e
or even older-school tone.
Our goal right now is to make Next a game that we would play over AD&D, 3.5 or 4e. That's the point of the playtest.



Exactly, which is why I'm asking this question and we should all be asking this question.  It's also while I'll playtest it and give my feedback, even if brutally honest.

Because 3.5 high level campaigning were broke as shiart! 

High level combat or spellcasting easily became a tremendous headache. 

I dont know how this new system is at 10+ levels, but i sure hope its a lot better! I am confident that it will be. 


 

Because 3.5 high level campaigning were broke as shiart! 

High level combat or spellcasting easily became a tremendous headache. 

I dont know how this new system is at 10+ levels, but i sure hope its a lot better! I am confident that it will be. 


 



I agree... 3.5 definitely broke at high levels, especially in epic, though I'm not going to assume this one will be better until I see it.

As much as I like what I hear from the devleopers, I stopped taking promises of game development at face value a long time ago.  I judge what I see, not what I hear.



Wise man.

I've got some legitamite questions for all you 4E haters out there. At what point during developement did you determine that 4E just wasn't going to cut it? Did you try it and dislike it after release, or during testing?
The main thing I'm seeing is much more streamlined and simple combat. The monster stat blocks are 2E style compared to 3E/4E's monstrosities and it's finally dropping the mandatory battlemap, which is a good thing.
3/3.5e took away a lot of power from the dm with so many rules for everything. This gives the dm back his power over the rules lawyers who ruined 3e for me.
I've got some legitamite questions for all you 4E haters out there. At what point during developement did you determine that 4E just wasn't going to cut it? Did you try it and dislike it after release, or during testing?



Played it after release, and went to about 7th or 8th level before abandoning it.  The feel was just off, and it wasn't as fun.
Agree with the original post, this feels a lot like 3.5. Keeping HP low makes for faster battles, and Wizard players are going to feel a lot more like sophisticated, smart people over choosing that class. Minions are present because of a few very low HP values but they don't have that name anymore.

Seems like they're cutting encounter time in one side while re-introducing more complex rules, like bringing back the weapon damage types.

What seems weird for me in the character sheets is that there is no complete list of skills, or do characters only have the skills featured in their sheets?




Final note: they should keep the Eladrin sub-race.
As much as I like what I hear from the devleopers, I stopped taking promises of game development at face value a long time ago.  I judge what I see, not what I hear.



Wise man.

I've got some legitamite questions for all you 4E haters out there. At what point during developement did you determine that 4E just wasn't going to cut it? Did you try it and dislike it after release, or during testing?

I started out very excited and open minded about the story line and game mechanic changes. However, within a few hours of starting the game with some friends, we all started to realize that the only difference in our various abilities was the description. We all built out characters of various levels, and everyone did the same damage, got the same roles, etc. It felt like D&D storyline tacked onto some homebrew role playing system.  I know a lot of people like it, but it just made everyone into the exact same class, to us.

Please remember that this is my opinion, not an attempt at stating fact. 

So far, I am once again very excited about a new version of D&D and am very glad that they are play testing the system.  
Agree with the original post, this feels a lot like 3.5. Keeping HP low makes for faster battles, and Wizard players are going to feel a lot more like sophisticated, smart people over choosing that class. Minions are present because of a few very low HP values but they don't have that name anymore.



Odd, I didn't get any feel of 3E from it. It felt like a blend of 4E and 2E to me. I didn't see much 3E in it at all, mostly because there seemed to be almost no numeric scaling from level to level.

Nobody gets an attack, save or AC bonus from levels 1-3. That seems to be the opposite of the 3E design philosophy.
Agree with the original post, this feels a lot like 3.5. Keeping HP low makes for faster battles, and Wizard players are going to feel a lot more like sophisticated, smart people over choosing that class. Minions are present because of a few very low HP values but they don't have that name anymore.



Odd, I didn't get any feel of 3E from it. It felt like a blend of 4E and 2E to me. I didn't see much 3E in it at all, mostly because there seemed to be almost no numeric scaling from level to level.

Nobody gets an attack, save or AC bonus from levels 1-3. That seems to be the opposite of the 3E design philosophy.



I always felt the 3e design philosophy was choice. They, over time of course, gave everyone a ton of options to pick and choose and build with, and did so in a way that imo was usually evocative and fun. I stills see them doing this a little, albeit through different forms.
(I understand that to an extent the other editions had this too, but I always fealt 3.X pulled if off the best, even if I did need to do a little lifting sometimes. There are many who'd disagree I'd wager.)

I always felt the 3e design philosophy was choice. They, over time of course, gave everyone a ton of options to pick and choose and build with, and did so in a way that imo was usually evocative and fun. I stills see them doing this a little, albeit through different forms.


Ah. For me, I always attributed 3E iconics to heavy bonus accumulation, open multiclassing and powerful save-or-die spells.

I didn't really see any of that in 5E yet. Though I suppose the buff based uber cleric is in 5E, which is pretty much a 3E concept. The wizard is just too gimped for me to call it anything close to 3E though.

Just got done playing it. I have really nothing bad to say. This is a great start. It has a lot of what I love about the game in it, and some new ideas to me I really love. Themes and backgrounds are at the top of my list. I can not wait to have a list of them to chose in front of me. So many really neat combos you can do. I do not understand the amount of nerd rage I have seen over this. The people that seem to attack it the most attack it for what it is missing from there favorite edition. This is not 4e or 3.5/pfrpg, this is the playtest for a new edition. Judge it for what it is, how it plays and the things that we can do with this system. Do not slam it cause it is not your edition. Doing that is providing nothing constructive  to the discourse.

As much as I like what I hear from the devleopers, I stopped taking promises of game development at face value a long time ago.  I judge what I see, not what I hear.



Wise man.

I've got some legitamite questions for all you 4E haters out there. At what point during developement did you determine that 4E just wasn't going to cut it? Did you try it and dislike it after release, or during testing?



4E is broke at high levels too. I decided 4E was an attempt at a taptop video game after a good year of trying to like it. It had some cool things I really liked the powers that made the melee classes have more than "I attack". Honestly the worst part about 4E was the living campaigns the way they set up the adventures, the GM rules, etc. They forced out Roleplay. Home brew campaigns where better, but convention play was just dice roles, 90% of the time.
So this is a genuinely honest question, one that many people will ask.  Right now I see most of the mechanics being extremely similar to 3.5, the classes themselves are nearly identical.  

The only reason I can offer is if you're a wizard then you get at-wills? 

Right now I play mostly 4e and enjoy it, though do some 3.5.  From the current state of the playtest (which I know will grow radically and I understand this is designed to be a simplistic core) I'm not seeing much different from 3.5, especially to warrant the dropping of all existing 3.5 resources and rebuying books etc.  Does anyone else see any other big gains over 3.5 (I probably missed many little details, which is the purpose of this thread)?



This isn't even a beta test.  In a beta test, most things are set in stone and playtesting it to tweak the system for final release.  What you are seeing now are the beginnings of preliminary ideas for the system.  Nothing is set in stone.  Everything will change to some degree or vanish completely.  New things will be added. 

At this point, there's no reason to choose this game over any game ever created, or any reason to choose any game ever created over this game.  There's simply no sense in trying to compare a non-game like 5e to an actual game.

I always felt the 3e design philosophy was choice. They, over time of course, gave everyone a ton of options to pick and choose and build with, and did so in a way that imo was usually evocative and fun. I stills see them doing this a little, albeit through different forms.


Ah. For me, I always attributed 3E iconics to heavy bonus accumulation, open multiclassing and powerful save-or-die spells.

I didn't really see any of that in 5E yet. Though I suppose the buff based uber cleric is in 5E, which is pretty much a 3E concept. The wizard is just too gimped for me to call it anything close to 3E though.




A lot of the save-or-die spells had been there a long time, to my knowledge. Things like Wail of The Banshee and the every popular Finger of Death have been there some time. Though only having experienced 2e through Baldur's Gate and Planescape:Torment i'm not sure how they balanced out. Regardless the open multiclassing is one of the choices I always liked them giving, though I feel the concept might have been better served by trying to marry the concept closer to 2e's multiclassing.

Overall though, somewhat of a non-issue to me, as I've always seen 2e and 3e as not being paticularly widely divorced. I know they changed a lot between editions, but largely the fluff got to stay intact and the systems aren't atrociously different. 

Granted all of this disclaimered with the usual. 

In other question: Has anyone tried using the clerics as uber-buffers yet? I haven't got to actually play yet, so I'd be interested to know if such a thing is back and has been visibly seen. 

At this point, there's no reason to choose this game over any game ever created, or any reason to choose any game ever created over this game.  There's simply no sense in trying to compare a non-game like 5e to an actual game.



I don't know. I'd still choose what we have of 5e now over FATAL. 

At this point, there's no reason to choose this game over any game ever created, or any reason to choose any game ever created over this game.  There's simply no sense in trying to compare a non-game like 5e to an actual game.



I don't know. I'd still choose what we have of 5e now over FATAL. 



Heh.  Not having ever played FATAL, I can't speak from experience on this, but I have heard nothing good about it from posters here.

This is not 4e or 3.5/pfrpg, this is the playtest for a new edition. Judge it for what it is, how it plays and the things that we can do with this system. Do not slam it cause it is not your edition. Doing that is providing nothing constructive  to the discourse.



This would be a valid statement IF the design team hadn't spent the last 5 months telling everyone that 5E will in fact allow you to play in the style of your preferred edition. 

A lofty goal to be sure, but since they set it I see no issue with folks chiming in that the game doesn't "feel" like their ideal of D&D... it's certainly what some have done with each new edition. 

I love D&D more than I could ever love a human child.


I've got some legitamite questions for all you 4E haters out there. At what point during developement did you determine that 4E just wasn't going to cut it? Did you try it and dislike it after release, or during testing?



I started out along with my DM as a 4venger.  We were strong advocates prior to release.  We even bought the intro books.  To us there had never been a D&D edition worse than the previous one so we believed.

One year into the 4e campaign and after buying a lot of books, we just decided we didn't like it.  Since then I and my DM and others have been analyzing what we didn't like about it.   I would say the healing system, the AEDU, the martial healing classes, the lackluster magic items, the lackluster spells.   My adjectives are how I felt about those things and not an objective believe about how everyone might feel.  But my group was pretty unified about it.

I have been terrified that 4e would become D&D.  That third parties would have to take up the mantle of traditional D&D.  I want to play D&D.  I think 4e departed so far from the past that it became a different game for me.  So I am overjoyed that at least 5e appears to be returning somewhat to it's roots.

I would though be happy if they kept 4e, and produced 5e.  We could jettison some of the 4e stuff in 5e that we are putting in to make the 4e people happy.   I think the grognards of 1e/2e and the 3e people could find common ground far more easily.   I wouldn't even be against 5e being AD&D and keeping 4e as D&D.   I wouldn't care though if they wanted a different name entirely for 4e either.



 
For me, 4e allowed to bring a lot of new people into the game, people who would not try it before because of so many rules and complications of 3 and 3.5 -from the point of view of unexperienced people-. While it focused so much on encounters, a good DM would make the best of every adventure, and it was the same with skill challenges. Problem is a lot of DMs chose to stick to what was written in the books and yes, I must accept that wasn't always that good.

At this point, there's no reason to choose this game over any game ever created, or any reason to choose any game ever created over this game.  There's simply no sense in trying to compare a non-game like 5e to an actual game.



I don't know. I'd still choose what we have of 5e now over FATAL. 



Heh.  Not having ever played FATAL, I can't speak from experience on this, but I have heard nothing good about it from posters here.


Eh. I've never played myself but the rules were just seemed needlessly specific in a lot of areas. (Is it really necessary to roll to determine something like pelvic width? (not an actual roll to my recollection, but that's the level of detail it can get into.) Granted, I'm sure you can ignore those rules and still play, but I'm fine sticking with D&D for my fantasy needs. To others here no offense meant.
(Although the reviews saying its terrible are funny in thier own right, hence the joke I was going for. Not trying to start a discussion on anything really.) 
For me, 4e allowed to bring a lot of new people into the game, people who would not try it before because of so many rules and complications of 3 and 3.5 -from the point of view of unexperienced people-. While it focused so much on encounters, a good DM would make the best of every adventure, and it was the same with skill challenges. Problem is a lot of DMs chose to stick to what was written in the books and yes, I must accept that wasn't always that good.



This was the ovious thought process behind 4E (and the rule set would have been great for D&D online). The funny thing is a lot of people flocked to Pathfinder instead of 4E.
Sign In to post comments