Will 3.5 give us this...

[rohde]

Hi there,

I am considering trying out a 3.5 campaign with my group.
I am currently DMing a 5e campaign (Tomb of Annihilation), and we are having a blast. Before ToA we have played the Lost Mine of Phandelver and the Tyranny of Dragons campaigns. All good. Everyone is happy.

But I have noticed something:

1. The players loves strategizing about combat.
2. The players love building their characters. Some make long lists about what feats, abilites and spells to get at later levels.

It is because of this, and because I am interested in how both 3.5e and 4e plays (I played 2e many many moons ago), I am considering trying out 3.5.

Am I correct in the assertions that 3.5 will give:

1. More tactical combat (although not to the levels of 4e I guess).
2. Many many more options for characters.

I am a bit weary about trying it out though. When reading about 3.5e I see many posts from former DMs saying basically that they loved the edition, but that they would never DM it again. I know it's just anecdotal, but it is something I have seen a lot on various message forums, reddit etc.

I have perused the 3.5 MM (which I bought on DMs Guild), and I actually like it - it seems more fleshed out than 5e. And I guess that that is what I as a DM is missing from 5e: more detail. But is it worth it or does it bog you down at the table?

What about 3.5 makes it such a chore to DM (compared to 5e)?

[One Step Two]

Classes are tricky to balance against themselves, because not all classes are not built equally. Players own skills at building those characters impact those as well. The biggest chore for the DM is managing the players not in how they build their characters, but ensuring they have encounters that challenge them without invalidate them.

While unlikely, as an example: if your team has 0 ranged attacks, an encounter with Flying becomes very difficult. But that problem can ramp up with some effects in 3.5. Some monsters that out-right cannot be hit without Magic weapons, some monsters that have prohibitive defenses, such as DR or Hardness. If your party doesn't have character with Trapfinding, then every dungeon becomes a death-trap waiting to happen, because unlike 5th it's trickier to gain the effective "tool proficiencies", and other cross-role tools require careful planning.

That isn't to say you can't use those encounters, but you need to be mindful of the difficulty curve using those encounters vs players.

[Khedrac]

What makes 3.5 a chore to DM (barring pre-written adventures) is the level of detail that needs to go into building classed opponents.

Character building is occasionally referred to as a minigame, and one can spend a lot of time trying to get a character right. Now consider having to carry out a lesser version of that exercise for every NPC with class levels... Choice of feats and skills to get the right class abilities to produce the desired character can be complex and is a big drag for those who don't love it.

There's a second lesser problem. There are quite a few alternative option sets (psionics, incarnum, maneuvers etc.) and players love to try them (which is fine). The problem is the DM usually needs to learn the rules for these variants if a player wants to try them because even honest players often get the rules wrong (they get carried away by their enthusiasm) so the DM needs to know the actual rules to prevent unintentional abuse.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Hi there,

I am considering trying out a 3.5 campaign with my group.
I am currently DMing a 5e campaign (Tomb of Annihilation), and we are having a blast. Before ToA we have played the Lost Mine of Phandelver and the Tyranny of Dragons campaigns. All good. Everyone is happy.

But I have noticed something:

1. The players loves strategizing about combat.
2. The players love building their characters. Some make long lists about what feats, abilites and spells to get at later levels.

It is because of this, and because I am interested in how both 3.5e and 4e plays (I played 2e many many moons ago), I am considering trying out 3.5.

Am I correct in the assertions that 3.5 will give:

1. More tactical combat (although not to the levels of 4e I guess).
2. Many many more options for characters.

I am a bit weary about trying it out though. When reading about 3.5e I see many posts from former DMs saying basically that they loved the edition, but that they would never DM it again. I know it's just anecdotal, but it is something I have seen a lot on various message forums, reddit etc.

I have perused the 3.5 MM (which I bought on DMs Guild), and I actually like it - it seems more fleshed out than 5e. And I guess that that is what I as a DM is missing from 5e: more detail. But is it worth it or does it bog you down at the table?

What about 3.5 makes it such a chore to DM (compared to 5e)?

I have not played 4e but for what I know of it, you are correct in both assumptions.

Many more character options is kinda obvious, since 4e and in a less marked but similar manner 5e push you towards choosing one archetype and then making minor choices in it, while 3.5 encourages multiclassing and prestige classing (5e has multiclassing too, but the classes don't interact as much as 3.5, and dips are less valuable), so you have a selection of hundred of classes that you can theoretically take each level on top of feats and spells, of which there are many more than any other edition too.

The "more tactical combat" is maybe more subjective. Compared to 5e, I'd say clearly. One of the complaints that come back often on 5e is that character often have one "go-to" tactic to which their archetype leads them, and they often do the same thing each fight. 3.5 has characters that are much more flexible in combat, without even resorting to items. That leads to being able to adapt each fight to the opponent. Plus more of the monsters in 3.5 have specific immunities or resistance that encourage some tactic or another than there are in 5e. Compared to 4e, I'm not sure. Having each class having a defined role in the party can make each fight like a tactical war game and that makes for tactical combat indeed, since even losing one member of the party can be much more damaging than it could be in 3.5. As far as I know, however, combat in 3.5, especially at high level, is pretty "explosive". A lot of it is decided by the first or second turn, and buffing without combat is an incredibly huge advantage. So you have a lot of the fight that is decided by how it is prepared. But then again, I have not played 4e, so take it with a grain of salt.

Why some DM stopped 3.5 entirely is generally because of two things: balance and preparation. When a game is so vast, there is bound to be a lot of exploits, combos that the developers never intended, and above all, an extreme difference between a player that builds a character thoughtfully and one that just chooses whatever fits his backstory. If your players love building, then I can only advice you to go to 3.5 as soon as possible, but it also means that there can be one or two of them that put a lot more time researching optimal combos than others. And that makes for an unbalanced party. Looking for that, understanding what is unbalanced in a party and finding challenges that will make each member of the party feel useful and included can be a bit of work for any DM, and even more in 3.5. There is a reason there is more homebrew rules in 3.5 than in almost any other editions. Whatever you try, you will almost always stumble on something that is unbalanced, poorly worded or downright broken. That is not as common as some forum can make you believe, but dysfunctions are there, and they can break the game if unatended. You should know when to say "no" and when to advocate how things work. This is why 3.5 is harder to DM than 5e, in my opinion, but also why it is much more fun to play (I, too, love building characters as much as playing them).

[Crake]

While unlikely, as an example: if your team has 0 ranged attacks, an encounter with Flying becomes very difficult. But that problem can ramp up with some effects in 3.5. Some monsters that out-right cannot be hit without Magic weapons, some monsters that have prohibitive defenses, such as DR or Hardness. If your party doesn't have character with Trapfinding, then every dungeon becomes a death-trap waiting to happen, because unlike 5th it's trickier to gain the effective "tool proficiencies", and other cross-role tools require careful planning.

This was actually an intentional design choice for 3.5, and the idea was to promote information gathering and planning/preparing. It's not a bug, it's a feature of the system, that combat isn't just about blinding charging in and fighting without any sort of forward thinking.

[Eldan]

And that's before we get into 2nd edition, where instead of damage reduction, you would sometimes just run into "and this creature is immune to all weapons that aren't +2 and holy".

[Rynjin]

If moving backward from 5e to 3.5, you're probably better off taking less of a step back to Pathfinder instead. For a player brand new to the system, IMO any supposed benefits of 3.5 over Pathfinder disappear. Easier to get into, more good 3rd party support, and less of a focus on near-mandatory multiclassing, along witha fair bit of un-clunkening for skills and monsters.

[Lapak]

The "more tactical combat" is maybe more subjective. Compared to 5e, I'd say clearly. One of the complaints that come back often on 5e is that character often have one "go-to" tactic to which their archetype leads them, and they often do the same thing each fight. 3.5 has characters that are much more flexible in combat, without even resorting to items. That leads to being able to adapt each fight to the opponent. Plus more of the monsters in 3.5 have specific immunities or resistance that encourage some tactic or another than there are in 5e. Compared to 4e, I'm not sure. Having each class having a defined role in the party can make each fight like a tactical war game and that makes for tactical combat indeed, since even losing one member of the party can be much more damaging than it could be in 3.5. As far as I know, however, combat in 3.5, especially at high level, is pretty "explosive". A lot of it is decided by the first or second turn, and buffing without combat is an incredibly huge advantage. So you have a lot of the fight that is decided by how it is prepared. But then again, I have not played 4e, so take it with a grain of salt.
This is the big stumbling block. 3.5 absolutely gives grainier, more intricate character-building, but calling the combat 'more tactical' is misleading. If you poke around the boards a bit, you'll notice that a lot of optimization builds also revolve around getting a particular go-to tactic to work most/all of time, especially for martial classes. And at mid-high levels things can get very rocket-tag, such that the battle tends to be more or less decided in the first round or two and then it's mop-up.

4e is definitely the peak of 'tactical' combat as such, in terms of decisions made in combat. Things like character positioning, teamwork and combined-arms effects, things that play out on the battlemat as opposed to in the planning stages. But it comes with an even tighter rein on character design than 5e has, if you define it by mechanics. You can reflavor and refluff any edition to make the same mechanics feel more in-line with a desired character, but I know that's not always what players are looking for. Personally I find that 5e is a decent sweet spot for the balance between character choices and in-the-moment choices as far as D&D editions go, but everyone's mileage varies.

[TotallyNotEvil]

I think you guys will be very happy with Pathfinder 1e then.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A lot of times when people talk about "tactical" combat they really mean that it plays like a miniatures game where you have a lot of specific, well-defined options and moving the minis around is both ubiquitous and mechanically meaningful. If that's what you want, then 4e (with later-run monster manuals and mechanical fixes) is actually your best bet. Other versions of D&D do offer a level of tactical combat, but there is also a blend of strategic combat. I tend to think of this tactical/strategic distinction much like "combat as sport" versus "combat as war." Basically the question is, do you (sometimes) want what happens before an encounter to be more important than what happens during an encounter? Do you as a GM want to create a fun set piece battle, or do you want to play out a whole scenario which may or may not lead to such a battle? Because in strategic/CAW games, the fight can be effectively "over" before initiative is even rolled, or there may be no fight at all - and that can be the whole point. This is one reason why monster manuals pre-4e used up a lot of book real estate to talk about monster ecology and such. It matters a lot in a strategic/CAW game, less so if you're just building fun tactical encounters.

As far as character generation, 3e/PF/4e had the far more content than 5e for sure, with 3e/PF having more truly distinct options (with balance issues as a trade-off). People talk about class imbalance all the time here, but the larger issue is simply the gap between character building options writ large - that includes which class to take every level, but also feats, items, spells, race, prerequisites, what have you. And then you actually have to use those features well in play. Holding experience/optimization constant, there will be a gap between classes no doubt. But that gap is far smaller than the gap between an optimized character and an unoptimized character regardless of what types of classes they're choosing. But if you're all relatively inexperienced with 3.5 then it should mostly be ok, with some potential stumbling blocks (some classes being default good or bad, some feats being traps, etc). Allow for re-training.

[Silly Name]

If moving backward from 5e to 3.5, you're probably better off taking less of a step back to Pathfinder instead. For a player brand new to the system, IMO any supposed benefits of 3.5 over Pathfinder disappear. Easier to get into, more good 3rd party support, and less of a focus on near-mandatory multiclassing, along witha fair bit of un-clunkening for skills and monsters.

I'd be tempted to second this also because the archetype system is closer to 5e's subclasses, which would make the transition smoother.

[rohde]

Hi guys,

Thanks for all the replies. So insightful. I really appreciate it.

Some of you mention Pathfinder 1. Does that allow for same customization as 3.5? I was under impression that prestige classes really aren't a thing in PF1, which cuts back on a lot of the customization? Or am I mistaken here (both in regards to prestige classes in PF1 and on prestige classes importance in customization).

Also, regarding 3.5 and how combat might be over before even started: is this because the characters are more powerful than the encounter, or is it because the players laid a strategy before combat started or?

[Godofallu]

Let's say you want to play a melee guy in DnD 3.5. Say at lvl 6. You can either know nothing about the game and go base fighter 6 and pick a few feats and go. Ready in 15 minutes.

Or you can know everything about the game and go Barbarian 1/ Fighter 2/ Ranger 2/ Warblade 1 as an example and throw in all sorts of ACF's to make each dip as good as possible. Then you pick feats for ubercharging. Now you have two 6th level melee guys, but one has a ton of class features and can 1 shot almost anything. Constantly full attacking. While the other does basically everything worse and does less than half the damage.

If you think that knowledge should equal power and the players who know the most about the edition and spend the most time deserve to have stronger characters 3.5 is for you. It allows system mastery. If you want to be lazy and just make a character in 15 minutes this edition is going to be painful.

You're talking hundreds of spells and classes and feats ect. If hunting for the right spell or feat combos or prestige class sounds fun go for it. I love that aspect. But many people will look at all of the options and just curl up in a ball and want to cry.

[Lapak]

Also, regarding 3.5 and how combat might be over before even started: is this because the characters are more powerful than the encounter, or is it because the players laid a strategy before combat started or?More that offense is pretty overwhelmingly more potent than defense in 3.5. You can stack both damage and spell modifiers (DC, overcoming or avoiding SR, etc.) by mid-levels in ways that greatly outstrip the ways you can stack defenses. This means that the side that goes first can often inflict enough harm to significantly alter the balance of the encounter. It's not about the PCs being more powerful; it's that a balanced encounter becomes unbalanced in the first couple of rounds, one way or the other.

[Segev]

Some of you mention Pathfinder 1. Does that allow for same customization as 3.5?Yes. And you can find all of its material, not just a limited selection from the core books, on its SRD. Including a ton of third party stuff. d20pfsrd.com is a good web site for exploring it. There's also the archive of Nethys and the library of Metzofitz, though the former you have to be careful to make sure you're looking at PF1 and not PF2 with all the time, and the latter is less convenient to navigate and, I believe, only has some of the subsystems in it (but for those subsystems and third-party supplements, it is more complete and up to date than d20pfsrd).

For your purposes, d20pfsrd will be your best bet. You'd never know it was missing anything if I hadn't told you, most likely, and what it's missing is stuff you probably don't need unless and until your players are masters of the system and looking for the bleeding edge of Akasha or Psionics.


I was under impression that prestige classes really aren't a thing in PF1, which cuts back on a lot of the customization? Or am I mistaken here (both in regards to prestige classes in PF1 and on prestige classes importance in customization).PF1 has PrCs, but they're more an "early development" thing, copied in from 3.5 and updated, and they became rarer as the system evolved. They have a TON more base classes, including a great many hybrid classes that do the combination of two other class concepts better than multiclassing and/or combination PrCs do. (The Magus (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/) is the best gish I've seen in any edition of D&D, and head-and-shoulders outstrips the Eldritch Knight (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/eldritch-knight/) PrC at doing that job. But you'll note the latter is still there.)

They also favor Archetypes (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/archetypes/) as a means of customizing and hybridizing classes. The link there is for wizard archetypes, but the actual rules on the page are archetypes in general, with the links to the side pointing off to specifically wizard archetypes.

Also, PF is highly compatible with 3.5, so if there's a PrC that the players really want from 3.5, it's usually trivial to simply let them take it. 3.5 feats and PF feats are, if not exactly at the same power level, within the same ballpark and which is more powerful depends on the feat more than on which system it came from in a lot of cases.


Also, regarding 3.5 and how combat might be over before even started: is this because the characters are more powerful than the encounter, or is it because the players laid a strategy before combat started or?It's usually an overstatement in my experience with real play, but highly-optimized PCs who know exactly what they're getting into due to scouting, research, and/or good player prediction can devastate an encounter. Super-high-optimal pure casters can wind up in a game of "rocket tag," but that very likely won't arise for you and your group and you'll likely be able to see it coming if you start building that way.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Some of you mention Pathfinder 1. Does that allow for same customization as 3.5? I was under impression that prestige classes really aren't a thing in PF1, which cuts back on a lot of the customization? Or am I mistaken here (both in regards to prestige classes in PF1 and on prestige classes importance in customization).I personally prefer 3.5 but I actually agree it's probably easier to switch to PF 1e, if only because everything is searchable on their SRD. It has roughly the same level of customization if you allow for good 3rd party publishers like Dreamscarred Press (namely PF's analogues for incarnum, initiators, and psionics). Basically, archetypes + some PrCs + some decent multiclass combinations replace the "everybody PrCs" paradigm and provides similar levels of customization. The other thing is you can most certainly back-port any missing 3.5 stuff. My absolute least favorite part of PF 1 isn't anything about the game itself - it's all the PF 1 GMs who fail to see this obvious benefit and blanket ban all 3.5 material.


Also, regarding 3.5 and how combat might be over before even started: is this because the characters are more powerful than the encounter, or is it because the players laid a strategy before combat started or?In general, pre-4e PCs, NPCs, and monsters are all squishier. In fact, 2e is squishier than 3e, and so on. This is for two reasons - one, the main ablative defense (HP) relative to offense (damage per round) is smaller, so anyone can kill more quickly. Second, you can lay down much nastier effects more easily in earlier editions to disable enemies and effectively win.

The clearest distinction is early 4e, where most of the nastier effects were converted to HP damage + minor rider, the ones that weren't converted to damage allowed you to save every round to end the effect, and solo monsters had ridiculous levels of HP where you just had to grind them down with at-will effects for rounds upon rounds even if the fight was basically over. In that context, a surprise round is but a rounding error. In the context of 3.5, if your 1st level wizard could land that Sleep or Color Spray in the surprise round, you could win the encounter before the enemy even knew you were there - not necessarily because you and your 4-6 hit points were OP. In fact, the PCs could be far less powerful than the enemies arrayed against them, and they could still win due to clever strategy and getting the jump. This means non-combat skills and effects - particularly scouting and intelligence gathering - are much more important, because they can define how a fight goes. 5e is somewhere in between 3.5 and 4e in this regard, squishier in the earlier levels and beefier later on.

[Silly Name]

Some of you mention Pathfinder 1. Does that allow for same customization as 3.5? I was under impression that prestige classes really aren't a thing in PF1, which cuts back on a lot of the customization? Or am I mistaken here (both in regards to prestige classes in PF1 and on prestige classes importance in customization).

PF1 is heavily customisable as well, but goes about it in different ways. First fo all, it's based on the 3.5 ruleset so a lot of the basic stuff is the same. A few key differences are the rates at which you accrue feats (3.5 has you take a feat at first level, then another at level 3, then one for every level that's a multiple of three; PF has you gain a feat every other level instead: 1, 3, 5, 7, etc), multiclassing rules and class customisation. As said above, Pathfinder has an archetype system for each class, that lets you swap base class features for features tied to your chosen archetype, similiar to how 5e has subclasses.

You can also "stack" archetypes - for example, you could choose to take the Gladiator archetype for your first two levels of Fighter, replacing some of the base class features, stay base Fighter for level 3 and 4, and then at 5th level pick up the "Duelist Training" feature of the Learned Duelist archetype, replacing the normal Fighter level 5 class features. As you level up you can continue taking archetype features, stick to base class features, or mix and match to your heart's content.

It's less complicated than I'm making it sound. Basically, you have an incredibly extensive "menu" of options when you level up, without ever having to multiclass or enter a prestige class.

Prestige Classes do exist in Pathfinder, but due to this system it's very easy to achieve your character concept by sticking to your base class and using archetypes, so whereas D&D 3.5 had loads of Prestige Classes, Pathfinder has loads of archetypes.


Also, regarding 3.5 and how combat might be over before even started: is this because the characters are more powerful than the encounter, or is it because the players laid a strategy before combat started or?

If encounters are properly balanced, a foregone conclusion is usually possible if the party has laid out a good strategy and worked to set up an advantage, and the opposing side hasn't done something similar (or if the party's efforts included sabotaging their enemy). This is honestly rules-agnostic, because any RPG can let you create a set of circumstances that weigh victory in your favour, but 3.5 uses its rules to encourage learning about what monsters you will be facing and preparing accordingly, which means it's easier to get in the mindset of "ok gang, what's the plan?" - but then again, it's not necessary, and I know for a fact some groups don't stick to this playstyle and prefer to kick down the door.

[Darg]

If you go 3.5, I highly recommend house ruling away the retaliation on special attacks. If you fail a trip attempt for example, then the opponent gets a free trip attempt against you, and ones you want to attempt these attacks on tend to be bigger and badder than you. This free attempt doesn't even cost them their immediate action. Because of this, I find that unless a player builds a character around the use of these abilities, they simply ignore their existence. As such they only exist to harass players, not provide tactical elements to the game. Removing the retaliation has opened a lot more options for combat that my players aren't afraid to utilize anymore.

I should clarify that some special attacks like trip provoke an attack of opportunity and give the free attempt. Overall it's a net positive for the opponent instead of the attacker. There are ways to not provoke, but there is no way to not be retaliated against.

[Telonius]

One thing I think someone should mention about multiclassing, if you're coming in absolutely cold and have never played 3.5 before.

In the core rules, there's an entire section on multiclass XP penalties. According to the rules, characters are supposed to take a penalty for being multiclassed, outside of very strict guidelines. (Each race has a "favored class" that ignores the penalty; otherwise the two classes have to be within one level of each other for you to ignore it).

In almost every bit of advice you'll ever see on the forums, the assumption is that the DM has houseruled away this penalty. It is, by far, the most commonly houseruled thing to remove it from play; to the point that it's considered really unusual for a DM to include it. You should remove it too; it is a Bad Rule. It doesn't achieve what it thinks it's trying to, it hurts melee characters (who need more help) more than it hurts spellcasters, it tries to lock races into particular playstyles, it leads to more math headaches when assigning XP, and in general it makes the game less fun by existing.

[Quertus]

As you're familiar with 2e, and I'm not with 5e, let me address it thusly.

3e is a chore to write content for / GM for.

Say you make a guarded building. The guard. 2e, unless the guard has *exceptional* stats, by the time you determine his level, you've got his "attack bonus", and roll the corresponding number of dice for HP. By the time you've chosen his weapon and armor, you've got his AC and damage.

In 3e, in addition to the above, his stats matter, and will give fiddly bonuses / penalties everywhere unless they're all 10s and 11s. You have to pick all his feats ("fighting styles", sort of, which will impact his numbers, or give him additional options (like "free attack if he trips someone", or "can take an extra ranged attack; if utilized, all attacks at -2")).

If the 2e Thief had wanted to sneak past? "Roll 'Move Silently' and 'Hide in Shadows'," but in 3e? It's an opposed roll, and you've got to have spent all the Fighter's skills points (probably only 6+2/level, or 9+3/level if human) to know what his total is (counting those fiddly numbers from his stats).

Now, what if the Thief had wanted to sneak up behind the guards by climbing on the building? In 2e, it's a "climb walls" check; in 5e, it's "mother may I" with a random DC the GM makes up on the spot, and no 2 GMs will give the same answer. In 3e, there's tables of examples and modifiers, and it's generally expected that there's a *right* answer, and any 2 GMs - or anyone else at the table - would come to that answer.

-----

An important difference is items.

3e, you don't *seem* to need items *quite* as much as 2e - werewolves, for example, aren't *immune* to damage, they just take *less* damage.

However

The math is built assuming certain numbers. 2e AC ranged from maybe 12 to -12. 5e has "Bounded Accuracy". 3e is unbounded. Characters - especially muggles - *need* to not only have a certain amount of wealth, but to have access to shops to spend it how they will. They need to be able to sell that Ogre-sized Flaming katana +3, and use the money to upgrade their shield and armor from +1 to +2, buy a cloak of resistance +2 and a cold iron mace as a backup weapon, and look to pick up a flying mount.

-----

As for tactics? Bit of a mixed bag compared to 2e, IME.

But *definitely* lots of options for character building.

[rohde]

One thing I think someone should mention about multiclassing, if you're coming in absolutely cold and have never played 3.5 before.

In the core rules, there's an entire section on multiclass XP penalties. According to the rules, characters are supposed to take a penalty for being multiclassed, outside of very strict guidelines. (Each race has a "favored class" that ignores the penalty; otherwise the two classes have to be within one level of each other for you to ignore it).

In almost every bit of advice you'll ever see on the forums, the assumption is that the DM has houseruled away this penalty. It is, by far, the most commonly houseruled thing to remove it from play; to the point that it's considered really unusual for a DM to include it. You should remove it too; it is a Bad Rule. It doesn't achieve what it thinks it's trying to, it hurts melee characters (who need more help) more than it hurts spellcasters, it tries to lock races into particular playstyles, it leads to more math headaches when assigning XP, and in general it makes the game less fun by existing.

Thanks. That is some solid advice. I'll take to it to heart. It seem clear that 3.5 is not a game where you would want to penalize melee chars.
Thanks :smallcool:

[Segev]

You can also "stack" archetypes - for example, you could choose to take the Gladiator archetype for your first two levels of Fighter, replacing some of the base class features, stay base Fighter for level 3 and 4, and then at 5th level pick up the "Duelist Training" feature of the Learned Duelist archetype, replacing the normal Fighter level 5 class features. As you level up you can continue taking archetype features, stick to base class features, or mix and match to your heart's content.Er, I think this is specifically not true. You MUST take every feature-swap an archetype "offers," because some of them are technically balanced against earlier things. They're not 3.5's Alternate Class Features, which were piecemeal. If you have a rules quote that backs up what you're saying, though, I'd be interested in it!


One thing I think someone should mention about multiclassing, if you're coming in absolutely cold and have never played 3.5 before.

In the core rules, there's an entire section on multiclass XP penalties. According to the rules, characters are supposed to take a penalty for being multiclassed, outside of very strict guidelines. (Each race has a "favored class" that ignores the penalty; otherwise the two classes have to be within one level of each other for you to ignore it).

In almost every bit of advice you'll ever see on the forums, the assumption is that the DM has houseruled away this penalty. It is, by far, the most commonly houseruled thing to remove it from play; to the point that it's considered really unusual for a DM to include it. You should remove it too; it is a Bad Rule. It doesn't achieve what it thinks it's trying to, it hurts melee characters (who need more help) more than it hurts spellcasters, it tries to lock races into particular playstyles, it leads to more math headaches when assigning XP, and in general it makes the game less fun by existing.

That is something to emphasize, I think: in 3.5, XP are a resource that get expended in various ways (mainly item crafting, but others as well). In PF, they did away with that entirely. Characters are expected to be at the same XP level all the time.

I actually think 3.5 using XP for some spells and for item crafting was interesting and opened up possibilities; PF replaces all of this with gold piece costs (5 gp to 1 XP where conversions happen) or by throwing the extra cost out the window entirely (item crafting is the SAME price it would be in 3.5, except no XP cost at all).

PF's way is certainly simpler. Less to track. But as I said, I personally prefer 3.5's, here.

[Endarire]

High-level D&D 3.5 is kinda like high-level Diablo: You're expected to destroy your opposition very quickly (like in one hit/spell) unless it's immune, and similar things happen to your character. 3.5 has the added effects of complexity since you can use and ward against far more things than a few energy types and physical damage!

When I ran a campaign that lasted from level 1 to 21 (and beyond, but we never leveled beyond 21), I just built stock creatures: This is a level 5 Wizard, this is a Wizard5/Incantatrix3, etc. They had standard buffs and items, all noted with caster levels and effects. This was in addition to stock creatures (Wights, Spellstitched Wights, etc.) that had standard stats and boss/named creatures with more unique stats.

I was in my undergraduate program at the time and had long bus rides to school and time at work to work on these creatures.

[Silly Name]

Er, I think this is specifically not true. You MUST take every feature-swap an archetype "offers," because some of them are technically balanced against earlier things. They're not 3.5's Alternate Class Features, which were piecemeal. If you have a rules quote that backs up what you're saying, though, I'd be interested in it!

Interesting, I actually had to check when writing that post because I was unsure, so I went and checked the d20pfsrd site, here (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/class-archetypes/#Archetype_8220Stacking8221). Admittedly there's lot of fiddly bit determining what can be stacked and not.

Rereading what I wrote, I think I miswrote some stuff though, so that's my bad.

[Rynjin]

Interesting, I actually had to check when writing that post because I was unsure, so I went and checked the d20pfsrd site, here (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/class-archetypes/#Archetype_8220Stacking8221). Admittedly there's lot of fiddly bit determining what can be stacked and not.

Rereading what I wrote, I think I miswrote some stuff though, so that's my bad.

It's not that fiddly. You can stack archetypes as long as they don't affect the same class feature in any way (replacements, changes, and alterations cannot coexist). You don't have to choose an archetype at first level, but you DO have to pick it by the level it institutes the first change; you can't "late enter" an archetype. Archetypes are all or nothing.

Pretty simple, really.

[Endarire]

Note that PF1e's archetypes differ from 3.5's alternative class features (ACF or ACFs) in that 3.5's ACFs are piecemeal: You replace one thing with another and can choose what to replace so long as you have the thing that's being replaced at the time it's being replaced.

[Segev]

Interesting, I actually had to check when writing that post because I was unsure, so I went and checked the d20pfsrd site, here (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/class-archetypes/#Archetype_8220Stacking8221). Admittedly there's lot of fiddly bit determining what can be stacked and not.

Rereading what I wrote, I think I miswrote some stuff though, so that's my bad.Right; that's permitting stacking them, but you can't take one's feature at level 1, then another's at level 3 instead of the feature of the first one at level 3. You can take one that gives you a feature at level 1 and another that gives you a feature at level 3 as long as they don't both require you to trade the same base class feature, but you still MUST take both archetypes all the way up.


Note that PF1e's archetypes differ from 3.5's alternative class features (ACF or ACFs) in that 3.5's ACFs are piecemeal: You replace one thing with another and can choose what to replace so long as you have the thing that's being replaced at the time it's being replaced.

Exactly. ACFs can be traded as you like, one feature at a time. No commitment going forward to additional swaps.

[tiercel]

It’s worth noting that 3.5 plays a lot differently depending on the characters’ levels (and the levels, HD, and/or CR of the opponents); the complexity and potential for combos (or even outright no-combo-required Raw Magical Power) rises steeply, as you go, roughly

Levels 1-6: closer to balance between classes than any range, to the point that some people play the “E6” variant wherein you can’t level beyond 6th
Levels 7-12: where the mix of character options generally, but especially the power of full spellcasting, begins to make decisionmaking and planning more complex and balance between casters and noncasters more problematic without careful team play
Levels 13+: where magic is so important that items become increasingly critical to all builds, but full spellcasting begins to outshine everything *even with* a concerted effort to rein it in and use it in as group-friendly manner as possible


Different groups might disagree about the exact level cutoffs where these shifts take place, depending on how detailed a build and its optimization are, but in my experience very few tables actually play much higher than around 12th level. Low level play has its advantages — especially when new to a system! — but there is, for many people, a sweet spot where you get to *have* options (and some of your multiclass/prestige class planning starts to pay off), but the game doesn’t quite yet feel like “we have challenge X, so we select one or more spells that completely obviate X, and it’s experience and loot time.”

——

It’s also worth noting that character building and optimization is a strong 3.5 minigame (hence its popularity on the forums!), but one should take particular optimization builds with a grain of salt vs actual gameplay. It might be cool to figure out how to deliver, oh, 12000 damage on every charge attack, but also pointless if you instantly win every time you can use your trick but are nigh-useless every time you can’t.

In general you do want options, not only in combat (which is, of course, a very big part of 3.5) but outside of it, and *some* form of balance between PCs, and between PCs and their foes. Spellcasting is the easiest way to have more options, but also increasingly unbalancing with rising level.

[Xeni]

Lots of good questions here. I have played both 5e and 3.5 and pf1. so I've got experience with all those systems, I've played 3.5 the most. and I've played it for a really long time. I would absolutely recommend switching to 3.5 or 3.x/pf1. 3.x/pf1 is the monstrous amalgamation of 3.0, 3.5 and pf1 content all permitted in one game. it even works fairly smoothly seeing as its all compatible, but ill mostly talk about just 3.x here and leave others to discuss pathfinder.

From what you said your players really enjoy character creation. IMO 3.x character creation is more in depth, allows for more customization and is just plain more fun and rewarding that that of other systems. So if that's what your group enjoys, you may as well switch over and start learning. because there are way more options than 5e. like... waaaaaaaay more. it's not really all well localized anywhere though, but if you ask around or look in the right places you can usually find the resources you need. also feel free to pm me if you need help with this or anything else.

In terms of tactical combat, 3.x offers an increase, but not a super huge one, over 5e. generally you will usually have more options round to round and benefit more from positioning(especially if there is a rogue or control wizard something in the party) and benefit WAY more from strategic planning ahead. but most of what makes tactical combat tactical is system neutral, and is accomplished by the DM making combat feel tactical. whether that means sprinkling obstacles around, having exploding barrels like a call of duty campaign or other fun terrain/event related elements.

in terms of detail bogging down the table, and the difficulty DMing it, both of these will absolutely be problems for you. at least at first. there is something of a learning cliff to 3.5, real hard at the start, after that you plateau and it all makes sense for the most part. so if you can make it past your growing pains it will be smooth sailing.

I personally haven't seen these complaints of dms not wanting to run 3.5, but i can believe that they exist. dming in 3.5 has something of a different learning curve to it than just learning the basics of the system. i saw a comment here that talked about building a guard in 2e vs building a guard in 3e. and about picking feats, assigning skills and all that. once you learn the system and how things balance out its really not necessary. for example, when I dm for a low level party, if I'm building a basic minion i wont bother with most of the specifics. ill just say he's got 10 hp, an ac of 15, +1 to saves, +3 to skills and attacks at +4 for (1d6+2). or something like that. which is generally all you need, and even if the numbers aren't exact for what could be a 1-3 level minion, they don't need to be. the players will never know. and if something comes up, like the need to make str check or to know some specific information on the spot, once you know the system you can just improv it and say that it is X.

Overall, it sounds like you and your group would really enjoy an edition change. without sugar coating it, it will be hard and seem overwhelming at first. if you get over that cliff though, I can pretty well guarantee you wont want to go back. best of luck, feel free to pm for any questions or elaboration.

[D+1]

1. More tactical combat (although not to the levels of 4e I guess).I don't know from 4E but 3.5 will give you tactical options out the wazoo.

2. Many many more options for characters.And this is why you have tactical options.

This is really the ultimate issue with 3.5 - if you let it, you will DROWN in options. It is an optimizers paradise. If you have those kinds of players and if you, as a DM, do not relish the idea that much of your job would then lie in COUNTER-optimization of opponents, then you need to keep a lid on that #*@% in the campaign.


But is it worth it or does it bog you down at the table?

What about 3.5 makes it such a chore to DM (compared to 5e)?It can be worth it if you don't let your game end up drowning in options - either for you or the players. "System Mastery" was a concept deliberately built into 3E - the idea that at least some part of the fun of the game is simply being the geek who knows all the details, all the possibilities and how to exploit them. But that is not THE point of the game for most people. It is easy to lose track of the idea that the game still involves characters being PLAYED in an ongoing game. It's the weekly exploration of what happens to the PC's and what they choose to do. The more that players focus on only optimization, on exploiting the details that even the DM can't keep track of because the DM has foolishly permitted every published possibility under the sun, the more the game is simply about breaking the game and not actually playing it along with others. It needs to be about the journey, not just the inevitable destination.

If it really makes you wary because of the cautionary tales and warnings - play E6. It's the same rules for 3.5, except for a few that revolve around capping level advancement at 6th - but then permitting characters to continue to acquire more feats. It's a take on 3.5 that is deliberately designed to not permit characters (and campaigns) to spin out of control because of the otherwise uncontrolled power-spiral.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Personally, I find that PF offers all the customization and tactical options you could want while also deliberately pruning a lot of the bloat that can make 3.5 falter under its own weight.

It's just... So much easier to realize a concept in PF, at least for me. The classes having inherent customization in their own class features means a party of four Rogues, for example, can easily have four completely distinct characters. Add that to feats and archetypes, and you could probably spend a decade playing regularly without ever making a character that feels same-ish.

In my experience, if you look at a given ability and think "uh, I wonder if I could twist it to work this way instead of that?", there's usually a feat and/or archetype that not only will allow you to do it, but will allow you to do it painlessly. Which often can't be said about 3.5.

You definitely can't reach the towering heights of optimization that 3.5 allows for, but you absolutely have a lot of room to play around in. And you can start playing with a lot more ease.

It's a d20 system with serious customization and serious scaling of its power levels, but it's more... Polished.

Maybe you could say 3.5 is Linux to PF's Windows.

[Segev]

I will say that my suggestion is to use Pathfinder, and permit 3.5 feats, spells, and classes/prestige classes. Maybe not blanket, but mostly sticking with permitting it. It should work for your group and be fun. If anything seems to be breaking, you can revisit it to see why (and this forum will be a good resource for helping with that analysis).


The last several PF1 games I have been in have also used this alternate set of mostly basic feats over Pathfinder's equivalents, due to a perception of "feat taxes."

I also personally think PF did Cleave badly and think 3.5's is better. But these are small and specific issues. Mostly, I suggest using PF as a base but taking anything you like from 3.5.

[rohde]

Thank you all so much, for all this amazing information. As a 3.5 Nepophyte I have really enjoyed reading it all :smallbiggrin:
Thanks also for the Pathfinder recommendation; I have both the PDF and physical copies of the 3.5 2012 updated core books, so I'll be starting out with 3.5 and see how it goes.

Now I'd like to start with a prepared campaign.
And perhaps some of you have some great pointers on this as well.

I was considering starting with Sunless Citadel (I know it's a 3.0 but I guess it can be converted pretty easily?), but other alternatives are Age of Worms from Dungeon, or perhaps even Paizo's Rise of the Rune Lords (the 3.5 original version).
Can you guys recommend one these options? Or some other?

[Segev]

Numbers from a 3.0 module should translate fine to 3.5. The only things that night trip you up are things that I thunk are ignorance and that you may not even notice if you are running low level and don't know 3.5 inside and out.

(Differences in how damage reduction is pierced likely won't come up, for example, and if they dod the 3.0 rules don't work any less well with 3.5 PCs than with 3.0 ones.)

I thunk you could run Sunless Citadel effectively in a 3.5 game without adapting anything. The 5e version of it was quite good for my group, I imagine the 3.0 version will be even smoother, since most of our hangups came from some glitches introduced and not fixed by the areas in updating to 5e

[King of Nowhere]

One important thing in 3.5 is that, since characters of wildly different power levels are possible, the whole party has to agree to a power level.
You should have an early discussion about what you are trying to achieve, and try to stick to it. You will generally have to agree on not doing some things that are particularly strong, while some weaker options would need some buffs if a player wanta to take them.

All of this is not a problem if the party is cooperative. If they are all trying to outcompete each other's charachters, the game won't work

[Efrate]

The first two parts of sunless citadel, sunless citadel and forge of fury, pretty much need no adjustment, just a few skill changes. Once you get to the latter modules a lot needs redoing. For skills several were removed between editions. Intuit direction is a feature of the survival skill as opposed to its own thing. Stuff along those lines.

I would also recommend pathfinder. Concepts come online easier with less hassle. Magus was brought up upthread, as a penultimate gish base class. A lot of character concepts are just simpler with archtypes and the hybrid and advanced classes. Also adding the dream scarred press (DSP) subsystems are great if you willing to learn them and give tons of more options. Warder from path of war comes to mind immediately as a tank which actually works which is rare in 3.5/pf.

[Fizban]

I was considering starting with Sunless Citadel (I know it's a 3.0 but I guess it can be converted pretty easily?), but other alternatives are Age of Worms from Dungeon, or perhaps even Paizo's Rise of the Rune Lords (the 3.5 original version).
Can you guys recommend one these options? Or some other?


Numbers from a 3.0 module should translate fine to 3.5. The only things that night trip you up are things that I thunk are ignorance and that you may not even notice if you are running low level and don't know 3.5 inside and out.

(Differences in how damage reduction is pierced likely won't come up, for example, and if they dod the 3.0 rules don't work any less well with 3.5 PCs than with 3.0 ones.)

I thunk you could run Sunless Citadel effectively in a 3.5 game without adapting anything. The 5e version of it was quite good for my group, I imagine the 3.0 version will be even smoother, since most of our hangups came from some glitches introduced and not fixed by the areas in updating to 5e
I don't know about Rise of the Rune Lords, but a recent mention in another thread seemed to indicate that Age of Worms runs at a later 3.5 power level. Meanwhile, Sunless Citadel will be running at the earliest 3.0 power level.

I find Sunless Citadel to have some annoying problems. It basically starts off with an ambush designed to catch a single character alone, and incorporates checks that doesn't exist in the normal rules (a balance check in response to sufficient damage on stairs, resulting in a fall for more damage). After that you have the problem of skeletons: 3.0 skeletons are very different from 3.5 skeletons, so whether you're using the stats in the book or the stats in the 3.5 MM or srd makes a huge different. The same goes for the goblins and kobolds. It also allows for encountering some foes that a 1st level party should not be fighting, which on the one hand allows them to learn that running might be a good idea, but also means they could all just get killed. I also find the conclusion unsatisfying, as the "boss" uses arbitrary mechanics and the rescue mission hook has no chance of success (though the hook allows for the fact, I would not want my first adventure to be "welp you're too late and they gotta be put down, sucks to suck I guess.")

[Mordante]

Classes are tricky to balance against themselves, because not all classes are not built equally. Players own skills at building those characters impact those as well. The biggest chore for the DM is managing the players not in how they build their characters, but ensuring they have encounters that challenge them without invalidate them.

While unlikely, as an example: if your team has 0 ranged attacks, an encounter with Flying becomes very difficult. But that problem can ramp up with some effects in 3.5. Some monsters that out-right cannot be hit without Magic weapons, some monsters that have prohibitive defenses, such as DR or Hardness. If your party doesn't have character with Trapfinding, then every dungeon becomes a death-trap waiting to happen, because unlike 5th it's trickier to gain the effective "tool proficiencies", and other cross-role tools require careful planning.

That isn't to say you can't use those encounters, but you need to be mindful of the difficulty curve using those encounters vs players.

To me that sound like a bad DM. If a DM knows there are no ranged characters in the party don't let them fight flying monsters. Same goes for trap, don't use them if you know that party can't handle them

[Rynjin]

To me that sound like a bad DM. If a DM knows there are no ranged characters in the party don't let them fight flying monsters. Same goes for trap, don't use them if you know that party can't handle them

While by all means you shouldn't make the campaign flying monster or trap focused, the idea that you should never throw something at your party that puts them at a disadvantage (especially when that disadvantage is easily remedied, they just failed to do so) is silly.

What you shouldn't do is try to TPK your party with these elements, of course, but teaching people they need to be able to deal with flying enemies past a certain point is just good encounter design.

Otherwise their tactics will never evolve, because they know you're just going to softball everything for them.

[martixy]

This was actually an intentional design choice for 3.5, and the idea was to promote information gathering and planning/preparing. It's not a bug, it's a feature of the system, that combat isn't just about blinding charging in and fighting without any sort of forward thinking.

Another feature (at least how I perceive the system) is that early levels tolerate charging in and hitting it with a stick/spell. Latter levels (especially true high level gameplay) venture into the territory of xanatos chessmastery. That is to say, if you show up to a fight and you haven't already won, you dun goofed.


To me that sound like a bad DM. If a DM knows there are no ranged characters in the party don't let them fight flying monsters. Same goes for trap, don't use them if you know that party can't handle them

This depends on how the table agreed to play. If players say "hey, give us a cakewalk", sure. Any amount of verisimilitude discounts this approach.

[Mordante]

While by all means you shouldn't make the campaign flying monster or trap focused, the idea that you should never throw something at your party that puts them at a disadvantage (especially when that disadvantage is easily remedied, they just failed to do so) is silly.

What you shouldn't do is try to TPK your party with these elements, of course, but teaching people they need to be able to deal with flying enemies past a certain point is just good encounter design.

Otherwise their tactics will never evolve, because they know you're just going to softball everything for them.

I agree do a degree, it depends a lot on the party, what they expect of the adventure/game.



Another feature (at least how I perceive the system) is that early levels tolerate charging in and hitting it with a stick/spell. Latter levels (especially true high level gameplay) venture into the territory of xanatos chessmastery. That is to say, if you show up to a fight and you haven't already won, you dun goofed.

This depends on how the table agreed to play. If players say "hey, give us a cakewalk", sure. Any amount of verisimilitude discounts this approach.

In smaller parties with 2 or 3 players, it's nigh impossible to cover all the bases. Even in games with 6 or 7 players I have never had a rogue in the party with skill points in traps. This is just an examples. Specific roles like healers, trap finders, (de)buffers, etcetera are not always present regardless of party size.

My current party is: lvl3 Gnome wizard (who is focusing mainly fire spells), lvl2 Lizardfolk Hexblade & lvl2 Catfolk 1 rogue(UA), 1 bard (close combat focused). We DM in turns

[Endarire]

When GMing for a group that didn't have a dedicated divine caster, more healing and divine spell potions spawned as treasure. As GM, you're somewhat expected to compensate for holes in party roles to prod the PCs toward victory, but it's your discretion.