Is There Possibility of a PF1.5 or a 3.5 Revival? Whether Directly or Something With Similar 'Ethos'

[aramis erak]

I'm told that it did, but that seems to be more of a function of high level play (13th level and up) and compensating for the increased gaps between poor saves and expected DC of saving throws. I never had that experience, both because I never ran a campaign that got to 13th level given the slow levelling rates I prefer and because I had house rules that prevented saving throw DC inflation.

I never noticed much in the way of a difference.

I converted a campaign to 3.0 from Cyclo+Gaz... the changes in capability were rather profound.
We went from a mix of 6th to 12th to mostly 10th... We had to double convert - Cyclo has conversions to AD&D2, and 3E had a conversion booklet from AD&D 2 to 3e... the move to more skill-centric play was welcomed... at first. It was good that i'd been stingy about magic items.

They loved the spoon of cooking (homebrew) but its benefit was way too low in 3E (1 slot of cooking skill under Cyclo, I doubled it for 3e.) The +1 and +2 weapons were less impactful by far; Cyclo uses 3 levels per -1 THAC0 for fighters (and elves, dwarves, and halflings), 4 levels for thieves and clerics, 5 for wizards, so that +1 was a huge boost. Their non-weapon magics were few - a bag of holding, an unused portable hole (none of them ever asked about the folded black circle), a couple continual light stones. Oh, and a spacer's radio... for the Cleric of Benekander.

Class, levels:+x to hit	AD&D 2 adv	D&D Rules Cyclopedia	3E
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Avenger*, Elf*, Dwarf*, Halfling*	1:1	3:1	1
Cleric, Druid	3:2	4:1	4:3
Rogue, Bard, Thief	2:1	4:1	4:3
Barbarian⁑	varies	—	1:1
Wizard/Magic-User, Illusionist, Sorcerer∗	3:1	5:1	2:1

* Avenger is a fighter subclass in Cyclo. Elf, Dwarf and Halfling are racial classes being fighters and then adding a few specials to Dwarf and Halfling, and spellcasting to Elves.
⁑ Barbarian isn't a class in AD&D 2, nor, for that matter, is Cavalier; these AD&D 1e classes became Kits in AD&D 2, and were available for multiple classes.
∗ There was an AD&D 1e Sorcerer class, don't recall if it was official or from a third party, but it was not the same as the 3E sorcerer.

The difference between levels gained per +1 made 3E characters go up in melee & missile capabilities faster... and made a wider range of levels more of a problem. It also renders the plusses of magic weapons less important.

 

[Faolyn]

I've only played one 3e campaign (and no 3.5), so pardon me if I'm totally dumb here, but: how would it be for a hypothetical 3.X2 game's feat chains be reduced to a single feat that gave you additional abilities as you leveled up? And then you reduce the number of feats characters got all around to compensate? Has that been done?

Or if that's too simple, you would have to unlock those additional abilities via some method in addition to being a higher level, like maybe having a certain level in a stat or skill.

It'd be a bit like 5e's archetypes, but very narrowly focused.

 

[aramis erak]

I've only played one 3e campaign (and no 3.5), so pardon me if I'm totally dumb here, but: how would it be for a hypothetical 3.X2 game's feat chains be reduced to a single feat that gave you additional abilities as you leveled up? And then you reduce the number of feats characters got all around to compensate? Has that been done?

Or if that's too simple, you would have to unlock those additional abilities via some method in addition to being a higher level, like maybe having a certain level in a stat or skill.

It'd be a bit like 5e's archetypes, but very narrowly focused.

The Second mode, unlock later, on a 5e base, and you wind up with the Pugsteady engine as used in Pugmire, Monarchies of Mau, and Squeeks in the deep...

 

[payn]

I've only played one 3e campaign (and no 3.5), so pardon me if I'm totally dumb here, but: how would it be for a hypothetical 3.X2 game's feat chains be reduced to a single feat that gave you additional abilities as you leveled up? And then you reduce the number of feats characters got all around to compensate? Has that been done?

Or if that's too simple, you would have to unlock those additional abilities via some method in addition to being a higher level, like maybe having a certain level in a stat or skill.

It'd be a bit like 5e's archetypes, but very narrowly focused.

There has been a ton of 3rd party work on flattening feats. Usually, they leave the system as is, but combine some feats. A few things they just allow you do if you meet the stat requirement like power attack or vital strike.

 

[Pedantic]

I've only played one 3e campaign (and no 3.5), so pardon me if I'm totally dumb here, but: how would it be for a hypothetical 3.X2 game's feat chains be reduced to a single feat that gave you additional abilities as you leveled up? And then you reduce the number of feats characters got all around to compensate? Has that been done?

Or if that's too simple, you would have to unlock those additional abilities via some method in addition to being a higher level, like maybe having a certain level in a stat or skill.

It'd be a bit like 5e's archetypes, but very narrowly focused.

Scaling feats are absolutely one proposed solution that floated around. Other ideas included simplifying prerequisites down to strictly necessary features (like spellcasting or ranks in a relevant skill) and then just tying them to level. The idea there being you'd present level appropriate abilities in the right ranges.

 

[Voadam]

I mean specifically. I am hoping for someone to.say what they think would be a good evolution of 3.0 that was not 3.5 and therefore also not PF.

I think I understand what folks might want in a continuation of PF that wasn't so divergent as PF2, though.

A couple pain points for me, are things like high level save and bab imbalances leading to some character imbalances, monster and NPC prep, spell stacking.

I would like:

Trailblazer style phantom attack bonuses for rogues and monks to keep them competitive at physical combat strikes and flat (not type dependent) ranger combat bonuses to make them 4e style lightly armored heavy hitting combat strikers.

For saves I would prefer all to advance 4e style at 1/2 (strong ones get that starting +2) so that high level characters do not have huge exploitable save gaps that CR appropriate foes can exploit.

For monsters and NPCs I would prefer an option for easy to apply 4e style monster math for quick reasonable monster stats based on CR rather than specifics of the HD/Class/feat choice/magic selected/equipment build. Some d20 modern and fantasy craft supplements did a bit of that but my experience was they were fairly limited in monster design options and still took some time to work through.

I would also like 4e monster roles (artillery, brute, etc.) and the minion, standard, elite, solo aspects. I applied these types of things to my 3.5 and Pathfinder games from 4e descriptions way before I had any 4e books or 4e experience and they worked great in 3.5. They are easy to implement as templates if you want.

I would like 5e style concentration for many spells in 3.5 to avoid the huge difference between nova stacking buffs and not doing so.

Other things are comparatively small, minimum of 4 skill points per class, no pathfinder fly skill, make sneak attack work against everything, some form of rest for substantial healing so that cure spells are not the fairly exclusive huge deal they are mechanically.

I think these are all easily implementable to have a backwards compatible d20 game using 3.5 player books and modules and sourcebooks.

 

[Pedantic]

See, this is a perfect example of the problem, as I think several of those things are incompatible with the underlying 3e design ethos. You might be able to represent role as a general set of levels and/or prepared feat packages, but definitely not as templates, and I'd hold NPC/PC design parity as too important to work around.

 

[Reynard]

A couple pain points for me, are things like high level save and bab imbalances leading to some character imbalances, monster and NPC prep, spell stacking.

I would like:

Trailblazer style phantom attack bonuses for rogues and monks to keep them competitive at physical combat strikes and flat (not type dependent) ranger combat bonuses to make them 4e style lightly armored heavy hitting combat strikers.

For saves I would prefer all to advance 4e style at 1/2 (strong ones get that starting +2) so that high level characters do not have huge exploitable save gaps that CR appropriate foes can exploit.

For monsters and NPCs I would prefer an option for easy to apply 4e style monster math for quick reasonable monster stats based on CR rather than specifics of the HD/Class/feat choice/magic selected/equipment build. Some d20 modern and fantasy craft supplements did a bit of that but my experience was they were fairly limited in monster design options and still took some time to work through.

I would also like 4e monster roles (artillery, brute, etc.) and the minion, standard, elite, solo aspects. I applied these types of things to my 3.5 and Pathfinder games from 4e descriptions way before I had any 4e books or 4e experience and they worked great in 3.5. They are easy to implement as templates if you want.

I would like 5e style concentration for many spells in 3.5 to avoid the huge difference between nova stacking buffs and not doing so.

Other things are comparatively small, minimum of 4 skill points per class, no pathfinder fly skill, make sneak attack work against everything, some form of rest for substantial healing so that cure spells are not the fairly exclusive huge deal they are mechanically.

I think these are all easily implementable to have a backwards compatible d20 game using 3.5 player books and modules and sourcebooks.

Thanks for the detailed reply, but this still sounds like a 3.5/PF evolution aka an alternative 4E. I was curious about folks that wanted a different 3.0 evolution that wasn't existing 3.x.

 

[Celebrim]

This is true, but I think it's important to remember that 3.X gave players a lot more resources to be self-directed in this regard than any edition before or since. This is largely through the use of magic item creation feats (magic items could always be created by players in earlier editions, of course, but there was a heavy hand of GM fiat over the entire process, since not only were the exotic ingredients necessary for creating an item made up by the GM, but so was their availability; item creation feats, by contrast, simply require time, gold, and a perfunctory skill check or two), but even skills like Craft, Perform, and Profession systematize the routine acquisition of gold (albeit not very much). And don't even get me started on the inherent presumption of magic item shops.

Presuming something like a sandbox campaign and/or some intelligent information-gathering on the part of the players (which could very well just be a Gather Information check), then they could very well foresee the challenges ahead of them enough to equip themselves accordingly.

This I'm not entirely certain about because I only once and for a short period have a player who played a crafter. Aside from some scroll creation, most of my players characters in the campaign I ran the longest didn't invest in item creation feats. But, I consider 3e item creation feats very well balanced in theory (though the rules on their creation needed one more revision). The lost XP in particular means delayed leveling that balances against perfectly suited items for the tasks at hand, so I didn't anticipate that trouble.

Fundamentally, I saw 3e as being what 1e was trying to be but failing. The rules for item creation in 1e were in the DMG and left too much up to the DM. 3e may have erred somewhat the other direction in execution, but the idea was sound.

And I loved that PCs were finally put on level terms with NPCs. Gone were poor attempts at balance like "Only special NPCs can create special magic items, and the PCs can never be special enough."

I hope to start up the D&D campaign again once every starts to tire of Star Wars and I get some familiarity with virtual tabletops. One thing that I will prioritize in kicking it off again is writing out an equipment and crafting guide, precisely to encourage more exploration of those mechanics.

 

[Faolyn]

For monsters and NPCs I would prefer an option for easy to apply 4e style monster math for quick reasonable monster stats based on CR rather than specifics of the HD/Class/feat choice/magic selected/equipment build. Some d20 modern and fantasy craft supplements did a bit of that but my experience was they were fairly limited in monster design options and still took some time to work through.

I was looking at the Onyx Storypath game The World Below. In that game (and I think other Storypath systems; I'd have to go check), there are some basic monster chassis of different power levels--Pests, Blights, Scourges, and Horrors--and then a whole bunch of abilities that can be added to those chassis. So you'll end up with a creature like, say, the Arachniidia and it'll have stats like this:

(Antitheses are special abilities)

I wondered how that would work in other systems. 3e had monster advancement, which was similar but would involve some recalculation. With this, it's all laid out. Admittedly, in a slightly "meh" way (I would have had each Antithesis on a separate line). But you could easily do something like this for monsters (civilian/mook/lieutenant/bosses for humanoids, or lesser/average/greater/legendary for monsters). Not all of the The World Below monsters have all four levels, so you can definitely have monsters that don't have variants.

But anyway, it's the abilities that are important right now. In some 3x books--at least the Ravenloft Van Richten Guides--there were big lists of abilities you could give a monster and they each had a CR adjustment. And this thing in The World Below reminded me of that. I could see doing something like that for a 3.X2 as a system-wide thing.

Roles like Brute or Artillery could be modeled via various abilities.

A lot of monster abilities are just spells, so they could be done as elemental damage or inflicting a condition, with a note that it can be dispelled/countered (to avoid the gripes that I've seen when 5e made those changes). And other abilities can be quantified (and more added in other supplements, of course). It might be a hefty chapter in a monster book or the DMG, but it would certainly be more balanced all around.

...I don't think this would be very backwards compatible, though. As a game that invokes the flavor of 3x without trying to be a copy of it, maybe, but not something that would be interchangeable with it.