So I'm a DM and player who's fairly experienced with 3.5, and I'm about to purchase physical copies of some rulebooks. I'd really appreciate some opinions and contrast on the two editions if anyone would like to share, so I can decide which edition to sort of glue myself to for the future.
>>45928656
Both are crap. You are crap. The things you like are crap. Your fun is bad and wrong.
Seriously.
Go buy 2e supplements off ebay and amazon and be a better person. Enjoy life better.
>>45928689
>buying books
>Not making up a system in your head and playing from memory
>Get on my level you piece of filth
>>45928689
Way to be a fucking nigger wow
>>45928656
5E has less nitpicking options and is more towards adventuring and while 3.5 is the grognarding edition that allow you to do whatever the fucking hell you want and nothing can stop you
i ran 3.5,pathfinder and 5e so far i like 5e but there is not much of supplements easyer to run and i like how you dont need a alot of magic items so you can make up some fun ones instead of just +whatever stuff
>>45928656
5e cuts back everything to around the scale you'd see around level 5-8. Everything can be killed with a few dozen militiamen with bows.
As a result, it's technically more balanced in that you'll never have a very powerful party doing powerful things, but at the same time... the mechanics are totally fucked up in order to do it.
3.5 is better, but mainly because it's been around longer, so if you look you'll find house rule sets that fix the major problems - the Tome series by K and Frank Trollman, for example.
>>45928983
>Way to be a fucking nigger wow
That other anon could have been more eloquent, but I agree. I really didn't like the balance of 3E, but I haven't gone anywhere near 5E yet.
2E felt a lot more consistent because you didn't have such absurd freedom with multiclassing. Characters could still multiclass up to two or three common types of classes, and dual-classing with humans was possible, but left your previous class frozen at its current level. If you needed more variety than that, there were plenty of class "kits" discussed in 2E's supplements.
If you don't feel like buying any additional books, maybe look into an early AD&D clone, like Labyrinth Lord. LL is based on the original D&D, and there's a companion that lets you upcode that into full 1E.
5e is a vast improvement over 3.5, but both are still bad games.
>>45928689
>supporting the edition that created solely to stiff Gygax of his royalty payments
>>45929156
3.5 can't be fixed. You'd have to do away with everything that made 3.5 distinct from other editions, and you might as well run an OSR game at that point.
>>45928656
If you already know 3.5 and your friends all know 3.5, but some 3.5 splats (such as Tome of Battle) and call ti a day.
If you EVER plan on taking on new players, 5e. It's far more streamlined, and it's close enough to 3.pf.
4e
>>45928689
But 2nd is objectively worse than 3.5
>>45929294
>Freedom is a bad thing in a freeform storytelling environment
>>45928656
Read these first, then buy the book for the system that you want to GM and guide your players to the links below to help them make characters.
http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm
http://5thsrd.org/
Alternatively
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
The money it would cost for the books you can spend on a cheap tablet for 100$ to use at the table.
>>45930281
>No prestige classes
>No idiotic bonus stacking
>No NPC classes
>Multiclassing is completely different and doesn't make the game "mix and match classes to get the best abilities"
>Kit Classes allow a character to be their concept without having to wait 5-10 levels
>No Wealth by Level
>No poorly thought out CR system for monsters
>No poorly thought out system for creating monsters, where a monster's type is sort of a class, but some monsters can take classes
>Making monsters or modifying monsters doesn't take an hours worth of work
>No poorly thought out core classes that should be banned in favor of splat book classes
>No poorly thought out skill system that makes it nearly impossible to identify an elephant thanks to hit dice
>No idiotic crafting system that makes casting gold candelabras take longer than making a sword
>No trap feats
I could go on. What exactly is so superior about 3.5? Ascending AC and attack bonus? Gee, it sure would take a lot of thought to make a house rule for 2e, wouldn't it?
>>45929156
>Implying that anything can kill a level 20 Champion Fighter in 5e
>>45931830
>Playing at level 20
Remember: you don't need to play D&D to play a d20 based fantasy game. There are better options.
>>45928656
Imagine that WotC were sent back in time to before 3.5e was published, and changed it to accomdate everything they learned from the 3.5/4e days.
The system they would then make is 5e.
>>45932247
>>45932260
5e really does need a "hacking" damage type in-between slashing and bludgeoning
>>45932354
Or a decent weapons system so they aren't all boring and samey.
Run 3.5 if your group is experienced. Run 5e for newfags.
The only problem with 5e right now is that it has less material than the other editions.
Thankfully, it's really easy to convert just about anything you want from 2e and 3rd edition into 5th, and I'm actually running a 3.5 adventure while using 2e lore in my 5e game.
Run Fantasy Craft instead.
>But
It's 3.5 but good. Consistent rules, decent martials, combat is much more complex than standing around full attacking, a better action economy, reined in spellcasting, and great character choices (compare some poor 5e sod who wants to use a whip but only gets a 10ft reach 1d6 damage shitpile with the same guy playing Fantasy Craft, disarming and tripping and feinting opponents from far away. And the same comparison could be made for any weapon - FC makes them all interesting and viable choices).
>>45932260
>thinks this is btfo and not proving a point
>>45928656
The big changes off the top of my head:
5e consolidated several groups of rules into common modifiers with the aim of reducing the need to memorize so many rules, such as attack and skill bonuses.
5e greatly reduced power scaling in general so growth of most every modifier is much slower, and more focused on gaining abilities as you raise in level. Low level characters will still be out of their league against high level threats, but it won't be so numerically silly.
5e reworked magic so spell effects are based on spell level, not caster level, and reduced spell slots, and improved cantrips. The result is that casters are more capable at very low level, and don't double-dip their scaling anymore. Very few if any 'save or suck' spells now. Most buffs require concentration to maintain and can't be stacked.
The 3.5e feat system was reworked, made optional, and now offers a variety of one-off bonuses. A number of things which were feats are now class abilities. The advantage of this is that you no longer had to prepare character builds relying on long strings of feat pre-requisites.
Prestige classes were removed and folded into class archetypes. At a low-ish level you pick a class package to further specialize your character. For example bards can specialize into improving their combat prowess or casting abilities. This sort of ties into the whole feats thing.
A couple of downsides that I've come across... individual characters are difficult to threaten unless they entire group is eating shit, care of the new 3-strike rule once at 0hp, so you have to risk wiping the group to convey a sense of risk or danger. Also the gap between skilled and unskilled at something is small, so you have people trained in X being only marginally better at it, which from my point of view makes a large impact in the narrative.
>>45932260
Weird, a long pole with a blade on the end does the same amount and type of damage as a long pole with a blade on the end. Wtf were they thinking?
>>45932860
They thought they should write it twice, instead of adding something like a polehammer that does bludgeoning?
>>45932498
This. I like 5e and Fantasy Craft both. But if you absolutely must run 3.5 then just use Fantasy Craft. It's better in every conceivable way.
>>45928656
>3.5 vs 5e
For the most part they are nearly identical unless you've played so much 3e that you can tell the difference between 3e, 3.5, and PF beyond the art style. If, however, you are within that group, I hear it's more balanced (not saying much) with fewer options (understandable given the balance) with faster combat (likely a side effect of fewer options.)
However, you're really splitting hairs with two VERY similar beasts.
>>45932848
That last bit is honestly an issue for every edition of D&D for using a D20 instead of 3D6, 2D10, or even 3D8-3 (0/21 being an auto fail/success). The upside to those is that if you invest in your skills you actually will succeed way more often than someone untrained. What it also would change, and this is subjective is that you are often boned if you use a skill untrained due to the bell curve or pyramid. Crit fails and successes become way rarer (<1% for 2D10) too which has its pros and cons.
>>45929420
Sounds like you're just shit at playing 3.5.
>>45933178
True, but it's more pronounced in 5e because they flat-lined growths. In 3.5e you started off 20% (+4) more likely to succeed at level 1, and by level 7, which was typical endgame, you'd be 50% (+10) more likely to succeed, which is significant. In 5e you'll start of 10% (+2) more likely to succeed and by typical 7th level endgame you'll be 15% (+3) more likely to succeed.
The result is that in 5e everyone is almost equally good at everything. The difference in say, survival, between a cleric who has never been outside and a ranger skilled at survival will amount to zero care of stat modifiers. This makes for a rather terrible connection between how characters choose to define themselves out of combat scenarios, and how the rules reflect this.
I 'fix' this with house rules but I still don't have to like it.
>>45933277
Sounds like you enjoy playing shit games.
>>45933153
>For the most part they are nearly identical
If that's what you think, go home. You haven't touched either one.
>>45933153
>For the most part they are nearly identical
>>45933711
You keep telling yourself that.
>>45933816
>Wealth by level
>Stacking modifiers
>Pisspoor CR system
>Pisspoor crafting system
>Prestige classes/multiclassing BS
>Trap feats
>Core classes that need to be banned in order for the system to be remotely playable
How is this not shit anon? I'm fine with you enjoying a shit game. Or a shit movie. Just admit that it's shit, and that you enjoy it.
As someone who played 3.5 (among other systems) for years, I'm quite fond of 5e. It is comfy and streamlined without feeling like it has been dumbed down. Plus, I can't sing the praises of having (optional) rules and guidelines for exploration enough. Easily the most underrated aspect of 5e IMO.
>>45933153
>>45933733
>You haven't touched either one.
If by touched you mean "played to exclusion of all other games to the point that even the most minute of statistical shifts seems like a major game change because of 'muh system mastery'" then I guess not.
But seriously, that's the only way you could consider 5e to be a substantially different game. It has differences, yes, but not to any significant degree: it's 3e with the polish and exclusive license it never got a decade ago.
If numerical names were more true to their divergence from the ubiquitous turd that is 3e, 3.5 is more like 3.001, PF is more like 3.003, and 5e is 3.1, maybe 3.2 at best. It IS More divergent than when they re-released the same game with a new cover and a new polymorph spell, but that's not saying much.
>>45928656
Currently, 3.5 is more comprehensive. It has a loooot of supplemental books and homebrews. It's also compatible with many systems that came out at that time, such as pathfinder and (with some tweeking) D20 modern. But on the other hand, 5e isn't quite as numbers heavy. It felt like a hybrid between 3.5 and 4e, in my opinion. If you have newer players, it may be good to start them off in 5e. However, 3.5 is better for if you want nitty gritty customization.
>>45934013
Consider this if nitty gritty customization is what you want.
>>45932498
>>45933951
>Gutted Feats
>Streamlined Everything
>Slimmed Down Spell List
>Further Slimmed Spell List by Making Many Spells Concentration
>Tightened Spells Known/Slots Mechanics
>XP for Non-Combat Actions
And that's just on the surface. If anything, 5e is so streamlined and simplified that it's like D&D 101. Introduction to Tabletopping.
So what I said stands. It's nothing like the way you described it.
>>45928656
For the love of all that is fun, don't play DnD.
>>45928656
5E is pretty fun and a lot easier to run than 3.5.
>>45934353
You can gain xp for non combat actions in 3.5 as well.
OP here. After doing a bunch of my own research and reading this thread, it's clear to me that 3.5 is the zenith of the series and that 5e is for casuals.
The thing that specifically irks me the most in 5e is how dying works. It's a lot less interesting and dynamic. There are a lot of small things that have been discussed in this thread, but that's one very large thing that I can't get over. I could change it with house rules of course. Alternatively, I could just play 3.5.
>>45936432
What don't you like about dying? You get three possible saves, any damage and you fail two automatically (same as rolling a 1). Roll a 20 and return to 1 HP and hope you can get some healing.
>>45928656
5e is a steaming pile of shit
Been running 5e for over a year and the best thing it has going for it is simplicity. I've never run an easier system (admittedly, I've only run a few other non-D&D systems though).
Does that mean it's for casuals? Sure, I guess. But I'd take a casual, fun game over a number crunching, rules heavy game with trap options. That's just my preference.
I can't even count how many times I had to pour through the rules in 3.X. I can't think of a single session where I didn't crack open the DMG or PHB to look up rules or reference something. In my year+ of running 5e, though, 50% of my sessions have been void of any book referencing other than the MM.
You've already made your decision, and it's a sound one I guess. 3.5 won't die, and it's so similar to Pathfinder that you're pretty much investing in two systems. A lot of people still play.
I'm running 5e for my group because two members are new to tabletop gaming and the third doesn't play very often.
Skills are one of the only things I miss from 3.5. I'm thinking of making skill checks on skills you're not proficient with only half the d20 roll in 5e, making natural ability (from ability scores) and trained proficiency much more important.
>>45928656
One is a titanic pile of stale shit. The other one is a very small pile of fresh shit. If you really have to choose between the two, go with the lesser shit.
>>45936432
>it's clear to me that 3.5 is the zenith of the series and that 5e is for casuals.
5e is the zenith of the series and 3.5 is for munchkins.
>>45936432
>3.5 is the zenith of the series
Holy fuck no. 3.5 just has the most rabid and vocal fanbase because it was the edition that just happened to come out when a lot of the current generation of tabletop gamers were first getting started in the hobby, so they learned to play it at the exclusion of everything else.
>>45928656
>I'm about to purchase physical copies of some rulebooks
Why pay for something if you could just download it?
Buy a tablet to read pdf's instead and you'll never need physical books again.
