Dungeons & Dragons Retrospective Episode 5: D&D 3 5

I am back and ready to continue my D&D retrospective series. In this video I discuss D&D 3.5.
Follow me on Facebook: / timeline
And on Twitter: / dravenswiftbow

[@ObatongoSensei]

Regarding the day long spells, the problem with them was just that: there was no choice involved, you simply cast them at the start of the day and it was as having a free +4 to all stats. They didn't cost you anything, unlike magical objects with the same effect. And you could just buy cheap wands with those spells and cast them all on all party members once per hour. That was insane. Reducing their duration made them work as intended: a temporary boost to one stat to be cast when needed and which could go wasted as any other spell.

[@RIVERSRPGChannel]

Good video We still play 3.5

[@Joemantler]

The problem is that these game companies have no long term concept. They get BIG sales when something new is released... and they want to keep getting BIG sales. But people don't have $20 a month to lay down on books. And can barely incorporate one book into a campaign before a new book comes out! Let alone having to keep the books, lug them around, and the nightmare of having to move with all these gaming books! They need some longevity. "Here's the game. Major supplements every year or so. Minor things, like new monsters, monthly. Someone new wants to play? Great! Sooner or later, they will want to buy a book. Then the other two. And, always remember that, other than the core rules, NONE OF THIS is ANYTHING you HAVE TO HAVE! YOU run your game with house rules all the time! Want a new race? Make one. Don't like a race we put in the book? Don't allow it."

[@funhat900]

Wizards of the Coast Reminds me of Apple.

[@MrStoltverd]

Your idea sounds exactly like the publishing strategy for shadow of the demon lord. Check it out

[@jameslucrative2054]

Dungeon/Dragon magazine was kinda like this but people hated most of it's content

[@Joemantler]

We clearly have different recollections of Dragon Magazine. Although, I will admit I never really cared for Wormy.

[@jiujitsuguy74]

Exactly. WOTC is just another money grubbing corporation at this point.

[@stevenroetzel4470]

Very nice video, one comment on the Rangers hit dice. In AD&D it is true that the Ranger had d8 HD but they began at 1st level with 2 HD for a possible 16 hp before any constitution bonus. This was a clunky rule but it was important that even though the Fighter would eventually become the tougher of the 2 classes in the beginning the Rangers were a definite benefit to the party. The 3.5 debuff never made any sense to me. While the weaker armor already makes it undesirable for the Ranger to stand in the battle line with the Fighter and Paladin the additional loss of hit points just seems like adding insult to injury.

[@Doc_Filth]

I still run 3.5.

[@HollmanOrtizBuitrago]

Me too, is awesome!

[@midnightgreen8319]

The actual statistics of monsters changed a lot, especially demons and devils.

[@misterbplays]

I tried to give 5e a try.. and though I liked several things about it.. I'd still rather play 3.5

[@bamocomics8344]

@@user-jt3pn8bi5p honestly, in 5e, their is a lot of tactical depth, if the DM knows what they're doing.

[@terrancelouis8752]

i realize it's kinda off topic but does anybody know of a good site to stream newly released series online ?

[@emmanuelmarlon6]

@Terrance Louis i would suggest flixzone. Just google for it :)

[@misaelali8702]

@Emmanuel Marlon yea, I have been watching on Flixzone for months myself :D

[@terrancelouis8752]

@Emmanuel Marlon thanks, I signed up and it seems like a nice service :) Appreciate it !!

[@midnightgreen8319]

The Rangers got fewer hit points, but more skill points. Their abliities got better as well. Being that be Rangers are commandos and not front line fighters, I find they are improved. I prefer 3.5 over 3rd edition for sure

[@DravenSwiftbow]

They did a better job with the Ranger for sure. Rangers did get d8's for Hit Dice in 1st Edition AD&D, which is a nice call back, though it would have been cool to have the Ranger start with 2d8 Hit Points (which was what they had in AD&D 1E as well)

[@92keys524]

I'm so glad to see more of this series!

[@DAEDRICDUKE1]

That interior book layout looks really classy and beautiful

[@DraganzordPrime]

You did a good job on this video, very detailed. you got your self a subscriber.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Thank you very much

[@tofubaba1315]

I've resolved to think of 3.5 as now just my official "miniatures-focused D&D"/D&D "tactics", sort of like your Final Fantasy: Tactics to your default Final Fantasy game. 3.5 had the Chainmail/Miniatures Game embedded within it for a reason. I'll never attempt play it over webcam, but it's the kind of D&D I'm open to playing at a grid-covered table, with lots of minis, with a gameplay focused on [and taking your time with] combat and the perhaps deeper intricacies dungeon-delving (lots of traps, etc.). I think that's the kind of game that plays to its strengths... in comparison to 5e, which is just a better default for fantasy roleplaying.

[@jiujitsuguy74]

Theatre of the mind 5e is completely lame. Removes all the problem solving of tactical play. It’s part of the dumbing down of society.

[@Latino-Gamer]

Can't wait for the 4e video. I know it got a crazy amount of hate, but it's still my favorite, so I look forward to hearing some discussion about it.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

It's one of my favorite editions as well. I should have it uploaded within a couple of weeks

[@TheMandalore4]

Feel like if I wanted to play older editions of DnD for the sake of posterity, I'd buy Pathfinder for the biggest and deepest, crunchiest, expansive, complicated and capable, easily accessible version of 3.5, or if I wanted to know what the early old school stuff was like, I'd probably pick up the rules cyclopedia so I wouldn't need tons of separate books, and could simply have everything at once. But I love knowing the history haha thanks man!

[@nathanvalle6997]

There is a reason why Pathfinder (1.0) is considered D&D 3.75 :P

[@MrStoltverd]

I wish they would make a POD for wrath of the immortals :(

[@Tysto]

Really enjoying these videos. As an old-school 1970s-1990s DM, I'm disappointed that so many of the changes over the years was combat cruft. There was little attempt to enhance *role-playing* . Things like having family, mentors, lieges, rivals, enemies, duties, etc. would have made for a lot more fun & drama. I'm just going to fudge die rolls & hit points in combat anyway.

[@priestesslucy3299]

Why do you need rules for those? I'd just throw out any rules a game gave me on roleplay anyway lol. Rules on RP sounds so restrictive

[@Tysto]

@@priestesslucy3299 Because those things become fuel for future adventures that actually matter to the players personally. Who doesn't want to develop a rival or arch-enemy? Who doesn't want to hob-nob with nobles? Is your idea of fantasy gaming just whacking trolls with a sword?

[@priestesslucy3299]

@@Tysto who said I don't develop all sorts of things like that? I love deep dive immersion roleplay. I just want as little rules as possible in my RP

[@stephaniebri5837]

you're criticizing modern D&D additions for not having shit that the old-school DND editions didn't have either that doesn't make any plus you're wrong 5e has backgrounds that's all about role playing

[@hangarflying]

Huzzah! Been looking forward to the next installment.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Hopefully it didn't disappoint

[@hangarflying]

Nope, sounded great! Are you going to do one on Pathfinder?

[@DravenSwiftbow]

I only own the Pathfinder Core book and the Advanced Player's Book. I don't have enough to really do a stand alone video, but I'll mention Pathfinder in my 4E video

[@hangarflying]

www.paizo.com/prd

[@owl2944]

personally, i kinda like archers with spot and bards with listen but that's just me

[@gamervideos11]

Waiting for the 4th ed video!

[@satanicpanicattheddtable2604]

definitely enjoy the videos I would not mind seeing and hearing further thoughts on spells

[@satanicpanicattheddtable2604]

when d20 modern came out that was our best games ever

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Sadly I never really got a chance to play Modern. I briefly played it as part of a Gamma World Campaign, but that only lasted a couple of sessions

[@satanicpanicattheddtable2604]

Ah man my first session was the dragons awakening the second was a ghost ship

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Looking back I really should have picked it up when it came out. Hopefully one day I can come across it in the wild

[@satanicpanicattheddtable2604]

A physical copy of this is may be rare I have a digital from drive thru rpg

[@retrorami]

Hello Draven! First comment on your channel and I want to thank you for the amazing content you have been putting out consistently. I already saw this video twice but I had to watch it once more, and I need to ask you something. I just ordered a copy of the Premium 3.5 PHB. I have the old 3.0 PHB and DMG here (i lost my MM, unfortunately). My question is, should I buy the premium versions of the 3.5 DMG and MM as well, or would the standard 3.5 be just like them? I mean, are there a lot of differences (in content) between the standard and premium versions? The Premium versions are really hard to find (and expensive) around here (Brazil) and I only bought the PHB because I found it for a ridiculously good price (brand new). You have one of the best channels on KZbin, I love the format (you keep the videos direct and without jokes or high production). I love this, it feels more sincere and honest.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

By "Premium" do you mean the Black Covers? If so they have the exact same information inside as the standard versions. The 2012 Reprints are only slightly better than the original printings because they incorporated the Errata into the books, but honestly that is mainly fixing spelling and grammar issues.

[@retrorami]

DravenSwiftbow nope, I was talking about the 2012 releases (they're listed as Premium D&D core books). I found the premium MM a few hours ago, it was cheaper than the regular 3.5 book and I couldn't resist. I never had the 3.5 MM, and I've heard it Includes a lot more monsters.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

The 3.5 one did. They added quite a few pages to it over the 3.0 Monster Manual, hopefully you can find a decently priced copy of the DMG

[@robodude5196]

I liked this video a lot. I'm one of the few fans of 3.5 Edition and you didn't seem to dislike it as much as a lot of other people. Do you like the name, Othy Orbs?

[@pansophia93]

Spells were changed a lot in 3.5. Creeping Doom is is deadly in 3.0 and can kill most monsters with ease.

[@dreamakuma]

thumbs up at the dragon magazine love

[@HollmanOrtizBuitrago]

3.5 is awesome yet

[@heyimbilliejean]

What kind of trouble are your players getting themselves into that they're fighting a vampire and a balor?

[@mudshrooze]

I'm going for 3.5 books, 4e, 5e, and the monster manuals from adnd

[@midnightgreen8319]

Haste in 3.0 could absolutely wreck a campaign as well.

[@RattyRandnums]

Hey I hope you don't mind me asking but I was wondering if there are any new charts or character options in the premium 2012 reprints of 3.5? I don't expect there are, but about the only review of the premium reprint I've been able to find says there are, I expect the guy was just reading the "why a revision" box at the beginning of 3.5 and mistook the statement about the update from 3.0 to 3.5 being a section about 3.5 premium changes/expansions. Other than that all I've seen is that the errata clarifications are woven into the text of the books and that the DMG has 1 extra chart stuck in the back of the book. I ask because I was thinking about picking up a copy or two of 3.5 to play (not to collect) and don't mind printing off 3 or 4 pages of errata and sticking them in the book for the price difference between a new premium print and a cheaper used one if that's the only difference. I'm nostalgic for this edition but never had a copy of it, we all just shared around the DM's copy back in the day.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

It's the same design as the original including any charts. The major difference is on the last page it has a blurb on the Polymorph subschool of spells

[@RattyRandnums]

Thanks man! Nice retrospective by the way!

[@draakgast]

did I just hear good things about psionics??

[@DravenSwiftbow]

You did, 3.5 Psionics was actually quite playable.

[@draakgast]

DravenSwiftbow but I hear the majority complaining how it did't scale, or they outdone the other party members or something??

[@DravenSwiftbow]

3.5 Psionics allowed you to spend extra Power Points to increase the Power's effect. In 3.0 there was no ability to do that and the powers didn't scale. I'm not sure about it out doing other Classes, it seemed pretty on par with the Sorcerer class.

[@kamakazekid83]

I think you should go more in-depth with the settings like Forgotten Realms and Ebberon

[@DravenSwiftbow]

That's going to be a separate video that I do later, so of an introduction to Campaign Settings.

[@rylotsheer6327]

DravenSwiftbow that would be really cool. I'd love to see a video explaining each of the main settings, how they came about and how they've changed through out the editions

[@annienonymous4036]

I am interested in hearing your thought on Disjunction.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Disjunction?

[@annienonymous4036]

Mage's/Mordenkainen's Disjunction. www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-s-disjunction

[@Demonskunk]

Didn't they have weapon oils for specific damage types? Audio I don't think it's unreasonable to have fights having to carry multiple weapons.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

I believe so, now that you mention it, I'm just not sure which book they were in, and they never included them in any adventures. I'm also not entirely sure that they covered all the bases as far as weapon types. I'll have to look through my collection to see if I can find them

[@therealjoshT]

Could you use the 3.5e ruleset with the 3.0 monster manual?

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Sort of. Several Feats, Skills and Monster abilities were changed. Damage Reduction was changed to be dependent on the type of metal a weapon was made of rather than the Magical Bonus. Energy Resistance numbers were also changed, though at the moment I can't recall if the resistance value was Halved in 3.5 or Doubled. It can be done in a pinch if that is all that you have. There was a conversion guide from 3.0 to 3.5 that you might be able to find online. That would help quite a bit.

[@therealjoshT]

DravenSwiftbow Got it. Thanks for info! I started playing in 5th so it’s been really interesting hearing your perspective and stories on the other editions.

[@davidjarkeld2333]

WotC ran the well dry ... so true and they did that with almost all their games

[@johnnysomething8267]

radical

[@KrisM189]

cool

[@elzorro35]

all i see are fingaz!

[@lXBlackWolfXl]

A lot of people I've spoken to claimed the pathfinder is what killed 3.x. They even believed that 4th edition was released in response to pathfinder, because it was actually outselling 3.x. Of course, pathfinder did continue to outsell real D&D throughout the lifespan of 4th. Note that I've never played an actual tabletop game (never been able to find a group). My only real experience with D&D was through the two neverwinter nights games. And I lost interest in NWN2 rather quickly. I never even played it online.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

4th Edition released before the Pathfinder RPG released. Paizo publishing was printing material under the Pathfinder name before 4th Edition came out, but it still required the 3.5 corebooks

[@The_Real_DCT]

Well they were wrong, Pathfinder wasn't even around when 3.5 was out. It came out during 4e's life span where it outsold it for three years. It's generally seen that happened because most players either detested 4e or were still content with 3.5, since when 4e hit 3.5 was still very popular and so having a game that was basically revised revised 3rd Edition spoke to the market at the time, just like how 5e and Call of Cthulhu are speaking to the market now (given that they are the two biggest sellers for the last few years). In short Pathfinder didn't kill 3.5 but it probably didn't help 4e but neither did Wizards.

[@valmarsiglia]

Barbarian never made sense to me as a class. It's pretty clearly a sub-group of humans along the lines of different kinds of elves. If you ask a character what s/he does for a living, it makes sense to say I'm a fighter/mage/rogue, etc, but not I'm a barbarian. In keeping with history, one could be a barbarian and be a priest, cleric, rogue, etc.

[@mccallosone4903]

agreed! should just be a berserker subclass of fighter

[@Longlius]

This video looks very... yellow.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

Yeah, it was an odd setting with my camera trying to reduce the glare from the overhead lights on the pages. That's why I try to record these videos during the day so there is lots of natural light coming in

[@black1blade74]

The font on the covers is just the tackiest thing.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

The covers of the books them selves?

[@black1blade74]

DravenSwiftbow Yeah I really don't like it, especially with the colouring XD.

[@DravenSwiftbow]

It did kind of blend in with the cover of the Player's Handbook. I think they wanted it to look fancy and maybe went a little overboard

[@black1blade74]

DravenSwiftbow Yeah probably. To be fair I think the first print 2nd edition books look the worse XD.