Using 3.5 and 5th edition in the same game?

[Melcar]

Hello...

So, I was joking around with a body of mine about ways me migth be able to start gaming again... We've fallen out in gaming wise because he's all into 5th and I'm not. So currently for the first time in like 20 years, we have no game going on.

The rest of the friends (from highschool) are probably fine with either system, but me and him dont want to play the others edition. For me I don't like 5th and he doesn't want to go back to 3.5... The lack of rules gives him a feeling of freedom and for me its the opposite.

Anyways, we joked that we would just need to play two different editions at once. At first we just laughed it off, for the sillyness, but I then started to wonder if it could be done? And if so, could it work?

Could I use 3.5 and he 5th in the same game?

Thanks!

[ciopo]

Gut feeling, not sure, but inevitably "the world" will be the one or the other, aa decided by the GM.

And in that regard, either you willbe a 3.5 "god" in w 5th edition world, or he'll be a poor 5th ed schmuck in a 3.5 world.

Full BAB and AC makes it easy for a 3.5 martial to absolutely dominate the numbers game against anything 5th ed.

So if the monsters will have 3.5 numbers, they will hit him in a 1 and will only be hit on a 20.

On the opposite side, if the monsters have 5th ed numbers, whatever you make will have to be carefully tailored.

Ironically a full caster going the way of the "GOD wizard" would be the most friendly one to play in a 5th ed world

[Elves]

offer to run it in 3.5

don't debate the merits of the different systems. a group of people will always choose the thing that's more popular if they don't care either way.

your job is to get them as subtly as possible into a place where they are actually experiencing the game, not their biases about it

[Arkain]

Could playing E6 or E8 be a compromise here, at least in terms of pure numbers?

However, it seems that the problems runs much deeper than that, as you said when it comes to a perceived lack of rules. So maybe the question may rather be, what are the points where you find yourself clashing a lot there? Are there very specific aspects where you'd prefer a more rules intensive approach rather to a rather lax one? And are these truly so numerous or relevant that it prevents you from participating in the same game? Basically, can you perhaps try to narrow down the issue more so that we can try to find a compromise (such as hybrid rules)?

[Particle_Man]

Maybe alternate games in the same setting on alternate weeks?

Some 3.5 characters are simpler than others; warlock can be basically "point and shoot". Is your friend's objection to 3.5 based on complexity?

Going the other way, are there enough new books, etc., out to make it possible to play a more complex 5th ed. character?

[Elves]

If you want to play a 3.5 char in 5e, I recommend incarnum. It's an internally coherent subsystem, so the class tables can be ported over wholesale. You just have to do a little bit of adaptation on the soulmelds -- but you only have to adapt the ones you're going to use.

TOB can be ported over mostly intact too if you avoid maneuvers that don't convert well.

[Biggus]

Can you give us a bit more detail about what you each do and don't like about the respective editions?

[False God]

No, not really, and it's not worth it.

At low levels, the difference will be notable but minimal. 5E characters will have the edge in terms of raw HP and many of the classes have mo options to source their damage from (that is, its easier to be SAD in 5E for more classes than it was in 3.5E). 5E casters will be able to cast basic cantrips instead of resorting to hitting things with a stick ala early 3.5.

You'll start noticing a disconnect around level 5. Bounded accuracy will restrain 5E characters from being able to hit 3.5 high ACs. 5E, like 4E, decreased enemy AC and increased enemy HP (though not much as 4E), even though 3.5 HP is lower, you'll see 5E characters less likely to hit them, and more likely to be damaged by 3.5-based enemies.

The second notable effect will be the equally unbounded stats in 3.5, as 3.5 characters start reaching levels where they can modify themselves, the ability to go past 20 will be HUGE. As levels go up, 3.5 spell damage will increase dramatically

----
IMO, take some sensibilities from 5E(IE: let rogues deal damage with dex any other similar ease of gameplay elements) or some customizability from 3.5(feats for customization or certain templates) and make everyone play the same system.

Different systems are only useful for representing dramatically different things, 5E and 3.5 are too close to warrant this.

[Quertus]

Huh. I’ve seen Jedi, Aies Sedai, WoD Mages, and so much more in D&D games. But mixing 3e and 5e? That’s a tall order.

Balance to the table. It might be easy to find a single point in the career of a particular character of one edition where they’re within your table’s balance range of a party of a particular level in the other edition. Even if those levels are nothing alike, and WBL has been thrown out the window. But, unless your table has little concern for balance, I doubt that will hold up as they level.

For example, could a 3e e6 party, starting at level 6, adventure with a 5e character from 1-20? With the right levels of optimization on both sides, I think that the answer is a solid “maybe”. But I leave it to those who know 5e better to give a more definitive answer.

[pabelfly]

I'm not seeing how this could work.

For attack rolls, damage, saves and save DCs, and skills, you could presumably adjust these. Say a 5e character does roughly 20 less damage than a 3.5 character each turn, you could add 20 damage to the 5e character so they're roughly on-par. You could do this in a similar way for the other stats.

What makes this harder is how different the capabilities of characters are in the two. 5e does not presume items, 3.5 does. There's differences in all sorts of mechanics too, like grappling, flight, etc. Very messy, and much more difficult to entangle than I suspect it's worth.

My suggestion is to try 5e if you haven't already. Maybe come up with some homebrew if you have specific characters or ideas you want to play that normally wouldn't be possible for the system. I much prefer 3.5, but that's not to say you can't have fun playing 5e, especially if you enjoy RPGs with the other people you play with.

[Malphegor]

Theoretically yeah it can be done. 5e was initially built from the offset with the bold claim that it was compatible with all prior editions to varying degrees of tweaking. In reality this just meant ‘we’ve made it work like a watered down 3e and mixed and matched some other stuff on and made a conversion guide to make stuff switch around’.

So, apart from a few abilities and the concept of advantage/disadvantage, a 3e DM could concievably run a game for 5e characters using the 3e ruleset. There will need to be a lot of on the fly translation of mechanics and god help you if you start multiclassing between classes from entirely different editions but

theoretically, yes. It would be messy and clunky and questionable but my god would it be fun to do as an experiment lol

[Melcar]

Gut feeling, not sure, but inevitably "the world" will be the one or the other, aa decided by the GM.

And in that regard, either you willbe a 3.5 "god" in w 5th edition world, or he'll be a poor 5th ed schmuck in a 3.5 world.

Full BAB and AC makes it easy for a 3.5 martial to absolutely dominate the numbers game against anything 5th ed.

So if the monsters will have 3.5 numbers, they will hit him in a 1 and will only be hit on a 20.

On the opposite side, if the monsters have 5th ed numbers, whatever you make will have to be carefully tailored.

Ironically a full caster going the way of the "GOD wizard" would be the most friendly one to play in a 5th ed world

Hmmm... that's surely something to look out for. My initial thoughts were to have each separate character roll against challenges in the same rule-set. So a 5th edition character would role against a 5edition monster... etc.




offer to run it in 3.5

don't debate the merits of the different systems. a group of people will always choose the thing that's more popular if they don't care either way.

your job is to get them as subtly as possible into a place where they are actually experiencing the game, not their biases about it

I would be a player in this, not a DM. I only DM 3.5.


Could playing E6 or E8 be a compromise here, at least in terms of pure numbers?

However, it seems that the problems runs much deeper than that, as you said when it comes to a perceived lack of rules. So maybe the question may rather be, what are the points where you find yourself clashing a lot there? Are there very specific aspects where you'd prefer a more rules intensive approach rather to a rather lax one? And are these truly so numerous or relevant that it prevents you from participating in the same game? Basically, can you perhaps try to narrow down the issue more so that we can try to find a compromise (such as hybrid rules)?

I think the thing is that I like all the opportunities for modifier hunting 3.5 provides. I love the possible combinations of over a thousand different classes and min/maxing. Not only to build OP characters but the ability to build towards some arbitrary concept. Be that healing, stealth crafting etc... I also dislike 5th edition for not being 3.5. Simply put, I have to wish to change and like what I have. I also don't really want to learn a new edition.



Maybe alternate games in the same setting on alternate weeks?

Some 3.5 characters are simpler than others; warlock can be basically "point and shoot". Is your friend's objection to 3.5 based on complexity?

Going the other way, are there enough new books, etc., out to make it possible to play a more complex 5th ed. character?

I think that would entail having 2 characters each... but it might be a compromise...


If you want to play a 3.5 char in 5e, I recommend incarnum. It's an internally coherent subsystem, so the class tables can be ported over wholesale. You just have to do a little bit of adaptation on the soulmelds -- but you only have to adapt the ones you're going to use.

TOB can be ported over mostly intact too if you avoid maneuvers that don't convert well.

Well, basically were both have certain things we want to try... usually some weird build.


Can you give us a bit more detail about what you each do and don't like about the respective editions?

Well as mentioned 5th not being what I'm used to is a big thing for me. I've been playing 3.X since 2000 and I have no use for a new game. I also still find combinations, feats and classes I haven't tried or rules I don't know, so I don't feel I have exhausted 3.5 yet at all.

I really enjoy min/maxing... It trying to get some wierd character build to work... not just for power but for the specialization my character has... what ever than might be. I especially like taking classic weak builds and optimizing them into a workable build.

On a more overall feel, I like that there are rules for nearly everything. I like that there is back drop to measure availability. There is a consistency to that. A measuring stick. It feels like the lack of rules in 5th makes it up to the DM weather something works and too much power is giving to the DM. Really I prefer when the DM is the story teller not the rules designer. Understood to mean I dont want to rely on the DM to come op with rules on the fly for some thing that hasn't been described in 5th... like minionmancy... I also dislike the lack of magic items. Feels boring somehow!

My friends feel - as I understand it is - that he feels less confined to imagine and think up solutions on the fly which hasn't a fixed way in the rules. He feels more inspired, where I feel stunned... He use to say you can play anything in 5th... first concept wasn't possible though... so really it puts too much influence on the DM and whether he likes my concepts.

So we simply have very different views... he's also someone who gets bored with a character after about 5-8 levels... whereas I would love nothing more than only playing with my main character from 2002... I'd rather keep playing and optimizing that character than start over again and again.

Since no one in my group wants to play mid to high epic that character has all but been retired...

[Biggus]

I really enjoy min/maxing... It trying to get some wierd character build to work... not just for power but for the specialization my character has... what ever than might be. I especially like taking classic weak builds and optimizing them into a workable build.

On a more overall feel, I like that there are rules for nearly everything. I like that there is back drop to measure availability. There is a consistency to that. A measuring stick. It feels like the lack of rules in 5th makes it up to the DM weather something works and too much power is giving to the DM. Really I prefer when the DM is the story teller not the rules designer. Understood to mean I dont want to rely on the DM to come op with rules on the fly for some thing that hasn't been described in 5th... like minionmancy... I also dislike the lack of magic items. Feels boring somehow!

My friends feel - as I understand it is - that he feels less confined to imagine and think up solutions on the fly which hasn't a fixed way in the rules. He feels more inspired, where I feel stunned... He use to say you can play anything in 5th... first concept wasn't possible though... so really it puts too much influence on the DM and whether he likes my concepts.

So we simply have very different views... he's also someone who gets bored with a character after about 5-8 levels... whereas I would love nothing more than only playing with my main character from 2002... I'd rather keep playing and optimizing that character than start over again and again.

Since no one in my group wants to play mid to high epic that character has all but been retired...

If the key point is that he likes the fact there aren't rules for everything in 5E and you like that there are in 3.5, it's hard to see how you could get past that. Possibly you could make a list of the rules you feel are most sorely lacking in 5E and negotiate with him about importing some of those?

Similarly it'd certainly be possible to port some specific content (classes, feats etc) from one to the other, but it seems to me that still wouldn't solve your key points of disagreement: from your description I feel like any hybrid you could come up with would still leave one or the other of you dissatisfied. So I think realistically you're probably better off taking it in turns than trying to mix the two. Personally I think it'd be easier and less confusing to do alternate adventures rather than alternate weeks, but YMMV.

[Melcar]

If the key point is that he likes the fact there aren't rules for everything in 5E and you like that there are in 3.5, it's hard to see how you could get past that. Possibly you could make a list of the rules you feel are most sorely lacking in 5E and negotiate with him about importing some of those?

Similarly it'd certainly be possible to port some specific content (classes, feats etc) from one to the other, but it seems to me that still wouldn't solve your key points of disagreement: from your description I feel like any hybrid you could come up with would still leave one or the other of you dissatisfied. So I think realistically you're probably better off taking it in turns than trying to mix the two. Personally I think it'd be easier and less confusing to do alternate adventures rather than alternate weeks, but YMMV.

For me it has a lot to do with the limitations of character creation… if I could play my 3.5 character built using 3.5 and ported into a 5th game I don’t think I would mind that at all… it naturally depends on what the specific execution would be, but the character creation is important for me. To me, it feels like 5th has put too many limitations on that element… not saying 3.5 is perfect because there are plenty faults but it’s the better, more fun option imho!

[Biggus]

For me it has a lot to do with the limitations of character creation… if I could play my 3.5 character built using 3.5 and ported into a 5th game I don’t think I would mind that at all… it naturally depends on what the specific execution would be, but the character creation is important for me. To me, it feels like 5th has put too many limitations on that element… not saying 3.5 is perfect because there are plenty faults but it’s the better, more fun option imho!

OK, that might be something you could find a compromise on. What limitations are you talking about? (I don't know 5E very well).

[Melcar]

OK, that might be something you could find a compromise on. What limitations are you talking about? (I don't know 5E very well).

The limitations is just the number of classes/ feat/ bonuses in 3.5 vs 5th… if you have access to all publishes you have over 1000 classes/ PrC in 3.5 and something like 20 in 5th… so when building your character they all turn out fairly generic imo… sure there are variant of all, but so too are there variants in 3.5. In conclusion only a small fraction of the options possible in 3.5!

As long as I get the benefits as described in 3.5… I personally find it difficult to see how to execute the specifics but I think the idea has some merit.

My concern would be if any DM would go for it… the easiest way would be to run all encounters in a 3.5 and 5th ideation basically have two different write-ups of all enemies.

[Biggus]

The limitations is just the number of classes/ feat/ bonuses in 3.5 vs 5th… if you have access to all publishes you have over 1000 classes/ PrC in 3.5 and something like 20 in 5th… so when building your character they all turn out fairly generic imo… sure there are variant of all, but so too are there variants in 3.5. In conclusion only a small fraction of the options possible in 3.5!

As long as I get the benefits as described in 3.5… I personally find it difficult to see how to execute the specifics but I think the idea has some merit.

My concern would be if any DM would go for it… the easiest way would be to run all encounters in a 3.5 and 5th ideation basically have two different write-ups of all enemies.

While I can see that the ability to stack bonuses almost without limit in 3.5 is the source of a lot of its issues, the lack of feats and classes is one of the things which puts me off it. In particular, the fact that you have to give up an ability increase to gain a feat, and that even if you give them all up you only get five, or seven if you're a fighter. It seems to me like it wouldn't be too hard to add a regular feat progression and import some extra feats from 3.5. If the DM doesn't want to do the work of adding feats and/or ability improvements to monsters they can just put you up against slightly harder ones once you reach a high enough level for the extra feats to make a noticeable difference; you'll advance a bit faster but it's hardly game-breaking.

Likewise I don't see why some classes from 3.5 couldn't be imported. There are notes on converting 3.5 material to 5E here (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_Conversions_1.0.pdf) and here (https://www.tumblr.com/noblecrumpet-dorkvision/147296230597/tips-for-3e-to-5e-conversions). There's also a book of class conversions called Champions of a Lost Era but it costs money, although not a lot.

[ciopo]

Have a look to Valda spire of secrets, it's a third party sourcebook more or less devoted to porting a lot of 3.5 prc and pathfinder archetypes to 5th edition as subclasses

[Quertus]

For me it has a lot to do with the limitations of character creation… if I could play my 3.5 character built using 3.5 and ported into a 5th game I don’t think I would mind that at all… it naturally depends on what the specific execution would be, but the character creation is important for me. To me, it feels like 5th has put too many limitations on that element… not saying 3.5 is perfect because there are plenty faults but it’s the better, more fun option imho!


The limitations is just the number of classes/ feat/ bonuses in 3.5 vs 5th… if you have access to all publishes you have over 1000 classes/ PrC in 3.5 and something like 20 in 5th… so when building your character they all turn out fairly generic imo… sure there are variant of all, but so too are there variants in 3.5. In conclusion only a small fraction of the options possible in 3.5!

As long as I get the benefits as described in 3.5… I personally find it difficult to see how to execute the specifics but I think the idea has some merit.

My concern would be if any DM would go for it… the easiest way would be to run all encounters in a 3.5 and 5th ideation basically have two different write-ups of all enemies.

Balance to the table.

The party sees 100 orcs on the horizon. The 5e characters flee, because they know that that’s an overwhelming number of orcs. And they’re right. The 3e character(s) laugh and stand their ground, because it’s just orcs. And they’re right.

Just making the monsters work according to who is challenging them doesn’t change the fact that 5e characters are wussy, and 3e characters are transcendent. By design.

[Crake]

The limitations is just the number of classes/ feat/ bonuses in 3.5 vs 5th… if you have access to all publishes you have over 1000 classes/ PrC in 3.5 and something like 20 in 5th… so when building your character they all turn out fairly generic imo… sure there are variant of all, but so too are there variants in 3.5. In conclusion only a small fraction of the options possible in 3.5!

As long as I get the benefits as described in 3.5… I personally find it difficult to see how to execute the specifics but I think the idea has some merit.

My concern would be if any DM would go for it… the easiest way would be to run all encounters in a 3.5 and 5th ideation basically have two different write-ups of all enemies.

Well, so, the issue with this is that the DMG for 5e sets VERY clear... whats the word... conventions? Expectations? Guidelines I guess, for homebrewing. They basically pushed all the publishing of splatbooks onto DMs and called it a day. So the reason why 5e has basically no further support for additional classes is because wizards (edit: of the coast) very clearly said "that's DM territory, we're not doing that anymore".

So with that in mind, you need to realise that character customization in 5e isn't about splatbook diving and finding quirky and unique combinations (which will usually end up requiring DM evaluation ANYWAY), but it's more about negotiation and compromise in working with your DM to create a custom class/archetype to suit the playstyle and character you desire.

Not saying it's a great system, but it's an often overlooked one these days, as everyone, especially 3.5 generation people, seem to recoil in horror at the notion of homebrewing something, and sure, homebrewing a unique combo isn't the same as "discovering" it via a combination of predetermined feats and class features.

[noob]

Hello...

So, I was joking around with a body of mine about ways me migth be able to start gaming again... We've fallen out in gaming wise because he's all into 5th and I'm not. So currently for the first time in like 20 years, we have no game going on.

The rest of the friends (from highschool) are probably fine with either system, but me and him dont want to play the others edition. For me I don't like 5th and he doesn't want to go back to 3.5... The lack of rules gives him a feeling of freedom and for me its the opposite.

Anyways, we joked that we would just need to play two different editions at once. At first we just laughed it off, for the sillyness, but I then started to wonder if it could be done? And if so, could it work?

Could I use 3.5 and he 5th in the same game?

Thanks!
You could probably add a lot of 5e concepts to 3.5 easily.
Ex: 5e proficiency system is not that hard to add in as are stat caps then you just recompile the player and monsters to use those and suddenly the math checks out roughly fine (also remove all the fiddly plusses, I know that removes a lot of feats but we can probably add in 5e feats to compensate).

[pabelfly]

Not saying it's a great system, but it's an often overlooked one these days, as everyone, especially 3.5 generation people, seem to recoil in horror at the notion of homebrewing something, and sure, homebrewing a unique combo isn't the same as "discovering" it via a combination of predetermined feats and class features.

It's not that homebrew is overlooked in 3.5 so much as there's not anything worth discussing on the forums about it.

[Biggus]

It's not that homebrew is overlooked in 3.5 so much as there's not anything worth discussing on the forums about it.

Well, apart from the thousands of threads about "this ability is too weak/strong/doesn't make sense, is this a good way to improve it?" and "I had an idea for a new class/feat/spell, is this a good way to do it?".

[Crake]

It's not that homebrew is overlooked in 3.5 so much as there's not anything worth discussing on the forums about it.

I more meant overlooked as a talking point for 5e. 3.5 didn't have such a strong, baked into the system, push for homebrew like 5e does. It' is MADE for the DM to homebrew the content that wizards isn't putting out, because they don't want to support a hundred different classes with 20 different archetypes, and have to balance each and every one of them, while hoping to avoid power creep which would invalidate their older adventure paths.

So, while I understand you can't really discuss homebrew on forums, I never see people bring it up when discussing the strengths of 5e, and I also almost never see people who run 5e actually homebrewing classes and feats for their players. Problem is, when it comes to "there's no variety in characters in 5e because everyones playing the same 10 or so base classes with a handful of achetypes each", the answer to that really is "talk with your DM and make a homebrew character you want to play". For comparison, homebrewing using the guildelines in 5e is the 5e equivalent to the 3.5 character creation minigame. The only problem with that is a) you need a DM who's willing to homebrew with you rather than just outright saying no, and b) you need to trust your DM to be able to make a balanced and fair homebrew, which takes skill and experience, which not all DMs have. But again, to bring that back to 3.5, in 3.5 you need a DM that a) allows you to use the books you want, and b) is okay with you using that neat combo you found, so at the end of the day, both sides require DM approval.

Now that being said, I have other issues with 5e that are more endemic to the system. I personally abhore bounded accuracy, but I feel like that can be alleviated with the use of 3d6 instead of 1d20, as the real issue I have with bounded accuracy is the swingyness of rolls, and a bellcurve 3d6 (or even 2d10 if you wanna swing that way) does solve that issue a bit, and also makes each individual bonus all the more relevant.

On a complete tangent, I went and created an anydice simulation about 1d20, 3d6, and various ways to represent advantage in a 3d6 system here: https://anydice.com/program/2c1fb

[Quertus]

Does 5e really advocate homebrew more strongly than 3e does? AFB, but iirc, 3e tells GM’s to make custom prestige classes to help communicate the unique qualities of their setting.

I like that 5e apparently moves that more players-side.

[paladinn]

Is your friend willing to play in a more 3e-game? What are his "must-haves" from 5e? You've said what you really love about 3e; and really those are the kind of things Everyone loves about it.

I think you will end up needing to run in 3e, and maybe bring in elements adapted from 5e. 5e is too tightly locked-down with bounded accuracy to allow the kind of play that you enjoy. Trust me, I've gone around and around on here trying to figure out how to get a simple weapon focus-type feat. "No! Bounded accuracy!" was the reply.

Ask him what specific things he most enjoys in 5e, and see about back-porting. Fighters and warlocks specifically are Very different in 5e than they were in 3e. One thing I would Absolutely recommend is grabbing the 5e spellcasting system. It ditches "fire-and-forget" (Hallelujah!) and gives more flexibility to most all casters, while still nerfing a bit by limiting effects to spell level rather than caster level. Importing that would be easier than one might think. Most 5e subclasses could be found in some form as 3e classes; many have actual 3rd party writeups as such. It'll be work but it'll take work.

Keep us posted!

[Melcar]

So with that in mind, you need to realise that character customization in 5e isn't about splatbook diving and finding quirky and unique combinations (which will usually end up requiring DM evaluation ANYWAY), but it's more about negotiation and compromise in working with your DM to create a custom class/archetype to suit the playstyle and character you desire.

That is specifically what I dont want to happen... I dont like the idea that the DM is the rules designer to the point where how something work or whether something work are up to the whims of the DM. I like the have fixed rule points to analyse/compare/steer after... which is something that is the same for everyone... Including the DM.




Is your friend willing to play in a more 3e-game? What are his "must-haves" from 5e? You've said what you really love about 3e; and really those are the kind of things Everyone loves about it.

I think you will end up needing to run in 3e, and maybe bring in elements adapted from 5e. 5e is too tightly locked-down with bounded accuracy to allow the kind of play that you enjoy. Trust me, I've gone around and around on here trying to figure out how to get a simple weapon focus-type feat. "No! Bounded accuracy!" was the reply.

Ask him what specific things he most enjoys in 5e, and see about back-porting. Fighters and warlocks specifically are Very different in 5e than they were in 3e. One thing I would Absolutely recommend is grabbing the 5e spellcasting system. It ditches "fire-and-forget" (Hallelujah!) and gives more flexibility to most all casters, while still nerfing a bit by limiting effects to spell level rather than caster level. Importing that would be easier than one might think. Most 5e subclasses could be found in some form as 3e classes; many have actual 3rd party writeups as such. It'll be work but it'll take work.

Keep us posted!

I am unsure of the particulars, but he love that you can play "anything" he says... way more options than in 3.5. I feel the opposite because if it hasn't been acounted for in the rules its not possible. I'm not about the become a D&D rules designer for me to play the types of character I want... were that the case we might not have rules to begin with... But I will ask him and keep you posted! :)

[Doctor Despair]

That is specifically what I dont want to happen... I dont like the idea that the DM is the rules designer to the point where how something work or whether something work are up to the whims of the DM. I like the have fixed rule points to analyse/compare/steer after... which is something that is the same for everyone... Including the DM.


The idea that your character could just be consider not rules-legal for another table irks me. The idea that your accomplishments in a campaign could be dismissed as due to OP homebrew also irks me. As you said here: there is merit to having ground rules everyone abides me. I'm not a fan of 5e's "just ask your DM" philosophy for the same reason I'm not a fan of whatever 3.X homebrew floats around. I enjoy discussing/playing 3.5, not X alternate system.

[Jay R]

Each of you has a reason why he prefers to play in a particular type of game. But without a third DM, you two won't ever be playing in the same game anyway, so these two ideas aren't necessarily in each other's way.

My suggestion is that you run a 5e game for him to love, while he runs a 3.5e game for you to love.

Yes, this means running a game that isn't your favorite -- in order that you can then play in a game that is your favorite. Each of you respects the other one's preferences, and makes the sacrifices while DMing, to get what you want while playing.

I know that's not the easiest idea, nor the quickest. It may even be the hardest, as it involves each of you making some sacrifices so the other can play the game he loves.

But that also has value.

[paladinn]

I am unsure of the particulars, but he love that you can play "anything" he says... way more options than in 3.5. I feel the opposite because if it hasn't been acounted for in the rules its not possible. I'm not about the become a D&D rules designer for me to play the types of character I want... were that the case we might not have rules to begin with... But I will ask him and keep you posted! :)

I find this at least somewhat ironic. 3e's abundance of choices - classes, feats, skills, etc. - are likely the primary reason people stick with 3e or Pathfinder. Some people like a lot of crunch. Likewise, some people don't Want that much fine control; and they tend to appreciate 5e's greater simplicity. Yes 5e has subclasses; but many of those are full-blown classes in 3e.

[Biggus]

The idea that your character could just be consider not rules-legal for another table irks me. The idea that your accomplishments in a campaign could be dismissed as due to OP homebrew also irks me. As you said here: there is merit to having ground rules everyone abides me. I'm not a fan of 5e's "just ask your DM" philosophy for the same reason I'm not a fan of whatever 3.X homebrew floats around. I enjoy discussing/playing 3.5, not X alternate system.

So what you meant was not "there's nothing worth discussing about homebrew" but "I personally don't find it interesting to discuss homebrew". Big difference.

Personally I find the highly convoluted discussions of what exactly is and isn't RAW deadly dull, and also pointless, because almost nobody actually plays by strict RAW, even most of those who claim they do. I've never yet encountered a DM who treats Monks as nonproficient with unarmed strikes for example.

[Doctor Despair]

So what you meant was not "there's nothing worth discussing about homebrew" but "I personally don't find it interesting to discuss homebrew". Big difference.

Personally I find the highly convoluted discussions of what exactly is and isn't RAW deadly dull, and also pointless, because almost nobody actually plays by strict RAW, even most of those who claim they do. I've never yet encountered a DM who treats Monks as nonproficient with unarmed strikes for example.

First: I'm not Pabelfly. :P

Second: I enjoy parsing RAW. To each their own, I suppose.

[pabelfly]

So what you meant was not "there's nothing worth discussing about homebrew" but "I personally don't find it interesting to discuss homebrew". Big difference.

Personally I find the highly convoluted discussions of what exactly is and isn't RAW deadly dull, and also pointless, because almost nobody actually plays by strict RAW, even most of those who claim they do. I've never yet encountered a DM who treats Monks as nonproficient with unarmed strikes for example.

It was me that said there's nothing worth discussing about homebrew, not Doctor Despair. I also agree with you on the pointlessness of strict RAW discussions, especially when people seem to go out of their way to misinterpret the intent of designers.

Someone pointed out that balancing homebrew was worth discussing in response, and I can understand that argument, but once you have a DM individually tailoring homebrew for one specific player, they're balancing on the basis of the ability and power of the individual player versus the rest of the group. What would be perfectly fine for one player could well be OP for another, and that seems too difficult and pointless to do in a forum post.

[pabelfly]

I have a friend that runs a combined 3.5 and 5e game (as well as Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2, Starfinder, and Star Wars Saga, and other D20 systems). He has run this combined system for two years and his players seem to be happy with how he runs it. This is how he does it:

All systems:
HP +20 at first level, except 4e, PF 2e and Star Wars Saga.

5e
Proficiency equals level.
Sells magic items, 100gp for common, 500gp uncommon, 5,000gp for rare, and 50K gp for very rare, and legendary items are 500K gold. Other items are priced as given for each system, and even though it can be a bit wonky generally works out.

3.5
Free +2 LA if not using PF system
Feat progression as per PF1, if not using 3.5 system

Combat rules depends on game type, usually follow rules of each player's system.

There is (obviously) a level of DM adjudication and finangling here to make this work, especially between systems.

If anyone has any questions I would be happy to refer them to him to answer.

[Crake]

Does 5e really advocate homebrew more strongly than 3e does? AFB, but iirc, 3e tells GM’s to make custom prestige classes to help communicate the unique qualities of their setting.

I like that 5e apparently moves that more players-side.

While that's definitely true, the issue is that they didn't really follow through with that with their publishing design going forward.


That is specifically what I dont want to happen... I dont like the idea that the DM is the rules designer to the point where how something work or whether something work are up to the whims of the DM. I like the have fixed rule points to analyse/compare/steer after... which is something that is the same for everyone... Including the DM.

Issue with this is, as I noted earlier, anything non-core is always, technically, under the purview of the DM anyway, so it was always subject to the whims of the DM. But that's why, when you're making the homebrew, you very clearly define how everything works, and realistically the player in question who's asking for the homebrew, should be involved in the creation process, so that things work in a way that they're happy with. The notion of a homebrew being flimsy and changing on a whim is more indicative of a bad DM, than an issue with homebrew, and a bad DM would be equally as bad in 3.5.

I think the fundamental difference between a good DM in 3.5 and a good DM in 5e is that a good DM in 3.5 has vast amounts of system mastery and can adapt within the parameters of the 3.5e ruleset, while a good 5e DM can readily create things within the 5e framework. In either case, things should be consistent, an inconsistent DM is bad no matter what the edition.

[Quertus]

an inconsistent DM is bad no matter what the edition.

Hear, hear! Not that I’m likely to ever make a sig (I’ve been here, what, 10+ years now?), but I’ll ask “permission to sig?” anyway, just in case I someday get the urge.

[Crake]

Hear, hear! Not that I’m likely to ever make a sig (I’ve been here, what, 10+ years now?), but I’ll ask “permission to sig?” anyway, just in case I someday get the urge.

Sure haha, go for it

[Melcar]

I have a friend that runs a combined 3.5 and 5e game (as well as Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2, Starfinder, and Star Wars Saga, and other D20 systems). He has run this combined system for two years and his players seem to be happy with how he runs it. This is how he does it:

All systems:
HP +20 at first level, except 4e, PF 2e and Star Wars Saga.

5e
Proficiency equals level.
Sells magic items, 100gp for common, 500gp uncommon, 5,000gp for rare, and 50K gp for very rare, and legendary items are 500K gold. Other items are priced as given for each system, and even though it can be a bit wonky generally works out.

3.5
Free +2 LA if not using PF system
Feat progression as per PF1, if not using 3.5 system

Combat rules depends on game type, usually follow rules of each player's system.

There is (obviously) a level of DM adjudication and finangling here to make this work, especially between systems.

If anyone has any questions I would be happy to refer them to him to answer.

I would live to get some more specifics on the matter… it would be great to actually have a viable plan to propose to whom ever might pick up the mantle of DM forthcomingly!

[paladinn]

I would live to get some more specifics on the matter… it would be great to actually have a viable plan to propose to whom ever might pick up the mantle of DM forthcomingly!

Ditto! Details, man, details!

Just a thought.. proficiency = level sounds like Castles & Crusades :)

[pabelfly]

I would live to get some more specifics on the matter… it would be great to actually have a viable plan to propose to whom ever might pick up the mantle of DM forthcomingly!

Sure, ask away. I'll refer on any questions you have.

[Melcar]

Sure, ask away. I'll refer on any questions you have.

Thanks!

So I would love to know how he runs his games. As I see it, there are two overarching ways to approach this. 1) preparing everyting in multiple editions and 2) haven some sort of conversion model.

So on that note:

1) How does he build his encounters? And how does he know/calculate how much each PC from each edition deals damage, when the different edition have vastly different HP/damage? Like, how much is 10 damage worh from a 5th vs a 3.5 player?

2) Same thing really, but how does an AoE effect affect multiple targets when those targets are from different editions?

3) How does he handle PvP?

3) How does he deal with the 5th edition player that wants to do something there are no rules for, when there are rules in 3.5? Does that 5th player adopt the 3.5 rules of figure something out on the fly?


Thanks! I think thats it for now!

[pabelfly]

Thanks!

So I would love to know how he runs his games. As I see it, there are two overarching ways to approach this. 1) preparing everyting in multiple editions and 2) haven some sort of conversion model.

So on that note:

1) How does he build his encounters? And how does he know/calculate how much each PC from each edition deals damage, when the different edition have vastly different HP/damage? Like, how much is 10 damage worh from a 5th vs a 3.5 player?

2) Same thing really, but how does an AoE effect affect multiple targets when those targets are from different editions?

3) How does he handle PvP?

4) How does he deal with the 5th edition player that wants to do something there are no rules for, when there are rules in 3.5? Does that 5th player adopt the 3.5 rules of figure something out on the fly?


Thanks! I think thats it for now!

Okay, responses from the multisystem DM:

1) Monsters tend to transfer over pretty easily. 4e monsters i have found to be careful with at levels below level 5 so i tend to half the HP and restrict action economy on them like taking action points away from them, there are also a lot of tricks DMs can pull to balance the encounter too. 5e tends to have an interesting encounter design, increasing the adventure day can work to, and so on. As said bout the nitty gritty, it is best not to look to much into it and keep the game moving.

2) Damage is converted as 1 to 1. As worded, for 4e subtract 10 from the save defences or make the enemy make a spell attack per target

3) Combat with 3.5 versus 5e

Will = wis/cha , ref = dex/int, fort = con/str, str = grapple
Touch attack forces ref save vs attack roll
Adopt other edition rules if rules do not exist in 5e

4) dms call, usually adopt the 3.5 rule but would need more context

Separate to this, how the multisystem DM handles XP:
Milestone for some games, experience for other games, GP for exp for others, exp earned for each gp found for others, depends on game type. The method he uses is usually covered in session zero.

For 3.5 doing milestone levelling, just reward 1000 times level exp per level up after the adventure/milestone.

Let me know if there is anything that needs further clarification.

[Melcar]

Okay, responses from the multisystem DM:

1) Monsters tend to transfer over pretty easily. 4e monsters i have found to be careful with at levels below level 5 so i tend to half the HP and restrict action economy on them like taking action points away from them, there are also a lot of tricks DMs can pull to balance the encounter too. 5e tends to have an interesting encounter design, increasing the adventure day can work to, and so on. As said bout the nitty gritty, it is best not to look to much into it and keep the game moving.

2) Damage is converted as 1 to 1. As worded, for 4e subtract 10 from the save defences or make the enemy make a spell attack per target

3) Combat with 3.5 versus 5e

Will = wis/cha , ref = dex/int, fort = con/str, str = grapple
Touch attack forces ref save vs attack roll
Adopt other edition rules if rules do not exist in 5e

4) dms call, usually adopt the 3.5 rule but would need more context

Separate to this, how the multisystem DM handles XP:
Milestone for some games, experience for other games, GP for exp for others, exp earned for each gp found for others, depends on game type. The method he uses is usually covered in session zero.

For 3.5 doing milestone levelling, just reward 1000 times level exp per level up after the adventure/milestone.

Let me know if there is anything that needs further clarification.

Thanks!

Ok, so how is opposed checks handled? I would imagine that the enemies modifiers would have to be adobted to what ever edition PC is opposing it? Be it hide/move silent, bluff, grapple, trip etc?

Also if damage is converted 1 to 1 does that not mean that a 3.5 wizard deals tons of more damage than a 5th edition wizard?

[pabelfly]

Thanks!

Ok, so how is opposed checks handled? I would imagine that the enemies modifiers would have to be adobted to what ever edition PC is opposing it? Be it hide/move silent, bluff, grapple, trip etc?

Also if damage is converted 1 to 1 does that not mean that a 3.5 wizard deals tons of more damage than a 5th edition wizard?

Multisystem DM's responses:

Skills usually done through universal rules or DM call, should be easy to find the appropriate skill by system

Cantrips are at will for all, cross system means people can take 5e cantrips

I also apply a cr bonus to 5e monsters to rebalance them to proper scale.



He might also work on a formal document for the multisystem ruleset and if he does it, I'll see if I can share it here.

[Coeruleum]

There's already a compromise and it's called Pathfinder. I wouldn't recommend 5e and 3.5e rules in the same game. 5e's Create Demiplane is basically 3.5e's Rope Trick. 5e also completely nerfs prepared casters by eliminating them from the game entirely and calling spontaneous casters with a much smaller spell selection "prepared." The 5e players will probably feel extremely nerfed compared to the 3.5e players, so you might as well play Pathfinder, where all the content is overpowered jank even if you only use 1pp content and no homebrew.

[Melcar]

Multisystem DM's responses:

Skills usually done through universal rules or DM call, should be easy to find the appropriate skill by system

Cantrips are at will for all, cross system means people can take 5e cantrips

I also apply a cr bonus to 5e monsters to rebalance them to proper scale.



He might also work on a formal document for the multisystem ruleset and if he does it, I'll see if I can share it here.

While I find that very interesting, it does not really acound for opposed checks. Lets say you have tree people grappling. Or a pvp grapple situation. How does your DM determine how the interaction goes down when multiple grapplers have very different modifiers to grapple because of different systems? I understand that there will always be different modifiers, but they should at least have a common playing field... I would love to see such a multisystem ruleset!


There's already a compromise and it's called Pathfinder. I wouldn't recommend 5e and 3.5e rules in the same game. 5e's Create Demiplane is basically 3.5e's Rope Trick. 5e also completely nerfs prepared casters by eliminating them from the game entirely and calling spontaneous casters with a much smaller spell selection "prepared." The 5e players will probably feel extremely nerfed compared to the 3.5e players, so you might as well play Pathfinder, where all the content is overpowered jank even if you only use 1pp content and no homebrew.

That is what I would be afraid of. Namely that there would be an even bigger discrepancy between the various powerlevels of different build across multiple editions. And while I don't need or agree that everything needs to be perfectly balanced a 3.5 wizard seems way more powerful than a 5 wizard as I understand it.

I am still convinced that somehow all interactions between game and editions specific PC needs to be in that PC's edition. Meaning that two different PCs have two different enemy write-ups to fight, two different climb DCs... so on and so forth. I'm afraid that anything else (unless some conversion key can be made) will make any 5th edition pc much too weak compared to the 3.5/ PF PCs.

That's pretty much the only viable option as I see it. That would ofc mean that the DM would need to run all challenges - be that monster or dungeon obstacle - in different editions of the game, according to PCs.

That leaves multiple-edition-interactions and pvp, which I still haven't found a good way of handling.

[pabelfly]

While I find that very interesting, it does not really acound for opposed checks. Lets say you have tree people grappling. Or a pvp grapple situation. How does your DM determine how the interaction goes down when multiple grapplers have very different modifiers to grapple because of different systems? I understand that there will always be different modifiers, but they should at least have a common playing field... I would love to see such a multisystem ruleset

Multisysyem DM responses:

The dm would have to be the decider of the grapple rules. As for modifiers: in 3.5 use normal grapple check, 5e; make a strength/athletics check if activally maintaining a grapple and a athletics/acrobatics or strength saving throw to escape a grapple, 4e; strength attack roll or athletics against active grapplers and athletics or acrobatics to escape, and so on.

My response:

As I understand it,
5e check is proficiency (equals level in this system as mentioned previously) + STR
3.5's check is BAB (probably also equal to level) + STR + size modifier (0 for medium)

For regular 3.5 characters against regular 5e characters, it seems like it's going to be more down to opposed dice rolls than inherent system differences trumping, unless one character has specifically invested in boosting grapple checks.

[Ualaa]

You could try something akin to 4e.

Take the 3.5 or Pathfinder character and have their level one stats kind of set.
Do the same for the 5e character, because they have "bounded accuracy" and basically don't improve attacks etc.

In 4e, everyone got a +1 bonus (to attacks and defenses, which included Fort/Ref/Will in 4e) for each even level the characters have.

You could do the same with the monsters, giving them +1 AC and +1 Attacks and +1 Saves for each even hit dice.

Each of the characters basically gets a bonus to their attacks and defenses that scales with level, and at the same rate.
Not sure exactly how higher CR monsters would work, but you could approximate that probably.