So how does 5 edition of dnd feel in action compared to 3.5 version

[UIE First Citizen]

I personally never was a fan of the fifth edition nor my friends also I heard that 5th edition is a watered-down version made for people who cannot understand simple rule sets. At least that is the sentiment I saw when reading internet RPG sites.
So how does it compare to version 3.5 or even previous versions?
Thanks for the info,
Cheers

[✙205🍉🐆→]

I don't like the fact that there is no attack on mages and archers when they make a close-range attack, I don't like concentration, everything else is acceptable

[Drake]

Honestly, 5E is pretty close to 2E imo (minus the THAC0). What I mean by that is that class wise the options are very limited, once you pick a class and a subclass (which is in a way similar to kits in 2E), there is not much room for specialization. You get a few feats along the line but that's it. Progression is very linear whereas is 3E, feats would really change how your character operated.

[Torpex]

BG3 has homebrew 5e ruleset + usual Larian explody barrels, surfaces, shoving off the ledges BS.

TB 5e was designed to appeal to masses struggling with simple percentages at restaurants. And it was a commercial success for WotC.

I personally prefer a more intricate systems like Pathfinder. And as cRPGs go, Wrath of the Righteous is a better game than BG3 for me personally.

Where BG3 wins hands down is visuals, overall quality and ability to run a coop. Act1 is a solid lvl1-5 DnD module you can run with friends over a week 2 hrs per night. That's if they have enough self control to focus on adventuring vs extracurricular activities.

[Sugarwolf]

5e is pretty much a back to basics ruleset, which makes it easy to understand and play, but can be kind of lacking in variety comparatively.

[Dougan_Redhammer]

I like choices, I like creating unique characters. Pathfinder or 3.5e is the game for me.
5e seems ok. I bought the PHB years ago but have never played it.

[Tomas Mac Mordain]

It's simpler, it's streamlined, it's less simulationist, more flashy, but that makes it slightly worse in my book.

The worldbuilding suffers a lot from the fact that you can basically win the game with cantrips and some low level spells and high AC.

The rules are easier to understand though (mostly). You don't have things like THAC0 any more, and so 'higher' always means 'better' now.

Concentration has been added such that sets of lingering spells are now mutually exclusive. They are each more powerful now, but in general you can't layer lingering AoE on top of lingering Debuffs, on top of lingering Buffs etc. Your caster can only focus on one spell that requires concentration (and that's most of lingering spells) and needs to do a concentration check if they are hit on combat or the spell goes 'puff'.

Other things like sneak attacks have been streamlined, that is cool.

One big downside for people who don't live and breathe the rulebooks is the lack of transparency as to what you get on level ups. Things like Kingmaker give you the table up front for each class, so you know what you're getting and where you're going with your build.

BG3 goes full forrest gump chocolate box on ya. You'll see what ya get when you get there, which is really a bad oversight.

'Which cleric domain would you like to chose?'
'I dunno, what are they like when they mature?'
'It chooses its cleric domain now, or it gets the hose again!? (Yes, sweetie the hose!)'

[Verde]

5e is the Gen-Z stepchild of the DnD family. Nobody likes it, but we're all stuck with it.

[Kyutaru]

Funny you should mention "in action" because that's what 5e does best.

3.5 sucks because it focuses on OUT OF COMBAT and character building steps. If you enter combat without prebuffing, you're going to lose. If you don't min-max your characters to stack Attack to +80 and AC to 100, you're going to have a bad time. How your characters position in battle barely matters because +2 flanking bonus means nothing when you have a massive attack already, there's lots of ways to grant total immunity to things enemies can do, and you can just let your murder ball go forth and attack things in real time once you're set and done.

5e changes all that by making the character building only a fraction of the formula and focuses more on what you actually DO in combat. Actions to support allies, flank for advantage, positioning mattering greatly, consumables being of great help midbattle, Downed status being a fact of life, Concentration mechanic encouraging dispatching enemy casters, all of it feels a lot more like a tactics board game. It's more like chess than other editions, where you "solved" the battle before even entering the battle.

[Torpex]

there is 100GP respec which also refreshes the spells lol. So go tempest cleric, go nova. Respec into life cleric, heal everyone.

[Nutty One]

love it!!

[Malaficus Shaikan]

Originally posted by UIE First Citizen:

I personally never was a fan of the fifth edition nor my friends also I heard that 5th edition is a watered-down version made for people who cannot understand simple rule sets. At least that is the sentiment I saw when reading internet RPG sites.
So how does it compare to version 3.5 or even previous versions?
Thanks for the info,
Cheers

Based on video games alone.
3.5e:
I use my maximized feat to make my fireball do max damage.
I also stack so many buff's i become untouchable.
Ow and i summon a devil to fight for me.
5e:
Damm all these feats are useless.
All buff got consatration so i can only use 1.
Why are all the summons so weak and few?

5e is a water down version.
But it also fixed the needing to buff the party with half a billion spells or creative interperations of the rules.
There is a reason why many spells now have anywhere you can see in there discription.
After all if you can summon puppies anywhere within 30 feet.
It includes inside your enemies.
However if you can summon puppies anywhere you can see in 30 feet.
You can no longer 1 shot the big bad using clevery wording.

5e nerfed a lot.
But it also made the game a lot faster.

As my friends say:
5e is good for learning D&D.
3.5 is good for playing D&D.

[jonnin]

the action is about the same. roll, miss... roll, miss... roll, miss... long combats that drag out and for most of act 1 you can only do 1 useful thing per turn on most characters. I can't tell a lot of difference. The big changes are the armored and weaponized mages and hard caps on everything (esp stats at 20, we used to START at 20 in 3.5 for many races) and lack of summoning.

3.5 was incredibly complex. A rogue at level 1 might have to choose some 20 skills to invest into, instead of like 4 in BG3. A fighter got a feat at level 1, two of them if a human, and could pick from some 50+ feats. Now you get a feat at level 4 if you didn't multiclass, same as all other classes, and you have maybe 3 viable choices to pick from and another 15 or so nonsense (which are viable and which are nonsense depends on your class and goals!). It went from being bloated and incomprehensible to new players to 'any 10 year old can understand it and memorize it' ... they gutted it and took it way too far IMHO. They did good stuff too, like removal of the alignment restrictions.

The biggest complaint I have with BG3 is it was designed to make multiclassing unattractive, which has been a big deal for a custom character design in previous versions.

[AzureTheGamerKobold]

5e is a dumbed down simplified version of DnD hyper focused on balance rather then the rule of cool or general fun. I'll always prefer PF1e or 3.5 to 5e. Is nothing inherently wrong with 5e however. It's hugely popular, for a reason. But for older gamers, or gamers who grew up with 3.5 or loved Kingmaker/WOTR your going to feel limited. You are going to feel like you can't do things you should just be able to.

I will always prefer 3.5/pf1e/ffd20 to 5e but 5e is far from the worst system out there.

Keep in mind larian has done alot of house ruling to make the game easier/smoother.

Examples:

Shove is an ACTION not a bonus action,
Drinking a potion is an action not a bonus action
ect ect.

[talemore]

2E
You need a monk
3E
The monk don't need you
4E
What's a monk?
5E
I come up with an idea on a new class called monk

[UIE First Citizen]

Originally posted by Kyutaru:

Funny you should mention "in action" because that's what 5e does best.

3.5 sucks because it focuses on OUT OF COMBAT and character building steps. If you enter combat without prebuffing, you're going to lose. If you don't min-max your characters to stack Attack to +80 and AC to 100, you're going to have a bad time. How your characters position in battle barely matters because +2 flanking bonus means nothing when you have a massive attack already, there's lots of ways to grant total immunity to things enemies can do, and you can just let your murder ball go forth and attack things in real time once you're set and done.

5e changes all that by making the character building only a fraction of the formula and focuses more on what you actually DO in combat. Actions to support allies, flank for advantage, positioning mattering greatly, consumables being of great help midbattle, Downed status being a fact of life, Concentration mechanic encouraging dispatching enemy casters, all of it feels a lot more like a tactics board game. It's more like chess than other editions, where you "solved" the battle before even entering the battle.

That's what I love about dnd aka min-maxing, planning your character build etc.
That is why I love pathfinder.
If i wanted to focus on combat i would play a shooter or action game and not a crpg.
From other replies i have gathered that 5th edition is for ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.