D&D General Back-Learning to 3.5e

[UngeheuerLich]

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

If you stick to the core rules it takes a while until you get to that point.

 

[Art Waring]

@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.

Well, I can understand how it seems that way, but trust me, when your players can't break every encounter with a single spell, when they actually have to work together as a team, you will start seeing your players have more fun.

Also it should be easier, not harder to balance encounters, because under 6th level the PC's aren't yet god-like, like at higher levels. They are very limited in capability, no extra attacks, no overpowered spells, and much more down to earth.

 

[Voadam]

@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.

High level prep can be more intensive just because monsters can have more moving parts to consider, and if you are custom making NPCs or monsters (adding on class levels, templates, advancing HD) it takes longer with more add on effects to consider.

3e gives a DM tons of monster customization options that can be very fiddly that affect stat blocks in multiple dimensions and if you follow the guidelines it can be time consuming to get to the final stat block for use. Adding levels for instance you have the full character class aspects, every 4 HD or levels you bump up a stat which has many system follow on adjustments, NPC levels means level appropriate gear budget to spend on a lot of stuff that can affect the different numbers of a stat block, adding NPC levels by the guidelines means higher and varied NPC level base stats instead of stock base ones, etc.

This can be very satisfying in crafting specific opponents tuned in different ways for unique different opponents and experiences. Alternatively it can be frustrating to spend a lot of time on stuff for single encounters who might be one-shotted or potentially never actually come up in a game if the PCs go in different directions than expected.

High level prep using existing NPCs and monster stat blocks straight out of books can be done too. This is much quicker. Something like running Red Hand of Doom with all the stat blocks done out and tuned to the plot you are mostly focusing on the adventure plot itself in your prep.

 

[Jahydin]

High level prep can be more intensive just because monsters can have more moving parts to consider, and if you are custom making NPCs or monsters (adding on class levels, templates, advancing HD) it takes longer with more add on effects to consider.

3e gives a DM tons of monster customization options that can be very fiddly that affect stat blocks in multiple dimensions and if you follow the guidelines it can be time consuming to get to the final stat block for use. Adding levels for instance you have the full character class aspects, every 4 HD or levels you bump up a stat which has many system follow on adjustments, NPC levels means level appropriate gear budget to spend on a lot of stuff that can affect the different numbers of a stat block, adding NPC levels by the guidelines means higher and varied NPC level base stats instead of stock base ones, etc.

I've ran a few 3E campaigns to completion (level 15 or so) and everything you've said is spot on. It's been awhile, but now that I'm thinking about it, I was completely burned out by the end thanks to the 3 page monster stat blocks I had to study and plan strategies around.

I don't really play that version anymore, but maybe something I might do with 5E when forced to play again...

I'm pretty happy with PF2e/LevelUp at the moment though.

 

[haakon1]

Pathfinder: Kingmaker is a good Xbox or PC game, and good for learning Pathfinder 1, which is close to 3.5e.

Temple of Elemental Evil is a 3e PC game you can still find from GOG (Good Old Games) with lots of mods. 3e is closer to 3.5e.

Both games are fun.

 

[haakon1]

it should be easier, not harder to balance encounters, because under 6th level the PC's aren't yet god-like, like at higher levels. They are very limited in capability, no extra attacks, no overpowered spells, and much more down to earth.

I get your goal with this, but I think 3.5e Core Rules (no Alchemist class, for instance) works “fine” through at least 9th level. Maybe doubling XP to level up above 6th would be simpler?

No need to play supers at 15th level, etc., I agree, and precious few decent adventures at high levels. For AD&D, we always figured around 9th level is time to settle down, and I figure that’s reasonable in 3.5e too. If you look at Greyhawk - the original AD&D 1e setting and 3e default - above 9th level is rare talent.

 

[haakon1]

High level prep using existing NPCs and monster stat blocks straight out of books can be done too.

That’s my approach. I find monsters that are Advanced and Templated and so on just not worth it.

The flexibility to design NPC’s of wide variety, though, is an awesome feature of 3.x.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

I got good at it and one hour of prep equaled about an hour of play.

Until you put a vampire template on a rogue then it's fml.

 

[Art Waring]

I get your goal with this, but I think 3.5e Core Rules (no Alchemist class, for instance) works “fine” through at least 9th level. Maybe doubling XP to level up above 6th would be simpler?

No need to play supers at 15th level, etc., I agree, and precious few decent adventures at high levels. For AD&D, we always figured around 9th level is time to settle down, and I figure that’s reasonable in 3.5e too. If you look at Greyhawk - the original AD&D 1e setting and 3e default - above 9th level is rare talent.

Absolutely, whatever works for your table. E6 should theoretically be easier on new GM's, but either way works.

 

[Art Waring]

I got good at it and one hour of prep equaled about an hour of play.

Until you put a vampire template on a rogue then it's fml.

Excellent on the prep time. I still tend to overdo prep ahead of a campaign, but that saves me a lot of time later, as in between games it takes about an hour to half an hour to prep a single game of 3.5, these days anyway.

Oh yeah, that vampire template never worked for me, i had to make my own.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

and @UngeheuerLich :

This is a level 7 example. Furthermore, even though I used an alchemist, the same calculations would have been present for a more basic archer - in fact it may be harder because the archer may have multiple attacks.

2 feats, a bard signing, mutagen, a level 1 spell, cover, firing into melee, these are all things that can and will happen at low levels.

Oh and @billd91, if I was trying to scare them off, I would have used my Magus as an example...

Edit: furthermore, I think if someone is deciding to change systems, they need to know what they are getting into. Some people like this kind of play. If the OP is or is not that kind of player, they need to know!

 

[Voadam]

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.

I would quibble here.

Things can change every round. A lot of the time in my experience they will be fairly consistent round to round though.

There are a lot of optional dials for adjusting these things. The core power attack feat allows you to optionally trade any amount of your attack bonus for increased damage if you hit. You could choose to change that round by round.

In practice most people do the same thing for attacks round to round. They decide what they think is their go to power attack trade off and go with it unless they come across someone who is really tough to hit or really easy to hit when they might switch strategy for an entire fight against that opponent.

My 17th level eldritch knight hit people with a magic sword and the numbers were often consistent round to round in the same fight. He had spells for utility and long lasting offensive and defensive and utility buffs and for ranged zaps. When he swung his big sword it was usually for the same numbers and went quick without recalculating stuff. At high levels when you have lots of long lasting buffs dispel magic, greater dispel magic, and Mordenkainen's disjunction can cause an individual to do a lot of recalculating, but how often that comes up is up to the DM.

3e and 3.5 have a lot of fiddly little situational things that can come up either situationally or in the build with character choice. The dodge feat for example gives you +1 AC against one designated opponent, which I dislike as a design choice as it is working a toggle each round for an effect that will only come into play once every 20 attacks from the designated target and you have to keep that difference in mind for other combatants.

But 3e can also be two melee combatants rolling the same dice with the same modifiers round after round without changing just like in AD&D or 5e. If you are a druid wildshaped as a dire bear it can be worthwhile to slug it out claw claw bite round after round against the flesh golem until one of you runs out of hit points.

You can go big on these toggling elements in 3e builds or you can minimize them in 3e builds. 3e has a huge range for accommodating different playstyle preferences in handling mechanics and choices. If you want a fiddly caster then play a wizard with preparation spell casting and significant resource management. If you want a mechanically simple blaster wizard, and you have the supplement book with them, play a warlock with at will eldritch blast and some at will warlock powers. If you want a fiddly warrior making adjustments round by round play a fighter with fiddly combat feats (fighters big thing is extra combat feats), there are a lot of fiddly ones to choose from. Want a straight forward warrior, play a fighter with straightforward feats.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

and @UngeheuerLich :

This is a level 7 example. Furthermore, even though I used an alchemist, the same calculations would have been present for a more basic archer - in fact it may be harder because the archer may have multiple attacks.

2 feats, a bard signing, mutagen, a level 1 spell, cover, firing into melee, these are all things that can and will happen at low levels.

Oh and @billd91, if I was trying to scare them off, I would have used my Magus as an example...

Edit: furthermore, I think if someone is deciding to change systems, they need to know what they are getting into. Some people like this kind of play. If the OP is or is not that kind of player, they need to know!

I have played 3.0 and 3.5 a LOT...

at the beginning it was not that bad. It takes some system mastery to get to the point where you constantly have those calvulations.

But yes, in the end this was a reason to stop 3.5.

 

[Staffan]

2 feats, a bard signing, mutagen, a level 1 spell, cover, firing into melee, these are all things that can and will happen at low levels.

There is definitely an element of "frog boiling" when it comes to modifiers in 3e. None of these things in itself are a problem (well, except maybe the mutagen which increases things indirectly by increasing Dexterity), but there sure are a lot of them.

This is something pretty much all its successors (except Pathfinder 1) have recognized. Both 4e and Pathfinder 2 drastically reduced the number of bonus types and basically removed temporary ability score changes (PF2 kind of has ability score penalties via the Enfeebled, Clumsy, Drained, and Stupefied conditions, but they directly modify most things associated with the stats instead of the stats themselves), and 5e lumped almost all modifiers into advantage/disadvantage.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you're going to run 3.5, I'd strongly suggest using Core only and Tome of Battle (a must sourcebook) with the +1 Rule in effect (each player gets to pick 1 extra sourcebook, other than those 4, to take extra options from).

I'd personally also use 5E Cantrips and rules in place of 3.5E ones and use 5E Spellcasting progression (giving more low level and less high-level slots) and would also port over the 'You can only concentrate on one Concentration spell at a time' rule.

Remove 'in combat' maneuver recovery or limit it to one maneuver back as a single Standard action (to pray, flourish your blade or meditate depending on your ToB initiator class).

You'd have a more or less balanced game of 3.5 doing that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would say the main difference is that 3.5 requires way more system mastery than 5e.

But I would also suggest trying out some of the computer games based on 3.5 to get the feel. In addition to the two Pathfinder games there are two older games Neverwinter Knights (not the MMO) (actually 3.0) and Neverwinter Knights 2.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would say the main difference is that 3.5 requires way more system mastery than 5e.

But I would also suggest trying out some of the computer games based on 3.5 to get the feel. In addition to the two Pathfinder games there are two older games Neverwinter Knights (not the MMO) (actually 3.0) and Neverwinter Knights 2.

I think it was Neverwinter Nights...
... and Knights of the Old Republic.

 

[Ancalagon]

There is definitely an element of "frog boiling" when it comes to modifiers in 3e. None of these things in itself are a problem (well, except maybe the mutagen which increases things indirectly by increasing Dexterity), but there sure are a lot of them.

This is something pretty much all its successors (except Pathfinder 1) have recognized. Both 4e and Pathfinder 2 drastically reduced the number of bonus types and basically removed temporary ability score changes (PF2 kind of has ability score penalties via the Enfeebled, Clumsy, Drained, and Stupefied conditions, but they directly modify most things associated with the stats instead of the stats themselves), and 5e lumped almost all modifiers into advantage/disadvantage.

Indeed. A few pluses and negatives is not the end of the world, but there are SO MANY. It doesn't help that you buy so many items...

I would even say that PF1 is not really a "successor" of 3.5, but a continuation.

 

[Staffan]

Indeed. A few pluses and negatives is not the end of the world, but there are SO MANY. It doesn't help that you buy so many items...

I would even say that PF1 is not really a "successor" of 3.5, but a continuation.

I'd call it a fork. PF1 core is very close to 3.5e core, but the games got expanded in pretty different directions. Overall, I think I liked where 3.5e was going better, at least regarding class design. 3.5e's psionics are great, and PF1 doesn't have anything close to the warblade or swordsage. I also really liked 3.5e's "specialist sorcerers" (warmage, dread necromancer, and beguiler), and the warlock was super cool. Plus, no-one has done anything close to the 3.5e binder class which could in theory change its abilities a lot from day to day (though I recognize that in practice that might not have helped a lot, given that e.g. proficiency with weapons and/or armor doesn't help if you don't have those items on hand, preferably with an appropriate level of magic). And I really didn't like how barbarians and especially bards got their core mechanics changed from X uses per day to X rounds per day in PF1.

 

[Voadam]

Plus, no-one has done anything close to the 3.5e binder class which could in theory change its abilities a lot from day to day (though I recognize that in practice that might not have helped a lot, given that e.g. proficiency with weapons and/or armor doesn't help if you don't have those items on hand, preferably with an appropriate level of magic).

There is actually a huge Binder redo and expansion called Pact Magic from Radiance House with 3.5 and Pathfinder versions. Fun stuff.