D&D 3E/3.5 Twenty Years On. Modern 3E?

[Orius]

I think in most people's campaigns they have always been more fluff than actual rule. Otherwise a spellcaster would constantly need to maintain a shopping list. Shopping for spell components also bogs down the game, plus it allows the DM to arbitrarily make some spell components unavailable, which would be unfair to the player. Plus no DM is going to check if a player actually has the required components for a spell. What it is, is unnecessary busy work. It has always been a bad rule, in EVERY edition of D&D.

You need the components for game balance; 3e casters already had too many reins taken off them which contributed to the tier problem. But DMs usually only bother with the expensive components that have a listed cost in the spell description, because the other stuff isn't worth tracking. As long as the casters have access to their equipment, then they should be able to use basic components. Costs for basic components should be adequately covered in living expenses.

I will say that I could get behind a game that is a blend of 5e and 3.x. I do appreciate some elements of 5e, certainly it generally has better designed classes, and I do like how it made combat faster.

I prefer the triad of Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves, I prefer a lot of 3e-isms though. I prefer 3e's magic item creation.

I think there's overall a lot of parts and pieces between 3.x (and other OGL works) and 5e to make the perfect edition of D&D and improve on 3.5e with some elements of 5e.

The thing there is that everyone has different tastes. My preferences aren't necessarily shared by other players, who don't necessarily like what I like. So it really comes down to individual house rules.

 

[cbwjm]

One thing I like about pathfinder 2e spellcasting is (if I'm recalling it all correctly) that the components match the number of actions. If you have a spell with just a vocal component it only takes 1 of your 3 actions for the round. Something with VSM would require all 3 actions to cast the spell. It works really well in that you can put more time into a spell to make it more powerful so a magic missile might only fire 1 missile but if you put all 3 actions in to it then it fires 3 missiles... Or I'm completely wrong and need to reread spellcasting in pathfinder 2e again.

 

[Campbell]

One thing I like about pathfinder 2e spellcasting is (if I'm recalling it all correctly) that the components match the number of actions. If you have a spell with just a vocal component it only takes 1 of your 3 actions for the round. Something with VSM would require all 3 actions to cast the spell. It works really well in that you can put more time into a spell to make it more powerful so a magic missile might only fire 1 missile but if you put all 3 actions in to it then it fires 3 missiles... Or I'm completely wrong and need to reread spellcasting in pathfinder 2e again.

In the Beta this was a hard and fast rule. In the finalized version it is a design heuristic. Most spells conform to it, but there are exceptions.

 

[Imaculata]

You need the components for game balance;

There are other ways to balance the game. The designers should have taken a cue from the fact that most groups don't like to keep track of them in every edition of the game. Lets face it, spell components as a rule suck the fun out of the game and just add more bookkeeping. It has always been a badly designed element of the game.

The idea is fine. That many groups (probably) ignore it doesn't change that.
What changes is that the casters end up with essentially unlimited ammo & are only constrained by their available slots.

If people have disliked them and opted to houserule them out of the game for 5 editions now, then I'd say the idea is not fine, it is bad.

Because you can't "balance" the spells. Not effect wise beyond anything that cause damage. The best you can do is group them in lvs & assign them varying limitations on their casting - time, components, ever fewer slots at higher lvs.....

Nonsense, of course you can balance spells.

Getting rid of what you call bloat wouldn't change anything for you/whoever's already ignoring it.

It would if they then balanced spells in some other (better) way.

But it would deprive others of options. Just because you & yours aren't using a spell or components doesn't mean someone else isn't.
And in the case of getting rid of spell components? That'd be really inconvenient for those of us who use them. If removed completely we'd have to do alot of work adding them back in. If made optional? Well, there's really no better location to print them other than in the spell description.

Thats a falacy. If that were the case then you could never radically change anything about the rules, which obviously you can. Every edition of D&D has changed or removed something that some players wanted to keep. That is not a good argument for not changing or removing that thing.

 

[GreyLord]

I don't really understand 5e's proficiency bonus at all. To me a fighter is supposed to have a better base attack than a wizard. I can't wrap my head around 5e's approach. It's mostly unfamiliarity with the system and a lack of desire to run it.

Something I like to do with Fighters are several options.

Option #1 - Fighters have expertise just like a Rogue has expertise...except the Fighter ONLY has expertise in one weapon of their choice (sort of like specialization). Martial Characters (Rangers, Barbarians and Paladins) can also have this option if the DM chooses.

Option #2 - Rather than the Battlemaster, a Fighter can choose a Specialist. This archetype get's many of the same ideas as the Battlemaster, but instead of having superiority dice to roll, it is a straight up bonus. This is a +4 at first, improved at 10th level to a +5, and at 18th level to a +6 to hit. This has no limit on this (unlike superiority dice) and can be added on every attack.

HOWEVER, at 7th level you also can choose among the following. You gain an additional choice at 10th and 15th level. When using these you have to choose whether to use your bonus to hit, or instead use these bonuses instead. You cannot use both or all of them, only one at a time each round.

Damage bonus - you add 1d8 to a damage roll. You can only use this a maximum of 4 times between rests (long or short).
- Greater Damage Bonus - If you choose this again, your damage increases to 1d10 and you can use it a maximum of 5 times.
- Maximum Damage Bonus - If you choose this a 3rd time your damage increases to 1d12 and you can use it a maximum of 6 times.

Increased Defense - You add 4 points to your Armor Class for one round. You can only use this a maximum of 4 times between rests.
- Greater Defense - If you choose this again you can add 5 to your Armor class for one round. You can use this a maximum of 5 times
- Maximum Defense - If you choose this again, you can add 6 to your Armor class for one round. You can use this a maximum of 6 times

Boost Moral - You give an ally an additional attack. They can add 1d8 to their damage roll. this can only be used 4 times between rests.
- Improved Boost Morale - If you choose this again, As above but they now add 1d10 and can be used 5 times.
- Greater Improved Boost Moral - If you choose this a 3rd time, As above, but now they add 1d12 and can be used 6 times

Rally - Grant an ally 1d8+ your CHA mod temporary hit points. You can perform this up to 4 times between rests.
- Greater Rally - If you choose this again, as above but the dice are improved to 1d10 and you can perform it up to 5 times between rests.
- Champion Rally - If you choose this a 3rd time, as above, but now 1d12 dice and you can perform it up to 6 times between rests.

Critical Strike - For one battle can get criticals anytime a 19 or 20 is rolled.
- Improved Critical Strike - If chosen again, criticals now occur anytime an 18-20 is rolled and can be done during 2 battles
- Critical Strike Mastery - If chosen a 3rd time, criticals now occur anytime a 16-20 is rolled and can be done during 3 battles.


All in all, not quite as powerful as the Battlemaster (though the constant bonus to hit probably counters that), but a similar idea to it that gives fighters that oomph bonus to hit, while at the same time giving them a chance to have something similar to maneuvers.

 

[Lylandra]

If anything, I'd like the 5e chassis to be used, but certain systems changed.

I'd like to see 3.x style saving throws again. Reflex, Will and Fortitude worked and honestly I feel they better fit the 5e simpler approach than the current method. Having one for each ability score guarantees there's going to be one or two that rarely see use (which currently seem to be Int and Cha). Yes, there are spells and abilities that call for those saves, but I've found they are considerably less common than the others, and the classes proficient in those saves feel like they have a wasted save proficiency. Hell, I even prefer 2e's save system over the current 5e one (not how they functioned, merely how they were organized). Some means of universal improvement (that doesn't upset bounded accuracy) should also be implemented. Even from an abstract, to say that your non-proficient saves will be pretty much the same at 1st as 20th is ridiculous. 3.x got saving throws right and I'm sure they can be used in a bounded accuracy system just as well.

Basic brainstorm:

• Reflex = Dex or Str mod, whichever better
• Will = Int or Wis mod, whichever better
• Fort = Cha or Con mod, whichever better

No class has a "set" save proficiency. Each class gets proficiency in one at 1st level, which the player can choose. At 11th level (character level), you gain proficiency in a different saving throw of your choice and can add half your proficiency bonus to your rolls for your saving throws you are not proficient in.

Needs tinkering and tweaking no doubt, as this is just a brainstorm idea, but it's more interesting than current.

I'd also like to see a slightly more robust skill system. 5e gets the job done in the most basic of ways, but for a modern-designed system, it's pretty embarrassing. The main things I'd like to see are more skills and a means to gain more through progression. I'm content with proficiency bonuses handling the improvement over time to keep it simple, but some active means (meaning other than downtime) of learning (becoming proficient) in more would be most welcome to me. 2e does skills/proficiencies better than 5e (in terms of progression)....that's also rather embarrassing.

I enjoy 5e as it is, but saving throws and skills are the two mechanics in 5e I find myself constantly shaking my head at.

I alwas liked the 4e approach of two different abilities for each defense/save, and we used this as a houserule for PF1, even if we had STR/CON (Fort), DEX/INT (Ref), CHA/WIS (Will).

I'm a bit unsure whether I prefer the "saves as defenses" and the "attacker always rolls to attack" method as it is more streamlined than the save. I'd even go as far to say that the players should always roll, but this would lead to a discrepancy between monsters/NPC and PCs.

Also, agreed that the 5e idea of a save for every stat is neat on paper, but the transition let down a lot of the "nontraditional attributes" like STR or CHA. This could have been settled with an approach that lets a target choose 1 of 2 methods of saving against an attack (say, you are charmed and then you'd have the choice to either roll WIS or CHA, or you are targeted by a frost spell, then you'd either use DEX or CON).

Regarding BAB/Proficiency:

I understand the need to let a standard wizard be worse in hitting stuff in melee than a standard fighter. This is what PF2 handled very well with their incremental proficiency. So you could have a wizard be "trained" in light weapons, meaning that they'll get their "full BAB" (they'll be able to hit stuff with AOOs etc), while the fighter starts with "expert", meaning they'll get "full BAB + X". Meanwhile, the wizard will be "expert" in weaponlike spells.

 

[Catolias]

I think PF2 could be the closest equivalent to a new sleeker take on 3.5. It’s got more mechanical heft than 5e, but it’s still streamlined and keeps the spellcasting system separate from other abilities. To me, 4e is the sweet spot between 3.5 complexity and 5e simplicity (in terms of PCs and monsters), but if 4e is not an option, PF2 looks to be between 3.5 and 5e too.

I don’t know 4e we’ll enough to comment, but I totally agree with you that PF2 sits as a sleeker 3.5e. My group are intending to complete our long running 3.5 campaign before we switch to pf2

 

[Catolias]

I agree with the thrust of having reflex, will, fortitude saves in 5e - they made sense and removing them is nonsensical

Trimmed down feats (i seem to recall that 3e feats were much tighter than the inclusion of unnecessary feats in 3.5e - investigator, acrobatics, nimble fingers come to mind)

Maintaining skills and ranks was good IMO, but a little rationalisation would not have hurt. I can’t see why jump and tumble needed to be their own seperate thing, for instance.

The equipment list and weapons was excellent in 3.x and the nerfed version in 5e is plain disappointing. Indeed, the fact that money was useful for players (as opposed to 5e) was great.

Oh, and give me masterwork items! They were great and the current 5e system almost suggests that there are shops like Costco or wal-mart or target or Kmart selling mass produced items that have been made in FR or Eberron or greyhawk’s equivalent of our developing country.

A modern 3.5e could rationalise encumbrance rules - they are too fiddly.

 

[Haldrik]

I prefer 4 saves

• Fortitude
• Reflex
• Will
• Perception

 

[nevin]

Honestly I'd go back to something like 2e in a heartbeat. Poeple didn't need to spend a week before the game trying to figure out the class they wanted to play. If they wanted to be something different they and the DM worked out a prestige class and worked it into the game. I loved the way divine spheres were done. Removing overpowered spells is silly. You go back to DM controlling what spells you find. Also most DM's blow high level magice because there are no consequences for certain spells. If people will kill you for money, People will kill your mage for his spellbook, it's worth far more than the party probably has if those spells are rare. The biggest thing that drives me crazy on the talk of overpowered spells is this. Why aren't your bad guys screwing them over the same way they screw over your game. Steal their stuff and then teleport to a place they've never been. Reincarnate thier enemies, help them get the ingredients for that wish without telling them how pissed the Pheonix is going to be when he regenerates, or how mad the god of magic will be when he finds they've destroyed a centuries old protective ward and used the power source he made for thier wish.

Thing about those powerful spells is they have just as much use for the GM as the party., whether in game hooks or just simply for the enemy to use.