Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

[Randall Fragg]

Looking back on it, what changes would this thread make to 3.5 to make it a viable alternative to 5e or OSR?
You know, aside from “buff martials so they can do their jobs” standard.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Looking back on it, what changes would this thread make to 3.5 to make it a viable alternative to 5e or OSR?
You know, aside from “buff martials so they can do their jobs” standard.

Retool the entire system to remove the "Ivory Tower" (aka system mastery) school of game design introduced by Monte Cook, whereby he intentionally, deliberately, sowed the game with newbie traps in character progression, such as completely worthless feats and sub-optimal weapons, to make veterans feel like they were mastering the game with an inflated sense of self-worth, while punishing newer players for their ignorance of the game, while also making the rules intentionally obtuse rather than just telling you what you needed to do. This design philosophy has been a disaster for the industry.

And also fix his obsession with spell casters and completely rebalance all of the classes.

(edit: spelling)

 

[Mr. Manchester]

Looking back on it, what changes would this thread make to 3.5 to make it a viable alternative to 5e or OSR?
You know, aside from “buff martials so they can do their jobs” standard.

The biggest complaint I hear about 3.5 from newer players is that it's too intimidating or too complicated. It's not because it's all basic addition but I could see how opening the book the first time after playing 5e or OSR could look like more of a homework assignment. I suppose the first thing to do would be to find a way to organize the whole thing so it looks easier to play, although I have no idea how you would do that.

Pathfinder was sort of an attempt to rework 3.5 but not much of one. I think the only real changes were giving everyone a bigger pile of feats, implementing CMB/CMD, and ruining my favorite spell polymorph (for good reason). Looking back I think my favorite thing about PF when it came out was that it lacked any of the bloat 3.5 had built up, it was just enough to make it feel new. Sadly, today Pathfinder is more bogged down than 3.5 ever was and although I love her dearly, she's turned into a deathfat again. That being said there are a lot of cool things from splatbooks out of both systems, those should be cherry picked.

On the subject of being able to do extremely simple math, a big part of the core mechanic is getting bonuses for various circumstances which is one of the reasons the game is fun in the first place. Moving around to flank, tripping someone to get a bonus, getting a buff spell. I think all of it is a lot of fun but people who are used to proficiency bonuses and an advantage/disadvantage mechanic might not see it that way. You would have to find a happy medium between the two, maybe something where there are degrees of advantage and disadvantage. My first instinct would be to make a chart and any condition, good or bad just goes to the chart rather than have each bonus have it's own unique adjustment, it just applies another degree of adv/disadv.

That might make things worse but I'm sort of thinking out loud.

TLDR; Reorganize the game so it's easier to pick up, cut as much of the fat as possible, streamline the way players get bonuses and penalties without ruining the core mechanic.

 

[Ghostse]

Looking back on it, what changes would this thread make to 3.5 to make it a viable alternative to 5e or OSR?
You know, aside from “buff martials so they can do their jobs” standard.

Depends on what you want the game to do.

But the quick general over-fix fix is cap players at 10 and completely overhaul magic/spell lists to fix the biggest problems. Oh and have an Avatar of Ioun show up to smite anyone who triggers the grapple flow chart, and remove unbounded +'s'/*'s.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

The 'modpack' Elephant in the Room that eliminates a lot of martial feat taxes would go a long way to fixing 3.5E/PF.

 

[Snekposter]

Oh and have an Avatar of Ioun show up to smite anyone who triggers the grapple flow chart

Because I like you guys so much, let me share an example of grapple combat in convenient webcomic form:

 

[Ghostse]

Because I like you guys so much, let me share an example of grapple combat in convenient webcomic form:
View attachment 4188200

Instructions unclear, transmogrified my dick into an immovable rod.

 

[JJLiautaud]

Because I like you guys so much, let me share an example of grapple combat in convenient webcomic form:
View attachment 4188200

Man Darth and Droids thats a blast from the past.

 

[Snekposter]

Man Darth and Droids thats a blast from the past.

Yeah, but their older stuff holds up well.

I mean, we've all been there at some point, right? Where our brilliant scheming and plotting forms a hypercube of possibilities and probabilities where we can't possibly lose.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Looking back on it, what changes would this thread make to 3.5 to make it a viable alternative to 5e or OSR?
You know, aside from “buff martials so they can do their jobs” standard.

I'm going to use PF1 as my benchmark since I haven't played 3.5e itself. From what I guess will be least controversial to most controversial.

Reduce the number of modifiers. Trying to count the +1 here, +2 there, -1 because of this other thing, "do I still have the buff from the bard?" type nonsense dragged the game to a halt. This is what advantage/disadvantage was designed to prevent.

Remove attacks of opportunity from almost everything so that characters can actually move instead of standing still so much.

There are actions and reactions, nothing else. That means no swift actions, no free actions, no full actions, no third day of the week and it's raining actions.

Cut all of the expanded content. First party, third party, popular, not popular, it all goes in the bin. PF1 was a tangled mess of content, much of it worthless or redundant, none of it balanced. There was always that one guy that knew the game inside out and would reference some obscure book. It also scares off new players if you drop a mountain of options in their lap.

 

[Ghostse]

You would have to find a happy medium between the two, maybe something where there are degrees of advantage and disadvantage.

I did an autism post about this over the summer.

"A single dice roll on a d20 the average result is ~10.5, or 1/2 of 21*
Rolling twice and picking highest, the average result is 13 almost 14, or about 2/3 of 21
Rolling three times and picking the highest, the average is around 15, or about 3/4 of 21"

*21 because you can't roll a zero

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/tabletop-roleplaying-games-d-d-pathfinder-coc-etc.737/post-12815895

It scales and applies both continuously and inversely; that rolling Advantage and then adding +3 is about the same probability as double advantage.
So it'd be fairly simple to have sliding advantage if you wanted, or convert advantage to a +.

But as I said then (and since) Advantage FEELS so much better than the effective +3.5 that it is. But even when you start rolling 3 D20s, that can start to break the flow of the game as people hunt for the highest die and then make sure that's their highest number.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

That means no swift actions, no free actions, no full actions, no third day of the week and it's raining actions.

At that point, you are basically just obliterating the action economy.

There was always that one guy that knew the game inside out and would reference some obscure book. It also scares off new players if you drop a mountain of options in their lap.

Misses the point of all that content:
1. To give you so many options, you are guaranteed to find something you like.
2. To get you to buy more books and thus spend more money.

Some of the best content in the game came in the expanded content. Especially in the case of 3.5, since it took a while for designers to "figure out" the system, so later books were better than earlier ones, which tended to be more scattershot. By the final books, they had a full grasp of the system and what they could do with it.

 

[Midwit]

Looking back on it, what changes would this thread make to 3.5 to make it a viable alternative to 5e or OSR?

Dumb it down and change the expected playstyle.

Yeah, but their older stuff holds up well.

It lost its charm when it got to episode 4, and even then episode 3 wasn't as good as 1 and 2 were. Probably because the plots got less convoluted and there were less RPG shenanigans to extract out of it.

Reduce the number of modifiers. Trying to count the +1 here, +2 there, -1 because of this other thing, "do I still have the buff from the bard?" type nonsense dragged the game to a halt. This is what advantage/disadvantage was designed to prevent.

Remove attacks of opportunity from almost everything so that characters can actually move instead of standing still so much.

There are actions and reactions, nothing else. That means no swift actions, no free actions, no full actions, no third day of the week and it's raining actions.

Cut all of the expanded content. First party, third party, popular, not popular, it all goes in the bin. PF1 was a tangled mess of content, much of it worthless or redundant, none of it balanced. There was always that one guy that knew the game inside out and would reference some obscure book. It also scares off new players if you drop a mountain of options in their lap.

Have you tried not playing D&D?

 

[Corn Flakes]

Looking back on it, what changes would this thread make to 3.5 to make it a viable alternative to 5e or OSR?
You know, aside from “buff martials so they can do their jobs” standard.

Honestly? I don't think 3.5e can be saved.

While I'll sing 3.5e's praises up and down for coalescing all rolls into a single [d20 + modifiers vs. DC] roll instead of the weird mish-mash of dice you had to use in previous editions, in hindsight it (alongside the internet in general) fucked up expectations and how people played the game. Because it changed the scope and framing of the game.

I was around on the run up for 3e's release, and looking back at it that edition changed the game from "what you can do with your character" to "what your character can do for you". It allowed people to lean really hard on "build". The concept of character builds (and the associated munchkins that abused them) already existed in AD&D, of course, but with more options available to everybody and more options for communication with the spread of the internet, gradually a lot of D&D discussion became more about what you could do with a character, what you could stack, and the best way to stack, as opposed to what you had actually done with the character in-game. That and a lot of things that should be taken for granted (a Ranger or a Druid being able to forage for food, for example), became tied to skills and some classes were completely shafted for those.

Ironically, giving people more options in rules (why simply be a Fighter with a longsword can you can take five feats and become the Fighter with a longsword?) resulted in people focusing far more on these rules as the central element of their connection to the game. Think of how many people out there talk about builds they've never played and never will because there are only so many weekends in a year and no GM near them wanted to have to deal with someone whose entire existence is poring over splats finding spells and combos to trivialize every encounter. A 3.5e or 5e player's connection to the game is different (not better or worse, so long as they're having fun) to someone playing AD&D or OSR, because they're doing different things with the system. Which is also why you see so many OSR converts talking about their system of choice clicking so much better than modern D&D: some people want to focus less on build and optimization and skill rolls, and more on how to get their character to interact with the world in a more organic way. Which you can still absolutely do in 3.5e/5e, but it's sort of in spite of the system rather than being supported by it.

So, yeah. I would rip out a lot of shit, a lot of rules, a lot of subsystems (skills just go, replace them with skill proficiencies so your character knows how to do shit instead of having to roll for everything and the GM defines the exact results, for example), keep the unified roll system, cap HP growth past level 10, and make spells 7th level and above require considerable effort to learn. It's honestly way too much work, so I'd just go play something else instead.

 

[ZMOT]

I'm going to use PF1 as my benchmark since I haven't played 3.5e itself. From what I guess will be least controversial to most controversial.

Reduce the number of modifiers. Trying to count the +1 here, +2 there, -1 because of this other thing, "do I still have the buff from the bard?" type nonsense dragged the game to a halt. This is what advantage/disadvantage was designed to prevent.

Remove attacks of opportunity from almost everything so that characters can actually move instead of standing still so much.

There are actions and reactions, nothing else. That means no swift actions, no free actions, no full actions, no third day of the week and it's raining actions.

Cut all of the expanded content. First party, third party, popular, not popular, it all goes in the bin. PF1 was a tangled mess of content, much of it worthless or redundant, none of it balanced. There was always that one guy that knew the game inside out and would reference some obscure book. It also scares off new players if you drop a mountain of options in their lap.

so, just play pf2e?

it even fixes the "broken build" talk from earlier by officially giving you the option to use automatic bonus progression, so your character always has what the games expects you to have. some might see this as bad, but in the end it's simply an option for people who don't want to think too much about the math. and it takes some load of the DM's shoulders in not having to completely keep track what the players do (although some might like it, but again, it's just an option). personally I prefer having options and can choose not to use it than not having the option at all, but that's just me. also let's me be lazy and not have to come up with it myself to "fix" something if need be.

Honestly? I don't think 3.5e can be saved.

this.
could you "fix" 3.5? sure, in the end it's just math and design, however the moment you start changing it it stop being the bloated and broken mess that is 3.5, which is exactly why some people like it.
there isn't really anything wrong with that, different strokes for different folks and all. but people are retarded in their editions/system wars that they can't even understand the pros/cons of each, even if they dislike it, and it going mainstream didn't really help when all they do is play 5 fucking e.

I mean when pf2e came you literally had people complain that there isn't enough "content". like wtf, of course a game not even a year old won't have as much shit as a game that has run for 10 years, and even more when you include everything from it's spiritual predecessor. content which you could either adapt yourself or don't even NEED.
that's why I can't take most "criticism" serious anymore, especially when it's some faggot on youtube doing it for drama views.

At that point, you are basically just obliterating the action economy.

action economy is just a design choice the rest of the game is balanced around, there's nothing wrong with "obliterating" it when you adjust the rest it affects accordingly (which I'd expect people who change it to understand, but there's a reason I'm not a fan of most homebrews).
EDIT: forgot to add, dnd likes to do it themselves giving you bonus actions and ways to manipulate the default amount. pf2e gives you 3 actions + 1 reaction you can use however you like, but that's it. everything else in the game works on that simple 3+1 (for now at least).

 

[The Ugly One]

Looking back on it, what changes would this thread make to 3.5 to make it a viable alternative to 5e or OSR?
You know, aside from “buff martials so they can do their jobs” standard.

If you fixed 3.x, you'd probably back your way into something like 5e. 3.x is broken because there are far too many permutations and combinations of feats, spells, and level dips to be able to test them and ensure the design never spins out of control.

 

[Judge Dredd]

At that point, you are basically just obliterating the action economy.

And that's a good thing.

Joking aside, PF1 (and assume 3.5) has way too many action types that ultimately achieve little except to drag out turns as experts try to milk the most efficient turn as possible, while newbies get confused by all the actions available. I played a 1-20 campaign as a monk and by the end of the campaign, I still didn't fully grasp how flurry of blows and my abilities with it worked.

I know PF2 and 5e get a lot of shit on the internet, but I'll defend their action systems for both simplifying the game and adding a lot more depth and tactical options.

In PF1, it was common for people to move into range and plant themselves for most of the combat as moving would provoke and attack of opportunity and prevented you from doing full actions or move actions.

Misses the point of all that content:
1. To give you so many options, you are guaranteed to find something you like.
2. To get you to buy more books and thus spend more money.

I understand the point of all the content. It's just like an early access game or a mmo that is fine if you follow each update but incomprehensible if you don't play for a while and come back. As someone who came in fairly late (I think 5e was called DnD Next) the amount of shit in PF1 was insane.

For whatever reason, some games like DnD and Pathfinder are treated as a monolith where the expectation of players is all published content is allowed. PF1 has dozens of official classes and likely hundreds of unofficial ones. That's before getting into feats. 5e is more manageable because most of the extra shit is limited to subclasses.

Have you tried not playing D&D?

Yes. I prefer Savage Worlds for scripted linear games. For sandbox or fantasy games I want to try other systems, but always end up back at 5e*. I approached the question of how to "fix" 3.5 while changing as little as possible, relatively speaking.

*There's this annoying mindset where people hate 5e, but won't play anything else other than 5e.

 

[Mr. Manchester]

In PF1, it was common for people to move into range and plant themselves for most of the combat as moving would provoke and attack of opportunity and prevented you from doing full actions or move actions.

This is the whole reason TWF became really unviable unless you were were a very specific build like a Beast Totem barbarian or just an archer that doesn't move around. In a really long term game where we had a dedicated two weapon fighter one of our strategies was to just telekinesis him around so he could get a full attack in. I think changing Vital Strike from a feat to just a feature everyone gets might go a long way, though you would probably see more people lugging around a large bastard sword (or the cooler option, a large dwarven war axe).

Moving around isn't that bad with acrobatics, but it becomes impossible against big giant monsters which is the thing you'd want to tumble around. I wouldn't mind seeing it just go back to a DC 15 and just accept that eventually people are going to decide to be mobile at a certain level.

 

[Snekposter]

It lost its charm when it got to episode 4, and even then episode 3 wasn't as good as 1 and 2 were. Probably because the plots got less convoluted and there were less RPG shenanigans to extract out of it.

We're not disagreeing on anything.

 

[JJLiautaud]

I understand the point of all the content. It's just like an early access game or a mmo that is fine if you follow each update but incomprehensible if you don't play for a while and come back. As someone who came in fairly late (I think 5e was called DnD Next) the amount of shit in PF1 was insane.

Its basically the GURPS problem, you dont have to follow all the rules and in fact its highly discouraged you do, but people seem to think that if its written down somewhere you must follow it, its very weird.