My friends want me to dm a game for them and I have no clue what I'm doing

[Chimora]

Title says it all. They want to try dnd 3.5 and since I am our dm for 5e I obviously should be able to dm 3.5 apparently. I have familiarized myself with the core rules and am looking at possible modules to get some ideas from so I can see the difference between the two editions. Do you guys have anything I should keep in mind while learning or transitioning from 5e to 3.5? Everything I find online is about going from 3.5 to 5e, nothing in the reverse order, so I thought I'd come to the playground for some help. Module recommendations are also welcome if any of you guys have any, as it seems like a good way to familiarize myself and the players with the rules.

[H_H_F_F]

This is hard to answer, as I don't know where to start. A few general pointers for you:

Point 1A:

3.5 has a way wider range of power than 5e, in multiple ways: the difference between high level and low level characters, the difference between strong classes and weak classes, and the difference between low optimization and high optimization.

The meaning of this for you as a DM? Make sure your players are around the same power level, and that the challenges you present to them are appropriate. You would do it anyway, but take extra care. If there is a significant discrapency in experience and familiarity with the system among your players, talk to the experienced ones to make sure they'll play around the same power level.

Point 1B:

Relating to the previous point regarding the difference in power between levels: low level characters are very vulnerable in 3.5. If you're starting first level, you'll need to either have silk gloves on, or prepare your players for the very real option their characters will die. There isn't nearly as much wiggle room as in 5e.

Point 2:

Battle. Make sure your players read and understand the rules of combat. Have them all read chapter 8 in the PhB, and discuss it with each other.

You yourself, when preparing combat, need to be aware that 3.5 stat blocks aren't as transperent as 5e for a beginner. A Ghoul has two special attacks that are right there in front of you, but you might miss the fact that the innocuos term "ubdead traits" means you should go to the glossary at the end of the manual and find the "undead type" entry, where you'll discover all undead are immune to (among other things) all mind-affecting effects, poison, sleep, paralasys, stunning, and critical hits (which also means sneak attacks, as tge entry on sneak attacks explains).

In short, make sure you understand what exactly your monsters are capable of, and how that interacts with the capabilities of your party.

Or, you know, just stick to orcs and goblins for a while, until you get more confident.

Point 3:

Why 3.5?

5e is far easier to master and understand, far easier to run quick combat in, and far easier to keep balanced and fun for your players.

3.5's greatest asset is its complexity, and the vast amount of options it offers, both for players and for DMs. If you and your players are the type to enjoy book diving, customizing, and gaining knowledge and mastery, a move to 3.5 is right for you. If you guys generally prefare to stay at the surface level of the rules, aren't interested in reading more books after the core rules, and think players who go for Polearm-Master+Sentinel are "min-maxers who ruin the fun", then you need to ask yourself why you're moving systems.

This forum is an exception to the rule that 5e is a better system for the absolute majority of players. I grew up on 3.0 and 3.5, so did my friends, but 5e would cater much better to the way all but one of them play.

[Fizban]

3.5 has a way wider range of power than 5e, in multiple ways: the difference between high level and low level characters, the difference between strong classes and weak classes, and the difference between low optimization and high optimization.
Also the difference between strong monsters and weak monsters, and modules which follow the encounter guidelines and those that blatantly flout it.

3.5 DMG p48-50 is important. Where 5e is based on a "six encounter day," 3.x has a "four encounter day." Or more accurately, assuming everything lines up the way it should, the party should consume an average 20% of their resources per encounter of CR=level, and thus after four they should have around 20% remaining, enough to handle a random encounter at night so they aren't murdered in their sleep. This leaves a lot of room for people to make the game "easier" by burning more resources than they should per fight and simply resting more often, or running themselves all the way to empty because they know the DM isn't throwing random or surprise encounters at them, or for luck or good or bad matchups to swing things one way or the other.

Just because something is "only one CR higher than their level," does not mean it's safe.

Even for monsters that aren't obviously over or under-powered for their CR, there is an encounter rating called "Easy if Handled Properly". This basically refers to a lot of things that can just cripple or kill the party if they don't have the right "silver bullet" ready. Incorporeal undead that drain ability scores with a touch, breath weapons that can one-shot fragile party members without energy protection, and of course flat-out save-or-die spells and abilities where failing the save means you just die, etc. The Cleric has nearly all of the spells required to deal with these things (as well as removing all sorts of not-instantly-lethal status effects), so if the party runs they can prepare those spells and come back the next day, but some monsters can appear before the required spells are available, and this only gets worse when you use monsters that are above the party's level.

Following from that, giving the monsters (or PCs) advantageous terrain is not accounted for by the CR/EL system. This is one of the major ways that some modules blatantly make things harder than advertised, the other being a tendency to just use higher ELs than the recommended party level.


Relating to the previous point regarding the difference in power between levels: low level characters are very vulnerable in 3.5. If you're starting first level, you'll need to either have silk gloves on, or prepare your players for the very real option their characters will die. There isn't nearly as much wiggle room as in 5e.
Specifically: in 5e, if you hit zero hit points, you don't die. You get the whole three "death saves" thing which is a minimum of three rounds, or if they keep attacking, three followup attacks.

In 3.x, you die at -10 hit points. You die at -10 hit points at 1st level when attacks deal 4-5 damage, and you die at -10 hit points at 20th level when attacks deal "error variable not defined" damage. If you drop below 0, you have some number of rounds before you bleed out based on what exact number you fell at, but any stray AoE still hits you and probably finishes you off. This is a very simple rule to change, but it marks one of the biggest changes between the games. In my understanding, 5e seems to rely a lot on the fact that hitting 0 does not kill you.

Another significant change is in magic items. 5e claims that magic items are never required, but still gives them out anyway. 3.x is very explicit that magic items are expected, though to what degree of player control is not nearly so explicit. The "WBL" table in the DMG is not something that is supposed to be followed like the XP tables, but by the time you hit 5th level the game has already started to assume that the PCs have a certain amount of armor and weapon bonuses. There is no explicit expected progression, but it does assume some amount of smart spending- a pair of different +1 items that stack is cheaper than a +2, so you should get +1 and +1 first, etc.



And another significant change is in the skill system. In 5e, skill checks are basically all the same. You're either nonproficient, proficient, or proficient with an extra class bonus, and the DC is whatever the DM makes up. There are a small number of fairly broad skills, and you can just grab your choice of many by assigning your "background."

In 3.x, there is a very detailed skill system that uses points and has strict limits based on class, with separate skills for Listen/Spot and Hide/Move Silently, so you can choose to get "part" but not all in order to spread your points around, or even stop investing in one skill because you've reached the bonus you need to do what you want, and focus on other skills. The DCs for tasks are usually defined either in the skill description itself or with the feature/hazard/etc, or might be opposed rolls with someone else (and with enough skill you can reach a point where normal people can never beat you with luck). Using the skill system well is one of the more difficult things in 3.x, but also makes it unique- And none of it actually matters. Because there are only two skills the game ever actually requires (Search and Disable Device), and the rest are just gravy.

Forcing your PCs to have tons of skills at high ranks to roll tons of checks because you're not using the skill system properly is even worse than completely ignoring it, in my opinion. Rogues have a huge number of skill points to make sure that they can do sneaky and other things while also dealing with the occasional arbitrary crushing room trap, even if they have an Int penalty, because they're Rogues. This does not mean anyone else in the party is ever required to have stealth, or spotting, or "social," or any other skills really. The 3.x skill system is a beautiful DM tool for describing and allowing further interactions between the world and the characters, but that's all it really is. It's not designed with an expectation that the PCs will have any particular skill at any rank, unlike hit points and AC and damage etc.


A Ghoul has two special attacks that are right there in front of you, but you might miss the fact that the innocuos term "ubdead traits" means you should go to the glossary at the end of the manual and find the "undead type" entry, where you'll discover all undead are immune to (among other things) all mind-affecting effects, poison, sleep, paralasys, stunning, and critical hits (which also means sneak attacks, as tge entry on sneak attacks explains).
I think that bears repeating- didn't 5e do the thing where sneak attacks work on everything? Yeah, not here. In 3.x, undead and robots and plants and other globby creatures don't have critical organs, so they can't be critical'd or sneak attacked. I find this to be a cool feature, not a bug. Restrictions are interesting, and making a character whose big skill is "boom, headshot!" should absolutely result in a weakness to monsters that have no heads to boom.


Or, you know, just stick to orcs and goblins for a while, until you get more confident.
Orcs and goblins, and all other classed humanoids, are actually often terrible 1st level opponents. The CR system only works with consistent monsters statblocks, but classed humanoids have a formula based CR which is essentially a lie of convenience, while their actual combat power is dependent almost entirely upon their gear. A naked human warrior with a dagger is the same CR as one in full plate with a greatsword, for exaggerated example. The 3.5 Monster Manual changed some of the equipment loads, making some of them better (no more "CR 1/6" kobolds with 1d8 crossbows), but it's still less than perfect. And of course, Orcs in particular are rated at CR 1/2 while dealing twice the damage of a number of CR 1 foes.

There is a reason for the trope of 1st level adventurers being glorified Pest Control, because the safest monsters to use- those that don't massively change with gear, terrain, and DM tactics- are essentially all pests, animals, bugs, and fantasy animals and bugs.


I'd love to recommend a good 1st level module, but the sad fact is I've looked for one to run myself, and haven't found it. They usually either rely on encounters clearly above 1st level, tons of classed humanoids with sketchy power levels, or have arbitrary made-up "trap" or other event mechanics that ignore the actual rules for skills and just gotcha-doom people for stepping in the wrong place.

But skipping straight to X level isn't really a fix either, because you skip learning the basics of combat and learning as you go, straight into the deep end.


I grew up on 3.0 and 3.5, so did my friends, but 5e would cater much better to the way all but one of them play.
3.0 had quite a nice starter set with some extremely stripped down character sheets (zero choices to make, no rolling for initiative, etc)- it was still very much a starter set, but basically came with a mini DMG/MM/series of dungeons that was quite enough to get one book-diving without even a proper book. I had a look at the 3.5 one once, and it was kindof insulting by comparison- even less character-sheet-like characters, etc.



3.x is absolutely a different beast than 5e: forget everything you think you know and learn it as a new game first, or you'll probably have constant headaches looking up things that don't make sense.

But probably the most important piece of advice I think would be: don't worry about it so much. 3.x is a ridiculously big and complicated system, there is no possible way you could run it perfectly on your first try. People constantly make mistakes even in simple games, people who claim to be masters of 3.x still find things that they haven't noticed (or just straight up forgot) after playing for years and years.

So if you want to give it a try, go ahead. Crack open a PHB, grab a 1st level module from somewhere, roll up (or standard point-buy up) some characters, and play some DnD. Sure, make sure you've read the instructions first, but otherwise just accept that you're going to make all sorts of mistakes. See if you like the extra detail and options in character building and on monsters, the more structured skill system, the idea of adventures where you prepare correctly or fail, monsters that can have truly crippling or instantly lethal attacks, and spells that often ignore nearly all defenses and just work. If it's for you, you'll probably find out just by reading the book.

[haplot]

Just a quick thing to add on to whats been said already. Spells also work slightly differently between the two systems.

5e you prepare spells, and can cast the same spell prepared multiple times

3.5 in order to cast a second casting of say magic missile, you have to prepare it twice (or more depending on how many times you wish to cast it). Oh and no infinite castings of cantrips either

[Lilapop]

Orcs and goblins, and all other classed humanoids, are actually often terrible 1st level opponents. The CR system only works with consistent monsters statblocks, but classed humanoids have a formula based CR which is essentially a lie of convenience, while their actual combat power is dependent almost entirely upon their gear. A naked human warrior with a dagger is the same CR as one in full plate with a greatsword, for exaggerated example. The 3.5 Monster Manual changed some of the equipment loads, making some of them better (no more "CR 1/6" kobolds with 1d8 crossbows), but it's still less than perfect. And of course, Orcs in particular are rated at CR 1/2 while dealing twice the damage of a number of CR 1 foes.

There is a reason for the trope of 1st level adventurers being glorified Pest Control, because the safest monsters to use- those that don't massively change with gear, terrain, and DM tactics- are essentially all pests, animals, bugs, and fantasy animals and bugs.

The premade ones in the Monster Manual could be problematic, but for custom built NPCs there is a clear statement somewhere that their CRs should be adjusted if they diverge from table 4-23. It only mentiones NPCs with lower networth, but it can be inferred that 1550 gp is more than 900 gp.

Worth cautioning the inexperienced DM though.



I'd love to recommend a good 1st level module, but the sad fact is I've looked for one to run myself, and haven't found it. They usually either rely on encounters clearly above 1st level, tons of classed humanoids with sketchy power levels, or have arbitrary made-up "trap" or other event mechanics that ignore the actual rules for skills and just gotcha-doom people for stepping in the wrong place.

This was played at a table instead of on a VTT, so I don't have a recording to check, but I don't think my players had much trouble, numerically, with the final boss in A Dark and Stormy Knight. The little thing in the other room is specifically described as rotating targets if too many fail the SoL, and none of your other complaints apply IIRC. It is rather short and has no obvious followup though, unlike the DD series (Barrow of the Forgotten King etc.)

[Alcore]

5e reminds me of mobile games; ridiculous good fun, fast and easy to learn but as shallow as the kiddie pool. It bores me to tears as mastery of the system takes just a dozen hours.


3.5e on the other hand feels like the pinnacle of what 1e, 2e and 3e were building towards. A refined system. It has its flaws as nothing is perfect.

4e? The creators decided to make a new wheel. Point is that 5e is also a new wheel. They did refine something from 3.5 to 5 but it wasn't the system. More like the playstyle.



Since it is likely out of print with plenty of pirates you might want to try the free system pathfinder.

[RNightstalker]

An alternative method is find someone that has DM'd 3.x before and have them start your group off.

[Bonzai]

Your an experienced dm, and you have experience with the players. I am also inferring that the players already have 3.5 experience? That makes things a lot easier.

General advice....

1. Lvl one characters are tissue paper in 3.5. As a DM I hold my breath during the first few combats as crits can turn a routine combat into near tpks. Take it in stride, have players prepare with back up characters, or start at a slightly higher lvl.

2. You can start small and expand. Core books only, published campaigns to start. As you become familiar with the system, you can start branching out. The players should be willing to accommodate you with a short training wheels campaign while you get your feet under you with the new system.

3. Communicate with your players. The sky is the limit in 3.5. Any character concept or idea is pretty much possible. There is a huge difference between fluffy and min maxed characters. This can lead to party imbalance, with characters that constantly steal the show, and can potentially derail the campaign. So it's important to speak with the players before hand, go over their character sheets, and get an idea about what they want to do with them. If you think it will cause problems, or it starts to cause issues in game you need to sit down with them. Group imbalances can be solved with player restraint.

[Fizban]

This was played at a table instead of on a VTT, so I don't have a recording to check, but I don't think my players had much trouble, numerically, with the final boss in A Dark and Stormy Knight. The little thing in the other room is specifically described as rotating targets if too many fail the SoL, and none of your other complaints apply IIRC. It is rather short and has no obvious followup though, unlike the DD series (Barrow of the Forgotten King etc.)
I personally found the massive number of enemies and numbers on the boss to be quite a bit higher than a 1st level party should be taking on.
-8 normal rats sounds perfectly reasonable, but with their high AC (Edit: well not that high, but on par with full CR 1s) and so many bodies saturating one AoO per round, it's quite possible to have four attacks coming per round for up to four damage, while you're sitting there missing. It's not a fun fight, and depends highly on either luck, or having the right AoE spell and the rats to be in the right position for it to work. An "EL 1" encounter that just doesn't work well to me (from personal experience).
-2 hobgoblin raiders with short swords and javelins, perfectly appropriate, but after the previous encounter more risky.
-1 medium spider, again fine.
-1 CR 1 dart trap, the platonic ideal and a good choice for bringing up the concept of where everyone is when the trap goes off.
Now we've hit four EL 1 encounters, but the last one was a trap that may or may not have affected anyone, and the first one was chaos. Is the party supposed to rest, or not, and if they are will they actually do so?
-1 Lesser Varoguile (much better than the original version), and a good introduction to save or lose.
-And 1 bugbear zombie. This is the big snag. A foe rated at CR 2, but with 42 hit points, and given a deliberately bad set of "programming." But the target switching tactic lacks any mention of the PCs being able to flee, either. If the party got through the rats and trap with little damage, they might very well end up here at the end of the "day" with zero resources left- actual starting gold characters won't have any amount of consumable resources to bring in to compensate. Being a zombie means their available ranged weapons, especially with starting gear, can barely affect it and could very well run out of ammo. In fact, unless the party all armed themselves with slashing weapons, it's entirely possible that one or even none of them can penetrate the DR, or at least be pushed to daggers.

It's also a Bugbear in a big fancy tomb, when goblinoids are usually portrayed as tribal, not having "knights" and big fancy stuff. And for a group that doesn't recognize zombified bugbears on sight, it's basically just an arbitrarily more powerful medium zombie, setting all sorts of questionable precedents for how dangerous what things are. And then the loot is a bunch of new items so cheap they can "fit" in the treasure allotted to the adventure, and thus so underwhelming they set a bad expectation for magic items- the headband and belt are super meh, and the translation ring is plot gear or useless. A 1st level party on their first adventure needs a pile of cash to finish out the basic armor and weapons they couldn't afford with starting gear and buy a couple scrolls or potions (or even pool it all for wand of cure light), not vendor trash applying a value penalty before they've even got the most basic of basics.

In short, it's basically the quintessential 1st level adventure climax. Overleveled, placed so the party can stumble into it with zero resources, just ambiguous enough to let confusion bait them into a mistake, with questionable verisimilitude on top of all that, and new made-up items of further questionable value. So in a way, it *is* the perfect 1st level adventure, because the final encounter is a trap that can teach them about over-extending and evaluating risk. But if you want them to succeed, a no-op 5e party that expects things to just work? Might not go so well.

The other major 1st level adventure recommendation is usually The Sunless Citadel, which is mostly fine. The biggest thing that annoys me is the reflex or fall to your death rat ambush on the cliff, very first thing and also not how any of that works, followed by "CR 1/3 crossbow kobolds," and there's an early fork where you can just run into an Imp or Quasit the party should have no means of dealin with. And it ends with some completely arbitrary vampire tree fluff thing, and finding out that the person you may have been sent to rescue can't be saved (at all, period, DM text says no), which is just unfun if you ask me.

[Particle_Man]

I think you don't have to start with core only, although you can if you want. Part of the appeal of 3.5 is the wide variety of choices available to characters, and if you are looking to have a balanced party you have to go outside of core. I would recommend at least Tome of Battle plus Core to give the martial types a better standing with respect to the casters. Complete Arcane gives a dirt simple "Caster type" in warlock if someone wants that (but it sounds like the characters may want the crunchy complex stuff anyhow). PHB II, Complete Warrior and even Complete Adventurer also gives more options for the fighter types. And on the caster-type side, psionics tends to be more balanced than arcane magic (there are abusable parts, but fewer of them).

[Lilapop]

slashing

Fair. We had a water orc barbarian monkeygripping a greatsword and a halberd cleric, so plenty of slashing damage.


rats

Oh right... I forgot about those when I posted yesterday. And that reminds me how much of the damn place I adjusted, and why I don't really consider premade adventures a time saver.


As per their fluff, the rats got scared by the lightning/demolition event and just wanted to get out. Some kinda skillcheck (might have been know(nature)) to recognize that, and they just let the rats scurry past. I did however playtest the encounter a few times, and with color spray and tiny creatures entering squares, it worked out fine.
I allowed the trap to be 10-foot-pole'd with the monkeygrip greatsword, introducing some out-of-the-box thinking and not requiring any resources. Could have been disarmed with a take 20 though.
Loot was (regardless of the order of encounters) translator's ring -> wand of lesser vigor (labelled in celestial, identified through the ring) -> arcanist's gloves + serpentstongue arrows -> rest. A healing consumable, identification that does not cost resources, and more slashing damage for the zombie.
The zombie was just slouched against the sarcophagus, as a prior intruder. Kinda fixes the fluff issues.
I also sprinkled in a deathless NPC, an illusory wall, a riddle, more loot and a catalogue of grave goods for further free identification, but they skipped that part.



Hmmmmm. Not sure how much all of that changes the module's score regarding your concerns.

[Fizban]

As per their fluff, the rats got scared by the lightning/demolition event and just wanted to get out. Some kinda skillcheck (might have been know(nature)) to recognize that, and they just let the rats scurry past. I did however playtest the encounter a few times, and with color spray and tiny creatures entering squares, it worked out fine.
I also missed that the rats won't stack higher than three per person, but rats that are clearly fleeing should not be attacking period- I'm pretty sure rats are not dumb enough to continuously attack things that much bigger than them because of of a little rain. It's just a nakedly formula built encounter for no reason. Skipping it entirely or making it harmless set dressing is entirely appropriate.

I allowed the trap to be 10-foot-pole'd with the monkeygrip greatsword, introducing some out-of-the-box thinking and not requiring any resources. Could have been disarmed with a take 20 though.
Trap handling is trap handling, the only way to mess it up is to change your mind on how things work later.

Loot was (regardless of the order of encounters) translator's ring -> wand of lesser vigor (labelled in celestial, identified through the ring) -> arcanist's gloves + serpentstongue arrows -> rest. A healing consumable, identification that does not cost resources, and more slashing damage for the zombie.
Providing the solutions is convenient, but also the correct move for ensuring success, and still gets the players thinking about their gear. Since you provided a healing wand, you don't need to worry about pushing enough cash for the players to buy one themselves. The only thing I would be concerned about would be the precedent of esoteric languages identifiying items, but if that's how you plan to do things, then it's done.

There could also be an opportunity in deliberately picking a DR creature the party does not happen to bypass, to teach them that DR is a thing that can be a problem. The adventure already has poison and save-or-lose, if the DR is picked to be effective and you threw in some disease, it'd have nearly all the basics covered (a swarm of rats would cover swarm dangers, but is also a big enough change in rules that it's better to save for the second outing). It does so by being an arbitrary grab bag of unrelated monsters that all just happen to be chilling out in different rooms of this dungeon and not interfering with each other, straining credulity- but there's no way to showcase the wide variety of monster abilities quickly without doing that.

So anyway, make it a single dire rat- which is too large to run through the PCs at Small size and has a chance of disease proc, and a CR 1 skeleton or zombie tailored to block the meatshield's main weapon.

I also sprinkled in a deathless NPC, an illusory wall, a riddle, more loot and a catalogue of grave goods for further free identification, but they skipped that part.
No objecting to adding more stuff. Deathless is a bit weird, so it's good to introduce early if it's a thing you're using, Illusory Wall is a free spell with permanent duration so it can be left over anywhere for any reason, and loot they didn't loot is only a problem if it leaves them behind on wealth, and easily fixed.


Also worth noting is that the encounter order of the adventure is not actually the order listed at all. It starts with the rats, but there are then three doors, and encounter "5" is actually at the far end of the dungeon. After the rats the party can go straight to the chest or varoguille, or down the hall into the hobgoblins, after which they could hit the bugbear or the spider. So it's not quite fair of me to take the bugbear zombie as the final enemy, but even in a straight line it's no earlier than the third (rats, hobs, zombie). But the grab bag of random monsters all right next to each other problem combined with the given inciting incident (party has to enter to get out of a storm), means that the party either needs to clear the entire dungeon before resting, or rest with monsters in the next room.

[gijoemike]

I think you don't have to start with core only, although you can if you want. Part of the appeal of 3.5 is the wide variety of choices available to characters, and if you are looking to have a balanced party you have to go outside of core. I would recommend at least Tome of Battle plus Core to give the martial types a better standing with respect to the casters. Complete Arcane gives a dirt simple "Caster type" in warlock if someone wants that (but it sounds like the characters may want the crunchy complex stuff anyhow). PHB II, Complete Warrior and even Complete Adventurer also gives more options for the fighter types. And on the caster-type side, psionics tends to be more balanced than arcane magic (there are abusable parts, but fewer of them).

Core only games are the most unbalanced mess one can play in 3.5. I dislike core only games.

BUUUTTTTTT, when diving into a system for the first time or 2 you have to scale it back. I haven't played Pathfinder for real in a quite a number of years but the other day I looked at d20pfsrd. What in fresh hell? The fighter alone has 20 archetypes. When did they get up to 20? There are so many options that if I had to start pf today, I would be hopelessly lost. I think it is worse in 3.5 with all the prestige classes and ACF's.

The thing is I didn't start today. I started 3.X when the only books were the DMB, PHB, and MM. And over years we expanded our pool of resources. To be able to get into the system without an experts help you need to start small.

In 3.5 even the basics of moving across the battlefield are super different. # of Attacks of Opportunity, triggers of AoO, what you can do with an AoO. It is all different. It was nearly 2 years ago thanks to this pandemic, but I sat down at a table of 5e players that wanted to run the pathfinder goblin mod that introduced goblins as a standard PC race. It was the goblin intro mod for PF 2e. So they were faking it as regular PF. They had no idea what they were doing. It was a fun premade character one shot. But I could see how different a 5e game was from 3.X or PF.

So, multiple attacks, AoO, movement are all pretty different. Tracking spells, preparing spells, casing spells, getting more out of your spells are pretty different. Advancing ones character with Prestige classes, defining who your character is and what they can do is on a different timeline. In 5e you choose your subtype at lvl 3 and you're set. In 3.X you main theme, ability, may not come online until level 7 or 9. And you have to plan out your build from level 1.

It is quite satisfying to get there. And you can see your character change and evolve through the levels.

[Morty_Jhones]

Another main diferance bettween 5 and 3 is advantage.

Most of the things in 5 that grant advantage just grant a +2/-2 to skill roll , fortunatly this is a stacking buff so if you find your self in a situation where you would be thinking " ok this ais a good move" you can just slap a +2 bonuse onto the players roll.

[H_H_F_F]

Speaking of advantage VS modification, you need to remember that most increases of the same kind don't stack. If your player has an item which gives a +2 morale bonus to attacks, it won't stack with thw bards inspire courage. Armor bonus doesn't stack with armor bonus, insight doesn't stack witg insight, etc. If someone feels like they have too many buffs, it's worth checking if they're stacking enhancement bonuses.

[Weasel of Doom]

I think you don't have to start with core only, although you can if you want. Part of the appeal of 3.5 is the wide variety of choices available to characters, and if you are looking to have a balanced party you have to go outside of core. I would recommend at least Tome of Battle plus Core to give the martial types a better standing with respect to the casters.
My suggestion for new players to 3.5e is always Core+ToB+whatever specific books they need to suit the character archetypes they have in mind. That means have a chat with your players and see if what they're thinking of - CAr for the warlock or DM for the DFA is often a good option if someone wants a blasty arcane type, CD or CC can be handy for ACFs if someone wants to play a divine crusader of some sort, skill tricks can be useful if someone's excited about playing a ninja or rogue-ish type, etc.

[smasher0404]

I'm going to go against what looks to be the general consensus and say that allowing Tome of Battle for a group new to 3.5 may or may not be a bad idea (Depending on the general optimization philosophy of the DM and group). The initiator classes (which are the main focus of the book) are a lot stronger out of the box than the other core melee classes, and, at lower optimization levels, probably stronger than most caster classes. If your more mundane characters start lagging behind, introducing some Tome of Battle.

To avoid decision paralysis, I'd honestly start with the Core books (Dungeon Master's Guide, Player's Handbook, Monster Manual) for player options, and open up more books as you and your players get more comfortable with the system. If you are looking to expand beyond the Core books, I'd look towards the "Complete" series first (Complete Adventurer, Complete Arcane, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, Complete Mage, and Complete Champion) and the "Races of" series (Races of Stone, Races of Destiny, Races of the Wild and Races of the Dragon) which provide additional character building options without introducing entirely new sub-systems (and are less focused than the more environment-focused books or setting-specific books).

I'd also be fairly lenient with retraining options, there are probably going to be a lot of decisions that players will make in the character building process that they'll regret once they hit actual play.

[Biggus]

I'm going to go against what looks to be the general consensus and say that allowing Tome of Battle for a group new to 3.5 may or may not be a bad idea (Depending on the general optimization philosophy of the DM and group). The initiator classes (which are the main focus of the book) are a lot stronger out of the box than the other core melee classes, and, at lower optimization levels, probably stronger than most caster classes. If your more mundane characters start lagging behind, introducing some Tome of Battle.

To avoid decision paralysis, I'd honestly start with the Core books (Dungeon Master's Guide, Player's Handbook, Monster Manual) for player options, and open up more books as you and your players get more comfortable with the system. If you are looking to expand beyond the Core books, I'd look towards the "Complete" series first (Complete Adventurer, Complete Arcane, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, Complete Mage, and Complete Champion) and the "Races of" series (Races of Stone, Races of Destiny, Races of the Wild and Races of the Dragon) which provide additional character building options without introducing entirely new sub-systems (and are less focused than the more environment-focused books or setting-specific books).

I'd also be fairly lenient with retraining options, there are probably going to be a lot of decisions that players will make in the character building process that they'll regret once they hit actual play.

I very much agree with this, I'm a moderately experienced 3.5 DM and I still don't use ToB primarily because it's so much extra stuff to learn. Keep it simple to start with, there's a lot to get to grips with just using the core rules.

Also, the whole "martials suck, casters rule in 3.5" thing is only true when players are experienced, my current group are all pretty new to the game and the Barbarian is easily the strongest character.

[bean illus]

To avoid decision paralysis, I'd honestly start with the Core books (Dungeon Master's Guide, Player's Handbook, Monster Manual) for player options, and open up more books as you and your players get more comfortable with the system. If you are looking to expand beyond the Core books, I'd look towards the "Complete" series first (Complete Adventurer, Complete Arcane, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, Complete Mage, and Complete Champion) and the "Races of" series (Races of Stone, Races of Destiny, Races of the Wild and Races of the Dragon) which provide additional character building options without introducing entirely new sub-systems (and are less focused than the more environment-focused books or setting-specific books).

I'd also be fairly lenient with retraining options, there are probably going to be a lot of decisions that players will make in the character building process that they'll regret once they hit actual play.

I was going to say something similar. Start with core, and allow feat, skill, and even spell retraining at 1st level (but not spell retraining forever.

Also, allow them to rebuild characters, if they want. Being stuck forced to play a fighter 2 3/ sorcerer 3, because you didn't understand the game, would suck.


Also, run some super minor encounters, before attempting the dungeon. Just to get them accustomed to their sheets, and the system. Things like street fights, a rabid town dog, a single skeleton (that the cleric coincidentally triggers while taking a piss), er even just some skill encounters, like getting a cat out of a tree.

If any of the encounters are large enough, throw in a little booty, as gratitude from the benefited party. A few gold, can do wonders for 1st level characters (and try to finf an excuse to give each party member 1 potion of cure light wounds).