So, I know people on Veeky Forums tend to hate D&D 3.5...

b-but I want to play a Shifter barbarian/warshaper/weretouched master

>Magic Item Compendium
This is just a big book of goodies, but it also has some better rules in the back for awarding treasure. You'll want this one.

>Manual of the Planes
You may want this for higher level play.
This is handy if you decide to use Expanded Psionics Handbook for more information on the Githyanki and Githzerai and for more information regarding the Astral Plane and dream travel (both referenced by certain powers.)

>Lords of Madness
This book details 3.5's most terrifying baddies: the mindflayers, aboleths, and the beholders.
This is mostly a book of badguys, but it also contains some excellent materials for players in the back. You'll probably want this if you decide to use XPH in your campaign.

>Heroes of Horror
If you use Lords of Madness, you might consider getting this book too.
Do not allow the Archivist class from this book. Everything else is good. This book is better on the DM's side of the table as a source of badguy stuff, but it depends on what sort of tone you want.

What the fuck is their problem with 5e's combat? What makes them prefer 3.5e over it? Because apart from Dis/Advantage, they are practically the same.

Give us a bit of context here OP, what level are they and what classes are they playing?

>Fuck rolls, I want to teleport behind you and unsheath my unarmed attack (actually a greatsword) with my nude monk (actually a full plated paladin)

>Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack
You might want the environmental books, depending on what sort of campaign you want to run.
If your players like nautical stuff at all, get Stormwrack (or Frostburn) for the vehicles.
If you want to run a more Dark Sun inspired campaign (to make use of Thri-Kreen and Half-Giants from XPH) then get Sandstorm.

>Races of the Wild, Races of Stone, Races of Destiny, Races of the Dragon
You might consider picking up these books depending on the sort of campaign you want to run.
If you use Races of the Dragon, ban Dragonwrought Kobolds!

You are a part of the problen and can not - and will not - be a part of the solution.

>>"Fuck roleplaying, I wanna play 5 hours of Tactical Grid Combat that actually manages to simulate nothing at all accurately"

You could at least play 4e for that. It's actually good at it.

I mainly just don't see how they could find 3.5 combat different enough that they like it but dislike 5e.

It's fine if you dislike 5e combat, but you'd have to explain to me how 3.5 is possibly an improvement

If you like, here is a document of house rules I use.

>You are a part of the problen
Not him, but what's the problem he's part of?

Maybe 3.5 has more options for combat? like more maneuvers, different debuffs beyond "disadvantage", etc?

With initiators you actually got some exciting things going on, compared to 5e martials. It's also possible OP wasn't using the optional flanking rules from the DMG.

Also, one of my players I DM'd for (not anymore thank god) threw a bitch fit when he couldn't trip.lock people in 5e.

So they want to do shitloads of short addition and subtraction.
To essentially the same effect.
And using the combat optional rules in 5e, there really isn't a whole lot more in the way of maneuvers in 3.5.

>threw a bitch fit when he couldn't trip.lock people in 5e.
This is literally the continuing audience for 3.5/Pathfinder.

I dunno, dirty trick is pretty cool because you can force conditions like blinded, nauseated, etc, 5e doesn't have that.

It takes your entire standard and is removed in a move action.

But if you build for it (bounty hunter), yeah, it's rather cool.

Quick dirty trick feat, user.

>What the fuck is their problem with 5e's combat? What makes them prefer 3.5e over it? Because apart from Dis/Advantage, they are practically the same.
>Give us a bit of context here OP, what level are they and what classes are they playing?

We were five sessions in, started at Lv3 and currently Lv5. The biggest offender plays Pathfinder over Roll20 every Saturday and doesn't like that his Warforged (homebrewed the stats for it) Barbarian isn't already a fucking murder machine. Another is some faggy guy who wants to play a Rouge/Wizard hybrid, but doesn't like the multiclass rules and won't just suck it up and pick Arcane Trickster. The other two are a cleric and a ranger who just go along with what the others say and will leave if the other two do.

It's a shitshow but the military lifestyle makes it hard enough to find players in the first place. If I lose them, I have to start from scratch and take a chance new people who may or may not be turbo autists. My current players might might be fags, but they are still interesting to play with.

>Multiclassing in 5e
Oh god, they want to suck, literally all MCs are shit except a few that range from ok to good

Oh, right, you can sacrifice the most likely to hit attack in your full attack instead in exchange for 3 feats.

And then it's STILL removed in a move action.

You need to build for it. Building for it is not HARD or anything, you can just go bounty hunter+surprising maneuvers and be set, but picking up the feats is not enough.

Ditch them. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

Ah. I see.

Well, Warforged in 3.5 are pretty damned killy.
And 3.5 does have really good (but balanced) Rogue/Wizard hybrid options in the form of Factotums (from Dungeonscape) and Beguilers (from Player's Handbook 2).

What makes these guys so interesting to play with? Are they just that good at roleplaying?

>Be monk
>Have like +10/+10/+10/+5
Yeah, I lose one of my most likely to hit attacks, then he's blinded for the rest and I hit better than before

>Warforged
>Killy
A part from spending HPs to deal lots of 1d4 I dunno what makes warforgeds killy in 3.5

If all you get is a bonus to attacks... why not just attack with that attack as well instead?

The feat that gives them an extra slam attack.
The item that gives them a bite attack.
Both work real well any Barbarian that can pounce (but even better on Totemists from Magic of Incarnum!)

Because statistically speaking the bonus I get from him being blinded is more than getting one extra attack at my highest bonus

>Unearthed Arcana
Everyone is Gestalt, everyone uses Recharge Magic or Spell Point rules your choice

>Be shifter, have bite and two claws that escalate with level
>You only spent 1 feat
I mean, I guess your option is nice too, but I don't even think is that great, I don't even think shifter is that great either, is good, don't get me wrong, but far from gamebreaking.

>Are they just that good at roleplaying?
Compared to others? Yes. Very. I'm pretty much restricted to playing with people on my carrier, and like 80% of the players I've played with have never played any PnPs before and treat it like a video game.They never roleplay and get bored and fade out of the group. DMing is no fun when players come in embracing the railroad. I've finally found people that don't have to be forced to RP.

Dump their asses and never look back.

Highly situational depending on the AC of the opponent and how much blinding him modifies it... and also how big your chance to blind him is to begin with. And also your damage. And also thinking about how you could have spent those 3 feats instead.

My to hit with maneuver is +7 higher than my to hit with attacks, so far my accuracy is around 80% of the time with dirty trick. My damage is 2d6+5.

And sure, if the enemy looks heavily armored I don't use it because it's pretty sure he doesn't add much Dex to AC so getting -2 to AC and denied Dex doesn't bother him much.

Well, sorry, my Damage is 2d6+8, I didn't count AoMF nor Dragon ferocity (from unarmed fighter).

And inb4 maneuver master is better, yeah, I know but GM wasn't very keen on allowing it.

Got it.

What is it about 5E's combat that your players dislike?
And is combat the only part of it that they dislike?

Tell them to kill themselves and find new players. 3.5 fucking sucks and anyone who "doesn't like 5e's combat" but does like 3.5 is fucking lying to you.

Shifter able to make themselves immune to 75% of critical attacks with one item?

No, 100% with warshaper.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "combat", but rather "mechanics" in that it has far lighter rules for everything. Perhaps it's been my encounter building in that so far they have yet to fight any real monsters and just fuck up a few town guards and raiding parties. Of the five sessions we've had, only two of them had any real combat encounters and the rest was RP and brief duels. The Barbarian dislikes that all he can do is rage and attack, the Wizard/Rogue doesn't like the rules for stealth.

>Player's clearly trying the new system, but disliking it in the end

>Criticizing for their choice even after the effort of trying the new version.

No user. You were the faggot all along.

>doesn't like that his Warforged (homebrewed the stats for it) Barbarian isn't already a fucking murder machine
>Lv5

What kind of magical LSD land of 3.PF is that guy playing where that's ever the case?

My suggestion is a new group.

You seem a little obsessed with your new pet system and seem to devalue them for not liking it.

Hopeful all because at 7th level he becomes useless, so better enjoy the few levels you have of relevancy.

I think that introducing some house rules could go a long way towards improving everyone's experience (and yeah, maybe giving them some more combat would help). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two experienced players don't like the lack of granularity in the system.

Try this. Explain to them that you're not really familiar with 3.5, and you already have a lot of stuff planned in this system that it would be hard to port over (doesn't matter if it's true, just roll with it). You'll want to talk to the two problem players alone for this.

For the barbarian, try adding this in. No idea how balanced it is, I ganked it off the Unearthed Arcana plebbit, but it should give him some other "stuff to do".

As to the rogue, not sure what it is that he dislikes about stealth rules specifically, so I can't really help you there, but I think you get the idea

Nine Swords
Tome of Magic
The Complete Series
All Psionics
Dungeonscape
Player's Handbook II

Spell and Item compendium allowed but not musts.

...Maybe Races of series... maybe.

Honestly I'm inclined to say core PHB classes and spells Banned. Yeah, seriously. Gets people out of that mind rut people have with 3.5 and avoids a good majority of the class and spell imbalance nonsense.

Listen to these guys. Offer your players a choice. They can keep playing 5e, and it'll run smoothly because you have a good handle on the system. Or you can switch to 3.5 and you'll be banning core and vetting classes and spells, and it's going to run like a stick shift driven by a 15 year old girl because it's a fucking complicated system.

Why convert to 3.5 of all games if your players haven't specifically asked for it?
Hell, why convert to 3.5 even if your players have specifically asked for it?

>3.5
>complicated
No, just bad. "Written like shit so that the magic the gathering players who play D&D nowdays can find a fuck ton of loopholes in the wording" does not equal complicated.

>gestalt
If OP prefers 5e to 3.5, he absolutely should NOT touch that shitshow even if his players beg for it.

Well since this is actually just a bait platform to post about how tome of battle isn't the worst book in the 3.5 catalog I don't think it really matters.

But no, fuck that trash too of course.

>No, just bad. "Written like shit so that the magic the gathering players who play D&D nowdays can find a fuck ton of loopholes in the wording" does not equal complicated.

You're not wrong, but I'm suggesting wording to stroke the egos of his shitty players so they'll go 'oh, DM just can't handle the system like we can, I guess we'll either have to DM or stick with 5e.'

Hey, this looks pretty cool. Can anyone vouch for its quality?

A lot of it is drawn from other sources, like Epic 6.
dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/E6_(3.5e_Sourcebook)

I've never heard of this. I'm a hardcore hater of 3.5, but this looks amazing, thanks.

Yeah, no problem.

I like some of those rules even for non-E6 campaigns. Like the level-adjustment fix, for instance.

Never understood why is called Epic, it's fucking 6th level, you're just competent at that level.

The idea is that the world is scaled down so that level 6 is the highest possible level that anyone can attain.

What are the differences between the two that make them like 3.5's combat more than 5ths?

And you're so epic that you are still below the lowest olympic athletes, so epic.

Have you never read the rules? "Epic" to refer to the highest tier of power a PC can reach; epic-level characters. with E6 level 6 ist he highest level attainable, which is one above 5; 5 being 1/4th of 20, so 6th is one level over the rounded-down standard limit; it's the singular epic-level. Epic 6.

3.5 PCs are border-line olympian at level one half the time mate; you really don't know the rules do you? Or do you grossly underestimate olympic athletes?

>Have always played 3.5
>Looked up combat for 5e just cause of this thread

>I'm now changing to 5e

Thanks user

No problemo

To be honest I love 5e for its simplicity. I have told my players often an loudly that I'll allow any homebrew archetypes or spells as long as they're not incredibly OP or stupid.

>factotum

Trash.

This is why I'm legitimately curious as to what is is they so much prefer about 3.5. Short of the feats (not even how they work, the list; full of non-option, level traps, or bizarrely specific ones), 5th is a 1:1 upgrade from 3rd as far as I'm concerned. Any complaints I have outside of that are more general D&D issues and less specific 5th edition's own faults.

Seconding this.

If you're going to convert and then ban core and choose a better balanced subset of options, I'd choose PF, and start with PoW/PoWE/UP, and add other classes on a case-by-case basis.

I've yet to try 5e's combat, just bought the main book. What's wrong with it?

not that guy, but my reason for continuing to play PF is I enjoy campaigns heavily featuring PF level 10-17 fullcaster gameplay, and 5e offers nothing comparable.

>Veeky Forums hating 3.5e

When did this happen? It is way better than 4e.

See, there are these things called opinions...

in 5E though, you an do literally anything you can think of. Like, if it's outside the box but still feasible you just stick a disadvantage on the check and roll for it. That's it. It's game-logic is closer to older RPGs than most 3rd-onward systems in that you have to be willing to process what a person is/isn't capable of doing, and then the GM's got to be willing to say "no," or, "If you can X I'll let you Y," or whatever, because there aren't a million sub rules, or powers if we're talking about 4E, to spell out your options for you. So, quite ironically taking the reigns off has made people feel more restricted than ever.

Mainly that it tends to be a bit static if you don't specifically build the encounter to encourage movement

Such shit taste. It is like looking into the Shit Abyss.

Instead it bogs it down with enemies that take a whole party focus firing them for multiple rounds. Fuck that.

Do you have any fucking clue how fast a DM would say no to attempting almost every maneuver in the ToB? I don't think you do.

>(You)

To be fair, nothing in 4e stops you from doing all sorts of improvised shit either.

The powers are just there to give you things that you'll always be able to do, and give the DM something to judge how strong some improvised maneuver should be.

>Alright, I charge at the balor...
>...and the rest of the party charges with me and get free attacks against it!
Somehow I think this isn't gonna fly at a 5E table.

Why is it so easy to bait out the D&D haters?
These guys are easily the most autistic group on this board.

>I've yet to try 5e's combat, just bought the main book. What's wrong with it?

It's a lot simpler than 3.PF and 4e, for better and worse. Combat seems to go by faster(at first, enemy HP scales up pretty quickly at higher levels), but non-spellcasters don't have many options beyond "I run up to thing and hit it." Spellcasters are better, but spells still seem really weak compared to previous editions.

In fact
>With a great battle cry, you lead your allies in a devastating charge. Fired by your commanding presence and deftly lead by your supreme grasp of tactics, you and your allies form an unstoppable wedge.
>You and all melee allies within 30 feet of you charge the target. All those who attack gain a +2 bonus to attack per ally charging. You deal an extra 50 damage, and your allies deal an extra 25. If you strike the foe, he is stunned for one round. Your and your allies do not block one another while charging.
There's no way this would ever be allowed in 5E, period. BM's shitty maneuvers aren't even a tenth as powerful.

Expanded Psionics and Tome of Battle.
MIC, Manual of the planes is really situational but if you want to go planeswalking it's nice to have on hand.
Except for the Dread Necromancer though, keep Heroes of Horror and Lords of Madness off the player option list. They're good info for a DM but you probably don't want to make them available as a starting point option aside from that one base class.
Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack. If you're in a desert, a frozen land, or coastal/sea-faring campaign yes. Otherwise these don't have near so much use both because of the options for characters Meant specifically for those settings and for the extra rules for dealing with the dangers and opportunities in them. Available to PCs yes, but make sure they know if it's going to be a core part of the setting or utterly unrelated so you don't end up with a merfolk barbarian rage-flopping like a giant magicarp across the courtyard of an inland kingdom.

Races of such-and-such are good, but not required. Seconding the ban on Dragonwrought Kobolds for balance issues and saving yourself a headache.
Warforged and some feats to make them more constructy still get morale bonuses but immunize themselves to fatigue and rage-cycle in PF's barb rage (rounds per day instead of times per day) so that they're never taking the defensive penalties and always have their offensive boosts.
Honestly though OP, I'd ask what you know or think of Fantasycraft. It's another d20 with a lot more viable classes, downtime options for everyone, social rank as a character option related to character advancement, and a lot less magic/mundane disparity.

>dragonwrought kobolds
>banning for balance issues

Nigga you best be jestin, the entire feat is to keep them from being a shit show.

as
-all support, a lot of people D&D to power-trip and do a bunch of nonsensical bullshit. 5E broght power levels way down; made you mortal and limited again, which really nots a lot fo panties.

Can someone tell me why Veeky Forums loves the watered down shit that is 5e?

some people prefer a more free-form narrative to crunchy book keeping.

I recommend you find a new group.

You don't get to say "but you can do anything you could do before in 5E!" and backtrack when you get called out on your bullshit.

No, I did not. Don't paraphrase sentiments to support your claims.

>in 5E though, you an do literally anything you can think of.
That's not fucking paraphrasing.

Bounded accuracy is nice, and it's the closest thing to a balanced version of 3.5.