D&D 3.5

Mine have been made into a monitor stand.

I'm only familiar with 3.5 and 4e, the latter of which I wasn't super into.

I'm considering assuming DM for a group of 15 year olds (I'm 19) but all they're familiar with is 5e, which I don't know about and don't really intend to know about.

Should I try to get them into it or should I just give up?

I happen to really like 3.5 and am gearing up for a game now. There's a lot of fun, bizarre stuff you can do. depends on how the power level goes, of course, but I'm looking forward to seeing what a Planar Shepherd can do.

>a garbageman friend of mine found a near mint boxset in the trash.

>Removes trash from the trashcan
>Forwhatpurpose.jpeg

>don't really intend to know about.
Why?

It's a really crappy system with tons of trap options. It takes ages to learn, and it's really not worth the time or effort. It looks good - the presentation is pretty top notch - but that's really all it has going for it.

If you're too lazy to even consider their system, you should not expect them to care about yours.

When I tweak and homebrew OSR stuff, I often find myself doing shit similar to what 3e did somewhere. Not the clusterfuck totality of the system, but little math bits and so forth. It really makes me appreciate how obvious some of it is: like, if you wanted to make OSR a bit more regular and systematic, you'd be moving in the same direction. So 3e provides you with an interesting case study. And honestly, there are a lot of good ideas in 3e, they just aren't well executed, or have tons of fiddly bullshit piled on top of them, or are overly complicated (or just don't work well) once you combine them with other aspects of the system. I've grown to hate it, its effect on the RPG industry, and the unreasonably large group of people who cling to it (and Pathfinder) as "true" D&D, but on a philosophical level, I do actually have some respect for it. They did some interesting stuff and tried hard to make a cool game, but it just didn't work out. If its legacy weren't so toxic, I don't think nearly as many people would hold a grudge against it.

I halfway agree with what you're saying, but the GM chooses the toolbox. I mean, the players have to agree to it obviously (or they won't show up), but players don't get to dictate the system to the GM.

uhh... an RPG group is a group of friends. You pick the game you want to play together, because your friends. Often it will be one guy who says "hey I wanna play/run game X" and people will go along with it.

I'm not sure where this whole 'GM is king, their word is law' comes from. Obviously the rules need to be transparent to everyone and agreed upon so that everyone's on an even playing field, and obviously the GM has a different role in the game, but their opinion on the rules doesn't carry more weight than anyone else's.

Meh, anyone who has played D&D in any form can learn 5e in minutes and it's an Ok if simple system.

Teaching 3.5 though, well, there should probably be laws against that in general.

>their opinion on the rules doesn't carry more weight than anyone else's.
Sure it does, because they're the one who is running the show and the one who has to deal with the mechanics more than anybody else. Players can suggest to a GM and can, of course, say that they're not interested in playing a particular game or setting, but the GM is constructing the world and gets to pick his tools.

>I'm not sure where this whole 'GM is king, their word is law' comes from.
Because he is, and it is--within reason, anyway. The GM runs the universe and is the final arbiter of what happens. Whatever system he chooses to run provides him with tools to help him do this. He shouldn't be relegated to being a mere referee who rules on disputes but is beholden to follow the dictates of the system. The book should serve him; he shouldn't serve the book. And given this, he should pick whichever book works best for him--again, within reason. He should obviously listen to what his players want and should run a campaign that pleases them. But I'm much more comfortable with the idea of players ruling out certain systems than I am with them dictating a particular one.

I'd certainly pick 5e over 3.5. I might even decline to participate in a 3.5 game. But I would never try to make the GM play a specific game or edition. I don't care if all the other players were on my side. The GM is the one who has to actually run it, so he's the one who gets to make the decision.

Oh certainly not, never make a GM run something they don't want to.

I'm just curious why, for someone who likes D&D in some for, they would be so unwilling to look at 5e.

psionics are the worst idea ever made

Core Wizard. Nuff said.

core wizards make sense at least
psionics is literally just magic that antimagic fields don't work on

>Welcome to the table, let's go around and you can tell us if you're playing a Wizard, a Druid, a DMM:Persist Cleric, or if anyone was brave enough to bring a martial Shock Trooper ubercharger

Actually, even if you play with munchkins, one thing I had fun with near the end was playing in games where the DM would ban popular builds, feats, spells, etc. and make the munchkins re-munchkin the most broken character they could out of the options left standing. There's at least something to be admired when someone makes their own broken character instead of just stealing it from a guide.

That's a really nice way to discuss it. I like you.

>le i hate D&D meme

I want Reddit to leave

That's not how psionics works you fucking retard.

We played the shit out of it - everyone liked it at low levels, but around level 5 it got to be too much work, especially for DM.

Antimagic fields work on psionics in 3.5, as do most other anti-magic stuff.

>d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psionicsMagicTransparency
>The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency.

3e D&D was my first system and I got into it in middle school. I have looked at other editions and other games but I still think in 3.5 terms despite the well-known flaws.

I hear you about feeling the excitement and wanting to give it another shot. I have a lot of nostalgia and investment which makes it difficult to get back into since I know no game will hold up to my unreasonable expectations.

Good points, 3e definitely has flaws but it has a fair amount of good ideas. The 'fandom ruining the franchise' aspect is still present and annoying when I talk to other people.

>implying it's not a Veeky Forums meme

Not everything is reddit, newfriend.

Cons:

>Wealth by Level

A terrible idea, and it's baked into all of the assumptions for the game, from the Challenge Rating system, to the "encounters needed to level" conveyor belt. It moves magic item from interesting things that can make adventuring easier (if creatively used) to Gear That Is Necessary For A Class To Function (the Fighter, the Rogue, the Ranger, the Barbarian).

>Skills

There's a lot wrong with skills. Not only is the skill list extremely bloated (Profession, Use Rope), but the skill-point starved classes get even more screwed by the non-skill-point starved classes via synergy bonuses. Some skills are clearly more powerful than others (Use Magic Device, Tumble). Knowledge skills can be used to ascertain monster weaknesses (and unlike earlier editions of the game, this can actually be necessary because monsters are gigantic piles of numbers).

Diplomacy as a skill needs a hefty dose of interpretation, since as written, it's the "solve the social encounter" button. What's worse is that it's a misinterpretation of a rule from 3.0 that got enshrined into 3.5's rules. Changing an NPC's attitude was a Charisma check in 3.0, but they folded that into Diplomacy for 3.5 and created the Diplomancer build.

>Wizards, Druids, Clerics, and Sorcerers

Basically, they're the most powerful classes in the core game, and splats only exacerbate this. Plenty of anons will tell you to ban them, and the Fighter/Rogue and only use splat book classes, but honestly, any game that needs splats to make it remotely playable has a severe problem. At low levels, the disparity isn't so terrible, but after level 5, full casters (particularly the Wizard) get increasingly difficult to challenge without wiping the rest of the party.

>The Fighter

It's a class with terrible saves, terrible skills, and zero class features aside from "build a guy". The idea, in concept, was a good one. Build a warrior without peer in your preferred style.

>Fighter (cont)

What we got instead was a feat system full of trap options (Toughness, Endurance, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Two-Weapon Fighting), and a Fighter so dependent on magic items (see Wealth by Level) that it could not function AT ALL at higher levels.

Monsters with damage reduction will just shrug off the Fighter's attacks if he doesn't have magic weapons, and his pathetic AC will pit him in a battle of attrition against their HP (which they have more of, thanks to the way CR and monster HD scale).

His saving throws are so pathetic, that he's unable to dodge most area attacks, and if a monster has mind control, he gets to sit out while the rest of the party deals with the encounter.

And the worst part? The game's internal balance metrics (Wealth by Level, CR, monster HD, Level Adjustment, etc.) are all scaled as though the Fighter is the most powerful class in the game, or at the very least, the middle of the road option, rather than dead last.

It's so bad that the NPC classes (also a terrible idea) compare favorably to the Fighter.

Warrior
d8 HD
Good BAB
Good Fortitude Save
2+Int skills; Climb (Str), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str)
Proficient with simple and martial weapons and all armor and shields
No other class features

Commoner
d4 HD
Poor BAB
No good saves
2+Int skills; Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), and Use Rope (Dex)
Proficient with one simple weapon
No other class features

Expert
d6 HD
Medium BAB
Good Will Save
6+Int skills; Choose any ten skills to be class skills
Proficient with simple weapons and with light armor but not shields
No other class features

>Fighter (cont.)

Aristocrat
d8 HD
Medium BAB
Good Will Save
4+Int skills; Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Diplomacy (Cha), Disguise (Cha), Forgery (Int), Gather Information (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (all skills taken individually) (Int), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Speak Language (None), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), and Survival (Wis)
Proficient with simple and martial weapons and all armor and shields
No other class features

Adept
d6 HD
Poor BAB
Good Will Save
2+Int skills; Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (all skills taken individually) (Int), Profession (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), and Survival (Wis)
Proficient with simple weapons
Summon Familiar, Spells up to 5th level but from a restricted spell list

Fighter
d10 HD
Good BAB
Good Fortitude Save
2+Int skills; Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str)
Proficient with simple and martial weapons and all armor and shields
11 bonus feats by 20th level

>NPC classes

None of these should have had levels beyond 5th, and that's being generous enough to even allow them in the first place. NPCs don't need classes, but for some inexplicable reason, the devs for 3.0 seemed to think they did.

It may be related to the world building chapter of the DMG (and they may have included the Aristocrat so that the King could be 15th level and no immediate pushover - even though that's stupid). It may also be related to the non-existent economy in D&D 3.x that assumes that a metropolis (pop. 25,001) has 100 greatswords per person, and 1,000 10' poles per person on hand.

And of course, there has to be a 20th level Expert with max ranks in Craft churning them out somewhere.

And since the Craft skill doesn't make any sense (time to craft = final cost of the item), it takes longer to make something out of gold than it does to make it out of steel.

>Wizards, Wizard E'errywhere

I don't hate Wizards. I do however have issues with how powerful they are in 3.5 compared to other classes.

By 5th level, Wizards get access to Fly, which changes everything about wilderness adventuring, city adventuring, and even dungeon delving. Forget fireball, this spell is the game changer.

And the Wizard basically changes the stakes of the game, able to easily counter most things that challenge other classes, and it more or less does so every time it gets a new level of spells.

This wouldn't be a problem if Wizards didn't get bonus spells for high ability scores (another thing I need to mention), but they do. Meaning that they get huge amounts of spells per day, and given the relaxed restrictions of 3.5, and the scribe scroll feat they get for free, means the Wizard can prepare for most challenges with a little forethought and some treasure.

This is the class that monster encounters should have been aiming to challenge, and the other classes should have been brought into parity with the Wizard.

Doing that however, is another thing, since spells per day change basically at player leisure and some spells are more helpful in combat than others, and some non-combat spells have greater implications for a given game, campaign, and setting, than others.

Rather than beat up the Wizard for being too good, I'm going to move on.

>Unlimited Ability Score Advancement

This is one of the things that really, obviously busted about 3.PF. Ability scores increase towards infinity, essentially, and having low scores is exceptionally punishing. Even mediocre or average scores can make for a bad experience, and a lot of classes suffer from MAD (multiple attribute dependency) like the Monk, which in order to be any good needs high Str, high Con, high Dex, and high Wis (so he can get some use out of his class features).

>Ability Scores (cont.)

In fact, when you look at all of the martial classes, you begin to notice that they depend in some way on multiple ability scores, and the caster classes usually only rely on one.

Fighter (Str, Dex, Con)
Barbarian (Str, Dex, Con)
Ranger (Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Cha)
Rogue (Str, Dex, Con, Int)
Paladin (Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Cha)
Monk (Str, Dex, Con, Wis)

vs.

Wizard (Int)
Sorcerer (Cha)
Druid (Wis, Cha)
Cleric (Wis, Cha)
Bard (Cha)

Worse still is that spellcasting is tied to high ability scores, so any caster worth their salt is aiming to get their caster stat as high as possibly, not only for access to higher level spells, but for bonus spells, and for higher spell DCs so that enemies don't successfully save all the time. And, they can afford most of the time to exclusively focus on this, to the detriment of their other ability scores because they don't make as big of a mechanical impact as that casting ability score does.

Wealth by Level exacerbates this, because in addition to focusing (rightly) on pure casting might, the magic items for casters act as nitrous for that spellcasting engine by raising the casting ability score even further, allowing the caster to regain spells (pearls of power), keep utility spells in items (wands, rods, staves), an in general benefit from better defenses and more options.

The feats system and the lack of balance really killed it for me. There was so much variety, and yet so many were simply better than others. Ivory Tower game design, I think it's called, where mastery of the system is rewarded and the books are full of "trap options".
My other complaint was that the skills system not only gimps martials by giving them nothing to work with, but they also are almost never used in combat.

I switched to Fantasy Craft after seeing threads on it on Veeky Forums, and it's basically 3.5 perfected. Skills are always relevant, every attribute is useful for every character. If I made a fighter in 3.5 or 5e with 16 in a mental stat, I'd be an idiot.
Combat and non-combat blend seamlessly, and it's actually hard to make a bad character - every option is fun and powerful. The best, though, is that weapon choice matters a lot. In 3.5 and 5, it's just a matter of damage and damage type, and maybe (just maybe) there's something like Polearm Master. In FC, every weapon type from whips to spears to clubs has a three-feat tree, and you have enough feats to actually get them. And each weapon category has at least 3 weapons that are all good in different ways.

Sorry for going on a horrible tangent, remember to follow my blog.

I won't say that getting the 3.5 core rules was pointless, you're into OSR, so stuff can be converted.

The monster manual, especially. I've attached the monster conversion guide for Basic Fantasy RPG, which has advice that can be ported to any OSR clone.

There's an absolute ton of OGL/d20/3.PF compatible stuff, and it should take much to distill it into useable bits for OSR gaming. Those core books (while not really a good game themselves) can act as a resource for other games you're already playing.

Just don't lean too heavily on the 3.PF stuff. Feats, while a nice idea, don't make for a better game. The skill system is pretty much worthless and any OSR game is likely to have a better option.

Races might be easier to convert, and in some cases classes as well.

This discussion is intringuing me. I'm one of those peeps that clings to D&D 3.5 mainly because it was what I learned. Frankly, I'm still inexperienced since I never found a group to play with regularly. I have about 5 sessions under my belt. I'm on the works of doing about 2-3 sessions with my brother (solo party) on 3.5. Frankly, I've avoided the 4th edition because I've read in countless places that 4th edition feels like WoW on the tabletop and overal gamey. Maybe I should take a look at the 5th edition.

If you like 3.5, definitely check out Fantasy Craft.
Unless this doesn't sound up your alley. 5e is basically just 3.5 with all the variety removed in favour of balance and mass appeal.

>I'm not sure where this whole 'GM is king, their word is law' comes from

Just read some features of various classes. I really dislike the "once per x" mechanics for objective actions. Feels way too gamey for me.

It's definitely gamey, yeah. Different strokes for different folk, I guess.

>implying it's not a dead meme

Dead memes go to Reddit, redditor. You should now that, considering all you do is slurp what Veeky Forums shits out.