Using 5e spells in 3.5?

[reddir]

Is it worth even asking if 5e spells can be easily ported over into 3.5?

I hadn't even considered this until I looked at a couple of spells and it seems to me they tried to keep things mostly compatible.

Is this a potential source of new-ish material for 3.5? Or are the mechanics and power assumptions (I have not actually looked at either, yet) too wildly dissimilar for this to work?

(please don't flame me for being stupid)

[Buufreak]

You won't be flamed. The bottom line is I'm fairly sure most spells that are long lasting staples of the game (which i just lost) exist is most editions, and therefore you probably don't need to port because they already exist in 3.x.

[Silly Name]

Is there any specific spell(s) you were curious about? I would suppose backporting wouldn't be too hard, since as you point out the fundamentals are mostly the same, but there aren't a lot of 5e spells that don't have a 3rd edition equivalent, I think. A few of them, however, could be interesting, such as the Paladin's smites, or some Warlock spells.

STR and CON saves become Fortitude saves, DEX saves revert back to Reflex saves, and the three mental stat saves become Will saves. There may be some edge cases in which you may want to not follow this 1:1 conversion, but it's a good principle to work on

[MicHag]

@Buufreak: what he wants is new spells, so the spells that already exist in 3.5 are exactly the spells he does not want.

While i can imagine using 5th edition spells in a 3.5 environment...

(i actually just did this in my campaign where a NPC Wizard was researching some newly found Arcane Books, he thought one of the players who helped him a spell from the book, which was a 5th edition cantrip)

...i would suggest using it as inspiration to create new 3.5 spells and be wary of severely overpowered or underpowered spells. In most cases it will be fine, but the rules are not exactly the same, so your results may vary.

[reddir]

Is there any specific spell(s) you were curious about? I would suppose backporting wouldn't be too hard, since as you point out the fundamentals are mostly the same, but there aren't a lot of 5e spells that don't have a 3rd edition equivalent, I think. A few of them, however, could be interesting, such as the Paladin's smites, or some Warlock spells. ...

I was looking to bring Advantage/Disadvantage into 3e by way of spells, and a poster pointed out some spells in 5e: True Strike (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/blur) and Blur (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/blur).
These compare to spells in 3e: True Strike (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueStrike.htm), which is more powerful but also one spell level higher, and Blur (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blur.htm) which might be equivalent and is at the same spell level.

This was my first experience with 5e spells. I wondered if I should consider more of what is there.

[Silly Name]

Oh, yeah, you may have to fiddle with the numbers a bit, but I think overall the basic ideas and effects of 5e spells are not out of line with 3.5 - bar some stuff, such as things that interact specifically with 5e mechanics like exhaustion.

[Starbuck_II]

Is it worth even asking if 5e spells can be easily ported over into 3.5?

I hadn't even considered this until I looked at a couple of spells and it seems to me they tried to keep things mostly compatible.

Is this a potential source of new-ish material for 3.5? Or are the mechanics and power assumptions (I have not actually looked at either, yet) too wildly dissimilar for this to work?

(please don't flame me for being stupid)

Yes, they could be.
Some 5E's are stronger than 3.5 counterparts but mostly easy to move over.

1) (5E empowered cantrips).
Example, Booming Blade is a cantrip working as if a 1st lv
Shocking grasp was 1st is now a cantrip.

2) 1st spells are stronger front end if not backend:
Burning Hands is 3d6 at 1st instead of 1d4.
Its brother Frost Fingers is only 2d8 but cold damage.
Jim's Magic Missile has three missile at start, but has a 1 gp tax

3) Some are about right:
Agnazzar's Scorcher is perfect where it is. keeping with magic creation rules in 3.5 though (since 3 die is a little strong as a base)
a. 2d8+1d8 every 3 levels in (Starting 3d8, Max 6d8 at 12th level)
or
b.we start with 2d8+2 damage every level (starting at 2d8+6, Max 2d8+24 at 12th)

[paladinn]

If I ever run another 3x game, I am porting the 5e magic/spell system as a whole. Possibly excluding most of the damage cantrips.

I'd rather forget "fire-and-forget."

[Starbuck_II]

Honestly, that would be a interesting game.
Unlike 5E you have actual prices for magic items using 3.5, the 5E magic spells is/are largely better (bigger effects)/fun ideas.

[Silly Name]

I was looking to bring Advantage/Disadvantage into 3e by way of spells, and a poster pointed out some spells in 5e: True Strike (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/blur) and Blur (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/blur).
These compare to spells in 3e: True Strike (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueStrike.htm), which is more powerful but also one spell level higher, and Blur (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blur.htm) which might be equivalent and is at the same spell level.

This was my first experience with 5e spells. I wondered if I should consider more of what is there.

5e's True Strike is universally considered a very bad spell, for a variety of reason (action economy, extremely strict limitations, the fact it requires concentration...), but it's also noticeably weaker than 3.5's True Strike. 3.5's version is by no means a powerhouse, but a +20 to hit is basically an automatic hit, whereas advantage isn't nearly as a sure thing. It'd be a big nerf even if you solve 5e True Strike's other issues.

Using Advantage/Disadvantage in place of concealment miss chance could be interesting, though, and does make rolling to hit faster.

[Eldan]

If you just want new spells, have you considered Pathfinder instead? They have a huge SRD, containing tons of spells that aren't in 3.5 and they are easier to port.

[reddir]

If you just want new spells, have you considered Pathfinder instead? They have a huge SRD, containing tons of spells that aren't in 3.5 and they are easier to port.

Thanks for the reminder.

I looked at them when PF first came out and haven't really gone back since. I am sure there is quite a lot that has been made available since then.

Any you would recommend? Are there threads here or elsewhere that go into this?

[TotallyNotEvil]

I'd bring 5E cantrips to PF, and maybe tweak he first level spells to not be so inferior to a plain crossbow (or the newly ported cantrips).

[bekeleven]

I've been reading the kingdoms of kalamar books recently. They're technically official 3e DnD books, but I've never even cracked one open. Check out the KoK player's guide for a lot of dubiously balanced stuff.

[Psyren]

You'd likely have a lot of work to do:

1) 5e spells are based on bounded accuracy. This gives them much lower ceilings, and in some cases higher floors, than their 3.5 equivalents.

2) 5e spells scale with spell slot rather than caster level, which tends to make them significantly less powerful in 3.5.

3) A lot of 5e spells (buffs especially) are balanced around the concentration mechanic, which keeps you from layering their benefits. Even if you port in that mechanic, by mixing 5e and 3.5 spells, you can get a great deal of power out of 1 concentration 5e buff + several passive 3.5 ones. And if you don't bring that mechanic in, the 5e spells can reach unintended levels of power very quickly.

And I haven't touched on metamagic, saving throws, touch attacks etc.

I do agree with the "bring in the 5e cantrips" suggestion though, the 3.5 ones and even the PF ones are pretty underpowered.