This thread is for discussing:
The merits of whether something should be converted from 3.5 to 5e
If something should be converted, how to do it
If something should not be converted, why it does not fit
Mechanics from 3.5 that do not appear to be directly covered in 5e but are actually covered in a different way
I'm making this to consolidate a couple of conversations that are hijacking other threads. A guide for going from 3.5 to 5e may emerge.
No edition warring please. 3.5 and 5e are both great games for different reasons, and discussion of how both editions handle certain things can enhance how we approach things in the other edition.
If you're bringing a discussion here from another thread, please quote/link to it.
Discussion on how some stuff that seems to be missing from 3.5 is actually in 5e but done differently:
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=17581.msg315738#msg315738Stuff people miss in the transition from 3.5 to 5e:
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=17165.0« Last Edit: December 11, 2016, 03:13:27 PM by TenaciousJ »
Logged
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA
Offline awaken_D_M_golem
Epic Member
****
Posts: 7051
(un-) Amazingly Unproductive
Respect: +68
View Profile
Re: Discussion of translation of 3.5 material to 5e
« Reply #1: November 30, 2016, 04:52:16 PM »
What feats from 3e or 4e, are powerful enough to convert ?
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=15944.0Caster PrCs should fit into the Full or Half or 1/3rd caster prog.
I don't see any problems with it, except Fulls connected to
a Half or 1/3rd base class, would get high level slots without
anything to fill them with.
example : Eldritch Knight 6 / Loremaster 10 would have
12 caster levels, enabling 5th and 6th level spells.
Presumably those can come from the limited Wiz list.
but
5e Paladin 6 / Loremaster 10 would have 13 caster levels.
enabling 6th and 7th level spells, but no list with those.
However not bothering with the full/half/3rd at all, is possible.
Still have the same potential problem as my examples.
Logged
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings
Offline TenaciousJ
Hero Member
***
Posts: 592
AVENGE WAGON
Respect: +19
View Profile
Re: Discussion of translation of 3.5 material to 5e
« Reply #2: November 30, 2016, 05:20:50 PM »
Loremaster isn't something I'd bother to convert. It exists to add bonuses to stuff in a way that is antithetical to 5e, and it's non-numerical bonuses are things that fit into the Lore bard mold.
Any prestige class that exists to be a base class+ should probably just be an archetype of one of the base classes the prestige class would apply to. A 5e prestige class should introduce a mechanic that's base class agnostic IMO. The one example in UA, the Rune Caster, does not advance anything on a base class other than working with the existing multiclass caster rules.
Rune Caster also provides a model for how you handle a prestige class with spell slots. Use the multiclass caster rules and apply a modifier as necessary if the PrC is supposed to be a half or third caster. If it's meant to be a full caster, the multiclass rules already provide the template for how it works with something like Eldritch Knight. Lower level 5e spells known work just fine with higher level slots you don't know spells for since 3.5's caster level scaling is attached to 5e's spell slot scaling.
e: Going through the linked thread with stuff I have experience with:
Practiced spellcaster isn't necessary in 5e because multiclass casters still advance spell slots on a single chart. High level spells known are intended to be class features that attract you to stay single classed at least until level 17, so adding a buff feat to multiclass casters is going to introduce unnecessary power creep. Multiclassing full casters should broaden the PC's range of abilities at the expense of raw power. I've gone over how this is true even of the warlock dips people are fond of on the Charisma casters.
How I'd do the Rapid Shot feat in the thread:
Rapid Shot
-You may draw a thrown weapon for each attack you can make in a turn.
-When you use the attack action to make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, you may use a bonus action to make another ranged attack with a thrown weapon.
-You do not have disadvantage with ranged attacks made with a thrown weapon when a creature is within 5 ft. of you.
-Making a ranged attack with a thrown weapon at long range does not impose disadvantage on the attack rolls.
Reserves of Strength steps on the toes of the Evoker's Overchannel.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 05:40:25 PM by TenaciousJ »
Logged
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA
Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign
DnD Handbook Writer
****
Posts: 1741
Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
Respect: +28
View Profile
Re: Discussion of translation of 3.5 material to 5e
« Reply #3: December 02, 2016, 02:18:20 AM »
I'd often a great control on many of the stupid mistakes a 3e player will probably experience. Some reading I found on casual google searches when 5e came out was:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373592-A-Guide-to-the-D-amp-D-5th-Edition-Paladin-through-the-eyes-of-a-3-5-Playerhttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?358474-A-Grognard-s-Guide-to-5E-D-amp-D-RulesThe whole short rest thing was something a lot of people who skipped 4e won't catch initially. It seems to me that the 5 min work day is back with a vengence in 5e! Everyone just shrunk down to 1 hour breaks.
How's the 5e cosmology? 3e's MotP was the densest book ever, but was oddly necessary for certain core spells like rope trick. Though it wasn't necessary, I of course "fixed" some of the complexity that caused people to simply ignore that book. I know I did for years. For instance, a lot of people thought that bringing an extra-dimensional space into a non-dimensional one was some grey area / unusual circumstance requiring DM fiat rather than a highly explained phenomena tied to the astral plane. They would let high level players bring their bags of holding in with them and suffer no ill effects.
Once you remember that its all about 1 hour breaks rather than 1 day breaks, rope trick seems to have gotten stronger in 5e since there is no transdimensional spell metamagic (which psions don't even need to spend extra pp on). So you grab a party wizard and at level 3 he can give the party 6 short rests! Adding some other classes for short rest goodies and you have quite the combo: warlock (lower level spells), bard (song of rest), cleric (channel divinity), and druid (wild shape). This is in addition to the at wills and long rest spells.
Speaking of which, 3e had a rule that spell slots used in the last 24 hours count against your daily limit. I didn't see that in 5e's long rests. So do this mean well-timed long rests allow the above full caster 5 man squad to blow through a "daily" long-rest allotment three times?
Logged
Have you ever wanted to:
Download every organized, useful 3e character building resource, including spells, feats, web articles, etc.?
Completely & elegantly fix all of 3e with the fewest changes necessary?
See how I make/organize my own build details?
Offline TenaciousJ
Hero Member
***
Posts: 592
AVENGE WAGON
Respect: +19
View Profile
Re: Discussion of translation of 3.5 material to 5e
« Reply #4: December 02, 2016, 08:08:50 AM »
Quote
Do players ever find the CR system feeling weak or is it only an "under the hood" look from a more powerful, previous edition?
I have yet to hear someone I DMed for comment on it, but i run things toward the deadly threshhold of encounter balance more often than not to compensate for the (powerful) magic items I give out. Individual monsters may seem weak but in sufficient numbers, anything is a challenge due to bounded accuracy. For the few times I've been a player in games closer to 5e's default, I've never felt like things were pushovers. My own characters have mostly been bards, and bards peak at a level when most people are wrapping up their campaigns though.
Quote
if you don't mind. Why is it that so many people have a problem with "the Christmas tree" effect in 3e.
Not all players are like us who would bother to post on a message board analyzing a game. They don't have the memory or organizational skills to properly keep track of everything they're capable of, and adding magic items that do more than simply give number bonuses exacerbates the issue for them. As a player I have no issue with it, but as a DM who does not want to run D&D via pbp or roll20, I need to work with the local talent, and that means running the game for people who dedicate less memory to the intricacies of it. As a DM, I love it because it expands the pool of players I can enjoy running the game for. I don't enjoy running a game where I have to softball the encounters all the time because the players can't remember how to use the stuff WBL says they should have.
Quote
Are magic items really just a game of "Mother May I", or are their guaranteed ways of getting certain ones, even if you can't always assure it? Consider how certain unpriced items in 3e were known to exist in certain places.
They're just a nice thing to get sometimes instead of something you must have to compete at certain levels. There are no guaranteed ways of getting them RAW. Magic items are entirely in the hands of the DM in a custom-made campaign. I understand the resistance to 5e's status quo on magic items from 3.5 (or 4e) but IMO 5e is better off for having left the distribution of magic items as entirely optional so DMs can tailor stuff to their comfort level. The game doesn't fall apart when you run into that DM who wants to run the super gritty no magic items game, and the DM willing to give them out can give them out at any rate he's comfortable with. In my experience, as long as you don't give out too many direct numerical boosts to AC and saving throws, you can tune encounter balance just by increasing the number of creatures in an encounter.
Quote
Rope Trick
RAW, the duration of rope trick is a couple rounds too short for a short rest, and falling 60 ft. before the short rest ends would definitely be an interruption.
You'd have to climb the entire 60 ft. of rope into the extradimensional space in the same turn you cast it just to fall at exactly the moment the short rest ends. I'd find it a bit of stretch to say you could un-stressfully climb down a 60 ft. rope before the hour is over too, again interrupting the short rest. Personally, I'd invoke the RAW on a group trying to abuse it. Regardless, the less resource intensive way to do this with no negation by RAW is Leomund's Tiny Hut, which is a 3rd level ritual. The advantage of Rope Trick is that it's 60 ft. in the air, putting it out of range of Detect Magic used on the ground, whereas Leomund's Tiny Hut is visible and at ground level. If it can be detected, it can be dispelled. A wandering patrol might see LTH and wait outside it too if they are capable of understanding what it is. A wandering beholder with its central eye open could really ruin your day too. Abusing short rests via LTH is a valid use of PC abilities, but a DM has recourse against it mechanically if the players are unmotivated by time constraints. Bags of Holding and similar items mention in their description how they interact with extradimensional spaces (it's not a good idea.)
Quote
Speaking of which, 3e had a rule that spell slots used in the last 24 hours count against your daily limit. I didn't see that in 5e's long rests. So do this mean well-timed long rests allow the above full caster 5 man squad to blow through a "daily" long-rest allotment three times?
You can only benefit from a long rest once per 24 hours, so it doesn't matter how many you could fit into a 24 hour period.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 09:06:54 AM by TenaciousJ »
Logged
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA
Offline TenaciousJ
Hero Member
***
Posts: 592
AVENGE WAGON
Respect: +19
View Profile
Re: Discussion of translation of 3.5 material to 5e
« Reply #5: December 10, 2016, 11:25:30 AM »
This quote from the UA Fighter thread explains a clever way via RAW to attain cross-class, cross-background skill proficiencies like you had the option to do in 3.5:
Quote from: TenaciousJ on December 10, 2016, 10:53:18 AM
Quote from: Nunkuruji on December 10, 2016, 10:07:36 AM
Sharpshooter lacks built in Stealth Proficiency option, so demands Criminal or Urchin background, imo. Steady Aim at least scales with the class and the additional Extra Attacks vs. using Sneak Attack, where Arcane Archer's damage falls fairly flat.
Human, Half-Elf, Kenku, Lizardfolk, Tabaxi, and Bugbear can all acquire Stealth via racials. Goblin is worth a look since it gets two thirds of Cunning Action racially so it can stealth in-combat.
Also per page 125 of the PHB in the section about background proficiencies:
Quote
If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead.
RAW, you choose your race, THEN your class, THEN your background. You could choose a race like Goliath that gains Athletics proficiency or choose Athletics from your fighter skill proficiencies, and then choose a background like soldier or outlander that also gives Athletics proficiency. Following the rules of page 125, you convert that second instance of Athletics proficiency to any other skill proficiency you want. Similarly, Dwarves can get Smith's Tools proficiency racially, then choose guild artisan (blacksmith) for the background and convert that into Thieves' Tools proficiency.
Logged
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA
Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign
DnD Handbook Writer
****
Posts: 1741
Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
Respect: +28
View Profile
Re: Discussion of translation of 3.5 material to 5e
« Reply #6: December 12, 2016, 11:04:49 PM »
@rope trick duration being 1-2 rounds too short: that's what the sorcerer is there for (up to 5 times).
Quote from: TenaciousJ on December 02, 2016, 08:08:50 AM
Bags of Holding and similar items mention in their description how they interact with extradimensional spaces (it's not a good idea.)
It's pretty bad in 3.5 too. It's a good way to die/encounter an astral dreadnaught in a plane you can't easily escape from.
But that's no worry in 5e because no one can assume having magic items (just like no one can assume having artifacts in 3e). The step down in player agency is palpable. Does 5e even have artifacts? Even minor ones that just give you free xp for a level and a half?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 11:06:46 PM by PlzBreakMyCampaign »
Logged
Have you ever wanted to:
Download every organized, useful 3e character building resource, including spells, feats, web articles, etc.?
Completely & elegantly fix all of 3e with the fewest changes necessary?
See how I make/organize my own build details?
Offline TenaciousJ
Hero Member
***
Posts: 592
AVENGE WAGON
Respect: +19
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #7: December 13, 2016, 02:26:31 AM »
Artifacts, including samples and suggestions for how a DM should build custom ones are in the DMG after the other magic items.
I never actually played a 3.5 game with a fully stocked magic mart or enough time to craft everything I would want to craft for a character, and the optimization level possible could get pretty busted. I DMed several, but I enjoyed the challenge of creating encounters to challenge the players' capabilities in return. Looking back, it was just a lot of time spent in an arms race that was a fun distraction when I wasn't actually playing the game more than it was actually bringing any fun to actual play. Item optimization feels more like MtG than D&D after a point, where the focus is on creating a strategy in online discussion more than it's about implementing the strategy.
Giving the players full agency over items lets the players force a balance level on the DM rather than letting the DM enforce the balance level he's comfortable with. I've posted several times about what AC items do to encounter balance for example, so I would not want to listen to a RAW argument about why the PCs are 100% able to craft +3 shields and +2 armors to raise the minimum CR I have to use for minions that can hit the players without relying on natural 20s.
I'm not getting the sorcerer reference unless you're suggesting the sorcerer is pre-casting twinned or higher-level Fly spells. Quicken won't solve the problem for the entire party due to the bonus action spell rules limiting normal action spellcasting to cantrips.
Logged
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA
Offline awaken_D_M_golem
Epic Member
****
Posts: 7051
(un-) Amazingly Unproductive
Respect: +68
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #8: December 13, 2016, 03:33:48 PM »
Sorc's extended metamagic is a doubler.
btw this bugs me a little (not you) : " RAW, you choose your race, THEN your class, THEN your background."
Dice rolling or Point buy, happens either before or after background, but I haven't checked which one.
BUT
I'd expect a more realistic path to go
1+2 ) ... either Background then Race , or the other way , and possible minor DM home-game-based intervention
3) ... dice* or point buy**
4) ... then class
* Class before Dice, can be a total disaster
** Point Buy doesn't matter whether it's 3 then 4 , or 4 then 3.
*** but since everybody fudges their dice anyway, nobody really notices these two details
Logged
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings
Offline TenaciousJ
Hero Member
***
Posts: 592
AVENGE WAGON
Respect: +19
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #9: December 13, 2016, 04:34:00 PM »
That's the first truly useful application of extend I've seen in 5e. Usually sorcerer optimization is based around quicken and twinned.
Logged
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA
Offline awaken_D_M_golem
Epic Member
****
Posts: 7051
(un-) Amazingly Unproductive
Respect: +68
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #10: December 14, 2016, 05:33:56 PM »
I've gotten some mileage out of Subtle combined with 'Lock Mask disguise all the time + Friends + disguise kit on top of that. Feels like a Psi sneaker to me.
**
The easiest conversion is always the zero conversion.
Write it right in, see what happens.
The top half of the full caster nerf, trends in a PLZ-ing direction. :eh
Logged
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings
Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign
DnD Handbook Writer
****
Posts: 1741
Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
Respect: +28
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #11: December 15, 2016, 04:55:00 PM »
aDMg got it.
Quote from: TenaciousJ on December 13, 2016, 04:34:00 PM
That's the first truly useful application of extend I've seen in 5e. Usually sorcerer optimization is based around quicken and twinned.
I'll take credit for that!
Quote from: TenaciousJ on December 13, 2016, 02:26:31 AM
Artifacts ... are in the DMG after the other magic items.
What's the point though, if you can never craft items to force them into a campaign, then magic items are on the same level of 'mother may I' with the DM. Or is it like 3e's epic items that are supposed to be on a higher level (but often are just inflated gp versions of regular items)?
Quote
I never actually played a 3.5 game with a fully stocked magic mart or enough time to craft everything I would want to craft for a character, and the optimization level possible could get pretty busted
Hmm. I thought magic-marts were the default. Indeed the only campaign I played where there were any limits just made the caster vs noncaster divide painfully obvious. Most DMs I played with just enforced a gentleman's agreement on stealing vs WBL rather than think up a sensical middle-man scheme. Dedicated wrights are the answer to adventuring while crafting...
Quote
Giving the players full agency over items lets the players force a balance level on the DM rather than letting the DM enforce the balance level he's comfortable with.
This is interesting. I always thought of players as getting to play a DMs' world with the character they wanted. If the world was too fragile to support the character's existence than the character was either way too powerful or the campaign was way too weak. Maybe I always made campaigns that were iron-clad, because I'd actively encourage maximum optimization and then give RAI breaks to players that I didn't think were meeting their potential. For play under the teens it was never a problem.
I don't find AC to be the high point of optimization, so I won't address the second part. Why get monsters to roll a 19 rather than a 16 when you can just fly or borrow or blink or go invisible or ...
@aDMg, yes I'd be tempted to just open the flood gates, as it were, on anything from 3e. Even with 3e fully fixed, I don't think 5e could handle it. Players would be able to do too many things (have too much fun) and would overwhelm a campaign because the foundation (the edition) is too weak.
I guess I might be okay with this if 5e were named "D&D lite" instead of D&D next. Then a player would know that it was sacrificing things for the sake of balance (as 4e did). But I'm wary of the gains, since as best I can tell, the full caster party looks to be optimial: a lot like the criticisms people rightly leveled against 3e.
Logged
Have you ever wanted to:
Download every organized, useful 3e character building resource, including spells, feats, web articles, etc.?
Completely & elegantly fix all of 3e with the fewest changes necessary?
See how I make/organize my own build details?
Offline TenaciousJ
Hero Member
***
Posts: 592
AVENGE WAGON
Respect: +19
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #12: December 15, 2016, 05:25:00 PM »
Quote
What's the point though, if you can never craft items to force them into a campaign, then magic items are on the same level of 'mother may I' with the DM.
Get a non-adversarial DM and discuss things? I feel like we keep talking past each other on this issue because I look at the plethora of useful abilities base classes get in 5e and wonder why people still think they need a laundry list of magic items in 5e. This isn't 3.5 where the single-classed fighter only has feats and full BAB as its features. If you want extreme granularity in customization, play 3.5. It's a feature, not a bug, that 5e approaches things differently. That granularity is popular for forum discussion, but not so popular for actual play.
Quote
This is interesting. I always thought of players as getting to play a DMs' world with the character they wanted. If the world was too fragile to support the character's existence than the character was either way too powerful or the campaign was way too weak.
Take a look at what the 5e fighter, rogue, or monk can do compared to their 3.5 counterparts. Relative to the system, PC classes are far more powerful in 5e across the board. Rather than some of their base power coming from an assumed WBL that they must hope a DM will actually grant to them, they have innate power that requires no help from the DM other than to run encounters within the recommended exp budget for the characters. Yes, the characters are in fact very powerful and magic items can easily tip the scales too far when you give out magic items at the same rate they're granted in 3.5.
We have 3.5 crafting optimization threads on this board that help to break the intent of WBL while adhering to the letter of the rules, so I do not really accept that 3.5 is more correct than 5e about whether or not and to what degree players should have control over the magic items available to them. That level of player optimization is more acceptable in 3.5 because monsters have similar levels of customization for the DM to use in return. However, I do not recall anything in the 3.5 DMG saying how much to raise ECL by when players find ways to circumvent the expected gains from WBL. I only remember the 3.5 DMG saying "don't give out too much treasure." Unless I missed or forgot those rules, 3.5 DMs have to make similar judgement calls to 5e DMs about where to set encounter balance if players have more resources available to them than expected. 5e is just upfront about it. 3.5 seems to imply taking crafting feats and using various rules to reduce crafting costs to increase your power gains from WBL is an even trade. The DM can calculate the new effective limit based on which feats and rules the players are using, but that still means entering into the optimization arms race. Whether that's good or bad is personal preference.
5e doesn't have monster feats, racial hit die and associated attributes, feat customization, etc. with associated, discrete CR increases attached. 5e looks at the end result of what a monster's stats lead to, and as long as the average of offensive and defensive CR is within bounds, then you can do whatever you want with a monster. You can just decide it has 26 Strength because it's exceptionally strong, rather than giving it an item, template, etc. to reach that number. The game doesn't tell you how to do it and leaves it up to DM creativity.
Quote
I don't find AC to be the high point of optimization, so I won't address the second part. Why get monsters to roll a 19 rather than a 16 when you can just fly or borrow or blink or go invisible or ...
I've had this discussion about AC items before. It boils down to: AC items don't break the game, but they make combat painfully slow or force the DM to make deadlier encounters because the minimum CR for a useful minion increases. Fly, burrowing, blinking, invisibility, etc. are factored into CR. I don't argue against AC items because they're overpowered, I argue against them because they are not actually that powerful but make the game less fun for the DM unless he limits his options in encounter building. I argue that giving full control to the players over which magic items they get is an invitation to making your campaign a mess.
Anecdotally, I'm pretty generous with magic items compared to the other 5e DMs I associate with. I just avoid giving out anything that turns my game into a slog of whiffing attacks and fizzling spells from highly evasive monsters. Some people enjoy that kind of play, and they can tune things as they see fit. I tell people up front I'm never giving them +X armor, +X shields, rings of protection, etc. and to account for that in their character choices if AC matters that much to them.
The status quo of 3.5 comes up, but again 3.5 has a scaling WBL. 5e has 0 WBL assumed at all levels, so *any* magic items come with the same risk as granting more than recommend WBL in 3.5.
Quote
I guess I might be okay with this if 5e were named "D&D lite" instead of D&D next.
It hasn't been called D&D Next for a long time. D&D lite comes off derisive, but yes, it is a lighter version of the game. That's not better or worse in absolutes. I'm enjoying the lighter aspect because I can customize monsters in a more free-form style as long my end result fits in a couple of parameters, and my players seem to enjoy it because the required system-savvy-ness is a lot lower. If I limited my player pool to people with CO board-level knowledge, I'd never be able to start or maintain a game. I like that I can run the game as-is without having to restrict what players have control over. I don't have to ban any classes for being too powerful or too weak relative to one another to keep people happy. I don't have to pay attention to how much wealth I'm giving out because it's mostly a roleplay tool with little direct character power attached. 5e frees both DMs and players from having to care about so many things they had to in 3.5, PF, and 4e.
That really doesn't sound like you, and I can respect that. 3.5 is more for you if you're very turned off by less granularity in your customization options.
Quote
But I'm wary of the gains, since as best I can tell, the full caster party looks to be optimial: a lot like the criticisms people rightly leveled against 3e.
The full caster party isn't optimal at every level. Optimal would be wizard, bard, cleric or sorcerer, and the 4th slot would be a fighter or a paladin after about 8th level. You get diminishing returns on a 4th caster after a point, because you still want HP damage from somewhere to end the fights, and ending them quicker saves resources that might otherwise have to be spent when a monster passes the recurring saves on things on a fight that drags too long. Fighter 11 is the chassis for maximum DPR, and Divine Smite is the favored tool for controllable burst usable more than once per combat.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 10:38:39 AM by TenaciousJ »
Logged
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA
Offline awaken_D_M_golem
Epic Member
****
Posts: 7051
(un-) Amazingly Unproductive
Respect: +68
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #13: December 15, 2016, 05:57:51 PM »
... but 5e wbl also has a medium sized pile of DMG r.a.w. behind it too ; both ideas aren't totally compatible.
Quote from: PlzBreakMyCampaign on December 15, 2016, 04:55:00 PM
aDMg got it.
I'll take credit for that !
WHO SAID THAT ??
Logged
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings
Offline TenaciousJ
Hero Member
***
Posts: 592
AVENGE WAGON
Respect: +19
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #14: December 15, 2016, 06:37:20 PM »
Quote from: awaken_D_M_golem on December 15, 2016, 05:57:51 PM
... but 5e wbl also has a medium sized pile of DMG r.a.w. behind it too ; both ideas aren't totally compatible.
The 5e DMG isn't actually necessary to run the game though. It's only a core book by tradition, and it even says that the rules it presents are optional. IMO, that's why it offers the CR chart guidelines instead of concrete rules about how to adjust and create monsters. It's most useful for giving the DM insight into how the developers created and balanced the material of the PHB and MM.
e: To be clear, I'm not saying any and all magic items break the game. I'm saying the system is not designed for players to have full control over the magic items. 5e doesn't have type bonuses, so some things like the spell attack bonuses of Wand of the War Mage and Rod of the Pact Keeper stack with each other. Robe of the Archmage and Staff of Power stack up their overlapping bonuses to DCs and spell attacks. +4 added to spell DC is much more powerful in a system with bounded accuracy. Tomes and manuals for ability score increases don't have a type, so in T.O. a character can benefit from an unlimited number of them.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 10:46:57 AM by TenaciousJ »
Logged
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA
Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign
DnD Handbook Writer
****
Posts: 1741
Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
Respect: +28
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #15: December 16, 2016, 06:37:31 PM »
Quote from: TenaciousJ on December 15, 2016, 05:25:00 PM
granularity is popular for forum discussion, but not so popular for actual play.
This is probably true. I don't mean to try your patience. Sometimes when you say the same thing differently, it sets in better.
Quote
Take a look at what the 5e fighter, rogue, or monk can do compared to their 3.5 counterparts. Relative to the system, PC classes are far more powerful in 5e across the board. Rather than some of their base power coming from an assumed WBL that they must hope a DM will actually grant to them, they have innate power that requires no help from the DM other than to run encounters within the recommended exp budget for the characters.
This is a step in the right direction.That makes me way to translate the 5e fighter into a 3e terms to see how it stacks up with its dead-level brother.
Quote
I only remember the 3.5 DMG saying "don't give out too much treasure." Unless I missed or forgot those rules, 3.5 DMs have to make similar judgement calls to 5e DMs about where to set encounter balance if players have more resources available to them than expected. 5e is just upfront about it.
It seems you are right about 3e being sneaky there. One of its largest criticisms was that it had 'hidden gems' for careful players. Even if there were no trap options (there are tons), this would still be a fault for any edition.
Quote
The DM can calculate the new effective limit based on which feats and rules the players are using, but that still means entering into the optimization arms race.
I never thought of CR/Party Level adjustment as an arms race, but I suppose you are correct that it is. It's just a really easy one because you can through higher CR enemies at the party just as easily as low CR ones. It seems less work if a DM remembers that one adjustment, but it's a potato vs potatoe thing. I have differing opinions on crafting than most because I tend to force it a caster nerf. Well, it's not really forced, but players quickly figure out they are premium prices rather than 50% (or better) off wholesale costs.
Although its fair to be up front with players about encounters after giving "too much" agency to a PC, a party might feel a little cheated in 3e if they expected no give and take. Since items are a "bonus" in 5e, that's a good way to make everyone happy. Do your 5e players know that the items don't actually help give an advantage due to the built-in rebalancing?
Quote
I don't argue against AC items because they're overpowered, I argue against them because they are not actually that powerful but make the game less fun for the DM unless he limits his options in encounter building. I argue that giving full control to the players over which magic items they get is an invitation to making your campaign a mess.
Yes, AC's binary nature makes it inferior to DR. If I had my way, I'd impose an even more scalable statist called Armor Rating that would give a very exact percentage off of incoming physical damage (like DotA). High party-wide AC does make rolls in the open almost a waste of time. I purposely deoptimize AC on builds in order to raise touch AC to avoid worse effects. It seems you are quite right about players often maxing AC, if it is kept vanilla. I blame AC as a game design rather than anything to do with magic items (classic naked monks love to boost wisdom for AC even at the expense of damage), but I concede the specific point.
Quote
Anecdotally, I'm pretty generous with magic items compared to the other 5e DMs I associate with... I tell people up front I'm never giving them +X armor, +X shields, rings of protection, etc. and to account for that in their character choices if AC matters that much to them.
That's because you're a good DM
Quote
The status quo of 3.5 comes up, but again 3.5 has a scaling WBL. 5e has 0 WBL assumed at all levels, so *any* magic items come with the same risk as granting more than recommend WBL in 3.5
That analogy is good. Indeed it seems things are tipped doubly in your favor because anything above zero is a higher proportion than 3e DMs would entertain going above WBL, and due to the smaller numbers in 5e.
Quote
I'm enjoying the lighter aspect because I can customize monsters in a more free-form style as long my end result fits in a couple of parameters, and my players seem to enjoy it because the required system-savvy-ness is a lot lower. If I limited my player pool to people with CO board-level knowledge, I'd never be able to start or maintain a game. I like that I can run the game as-is without having to restrict what players have control over. I don't have to ban any classes for being too powerful or too weak relative to one another to keep people happy. I don't have to pay attention to how much wealth I'm giving out because it's mostly a roleplay tool with little direct character power attached.
I'm starting to understand where you're coming from on all points. If I can presume what that last sentence means, its that nothing a players will ever be able to buy will measure up to a magic item, since its on a lower economic tier -- similar to the wish economy some DMs used in 3e. Right?
Quote
Optimal would be wizard, bard, cleric or sorcerer, and the 4th slot would be a fighter or a paladin after about 8th level. You get diminishing returns on a 4th caster after a point, because you still want HP damage from somewhere to end the fights
I'd still like to see some optimizers roll a party of full casters, just to be safe
Wait isn't there something about casting classes stacking in a better way than they did in 3e due to borrowing the 3e psionics rules? I looked through the PHB, but found what appeared to be standard vancian limitations on slots, spells known, etc.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 06:44:09 PM by PlzBreakMyCampaign »
Logged
Have you ever wanted to:
Download every organized, useful 3e character building resource, including spells, feats, web articles, etc.?
Completely & elegantly fix all of 3e with the fewest changes necessary?
See how I make/organize my own build details?
Offline Childe
Lead Editor, Legend
DnD Handbook Writer
***
Posts: 485
Even forever must end, I think. ...
Respect: +2
View Profile
Legend RPG, Rule of Cool Gaming
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #16: December 16, 2016, 11:07:31 PM »
Quote from: PlzBreakMyCampaign on December 16, 2016, 06:37:31 PM
Wait isn't there something about casting classes stacking in a better way than they did in 3e due to borrowing the 3e psionics rules? I looked through the PHB, but found what appeared to be standard vancian limitations on slots, spells known, etc.
They stack better in terms of multiclassing, not necessarily in terms of group composition. Spellcasting classes advance spell slots/preparation and quantity of spells known, just not maximum spell level access. And since many spells progress based on the slot used, the higher level slots help even without the higher level spells. Granted, you still want 9th level spells, but it's not as bad as in 3.X to multiclass as a spellcaster.
Logged
"You had a tough day at the office. So you come home, make
yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie, maybe
have a drink. It's fun, right? Wrong. Don't smother your kids."
- The More You Know
Offline TenaciousJ
Hero Member
***
Posts: 592
AVENGE WAGON
Respect: +19
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #17: December 17, 2016, 10:15:44 AM »
Quote
I don't mean to try your patience. Sometimes when you say the same thing differently, it sets in better.
The exchange is sharpening my system knowledge, so it's worth doing.
Quote
I never thought of CR/Party Level adjustment as an arms race, but I suppose you are correct that it is. It's just a really easy one because you can through higher CR enemies at the party just as easily as low CR ones. It's just a really easy one because you can through higher CR enemies at the party just as easily as low CR ones. It seems less work if a DM remembers that one adjustment, but it's a potato vs potatoe thing.
We think it's easy because we understand it to different degrees. You have far more knowledge than me on 3.5 and I stand on the shoulders of many posters here for the 3.5 tech I learned. I'm thinking about my last 3.5 game as a DM with an artificer player. I let him have a lot of fun with everything he could figure out that an artificer could do, and I in turn scaled the encounters around how much he could craft and how he could use it. He was paired up with a Conjurer, Warblade X/Lion totem Barbarian 2/Bard 1, and a Blade of Orien. By level 18, I didn't have much choice but to optimize what i was using against the party unless I wanted to crack open the Epic Level Handbook. He wasn't even pushing the limits using things like class and race limitations to lower crafting costs, and the power level was beyond super heroic. It was a very fun campaign but it gave me some insight into how out of control player-controlled magic items could get if I didn't both know how to optimize monsters and enjoy doing it.
I did just what you suggest, but I still had to make a judgment call as DM after a point. It's an extreme example for certain. CR was pretty worthless for determining what was a challenge for that party. I would just take a creature and decide I was going to have fun optimizing and/or templating it until it had a final package of abilities that I thought would be memorable to fight with stats to back it up.
Quote
Do your 5e players know that the items don't actually help give an advantage due to the built-in rebalancing?
I'm not sure they are totally aware, but I'm upfront about leaning toward the Deadly curve of encounter balance. Items like the Decanter of Endless Water, Ever-smoking Bottle, Immovable Rod, etc. don't have directly measurable combat power IMO, but their added versatility and creativity are fun. I've softened a bit on +X magic weapons as long as we're not doing things like stacking Wand of the War Mage, Staff of Power, and Robe of the Archmage for +7 to spell attacks, and I'm enjoying staves, wands, and similar charged items with daily recharges of abilities more. The latter set of items add longevity and versatility without increasing the maximum damage/effectiveness per round.
Quote
I'd impose an even more scalable statist called Armor Rating that would give a very exact percentage off of incoming physical damage (like DotA).
This is a great idea from a 3.5 perspective. Mechanically that's more sound than AC. 5e has taught me to consider how easy an idea is implement at a table amongst people whose intelligence you do not know very well. In that regard, I love 5e's resistance being half instead of a number to apply that disproportionally affects builds with high numbers of attacks. 10%, 25%, 50% are pretty easy percentages to grasp. 17% is a little harder. In a 5e version, I'd codeword 10%, 25% and maybe 75% reduction the way 50% is "resistance."
Quote
If I can presume what that last sentence means, its that nothing a players will ever be able to buy will measure up to a magic item, since its on a lower economic tier -- similar to the wish economy some DMs used in 3e. Right?
Yes, with caveats. Any magic item above common is assumed to be hard to obtain and extremely difficult to make. However, the PHB gives rules for hirelings without rules for what a hireling should or should not be capable of, with exception of increased prices for spellcasting.
I've taken the approach that you might be able to buy a magic item, but you may not be able to buy the exact magic item you want. As an example for my games in Eberron, "practical" magical items are much easier to obtain than directly combat-oriented magic items in a cold-war world. Boots of Flying still see a healthy level of production in Sharn because they're useful for commerce in a city of towers. Flametongue Swords have fallen out of favor because open warfare isn't common and it's too flashy a weapon for those who don't want to draw attention to their fights.
The PHB says a skilled hireling costs 2 gp per day. One example given is a mercenary soldier paid to take on a hobgoblin army. Depending on availability, some NPCs could be very useful to have around. Is that mercenary a CR 1/8 Guard, a CR 1/2 Thug, a CR 3 Knight with its pseudo-Bless Leadership ability on a short rest cooldown, a CR 3 Veteran, a CR 5 Gladiator, a CR 8 Assassin, etc.? That seems to be entirely up to the DM. Spellcasting services have rules on page 159 as well. The DMG doesn't give much more guidance to the idea of hirelings as a way to convert money into power. It gives suggestions on whether to use NPC stat blocks or to make low level followers via PC rules, optional rules for loyalty, and a reminder that hirelings/followers get a portion of experience points if they're participating in battles.
Hiring other people is potentially more powerful than magic items, but availability is still DM controlled.
I've been open to the idea of players gaining NPC allies, and sometimes money makes those interactions possible. I have to do a little work to give those NPCs motivations so the PCs don't amass an army of allies that have nothing better to do than collect their 2 gp per day to fight all their battles for them.
The DMG favors the wish economy but hints at alternatives. Page 135 of the DMG gives recommended price ranges for magic items in an item-trading economy after going on about how nebulously difficult it is to create an uncommon or rarer magic item. The section goes on to say that selling magic items is difficult because of the challenge of finding a buyer. :lmao
Quote from: Childe on December 16, 2016, 11:07:31 PM
Quote from: PlzBreakMyCampaign on December 16, 2016, 06:37:31 PM
Wait isn't there something about casting classes stacking in a better way than they did in 3e due to borrowing the 3e psionics rules? I looked through the PHB, but found what appeared to be standard vancian limitations on slots, spells known, etc.
They stack better in terms of multiclassing, not necessarily in terms of group composition. Spellcasting classes advance spell slots/preparation and quantity of spells known, just not maximum spell level access. And since many spells progress based on the slot used, the higher level slots help even without the higher level spells. Granted, you still want 9th level spells, but it's not as bad as in 3.X to multiclass as a spellcaster.
This is mostly correct. Sorcerer 3/Wizard 10 has the spell slots of a 13th level single-classed full spellcaster. It prepares the same number and level of spells as a single-classed 10th level wizard, and it has the spells known of single-classed 3rd level sorcerer. It has access to 7th level slots but only up to 5th level spells from the wizard list and up to 2nd level spells from the sorcerer list. Caster level scaling is replaced by spell slot scaling, so the character could cast Bigby's Hand, Cone of Cold, Dominate Person, Hold Monster, etc. at 6th or 7th level to gain extra benefit from those higher level slots it doesn't have spells prepared/known for.
Multiclass spellcasters have less raw power than single-classed spellcasters except at discrete points. i.e. Cleric 1/Wizard 7 is better than Wizard 8, but add one level onto each build and the multiclass is still on 4th level spells prepared while the single-classed wizard goes up to 5th. Both builds have the same number of slots, but the single-classed wizard can do generally more powerful things with his 5th level slots.
Quote
I'd still like to see some optimizers roll a party of full casters, just to be safe
Do you consider the 5e warlock a full caster or not? Mop-up mode can get out of control when you take too long to mop up. Warlock has a leg up on the other casters for at-will, resource-less damage for when fights are under control. A Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter martial will do it better than the warlock though, and they're not bereft of utility just because they're less magical than a full caster.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 10:21:12 AM by TenaciousJ »
Logged
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA
Offline Eldritch_Lord
Full Member
**
Posts: 134
Lurker Extraordinaire
Respect: +2
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #18: December 17, 2016, 05:32:57 PM »
Quote from: TenaciousJ
Take a look at what the 5e fighter, rogue, or monk can do compared to their 3.5 counterparts. Relative to the system, PC classes are far more powerful in 5e across the board. Rather than some of their base power coming from an assumed WBL that they must hope a DM will actually grant to them, they have innate power that requires no help from the DM other than to run encounters within the recommended exp budget for the characters. Yes, the characters are in fact very powerful and magic items can easily tip the scales too far when you give out magic items at the same rate they're granted in 3.5.
I don't mean to jump into this discussion to pick on you specifically, and I'm not at all trying to edition war here (since, believe me, I'm not holding up the 3e martial classes as any sort of ideal), but I've now seen several people express sentiments along these lines and I just don't understand where that's coming from. Practically nothing any of those classes get either as as a base or in archetypes is particularly new, or at least nothing you couldn't get from feats, multiclassing, or similar, and things that really are new and different are hardly "far more powerful" than similar 3e abilities.
To go through the fighter in detail since that's the most commonly praised "upgrade":
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
From the above, there's really nothing in the 5e fighter that you can't already achieve with a naked, equipment-less 3e fighter, warblade, or duskblade, even accounting for the need to leave feat/maneuver/spell slots open to cover any desired 5e feats with their 3e equivalents. And if you do take minor equipment into consideration like masterwork weapons and armor and healing belts (the kind of minor stuff that the rules guarantee will be available in most if not all settlements of "small town" size or larger unless a stingy killer DM specifically rules otherwise), that frees up most of the slots spent on piddly-bonus feats to exactly duplicate the 5e fighter so that he can spend them on much more interesting feats.
Certainly, it's simpler for a new player to just pick up a 5e fighter and play it well (the way fighter was "the newbie class" in AD&D) instead of having to pick and choose things as he goes, but a warblade can pick maneuvers almost at random and still be competent in even a new player's hands; certainly, a fighter who picks up things like Toughness and Skill Focus (Craft [Underwater Basketweaving]) is going to be much weaker than one built by someone who knows what they're doing, but that's much different than comparing the 5e fighter as a whole to the 3e fighter as a whole--and the 5e fighter doesn't have the kind of higher power and skill ceiling that a well-built 3e fighter does.
And yes, I know you said "relative to the system," but bounded accuracy doesn't really change the value of all the +X stuff. High-level 3e martial classes focusing on offense already hit with pretty much all of their attacks and AC is only good for soaking up Power Attack/TWF/etc. attack penalties and later iteratives, and for martial types focusing on defense optimizing AC into the "by-the-book monsters can't hit me" range isn't difficult. Not to mention that monsters are generally slightly tougher in 5e (e.g. for trolls, a pretty standard benchmark monster throughout the editions, the 5e version has more HP and higher regeneration, deals more damage with its natural attacks, and is actually slightly smarter than its 3e counterpart, only losing out on some darkvision range to compensate), so even if the 3e and 5e fighter were neck-and-neck numerically with respect to the base mechanics the 5e fighter would be slightly weaker on the whole due to facing stronger opposition.
So what is it I'm missing here?
Logged
Offline TenaciousJ
Hero Member
***
Posts: 592
AVENGE WAGON
Respect: +19
View Profile
Re: Discussion of 3.5 to 5e (and what's secretly already in 5e)
« Reply #19: December 17, 2016, 07:25:20 PM »
Quote
So what is it I'm missing here?
The one example you gave of the troll is very far off base. The 3.5 troll is more damaging with a full round attack due to a higher attack bonus, a higher Strength score, and its Rend ability. The 5e troll has more hit points and higher regeneration. The 5e fighter at that level makes 2 attacks at the same bonus regardless of how much he moved during the turn, but the 3.5 fighter makes its second attack at a penalty and only if he stood still. The 5e troll has numerically more hit points, but it's going to be subjected to more damage (3.5 optimization not-withstanding). The troll's regeneration is relatively weaker in 5e because access to on-demand fire and/or acid damage is easily achieved by someone in the party. Furthermore, regeneration isn't the same mechanic across editions. 5e does not have non-lethal damage as a separately tracked number that regeneration applies to. The 5e fighter is still attacking the same HP pool with his weapon as someone else is with acid or fire, and 5e's regeneration stops functioning for a round if the troll takes a point of fire or acid damage. 5e regeneration 10 is not stronger than 3.5 regeneration 5 just because it's a bigger number.
You can't run the 5e fighter or any other 5e class through 3.5 and make your assumptions based on that. You have to know how 5e's mechanics are different despite similarities in names.
Fighting styles are only found on 3 classes in 5e. They are not accessed via feats, so they've become part of the niche of those classes. The fact that you could get similar effects in 3.5 on any class has no bearing on the 5e fighter's performance in the system it was designed for. The fighter shares fighting styles with the paladin and ranger, but only the fighter has access to all officially published fighting styles, and only the fighter gets them at level 1.
Action Surge is the only way in 5e to get an extra action with no conditional modifiers attached to what it can do. It's not just more attacks, though that's a powerful use of the ability, especially at level 11+. There's no other way to cast 2 spells from spell slots in the same turn in 5e because the bonus action spell rules of 5e prevent casting a regular action spell that's not a cantrip on the same turn. Haste limits the extra action to a single attack, Dash, or Dodge.
It doesn't matter how many ways a character could get lots of attack in 3.5. The only way you get more than 2 attacks on an action unconditionally in 5e is to be a fighter. The system includes various other ways to get bonus action attacks, and the fighter has access to many of those too. The ranger comes close but has to meet certain conditions to do so. Action Surge and the fighter's version of Extra Attack contribute to a big part of the 5e fighter's identity being, "does more per turn than other classes."
Indomitable isn't quite exclusive to the 5e fighter, but that kind of luck protection is not easily obtained, and the 5e fighter has more opportunity to take the one feat that could replicate the functionality. One could argue that the Lucky feat is similar in use, though Indomitable has a few advantages and disadvantages compared to Lucky. When you have advantage on a saving throw, Indomitable is better because the reroll will have advantage too. When you have disadvantage, Lucky is better because Lucky is not actually a reroll. It's a 3rd die roll, and then you choose any of the 3 rolls to be your result, overriding disadvantage rules telling you to take the lowest roll. The Diviner's Portent feature does not work the same way but it also can be protection against bad saving throws. Still, only 1 base class and 1 archetype get controllable protection like that.
The rerolls are more statistically significant too. The 5e fighter has ASIs at level 6 and 14 that no other class gets. That's 2 more chances to take feats than any other class save rogue in a system where every other class only gets 4 chances to take a feat, and those chances compete with raising ability scores in a system that does not provide spells or any assumed WBL to compensate. The 5e fighter is going to have more chances to take feats, allowing room for a defensive feat like Resilient in a build optimized for offense. A CR 24 red dragon in 5e has a DC 21 Frightening Presence. In point buy, a fighter can reasonably be expect to have +1 Wisdom, meaning the fighter with Resilient could be expected to have +6 or +7 to Wisdom saves when fighting a CR 24 red dragon at an appropriate level. 25% to 30% chance to pass a CR 24 red dragon's Frightful Presence is a lot more of a chance than I'd give a 3.5 fighter to make against a 3.5 CR 24 red dragon's DC 35 Frightful Presence using only the fighter's base features.
The Champion's features are simple and it's baby's first fighter archetype, but its features are still exclusive to the 5e fighter. There's no Keen Edge spell or Keen weapons officially printed in 5e. Also, critical hits do not require confirmation rolls in 5e, and no printed monster is immune to the extra damage of critical hits. Boring as it is, the feature is much more relevant in 5e than it is in 3.5. Remarkable Athlete is an initiative booster, so that's reason enough for the feature to not be dismissed.
The Battle Master's comparison to Warblade is not as direct as you want to make it out to be. A Battle Master fighter uses most of his maneuvers after he has successfully hit with an attack. A Battle Master uses his maneuvers as part of his attack(s), not in place of a full attack action. The Battle Master could decided to Action Surge and use up all his maneuvers in one turn if he really wants to hurt and debuff something badly. He can use most of his maneuvers on opportunity attacks. For all the complex things 3.5 maneuvers could do, the Battle Master can trump their utility with one maneuver. A Battle Master with no more equipment than a non-magical bow and non-magical arrows can still knock a flying creature out of the sky.
The 5e Eldritch Knight is a not a Duskblade if you take any more than a cursory glance. If any class in 5e compares to the Duskblade, it's the 5e paladin. The 5e Eldritch Knight is 5e's shadow pouncer in one class eventually, but before that point it's a gish that in practical play mostly uses spells for defense, though Action Surge with spells can be quite powerful. War Magic is another "does more than everyone else" feature that the 5e Eldritch Knight only shares with the College of Valor bard, and the 5e Eldritch Knight can use the feature with cantrips 7 levels earlier than the Valor bard. Cantrips are not a joke in 5e.
The naked, equipment-less 3.5 Fighter gets so screwed over by the system it plays in that it doesn't really matter what features you can build up to. It cannot reach adequate numbers to do its job without magic items and/or buffs from better classes. It has no role protection whatsoever. Even for the 2 level dip for feats, it's surpassed by the Psychic Warrior.
The 5e fighter has a lot of role protection. It has niches it is the best at within its own system. It needs no magic items to succeed and doesn't fail at its job when the party wizard decides to cast fireballs instead of buff and save-or-suck spells. A comparison of the 5e fighter's features to several 3.5 classes and prestige classes fails to encapsulate why the 5e fighter is still better built for the system it's used in.
