| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Jul 2003 : 16:03:40
Well, by now most of you have at least become acquainted with 3.5e either by purchasing the actual books, or by the handy WotC SRD.
So now I am wondering. Since you have had your first taste, what, if anything will you be leaving as standard 3e, if and while using the 3.5e rules?.
Of course this is on the assumption that you are going to convert to 3.5, but I just thought I would see whether there are some things gamers will not change even if they do use the revised rules.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 30 Dec 2015 : 14:01:21
Its funny that you mention the charging rules being an issue, because my current DM had the same problem until I pointed it out. Its becoming part of the process of my own learning of 5e that I question any ruling he puts forth (in my head, not verbally) and look it up to see if it still works that way. I usually don't get the answer until after we've moved on, so we've adopted a "it happened that way this time, but we'll remember this for the next time" stance.
Yeah, I have to agree on the new wand mechanics in 5e being better than 3.5e and earlier editions. That being said, the current wand was somewhat designed in 3.5 for Eberron where they had something like infinite wands that could be used x times per day. I'd like to see a return somewhat of the feat concept for making magic items that 3.5e had, but I'd not like to see it be anywhere near as spread as it was in 3.5. For instance, I'd say a craft arms, armor, helmets,shoes, gloves, and constructscloaks, and other clothing feat (more appropriately named)... then a craft wands, staves, rods, scepters, and scrolls.... then a craft jewelry, cloaks, hats, and other wondrous items feat. Of course, if you did this, more feats would have to be available to be used than 5e generally gives. On these lines though, I'd like to see a lot more done with wands, staves and rods than being just repositories for certain spells. For instance, some staves might be entirely defensive, taking the place of bracers that provide armor class, etc.... Some wands or staves might only be used to enhance the caster casting spells of a certain type (as an example, maybe a wand used in casting can give a mage the equivalent of the elemental adept (fire) feat.... or maybe there's a wand which increases the save DC's of charm spells or a specific charm spell, etc....). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 30 Dec 2015 : 01:18:12
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
btw, Diffan, thanks for this conversation. I've noticed in past discussions that you're very good with the rulesets themselves, and it helps sometimes to talk through some of this stuff. For me, so many things have begun to blur between the various versions of the games I've seen over 30 years, that sometimes I "read" into the rules something that's not there. For instance, I initially automatically assumed that wizards memorized spells the same way in 5e as previous editions, and it wasn't until I took a closer look that I saw the difference. I have to say to that... what a difference.
Thanks, and I'm in the same boat. Even though my systems are limited to 3.x, Pathfinder, 4e, and a smidge of 5e it's easy to mix certain small elements from one to another (well, maybe less for for 4e). Something I always did was apply the same base mechanics for Charging in 3.5 to Pathfinde, 4e, and 5e and yep that's wrong for almost everyone. You don't get a +2 to Attack, -1 AC in 4e (just a +1 attack with your MBA) and I don't think you receive an AC penalty in Pathfinder. In 5e I don't think there even is a bonus for Charging an enemy?
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
This new methodology opens up some pathways for new magic items as well (and maybe they're already created and I haven't seen them yet, because life has gotten in the way of my reading). I can see there being a path for having magic scrolls, wands, and staves that give you the ability to use your own spell slots to cast a spell that you don't have memorized, all without damaging said item in any way. These same items would be highly useful to bards,sorcerors, and warlocks, as well as divine casters who may not want to have raise dead memorized, etc.... This would get around the issue of having say a single raise dead scroll and finding yourself in the situation where you need 3 castings. That spell may not be a good example, as it may be able to be ritualized, but you get the idea I'm sure.
I have to agree that the Vancian-ish style of 5e is FAR more to my liking than it was in either 3.5 or Pathfinder. I like how its far more versatile and that you can cant multiple spells you've memorized instead of being sure to memorize the same spell 2 or 3 times per day. It opens up a lot, as you say. I also like how Wands and Staffs can recharage at the beginning of the day and you're only really penalized if you use up ALL the charges and there's a chance ALl the magic is drained from the item. It makes using that last charge a serious question instead of "yep, just use it and get a new one." mentality of 3.5. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 30 Dec 2015 : 01:12:06
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
the main problem was just in how high the bonuses got. When your main die role is a d20, then you should have your highest die be about half of that. I admire 5e for trying to reduce the numbers, but essentially to me it seems to give the heros at the upper levels a very non-heroic feel. They should still understand that the ogre at 20th lvl isn't much of a threat to them, but they shouldn't just laugh at the concept. In that same vein, it became such that a high level wizard shouldn't even consider drawing a weapon, even though frankly they should have some challenges where they have to do exactly that.
I dunno, I like that a high leveled PC is still afraid or at least wary of giants and ogres and trolls. If a pack of trolls is just a minor inconvenience then the bonuses and stats have gotten too high.
you escalated what I said. I said an ogre. A troll beats an ogre any day. A pack of trolls beats a single troll. Giants beat trolls. So yes, I agree a high level PC should still worry about trolls and giants.... and even a lowly ogre might be able to hit him. That's why I stated the numbers like I did. However, in the reverse case, making the numbers too low makes a giant versus a couple of orcs something where that giant should be scared of being ganged up on by a handful of orcs.... and that shouldn't be the case (now a giant versus 20 orcs... yeah).
I agree there needs to be some middle ground. A place where an Ogre can scoff at 2-5 orcs but definitely want to run if there are more than 10 of them. I'm not sure any version of D&D has found this "sweet" spot yet.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
This especially applies if you're using the new flanking rules where flanking provides advantage, etc..... Advantage and disadvantage are major factors in the new game, and automatically giving "advantage" or "disadvantage" can also be a breaking point in the new rules if its applied too broadly versus situational bonuses (i.e. a bonus to hit, etc...).
Something that I talked about plenty on my 5e playtest surveys was the huge impact (Dis)Advantage has in the game and that it should be used quite sparingly, because it can pull that much of a swing. When you view the game from a predominantly 3.5 and 4e lens, giving out bonuses for stuff seems almost routine but apply that to 5e and things will easily get out of hand. I wish there was a bit more advise given on when to use and not use the (Dis)Advantage mechanic. Sometimes a player does something cool and you want to reward that, but Advantage is just too easy of a choice in many circumstances. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Dec 2015 : 04:25:13
btw, Diffan, thanks for this conversation. I've noticed in past discussions that you're very good with the rulesets themselves, and it helps sometimes to talk through some of this stuff. For me, so many things have begun to blur between the various versions of the games I've seen over 30 years, that sometimes I "read" into the rules something that's not there. For instance, I initially automatically assumed that wizards memorized spells the same way in 5e as previous editions, and it wasn't until I took a closer look that I saw the difference. I have to say to that... what a difference.
This new methodology opens up some pathways for new magic items as well (and maybe they're already created and I haven't seen them yet, because life has gotten in the way of my reading). I can see there being a path for having magic scrolls, wands, and staves that give you the ability to use your own spell slots to cast a spell that you don't have memorized, all without damaging said item in any way. These same items would be highly useful to bards,sorcerors, and warlocks, as well as divine casters who may not want to have raise dead memorized, etc.... This would get around the issue of having say a single raise dead scroll and finding yourself in the situation where you need 3 castings. That spell may not be a good example, as it may be able to be ritualized, but you get the idea I'm sure. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Dec 2015 : 04:13:11
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
the main problem was just in how high the bonuses got. When your main die role is a d20, then you should have your highest die be about half of that. I admire 5e for trying to reduce the numbers, but essentially to me it seems to give the heros at the upper levels a very non-heroic feel. They should still understand that the ogre at 20th lvl isn't much of a threat to them, but they shouldn't just laugh at the concept. In that same vein, it became such that a high level wizard shouldn't even consider drawing a weapon, even though frankly they should have some challenges where they have to do exactly that.
I dunno, I like that a high leveled PC is still afraid or at least wary of giants and ogres and trolls. If a pack of trolls is just a minor inconvenience then the bonuses and stats have gotten too high.
you escalated what I said. I said an ogre. A troll beats an ogre any day. A pack of trolls beats a single troll. Giants beat trolls. So yes, I agree a high level PC should still worry about trolls and giants.... and even a lowly ogre might be able to hit him. That's why I stated the numbers like I did. However, in the reverse case, making the numbers too low makes a giant versus a couple of orcs something where that giant should be scared of being ganged up on by a handful of orcs.... and that shouldn't be the case (now a giant versus 20 orcs... yeah).
This especially applies if you're using the new flanking rules where flanking provides advantage, etc..... Advantage and disadvantage are major factors in the new game, and automatically giving "advantage" or "disadvantage" can also be a breaking point in the new rules if its applied too broadly versus situational bonuses (i.e. a bonus to hit, etc...). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Dec 2015 : 11:51:04
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
If a player wants to be awesome in physical combat or cast amazing fireball spells then I don't see why that cannot happen. The problem with 3.5 was enforced awesomeness.
One can be awesome in combat or spellcraft without resorting to over-inflated stats and numbers. But I agree that the math was definitely forced because the progression was just too steep IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Bab meant that every fighter was awesome with every weapon to such a degree that it wasn't worth wearing armour or taking on a fighter in single combat unless you were also a fighter. The save bonuses likewise meant that every fighter would always save against fort effects. This is all past level 10 though when these problems appear.
I thought part of the figuring out process was finding monsters and enemies weaknesses. A fighter may have exceptional fortitude but in plate armor, will probably have poor reflex or will saves. Instead of draining his vitality with a Fort or die spell, ensnare his mind to fight for you. Stuff like that. Rarely did monsters have all 3 good saves.
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
As a result you get monsters with ever increasing stats which mean a wizard can never hope to hit it with a weapon and most casters cannot hope to hit it with spells because it needs to be effective against those with good progression and so becomes invincible of those with poor progression.
Yeah the poor BAB meant "you're never hitting AC, forget about it."
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Then you end up with required magic items to boost the poor and good characters alike and we have the broken monster that is 3.5.
And all because 3.5 treats combat as a separate entity from role playing. There is almost no use for skills within combat and so if you aren't good in combat then you miss out on 50 percent of the game.
I don't think I understand, how is combat separated from role-playing? Skills can easily play a factor in combat, from bluffing to feint to tumbling for flanking to intimidating to demoralize your foes. You can sneak past the bad guy, use creatures with Handle Animal, and leap over enemies to the haning chandelier. Then there are Skill Tricks and feats and other mechanical gizmos to enhance this too. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 28 Dec 2015 : 08:51:07
If a player wants to be awesome in physical combat or cast amazing fireball spells then I don't see why that cannot happen. The problem with 3.5 was enforced awesomeness.
Bab meant that every fighter was awesome with every weapon to such a degree that it wasn't worth wearing armour or taking on a fighter in single combat unless you were also a fighter. The save bonuses likewise meant that every fighter would always save against fort effects. This is all past level 10 though when these problems appear.
As a result you get monsters with ever increasing stats which mean a wizard can never hope to hit it with a weapon and most casters cannot hope to hit it with spells because it needs to be effective against those with good progression and so becomes invincible of those with poor progression.
Then you end up with required magic items to boost the poor and good characters alike and we have the broken monster that is 3.5.
And all because 3.5 treats combat as a separate entity from role playing. There is almost no use for skills within combat and so if you aren't good in combat then you miss out on 50 percent of the game.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Dec 2015 : 05:42:28
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
the main problem was just in how high the bonuses got. When your main die role is a d20, then you should have your highest die be about half of that. I admire 5e for trying to reduce the numbers, but essentially to me it seems to give the heros at the upper levels a very non-heroic feel. They should still understand that the ogre at 20th lvl isn't much of a threat to them, but they shouldn't just laugh at the concept. In that same vein, it became such that a high level wizard shouldn't even consider drawing a weapon, even though frankly they should have some challenges where they have to do exactly that.
I dunno, I like that a high leveled PC is still afraid or at least wary of giants and ogres and trolls. If a pack of trolls is just a minor inconvenience then the bonuses and stats have gotten too high. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 28 Dec 2015 : 02:16:17
the main problem was just in how high the bonuses got. When your main die role is a d20, then you should have your highest die be about half of that. I admire 5e for trying to reduce the numbers, but essentially to me it seems to give the heros at the upper levels a very non-heroic feel. They should still understand that the ogre at 20th lvl isn't much of a threat to them, but they shouldn't just laugh at the concept. In that same vein, it became such that a high level wizard shouldn't even consider drawing a weapon, even though frankly they should have some challenges where they have to do exactly that. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 27 Dec 2015 : 08:33:46
Well I'm with sleyvas on these things. 3.5 was lovely and yet at the same time broken more and more the higher level the players got. Pathfinder did a good job of delaying the problems but they never went away.
Level based progression of stats was the root cause of the issue in my opinion. Having different tiers of accrued bonuses caused the break in the balance that 3.5 strived so hard to maintain. Poor bonuses had to be artificially boosted in order to stay relevant in combat and then we ended up with stat creep and a required amount of magic items.
I'm hoping to do my own d20 system that doesn't have level based stat progression but very much remains Dnd. I'm just working on vehicle rules for cars, spaceships, and the like. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 26 Dec 2015 : 22:24:39
On the 3.0, people playing it... no, it was definitely broken. It was an amazing Segway from 2nd edition, but it was broken.
I agree on Prestige classes too. Many of them were developed simply to fill books to sell. If they were to make a new edition, I'd hope they'd cull through the concepts and build on it.
I'll also give 5e some props on getting rid of "arcane spell failure", because everyone simply looked for ways to get around it. That being said, they might want to consider having characters learn heavier armor proficiencies only at higher levels (and in most games, they wouldn't get the armor until then anyway). This would cut the single level dipping to wear full plate.
5e's multi-classing is nothing like 3e's if you want to advance in two different spellcasting classes. It caters more to melee classes. But, if you want to do any kind of theurging where you advance as both a cleric and mage (or druid and sorcerer, etc..), you basically have to give up on one class. However, I do like the idea that in 5e you have one master number of spell slots, unlike in 3.5 where you would essentially have about 25-40% more spell slots to play with (granted of a much lower level) as a theurge. If there were some kind of "theurgery" feat in 5e which allowed you simply to advance you ability to memorize and cast spells in another class as if you were a higher level in said class, it would go a long way towards allowing this option for 5e (as an example, a 12th lvl wizard/1st lvl cleric takes this "theurgery" feat and maybe the mechanics could be that "half his levels spent in another class can be applied towards raising his caster level in another spellcasting class"... such that this 12th lvl wizard/1st lvl cleric can now memorize as both a 12th lvl wizard and 7th lvl cleric). The mage-priest is a classic trope and should be allowed to be both functional and useful in the game (for instance, mage-priests of Mystra, Azuth, Velsharoon, Leira,Savras,Selune, Red Knight, Corellon, etc...). The same can be said of the bard-druid, the bard-priest, the druid-warlock of the fey patron, etc...
Similarly, in 3.5e, you could make an eldritch knight type of character who can actually hold some ground in melee combat as well as magic, but in 5e, even a wizard who does take a level of fighter still only has the one attack as you mention.... so you can't REALLY build that fighter mage (unless you're an elf now with the bladesinging). In 3.5e The fighter will have way more tactical feats to use though, especially since the fighter/mage will need to spend some of his feats on spellcasting, so he'll have the advantage in straight up melee with no real preparation. Meanwhile, in 5e, the fighter gets 4 attacks, and NONE of those attacks have a lessened to hit, which makes high level fighters in 5e have a significant advantage. My thoughts on this for a middle ground in a new system would again move towards that +10 max BAB, with the concept used in 3.5 of multiple attacks dependent on BAB, but keeping 5e's mindset of same attack number for all attacks. In this kind of system, I'd say let fighters advance to a +10 BAB after 20 levels, and have the middling BAB guys (rogues, priests, etc..) go to +8, and have the poor BAB guys go to a +6 after 20 levels. Then, have the extra attacks come in every 3 after the first (so one attack from +0 to +3, 2 attacks from +4 to +6, 3 attacks from +7 to +9, and 4 attacks at +10). This would give "straight" melee guys 4 attacks, middling melee guys 3 attacks, and poor melee 2 attacks. But even with some minor multi-classing, you could make a decent enough fighter/mage... and since the number difference is lesser than in 3.5, it means that there's not as huge of a numerical difference that lower level monsters won't still be a threat (especially if you've lessened the power level of items and bonuses to that of 3.5... i.e. no +6 to ability stats, only up to a max of say +3 enhancement to ability stats... make weapons and armor go to a max of +3.... lessen the number of bonus types from what they had in 3.5, and maybe make some counter each other, such as a sacred and a profane bonus).
Here's kind of what I see from a BAB standpoint in comparison between the 3 types of melee. The poor BAB for spellcasters is made up for by the fact that most such attacks would be against a touch AC. The really low rate of progression at the lower levels should help stop the "level dipping in multiple prestige classes" that we saw in 3.5.
level good middle poor
1 1 0 0
2 1 1 0
3 2 1 1
4 2 1 1
5 3 2 1
6 3 2 2
7 4 2 2
8 4 3 2
9 5 3 3
10 5 3 3
11 6 4 3
12 6 4 4
13 7 5 4
14 7 5 4
15 8 6 5
16 8 6 5
17 9 7 5
18 9 7 6
19 10 8 6
20 10 8 6
I also liked the save system from 3.5 better than I do this one from 5e. It made a hell of a lot more sense (will saves, reflex saves, and fortitude saves cover the gamut). However, you won't have as many things to enhance your saves, so those people with piss poor saves might need a little help (and I'm open to arguments here). The progression there would require a little more care, possibly giving some classes 1 "good" save, a "moderate" save, and a "poor" save, but the disparity between them not being so significant (i.e. currently you have over 20 levels a +6, +6, +12 model and some classes having a +6, +12, +12 model or the monk with the +12, +12, +12 model.... so maybe most people do a +7, +7, +11 model, some classes get a +9, +9, +11 model, and monks get a special +11, +11, +11 model). Overall, this makes saves a little better for the classes that suck for saves, and a little worse for monks. Not sure how much I like this, but it might help with the disparities you really start seeing at epic levels where bards are suckers for death effects but can blow through will and reflex saves, etc... Noting, this model would have the +11 rates simply not starting out with an automatic +2 at first level and instead being +1, and the +9 lines could have a 2/5 bonus per level (i.e. alternating +1,+1,+2,+2,+2,+3,+3,+4,+4,+4,+5,+5,+6,+6,+6,+7,+7,+8,+8,+9) starting with +1 at 1st lvl, and the +7 lines could simply start with a +1 at 2nd level instead of 3rd, |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Dec 2015 : 18:56:17
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I actually love the 3.5 rules conceptually. The idea of prestige classes is wonderful, and many of the base classes they built had merit. Pathfinder did a good job of updating some of the core rules that I felt needed updating, but after that I've not been real impressed. The 3rd party stuff I've seen as expansions for 3.5 is a mixed bag, but some of it was really good. For instance, the secrets of pact magic was a really good revisit of the binder concept, and I only wish they could have married up all of those rules with the vestiges in Tome of Magic. I also wish someone had gotten that ruleset into etools before the editions changed.
Conceptually, they are pretty good. I mean, it's still going strong after 15 years in mostly the revised 3.5 OR Pathfinder (don't know if too many people still play 3.0 or not?). However I will say that there are specifics that I'm not overly fond of. As for supplements, I think the majority of them are good for the expanded game. They introduced certain classes that really made the game more enjoyable like the Warlock from Complete Arcane, the Dread Necromancer from Heroes of Horror and the martial adept classes of the Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords.
Prestige Classes, conceptually, are really cool however I do think they really run the gambit of either WAY too Powerful (Planar Shepard) to WAY too Weak (60% fall into this category). Also, and maybe this is just those I played with, the Special: part in Prestige Classes that require some significant investment in either story or background never come to fruition within the campaign when the PrC can be taken mechanically OR it's so obscure that it's often ignored.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
However, having played 3e and now having played 5e, I can say there needs to be a numerical middle ground between the two. For instance, the max proficiency bonus for 5e is +6 on "to hit", but for 3.5 a fighter could go up to a +20 "to hit". A +10 progress being worked out would go a long way toward reaching a middle ground. I'd even recommend keeping what we currently see in 5e of a max of +3 to enhancement bonuses with magic items. I'd recommend revisiting the 3e concept also that certain bonuses can only affect certain stats. The 5e method that wizards and fighters both have the same base "to hit" is interesting, but ultimately doesn't make a lot of sense. This would mean an entire revamp of the system, reaching to spells, magic items, costing on devices, etc... but I think the end could be the final system that I could love. Similarly, I liked the 3.5 save system with higher level spells being harder to resist, so save progressions would also have to be worked with.
Interesting points. I like the lesser numbers approach because I felt that 3e was making higher numbers just because higher = better, which often times it didn't. What I discovered it did was make PCs (and NPCs/Monsters of similar numbers) far removed from the normalcy of the overall world. A 10th level Fighter with a +3 magical weapon had a to-hit of approx. +20 or so and he's in a town with guards with to-hit of like +6. In no way are these guards EVER going to stand up to this guy, so what is really stopping him (aside from alignment) for basically doing whatever they pleased?
You mentioned that in 5e the wizard and fighter both get +6 to make weapon attacks and I actually like that because the focus isn't on the to-hit to show weapon-mastery but rather the number of attacks they get, for which a 5e Fighter gets 4 (8 with action surge) and the wizard still only gets 1. Plus Wizards are far less likely to have Strength scores akin to what a Fighter has anyways.
Now in 3e I didn't really mind the Base Attack Bonus changing per class but they tagged a LOT of the wrong classes with the 3/4 BAB which shouldn't have gotten it like the Rogue and Monk, the Monk more so. It really was the iterative descaling attacks which, to me, where the biggest problem (along with "full-attack" rules, which were terrible) in why there a large census that feels weapon-based, non-caster classes really taper off the "effective or productive" side around 7th or 8th level.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Ultimately, I find 5e's multi-classing clunky, and I can't build the character I was able to build in 3.5. Wizards pretty much have to be wizards and not fighter/wizards. Meanwhile, it seems like melee classes aren't as hampered. That being said, with some rule changes 5e could be fixed for this, but they'd need to be well thought through. I think 3.5 was closer on that path with its certain prestige classes... with most of the abuses I've seen being people twisting the rules.
I don't really have a problem with 5e's multi-classing as it's just like 3e's but with Ability score requirements. For one, Cantrips are based off of Character level, which means they're not pointless after a certain level. The biggest issue for me with 3e's multi-classing is that it almost encourages min-maxing. Now min-maxing isn't as terrible a thing as many make it out to be, but it can create a significant difference from one character to another, power-wise.
Take, for example, a 3.5 Human Barbarian 2/ Fighter 4/ Cleric 1 vs. a Fighter 7. The first character can boost their strength/con +4 for x-amount of rounds, has Uncanny Dodge, 3 bonus Fighter feats, spells, can use any divine scroll/wand, has turning which can fuel certain feats, and a BAB of +6 compared to 4 bonus fighter feats and a BAB of +7. It's just too much of a shift in versatility and power and often only really used by those with system-mastery. And it gets WAY worse the more supplements are added. Throw in any supplement the Players want or have access to and the 1st character can swap the extra speed of the Barbarian for Pounce, you can get Tactical feats like Shock Trooper, and whirling rage from Unearthed Arcana. Now character 1 can Rage, Pounce, and drop AC (instead of Attack) when they power attack to a LOT of damage at 7th level compared to you're 7th level Fighter with the same amount of options provided. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 26 Dec 2015 : 02:25:52
I actually love the 3.5 rules conceptually. The idea of prestige classes is wonderful, and many of the base classes they built had merit. Pathfinder did a good job of updating some of the core rules that I felt needed updating, but after that I've not been real impressed. The 3rd party stuff I've seen as expansions for 3.5 is a mixed bag, but some of it was really good. For instance, the secrets of pact magic was a really good revisit of the binder concept, and I only wish they could have married up all of those rules with the vestiges inTome of Magic. I also wish someone had gotten that ruleset into etools before the editions changed.
However, have played 3e and now having played 5e, I can say there needs to be a numerical middle ground between the two. For instance, the max proficiency bonus for 5e is +6 on "to hit", but for 3.5 a fighter could go up to a +20 "to hit". A +10 progress being worked out would go a long way toward reaching a middle ground. I'd even recommend keeping what we currently see in 5e of a max of +3 to enhancement bonuses with magic items. I'd recommend revisiting the 3e concept also that certain bonuses can only affect certain stats. The 5e method that wizards and fighters both have the same base "to hit" is interesting, but ultimately doesn't make a lot of sense. This would mean an entire revamp of the system, reaching to spells, magic items, costing on devices, etc... but I think the end could be the final system that I could love. Similarly, I liked the 3.5 save system with higher level spells being harder to resist, so save progressions would also have to be worked with.
Ultimately, I find 5e's multi-classing clunky, and I can't build the character I was able to build in 3.5. Wizards pretty much have to be wizards and not fighter/wizards. Meanwhile, it seems like melee classes aren't as hampered. That being said, with some rule changes 5e could be fixed for this, but they'd need to be well thought through. I think 3.5 was closer on that path with its certain prestige classes... with most of the abuses I've seen being people twisting the rules. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Dec 2015 : 01:37:30
I'm down for any type of discussion: class balance, alternative rules, prestige classes, specific adventures, spells, supplements, using the game for mini-games like E6, NPC creation, etc.
|
| Joran Nobleheart |
Posted - 23 Dec 2015 : 06:55:24
3.5E gave me some truly wonderful characters and introduced me to wonderful friends. It opened up so many interesting doors for character options that it's almost staggering. I honestly built one of my most memorable characters with that edition that it's nice looking back on it with fondness, especially since I converted characters from 3.5E to Pathfinder. Since I still run the occasional game using 3.5E and Pathfinder rules, I'm always willing to discuss either edition. Just bear in mind that the holidays will significantly slow down my responses here because of travel, etc. :-) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Dec 2015 : 05:52:02
I don't know enough about the ruleset to really discuss it... I'm still learning Pathfinder, and I'm on my second character for it! 
(This is a side-effect of being more interested in concept and backstory, as opposed to anything else) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Dec 2015 : 04:48:10
Does anyone still wanna discuss v3.5? Serious question |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Dec 2015 : 02:26:54
Heh, reading some of the thoughts now are pretty funny. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 22 Dec 2015 : 17:06:02
Seems like it was just yesterday.......(sigh)
John |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Oct 2003 : 08:01:13
There will be no update to 3.5 for the Deities and Demigods tome, if that is what you are asking. Material to carry some of the information in the tome forward to 3.5 is available though, at the link I provided above.
|
| Cyric |
Posted - 23 Oct 2003 : 09:19:06
are there coming 3.5 abut the gods ???? and why are there coming a 3.5 and when are the 4.0 coming then |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 14:23:48
If you want individual tome updates, they are available to. Just use the link to return to the site. I think they should still be listed.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 14:18:51
Ah, thank you. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 14:10:51
Question asked, question answered  .
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 14:03:42
They should have published a list of changes. I don't like having to go through the SRD line by line . . . .  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 13:58:31
I am pretty sure there were some changes, although you could be right. I may have gotten it confused with something else I was reading. I'll check the SRD.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 13:49:24
Haven't taken a look at that one. Still, what could they have changed? As far as I understand it, it's basically an immunity to casters bellow a certain caster level. Doesn't seem like there were any variables to adjust. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 13:31:42
I noticed only minor changes to the Spell Resistance. Any thoughts?.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 13:23:17
I know. Still, since I saw it from a mathematical perspective (.5 = 1/2), I didn't think much of it until I saw it referred to on the Wizards website as v3.5. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jul 2003 : 13:04:33
Still, it is annoying, at least from a programmer's perspective, since nearly everything I deal with has a particular version.number  .
|
|
|
