D&D 3E/3.5 Differences and similarities between 5th and 3.5

[huank]

Ok, so I have a friends who's a huge fan of 3.5 and he's now playing Pathfinder. I've never played 3.5 neither Pathfinder, I've only played 4e and 2nd edition, but now I would like to switch to 5e because I'm really enjoying the basic rules. I wanted to invite the friend I was talking about to the table, but he insists that now that he has been reading the Basic Rules it' clear that 5e is just 3.5 with insignificant changes. so I would like to know if this is true since I don't know about 3.5 rules.

What do you think so?

 

[Nebulous]

Ok, so I have a friends who's a huge fan of 3.5 and he's now playing Pathfinder. I've never played 3.5 neither Pathfinder, I've only played 4e and 2nd edition, but now I would like to switch to 5e because I'm really enjoying the basic rules. I wanted to invite the friend I was talking about to the table, but he insists that now that he has been reading the Basic Rules it' clear that 5e is just 3.5 with insignificant changes. so I would like to know if this is true since I don't know about 3.5 rules.

What do you think so?

*I* think that is just your friend's opinion....and you'll find plenty of people here that completely disagree with that assessment. And some who will agree. I think 5e feels more like 2nd edition with some 3e modernisms, but would hardly call them insignificant. 5th edition D&D is NOT revolutionary, it does not take roleplaying games to the "next tier of wonder" or inject anything incredibly new, but it also doesn't muck it up. I truly think the "new and revolutionary" phase will come down the road when designers get creative and start adding whole module sourcebooks to the base game that completely change it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ok, so I have a friends who's a huge fan of 3.5 and he's now playing Pathfinder. I've never played 3.5 neither Pathfinder, I've only played 4e and 2nd edition, but now I would like to switch to 5e because I'm really enjoying the basic rules. I wanted to invite the friend I was talking about to the table, but he insists that now that he has been reading the Basic Rules it' clear that 5e is just 3.5 with insignificant changes. so I would like to know if this is true since I don't know about 3.5 rules.

What do you think so?

His perspective is both reasonable and completely unreasonable. It's unreasonable, because the rules changes are pretty huge from 3.5E, and really hit most of the areas where 3.5E had serious problems pretty hard.

However, if he, for example:

Liked 2E, disliked 3.5E, then 5E will contain much of what he likely hates (skills, 3.5E's approach to multi-classing, for example) and will seem to have an approach to the game which is much closer to 3.5E than 2E.

Liked 4E, disliked 3.5E, then 5E will be missing a lot of stuff he likes, and will seem to have an approach to the game which is much closer to 3.5E than 4E.

So there's some reasonable-ness there.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

On the surface I'd say they appear pretty similar; they are both D&D after all. Both 3E and 5E share some common design concepts, and stem from the same d20 mechanical roots.

The changes, though -- examples: flatter math, specifically; advantage mechanics; differing skill structures; changed spells -- I'd regard as significant. When all the optional rules modules are on the table I bet it will be possible to build a game even closer to 3E, but the flatter math will still make them operate differently even if they feel similar.

 

[Echohawk]

For me, 5th edition has a 2nd edition feel, 3rd edition mechanics, and 4th edition consistency.

 

[Alzrius]

Ok, so I have a friends who's a huge fan of 3.5 and he's now playing Pathfinder. I've never played 3.5 neither Pathfinder, I've only played 4e and 2nd edition, but now I would like to switch to 5e because I'm really enjoying the basic rules. I wanted to invite the friend I was talking about to the table, but he insists that now that he has been reading the Basic Rules it' clear that 5e is just 3.5 with insignificant changes. so I would like to know if this is true since I don't know about 3.5 rules.

What do you think so?

I think that your friend is correct.

Having read through the 5E Basic rules, they strike me as being very close to 3.5E in most ways. The largest "changes" aren't really what I'd call changes at all - they're restrictions on various options; things you can't do in 5E Basic that you could in 3.5. These largely seem to revolve around proficiency bonuses taking the place of various BAB, save, and skill point progressions. Throw in a few things like no feats in Basic, and that's the majority of what's different.

Some things are imported from other sources; sub-classes are the natural extension of alternate class abilities from the later 3.5 supplements (and pretty much whole-cloth use of the class archetypes from Pathfinder).

The changes that seem like actual changes are the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, doubling the number of saving throws a character has (adding in Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma-based saves alongside the existing Dexterity (Reflex), Constitution (Fortitude), and Wisdom (Willpower) saves), and the slightly-altered manner of preparatory spellcasting (and ritual spellcasting, which is a 4E-ism).

There are some other differences, such as elves having full-on darkvision, and the ability score caps (and ability score requirements for multiclassing, which we won't see until the PHB comes out - which is a 1E/2E-ism), but for the most part these are details.

Save for the aforementioned "actual changes" I mentioned above, 5E Basic really seems like a 3.5 rules set where most of the bonus progressions were restricted to the level of an E6 game.

 

[Stalker0]

The weapons, spells, and equipment at initial glance do mirror 3rd edition, even in formatting.

Closer reading, you can read the subtle differences and improvements, but there are few revolutionary changes.


I would say there are two things that 5e has made somewhat revolutionary:

1) Advantage/Disadvantage: I don't think any edition was really used this type of mechanic at any bulk level.

2) Concentration balance for spells: Old edition wizards had concentration rules designed to limit the effectiveness of big spells in combat. This new concentration rule is fairly different, and in fact its main job is around limiting buff spells. In fact I will say the biggest question mark to me about 5e (that I will need to see in play), is how do high level spells shape the game. Are they sufficient curtailed, or do they still rule the roost?

 

[Nebulous]

For me, 5th edition has a 2nd edition feel, 3rd edition mechanics, and 4th edition consistency.

I can see that. And with modules and DM fiat, you can lean toward any one of those editions more than another. Which, i guess, was Wizards goal all along.

 

[Nebulous]

The weapons, spells, and equipment at initial glance do mirror 3rd edition, even in formatting.

Closer reading, you can read the subtle differences and improvements, but there are few revolutionary changes.


I would say there are two things that 5e has made somewhat revolutionary:

1) Advantage/Disadvantage: I don't think any edition was really used this type of mechanic at any bulk level.

2) Concentration balance for spells: Old edition wizards had concentration rules designed to limit the effectiveness of big spells in combat. This new concentration rule is fairly different, and in fact its main job is around limiting buff spells. In fact I will say the biggest question mark to me about 5e (that I will need to see in play), is how do high level spells shape the game. Are they sufficient curtailed, or do they still rule the roost?

I agree, nothing revolutionary and totally different. 13th Age escalation dice, and the spell system of Dungeon Crawl Classics, i would call those totally unique changes. A/D is nifty but hardly "wow".

My gut feeling is that high level spells will still take the cake. I am neither for nor against this yet, and i'll really need to see it in play to understand.

 

[caudor]

For me, 5th edition has a 2nd edition feel, 3rd edition mechanics, and 4th edition consistency.

This ^ I find this to be an excellent description.