D&D General Back-Learning to 3.5e

[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.