3.5 is dying?

[Raynorhere]

Every time I log on roll20 and there seem to be fewer 3.5 groups looking for players. The new influx of D&D players are mainly from Critical Role and have pre-formed expectations about what they want in D&D, including the edition. I've tried playing and DMing 5e. It was some of the worst D&D experience I have ever had, but I stuck through for weeks on end, hoping it gets better.

It didn't get better. Heck, it was worse than 4e. :smallfurious:

I love 3.5. It is the best edition by a mile, and I don't understand why people would play 5e, but there doesn't seem to be any new influx of players for 3.5. Siiiiiigh. Is it time to let it go? I'm just so sad. :smallsigh:

[Nifft]

3.5e is up on the roof, and she won't come down.

[Kish]

Lots of people still play 3.5. You can see that from this forum.

Fewer, proportionally, than before other editions came out, of course; 4ed and then 5ed split the playerbase. But that's not a reason for you to stop playing it, unless what you want is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[gogogome]

Hardcore people play 3.5
Casual people play 5e.

There are more casual players than hardcore players so there are less 3.5 players.

That doesn't mean 3.5 is dying. I've seen lots of players upgrade to 3.5 from 5e.

[Scowling Dragon]

Dying but won't DIE. Casual players will always be more attached to whats the latest trend.

But 3e has its own devoted and deserving fanbase build up. I highly doubt it will ever die, but a shrink in size is expected.

[jdizzlean]

online there are more 5e games, IRL at an actual table the way the game is meant to be played i'm sure there are far more 3.5 games in existence than other editions.

[Falontani]

Join a 5e game to find the like minded individuals that somehow missed 3.5. Get them interested in 3.5. Convert characters from 5e to 3.5. Boom. New 3.5 game

[denthor]

Think of it as a car. 3.5 is better then pathfinder but pathfinder came out after. So the push for game shops to sell to stay in business was to push what is available. Pathfinder does not trigger D&D push back oh I am playing pathfinder parents do not get it is D&D.

I was offered free books. I said bet you it is 4th I was right. 5th had just come out 4th sucks. But hundreds of thousands were sold.

5th came out. Store to stay in business get deals started 5th edition games.

Meanwhile 3.5 is no longer ordered or produced. Old car now you are scavenging for parts.

I know 3.5 is over what 10 years old? So it gets harder. I like 2e but my books got stolen. My fault had them in a computer case. In the back of my convertible. No more 2e for can not replace.

[Kurald Galain]

I love 3.5. It is the best edition by a mile, and I don't understand why people would play 5e, but there doesn't seem to be any new influx of players for 3.5. Siiiiiigh. Is it time to let it go? I'm just so sad. :smallsigh:

Pathfinder has a big influx of new players, you should look into that. Outside of the GITP forums, there's not a lot of people who'd notice a difference between PF and 3.5.

[Uncle Pine]

There are a lot of people who want to play d&d.
There are far less DMs around.

If you're a DM with enough system mastery to be able to guide players through character creation and want to play 3.5e, 3.5e will be played.
Just keep in mind that the above might mean you'll have to ask players for a concept and simply deliver a character sheet and explain how it works. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldariel]

Pathfinder has a big influx of new players, you should look into that. Outside of the GITP forums, there's not a lot of people who'd notice a difference between PF and 3.5.

Well, outside of 3.X forums in general. TGD, MMB, GitP, etc.

[Telonius]

Wizards: Here's a new book for you -
Player: Here's your $50...
3.5: I'm not dead!
Player: What?
Wizards: Nothing! I'll take that $50....
3.5: I'm not dead!
Player: 'Ere! 'E says 'e's not dead!
Wizards: Yes he is.
3.5: I'm not!
Player: 'E isn't?
Wizards: Well... he will be soon-- he's very ill...
3.5: I'm getting better! (:: pulls out a Pathfinder book along with a couple of Spheres of..::)
Wizards: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
Player: I can't take that new one! The maths are all strange.
3.5: I don't want to go to the used book section....
Wizards: Oh, don't be such a baby.

[jdizzlean]

Wizards: Here's a new book for you -
Player: Here's your $50...
3.5: I'm not dead!
Player: What?
Wizards: Nothing! I'll take that $50....
3.5: I'm not dead!
Player: 'Ere! 'E says 'e's not dead!
Wizards: Yes he is.
3.5: I'm not!
Player: 'E isn't?
Wizards: Well... he will be soon-- he's very ill...
3.5: I'm getting better! (:: pulls out a Pathfinder book along with a couple of Spheres of..::)
Wizards: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
Player: I can't take that new one! The maths are all strange.
3.5: I don't want to go to the used book section....
Wizards: Oh, don't be such a baby.

come see the violence inherent in the system!@

[Zombulian]

It's a 15-odd year old game my friend. Of course it's dying. But it's not dead yet so we may as well have our fun.

[Nifft]

.

3.5e has been dead for some time, and therefore anyone who enjoys "immersion" in 3.5e can probably qualify for the Lich Loved feat.

[Zombulian]

.

3.5e has been dead for some time, and therefore anyone who enjoys "immersion" in 3.5e can probably qualify for the Lich Loved feat.

If that's true why do I have so much trouble getting out of bed in the morning?

[Nifft]

If that's true why do I have so much trouble getting out of bed in the morning?

You can only take a single action each turn (standing up or moving out of bed) because you've acquired the Zombulian template.

Also, bed counts as difficult terrain.

[Segev]

I like 2e but my books got stolen. My fault had them in a computer case. In the back of my convertible. No more 2e for can not replace.

...bet that was one disappointed and confused thief.

[GrayDeath]

3.5 has been undead (or in cases of PF implanted into a new and "improved" Body) for ages.....


Doesnt mean its Dead-dead. ;)

[zimmerwald1915]

3.5 has been undead (or in cases of PF implanted into a new and "improved" Body) for ages.....


Doesnt mean its Dead-dead. ;)
Well, PF will cease to be soon. So 3.5 will need a new vessel to magic-jar into if it is to survive.

[Raynorhere]

What can we do to expand 3.5e player base?

Is there anything that can be done? Is this how it ends?

[ComaVision]

What can we do to expand 3.5e player base?

Is there anything that can be done? Is this how it ends?

As a 3.5 player, I've been keeping an eye on PF2. The benefits of playing a TTRPG that is currently in print is becoming more obvious for me, over the years.

[Psyren]

...bet that was one disappointed and confused thief.

On the bright side, the thief might be on roll20 now, trying to get a 2e game going :smalltongue:


What can we do to expand 3.5e player base?

Is there anything that can be done? Is this how it ends?

Go out, make friends, convince them that 3.5 is great, offer to DM for them and prove it. Same with any game they might be unfamiliar with.

[Goaty14]

Methinks the "loose ends" of 3.5 is what is keeping experienced players from leaving (other than ongoing games, but for those of us that aren't actively in games). Loose ends being all of the different modifications and power levels that the single system contains, such as gestalt, and then even those can be modified (ever heard of pentastalt? :smallcool:) and hoo boy don't even get me started on houserules and homebrew!

Even if those didn't exist, the amount of published content is nigh-endless, even if you were to stick to first party (Ever read Silver Marches? Me neither.), which makes truly knowing all of 3.5 a difficult challenge.

[Zombulian]

You can only take a single action each turn (standing up or moving out of bed) because you've acquired the Zombulian template.

Also, bed counts as difficult terrain.

This explains a lot.


3.5 has been undead (or in cases of PF implanted into a new and "improved" Body) for ages.....


Doesnt mean its Dead-dead. ;)

"There's a big difference between mostly dead, and all dead. (https://youtu.be/xbE8E1ez97M)"


Well, PF will cease to be soon. So 3.5 will need a new vessel to magic-jar into if it is to survive.

Didn't the copyright run out for 3.5 recently? I thought I saw some reprints of the books in some shops.
Also has anyone been looking into PF2? Does it look like an updated 3.5/PF or is it more like 5e?


Methinks the "loose ends" of 3.5 is what is keeping experienced players from leaving (other than ongoing games, but for those of us that aren't actively in games). Loose ends being all of the different modifications and power levels that the single system contains, such as gestalt, and then even those can be modified (ever heard of pentastalt? :smallcool:) and hoo boy don't even get me started on houserules and homebrew!

Even if those didn't exist, the amount of published content is nigh-endless, even if you were to stick to first party (Ever read Silver Marches? Me neither.), which makes truly knowing all of 3.5 a difficult challenge.

>insert Snowbluff axiom here

[emeraldstreak]

Yes.

After inordinately long domination of the market, we're finally seeing signs 3/3.5 is dwindling down. It's an edition that will see four major followups (4, PF, 5, PF2) before setting down and amass 15-20 years of being the most played TTRPG. It's a fair assessment to say none of its successors dared to go as high power/complexity-wise as it did. Not bad.

[Kurald Galain]

Didn't the copyright run out for 3.5 recently?
No, copyright lasts for at least 70 years.


Also has anyone been looking into PF2? Does it look like an updated 3.5/PF or is it more like 5e?
Yes, we have a thread about that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554908-Pathfinder-2-Blog-Critical-Success-and-Failure). Notably, P2 promises the exact opposite of 5E's bounded accuracy (P2 says "high level characters can do amazing things automatically" as opposed to 5E's "anything challenging at level one is still challenging at level 20"). Of course, we have no idea yet if it will deliver on that promise. The playtest starts in August.

[2D8HP]

.....I love 3.5. It is the best edition by a mile, and I don't...I love 3.5. It is the best edition by a mile, and I don't understand why people would play 5e, but there doesn't seem to be any new influx of players for 3.5. Siiiiiigh. Is it time to let it go? I'm just so sad. :smallsigh:


Well I first bought the 3e PHB nearly 18 years ago, but I just bought the 3.5 PHB this year, but I still haven't played 3.5 yet (I also bought the Pathfinder Corebook again this year as I lost the first one I bought years ago).

Now this post to a thread that's was started by a 3.5 player asking about 5e may be instructive:



So I am going to be playing in a 5e game soon, and as I'm a player and not a dm for once, I'm trying my best to stick to just phb and not done deep into dmg or mm. I come from a background of lot of 3.5 and pf, so I have a few questions.


Cool.

I've never played 3.5, but I own that editions PHB, I played a lot of 0e and 1e way back, and I've played some 5e which has been fun, so I'll try and answer the best I can.


Planned character concept is a half orc fighter battle master with a maul for a weapon.


Sounds fun, Battlemaster is a little more tactical and has neat options, but it's more to keep track of, kinda like playing a spell caster. Go Champion if you want a "training wheels class".


Setting seems to be very low magic, is this true?


It depends on the DM, but the published adventures I'd call medium to high magic.


Piggybacking on that, how necessary is magic as a non magic class to remain relevant? No magic Mart in every town, but if I don't have a magic weapon am I still able to contribute?


Some magic items can be cool, but you really can do stuff without them.

The only time my PC's haven't felt relevent is during negotiations with NPC's, because I couldn't think of anything to say and it wasn't appropriate to put arrows in anyone.


All numbers are bound in a fairly small range, do low level threats remain significant for a long time?


Not that I've noticed, PC's seem hard to kill early on.


It looks like your total growth is massively stymied gaining maybe plus 5 on hits, saves, skill checks and even ac over 20 levels, between proficiency and asi. It worries me that at level 20 a bunch of goblins is still potentially a serious threat.

Do you ever feel that much stronger? Again from a non caster perspective.


I've only played up to level 11 (a human Champion Fighter), and I didn't feel the PC was weak at all, actually too strong.


Feats being optional, as well as multiclassing, scares me s bit. Dm call but it makes a lot of choices, especially if it's as low magic as it seems, much more relevant and licks you in hard. Some feats if allowed still look like trash.


Most Feats look good, but I'd say going MAX Dexterity is better, with increasing other stats also good.


Traps are not good when you can't get out of them with magic or new abilities.


While some DM's have you roll a Wisdom check to detect traps, most use Intelligence instead.


In what order of importance would you rank the following

Gaining advantage on rolls.
Proficiency in saves.
Proficiency in skills.
Proficiency in tools.
Giving opponents disadvantage on rolls.


Skills, saves, tools, and I have no idea how to have opponents roll with disadvantage.


Should I look to invest in more damage, more survivability, or more in proficiencies?


Just do what you can to increase your "to hit" probability.

Archery Fighting Style is great!

Defense Fighting Style is pretty good


I'm hoping I'm overthinking things, but any opinions or answers would be appreciated.


5e PC's are pretty tough, and most DM's have you level up real fast, so be prepared for that.


So FWLIW here's how to get me to play 3.5 D&D:

Hand me a pre-gen and tell me that I can think of the character as "like" Fafhrd, The Gray Mouser, Kikuchiyo, Robin Hood, or Sinbad.

Describe a scene.

Ask me "What do you do?"

Make it so I can look at the character sheet as little as possible.

Tell me when to roll dice.

If they are rules that you feel I absolutely must know tell me them slowly.

Tell me them again.

Have me use that rule in play right there and then.

Tell me that rule again.

Slowly.

Repeat it.

Do not expect me to remember more than three new rules at a time until I've used them in play, a lot.

Describe a scene.

Ask me "What do you do?"

Repeat.

Do not ask me what "Feat" I want, I don't want any!

What I want is a PC that may:

Shoot arrows

Swing swords

Track

Sneak

Hide

Climb

Swim

Run,

Walk,

Speak,

and

Heal
"Feat" is meaningless to me

"Class"?, "Race"?, "Mod"? "Stat"?

Do not assume that they have any meaning to me that matches yours.

I don't want to play a "Fighter", "Ranger", or "Rogue", I want Robin Hood!

Please don't ask me "What are you rolling?" (5e DM's make me grind my teeth when they do that!), instead please ask me "What do you do?".

When I played 0e and 1e only the DM had ti pretend that they knew the rules, the'79 DMG even said: You are a DM aren't you? Because
As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death.

Please let me play a character like the 0e and 1e DM's did, not a character record sheet like the 5e DM's do!

I want to decide what my PC tries to do, and I want for YOU as DM to decide what happens.

If you ask me what "rules" I'm using, my character doesn't know that, and I don't play that!

Describe the scene.

Ask "What do you do?"

Say "Roll a d20" (or whatever)

Say what happens.

Repeat!

Can you do that?

If yes, than you're way better than most of the 5e DM's, and I will eagerly play another session of 3.5 D&D.

[Scowling Dragon]

If yes, than you're way better than most of the 5e DM's, and I will eagerly play another session of 3.5 D&D.

I just don't think your interested in rules heavy games. Maybe go for FATE or something.

I think you go for a more interactive storytelling perspective. I still would not understand why somebody would aim for 5e if that was the case since its still mainly 3e just very sloppy.

[2D8HP]

I just don't think your interested in rules heavy games. Maybe go for FATE or something.

I think you go for a more interactive storytelling perspective. I still would not understand why somebody would aim for 5e if that was the case since its still mainly 3e just very sloppy.


The play style I asked for and described is how I remember Dungeons & Dragons was played at the tables I was at from 1978 to 1985, and for how other RPG's were played till 1992.

When did the play style change?

In any case, it's just my advice for getting one new 3.5 player (me).

[Scowling Dragon]

The play style I asked for and described is how I remember Dungeons & Dragons was played at the tables I was at from 1978 to 1985, and for how other RPG's were played till 1992.

So as in complete GM fait? Its not even really a rules thing as much as a cultural shift.

So people that implicitly want as little rules as possible make games with no rules where the GM decides all and the sheet is mainly to make you feel better so its short and simple.Why do you even have rules if you don't care about them at all? And this isn't a condemnation. Why do you even bother with a rulebook. Why do you need them at all?

[Nifft]

When did the play style change?

The play style has been changing since the day the first person read the game instead of being introduced to it personally by Gygax & friends.

Evidence for this can be seen in Gygax's astonishment at how strangers expected the game to be played, when he met them at his first invitational tournament.


IMHO each edition has tried to bring the rules into better harmony with how players seemed to be playing at the time. The writers weren't always correct about how everybody actually played, but you can see a record of how the previous edition was perceived, including which flaws needed most urgent correction, in each new edition.

[Raynorhere]

As much as I'd like to piggyback on PF2, I don't think I'd enjoy PF2's critical success/fail mechanic.

[Uncle Pine]

What can we do to expand 3.5e player base?

Is there anything that can be done? Is this how it ends?
Offer to be the best DM you can be, then deliver on that promise. There are enough of us to have fun on an internet board and I don't think a campaign of proselitism is necessary at this stage or will ever be: 10 years from now, in a room full of friends who've never played but would like to try, I'll still use 3.5e if I'm to DM because I can freely do anything from low to high fantasy to anime space opera in it. If one of those friends instead offered to guide us through something I'm completely unfamiliar with like say, Shadowrun, or even 5e, I'd go with the flow.

Ultimately, a gaming system is a mean to the end of delivering fun and any other mixture of emotions of your choice. If someone wants to go through the ordeal of learning to GM another system he's welcome to do it, but it won't be me. :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

As much as I'd like to piggyback on PF2, I don't think I'd enjoy PF2's critical success/fail mechanic.

Why is that?

I know critical failures have a bad reputation, but that is because of DMs houseruling to make a natural one something like "you stab yourself" or "you kill your nearest teammate". Those were never actual rules. By writing actual rules for crit-fails, Paizo will prevent DMs from making up something ridiculous like those.

[Tvtyrant]

I think dying is a bit strong. 3.5 has less player interest now because it is a very complex game that doesn't do classic fantasy that well (like David Pumpkins it is its own thing).

I remember when 5E came out and I converted my E6 campaign to it, as it was billed as "low levels forever!" The level 6 characters from 3.5 converted over to level 13 or so and still felt weaker and less complex.

This is good for new players who don't want to play a game requiring massive system mastery, but limits the options for people who want to delve into more options. I imagine calls for more complexity will rise and the next edition won't be quite so flat.

[2D8HP]

.... Why do you even bother with a rulebook. Why do you need them at all?


For the art and for some back pain from carrying the thing? Or...

....because for many (including me) a catalog inspires the imagination more than a blank page.

Also for the lists of spells.

And for those who crave knowledge of the odds (and want to argue about them!).


Offer to be the best DM you can be, then deliver on that promise. There are enough of us to have fun on an internet board and I don't think a campaign of proselitism is necessary at this stage or will ever be: 10 years from now, in a room full of friends who've never played but would like to try, I'll still use 3.5e if I'm to DM because I can freely do anything from low to high fantasy to anime space opera in it. If one of those friends instead offered to guide us through something I'm completely unfamiliar with like say, Shadowrun, or even 5e, I'd go with the flow.

Ultimately, a gaming system is a mean to the end of delivering fun and any other mixture of emotions of your choice. If someone wants to go through the ordeal of learning to GM another system he's welcome to do it, but it won't be me. :smallbiggrin:


Ultimately this.

Again to the OP:

If you want more players, do the work.

Make some pre-gens.

Describe a scene.

Ask "What do you do?"..

And don't have that damn "Submit a back-story to audition your character"mess!

Simple as that.

You'll get more players

The more they play, the more interest in the rules the players will have.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I know it's been frustrating the last few years trying to find online 3.5 games. Once the game I DM ends in a few months and the one I play in is done....possibly even sooner than that....I wonder how long it'll take to find a new game. It doesn't help that I'm a bit picky, but gosh do a lot of DMs have houserules that are instant no from me, like critical fumbles....

I hate that the GitP recruitment forum isn't separated at all for "live" vs. PbP. 95% of the entries are PbP, which I have no interest in, but I usually have to actually click each thread and look at the Big 16 before I know if it's even something I'd want. It's pretty much the same as if the edition / game system isn't mentioned in the title.

So yeah, I share your frustrations, OP. I think last time it took me over 6 months to find a game. :smallfrown:

[Scowling Dragon]

For the art and for some back pain from carrying the thing? Or...

....because for many (including me) a catalog inspires the imagination more than a blank page.
Of what? Just buy a artbook. Way cheaper and get a ton more pictures. Or use a random word generator.

There are way more efficient ways of creating a catalouge then creating a rules system for something thats so poisonous to the eyes you want the GM to do it for you and keep it away from you at all times.

[Doctor Awkward]

Describe the scene.

Ask "What do you do?"

Say "Roll a d20" (or whatever)

Say what happens.

Repeat!

Can you do that?

If yes, than you're way better than most of the 5e DM's, and I will eagerly play another session of 3.5 D&D.

Sounds a lot like how I first learned to play 2E back in middle school.

The guy that was DMing at the time introduced me to character building by saying, "What do you want your character to do?"

Then when all of that was sorted and we got to the actual game he said, "Any time you want to do something just tell me what you want to do and I will tell you what to roll."

Worked great for me.

[Mehangel]

Well, PF will cease to be soon. So 3.5 will need a new vessel to magic-jar into if it is to survive.

I hear that Purple Duck Games is making a new 3.PF-based RPG, which will serve as a new vessel for those who don't want to transfer to PF 2 ed.

[D+1]

Is it time to let it go?
No version of D&D has an expiration date.

[exelsisxax]

I hear that Purple Duck Games is making a new 3.PF-based RPG, which will serve as a new vessel for those who don't want to transfer to PF 2 ed.

They are indeed making a ~3.89 game for their Porphyra setting.

[skunk3]

I don't think that 3.5 is 'dying' per se... if anything I could see it surging back in a couple of years because with 5th edition there are a LOT of new D&D players. Even a local newspaper did an article on the rising popularity of D&D in my town. Of course the vast majority of these newer players are playing 5th edition but if they stick with it and branch out they will inevitably learn about 3.5 and learn how much more material is available for it and how much fun it is. I think that the main problem with 3.5 games is that there are way more people wanting to play than DM's wanting to DM. I've been looking for a local 3.5 game for 2 months now and haven't had any luck other than joining a group for one session but quit because it sucked. I've also been looking to join an online game on here and via Facebook D&D groups and I have had no luck there either.

[Elkad]

No, copyright lasts for at least 70 years.

Where "at least" means probably forever.
US Copyrights made in the 1920s are still valid, along with everything after them. You can't even forget to renew, it's automatic now.
Every time they get close to expiration, another extension law passes.

/no finger pointing, I remember my mod warning last time

[Malimar]

3.5e is like six editions old at this point (counting Pathfinder and its two sequels). In the face of so many new shinies, the fact that 3.5 has any fans at all is a testament to its superior quality.

[2D8HP]

Sounds a lot like how I first learned to play 2E back in middle school.

The guy that was DMing at the time introduced me to character building by saying, "What do you want your character to do?"

Then when all of that was sorted and we got to the actual game he said, "Any time you want to do something just tell me what you want to do and I will tell you what to roll."

Worked great for me.


Preach it!

THAT is how to get more players.


No version of D&D has an expiration date.


AMEN, pass the torch!


...I think that the main problem with 3.5 games is that there are way more people wanting to play than DM's wanting to DM. I've been looking for a local 3.5 game for 2 months now and haven't had any luck other than joining a group for one session but quit because it sucked. I've also been looking to join an online game on here and via Facebook D&D groups and I have had no luck there either.


I noted this in the

Is there a DM shortage? What can or should be done? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500951-Is-there-a-DM-shortage-What-can-or-should-be-done)

thread as well.

[Scowling Dragon]

3.5e is like six editions old at this point (counting Pathfinder and its two sequels). In the face of so many new shinies, the fact that 3.5 has any fans at all is a testament to its superior quality.

I kinda agree to that. Maybe not even the best quality per say but its just real good at the whole thing. Its like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Rediculous in premise but somehow it keeps coming back.

[Malimar]

I kinda agree to that. Maybe not even the best quality per say but its just real good at the whole thing. Its like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Rediculous in premise but somehow it keeps coming back.
Now that you mention it, I guess "superior quality" wasn't really the right word. Maybe more like "scratches an itch that none of the others even try to scratch (except maybe PF+3rd party)".

[rigsmal]

I suppose I have a related concern. 3.P is one of my favorite little combinations and I'm concerned that PF players will move wholesale to PF 2e when Paizo stops publishing support for the current PF, further reducing the number of potential players interested in any 3.5e or PF system.

[tomandtish]

Where "at least" means probably forever.
US Copyrights made in the 1920s are still valid, along with everything after them. You can't even forget to renew, it's automatic now.
Every time they get close to expiration, another extension law passes.

/no finger pointing, I remember my mod warning last time

But it is also good to note that the OGL (Open Game License) as written by Wizards is effectively eternal. Technically any company that wanted to can keep producing material that uses D20 rules and is 3.5 compatible (heck, it's why Pathfinder is able to exist). 10, 20, even 50 years from now a company could start producing 3.5 compatible material and publish it with no problem as long as it complied with the OGL.

So 3.5 (and 5E actually) will always be bound simply by supply and demand. If there's enough demand out there, enough people interested, then material wouldn't be a problem.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, just looking at GitP both 5E and 3.5E are full of just about a full page of ''today' posts. The same is true in the Homebrew. And even in the PbP.

I would say the same is true for the local games around where I live in real life.

It has always been 'hard' to find games or DMs or Players...both online and in real life.

It is also the economy in general: The average gamer over ten likely has a pile of 3.5 D&D books, so they can pick them up and use them. But to pick up 5E is an investment of a lot of money, even more so if you feel you 'must' buy the new thing that comes out every so often.

But set the Wayback Machine for 200X. 3.5E was everywhere. You could find huge sections at bookstores like Waldenbooks, Borders, or B.Dalton. Toy stores like KB toys or Toys R Us. Comic shops had them. Wal mart had them. Wizards even had a store: The Keep. And there were a Ton of local gaming hobby shops. And to top it all off, there were a lot of used book stores too.

That is all gone. Most of the above stores are gone. You might find a lone comic/game shop.....and maybe, maybe, you might find a bookstore that still exists, like Books-A-Million, and maybe you might find a 5E book or two on the 'graphic novel' shelf in the back of the store.

And it is unlikely the high point of 3.5E will return. After all, Wizards should release 6E soon, right....

[Quertus]

I like 2e but my books got stolen. My fault had them in a computer case. In the back of my convertible. No more 2e for can not replace.

Can't replace? Just sell the convertible, and buy new 2e books online. :smalltongue:


Is this how it ends?

In fire, and in darkness.

[Doctor Awkward]

I noted this in the

Is there a DM shortage? What can or should be done? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500951-Is-there-a-DM-shortage-What-can-or-should-be-done)

thread as well.

The thing with DMing a tabletop D&D campaign is that is that rules knowledge is only part and parcel of the scheme. For every one part of encounter design, there is about ten parts of creative writing.

It takes a considerable amount of time and sweat to create, out of nothing, a fully-formed cast of characters, a world for them to inhabit, and the complete story of the crisis that will define their lives. Most people can't do it, or can't do it well. It takes far less effort to focus all of that creative mojo onto the life history of a single character, especially when the only thing have to worry about is where they came from... as the present will be supplied by the DM.

It takes a certain something to want to be a DM more than a player. A mentality that is more interested in telling a good story than they are in "winning".

[Zombulian]

Well, just looking at GitP both 5E and 3.5E are full of just about a full page of ''today' posts. The same is true in the Homebrew. And even in the PbP.

I would say the same is true for the local games around where I live in real life.

It has always been 'hard' to find games or DMs or Players...both online and in real life.

It is also the economy in general: The average gamer over ten likely has a pile of 3.5 D&D books, so they can pick them up and use them. But to pick up 5E is an investment of a lot of money, even more so if you feel you 'must' buy the new thing that comes out every so often.

But set the Wayback Machine for 200X. 3.5E was everywhere. You could find huge sections at bookstores like Waldenbooks, Borders, or B.Dalton. Toy stores like KB toys or Toys R Us. Comic shops had them. Wal mart had them. Wizards even had a store: The Keep. And there were a Ton of local gaming hobby shops. And to top it all off, there were a lot of used book stores too.

That is all gone. Most of the above stores are gone. You might find a lone comic/game shop.....and maybe, maybe, you might find a bookstore that still exists, like Books-A-Million, and maybe you might find a 5E book or two on the 'graphic novel' shelf in the back of the store.

And it is unlikely the high point of 3.5E will return. After all, Wizards should release 6E soon, right....

Huh, I guess 5e has been out longer than I usually conceive of it... but they don't even have that much content yet... do they?

[unseenmage]

Wizards: Here's a new book for you -
Player: Here's your $50...
3.5: I'm not dead!
Player: What?
Wizards: Nothing! I'll take that $50....
3.5: I'm not dead!
Player: 'Ere! 'E says 'e's not dead!
Wizards: Yes he is.
3.5: I'm not!
Player: 'E isn't?
Wizards: Well... he will be soon-- he's very ill...
3.5: I'm getting better! (:: pulls out a Pathfinder book along with a couple of Spheres of..::)
Wizards: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
Player: I can't take that new one! The maths are all strange.
3.5: I don't want to go to the used book section....
Wizards: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Funniest thing I'vd seen in a long while.

May I please sig this?

[2D8HP]

2e.


2e.


2e?

AD&D?

Where were you in '92?

I NEEDED YOU!

(nothing but a Dark Future and a World of Darkness to be found in those cursed days)

AFAIKT right now, with both the Pathfinder Society and the Adventurers League, it is the easiest time to see people playing some version of D&D since '83.

I hope it continues.


...It takes a considerable amount of time and sweat to create, out of nothing, a fully-formed cast of characters, a world for them to inhabit, and the complete story of the crisis that will define their lives. Most people can't do it, or can't do it well....


That's very true, but I don't think it has to be that way.

Let DM's be "bad" (simple) again.

No "World's", just some unlit rooms with decrepit furniture, some skeletons and giant spiders.

"In Search of the Unknown" had a lot less content than "Sunless Citadel" or "Lost Mines of Phandelvar" to wade through, and it invited you to DM.

Expectations are too high now, it's discouraging.


Huh, I guess 5e has been out longer than I usually conceive of it... but they don't even have that much content yet... do they?


If you include Adventures 5e has more books than D&D had after four years, but if you don't it has less (Starter Set, PHB, DMG, MM, and a fourth rules supplement out next month), but all the books have more pages than was true in '78.

Seems like a lot, but much of it is just spells and a dizzying number of classes, and subclasses, one of which has a cool name ("Swashbuckler"). There's also a great deal of "races", but not as many as Arduin had in '79.

5e is in a weird place where many players want more AL allowed content, but it already has too much content for many DM's to handle.

Half-Priced books and Endgame are still full of 3e and 4e PHB's but I haven't seen used 3.5 or 5e PHB's yet, so presumably those are all still in use, but I have seen discount 5e "Starter Sets"

[Arkhios]

I'm happy to play any edition from 3.5 to 5th and I'm not ashamed to confirm that it does, indeed, include 4th edition as well (nor should anyone be).

For me, it's the people who have an elitist attitude (meaning: "this edition is the best and the others should not exist because I don't like them") towards any single edition who have driven me away from them from time to time. It's not that I couldn't handle the systems; in fact I believe I have grasped the system mastery of each edition quite well. I might not remember every single page from dozens and dozens of supplementary books, but that doesn't mean I don't understand how the systems work.

I started with 3.5 and would've been happy if 4e or 5e never came. Still, I'm equally happy that they did, because they are both equally interesting systems on their own right without additional baggage from previous — or following — editions. I disagree with the statement that either of them would be more casual than 3.5, because both have their own little nuances that can make them quite tricky (and thus, enjoyable) to play with.

It may be that casual players are more gravitated towards what's the most recent trend, but that doesn't mean the games themselves were any more or less casual than the others.

TL;DR: pull your head out of your buttocks and be more open minded towards games that are different than X.

[Scowling Dragon]

I'm happy to play any edition from 3.5 to 5th and I'm not ashamed to confirm that it does, indeed, include 4th edition as well (nor should anyone be).

Except for the reptilefolk from dimension Q. They know what they did. :smallannoyed:

[Spore]

I've tried playing and DMing 5e. It was some of the worst D&D experience I have ever had, but I stuck through for weeks on end, hoping it gets better.

May I ask why? I like 5e. But I can agree that the lack of support can make the building experience of a character quite dull. However you don't need a feat for every miniscule thing anymore. This and building a (good) character doesn't take up to 10+ hours for me.


Dying but won't DIE. Casual players will always be more attached to whats the latest trend.

But 3e has its own devoted and deserving fanbase build up. I highly doubt it will ever die, but a shrink in size is expected.

A player base that has less and less time to play. Let's talk about my personal anecdotal evidence for a second. We started Pathfinder in 2012 and my first six months were horrible. I managed to build the worst thief I could do and then proceeded to play him 'wrong' (which is weird since in RP there should not be a wrong). My DM was very supportive, trying to shore up the numbers, giving my character direction. But ultimatively the character never became what he should have been.

I then established myself on the "main table" with several characters (one-shots for me, continued story for the others) and it went quite better. That is where I built my first really fun character. We had a side table where my dead druid made space for an uber charger which was the first thing I made that was impossible in any "sensible" RPG. Then my DM pushed 5e, heavily because it cut down his prep time from 10+ hours for each 5-6 hour session to maybe 2. We made characters (that we never used because he moved away).

We then played an incredibly niche German post apocalypse game for another 1,5 years when everything "broke up" for me. I am struggling ever since to find a table that can deal with my wonky shifts. I'll play what they're playing but if I HAVE the choice I will NOT pick the game where I need a minor degree in character building before I can enjoy myself.

If I have to I'll go surfing and rip the first cookie cutter build from any sites and be done with it.

[Scowling Dragon]

This and building a (good) character doesn't take up to 10+ hours for me.

My problem is that its still an hour. Its not thrashing out a character in 20 minutes or 10. Its still allot of time. It falls to me right inbetween being to complex to be simple and too simple to really be enjoyable for complexity.




Let's talk about my personal anecdotal evidence for a second.

Lets not because I have my own anecdotal evidence and it pretty much stands for nothing. I guess Im ne of those "Mythical" 1% of people that spontanously on a magical whim found a playbase of reliable cool dude friends that can reliably meet together for games year after year.
For us with the quality and time, we prefered just about any system except possibly Shadowrun to D&D 5e.

[death390]

I'm happy to play any edition from 3.5 to 5th and I'm not ashamed to confirm that it does, indeed, include 4th edition as well (nor should anyone be).

For me, it's the people who have an elitist attitude (meaning: "this edition is the best and the others should not exist because I don't like them") towards any single edition who have driven me away from them from time to time. It's not that I couldn't handle the systems; in fact I believe I have grasped the system mastery of each edition quite well. I might not remember every single page from dozens and dozens of supplementary books, but that doesn't mean I don't understand how the systems work.

I started with 3.5 and would've been happy if 4e or 5e never came. Still, I'm equally happy that they did, because they are both equally interesting systems on their own right without additional baggage from previous — or following — editions. I disagree with the statement that either of them would be more casual than 3.5, because both have their own little nuances that can make them quite tricky (and thus, enjoyable) to play with.

It may be that casual players are more gravitated towards what's the most recent trend, but that doesn't mean the games themselves were any more or less casual than the others.

TL;DR: pull your head out of your buttocks and be more open minded towards games that are different than X.

i won't play 4th ed as it is, just no, to me. that said as much as i HATE bounded accuracy i have often considered looking more into 5e (i have a few pdfs) but i just don't like the written classes. while i can play a rouge or a wizard i really want to be both, thats why i love the beguiler (arcane trickster or whatever it is called is a rouge/bard not rouge/ wizard) admittedly not really a rouge wizard more rouge sorcerer it is a lot of what i would already pick for spells anyway (missing slight blasting and BFC for mindless). hell if they remade the Shadowcraft mage i would probably at least try it.

that said 3.5 will never truely die unless 1 of 2 things happen. A: 3.5 PDFs/books are no longer availible without massive searching. B: a rpg comes out that wholly replaces 3.5. and i do mean wholly, not like pathfinder that is a 3.5+ if you will. i mean a basic reprinting of 3.5 (with some minor changes to bring wording in line) but even then it is basically 3.5 reprinted so still alive.

[Arkhios]

My problem is that its still an hour. Its not thrashing out a character in 20 minutes or 10. Its still allot of time. It falls to me right inbetween being to complex to be simple and too simple to really be enjoyable for complexity.

Character creation in 5e can be squeezed to 20 or 10 minutes if you want to. But that kind of requires using random tables only (which is actually quite fun).

[Scowling Dragon]

Character creation in 5e can be squeezed to 20 or 10 minutes if you want to. But that kind of requires using random tables only (which is actually quite fun).

Might as well use a pre-gen. and I don't like the system regardless. I stand by my statement that its not rules light, but rules unfinished.

[Arkhios]

Might as well use a pre-gen. and I don't like the system regardless. I stand by my statement that its not rules light, but rules unfinished.

I disagree. 5th edition is quite finished in terms of how the rules function. It just has less fine details than 3.5/Pathfinder. And to be honest, that's a good thing. It leaves more room to explore what your character might be able to do on a whim, because the rules already have built-in mechanics that enable you to do pretty much anything you can imagine: Advantage/Disadvantage on any d20 roll (for those who don't know what that means: you roll the d20 twice and use the better result with advantage or worse result with disadvantage; considering that the DC's are not as ridiculously high as in previous editions, even with disadvantage you might succeed). Just ask your DM if I can do this, and the DM (granted, one that is aware of this freedom to do so) tells you can do it by rolling d20 with advantage or disadvantage (or without either) as is appropriate. A system, like 3.5/pathfinder, is frustrating when it's basically detailed so rigorously that if there's no written rule for something, you can't do it. As opposed, in 5e edition, if there's no written rule for something, you can still try. In 5th edition, "less is more" is very accurate.

On hindsight, that might mean that 5th edition doesn't translate well into video game format. See how I play the world's smallest violin...

[Crake]

If you want more players, do the work.

Make some pre-gens.

Describe a scene.

Ask "What do you do?"..

And don't have that damn "Submit a back-story to audition your character"mess!

Simple as that.

You'll get more players

The more they play, the more interest in the rules the players will have.
[/indent]


Sounds a lot like how I first learned to play 2E back in middle school.

The guy that was DMing at the time introduced me to character building by saying, "What do you want your character to do?"

Then when all of that was sorted and we got to the actual game he said, "Any time you want to do something just tell me what you want to do and I will tell you what to roll."

Worked great for me.


Preach it!

THAT is how to get more players.

AMEN, pass the torch!

That's all well and good for the first few sessions, but I would hope that at least by the time you get to level 2 you would start to have your own understanding of the rules so the DM doesn't have to work double time running not only the world, but also your characters beyond the macro level decisions you make.

You guys don't expect the DM to keep that up forever... do you?

[CMagnum]

I think 3.5 is awesome. My group has been playing for 4 years now, all of us have learned together with a few new additions from time to time.
We played 5e for about 3 months, and collectively (everybody except one unanimously) decided to go back to 3.5
Lots of people say 5e is better because combat is quicker and easier. This is true. It is also one reason I much prefer 3.5. Also, without all of the splat books available in 3.5, I find 5e to be very basic and characters just don't seem to get the unique aspects which I find to be the most interesting part of the game.
We don't optimize to a crazy degree in our group although we have been coming along quite a bit (thanks to this forum in particular), but the sheer amount of choices from skill sets to feats allows us to always have new ideas and character concepts which feel like they are miles apart from the last guy who played even the same race and class combo.
3.5 is very much alive among my friend group, and I hope it stays that way for a long time!

[Kurald Galain]

It's a very good point that 5E is unfinished. During their design they made a big show of the Three Pillars, and so far only one of these pillars (i.e. combat) is developed in the rules, at least developed beyond the cop-out of "roll a die and the DM makes something up". I can entirely understand that the OP, who after all is looking for 3.5 games, is not at all interested in 5E.

[Knaight]

First things first - 3.5 might be declining, but RPGs don't die easily. This is particularly true of any RPG that has ever had any level of popularity; even flash in the pan indie darlings which never had a lot of staying power (e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard) still retain some players. Previous editions of the single real titan of the industry die even less easily, and the relatively large changes between editions just make it harder to kill.

On top of this, Roll20 doesn't actually do a good job suggesting how many games there are total. It shows some small fraction, so unless the total number of games there drops below whatever that small fraction you're looking at is (which would require either Roll20 to basically die or the RPG industry to almost completely collapse) it instead is a better indication of relative popularity. If 3.5 remained essentially static and 5e brought in a bunch of new players and new groups, you'd see the same distribution.

This hypothesis seems far more likely to me than 3.5 dying. It's a huge system with a high degree of proven longevity, and I know from experience that it's not even that hard to find players from tiny indie games from over 20 years ago that said players have never even heard of before. Similarly the glut of retroclones for every edition of D&D including pre AD&D ones suggests that something more recent is likely to be fine. Between these factors, the whole notion of 3.5 dying off just seems ludicrous, at least absent it being a tiny side effect of much bigger problems (e.g. human extinction).


online there are more 5e games, IRL at an actual table the way the game is meant to be played i'm sure there are far more 3.5 games in existence than other editions.

I doubt it - online games are likely a small minority (not least because getting a group together online is if anything harder than doing so face to face - the perceived commitment there is just so much lower), and sales figures are at least a rough proxy for game size, which suggests that 5e has way more games currently in existence than 3.5 does, or even than it did at its height.

[Arkhios]

Lots of people say 5e is better because combat is quicker and easier. This is true. It is also one reason I much prefer 3.5.

I find this to be particularly weird. Technically, what you're saying, is that you prefer the combat to be slower and more difficult? Honestly, I much prefer that a turn of combat does NOT last 5 to 10 minutes per player. The game (yes — even D&D) is about more than just combat, after all.

[Florian]

@2D8HP:

You're funny. Organized play on the level that we've seen starting with RPGA and continue with Adventure League and Pathfinder Society is a great boon and makes gaming possible for a lot of people. You asked what happened that shifted so much from player and gm over to the system? Enough people ended their 2E gaming experience with complains about mediocre or outright bad GMs ruining it for them, so to get organized play going in a matter that each table could feel the same, wherever you are, they moved a lot from the gm over to the rules.

[Luccan]

It won't die completely (I mean, 2e is still kicking around in some places), but I do feel bad for people who can't stand the newer editions. I really doubt anything like 3.5 v.2 is going to come around. I mean, PF tried, but it seems it's also moving away from that in its 2nd edition . I really do think 5e is a fine system and its flaws, which do exist, are often overblown with as prone to hyperbole as the internet is. But if what you're looking for is more 3.5, 5e is not it. Still, 3.5 is/was very popular and while in-person games might get harder to find, online games will probably continue until the last 3.5 fans die. Given the software you can use for online games these days, you can get pretty close to the more complex parts of in-person play with little difficulty (though it's much harder to throw rulebooks at players over the internet, I'll admit).

[Vessyra]

My friends and I have mostly switched from 3.5 to 5e. However, we still have the occasional 3.5 game from time to time. So while I personally prefer 5e, I would be happy to roll up a character for 3.5, should a group wish to play it. This may be the case for many people who have switched; they prefer the new system, but if you want a 3.5 game, they should still remember the rules well enough to roll up a character if they agree.

[Ignimortis]

They are indeed making a ~3.89 game for their Porphyra setting.

I would like to ask for a link to that. Maybe I won't have to work as hard on my 3.PF hack this summer if they're doing something similar to my ideas...


Now that you mention it, I guess "superior quality" wasn't really the right word. Maybe more like "scratches an itch that none of the others even try to scratch (except maybe PF+3rd party)".
Nothing ever does, indeed. I love 3.PF right now in 2018 exactly for not being what WotC ever presumed it would be like in 2000.


I find this to be particularly weird. Technically, what you're saying, is that you prefer the combat to be slower and more difficult? Honestly, I much prefer that a turn of combat does NOT last 5 to 10 minutes per player. The game (yes — even D&D) is about more than just combat, after all.

No idea why a combat turn would take you 10 minutes. I've played with several groups, and at worst a turn would take a minute or two if the player was really agonizing over his actions. Simpler characters could be done as quickly as five seconds for "I cast Grease, here's a template for its' area" or "I attack".

[Mordaedil]

It's difficult to make anything akin to 3.5 simply because it is really massive and was in a middle period between old school hardcore mentality and modern "only bonuses" era.

If you look at how game design works right now, that isn't going to happen until we hit a new paradigm shift to grittier and more rough designs again. A lot of the things people love to complain about with 3rd edition as if they were worts, actually might be what people actually like about it.

I think the only to even come close to competing with 3.5 is to make a class-less system that offers as many choices as everything provided for 3rd (and more!). And that is a huge task to design.

[Pleh]

... the rules already have built-in mechanics that enable you to do pretty much anything you can imagine: Advantage/Disadvantage on any d20 roll (for those who don't know what that means: you roll the d20 twice and use the better result with advantage or worse result with disadvantage; considering that the DC's are not as ridiculously high as in previous editions, even with disadvantage you might succeed). Just ask your DM if I can do this, and the DM (granted, one that is aware of this freedom to do so) tells you can do it by rolling d20 with advantage or disadvantage (or without either) as is appropriate. A system, like 3.5/pathfinder, is frustrating when it's basically detailed so rigorously that if there's no written rule for something, you can't do it. As opposed, in 5e edition, if there's no written rule for something, you can still try.

Dunno what game you've been playing, mate, but in 10 years of running 3.5e, I've never said no to a player only because it wasn't in the book. I say no for a number of reasons, but in every scenario where I would give disadvantage in 5e, I would apply circumstance penalties in 3.5e. It works about the same way.


It's a very good point that 5E is unfinished. During their design they made a big show of the Three Pillars, and so far only one of these pillars (i.e. combat) is developed in the rules, at least developed beyond the cop-out of "roll a die and the DM makes something up". I can entirely understand that the OP, who after all is looking for 3.5 games, is not at all interested in 5E.

Well, they do have playtest content for gaining XP through the other 2 pillars. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/3pillarxp)

Honestly, I'm glad they haven't attempted to codify rules about exploration and social interaction as much as combat. When 3.5 did that with diplomancy, it got kind of borked.

Exploration and social interaction shouldn't be mediated by rules (not like combat is). That's stuff that's best left for the encounter designer, not the game designers (i.e. the people using the system, not the ones creating the system).

Basically, if your 5e game doesn't have enough exploration or social interaction, that's fault on the DM, not Wizards.

[Mehangel]

I would like to ask for a link to that. Maybe I won't have to work as hard on my 3.PF hack this summer if they're doing something similar to my ideas...

Here is a link to the Porphyra wiki (http://porphyra.wikidot.com/) (which also includes links to the patreon page). From what I understand the site is a work in progress.

[2D8HP]

That's all well and good for the first few sessions, but I would hope that at least by the time you get to level 2 you would start to have your own understanding of the rules so the DM doesn't have to work double time running not only the world, but also your characters beyond the macro level decisions you make.

You guys don't expect the DM to keep that up forever... do you?


My experience with 5e is that DM's have you get to Level two very much faster than in old D&D, and each level brings a lot more new "crunch" to learn than old D&D as well.

In looking over the 3.5 PHB, if one wants to play the Fighter class, you're forced to choose a "Feat" at a lot of new levels, which is an additional complexity, and while I would hope that 3.5 DM's (and co-players) will make it easier for new players to learn the system, like we did with 0e and 1e (though frankly Gygax's prose was so opaque folklore was the only way to learn to play, so they're really wasn't a choice), but my experience with 5e has been that new levels and new "crunch" to learn come at a dizzying pace without much at the table guidance at most tables, and while the language in the written rules is more clear than with old D&D there's just a lot more of them!

I blame a surfeit of potential players per DM's for the "sink or swim" culture that seems endemic around 5e for this, and if 3.5 is "dying", it seems to me that by having a culture that welcomes and encourages new players (like existed around D&D in the late 1970's and early '80's) would be a way to turn that around, especially since 3.5 has so much "crunch" to master.

One of the best RPG sessions I ever experienced was a game of Shadowrun in the very early 1990's, because the GM was very helpful and encouraging (and I hate "dark future" settings!), and if 3.5 is to get new players an encouraging and helful culture would help tremendously, including after first level.

Unlike Clerics and Magic-Users, Fighters snd Thieves in old D&D pretty much had the same basic "mechanics" at tenth level that they did at first level (they just had different HP and chances of success) which is not true of 3.5 and 5e, and when new rules are introduced most every level, why would you expect new players to just "get it" after first level?

[Ignimortis]

Here is a link to the Porphyra wiki (http://porphyra.wikidot.com/) (which also includes links to the patreon page). From what I understand the site is a work in progress.

Oh. Yes, very much a work in progress. Oh well, might have to work on my own then.

[Raynorhere]

I didn't open this thread to go into details about my opinion about 5e, so I won't do that.

To the people saying I should go out and convert people: you can't pour out the ocean with a spoon, and you can't cover the sky with your hand. I'm not Matt Mercer and the number of people I can affect is small to the point where it won't make a dent to the shrinking 3.5 player base.

Something like 3.5 v2 needs to happen imo. :smallmad:

[Ignimortis]

I didn't open this thread to go into details about my opinion about 5e, so I won't do that.

To the people saying I should go out and convert people: you can't pour out the ocean with a spoon, and you can't cover the sky with your hand. I'm not Matt Mercer and the number of people I can affect is small to the point where it won't make a dent to the shrinking 3.5 player base.

Something like 3.5 v2 needs to happen imo. :smallmad:

If it does, it needs to be backwards compatible with actual 3.5. Preferably PF1, too. As much as I'd like that, it probably won't happen.

[Telonius]

Funniest thing I'vd seen in a long while.

May I please sig this?

Absolutely! :smallbiggrin:



Wizards even had a store: The Keep. And there were a Ton of local gaming hobby shops. And to top it all off, there were a lot of used book stores too.

That is all gone. Most of the above stores are gone. You might find a lone comic/game shop.....and maybe, maybe, you might find a bookstore that still exists, like Books-A-Million, and maybe you might find a 5E book or two on the 'graphic novel' shelf in the back of the store.

At least in my area (Northern Virginia), those two things were strongly related. Back in the 2000s, they put in a brick-and-mortar Wizards of the Coast store in Crystal City's shopping center. It put most of the DC-area's local gaming stores out of business almost overnight. Those local stores usually operate on a really thin margin, and getting clobbered with what was basically a factory outlet was just too much to compete with. The Wizards store was open for a few years; then they decided to fold. But by that point the damage was already done. Most of the older bunch of owners were broke or bitter and had no way of getting back into the business. It's only very recently that I've started to see any of the old-school sorts of shops making a comeback.

[Arkhios]

No idea why a combat turn would take you 10 minutes. I've played with several groups, and at worst a turn would take a minute or two if the player was really agonizing over his actions. Simpler characters could be done as quickly as five seconds for "I cast Grease, here's a template for its' area" or "I attack".

I "may have" exaggarated a bit, but the difference between length of turns is still there. Especially in 3.P, once you hit certain levels where your combat "phase" consists of multiple attacks with different bonuses and penalties from three to five different sources and then some, turns tend to get pretty much longer than just "I cast Grease" or "I attack" within five seconds.

[Pleh]

I didn't open this thread to go into details about my opinion about 5e, so I won't do that.

To the people saying I should go out and convert people: you can't pour out the ocean with a spoon, and you can't cover the sky with your hand. I'm not Matt Mercer and the number of people I can affect is small to the point where it won't make a dent to the shrinking 3.5 player base.

Something like 3.5 v2 needs to happen imo. :smallmad:

Then make the system yourself. Wizard has looked at the numbers and decided to cast as wide a net as they can with the new edition, opting for less is more approach.

If you want someone to make 3.5 v2, your best bet is to make it yourself (and be careful to make it as original as possible to avoid infringement).

But if your problem is there's no one to play 3.5 with, I actually doubt a sequel would change all that much. 3.5 seems to be a very niche system (even though it was the gold standard for a while). The heavy crunch that makes it unique was mostly ignored and tolerated by the statistical majority of players (seriously, caster/martial disparity is mostly an internet groupthink observation that the silent majority has no problems with), so Wizards followed the market and started streamlining to cut out the glut and reduce the need for places like this to assist in gameplay.

[Spore]

Lets not because I have my own anecdotal evidence and it pretty much stands for nothing.

To be fair, the biggest thing 3.5 has going for it (and Pathfinder in particular) is the SRD.

3.5: Don't have the obscure rulebook with feats for farming XP off of the agony of NPCs? No problem, the SRD got you covered.

5e: You do not have Xanathar's Guide to Everything? Either beg your DM to cough up the info or lack the information.

Even if you start with 3.5 or Pathfinder you have almost every first party book to pick from. (3rd party usually gets banned). If you start with 5e, you have...the PHB to pick from. Which in itself has evolved and interesting concepts to choose from.

But you still have the novice options and barely more.

[exelsisxax]

I would like to ask for a link to that. Maybe I won't have to work as hard on my 3.PF hack this summer if they're doing something similar to my ideas...


It is a crippling 3.PF ripoff (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/238023/Porphyra-Roleplaying-Game). It will go nowhere and gain no traction.

[Scowling Dragon]

It is a crippling 3.PF ripoff (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/238023/Porphyra-Roleplaying-Game). It will go nowhere and gain no traction.

Yup, the design decisions are so...novice. Something I would make up when I was 15.

Arcane archer as a base class? Really?

[Mehangel]

Yup, the design decisions are so...novice. Something I would make up when I was 15.

Arcane archer as a base class? Really?

Is that sarcasm? Because if it is, you should probably use blue font.

[Scowling Dragon]

Is that sarcasm? Because if it is, you should probably use blue font.

Aight. Im not being sarcastic. I find it pretty strange that they would use Arcane Archer as a base class when thats a very core Gish idea, and a oddly specialized one at that.

[Ignimortis]

It is a crippling 3.PF ripoff (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/238023/Porphyra-Roleplaying-Game). It will go nowhere and gain no traction.

Oh, so they're styling it as a stand-alone game instead of a hack or a heartbreaker or whatever those nifty overhauls of various systems are called these days. Eh, whatever. The wiki is rather empty, although the listed changes, all three of them, are kinda ok in my book, but that's uh...0.01% of work done?

[Mehangel]

Oh, so they're styling it as a stand-alone game instead of a hack or a heartbreaker or whatever those nifty overhauls of various systems are called these days. Eh, whatever. The wiki is rather empty, although the listed changes, all three of them, are kinda ok in my book, but that's uh...0.01% of work done?

I posted a link to the wiki, because I wanted to avoid posting a link which could be interpreted as advertisement. The wiki itself has almost nothing to do with the new RPG, but had links on the page that could forward you to actual information on the RPG (such as the Patreon and current RPG pdf).

[2D8HP]

@2D8HP:

You're funny. Organized play on the level that we've seen starting with RPGA and continue with Adventure League and Pathfinder Society is a great boon and makes gaming possible for a lot of people. You asked what happened that shifted so much from player and gm over to the system? Enough people ended their 2E gaming experience with complains about mediocre or outright bad GMs ruining it for them, so to get organized play going in a matter that each table could feel the same, wherever you are, they moved a lot from the gm over to the rules.


No wonder there seems to be more willing players per willing DM's now.

Seems like a recipe to sell more books rather than start more games.


I didn't open this thread to go into details about my opinion about 5e, so I won't do that.

To the people saying I should go out and convert people: you can't pour out the ocean with a spoon, and you can't cover the sky with your hand. I'm not Matt Mercer and the number of people I can affect is small to the point where it won't make a dent to the shrinking 3.5 player base.

Something like 3.5 v2 needs to happen imo. :smallmad:


I sympathize with you and remember your pain.

In '92 the only tables that were easy to find were for Vampire, and I looked long to try and find any other games, only to find tables for Champions and Cyberpunk, with no Swords & Sorcery or Medieval setting games of any kind to be found. It was lame and I didn't play any RPG's again for decades.


...But if your problem is there's no one to play 3.5 with, I actually doubt a sequel would change all that much....


You try to learn to love the game you can play when you can no longer play the game you love.

"No D&D is better than bad D&D" is bogus.

Something close to D&D is better than no game at all.


Aight. Im not being sarcastic. I find it pretty strange that they would use Arcane Archer as a base class when thats a very core Gish idea, and a oddly specialized one at that.


It's a 5e subclass, so it comes "on-line" at third level.

Yes, it's weird when your not used to it, fortunately there's other subclasses to choose.


Now that you mention it, I guess "superior quality" wasn't really the right word. Maybe more like "scratches an itch that none of the others even try to scratch (except maybe PF+3rd party)".


The itch never goes away.

I'd still like to play the game I played in 1979.

Things change, sometimes for the better, often for the worse, so you pour a drink and watch the Rankin/Bass cartoon again, sing again "Frodo of the nine fingers",and await your time to go to the west.

Somethings in my eye..

[Nifft]

To the people saying I should go out and convert people: you can't pour out the ocean with a spoon, and you can't cover the sky with your hand. I'm not Matt Mercer and the number of people I can affect is small to the point where it won't make a dent to the shrinking 3.5 player base.

I guess that's technically true, but why would that matter?

If you create and maintain a group which plays what you want to play, then you are getting what you want.

You couldn't play with everyone else in the world anyway -- time and space constraints, you know -- so there's no reason to begrudge the rest of the world for playing something else.

[Scowling Dragon]

Yes, it's weird when your not used to it, fortunately there's other subclasses to choose.


No I mean thats novice when it could be something like "MageKnight" as a universal caster/ magic user class sort of deal.

Its like having a core class be "Illusion Juggler". Like...OK, I see how that can be neat, but thats not a good constructive stepping stone for character creation.

[2D8HP]

No I mean thats novice when it could be something like "MageKnight" as a universal caster/ magic user class sort of deal.

Its like having a core class be "Illusion Juggler". Like...OK, I see how that can be neat, but thats not a good constructive stepping stone for character creation.


I don't quite get your meaning, if your saying 5e is weird and wonky I agree, but I'd be fine with just three "base classes":


Arcane spell casters,

Divine magic channelers, and

Non-magic skill users.

[Scowling Dragon]

I don't quite get your meaning, if your saying 5e is weird and wonky.

I wasn't even talking about 5e. But the Purple Frog Games PF remake. They plan on Arcane Archer as a base class.


I agree that there should generally be less base classes and reserve them for vital ideas. And I call 5e weird and wonky for a veriety of reasons. I do find it kinda annoying how hard you INSIST that people should play the playstyle that you like if they can't find the kind of playstyle that they enjoy.

[2D8HP]

.....I do find it kinda annoying how hard you INSIST that people should play the playstyle that you like if they can't find the kind of playstyle that they enjoy.


The kind of playstyle I encourage worked well for getting new players to enjoy the game.

Simple as that.

If you've found other ways that work great, please tell about them.

[Scowling Dragon]

Simple as that.

But not really. Your attracting a set of players interested in that kind of gameplay. Its a different viewpoint of character and your capabilities and targets when presented like that.
Its sort of like saying the new Star Trek Movies is a way to get people interested in Star Trek Overall. Well no it got people interested in THAT kind of Star Trek.

I have also had players with no sense of their own characters capabilities end up feeling powerless and frustrated. And with minimal environments getting bored and going back to videogames that replicate about the same kind of experience except much faster.

[ComaVision]

If you've found other ways that work great, please tell about them.

Sure. I've invited people that I thought may be interested in playing D&D to come play with me, and they've invited their friends. They've enjoyed the game so they keep coming.

I still expect them to have a decent understanding of the rules after a while, though I usually help them make their first character. I definitely don't track their character sheet for them.

[2D8HP]

...And with minimal environments getting bored and going back to videogames that replicate about the same kind of experience except much faster.


I just haven't experienced those types of video games, so I wouldn't kbow


Sure. I've invited people that I thought may be interested in playing D&D to come play with me, and they've invited their friends. They've enjoyed the game so they keep coming.

I still expect them to have a decent understanding of the rules after a while, though I usually help them make their first character. I definitely don't track their character sheet for them.


That seems well and good, depending on what you mean by "a while", as in my experience 5e DM's tend to expect new players to effortlessly imbibe an immense amount of rules minutiae in a very short period of time (which given how fast new levels are handed out seems like a flaw in the system to me).

I hope 3.5 doesn't throw new levels, and new crunch at you as quickly as 5e does, but just character creation looks at least as complex as 5e.

The D&D that I remember had simple mechanics for first level characters, slow level advancement, and the game was taught at the table in play, and that worked well for teaching new players.

If the goal is to get new players playing, then pre-gens, mentorship, and slow advancement seems like it would be effective to me.

I admit that simple first level characters will be less entertaining for experienced players, but the hobby won't grow if only experienced players are catered to.

[Quertus]

So, if you want to play 3r, the easy solution is to make friends, teach them 3e. If you specifically want to play 3e online, however, you almost need an existing 3e player base. In that regard, you almost need 3e to be current.


The kind of playstyle I encourage worked well for getting new players to enjoy the game.

Simple as that.

If you've found other ways that work great, please tell about them.

One on one training. Hand them a sheet, give them a scenario, see what they do. Explain what their other options in that scenario were. Show them how to do each of those.

Building a desire to look forward to new features, and learn their mechanics on their own, is a separate issue.

Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish, inspire a man to learn new fishing techniques.

[ComaVision]

If the goal is to get new players playing, then pre-gens, mentorship, and slow advancement seems like it would be effective to me.


My "sales pitch" for D&D 3.5 is freedom of choice in both character creation and in-game. I would never give a new character a pre-gen.

3.5 has way more rules than 5, and is far more complicated. People that don't learn fairly quickly or are rules-averse are not the type of people I recruit for my games.


So, if you want to play 3r, the easy solution is to make friends, teach them 3e. If you specifically want to play 3e online, however, you almost need an existing 3e player base. In that regard, you almost need 3e to be current.


I don't agree that playing online is fundamentally any different than playing in person. I play nearly all my games on Roll20 these days. It works the same way, I invite people and they invite their friends.

[2D8HP]

...One on one training. Hand them a sheet, give them a scenario, see what they do. Explain what their other options in that scenario were. Show them how to do each of those.

Building a desire to look forward to new features, and learn their mechanics on their own, is a separate issue.

Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish, inspire a man to learn new fishing techniques.


That sounds great!


...People that don't learn fairly quickly or are rules-averse are not the type of people I recruit for my games.


How do you find such people?

[ComaVision]

How do you find such people?

Easily? I'm dating one, I'm related to a couple, we all have pools of friends, and those friends have friends. I don't think learning quickly is a very rare trait.

[Ignimortis]

That seems well and good, depending on what you mean by "a while", as in my experience 5e DM's tend to expect new players to effortlessly imbibe an immense amount of rules minutiae in a very short period of time (which given how fast new levels are handed out seems like a flaw in the system to me).

I hope 3.5 doesn't throw new levels, and new crunch at you as quickly as 5e does, but just character creation looks at least as complex as 5e.

The D&D that I remember had simple mechanics for first level characters, slow level advancement, and the game was taught at the table in play, and that worked well for teaching new players.

If the goal is to get new players playing, then pre-gens, mentorship, and slow advancement seems like it would be effective to me.

I admit that simple first level characters will be less entertaining for experienced players, but the hobby won't grow if only experienced players are catered to.

It's a little bit slower, but not by much, and the amount of mechanics involved is greater than 5e. However, I did actually sell five new players on the idea, and they figured most of the stuff out fast enough. Granted, they won't be DMs any time soon, due to the greater understanding required, but they can play well enough.

To be honest, I don't really understand how it could be hard to level up in 5e after you've done all the work for your level 1. Stats - done, see you at level 4; race choice - done, and you won't be doing that again with that character, probably; class choice - done, and you can just choose the same one next level; feats - what feats? variant human, you say? check the internet, if you really can't be bothered; skills - done, and you probably aren't doing that again; equipment - you get a neat little package already. Yes, there's a lot of points to mark off, but it gets easier when levelling up, because you're done forever with half of those.

3.5 isn't like that. The only thing that stays constant is your race, and maybe your class if it's a good class. Skills and feats change often, some feats become available at later levels only, etc. It's a complex game, and this is part and parcel of why some people love it and some other people hate it.

[death390]

My experience with 5e is that DM's have you get to Level two very much faster than in old D&D, and each level brings a lot more new "crunch" to learn than old D&D as well.

In looking over the 3.5 PHB, if one wants to play the Fighter class, you're forced to choose a "Feat" at a lot of new levels, which is an additional complexity, and while I would hope that 3.5 DM's (and co-players) will make it easier for new players to learn the system, like we did with 0e and 1e (though frankly Gygax's prose was so opaque folklore was the only way to learn to play, so they're really wasn't a choice), but my experience with 5e has been that new levels and new "crunch" to learn come at a dizzying pace without much at the table guidance at most tables, and while the language in the written rules is more clear than with old D&D there's just a lot more of them!

I blame a surfeit of potential players per DM's for the "sink or swim" culture that seems endemic around 5e for this, and if 3.5 is "dying", it seems to me that by having a culture that welcomes and encourages new players (like existed around D&D in the late 1970's and early '80's) would be a way to turn that around, especially since 3.5 has so much "crunch" to master.

One of the best RPG sessions I ever experienced was a game of Shadowrun in the very early 1990's, because the GM was very helpful and encouraging (and I hate "dark future" settings!), and if 3.5 is to get new players an encouraging and helful culture would help tremendously, including after first level.

Unlike Clerics and Magic-Users, Fighters snd Thieves in old D&D pretty much had the same basic "mechanics" at tenth level that they did at first level (they just had different HP and chances of success) which is not true of 3.5 and 5e, and when new rules are introduced most every level, why would you expect new players to just "get it" after first level?

if you want to compare classes the fighter is probably the worst to pick, it has the highest skill floor to do anything with one of the lowest power floors (purposely gimped characters count to). Fighters have the issue of they can only do 1 thing so if you don't do it effectively then you are stuck with a bad character, and how to do it is not explicitly obvious. A low skill floor character is probably the favored soul, rouge, warlock. why? favored soul is a good fighter with a couple spells for versatility just picking Cure line and 1-2 buffs is easy enough for new players to do/use and straight forward. Rouge? only "tricky" mechanic is how to get sneak attack: flank/feint, otherwise oh hey i can look for traps and have skills. Warlock is spellcaster lite version, pick a couple invocations and blast people like a mage.


If it does, it needs to be backwards compatible with actual 3.5. Preferably PF1, too. As much as I'd like that, it probably won't happen.

i don't think 3.5 compatible is the right wording, probably portable from 3.5. something like here are several examples of how these characters and ideas are made here, lets say whole PDF. then give a way to port old material over that hasn't been converted. you like incarnum? port it into the new game, psionics? port, ect ect.

[Pleh]

You try to learn to love the game you can play when you can no longer play the game you love.

"No D&D is better than bad D&D" is bogus.

Something close to D&D is better than no game at all.

Strange that you say this, yet lament that you are forced to play 5e as opposed to 2e, as if 2e "is D&D" while 5e "is not D&D."

Dunno what your current group dynamic is like, but I've had more or less the same group since I started college about 10 years ago and I've had other side groups on and off since then.

Almost all my RP games have been over a physical table. The RPs I've done in PBP online in forums tends to be more freeform. I'm not sure how interested I'd be in tracking down strangers online to try to stay consistent to a PBP game as rule intense as to require a rule book. It's enough just to get consistent participation without reaching for the extracurricular activity required in managing an intensive rule system.

That said, if my groups wanted to play a system I wasn't interested in, I'd aim for a compromise where I'd propose we have multiple games going so we could run different systems alternatively. One week, it's 5e, next it's 2e. If they're asking you to become familiar with 5e, it's only fair to ask them to become familiar with 2e. And it's fair for them to say, "no" but it's still worth asking nicely.

You might have to DM the first game in 2e, but if you succeed, they might like it enough that someone else will pick up the mantle.

My point about "sequels are unlikely to succeed" was more about the point that if old editions were what most players wanted, the new editions just wouldn't sell so very well (insert speculation about the woes of 4e here).

[Crake]

You try to learn to love the game you can play when you can no longer play the game you love.

"No D&D is better than bad D&D" is bogus.

Something close to D&D is better than no game at all.

I don't think you understand that phrase. It's not "No dnd is better than bad dnd" it's "No gaming is better than bad gaming", and refers to playing with a toxic group. It's better to not play at all than to play with a toxic group. The system is irrelevant.

[Florian]

@2D8HP:

You're looking at the whole thing from a slightly wrong angle.

3.5E and PF are extremely powerful tools and you can do an awful lot with them, as you're enabled to build nearly any kind of character you can imagine.

How do we learn and teach how to handle the mass of rules and all the fiddly parts? Easy.

If you were a new player to my group, we´ll sit down before the game, discuss certain "high concepts"(*) that you're interested in, talk a bit about what makes them tick, what makes them what they are and how you will want their "look and feel" to be and then I´ll guide you through the process of building the whole character from level 1 to 20.

(*) A "high concept" is the role model or archetype you want to use. That can be "Fafhrd", "A Knight in Shining Armor" or "The Assassin I played in Diablo2".

This serves to teach you the core rules, shows you how interlinked the mechanics are but will also reduce the number of fiddly bits that you'll have to research and learn when advancing your character, because you already have a roadmap of what you'll need. (So, yes, while a Fighter will have 20 feats in total, it´s easier when you know which 20 out of 2000).

This is also how we advance our understanding and system mastery, by making builds, builds and yet more builds, comparing them, doing the math on them and so on.

[Goaty14]

Arcane archer as a base class? Really?

Still probably better than the fighter though, so there's that.

[Mordaedil]

Arcane Archer as a base class means somebody will actually play the damn thing.

[2D8HP]

@2D8HP:

You're looking at the whole thing from a slightly wrong angle....


Hardly the first time I've been told that, except for the "slightly" part that is


...If you were a new player to my group, we´ll sit down before the game, discus...


Sounds great!

I just haven't experienced that with most 21st century tables.

More to the larger point if d20 is "dying" it's because the wind is no longer at it's back without the marketing machine behind it, a marketing machine that is now behind 5e.

In the absence of that mass marketing the way to spread the word is they way D&D and then other RPG's were spread in the late 1970's, by word of mouth and by bothering to take the time and explain things.

[lylsyly]

I admit I didn't read the whole thread, just skimmed it.

I don't really believe Old RPGs ever die. My group plays 4 games a week. Currently running is a Classic Traveller (circa '77) campaign, a very long running (around 18 years) BECMI Campaign,and two D&D 3.5 Campaigns. We all thought 4e sucked, 5e leaves us cold, we do run a 2e campaign occassionally.

People are going to play what they like and are comfortable with. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

[ericgrau]

Agreed if a lot of people are playing Pathfinder then just join a Pathfinder game. It's not much different and the continued support for new content is extremely nice. You might also try 3.PF.

[Doctor Awkward]

Agreed if a lot of people are playing Pathfinder then just join a Pathfinder game. It's not much different and the continued support for new content is extremely nice. You might also try 3.PF.

How frequently and readily do people who run Pathfinder games accept builds made in 3.5 but converted over?

Like say if I wanted to do a Totem Rager build?

[ericgrau]

How frequently and readily do people who run Pathfinder games accept builds made in 3.5 but converted over?

Like say if I wanted to do a Totem Rager build?

3.PF is less common than straight PF but it exists. There are probably much more straight 3.5 games than 3.PF games.

While often higher power than casual play, PF tends to be lower optimization than high optimization 3.5. So a straight PF game is unlikely to accept in 1 player with a 3.PF build. And even more because it's way too complicated to let 3.PF into a straight PF game. But hey there's a lot of new content you can play with too in PF.

IMO look for games in both 3.5 and PF, and learn to play whichever you find rather than making them conform to you. It's not that different of a system anyway. It would be like if you stopped playing Magic the Gathering 10 years ago and now you could only find Modern games. Sure you can't use your old cards, but it's not like the new stuff is a completely different game. PF is basically a failed attempt to fix 3.5 that ended up being a wonderful continuation of support for 3.5 instead. All the original failed "fixes" were minimized into minor changes instead.

[Blackjackg]

3.5E and PF are extremely powerful tools and you can do an awful lot with them, as you're enabled to build nearly any kind of character you can imagine.

This is it exactly. 3.5 is a character generation engine with a game attached. And in that, it is wonderful. Tons of options, lots of ways to fit them together. It's part paper doll and part jigsaw puzzle. But when you start to actually play the game the fact that the options are horrifically unbalanced becomes a problem. You strut out your lovingly crafted character and, more often than not, wind up with the party role of "stand back and let the core-only wizard handle it." Pathfinder feels like a bit of a compromise-- a genuine attempt at better balance, but with far fewer options.

And I dig it, I really do. The character generation game is a lot of fun. But sometimes I want to get together with my friends and play a fantasy roleplaying game instead. So 5e works for me too.

[Florian]

How frequently and readily do people who run Pathfinder games accept builds made in 3.5 but converted over?

Like say if I wanted to do a Totem Rager build?

It depends on how exactly you mean that. In PF, the ability to gain pounce via totem has moved from 1st to 8th level, for example. If that's ok for you, all is fine and you'll even get a more versatile barbarian. If you're only dipping that one level to get pounce, then you're out of luck and most tables will not accept the old totem rager ACF. The same is true with other 3.5 "standards", like DMM persistomancy not being compatible and stuff. Lastly, the changes in classes mean more single class builds and PrC have become a non-issue.


More to the larger point if d20 is "dying" it's because the wind is no longer at it's back without the marketing machine behind it, a marketing machine that is now behind 5e.

Wouldn't exactly agree to that. Outside the U.S., RPG marketing is non-existent in any relevant form.

I rather think that the remaining 3.5E community has become pretty toxic by now and any newbie trying to get in contact will shy away from it.

[Doctor Awkward]

It depends on how exactly you mean that. In PF, the ability to gain pounce via totem has moved from 1st to 8th level, for example. If that's ok for you, all is fine and you'll even get a more versatile barbarian. If you're only dipping that one level to get pounce, then you're out of luck and most tables will not accept the old totem rager ACF. The same is true with other 3.5 "standards", like DMM persistomancy not being compatible and stuff. Lastly, the changes in classes mean more single class builds and PrC have become a non-issue.


Totemist's get Pounce by binding Sphinx Claws to their hand chakra.

I was more concerned with using material and subsystems not present in Pathfinder (I just picked Incarnum as an example because it's my favorite 3.5 system). While Pathfinder was marketed as being fully compatible with 3rd Edition rules, in my (limited) experience it's often felt less compatible with 3.5 rules than 3rd Edition or d20 modern books are.

[Florian]

Totemist's get Pounce by binding Sphinx Claws to their hand chakra.

I was more concerned with using material and subsystems not present in Pathfinder (I just picked Incarnum as an example because it's my favorite 3.5 system). While Pathfinder was marketed as being fully compatible with 3rd Edition rules, in my (limited) experience it's often felt less compatible with 3.5 rules than 3rd Edition or d20 modern books are.

Incarnum and other subsystems like ToB and Psionics have been tackled by 3PP and have grown way above and beyond the original 3.5E stuff, both in quality, material and support.

Again, it depends on your expectations. It´s less Pathfinder than the general mentality of the player base that changed. Most people I know who changed to it did so not for a supported 3.5E, but because they wanted to get away from the madness that 3.5E developed into and a far less accepting of certain practices, like for example, dipping to get pounce early.

[Doctor Awkward]

Incarnum and other subsystems like ToB and Psionics have been tackled by 3PP and have grown way above and beyond the original 3.5E stuff, both in quality, material and support.

Again, it depends on your expectations. It´s less Pathfinder than the general mentality of the player base that changed. Most people I know who changed to it did so not for a supported 3.5E, but because they wanted to get away from the madness that 3.5E developed into and a far less accepting of certain practices, like for example, dipping to get pounce early.

It's the rigidity more than anything that turned me off Pathfinder as the system developed.

The litany of archetypes and scaling class bonuses that discourage multiclassing took me back to my 2e days where I forced my character into the abilities I was given, rather than building the character to meet a concept. I have much more fun with 3.5's modular design system and building my own character, rather than being handed one.

[Kurald Galain]

How frequently and readily do people who run Pathfinder games accept builds made in 3.5 but converted over?
If by "converted over" you mean picking the closest matching archetype in Pathfinder (and PF as a lot of archetypes...) then that's pretty much always allowed.


The litany of archetypes and scaling class bonuses that discourage multiclassing took me back to my 2e days where I forced my character into the abilities I was given, rather than building the character to meet a concept.
That assumption doesn't match my experience: about three-quarters of my PF characters are multiclass. The main difference is that 3E builds usually need to plan 5 to 8 levels in advance to aim for prestige classes, whereas PF builds tend to make those choices when they gain a level. This makes PF builds more flexible, not less.

[Nightcanon]

I guess that's technically true, but why would that matter?

If you create and maintain a group which plays what you want to play, then you are getting what you want.

You couldn't play with everyone else in the world anyway -- time and space constraints, you know -- so there's no reason to begrudge the rest of the world for playing something else.

Exactly this. If one wants to play 3.5e, all one needs is 2-5 friends, and some of the books. It doesn't really matter if you are literally the only people in the world playing D&D the way you play it, so long as you have fun.

[martixy]

Dying and dead are a long way apart.

3.5 satisfies a niche that very few other things can fill. And so it survives.

I am valiantly keeping the flame alive cuz I like the character building minigame way too much to give it up. And I have aspirations in game design delusions of grandeur.

[Amdy_vill]

you are right. more players are moving to 4th, 5th, pathfinder and soon pathfinder 2.0. really the people who like 3.5 will end up like the 2ed crowd over the next 5-10 years. this is just how the game moves. 3.5 is no longer the most player edition of the game and my question for you is why was your 5th ed game bad for you as 5e is no that bad of a game it is just a different type of game to 3.5. 3.5 is a hard mechanical game were 5e is more built around story and by doing this the hard math that makes up the back bone of the game is more flexibly meaning the best experiences come fore story or when the dm knows the systems so well they bend the math to make epic fights and games. if your more into the mechanical side of things move to pathfinder or keep playing 3.5 but if you dislike of 5e come from a want to stick by the rules then player a e game with more of a story enfaces and bend the rules when it makes a better story. i have been playing that same 5e game for almost 2 years now and my character is more powerful then most 20th level 3.5 characters i have see and that is because my DM understands the math of 5e and knows who to bend the game into a story were we both get great power and a great story. 3.5 is a great system but a lot of the new players getting into the game want a story driven game like critical role so they go to the best version of D&D for that out of the box. if you like 3.5 play all you want but each version of D&D is very different and built to do very different types of games. 1E and 2e are great games of a down to earth survival game that has you slowly build up to god hood, 3/3.5 is a great mechanical engaging system with great depth and unmasterable complexity, 4 is a competitive game and 5 is a bare bones story telling system that will the skill of knowing the math lets you weave stories children only dream of. i hope you found this to be helpful

[Amdy_vill]

Hardcore people play 3.5
Casual people play 5e.

There are more casual players than hardcore players so there are less 3.5 players.

That doesn't mean 3.5 is dying. I've seen lots of players upgrade to 3.5 from 5e.

i feel hardcore and casual are not right here these editions offers two different types of game. 3.5 is a mechanical game so i lends its-self to people who like that but 5e is built around stories and well out of the box the game is not that good that is the point to give the DM the control to weave epic stories. this means most of the depth comes out of the DM's understanding of the math and how to bend it and make a great game. to me this sounds like a much harder system for the DM and an easier system for players where 3.5 is built to be harder for players and easier for dMs this make the two games run and do vary different thing and means that what is hard core for one side is easier for the other in each edition.

[Quertus]

I rather think that the remaining 3.5E community has become pretty toxic by now and any newbie trying to get in contact will shy away from it.

Can you explain this? What makes 3.5 toxic (IYO), and what would it take to remove that toxicity?


It's the rigidity more than anything that turned me off Pathfinder as the system developed.

The litany of archetypes and scaling class bonuses that discourage multiclassing took me back to my 2e days where I forced my character into the abilities I was given, rather than building the character to meet a concept. I have much more fun with 3.5's modular design system and building my own character, rather than being handed one.


That assumption doesn't match my experience: about three-quarters of my PF characters are multiclass. The main difference is that 3E builds usually need to plan 5 to 8 levels in advance to aim for prestige classes, whereas PF builds tend to make those choices when they gain a level. This makes PF builds more flexible, not less.

Hmmm... I mean, 3e all but encourages dips (but discourages multiple classes of disparate levels), whereas my understanding was, PF's strong capstones encourages going the distance with a single class.

Now, personally, I like 2e's "pick class, done", over 3e's "plan out 20 levels before you start to play at 1st, or you're boned" design.

(EDIT: with the caveat that kits, factions, and especially the Skills & Powers line lets you put as much effort as you like into character creation and customization)

[Yahzi]

Describe a scene.

Ask me "What do you do?"

Make it so I can look at the character sheet as little as possible.

Tell me when to roll dice.

If they are rules that you feel I absolutely must know tell me them slowly.
I started my current campaign with six characters ranging from newbs to old hands. I started them as 0th level peasants. Their character sheets consisted of a blank sheet of paper. They came up with a name and picked a profession from a list of six. That gave them one stat at 12 and one skill at a +1, along with 4 HPs. Then we started playing.

They're 2nd level now and using Attacks of Opportunity and Damage Resistance rules.

[Elkad]

Now, personally, I like 2e's "pick class, done", ...


Wait, people did that in 1e/2e? Past their 2nd character anyway?
I thought the standard was to play a human, take a few levels in a class supported by whatever secondary stat you had a 15 in, and then dual-class to your primary.
Since the exp table resets, you gain a level every encounter until you get close to whatever level you switched at. You spend about the equivalent of a level gimped, and then the exp "wasted" on your prior class is at most a half-level from then on out. If you only took a couple levels, it just disappears into the noise.

9 levels of Druid (assuming you can manage a Int:17 Wis:15 Cha:15) on your Wizard sets you back 90,000exp. That's less than a quarter-level behind on your Wizard from L11 on.
10 levels of Rogue (15dex, something your Wizard probably wants anyway) is 160k xp. Less than half a level, to get an extra hitpoint/level, and the equivalent of 40-ish skillpoints worth of hide/sneak/etc
7 levels of Fighter gets you a pile of hitpoints on your rogue/wizard, great saves, and 2 attacks/round (with Weapon Specialization) so you can beat faces like Gandalf when it's just goblins.

Even if you switch at a lower level, it's almost always worth it.

[2D8HP]

I started my current campaign with six characters ranging from newbs to old hands. I started them as 0th level peasants. Their character sheets consisted of a blank sheet of paper. They came up with a name and picked a profession from a list of six. That gave them one stat at 12 and one skill at a +1, along with 4 HPs. Then we started playing.

They're 2nd level now and using Attacks of Opportunity and Damage Resistance rules.


Awesome!

Well done.

[Blackjackg]

Wait, people did that in 1e/2e? Past their 2nd character anyway?

Yeah, most players did. The kind of powergaming you're talking about did happen, but it didn't become the standard until 3rd edition.

[Elkad]

Yeah, most players did. The kind of powergaming you're talking about did happen, but it didn't become the standard until 3rd edition.

Powergaming is a mindset, not a rule-specific thing. I was powergaming when I was 6 playing Monopoly and Clue before D&D existed (well - OD&D barely existed, but I wasn't aware of it).

Doing it in D&D was natural. And even encouraged by the other players, since it helps everyone "win" instead of helping them lose.

[Nifft]

Yeah, most players did. The kind of powergaming you're talking about did happen, but it didn't become the standard until 3rd edition.

Powergaming was absolutely normal in AD&D.

The powerergamer race was the Elf or Half-Elf, usually multi-classed. Drizzt was born from this pattern, for example.

2e had powergamer options like kits which were mercilessly mined by munchkins. There was a build-your-own-class variant in one of the AD&D books which was banned at many reasonable tables because of munchkin abuse.

Multi-classing was the power-gamer go-to in AD&D, more than dual-classing -- the place where I hear about dual-classing being broken is mostly the video games which came out of AD&D, which have well-known plot paths and globally limited XP, which mean you can cherry-pick encounters to rush through your 2nd class, just play the rest of the party as your main while your real main rushes through low levels, and so on.

That's not optimal if you only control one character, and the DM doesn't follow a pre-programmed plot path which you know in advance.

[VisitingDaGulag]

OPs problem is roll20. I looked at it when it was first getting big and it was toxic for anyone with imagination/build capabilities. "Can I play a high-optimization, low-tier character that fits in your campaign fluff?" -> blocked! Maybe the anti-minmax bias over there has faded, but I haven't had the heart to check back again.


I know it's been frustrating the last few years trying to find online 3.5 games. Once the game I DM ends in a few months and the one I play in is done....possibly even sooner than that....I wonder how long it'll take to find a new game. It doesn't help that I'm a bit picky, but gosh do a lot of DMs have houserules that are instant no from me, like critical fumbles....

I hate that the GitP recruitment forum isn't separated at all for "live" vs. PbP. 95% of the entries are PbP, which I have no interest in, but I usually have to actually click each thread and look at the Big 16 before I know if it's even something I'd want. It's pretty much the same as if the edition / game system isn't mentioned in the title.

So yeah, I share your frustrations, OP. I think last time it took me over 6 months to find a game. :smallfrown:This. All of this. I don't mind critical fumbles, but if players don't want it then it shouldn't be used. All house-rules should be modular so the DM can survive playing without a few.


Outside the U.S., RPG marketing is non-existent in any relevant form.

I rather think that the remaining 3.5E community has become pretty toxic by now and any newbie trying to get in contact will shy away from it.Outside the US, things that the internet expects like freedom of speech rarely exist. But anyways last time I interacted with a brand new 3.5'er was just recently and he was very surprised how welcoming the community was. Granted, that was on this boards' main competition rather than here.

I'll happy answer any questions that newbies have when I am PM'd. All I sometimes expect is rules quotes for specific fiddly bits, so I don't have to crack open my collection.

[Psyren]

Outside the US, things that the internet expects like freedom of speech rarely exist.

Uh, what? It's not rare at all, it's just that the countries without it get disproportionate media focus (for multiple reasons.)



Hmmm... I mean, 3e all but encourages dips (but discourages multiple classes of disparate levels), whereas my understanding was, PF's strong capstones encourages going the distance with a single class.

The capstones are cool on paper, but I would wager the real method by which PF discourages multiclassing is favored class bonuses, features that only scale with the level of that specific class, and rules elements that let you blend concepts without actually leaving your class (e.g. archetypes, VMC, "dabbling feats/traits" like Amateur Gunslinger/Trap Finder/Barroom Brawler etc.)

[Knaight]

Exactly this. If one wants to play 3.5e, all one needs is 2-5 friends, and some of the books. It doesn't really matter if you are literally the only people in the world playing D&D the way you play it, so long as you have fun.

The technical requirements are a bit higher than that - you need a form of record keeping (pencil and paper, digital documents, patch of covered dirt and a couple of sticks where the dirt doesn't get disturbed during the game, whatever), and enough random generators to recreate the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20 (physical dice, digital randomizers, hats with number strips on it, whatever). These are pretty much standard RPG baselines, and 3.5 also needs a battle mat and minis of some sort, with the same sort of minimalist options that I've mentioned in other parentheticals.

Some of these are technologies fairly central to basic functioning of civilizations past the very simplest. Record keeping isn't going anywhere. The actual physical dice might go somewhere, but they're pretty well entrenched and likely to stick around for a while, and other RNG techniques are basically guaranteed to stick around for a long while. As for the mat, there's a whole host of technologies also unlikely to go anywhere. Graph paper appears to be around for the long haul, and even if it wasn't there's a bunch of ways to make it yet more thoroughly entrenched.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't say it needs a mat/minis - you can play "theater of the mind" if you want. It's a heck of a lot more work imo than just getting some graph paper but there are folks who can play chess entirely in their heads too.

[Goaty14]

I wouldn't say it needs a mat/minis - you can play "theater of the mind" if you want. It's a heck of a lot more work imo than just getting some graph paper but there are folks who can play chess entirely in their heads too.

My first group did this, except with a total disregard for positioning. Essentially, everything was done final-fantasy style where all of the players were in reach of the monster, and the monster(s) are all in reach of the players, except for when it wasn't melee.

[Knaight]

I wouldn't say it needs a mat/minis - you can play "theater of the mind" if you want. It's a heck of a lot more work imo than just getting some graph paper but there are folks who can play chess entirely in their heads too.

True - the system fights that though, much the same way chess does. Being able to hold the position of 32 pieces entirely in your head is a rare skill, and while 32 pieces is high for D&D (though by no means never done) the board tends to be a bit more complicated, and path taken matters a fair bit more than in chess, which is pretty much just starting and ending position.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

My way of getting new players to play 3.5 is somewhat unusual, I think: the players are playing 5e, but I'm running 3e. Sort of.

A coworker asked me to run a game for him and his friends, any edition I wanted, and I agreed. After I agreed to run it in 3e, one of the friends insisted they play 5e because of Critical Role and some DM's Guild homebrew he found and so on and so forth, and the rest went along with him, so 5e it was, with a tepid agreement from him that "maybe next game" we could try 3e. But as I started to run the game, I used the 3e cosmology, pulled interesting monsters from 3e monster manuals, built classed NPCs using 3e classes and PrCs, dropped 3e magic items, introduced rare scrolls of 3e spells, and so forth. I just had to come up with some quick formulas to convert numbers from 3e ranges to their rather anemic 5e equivalents, and I know 3e well enough that whipping up 3e builds or finding obscure 3e items is quick and easy during play.

We're playing in the Forgotten Realms, so it was easy to introduce the player-facing spells/items/etc. as "relics from a bygone age" (technically true :smallwink:), and we have a campaign wiki so keeping track of the "homebrew" is easy. Every time the players exclaimed over how cool a spell or monster was, I would simply note "Oh, it's a thing from 3rd edition; yeah, it's kind of weird that they left it out of 5th, a shame really, but don't worry, I've got this," and when players ask how to do one of the many (many many many) things the 5e rules don't cover, I just say "Hmm, looks like they forgot some rules again. But in 3e the rules are [blah], so I guess in 5e terms that would be [blah]." And for lore-dumps on the wiki I sometimes post screenshots of the more detailed (and much better-looking) 3e FR books, which appeals to the artsy folks in the group.

We're about a dozen sessions in, and there's no doubt in the mind of anyone except for the big 5e fan that the next game will be 3e, and I'm even starting to win him over, so I won't be stuck "running 5e" for too much longer. :smallamused:

[Luccan]

My way of getting new players to play 3.5 is somewhat unusual, I think: the players are playing 5e, but I'm running 3e. Sort of.

A coworker asked me to run a game for him and his friends, any edition I wanted, and I agreed. After I agreed to run it in 3e, one of the friends insisted they play 5e because of Critical Role and some DM's Guild homebrew he found and so on and so forth, and the rest went along with him, so 5e it was, with a tepid agreement from him that "maybe next game" we could try 3e. But as I started to run the game, I used the 3e cosmology, pulled interesting monsters from 3e monster manuals, built classed NPCs using 3e classes and PrCs, dropped 3e magic items, introduced rare scrolls of 3e spells, and so forth. I just had to come up with some quick formulas to convert numbers from 3e ranges to their rather anemic 5e equivalents, and I know 3e well enough that whipping up 3e builds or finding obscure 3e items is quick and easy during play.

We're playing in the Forgotten Realms, so it was easy to introduce the player-facing spells/items/etc. as "relics from a bygone age" (technically true :smallwink:), and we have a campaign wiki so keeping track of the "homebrew" is easy. Every time the players exclaimed over how cool a spell or monster was, I would simply note "Oh, it's a thing from 3rd edition; yeah, it's kind of weird that they left it out of 5th, a shame really, but don't worry, I've got this," and when players ask how to do one of the many (many many many) things the 5e rules don't cover, I just say "Hmm, looks like they forgot some rules again. But in 3e the rules are [blah], so I guess in 5e terms that would be [blah]." And for lore-dumps on the wiki I sometimes post screenshots of the more detailed (and much better-looking) 3e FR books, which appeals to the artsy folks in the group.

We're about a dozen sessions in, and there's no doubt in the mind of anyone except for the big 5e fan that the next game will be 3e, and I'm even starting to win him over, so I won't be stuck "running 5e" for too much longer. :smallamused:

But... you aren't running 3e. I mean, I hope your players enjoy 3e when they get to it, but 5e and 3e don't run the same mechanically. You've done some homebrew and conversions that I'm sure your players appreciate for variety, but none of this guarantees they'll like the actual mechanics they have to play with in a 3e game.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

But... you aren't running 3e. I mean, I hope your players enjoy 3e when they get to it, but 5e and 3e don't run the same mechanically. You've done some homebrew and conversions that I'm sure your players appreciate for variety, but none of this guarantees they'll like the actual mechanics they have to play with in a 3e game.

Hence the "sort of" in the first line; "I run 3e, they play 5e" is more a snarky summary than an accurate description. (Though the end result really is surprisingly close to vanilla 3e on my side of the screen, and I might as well be running straight 3e half the time for all the rules gaps in 5e one has to fill :smallwink:).

The major difference between 3e and 5e lies as much in their two different philosophies as in the mechanics themselves. New players don't want to try 5e over 3e because of the differences in the proficiency system and multiclassing rules, they want to do that because the internet says that 5e is new and has cool stuff and you can make anything you can imagine, and also because the internet tells them that 3e is too complicated and has scary math. If you want new players to try 3e, you need to show them that 3e has the "cool stuff" and "anything you can imagine" parts down pat, and far better than 5e does, before you can show them that 3e is just as easy to learn as 5e (and 4e, and AD&D, and BECMI, 'cause the first few levels are pretty easy in any edition) and that the 3e approach has definite advantages over the 5e approach in various regards to get them to invest in the rest.

[Ignimortis]

Hence the "sort of" in the first line; "I run 3e, they play 5e" is more a snarky summary than an accurate description. (Though the end result really is surprisingly close to vanilla 3e on my side of the screen, and I might as well be running straight 3e half the time for all the rules gaps in 5e one has to fill :smallwink:).

The major difference between 3e and 5e lies as much in their two different philosophies as in the mechanics themselves. New players don't want to try 5e over 3e because of the differences in the proficiency system and multiclassing rules, they want to do that because the internet says that 5e is new and has cool stuff and you can make anything you can imagine, and also because the internet tells them that 3e is too complicated and has scary math. If you want new players to try 3e, you need to show them that 3e has the "cool stuff" and "anything you can imagine" parts down pat, and far better than 5e does, before you can show them that 3e is just as easy to learn as 5e (and 4e, and AD&D, and BECMI, 'cause the first few levels are pretty easy in any edition) and that the 3e approach has definite advantages over the 5e approach in various regards to get them to invest in the rest.

I would sign under every single word of this. You are a beautiful person, Pair'o'Dice. My hat's off to you.

[Raynorhere]

Hence the "sort of" in the first line; "I run 3e, they play 5e" is more a snarky summary than an accurate description. (Though the end result really is surprisingly close to vanilla 3e on my side of the screen, and I might as well be running straight 3e half the time for all the rules gaps in 5e one has to fill :smallwink:).

The major difference between 3e and 5e lies as much in their two different philosophies as in the mechanics themselves. New players don't want to try 5e over 3e because of the differences in the proficiency system and multiclassing rules, they want to do that because the internet says that 5e is new and has cool stuff and you can make anything you can imagine, and also because the internet tells them that 3e is too complicated and has scary math. If you want new players to try 3e, you need to show them that 3e has the "cool stuff" and "anything you can imagine" parts down pat, and far better than 5e does, before you can show them that 3e is just as easy to learn as 5e (and 4e, and AD&D, and BECMI, 'cause the first few levels are pretty easy in any edition) and that the 3e approach has definite advantages over the 5e approach in various regards to get them to invest in the rest.

I am highly amused. We need more people like you in this world.

[Elkad]

and enough random generators to recreate the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20 (physical dice, digital randomizers, hats with number strips on it, whatever).

That darn newfangled d10 is an abomination to both the realm of Platonic Solids and the heart of D&D. My dice bag contains none.

And in a pinch you can get by with a d6 and a d20 instead of resorting to numbered rocks. (rolling a d8 that way does require you to do math twice per roll, but the rest are straightforward single modifier.).
And since a d6 is available in a myriad of boardgames, or by numbering a child's block, all you really need in your pocket is the d20.

Rolling one of those 2 dice yields
d1, d2, d3, d4, d5, d6, d10, d20

Rolling both of them together adds
d8, d12, plus the uncommon d15, d24, d30, d40, d60, d120

With discards and multiple rolls, you can manage any whole number, while maintaining your flat distribution. Of course you can do that by flipping a coin as well.

[2D8HP]

That darn newfangled d10 is an abomination to both the realm of Platonic Solids and the heart of D&D. My dice bag contains none...


Preach it!

There were no d10's, and d20's went 0 to 9 twice, and we'd color in half the sides or roll a d6 with it to see if we rolled 1 to 10, or 11 to 20 as was true, good, and beautiful!

[Segev]

Maybe it's just the people I tend to play with, but it's rare for a D&D 3.5 or PF game that isn't some sort of formalized thing using PF society rules to actually forbid use of the other to get the build you want. It might encourage one over the other, but dragging a feat or even a class from one to the other is usually pretty accepted. We also, mind, tend to have GMs and players who are savvy enough to look at particular builds for relative balance, rather than needing to rely on a "exclude this whole rule set" thing, and are even willing to homebrew things that might be quite breakable in other circumstances for specific builds where they aren't broken. So... *shrug*

[Elkad]

Preach it!

There were no d10's, and d20's went 0 to 9 twice, and we'd color in half the sides or roll a d6 with it to see if we rolled 1 to 10, or 11 to 20 as was true, good, and beautiful!

Yup, when they added the ones that went 0 to 9 and then +0 to +9, I still preferred the d6+ method for years. As the DM it's easy to see if the roll is over/under from the far end of the table, because I can read the d6 from 10' away. Keeps the players honest.
I've pretty much adapted to the 1-20 ones now though. It does make it easy to grab 6 dice in 4 colors for claw/claw/bite/wing/wing/tail

[ComaVision]

I have a lot of houserules for my D&D 3.5 game, as I imagine most DMs do. Mine are mostly all geared around raising the floor on the T4-and-below classes so they work better out of the box. My players aren't really optimizers so it works pretty well. I've also back-ported some 3PP Pathfinder stuff that I think is really good, namely Spheres of Might/Power and Path of War.

I came to the realization today that my houserules are almost equivalent to what Pathfinder does natively with 3PP archetypes. Asides from the work it would take to switch everything over to new character sheets, I don't really know why I'm playing 3.5 anymore.

[Nifft]

That darn newfangled d10 is an abomination to both the realm of Platonic Solids and the heart of D&D. My dice bag contains none.

d10 = the Metric system.

You are America.

[Knaight]

That darn newfangled d10 is an abomination to both the realm of Platonic Solids and the heart of D&D. My dice bag contains none.

And in a pinch you can get by with a d6 and a d20 instead of resorting to numbered rocks. (rolling a d8 that way does require you to do math twice per roll, but the rest are straightforward single modifier.).
And since a d6 is available in a myriad of boardgames, or by numbering a child's block, all you really need in your pocket is the d20.

This is pretty much my point - randomizers are easy. Rejection sampling coin flips for binary digits works for every die (with the d4, d8, d16, d32, etc. not requiring rejection sampling), the d6 is even less likely to go anywhere anytime soon than the rest of the dice*, and even if it does all those other randomizers still exist.

*Plus if you already have them they last approximately forever, as long as you don't lose them.

[Elkad]

*Plus if you already have them they last approximately forever, as long as you don't lose them.

Well, a decade anyway.

My original D20 (bought at the hobby store in 1979 at the same time as my bluebox set, which only came with chits).
For many hundreds of hours of play it was literally the only d20 (and d10, and d%) at the table, so everyone used it.

It's been retired at least 25 years. Not random any more, too many broken corners.

https://imgur.com/pJxvpJv.jpg

[Aotrs Commander]

If 3.5 is dead in my end of the woods, it's only because I have butchered it and combined it's bleeding corpse with that of Pathfinder and my own rules to the point it is now the unholy, spirit-bound abomination that is 3.Aotrs.

Which is not going anywhere anytime soon. Likely never.

(Hell, I probably have enough APs hanging around that at our current progress rate, converted to 3.Aotrs, we have enough to last us until my players keel over from old age and infirmity. Seriously, at an estimated maybe three years per AP...)

But then again, 3.Aotrs is no different to the equally shambling morass of combined horror of three editions of Rolemaster (four is you count Classic different to 3rd) and two of Spacemaster that equally has been slaughtered and reborn under the sharp blade of my keyboard and trots out a few tmes per day; and our RM predates 3.5 by a solid decade...



(For the record, I find AD&D - not my first RPG, but a distant forth, behind HeroQuest, Rolemaster and Warhammer - to have been a very... poor system mechanically; even when I did run it, I mercilessly tore out and butchered every part I found disagreeable (starting with opening up multiclassing and dual classing to any race and burning the racial level caps with gleeful abandon). 4E I will play but would never run; while competant at what it is designed to do, what it is designed to do and what I want from a system are not the same. Nothing I have heard about 5E has ever engendered my interest. I'm highly dubious about PF2, despite much of PF outside of the actual character classes being a step up from 3.x. But then, no game I have ever run in anger (wargames, RPG or otherwise) has not suffered from being hacked-up to my satisfaction. 3.x has probably suffered it more than most, but only because I feel that it has the best engine for me to play on. (For many, but not all paradigms - for the rest, it's Rolemaster.) New for the sake of new is something that doesn't hold any sway over me. So when I find something that works - as the 3.x does for me - I'll use it ad finitum, until/if something comes along which is emphatically better; whereupon that will be used instead. Or, most likely be once again butchered and have it's best parts removed and plastered squirming into whatever system I'm currently using. )

[Knaight]

Well, a decade anyway.

My original D20 (bought at the hobby store in 1979 at the same time as my bluebox set, which only came with chits).
For many hundreds of hours of play it was literally the only d20 (and d10, and d%) at the table, so everyone used it.

It's been retired at least 25 years. Not random any more, too many broken corners.

That's with unusually heavy use and outdated die manufacturing too - dice made of harder modern plastics are going to last longer, and see less use individually if part of a larger set.

[Quertus]

Wait, people did that in 1e/2e? Past their 2nd character anyway?
I thought the standard was to play a human, take a few levels in a class supported by whatever secondary stat you had a 15 in, and then dual-class to your primary.
Since the exp table resets, you gain a level every encounter until you get close to whatever level you switched at. You spend about the equivalent of a level gimped, and then the exp "wasted" on your prior class is at most a half-level from then on out. If you only took a couple levels, it just disappears into the noise.

9 levels of Druid (assuming you can manage a Int:17 Wis:15 Cha:15) on your Wizard sets you back 90,000exp. That's less than a quarter-level behind on your Wizard from L11 on.
10 levels of Rogue (15dex, something your Wizard probably wants anyway) is 160k xp. Less than half a level, to get an extra hitpoint/level, and the equivalent of 40-ish skillpoints worth of hide/sneak/etc
7 levels of Fighter gets you a pile of hitpoints on your rogue/wizard, great saves, and 2 attacks/round (with Weapon Specialization) so you can beat faces like Gandalf when it's just goblins.

Even if you switch at a lower level, it's almost always worth it.


Yeah, most players did. The kind of powergaming you're talking about did happen, but it didn't become the standard until 3rd edition.


Powergaming is a mindset, not a rule-specific thing. I was powergaming when I was 6 playing Monopoly and Clue before D&D existed (well - OD&D barely existed, but I wasn't aware of it).

Doing it in D&D was natural. And even encouraged by the other players, since it helps everyone "win" instead of helping them lose.


Powergaming was absolutely normal in AD&D.

The powerergamer race was the Elf or Half-Elf, usually multi-classed. Drizzt was born from this pattern, for example.

2e had powergamer options like kits which were mercilessly mined by munchkins. There was a build-your-own-class variant in one of the AD&D books which was banned at many reasonable tables because of munchkin abuse.

Multi-classing was the power-gamer go-to in AD&D, more than dual-classing -- the place where I hear about dual-classing being broken is mostly the video games which came out of AD&D, which have well-known plot paths and globally limited XP, which mean you can cherry-pick encounters to rush through your 2nd class, just play the rest of the party as your main while your real main rushes through low levels, and so on.

That's not optimal if you only control one character, and the DM doesn't follow a pre-programmed plot path which you know in advance.

I did this level of power gaming in the SSI Gold Box series. Although I didn't change classes until I got the "capstone" - full casting, full iterative attacks, whatever. My party was, IIRC, Ranger/Mage, Ranger/Cleric, Ranger/Thief... Max 3 Rangers, so... Paladin/Mage, Paladin/Cleric, and Cleric/Mage.

But in a pen and paper game? No.

I mean, a can munchkin the **** out of 2e, with builds the Playground didn't believe existed. But what would be the point? I'm not trying to optimize a playing piece, I'm trying to have a good time with friends, and roleplay a character. Why would Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, ever stop being a Mage?


That darn newfangled d10 is an abomination to both the realm of Platonic Solids and the heart of D&D. My dice bag contains none.

And in a pinch you can get by with a d6 and a d20 instead of resorting to numbered rocks. (rolling a d8 that way does require you to do math twice per roll, but the rest are straightforward single modifier.).
And since a d6 is available in a myriad of boardgames, or by numbering a child's block, all you really need in your pocket is the d20.

Rolling one of those 2 dice yields
d1, d2, d3, d4, d5, d6, d10, d20

Rolling both of them together adds
d8, d12, plus the uncommon d15, d24, d30, d40, d60, d120

With discards and multiple rolls, you can manage any whole number, while maintaining your flat distribution. Of course you can do that by flipping a coin as well.

Multiple d2s only produce power of two results.

[Segev]

Multiple d2s only produce power of two results.

Nonsense. 2d2 can be used to produce a result of:

00 | 0
01 | 1
10 | 2
11 | 3

Or a d4, by adding one to the results.

Add a third d2, and you have a d8.

Now, if you mean they can only produce dice that have power-of-2 sides, you're right, but I believe the "rejection" element just means you "reroll" if you exceed the maximum.

So, for a d10, you'd flip 4 coins, and your results would be as follows:

0000 | 10
0001 | 1
0010 | 2
0011 | 3
0100 | 4
0101 | 5
0110 | 6
0111 | 7
1000 | 8
1001 | 9
1010 | reroll
1011 | reroll
1100 | reroll
1110 | reroll
1111 | reroll

Alternatively, you could have, if they came up one of the last 5, a 5th coin you flip to determine "high" or "low," yielding the following table:

0000 | 10
0001 | 1
0010 | 2
0011 | 3
0100 | 4
0101 | 5
0110 | 6
0111 | 7
1000 | 8
1001 | 9
1010 | 0 -> 1
1011 | 0 -> 2
1100 | 0 -> 3
1110 | 0 -> 4
1111 | 0 -> 5
1010 | 1 -> 6
1011 | 1 -> 7
1100 | 1 -> 8
1110 | 1 -> 9
1111 | 1 -> 10

You only flip that fifth coin for the last 5 results, mind.

You would use the same procedure for a d20, having 11-20 rather than a repeat of 1-10.

[Elkad]

Multiple d2s only produce power of two results.

Right, forcing a discard if you get an invalid result.

1d7 is 3 coin flips (0or4 + 0or2 + 1or2) but if they all come up heads(8) you have to reroll.


Rolling 1d3 would mean you'd get an invalid result 25% of the time.

[Pleh]

Nonsense. 2d2 can be used to produce a result of:

00 | 0
01 | 1
10 | 2
11 | 3

Or a d4, by adding one to the results.

Add a third d2, and you have a d8.

Now, if you mean they can only produce dice that have power-of-2 sides, you're right, but I believe the "rejection" element just means you "reroll" if you exceed the maximum.

So, for a d10, you'd flip 4 coins, and your results would be as follows:

0000 | 10
0001 | 1
0010 | 2
0011 | 3
0100 | 4
0101 | 5
0110 | 6
0111 | 7
1000 | 8
1001 | 9
1010 | reroll
1011 | reroll
1100 | reroll
1110 | reroll
1111 | reroll

Alternatively, you could have, if they came up one of the last 5, a 5th coin you flip to determine "high" or "low," yielding the following table:

0000 | 10
0001 | 1
0010 | 2
0011 | 3
0100 | 4
0101 | 5
0110 | 6
0111 | 7
1000 | 8
1001 | 9
1010 | 0 -> 1
1011 | 0 -> 2
1100 | 0 -> 3
1110 | 0 -> 4
1111 | 0 -> 5
1010 | 1 -> 6
1011 | 1 -> 7
1100 | 1 -> 8
1110 | 1 -> 9
1111 | 1 -> 10

You only flip that fifth coin for the last 5 results, mind.

You would use the same procedure for a d20, having 11-20 rather than a repeat of 1-10.

For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would bother flipping so many coins when you can just buy gaming dice (unless you can't just buy gaming dice). Totally do not see any appeal in this.

Just buy a pair of d10s and roll percentile like normal people. :p

[Quertus]

Ah. Yes, it works if you throw away invalid results.


For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would bother flipping so many coins when you can just buy gaming dice (unless you can't just buy gaming dice). Totally do not see any appeal in this.

Just buy a pair of d10s and roll percentile like normal people. :p

Dice are of the devil. Patients have a harder time freaking out about coins. :smalltongue:

[zergling.exe]

For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would bother flipping so many coins when you can just buy gaming dice (unless you can't just buy gaming dice). Totally do not see any appeal in this.

Just buy a pair of d10s and roll percentile like normal people. :p

People got on the topic of "How do you play a dice game after (specialty) dice have stopped being made?" and coins were brought up as an alternative that were likely to still be in use.

[Elkad]

For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would bother flipping so many coins when you can just buy gaming dice (unless you can't just buy gaming dice). Totally do not see any appeal in this.

Just buy a pair of d10s and roll percentile like normal people. :p

Because I said something about the abomination that is the d10, and then we got carried away running off-topic. Something that happens in a lot of threads I stick my nose in. Free-ranging conversations are the best kind.

And we'd use d20s numbered 0-9 twice anyway. (possibly colored differently per set of numbers or with tiny + signs next to one set)

[Segev]

For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would bother flipping so many coins when you can just buy gaming dice (unless you can't just buy gaming dice). Totally do not see any appeal in this.

Just buy a pair of d10s and roll percentile like normal people. :pOh, I'd use gamer dice preferentially, absolutely.


Because I said something about the abomination that is the d10, and then we got carried away running off-topic. Something that happens in a lot of threads I stick my nose in. Free-ranging conversations are the best kind.

And we'd use d20s numbered 0-9 twice anyway. (possibly colored differently per set of numbers or with tiny + signs next to one set)

You could also theoretically make decks of cards to serve the purpose. Heck, could just use index cards with numbers on them that you shuffle each time.

[Knaight]

Because I said something about the abomination that is the d10, and then we got carried away running off-topic. Something that happens in a lot of threads I stick my nose in. Free-ranging conversations are the best kind.

And we'd use d20s numbered 0-9 twice anyway. (possibly colored differently per set of numbers or with tiny + signs next to one set)

Probably mostly because I brought up the bare minimum technical limitations needed to keep playing 3.5, in terms of hardware, where specialty dice are helpful but not actually necessary.

[Cluedrew]

In a weird way my answer is: "I hope so."

I do not bear any ill will towards 3.5 nor those who still play it. Going back to old faithful makes a lot of sense to me. But in almost 2 decades, have we (the role-playing community as a whole) not learned from 3.X and made something better?

Role-playing game is a pretty wide group and they can't all be directly compared. The divides between 3.5 and 5 are minuscule compared to the divide between D&D and FATE. So other good games have come out that will not replace 3.5. But at the same time it feels weird that some better 3.5 hasn't been created yet. Maybe it is just the type of game role-playing games are. For instance I don't think Minecraft will ever get replaced.

[Scowling Dragon]

But at the same time it feels weird that some better 3.5 hasn't been created yet.

Its like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. You wouldn't think it has the staying power it does but it somehow does.

[Florian]

But in almost 2 decades, have we (the role-playing community as a whole) not learned from 3.X and made something better?

No, because we can´t. It would be easy to look at some dominant market players like Alibaba, Amazon or Facebook and hope for a more or less central institution that would hold our hobby together and somewhat unify it. This makes our situation more akin to the fetish scene.

[Knaight]

No, because we can´t. It would be easy to look at some dominant market players like Alibaba, Amazon or Facebook and hope for a more or less central institution that would hold our hobby together and somewhat unify it. This makes our situation more akin to the fetish scene.

I'd argue that we've made a great many games better than D&D 3.5 (and a great many worse), but the structure of RPGs isn't that of distributors but of artistic works. Much the way that novels hundreds of years old are still worth reading, epic poetry thousands of years old are still worth reading, and in more recent media films and videogames decades old can still be worth watching or playing.

These aren't media that tend to fit the paradigm of replacement.

[Aotrs Commander]

In a weird way my answer is: "I hope so."

I do not bear any ill will towards 3.5 nor those who still play it. Going back to old faithful makes a lot of sense to me. But in almost 2 decades, have we (the role-playing community as a whole) not learned from 3.X and made something better?

Well, that depends on your perspective; from mine - you can't (unless you count (parts of) Pathfinder). 3.x/PF does exactly what I want it to - and the things it doesn't do, I have Rolemaster for (and that's even older than 3.x). 3.5 had/has a lot of flaws, yes (but that's what houserules and stealing bits of Pathfinder are for); but there are, in my quarter century of wargaming and roleplaying experience NO rules ANYWHERE that don't need light to extensive modification for fitness to purpose. (Hell, even MY OWN STARSHIP RULES have a couple of races with house-ruled-not-in-the-book gear!)

I look at rules as nothing more than mechanics - they are a means to an end, not a "game" in and of themselves. Show I only show loyalty insofar as said mechanics are suited to what I do. Which 3.x (or rather, as I call it my case, 3.Aotrs) does pretty perfectly for the fantasy stuff we do most of the time.

So it depends on what "dead" means. I am - at least for the moment - still buying the odd Pathfinder Golarion sourcebook (but really more for the fluff), but otherwise, I haven't bought a sourcebook for rules since 3.5 ended, and I'm not likely to again - something would have to come along that was a quantum leap so far ahead of 3.5 (as it was beyond AD&D) to make we want to expend the effort of converting everything I have (after all the houserules and upgrades and shift over to closer to PF that I did this time last year) to a new set of mechanics.

[Ignimortis]

I'd argue that we've made a great many games better than D&D 3.5 (and a great many worse), but the structure of RPGs isn't that of distributors but of artistic works. Much the way that novels hundreds of years old are still worth reading, epic poetry thousands of years old are still worth reading, and in more recent media films and videogames decades old can still be worth watching or playing.

These aren't media that tend to fit the paradigm of replacement.

That's the trick. We haven't made a system that does things 3.5 does well better than 3.5 does them (aside from maybe Pathfinder, but it's basically houseruled 3.5 anyway). It's just that it does things it was supposed to do at its' inception not very well. For that there have been better games made, I suppose.

[Dawgmoah]

I swapped from 1st edition to 3.5 in 2008 solely due to the fact no one around was interested in playing 1st edition AD&D. To me 3.5 is still the "new game" as I've only used it for 10 years compared to the 30 years of 1st. As long as people come and want to play in the game I'll run 3.5. Nothing against 4th, 5th, (or 6th and 7th when they come out) I just have no desire to buy another 40 something books and rewrite the campaign world again. It will just be time to stop playing.

The slogan of Necromancer Games rang true to me, "Third edition rules, First edition feel." (or something like that.)

I did buy some Pathfinder books, but found it hard to find a game. Last time was.... 2013 or so. And now a new edition out already.

[Durzan]

I swapped from 1st edition to 3.5 in 2008 solely due to the fact no one around was interested in playing 1st edition AD&D. To me 3.5 is still the "new game" as I've only used it for 10 years compared to the 30 years of 1st. As long as people come and want to play in the game I'll run 3.5. Nothing against 4th, 5th, (or 6th and 7th when they come out) I just have no desire to buy another 40 something books and rewrite the campaign world again. It will just be time to stop playing.

The slogan of Necromancer Games rang true to me, "Third edition rules, First edition feel." (or something like that.)

I did buy some Pathfinder books, but found it hard to find a game. Last time was.... 2013 or so. And now a new edition out already.

I'd do a session of 1st edition AD&D. Mainly so I can learn from the experience, but still.

[Cluedrew]

I think Knaight's answer is certainly true. I don't think it is the entire picture, started a thread a while back asking people why they still played/liked 3.5. As I recall it hit 10+ pages. I think familiarity, the amount of existing content and... the simple fact that later editions didn't try to be a direct upgrade are factors. Not sure about the weight of each one though. The art argument makes a lot of sense though.

[Florian]

I think Knaight's answer is certainly true. I don't think it is the entire picture, started a thread a while back asking people why they still played/liked 3.5. As I recall it hit 10+ pages. I think familiarity, the amount of existing content and... the simple fact that later editions didn't try to be a direct upgrade are factors. Not sure about the weight of each one though. The art argument makes a lot of sense though.

I tend to disagree.

Our hobby used to massively influence other, more fledgling industries when they're starting up, most directly video games and then MMOs, but it´s also part of the same feedback circle that needs to go with the times and adapt to new(er) trends that people bring into the hobby. For example, the interplay between AD&D > Diablo > D&D 3E. Or look at the ongoing requests to rebuild certain MOBA characters as player characters and so on. Questions like "3.5E was, great, why didn't they improve on it?" are therefore a bit mood. While you can patch things up, that will ultimately not help introducing new influences and going with changing customer demands.

And it´s still more like a distribution network. The few publishers that make up the mainstream can host organized play, which is in turn a major factor keeping the hobby alive and the companies still floating.