It was an awesome edition, and I honestly miss playing it with more people. I feel like it would thrive heavy with the new gen of players, particularly the ones who like a challenge and aren't afraid to die if the dice demand it. What are yall's thoughts?
I mean 3.5 is good but think the challenge and willingness to die are provided by the way we craft the game. I think the CR ratings are nonsensical, but it's plenty possible to make a challenging story with chance of TPK. It doesn't really come down to version.
Nah man i get you! I more or less think that 5e, while its fun, does have a bit of a power scale issue. Like, obvi so did 3.5, cuz all it did was up the score every level to infinity lol. But with 3.5, the system was always able to counter and challenge players even as the advanced to god killing status, which it also allowed the players to get to, provided of course, the dreaded irl didnt get in the way. I find that the way 5e answers player power imbalance is to advance the players to significant power, but then arbitrarily limit their growth cap, preventing them from getting on the level that you could get in 3.5, which is kinda cheeks.
As for the other part of your reply, the willingness to die part is unfortunately long since passed. Throughout the years, the community has, unfortunately, fostered an practice of bubble wrapping dnd so that new people could join the community in order to get more people at the table. And it worked! Though, it has had the side effect of creating false expectations and, unfortunately, a underlying hostility between players and DMs, which kind of breeds a MAD mentality if the Players face too many setbacks or a TPK, or if a DM starts feeling like he/she is being led by the nose rather than running the game at the helm of the group. So, unfortunately, that mentality is rare, and becomes more and more rare as this continues.
It was an awesome edition, and I honestly miss playing it with more people. I feel like it would thrive heavy with the new gen of players, particularly the ones who like a challenge and aren't afraid to die if the dice demand it. What are yall's thoughts?
Well, it's perfectly possible to challenge players in 5e. You can't really use the encounter building rules and you have to do a fair amount of homebrewing at higher levels, but that was the case in 3.5e as well. The people who want to play something like 3.5e are generally playing 3.5e or PF, it's notable that pretty much no-one is trying to compete in that space, all the new competition for D&D is in the lighter rules space.
I have never played 3.5. went directly from expert edition to 5th 35 years later. So I cannot really address 3.5.
But..I have learned to make 5e/2024 very challenging when needed. The first thing I do is limit the use of CR. Except at the earliest levels, it is useless as anything other that a rough guide.
From level 4 on, I start determining challege by how the characters are doing. If they are wiping out everything in a round, I increase difficulty.
I'm not a fan of adding more and more monsters...that just slows down the game. A level 5 party facing CR5 monsters or lower is okay, but throw in a CR 8 Dragon and the players freak out...until they start figuring out how to win. When they defeat it they feel a larger sense of accomplishment.
I also have started to add curse to people who die and are returned to life through magic. There should always be a price.
I started off playing Pathfinder 1e, so essentially 3.5, and hated it with a passion as did everyone else at my table including the DM. I’m sure it would appeal to a lot of people but it was too crunchy for us and we all hated the class progression. We’ve also lost on average far more characters in 5e than we ever did in Pathfinder so it’s not necessarily more dangerous if you balance encounters properly
Having first played aD&D, I'd debate that it isn't other editions of D&D that ought to be experienced but other systems entirely. FATE, Fudge, 2d20 systems, d6 pool systems. You can learn and steal so much more from those systems than you can 3.5 or any other edition of D&D.
If you really do miss 3.5e however, I'd strongly suggest looking into Pathfinder 2e Remaster. It's a strong contender for how 3.5 could have developed. Like all systems it's got it's strengths and weaknesses, but Paizo do keep churning out adventure paths that keep selling, so they're doing something right.
Unpopular-er opinion: more 3.5 players need to play 1e. In 3.5 you’re starting with max hit points, your spells are not being interrupted mid-cast, and 0 hp doesn’t mean dead, it means you’re just unconscious and you have 10 rounds to get help. Back in 1e, we didn’t even bother naming our characters until they hit 3rd or 5th level because they were most likely going to die. 3.5 is like D&D on easy mode. It just caters to players who care if their character lives.
3.5 is great. All editions have problems/shortcomings/limitations. IMO 3.5 probably has fewer problems than 5e, but there's a lot I like about 3.5 and 5e. Ideally each DM customizes their own campaign by picking and choosing, and clearly stating the rules for their campaign.
IMO 3/5 & 5e > 1e because of lethality. L1 Wizard with 1 hp dies after 1 point of damage. That's not fun lol
I'm only half joking -- I think it's pretty good at what it does, it's just that what it does is only a subset of all the things various people want out of their D&D.
But in terms of "modern players should play the older D&D that I, personally, prefer", it's really the only one that will give them a substantially different play experience.
particularly the ones who like a challenge and aren't afraid to die if the dice demand it.
None of the versions of DnD is a "balanced" game. The DM makes the game as difficult as they choose, and then they end up with the kind of players who want that level of difficulty. But at no point is any version of a TTRPG restricted from killing a PC. Teh DM just keeps increasing the combat encounters until players die, if that's the encounter they want.
If every player made characters based off some set of rules and engaged in some sort of PVP combat, that would be a game where the rules enforce "balance" and such. But the players have rules, and the DM does what they do.
Exposure to that style of play? Sure, that can be fun. But there is literally nothing preventing me from running a 5e game like that. And 3.5e comes with its own baggage.
And as for the suggestion that current players are... too soft, or something? Nah. That's ignoring the fact that we've reached a point where the "power fantasy" aspect of D&D roleplaying is an experience that can be provided just as well by a video game, as it can by a live DM. That wasn't always true. So yeah, the focus shifted toward the thing that still needs a person to do it.
I'm only half joking -- I think it's pretty good at what it does, it's just that what it does is only a subset of all the things various people want out of their D&D.
But in terms of "modern players should play the older D&D that I, personally, prefer", it's really the only one that will give them a substantially different play experience.
Aww, you beat me to it!
But really, having played every edition of D&D, 4th Ed was, by far, the most solidly built as far as rules that mattered went. Sadly the various edition war head-winds and mound of sacred cattle carcasses weren't worth the all-you-can-eat steak buffet cruise to keep momentum up on an otherwise amazing version of the game.
(It was also the only time WotC managed to make an online character builder price model work well.....for a while.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
The problem with 3.5 was that it was a game that suffered heavily from bloat. First of all there was the bloat of all the books with all their new feats, spells, classes, prestige classes, and character options. Second of all, there was just the numeric bloat where skills, attack bonuses, and saving throws (and save DCs) went up so fast that by the time you hit around 8-10th level, you basically couldn't fail a skill check for a skill you put ranks into and had no chance of making it for one you didn't. And it was far worse with saving throws: a wizard or rogue that got hit with a spell that required a Fortitude save (like most "save or die" spells) often had little to no chance of success.
And the way characters were built, you basically had to look 3-5 levels ahead every time you leveled up, because choosing something that was useful now would likely mean that it would rapidly become useless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It was an awesome edition, and I honestly miss playing it with more people. I feel like it would thrive heavy with the new gen of players, particularly the ones who like a challenge and aren't afraid to die if the dice demand it. What are yall's thoughts?
I mean 3.5 is good but think the challenge and willingness to die are provided by the way we craft the game. I think the CR ratings are nonsensical, but it's plenty possible to make a challenging story with chance of TPK. It doesn't really come down to version.
Nah man i get you! I more or less think that 5e, while its fun, does have a bit of a power scale issue. Like, obvi so did 3.5, cuz all it did was up the score every level to infinity lol. But with 3.5, the system was always able to counter and challenge players even as the advanced to god killing status, which it also allowed the players to get to, provided of course, the dreaded irl didnt get in the way. I find that the way 5e answers player power imbalance is to advance the players to significant power, but then arbitrarily limit their growth cap, preventing them from getting on the level that you could get in 3.5, which is kinda cheeks.
As for the other part of your reply, the willingness to die part is unfortunately long since passed. Throughout the years, the community has, unfortunately, fostered an practice of bubble wrapping dnd so that new people could join the community in order to get more people at the table. And it worked! Though, it has had the side effect of creating false expectations and, unfortunately, a underlying hostility between players and DMs, which kind of breeds a MAD mentality if the Players face too many setbacks or a TPK, or if a DM starts feeling like he/she is being led by the nose rather than running the game at the helm of the group. So, unfortunately, that mentality is rare, and becomes more and more rare as this continues.
Well, it's perfectly possible to challenge players in 5e. You can't really use the encounter building rules and you have to do a fair amount of homebrewing at higher levels, but that was the case in 3.5e as well. The people who want to play something like 3.5e are generally playing 3.5e or PF, it's notable that pretty much no-one is trying to compete in that space, all the new competition for D&D is in the lighter rules space.
I have never played 3.5. went directly from expert edition to 5th 35 years later. So I cannot really address 3.5.
But..I have learned to make 5e/2024 very challenging when needed. The first thing I do is limit the use of CR. Except at the earliest levels, it is useless as anything other that a rough guide.
From level 4 on, I start determining challege by how the characters are doing. If they are wiping out everything in a round, I increase difficulty.
I'm not a fan of adding more and more monsters...that just slows down the game. A level 5 party facing CR5 monsters or lower is okay, but throw in a CR 8 Dragon and the players freak out...until they start figuring out how to win. When they defeat it they feel a larger sense of accomplishment.
I also have started to add curse to people who die and are returned to life through magic. There should always be a price.
I wouldn't mid reading so 35 though.
I started off playing Pathfinder 1e, so essentially 3.5, and hated it with a passion as did everyone else at my table including the DM. I’m sure it would appeal to a lot of people but it was too crunchy for us and we all hated the class progression. We’ve also lost on average far more characters in 5e than we ever did in Pathfinder so it’s not necessarily more dangerous if you balance encounters properly
Having first played aD&D, I'd debate that it isn't other editions of D&D that ought to be experienced but other systems entirely. FATE, Fudge, 2d20 systems, d6 pool systems. You can learn and steal so much more from those systems than you can 3.5 or any other edition of D&D.
If you really do miss 3.5e however, I'd strongly suggest looking into Pathfinder 2e Remaster. It's a strong contender for how 3.5 could have developed. Like all systems it's got it's strengths and weaknesses, but Paizo do keep churning out adventure paths that keep selling, so they're doing something right.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Unpopular-er opinion: more 3.5 players need to play 1e. In 3.5 you’re starting with max hit points, your spells are not being interrupted mid-cast, and 0 hp doesn’t mean dead, it means you’re just unconscious and you have 10 rounds to get help. Back in 1e, we didn’t even bother naming our characters until they hit 3rd or 5th level because they were most likely going to die. 3.5 is like D&D on easy mode. It just caters to players who care if their character lives.
3.5 is great. All editions have problems/shortcomings/limitations. IMO 3.5 probably has fewer problems than 5e, but there's a lot I like about 3.5 and 5e. Ideally each DM customizes their own campaign by picking and choosing, and clearly stating the rules for their campaign.
IMO 3/5 & 5e > 1e because of lethality. L1 Wizard with 1 hp dies after 1 point of damage. That's not fun lol
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s, took a hiatus in the mid-80s, re-started with 3.5 and 5e in 2023
If you want an actually unpopular opinion:
More players need to play 4e
I'm only half joking -- I think it's pretty good at what it does, it's just that what it does is only a subset of all the things various people want out of their D&D.
But in terms of "modern players should play the older D&D that I, personally, prefer", it's really the only one that will give them a substantially different play experience.
None of the versions of DnD is a "balanced" game. The DM makes the game as difficult as they choose, and then they end up with the kind of players who want that level of difficulty. But at no point is any version of a TTRPG restricted from killing a PC. Teh DM just keeps increasing the combat encounters until players die, if that's the encounter they want.
If every player made characters based off some set of rules and engaged in some sort of PVP combat, that would be a game where the rules enforce "balance" and such. But the players have rules, and the DM does what they do.
Exposure to that style of play? Sure, that can be fun. But there is literally nothing preventing me from running a 5e game like that. And 3.5e comes with its own baggage.
And as for the suggestion that current players are... too soft, or something? Nah. That's ignoring the fact that we've reached a point where the "power fantasy" aspect of D&D roleplaying is an experience that can be provided just as well by a video game, as it can by a live DM. That wasn't always true. So yeah, the focus shifted toward the thing that still needs a person to do it.
Aww, you beat me to it!
But really, having played every edition of D&D, 4th Ed was, by far, the most solidly built as far as rules that mattered went. Sadly the various edition war head-winds and mound of sacred cattle carcasses weren't worth the all-you-can-eat steak buffet cruise to keep momentum up on an otherwise amazing version of the game.
(It was also the only time WotC managed to make an online character builder price model work well.....for a while.)
The problem with 3.5 was that it was a game that suffered heavily from bloat. First of all there was the bloat of all the books with all their new feats, spells, classes, prestige classes, and character options. Second of all, there was just the numeric bloat where skills, attack bonuses, and saving throws (and save DCs) went up so fast that by the time you hit around 8-10th level, you basically couldn't fail a skill check for a skill you put ranks into and had no chance of making it for one you didn't. And it was far worse with saving throws: a wizard or rogue that got hit with a spell that required a Fortitude save (like most "save or die" spells) often had little to no chance of success.
And the way characters were built, you basically had to look 3-5 levels ahead every time you leveled up, because choosing something that was useful now would likely mean that it would rapidly become useless.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.