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

[MerricB]

I've done a primer on how combat works in 5E with reference to earlier editions (primarily 3E and 4E). You can find it here: http://merricb.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/basic-dd-about-combat/

Of particular note as to differences:
* Bounded accuracy is greatly different from 3E
* Being able to move and make full attacks is very different from 3E - and moving between attacks? That's very new.
* Only movement provokes opportunity attacks, and only when you move out of an opponent's reach - you can run in circles around them all day long.
* The Special Manoeuvres of 3E: Grapple, Disarm and (especially) Trip are nowhere near as effective, if they exist at all.
* Cyclical Initiative is pretty much the same, though!

Cheers!

 

[tuxgeo]

There are some major changes from 3.5E. You can find them if you look for them.

Here are some examples:

1. Advantage/Disadvantage. Nothing comparable in 3.5.

2. Spell slots: Casters get "prepared spells" separate from "casting slots." If you prepare a spell, that doesn't mean you have to cast it; instead, you can use up all of your spell slots without having cast one or another (or more) of your prepared spells that day. It's much more flexible.

3. Spells: Clerics can learn "Sacred Flame" and "Healing Word," both of which originally came from 4E (but are modified). Wizards have a choice of three attack cantrips, and can learn "Thunderwave," which originated in 4E. You can find many more 4E-isms in the game.

4. Backgrounds. This is also from 4E, and formalizes the bestowing of skill proficiencies through a choice other than class or feats.

5. Feats are unnecessary to play the game. Also, they are doubled in size: one 5E feat is roughly the equivalent of two 3E feats. You can have PCs who never take a feat playing at the same table with PCs who do take feats.

 

[Thaumaturge]

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

+1

Thaumaturge.

 

[Hussar]

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

I'd say that is very high praise.

 

[Agamon]

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

Yep, I'll jump on this bandwagon.

If the changes were insignificant from 3e, I wouldn't be running it.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Having barely played 4e, I don't know what you mean by "consistency". I get the 2e feel and the 3e mechanics, but what do you mean by consistency?

 

[doctorhook]

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?

Hold on, so your friend plays Pathfinder but says that 5E is just just 3.5E with insignificant changes? (Pathfinder was literally created as 3.5E with insignificant changes. Some people still think of Pathfinder as "3.75E".)

That said, 5E still shares some core mechanics and layout conventions with 3.5E, as others have pointed out. 4E had most of the same mechanics as 3.5E too, but presented them in a drastically different format. Personally, I see a lot of 4E in 5E. The closer you look at any edition of D&D (perhaps especially 5E), the more you'll find reflections of all of the editions before it.

To me it sounds like your friend is trying to get you to dismiss 5E without giving it a look.

Having barely played 4e, I don't know what you mean by "consistency". I get the 2e feel and the 3e mechanics, but what do you mean by consistency?

No matter what kind of character you decided to make in 4E, you never had to worry about being totally incompetent for a character of your level. The entire game was designed to keep the play-experience reliable with nearly any race/class combo. (It was reliable and consistent, but almost too much so, because battles always dragged on and race and class mattered so much less than the powers your used.)

 

[Blackbrrd]

Hold on, so your friend plays Pathfinder but says that 5E is just just 3.5E with insignificant changes? (Pathfinder was literally created as 3.5E with insignificant changes. Some people still think of Pathfinder as "3.75E".)

That said, 5E still shares some core mechanics and layout conventions with 3.5E, as others have pointed out. 4E had most of the same mechanics as 3.5E too, but presented them in a drastically different format. Personally, I see a lot of 4E in 5E. The closer you look at any edition of D&D (perhaps especially 5E), the more you'll find reflections of all of the editions before it.

To me it sounds like your friend is trying to get you to dismiss 5E without giving it a look.

No matter what kind of character you decided to make in 4E, you never had to worry about being totally incompetent for a character of your level. The entire game was designed to keep the play-experience reliable with nearly any race/class combo. (It was reliable and consistent, but almost too much so, because battles always dragged on and race and class mattered so much less than the powers your used.)

Some good observations here.

I don't agree regarding combat always dragging on in 4e. If you use MM3 math and updated, well built characters in 4e, combat can be pretty quick. I ran a session which had 6 combat encounters and lots or RP encounters in one session. (If you run with just the MM and PHB, combat would drag on, the math was off, but they fixed it)

 

[mach1.9pants]

Having barely played 4e, I don't know what you mean by "consistency". I get the 2e feel and the 3e mechanics, but what do you mean by consistency?

My take (and I agree with this) is that the math is more rigorous and will hold up to greater levels. 4E nailed the maths and was workable and balanced over all levels. Not perfect but pretty darn good and the best I've seen in D&D. Now it took 4E a bit to polish the numbers (monster math and skill challenges, for example) and I am sure the same will apply to 5E but the core looks good and will get better - hopefully.

My 2cp

 

[Mercule]

Since I haven't played the finished rules, yet, this comes with the caveat of being just based on my reading the rules.

That said, I think your friend is wrong, if that statement is taken literally. Echohawk nailed the description pretty well. As someone who initially linked the structure of 3E, but slowly grew to loathe how heavy the system was and how interdependent all the internals were, I'm looking at 5E as what could have been done if 3E sensibilities had been applied to 1E with an express goal of not disrupting what worked.

Really, 5E is something of a unification of what came before. There are a few new mechanics (advantage) and flatter math, but it's mostly pulling together the most functional elements of all the prior editions and filing the edges until they fit together.

That is why your friend sees 3.5 in 5E -- it's in there. Honestly, I see more of 1E, but that's what I'm looking for. When 3E and 4E were released, one of the big conversation topics was whether they "felt like D&D". I have yet to hear anyone ask that of 5E. Even to people who want to continue with an earlier edition, there's really no question that this is D&D. The conversation is around the same sort of things as if this was an errata or x.5 edition. And that, right there, means that Wizards did right. It's not going to be perfect, but it's a keeper.