Use 5th edition stuff in 3.5 campaign

[bot]

Hi all
I think it's great with all the new material coming out to 5th edition. We tried playing it for several months a year ago, but came back to 3.5 because we enjoy the complexity and familiarity.

However as DM I'd like to make use of the new books, be it for inspiration for adventures or monsters etc.

So, anyone know of there's any guidelines out there to have in mind when using 5E material in 3.5E?

Thanks!

[OgresAreCute]

Not sure exactly what parts you're thinking of using, but the Tome of Foes at least had a lot of stuff converted from the 3rd edition Fiendish Codex books and the Fiend Folio. For those you don't need to keep anything in mind, just find the stat block in the 3rd ed book.

[Eldonauran]

The only thing I've adopted from 5th edition is the multiclassing spellcaster rules. I strictly play Pathfinder and use some material from 3rd edition that I've personally converted.

[Crichton]

If you're talking about using adventure modules, the back converting wouldn't be too terribly difficult.

- You need to look up and replace the monsters from the encounters, using 3.5 statted creatures for the appropriate CR.

- You need to convert any skill checks or other DC checks to use the appropriate 3.5 skills, etc

- You might want to predetermine what (if any) method you want to use to replace 5e's advantage/disadvantage system. Probably just a +2/-2-ish circumstance bonus/penalty? Whatever feels appropriate.



There's no reason you can't use the adventure modules, with a little work.


Now if you're looking to backport mechanical stuff, like character classes and such, that's a different matter.

[Kayblis]

Drysdan got it right. Only difference for me is that Advantage/Disadvantage is an average 4 difference, so either a +/-4 or keeping the system intact would have the same effect. As 3.5 is a much more complex system, giving a bonus or penalty of 4 is the best course of action, as it also translates well into the already existing modifiers(prone is -4 to AC vs melee and +4 AC vs ranged, for example).

[kalos72]

My group uses 4/5Ed for storyline only. Even our 3.5 stuff is alot of mixed products and homebrew so the 4E/5E stuff is really just new storyline we can utilize.

I do LOVE the look/feel of the new stuff, just dont like the new play style.

[Mike Miller]

As for guidelines, you won't find anything from WotC. They want people to is the newest edition. Therefore, they make guides to convert from old to new. You could look at their guide for just such a conversion and see if doing it backwards makes sense. I have a feeling you would be better off just figuring it out on your own. Some of the suggestions above are a good place to start.

[Crichton]

Drysdan got it right. Only difference for me is that Advantage/Disadvantage is an average 4 difference, so either a +/-4 or keeping the system intact would have the same effect. As 3.5 is a much more complex system, giving a bonus or penalty of 4 is the best course of action, as it also translates well into the already existing modifiers(prone is -4 to AC vs melee and +4 AC vs ranged, for example).



You're right that using +/-4 is closer to the Advantage/Disadvantage. I think I pulled the idea of 2 from my memory of the DMG section on situational bonuses on skill/ability checks:



A favorable circumstance gives a character a +2 bonus on a skill check (or a –2 modifier to the DC) and an unfavorable one gives a –2 penalty on the skill check (or a +2 modifier to the DC).


I think most likely I'd use 4 for Advantage/Disadvantage, and continue using 2 for more general favorable/unfavorable conditions for skill checks.

[bot]

Thanks guys for the quick replies!

It could be adventures that are interesting, but same as kalos72 saying, i love the feel for the new material + also it's nice with something new, as i know everything from all the 3.5 books by now.

The +/-4 for (dis)advantage seems reasonable. That's a keeper.

For classes that's too ambitious for me, but if there's new monsters and items then it might be fun to add with.

[Crake]

- You might want to predetermine what (if any) method you want to use to replace 5e's advantage/disadvantage system. Probably just a +2/-2-ish circumstance bonus/penalty? Whatever feels appropriate.

Many of the circumstances where advantage/disadvantage exists in 5th already has bonuses in 3.5. Flanking is +2, being unseen while attacking is +2 (and your opponent is flat footed), attacking blindly is 50% miss chance, while attacking a blinded foe is essentially +2 (the blind character actually gets -2 AC, and is denied dexterity).

Generally though, +2 is actually the right number to use in 3.5, the system gets many more numbers added to it's dice, so +4 would be pretty egregious, especially since multiple "advantage" situations in 3.5 DO stack, unlike in 5th.

[HouseRules]

The only thing I've adopted from 5th edition is the multiclassing spellcaster rules.

5th Edition's multiclassing spellcaster rule is a weaker version to http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?67946-Base-Magic-Bonus where the spell casters are limited to their spell known by their class level, unlike BMB where they keep gaining spell known by their BMB instead of class level.

[Eldonauran]

5th Edition's multiclassing spellcaster rule is a weaker version to http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?67946-Base-Magic-Bonus where the spell casters are limited to their spell known by their class level, unlike BMB where they keep gaining spell known by their BMB instead of class level.
I am aware of the shortcomings of the 5th edition spellcaster multiclassing system. I did not say I adopted it just as it was. I made my own modifications and adjustments that can be applied to most damage dealing spells to make up (somewhat) for the loss of higher level spells (rather than missing out on spell slots as well). I am NOT familiar with every instance of other people's homebrew nor do I think spellcasters should be allowed to continue gaining new spells known just by nature of their caster level, not without restrictions at least.