I'm wondering what the pull is for the newer shinier 5th edition content. As someone who has been a DM for years I have considered looking into 5th edition to see what's new and exciting in the world of D&D but keep stopping myself from tackling that mountain and with the expense I'm wondering if it's worth it. What are the reasons you all decided to make the switch or revert back to the classic? Again this is for people that have made the switch. What were the challenges?

I will say that my players have never been bored with the content available to 3.5e. They still haven't touched over 75% of what is available including monster/enemies, cross class opportunity, prestige classes, even some spells have yet to be used or explored.

What version are you all playing? 

The reason to switch from 2014 to 2024 is the support that comes with the latest edition.  Even with backward compatibility, there is a point in the near future that support for 2014 rules will dry up.

The reason you switch to the latest (e.g. 2024 rules) is the new players only have access to the latest version.  New people like myself are not going to go searching for 2014 source books.

Extrapolate that to 3.5.  You get no one new to join your group.  If you get an issue, you really have no where to go for official assistance.

So if you have all the 3.5 source material and you have all of the answers to potential issues, and your party is very stable and none has left and no one is joining, then you are a lucky person.

The draw is not about an issue with a shinier 5th edition content.  It is all about getting new blood and having the support when an issue comes up.

To be honest I've not played a lot of 3.5 but I did start with Pathfinder 1e which is very similar before switching to 5e and they are very very different games. I hated Pathfinder, it was way to number crunchy, way too complex and levelling up felt annoying rather than something to be happy about. But all of those are reasons that Pathfinder players preferred it over D&D 5e, it's just not the game I wanted to play. By comparison I find D&D a much looser game that is better for the types of stories I want to experience and tell, it has rules where I want them like combat but largely gets out the way for the softer stuff.

All that is to say it's almost impossible to give you advice on a switch. You've obviously been enjoying 3.5 for the best part of two decades because otherwise you would have already made the change so it's entirely possible you love it for all the reasons I didn't and if you did try 5e you'd play one game and decide you wanted to go back. My best advice is to download the free rules from here, get everyone to make a character or use ne of the pre-gen characters on here, and play a one shot. You'll probably know straight away if you miss the crunchiness or if you're glad it's gone and you'll have spent nothing except time trying it

If you and your group are happy with 3.5, there's no good reason to switch. There's nothing you can do in one that you can't do in the other; they're just built around different design philosophies.

Sticking with 3.5 will make recruiting new players harder -- there are a lot more people out there who only know 5e.

If you want to give it a try, you could always start a game with the free rules on here, which will let you get a feel for how the game plays. (If you want more options, the digital PHB and a master-level membership aren't all that much. You can easily do without the full MM and DMG for a trial run, especially since you're all experienced.)

That's great to hear. I would hate to lose something switching versions but seeing as how I am charging for games a larger audience might be nice. Thanks very much I appreciate the advice.

Sticking with what you love seems to be the general consensus from most people. The popularity of the 5th edition is only really appealing for the draw of new players right now and as someone who makes a living hosting games having a larger player base is appealing. That said I haven't found much data supporting one version over the other for ease of use. It's more of a comfort thing. I might just go ahead and jump into a few games hosted by other DMs just to give it a try as a player. See how it feels. Thanks for the advice it helped inform my decision.

That makes sense to me. I'm curious though what kind of issues have you run into that require support at the table? Is it more that some rules argue with each other or things are unclear so it leads to discussion?

I agree, if you're having fun with 3.x, keep playing; its a great game.

Personally, having played and DM'd both (actually, all the various editions) extensively, I prefer 5e. It's more streamlined, and the math is way simpler. They get off the treadmill of PCs getting another +1 every level, so the monsters need to also go up every level and the numbers start to get insane. There's not 101 situational modifiers to remember whcih change every round of combat. It's just way smoother, and ime, there have been fewer arguments.

From the DM side, the way I see the biggest difference, is 5e trusts the DM more than 3. When they were designing 3e, one of the goals was to protect players from bad DMs. So, they tried to come up with a rule for every possible situation. In 5e, its rulings not rules. Instead of trying to have an official answer to every edge case, they just say, here's the basics, if you're not sure of something, the DM makes a ruling and moves on. In my groups, its meant fewer rules "discussions" since there's not a phb, dmg and 2 dozen splat books each with its own ideas of what's correct. That said, there's always someone with an idea about something.  But after playing a few games, you'll probably get the hang of it, and I find it moves faster

From a player's side, it can feel like there's fewer character options, as 5e is stingier with feats. That bugged me at first, but as I've played more, I've started to think 3e was more an illusion of choice. For example, in 3e, if you are going to build an archer, there are specific feats you must take, in a specific order, if you want to be effective. So while there were a lot of choices, there was almost always a correct choice, and all archers ended up looking more or less the same, anyway.  In 5e, its more like, if you want to be an archer, here, choose this subclass. Then you get those subclass powers, in the right order, pre-chosen for you, and you will be effective. And you still get a few feats to play around with. So, 3e became more about system mastery to make a good character, where in 5e you almost have to try to build a bad character.

Quote from DMLVL35 >>

That makes sense to me. I'm curious though what kind of issues have you run into that require support at the table? Is it more that some rules argue with each other or things are unclear so it leads to discussion?

Just look at the rules section. in this forum.  I am still learning and occasionally get confused.  e.g. I personally thought temp points stack, they don't. I accepted the word of the group.  However,  I was able to independently confirm my mistake and see how I was wrong suing 2024 rule support.  If i was in your group, and had been confused about X, I would accept the group ruling, but not be able to confirm.  As you are the only 3.5 group, going elsewhere is not a big concern, but in the back of my mind....

I would be very cautious about switching systems in the middle of an ongoing campaign. I have done it before. It never ends the way you hope. The problem is not that one system is better or worse. The problem is that there is no clean way to translate System X into System Y without sanding off all the tiny character details that made your players fall in love with their builds in the first place. If you are going to switch, do it at the start of a fresh campaign. New sheets, new expectations, clean break. Your future self will thank you.

3.5 and 5e share a lot of DNA, but there are a few cultural shifts that might surprise a 3.5 group.

Bounded accuracy is probably the biggest mental adjustment. In 3rd edition, you could laser focus a build to become absurdly good at very specific things. Level did not fence you in the same way. In 5e, there are firm ceilings. You can tweak and polish, but you are operating within hard limits. There is no stacking your way into orbit. From a balance standpoint, this is great. From a customization standpoint, it can feel like moving from a gourmet sandwich bar to a carefully curated tasting menu. It is well designed, but you cannot just pile on six kinds of cheese because you feel like it.

Adventure content is where my most controversial opinion lives. 5e is extremely well supported in terms of volume. The shelves are full. The challenge is that much of the official adventure writing feels like it was organized by someone who lost a bet. The formatting tends to sprawl, important details hide in dense paragraphs, and page counts balloon. There are gems out there, absolutely. But you often have to mine for them. It is less grab and go and more archaeology. If you are used to tighter, more utilitarian adventure design from earlier eras, the adjustment can be real.

Dice odds are another shift. In 5e, the math generally leans in the players’ favor. Advantage and disadvantage is elegant and fast at the table, but it is also swingy. You roll two dice, pick the better one, and move on with your heroic life. The tension curve is different. Failure is still possible, but the system is clearly more interested in momentum and fun than in razor edge statistical peril. As a DM, you will notice how often the party pulls things off. The game wants them to succeed. It is less gritty survival simulator and more cinematic adventure.

One interesting data point in all of this is what people return to. You regularly see folks revisiting 1st, 2nd, or 4th edition. The old school crowd is thriving, and 4e still has a loyal following that genuinely loves what it does. You do not hear nearly as many stories about people migrating back to 3e. That is not a knock on it. It just seems that once people move on from that style of crunchy customization, they either go lighter or they go to something even more specialized like Pathfinder 2nd edition rather than retracing their steps.

So that is the gist. 5e is polished, approachable, and built to keep the action moving. 3.5 is a glorious toolbox where you can build almost anything if you are willing to dig through enough parts. Neither is wrong. They just answer different questions about what the game is supposed to feel like.

I personally always say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it cause plenty stuff is broke and needs fixing, focus on that.