Why play 3.5 anymore?

[Fable Wright]

Yeah, but all of those effects can also be done with mundane means, and thus don't count. I'm talking about things like permanent walls of fire for steam engines, magic traps as fabricators, magically powered airships, etc.

...Said druid has a railgun and is working towards a space station capable of orbital bombardment, but I didn't think those were relevant. Trust me when I say you really can do crazy stuff like this if you put your mind to it in 5th edition. Come up with a crazy idea that just might work as the magical item 'formula', the DM tells you whether it'd be Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare, or Legendary to craft, you pony up the time and cash, and boom. There you go.

The issue with the creation guidelines is that there's no actual rules behind it, which is fine for being a DM where you can just say that this is how the magic item creation works, but requires bothering the DM with everything you want to do. The other issue is that, while 5e technically supports high magic worlds by virtue of the modularity, it's unlikely to come out with more magic items and spells and similar that support such a playstyle because of the intent of the system.

"Hey, DM, could I build a permanent wall of fire?"
"Hm. Sounds like a Rare magic item. Go nuts."

If you want a convoluted magic item with unique effects and weirdness, you're going to have to run that by a 3.5 DM all the same as you would have to a 5e one. Fifth edition streamlines the magic item process a lot: If it's mostly working with effects in line with level 1-3 spells, it's Uncommon. 3-5, Rare. 6-8, Very Rare. 9, Legendary. As for shallowness of magic items... not really. Think of Eberron, the posterchild for magisteampunk. In Keith Baker's books, there are a large number of magic items never mentioned in any rules just for basic day to day living. They do not and would in no world ever get proper stats, because they don't matter on an adventure. Almost all of 3.5's magic item versatility boiled down to "is this poorly worded, or was it designed to be used for combat?" Turns out, 5th edition just tends to be more lenient about it, and the magic items are, frankly, cheaper than equivalent 3.5e items.

But yes. We're less likely to have spells that change the campaign world. Which 3.5 spells, in particular, had the kinds of effects that would permanently change the campaign world that you'd never see in fifth edition?

Also, I don't like bounded accuracy and how you could kill Asmodeus with an army of commoners with bows. It's both nonsensical and unfun.

You can't, Asmodeus has immunity to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.

This is the biggest reason I don't like 5e. A lot of the stuff in 5e is on some level forgivable. I'd never play it, but if there hadn't been a 3e, it would be the best edition of D&D. But bounded accuracy just takes a crap all over the core conceit of D&D: the adventurer. If the army can kill the dragon, or the giant, or the demon, why do you hire a guy with a sword to go out and do it?

As opposed to the, say, level 3 AD&D PC fighting a Vampire and winning with clever tactics rather than being completely unable to hit due to the ridiculous scaling of armor class and dying in one hit due to rocket tag as would happen in 3.5? Unbounded growth sounds fun on paper, but it restricts the kind of adventure you run, much as bounded accuracy, well, means that the impossible stays possible for more than just spellcasters.