5e is a much more mechanically simple game than 3.5e and if we concern ourselves only with first party, officially published, fully edited, non-playtest material such as the official books, we find that the release pace of 5e has been much slower than 3.5e. In total, one would hope that the editing quality of 5e has been superior to that of 3.5e. But has this actually turned out to be the case?

To give some examples of how this question can be answered without too much focus on opinion-based elements, here are some objective standards for how we can say that the editing of 3.5e was poor:

So, to repeat my question, how does 3.5e compare to 5e in non-opinion based editing regards such as these?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think this is a great question... but an impossible one to back up, that’s going to invite a ton of speculation in lieu of people backing it up. Even if someone actually has the expertise and perspective to feel confident in their own answer, how could they possibly convey that perspective in a single answer? \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Dec 16 '19 at 12:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan If 5e is equal or worse than 3.5e in these regards, then bullet points linking to evidence (similar to what's in the question) would be a strong step in the right direction. If 5e is much better, then all that would be needed would be something like "here is an almost exhaustive list of similar issues in 5e, notice how small it is". If however, 5e is only slightly better, I can see the difficulty. \$\endgroup\$ – J. Mini Dec 16 '19 at 13:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That would be an extremely flawed analysis—it would be impossible to control for 3.5e’s age and tremendous quantity of analysis. How would we ever know that 5e merely doesn’t have those things yet? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Dec 16 '19 at 14:11

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.