D&D 3E/3.5 The 4E We Didnt Get.

Zardnaar

Legend
I suspect fixing 3.0 would take less work than updating AD&D. I'm doing a little work on that now, but I'm only at the start and I haven't playtested anything. Right now it's comparing how 3e does things compared to earlier editions and trying to find a match in the 3e rules for stuff that was dropped (and often it was 2e that dropped things rather than 3e I'm finding.)

I've tried doing both fixing AD&D is easier.

Hell ascending ACs and B/X ability modifiers go a long way right there. Plug in 5E or tweak 4E skill system you're mist of the way there.

Fixing 3E basically requires a rewrite. Depending on what your goal is replacing the skill system and a unified numbers progression woukd be a good place to start.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SWSE would have been a pretty good base to make a 4e some of which did make it into 4e.

I liked:

  • no saving throws
  • condition track
  • talents and talent trees with prerequisite talents basically showed a way to tier martial abilities
  • most of the classes were non magic (force) so showed a lot of variety in martial including leaders, etc.
  • a little bit better multiclassing -- basically the classes acted more like generic shells for the talent trees that you could mix or match fairly well
  • skill challenge explanation in one of the splats that was better than anything in 4e
  • simplified skills with trained or not

I think it still had some of the bad parts of 3.5e IMO as well though:
  • monsters built up like PCs
  • bad CR and encounter building
  • some fidly modifiers and rules
  • still a little too character building vs play centric for me
etc

I'm glad we got 4e but would have liked to see a D&D version that tried to build on SWSE too though.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
SWSE would have been a pretty good base to make a 4e some of which did make it into 4e.

I liked:

  • no saving throws
  • condition track
  • talents and talent trees with prerequisite talents basically showed a way to tier martial abilities
  • most of the classes were non magic (force) so showed a lot of variety in martial including leaders, etc.
  • a little bit better multiclassing -- basically the classes acted more like generic shells for the talent trees that you could mix or match fairly well
  • skill challenge explanation in one of the splats that was better than anything in 4e
  • simplified skills with trained or not

I think it still had some of the bad parts of 3.5e IMO as well though:
  • monsters built up like PCs
  • bad CR and encounter building
  • some fidly modifiers and rules
  • still a little too character building vs play centric for me
etc

I'm glad we got 4e but would have liked to see a D&D version that tried to build on SWSE too though.
One cool thing with SWSE was that all the non jedi classes were non-magic, but all it took was a feat to unlock that magic. Really the only difference with the jedi was that they got force sensitive for free. Not having the magic system coupled to a class allowed for quite a bit of customisation.
 


Orius

Unrepentant DM Supremacist
I've tried doing both fixing AD&D is easier.

Hell ascending ACs and B/X ability modifiers go a long way right there. Plug in 5E or tweak 4E skill system you're mist of the way there.

Fixing 3E basically requires a rewrite. Depending on what your goal is replacing the skill system and a unified numbers progression woukd be a good place to start.

Well that's part of it right there. I don't have a problem with 3e's skill system. I want to use skills, and I prefer 3e to NWPs or 5e's approach.
 

I think Trailblazer from Bad Axe Games was a fair attempt at a "revised 3.5e". It made attempts at fixing monster math, and revamped all the classes. It also provided the ability to recover a significant amount of resources with shorter rests (5-15 minutes IIRC).
Another vote for Trailblazer by Benjamin Durbin. Available here:


I think however you intend to overhaul 3.X - and preferences will vary greatly in this regard - that this is an invaluable resource in understanding the math which underpins the edition.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Legend
SWSE would have been a pretty good base to make a 4e some of which did make it into 4e.

I liked:

  • no saving throws
  • condition track
  • talents and talent trees with prerequisite talents basically showed a way to tier martial abilities
  • most of the classes were non magic (force) so showed a lot of variety in martial including leaders, etc.
  • a little bit better multiclassing -- basically the classes acted more like generic shells for the talent trees that you could mix or match fairly well
  • skill challenge explanation in one of the splats that was better than anything in 4e
  • simplified skills with trained or not

I think it still had some of the bad parts of 3.5e IMO as well though:
  • monsters built up like PCs
  • bad CR and encounter building
  • some fidly modifiers and rules
  • still a little too character building vs play centric for me
etc

I'm glad we got 4e but would have liked to see a D&D version that tried to build on SWSE too though.

Where I'm leaning for my homebrew is SWSE/4E proficiency system, 5E monsters but said monsters have old school MR/SR stolen from D&D minis game circa 3.5.

Microfeats overhauled.
 

Emerikol

Hero
I don't go for user encounter or daily "powers" for non-magical powers. I could go for dice initiated powers that only occur as a result of some roll "triggering" them. I just can't get around the dissociation such powers cause for me.
 

GreyLord

Legend
My thought is that it basically did come out by those who were pretty heavily involved with 3e and 3.5, someone even mentioned it in this thread already.

That game is basically Pathfinder 1e.
 

BigZebra

Adventurer
IMO of all the things "wrong" with 3.5, PF1 fixed like none of those. Sure the condensed skill list is fine, but that really wasn't a problem with 3.5. Nobody felt the game was broken because there was both a Listen and Spot skill.

Sure fine, grappling is easier, but it's really not that important. It's not like people started grappling left and right.

Also I find PF1's class design not very good. Extremely fiddly with a tons of different resources I need to track. In that regard 3.5 is actually simpler.

The main pain points in 3.5 that should have been fixed, but wasn't fixed in PF1 includes:
  • Monster design. Most monsters are on the scene for a very short amount of time. The idea of monsters working under the same rules as characters is unnecessary although beautiful in theory.
  • The whole Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard-problem wasn't solved in PF1. Sure the floor got raised and the ceiling lowered but nowhere near enough.
To be fair to Paizo fixing the above would have gone counter to their strategy of continuing the sales of their Adventure Paths that people knew and loved. So what they did made sense, but I would not call it a "fix for 3.5" or the "4e we didn't get".

I would say that 5e fells like a cleaned up 3.5. I really like both 3.5 and 4e for wearing their feelings on their sleeve so to speak, but 5e do feel more stream lined and easier (although I'm DMing a 3.5 campaign at the moment).
 

Remove ads

Top