D&D 3E/3.5 Comparison to 3.5e

[Tia Nadiezja]

Gold is definitely more a story reward in 5e than a character-power reward, once the fighter's got their plate and the wizard's nabbed a few spells. I rather like that... it gives me more choice as to how my characters spend their gold. I've had my Paladin rebuild ruined shrines and my Abjurer start a private investigator business and invent the spelljammer.

But it's definitely a change from 3.x.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We're just now going to go into 5th edition. A player has expressed missing 3.5 which we played for years. Since there is no online support at WOTC for 5e we're planning a character generation night with one encounter which I play tested successfully with my kids. Still, I'm facing the desire of a regular to try 3.5 again. How have players of older editions found 5e in comparison? Positive? Better Worse, broken? Too Restrictive?

Simply put: 5e is very much like 3.5e, except where it's not.

Expanding: I don't mean that facetiously. The two are like siblings with very strong family resemblance and a small age difference--not twins, but if you casually pass one in the cafeteria, you might mistake one for the other. But in the handful of places where they're different, it's a pretty distinct difference.

To my mind, there are four really big differences between the two.

1. Casters are reduced in power, and (primarily) non-casters are increased in power.
This is not to say that I think they actually eliminated or "solved" the LFQW problem; I think it's still present in 5e. It's just not nearly as dramatic; casters have some specific and important limitations, and non-casters have been brought up a notch. (If you're familiar with the "tiers" classification from 3.5e discussions, I'd argue that 5e forces all classes into the equivalent of tiers 2, 3, and 4--still a noticeable gap, but not so great that you're playing Casters & Caddies by 10th level).

2. Magic items are dramatically de-emphasized.
The designers said they were designing assuming no magic items, and they meant it. Giving them out at all like you're used to in 3e will take the already-unsteady encounter difficulty math and crush it. Further, no "standard" magic item goes above a +3 AFAIK; many items (some powerful, some...less so) require Attunement and you can only Attune three items total; and there are essentially no 'price' guidelines for the vast majority of items (the provided rarity/value comparison is hella wonky).

3. Combat is mobile and "theater of the mind."
Like 3e, you provoke opportunity attacks if you try to leave an enemy's range. However, unlike 3e, you can split up your move before and after you attack--for classes that get Extra Attack, you can blend movements and attacks as much as you like. Also, although there's still just as much of the stuff that made third edition battlemap-centric (everything is listed in five-foot increments, many spells are more natural snapped-to-grid), the game takes pains to make "theater of the mind" (gridless, abstract-position) combat core. So things are much "looser," combat-wise, than in previous editions.

4. Customization and character-building are dramatically reduced.
3e became almost notorious for the level of intricacy you could get into, with LAs, ACFs, substitution levels, PrCs, skill points, and feats--and that's not even counting the really out-there stuff like flaws, traits, etc. 5e admits almost none of that. Feats are chunky but extremely limited--even the Fighter, that gets extra, only gets 7 over the course of 20 levels (compared to the 18 a 3.5e Fighter got)--and they compete with stat-boosting. Backgrounds allow a lot of 'flavor' customization, but very little advancement. All classes get subclasses, which sometimes take the place of PrCs or other feature-alterations, but you lock those in very early and cannot change them later. There are no skill points, only Proficiency, and RAW you can't gain new skill proficiencies after chargen (tool proficiencies can be, though). On the whole, it means that several complete builds are core-supported in 5e, but comparatively none of the "build your character from 1 to 20, your way" stuff remains.

If your friend is a fan of uber-powerful casters, high-magic/many magic items, low-mobility/precise combat, or deep customization options with many choices to make, 5e will probably not please them.

If your friend prefers to play non-casters (or "secondary" casters, like the Paladin), likes magic items to "feel magic," likes mobile/"theater of the mind" combat, or hated the character-building minigame, 5e will probably feel like the second coming of 3.5e.

Though I strongly recommend, if your friends are all experienced gamers, that you start no lower than level 3. Level 1--from personal experience, now--is extremely fragile, and gives you few if any resources to work with. Also, some subclasses (like Valor Bard) don't kick in until level 2 or 3, which can seriously hamper players shooting for a particular archetype.

Oh, there's one last change, though AFAICT everyone who hears about it sees it as a straight-up improvement. "Finesse" is no longer a thing you have to invest in. Anyone can fight using Dexterity as their main offensive stat, they just have to use a weapon that has the "Finesse" tag, such as the rapier (1d8 damage, as good as a longsword) or scimitar (1d6). This does, however, have the consequence of making Dexterity an extremely attractive stat for many characters, as it then determines AC, the most common spell save, attack, damage, and Initiative--plus helping all the old Dex skills like Stealth. No other stat can claim such broad appeal, but the general consensus (which even I share) is that that's better than punishing people who want to play a Dextrous Paladin or Fighter.

 

[Seamus cleric of Gond]

I started playing AD&D in the 80's. I still haven't progressed out of 3.5E. To me it has the detail level that I want. 3.5 feels the way a paper RPG should. Character development, planning and history. 5E feels more like a computer game on paper. I have read through 5E and sat through several games. I find it a horror show that disables all character individuality and makes for hack and slash, lets drink some potions and kill something else. I'd rather play DDO than 5E.

I know you guys will tear me apart for this post. I am good at math and know where to find the information in the 20+ 3.0 & 3.5 books that I have.

 

[lhx]

5e is still broken over about level 14 or so.

 

[Voadam]

Overall I like 5e a lot and it is my system of choice after years of 3.o/3.5/PF. I much prefer the skill system, I think it has better class balance, and good improvements such as concentration that address in part caster power imbalances. I like that it does not assume magic items and the bounded accuracy allowing the impactful use of lower CR monsters against higher level PCs. On the downside you lose a lot of the dozens of neat classes from 3.5 and lots of neat mechanics like specific feats and such that developed over the years.

Here is my post from the sell a 3.5 grognard on 5e thread:

It is a lot like 3e with some house rules designed to make it a little simpler and reduce power imbalance of casters and some of the high level imbalances.

Concentration means less spell stacking to track and it narrows (but does not eliminate) the LFEW (linear fighter exponential wizard) phenomena. It is a great mechanic that can be implemented in 3.5 as a UA style house rule if desired.

Fighters are not feat based, they get their own things.

Moving and full attacking as default so melee warriors can be more mobile.

AoOs only when you leave reach means everybody can charge in without getting tagged.

Bounded accuracy means low level stuff can be used in higher level games and have an impact.

Flat save instead of spell level based ones for spells means low level spells are still relevant at high levels.

Spells are (generally) designed to expect a failed save but not to full stop a combat.

Warlocks as a core PH class and not considered significantly lower tiered than other casters.

Multiclassing spellcasting is better integrated.

Paladins are a stronger class in 5e than in 3e. Smite in particular is better.

Less Christmas tree magic items. Atunement limits number of big magic items.

Skills do not have the +0 to +30 discrepancy they could have in high level 3.5.

All classes get at least two skills from class and two from class-independent background, things like Rangers and Rogues and Bards get more.

All classes get a subclass specialization between 1st and 3rd level that provides different class benefits at defined levels. For instance a fighter has an option for being a mechanically straightforward powerful number enhancer (extended crit range, etc.), a fiddly resource tracking bonus die technique option, and an eldritch knight spellcasting option out of the PH.

Feats are an optional subsystem (swap out a stat bump for a feat) with fewer more powerful feats. No feat tax for PCs and fewer fiddly bits to track with monsters.

Short rest mechanics allow more recharge power options than per day.

Hit die healing mechanic means there can be significant non-magical healing between combats in a day. A little similar to the reserve points from 3.5 UA.

 

[humble minion]

I like the 5e system as a whole better than the 3e system, for many of the reasons described above. Maths improvement at high levels, less obligatory magic items (the stat/save boosting items especially), less layering of buffs, smaller stat blocks. Dice rolls matter all the way through. Combat is fast, and the way that all six ability stats now have saving throws tied to them means that Dump Stat Syndrome is much less of a thing now. And I do like the background and inspiration concepts. They're very loose and flexible, but in my opinion they do help encourage playing a role more than playing a character sheet, your mileage may vary of course.

One thing I do dislike is that there's much, much less scope to customise and grow your character. Your PC gets fewer feats, from a smaller list of options, and has to choose between them and stat boosts. There are very few subclasses, and once you've chosen your subclass (level 3 at the latest) you pretty much have no more class choices to make. It's enormously hard and expensive in character resources to do something as simple as learn a new weapon or skill. And the small number of official subclasses (and spells, to a lesser extent) mean that if you have a particular vision for your character theme, it;s going to be quite difficult to realise that as a character. Limited cleric domains are a big culprit here in particular.

 

[Parmandur]

There's nothing in 3.x that I really miss when playing 5E.

Pretty much this: 3.x is what I started with, and it was great, but I couldn't go back...

 

[collin]

I like the 5e system as a whole better than the 3e system, for many of the reasons described above. Maths improvement at high levels, less obligatory magic items (the stat/save boosting items especially), less layering of buffs, smaller stat blocks. Dice rolls matter all the way through. Combat is fast, and the way that all six ability stats now have saving throws tied to them means that Dump Stat Syndrome is much less of a thing now. And I do like the background and inspiration concepts. They're very loose and flexible, but in my opinion they do help encourage playing a role more than playing a character sheet, your mileage may vary of course.

One thing I do dislike is that there's much, much less scope to customise and grow your character. Your PC gets fewer feats, from a smaller list of options, and has to choose between them and stat boosts. There are very few subclasses, and once you've chosen your subclass (level 3 at the latest) you pretty much have no more class choices to make. It's enormously hard and expensive in character resources to do something as simple as learn a new weapon or skill. And the small number of official subclasses (and spells, to a lesser extent) mean that if you have a particular vision for your character theme, it;s going to be quite difficult to realise that as a character. Limited cleric domains are a big culprit here in particular.

This. You've encapsulated all that I like and dislike about 5th edition in a nice nutshell. Bravo.

 

[Tonguez]

I prefer 3.5 & Pathfinder

 

[Horwath]

I like the 5e system as a whole better than the 3e system, for many of the reasons described above. Maths improvement at high levels, less obligatory magic items (the stat/save boosting items especially), less layering of buffs, smaller stat blocks. Dice rolls matter all the way through. Combat is fast, and the way that all six ability stats now have saving throws tied to them means that Dump Stat Syndrome is much less of a thing now. And I do like the background and inspiration concepts. They're very loose and flexible, but in my opinion they do help encourage playing a role more than playing a character sheet, your mileage may vary of course.

One thing I do dislike is that there's much, much less scope to customise and grow your character. Your PC gets fewer feats, from a smaller list of options, and has to choose between them and stat boosts. There are very few subclasses, and once you've chosen your subclass (level 3 at the latest) you pretty much have no more class choices to make. It's enormously hard and expensive in character resources to do something as simple as learn a new weapon or skill. And the small number of official subclasses (and spells, to a lesser extent) mean that if you have a particular vision for your character theme, it;s going to be quite difficult to realise that as a character. Limited cleric domains are a big culprit here in particular.

customization is a little problem, but you can always house rule some stuff.
Like bonus feats.
add Extra feat at levels 1,5,9,13,17,20 or whatever level you like.
Cap ability scores to 18.
Maybe you can make a list of bonus feats that are "2nd tier" that can be available in this option.
Just do NOT give away bonus; Great weapon master, Polearm master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow expert, Heavy armor master feats.