Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh, here's the character that I changed what I wanted to do with her multiple times. She started off as a rogue tiefling (she was a thief) who escaped from the underdark with a drow who was exiled or something and neither knew how to speak common. Sadly I kept rolling absurdly high on my intelligence checks to learn common and that funny obstacle went away by the end of the first session (I was hoping it'd last until the end of the first adventure at least). Then she took a level of sword sage, and then she took four levels of wizard (illusionist). Then the party got wiped when a party member ticked off a dragon in human form that was supposed to be the big bad later on or something (except for my character thanks to her being able to teleport a short distance once per turn from using her level of sword sage)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and here's the character that I was planning on taking every single form of rage I could. He'd rage at the start of combat and when his rage stop he'd collapse unconscious due to having several levels of exhaustion lol. That campaign didn't last long enough for me to finish the build sadly (I moved before we could get there)

 alextroy wrote:
Any good guide will tell you what is good for what and what is just all around bad. It is up to you to decide if you want to worship at the idol of MOAR DAMAGE or make a more rounded character. Which is the better decision also depends on the nature of the game you play. Taking skills is good if the GM has lots of skill checks in the game, but is a bad decision if you are mostly smashing monsters.

I've read the good & the best guides you people follow. My opinion of them is low (at best). You are better off thinking for yourselves.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you use a build guide for dnd?

Because, as I said when I mentioned build guides the first time, 3.5e is a horribly bloated game. The "flexibility" people like to talk about comes in the form of an immense amount of content scattered across dozens of books, and the only reason the game is playable at all is that third-party sites have taken advantage of the generous licensing terms WOTC used to offer and posted the entire rules into compiled reference sites. But even there you're still looking at an intimidatingly large list of options to choose from, with many builds involving sequences of choices where if you don't pick the right feat/class/etc at the right time you miss the prerequisites for something else later on. And 3.5e is a system that is heavy on math optimization, so if you don't make the right choices your dice math isn't good enough and you have a helpless failure of a character (or the DM drops the difficulty to accommodate you and everything becomes trivial for the rest of the party). A very dedicated player with a long history of playing RPGs can deal with these problems without guides, but for casual or new players the only way they're going to be successful is by using a build guide to cut down the number of options to something more manageable.

Contrast this with 5e, a game which doesn't need build guides. The list of options is much shorter and a lot more things are packaged together into single choices. Instead of planning out a whole chain of feats and prestige class levels you just pick which variant of a class you're going to play and start the game. Feats are rarer, almost never have other build choices as prerequisites, and TBH are often less useful than just putting +2 into your primary stat. Spells have damage scale with level instead of needing to carefully plan your metamagic feats to make anything but your highest-level spells relevant. And bonuses are much more binary instead of stacking with no limit. You mostly either apply your proficiency bonus (one single bonus for every character of that level) or don't, and very rarely apply double your proficiency bonus if it's something you're particularly good at. There's no more searching through dozens of books trying to find another +10 to a skill because +15 isn't good enough (while anyone who didn't optimize their build for that skill has a +3 bonus). Pretty much anyone can get an intro game to learn the basic rules, pick a class out of the core PHB, and start the game.

In short: 5e is a game for roleplaying, 3.5e is a character optimization exercise with a roleplaying game tacked on at the end.

In short: 5e is a game for roleplaying, 3.5e is a character optimization exercise with a roleplaying game tacked on at the end.

Nonsense. They're both RPGs. 5e pulls back on system mastery and eye for detail, but pulls back on player choice as well (there simply aren't as many player facing choices), and is much more dependent on the dice roll (because the player has less influence over modifiers)

Neither is less of an RPG, just a matter of preference for how you want to get there.
Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.

Voss wrote:

In short: 5e is a game for roleplaying, 3.5e is a character optimization exercise with a roleplaying game tacked on at the end.

Nonsense. They're both RPGs. 5e pulls back on system mastery and eye for detail, but pulls back on player choice as well (there simply aren't as many player facing choices), and is much more dependent on the dice roll (because the player has less influence over modifiers)

Neither is less of an RPG, just a matter of preference for how you want to get there.
Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.

I think he is right. They are both RPGs, but how much ROLE-playing and how much ROLL-playing you do is greatly different between the two systems. 5e is much more about the player decisions and less about what choices you made on your character sheet. Anyone can do almost anything in 5e, but if you didn't spend your skill points correctly in 3.5e you shouldn't even bother rolling the dice.

Voss wrote:
Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. In reality people have a finite amount of attention and energy to spend on a game and the more of it is taken up by dice math and character optimization the less they have to spend on roleplaying. 3.5e games often get bogged down in the details of exactly how to interpret Section 37, Paragraph 4, Line 2a(3)(b) in the grappling rules. You decide what your character is going to do but then you have to figure out how the mechanics work and figure out enough roleplaying rationalizations for why you deserve enough bonuses to have a reasonable chance of success (usually with the whole group collaborating to figure out exactly how to stack as much stuff as possible). In 5e, on the other hand, the simpler mechanics make it easier to just declare what your character is doing and then roll the appropriate dice. Less time on dice math, more time available to do things like describe the details of an attack, narrate a full conversation instead of a checklist of +2 bonuses to apply, etc.

To bring this back to 40k, this is the major problem 40k has. The bloat is so bad that there's no room left for anything else. Even a narrative game gets bogged down too easily in trying to figure out how the rules work, and GW's primary narrative mode is little more than "play a tournament game but add another layer of buffs to everything". 40k is trying to out-bloat 3.5e when it should be taking lessons from 5e.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

Voss wrote:
Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. In reality people have a finite amount of attention and energy to spend on a game and the more of it is taken up by dice math and character optimization the less they have to spend on roleplaying. 3.5e games often get bogged down in the details of exactly how to interpret Section 37, Paragraph 4, Line 2a(3)(b) in the grappling rules. You decide what your character is going to do but then you have to figure out how the mechanics work and figure out enough roleplaying rationalizations for why you deserve enough bonuses to have a reasonable chance of success (usually with the whole group collaborating to figure out exactly how to stack as much stuff as possible). In 5e, on the other hand, the simpler mechanics make it easier to just declare what your character is doing and then roll the appropriate dice. Less time on dice math, more time available to do things like describe the details of an attack, narrate a full conversation instead of a checklist of +2 bonuses to apply, etc..

Bollocks. CharOp and bonuses are something you can do away from the table. It doesn't eat into 'roleplaying time' The 2-3 hours for a single combat for 5e, on the other hand... that can be a real problem for table time.

interpret Section 37, Paragraph 4, Line 2a(3)(b) in the grappling rules

And if you think this is how 3e books are laid out, you're repeating tales from the 4e/5e edition war against earlier editions, and don't have much experience with the game itself.

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:

In short: 5e is a game for roleplaying, 3.5e is a character optimization exercise with a roleplaying game tacked on at the end.

Nonsense. They're both RPGs. 5e pulls back on system mastery and eye for detail, but pulls back on player choice as well (there simply aren't as many player facing choices), and is much more dependent on the dice roll (because the player has less influence over modifiers)

Neither is less of an RPG, just a matter of preference for how you want to get there.
Either way (system heavy or system light), good roleplaying is entirely separated from mechanics.

I think he is right. They are both RPGs, but how much ROLE-playing and how much ROLL-playing you do is greatly different between the two systems. 5e is much more about the player decisions and less about what choices you made on your character sheet. Anyone can do almost anything in 5e, but if you didn't spend your skill points correctly in 3.5e you shouldn't even bother rolling the dice.

That's not really true. 3.X has more mechanics, but not any less roleplaying than 5e. The choice between the systems has more to do with how much mechanical fuckery you like in your games; there's just as much mechanic support for roleplaying in 3.X.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
3.5e games often get bogged down in the details of exactly how to interpret Section 37, Paragraph 4, Line 2a(3)(b) in the grappling rules.

I just played with smart people and everything worked out. It also gatekept out the soulless drama nerd types who think talking in a funny voice and being obnoxiously extroverted counts as roleplaying.

This whole 5e vs 3.5e argument is very relevant to original topic of this thread, now that I'm thinking of it.

Disclaimer: as I've said before, I really enjoy 5e, but my personal favorite is still 3.5e, I don't really want this to turn into a "which is better" argument. That disclaimer said 5e is missing certain rules that 3.5e had (some of which I actually used). It's a natural and necessary part of trimming down and streamlining the rules. For example, using only the rules as written I can no longer bull rush. And this is where the relevance to the thread topic comes in. In D&D, you don't need to have a house rule that says "we added bull rush back into 5e and it works like this" because your DM should decide on the fly how best to arbitrate the actions that you want to attempt. In the case of the bull rush in 5e, maybe your DM asks you to make an attack roll with advantage/disadvantage based on the size comparison between you and your target (i.e., small, medium, large, etc). D&D was designed from the start to allow you to attempt to do literally anything. All you need is a willing DM to arbitrate what you need to roll to attempt that action (even the stupidly absurd...wanna spontaneously grow some rabbit ears? roll me 3d20, if you get 3 20's we'll call it divine intervention and your chosen deity will bestow on you your very own set of rabbit ears). D&D is, ultimately, a game of improv. The best DMs tend to say "yes" more than "no" (the classic improv "yes, but" comes to mind). The idea of writing rules to cover every situation that could arise in such a game is ludicrous and D&D was designed with that in mind.

40k doesn't have a DM. It doesn't typically need one since it's not designed to let you do anything, it's designed to be a tactical game where two (or more) armies fight each other. Unfortunately, that means that there's no one to arbitrate actions on the fly beyond "4+ it", which only really works to settle a disagreement on the rules without wasting excessive amounts of time or to resolve uncertainties. Outside of specially arranged events, any customization of the rules HAS to be based on agreement between the two players (rather than a third party). If two or more people play with one another regularly enough, these agreements can become the accepted community rules for that community. Adding an outside person into the mix doesn't change things, the rules still have to be agreed upon between the players. That might mean that mistakes get made due to assumed rules if the two sides aren't diligent about talking over any desired customization of the rules. If everyone is being reasonable, the players come to an agreement on how to resolve the issue and move on (ending the game early might be the result).

I'll also add, GW has officially said we can choose how we play so long as we come to an agreement on it with our opponent. The Content Validity document says in the first paragraph: "As always, you and your opponent can play using whichever rules you agree on, but we recommend using the most up-to-date rules for your faction as indicated below."

And, finally, to revisit the original post: the question was asked "Is the mood out there such that people are ready to make house or local are flexible rules arrangements or … something besides chasing the corporate meta?" Based on the thread so far, I think the answer is solidly "it varies from person to person"

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
This whole 5e vs 3.5e argument is very relevant to original topic of this thread, now that I'm thinking of it.

Disclaimer: as I've said before, I really enjoy 5e, but my personal favorite is still 3.5e, I don't really want this to turn into a "which is better" argument. That disclaimer said 5e is missing certain rules that 3.5e had (some of which I actually used). It's a natural and necessary part of trimming down and streamlining the rules. For example, using only the rules as written I can no longer bull rush. And this is where the relevance to the thread topic comes in. In D&D, you don't need to have a house rule that says "we added bull rush back into 5e and it works like this" because your DM should decide on the fly how best to arbitrate the actions that you want to attempt. In the case of the bull rush in 5e, maybe your DM asks you to make an attack roll with advantage/disadvantage based on the size comparison between you and your target (i.e., small, medium, large, etc). D&D was designed from the start to allow you to attempt to do literally anything. All you need is a willing DM to arbitrate what you need to roll to attempt that action (even the stupidly absurd...wanna spontaneously grow some rabbit ears? roll me 3d20, if you get 3 20's we'll call it divine intervention and your chosen deity will bestow on you your very own set of rabbit ears). D&D is, ultimately, a game of improv. The best DMs tend to say "yes" more than "no" (the classic improv "yes, but" comes to mind). The idea of writing rules to cover every situation that could arise in such a game is ludicrous and D&D was designed with that in mind.

40k doesn't have a DM. It doesn't typically need one since it's not designed to let you do anything, it's designed to be a tactical game where two (or more) armies fight each other. Unfortunately, that means that there's no one to arbitrate actions on the fly beyond "4+ it", which only really works to settle a disagreement on the rules without wasting excessive amounts of time or to resolve uncertainties. Outside of specially arranged events, any customization of the rules HAS to be based on agreement between the two players (rather than a third party). If two or more people play with one another regularly enough, these agreements can become the accepted community rules for that community. Adding an outside person into the mix doesn't change things, the rules still have to be agreed upon between the players. That might mean that mistakes get made due to assumed rules if the two sides aren't diligent about talking over any desired customization of the rules. If everyone is being reasonable, the players come to an agreement on how to resolve the issue and move on (ending the game early might be the result).

I'll also add, GW has officially said we can choose how we play so long as we come to an agreement on it with our opponent. The Content Validity document says in the first paragraph: "As always, you and your opponent can play using whichever rules you agree on, but we recommend using the most up-to-date rules for your faction as indicated below."

And, finally, to revisit the original post: the question was asked "Is the mood out there such that people are ready to make house or local are flexible rules arrangements or … something besides chasing the corporate meta?" Based on the thread so far, I think the answer is solidly "it varies from person to person"

You... You know you can Shove in 5E, which is basically the exact same thing as a Bull Rush, right?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You... You know you can Shove in 5E, which is basically the exact same thing as a Bull Rush, right?

Lol. It's always funny when people say "5e can't do this" without reading the book to know that yes, 5e can in fact do it.

*sigh* that's not the point...fine, you can shove. But even if you couldn't, the system is designed such that it doesn't matter. Your DM can arbitrate how you can attempt to do whatever you want via rolls.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
*sigh* that's not the point...fine, you can shove. But even if you couldn't, the system is designed such that it doesn't matter. Your DM can arbitrate how you can attempt to do whatever you want via rolls.

How does it not matter that you can knock an enemy backwards and prone? The specific dice mechanics are not identical to 3.5e but the concept is exactly the same.

Wait... you're trolling me, right? It doesn't matter to the point I was making. Your the one who was criticizing me for not reading the entire 5e book, but you apparently didn't read the post I made that was being referred to in the post you were quoting...go back and read it. Whether shove or bull rush are the same or similar or whatever is irrelevant to the greater point I was trying to make.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Wait... you're trolling me, right? It doesn't matter to the point I was making. Your the one who was criticizing me for not reading the entire 5e book, but you apparently didn't read the post I made that was being referred to in the post you were quoting...go back and read it. Whether shove or bull rush are the same or similar or whatever is irrelevant to the greater point I was trying to make.

Your post:

For example, using only the rules as written I can no longer bull rush. And this is where the relevance to the thread topic comes in. In D&D, you don't need to have a house rule that says "we added bull rush back into 5e and it works like this" because your DM should decide on the fly how best to arbitrate the actions that you want to attempt. In the case of the bull rush in 5e, maybe your DM asks you to make an attack roll with advantage/disadvantage based on the size comparison between you and your target (i.e., small, medium, large, etc)

While it is technically true that RAW you can no longer bull rush in 5e it's only because "bull rush" is now called "shove". You don't need house rules to add it back in. And you can complain that despite your error the rest of the post is still valid but that doesn't mean we can't laugh at yet another instance of someone making a claim about what 5e "can't do" that is obviously false.

I'm sorry you feel the need to laugh at people for not knowing everything I guess then...*shrug*

My original point still stands even with my oversight. (And in that paragraph I wasn't saying that you need house rules to add bull rush in, I was saying that you don't NEED house rules at all in D&D to do something that the rules don't cover, like growing bunny ears if you want an example that is definitely missing from the rules of both editions. The DM has the tools to arbitrate anything)

I've lost where the D&D conversation is going. Can someone catch me up? I'm not sure how any of this relates to the conversation at hand.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've lost where the D&D conversation is going. Can someone catch me up? I'm not sure how any of this relates to the conversation at hand.

I attempted to pull the conversation back on topic... I seem to have failed. You really haven't missed much, tbh.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Wait... you're trolling me, right? It doesn't matter to the point I was making. Your the one who was criticizing me for not reading the entire 5e book, but you apparently didn't read the post I made that was being referred to in the post you were quoting...go back and read it. Whether shove or bull rush are the same or similar or whatever is irrelevant to the greater point I was trying to make.

Your post:

For example, using only the rules as written I can no longer bull rush. And this is where the relevance to the thread topic comes in. In D&D, you don't need to have a house rule that says "we added bull rush back into 5e and it works like this" because your DM should decide on the fly how best to arbitrate the actions that you want to attempt. In the case of the bull rush in 5e, maybe your DM asks you to make an attack roll with advantage/disadvantage based on the size comparison between you and your target (i.e., small, medium, large, etc)

While it is technically true that RAW you can no longer bull rush in 5e it's only because "bull rush" is now called "shove". You don't need house rules to add it back in. And you can complain that despite your error the rest of the post is still valid but that doesn't mean we can't laugh at yet another instance of someone making a claim about what 5e "can't do" that is obviously false.

................ ya know what they call when a GM makes a ruling like that on the fly?

a house rule. you're literally arguing "there's no need for house rules because your GM can just house rule it"

I've played both D&D 3.5 and D&D 5E and both can be abused by roll play obsessed people looking to break the game rather then play a character.

If you're playing D&D as a roleplaying game you don't need a fething "net guide to character optimization"

I've always viewed a house rule as something established ahead of time as agreed upon by all the players and the DM (and thus the equivalent of the community rules that is the overarching topic of debate) rather than something that the DM comes up with on the fly. Otherwise, every DC check the DM comes up with would be a house rule, which doesn't make sense to me.

I think it's more that the spawning ears out of nowhere requiring rolls being the house rule.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I think it's more that the spawning ears out of nowhere requiring rolls being the house rule.

Agreed, all the players at my Warhammer club can spontaneously spawn ears. Except me, I'm a robot beep boop. We are talking about 40k right? If not maybe we should try to get back on the topic of 40k.

 vict0988 wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I think it's more that the spawning ears out of nowhere requiring rolls being the house rule.

Agreed, all the players at my Warhammer club can spontaneously spawn ears. Except me, I'm a robot beep boop. We are talking about 40k right? If not maybe we should try to get back on the topic of 40k.

Specifically bunny ears, but only on character models with fewer than 8 wounds, we wouldn't want it to be overpowered. Did I mention the bunny ears let you ignore invulns regardless of what any other rule says?

And if everyone playing is okay with that, I see no problem... although I do see where it might exacerbate issues already inherent in modern 40k rules...but everyone playing agreed on it, so that's their problem to deal with

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You... You know you can Shove in 5E, which is basically the exact same thing as a Bull Rush, right?

Lol. It's always funny when people say "5e can't do this" without reading the book to know that yes, 5e can in fact do it.

In 3.5, movement as a result of a bullrush provoked attacks of opportunity. In 5 it does not. This weakens the utility of the attack. I used to bull rush in 3.5 all the time. Now it's only really useful if there's a hazzard to push someone into.

Grapple in 5th is similar limited in its usefulness compared to 3.5. Trip and disarm are now tied to classes rather than just being feats anyone could take.

5th's skill system is ridiculous, and barely better than the skill system of AD&D, which might as well not have existed. The proficiency bonus off/on method doesn't allow you to create the kind of nuanced skill set that a real person might possess. Sure, there are a handful of feats and conditions that can lead to "Add double your proficiency bonus" so skill scores can only be 0, PB or PBx2. Proficiency bonus does too much- when it was used to govern combat, fine... And in those glorious days, it didn't go up at the same rate for everyone either, because SURPRISE fighters are better at fighting than Wizards... It's why they call them fighters.

But now, combat and non-combat skills improve at the same fixed rate, regardless of your character's class or what you actually do in the game. Simple and elegant... But rock-stupid in terms of allowing someone to create a character on paper that is a product of the things they actually did in the game. Of all the over-simplifications and little atrocities that killed the spirit of D&D , this is the most egregious to me. And it's odd, because in early D&D, the skill system was inadequate as well- it's like they got it right for a short period of time in the middle of the games lifespan. What we have now is better than early AD&D, but far less nuanced and interesting than what we had in 3.5.

Advantage and disadvantage are interesting mechanics, but target modifiers actually achieve the objective (making a roll harder or easier) better. For example, if you need a 20 to succeed, a +2 circumstance bonus gives you a slightly better chance than advantage. Circumstance bonuses can also be strong or weaker- sometimes you might get a +5. It's storytelling tool too, because often you'd do different things to get different bonuses. Now, once you've got advantage, you just stop thinking/ and storytelling, because no matter what else you add to your idea, you're not going to be able to improve it's odds of success any more than you already have.

We've also lost a lot of campaign worlds. It looks like Dragonlance is and even Spelljammer are on deck, but Shadowsun, Oriental Adventures and Rokugan are lost.

5e was designed to be simple. If you like things that are simple, you'll like it. And for the record, simple can be good- it just, doesn't give me a lot to work with.

If you WANT your game to have enough complexity to do more interesting things that actually have a consistent and predictable impact on the game rather than relying on the whimsy of your GM to add an effect based on whimsy every now and again to keep things interesting, 5th pales in comparison to 3.5.

You know you can trip too, right? You can Shove someone prone.

Disarming is in the DMG also.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You know you can trip too, right? You can Shove someone prone.

Disarming is in the DMG also.

Well, better that you can than that you can't....

But why was disarm in a separate book instead of being in the combat actions section of the PH like everything else, and what is the benefit of class abilities that let you do these things if anyone can do them? I mean sure, when a fighter does it, they do damage (superiority dice) in addition to disarming or tripping, and sure, when a Monk does it, they get additional strikes (Flurry of Blows), so they're better at it. But it doesn't seem as special as it did when I thought only they could do it.

I liked it best when they were feats, because you could play a wizard or who can trip or disarm, but you still have to put some effort and resources into developing the ability. I didn't know anyone could just do it, so obviously, that's on me... But I still feel like the previous system provided a more nuanced way to make it happen, which increased character diversity. Moving the goalposts? Perhaps... My bad.

Still send by it though.

 vict0988 wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I think it's more that the spawning ears out of nowhere requiring rolls being the house rule.

Agreed, all the players at my Warhammer club can spontaneously spawn ears. Except me, I'm a robot beep boop. We are talking about 40k right? If not maybe we should try to get back on the topic of 40k.

Methinks it's a lost cause.

To be fair, I think the original topic of the conversation has been thoroughly answered

PenitentJake wrote:
In 3.5, movement as a result of a bullrush provoked attacks of opportunity. In 5 it does not. This weakens the utility of the attack. I used to bull rush in 3.5 all the time. Now it's only really useful if there's a hazzard to push someone into.

I once again find it amusing that you're so concerned with narrative play in 40k but when it comes to D&D your focus is on roll-playing and a thing isn't worth doing unless it gives you character optimization advantages. Meanwhile the role-player doesn't care if shoving/tripping someone gives 10% less action economy efficiency than a normal attack, if it seems like the thing their character would do they do it.

Also, you seem to be really hung up on the exact details of implementing a mechanic. Obviously mechanics aren't going to be identical between games but who cares? A system isn't better or worse because it gives +1 to hit instead of re-roll 1s, and a story doesn't depend on having all of the dice math be executed in the exact same way.

The proficiency bonus off/on method doesn't allow you to create the kind of nuanced skill set that a real person might possess.

But, again, how much does that really matter? Does the difference between +3 to a skill and +4 to a skill really matter when the die result is between 1 and 20, meaning random luck has significantly more to do with whether your character is capable of something than the subtle nuances between their skills? I suppose it matters for hardcore min/maxers that they extract every possible 5% advantage, but from a roleplaying point of view it doesn't matter one bit.

Advantage and disadvantage are interesting mechanics, but target modifiers actually achieve the objective (making a roll harder or easier) better. For example, if you need a 20 to succeed, a +2 circumstance bonus gives you a slightly better chance than advantage. Circumstance bonuses can also be strong or weaker- sometimes you might get a +5. It's storytelling tool too, because often you'd do different things to get different bonuses. Now, once you've got advantage, you just stop thinking/ and storytelling, because no matter what else you add to your idea, you're not going to be able to improve it's odds of success any more than you already have.

Exactly. You stop thinking, and that's the entire point. 3.5e degenerates into flipping through the book trying to find every possible +2 you can stack on a roll because otherwise you have little or no hope of success (or the encounter is balanced around not having bonus stacking, in which case you stack bonuses to auto-win). And it encourages obsessing over exactly what number to assign to a situation and lobbying the DM to make the number bigger. In 5e, on the other hand, you're encouraged to stop getting bogged down in the details of dice math and consider the big picture of what the net result of all the various positive and negative circumstances is. Is it positive, negative, or neutral. Done. Roll the dice, describe your actions, and keep the story moving.

We've also lost a lot of campaign worlds. It looks like Dragonlance is and even Spelljammer are on deck, but Shadowsun, Oriental Adventures and Rokugan are lost.

Why are they lost? Did WOTC lobotomize that knowledge out of your brain and destroy every copy of the books? Because let's be honest here, 99% of the value of those settings was in the deep and interesting lore of the world. Hardly any of it was in having the stat lines for NPCs, that part is trivially easy to create in a different system if you want to play in that world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
I liked it best when they were feats, because you could play a wizard or who can trip or disarm, but you still have to put some effort and resources into developing the ability.

When were they feats? Maybe they were in 2e or earlier but it certainly wasn't in 3.5e. In 3.5e trip/disarm/bull rush were all core combat actions that any character could do. Improved trip/disarm/bull rush, ranged disarm, etc, were all feats that made those actions more effective but literally any character with the appropriate body shape could do them in 3.5e. Which seems very much like how, in 5e, a wizard who hasn't put any effort into developing their wrestling abilities is going to have a hard time winning the opposed Strength (Athletics) vs. Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) roll to do anything other than flail uselessly.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
Exactly. You stop thinking, and that's the entire point. 3.5e degenerates into flipping through the book trying to find every possible +2 you can stack on a roll because otherwise you have little or no hope of success (or the encounter is balanced around not having bonus stacking, in which case you stack bonuses to auto-win). And it encourages obsessing over exactly what number to assign to a situation and lobbying the DM to make the number bigger. In 5e, on the other hand, you're encouraged to stop getting bogged down in the details of dice math and consider the big picture of what the net result of all the various positive and negative circumstances is. Is it positive, negative, or neutral. Done. Roll the dice, describe your actions, and keep the story moving.

Nah. Asking your GM if you can do something isn't "thinking."

3.X also selected for players who were invested in the game, and who actually read the books, as opposed to soulless nothings whose knowledge of ttrpgs starts and stops at CR and 5e.

Hecaton wrote:

Nah. Asking your GM if you can do something isn't "thinking."

Asking if you can do something isn't. Spending 15 minutes going back and forth on exactly how to arrange every possible positive modifier on a roll is, and that's what 3.5e encourages. More time and energy spent on roll-playing, less time and energy available for role-playing.

3.X also selected for players who were invested in the game, and who actually read the books, as opposed to soulless nothings whose knowledge of ttrpgs starts and stops at CR and 5e.

Invested in the game =/= invested in the specific rules. I would much rather play against someone who spends their time and energy on their character and story ideas than someone who can always calculate the perfect answer to every character optimization question.