Is There Possibility of a PF1.5 or a 3.5 Revival? Whether Directly or Something With Similar 'Ethos'

[Pedantic]

Simply put, there are way more 5E players than 3.X players, and not much impetus for most of them to go to the older editions; those who crave more complexity can go to Pathfinder 2e. Those who want Old School are largely being funneled into OSR and Swords and Wizardry. (Yes, pun intentional.)

Unfortunately, I think PF1 ate the opportunity for a game with this design lineage. The problem is that 3e is a quite heavy design task, and the audience that is specifically interested in it has proven to be significantly smaller than expected. 5e is mostly proof that a lot of the audience simply doesn't care about a lot of the more time intensive work that 3e requires.

 

[Celebrim]

3.0e is my preferred edition by a wide margin, but I don't think we'll see a real attempt to monetize on 3.0e's popularity (because that's what is really meant by a revival) because there is just so much 3e stuff out there already readily available that there isn't really a reason to do so. Pathfinder is largely compatible with 3e and no one really wants or needs a ton of 3e inspired fantasy heartbreakers like we see with attempts to recreate the 1e/BECMI/2e experience in OSR. Who needs to pay for a copy of someone's house rules anyway?

 

[payn]

3.0e is my preferred edition by a wide margin, but I don't think we'll see a real attempt to monetize on 3.0e's popularity (because that's what is really meant by a revival) because there is just so much 3e stuff out there already readily available that there isn't really a reason to do so. Pathfinder is largely compatible with 3e and no one really wants or needs a ton of 3e inspired fantasy heartbreakers like we see with attempts to recreate the 1e/BECMI/2e experience in OSR. Who needs to pay for a copy of someone's house rules anyway?

So much of the PF1 stuff is readily available online for no cost. It’s hard to compete with that price and massive catalog.

 

[Celebrim]

So much of the PF1 stuff is readily available online for no cost. It’s hard to compete with that price and massive catalog.

I don't think that there is any consensus in the 3e loving community on how to fix the game. I think there is widespread agreement that by mid to late 3.5e the train was off the rails, but 3e had such expansive content both from WotC and third parties (like Paizo) that every individual GM was running their own different game. It had that much in common with 1e AD&D, though perhaps for different reasons. Some people think the solution is stick to E6 (or E8 or E10), others to bring in contact like Book of Nine Swords to "fix" "martials", and so forth. A lot of the things I consider core problems with the system and have removed are things other people love, like Prestige Classes. Some changes that have worked really well for me are things like no longer adding the spell level to the DC of saving a spell or in the case of a spell-like effect no longer adding 1/2 HD as an adjustment to the DC. Yet, when I bring these things up, there are literally people who will say, "But then save or suck spells will be worthless, as you'd be highly likely to waste your action because the target would save." So there is no consensus. A lot of people hate 3e for how impactful it made magic without any fiddly drawbacks, but that's also the reason some people love it. A lot of people hate the CharOp process and planning out your character in detail for 20 levels, but that's also the reason some people love it. Some people hate the Christmas Tree, but many people love 3e for having impactful and interesting magic items (and thus loot drops). Some people hate how modifiers could stack, but one of the reasons I dislike 5e is despite how elegant the 'advantage/disadvantage' mechanic is, it doesn't do the primary job modifiers should do of encouraging people to think tactically and engage with the fiction, since it's easy to find one way to get advantage and then there is no more reason to think about the problem or the situation - you can't do better than that. So, again, solutions which I admit are elegant and well thought out, don't solve the problem for me.

 

[payn]

I don't think that there is any consensus in the 3e loving community on how to fix the game. I think there is widespread agreement that by mid to late 3.5e the train was off the rails, but 3e had such expansive content both from WotC and third parties (like Paizo) that every individual GM was running their own different game. It had that much in common with 1e AD&D, though perhaps for different reasons. Some people think the solution is stick to E6 (or E8 or E10), others to bring in contact like Book of Nine Swords to "fix" "martials", and so forth. A lot of the things I consider core problems with the system and have removed are things other people love, like Prestige Classes. Some changes that have worked really well for me are things like no longer adding the spell level to the DC of saving a spell or in the case of a spell-like effect no longer adding 1/2 HD as an adjustment to the DC. Yet, when I bring these things up, there are literally people who will say, "But then save or suck spells will be worthless, as you'd be highly likely to waste your action because the target would save." So there is no consensus. A lot of people hate 3e for how impactful it made magic without any fiddly drawbacks, but that's also the reason some people love it. A lot of people hate the CharOp process and planning out your character in detail for 20 levels, but that's also the reason some people love it. Some people hate the Christmas Tree, but many people love 3e for having impactful and interesting magic items (and thus loot drops). Some people hate how modifiers could stack, but one of the reasons I dislike 5e is despite how elegant the 'advantage/disadvantage' mechanic is, it doesn't do the primary job modifiers should do of encouraging people to think tactically and engage with the fiction, since it's easy to find one way to get advantage and then there is no more reason to think about the problem or the situation - you can't do better than that. So, again, solutions which I admit are elegant and well thought out, don't solve the problem for me.

Yeap 5E was an oversimplification of many things for me, but I can see why it has mass appeal. I agree with you that a 3E heartbreaker product just isn’t likely.

The only type of movement I could see is if somebody came up with an organized play structure using 3E and much less an engine mechanical overhaul.

 

[Staffan]

Some changes that have worked really well for me are things like no longer adding the spell level to the DC of saving a spell or in the case of a spell-like effect no longer adding 1/2 HD as an adjustment to the DC. Yet, when I bring these things up, there are literally people who will say, "But then save or suck spells will be worthless, as you'd be highly likely to waste your action because the target would save."

I think one issue with 3e was that higher-level spells were both more impactful and harder to save against. I think it would have been interesting to see some interplay there. Perhaps this could be combined with hp thresholds for incapacitating spells á la 13th age. Maybe you could have blindness and hold person both as 2nd level spells, but hold person only affects something with up to 15 hp and blindness up to 25.

Of course, that would require an openness with mechanics that many DMs are not willing to entertain.

But I think a related core problem with 3e was the way every number "cascaded" through the system, and the way this created interdependencies between stats. Take the Grey Render as an example of a big brute of a monster. It's CR 8, and comes with 125 hp, which I'll for the sake of argument say is fine for a CR 8 big brute. But the reason it has those 125 hp is that it has 10 HD, each of those HD is a d10 (because they're Magical Beasts), and it has an additional 70 hp because of its Constitution of 24 (which is a +7 per HD). This in turn then gives it a Fortitude save of +14 (2+HD/2+Con), a Reflex save of +7 (2+HD/2+Dex, which is 0), and a Will save of of +4 (HD/3+Wis which is 1). So they have a 10-point discrepancy between Fortitude and Will saves – so if you have the right spell it's going to fold like laundry. Something like 4e or PF2 would probably be a much better way of building monsters: put in the monster's target CR/level and its role, and then you'll get hp, AC, attack bonuses, saves, and all that other stuff from that.

 

[Celebrim]

I think one issue with 3e was that higher-level spells were both more impactful and harder to save against.

Yes, absolutely. It's that specific observation that made me make the change, couple with my experience with 1e AD&D where precisely at the time the impact of failing a save was increasing, the chances you'd make the save were also increasing.

But I think a related core problem with 3e was the way every number "cascaded" through the system, and the way this created interdependencies between stats. Take the Grey Render as an example of a big brute of a monster. It's CR 8, and comes with 125 hp, which I'll for the sake of argument say is fine for a CR 8 big brute. But the reason it has those 125 hp is that it has 10 HD, each of those HD is a d10 (because they're Magical Beasts), and it has an additional 70 hp because of its Constitution of 24 (which is a +7 per HD). This in turn then gives it a Fortitude save of +14 (2+HD/2+Con), a Reflex save of +7 (2+HD/2+Dex, which is 0), and a Will save of of +4 (HD/3+Wis which is 1). So they have a 10-point discrepancy between Fortitude and Will saves – so if you have the right spell it's going to fold like laundry.

I am OK with caster roshambo, where the caster cleverly attacks the weakest attribute of the monster. For one thing, under my system even if the caster has the perfect Will attack, it probably only has DC 14 and full immunity on a save, so that brute still has a 50% chance of saving versus the attack, and a 50% chance you wasted your action. The problem in 3e was compounded by the fact it was pretty easy to get a DC 20 save, and then you easily folded the brute with a win button.

Something like 4e or PF2 would probably be a much better way of building monsters: put in the monster's target CR/level and its role, and then you'll get hp, AC, attack bonuses, saves, and all that other stuff from that.

You end up with very generic monsters that are always best beaten by pulling the same beat down tactics in every fight, and in particular if you don't accept the tactical complexity of 4e and all that entails, you also get every fight just whittling down hit points to foregone conclusions. This monster is hard to attack with magic, and this one easy, this monster you can kite and this you need to get close to this monster is tough for the fighter and this one tough for the wizard, and so forth is a good thing. Yes, if you play a specialist Enchanter, a lot of things are easy... until you run into an undead and are hiding behind the cleric... who is hopefully a member of the party. I'm good with all of that, just so long as every PC has a reasonable number of opportunities to shine or fail. What you don't want is Johnny One Trick solving every problem with a big enough hammer.

 

[Staffan]

I am OK with caster roshambo, where the caster cleverly attacks the weakest attribute of the monster. For one thing, under my system even if the caster has the perfect Will attack, it probably only has DC 14 and full immunity on a save, so that brute still has a 50% chance of saving versus the attack, and a 50% chance you wasted your action. The problem in 3e was compounded by the fact it was pretty easy to get a DC 20 save, and then you easily folded the brute with a win button.

It's good if there is some difference between their saves. 10 points is a bit big though. In PF2, the difference between good and bad save is usually about 4 points, and that feels like a reasonable spot to be in. Using the wrong spell isn't an auto-loss, and the right spell isn't an auto-win, but they do give you an edge. It's not perfect though – I do think the monster saves scale a little too fast to the point that casting any spell at a higher-level creature basically becomes a hail Mary-pass (helped by most spells having at least some effects even on a successful save).

 

[payn]

It's good if there is some difference between their saves. 10 points is a bit big though. In PF2, the difference between good and bad save is usually about 4 points, and that feels like a reasonable spot to be in. Using the wrong spell isn't an auto-loss, and the right spell isn't an auto-win, but they do give you an edge. It's not perfect though – I do think the monster saves scale a little too fast to the point that casting any spell at a higher-level creature basically becomes a hail Mary-pass (helped by most spells having at least some effects even on a successful save).

Thats what I struggled with in PF2. It became better to use a low level who cares spell with an annoying rider, then a top tier spell becasue monster would just laugh it off.

 

[Reynard]

I honestly wonder what people want from 3.x that PF1E doesn't fill the need.