Differences Between D&D 3.5 and 5E PHB's Part One: Ability Scores to Armour Classes

[@RIVERSRPGChannel]

I like the minuses to ability scores for races 3.5 is still my favorite edition

[@drmann15]

The philosophy behind 5e was great, but I’d say bounded accuracy and the advantage system came with some big downsides. It’s too hard to satisfy my players with magic loot without breaking the game. And the all pros/no cons to every choice (no racial negative bonuses, small sized characters being almost mechanically the same as medium characters) allows ANY character to outperform any specialized character at a given role.

[@SerifSansSerif]

The problem with bounded accuracy is simply that 20 is not enough, and to make it work there should be minuses for non proficiency, and ASI's should be removed.

[@AAron-gr3jk]

I'm rediscovering my 3.5 books. especially the eberron books. I specifically miss how they had so many books to flesh out various parts and aspects of a setting, something we won't get in 5e

[@drmann15]

Dude, make as many long videos on this topic as you want. I’ll listen all day. Not enough people talk about third edition anymore

[@morgansides294]

Really appreciate this. I'm only familiar with 5e and my husband only played 1e many years ago.

[@CurlyFromTheSwirly]

Wow, someone who actually played 1e. I've only played as far as 2.5e (AD&D).

[@osvaldoprado9906]

3.5 is probably the best edition til now. Very special, not to miss out.

[@darthjoel6357]

Great explanation young man! The only way I played 3.5 was Neverwinter Nights game.

[@jeffdietz630]

I miss Mask of the Betrayer. Also Sand from the OC.

[@freddaniel5099]

Always glad to see older editions get some love! 👍

[@markfaulkner8191]

Rewind further and compare 5e to 2e. I have never played or even read 3 or 4e. The major differences between 5e and 2e (where I left off) is the main reason I only play BX or BECMI.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

I very well may in the future. I do plan running 2nd Edition as well.

[@markfaulkner8191]

@@DravenSwiftbow Well, if you are looking for suggestions, the only versions I play nowadays is BX and BECMI. My 2e knowledge is a memory from over 20 years ago.

[@timd4524]

Another fellow adventurer from Mystara?

[@markfaulkner8191]

@@timd4524 I am all in on Mystara :)

[@abigailasp1641]

As a huge PF1 fan who’s never played 3.5, that was a very interesting video.

[@davidlorang7697]

Awesome! I played 2e for a couple sessions when I was 12. Loved it, than it the group fell apart and I always wanted to play D&D again. Never got the chance and missed most of 2e, all of the 3 and 3.5, missed all of 4E, and than I had a surgery go wrong and almost bled to death at 33. After that I realized that life is short and you have to do the things you want. You need to seek them out cause if you wait for them to come to you, it most likely won’t happen. I’m deep into 5e. In fact my wife and kids play also. (Crazy I know!). Been super curious about 3 and 3.5. Luckily I have studied 4E enough to have a general idea of gameplay. I do want to try a 4E game sometime. You are de-mystifying 3 and 3.5 for me. Keep it up! Cause you never know when your last game is gonna be your last game!

[@rudesthazard5769]

I've recently gone back to 3.5 myself. I feel as though 5e, at some point, lost it's way. Like, the design language seems clear to me that more robust systems were eventually meant to be layered over top of it. When they got to Xanathar's they felt they hit their stride. And, unfortunately, it seems like they just keep reprinting that- Some Forgotten Realm's character's name on the cover with more archetypes, more races, more items. Little else. This far into a game's lifecycle? I shouldn't have to go to third parties to flesh it out. Now they are in this weird cycle of being ashamed of their own lore and deconstructing it to please a few hipsters on twitter instead of people who actually play, hence Tasha's and everything post-Tasha's. It's just so tedious, especially when people are starved for meaningful content.

[@SerifSansSerif]

I don't think more crunch is the way though. Then you're just repeating the past. I think they need to embrace disadvantages and weaknesses, some things to make it a bit more deadly, but it's overall simplicity is good. Go back and watch his videos about 3 and 3.5 and you can see he kinda hated it because it was rules lawyering, broken, and there was too, too much.

[@rudesthazard5769]

​@@SerifSansSerif 5e is overrated in this department. You can have more meaningful systems without being crunchy. The Free League Zero Engine games come to mind, tons of other games on the market that just do that better. I can't remember ever in my time with 5e anyone ever bothering with crafting, for example. Going and seeking one out from a third party like I did with Hammand's Harvesting guide didn't mean trying to pad out crunch, it meant having something to engage with when my players asked to craft. That part about leaning into the 5e's strength is something I agree with though. And that means my point still stands: They kept reprinting Xanathars instead of embracing the modularity and elegant simplicity of their game.

[@brettjansen8053]

Loving the 3.5 content. Can't wait for a discussion of character building 3.5 vs 5th. 5th feels so limited compared to 3.5. IMO

[@erikliggan9580]

Yeah, going by the video title that should've been this video, but skipping through seems to only show the 3.5 phb.

[@jimmieloop8587]

Thank you for doing this video

[@ObatongoSensei]

A little note about critical hits. 5ed has come back to the old concept from 2nd edition that 20 is automatically a crit (it was optional back then), but that mechanic was flawed, in a very stupid way. Basically, if you look at what part of all the successful attacks a certain character achieves, a rookie would score more critical hits than an expert veteran. If you hit only on a 20, all your successful hits would be crits, while if you hit on a 2, only 1 out of 19 are crits. Pathfinder 2e uses a similar method which is still flawed and even worse, in my opinion. The threat/confirmation mechanic, on the other end, corrects perfectly the flaw: a veteran would confirm more of the threats than a rookie or beginner, so it plays right. The problem with that is psychological: failing to confirm feels like you were deprived of something, instead of just having failed to achieve something more. It's more like in rugby, where after scoring a goal, you get the chance to transform a kick for some extra points. You still have your goal, even if you fail to transform.

[@manofsteel626]

Just subscribed I appreciate this so much I'm getting ready to start making a 3.5 campaign this was amazing to find

[@Maxbeedo2]

I can sum up the 3.5E Monk. All the "chart numbers" were better then than in 5E. It got bonus AC, 1-2 extra attacks (eventually at no penalty), "proficiency" in all saves at level 1, more skill points than a Fighter/Paladin/etc., and basically DOUBLE the Unarmed Damage (5E scales from 1d4 to 1d10, 3.5E scaled from 1d6 to 2d10), depending on size. Yes, at high levels their punches did more base damage than any weapon, although this was countered by magic weapon bonuses scaling quite high (+5 and higher). Most other features were pretty similar to the 5E base Monk + Way of the Open Hand subclass, just at different levels. Felt pretty strong when I played them.

[@tynanshifflet6911]

You touched on a lot of things I agree with. One thing I like about 3.5 is that weapons have crit ranges. Combined with the various crit related feats, it added for a variance weapon and feat choice, where as with the exception of 1 vs 2 handed, 5e kinda just encourages you to pick the weapon with the best dmg range. 3.5, with the right build, could see you picking a lower base damage weapon but with a crit range of like 15-20, which is 20%. Could be worth for a dual wield build for example. 5e kinda threw that out imo.

[@schmuckytheraiderbear5043]

Thank you. I struggle with meshing the rules from multiple editions & I'm trying to differentiate them in my mind so I DM more accurately. This is very helpful.

[@phoboskittym8500]

About Rogue and sneak attack, a sneak attack can be done ANY time an opponent has lost their dexterity bonus, not just an opponent being flat-footed, which also happens to lose their dexterity bonus (keep in mind an Opponent is STILL flat-footed until their first action/attack) so a Rogue can sneak attack in a suprise round, and again in the regular round if the rogue is going before said opponent. A Rogue would get their sneak attack damage if they were attacking(not a surprise) an opponent who was wading through a hip deep swamp for example, because the opponent loses their Dex bonus but isn't actually flat-footed There are feats and tricks that let you abuse your sneak attack

[@NerdGuy1988]

Fun fact the way they did positives and negatives on stats was every +1 in a physical stat was worth +2 in a mental stat. Its why the half orc gets +2 str -2 int and -2 cha. Its how they did it for balancing level adjustment.

[@LuxuriaU]

Thank you SO much. I am a relatively new TTPRG player, been playing 5E since it came out, being 15 of release at the time it was great, but I always felt something was missing. I grew up playing Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape, and my dad telling me about his D&D days; 5E always felt a little off. Compared, I found the avantage/disadvantage system very blunt, and the fact there are no negatives to many options felt bad. I really enjoyed the RPG days of consequence for choices that are powerful, or advantageous sometimes. Longstory short I decided on 3.5 for a level gritty RPG that I want, I tried a few others, like PF2E and just couldn't get into it. But everyone on the internet seems to have such extreme biases when this system comes up. They either hate it and love everything new and shiny, or love it and think every other system is for uneducated children. It is very frustrating. Very relieved to see someone who can let both exist, and help me along with the learning process of this new system (just picked up the rules compendium, which is amazing). So thank you, for helping me get into this thing.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

You are very welcome! I can understand your frustration. I enjoy every edition of D&D and Pathfinder and there is no reason why liking one needs to come at the expense of any other. I do know some people that get very condescending whenever you say anything positive about and edition they don't like (an usually never tried) and in general I just ignore them and continue to like what I like. If there is anything I can do to help out getting to know 3.5 just let me know

[@CJ-ib2jy]

Natural 20's always being critical sux. Suppose you need a 20 to score a hit. So you either miss, or land a critical hit. I had my own critical hit tables and added the SAME confirmation rule used in 3.5 way back in 1980 DMing AD&D 1st Edition. Monsters followed the same rules. Not long afterwards, I updated my AD&D 1 PHB and DMG with rule changes in ink. When 2nd edition came out, it was as if someone had read all my note and implemented them.

[@dangarthemighty0980]

Druids and Clerics don't prepare their spells but they do have limited spells per day of each level so, they can cast any of the spells on their spell list that they know but only so many times per day in 3.5. I love the video and it makes me very nostalgic I ran so much 3e and 3.5 back in the day.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

They do prepare spells, otherwise there would be no reason for the Clerics "Spontaneous Cure Spells" ability. The difference is that Druids and Clerics have access to all the spells on their list whenever they prepare their spells unlike a Wizard that has to prepare spells from their spellbook or Sorcerers that can cast spontaneously but have a very limited number of spells that they know.

[@dangarthemighty0980]

My phone is acting up and it deleted my comment by accident. I really did love the video. I also always thought of the preparing of spells in all cases as more of a roleplaying mechanic as opposed to a rules mechanic. Keep up the great videos I watch them every time you make a new one.

[@Arcboltkonrad13]

"I'm not going to call this part one..." THE VIDEO IS LABELED PART ONE! XD Good video though

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Yeah, the video was going long while I was recording so I decided mid-video to make it two videos.

[@Arcboltkonrad13]

@@DravenSwiftbow You're good XD. Can't wait to see more! I'd love to see more "what is different/the same between these two editions" but no pressure, okay?

[@oxylepy2]

While vancian casting is so cool when you know why it's a thing... it's an absolute * system to play. About the only thing about 5e that I like is the simplification of casting to allow a prepared list and then spontaneously casting off of that

[@WombatProphecy]

I've never played 3.5e (started with 4e then jumped to 5e when it came out) but I love the layout and aesthetics of these books. If I ever come back to d20 games I will probably go 3.5 or Pathfinder 2e

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Both are great choices. I'm currently running Both of them.

[@Nexusofgeek]

We were zooming in a 3.5 game not long ago so I picked up the 3.5 PHB and I like it a lot, it's a good system. I think I prefer it over 5e although I guess that's not the consensus from new players who only know 5e

[@chipguy5135]

I've been interested in 3.5 because of the strong following it still has. I bought a pdf version of the PHB recently and appreciate SOME aspects it brings to a table which 5e doesn't. It just seems like there is so much going on in 3.5 that players and DM's alike would have to refer to the book(s) more often (bogged down?) than while playing 5E, especially during combat. One feature of 3.5 I'm not sure about is the varying crit ranges and multipliers of different weapons, as you pointed out. IMO, the chance of rolling a crit should be based on a combination of luck and skill, not the weapon you're using. Luck because you would have to roll a 20, unless you're proficient/skilled with that weapon and some of those multipliers are overkill (x3 or 4?!) It would take some work but I'd like to make a hybrid of the 2 versions, maybe with some 2E sprinkled in.

[@rudesthazard5769]

Weapons are honestly one of the things I miss the most. In 5e, there's little functional difference between weapons other than their die. In 3.5, your weapon can completely change your build and feat selection.

[@TheGateShallStand]

As an avid player of 3.5e, you dont actually have to refer to the books too much, as long as you write some little details down like the average player. The thing with the crit ranges and multipliers, oh yeah they could get a little busted at times. With the right mix of race, feats, weapons, and fighting style, I believe that I once got my threat range up to an 11-20, with a Quicksilver Greatsword. That meant, without any hesitation, either 6d6, 6d8, 8d6, or 8d8, I'll have to check those damage numbers again to be sure! But, it was always super fun, and unless you were going for silly power plays like I was at the time, you're probably not gonna find someone pulling that every round.

[@Alabenson]

Bards only suck in 3.5 core. The class received a huge amount of support over the edition's lifetime, and that enabled them to become incredibly powerful with the right build.

[@stephaniebri5837]

What I miss about 3.5 was all the player options. However, the downside was it took FOREVER to create a character lol. I am really enjoying my time playing 5e lately but I did had tremendous fun with 3.5 back in the day.

[@Dandantheman89]

My favorite edition.

[@FrozenSpector]

3.5 is great, please make more!

[@tbiafore371]

Some clarifications you were not correct on. When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Also, when you are flat-footed, to get this number, you just minus your Dex bonus. Everything else counts (even your shield).

[@DravenSwiftbow]

You are correct. I made this video before I started my 3.5 game and was going off memory (it had been a decade since I ran 3.5 at that time) I found the Rules Compendium to be invaluable when relearning the rules.

[@TheHEAVYDAN]

Whoa, Bards with Dragonfire Inspiration Wreck shit, and Song of the White Raven Bards with it are just fun AF.

[@jeffdietz630]

Wasn't rogues sneak attack something that could be applied to multiple attacks on your turn in 3.5? 5th edition only one sneak per your turn regardless of number of attacks you do on your turn. I seem to recall that and miss that function in 5e.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Yes, Sneak Attack applied to any attack as long as the target was Flat-Footed or Flanked by the Rogue.

[@EmrysTernal]

26:55 A shield bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks. (SRD section on Modifier Types)

[@EnemyToad]

Can you make this whole video but opposite so I can learn 5e? just kidding ofc this is an awesome resource and it’s so cool to see you flip through these pages

[@SerifSansSerif]

3.5 is one of the crunchiest, and i would not want to go back to it. Truly, if you like 3.5 go pathfinder. Personally i like basic/advanced and 5e, and i feel 5e just needs to be reined back in like with basic/advanced. Two of the biggest issues with 5e are that the bounded accuracy range is too narrow and that 5e REFUSES to give any sort of disadvantages/weaknesses.

[@jeffdietz630]

One distinction regarding critical in 3.5 v. 5e. In both systems a nat 20 is considered an autohit. However 5e makes no distinction between critical hits and autohit and treats these separate properties as indistinguishable. There are a few cases this matters. A hexblade warlock using hexblade curse crits on a 19 or 20. Similarly a champion fighter crits on a 19 or 20. This means in both these circumstances they also autohit on a 19 or 20 regardless of whether they beat the AC score. I'm not a fan of this but understand it has been stated for the record by WoC folk (i.e. Jeremy Crawford). In 3.5 edition rolling within the critical threat range (other than a nat 20) did not guarantee an autohit if the defenders AC score was not met. Only a nat 20 was considered an autohit.

[@williamlee7482]

As a DM I've used a nat 20 as an autohit giving some characters a slight chance to hit an opponent they couldn't otherwise hit and I also allowed a nat 20 to do double damage ( roll damage without any bonuses then times it by 2 then add bonuses for damage total ) and the characters opponents also used the same rule which made combat a bit more deadly then combat in later editions

[@midnightgreen8319]

Bards are fantastic as a party face, they can replace a Cleric as a healer, and Buffs are awesome.

[@COBViolenceHC]

I'm a 5e DM and have been DMing for 11yrs now. However, I started as a player with 3.5e, but I've never DMed in 3.5e, and I'm looking for any advice for DMing in 3.5 as my players have recently expressed a great deal of interest in playing 3.5. Do you have any advice for DMs?

[@stephaniebri5837]

The other thing I don't like about 5e, not to rag on it I do love it, but I feel like the 5E cantrips are over powered for 0 level spells.

[@SerithValComnion]

Personally, I think 3.5 did all of these things so much better than 5e.

[@Seth9809]

Why do people look back to 3.5, when Pathfinder exists?

[@infernoeagles5812]

the first part of your statement about how no one about 3.5 and all they started with is 5e and the problem i run into when trying to explain about 3.5 is i get shut down and everyone in my group complains about 5e and im like there are better opitions out there i dont understand why no one wants to stop and learn something that is not to different you have much more customizing and a lot more freedom especially in combat. im getting to the point where im about to just start DMing my 3.5 campigin without them just because of the constant complaining of 5th and no one wanting to move on.

[@BanjoSick]

The production value of 3E is so much higher! Better page making, better illustrations more information. How is it possible that 5E looks so cheap by comparison???

[@tueboas]

Thanks for the video, but you need to make more comparisons - you describe what 3.5 do with each class but forget to tell what 5e does. I was hoping to be introduced to 5e by this video, instead it comes of as an intro for 5e players to 3.5. Example: The cure/cause spell for clerics in 3.5 - how does that work in 5e?

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Thank you for the suggestion, the purpose of the video was to introduce 5E players to 3.5 so the assumption was that there was already familiarity with 5E. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have though. Cure or Cause spells are fairly simple, they start off as 1d8 plus your Spellcasting Stat Modifier (so 1d8 plus wisdom mod for clerics). In 5E you don't prepare each spell slot instead being able to prepare a certain number of spells to use however you wish, usually it's your Stat Modifier plus your level, so a 1st level Cleric with a 16 Wisdom could prepare 4 spells, even though they only start with 2 spell slots. Spells don't automatically improve as the Caster levels anymore so instead they can simply use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell at greater affect. Cure Wounds at first level heals 1d8 plus Wis Mod, but casting it with a second level spell slot heals 2d8 plus Wis Mod, 3d8 if a 3rd level slot is used etc. if you have any other questions please feel free to email me at [e-mail]

[@B42UC4]

Would it not make more sense to compare D&D 3.5e with Pathfinder 2e? It is that system that is an evolution of this one, as far as I understand. I guess it would make sense to compare AD&D 2e & D&D 4e with D&D 5e, since those are the main sources of the new system in my opinion. Anyhow, always great to watch your videos, although I could not make it all the way through this one :). Cheers!

[@B42UC4]

​​ @Евгений Лебедев There are two main camps into which RPG systems fall, in my opinion, which are: 1. Systems where there is an intention to write rules for every situation that could come up in the game. 2. Systems with very broad rules that allow the Game Master to improvise the rules as the situations arise. D&D 3.5e, Pathfinder and Pathfinder 2e fall in category 1. D&D 5e falls in category 2. In my mind it makes more sense to compare games in the same category than games that fall in different categories. Cheers!

[@retrorami]

3.5! 3.5!

[@southron_d1349]

Critical Hits are not double damage plus double your bonuses. The rule is misleading (sidebar, p140). It says; "A critical hit means you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the ROLLS together." (Emphasis is mine.) So it's only the rolled damage which may be doubled not the bonuses. So a Fighter with a +1 magical sword and +3 to STR will roll 2d8+4 on a critical hit not 2(d8+4). I never doubled the bonuses in any edition of D&D. In my experience, those who allowed it were house-ruling. But I can certainly see how the other interpretation could be made. I am no longer a fan of Feats, the penalties to ability scores (which follow the pattern of AD&D), the negative hitpoints rules, prohibited spell schools, and prestige classes. Then there's the -4 penalty to hit with a weapon you're not trained in. Again, that was carried over from the previous editions. Worse, the game starts twisting itself into knots trying to allow particular races/ancestries to use certain weapons by making feats. The idea of "half Skill ranks" is, to say the least, fiddly. Pathfinder manages to avoid that nonsense and is much simpler in that respect. Anyone who likes 3e ought to steal Pathfinder's Skill Points rules - if they haven't already. Similarly, grappling is easier in Pathfinder than 3e. At least multi-classing makes a heck of a lot more sense and is more useful than in AD&D. That was very welcome. I loved 3rd-edition when it came out and, just like the versions of D&D before and after, I had loads of fun with it. Eventually, I found it hard to house rule, there were rules which had to be ignored to avoid confusion, and the game - like 4e and 5e - assumes on average, the PCs will win. I'm not trying to saying AD&D or the OSR are better just because they tend to be deadlier, but there's something to be said for a fantasy world where danger and death ought to be taken more seriously. Which means my 5e games are also more dangerous than the default. I think the best thing that ever happened in 3e is Eberron. I was dismissive of it at first but when I read the book properly, the setting turned out to be amazing. Then had one of the best campaigns ever with it. But as far as 3e goes, I couldn't go back. I hope your game goes well.

[@CurlyFromTheSwirly]

WOC did great by making the game more fair in 3e & 3.5, as AD&D was to rigid. But you don't need to watet it down so much it becomes an easy baby game.

[@thmstbst]

There was also only 10 negative hitpoints, so a healing word can't just pop you back up to 4 hitpoints and keep fighting. -11 ur ded. People have houseruled using your constitution score instead of a strict -10 though.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Yes, that is something I plan to cover in the next video.

[@williamlee7482]

I've been using the negative con then you are dead back in ad&d 2nd edition with players bleeding 1 hp a round until bandaged which stabilized the characters so they don't continue to bleed out . I play a mix of AD&D 1st and 2nd edition with house rules for new races and classes to took from other ad&d settings like Dark Sun and Dragonlance for example along with some classes from old dragon magazines

[@kurtoogle4576]

I played and DM'd a lot of 3.5, and don't miss it. We ended up homebrewing & ignoring rules a lot. In 5e, I do miss assigned ranks in skills, but that is about it. Mostly I want a full re-edit and expansion of the PHB. Xanathar's expansion of skill descriptions, and Tasha's tweaking of classes makes me happy.

[@johnmickey5017]

For the DM, setting fair skill check DCs was impossible. For the player, building character concepts required at least 8-12 levels of extremely detailed planning and theory-crafting to ensure choosing the right feat chains and PrC entry requirements. It rewarded a certain type of player but I don’t miss it one bit.

[@hparkes93]

first

[@edlaprade]

A bit of nostalgia here, not that I'm in any hurry to go back. Did like some things 3.5 did better (IMO) than 5E, but overall 5E is still where its at for me. Be well and stay safe!