D&D General Back-Learning to 3.5e

[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.