Is there possibility of a PF1.5 or a 3.5 revival of some sorts?

[Haggo]

Basically the title. I have looked around in the DnD space(Subs, Some discords, RPg.net, etc) and aside from GitP it seems like that basically any form of discussion around 3.5 or related has quieted down or just straight up disappeared. 3PP Content for PF1 has mostly been kept up by Legendary Games and the guys making Spheres of Magic.

PF2 is not so much an evolution of 3.p as it is a complete departure from it, and is getting even less ties to it's 3rd edition roots with its remastering. There's an argument that it followed 4e more than 3e even, ironically enough and even in the indie space there's more 4e-likes or designers using that as an inspiration rather than 3.5.

I do know that some form of 1e 'reimagining' or 'evolution' is being made by Legendary Games and some other group, but they seem a long way to go from what I've heard from even any form of public playtest but I'm wondering if their efforts would be rewarded since I don't see much public interest in the return of something close to 3.p

[pabelfly]

There are a whole bunch of attempts floating around to rewrite 3e or PF1. Savage Worlds and Legend are two that I vaguely recall and a whole bunch of others whose names I don't remember who have been briefly floated here or elsewhere before disappearing into obscurity again.

There are a bunch of problems here. I'll list just a few of them:

People don't agree what's wrong with 3e and Pathfinder, let alone how to fix it.
Instead of compromising and throwing support behind one particular rework, a bunch of people have started their own reworks. So, instead of one or two reworks with a bunch of people creating and refining content, we have dozens run by one or two people that people have forgotten due to a severe lack of outside support.
It's hard to personally see a case for switching to a new 3e-like system, when I can just play 3e with my own homebrew. Switching systems is a pain, and one that I can't yet see the point of.


I'd like it if another Pathfinder-tier, "popularly-supported system" comes about. I don't see that happening. At best, I see people switching from 5e to the proposed Black Flag RPG system, which appears to be more closely-derived from 5e than any other system.

[Haggo]

There are a whole bunch of attempts floating around to rewrite 3e or PF1. Savage Worlds and Legend are two that I vaguely recall and a whole bunch of others whose names I don't remember who have been briefly floated here or elsewhere before disappearing into obscurity again.

There are a bunch of problems here. I'll list just a few of them:

People don't agree what's wrong with 3e and Pathfinder, let alone how to fix it.
Instead of compromising and throwing support behind one particular rework, a bunch of people have started their own reworks. So, instead of one or two reworks with a bunch of people creating and refining content, we have dozens run by one or two people that people have forgotten due to a severe lack of outside support.
It's hard to personally see a case for switching to a new 3e-like system, when I can just play 3e with my own homebrew. Switching systems is a pain, and one that I can't yet see the point of.


I'd like it if another Pathfinder-tier, "popularly-supported system" comes about. I don't see that happening. At best, I see people switching from 5e to the proposed Black Flag RPG system, which appears to be more closely-derived from 5e than any other system.

I don't think Savage World can be counted since that's more like GURPS World of Darkness, not really attempting to remake 3.5/PF1 as much as it is translating the theme/lore into the Savage Worlds system.

Tbh, I don't think Black Flag/Tales of the Valiant is gonna work out to be big. OneDnD is now working towards being more similar to 5e so Valiant being 'just 5e with a few clean ups and changes' is going to be competing with 'just 5e with a few clean ups and changed but using the name Dungeons and Dragons'

But also I don't really see any like... 3.5-esque indie RPG coming up. None are using it as inspiration or as something of a big influence, but I do keep seeing Tactical Grid Combat Fantasy RPG ala Lancer or Gubat Banwa appear here and there.

[Satinavian]

Every attempt that is close to 3.5 or pathfinder has to compete with both and their many many compatible add-ons . And convince people that the minor improvements are worth the bother.
Every attempt that is not close might be as well just another new, independent RPG.


There was a chance for renewed interest in PF1 and various cross promotion when the owlcat games came out. But Paizo seemed not too interested to push the old version instead of the new.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd say the "revival" is PF1 itself, in the sense that all of its rules and options remain freely available at websites like aonprd.com. The Pathfinder Society public campaign is still being played with PF1 (albeit less than it used to be) and the classic adventure paths are still for sale. Wasn't WOTC still selling some of the 3E books, too?

[Haggo]

Every attempt that is close to 3.5 or pathfinder has to compete with both and their many many compatible add-ons . And convince people that the minor improvements are worth the bother.
Every attempt that is not close might be as well just another new, independent RPG.


There was a chance for renewed interest in PF1 and various cross promotion when the owlcat games came out. But Paizo seemed not too interested to push the old version instead of the new.

Even then, there's no Indie 3.5e-ish passion project RPG gaining any traction(or even released) with new audiences either since PF1 has stopped being supported. No one's making like... a Lancer to it, is what I mean. A new big Indie darling for 3.5's design ethos, while 4e is becoming a sort of common ancestor to a new generation of designers and players, 3.5 feels like a slowly disappearing legacy in RPG design.

[zlefin]

It doesn't seem likely to me; there just isn't a clear market for it. Not enough interested customers to really support one. Instead it's just the lingering remnants of 3.pf players to cater to until they move on. At least that's the impression I get.

How many people have you seen lately looking to get into pathfinder or 3.5? Mostly I see only a thin trickle of people dissatisfied with 5e and looking for something more complex; and the people who are already into 3.5 or PF1 are mostly content to just keep playing it without much new content since there's so much existing content for the two of them that one can live a lifetime; especially with the modest but high quality content still coming out to add yet more ways to play them. Also, the number of existing homebrew fixes for PF is high enough tha tmany people can simply find one they like if they're not satisfied with pf or 3.5.

I'm not sure how much one can rework Pf1 to get something close enough to be clearly similar and not anger the fanbase, yet changed enough to be a real improvement.

[Satinavian]

I mean, i do like Pathfinder1 more than any other kind of D&D but even i would not need a new version of it. For what ? Splitting the remaining player base even further ? For fixes that already available in dozens of hobby projects and third party materials ?

And new players ? Do you know how hard it is for a new RPG project to recruit new players ? There is a reason nearly all of them fade into obscurity, even more if it is "old, game everyone already owns, but without the trademark".

As said, the computer games were the last chance for a revival as many people have been introduced to pathfinder for the first time. But neither Kingmaker nor WotR have gotten even remotely the publicity BG3 has and there is nothing new based on 3.x on the horizon.


The only way we could ever go back is if either Paizo or WotC go back with their mainline (Pathfinder 3/D&D 7), which is not very liekely or some franchise/IP with a huge existing audience does a new 3.x based RPG (which will never happen after the recent OGL disaster)

[Haggo]

I mean, i do like Pathfinder1 more than any other kind of D&D but even i would not need a new version of it. For what ? Splitting the remaining player base even further ? For fixes that already available in dozens of hobby projects and third party materials ?

And new players ? Do you know how hard it is for a new RPG project to recruit new players ? There is a reason nearly all of them fade into obscurity, even more if it is "old, game everyone already owns, but without the trademark".



I mean... OSR.

Like both of these paragraphs apply to the OSR and they're not a slowly dwindling and stagnating game fandom.

[Arutema]

Any revival of 3.5 or PF1 would almost certainly have to be under the same OGL1.0a license as those systems.

And WOTC has expressed intent to kill that license at least once. They may have backed off for now, but the message to the industry is that OGL is no longer a safe license to use.

[Haggo]

Completelt fair, half-forgot about that

[Satinavian]

I mean... OSR.

Like both of these paragraphs apply to the OSR and they're not a slowly dwindling and stagnating game fandom.
OSR is not exactly full of new player. And while the OSR as a style movement endures, most of the specific retroclones did and do dwindle down and fall into obscurity.

[Darg]

Any revival of 3.5 or PF1 would almost certainly have to be under the same OGL1.0a license as those systems.

And WOTC has expressed intent to kill that license at least once. They may have backed off for now, but the message to the industry is that OGL is no longer a safe license to use.

It's a safe license to use as it ever was. The problem stems from the legal system abuse that WotC can use like a big bat to get what they want: basically rack up your legal fees even if you are 99% likely to win your case. The only way to really fight back at this point is to have lawyers that'll work for free and take their payment from WotC when they win. However, it's quite a rare thing for them to do this unless it's a passion project because they've got to eat and house themselves after all.

[Haggo]

OSR is not exactly full of new player. And while the OSR as a style movement endures, most of the specific retroclones did and do dwindle down and fall into obscurity.

I guess what I am really asking is: why aren't there any 3.5/PF1 style movements? Aside from this forum I don't see much fans,evangelists, or design dives in the public internet.

[Satinavian]

I guess what I am really asking is: why aren't there any 3.5/PF1 style movements? Aside from this forum I don't see much fans,evangelists, or design dives in the public internet.
Probably because the SRD of both 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 are legal and free in the internet. And you still can bring out third party supplements for them without getting into trouble.

A lot of the OSR was about replacing out of print work or having legally safe base for publishing.

[Forrestfire]

Not only that, but for many people the main draw of 3.5/PF1e is the truly massive wealth of content of various balance and imbalance points. D&D 3.5 has around 130 splatbooks, and that's not even touching ancillary content like the magazines and web articles. That's a ton. Any hypothetical 3.5 Renaissance game is competing with the massive pile of stuff that 3.5 has, and at that point, it's like... why not just keep playing 3.5? It's big enough that new stuff is still being discovered and rediscovered by the community.

If you want a well-designed for balance and function game you're probably not playing 3.5, right? You're playing a 4e-based spinoff or an indie game. Which means that a big problem with 3.5 heartbreakers, as always, remains that the draw of 3.5 is the endless library, and you generally can't make an endless library even as a passion project. The logistics simply aren't doable.

[Feantar]

You might notice that, while PnP RPGs seem to be everywhere, the variety of active communities for them is declining - at least that's my perception. 10 years ago, I'd find people that played D&D, others that played any of the WoD games, others CoD, Nobilis, Shadowrun, Pathfinder, Exalted (and some poor people who played GURPS). Now I find people that play D&D. I think it's just the same like all media; an expanding monopoly. See what's happening with movie production studios and Disney.

It's not that PnP RPGs are going to go away, it's just that anything other than D&D is going to become truly niche and more of a passion project. So that's why you won't have a 3.5 renaissance. It's still available, and audiences will become less accessible due to being concentrated by (currently) Hasbro.

[Zanos]

You might notice that, while PnP RPGs seem to be everywhere, the variety of active communities for them is declining - at least that's my perception. 10 years ago, I'd find people that played D&D, others that played any of the WoD games, others CoD, Nobilis, Shadowrun, Pathfinder, Exalted (and some poor people who played GURPS). Now I find people that play D&D. I think it's just the same like all media; an expanding monopoly. See what's happening with movie production studios and Disney.

It's not that PnP RPGs are going to go away, it's just that anything other than D&D is going to become truly niche and more of a passion project. So that's why you won't have a 3.5 renaissance. It's still available, and audiences will become less accessible due to being concentrated by (currently) Hasbro.
Reminds me that a few weeks ago, I saw a youtube video with a title like "How to player cyberpunk in D&D 5e" and I just facepalmed. There's a whole system for that, guys! There's a new one, even! Poor Mike Pondsmith. Most 5e players I meet don't really seem interested in trying things that aren't 5e, even for things that don't even make sense to run in 5e.

[Crake]

Reminds me that a few weeks ago, I saw a youtube video with a title like "How to player cyberpunk in D&D 5e" and I just facepalmed. There's a whole system for that, guys! There's a new one, even! Poor Mike Pondsmith. Most 5e players I meet don't really seem interested in trying things that aren't 5e, even for things that don't even make sense to run in 5e.

That stuff happened after edgerunners released haha. After bg3 came out, i saw someone ask how they can play it in cyberpunk, so people just wanna stick with their system. Not surprising, since its oftentimes easier to adapt a system you know, rather than learn a whole new system

[PhoenixPhyre]

That stuff happened after edgerunners released haha. After bg3 came out, i saw someone ask how they can play it in cyberpunk, so people just wanna stick with their system. Not surprising, since its oftentimes easier to adapt a system you know, rather than learn a whole new system

Yeah. System mobility is a nice dream...but has huge transition costs. Especially to/from crunch-heavy games. One under-appreciated cost is rewiring your thinking--even between D&D editions there's a fair amount of thought-process reworking to make it actually flow. Doable without it, but you're not getting nearly all the benefits of switching and you're causing some unnecessary pain. :shrug:

[icefractal]

I doubt it, and I doubt that any attempt would capture the things I like about 3.x.
Because a lot of those things were never intended by the design, and aren't considered positives by many people.

I think to consider 3.x the best D&D, you need to rank things like "tinker-ability" (Lego factor), "world simulation potential", and "abundance of mechanically-distinct content" as more important than "game balance" or "ease of use". Which I do, but that's a minority opinion. And two out of those three factors require a large amount of content to really sing. For example, I consider PF1 + DSP + Spheres a worthy successor to 3.5 now, but when it first came out, just core only? It was a shallow figment of what 3.5 delivered, and I only played it because that's what some of my friends wanted to run.

Therefore, I think that the most likely way that 3.x continues is stuff like Spheres - additional material that's compatible with the existing stuff, thereby achieving that breadth of content right out of the gate.

[Haggo]

Yeah I guess that's the reason why PF2e was made in that way. 3.5 fans are a slowly dwindling fanbase with very little growth, and there's a growing dislike for the way 3.5 is designed over the decades.

[AvatarVecna]

PF1 succeeded because

1) There were a lot of people who liked 3.5 and didn't want to switch to 4e for various reasons, but wanted new content to still be coming out (which WotC obviously wasn't gonna be doing anymore).

2) Some weirdness with the legalities surrounding various D&D magazines meant a number of people in the game design industry were going to lose ownership of some of the stuff they'd created unless they could attach it to a game they unambiguously owned instead of leaving it chained to 3.5e D&D.

As a result, the core rules of PF1 were the core rules of D&D 3.5e with a few balance changes and all the serial numbers filed off, and has the explicit intention of being backwards-compatible with any 3.5 stuff players and DMs want to bring in. It was a barebones excuse of a system for the creators to keep some of their old content, financially supported by people who were hoping PF would continue to deliver 3.5e style content for years to come.

WotC moved on from 3.5 because sales were starting to fall off. However fun 3.5 was to play, it was deemed that it would be more profitable for the company to produce a new edition than to continue producing content for an ever-dwindling core of diehard 3.5 consumers ready to buy any garbage splat they crapped out. That audience moved onto Pathfinder, and over the years the honeymoon phase for 4e faded and a lot of older players experiencing buyer's remorse fell out of 4e and fell back toward 3e. A percentage of those gravitated towards PF1 because at this point the game had been out longer and had more actual content (not just modules but original material instead of just cribbing 3.5's notes). In the confluence of the above two coincidences, we add the third coincidence that the opinion of "new system sucks" was happening faster than it generally does for new systems, and so there wasn't a new edition of D&D even on the horizon yet.

And all of this is ancient history. 3e was released in 2000, 3.5 in 2003, 4e in 2008, 5e in 2014. PF1 Came out in 2007, PF2 came out in 2020. There's been no new PF1 content in 3 years.

There's no enormous group of PF1 fans so desperate for new PF1 content that they'll throw their weight and money into a whole new system if one appeared promising to be "PF1 with the serial numbers filed off", because PF has a wide variety of 3pp content creators who are still releasing plenty of new content. There's been no en masse abandoning of PF2 the way there was with 4e because PF2 just isn't as widely derided, at least not that I've seen. And there's no mass of game designers who are legally screwed unless they can make a bare-bones excuse of a system to slap their old stuff on.

You mentioned Spheres? Well spheres of power came out in 2021, after Paizo had stopped making PF1 content. Spheres is different enough from most 3.P stuff that it's almost a new system that just using the PF1 rules as the underlying skeleton. That's the closest you'll get to a "PF1.5", I think.

[Satinavian]

We get new RPGs every year and new editions for old games as well. The total playerbase however is not growing nearly as fast. There was a growth spurt when 5E was present in major media and discovered youtoube channels, but that is now over. All of that makes revivals of old games very difficult. And they never last long except in cases where a franchise gets a new edition that goes "back to its roots" to some extend after the last one failed.

And yes, that includes OSR. I still far easier time to find a new PF1 or 3.x group than an OSR group and if i were looking to play a specific OSR game, i have pretty much no chance unless i start it myself and do all the work of convincing players who have never heard of it to give it a try.


I doubt it, and I doubt that any attempt would capture the things I like about 3.x.
I think to consider 3.x the best D&D, you need to rank things like "tinker-ability" (Lego factor), "world simulation potential", and "abundance of mechanically-distinct content" as more important than "game balance" or "ease of use". Which I do, but that's a minority opinion. And two out of those three factors require a large amount of content to really sing. Also that.

But honestly, while 3.x/PF is the best D&D for those players, there is not a comparable lead here over other systems. There is a lot out there where you can tinker to your hearts content, even more that are way better for simulating/worldbuilding, only the content glut is rare as other systems didn't get that huge.

[Crake]

I wonder if it would be possible to train an AI on 3.5/pf1 content, and have it just be a homebrew rules bot, where you can give it an idea prompt and it will just spit out rules for that.

[AvatarVecna]

I wonder if it would be possible to train an AI on 3.5/pf1 content, and have it just be a homebrew rules bot, where you can give it an idea prompt and it will just spit out rules for that.

One of the D&D group servers I'm in was tickled pink to find that chatgpt kinda gets how to format 3.5 PrCs. Here's the result that was shared:


Temporal Enchanter

Requirements:

• Skills: Knowledge (Arcana) 10 ranks, Spellcraft 10 ranks
• Feats: Spell Focus (Transmutation), Time Weaver (homebrew feat)
• Spells: Must be able to cast 3rd-level or higher arcane spells.
• Special: The character must have encountered and communed with a being or entity connected to the time-stream, demonstrating their dedication to mastering the art of chronomancy.

Hit Dice: d4

Class Skills: The Temporal Enchanter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Concentration (Con), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Spellcraft (Int), and Use Magic Device (Cha).

Skill Points per Level: 2 + Intelligence modifier.

Class Features:

Time Weaving (Su): The Temporal Enchanter gains the ability to manipulate time, granting them several unique powers:

• Temporal Distortion (Sp): Once per day per Temporal Enchanter level, the character can slow down or speed up time around them for a brief moment. This functions as the “Slow” or “Haste” spell, with a caster level equal to the Temporal Enchanter’s character level. The character can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to their Temporal Enchanter level. Activating this ability is a swift action.
• Precognition (Su): The Temporal Enchanter gains the ability to glimpse into the near future. They gain a bonus equal to their Temporal Enchanter level on Initiative checks.

Time-Bound Spells (Sp): At 2nd level, the Temporal Enchanter learns to weave time into their spells. Whenever they cast a spell with a duration, they can choose to double
or halve the duration. This ability can be used once per day per Temporal Enchanter level.

Temporal Ward (Su): Starting at 3rd level, the Temporal Enchanter can create a protective temporal field around themselves or an ally. Once per day, they can grant themselves or an ally within 30 feet temporary hit points equal to their Temporal Enchanter level. These temporary hit points last for a number of rounds equal to the Temporal Enchanter’s class level.

Timeless Body (Ex): At 4th level, the Temporal Enchanter becomes immune to the effects of aging and no longer takes penalties to their physical ability scores due to growing older. They are also immune to magical aging effects.

Temporal Mastery (Su): At 5th level, the Temporal Enchanter becomes a true master of time manipulation. Once per day, they can cast the “Time Stop” spell, as if they were a caster of their Temporal Enchanter level. The duration of this ability is 1d4+1 rounds.

Temporal Manipulation (Ex): At 6th level, the Temporal Enchanter can choose to cast spells with the [Temporal] descriptor at +1 caster level. Additionally, they can add one of the following metamagic feats to a spell without increasing its casting time or spell level: Extend Spell, Quicken Spell, or Widen Spell. This can be used once per day.

Timeless Presence (Su): At 7th level, the Temporal Enchanter becomes immune to all spells and effects that manipulate time or affect the flow of time.

Perfect Time Weaving (Sp): At 8th level, the Temporal Enchanter can use their Time Weaving ability an additional time per day.

Temporal Resonance (Su): At 9th level, the Temporal Enchanter gains the ability to project themselves into the past or future for short periods. Once per day, they can cast the “Time Travel” spell, allowing them to interact with past or future events. This ability lasts for a
number of rounds equal to their Temporal Enchanter level.

Master of Eternity (Su): At 10th level, the Temporal Enchanter becomes a master of time itself. They can cast “Time Stop” at will and can use their Time Weaving ability without limitations. Additionally, they gain a +2 bonus to their Intelligence and Charisma scores, reflecting their enhanced understanding of the temporal forces.

How well it did at making actually useful content a matter of perspective. :smalltongue:

[icefractal]

Huh, that's interesting because while the abilities aren't balanced, they're unbalanced in a way I wouldn't be surprised by, in a 3PP book at least.

Also it's interesting to evaluate - you get Time Stop at 12th level (1/day), and then unlimited Time Stop at 17th level. So that's pretty damn potent. But you're at the point where people have 9th level spells and you only have 4th level ones at best, and not much martial skill either (well, assuming the d4 HD indicates a low BAB). Still broken, but if it had some limit (like a cooldown period equal to the duration, maybe) it might not be.

[Pugwampy]

Is there possibility of a PF1.5 or a 3.5 revival of some sorts?

Are you asking as a player or a DM ?

Why revive it ? Its not dead.

Us 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 DM,s keep it alive and well . I have no interest running a 5th edition game . I wont mind playing it but i wont DM it .

[Crake]

Are you asking as a player or a DM ?

Why revive it ? Its not dead.

Us 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 DM,s keep it alive and well . I have no interest running a 5th edition game . I wont mind playing it but i wont DM it .

3.5 player engagement is at an all time low, denying that is pointless. What you said is like saying “um actually, its not dead, its on life support”

[Darg]

Huh, that's interesting because while the abilities aren't balanced, they're unbalanced in a way I wouldn't be surprised by, in a 3PP book at least.

Also it's interesting to evaluate - you get Time Stop at 12th level (1/day), and then unlimited Time Stop at 17th level. So that's pretty damn potent. But you're at the point where people have 9th level spells and you only have 4th level ones at best, and not much martial skill either (well, assuming the d4 HD indicates a low BAB). Still broken, but if it had some limit (like a cooldown period equal to the duration, maybe) it might not be.

Although, it did make itself immune to it's own time stop. So we can't give it too much credit. It's still a fun read though.

[Pugwampy]

3.5 player engagement is at an all time low, denying that is pointless. What you said is like saying “um actually, its not dead, its on life support”

3rd edition is the most loved edition. Many DM,s who run 5E have good things to say about it and are interested . I suppose there are more DM,s who run the latest 5e at the moment ?

Depending on who gets to impress the new player first i suppose . A guy who wants to play DND does not know what an edition is .

We all i assume still play DND 3rd / PF in this forum we camp in ? Yes No Maybe ?

Finally i would like to flex a mega advantage i have over my 5Th Edition DM,s . At least in my part of the world . They want to be paid for DM ing a game .

I do it for free .

[atemu1234]

Ultimately, there just isn't as much of a coherent fanbase to be split by an edition change like there was between 3.5 and 4e, that led to Pathfinder. TTRPGs in the early-2000s through the mid 2010s were much more insular and frankly, stubborn about the edition they played. Paizo for the last half-decade or more have more banked on the 5e TTRPG renaissance that Hasbro engineered, and as a result, they made changes to keep that group happy, instead of maintaining their base up to that point, which were those that didn't want to switch to 4e from 3.5.

I half expected them to do something like this when OneD&D (6e) came out, to target fans of 5e that didn't want to switch to 6e.

[Jay R]

That depends on what you mean by a revival. No, it isn't going to jump in popularity. But it's still being played by lots of people, and it isn't going away. [In the last twenty years, I've played original D&D, AD&D 1e and 2e, and D&D 3.5e.]

[Crake]

I half expected them to do something like this when OneD&D (6e) came out, to target fans of 5e that didn't want to switch to 6e.

Isnt onednd coming across more as like a 5.5?

[Endarire]

The best chance of a 'revival' of these systems is via video games. Having played and GMed various campaigns - mostly 3.5 - for years, whatever flexibility and freedom people get from tabletop games comes with what I consider the drawbacks of slow games, lots of paperwork & preparation, and a need for long-term group commitment. People are still modding the original and enhanced editions of Baldur's Gate (https://www.gibberlings3.net/forums/) about 25 years after BG1 launched.

[Haggo]

Ultimately, there just isn't as much of a coherent fanbase to be split by an edition change like there was between 3.5 and 4e, that led to Pathfinder. TTRPGs in the early-2000s through the mid 2010s were much more insular and frankly, stubborn about the edition they played. Paizo for the last half-decade or more have more banked on the 5e TTRPG renaissance that Hasbro engineered, and as a result, they made changes to keep that group happy, instead of maintaining their base up to that point, which were those that didn't want to switch to 4e from 3.5.

I half expected them to do something like this when OneD&D (6e) came out, to target fans of 5e that didn't want to switch to 6e.


That's Kobold Press' strategy, Matt Colville is making his own 4e throwback, while Pathfinder 2e has it's own fanbase at this point in time--and their fanbases consists of a lot of 'I hate 5e because it's lacking in character options/their martial sucks'

[Zanos]

Isnt onednd coming across more as like a 5.5?
Yes, it's more like a set of revisions to 5e then a new edition. They also constantly go back and forth with community polling to make sure they don't make any unpopular changes. So if you don't like 5e, pretty unlikely you'll like OneDnD.

[Darg]

The best chance of a 'revival' of these systems is via video games. Having played and GMed various campaigns - mostly 3.5 - for years, whatever flexibility and freedom people get from tabletop games comes with what I consider the drawbacks of slow games, lots of paperwork & preparation, and a need for long-term group commitment. People are still modding the original and enhanced editions of Baldur's Gate (https://www.gibberlings3.net/forums/) about 25 years after BG1 launched.

People are still creating for and playing Neverwinter Nights 1&2. The first game got an enhanced edition that's still seeing updates.

If you wanted accessibility, playability, and ease of use for creator and DM tools you really can't beat NWN1, especially with the enhanced edition bringing modern compatibility into the equation.

[atemu1234]

Isnt onednd coming across more as like a 5.5?

Yes, but the difference between 'edition' and 'update' are pretty hazy when it comes to stuff like D&D. I'd argue the biggest change between edition numbers is probably between 3.5 and 4 - and 5e undid a lot of those changes!

[Pugwampy]

I am sure there are lots of DM,s who only run 3.5 PF games .

5th editions job was to sell me , not my fault if I am not sold .

Maybe it explains why so many 5th Edition Dm,s want to be paid these days i dunno ?


This Pug DM does 3.5 and PF

[Crake]

Maybe it explains why so many 5th Edition Dm,s want to be paid these days i dunno ?

It's because 5th edition did a massive job of marketing and popularising dungeons and dragons, and attracted a large audience, to the point where there actually grew a market for paid DMing. DMs want to be paid, because there's a market for it, and they can sell their skillset to players who are willing to pay. 3.5 didn't have such a market, because it wasn't nearly anywhere as popular or accessible as 5e.

[Pugwampy]

3.5 didn't have such a market, because it wasn't nearly anywhere as popular or accessible as 5e.

3rd edition literally labeled the best of all editions . It had a mountain of book supplements both official and OGL . How do you define popular ?

As for access i live in a 3rd world country , No hobby shops

Regardless I had full access to that mountain of books thanks to internet pdf,s . I bought all my dice and miniatures from Ebay , Amazon and Barnes and Noble . 2008 .

[Morphic tide]

It's because 5th edition did a massive job of marketing and popularising dungeons and dragons, and attracted a large audience, to the point where there actually grew a market for paid DMing. DMs want to be paid, because there's a market for it, and they can sell their skillset to players who are willing to pay. 3.5 didn't have such a market, because it wasn't nearly anywhere as popular or accessible as 5e.
I wouldn't say 3.5 was "less accessible" than 5e, as they do use the same OGL terms, the thing is that it got a lot more outside-the-OGL and thus not legitimately freely available supplements that became "expected", didn't reach quite so far into network effect breakpoints, and the Internet wasn't in a state to support the community layout that 5e payed DMs exist in. At the tail end I'd say 3.5 was decidedly more accessible thanks to the utterly relentless PDF ripping and "We can be certain X does Y because Z" breakdowns from RAW debates, whereas the 5e community being so much more casual has the tutorializing of still-awkward rules be much less visible.

There's a reason the more-general "RPG fans" loath 5e being called "rules lite", because it just has little content for its crunchiness rather than actually being light on rules. Its accessibility advantage is almost strictly its lack of content, which is really not a good selling point.

[H_H_F_F]

I think to consider 3.x the best D&D, you need to rank things like "tinker-ability" (Lego factor), "world simulation potential", and "abundance of mechanically-distinct content" as more important than "game balance" or "ease of use". Which I do, but that's a minority opinion. And two out of those three factors require a large amount of content to really sing.

I mean, yeah. This is an excellent point, and very well put.


3.5 has bad balance. Sure. And it's very clunky in places. But it's width is enormous. You'd work for a lifetime without coming close to the breadth of content 3.5 has to offer.

Thing is, if I want smoother play, I just DM 5E. It's fine. If I want to tinker, I'd rather do it in the lab I know.

Even if you designed a system that played as smooth as butter and offered me 200 splatbooks, I'd be unlikely to make the transition - since it'd be a huge undertaking to learn and to master. Not only that, it'd mean leaving behind all the knowledge and expertise I've gathered of 3.5.

So, if someone offered me something that wouldn't require leaving it all behind, something that'd be compatible with what I know, I'd be more tempted than with a whole new system. And, well, that's just homebrew. And in that sense, the community is alive and well. Lots of homebrew is still added all the time here on the forums, a decade and a half after the edition died.

So, there's no motivation behind a new system, really. 3.5 players would rather stick with it, add homebrew, or learn a simpler system.

If 3.5 was ever to be replaced, it'd be by a gradual shift. Some new system will come out, which will be better defined than 5E, and more flexible, and with a lot of space for mechanical expansion. If it'd be popular, people will gravitate to it. And than splatbooks will come. And over a few years, you'd suddenly realize you're entrenched in a new, smoother system, that offered you a toolkit as wide as 3.5's.

In other words, it'd happen like it happened the first time. Not by some conscious decision to give 3.5 players something new to play with, but by designing a new mechanically robust system that'd be easy to expand on - and doing it.

[Crake]

I wouldn't say 3.5 was "less accessible" than 5e, as they do use the same OGL terms, the thing is that it got a lot more outside-the-OGL and thus not legitimately freely available supplements that became "expected", didn't reach quite so far into network effect breakpoints, and the Internet wasn't in a state to support the community layout that 5e payed DMs exist in. At the tail end I'd say 3.5 was decidedly more accessible thanks to the utterly relentless PDF ripping and "We can be certain X does Y because Z" breakdowns from RAW debates, whereas the 5e community being so much more casual has the tutorializing of still-awkward rules be much less visible.

There's a reason the more-general "RPG fans" loath 5e being called "rules lite", because it just has little content for its crunchiness rather than actually being light on rules. Its accessibility advantage is almost strictly its lack of content, which is really not a good selling point.

Accessibility isn't purely just about accessing the content, it's about digesting it as well. 3.5 is very rules heavy, it has lots of moving parts that all are very interconnected and have meaningful interactions with one another, unlike say, pf2e which has lots of moving parts, but each are for the most part quite segregated in terms of effects on one another. Of course, that's what a lof of us who still play and engage in 3.pf ENJOY about the system, but it's also what turns off a LOT of people from the system, who choose to go play these simpler systems like pf2e and 5e.


3rd edition literally labeled the best of all editions .

Citation needed.

[AvatarVecna]

3rd edition literally labeled the best of all editions .

You're conflating "good" with "popular". I'm not saying 5e isn't good, and I'm not saying 3.5 isn't better (I believe both of those things). But 5e's popularity is undeniable.

There's a twitter statement from Mike Mearls saying that 5e had already been more profitable than 3.0, 3.5, or 4e had ever been individually (although it hadn't yet outsold all three of them put together). Of course, that statement came in August 2016, when 5e was 2 years old instead of 9 years old as it is now. 2017 was a year of record sales for WotC. But maybe you don't trust statements from designers and companies. That's not the community. So how has our own community reacted?

3e has been a thing for 23 years. It has 1.96 million posts on the forum in terms of discussion threads. That's approximately 85000 posts per year. 5e has been a thing for 9.5 years. It has 1.16 million posts on the forum in terms of discussion threads. That's approximately 122000 posts per year. In one of the last big bastions of 3.5 discussion, there's still 3 people discussing 5e for every 2 people discussing 3e. The homebrew subforum has 1587 threads of 3.X homebrew. It also has 6595 threads of 5e homebrew. That's more than four times as much 5e homebrew as 3.X homebrew. Once again, 3e is 2.5 times as old as 5e, but now instead of just getting outstripped in speed of growth, it's outweighed in sheer numbers.

https://i0.wp.com/blog.roll20.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/orrreport-2021-q3-in2.jpg

3.5 is still quite popular, still getting plenty of games. It's still getting beaten out by things like PF1/PF2, which are newer games, but it's still plenty popular. 4e doesn't even make the chart, and PF2 despite being newer is still less popular than PF1, so count that as a slight win for 3.X style systems. And none of that matters because 5e is lapping the competition. Not just 3.X systems - all systems put together were still being outweighed by 5e on its own in late 2021.

Is 3.5 a better system than 5e? I think so, by quite a large margin. Is 3.5 a more popular system than 5e? No. Just, flatly, no it is not. It's not even close. 3.0/3.5 lasts 8 years. 4e lasted just 6. 5e is at 9 years with 5.5e on the horizon. It's really just not comparable.

[Haggo]

You're conflating "good" with "popular". I'm not saying 5e isn't good, and I'm not saying 3.5 isn't better (I believe both of those things). But 5e's popularity is undeniable.

There's a twitter statement from Mike Mearls saying that 5e had already been more profitable than 3.0, 3.5, or 4e had ever been individually (although it hadn't yet outsold all three of them put together). Of course, that statement came in August 2016, when 5e was 2 years old instead of 9 years old as it is now. 2017 was a year of record sales for WotC. But maybe you don't trust statements from designers and companies. That's not the community. So how has our own community reacted?

3e has been a thing for 23 years. It has 1.96 million posts on the forum in terms of discussion threads. That's approximately 85000 posts per year. 5e has been a thing for 9.5 years. It has 1.16 million posts on the forum in terms of discussion threads. That's approximately 122000 posts per year. In one of the last big bastions of 3.5 discussion, there's still 3 people discussing 5e for every 2 people discussing 3e. The homebrew subforum has 1587 threads of 3.X homebrew. It also has 6595 threads of 5e homebrew. That's more than four times as much 5e homebrew as 3.X homebrew. Once again, 3e is 2.5 times as old as 5e, but now instead of just getting outstripped in speed of growth, it's outweighed in sheer numbers.

https://i0.wp.com/blog.roll20.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/orrreport-2021-q3-in2.jpg

3.5 is still quite popular, still getting plenty of games. It's still getting beaten out by things like PF1/PF2, which are newer games, but it's still plenty popular. 4e doesn't even make the chart, and PF2 despite being newer is still less popular than PF1, so count that as a slight win for 3.X style systems. And none of that matters because 5e is lapping the competition. Not just 3.X systems - all systems put together were still being outweighed by 5e on its own in late 2021.

Is 3.5 a better system than 5e? I think so, by quite a large margin. Is 3.5 a more popular system than 5e? No. Just, flatly, no it is not. It's not even close. 3.0/3.5 lasts 8 years. 4e lasted just 6. 5e is at 9 years with 5.5e on the horizon. It's really just not comparable.

I think you also need to realize that forums as a whole has been by and large no longer the way people communicate and be in fandom, and this forum especially is I think the last holdout of a big 3.PF community. 5e and Pf2 are mostly talked about in twitter and youtube and reddit.

Though fair on 3pp and homebrew in regards to PF2.

[H_H_F_F]

3e has been a thing for 23 years. It has 1.96 million posts on the forum in terms of discussion threads. That's approximately 85000 posts per year. 5e has been a thing for 9.5 years. It has 1.16 million posts on the forum in terms of discussion threads. That's approximately 122000 posts per year. In one of the last big bastions of 3.5 discussion, there's still 3 people discussing 5e for every 2 people discussing 3e.

Not sure the numbers can be treated like that. The forum hasn't been here for the lenfth of time that 3e has existed, and it had years to build an audience before 5e came along - obviously, fewer people were having discussions here on the forum's first year than its 10th.


The homebrew subforum has 1587 threads of 3.X homebrew. It also has 6595 threads of 5e homebrew. That's more than four times as much 5e homebrew as 3.X homebrew. Once again, 3e is 2.5 times as old as 5e, but now instead of just getting outstripped in speed of growth, it's outweighed in sheer numbers.

Homebrew is a far more contentious situation. If you look at my sig, for instance, you'd see links to the Villainous Competition (still looking for a judge!) and to Iron Chef stuff - and one homebrew link, which is 5E. I've made 20 posts in 3.5 for each post in 5e at the very least, I'd estimate, but the only homebrew I bothered with was 5e - because that's a much, much smaller system. It just needs more homebrew. It's kind of like trying to determine the popularity if cars by looking at which model has been taken more to a garage. That's not a representative sample; it might just be because that model needs more time with a mechanic.

None of that, however, changes the big picture:

https://i0.wp.com/blog.roll20.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/orrreport-2021-q3-in2.jpg

3.5 is still quite popular, still getting plenty of games. It's still getting beaten out by things like PF1/PF2, which are newer games, but it's still plenty popular. 4e doesn't even make the chart, and PF2 despite being newer is still less popular than PF1, so count that as a slight win for 3.X style systems. And none of that matters because 5e is lapping the competition. Not just 3.X systems - all systems put together were still being outweighed by 5e on its own in late 2021.

Is 3.5 a better system than 5e? I think so, by quite a large margin. Is 3.5 a more popular system than 5e? No. Just, flatly, no it is not. It's not even close. 3.0/3.5 lasts 8 years. 4e lasted just 6. 5e is at 9 years with 5.5e on the horizon. It's really just not comparable.

Yeah.

[Darkholme]

I would be all for a new 3.x corebook designed to my tastes, but I think the other people here have the right of it, you'd lose the audience if you didn't strongly prioritize cross compatibility with everyone's existing libraries of stuff, which means a complete rework for combat balance is out of the picture.

What would I see changed? A bunch of stuff, but largely it would revolve around making WBL not matter by baking a lot of that stuff into chargen in such a way that your magic items give you alternate options rather than being essential equipment; streamlining prereqs a lot, making chargen more customizable, and making the game a bit less combat centric, making your ability uses recover slower so theres less pressure to cram in more combats between rests to have tension on the players.

It would play a little bit differently, but I'd be prioritizing cross compatibility with existing content and have conversion guides in the main book.

But at the end of the day it would be my 3e homebrew with houserules inspired by 2e and Non-D&D games like GURPS. Do I think there would be a market for such a gameline? Not really, no. Maybe I sell a dozen copies tops, but at the end of the day it would be really for personal use, and I'll make it for myself.

But as others have mentioned if you just want a tinkerable game you can simulate your setting with, and youre not specifically looking to leverage a bunch of specific preexisting content, GURPS and a few other suitable options already exist.

-

Regarding a big surge of new 3.x players, I doubt it. There's more competition for what entertainment value 3.x provides than there was 10-23 years ago, evwn if 5e doesnt scratch that itch for you (it doesn't for me).

[emulord]

Although, it did make itself immune to it's own time stop. So we can't give it too much credit. It's still a fun read though.

Technically you can drop immunity at will and get the benefit. The thing I noticed was that 8th level of the class is as close as you can get to a dead level without having nothing. You go from activating Time Weaving (level) times per day to (level+1) times per day.

[Darg]

Technically you can drop immunity at will and get the benefit. The thing I noticed was that 8th level of the class is as close as you can get to a dead level without having nothing. You go from activating Time Weaving (level) times per day to (level+1) times per day.

You can't drop immunity. This myth is extrapolated from the PHB mentioning you can voluntarily forgo an elf's special resistance to sleep magic. An elf doesn't have resistance to sleep magic, they have immunity. In AD&D elves did have special resistance to sleep magic and not immunity. It's extremely likely that the resistance was changed in favor of immunity for the release of 3e and the already written text was never removed. As written it cannot apply to elven immunity to magic sleep.

[Crake]

You can't drop immunity. This myth is extrapolated from the PHB mentioning you can voluntarily forgo an elf's special resistance to sleep magic. An elf doesn't have resistance to sleep magic, they have immunity. In AD&D elves did have special resistance to sleep magic and not immunity. It's extremely likely that the resistance was changed in favor of immunity for the release of 3e and the already written text was never removed. As written it cannot apply to elven immunity to magic sleep.

Magic immunity is defined as infinite spell RESISTANCE, so immunity appears to be a subset of resistance to me, i dont see any issue.

[Zanos]

You can't drop immunity. This myth is extrapolated from the PHB mentioning you can voluntarily forgo an elf's special resistance to sleep magic. An elf doesn't have resistance to sleep magic, they have immunity. In AD&D elves did have special resistance to sleep magic and not immunity. It's extremely likely that the resistance was changed in favor of immunity for the release of 3e and the already written text was never removed. As written it cannot apply to elven immunity to magic sleep.
None of what you said is actually in the book. What is actually in the book is that, within the context of accepting the results of a spell, an immunity is used as an example of a resistance that a creature can forego.

[Darg]

Magic immunity is defined as infinite spell RESISTANCE, so immunity appears to be a subset of resistance to me, i dont see any issue.

Immunity to magic sleep effects is not Immunity to Magic. An elf's immunity to sleep protects it from supernatural sleep effects. Spell resistance cannot do that. Fire Immunity protects you from ALL forms of fire damage, no matter the source. It also doesn't rely on spell resistance.

To top it off, no, immunity to magic is not defined as infinite spell resistance nor does a demilich's Magic Immunity ever mention spell resistance at all. The only place where your statement is even close is from the spell Spell Immunity. Even then it doesn't actually say that the source is spell resistance. The spell mentions that the creature only "effectively" has unbeatable spell resistance against the specified spell. The spell does not grant spell resistance at all and thus a creature can't choose to lower their resistance.


None of what you said is actually in the book. What is actually in the book is that, within the context of accepting the results of a spell, an immunity is used as an example of a resistance that a creature can forego.

It's under the context of forgoing a saving throw. An elf's immunity is not a saving throw.


Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.

The Resistance spell gives a resistance bonus to saving throws. Resistance to magic, literally.

Ultimately, you can only extrapolate an assumption that an elf's immunity is what is being referenced in the statement above. Heck, it could be referencing the racial bonus to saves against enchantment spells or effects for all we know. Which as a matter of fact includes magic sleep effects.

[redking]

3.5e and similar versions will make a comeback because AI will bring in quicker play and automation of the mechanical aspects of combat. Once the heavy burden of calculation and play is removed, we will see a revival.

[Crake]

3.5e and similar versions will make a comeback because AI will bring in quicker play and automation of the mechanical aspects of combat. Once the heavy burden of calculation and play is removed, we will see a revival.

I wouldn't bet on this, ngl. If anything, AI will promote more freeform rp styles, as it can adjudicate what happens just based on your descriptions. You don't need AI to perform arithemtic, we've had computer games that do that since forever.

[pabelfly]

I wouldn't bet on this, ngl. If anything, AI will promote more freeform rp styles, as it can adjudicate what happens just based on your descriptions. You don't need AI to perform arithemtic, we've had computer games that do that since forever.

To have an AI that could run a 3e game would first require someone to upload all of the rules into the AI dataset, which would infringe upon WOTC's copyright of the material. Even if that hurdle was legally crossed, there's also the amount of labour required to train such an AI versus the potential profit of such a venture. I don't see AI solving this problem, even disregarding how difficult it would be for the AI to evaluate contradictory text sources.

[AvatarVecna]

To have an AI that could run a 3e game would first require someone to upload all of the rules into the AI dataset, which would infringe upon WOTC's copyright of the material. Even if that hurdle was legally crossed, there's also the amount of labour required to train such an AI versus the potential profit of such a venture. I don't see AI solving this problem, even disregarding how difficult it would be for the AI to evaluate contradictory text sources.

Seconding this. Even just actual computer games run into issues. BG3 is immensely popular right now. Larian's got about a decade of working with the divinity engine that serves as the foundation under BG3 and there's been a healthy modding community for DOS2 for awhile, so it's pretty stable. BG3 was in early access for 3 years with tons of people bug-hunting on Larian's behalf and helping provide feedback for the "5e inspired" system they were implementing. Despite all that, in the three months since release, there's been four big patches and ten hotfixes, the latest of which accidentally broke Act 3 and made it borderline unplayable for quite a lot of people, myself included. And that's one studios with years working on this story and a decade working with this engine trying to get a single campaign working from start to finish. They've done a pretty fantastic job for the most part! But it's not been a seamless journey. Oh yeah, and BG3 is working with 5e, a much simpler system than 3.5 ever was. Oh yeah, and it stops progression at lvl 12 because 7th lvl spells are reaching the point where they can solve major story beats and that would complicate the storytelling side of things.

Game design, in computers or on paper, is a lot of work with a ton of little details, especially for a game like 3e. We've been arguing about this game for 20 years, and still if you asked ten people a complex RAW question, you're guaranteed to get more than one answer.

[atemu1234]

3.5e and similar versions will make a comeback because AI will bring in quicker play and automation of the mechanical aspects of combat. Once the heavy burden of calculation and play is removed, we will see a revival.

Not to sound dismissive, but that kind of AI is a ways off. As in, 'a system capable of parsing the dataset required in the way required is basically at the level of the holodecks in Star Trek' kind of ways off. This entire forum is essentially built around arguments about rules that, if programmed directly into a system, would throw all kinds of logical errors and paradoxes on par with 'this statement is false'.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but even if it did, by that point we'll probably be on our way to D&D [NI]e and the rules will be beyond what our puny mortal minds can contemplate, anyways.

[Darkholme]

To have an AI that could run a 3e game would first require someone to upload all of the rules into the AI dataset, which would infringe upon WOTC's copyright of the material. Even if that hurdle was legally crossed, there's also the amount of labour required to train such an AI versus the potential profit of such a venture. I don't see AI solving this problem, even disregarding how difficult it would be for the AI to evaluate contradictory text sources.

I could, however, see people programming in PF1 SRD stuff into a very hands-off VTT. But at the end of the day that's not that far off of Neverwinter Nights with extensive modding and bringing in more noncombat mechanics and making it more convenient to GM with; the biggest improvement being letting the GM build enemies and maps while things are running (NWN you had to do that in advance - mostly - the community eventually came up with some workarounds).

But, you can play NWN now. I don't see new and shinier 3d VTTs making everyone want to play 3e again, just a newer prettier option for the pile.

[Pugwampy]

I am sure there is dedicated DM,s for every edition . I dont think 1st edition needs reviving any more than 3rd . Its right there . Lots of free internet PDF,s .

You wanna play DND bro i am a 3.5 DM .

[fallensavior]

It's because 5th edition did a massive job of marketing and popularising dungeons and dragons, and attracted a large audience, to the point where there actually grew a market for paid DMing. DMs want to be paid, because there's a market for it, and they can sell their skillset to players who are willing to pay. 3.5 didn't have such a market, because it wasn't nearly anywhere as popular or accessible as 5e.

That's funny...I've actually been running paid D&D3.5 and PF1e campaigns for the last 2 years.

I think 5e's popularity has caused a general DM shortage, not just a shortage of 5e DMs.

[Crake]

That's funny...I've actually been running paid D&D3.5 and PF1e campaigns for the last 2 years.

I think 5e's popularity has caused a general DM shortage, not just a shortage of 5e DMs.

When i said 3.5 in that post, i meant during 3.5’s development cycle, not specifically the system in general. These days you can find paid DMs for all sorts of systems, both popular and niche.

But yes, 5e’s success has show DMs of other systems that there is a demand for their services.

[Yora]

I was talking on Mastodon and Discord about thinking about getting into 3rd edition again, and I was really surprised how many other people very quickly replied. And a good number of them said they have kept playing it the entire time.