Is 3.5 the best edition of D&D currently out there?

[erik]

Touché on 4e, the edition where everyone is a fighter.

That reminds me. I was reading a Wikipedia entry on Bo9S and nearly shot blood out of my eyes when it mentioned 4e having an upgrade for casters by giving them at will and encounter powers.

[RobbyPants]

Part of the evolution of DR is looking at it in AD&D. Back then, if you didn't have a +x weapon, you did exactly zero damage. There was no subtracting a DR value. 3.0 DR was set up to be less punitive to people without magic weapons. You know how we talk about mundanes of low level not being able to harm incorporeal creatures? That's how AD&D DR worked.

So, yeah, the values are high, but they're lower than infinity.

3.5's approach was to lower the numbers and spread them around a bunch of materials, properties, and alignments. You're less likely to have what you need. So you're more likely to lose damage.

Also, I wouldn't worry about DR being "pointless" if you always have enough pluses. I see it more to explain why the commoners didn't deal with the threat. It's another tool for enforcing CR.

[Ancient History]

Damage resistance hit a lot of weird walls at once. The issue is that a lot of folklore had supernatural critters be difficult to damage or destroy except for some bullshit specific means - like staking a vampire through the heart, or throwing rice at its feet that it would have to count and get caught in sunlight - and that's very fairy-tale level of thinking.

[maglag]

You know, besides being able to punch through DR on their own and not needing to beg the casters for buffs all the time and "abuse polymorph or GTFO", another key advantage of 3.5 is that sword dude simply gets more options.

3.0 sword dude's turn order is always attack for raw damage. Maybe a trip build, except you deal less damage.

But 3.5 had the infamous Bo9S and dungeon crasher and skill tricks and dragonborn rituals to get flight and whatnot. You get to be more than simple dpr for your full caster pimp.

Also, I wouldn't worry about DR being "pointless" if you always have enough pluses. I see it more to explain why the commoners didn't deal with the threat. It's another tool for enforcing CR.

Thing is, DR doesn't block elemental damage.

So if there's a golem approaching the village, you just douse it in oil and light it up.

[DSMatticus]

So the 3.0 DR is better because it barely ever matters? That's dumb,

No, you're dumb. What are you even smoking? Yes, it is better when things that make underpowered characters weaker trigger less. That's fucking obvious.

DR in 3.0 is simple and tied to a simple numeric bonus treadmill in which all weapon-using characters are expected to participate because welcome to D&D, and as such fighters are rarely shafted by level appropriate encounters - which is good, because the fighter is still the weakest character and giving the fighter the shaft is a dick move.

DR in 3.5 is convoluted and tied to a bunch of material and alignment types, and as such there is a 0% chance that a level appropriate character has all of the necessary equipment to overcome the DR types he needs against level appropriate encounters - which is shit, because the fighter is still the weakest character and giving the fighter the shaft is a dick move.

Even before you factor in the change in the ratio between damage and hitpoints, it is simply shittier to be a 3.5 fighter because you don't get to ignore the DR and if you don't get to ignore the DR things take longer to kill. And then they take longer to kill again because on average monster hitpoints are just higher, which compounds nicely with the DR/fuck you.

And frankly the thing about how DR that doesn't punish fighters for not spending all their money on a golf bag of magic weapons made out of different random shit is 'boring' tells me you are probably not really approaching this from a place of empathy for fighters. Because that idea stops being fun the instant you let it loose on the table and your player realizes they need to have like seven different stabbing implements. Alternative idea: DR is there so dragons don't die to peasant armies with crossbows, like in 5e, and not there because shitting on fighters is SUPER COOL and THEMATIC. And also the thing where when DR triggers against level appropriate characters because they don't have an entire armory strapped to their back is bullshit is in fact bullshit, and because that is substantially less likely to be an issue in 3.0 that aspect of 3.0 is better designed, full stop.

Anyway, as for Bo9S and other splat material... the problem is that it still kind of sucks. The utility is abysmal and the damage gains are probably not competitive with a simple charger build. People like Bo9S because as a matter of design it's a framework for giving fighters nice - and mechanically interesting - things to do, but ultimately it... did not deliver all that well. Crusaders, swordsages, and warblades still suck.

[Voss]

You know, besides being able to punch through DR on their own and not needing to beg the casters for buffs all the time and "abuse polymorph or GTFO", another key advantage of 3.5 is that sword dude simply gets more options.

3.0 sword dude's turn order is always attack for raw damage. Maybe a trip build, except you deal less damage.

But 3.5 had the infamous Bo9S and dungeon crasher and skill tricks and dragonborn rituals to get flight and whatnot. You get to be more than simple dpr for your full caster pimp.

I'm not sure that is a particularly reasonable comparison. You're talking about absurdly late (almost to the point of termination), optional and downright obscure dumpster diving. For most of 3.5's existence (and even for a lot of people at the end there), optimal sword dude was still 'pile stupid bonuses on each other and attack for raw damage.'

I'm not even sure what 'skill tricks' or dragonboring rituals you're even referring to. I never even saw dragonborn used in actual play pre-4e, despite knowing the two dragon spam shovelware books they likely came from.

[Kaelik]

Remember when TGD didn't go on and on about how fighters are real characters too and we have to make the game worse to accommodate them?

Those were the days.

[DSMatticus]

Man, it's in the thread title. It's literally an edition war thread. You compare the editions.

Though, I will say that "how to use and not use DR" and "Bo9S is not enough of a good thing" are meaningful discussions regardless of the existence of shitty martial class concepts like "fighter," and the latter is a "how to fix the fighter by replacing it with something else" discussion, so I don't even know what you're complaining about.

[Voss]

Remember when TGD didn't go on and on about how fighters are real characters too and we have to make the game worse to accommodate them?

Those were the days.

Nonexistent ones?

[nockermensch]

DR serves mostly for world building. At the end of the day, it specifies that some creatures are vulnerable to mid level adventuring parties, so creating societies that need PC-type heroes to survive.

Compare and contrast to 5e, where town militias seem to actually do their job and keep the place safe.

[zugschef]

DR serves mostly for world building. At the end of the day, it specifies that some creatures are vulnerable to mid level adventuring parties, so creating societies that need PC-type heroes to survive.

Compare and contrast to 5e, where town militias seem to actually do their job and keep the place safe.

So in 5th edition there is actually no in-world reason for adventuring parties which are not in fact nothing but a bunch of raiding vagabonds?

[Username17]

In 5th edition, all battles involve incredible attrition rates on both sides. Witch Kings and Demon Knights can count the number of Orcs they can chop through before being brought low on their fingers and toes. Meanwhile, Orcs in combat with these dread champions and fell beasts are decapitated left and right until the enemy is brought low.

Meanwhile, for player characters, ax wounds and burned faces wipe off during short rests if they deign to eat a taco. Player characters are practically fucking cartoon characters for all the continuity of nearly mortal wounds they have. I don't actually know how NPCs and monsters are supposed to heal, because such rules don't seem to exist. But if we assume that sword inflicted gashes are somewhat normal in their effects when inflicted on manticores and NPCs, that makes PCs uniquely capable of being in repeated small skirmishes and surviving.

So if you wanna do like cattle raids against the Ogre Kingdoms or something, then PCs are a requirement unless you wanna lose a shit tonne of dudes.

-Username17

[Grek]

Frank, that is a bullshit complaint and you know it. Do the 3.5 rules need to specify that monsters use the same healing rules as PCs? No, of course not. Monsters heal when they rest, using the same rules for rest as everything else.

You CAN argue that the healing rates are too fast and that they produce stupid results. But you can't make an argument of the form "Well, the rules for X are in the player handbook, so they must only apply to PCs. I'm going to assume X works completely differently for NPCs." and expect me to take you seriously.

[Username17]

Frank, that is a bullshit complaint and you know it. Do the 3.5 rules need to specify that monsters use the same healing rules as PCs? No, of course not. Monsters heal when they rest, using the same rules for rest as everything else.

You CAN argue that the healing rates are too fast and that they produce stupid results. But you can't make an argument of the form "Well, the rules for X are in the player handbook, so they must only apply to PCs. I'm going to assume X works completely differently for NPCs." and expect me to take you seriously.

Except the whole short rests and inspiration system really is player character only. Monsters use their own system of ability refresh that is not tied to those things because they don't seemingly use them. Even NPCs who are skilled in PC-related fields of endeavor are unique special snowflakes that use their own unique special snowflake subsystems. The "Assassin" isn't a Rogue with a set of specializations, he's a unique thing that has 12d8 hit points and 4 dice of precision damage at CR 8. The "Archmage" isn't an 18th level Wizard, he's an 18th level spellcaster that uses simplified (and largely unexplained) rules.

We're deeply in 4e territory of monsters and NPCs not operating with the same physics that player characters operate with, so arguments from incredulity don't count for shit.

And beyond that, we know that actual death from damage is definitely handled completely differently for PCs and NPCs, in that NPCs die when they hit zero and PCs just sit there at zero waiting to pop back to full consciousness as soon as someone casts a heal spell. Why on Earth would you think that NPCs would default to the PC rules on any other facet of damage and healing if not overtly stated?

-Username17

[Dogbert]

Touché on 4e, the edition where everyone is a fighter.

Being pedantic about it, a fighter is "they who fight," so de-facto every murderhobo is a fighter whenever the time to stab faces comes.

And well. Is 3.X "the best"? Well, the best at -what-?

If you want a zero-to-hero fantasy game that has a non-zero chance at reproducing a number of fantasy tropes then yes.

If you're a control freak that's all for the "sweet spot" viking hat rhetoric, then it's 4E you want.

5E... ok, I'm not sure what exactly is 5E meant to do. It's suposed to be the viking hat edition, but the GM can't even coup-the-grace you (I'm not even sure how could Tomb of Horrors work here, it would require radical, unannounced changes to the game that would make even the meekest sheeple to flip the table at you). It allows you a Divination school, but spell descriptions on divination clearly say "This spell is subject to not work if MC doesn't feel like it." It's supposed to keep the rabble players in line, but all they need to 1-shot your penis-extension NPC is 90gp.

5E would be perfect for low-powered settings where The Man is meant to be unmovable like Dragonstar or Shadowrun... if only the system made a lick of sense. It's like d&d had become its own fantasy heartbreaker.

[erik]

Touché on 4e, the edition where everyone is a fighter.

Being pedantic about it, a fighter is "they who fight," so de-facto every murderhobo is a fighter whenever the time to stab faces comes.

Or you could not be pedantic about it, and realize I meant that all classes were lowered to the same bar where their most exciting abilities are lame combat maneuvers.

[Hiram McDaniels]

And well. Is 3.X "the best"? Well, the best at -what-?

"The best" is subjective, and measured on a number of different metrics.

The virtue of 3.x is that it has the most complete ruleset of any version of D&D to date. Chances are, if you need to make a ruling for something, you'll find guidelines for it somewhere in the book. The rules themselves may not always work well, but they ARE there.

In fact, most people running 5E where the core mechanic is "shrug - I'unno", probably shoehorn rules from 3E in where 5E has none.

5E would be perfect for low-powered settings where The Man is meant to be unmovable like Dragonstar or Shadowrun... if only the system made a lick of sense. It's like d&d had become its own fantasy heartbreaker.

Yes and no. If a Red Dragon can apparently be defeated by a squad of bowmen, it is indeed a low powered setting. But if a squad of archers counts as the nuclear option in this world, then it stands to reason that the man is probably toppled and replaced on a fairly regular basis by anyone with an extensive war chest: like PC's who have piles of gold but can't buy magic items or build strongholds.

[Chamomile]

PCs can build strongholds, but the rules for doing so aren't terribly satisfying. You commit a bunch of gold and time to the project and at the end of it you have a stronghold. It is not at all clear what that stronghold might actually do for you or how you might interact with it, so it's basically just a money sink for your epilogue. If you have enough dosh by the end of the campaign, you can have a castle. You can also have a castle midway through the campaign, but you can't do anything with it, so don't bother.

[Hiram McDaniels]

PCs can build strongholds, but the rules for doing so aren't terribly satisfying. You commit a bunch of gold and time to the project and at the end of it you have a stronghold. It is not at all clear what that stronghold might actually do for you or how you might interact with it, so it's basically just a money sink for your epilogue. If you have enough dosh by the end of the campaign, you can have a castle. You can also have a castle midway through the campaign, but you can't do anything with it, so don't bother.

Isn't that kind of like the way you technically CAN do magic in Warhammer FRPG, but the actual rules are basically: Just don't do it, or the GM gets to physically punch you in the dick in real life.

EDIT - actually, I think I'm actually going to write a game where real life dick punches act as "fate points" and post it on TBP.

[Chamomile]

Isn't that kind of like the way you technically CAN do magic in Warhammer FRPG, but the actual rules are basically: Just don't do it, or the GM gets to physically punch you in the dick in real life.

Not really, no. The only drawback to having a castle is that you lose money that you can't really spend on anything else once you already have plate armor. Having a stronghold isn't something that seems awesome but actually just gives the GM a means to fuck you over for having the audacity to want a cool thing that is harder to run than a basic dungeon crawl, rather, having a stronghold is something that seems awesome but the game completely ignores all of the awesome things you might do with it because that is harder to run than a basic dungeon crawl.

[Grek]

The one theoretical mechanical benefit to having a stronghold is that it's the only way specified in the rules to obtain hirelings. If you lay down 15k for a fort, it comes with 20 'skilled hirelings' of which 'the bulk' are CR 1/8th guards. If you lay down 50k instead, you get a small castle with 50 skilled hirelings, the bulk of which are CR 3 veterans instead. In practice, your DM will either let you hire hirelings without having a stronghold, or will not let you have hirelings.

[OgreBattle]

Some things that bug me about playing d20 engine games...

*the big skill list with fiddly skill points, but that's a straightforward fix to make it skill proficiencies with a smaller list, but you'll have to do that with every monster

*combat maneuvers using a separate system from regular attacks

*mid-combat attribute changes that make a bunch of combat-relevant rolls go up and down

*That damn grappling system

*Too many mundane actions be feats instead of intrinsic effects of skills or combat maneuvers

* ac/touch/fort/ref/will all over the place and smashed to bits by multiclassing

Whenever I'm tempted to "write my own 3e/4e fix" I address the above, then I think "why the heck do I need to keep it close to D&Disms" and end up with a mishmashed incomplete Shadowrun ruleset.