5E VS 3.5 - General Discussion - D&D Beyond General - D&D Beyond Forums (2024)

Hi, i've never played D&D before and have been looking at doing so. I have a friend who used to play it when he was younger, he's used to 3.5 and hasn't played anything else. I'm not really fussed which version we play, although i'm most familiar with 5e so i lean towards that personally.

Show him a 1e rulebook: it’s like 40 pages if that, not a skill to be seen. It’s way simpler than 3.5, and 5e is by far the best reflection of classic D&D there is. Any “old school” claim crumbles at that point.

Also, on a more practical note, if he’s your friend he should be excited about helping you learn a game. Telling him it would be easier for you to learn 5e should really be enough, unless he’s a total chump.

I think the best way to convince your friend is to have him try to explain the 3.5 rules to you, help you make a character and run a combat. Then you explain 5e to him, have him make a character and run a combat. I would think that it will twice as long for 3.5 as it does for 5e.

When 5e came out, I too was thinking “what happened to all the feats” and other things that gave you lots of options but often gave you few real choices that made a difference in roleplaying. The combat rules in 3.5 also gave you many options but few usable choices so you had to spend a lot of time learning rules that you very rarely used.

My first reflex was to say that the mechanics shouldn't really matter too much, but then I remembered I'll never play another game using AD&D rules again because of the mechanics so that isn't exactly true. I'll play any 21st century D&D edition though (yes, including 4th) - 3E and 5E are both eminently useable.

5E is less complicated though, and it is the currently supported edition. The latter means that for new players, investing in 5E is a lot more likely to pay off: there are still lots of 3E games being played, but compared to 5E that number pales in comparison nonetheless (Adventurers League is also 5E, obviously). There's a number of tools, like DDB, available for 5E that 3E lacks too. If you do end up playing 3.5 (again, definitely playable - it wouldn't be the end of the world) I strongly suggest not spending any money on books and using only what your friend already has available. Being less complicated and being simplified are not quite the same thing, less complicated doesn't equal baby version, and insofar as it impacts the player experience that really comes down to whether you enjoy deciding on a lot of small details and/or looking through possibly dozens of sourcebooks for just the right feat, item or prestige class and/or highly technical (and usually rather lengthy) combat. If you get to play 5E, it will be an adjustment for your friend. If he makes that adjustment I'm sure he'll come to enjoy this new edition as much as the old one, but it is something he'll have to do. Mostly it's just thinking less technically about your character's actions (not everything a little bit special you want to do requires having the relevant feats or abilities, with 3E almost everything requires something restricted by mechanics), it's not really hard, just flipping a mental switch.

Quote from zeteticzen >>

He took one look at the 5e character sheet and started complaining, noticing that will/reflex/fortitude were missing, as well as grapple and a lot of the old skills. He said it was over simplified and everything good had been removed and that it was a baby's version and he wouldn't play anything but 3.5.

Run. I mean this in all seriousness. I used to think that oldschool grognards were the most toxic gamers in our hobby until 4e came out and all the 3.x diehards started frothing to the surface. And then 5e came out and a lot of 3.x players became fans of it which was great but there was a core demographic of 3.x/PF fans who only became even more toxic and resentful of 5e's success. This person sounds like one of those and the effort to 'convert' (trust me, this is an impossible task) them will only result in a horrible experience for everyone involved.

The first D&D book I bought was a 3e Player's Handbook, then by the time I decided to start investing more into the hobby 3.5 came along and my girlfriend at the time got me the PHB/DMG/MM package for my birthday and I built up a collection of a dozen or so 3.5 books that I still have. I only recently came back to the hobby after years of being sadly dungeonless and dragonless, and looked at 5e, which I knew wasvery successful and popular (D&D is at an all time high right now, oth socially and commercially). My take is that 5e is basically a streamlined version of 3.5 with a few extra nice features added in (most notably off the top of my head is advantage/disadvantage).

I loved 3.5 and it still holds a special place in my heart, but as pointed out in the OP, a lot of the rules are rather complicated and narrowly focused, which means that there are alot of complicated and narrowly focused rules to cover as many potential situations as possible. And I learned ALL of those rules, to the point that I could tell players at my table exactly what any spell did without looking it up, or the base attack bonus, saving throws, and spells per level per day of a multiclassed level 5 fighter/level 5 wizard/level 3 daggerspell mage right off the top of my head.

5e is just better.It takes all the things 3.5 does and streamlines them into a simpler and more versatile system. Skills are a great example, as already mentioned with hide and move silently being consolidated into stealth (same goes for spot/listen to perception [worth noting that the latter also covers smell, for which there is no specific 3.5 skill], and climb/jump to athletics). Prestige classes are effectively replaced with subclasses, and while those aren't as modular as 3.5 multiclassing with PrCs, they're a lot simpler (just like nearly everything else) and there's always the option of a DM allowing a homebrew mix of different options for a new subclass (as in all D&D, "what works for your game" trumps anything else). Another streamline is the proficiency bonus as opposed to separate, class specific bonuses to attacks, different saving throws, and flat proficient/nonproficient skill checks. Yes, you lose a bit of customization from separate skill points in 3.5, but everybody I played with would almost always just put the max points in the base number of skills their class allowed that for unless they were diverting enough to meet the minimum prerequisites for a specific prestige class. There wasn't really a point to having five ranks inany single skill at level fifteen because any opportunity to use that skill would either have a low enough DC to be feasible without proficiency or high enough that an extra +5 isn't going to matter much on a DC 30 check that would be completely reasonable if you had the +18 from a maxed out skill.

And that brings me to another big streamlining:less complex math. 3.5 has a definite math creep as levels go up and you get more bonuses to tack onto the equations for determining pretty much anything that involves die rolls. Both 3.5 and 5e only require basic algebra (ability modifier + bonus/penalty modifiers as variables + die roll) but 3.5, especially at higher levels, has a lot more modifiers to factor in (which may or may not stack with each other) plus various potential multipliers that may be calculated before or after other modifiers and may or may not stack with other multipliers depending on what kinds of bonuses, penalties, or multipliers are involved and what specific situation you're dealing with. I'm all for customization and adaptability, but when you have to write out an equation in longhand to make sure you get the damage right from just swinging your sword at something then it's getting a bit ridiculous (an example was a totally munchkinized fighter build I once made for a level 20 one shot game that dealt a minimum of 100 damage on a critical hit, and would potentially crit 25% of the time, with a weapon with a base damage of 2d8). The scaling system that 5e uses keeps the numbers from inflating so much that DMs don't have to be constantly worrying about monsters being able to hit the party powergamer's AC 33 character and not wipe out the rest of the level 8 party with single hits on attack rolls higher than 5.

5e uses the same basic, core mechanic that 3.0/3.5 does: To do something with a chance of failure, you roll a d20 and add appropriate modifiers, then succeed if the result is high enough. THAT RIGHT THERE is the single, simple mathematical concept that both editions are built around. The difference is that where 3.5 gives you a bunch of different modifiers for all sorts of possible situations, 5e gives you a smaller set of modifiers to use and tells you to apply each one to any situation that your DM decides it fits to. It's like using a shotgun to hit a dozen targets in a cluster instead of twelve different rifles, each of which have different muzzle velocities, bullet weights, bullet arcs, forces of recoil, and sight setups to factor into your aim before pulling the trigger and changing all of your factoring for the next shot with a different one.

When I started learning D&D rules with 3e and first read the 3.5 PHB, i thought "This is awesome! They took an already good system and just tweaked it to make it better!" When I picked up the 5e PHB after over a decade away from a gaming table, I thought "Cool! They took all the good stuff from 3.5 and made it less convoluted to do different stuff!" As such, I strongly recommend 5e to any new players and for any other old 3.5 geeks coming back to the hobby now. All the basics are still there. Just sit down and read the character creation guide and combat rules of the PHB and it makes perfect sense. I seriously can't think of any situation that could be handled in a way fairly described as "easier" or "more intuitive" with 3.5 rules than 5e, and being able to count on the DM consistently making quick and easily understood calls for what rolls to make keeeps the action going smoothly during a game.

Therehad been another thread of someone asking the difference. To me, it boils down to the attitude toward DMs. In 3.5, they tried to protect players from bad DMs by having a rule to cover every conceivable situation. In 5e, the idea is more to trust the DM to make good rulings, so they don’t need a rule for everything.

Though 5e, I think does try to protect the players from themselves more in making a character. It gives you fewer choices, but that ends up making it more difficult to make a bad character. In 3.x it was much easier to misunderstand how powers and feats would work together and end up with a weaker character.

Your friend sounds like a real meat-and-potato's sort of guy. Experimenting and trying new things is the spice of life! Who wants to play the same boring rules for the rest of their lives?

Anyway, it really does not matter that much what rules you use. The rules between editions are all explaining what is essentially the same game. Each version just has their own way of dealing with certain things. For example, the way attacks are resolved in 2e versus 3e are handled a bit differently. Honestly, you should just use whatever is cheap and available for you. This is the way that most tabletop games are bought, learned, and played anyway and there is no need to make it complicated. If you go to the store and there is only 5th edition, get that. If there is only Pathfinder 2nd Edition, or Star Wars, or Vampire: The Masquerade, or (and may god forbid it) Zweihänder, then get whatever looks the most interesting. The only thing that kind of blows about 3rd edition is how it's married to grids and the problem with power ceilings. Neither of these things will be noticed too much by a new player, not for a good long while at least.

Quote from zeteticzen >>

Hi, i've never played D&D before and have been looking at doing so. I have a friend who used to play it when he was younger, he's used to 3.5 and hasn't played anything else. I'm not really fussed which version we play, although i'm most familiar with 5e so i lean towards that personally.

He took one look at the 5e character sheet and started complaining, noticing that will/reflex/fortitude were missing, as well as grapple and a lot of the old skills. He said it was over simplified and everything good had been removed and that it was a baby's version and he wouldn't play anything but 3.5.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but in 3.5, Will, Fortitude and Reflex were just for your saving throws and were a reflection of your WIS, CON and DEX ability stats, respectively. Whereas in 5e, they use the other 3 stats for saving throws as well (STR, INT, CHA) so you have a total of 6 instead of 3. That seems like they've expanded it, not simplified it.

He's right about the skills though, there's a lot less, but that's not necessarily a bad thing imo. Why have 100 different skills to check when some of them are similar enough to fall under one category? For example, getting rid of 'Hide' and 'Move silently' as separate things and just having 'Stealth' to cover those and other similar skills. Or having 'Ride' fall under 'Animal Handling'. Sometimes less is more. I mean 3.5 has a 'Use Rope' skill... is that really necessary? If you're going to have that, why not have a skill specifically for every item then? Use caltrops/use ballbearings/use grappling hook, etc. Doesn't make sense to me. I think simplifying the skills is a good idea. Especially in regards to making the game more accessible to newbies, like me, who just want to test the waters and get stuck in rather than spend too much time learning a more complex system of play.

I don't know enough about D&D to have much of a valid opinion. What are the pros and cons of 3.5 and 5e? Is 5e over simplified, and if so, does it lessen the player experience? How do they compare to each other?

Moreover, what arguments can i make for 5e to try and convince my stubborn oldschool friend to play it instead of 3.5?

Thanks in advance.

Most of 3.5's skills were a waste of everyone's time. Hide and Move Silently were an egregious example, as if being stealthy were remotely possible with only one of them. Pathfinder and D&D both realized this as they improved on the 3.5 ruleset. Below is a breakdown of 3.5E's skills mapping to how you do them in 5E. A far fairer criticism of 5E's skill system is that how you gain proficiencies is now disjoint from your Intelligence score, unlike in 3.5, which means that unlike in 3.5, Intelligence is easily the most universal dump stat - almost no-one has any use for it outside of INT casters.

The strongest argument I can give you for 5E over 3.5E is that 3.5E was deliberately designed like Magic: The Gathering - some feats, skills, etc were deliberately made bad relative to others, and you were supposed to develop as a game skill figuring out which options were good when building your character. 5E is not done this way, and while the same thing happens, it's accidental when it does - the design intent is balance, so overall things are genuinely more balanced than they used to be.

Relevant tool: Appraise, Craft, Disable Device, Disguise, Forgery, Knowledge (architecture and engineering), Open Lock, Perform (with instrument), Profession

Acrobatics: Balance, Escape Artist (for grapples)

Deception: Bluff

Athletics: Climb, Jump, Swim

Investigation: Decipher Script, Gather Information (while many DMs won't engage in this, adventures like Rime of the Frostmaiden confirm that this should be Charisma (Investigate)), Search

Persuasion: What's left of Diplomacy - the 3.5E ability to shut down the entire game with high Diplomacy rules doesn't exist in 5E.

Sleight of Hand: Escape Artist (for rope), Sleight of Hand, Use Rope

Animal Handling: Handle Animal, Ride (but only for when the DM wants you to make a check to control your mount, which has no real RAW in the stock rules)

Medicine: Heal

Stealth: Hide, Move Silently

Intimidate: Intimidate

Arcana: Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Planes), Spellcraft

History: Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Nobility), Knowledge (Local)

Nature: Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (Nature), Knowledge (Dungeoneering)

Religion: Knowledge (Religion)

Perception: Listen, Spot

Performance: Perform (if with an instrument, you can use this or a tool proficiency, and if you have both, you roll the higher one with advantage)

Insight: Sense Motive

Survival: Survival

• Special:
  • Concentration is moved from being, in 3.5E terms, a CON skill to a FORT save. In 5E terms, that's a CON save.
  • There's no way to break the game using 3.5E's Diplomacy checks.
  • Escape Artist is genuinely mostly gone - almost everywhere it comes up in 5E you instead have to make an untrained Dexterity check, such as against manacles, or it's been rendered impossible to escape, such as nets (the only way out of a 5E net is by damaging the net until it breaks or inexplicably passing an untrained Strength check which doesn't break the net but does free you - I think they intended it as a way to burst the net and forgot to say so, unless they intended it as a Dexterity check). Spells you would escape generally either rely on dex or str saves or untrained dex or str checks.
  • Ride as a check to remain mounted is gone - you remain mounted with a DEX save, not a check. One unfortunate consequence is that military saddles are of no benefit in 5E.
  • Languages work differently now: instead of spending skill points on them, you spend language proficiencies on them. Languages work the same way as in 5E, otherwise - there's no check, you know the language or you don't.
  • Tumble is genuinely gone, because everyone automatically succeeds at moving without provoking OAs via the Disengage action, and no-one can phase through enemies without a special rule, which halflings have.
  • Use Magic Device is genuinely gone. You can have a special rule simulating it - the Thief subclass of Rogue has this - but the skill is simply out.

Quote from quindraco >>

A far fairer criticism of 5E's skill system is that how you gain proficiencies is now disjoint from your Intelligence score, unlike in 3.5, which means that unlike in 3.5, Intelligence is easily the most universal dump stat - almost no-one has any use for it outside of INT casters.

Str is arguably worse off. Investigation and the various knowledge-type proficiencies arguably top Athletics, Str saves matter less than Int saves, and going Str-based over Dex-based as a melee warrior is pretty niche when looking at mechanical efficiency.

5E looks like the baby that 2E & 3.5 could have. It's more light weight than 3.5, more balanced than 2E and less denatured than 4E. It has less actions, abilities, feats, skills, options, etc than 3.5 has, but the experience is remarkable and fun none the less. D&D is about storytelling, mechanics to adjudicate the game should be there to facilitate that, not make it more complex or realistic unecessarily. Take grapple for exemple, the two editions have different ways and complixity to achieve the same end result, which is how to escape from or grab and move someone.

Best is to try it and if it's doesn't making it, can always play 3.5 ☺

I like how Brennan Lee Mulligan puts it, 5e is an overall better designed game - easier to get into and more fluid to play. It has a lot of moving parts, but is a well oiled machine.

BUT if you're playing 3.5e for years and has gone pass the heavy entry barrier, is it worse than 5e? Probably not.

I remember getting into 3e back in the day, my group had a gentleman's agreement to never grapple, bc we didn't understood the rules lol

Which is better will fall simply to opinion.

There are some feature of 5e that are great, such as the simplified skills system, which still has drawbacks though.

Here's the thing about 5E that's better than 3.5E that nobody's mentioned yet: you can play a character who isn't a wizard, cleric, or druid past 5th level without having their role in the part get reduced to "cheerleader."

Also, 3.5's complexity was not "better." Most of that added complexity was actually a trap that would punish you for having a character that wasn't optimized. Most classes had dead levels where you got nothing beyond HP and maybe an improvement to BAB and saves. And lots of prestige classes looked good but in truth were actively worse than just taking class levels.