/3.5g/ D&D THIRD EDITION GENERAL

d20pfsrd.com

Go there, and wonder at all the fuckign rules.

pathfinderwiki.com

In case you want a big ol world of stuff those rules go with.

Have you seen the 5e SRD? You can't actually play with it. At least the 3e SRD was only missing XP tables, WBL, and copyrighted monsters. 5e SRD is useless.

Actually, going by 3.x classes, Gandalf was a Bard.

favored soul or cleric would be my vote. His magic was more on the divine side of things

Why's that?

When have I mentioned the 5e SRD?
Didn't even know there was one. Didn't care to know.

cool, thx m8

how is 5e so different than 3.5? like if i play a few campaigns on 3.5 and then find other people to play 5e with will i be a noob all over again?

The SRD is really the only reason to play PF at this point.

Do you even know what edgelord means?
Fun fact: Google exists and if you're going to play something as convoluted as 3.PF, you better get used to doing some basic research.

That's really because his "magic" comes from the fact that he's a demigod, not from his class.

Actually he's an angel with restrictions.

and the PF srd has everything because its so much better.

Thats PF which is very much 3.75 and nothing like 5e which I personally dont like as it has utterly lacking in so many rules.

true you would not believe the pile of shit i had to read before i could even decide what feats to take for my wizard

fucking 5e thread fags wouldnt even help >:(

Every edition of D&D is a wildly different game. But learning 5e takes a fraction of the time you need for 3.5.

That's one more reason than 3.5.
I'm not saying PF is good. I'm just saying it's better.

so if somebody is good at 3.5 will they be set up to be better or worse at 5e?

>asking for 3.5 help in a 5e thread
Holy fuck. They may be fags, but you're an idiot.

>Every edition of D&D is a wildly different game.
Post-2000, that is. Prior to then, you've only got 3 games for 8 editions.

why tho what's the big deal

jeez you guys are more autistic than the /k/ommandos

No, you're just proving to be too stupid to read a Wikipedia article.

You wouldn't go into a tennis thread to ask for help with baseball, would you?

I have no idea. Ive played 2e 3e, 3.5, PF, 4e and played a single session of 5e. 2e sucks and its rules are awful. 3e was brokem, 3.5 was better but is some ways lacking. 4e was amazing.
I migrated to PF after everyone stopped playing 4e.
I found 5e so utterly lacking I hated it after one session. It's the worst melding of 4e and 2e rules based on the architecture of 3.5

>2e sucks and its rules are awful.
Wew.

Are you complaining that a 5th ed thread wouldn't help you build a 3.5 wizard?
Well if you aren't the type to spend hours working together weird character builds you could just google something like "3.5 wizard spells to pick" or something like that and you'll probably find reliable results
I'd say the worst thing that players would really have to deal with learning would probably just be the spell list, but if you know most of the core ones from 3.5 that would probably take a fraction of the time to learn. I just can't imagine players having to go back to the book for little things the way my group had for 3.5 whenever someone wanted to turn undead or grapple or something like that

m8 i had to read thru half the damn spellcasters handbook just to get a faint idea of possible spell trees. so many forums, so many articles, so many wikia pages, it was like studying for the damn lsat

and to answer your question no, but if a squash player came into a tennis thread there would probably be enough tennis players who also play squash lurking to help out with a simple question. warhammer compared to 5e would probably be more fitting to your baseball/tennis analogy.

You'll be kind of a noob, but once you get used to it the most startling thing will be how many things just work without you needing to jump hoops. Like you don't need to enter into prophecy-calculus to figure out if you should use an attack spell as a wizard in 5E, and you're not splitting "ranks" between skills, and multiclassing doesn't affect your attack bonus, and bards are the most powerful class in the game.

Literally every edition is different in how it plays and the rules. 4e is a very different thing from 5e, which is drastically different from 3e.

Im sorry, but when it comes to games design, a thousand separate systems with unintuitive math isnt fun. Thac0 is shit and you know it, even if youve gotten used to it. Sure, you can take the time and eventually get used to it, but fuck that noise. It was only a good decision to use these faulty shitty rules when it was practically the only fantasy game out there with wide recognition. And besides that most people don't even actually use the rules and just run it narrativist style anyway from what ive heard.

it was the feats i was interested in. nobody could give me a straight answer about what feats to choose for a 3.5 human wizard. and there was surprisingly little on the net about feats, save for one wikia page about optimizing a wizard. most forum responses about feats were too disorganized to coherently follow.

anyway i ended up going with spell focus transmutation and extend spell on a transmutation specialist wizard (dropped evoc and enhance). what do you think of that?

ah true. thanks for the srs reply.

im going to check out my uni's dnd club this fall and i bet they'll be playing 5e to accommodate flaky people not interested in totally comitting/get them into games, so we'll see how it goes

>if your friends jumped off a bridge would you too?
Not even that user but that is such a shitty comparison to make. It is so much more accurate to compare it to your friends going to a big name restaurant that serves meh food and following them.

For some reason that analogy just rustled me today.

I'm talking about basic knowledge of what D&D is. Not the minutiae of 3.5.
And no. Both tennis and baseball use a ball of roughly the same size, the markings on the ball look vaguely similar and both are usually played on a rectangular field with grass on it.
That's about all the similarity you get from 3.5 and 5e.

I can't properly express the sheer distaste between the audiences of both games with a sports metaphor, but just know that it's there.

Not him, but it'll work. In fact it should work splendidly. You'll be polymorphing and changing things to ridiculous degree. A bit of advice though, read the polymorph rules, then read them again, then read them 4 more times, and make sure you understand just what they are doing. One of the things I fucking hated about 3.5 was the damn polymorph rules and their jankyness and overpowered bullshit.

The reason it changes from roll high to roll low and back is to fuck over biased dice.

ITT: D&D generalfags proving once again why they are the worst threads on this board, yes this even includes the questfags and that says something,

someone "good" at 3.5 will be fine in 5e.

a core reason why 5e is better than every other D&D attempt is that it has finally given up the mechanic of punishing you for your choices altogether, unlike 3.5's ivory tower design, pathfinder's "we don't know what an ivory tower is but we put all our wizards in it" design, and 4e's insistence on you knowing a lot about the chain of particular options you're going to build long in advance.

in 5e you just play and you are competent. you can't fuck up. the worst choices the system offers are only relatively bad, are legitimately accidental, and are still fun and functional outside of competitive contexts.

in pf for example there are 10-20 archetypes per class, but most of them barely do anything and usually only 2-3 are actually playable. in 3.5 everything is a dystopian thousand page nightmare hunt for the right combination of alternate features, feats, and situational abilities.

in 5e class archetypes are paths you choose as you level, each of which is playable and all of them change up playstyle. everything feels good.

>People actually consider The Simarillion canon.

so, in a nutshell, 3.5 is more about powergaming/technical aspect and 5e is more about roleplaying/social aspect?

Improved initiative would be my first pick. Extend spell is alright (particularly as a transmuter). Spell penetration (and greater) are both okay, but you can work around them (I just really hate failing against spell resistance so I usually take them).
There's also more complicated and generally really good metamagic shit you can take, but I don't really know it that well off the top of my head since I rarely play magic users. I know it's generally worth looking into though
Spell focus is okay, but I probably would save it for a level where I can't get some of the above shit

I couldn't force myself through it, but that doesn't really change that he's a divine being as opposed to DnD's idea of a wizard. That was as true in LotR as it is in other shit

Does 3.5 and 3.0 have a pastebin?

You're looking at it too literally. Boiled down, it's meant to ask
>If your friends do something stupid, which you know is stupid, are you going to do that thing too?

>faggot cunts can't stand a game, so they need to show how butthurt they are about it.

It's really pathetic how much 3rd edition gets under some people's skin.

Hi, just popping in to say I am running a 3.5e game right now, and I see haters gonna hate.

Pretty much.

I like theory crafting guys

What are some good books on Fae? Or Mordron/Inevitables? You get tons of stuff on celestials and fiends, when does the other alignment axis get some love?