Discussion:
Is 3e actually rules light as compares to 5e?
(too old to reply)
Justisaur
2017-05-09 15:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm beginning to wonder... especially if you consider just core (not
that there's that much extra in 5e to add on). There's just so much of
what I consider clunky rules add-ons. Archetypes chosen somewhere
between 1st to 3rd. The spell system with known spells, spell
preparation and spell slots all being different, then you've got spells
that change what they do if you cast them using a higher spell slot, and
the concentration mechanic added to quite a few spells, constant saves,
etc.

Just a thought.

Am I actually pining for 3e? No can't be...

- Justisaur
Ubiquitous
2017-05-10 13:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Justisaur
I'm beginning to wonder... especially if you consider just core (not
that there's that much extra in 5e to add on). There's just so much of
what I consider clunky rules add-ons. Archetypes chosen somewhere
between 1st to 3rd. The spell system with known spells, spell
preparation and spell slots all being different, then you've got spells
that change what they do if you cast them using a higher spell slot, and
the concentration mechanic added to quite a few spells, constant saves,
etc.
Just a thought.
Am I actually pining for 3e? No can't be...
The first thing I noted in my quick reading of 5th edition is a return to the
class system of 2nd edition. I have mixed feelings about it. I liked building
entities with feats but baking the features in the classes makes things much
easier to manage...
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Narf_the_Mouse
2017-10-06 01:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Note: I accidentally clicked "reply" instead of "followup", and sent tis
to Justisaur first.

Sorry 'bout that, and any confusion. :)

On 2017-05-09 8:41 AM, Justisaur wrote:> I'm beginning to wonder...
especially if you consider just core (not
Post by Justisaur
that there's that much extra in 5e to add on). There's just so much of
what I consider clunky rules add-ons. Archetypes chosen somewhere
between 1st to 3rd. The spell system with known spells, spell
preparation and spell slots all being different, then you've got spells
that change what they do if you cast them using a higher spell slot, and
the concentration mechanic added to quite a few spells, constant saves,
etc.
Just a thought.
Am I actually pining for 3e? No can't be...
- Justisaur
Using *just* the rules in the 3.5 PHB and a few from the DMG, I can:

* Assemble a hired team to build a ship. (hireling rules, knowledge
(local), gather information, etc).
* Cost out all of the materials needed to build the ship. (some prices
will have to be estimated by the GM, but that is literally their job,
and they can use price lists from around 1200 AD. Or simplify from 1/3
average cost of ship = cost of raw materials)
* Estimate the likely time to build the ship, add some padding for
mishaps, then add some extra padding, all quite accurately. (crafting rules)
* Hire guards of various levels and professions to protect the
enterprise. (hireling rules again, as well as possibly the rules for
hiring NPCs of equal or higher level - Might need the DMG for that part)
* Hire competent managers, and know which prospects are reliable, and by
how much. (diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, knowledge (local), gather
information, sense motive, etc.)
* Manage the entire enterprise. (see above)
* Deal with the inevitable problems. (same)
* Gain experience points equitable to the challenges faced and foes
overcome. (a falling piece of improperly-secured mast is, mechanically,
just a trap, and overcoming it should give XP as a trap; likewise,
overcoming a rival non-violently also, by RAW, gives full XP)
* Price the ship, hunt for buyers, and sell at a profit. (the usual
social skills, plus the knowledge that 3x raw materials = average price
of ship)

Not to mention all of the many, many other things implied by those rules
alone.

What I can do with the 5e crafting rules?

* Divide the cost of the ship by 5 gp.

I may be exaggerating; I have too little interest in 5e to actually
check it out as thoroughly as it may deserve.

There is a difference between loads of simple combat options, which 5e
has, its claim to also support "adventuring" (whatever that means;
certainly not "an abundance of non-combat skills") and "exploration"
(which evidently means "finding places containing trouble")...

...and a rules-set that contains a lot of simple, clear rules on how to
handle a lot of diverse situations, which 3.X has.

In a different note, 3.X was insulting to everyone who wasn't a caster;
and rubbed salt in the wounds by having even "non-caster" supplements
contain large amounts of caster material.

However, 5e insults casters, by limiting them to a very small number of
spells per day; but also insults non-casters, by turning the
"fifteen-minute work-day" into the "5-minute work-day", and by not
actually nerfing many of the spells; and actually buffing a few of them.

In addition, no source I have read can explain why a 1st-level caster's
cantrips do as much damage as a 1st-level fighter in 5e.

I recommend taking the best parts of 3.5 and 3.0, setting base saving
throw to 1/2 character level, having reasonable players, nerfing spells
as appropriate (wall of iron does *not* need to create permanent iron,
and if your players still can't get up to shenanigans with it, that is
their problem), and rule that mithral acts as alchemical silver for the
purpose of bypassing damage resistance, so it has an actual use as a
weapon. Also, sprinkle some more skill points and class skills on
classes like the poor old fighter. And make the monk flurry of blows add
+2 extra blows, no matter whether you're moving or not. Oh, and *give* 1
XP per 25 gp of item crafted. Oh, and research the rules from Pathfinder
on non-caster magic item crafting.

That should fix most of 3.X.
r***@gmail.com
2017-10-08 22:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes, I know, a fairly old post I'm replying to, so this may not even be noticed. :) I dunno, I find that with the bloat of 3/3.5, 5e is a *lot* lighter than the previous edition (I'm specifically ignoring 4e - sorry if this offends 4e fans). There's a lot fewer rules to remember as to this gives you a plus, this gives you a minus for AC/Attack rolls, and don't forget to read the fine print of the skills in 3.5 to see if there's a hidden bonus if you get the right two skills. Oh, and the numerous feats in 3.0/3.5. And how iterative attacks work when you start multi classing, oh and the numerous iterative attacks in the first place. Oh yeah, calculating skill points at each level in 3.0 and how many points it takes to raise a skill (is it class or cross-class?). The lively disagreements of LOS vs Cover I don't miss that much either. I don't really find archetypes that confusing to be honest, it's your character specializing, without holding your tongue just so, min-maxing and grabbing the right feat selections in order to get a Prestige Class. It is slightly more difficult to multi-class if that's your thing, but that doesn't bother me so much either. So, for me, it's easier to learn and less complex than 3.0/3.5
Post by Justisaur
I'm beginning to wonder... especially if you consider just core (not
that there's that much extra in 5e to add on). There's just so much of
what I consider clunky rules add-ons. Archetypes chosen somewhere
between 1st to 3rd. The spell system with known spells, spell
preparation and spell slots all being different, then you've got spells
that change what they do if you cast them using a higher spell slot, and
the concentration mechanic added to quite a few spells, constant saves,
etc.
Just a thought.
Am I actually pining for 3e? No can't be...
- Justisaur
l***@gmail.com
2017-10-10 22:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Yes, I know, a fairly old post I'm replying to, so this may not even be noticed. :) I dunno, I find that with the bloat of 3/3.5, 5e is a *lot* lighter than the previous edition (I'm specifically ignoring 4e - sorry if this offends 4e fans). There's a lot fewer rules to remember as to this gives you a plus, this gives you a minus for AC/Attack rolls, and don't forget to read the fine print of the skills in 3.5 to see if there's a hidden bonus if you get the right two skills. Oh, and the numerous feats in 3.0/3.5. And how iterative attacks work when you start multi classing, oh and the numerous iterative attacks in the first place. Oh yeah, calculating skill points at each level in 3.0 and how many points it takes to raise a skill (is it class or cross-class?). The lively disagreements of LOS vs Cover I don't miss that much either. I don't really find archetypes that confusing to be honest, it's your character specializing, without holding your tongue just so, min-maxing and grabbing the right feat selections in order to get a Prestige Class. It is slightly more difficult to multi-class if that's your thing, but that doesn't bother me so much either. So, for me, it's easier to learn and less complex than 3.0/3.5
Post by Justisaur
I'm beginning to wonder... especially if you consider just core (not
that there's that much extra in 5e to add on). There's just so much of
what I consider clunky rules add-ons. Archetypes chosen somewhere
between 1st to 3rd. The spell system with known spells, spell
preparation and spell slots all being different, then you've got spells
that change what they do if you cast them using a higher spell slot, and
the concentration mechanic added to quite a few spells, constant saves,
etc.
Just a thought.
Am I actually pining for 3e? No can't be...
- Justisaur
You only need to worry about skill synergy at 2nd level, when you can have at least 5 ranks in the same skill. Your grand total number of feats will be somewhere between 7 (most classes) and 18 (11 of them fighter bonus feats), spread over 20 levels. Iterative attacks work exactly the same with multi-classing as without: "Start with your Base Attack Bonus. Subtract 5. If the result is 1 or more, you get another iterative attack. Maximum of 4 iterative attacks." 1 point per rank for a class skill; 2 points per rank for a cross-class skill. If you can see through it, it doesn't prevent Line of Sight. If you can't see through it, it does. You don't need a prestige class, and any that a capable GM would let you take, will reduce your general capability in exchange for more specialized capability.

Overall, 3.X is less complex. 5e is less complex *for the player*. For the GM, "Figure it out yourself" is vague, unhelpful and useless advice. As Gary Gygax said, (paraphrased) "You don't need a rulebook." I buy a rulebook so I don't have to think of everything. I can't cover all the situations and cases a team of people can; not in any equitable amount of time.

And while I'm glad that 5e is working for you, and I do think that every edition of D&D has some good points (including 4e, but let's not get into that), I can't get into a rulebook that, in all too many cases (for me) doesn't provide enough default rulings.

But, full disclosure, I own (and have played) GURPS. It's entirely possible that what I think is "just enough rules", you'd regard as too many. ;)
Justisaur
2017-10-11 21:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by r***@gmail.com
Yes, I know, a fairly old post I'm replying to, so this may not even be noticed. :) I dunno, I find that with the bloat of 3/3.5, 5e is a *lot* lighter than the previous edition (I'm specifically ignoring 4e - sorry if this offends 4e fans). There's a lot fewer rules to remember as to this gives you a plus, this gives you a minus for AC/Attack rolls, and don't forget to read the fine print of the skills in 3.5 to see if there's a hidden bonus if you get the right two skills. Oh, and the numerous feats in 3.0/3.5. And how iterative attacks work when you start multi classing, oh and the numerous iterative attacks in the first place. Oh yeah, calculating skill points at each level in 3.0 and how many points it takes to raise a skill (is it class or cross-class?). The lively disagreements of LOS vs Cover I don't miss that much either. I don't really find archetypes that confusing to be honest, it's your character specializing, without holding your tongue just so, min-maxing and grabbing the right feat selections in order to get a Prestige Class. It is slightly more difficult to multi-class if that's your thing, but that doesn't bother me so much either. So, for me, it's easier to learn and less complex than 3.0/3.5
Hmm. Might be I was looking through rose colored glasses. But I'm
thinking more about stuff like you have now 4 separate spell things to
keep track of: known spells, prepared spells, ritual spells, and spell
slots. Vs. the old known and memorized spells.

But I'm still preferring Old School, it's just hard enough to find
players that I keep going back and forth with 5e.
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Justisaur
I'm beginning to wonder... especially if you consider just core (not
that there's that much extra in 5e to add on). There's just so much of
what I consider clunky rules add-ons. Archetypes chosen somewhere
between 1st to 3rd. The spell system with known spells, spell
preparation and spell slots all being different, then you've got spells
that change what they do if you cast them using a higher spell slot, and
the concentration mechanic added to quite a few spells, constant saves,
etc.
Just a thought.
Am I actually pining for 3e? No can't be...
- Justisaur
You only need to worry about skill synergy at 2nd level, when you can have at least 5 ranks in the same skill. Your grand total number of feats will be somewhere between 7 (most classes) and 18 (11 of them fighter bonus feats), spread over 20 levels. Iterative attacks work exactly the same with multi-classing as without: "Start with your Base Attack Bonus. Subtract 5. If the result is 1 or more, you get another iterative attack. Maximum of 4 iterative attacks." 1 point per rank for a class skill; 2 points per rank for a cross-class skill. If you can see through it, it doesn't prevent Line of Sight. If you can't see through it, it does. You don't need a prestige class, and any that a capable GM would let you take, will reduce your general capability in exchange for more specialized capability.
Overall, 3.X is less complex. 5e is less complex *for the player*. For the GM, "Figure it out yourself" is vague, unhelpful and useless advice. As Gary Gygax said, (paraphrased) "You don't need a rulebook." I buy a rulebook so I don't have to think of everything. I can't cover all the situations and cases a team of people can; not in any equitable amount of time.
On the one hand I appreciate the 'figure it out' bit being Old School,
but stealth really bothers me as they give you half a rule - i.e. here's
your stealth score and it goes against perception, but then say you can
only do it in certain vague situations, and are vague about the action
type required to do it too. Either give me a whole rule or none.

Yes I've read the Stealth Guide post, it's still far too complicated and
vague at t

Loading...