Asking an opinion about rules, 3.5E vs 5E

[Skree]

I was wondering about what the general opinion is.

3.5 is generally prone to abuse, one can really do munchkin builds and just ruin the balance of a game. Same is true with Pathfinder, where you can create some really idiotic characters just to have stat bonuses.

I have however far less experience in 5E. Is it prone to abuse as well? Or is it, as i think it indeed is, a more balanced rulesystem that gives much less space to munchkins?

[Yojo0o]

5e has some similarities to 3.5e, but the "bounded accuracy" concept of 5e makes it less prone to abuse. Basically, the game is designed to not have eternally scaling numbers like third edition could, so it's more commonly played straight up rather than with a relentlessly powergaming mentality.

You certainly CAN make some fairly busted builds in 5e, but I would suggest that the line of "abuse" is much higher. There are some weird builds like "coffeelock" which can theoretically break the game, but I doubt they'll function in BG3.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Understanding_Bounded_Accuracy_(5e_Guideline)

Bounded AC (5e)

When they began developing 5th edition, the treadmill was the top item on the list of things which had to go.

First, they deserted the magic item economy. This was an effect generated by developers assuming players would have magic items providing a minimum bonus at given levels and preemptively building those bonuses into monster ACs to compete. It made magic items worthless, because players could only use them for a short time before being forced to upgrade, and also made magic items mandatory because you couldn't function without them. It forced DMs to plant a regular progression of magic gear as rewards during play, regardless how shoehorned-in it became. The magic item economy was the main driving force behind the treadmill. Instead, monsters would be built on the assumption that players do not have any magic items.

Second, they sat down and decided that the total flat bonus a player could receive on a check could not exceed the value of one whole die. (Anything more than that, and you just have an eternal arbitrary arms race of increasing values; the "treadmill" of the past editions) In other words, +20 is the theoretical desired limit of all combined bonuses to an attack roll. There is some debate, but it appears as though, by core rules only, the highest check result possible is 47, a bonus of +27, and it requires a lot of fiddly build options which the developers probably hadn't anticipated, plus a good circumstantial situation, and is not applicable to attack rolls. In other words: they did a good job of staying in that limit. Generally, nobody will ever be able to roll higher than 31 for an attack, check, or save.

Third, they divided how that maximum bonus would be proportioned between standardized sources. In general, these sources are the only sources of bonuses to an attack, check, or save. The sources are: ability score modifier (maximum of +5, attainable even from first level), proficiency bonus (minimum of +2, maximum of +6, grows slowly with level), and magic gear bonus (max of +3, but it's unlikely you'll ever even see +1). This gives, under optimal conditions, without feature intervention, a maximum roll result of 34 with magic.

Fourth, they made sure that PC ACs could not exceed 21, and monster ACs do not exceed 31. (See how that 31 lines up perfectly with the maximum possible roll result without magic? Notice that the maximum PC AC is 10 less than the maximum monster AC, a full half-die lower.)

Notice that most of this doesn't actually put limits on players. It actually puts limits on the developers when designing content the players can use. The standardization of player attack bonuses allows them to anticipate the bonus range any character can put out at a given level, regardless of class. This allows them to design monsters which have ACs which alter the probability of a hit based on PC level. Rather than probability being rapidly pushed to 0% or 100%, the monster becomes viable for use against a much wider range of PCs. By having limits to player AC that are not tied to level, they can change the hit rate for monsters by adjusting only their attack bonuses. Because the two things are no longer tied together, it is now possible to have monsters that always hit and always get hit, always hit but rarely get hit, rarely hit but always get hit, or rarely hit or get hit, as well as anything within those four extremes. Finally, the whole point of all of this was to make lesser enemies still useful in larger numbers at higher levels, and powerful enemies still survivable at lower levels. (Survivable is not the same as defeat-able. TPKs still happen.) That means you no longer need to have special tier-balanced versions of each monsters, or special minion monsters, you can just use a higher CR monster to present extra challenges, or throw a whole bunch of lower CR monsters to make up a total CR equal to one big monster.

They called this design philosophy bounded accuracy, because none of the designers were from the marketing department because it put boundaries on the numbers they were allowed to use when changing hit probability for monsters, by codifying total check bonus and AC limits for player content.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Also, if you want to peruse optimized builds, this guy has made a ton of videos on many specific classes optimized:

https://www.youtube.com/c/DDDeepDive

[Yojo0o]

Oh, just got reminded of the classic Peasant Railgun 5e technique. Not that that would be present in BG3, or especially usable in DnD 5e outside of theoretical exercises.

[Skree]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

Also, if you want to peruse optimized builds, this guy has made a ton of videos on many specific classes optimized:

https://www.youtube.com/c/DDDeepDive

Hmm... not really my desire. The channel seems well made, but if it was not clear enough, i have a dislike for power gaming and munchkin. I do study them, but i do so mostly to recognize those patterns around a game table.

I like playing a well developed character, but well developed in the boundaries that make sense in the lore and the setting, and building a background around it. I think i am simply unable to take a dip level in a class that doesn't make "sense" with my character just to have some bonuses, for instance.

That said, i will give a look to that youtube channel, the guy seems soft spoken enough and gave me good vibes, so perhaps in his guides he indeed talks about playing a class at its best, and not breaking the game by dancing around the rules.

Thank you!

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by Skree:

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

Also, if you want to peruse optimized builds, this guy has made a ton of videos on many specific classes optimized:

https://www.youtube.com/c/DDDeepDive

Hmm... not really my desire. The channel seems well made, but if it was not clear enough, i have a dislike for power gaming and munchkin. I do study them, but i do so mostly to recognize those patterns around a game table.

That said, i will give a look to that youtube channel, the guy seems soft spoken enough and gave me good vibes, so perhaps in his guides he indeed talks about playing a class at its best, and not breaking the game by dancing around the rules.

Thank you!

Sure, I'm just a thorough poster, so the link is also for anyone else who is interested in optimized builds and reads this thread.

Originally posted by Skree:

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

Also, if you want to peruse optimized builds, this guy has made a ton of videos on many specific classes optimized:

https://www.youtube.com/c/DDDeepDive

I like playing a well developed character, but well developed in the boundaries that make sense in the lore and the setting, and building a background around it. I think i am simply unable to take a dip level in a class that doesn't make "sense" with my character just to have some bonuses, for instance.

I'm actually exactly the same way - I will optimize, but only within the confines of a thematic character concept. I don't take levels in classes just because it's a more optimal way to build the character, but if an option doesn't break my character concept, or better yet enhances it, then I will take it. Concept comes first.

[Metallicus]

I will always prefer 3.5 / Pathfinder over 5E, but I still plan on enjoying BG3.

[Skree]

DM vs. PC

I consider this way of playing, honestly, an abomination. I can't get my head around to hit. It screams murder for the concept of the game itself.

[Granatapfel]

DM vs. PC is not inherent to any D&D edition. It is just bad playstyle. Any DM who thinks that they play against the others is a catastrophe in the making.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by Granatapfel:

DM vs. PC is not inherent to any D&D edition. It is just bad playstyle. Any DM who thinks that they play against the others is a catastrophe in the making.

More often I have found players who have this mindset, in that they treat the DM like they are they antagonist and it's their job to "beat" the DM.

I think this just stems from the unconscious association of the DM with the actual antagonists in the game - the DM does, after all, control the antagonists, which creates an assumption from those that don't think too hard about it that the DM themselves are the antagonist.

Of course, when enough players think this way, it's easy to railroad DM's into behaving that way as well through sheer convention.

I also think that video games have done a lot to shape people's expectations of rpg's. My roommate actually plays D&D with a group down at the hobby store who run D&D games as nothing more than arena based combat simulators in a survival mode. They roll up level 1 characters and then attempt to see how long they can survive in the arena. Sounds boring to me, but they seem to like it, so...anyway, the point is that's how they literally play, with the DM essentially being the antagonist for all of them.

[WeenerTuck813]

5e is amazing. They improved the rule set while simplifying it.

No. You can’t make broken overpowered characters. Even the multi class things people mention above (assuming you mean Sorc/Pala/Lock combos?) aren’t really OP, they’re just good builds.

I’ve seen some interesting builds that are strong but never anything game breaking.

My favorite being;

Variant Human Arcana Cleric.
Magic initiate: Druid
Shilelagh, Booming blade, thorn whip
ASI into Warcaster.

Makes for the most boss frontline melee cleric

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

A lot of it just boils down to what people think "gaming" is - and this is where things like Bartle's Taxonomy of gamer types is really useful.

One of my friends see's everything as a competition, it's the only way he'll play any game, and he's aware of it and fine with that. It's just his style/vibe. Nothing wrong with it, but at the same time it limits what kind of games we can play together because I am an explorer/immersion style player myself. For example, in BG3 I love little things like being able to turn torches and candles on/off, or water puddles that are difficult terrain so I walk slower through them. Simulation based stuff that makes the world feel alive. I don't even care (yet) about the story so much (I mean, it's just another fantasy story, and I've ready so many of them when I was a kid that they all sorta feel the same now...there's always some Dark Lord, some prophecy, and of course you're the Chosen One who is destined by prophecy to defeat the Dark Lord...it's literally the same formula every time), but I get wrapped up in all the little details of the world itself. I only wish that there was even more world than there is to explore.

No game is for everyone, but I will say that BG3 seems to have at least something for everyone. There are tough fights, combat and tactics, plot driven story and drama, and of course a highly detailed world with working parts. I think BG3 will have pretty broad appeal, except to those that find 5e anathema for whatever reason (and those people tend to migrate to the Mathfinder games anyway).

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Originally posted by WeenerTuck813:

5e is amazing. They improved the rule set while simplifying it.

No. You can’t make broken overpowered characters. Even the multi class things people mention above (assuming you mean Sorc/Pala/Lock combos?) aren’t really OP, they’re just good builds.

I’ve seen some interesting builds that are strong but never anything game breaking.

My favorite being;

Variant Human Arcana Cleric.
Magic initiate: Druid
Shilelagh, Booming blade, thorn whip
ASI into Warcaster.

Makes for the most boss frontline melee cleric

Whether a particular build is "broken" or not would really come down to the campaign itself, and how it's designed.

It's important to keep in mind that the DM sets the difficulty level, no matter how characters are built, and there's always a more powerful monster that can 1-shot you. This is why power progression is ultimately meaningless - the DM has the math and the calculators, so the odds of winning any particular roll, and thus any particular battle, are always in their hands. It's more art than science, but it IS possible to fine tune the balance of anything directly to the players, if you spent enough time doing it.

So there's no such thing really as a "broken" build in D&D, where the DM literally chooses how to balance the entire thing, only "broken" game sessions or campaigns, and those usually happen because the DM either doesn't know how to balance a game properly or is too lazy/unmotivated to do it in the first place.

[Skree]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

Originally posted by WeenerTuck813:

5e is amazing. They improved the rule set while simplifying it.

No. You can’t make broken overpowered characters. Even the multi class things people mention above (assuming you mean Sorc/Pala/Lock combos?) aren’t really OP, they’re just good builds.

I’ve seen some interesting builds that are strong but never anything game breaking.

My favorite being;

Variant Human Arcana Cleric.
Magic initiate: Druid
Shilelagh, Booming blade, thorn whip
ASI into Warcaster.

Makes for the most boss frontline melee cleric

Whether a particular build is "broken" or not would really come down to the campaign itself, and how it's designed.

It's important to keep in mind that the DM sets the difficulty level, no matter how characters are built, and there's always a more powerful monster that can 1-shot you. This is why power progression is ultimately meaningless - the DM has the math and the calculators, so the odds of winning any particular roll, and thus any particular battle, are always in their hands. It's more art than science, but it IS possible to fine tune the balance of anything directly to the players, if you spent enough time doing it.

So there's no such thing really as a "broken" build in D&D, where the DM literally chooses how to balance the entire thing, only "broken" game sessions or campaigns, and those usually happen because the DM either doesn't know how to balance a game properly or is too lazy/unmotivated to do it in the first place.

I don't know, i am not sure i agree completely with your last statement. I believe that there must, or "should" be a unspoken agreement beetween the DM and the players, an agreement on trying to collaborate to create something that's enjoyable for everyone.

If you start trying to ruin the game for someone, or if you try to overshadow someone else, etcetera, i don't think that it is the master's fault if the game derails or becomes "bad".

It's the very same mechanism that it's not the police fault if a robber robs a shop. It's the robber's fault, he's guilty... as is the "evil" player guilty of ruining the fun for everyone.

[dolby]

You can't tame power gaming in singleplayer videogame if you try you gonna fail.
Not to mention BG 2 was broken and that didn't stop it from becoming one of best singleplay Rgps.

Nothing wrong with having a op item or whatever if people are having fun and they like the game.
It's the reason why barrelmancy exist and similar things cos it's fun not cos it's balanced...

For some reason people keep projecting tabletop to a video game and forget that's it's completely different platform.