5e to 3.5

[NecroDancer]

I was invited to join a d&d 3.5 campaign, the group is level 3 and already has a wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, archivist, and Druid. I have only ever played 5e and I want to know what 3.5 is like, what class should I play? What race? How are the rules similar and different?

[Cybren]

I was invited to join a d&d 3.5 campaign, the group is level 3 and already has a wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, archivist, and Druid. I have only ever played 5e and I want to know what 3.5 is like, what class should I play? What race? How are the rules similar and different?

Have they ever frequented a charop board? The answer to that question will inform what sort of character would be appropriate to the table. I mean, they have lots of 'bases' covered, so you could make whatever you want. What do you want to play?

[TripleD]

The biggest change you'll notice is the way movement and attacking work.

In 5e you have an "action" which you can spend on various things. You also have a movement pool to draw from. The movement can be done before, after, and often during, an action.

In 3.5e there are "standard", "full round", and "move" actions (also "free" and "swift", but we'll leave that for now). "Standard" actions are roughly analogous to "actions" in 5e. "Full Round" actions take up your entire turn. "Move" actions are when you take your movement.

Here's the kicker: you cannot split up your move action. Once you take it, it's gone, even if you have movement left. This means you cannot "move, attack one guy, move, attack another" the way you would in 5e (there are some feats that let you mimic it, but it's not the same).

That might not be so bad, but it gets compounded with "full attacks". You know how in 5e martials can take multiple attacks? In 3e that requires a "full round" action. Remember that "full round" requires your whole turn, so no movement is involved*. That means you have to run up to an enemy, make a single attack, and then wait until your next turn to make a full attack.

All this means that it is very hard to "weave" in combat, and that mobile classes like the monk get almost no use for all their extra movement.

* there is a rule called the "five foot step" which says that, if you take no other movement this turn, you may take a five foot step in any direction.

[TheProfessor85]

Dragonfire adept or a warlock. They are closest to a 5th Ed warlock.

Bard is also a good choice, since they can do a little of everything and aid the party in many ways

[pwykersotz]

It's hard to go wrong with Tome of Battle, as long as it's allowed. The features are all pretty much in one book, and it's pretty widely accepted as a middling tier. It's complexity is minimal and it can do interesting things.

Assuming that's not allowed, I second Warlock. Underpowered by some metrics, but unless the Fighter is using some serious cheese, you'll probably be in good company. It has an elegant design that I love.

[Specter]

In 3.5, you need to read hundreds, even thousands of spells and alternate class abilities and feats to have a decent character. Also, be ready to spend twice the time on rules lawerying on the table. I'm glad those days are over.

[Cybren]

You could also try the coolest prestige class ever (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?page=1&x=dnd/iw/20041210b). Start as a factotum for the most Jack of all trades you can get without being a cleric 20

[R.Shackleford]

In 3.5, you need to read hundreds, even thousands of spells and alternate class abilities and feats to have a decent character. Also, be ready to spend twice the time on rules lawerying on the table. I'm glad those days are over.

This is the most hyperbole ive read in a while. It is also untrue. Completely and utterly untrue. Way to go, trying to scare someone away from a game that could bring them joy.

Tier 3 and tier 4 classes work just fine Core + 1 book and dont require anywhere near that much reading to have an absolutely kick ass character.

Hell, even within those books you don't need to know everything.

D20srd.org is the best starting point for your "core stuff". This is also where you get the most broken stuff.

I would pick up the Swordsage, Warblade, Crusader (use cards for the Crusader's refresh mechanic, lots of fun) and just use Core + ToB feats. You will have a very dynamic and awesome character.

You should check out Desert Wind, I love throwing enemies around the battlefield.

If you are ever going caster then I would look into Bard, Warlock, Warmage, Beguiler, or Dread Necromancer. These are the more balanced casters. Eventually you should at least read the Binder''s fluff, best fluff (the vestiges) ever put out.

[djreynolds]

Strength based melee bard and use curse song

[Quintessence]

You could also try the coolest prestige class ever (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?page=1&x=dnd/iw/20041210b). Start as a factotum for the most Jack of all trades you can get without being a cleric 20

That is a weird way to spell Sublime Chord ;P

[Rhaegar14]

Okay, as someone who has a lot of love for both editions (but for different reasons), here are the main differences:

5e does a LOT of what I love about 3.5 and removes a lot of what I don't like. 3.5e is much more complex (needlessly so in many places) and is in general easier to break. The classes are not well-balanced with each other at all. This is not too often a problem at casual tables, but if you poke around the 3.5 subforum enough you'll start noticing it and it may become a problem. Magic items are also NOT optional in 3.5; they're an assumed part of character balance. If you do not have the right items by the right level you are not as strong as the game expects you to be, and this can eventually become a problem.

But what's great about 3.5e is that, if you master the system, you can bring literally ANY character concept to life. 5e is pretty flexible but there are a couple ideas I've had that I can't execute without at least a little help from houserules in 5e. It's not always guaranteed that you can do it in such a way that they'll be effective at every level of the game, but you can usually do it in such a way that they are effective past a certain level.

[Herobizkit]

Your team has an Archivist (kind of a Divine Warlock[?] from Heroes of Horror) but otherwise has a standard party base.

* The Fighter fights. That's his job. He's Feat-powered and gets the most feats of the base classes.
* The Wizard still casts from the back and a well-designed Wizard is still Batman, but, like, Super-Batman past level 7.
* The Rogue is probably a melee-fighter, as getting their Sneak Attack bonus damage is harder to do in 3e than 5e. They need to have surprise, have a way of denying their target their AC bonus (by being prone/held etc), or being in a Flanking position (on a grid, two allies must stand on opposite sides of their target to count as Flanked. Good news - anyone who does it get a +1 or +2 to hit to their target.)
* The Cleric will always have a healing spell at the ready, though he won't be able to heal and swing in the same round.
* The Druid (paired with the Cleric) is the "We Win" button, though less resilient than his 5e Moon Druid counterpart.

Should you choose to stick to the Core rules, the classes pretty much perform very similar to their 5e counterparts. Except Bard [personal opinion follows]. Bards got hosed in the transition from 2e to 3e. While their shtick is still jack of all trades/master of none, with Feats and PrC's, any class can be a jack-of-all-trades and BETTER at it than the Bard.

If you're thinking strict party balance, you can't go wrong with a Ranger. He won't have an animal pal or extra dice of damage, but he can still make a mean archer or a two-weapon fighter (both of which require Feat investments to get really good). I'd normally recommend Paladin, but compared to 5e's lightsword-wielding monsters, they're not that great - that and the Lawful Good restriction.

Feats, Multi-classing and the Prestige Class(es) are pretty much what runs 3e.... that, and the small math (of +1 and +2 bonuses).

The 5e class Archetype is replaced by the Prestige Class, which normally has pre-requisites (usually Base Attack Bonus [5e Proficiency which scales differently for each group of classes] and Ranks in skills [which are like 5e skills but you have to 'buy' ranks in them to decide your total bonus - Ranks + Stat Mod = your Skill bonus]) that amount to you being 6th or 7th level to even qualify for and therefore require you to 'build' into them.

[Kurald Galain]

I was invited to join a d&d 3.5 campaign, the group is level 3 and already has a wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, archivist, and Druid. I have only ever played 5e and I want to know what 3.5 is like, what class should I play? What race? How are the rules similar and different?

You should probably ask that in the 3.5 forum, right here (giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?59-D-amp-D-3e-3-5e-d20). :smallbiggrin:

[Seppo87]

I suggest you play a Warlock (complete arcane), or a bard/crusader (tome of battle) with a feat named Song of the White Raven.

In both cases you'll get a decent idea of what the game's like with solid classes and options in your hands while not being overpowered and blending well with the party

---


The biggest difference with 5E is that past a certain point, it is common that unless you're specialized, you cannot contribute.
I.E. this is the difference in Hide score at LV5:
Halfling Rogue, dex based, mithral shirt, maxed ranks:
4 size, 6 dex, 8 ranks, no penalty = +18
Human Fighter, Str Based, no ranks in Stealth, heavy armor:
1 dex, 0 ranks, -6 penalty = -5
As levels go up, the difference becomes more and more extreme. The Fighter will forever stay behind and he won't be able to catch up even if he spent resources, because his class advances in stealth at half speed whereas the rogue advances full speed, and the Dexterity gap is going to get wider as the str-based Fighter, to stay effective at his job, needs to put his points into Strength.
If he tried to become relevant at stealth, he would fail - that would be objectively a waste of resources, because it wouldn't really improve his chance of success (when you're 35 points behind the DC, a +10 makes no difference at all)
You must think twice on when and where spend your resources in this game - make sure you understand in advance if there's going to be any actual, practical return in your character performance.

It is intended to work this way - for most challenges you're either specialized or you shouldn't even try.

This makes it difficult to balance the game for a GM especially with monster stats, especially when the characters performance varies wildly (i.e. one of the melee has a hight to-hit and low AC, the other one has high AC and low to-hit, and the difference is more than 12-15 points!) This is a very real problem even in core-only games, the very existance of a feat like Combat Expertise is a death sentence for any reliability in character stats.
This is also why most optimized "builds" have as a goal the "best" performance in one or more fields. The game encourages that attitude.

This is not inherently bad. I LOVE this system, and so do a lot of people.

[Specter]

This is the most hyperbole ive read in a while. It is also untrue. Completely and utterly untrue. Way to go, trying to scare someone away from a game that could bring them joy.

Tier 3 and tier 4 classes work just fine Core + 1 book and dont require anywhere near that much reading to have an absolutely kick ass character.

Hell, even within those books you don't need to know everything.

D20srd.org is the best starting point for your "core stuff". This is also where you get the most broken stuff.

I would pick up the Swordsage, Warblade, Crusader (use cards for the Crusader's refresh mechanic, lots of fun) and just use Core + ToB feats. You will have a very dynamic and awesome character.

You should check out Desert Wind, I love throwing enemies around the battlefield.

If you are ever going caster then I would look into Bard, Warlock, Warmage, Beguiler, or Dread Necromancer. These are the more balanced casters. Eventually you should at least read the Binder''s fluff, best fluff (the vestiges) ever put out.

You don't need to know everything, but if you don't your character will feel totally useless as any full caster can do your job except better. Neither the ToB guys nor the casters you mention get close to Wizards/Clerics/Druids.

Simple characters need full optimization to even be remotely close to the more complex ones, and casters have so much to choose from and prepare from (literally) hundreds of books that it will take them hours to do it. But if one likes not being relevant at the table, cool.

And don't even get me started on prestige classes. Ewww.

[Blarmb]

The power floor is much much much much much much much much much ..... { (3.82*10^24^17) "muchs" have been truncated from this list } lower than in 5e, and the relative power ceiling is infinitely high. I'd need to know more about the groups CharOP level and the general direction campaign. 3.5 is not one game, it is a spectrum of games ranging from "Gritty Death Simulator 2004: Mauled by a Kitten Edition" to "Killgod the Allmighty: Multiverse ripper" often with half the party playing one and half the party playing the other.

If the game is well run, you'll only be playing one. However be prepared to decide if you want to be Angel Summoner or BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

[Specter]

The power floor is much much much much much much much much much ..... { (3.82*10^24^17) "muchs" have been truncated from this list } lower than in 5e, and the relative power ceiling is infinitely high. I'd need to know more about the groups CharOP level and the general direction campaign. 3.5 is not one game, it is a spectrum of games ranging from "Gritty Death Simulator 2004: Mauled by a Kitten Edition" to "Killgod the Allmighty: Multiverse ripper" often with half the party playing one and half the party playing the other.

If the game is well run, you'll only be playing one. However be prepared to decide if you want to be Angel Summoner or BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

True dat...

[Vogonjeltz]

I was invited to join a d&d 3.5 campaign, the group is level 3 and already has a wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, archivist, and Druid. I have only ever played 5e and I want to know what 3.5 is like, what class should I play? What race? How are the rules similar and different?

some big differences:
Dozens of classes and prestige classes (classes with specific entry requirements, almost certainly not an issue at level 3)

Skill availability is defined by class, and getting better means investing skill points which are oddly tied to intelligence modifier.

Everyone gets feats, and particular feat builds make a substantial difference in how characters play and what they can do.

Combat is slower, there are a lot of possible numerical modifiers, and this can really run games into the ground with a single combat potentially taking hours (plural) in real life to resolve.

If you don't particularly care what type of character class you play, just pick one from the PHB that nobody else is using (Bard, Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer;) or double up and learn by playing the same class as someone else but a little differently to compare options.

[R.Shackleford]

You don't need to know everything, but if you don't your character will feel totally useless as any full caster can do your job except better. Neither the ToB guys nor the casters you mention get close to Wizards/Clerics/Druids.

Simple characters need full optimization to even be remotely close to the more complex ones, and casters have so much to choose from and prepare from (literally) hundreds of books that it will take them hours to do it. But if one likes not being relevant at the table, cool.

And don't even get me started on prestige classes. Ewww.

Again with the extreme hyperbole that isn't true at all.

Tier 3 and 4 characters don't need optimization to be great at their roles. With just core basic rules/feats + one book you can be an absolute beast.

Can tier 1s and 2s break the game? Sure, but that is typically a table to table issue. A lot of players don't play to far outside their table'so optimization range.

And even if you play with tier 1 and 2s, that doesn't stop you from being an absolute beast in your own right.

It isn't PC versus PC, it is each PC versus the game. If you can keep up with the game and have dynamic options then it won't matter what your allies are doing. Unless you are a jealous spiteful kind that must always be *the best*.

Seriously, for anyone who reads Specter''s stuff on this specific topic... Don'the believe him/her (on mobile so I can see gender) one bit. 3.5 is no where this bad. 3.5 has its faults, yes, but it isn't anything to do with needing this much to make a great character. Look I to the tier list and grab a tier 3 or 4 character for a simple core + 1 book option.

[Flashy]

Seriously, for anyone who reads Specter''s stuff on this specific topic... Don'the believe him/her (on mobile so I can see gender) one bit. 3.5 is no where this bad. 3.5 has its faults, yes, but it isn't anything to do with needing this much to make a great character. Look I to the tier list and grab a tier 3 or 4 character for a simple core + 1 book option.

Yeah, from what I've seen the extreme balance issues only really crop up when people are taking trap options, misapplying character features, or playing core only. As long as you aren't playing a fighter in a group of druids the balance will be basically fine.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah, from what I've seen the extreme balance issues only really crop up when people are taking trap options, misapplying character features, or playing core only. As long as you aren't playing a fighter in a group of druids the balance will be basically fine.

Trap options are a bad part of 3e, however if you buildon't a damage dealer all you need is Barbarian. You really don't even need another book but I would pick ToB just to grab Leap Attack for the lol of it.

Want tier 3? Any from the tier 3 list without optimization will do.

The tier lists are made without (much) optimization in mind and they are pretty spot on. As long as you don't purposely try to gimp yourself you should be fine.

I have to say, I miss the halfling shadow druid (class + feat) planar shepard ( prestige class) though.

[Seppo87]

Core barbarian with no optimization is not an "absolute beast" at its role.
It gets outclassed at combat by core druid from LV8 onward, and by its animal compaion once Animal Growth has been casted.
Is this supposed to be a joke?

And, anyway, Leap Attack is not in TOB - it's in Complete Adventurer.

[Peelee]

Ignore Specter, listen to Dale GribR.Shackleford. So long as you're not playing with min/maxers, munchkins, or other similar types (that is, as long as you have a group of decent people), you should be fine with whatever.

[CursedRhubarb]

As others have mentioned 3.5 is a bit more complicated and depending on what additional content they are using there can be far more to remember and learn than in 5e. Some big differences you will notice at character creation is that in 5e all the races only got +1 or +2 to stats. In 3.5 you may get -1 or -2 in one and a +1 or +2 in another. So there is more bite to certain races being less suited to different classes.
In addition, where 5e has your skills simplified into checks based on your different stats 3.5 gives you skill points that you get each level depending on stats/class/race that you use to raise them. Classes are proficient in certain ones and raise at a 1:1 ratio and ones they are not that take a 2:1 ratio so level at twice the cost.

A class that can be a lot of fun is the Barbarian but remember that in 3.5 barbarians can not read or write unless you put skill points into it. It can be awesome to run around with a greatsword and deal crazy damage since 3.5 greatsword crits on a 19 or 20 and 2 handed weapons add 1.5x str mod to the damage instead of just 1x. Rage will increase your strength and constitution so your chance to hit, damage, and health (also -2 to your armor) get a boost during rage which lasts a number of rounds based on stats rather than 1 minute and you don't loose it if you have a round or two where you deal or take damage, but when it wears off you get a negative to a couple stats.

If you play a caster they are very powerful but are a bit more complicated. 5e is basically, you know x number of spells of each level and have y number of spell slots of each level. Use 'em when you need 'em and can trips you can use as much as you want. 3.5 you have to fill each spell slot with a specific spell. For example: If you decide to prepare magic missile once for the day at level 3 you would have a couple 1st level slots and one or two 2nd lvl slots. If you put it in a 1st lvl slot you can only cast it as a lvl 1 spell and only the once that you prepared it, even though you've more slots. Cantrips also have lvl 0 spell slots so you have a limited number of uses of them and you have to prepare them like other spells. No at will casting on them sadly.

Though a bit more complicated it can be a lot of fun. And if you want something hilarious play a wizard and when you can, multicass into an Oozemaster if it's allowed. It's gross, hilarious, and oddly effective.

[R.Shackleford]

Core barbarian with no optimization is not an "absolute beast" at its role.
It gets outclassed at combat by core druid from LV8 onward, and by its animal compaion once Animal Growth has been casted.
Is this supposed to be a joke?

And, anyway, Leap Attack is not in TOB - it's in Complete Adventurer.

The core barbarian is a beast at direct damage when compared to the game itself. Others may do more damage or less damage but the Barbarian outstrips the monsters you will go up against.

The point still stands even if the feat isn't in ToB, you don't need severe optimization for the barbarian to be a beast in combat.




Ignore Specter, listen to Dale GribR.Shackleford. So long as you're not playing with min/maxers, munchkins, or other similar types (that is, as long as you have a group of decent people), you should be fine with whatever.

The only thing I have to add is that my middle name is Dale and you started to freak me out at first haha. Thought you was typing my actual name haha.

But seriously, as long as you stick to tier 4 to 1 you should be fine versus the game with low or mild optimization.

[Specter]

Ignore Specter, listen to Dale GribR.Shackleford. So long as you're not playing with min/maxers, munchkins, or other similar types (that is, as long as you have a group of decent people), you should be fine with whatever.

That's very cute, but the man asked for the opinion of those who have played 3.5, and I've played it for years like many others. The FACT is, get ready for all the homework. But good news for the OP is, since the group has six people, he can play whatever he wants.

Oh yeah, and I forgot magic items. Pray the DM picks them in the adventure.

[R.Shackleford]

That's very cute, but the man asked for the opinion of those who have played 3.5, and I've played it for years like many others. The FACT is, get ready for all the homework.

Oh yeah, and I forgot magic items. Pray the DM picks them in the adventure.

You are using hyperbole and presenting false information as fact. You weren't even presenting it as an opinion.

The fact is that you are wrong. You don't need to read thousands of rules to make an effective 3.5 character.

I really will never believe you on anything 3.5 related even to the point of you playing the game "for years" based on how absolutely wrong you are on simple facts and how you have been shown to use hyperbole to try and scare people.

[Kurald Galain]

LOL. This is why you don't ask on the forum for Game A what to expect for Game B. :smallbiggrin: :smallamused:

[Rhaegar14]

The core barbarian is a beast at direct damage when compared to the game itself. Others may do more damage or less damage but the Barbarian outstrips the monsters you will go up against.

The point still stands even if the feat isn't in ToB, you don't need severe optimization for the barbarian to be a beast in combat.

I do have to say I disagree about core only barbarian to an extent. Crazy ubercharger optimization might not be necessary, but without Whirling Frenzy using Rage can straight-up kill you (since the extra hit points from increased Constitution disappear when you hit 0 and many DMs would ordinarily stop attacking you when you start bleeding out) and having Pounce to be able to move and full attack is a huge quality of life boost. That's core +2.

[Seppo87]

The core barbarian is a beast at direct damage when compared to the game itself. Others may do more damage or less damage but the Barbarian outstrips the monsters you will go up against.
Most of the times you cannot even full attack any relevant [non mooks] opponent because they're either
-Protected by miss chance
-Stealthed
-Too big and grappling/tripping with scores you can't beat (can't get there at all)
-Able to stop you with simple crowd control, like irresistable dance or walls
-Simply out of your reach (Flying when you can't fly, burrowing when you can't burrow)

And what's the damage of a maximized, raging (optimized!) barbarian in 3.5 with Core?

STR:
18starting +2Half-Orc, +5LV +5Inherent +6Enhancement +8Rage
=
44 (+17, becomes +25 with a two-handed weapon)

Greatsword average: 7

25 Str, +7 sword, +5 Magic = 37 per hit
To-Hit bonus: 20BaB +17STR +5weapon +1weaponfocus = +43

With a +42 you can only use so much Power Attack before you start losing DPR, let's say on average -4/+8, for a grand total of 45 damage per hit, at a +39 bonus to-hit (gets lower on iteratives)

Most of the time this single attack is all you will get to make in your round except VS mooks (mooks can easily be full-attacked, except they die and you have to move to the next one wasting another chance for full-attacking, so not ideal either)

And this was optimized.

This is not relevant. A core barbarian is a waste of space. It's only good for cleaving through hordes of adjacent non-spellcasting minions that inexplicably spontaneously surround the barbarian so he can use Great Cleave.

Even in that case, a Fireball would be more effective.

The core barb has the potential in an ideal hypotetical situation to be relevant VS enemies, but it's so bad at avoiding being entirely disabled/avoided/made irrelevant that he'll never express its true potential and even when it does it's not that impressive.

In the mean time, the Druid is rocking the world in Melee AND being relevant OOC.

EDIT:

@ OP
Note that this kind of discussion is extremely common between 3.5 players

[R.Shackleford]

Y'all have fallen into the same trap for 3e and many people have in 5e.

It doesn't matter what your DPR is compared to other PCS. What matters is your DPR versus the enemies your DM throws at you.

Barbarian A could have a minimun 13 DPR and Barbarian B could have a minimum 22 DPR. If all you run up against is 6 HP goblins... Your effective DPR is the same because all that extra Barbarian B DPR is completely wasted.

The 3e barbarian, using just core, keeps up with the game in terms of to hit and damage. Now there are other issues with the barbarian but you can do one thing well.

Unless you think the barbarian is a tier 5 or 6 class of course. It isn't, but you can think that if you want.


Edit

I now want a barbarian class that when they overkill a creature they can carry that extra damage over to their next attack action (but only 1 /turn).

Have an extra damage cap that increases. Hmmm

[Cybren]

Y'all have fallen into the same trap for 3e and many people have in 5e.

It doesn't matter what your DPR is compared to other PCS. What matters is your DPR versus the enemies your DM throws at you.

Barbarian A could have a minimun 13 DPR and Barbarian B could have a minimum 22 DPR. If all you run up against is 6 HP goblins... Your effective DPR is the same because all that extra Barbarian B DPR is completely wasted.

The 3e barbarian, using just core, keeps up with the game in terms of to hit and damage. Now there are other issues with the barbarian but you can do one thing well.

Unless you think the barbarian is a tier 5 or 6 class of course. It isn't, but you can think that if you want.
"Keeping up" in terms of damage is irrelevant when the fundamental movement mechanics are stacked against melee characters, which was one of 3.5s major flaws

[pwykersotz]

Wow, this thread devolved quickly. :smalleek:

[CursedRhubarb]

I was invited to join a d&d 3.5 campaign, the group is level 3 and already has a wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, archivist, and Druid. I have only ever played 5e and I want to know what 3.5 is like, what class should I play? What race? How are the rules similar and different?

Looks like things have gone off topic and into the min/max realm where the fun bus doesn't go because it's such a shady neighborhood.

Dwarf, human, or elf can be a lot of fun but take note of any + or - to your stats so you don't accidentally pick a race/class combo that cuts your main stat. You'll get both feats and ability score increases and feats can be tricky since 5e combines several into a single feat and you'll need to take about 3-4 to get about the same bonuses in 3.5e. think Bout how you want to specialize with skills and plan ahead with skill point buys. Also, there isn't a proficiency bonus in 3.5. Each class has it's own attack bonus scaling and others are more reliant on stats/skill points.

[Peelee]

That's very cute, but the man asked for the opinion of those who have played 3.5, and I've played it for years like many others. The FACT is, get ready for all the homework.

I did not know you could turn opinion to fact so easily.

All dude needs to make an enjoyable, playable character is PHB. For bonus fun, whatever Complete book(s) that deal with his chosen class.

Only power-hungry "I want to win D&D" people, or people who play with those people, need access to a ridiculous number of splatbooks for every conceivable option to be suitably powered for their likes.

As far as what class to play, my answer is always "play what sounds fun to you." A good DM, good players, and a class that sounds fun is all you need.

[Blarmb]

I did not know you could turn opinion to fact so easily.

All dude needs to make an enjoyable, playable character is PHB. For bonus fun, whatever Complete book(s) that deal with his chosen class.

Only power-hungry "I want to win D&D" people, or people who play with those people, need access to a ridiculous number of splatbooks for every conceivable option to be suitably powered for their likes.

As far as what class to play, my answer is always "play what sounds fun to you." A good DM, good players, and a class that sounds fun is all you need.

Fighter, Paladin, Monk and Ranger are imo miserably unplayable out of the PHB. Paladin can feel... tolerable at higher levels in a low-power campaign. Barbarian, Rogue, Bard... playable mostly with just the PHB. Only the full casters feel complete and functional with just PHB.

There are just a ton of ways to wind up flailing about uselessly in 3.5. I've played it the power floor really is that low. It's so low it's less of a power floor and more of a power bottomless pit.

Consider say how things turn out for the 3.5 player wanting to play a fencer sort of character and taking the most obvious options for a Fighter with a Rapier and light armor and how it contrasts with the 5e player doing the same.

[Seppo87]

Unless you think the barbarian is a tier 5 or 6 class of course. It isn't, but you can think that if you want.


Barb is hardly tier4 in core only.

Equal levels of optimization are assumed by the tier list - however, it takes the entire game into account.
Core Only is NOT an environment with an equal chance of optimization for all classes. It's heavily imbalanced.

In Core only, a druid with Natural Spell and Augment Summoning is at average optimization,
An half-orc Barb with Power Attack, and Weapon Focus is at low OP (the only good feat being power attack)


Looks like things have gone off topic and into the min/max realm where the fun bus doesn't go because it's such a shady neighborhood.

Just because we're talking numbers it does not mean we're minmaxing. In fact, this is as far as possible from it.

I'm trying to calculate if certain classes in Core only have or do not have a tendency to underperform at their intended role. This is easy to measure in 5E, because numbers involved are less and smaller.
3.5 requires longer calculations - it's just how the system is.

I'm not trying to optimize or push anyone into it.
This is the only possible way of determining if something works or doesn't.

I hope this helped you understand better what is actually happening here.

[Specter]

The point is not damage and build contests, the point is feeling useless. If you're a fighter and spent all your feats to be good at grappling, you'd be surprised how a caster can do it as well as you, or better. Or the druid's animal companion (hello Giant Constrictor Snakes). In 5E, no matter what you do, you'll still be comparable in utility to all the other characters.

And then of course, reading. I've only mentioned character options (feats, ACFs, spells, etc.) but, as you've reminded me (thanks), there are the rules. Every single thing has a specific rule in 3.5, and if you want to use skills and mechanics without annoying everybody, you have to learn them. Even the actions players can take can leave you overwhelmed. Just look at the font size and the multiple columns and the number of pages on the Player's Handbook alone. That means more stuff to read. The whole 5E design philosophy of "streamlining" the game and "bringing in new players" meant to erradicate that. Or are these not facts too?

Now, case studies. Feel free to just say I've had a few bad experiences, but if I've had them, others may.
1) I've DMed a table for four players: a fighter, a barbarian, a wizard, and a cleric. The cleric was a newbie, having never player D&D. All the other guys were full-on optimized. The cleric was just happily choosing whatever he pleased from the Player's Handbook spells, flying in combat and healing sometimes.
All the others players were totally mad at him, because he wasn't "actively helping the party" and "evading himself in combat". It came to the point of sending the guy tips on what to do with his character at work, and he eventually left the party. The group's fighter, on the other hand, felt like changing his character after a few sessions even with optimization because a) he was almost useless when facing casters and b) not measuring up to the barb's damage and wiz's control options AND damage (with all the Maximize and Heighten shenanigans).

2) A few months back, me and four friends played were playing a campaign, that might even come back soon: me as a ranger/scout, guy 1 as monk, and guy 2 as a mystic theurge (cleric/wiz multiclass, if I recall). So basically I found traps some traps, tracked and dealt damage, the monk was a worse version of me, and the MT did everything else (transportation, battle control, divination, healing, reviving, etcetcetc) along with damage. Most of the solutions I could bring to the table were outshined by spells or Diplomacy provided by him, too. And to deal good damage, I had to do my own investigation on how to do it in forums and supplements and such. No, PHB doesn't cut it.
Do I look forward to playing that again? Not too much.

And these are the worst feelings you can get on a RPG table: that your character, despite your efforts, is lacking, and you're "playing wrong".

In short, I believe those who thrive at 3.5 are either powergamers, or people who want absolute detail about everything. I'm neither, but if OP is or doesn't care, good for him, 'cause I can't tell anybody how to spend a good Saturday night.

Peace out.

[Waazraath]

I was invited to join a d&d 3.5 campaign, the group is level 3 and already has a wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, archivist, and Druid. I have only ever played 5e and I want to know what 3.5 is like, what class should I play? What race? How are the rules similar and different?

This cannot be answered without knowing at what levels the campaign will take place, and what the optimization level will be (though that one is a bit difficult to determine). If the campaign is level 1-8 and there isn't much optimization, no worries pick what you like and you'll be fine (though the druid will still rock, unless he really messes up). At level 10-20 with heavy optimizers, you need heavy optimization yourself to play the same game as an optimized cleric, archivist, wizard and druid. The realative weaker the class you choose, the more optimization is needed to stay on a (more or less) equal footing.

This is the biggest difference between 5e and 3.5. 5e is quite balanced, and straightforward. 3.5 is much more complicated, has much more number crunching, much more options in classes, feats, spells, prestige classes, and even alternative systems (binding, incarnum, martial adepts, psionics, etc.); due to this (among others), the power differences can be huge. Having all players create a character with aprox the same optimization level is much more important then in 5e.

Both systems can be great, I'm a big fan of both.

[WickerNipple]

...get ready for all the homework...

As much as I don't want to wade into this particular war, this very much is true. Even 3.5's staunch defenders have to immediately start talking about class tiers which I'm sure OP isn't even aware are a thing.

Can you play 3.5 just by picking what you want and jumping in to have fun? Yes, you can do this in any game.

Can you do so if you're the sort of person who has any sort of care for system mastery or even system competency? No. Absolutely not.

People who have spent years mastering that system often forget how utterly bewildering it is for new players, how many trap options there are even just in the PHB, and how they learned the system as it grew over time - not having it all dumped in your lap right away.

I suggest you take your cues from the party. Tell them what kind of character you want to play and let them make/help you make it. You will grok the basics if you've played 5, but if you want to actually get into 3.5, then "get ready for the homework" is indeed true.

[Peelee]

Lots

Aha. It looks like we agree on principle, but disagree on execution. Which is understandable.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I was invited to join a d&d 3.5 campaign, the group is level 3 and already has a wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, archivist, and Druid. I have only ever played 5e and I want to know what 3.5 is like, what class should I play? What race? How are the rules similar and different?Step 1: Follow Kurald's advice and go to the 3.5 forum, because you're going to get infinitely better and more factual advice about 3.5 from people who actually play it than people who just want to rant about it here.
Step 2: Be prepared to offer very concrete specifics about the game, like level, books/material available/allowed, how you're generating abilities, expected wealth of the character, variants in use, house rules in use, and any character concept you're interested in. You should probably be asking these sorts of things at any new table you go to, in any edition of D&D.
Step 3: Ask them to keep it simple and cite their book sources. Some of them will comply with this. Ignore the others.

With those three steps, you should be fine, though it really does help to have a concept in mind; otherwise the posters are just going to give you their own pet PC idea.

In general, your party is pretty well-covered, which means you can do what you want. A social character like a Bard might fill in certain gaps.

[NecroDancer]

This is a low power "casual" campaign, with that said after going through some splat books I have decided on the Sorcerer (Kobold because I think it's funny) I do want to thank you all for helping me understand 3.5 rules.

[Knaight]

Step 1: Follow Kurald's advice and go to the 3.5 forum, because you're going to get infinitely better and more factual advice about 3.5 from people who actually play it than people who just want to rant about it here.

The people here have also generally played it - you're just going to get advise that is biased towards 3.5 over 5e instead of vice versa; it won't be any more accurate.

[Theodoxus]

This is a low power "casual" campaign, with that said after going through some splat books I have decided on the Sorcerer (Kobold because I think it's funny) I do want to thank you all for helping me understand 3.5 rules.

Groovy. Just don't get the sads when it isn't fun. ;)

Seriously though, convert the fellows to 5E - who wants to play a 15 years old game when they can play a 5 year old one! Woot!

[Knaight]

Groovy. Just don't get the sads when it isn't fun. ;)

Seriously though, convert the fellows to 5E - who wants to play a 15 years old game when they can play a 5 year old one! Woot!

Two things.

1) 5e isn't 5 years old yet, it's 2.
2) Age is not a particularly helpful metric. There are some excellent games from 15 years ago and some absolute crap released recently. I vastly prefer 5e D&D to 3e D&D, but I can also list games I like better than both of them for a pretty wide age range that I can push back to at least 22 years.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The people here have also generally played it - you're just going to get advise that is biased towards 3.5 over 5e instead of vice versa; it won't be any more accurate.The people who post on the 3.5 forum, while diverse, tend to be more knowledgeable about 3.5 than what I've read here. And that makes complete sense; I've played a good amount of 4e, but I wouldn't expect to be as knowledgeable about that edition as the people who post on that forum.

[Knaight]

The people who post on the 3.5 forum, while diverse, tend to be more knowledgeable about 3.5 than what I've read here. And that makes complete sense; I've played a good amount of 4e, but I wouldn't expect to be as knowledgeable about that edition as the people who post on that forum.

They're also predisposed to like it, and will cut it huge quantities of slack, thus creating a biased depiction. Whereas here that bias is lessened - the bulk of the people here like 3.5 less than 5e, and while in most cases that still reads as them liking 3.5 overall an actual heavy bias towards it as a nigh perfect system is absent. Instead, 5e gets depicted as a nigh perfect system.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

They're also predisposed to like it, and will cut it huge quantities of slack, thus creating a biased depiction. Whereas here that bias is lessened - the bulk of the people here like 3.5 less than 5e, and while in most cases that still reads as them liking 3.5 overall an actual heavy bias towards it as a nigh perfect system is absent. Instead, 5e gets depicted as a nigh perfect system.I get a very different reading. On the one hand, there are going to be biases towards a game where people who choose to play that game decide to congregate. On the other hand, 3e/3.5/PF have been picked apart and analyzed so thoroughly that the facts about the game are very well established. You can downplay those facts, but to ignore them is to be a noob.

[MeeposFire]

The biggest issue about 3e mechanics for many new people is that many weapon using classes (the vast majority in fact) utilize full attack actions in order to do most of their damage by default (yes you can try to get around that in various ways but let us keep it to the basics which is what a new player is going to do) while non-weapon using classes tend to mostly use standard actions.

This makes some odd situations such as the guy doing complex spell casting can run around like crazy and be 100% effective but the really skilled warrior loses most of his potency for moving 10 feet. It should be the other way around but it is not.

At the lowest levels this means nothing (unless you wield two weapons or the like of course) but as the game progresses without any sort of mistake on the player they will find that fairly often they will lose a greater amount of their standard damage just do to not being able to make their full attack and there are so many ways to prevent a full attack action. One simple way is to be more than 5 feet away at the start of their turn. Weapon user mobility/action economy is a major problem in the game once you start getting more than one attack per round in 3e.

Spells are not just more potent (true in most versions of the game but that is acceptable to most due to their limits in use) but they are also in many ways easier to use. Weapon users are heavily restricted and the game does not really prepare you for it and many weapon using classes do not have good ways around this without a lot of digging (most common answers tend to be Tome of Battle that has access to standard action attacks that are actually useful and charging which at least gives you mobility and potentially extra damage, or a duskblade that can channel spells).

Do note that this issue is mostly limited to 3e in regards to warriors. 2e for instance allowed you to move half your total movement and get all of your attacks in melee, 4e had all attacks as standard attacks so there were no issues with mobility, and 5e of course goes the extra mile and lets you not just move and attack but lets you divide the move up as well. I do not think they really thought many of these "small" rules changes from AD&D would make such a difference but they really hurt classes like the fighter despite the fact that those classes got some more specified abilities unlike before (at least for the most part).

The game can be very fun to play (though personally while I am always willing to play I absolutely refuse to DM it ever again since after doing full level 1-20 campaigns and then DMing other editions 3e requires WAY too much work to get the same level of fun as I could get from other editions with far less planning) but a number of character types really get shafted unless you can get access to a bunch of extra books or the like.

Somebody said bard and I think that is a great idea BUT only if you access to a number of books outside the PHB. If you have just the PHB then the bard is still effective but you will likely be wondering whether you are actually affecting anything in combat much of the time. You will be a force outside of combat and even with basic songs you can influence fights but I have found many people do not feel like they are doing a lot unless they get access to the many bard oriented feats and abilities found in other books that make bards crazy good (anybody saying bards suck do not know about how crazy they can get just by well used bard songs).

If you really want to play a weapon user just decide what sort of things annoy you and we can probably tell you what to avoid. For instance a core only rogue can lose his ability to deal sneak attack damage against a variety of foes such as every undead critter. If you fight a zombie no SA for you. This is in stark contrast to 5e where you can SA virtually anything assuming you fulfill the requirements for SA. So if losing SA like that would bother you I would not recommend rogues. If you do not want to have most of your attacks being negated due to things like moving 10 feet I would not do melee if you do not have access to specialized sources such as Tome of Battle, the duskblade, or the many pieces of charge optimization (though I would caution using that if the other players are not playing with some optimization skill).

There is a lot of variety so it really helps to know what you like and don't like. What do you like in 5e and why for instance? Perhaps we can find a class that is similar in play style.

[Herobizkit]

@NecroDancer:

Sorcerers are actually pretty great, mostly because they don't have to deal with Spell Memorization.

Your other caster pals have to assign one specific spell per spell slot (meaning if they want to cast two cure wounds that day, they need to have it memorized twice) and you don't, so lolz at them.

Being a Kobold is pure candy. Enjoy it.

[Waazraath]

This is a low power "casual" campaign, with that said after going through some splat books I have decided on the Sorcerer (Kobold because I think it's funny) I do want to thank you all for helping me understand 3.5 rules.

In that case, things should work out fine. Here are a few tips on spell selection for sorcerers: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7229

And if you want to go more in depth, or want to make a very stong build, you can check out some of the sorcerer handbooks found here: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=399.0 But I wouldn't bother too much for a low powered casual campaign, cause it might create disbalance. Spell selection is rather important though, since you can ruin a build by picking only spells that are very situational useful. The remark about weapon using classes in 3.5 is correct and takes a lot of system mastery and optimization to deal with (though it can be done), but with a sorcerer you don't need to worry.

gl hf.