D&D 3E/3.5 The 4E We Didnt Get.

[Orius]

My thought is that it basically did come out by those who were pretty heavily involved with 3e and 3.5, someone even mentioned it in this thread already.

That game is basically Pathfinder 1e.

That depends on what people want to fix. Different people have different tastes and not everyone who wants to patch 3e wants to do it with PF. For me, PF is a source of mostly compatible material that can be mined, but it also seems to do the sort of things that 3.5 did that I didn't like.

The place I'd start fixing 3.0 is by reverting to 2e saving throws. Or failing that adding half of everyone's level to saving throws and giving the fighter three good saves and the rogue and barbarian two. Damage and buff spells should be SOP, save or sucks hail maries

I'm thinking of giving all the base classes two good saves with the exception of the monk who retains all three good saves because the monk is the last class that needs a nerf. I've also considered switching to the epic save progression at level 11 rather than 21. I don't remember exactly how that math worked, I think it only improved things by 2-3 points by level 20. But I've never actually played it, so I haven't seen it in action, and that can make all the difference.

But as I already said, these things are a matter of taste.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That depends on what people want to fix. Different people have different tastes and not everyone who wants to patch 3e wants to do it with PF. For me, PF is a source of mostly compatible material that can be mined, but it also seems to do the sort of things that 3.5 did that I didn't like.





I'm thinking of giving all the base classes two good saves with the exception of the monk who retains all three good saves because the monk is the last class that needs a nerf. I've also considered switching to the epic save progression at level 11 rather than 21. I don't remember exactly how that math worked, I think it only improved things by 2-3 points by level 20. But I've never actually played it, so I haven't seen it in action, and that can make all the difference.

But as I already said, these things are a matter of taste.

IIRC, bad saves where 1/3 your level and good saves were 1/2 your level +2.
Also, Fighters automatically fail all Fortitude Saves against save or die effects. You still get to roll and all, but we all know how it ends.

 

[Orius]

Yes, I know that.

Of the main four classes, fighters had good Fortitude, rogues good Reflex, wizards good Will, and clerics good Fortitude and Will. I don't recall the other classes offhand, but some had one good save and others two, and having only one good save was often seen as liability. I'm looking to add Reflex to fighters to shore them up and maybe bring them closer to what they were like pre-3e. Will for rogues to boost them a bit, and possibly Reflex to wizards though they don't need to be boosted but they probably shouldn't be stuck with one save.

And like I said, monks had three good saves which they probably need because monks.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Back in the 3.0/3.5 days I wrote an essay listing the things I loved, things I hated, and things I had mixed feelings about. Posted here: D&D 3E/3.5 - Retro-cloning D&D 3.0

And here are some additional issues I have, despite 3.5e still being my preferred D&D version

Issue: The exacerbation of the Linear Fighters; Quadratic Wizards" problem, due to "double power ever two levels" power scale. 3.5 purports to handle this issue by handing out loads of magic items, but I find this unsatisfactory.

Issue: You are always someone's mook. My view is that PCs beyond 4th or 5th level and the equivalent non-mook NPCs and monsters should be basically immune to one shot kills from anything short of a literally Epic opponent. But the "double power every two levels" power scale means that a 11th level party is just as screwed by a CR 18 encounter as a 1st level party is by a CR 8 encounter - mostly because of the total power of MORE MAGIC.

Issue: The expectation of generous increases in ability scores while leveling up, along with an expectation of low-level PCs having relatively low ability scores.

Issue: High Level Numbers Divergence. I don't mind high level characters having big numbers; I blow raspberries in the general direction of "bounded accuracy." I do mind when high level characters have big differences in their big numbers, especially when those big differences cut in the wrong direction. E.g. when the differences between the big saving-throw numbers and the big spell DCs diverge in the wrong direction.

Issue: Armor Class starvation. This is special case of the High Level Numbers Divergence issue, made worse by being a deliberate design decision. I see monsters being handed Natural Armor with a free hand, especially at higher hit dice, I see three or four of the "Big Six" must-have magic items being AC boosters, and I conclude that PCs don't get enough AC for player fun.

Issue: Incentives to "Christmas Tree." The cost structure of magic items is one driver of the PCs going Christmas Tree with their items, with good magic items (+2 or +3 weapons/armor, or wondrous equivalents) costing MUCH more than lesser, +1 equivalent items. Another driver is the need for certain items as character survival and player fun imperatives.

Issue: Save or suck looms larger at higher levels. This is a subset of the "you are always someone's mook" issue, made even worse by the divergence of save bonuses vs save DCs against higher level effects.

Issue: Disagreements over the place of skills in the game. Me, I love skills, and was really happy when 3.x showed up with a skill system that was actually halfway decent. I just wanted to streamline it a bit and fix a few issues. But one trouble is that the designers seemed to have mixed ideas about what skills were for and how they ought to work. Another trouble is that many GMs and players want to "fix" the skill system by nerfing it.

 

[Emerikol]

<snip>

Some really good thoughts here.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Some really good thoughts here.

Thank you.
I'll add Issue: The frequent use of temporary ability score increases and decreases is elegant in theory but a pain in the heat of play. Elegant because a broad cascade of effects can be produced by a simple +4 to DEX or -2 to CON. And a pain in the heat of play for the same reason - tracking those effects inspires bad language.

 

[Celebrim]

@Edgar Ironpelt : Don't disagree with your assessment, but a ton of that boils down to it was a bad the decision to add spell level to saving throw DC and have half of monster HD add to spell-like effect DC. I think if you just do away with those two double dips that increase saving throw DC you will be shocked at how much more balanced the game is.

You are much harder to one shot because the "the total power of MORE MAGIC" decreases.

The high-level number divergence gets smaller between say a bad saving throw and the expected save DCs.

Save or suck becomes less problematic at high levels because like 1e, the chance that the PC or BBEG makes the save increases as the consequences of failing the save increase. Trying to inflict game winning save or suck on a target equates a fairly large percentage of the time to wasting your action, which in turn makes direct damage magic more impactful because you'll at least make some progress to victory.

It doesn't solve all the problems but it solves a lot of them. Granted, I haven't play tested at very high levels (15+), but you are only ever going to reach those levels if you push for them. A slowed down rate of advancement combined with story telling should keep you in the sweet spot for a long time.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

IMO of all the things "wrong" with 3.5, PF1 fixed like none of those. Sure the condensed skill list is fine, but that really wasn't a problem with 3.5. Nobody felt the game was broken because there was both a Listen and Spot skill.

Sure fine, grappling is easier, but it's really not that important. It's not like people started grappling left and right.

Also I find PF1's class design not very good. Extremely fiddly with a tons of different resources I need to track. In that regard 3.5 is actually simpler.

The main pain points in 3.5 that should have been fixed, but wasn't fixed in PF1 includes:

• Monster design. Most monsters are on the scene for a very short amount of time. The idea of monsters working under the same rules as characters is unnecessary although beautiful in theory.
• The whole Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard-problem wasn't solved in PF1. Sure the floor got raised and the ceiling lowered but nowhere near enough.

To be fair to Paizo fixing the above would have gone counter to their strategy of continuing the sales of their Adventure Paths that people knew and loved. So what they did made sense, but I would not call it a "fix for 3.5" or the "4e we didn't get".

I would say that 5e fells like a cleaned up 3.5. I really like both 3.5 and 4e for wearing their feelings on their sleeve so to speak, but 5e do feel more stream lined and easier (although I'm DMing a 3.5 campaign at the moment).

Skill points were a huge pain point in 3.5, though. Those were so terrible that I would never manually make a 3.5 character above level 1 without some kind of software assistance.

PF1 did fix that by making it so that it doesn't matter which class gave you the skill points, they just accumulate as expected.

 

[cbwjm]

Skill points were a huge pain point in 3.5, though. Those were so terrible that I would never manually make a 3.5 character above level 1 without some kind of software assistance.

PF1 did fix that by making it so that it doesn't matter which class gave you the skill points, they just accumulate as expected.

Yeah, that PF1 change made things much easier, especially since INT gains were retroactive with skill points.

 

[_Michael_]

This thread is only a month or so old since last post so I hope I'm not necro-ing the thread.

I am actually working on a system that takes every thing from 3.5e and turns it into a skill similar to how Friday Night Firefight/Interlok was for Cyberpunk. Yes, it's skill-heavy, and complex, but by making everything a skill, I can then have skills with their own set of sub-skills that players can specialize in. I love details and complexity, though I understand that not everyone does. Moreover, there are skill tiers that define competence and play into a reputation system: 0-5 skill ranks being Novice, 6-10 being Journeyman, 11-15 being Expert, 16-20 being Master, and 20-25 being Legendary. As the character rises in skill tiers, they become renown for their skills in a given field and likely attract followers or people that want to learn their techniques, adding more value to specialization in subskills.

Moreover, after initial character creation, skill points aren't rewarded at each level anymore, but are improved through use and by the GM rewarding attempt points at the end of each combat encounter (or scene). Basically, the GM notes which skills are used throughout the scene, and then gives 1-5 attempt points for each of them, depending on how clever the player was in using them. Even failures get 1 point since there is still the ability to learn from mistakes ("Gee, maybe sticking the wand of fireballs into that lock and triggering it wasn't the best idea...").

Additionally, each skill would have a basic set of uses, and then there would be skill rank (or skill tier) thresholds for additional, more specialized uses, allowing a much more diverse array of NPCs and characters with skills, and taking emphasis off of classes by making the class/non-class skill guardrails more fluid. For instance, a black smith could take something like Craft (Blacksmithing) and hammer out basic stuff on a forge, but could then specialize in things like use of specific metals for alloys, or crafting armor, or making wrought iron architectural items (granted, this would be more an NPC thing to add flavor), or any other number of specialities that would be found in a real-world setting. You wouldn't go to a tinker (pots and pans blacksmith) to make horseshoes, you'd go to a ferrier, even though, in a pinch, the tinker could probably cobble together some crude shoes to use until you could get to one.

That was one aspect I both loved about 3.5e and hated at the same time. The diversity of skills and customizability (through great books like Ultimate Game Designer's Companion) was awesome; the ability for players to just drop points into hitherto unused class skills without any effort prior to that to realistically train in those skills was not. I figured by combining the feats into the skills under specialized sub-skills, and making everything a skill check (even attacks and defenses), 3.5e would become a lot more lethal for the foolish and a lot more self-moderating as for min-maxing and skill point bombing. The use of attempt points would also encourage down-time training and perhaps offer even more side-adventures as characters try to find ways to up their skill ranks so they can specialize and customize their character's abilities.

I loved Star Wars Saga Edition for what it was--it offered a platform to create entire stories based on a character's abilities and skills, but I really didn't care for the lack of number of skills. It was very sparse and felt cheap. They could have offered a lot more skills and made it more detail-oriented, but it ends up feeling like it was meant for people with the attention span of a goldfish. The condition track was cool, and I'm working on a similar fatigue system for my own system based on that to reflect a more realistic approach to armor.

I feel like 3.5e could have been so much more with as much diversity as they had through the OGL, where they could have issued a 3.6e incorporating the best that these alternative rule sets had to offer. Still my favorite edition, and likely always will be for that reason alone.