Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
With the game doing all the calculations and rolling for you, 3.5e mechanics wouldn't be any more difficult for a player to grasp.
I can’t comment on 5e in table-top, nor digital form, but automatic calculations and rolling make DND really difficult to grasp in digital setting, especially a convoluted system like 3.5e or pathfinder. I am over 130h in Pathfinder and I am still at a loss as to how half of the mechanics works - precisely because I don’t get to interact with them directly. They just happen. Why, how, what influences the roll... wiki only knows.

Back in a day I beat BG2 with little to no clue as to how mechanics work, but due to its simplicity it was intuitive. With 3.5e it doesn’t work like that, and players can screw themselves over far easier. Free multiclassing was a nightmare first time I interacted with it in NWN2, and I feel there is only that much convolution one can handle when micromanaging a party of characters.

BG3, being turn based, might actually handle a more complex system better, but without playing it, I can’t comment if 5e works or doesn’t work for me.

Joined: Dec 2020
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Sordak
Well i suppose you conclude you ran out of things to say then.
I made a pretty coherent argument why 3.5s issues cannot be solved by beeing emulated by a computer.
I'm pretty sure you weren't having an argument with me.

Joined: Dec 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2020
I never claimed that the math is more complicated - I said the edition is more complex. You're arguing against a straw man.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
you realize another poster quoted you right? a couple of posts before your post?
Thats the comment im arguing about.

No im not arguing against a strawman. But classic tactic.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
as a dnd noob who knew 2nd ed through BG 1&2 i found the 3rd (3.5) ed of NWN(2?) to be a step too far in terms of wtf does all this shit mean: "here's a list of a billion feats make sure u chose the right ones or else!" - in the end alt-tab to walkthrough became the most powerful feat of all. BG3 EA had me doing almost none of that. just mai 2 scents

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by zyr1987
I just checked out the tier list for 3.5e on 1D4Chan (which links to the original tier list forum discussion), and the sheer dominance of spellcasters in and of itself is one good reason I'm glad we're not using 3.5e. I don't want to play a spellcaster. I don't want spellcasters to be stupid easy mode while my preferred class struggles a lot. Actually, one thing I loved about DoS2 is that spellcasters, while having their place, were not ridiculously dominant.

I can't comment on the complexity, but at the same time, I don't care. I'm of the mind that having one type of PC (spellcasters, ie wizards, artificers, clerics, etc.) able to run rampant over everything while other, potentially equally interesting options (physical classes, ie fighters, rogues, rangers, etc.) have a much bigger uphill climb does not a great game make. That's one reason I'm damn glad that 5e is being used over 3.5e.

(ps, there is a 5e tier list here, and it seems like even the highest tier classes in the phb don't break any campaign in half, unlike 3.5e)

(pps, google linear warriors quadratic wizards if you want to see this phenomenon explained in more detail)
The only reason spellcasters are not ridicolously dominant in 5E is because the vast overwhelming majority of 5E campaigns don't get into the 12+ level territory. That's it.
I did a bit more research and found this is far, far, FAR from the whole story. For example, in 3.5e, the dominance of spellcasters had a lot to do with their ability to buff themselves sky-high, which is gone from 5e thanks to the concentration mechanic and reworking of buffs, killing CoDzilla. Also, spells no longer gain power automatically (outside cantrips) and non-spellcasters received significant buffs that make them more dangerous and survivable, such as barbarian rate halving damage received and rogues getting unlimited 3e style defensive rolls with no save needed at level five. That last one will be interesting to see implemented, actually.


Lover of non-haughty elves and non-smutty lesbian romance
"1404. I will not spoil the adventure's mandatory ambush by using the cheesy tactic of a "scout"." - From "Things Mr. Welch is no longer allowed to do in a (tabletop) RPG"
Joined: Dec 2020
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Dec 2020
Given that I come from a Pathfinder background, I have a much greater preference for the structure of the 3.5 system. I like that there is specific roll for everything- although, it can bog down the flow of gameplay.

Nevertheless, I have been enjoying the 5e system in Baldir’s Gate (honestly, without a DM, the background mechanics don’t really matter that much - I at least enjoy the dice rolling aspects of the game - kinda hope the allow us to select the original punitive rolling mechanics as a gameplay option on release)

Joined: Nov 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2020
5e > 3.5e

Joined: Dec 2020
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by zyr1987
I did a bit more research and found this is far, far, FAR from the whole story. For example, in 3.5e, the dominance of spellcasters had a lot to do with their ability to buff themselves sky-high, which is gone from 5e thanks to the concentration mechanic and reworking of buffs, killing CoDzilla. Also, spells no longer gain power automatically (outside cantrips) and non-spellcasters received significant buffs that make them more dangerous and survivable, such as barbarian rate halving damage received and rogues getting unlimited 3e style defensive rolls with no save needed at level five. That last one will be interesting to see implemented, actually.

Charm and illusion spells will still mess up your fighters on higher levels. Magic was never really about dealing damage, it was about control, and casters still have that covered.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by zyr1987
I did a bit more research and found this is far, far, FAR from the whole story. For example, in 3.5e, the dominance of spellcasters had a lot to do with their ability to buff themselves sky-high, which is gone from 5e thanks to the concentration mechanic and reworking of buffs, killing CoDzilla. Also, spells no longer gain power automatically (outside cantrips) and non-spellcasters received significant buffs that make them more dangerous and survivable, such as barbarian rate halving damage received and rogues getting unlimited 3e style defensive rolls with no save needed at level five. That last one will be interesting to see implemented, actually.

Charm and illusion spells will still mess up your fighters on higher levels. Magic was never really about dealing damage, it was about control, and casters still have that covered.
Except I've been doing some reading on this and it's a lot more than just control. Control was part of it (and now is the largest part of it) but it was far from the only aspect. Spellcasters had far more and better damage options for AoE than fighters, plus being able to buff themselves into being nigh-on physical gods. I'm going to go ahead and quote 1d4chan here, on the topic of linear warriors, quadratic wizards.:

Quote
Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition (and Pathfinder) - The first case of this being shown. All casters benefited from their casting stats contributing to how many times they could cast in a day, all spells scaled with the caster's level, and spells were so potent that you could actually cast them during a turn without risk of losing it while prepping it. Also present is metamagic, which allows a caster to add extra effects to a spell for the cost of a higher spellslot than intended.
...
Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Also attempted to solve this problem with less overtly new mechanics. Their solution was, firstly, to remove the idea of spells automatically increasing in potency due to their caster's level except for cantrips; in this version, you have to sacrifice a spell-casting slot of higher level to increase the might of your spells. They also removed the "chain of buffs" approach that had been integral to CoDzilla; most buffs became "Concentration" Spells, preventing you from casting more than one and also making it riskier to go into battle whilst buffed yourself. Finally, "minion mastery" spells were heavily nerfed.
Meanwhile, martials are fundamentally similar to their 3e counterparts but with major defensive buffs: fighters can replenish a chunk of HP in one turn and reroll saving throws, barbarians roll twice for dex saves and rage now halves damage from attacks, and rogues get the benefits of 3e Defensive Roll at level 5 but with unlimited uses and no save needed. Casters still have the edge in sheer versatility, but over time high-level martials can match their damage output and are much harder to kill.

Also, there's an interesting discussion on Reddit about how much spellcasters (specifically wizards) changed between 3.5e and 5e. Basically, in the former, they were essentially gods over all others (aside from clerics, druids, etc.). In the latter, they're much closer to the other classes in terms of power. This comment from peacefulelm in the reddit discussion sums it up, I think:

Quote
Wizards in 5e are designed to augment the other party members when they "do their thing". Wizards help rogues be better rogues, fighters be better fighters, etc. They can also, I'm a pinch, take on someone else's role (but without any of the style or finesse that specific class brings to the role). Wizards can open locks, but not silently. Wizards can cast sleep on a crowd, but it is a waste of a spell if they don't let the fighter or the rogue whittle down some hp on the baddies first.

In 3.5/Pathfinder, they tried to follow the same path but it got out of hand. Wizards ended up being better than everyone at anything they put their minds to. Greater invisibility and zones of silence negates the rogue (and doesn't really cost the caster that much). A single summon spell left the fighter twiddling his thumbs as beings that could die without cost went into the fray instead. Wizards stopped helping out and started just solving all the problems by themselves, leaving every noncasting class in the dust around level 6 or so. Most of the game was waiting for the wizards and other casters to win the game for them or overcompensating by building super OP charge builds to stay relevant (while the casters still were able to do everything without a problem or much work). An unoptimized caster beat an optimized martial player or skill monkey at least half the time.

To someone who liked 3.5/Pathfinder, 5e will seem like a nerf. Casters have less spells and can't have as many going at the same time. And technically, it is a nerf, 5e casters aren't the gods of everything that they were in the past. And that's a good thing. Your friend just needs to understand what the new wizard is, and the new wizard is everyone's best friend instead of a genie out of his lamp. He'll have to get used to it but he'll come around.

Edit: if this goes on too much longer, it might make sense to split it into its own topic.

Last edited by zyr1987; 19/12/20 11:38 AM.

Lover of non-haughty elves and non-smutty lesbian romance
"1404. I will not spoil the adventure's mandatory ambush by using the cheesy tactic of a "scout"." - From "Things Mr. Welch is no longer allowed to do in a (tabletop) RPG"
Joined: Oct 2020
T
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Yes, BG1 and 2 were 2.0; we had no games based on 3.5 and it is unfortunate that there weren't any. Nowhere was it declared that DnD belongs to 3.5 players - it seems like you just have a chip on your shoulder.

I must jump in here and give NWN2 a shoutout (which used 3.5E). The base game was merely decent, but I personally think the expansion (Mask of the Betrayer) is a work of art. One of the best DnD stories to date, and by far my most favorite epic level campaign. You should try it out if you haven't had a chance to play it. The other expansion, Mysteries of Westgate is also worth a play IMO.

Not exactly 3.5, but Pathfinder Kingmaker is based on Pathfinder 1e, which is basically a "modded" version of 3.5e. And it's a fantastic game IMO too.

Last edited by Topgoon; 19/12/20 05:46 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I must jump in here and give NWN2 a shoutout (which used 3.5E). The base game was merely decent, but I personally think the expansion (Mask of the Betrayer) is a work of art. One of the best DnD stories to date, and by far my most favorite epic level campaign. You should try it out if you haven't had a chance to play it. The other expansion, Mysteries of Westgate is also worth a play IMO.

I agree that Mask of the Betrayer was a work of art. But it wasn't because of 3.5... it was because the writing was amazing. DnD 3.5 did its job I suppose, but the combat was just "okay" and probably would not have been worth the hassle if the story had not been so exceptional.

Joined: Jul 2009
I
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by dwig
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I must jump in here and give NWN2 a shoutout (which used 3.5E). The base game was merely decent, but I personally think the expansion (Mask of the Betrayer) is a work of art. One of the best DnD stories to date, and by far my most favorite epic level campaign. You should try it out if you haven't had a chance to play it. The other expansion, Mysteries of Westgate is also worth a play IMO.

I agree that Mask of the Betrayer was a work of art. But it wasn't because of 3.5... it was because the writing was amazing. DnD 3.5 did its job I suppose, but the combat was just "okay" and probably would not have been worth the hassle if the story had not been so exceptional.
Still better than 5E combat though which is much too dependent on the D20 RNG.

Joined: Dec 2020
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
as a dnd noob who knew 2nd ed through BG 1&2 i found the 3rd (3.5) ed of NWN(2?) to be a step too far in terms of wtf does all this shit mean: "here's a list of a billion feats make sure u chose the right ones or else!" - in the end alt-tab to walkthrough became the most powerful feat of all. BG3 EA had me doing almost none of that. just mai 2 scents


I loved the feat system in 3.5 - I felt like it gave a better system for really customizing your PC (although, I always liked it more for the RP aspects, than to try to optimize my PC - I don’t really care if my PC is “the best” as long as I can act out my vision for the character - also, DM’s are supposed to take the party into account when drafting their campaigns - that is not really an option in a video game, though : /)

Joined: Dec 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by LTowey
I loved the feat system in 3.5 - I felt like it gave a better system for really customizing your PC (although, I always liked it more for the RP aspects, than to try to optimize my PC - I don’t really care if my PC is “the best” as long as I can act out my vision for the character - also, DM’s are supposed to take the party into account when drafting their campaigns - that is not really an option in a video game, though : /)

Actually, it is absolutely *possible* for a game to take the party into account. A game can be dynamic and it can take into consideration whether you have, say, darkvision to determine whether or not to throw in a darkness spell into the mix at a certain point or check if you have blindfighting to do the same or check if you have a cleric to determine how many potions of healing to make available or check to see if you have the ability to speak to animals to determine whether or not to put an alternative means of obtaining vital information into play. Games can be finetuned for extigencies - though it does mean sinking more money into development.

If they wanted, they could look at feats that may be more obscure and provide you with opportunities to shine with that feat if you so choose to pick it but not create those barriers for players who don't choose them, all without changing the overall story arcs.

However, I think there is a bit of confusion involved as I am not demanding they change editions - that would be too expensive at this point - but rather I wanted someone at Larian to answer that because I had written that it probably was not their choice elsewhere and I wanted to confirm.

https://yttribune.com/2020/10/12/baldurs-gate-3-a-realistic-look-at-the-long-awaited-game/

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Sigil
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Sigil
Do you remember at some points in your life when you were listening megadeth some old rocker would tell you led zeppelin is the best and thats how that music should be,
it feels exactly same when an old person claims about how 2nd edition was better or3rd or whatever smile

The only good thing with that was probably different weapons got different speeds.

Like everything else DnD evolves with positives and negatives depending on your point of view.
Anygame should be using the latest edition avilable tbh, it is out dated otherwise as a start.
It can be changed /modified, according to designing needs which will also give an oppotunity to fix what you see wrong.

Joined: Dec 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by TripleKill
Do you remember at some points in your life when you were listening megadeth some old rocker would tell you led zeppelin is the best and thats how that music should be,
it feels exactly same when an old person claims about how 2nd edition was better or3rd or whatever smile

The only good thing with that was probably different weapons got different speeds.

Like everything else DnD evolves with positives and negatives depending on your point of view.
Anygame should be using the latest edition avilable tbh, it is out dated otherwise as a start.
It can be changed /modified, according to designing needs which will also give an oppotunity to fix what you see wrong.

So you are going by the Barney Stinson rule: newer is always better.

Joined: Dec 2020
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by TripleKill
out dated otherwise as a start.
That would assume that new = better && old = worse, which is not true.

Joined: Dec 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Bruh
That would assume that new = better && old = worse, which is not true.

"Newer is always better" is the oldest rule and therefore the best rule.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
i actually disagree with newer is better.
Its just that third edition is the worst. 5th edition is a close second in beeing terrible, its saving grace mostly beeing the battlemaster.

But the Boomerism argument is silly.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5