D&D General Back-Learning to 3.5e

[UngeheuerLich]

Pathfinder 1e is a really good improvement on 3.5. It simplifies some issues with skills and cross-class skills, improves a number of classes. Plus, all of its rule additions are available for free at d20PFSRD.

But if you prefer PDFs, Paizo has all of the rulebooks for sale. They‘re quite convenient if you run from a tablet or laptop.

That depends heavily on what you feel what is an improvement.
I for my part see it as fix for the gameplay I would want to avoid (regarding skills).

 

[Andvari]

I wonder what percentage of the player base epic levels were relevant for.

 

[Voadam]

Thanks. I hope you explained it better than I did.

Skill DCs between 10 and 25 usually work well for levels 1 to 15. At level 1, at level 1, usual DCs are 15, while at epic tier (level 10 to 15), usual DCs around 20 work well.

This way, skill based characters feel useful at all stages of the game.

If you set DCs too high, you quench creativity too much, because non magical characters soon feel that risk vs reward is heavily skewed against them.

To follow up on this some skill DCs are set at specific levels in the rules, some in the rules are dynamic comparing one skill to another or against other dynamic factors like damage or CR or whatever. So a flat DC 15 concentration check to cast a spell without provoking an attack of opportunity, but hide skill check is compared to the spot skill check of the person you are getting past so it varies with the enemy and the effective DC can reasonably generally go up with levels.

If you are setting a DC for something not specified like gathering support to your cause in downtime using the diplomacy skill you might want to think about whether you want the DC to be a set thing, something that people untrained can generally do, something that a fighter using maxxed out cross class-skills can generally do, or something that challenges a maxxed out diplomacy bard can do.

If you set it at the maxxed bard level it can negate the fighter choosing to develop their diplomacy as a leader type concept or PCs who are not the face mechanically trying to get anything done at all helpfully in that arena.

So the choice of DCs can be a choice of niche protection or broad participation, which is a style preference issue that can impact whether a PC tries to participate in this way or not.

It is also possible to come up with a system where the higher checks give you different results (how many go to your cause, a certain CR of allies joining that is tied to the result, etc.) so there can be success for all three levels but differences in result as well, but there is no real guidance for doing so.

 

[tetrasodium]

I wonder what percentage of the player base epic levels were relevant for.

That bold bit is critical. Probably close to zero for players. Sometimes the epic spellcasting was useful for GM's building bbegs & such. Readers/authors might have gotten into it for their fanfics but I doubt it saw much use in play from players. for reasons other than plot device assembly & macguffin level interactions.

 

[haakon1]

that route makes skills LESS ANNOYING in 3.5 and ensures your character won't be useless at tying their shoes......or rolling over....or even trying to do anything productive really outside of Yugi-oh style multiclassing combo names.

I assume this is just hyperbole. 3.5e characters don’t need to spend skill points to know things like how to Ride. The majority of skills can be used Untrained.

The Fighter is a bit more....useless compared to the Fighter in 5E … replace it with the Pathfinder 1st edition Fighter.

Seems a little edition war-ish. The OP ask wasn’t “what do you dislike about 3.5e” or “which editions do you prefer to 3.5e”.

 

[haakon1]

I wonder what percentage of the player base epic levels were relevant for.

My guess is very few.

In general, I think D&D at high levels is weird. I’ve never played above 13th in any edition - seems like supers rather than medieval to me.

 

[Voadam]

I wonder what percentage of the player base epic levels were relevant for.

It includes me, I think. I'd have to look but I believe the ECL pushed us into Epic.

It was a high level monstrous PC game. Building up an advanced HD large gargoyle barbarian rogue was fun.

 

[Seramus]

Another vote for Pathfinder. Specifically the video games Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous.

Why? Just because video games give you all the time you need to poke around and try things out, learn the rules at your own pace, try out builds, and explore. Yes, Pathfinder is a little different from 3.5, but the leap from Pathfinder to 3.5 is extremely small compared to the leap from 5E to 3.5, and you may just be happy with Pathfinder in general.

Bonus points that Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous are on winter sale until January 5th.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Another vote for Pathfinder. Specifically the video games Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous.

Why? Just because video games give you all the time you need to poke around and try things out, learn the rules at your own pace, try out builds, and explore. Yes, Pathfinder is a little different from 3.5, but the leap from Pathfinder to 3.5 is extremely small compared to the leap from 5E to 3.5, and you may just be happy with Pathfinder in general.

Bonus points that Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous are on winter sale until January 5th.

I can't comment on the RPG, but the CRPGs were lots of fun.

 

[Art Waring]

Look up E6 D&D 3.5, you are sure to come up with a lot of useful information on how to run 3.5/PF games with less prep and more fun.

Essentially, E6 games I run go as follows:

1. Players stop gaining levels after 6th level. Instead, after 6th level, they incrementally gain feats as they gain more XP, and about four to five feats equal one class level.

2. Players gain the maximum amount of hit points from their hit dice each level.

3. Key villains and NPC's have max HP afforded from hit dice like PC's.

...

Those are the basics, but you can include more complex concepts like adding templates to PC's for an adjusted XP cost to be payed once you become E6 epic before you gain additional feats. So if an LA +2 template costs 2 levels, it costs 8-10 feats in XP.

 

[BrokenTwin]

E6 was one of my favorite things to come out of D&D 3.5. That, and the more experimental books towards the end of the line, like Magic of Incarnum and Book of Nine Swords. There was a lot of misses, but a lot of really interesting hits, too.

 

[Jahydin]

Look up E6 D&D 3.5, you are sure to come up with a lot of useful information on how to run 3.5/PF games with less prep and more fun.

Never heard of these house rules. How do they make for a better game?

 

[Art Waring]

Never heard of these house rules. How do they make for a better game?

They make it easier to run as a GM, because you don't have to do as much prep work for one. Back in 3e/PF 1e, the estimated prep time was 3-4 hours per hour of gameplay depending on how much you intend to prep to run a game and depending on the average PC level.

Capping the players at 6th level, but allowing for further alternatives to character progression allows for keeping the game within the "sweet spot," where the rules line up better, and run better across the board.

Part of it is about making the game easier for the GM (which helps a lot), and part of it is about playing more down to earth characters (or gritty if you will), and seeing just how far you can push them.

 

[Voadam]

Never heard of these house rules. How do they make for a better game?

3.5 gets more complex and has more room to be more imbalanced the higher the level.

E6 is just capping the game at level 6 so magic is kept low, you only have a max of one iterative attack, hit points are not real high, and so on. Advancement after that is just getting a new feat instead of a new level.

Lower CR monsters have less feats to track and less spellcasting and generally less spell like abilities than high level monsters, NPCs, and demon types. So lower CR ones are usually easier for a DM to manage at the table.

Whether E6 is better or not is an individual matter of taste.

I have had a lot of fun playing and DMing 3.5 with characters in the teens and using a lot of options.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm confused - I don't think I have enough 3.5 knowledge to understand what you mean by this.

I disagree with them - they are saying that the DCs should be the same...

... but in 3.5 and similar systems, the + can get ridiculous. I have a level 10 with +16 to steatlh - and he's not a stealth specialist. So if your challenge stay the same, they will be trivial rather quickly.

 

[Ancalagon]

Here is an example of one attack from pathfinder 1e, from a previous post:

"
So this is a pathfinder example, but I know that it would be near identical in 3.5. My character wants to attack a foe. Should be simple right?

Well, my character is an alchemist, so his BAB is +5, +2 for dex, +1 for the train firebug feat and +1 for the feat throw anything, for a total of +9, and it's vs touch AC. This is a slightly complicated calculation, but you only have to do it once per level, so it's good right? weeeeeeelllllll

I have drunk the mutagen, which gives me +4 to dex, which means +2 to hit. I've also cast reduce, which increases my attack by 1 and gives me 2 more dex so another +1. The foe is 25 feet away so point-blank shot kicks in, giving me another +1, BUT there is a -2 range penalty. The bard is signing that's +5 right? (our bards is *awesome) - nope the bard is more than 30 feet away from me, reducing the bonus to +3. I'm also firing into melee (-4) and there is some cover (-2) so that's not great... but wait I'm hasted by the sorcerer, so I get another +1! So now it 9 +4 +1 +1 +1 -2 +3 -4 -2 + 1= +12 (... I think).

And this will change every round - did I take just take dex damage, or been hit by a debuff? did range changes, is cover less (or more), did a buffing spell expire, the bard stopped signing, etc etc etc.

(this is not a fictional example. This is how our game goes, and this is my character).

I roll poorly - a 3 - and I hit touch AC 15. Does this hit, I ask the GM? Easy question right?

But no, we're not done - the monster's AC may be changing every round!!! The monster may have cast some protective spells - which may or may not apply, and and may or may not have been dispelled by the party. Furthermore, other players may have put a number of debuffs on the foe, some which stack and some which do not.
All this work for a single attack...

Edit: I'm not saying that this is "wrong". Some people enjoy this kind of crunch and mental gymnastics. But as I grow older, it's not so much fun anymore. I can handle it just fine, but it slows the game down, combat takes much more time than other games (you should see troika!) and it's difficult for a number of players. I didn't know until a few years ago how difficult for some people this kind of math is."

I've been accused of "exaggerating" but no, this is from a real session, and this happens frequently. If this seems awful to you, stay away from PF and 3.5! On the other hand, if you thought it was fascinating... it may be the game for you

 

[Weiley31]

Seems a little edition war-ish. The OP ask wasn’t “what do you dislike about 3.5e” or “which editions do you prefer to 3.5e”.

Eh, I'm more of fan of the Warblade myself compared to the regular Fighter 3rd edition. Just like how I like the 5E battlemaster the most because of the fact it reminds me of it so much.

But nah, we start the edition war two weeks from now.

 

[billd91]

I've been accused of "exaggerating" but no, this is from a real session, and this happens frequently. If this seems awful to you, stay away from PF and 3.5! On the other hand, if you thought it was fascinating... it may be the game for you

Are you TRYING to scare him off?
Yeah, it's possible for a bunch of things to change from round to round. It's not that likely though. And it's entirely possible to avoid using some of the more complex character types that started appearing after the initial offering in the core rulebooks. Moreover, the game grows into more complex options as PCs level up. At the beginning, things are usually less fussy.

 

[Weiley31]

I assume this is just hyperbole. 3.5e characters don’t need to spend skill points to know things like how to Ride. The majority of skills can be used Untrained.

It is. I was never fond of skills/cross class skills and how they were implemented in 3.0/3.5. Hence why I said Pathfinder 1 did its skill system better since it trimmed the fat/combined skills together to avoid redundancy.

 

[Jahydin]

@Voadam @Art Waring
Interesting, thanks for the explanation.

I'll have to take you on your word that it reduces prep. I'm thinking with all those restrictions I'd be spending even more time balancing encounters correctly.