Tips for someone who hasn't played 3.5 in a decade?

[Jeivar]

Or circa a decade, at least.

A friend has announced that he will be DM-ing a game of 3.5 in a couple of days. He's being a bit cagey on the exact details, including starting level, but I thought I'd ask for a refresher, given that I've mostly played 5e ever since it came out, and mostly Pathfinder since THAT came out, so my memory of 3.5's own eccentricities isn't very reliable.

Was 3.5 the one where Monks and Rangers are basically useless, and Paladins are subpar? What should I keep in mind, generally? What are the big differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder?

[StevenC21]

You're correct about the classes you mentioned.

3.5 and Pathfinder are quite similar, though there's a few things to keep in mind:

(1) 3.5e has a worse skills system and a lot of the skills are broken up into different parts, ex. the idea of stealth is 2 skills, Hide & Move Silently.

(2) spells are even more op.

(3) you get fewer feats, but they're arguably more powerful on average.

(4) archetypes don't exist and prestige classes are generally good ideas, though you should plan your build in advance

[Falontani]

Monks are definitely weaker than they look at first glance, but you can still make a monk character work as long as you don't go pure monk.
Paladins are also fairly weak if you go pure paladin, but the Battle Blessing feat can make them good.
Clerics are overpowered.

Biggest difference between pathfinder and 3.5 are the prestige classes; in PF you can generally ignore the prestige classes and still make good characters, whereas 3.5 prestige classes are almost mandatory for most types of characters, otherwise the biggest difference is definitely the skills.

If you feel rusty but have a character concept that you want to do right by, toss the idea up over here, give all the limitations (such as what books are allowed, or not allowed if any, what race you want to be if any, what class combo you are thinking, etc) and we can help by giving a dozen (probably) suggestions of how you could go about what you are trying to do.

[Doctor Despair]

Some classes are better than any others with nearly no exceptions if you have enough system mastery (e.g. wizards)

Some classes are better than most others with little to no system mastery (e.g. druids)

Some classes are worse than most others regardless of system mastery (e.g. monks)

[Kurald Galain]

What are the big differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder?
Pathfinder gives more options and more flavorful choices to most character classes, has character concepts viable from a (much) lower level and without planning for prestige classes a long time ahead, and fixes most (but not all) of the common complaints about 3E. Mind you, that's not the same as the common minmax-forum complaints :smallamused:

[Edea]

Another big thing about 3.5 is that it doesn't really have a 'unified mechanic' the way 5e does. There are so many subsystems out there that one of the first questions that needs to be addressed for most 3.5 advice is 'what books are you using'?

IMO Cleric's probably the most foolproof core class for someone who's already familiar with 3.5's mechanics and just needs a refresher. Druids and Wizards need too much bookkeeping for my liking, Sorcerers can get royally screwed picking the wrong spells known (the delayed level prog also sucks), and the other core classes aren't full-casters so they're automatically lower on the totem-pole.

[Jeivar]

I appreciate the responses so far.

What about race picks? Was 3.5 the one where humans were simply objectively better? I always find elves tempting, simply for fluff.

[Kurald Galain]

Perhaps what you should be asking is, "I want to play Class X from levels Y through Z using allowed books Q,R, and S; how do I approach this?" :smallcool:

[Temotei]

I appreciate the responses so far.

What about race picks? Was 3.5 the one where humans were simply objectively better? I always find elves tempting, simply for fluff.

There's an elf for almost everything. :smalltongue:

[StevenC21]

Well, humans do get a mouthwatering free feat and extra skill points. They're definitely a great race. However, there are some cases where something else is optimal.

In general humans are great at anything and there's sometimes something better at one thing.

[ixrisor]

I appreciate the responses so far.

What about race picks? Was 3.5 the one where humans were simply objectively better? I always find elves tempting, simply for fluff.

There are an enormous number of elf-only feats, prestige classes, etc. Some of them are even good. I quite like using the dragonborn template to cancel out the con penalty of the elf if I’m taking such a route.

[Darg]

I appreciate the responses so far.

What about race picks? Was 3.5 the one where humans were simply objectively better? I always find elves tempting, simply for fluff.

Depending on your DM, not needing to sleep can be quite the attractive beneficial option. As for humans being better, it really depends on what you want out of feats and what class you are taking.

[Jeivar]

I don't know what kind of grand plans I should be making when I don't even know the level we'll be starting at, or how long the campaign is going to be. But I'm feeling a bit tempted to be an elven archer, because hey, it's a classic.

Wouldn't I be better off with just a fighter with a bunch of archery feats, than with an archery ranger?

[Temotei]

I don't know what kind of grand plans I should be making when I don't even know the level we'll be starting at, or how long the campaign is going to be. But I'm feeling a bit tempted to be an elven archer, because hey, it's a classic.

Wouldn't I be better off with just a fighter with a bunch of archery feats, than with an archery ranger?

Elven archer is a pretty broad category. Cleric with Zen Archery and the Elf domain (Spell Compendium 273) would be a nice start for a less expected take.

Use Divine Metamagic to Quicken or Persist (if allowed) buffs and go to town shooting things. Elves get proficiency with longbows so you'll have no trouble there. With more information, we can try to give more advice.

[Gnaeus]

I don't know what kind of grand plans I should be making when I don't even know the level we'll be starting at, or how long the campaign is going to be. But I'm feeling a bit tempted to be an elven archer, because hey, it's a classic.

Wouldn't I be better off with just a fighter with a bunch of archery feats, than with an archery ranger?

As far as strictly ranger versus fighter, ranger is probably better. It gets a lot of good non core spells. Remember (or just be aware) that you can have a wand chamber put in your bow, and can then cast as a swift action any swift action spell you put in the wand..

It does depend a bit on the optimization and classes of other party members. And 3.5 is a system that strongly rewards multiclassing for non full casters. So something like fighter 2/Ranger 3/PRC or fighter 1/ranger 4/PRC is usually better than fighter or ranger. (Take the ranger level at first for extra skill points). And you don’t have to be able to cast spells yet to use the wands. So ranger 1/fighter 2 could use a wand of arrow mind in a wand chamber in bow for example (basically a bonus action to threaten in melee and not provoke for firing in melee for the rest of the combat).

[Zombimode]

Was 3.5 the one where Monks and Rangers are basically useless, and Paladins are subpar?

Rangers are totally fine.
Paladins can be totally fine, but they are also easy to screw up. Only using PHB spells is a big let-down for Paladins.
Monks are difficult. A class for experts who like a challenge.

[Xervous]

Rangers are totally fine.
Paladins can be totally fine, but they are also easy to screw up. Only using PHB spells is a big let-down for Paladins.
Monks are difficult. A class for experts who like a challenge.

17 levels of monk classes on an EL 20 build clearing all the elder evils in one day? Those were the days.

[gijoemike]

Rogues cannot Sneak Attack 90% of the world as all undead, constructs, elementals, and oozes are flat immune due to their type, and there are a few prestige classes, spells, and armor enchantments that make you immune or give a 1/4 chance to negate. Pathfinder had precision damage and crits that work on many extra monster types.


There are a select few abilities and spells that work differently. Spells usually don't you a chance to escape at the end of each round. If the target fails that first save they are screwed for X rounds, end of story. Please see Holy Smite and ranger favored enemies abilities. See the wizard spell Glitter Dust and compare it to Pathfinder. There are a lot of little things like that.


With that said there are many alternative class features (ACF) that switch out abilities and give you options back. There is a rogue feature that alters sneak attack so that i can affect undead. (Grave Hunter or some such). But it lowers your sneak attack die. There is a ranger variant that makes you a city ranger instead of being wilderness focused.

To have a powerful character you will HAVE to enter a prestige class and to do so early you will most likely have to multiclass with 2 base classes. There are up to 40 base classes to choose from depending on the books available. And over 150 various Prestige classes. 5e has what 9 classes with 4 or 5 sub classes per?

[Wildstag]

With that said there are many alternative class features (ACF) that switch out abilities and give you options back. There is a rogue feature that alters sneak attack so that i can affect undead. (Grave Hunter or some such). But it lowers your sneak attack die. There is a ranger variant that makes you a city ranger instead of being wilderness focused.

There's also the Greater Truedeath Weapon Crystal that even gives you an additional 1d6 damage against undead, and any class can use that option.

[Zombimode]

Rogues cannot Sneak Attack 90% of the world as all undead, constructs, elementals, and oozes are flat immune due to their type

90% of all enemies are undead, constructs, elementals and oozes?

Ok.

[Temotei]

There's also the Greater Truedeath Weapon Crystal that even gives you an additional 1d6 damage against undead, and any class can use that option.

Plus deathstrike bracers, gauntlets of ghost fighting, penetrating strike, and all the other options for bypassing sneak attack/critical hit immunity. It's not like rogues have no options. It can be rough at low levels in Ravenloft or something, obviously, but...

[H_H_F_F]

You should talk with the other players, and figure out the optimization level of the group. If you're gonna play with optimized casters, you're gonna feel extremely useless as an archer pretty soon.

Also, yeah, figure out which books are in play.

[Mordante]

Or circa a decade, at least.

A friend has announced that he will be DM-ing a game of 3.5 in a couple of days. He's being a bit cagey on the exact details, including starting level, but I thought I'd ask for a refresher, given that I've mostly played 5e ever since it came out, and mostly Pathfinder since THAT came out, so my memory of 3.5's own eccentricities isn't very reliable.

Was 3.5 the one where Monks and Rangers are basically useless, and Paladins are subpar? What should I keep in mind, generally? What are the big differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder?

I would ignore the whole this class is OP this class is UP

Play the class you want to play, something that you would enjoy playing.

I'm not that familiar with 3.5 even-though I DM a party. But play a character without spells or very limited amount of spell is what i would recommend for people who have very little experience with 3.5. Spells seems to slow down the game a lot. They require a lot of management and knowledge, which might get get in the way of actual role-playing.

I dropped my Druid lvl16 for a fighter lvl16. I'm having a lot more fun with the fighter. No need to keep track of all the different stats of the different shapes when shape-shifting. No familiar to keep track of, no 10 page spell list that need to be memorized and managed.

What I'm saying is keep it simple. No exotic class with 5 lvl 1 dips into other classes with an obscure PrC for flavour.

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't know what kind of grand plans I should be making when I don't even know the level we'll be starting at, or how long the campaign is going to be. But I'm feeling a bit tempted to be an elven archer, because hey, it's a classic.

Wouldn't I be better off with just a fighter with a bunch of archery feats, than with an archery ranger?

How about a Half-Drow dual double-hand-crossbow build with some healing abilities?^^
If you're interested, have a look at my El Mariachi build (in the signature). The build is highly optimized thou, depending on the optimization lvl of your table you could pick some ideas there. If it is a low lvl campaign (1-7ish) you should be fine with copying the build, but the later levels could cause a power gap. Especially if you go for the magic item dmg boosts (which you could avoid to some degree for the sake of table balance).

[noob]

To have a powerful character you will HAVE to enter a prestige class and to do so early you will most likely have to multiclass with 2 base classes. There are up to 40 base classes to choose from depending on the books available. And over 150 various Prestige classes. 5e has what 9 classes with 4 or 5 sub classes per?

Druid 1 to 20 is strong all the time with no prcs.
likewise with cleric from level 1 to level 20.
Maybe you are stronger with prcs but you do not actually need them to be strong.

[Remuko]

90% of all enemies are undead, constructs, elementals and oozes?

Ok.

I dont think thats what they were saying, but its just a guess.

How I read the comment was. "In the game youre familiar with, Rogues can sneak attack 90% of thing. In 3.5 thats not true, because many types [list of types here] are flat out immune to crits and sneak attacks".

[Wildstag]

Druid 1 to 20 is strong all the time with no prcs.

Well, assuming you're playing the Druid in a way that makes some amount of sense. Reading the playtest druid's build is just horrifying.

Far Shot, Improved Critical (scimitar), Point Blank Shot, Scribe Scroll, Track, Weapon Focus (scimitar). At level 15.

[Troacctid]

90% of all enemies are undead, constructs, elementals and oozes?

Ok.
I surveyed a bunch of published adventures and it ended up being closer to 20%, which, honestly, is still really rough. (That doesn't include monsters whose vitals are hard to reach, or environmental conditions that prevent precise targeting.)

[Edea]

I think the big one's undead.

The other three are niche enough or have their own separate issues that it's not a big deal, but not being able to SA undead gets frustrating very, very quickly (and there are ways around it, which definitely should be looked into).

[Kurald Galain]

The other three are niche enough or have their own separate issues that it's not a big deal, but not being able to SA undead gets frustrating very, very quickly (and there are ways around it, which definitely should be looked into).
Or, you know, don't play a rogue in 3.5. It tends to get upstaged by almost everyone else, pretty quickly.

[noob]

Well, assuming you're playing the Druid in a way that makes some amount of sense. Reading the playtest druid's build is just horrifying.

Far Shot, Improved Critical (scimitar), Point Blank Shot, Scribe Scroll, Track, Weapon Focus (scimitar). At level 15.

If a player plays this way then is advised to take a prc they would probably take dwarven defender as a prc and would have an even weaker character.
Now I wonder how to make an actually functional dwarven defender druid.

[Gruftzwerg]

If a player plays this way then is advised to take a prc they would probably take dwarven defender as a prc and would have an even weaker character.
Now I wonder how to make an actually functional dwarven defender druid.

without any further deeper thought I would go something like:

Crusader X / Warlock 6 / Dwarven Defender

Warlock 6 to take Flee the Scene. FtS is Dimension Door at will (+ leaving a Major Image of yourself for 1 round).
FtS/DD is not "moving" in terms of 3.5 language. They "transfer" you to the "designated location". While you waste your attack for the round, we can at least change position without loosing the Defensive Stance.

Crusader gives access to Stone Dragon maneuvers & stances from which some also require you to stand still and not to move. so there should be some stuff to fill the remaining lvls too.

[H_H_F_F]

without any further deeper thought I would go something like:

Crusader X / Warlock 6 / Dwarven Defender



I think you may have missed the word "druid", or maybe misread it as "build".
And FYI if you're interested, there are plenty of cool dwarven defenders in the relevant iron chef.

[Gruftzwerg]

I think you may have missed the word "druid", or maybe misread it as "build".
And FYI if you're interested, there are plenty of cool dwarven defenders in the relevant iron chef.

I didn't missed it. From my understanding "noob" made first a joke about the sample druids bad feat selection that it would end with a prc like Dwarven Defender. Than he asked how a functional DD build would like (and I don't see any druid requirement from him here). But my interpretation might be wrong^^ dunno

[Batcathat]

I didn't missed it. From my understanding "noob" made first a joke about the sample druids bad feat selection that it would end with a prc like Dwarven Defender. Than he asked how a functional DD build would like (and I don't see any druid requirement from him here). But my interpretation might be wrong^^ dunno

I mean, it literally says "Now I wonder how to make an actually functional dwarven defender druid" which I think speaks against your interpretation.

[Gruftzwerg]

I mean, it literally says "Now I wonder how to make an actually functional dwarven defender druid" which I think speaks against your interpretation.

oh yeah, i really seemed to missed it twice xD must have been sleeping..

[Wildstag]

If a player plays this way then is advised to take a prc they would probably take dwarven defender as a prc and would have an even weaker character.
Now I wonder how to make an actually functional dwarven defender druid.

Well if you go down a MoMF route, you could go Druid5/MoMF6/DD9. You'd get a decent BAB, and there's probably a few Aberrations with multiple limbs and decent reach. Maybe even drop the DD levels by a few (3) and pick up some levels of warshaper to get even longer reach, the strength and con bonus, and the stronger and more numerous limbs.

Then you just sit in one place and hit things. Mobile Defense with its 5-foot step isn't really anything to write home about. But that's how I'd do it. If you wanted less MoMF, you could probably stick with Druid9/Warshaper3/DD8 to get yourself some 5th level spells, you'd still get mobile defense and some of the benefits of Warshaper.

[Gruftzwerg]

k, I give the "druid"^^ DD another shot:

druid 5 / MoMF 4 / DD 10 / Crusader 1

MoMF will be used sole for the Redcap (fey) form. I really have grown a liking on that form since my Papa Smurf build. Redcaps have a special form of advancement, where there skills/attributes are determined by their HD. Wild Shape allows you to shape into higher HD forms for the increased stats. Further the form is small and thus fits onto medium (fleshraker) mounts. A Riders Shield (exotic shield feat) protects both of you.

Crusader to pick up the Thicket of Blades stance. This gives you an AoO for any 5ft step of your enemy and denies them the use of tumble to prevent the AoO. Combine with Combat Reflexes. The redcap form also gives use a high DEX score/modifier so we can profit really from this combo.

Extra cheese:
Flexible Mind feat @lvl1 to get UMD (+ another skill) as class skill.
Get a wand of Dimension Door for extra mobility while in your defensive stance. For maximum cheese find a crafter that can fit Greater DD into a wand with the abuse of the Sanctum Spell feat. With Greater DD your mobility in fights will skyrocket compared to any regular Dwarven Defender build.

[Buufreak]

To have a powerful character you will HAVE to enter a prestige class

Ha. Wizard 20, druid 20, cleric 20. Hell, depending on the game, warblade 20 is plenty of power, no mess no fuss. Just because a fair few on the forum default to caster superiority and cheese doesn't mean it is the only way to play, or the only way to be powerful.


There are up to 40 base classes to choose from depending on the books available. And over 150 various Prestige classes.

And Ha again! Just thumbing through the wotc index, you have 79 base classes (not including racial alts and racial savage progression classes), and there is nearly 1000 listed prestige classes (specifically only from the handful of books they have listed, which isn't even close to all that which is considered 1st party).

You've got some wildly inaccurate assumptions, my dude.


More on topic, though, just go have fun, OP. It's a game, after all, and they were made to bring joy to the masses.

[Dawgmoah]

One thing to watch for is what rulebook the game is going to use. The original books or the Rules Compendium that made quite a few changes to things. It tends to trip folks up a bit on occasion. I tell folks I will defer to the Rules Compendium first. Some changes don't matter while some matter quite a but. The changes to Shapechangers come to mind.