Does ANYBODY still play D&D 3.5? nt

Plenty of people, actually. I pity them, it's like being taken hostage.

>>55108314
Ow, your contrarian edge.
I bet you honestly don't know that 3.pf is still the 2nd most played game.

>>55108314
>All these plebs having fun playing a game they love, that I've never played but the internet told me is bad.

>>55110079
What is Stockholm Syndrome, Jeff?
Know in /tg/ as the sunk cost

File: 1434500934185.jpg (28KB, 335x333px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 335x333px

>>55108297
Only either E6, or With core banned, and ToB+Psionics only (but you call Psionics magic, because what the fuck else would people call it with nothing else to compare it to.)

For the overwhelming majority I just run 4th, and Shadowrun, but with one of the above mods, 3e can function.

File: 1502121311716.jpg (43KB, 640x382px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x382px

>>55108297
I mostly play 3.5. I genuinely love the amount of splatbooks and customization options. I've played and dmed a huge amount of different characters and I've enjoyed every one.

I feel like a lot of people forget rule 0, and that you can always disregard the broken shit in favor of running a cohesive and fun game.

File: 1480224686246.gif (329KB, 140x160px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 140x160px

>>55108297
Weekly in two sessions.
>Afternoon group from High School.
>Night Shift with The Elder Sages.

We've got several campaigns running in tandem based on who's available and who's been DMing lately.
>3.P Epic level high-fantasy spelljammer game, Xorvintaal in space.
>3.P mid-high range game, started at 1.
>Valor RPG game, anime styled system run by a weeaboo.
>5e Birthright game started last week.
>E6 underdark game.
>Gestalted game in a fiend-infested locked up little bubble-world that popped about the time we hit 20.
>Gestalted Martial-Adept game run by WeeabooDM, one side required to be pure martial adept from ToB o PoW.

We got a pretty okay thing going.

File: lib.jpg (588KB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 2656x1494px

OP here.

>>55111337
>>55110694
>>55110477
>>55110403
>>55108314
Thanks for the help. I've got pic related, but the core setting is about as attractive as a stock ROM / Merc MUD. Is there a campaign or setting that you prefer? I've never played 4/5/pf/spelljammer or the like, but would be down with using d20 rules and some of the core game in a radical new setting. See, I'd love to play a /tg/ but my town is an illiterate wasteland with no LGS and afaik there are no groups here. Is there some 2017 technology you fellas know about that I don't that lets people play online? If not I guess I'll be over here playing XCOM 2 and forming bonds with digital paper dolls...

>>55108297
man I wanna know where 4th edition is
so many classes I never got to play

2e > 3.5e > 5e > shit > 4e

>>55110403
what's truly ironic is that 3.PF is gettign support andmassive expansions, while 4e players actually do sufffer from sunk cost be3cause they recieve no support or expansions...ever again. Hell, even Fantasy Craft is more sunk cost because you get no support there either anymore.

Finally, you don't even have to pay for 3.Pf, so there isn't necessarily a cost at all.

Maybe it's the other games giving people brain damage.

>>55112252
> 5e >shit>4e

dont you have a equal sign on the keyboard?

File: gondola-tg.png (101KB, 1400x1050px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1400x1050px

>>55112217
Oh man I'm jealous of that Draconomicon.

I just make up all my settings. I'll use whatever gods I feel fit best (from all the splatbooks), and whatever races sound like fun at the time (once again, drawing from any splat). I'd like to try an Eberron game at some point, but I've never gotten my hands on the setting book. I have the Races book and Magic book though, so I do like what I've seen so far.

I've always enjoyed sitting down with a blank slate and just filling things in at my own pace. Some is ready before the game starts, and the rest my players and I fill in as we go.

>>55108297

Yeah I play 3.5. Lots of options, large community dedicated to exploring those options. I like complicated mechanics, but I enjoy other RPGs too, and I'm not under the delusion that 3.5 can be adapted to play every type of game, there are plenty of RPGs that work better for certain things.

Preferably, I play in Eberron, which whether you like 3.5 or not, is a great setting with solid in-game material.

Could be worse, they could be playing pathfinder.

Literally had a guy on FB tell me that hes not interested in playing 5e cause "it's a shit edition, it doesn't have flexibility". When I asked why it's shit he replied, "I prefer pathfinder". I asked him what you can do in pathfinder that you can't in 5e. No reply.

>>55112370
>look at anime tiddy

He probably got distracted, it's cool

>>55112370
>I asked him what you can do in pathfinder that you can't in 5e.
Have numbers scale so that shitty untrained chucklefucks aren't beating the best of the best more often than they have any right to. Also can't use ToB or PoW for 5E without nerfing them to the point where I wouldn't want to bother.

>>55108297
me :D

i prefer dungeon world, tough.

>>55108297
3.5 is pretty fun with the Tier 1 and Tier 2s banned

>>55112370
>I asked him what you can do in pathfinder that you can't in 5e.
Play any equivalent to the T3 classes from 3.5 and not feel like you're playing a shit knockoff class. Bard is the only exception and that's because it's blatantly overpowered in 5E.

>>55112252
Pleb taste

>>55108297
I still at times play 1 e.

>>55112252
>>55112252

So.. Shit is 3.pf?

>>55108297
People who haven't played gurps

>>55112217

ROM/Merc MUD

I hate you for your choice of systems, but I am so glad to see that there are still people who remember those.

>>55113832

Nah, I play 3.5 and I've played GURPS. They're surprisingly similar games, but GURPS fans seem to have this weird fixation on it. It really isn't all that special, and I see no reason to play it over 3.5 for my fantasy games.

>>55112292
Do you know what the sunk cost fallacy is? Because it doesn't sound like you do with talk of "no support."

Also the "I don't have to pay anything therefore no cost" only applies if you're agreeing that your time is worthless.

I have this weird occasional urge to pick it up again, only somehow make it good. I then remember that my issues with it run deeper than just class balance (which is easy enough to fix with widespread class banning).

File: diggy.png (70KB, 285x335px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 285x335px

>>55114042
Are you implying D&D is a waste of time?

File: cattypes.gif (929KB, 500x388px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 500x388px

>>55113879
Hell yea family I spent the first half of the 2000s (early 20s) on Aabahran: The Forsaken lands and a couple others. Excellent quest class / quest race / cabal system and brutal PVP. A bit too brutal desu. The game is still up, but it's basically crack cocaine to me.

>>55112326
I think I'll be doing something along these lines, thanks. I've had no clue how strictly people run their games. Good to hear by the book is generally frowned upon.

>>55113797
Pathfinder. It's basically a fork from 3.5 for people who didn't like 4e's rule changes.

>>55112252
Why is 3.5 higher than 5e?

>>55113890
gurps: dungeon fantasy is better d&d then d&d.

And it isn't made for crab-people.

File: 1497629078440.jpg (473KB, 1024x1444px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 1024x1444px

>>55114157
The way I see it, there's no judge at the table to make sure you're following any of the books to a T. That's always been the thrill of 3.5 for me, just how much content you have to pull from, and how open the game is to homebrew.

>>55114189
Bounded accuracy is shit, and level caps are shit.

>>55114042
Sure, you've suck a bunch of time and money and effort into something, and don't want to change because of that.

Except you are actually GETTING things back for the money you spend, - more splats, more books, more tools, more toys. You don't lack for players, you don't lack for tools to work with, and you don't lack for opportunities to use it. Unlike 4e, where youy paid a huge amount of money for an unsupported, broken system that no one cares about except people who paid a ton of money for a broken and unsupported system.

So who sunk money into a worthless system?

>>55114424
What's wrong with bounded accuracy? It keeps the numbers of the game from overflowing into complete meaningless insanity and ensures that the math always remains functional (AC never becomes irrelevant, for instance).

Also what about level caps?

>>55108297
Yeah. It's called pathfinder.

>>55114468
It also makes dice the deciding factor because bonuses aren't even trying to keep pace and makes the skill system a complete fucking shitshow for the majority of the game and for everyone without Expertise. The idea that someone could look at 3.5's stat check system running headfirst into problems because of how low the numbers it worked with were and think "Hmm yes this is a good idea to base everything in the new system around" is mindboggling when it was absolutely one of the worst parts of 3.5.

>>55110403
>tfw live with parents in my 20s
>tfw dad has good job so he bought all the 3.5 books
>ALL of them
>over 100 books, no joke
>3.5 might suck rules-wise but I love it anyway
>have 10 year campaign with family
>make NPCs with different prestige classes for them to go against in their adventures
>want to do a ToB / psionics campaign
>want to run something in Faerun cause we have the books for it
>worried I won't be able to

>>55114665
And bonuses only started to achieve predictable results in 3.5 when the game started to fall in on itself.

>>55112252
3.5 > 5e > 2e > 4e > 1e

>I asked him what you can do in pathfinder that you can't in 5e. No reply.
Play a mystic theurge. Play a duskblade (eldritch knight doesn't have spell channeling). Play a scout (shit class but it was fun getting extra damage for moving). Can't set off a locate city bomb (not that any DM would allow that anyway). Can't crawl up someone's anus. I know half these things are ridiculous but the point is there is far more customization in 3.5 that was removed in 5e to make it easier to play. Except more options does not inherently make a game more complicated. Or even more unbalanced if you're smart about it. Wizards of the Coast thinks that when they make a mistake, their lack of ability to execute an idea means that idea is bad. This fallacy has led to the schizophrenic pendulum of 3.5 --> 4e ---> 5e being a return to 3.5 while 4e was trying to break away from it.

5e objectively improves a lot of things (no retard bonus spells table, attack / saves rolled into one stat, size-based HD, undead have Con score, Dex bonus to ranged damage) but holy shit is it boring as fuck.

What REALLY sucks is Pathfinder. It improves a couple things but makes everything else worse, doesn't have nearly the breadth of content of 3.5, is far less aesthetic, and the fucking SRD being free online for all splats means my players can spend hours wiki-rolling it to find new broken shit half of which is 3rd party and I have to ban.

>>55114468
Nothing is wrong with it in concept, it's just overdone in 5e. Should have been 1/2 level + 2.

>>55114783
You know on the note of things you can't do in 5e that you could in 3.5, the Eldritch Knight. The Eldritch Knight in 3.5 was basically a full wizard that could fight semi-decently, which is something 5e seems to suck out loud at.

I probably would if I knew anybody who wanted to.

Back in it's heyday I played so much I literally had the game and about four campaigns worth of modules memorized, and could just improve an entire 1-20 game on system knowledge and stolen plot elements from pop-culture.

Then 4e and Pathfinder happened. Pathfinder I never got into, because to my eyes it was never anything more than a shittier version of 3.5 as a blatant cash-grab for people who didn't like the direction 4e was taking the franchise. 4e was.... interesting, but I never really got into it.

And for some reason, absolutely nobody I know stuck with 3rd/3.5. Every single one either went to pathfinder or 4th. So I kinda moved onto sci-fi.

Been interested in checking out 5th though. Haven't found a group for it yet though.

>>55114804
Eldritch knight as an archetype instead of a PrC is a REALLY cool idea that I got on board with. Then I learned it kinda sucked, and got really salty at its stupid bonded weapon feature. I fucking hate half the design for 5e, there are so many cool ideas mixed in with so much shit it's unbelievable.

>>55114819
Honestly, I'm annoyed at 5e for continuing the weird character building, char-op minigame of S&P 2e, 3.5, and 4e.

>>55108297
Unfortunately. My DM is stuck in his ways and will only play 3.5 and Star Wars d20.

It sucks. He barely understands the system and doesn't understand magic at all. I hate the game but I have to learn every little rule so that we can actually play instead of reading rulebooks for 4 hours.

Our group consists of two casters and a rogue and he has no idea how to handle us. He won't learn the CR system so he randomly chooses monsters from the monster manual and if their bonus to damage is higher than our health he just removes it.

I tried to get him to switch to 5e just for the simpler and cleaner rules but no. "I don't want to learn new rules and we already made it this far do you really want to change your character".

>>55113890
>They're surprisingly similar games
I'm GMing 3.5 and GURPS right now and no, that's not even remotelly true.

E.g:

>3.5, first level group
Fighter: 'i'll grapple him!'
Me: 'have you any realated feat?'
Fighter: 'nope'
Me:'alright, then aoo it is... (roll) he hit you first, your action failed'

>gurps, 100p hystorical pirate game
Pirateguy: 'i'll smash a bottle onto his skull!'
Me: 'cool. Since you wanna do it as fast as you can count it as an aoa. Roll for it!'

...as you can se the first case (3'5) punishes creative tactics, the second (gurps) actually encurage them.

>>55115618
would you say 5e encourages creative tactics?

>>55115673
I don't know since i didn't have the opportunity to play it so far

>>55115618
Do you think gurps is faster than 3.5?

File: Improvised Actions and Combat Contests (special attacks etc).png (721KB, 712x672px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 712x672px

>>55115673
It's extremely DM dependent, but it beats 3.5e.
3.5e comes with stuff like grapple, shove, and other maneuvers like that castrated in the core rules, and then you need several feats for the action to even occasionally be good.

In 5e, as you can see in image related, how the DM chooses to interpret your creativity is very much up to them, but is based on Grapple and Shove as examples.
Grapple and Shoved are just keyed to the Athletics skill, and don't need anything else to do the job well enough. (You can get Expertise, but that's excessive.)
And since the way they scale is the same the way attacks scale, the comparison is often easier; if you're proficient in Athletics and you're STR based, you're gonna have exactly the same bonus for your grapple/shove as for attacks - and then the comparison just becomes what effect do i want in this situation? 1d10+3 damage, push the dude into the pit, knock him prone, or grapple him?

>>55108297
Yes. It's the best edition.

>>55115930
There are pros and cons.

In my case GMing gurps will require more prep time for a campaign but then the game run smoothly

3.5 game in the other hand is easier to build up but then it get progressively slugghish the more it advance (characters level up and get new stuff to remember. Also the ecounters get more complex due to growth of options)

>>55114783
>Play a mystic theurge.
Mystic Theurge in 5e is as simple as taking Cleric+Wizard levels (or taking the Mystic Theurge path for wizards). You won't suck donkey balls for the first 10 levels either. You won't have spellcasting failure chance in heavy armor if you can use it. You'll actually eventually get 9th level slots.

>Play a duskblade (eldritch knight doesn't have spell channeling).

It has a different "attack and cast at the same time" feature called Action Surge. You also got bladespells and the bladesinger.

> Play a scout (shit class but it was fun getting extra damage for moving).

Virtually identical to the rogue. I think Rogue even has a Scout archetype in one of the UAs, but not sure.

>>55114460
>Except you are actually GETTING things back for the money you spend, - more splats, more books, more tools, more toys

Which take more time and more money.

This is literally the sunk cost fallacy at work.

> Unlike 4e, where youy paid a huge amount of money

I have never in my life paid for any 4e content... Because it came out when I was still a pennyless NEET.


>.. for an unsupported

It has all the support it needs.

>broken system

"broken" in a thread discussing 3.5? Are you serious?

>rest

Why do you repeat yourself? It won't make anything you say any more true.

>>55116836
>You'll actually eventually get 9th level slots.

You could get that in 3.5 with just by not splitting the levels evenly, so you'd wind up with 9th in one class and 6th in the other.

>>55116872
You were lagging behind in slots by 3-4 levels all the way though, which made your save DCs lower. I mean, even a 3-4 levels behind fullcaster is fucking bullshit in 3.x land, but you were still effectively nerfing yourself.

Which just doesn't happen in 5e. If you take 1-3 or so cleric levels you can still get 9th level wizard spells IIRC and you still got spell scaling by slots built in for your low level spells, which is a lot more useful.

And, again, that's without the actual Mystic Theurge wizard, which can just do whatever it wants.

>>55116836
>It has a different "attack and cast at the same time" feature called Action Surge.
This is bad and you should feel bad for pretending that attacking and then separately casting a spell on a class whose offensive spells are absolute shit once every hour at best is equivalent to a class that's better at spellcasting in the first place being able to channel touch attack spells through attacks until they run out of spells. You'd have to be literally retarded to think they're equivalent.

>>55117575
Blade spells are your "channel touch attack spells through weapon attack". Because 5e has these, it doesn't need the Duskblade's feature. It is redundant. Heck, touch attacks don't even exist as a thing, at best it's a "melee spell attack".

>>55117594
>it doesn't need the Duskblade's feature.
Except for all the melee spells that aren't blade spells that would work if it was in 3.5 and it being one of multiple Duskblade features. So yeah, it does need it if you're looking for a Duskblade replacement.

>>55108297
I DM 3.5 campaign, it's currently on hiatus because people are on holidays but we're resuming in October. It's been fun and it's going to be fun.

>>55117699
By the time he gets ones that are worth the action over just using a bladespell (because Shocking grasp sure as hell ain't) he'll have the feature that lets him do a bonus attack after it, which is probably close enough for a game that actually does not want you to fuck with the action economy.

Heck, thinking about it, if you go EK-> wizard after getting that feature, you end up with higher total level of spells than duskblade even.

>>55112217
e b e r r o n

>>55117729
>you end up with higher total level of spells than duskblade even.
And significantly less combat ability than the Duskblade so it's STILL not a fucking stand-in for them, it's just something vaguely similar but shittier.

>>55117779
>And significantly less combat ability than the Duskblade

Everyone has significantly less combat ability in 5e than in 3.5. This is normal, because 5e is a lot less high powered game. An EK-wizard is not far behind at all, when comparing to other characters in 5e (which is what you should be comparing it to).

>>55117800
Congrats on defeating your own argument. When someone says they want a Duskblade, they don't mean "I want a vaguely similar gish that's fucking trash at doing everything the Duskblade does". They want a Duskblade. Dancing around that and then calling the Duskblade theoretically overpowered in 5E(it wouldn't be) is not helping your case.

File: DnFqo.jpg (137KB, 737x737px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 737x737px

>>55108297
I still skim through my 3rd edition and Forgotten Realms books. It seems so close to me, that "silver age".

Then I realise last 3rd ed fr books came a decade ago, and the days when we mocked 4th edition is gone, people shit on paizo who was worshipped back then, no one talks about dragonlance, ravenloft, darksun, planescape anymore.

Gods I never thought I woudl be a grognard, grognards were the weird dudes who boasted how butifel AD&D was, not me no. Fuck..

>>55117844
It absolutely would be OP, it has stacking self-buffs, that alone puts it past most of the casters.

EK->wizard does everything a Duskblade does that is possible to do in 5e thematically and mechanically. Asking for action economy breaking shit in a game that actually kinda sorta tries to respect it is futile, just as much as asking for the rest of the broken shit is.

>>55117864
>people shit on paizo who was worshipped back then
>IMPLYING
I was shittalking them during PF's own alpha and long before that because of how godawfully balanced Dragon Magazine content was 99% of the time.

>>55117875
Obviously ported to use Concentration and the like you fucking retard.

>>55117881
In that case, what is missing? Is that extra bonus action cost for blade channeling really that much of a deal breaker?

>>55117876
Kudos to you, there were always complainers but general attitude was positive, similar to occasionally shitted 5th edition today, maybe 10 years later everyone will tell how they hated it since 2015. My biggest beef is with settings than systems

Sad thing is, people talk what is published, that gets more the most, far more than a system being shat on. I do believe there is a reason why Warhammer and WoD is popular, not that I hate them, I like Warhammer I like owod esspecially.

But cut the books, materials and people will forget it, I don't expect obscure settings like ars magica to reach bump limit, but boy it pisses me off to not see planescape-darksun etc threads. They are forgotten.

Ironically forgotten realms is having a comeback, with all the official 5th ed materials, 2008-2014 was truly the dark ages of the realms, now some FR lore videos get a few thousands views.

I'm just sad that old worlds die. Systems come and go, you can play Planescape at any system, but the actual fictions disapperance gives me the grognard rage.

>>55117884
Quick casting, full attack arcane channeling(which is going to be worse no matter what because Duskblade would be a 2 attack class in 5E, but 2 spells on 2 different targets if 2 of them are in melee range is better than being permanently stuck with 1), +X to spell resistance checks, more castings/day in exchange for a limited spell list and less power overall.

There is no way that weapon dice+STR or DEX added to melee spells on a class that is far less durable than actual melee classes is going to break things because two classes with spells dedicated to doing that aren't breaking the game with it.

>>55115618
>aoa.
?

>>55117961
All Out Attack

File: image.jpg (109KB, 693x390px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 693x390px

>>55112370
You can't play Spiderman in 5e :^)

>>55117933
>Quick casting, full attack arcane channeling(which is going to be worse no matter what because Duskblade would be a 2 attack class in 5E, but 2 spells on 2 different targets if 2 of them are in melee range is better than being permanently stuck with 1),

Maybe EK->sorc instead, since Quicken and Twin can do that, Maybe skip EK entirely and go Sorcadin, smites also have a similar effect. You do lose out on being INT based then, I guess.

>+X to spell resistance checks

I'm not even sure what the equivalent in 5e would be. Do you mean breaking through SR, or making saves? Or having Resistance to spells?

>more castings/day in exchange for a limited spell list

Yeah, that's not a thing. I guess Sorcery points kinda do that tho.

>>55118059
>+X to spell resistance checks

Actually, Sorcadin would help here too, they can get +CHA to all saves.

>>55114783
>Play a mystic theurge.
Arcane domain cleric, or Theurgy school Wizard.
>Play a duskblade
Hexblade Bladelock.
>Play a scout
Scout Fighter.

>>55118059
Spell Power is +X to break through spell resistance so it'd be best modeled by ignoring the Magic Resistance feature. Highly situational, but it's better than nothing and gives them a niche that other spellcasters don't get.

>>55118174
Bladelock sucks at modeling Duskblade and you know it.

>>55116836
>It has a different "attack and cast at the same time" feature called Action Surge.
Yeah. Once a day.
>Virtually identical to the rogue. I think Rogue even has a Scout archetype in one of the UAs, but not sure.
Hahahaha no it really wasn't. Holy shit, by that logic fucking Ranger is identical to the rogue.
>Mystic Theurge in 5e is as simple as taking Cleric+Wizard levels (or taking the Mystic Theurge path for wizards).
Could do that in 3.5 as well. Point is 3.5 had a mystic theurge PrC that gave you spells from both classes at the same time.
>mystic theurge path for wizards in 5e
Now that's a new one on me.

>>55118174
>Arcane domain cleric
>theurgy school wizard
Neither of those are even close to the same thing. Both give a domain which is a small number of spells. A mystic theurge had full access to both spell lists and was arguably OP as fuck.
>Hexblade Bladelock.
I fail to find where it can channel spells through it's weapon for extra damage.
>Scout fighter
Doesn't have skirmish. I might as well play a ranger if we're going to be that vague about what constitutes a "scout"

>>55115618
>using different actions for each example
>purposely picking the weak and strong points to highlight your example
Kill yourself. I like GURPS but I want to hate it because of your shitty fucking example.

>>55119174
This is all low hanging fruit too so the fact that 5E can't do most of it unless you squint reaaaaally hard or homebrew everything is embarrassing.

Now for things that actually matter: how about Binder? Dragonfire Adept? Totemist? Factotum? Wildshape Ranger? Tashalatora Psychic Warrior? Master of Many Forms? Literally anything from Tome of Battle? Dread Necromancer? You couldn't include a single one of those in 5E without nerfing them so badly they wouldn't resemble the same class in play, and this is just 3.5. Broaden it to PF and you've immediately got Alchemist, Magus, and Inquisitor. Can't do those either, and I'm not even fucking leaving T3.

>>55119246
Improvised actions in 3.5 suck cock so even if you equalized it 3.5 would still look worse.

>>55119174
>>55119229
>I want to play X
>no, not the concept of X
>not the archetypical representation of X
>I want 1-for-1 identical mechanics of "X" from this other system

Geez, you can't play a Samurai unless there's a class with its name? Can't use a Fighter?
Do you really need a class named Scout with a Precision Strike, instead of using a rogue?

No wonder the fluff/crunch segregation of 4e made you mad. You can't refluff for your life.

File: 1480848448050.png (6MB, 4000x3400px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 4000x3400px

>>55108297

Still playing a weekly game we started back in like 2012. Everyone has stuck with it because we all enjoy playing our characters. It's an evil campaign so we are always horrible to each other, much fun.

That being said I think when this game finishes I think I will probably be done with 3.5

>>55119323
Refluffing only works if the mechanics work for what he wanted to do in the first place. How's that supposed to help someone with major issues with the game's mechanics?

>>55119323
In three or four years, 5e is probably going to have a bunch of niche classes that can't be 100% accurately recreated in 3.5 because of unique mechanics

Heck, it arguably already does with things such as the Diviner Wizard and Battle Master Fighter

>>55119246
Very well:

>3.5 first level group
Fighter: 'i'll smash a bottle onto his head'
Me: 'a bottle count as an improvised weapon so it's like you don't have a proficiency on it: roll your attack with a -4. No you can't aim for the head since this rulesystem has an abstract combat resolution, do you remember when i explayned how hp works?'
Figher: '(roll) i hitted him!"
Me: 'neat. You deal 1d3 + str mod. of damage'
Fighter: 'thats all? Did i stun him at least?'
Me: 'nope. Did have i to explain again how hp works?'
Fighter: 'damn, maybe grapple him would be a smarter move'
Me: 'have you any related feats?'
...

>>55119717
You could port those mechanics to 3.5 and not explode the game or have people REEEEEEE about it, though. Plus BM is irrelevant when Warblade does everything it does a hundred times better and more often.

>>55119832
"3.x is so busted, you can't break it further by porting balanced mechanics" isn't exactly a point in favor of the system.

>>55119860
It's not a point in favor of 5E when porting things that balanced 3.5 out instantly breaks 5E, either.

>>55119860
>"3.x is so busted, you can't break it further by porting balanced mechanics" isn't exactly a point in favor of the system.

TOB is one of the most balanced parts of 3.5 you mong.

Full casters, CODzilla especially, were the main issue of 3.5. In general, Gish classes were where 3.5 shined.

>>55119884
>>55119900
I'm saying that a mechanic that's balanced in 5e is very damn likely to be balanced in 3.5, but a mechanic balanced in 3.5 is going to bust 5e.

The games simply have a different power level and core assumptions. How the fuck is this hard to understand?

>>55119954
Not just a lie, but a blatant lie. Nice. Spellcasters in 5E being weaker than 3.5 spellcasters doesn't mean they're not still beyond everyone else from 3.5.

>>55119560
>mechanics
Heck, he wants a concept character or a mechanic from other system? It is dumb to complain that a mechanic from other system isn't in this system.

>>55120001
Yes, but porting stuff that was balanced compared to the super busted casters of 3.5 doesn't mean it'll be balanced compared to the less busted classes of 5e, especially when you want to port a class wholesale, and not just discrete abilities that in themselves may turn out to be okay.

>>55108297
Its all my players want to play, so yeah.

>>55120043
>that was balanced compared to the super busted casters of 3.5
No, they were balanced compared to monsters and non-Outsider/Dragon monsters arguably got stronger in 5E on multiple levels.

>>55119954
This entire thing started because of some retard implying that 5E could do everything PF(and 3.5) could. If you disagree with that, which obviously you do, why the fuck are you even arguing in the first place?

>>55120416
But it can. Porting a Duskblade or something is fucking easy. You're not complaining that 5E doesn't have as much material as a game that has been on the market for 10 years, are you?

>>55120541
Duskblade is also going to be majorly nerfed by the transition no matter what, so...

File: giphy[1].gif (425KB, 493x370px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 493x370px

I left all my 3.5 sourcebooks in the closet of my high school's band room after graduating in 2006. I was at the 10-year reunion last summer and noticed that not only were they still there, but there were 3 more 3rd party books, a dice box and a folder full of character sheets. Even if it's the shittiest D&D edition, seeing that put a smile on my face.

>>55120594
>This game with an intentionally lower power level has a lower power level!
no shit, sherlock
Try porting a duskblade to Call of Cthulhu

>>55120633
>all casters in 5E are still more powerful than Duskblade 20 in 3.5 even with 3.5's much more powerful spells
>Hurrr the power level is lower of course it's going to be worse!

>>55120664
Anon, my solar can literally punch a 3.5 caster out of existence :^)

>>55112252
The only way to play pretend is to play 5e

>>55114804
ugh yes you can, if you take 3 level in eldritch knight and the rest in wizard you lose exactly the same amount of caster levels (2) as you did in 3.5 when making that build.

if you wanna be a bit more fighty you can take 6 level in EK and the rest in wizard, only losing 4 caster levels

or you can play a bladesinger

don't blame 5e because you don't know how to make a character

>>55120875
You also gain no attacks from EK without crapping on your levels so on the martial side it's fundamentally weaker than it was in 3.5.

>>55120915
get the green flame blade cantrip you fucking moron, get haste, actually read the fucking book

>>55120988
>2, 3 with buffs>4 unbuffed
>guys am I smart yet

>>55120915
Iteratives in 3.5 were made at lower BaB though, so a full BaB in 3.5 is more like one and a half extra attacks in 5E in the most favorable conditions for 3.5. Additionally you can move and full attack in 5E. So if you take Eldritch Knight12/Wizard 8 you're at 2 Extra attacks which beats the output of a full martial in 3.5 and have CL-equivalent of level 12, which gives you 6th level slots and 4th level spells with more casting goodies from wizard. So you'll have roughly the magical punch of a duskblade, better martial skills and a shitton more flexibility due to wizard 8.

Frankly anon, just go fucking neck yourself.

>>55121018
green flame blade ends up adding 3d8 to your mele attacks plus doing 3d8+int to another adjacent target(no roll here its just hits)

a fighter can attack 4 times

the fighter has to roll 4 times posibly missing a few hits

the wizard rolls only ones (with advantage every time because a familiar can give that every turn) but ends up doing either the same or more damage

am i missing something?

im not saying the fighty mage compleately outclases the fighty man but are you seriously telling me that not comparable damage output?

>>55121086
>Iteratives in 3.5 were made at lower BaB though
This is a problem for (bad) martials, not for gishes, and you also hit much harder in 3.5 than you do in 5E.

>>55121120
You're looking at the 5E Fighter and not the class it's actually being compared to.

>>55121128
>This is a problem for (bad) martials
Unless you're literally cheating your BaB won't be 15 higher than average AC, which it would take to negate the disadvantage lower BaB on iteratives represents.

>you also hit much harder in 3.5
Outside a few very specific power buillds, no you don't (in relation to Monster HP/rounds to Monster Death)

>>55112292
>b-but 4e
every time

Why are pathfags so obsessed with 4e? Don't they realize 5e has massively surpassed pathfinder in popularity and quality?

>>55121185
>Unless you're literally cheating your BaB won't be 15 higher than average AC
No that's actually really easy to do. It's very easy for a gish to tote around huge attack bonuses. This is obviously ignoring blatant cheese like Persistent Wraithstrike.
>(in relation to Monster HP/rounds to Monster Death)
Dude what

In 3.5 even a fucking vanilla Fighter with a greatsword kills enemies in 2 rounds of full contact no sweat. Good luck doing that without spending all of your action surges and superiority die in 5E, ever.

>>55121179
the 3.5 EK is a wizard that exchanges 2 caster levels for having hp comparable to the rogue and bab comparable to the cleric, making him a shitty fighter and an ok wizard

5e 3lvl ek/17lvl wiz has a comparable melee utility to a full fighter, same "bab", can use armor and its just as good a wizard as the 3.5 one, and if you pick abjurer and the right spells has comparable hitpoint

questions?

>>55117864
>paizo who was worshipped back then
>pathfags trying this hard every thread to change history

unless you're talking about other forums, no, paizo was shat upon here on /tg/, just less than 4e was shat upon.
Truly, the worst time to be alive, on one side, pathfinder, where you could see the game actively getting worse because the developers were retarded, and on the other side, 4e with its everybody is a caster mechanics.

>>55121358
>making him a shitty fighter
If BAB and HD predicted how effective you were at melee combat. They don't.

>>55121520
>hitting and tanking is not what defines a frontline fighter

pain must be really tasty where you live

>>55121602
paint*

File: Memri_3.5.jpg (108KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 480x336px

>>55112252
Shit > D&D
Tfu.

>>55121520
I can't even be mad at you. I pity you, delusional madman.

>>55121602
BAB isn't the main determining factor in whether you hit or not, let alone how effective your hits are, and HD is the second least important part of being able to take hits. This isn't a breakthrough discovery or anything, you should know this if you know anything about 3.5.

Rules Cyclopedia is still the best edition desu.

>>55121699
i played 3.5 for years (now playing PF), but I never thought too much about the system, just rolled with whatever came at me, that being said I never played on too high levels.

please tell me what makes a hit and what makes survivability because i have no idea.

>>55121854
>please tell me what makes a hit
Primary stat, class features, buffs, magic weapons, then BAB. Most 3/4 BAB classes are compensated somewhere else and it's often much stronger than just full BAB: Clerics get personal buffs out the ass(including one that gives full BAB), Druids get Wild Shape and an animal companion, Rogues get Sneak Attack, and so on. When that doesn't happen you get the Monk.

>what makes survivability
Defenses from spells>saving throws>miss chance>>>>>HP>>>AC. HP and AC are nice and while you want at least some of both if you're going to be on the frontline, they're nothing compared to a casting of Displacement or Mirror Image.

>>55121655
Hey, you want to think your Fighter is a better frontliner than the other guy over there that's going INYUKCHUK, growing to the size of a cloud giant, and then falcon punching(for double damage) the shit out of literally every single enemy who tries to move around him, all in the same turn, because the Fighter has full BAB and a d10 HD instead of 3/4 and a d8? Be my guest.

>>55119323
>mechanics don't matter at all
>no one enjoys playing a class for the mechanics
>if you enjoy game mechanics you're a roll-playing power gamer
Get the fuck out. No, get your worthless fucking ass off this board and never come back. I don't powergame. I don't make obscure builds with 2 level dips in nine different prestige classes. Stop with this "lol fiction first" mentality (which basically just means "lol nat20 orc guard sucks my cock hahaha are we making a good story yet guise?" bullshit) and making fun of anyone who enjoyed the game mechanics of a class. Hang yourself in your closet.

>Geez, you can't play a Samurai unless there's a class with its name? Can't use a Fighter?
No, nigger. Because a samurai has got cool stuff that makes it a samurai, like Kiai shout and shit. Samurai might have been the worst class in 3.5 but it had stuff that made is a samurai, not a fighter. No, I don't want to use a fucking fighter when i want to play a samurai. Make a fucking samurai archetype for fighter that gives me kiai shout and automatic katana proficiency? Fine, but don't expect me to "refluff" everything, then count that as a credit to 5e for being so "open" and "hack-able." I could make new classes in 3.5, too, faggot. There's nothing magical about 5e. Go take a look at the dozens of shitty classes on dandwiki. You're more a brainlet than they are.

>Do you really need a class named Scout with a Precision Strike, instead of using a rogue?
Scout had skirmish, not precision strike, are you fucking high? It was a COMPLETELY different mechanic from sneak attack, but you'll just see "extra damage dice" and equate it to the same thing because you never played any of these classes, as NPC or PC, so you wouldn't fucking know.

>>55119798
Yeah because smashing a bottle on someone's head is a stupid fucking idea if they have a sword or other weapon. I'm sorry, should a bottle be dealing super stun damage because it's a CREATIVE idea? Why shouldn't I just keep using that bottle throughout the rest of the dungeon if I can stunlock people with it?

Your entire argument is "3.5 doesn't fellate me when I try to do stupid shit." Cool, neither does any other edition of D&D. Now fuck off.

>>55120622
>10 year high school reunions
Why do you go to these? They're just a dick/wife-comparing contest. I talk to the people from high school I care about, the rest could die in a fire and I'd feel nothing. I just don't understand that shit. You were stuck in the same government indoctrination ward for 4 years, why do you need to see them again? Do people get laid from HS reunions? I just don't get it. Probably because I'm autistic

>>55120757
>The only way to play pretend is to play 5e
Yeah, you pretend you're playing a fun game.

>>55119298
Smashing a bottle is literally no different than in GURPS. It just happens at a penalty. You could argue for removing the penalty. I'd agree with you. But otherwise no difference. Unlike this stupid cuck who thinks bottles should stun people. GURPS has stun for all weapons, D&D doesn't and stunning is very powerful in 3.5. Why wouldn't I just keep using the bottle if I can stunlock people with it?

>>55119284
Agreed. 5e has fuck all for classes unless you homebrew (which is Wizards' way of saying "you do all the work, and put it on DM's guild so we can jew you out of money for what you created). I hope WotC headquarters is near a superfund site so they all get cancer. They deserve it.

>>55122593
Why pick up a bottle at all if it's no better than punching people?

>>55119246
>FUCK YOU, YOUR ARGUMENT DIDN'T USE THE SAME EXAMPLE YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO PICK WEAK POINTS
>>55122497
>LOL WHO CARES LMAO USING A BOTTLE IS RETARTED, JUST USE YOUR SWORD YOU SPERG
Holy fuck the autism.

Been playing the same 3.5 campaign since 2012, most of our first experiences with D&D. Everything went pretty well until post level 10 where we had figured out what's shit and what wasn't. Not knowing what I was getting into, I picked wizard as my class. We had some bans on very clearly broken shit (initiate of the sevenfold veil for instance) but the real turning point was when I wiped a whole encounter with one spell. It was then a slow burn of nerfs, tweaks, and buffs until we basically threw out character classes and feats. Now our character sheets look like monster manual entries. If someone has something out of balance it gets changed without worrying about sources, items, feats, or anything. We still use feats and class abilities but worry more about it fitting the character and keeping balance than check if a character qualifies for the feat or class. And the shit load of sourcebooks keeps ideas fresh and the combat system works well enough for our purposes.

TL;DR 2012 campaign still running using heavily modified 3.5 as our base system.

>>55112237

In the bottom of the dumpster where it belongs.

>>55122497
>I'm sorry, should a bottle be dealing super stun damage because it's a CREATIVE idea?

Super stun? No. Little stunned or maybe distracted? Why not? Afterall is a FUCKING BOTTLE SMASHED OVER YOUR TEMPLE. Jesus! It's fucking common sense!

By the way i have NOTHING against 3.5: it rely on a different abstraction level and thats it. I never stated that Gurps is plain better, i just pointed out how the systems differ you moron

Threadly reminder that 2e is GOAT edition

>>55122891
Because there is basically no difference in 3.5 and GURPS. People think that "omg you take a penalty" is somehow too complicated.

>>55122647
Yeah it should deal a d4.

>>55123362
>losing an entire 6 seconds
>stunlocking is more powerful than damage in most cases
>a bottle should do this
>but a warhammer shouldn't
>why? because a bottle is CREATIVE and a warhammer isn't

> I never stated that Gurps is plain better, i just pointed out how the systems differ you moron
Yeah:

GURPS
>player: ok i want to smash with bottle
>DM: Okay roll All out attack +4
>player: rolls, adds up 3d6, gets 10
>DM: ok you hit, now to roll dodge
>*dodge fails*
>DM: ok you deal sw - 1 cut damage.
>player: rolls 4
>DM: ok he has armor so that subtracts 2 from that ok now to multiple by 2 for cut damage oh and he takes -2 on his attacks for 1 round cause Shock... or is it 4 for the total damage? hmm let me check

D&D 3.5
>player: i want to smash with bottle
>DM: ok roll at -4 cause it's an improvised weapon
>player: ok i got a 14
>DM: ok you hit roll d3 + Str for damage
>player: ok I got 4 damage
>DM: ok

>>55123677
>Because there is basically no difference in 3.5 and GURPS

3.5 bottle smashed = 1d3 generic damage

Gurps bottle smashed over foe's temple = strike as a knobbed club at -2 damage, a hit to the skull can knockdown on failure over HT -10 check. Even if foe resists it gets a penality equal to the damage (max -4).

...yeah, no difference at all

>>55122383
>>55121994
ok and how is this suposed to argue that you cant play a EK in 5e? how is the Eldritch knight not getting the same or more in terms of thsi kinds of bonuses as the fighter?

the original argument was that you cant play a EK in 5e like you coudl in 3.5

>>55123793
>losing an entire 6 seconds
>stunlocking is more powerful than damage in most cases
>a bottle should do this
>but a warhammer shouldn't
>why? because a bottle is CREATIVE and a warhammer isn't

It's just an example you moron, stop strawmaning it. I stated that d&d 3.5 works on a different level of abstraction and i never said tha it should work differently.
By the way it never happened to you? A new player says something like 'i try to kick the foe in the nuts!'. I assume then you go bananas saying how much he's stupid or how much stupid a naturally concevable manouvre is just because the system itself doesn't cover it.

> I never stated that Gurps is plain better, i just pointed out how the systems differ you moron
>Yeah:

>GURPS
>player: ok i want to smash with bottle
>DM: Okay roll All out attack +4
>player: rolls, adds up 3d6, gets 10
>DM: ok you hit, now to roll dodge
>*dodge fails*
>DM: ok you deal sw - 1 cut damage.
>player: rolls 4
>DM: ok he has armor so that subtracts 2 from that ok now to multiple by 2 for cut damage oh and he takes -2 on his attacks for 1 round cause Shock... or is it 4 for the total damage? hmm let me check

Less complicated than you picture it

>D&D 3.5
>reasonable player: i want to smash with bottle
>DM: ok roll at -4 cause it's an improvised weapon
>reasonable player: ok i got a 14
>DM: ok you hit roll d3 + Str for damage
>reasonable player: ok I got 4 damage
>DM: ok

Here, i corrected it for you

>>55122465
UMAD?

>No, nigger. Because a samurai has got cool stuff that makes it a samurai, like Kiai shout and shit.
>No, I don't want to use a fucking fighter when i want to play a samurai. Make a fucking samurai archetype for fighter that gives me kiai shout and automatic katana proficiency?
But fighters already have Action Surge and proficiency with longswords.

>>55123391
Agreed. I never read any of the actual materials, but did memorize the Dungeon Hack CRPG manual and crawled my way through dozens of levels of dungeons while watching Must See TV back in the 90s. (Also, Wizardry 7.)

The classes are a lot more balanced and I think there was a more original tone to the work. Epic relics had stories attached to them, and they were rare. 4e was for children and I haven't bothered to glance at 5e. 3.5 is of course overpowered unless the GM bans certain things, even classes. A rule I set out for 3.5 is mandatory multiclass: if you absolutely must play a Cleric, you're limited to taking five levels. XP penalty does not apply.