Thank you to everyone who mentioned the history of Barbarians and Conan. I took the opportunity to look more into it and we just talked about it in another video. You can find that here -> th-cam.com/video/SKmekJV5jRk/w-d-xo.html
Thank you. Just looked that up. The Complete Barbarian's Handbook did make the barbarian it's own class during 2E, which I did not know. Thank you for the info! - Nathan
@@TotalPebbleKnockdown Monk was a sub group of Priest, just like Druid or Cleric in AD&D 2nd. You were right about it being it's own class in AD&D, however everything was a "subclass" in 2nd edition, except Psionicist if I remember right.
@@TotalPebbleKnockdown In a certain way you are correct though. Barbarian as core and separate class with a rage class feature, that is central to it, appears first time in 3.0.
Actually, Barbarians came out in 1st Edition in the Unearthed Arcana Book. Sorcerer replaced Illusionist. Barbarian was in 2nd but only after the Complete Fighter handbook came out
When Pathfinder 1E came out I was so happy because it fixed a lot of the problems I was sick of with 3.5. It still boggles me that people look so fondly back at 3.5 when shitting on 5E when could have been playing 3.75 the whole time.
Big change to skills not mentioned: Search, Spot, Listen were rolled together into Perception. >>Story: We were mid-campaign when the 3->3.5 change happened, so we converted our characters and kept playing. The Big Bad at that point was a Hezrou (Demon). It was pretty scary to the party, toying with them, playing mind games, and was a serious threat. Come along the changes... Lost 1/3 of its Damage Resistance, reduced hit points, less spells, easier to hit/damage (ie: any Magic Weapon would do, not just +3 or higher, etc.) The next encounter with it, the party Spanked it all over the place and wrecked it - easy peasy style!!
@@JohahnDiechter Mea culpa. You are right. I have been through so many version changes that I mentally slipped over then all! 4th and 5th followed Pathfinder's lead with a combined "Perception"... I failed that roll!
Began playing 3E when it was just released. Moved over to 3.5E and fell deeply in love with that edition alongside AD&D. Tried some 4E but never felt the magic that 3E and 3.5E had. For me 3.5E managed to provide not only a unified dice system but allowed players to explore numerous options for character progression that encouraged experimentation.
Several posters commented on it but I don't think it's emphasized enough. One big change was spell duration. Buff spells used to last for hours per level, in 3E. In 3.5, they last minutes. As wizards got higher in level, those lower level spell slots could still matter by being used for buff spells that would last all day. It also had the effect of making magic items that buffed those stats less important, if the wizard had the buff spell. No more Gloves of Dexterity, and spent gold on it, when the wizard could do it. DR changed such that you needed a lot of different weapon types to fight things. Now, looking back, a group probably shouldn't have to worry about having to have cold iron, silver, and adamantine weapons. it was possible, though, if they fought all types of outsiders. 3E had a lot more things based on skills. When you got to X rank, you gained an ability, especially for bards. In 3.5, that was instead given at certain levels. I think Monk and Paladin got their early abilities spread out a bit more. The tables also spelled out for us when they got the 2nd or 3rd smite, for example, instead of having to read it. Ranger got a lot more choices in 3.5. I personally like PF1 sorcerer for a bloodline and the bonuses it gives. I also don't like that sorcerer and wizard share spell lists. I do like 5E having Sorcerers be metamagic casters as that makes sense in their description. These really changed how we approached the game and how it played. Great video! Thanks!
To explain the critical threat stuff, in 3 and 3.5, if you rolled (die, no modifiers) in your threat range (19-20 for most weapons) then you would have to roll again to confirm the hit (just hit the AC again). Improved Critical would double that, so 19-20 would become 17-20. This meant that you could get a keen scimitar (scimitar was 18-20/x2, so keen scimitar was 15-20/x2) and the Improved Critical (scimitar) feet and your threat range was permanently 12-20/x2 on your die roll, so 3.5 made it so these didn't stack. IIRC in 3e rolling a threat was also an auto hit, while that was relegated to an optional rule in 3.5).
There were a couple times you called something a subclass that's actually a class. 3/3.5 doesn't have subclasses. Also, you didn't really make clear that prestige class levels are taken instead of, not in addition to, regular class levels. It's like multiclassing, but with no XP penalty for not keeping your levels close between classes.
@esteemedleader 3:34 "third edition added those two as subclasses". I'm sure there's more examples, but I don't feel like watching the whole video again rn, and I feel like that one is fairly clearly talking about 3e.
@@charlessaintpe8574 I suppose that's the crux of it, mentioning that would have more completely illuminated those individuals. Just saying 'core classes' gives them a bread crumb to follow at least. In addressing posterity one could make the argument that your comment "prestige class levels are taken instead of, not in addition to, regular class levels" could be misconstrued by someone unfamiliar with the system, as you need to have at least one level in a base class before being able to opt into a prestige class thus making the prestige 'in addition to' the base class and can't take it as your first level 'instead of' a base class.
Multiclassing: You got the penalty unless one of the classes was a favored class for your race. An elven(high elf-if using subraces) Barbarian for example and take levels in wizard and the wizard class wouldn't count against that. So you could be 7 barbarian and 1 wizard and not incur the penalty. Now if you add another class say rogue, then you would start incurring the penalty to xp from the barbarian and rogue class. There was a half orc race in 2E, they were in the Complete Book of Humanoids. I played one a long long time ago. If I remember correctly they got a +1 to Str, +1 Con, and -1 to Int, Wiz, and Cha.
I never really got what they were going for with the favored class rule. It basically just made it easier for an elf to pick up 1 or 2 levels of wizard, or an elf wizard to pick up 1 or 2 levels of a different class. It didn't seem to fit the "flavor" of elves being more natural wizards, just complicated things.
I recall that 3.5e standardized damage reduction. 3.0e iron golem had DR 60. All attacks combined had to exceed 60 points in one round to do any damage. 3.5e DR is assessed on each source of damage, and is rarely exceeds 10.
One significant change from 3 to 3.5 was the duration of a lot of buff spells. in 3e, many buff spells had durations of hours allowing the spells to be applied at the start of the day and last for most of the adventuring day, in 3.5 it was dropped to durations of minutes, so it had to be cast at the start of a battle (or immediately before if you could prepare). Before the change they were perhaps a bit overpowered.
I came in with 1e, and in the early 00's, a friend of mine got me into 3. It was a revelation. The d20 system had fixed nearly everything that was broken in AD&D in one simple move. Plus they added so much good stuff to it. Metamagic Feats, Magic Item Creation Feats... FEATS themselves! Then 3.5 came out and fixed 3's problems, but I still liked some of 3's mechanics over 3.5. And while it's a great system, it's quite complex, and it isn't perfect, but I think I'd prefer any D&D I play to be 3-era based, and maybe add/change elements from other editions or even other systems. #cancelhasbro
3e ditched weapon damage versus opponent size, weapon length, weapon space requirement, weapon speed factor, weapon ac adjustments, and radically changed how the combat rounds functioned. I wouldn't call it fixed. 3e is nothing like 1e. Its an entirely different game.
5:40 I think you’re conflating epic levels with prestige classes. When you spoke of levels above 20. Even with prestige classes you had to take epic levels once you hit 20.
Ummm Actually 2ed stripped out a lot of classes from 1st edition via the original Unearthed Acana book. I hated 2nd Ed for that and loved 3rd Ed for bring back classes stripped out. 2ed did eventually bring back classes via hand books but for years classic 1st ed classes were missing. Left me bitter.
3.whatever is my home edition lol. I love it, and it's really cool to learn that there are still people out there digging on it. The purpose of prestige classes in 3 or 3.5 was as an exception to the XP penalty one would normally get from multiclassing, and it also allows classes such as the monk to take special exceptions to the rule that if you multiclass as a monk you can no longer gain monk levels, however some of the prestige classes such as tattooed monk, or warmaster for example, allowed to monk to still take monk levels. It's just an example, to me, of how adaptable the system really is, because they seemed to understand from the get go that a lot of homebrewed stuff was going to be made so they created a tool box for us in which to do that in a way that could be dropped into practically anybody's game, no matter who the DM writing it was.
Actually for multiclassing in 5e, you need to meet both multiclass out and in of. So to multiclass say a wizard/sorcerer you need both a 13 int and 13 cha. It's assumed you have both. Ie you have one if you start out as one and can lean into the other. However that's an assumption, as you're level 1 class doesn't need they're key stats to be at mutliclassing level unless they want to multiclass out of it or just you know high stats. Ie you can be a wizard with 10 int, you don't want that as better numbers = better casting. However you can. Just as you need to have a 13 int or higher to multiclass into any other class. To quote the multicasting rules: *To qualify for a new class, you must meet the ability score prerequisites for both your current class and your new one, as shown in the Multiclassing Prerequisites table. For example, a barbarian who decides to multiclass into the druid class must have both Strength and Wisdom scores of 13 or higher. Without the full training that a beginning character receives, you must be a quick study in your new class, having a natural aptitude that is reflected by higher-than-average ability scores.*
I couldn't tell you numbers of people playing/buying books, but 4ed was officially supported for 6 years before 5ed came out. 3.5 was supported for 5 years before 4ed came out. It's always weird when 5e players joke about 3.5 being around longer than 4e. Yeah, it's older, that's how time works. 3.5 wasn't played as much as you think it was after 4ed was published. Pathfinder 1e was where most of those players went in 2009 after 4ed was published if they didn't play 4e.
EXACTLY. Pathfinder 1E had a lot of great fixes for 3.5 and that plus Pathfinder Society organized play meant that very little 3.5 or 4 was seen in venues like stores or even conventions. Living Greyhawk was barely attended compared to Pathfinder Society. I couldn't even get a group to play 4E once my core D&D group decided to finish a campaign with 3.5 and then move on to Pathfinder, even though we all bought the core books.
3.5 is the superior system. In that system I could make anything I could imagine. I can make the Hulk or Freddy Krueger without homebrew. There was so much customization it was amazing. 5e is extremely limited. I get the appeal for novices to enter because of simplicity. But if anyone feels that they've maxed out 5e I recommend going to 3.5. If you can get ahold of the material. 3.0 was broken and they made the right changes to 3.5. There was the ability to have a critical range from 12 to 20 and haste was changed because they gave you too many action options for example.
unfortunately the powercreep outclassed the flair. I wished 3.5 had as elaborate lore about stuff as does DSA5 for its world. Fluff like exact rituals of clerics of all Greyhawk gods. Wizard academies with their unique intricacies and rites, titles, etc.
An especially weird change was that 3.0 has a few weapons occupy an even more niche role, which interacted very strangely with some rules Off the top of my head: The whip counted as a Ranged Weapon in 3.0, with a few caveats, and would thus scale with things like Rapid Shot and Point Blank Shot. It's weird to think about the implications of this, since Longbows were really good specifically because you could shoot so rapidly. Shurikens were absolutely baffling, dealing 1 damage each but allowing you to roll 3 shurikens per every attack. They could not scale with strength at all, but man... Fear the Shuriken Fighter who is using two-weapon fighting, weapon specialization, point blank shot, and rapid shot to toss out like 12 of these a round at level 4 The expanded 3.0 books tended to have very strange, niche options inherited from the wild expansion of rules of 2.0 in a manner we wouldn't see again until like, Book of Nine Swords - For example, one early book allowed you to use a Caber as a weapon (Those giant logs you hurl at people) which was a martial weapon that did an AoE reflex save There were also aspects like Haste allowing casters to cast two spells a round, making it very overpowered (especially since it would be cast, and then immediately allow a caster to cast another spell) I think the more meaningful change from 3.0 to 3.5 was this approach to design which... Reeled in the more immediately strange decisions, in favour of decisions that make sense until you delve into complicated rules interactions. In other words, the game was more consistent in it's playstyle, even if any of the actual balance touted at the time is more surface-level than anything Also, little known rule: 3.0 encouraged you to rename skills if it suited your character. This is potentially very confusing. Also the example given was a halfling rogue who renamed her Move Silently skill to "Paddafooting" which is equal parts cute and terrible as far as names go.
3.5 and 3e are both third edition, one is just the revised third edition rules. 3.5 had a lot more books and years than before the revision, and most of the changes were small simplifications or only clarifying wording or describing the same mechanics more clearly. There's just not as much to say about pre-revision third edition.
I love 3.5, and I have played Pathfinder extensively, but I have been playing mostly 5e for a while now. I don't think 5e is as limiting as the veteran players think it is, at least not since TCoE released. Multiclassing being an optional rule aside, it being so easy to multiclass (as long as you avoid MADness) means that there are TONS of ways to build out, and even single class builds have huge variety. Also, to clarify on animal companions, there are 2 5e ranger classes with dedicated companions, 2 artificer classes (with the 3rd having an optional one), 1 druid class with a summonable (expending a use of wild shape), a warlock pact( separate from subclass) that gives a greatly improved version of find familiar, and every spellcasting class has options to get powerful summon spells that can fill the role.
May I aslo add there are TCoE variant of Druid which just gives summonable find familiar if you forgo wild shape. And if I recall correctly spores druid in 5e, allows for spore zombies at higher level, as does hexblade warlock gives a you way to gain a ghost compaion.
What we now call multi-classing was a bit more like dual classing from first ed. Except you permanently stopped progressing in your previous class and couldn't use any of its abilities until the new class level was higher (and harsher prereqs) That used to be the only way to become a bard or druid.
Multiclass in 1e existed. It was only permitted for nonhuman characters. All experience points earned were spread between all classes. There was a very likely chance at higher levels. That there would be larger differences in number of levels for each class a character could have.
The XP penalty for 3.X was really weird. If your core class levels that weren't your favored class(based on race) were different by more than 1 level, you woud get an XP penalty. Prestige classes didn't count.
I think Youse guys got presige classes completely wrong. Its not something on top of a class or after finishing a class, rather it was a sort of specialization you could take instead of continuing in a base class. For example: the candle caster was an arcane prestige class that specialized in making magic candles that were essentially just better scrolls. To become one you had to show an appreciation for candles and magic by having a box of matches and keeping it full until you qualified for the prestige class. Generally the base classes were really boring, the prestige classes let you improve them and specialize.
5e did an Unearthed Arcana teasing Prestige classes early on but they didn't test well. Which is unfortunate because prestige classes were a great part of 3.5.
Prestige classes were essentially like sub classes... But more restricted Also, multi class xp penalties didn't affect you if 1 class was your races preferred class... Ie dwarf fighter.
I can't be bothered keeping up with editions. With new editions coming every 5 years now, you basically only have time to play maybe 3 campaigns before you have to get new books.
3-3.5- multi class, your race had certain classes would not occur a pen to multi class; prestige classes had skill point, feat, sometime racial, and occasionally base attack bonus or save requirements to go into it: allot of old prestige classes are subclasses in 5e
Barbarians were in White Dwarf magazine and perhaps another in Dragon before 2e was published but they didn't even include it in the CB1 and CB2 Conan modules. 😝
Barbarian first showed up in White Dwarf. It later showed up in Dragon Magazine #63. Barbarian was officially released as a Fighter subclass in Unearthed Arcana (1st ed. AD&D).
I see 3.0, 3.5 and PF1e as a continuity and is my favorite edition. Not all in PF1e is an improvements. Say 3.0 garrote rules are way more effective and better suited for Rogues, Assassins etc. Also 3.5 and PF lowered too much the DR values for monsters, and removed all the "Immune to spells X level or lower". Such power should exist for some monster.
3.5 was a mixed bag for me. It had some cool stuff, like different types of DR (3e had things like DR 5/+1, and 5/silver where 3.5 added things like 5/cold iron for fae and other weapon types, also changing 5/+1 to 5/magic). But it also had some stuff that took away the coolness of things in order to better balance it, examples include making fly last 1 minute/level instead of 1 hour/level (making it a combat spell instead of a travel spell), and making call lightening work inside, not subject to the weather and giving it 1 balanced strike a round/level instead of 1 very powerful strike every 10 minutes/level (thematically cool and OP in rare circumstances, but practically one single bolt in most outdoor encounters encounters). I was never a fan of sacrificing thematic coolness for combat number balance.
Thank you to everyone who mentioned the history of Barbarians and Conan. I took the opportunity to look more into it and we just talked about it in another video. You can find that here -> th-cam.com/video/SKmekJV5jRk/w-d-xo.html
Love 3.5, but quick point, Barbarian was introduced way back in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons pretty much as a response to Conan the Barbarian.
Thank you. Just looked that up. The Complete Barbarian's Handbook did make the barbarian it's own class during 2E, which I did not know. Thank you for the info! - Nathan
@@TotalPebbleKnockdown Monk was a sub group of Priest, just like Druid or Cleric in AD&D 2nd. You were right about it being it's own class in AD&D, however everything was a "subclass" in 2nd edition, except Psionicist if I remember right.
@@TotalPebbleKnockdown There is also the Barbarian - Fighter Sub-Class in the original AD&D Unearthed Arcana as well.
Oh, an also there is a Oriental Barbarian class in Oriental Adventures as well.
@@TotalPebbleKnockdown In a certain way you are correct though. Barbarian as core and separate class with a rage class feature, that is central to it, appears first time in 3.0.
Actually, Barbarians came out in 1st Edition in the Unearthed Arcana Book. Sorcerer replaced Illusionist. Barbarian was in 2nd but only after the Complete Fighter handbook came out
I came by to comment EXACTLY that. We've had Barbarians since 1st Ed. :)
Nice video but sorcerer, monk, and Barbarian both existed in previous editions (both 1e and 2e). 3.0 just made them a part of the “core” set.
Thank you. I was not clear on that point while looking at 3E. But maybe that's worth examining in another segment about 1E or 2E? Who knows. - Nathan
Skill points were in the same boat, originally created in the 'Skills and Powers' option book for 2e, and made a core mechanic in 3e.
It would be right to say that Barbarian wasn't an independent class until 3ed.
The sorcerer was unique to 3e. It was created based on feedback about Magic Users and vancian casting.
Talking about 3.5! I love it! We're still playing Pathfinder 1E! 🎉🎉🎉 It's epic to see someone talking about 3x
When Pathfinder 1E came out I was so happy because it fixed a lot of the problems I was sick of with 3.5. It still boggles me that people look so fondly back at 3.5 when shitting on 5E when could have been playing 3.75 the whole time.
@@RecklessFables yup. We still play Pathfinder 1E. I see zero reason to change
Big change to skills not mentioned: Search, Spot, Listen were rolled together into Perception.
>>Story: We were mid-campaign when the 3->3.5 change happened, so we converted our characters and kept playing.
The Big Bad at that point was a Hezrou (Demon). It was pretty scary to the party, toying with them, playing mind games, and was a serious threat.
Come along the changes... Lost 1/3 of its Damage Resistance, reduced hit points, less spells, easier to hit/damage (ie: any Magic Weapon would do, not just +3 or higher, etc.)
The next encounter with it, the party Spanked it all over the place and wrecked it - easy peasy style!!
I think this was a change that Pathfinder made, but I could be wrong.
@@accessyourinnerlight971 PF did it too. If there's a good idea, often Pathfinder gets there first.
@@hrayz This change was not made in 3.5. It was a change in Pathfinder.
@@JohahnDiechter Mea culpa. You are right. I have been through so many version changes that I mentally slipped over then all!
4th and 5th followed Pathfinder's lead with a combined "Perception"... I failed that roll!
Barbarians were a Fighter Kit, which is basically like a Subclass/Class, lots of special Kit only rules, and it was a core feature of AD&D.
We had a barbarian in our 2ed D&D game 👍
It was introduced as a class in a class in Dragon and then in Unearthed Arcana.
Began playing 3E when it was just released. Moved over to 3.5E and fell deeply in love with that edition alongside AD&D. Tried some 4E but never felt the magic that 3E and 3.5E had. For me 3.5E managed to provide not only a unified dice system but allowed players to explore numerous options for character progression that encouraged experimentation.
I enjoyed 3.0
I never, ever played 3.5
There was no way I was buying new corebooks just for a bit of errata!
I was in the same mind set back then. I kept rolling 3.0 while 3.5 was around.
Me three! 3.0 is still eminently playable. Not perfect but neither was Pathfinder 1e.
Several posters commented on it but I don't think it's emphasized enough.
One big change was spell duration. Buff spells used to last for hours per level, in 3E. In 3.5, they last minutes. As wizards got higher in level, those lower level spell slots could still matter by being used for buff spells that would last all day. It also had the effect of making magic items that buffed those stats less important, if the wizard had the buff spell. No more Gloves of Dexterity, and spent gold on it, when the wizard could do it.
DR changed such that you needed a lot of different weapon types to fight things. Now, looking back, a group probably shouldn't have to worry about having to have cold iron, silver, and adamantine weapons. it was possible, though, if they fought all types of outsiders.
3E had a lot more things based on skills. When you got to X rank, you gained an ability, especially for bards. In 3.5, that was instead given at certain levels.
I think Monk and Paladin got their early abilities spread out a bit more. The tables also spelled out for us when they got the 2nd or 3rd smite, for example, instead of having to read it.
Ranger got a lot more choices in 3.5.
I personally like PF1 sorcerer for a bloodline and the bonuses it gives. I also don't like that sorcerer and wizard share spell lists. I do like 5E having Sorcerers be metamagic casters as that makes sense in their description.
These really changed how we approached the game and how it played.
Great video! Thanks!
To explain the critical threat stuff, in 3 and 3.5, if you rolled (die, no modifiers) in your threat range (19-20 for most weapons) then you would have to roll again to confirm the hit (just hit the AC again). Improved Critical would double that, so 19-20 would become 17-20.
This meant that you could get a keen scimitar (scimitar was 18-20/x2, so keen scimitar was 15-20/x2) and the Improved Critical (scimitar) feet and your threat range was permanently 12-20/x2 on your die roll, so 3.5 made it so these didn't stack.
IIRC in 3e rolling a threat was also an auto hit, while that was relegated to an optional rule in 3.5).
There were a couple times you called something a subclass that's actually a class. 3/3.5 doesn't have subclasses. Also, you didn't really make clear that prestige class levels are taken instead of, not in addition to, regular class levels. It's like multiclassing, but with no XP penalty for not keeping your levels close between classes.
They're speaking about other editions when they mention subclasses.
@esteemedleader 3:34 "third edition added those two as subclasses". I'm sure there's more examples, but I don't feel like watching the whole video again rn, and I feel like that one is fairly clearly talking about 3e.
@@charlessaintpe8574 Ah I see, though that is pretty clearly just that he is misspeaking and meant to say 'core classes'.
@esteemedleader it's clearly a mistake to us, because we are familiar with 3/3.5e, but that's probably not the case for everyone watching the video.
@@charlessaintpe8574 I suppose that's the crux of it, mentioning that would have more completely illuminated those individuals. Just saying 'core classes' gives them a bread crumb to follow at least. In addressing posterity one could make the argument that your comment "prestige class levels are taken instead of, not in addition to, regular class levels" could be misconstrued by someone unfamiliar with the system, as you need to have at least one level in a base class before being able to opt into a prestige class thus making the prestige 'in addition to' the base class and can't take it as your first level 'instead of' a base class.
Multiclassing: You got the penalty unless one of the classes was a favored class for your race. An elven(high elf-if using subraces) Barbarian for example and take levels in wizard and the wizard class wouldn't count against that. So you could be 7 barbarian and 1 wizard and not incur the penalty. Now if you add another class say rogue, then you would start incurring the penalty to xp from the barbarian and rogue class.
There was a half orc race in 2E, they were in the Complete Book of Humanoids. I played one a long long time ago. If I remember correctly they got a +1 to Str, +1 Con, and -1 to Int, Wiz, and Cha.
I never really got what they were going for with the favored class rule. It basically just made it easier for an elf to pick up 1 or 2 levels of wizard, or an elf wizard to pick up 1 or 2 levels of a different class. It didn't seem to fit the "flavor" of elves being more natural wizards, just complicated things.
Wouldn't it have been funny if "Favored Class" got 10% bonus exp instead? lol
I recall that 3.5e standardized damage reduction. 3.0e iron golem had DR 60. All attacks combined had to exceed 60 points in one round to do any damage.
3.5e DR is assessed on each source of damage, and is rarely exceeds 10.
One significant change from 3 to 3.5 was the duration of a lot of buff spells. in 3e, many buff spells had durations of hours allowing the spells to be applied at the start of the day and last for most of the adventuring day, in 3.5 it was dropped to durations of minutes, so it had to be cast at the start of a battle (or immediately before if you could prepare).
Before the change they were perhaps a bit overpowered.
I think 3.0 just ended up as the 3.5 playtest, and no-one talks about playtests after the full edition.
I have never in had a dm actually use the multiclass xp penalty...so there is that...
I came in with 1e, and in the early 00's, a friend of mine got me into 3. It was a revelation. The d20 system had fixed nearly everything that was broken in AD&D in one simple move. Plus they added so much good stuff to it. Metamagic Feats, Magic Item Creation Feats... FEATS themselves! Then 3.5 came out and fixed 3's problems, but I still liked some of 3's mechanics over 3.5. And while it's a great system, it's quite complex, and it isn't perfect, but I think I'd prefer any D&D I play to be 3-era based, and maybe add/change elements from other editions or even other systems. #cancelhasbro
3e ditched weapon damage versus opponent size, weapon length, weapon space requirement, weapon speed factor, weapon ac adjustments, and radically changed how the combat rounds functioned. I wouldn't call it fixed. 3e is nothing like 1e. Its an entirely different game.
Some of us still play 3e. Never made the switch to 3.5. I will however use the supplements.
Further, before 3e, certain things that prompted saves had inverted results, where a "passed" save had a bad effect or a "failed" save a good one.
5:40 I think you’re conflating epic levels with prestige classes. When you spoke of levels above 20. Even with prestige classes you had to take epic levels once you hit 20.
I just want to note that prestige classes are what are subclasses now
Ummm Actually 2ed stripped out a lot of classes from 1st edition via the original Unearthed Acana book. I hated 2nd Ed for that and loved 3rd Ed for bring back classes stripped out. 2ed did eventually bring back classes via hand books but for years classic 1st ed classes were missing. Left me bitter.
To be fair, 2E tried to be very politically correct in its naming of monsters, removing negative things, like assassin and half-orc, and so on.
3.whatever is my home edition lol. I love it, and it's really cool to learn that there are still people out there digging on it. The purpose of prestige classes in 3 or 3.5 was as an exception to the XP penalty one would normally get from multiclassing, and it also allows classes such as the monk to take special exceptions to the rule that if you multiclass as a monk you can no longer gain monk levels, however some of the prestige classes such as tattooed monk, or warmaster for example, allowed to monk to still take monk levels. It's just an example, to me, of how adaptable the system really is, because they seemed to understand from the get go that a lot of homebrewed stuff was going to be made so they created a tool box for us in which to do that in a way that could be dropped into practically anybody's game, no matter who the DM writing it was.
Actually for multiclassing in 5e, you need to meet both multiclass out and in of. So to multiclass say a wizard/sorcerer you need both a 13 int and 13 cha. It's assumed you have both. Ie you have one if you start out as one and can lean into the other.
However that's an assumption, as you're level 1 class doesn't need they're key stats to be at mutliclassing level unless they want to multiclass out of it or just you know high stats.
Ie you can be a wizard with 10 int, you don't want that as better numbers = better casting. However you can. Just as you need to have a 13 int or higher to multiclass into any other class.
To quote the multicasting rules:
*To qualify for a new class, you must meet the ability score prerequisites for both your current class and your new one, as shown in the Multiclassing Prerequisites table. For example, a barbarian who decides to multiclass into the druid class must have both Strength and Wisdom scores of 13 or higher. Without the full training that a beginning character receives, you must be a quick study in your new class, having a natural aptitude that is reflected by higher-than-average ability scores.*
I couldn't tell you numbers of people playing/buying books, but 4ed was officially supported for 6 years before 5ed came out. 3.5 was supported for 5 years before 4ed came out. It's always weird when 5e players joke about 3.5 being around longer than 4e. Yeah, it's older, that's how time works. 3.5 wasn't played as much as you think it was after 4ed was published. Pathfinder 1e was where most of those players went in 2009 after 4ed was published if they didn't play 4e.
EXACTLY. Pathfinder 1E had a lot of great fixes for 3.5 and that plus Pathfinder Society organized play meant that very little 3.5 or 4 was seen in venues like stores or even conventions. Living Greyhawk was barely attended compared to Pathfinder Society. I couldn't even get a group to play 4E once my core D&D group decided to finish a campaign with 3.5 and then move on to Pathfinder, even though we all bought the core books.
3.5 is the superior system. In that system I could make anything I could imagine. I can make the Hulk or Freddy Krueger without homebrew. There was so much customization it was amazing. 5e is extremely limited. I get the appeal for novices to enter because of simplicity. But if anyone feels that they've maxed out 5e I recommend going to 3.5. If you can get ahold of the material. 3.0 was broken and they made the right changes to 3.5. There was the ability to have a critical range from 12 to 20 and haste was changed because they gave you too many action options for example.
unfortunately the powercreep outclassed the flair.
I wished 3.5 had as elaborate lore about stuff as does DSA5 for its world.
Fluff like exact rituals of clerics of all Greyhawk gods.
Wizard academies with their unique intricacies and rites, titles, etc.
An especially weird change was that 3.0 has a few weapons occupy an even more niche role, which interacted very strangely with some rules
Off the top of my head:
The whip counted as a Ranged Weapon in 3.0, with a few caveats, and would thus scale with things like Rapid Shot and Point Blank Shot. It's weird to think about the implications of this, since Longbows were really good specifically because you could shoot so rapidly.
Shurikens were absolutely baffling, dealing 1 damage each but allowing you to roll 3 shurikens per every attack. They could not scale with strength at all, but man... Fear the Shuriken Fighter who is using two-weapon fighting, weapon specialization, point blank shot, and rapid shot to toss out like 12 of these a round at level 4
The expanded 3.0 books tended to have very strange, niche options inherited from the wild expansion of rules of 2.0 in a manner we wouldn't see again until like, Book of Nine Swords - For example, one early book allowed you to use a Caber as a weapon (Those giant logs you hurl at people) which was a martial weapon that did an AoE reflex save
There were also aspects like Haste allowing casters to cast two spells a round, making it very overpowered (especially since it would be cast, and then immediately allow a caster to cast another spell)
I think the more meaningful change from 3.0 to 3.5 was this approach to design which... Reeled in the more immediately strange decisions, in favour of decisions that make sense until you delve into complicated rules interactions. In other words, the game was more consistent in it's playstyle, even if any of the actual balance touted at the time is more surface-level than anything
Also, little known rule: 3.0 encouraged you to rename skills if it suited your character. This is potentially very confusing. Also the example given was a halfling rogue who renamed her Move Silently skill to "Paddafooting" which is equal parts cute and terrible as far as names go.
Interesting stuff. Will have to look into these more for future discussions! - Nathan
3.5 and 3e are both third edition, one is just the revised third edition rules. 3.5 had a lot more books and years than before the revision, and most of the changes were small simplifications or only clarifying wording or describing the same mechanics more clearly. There's just not as much to say about pre-revision third edition.
"Back then....you cannot cast magic while you rage." That's true in 5e too iirc. Of course, there isn't a prestige class to negate it.
I love 3.5, and I have played Pathfinder extensively, but I have been playing mostly 5e for a while now. I don't think 5e is as limiting as the veteran players think it is, at least not since TCoE released. Multiclassing being an optional rule aside, it being so easy to multiclass (as long as you avoid MADness) means that there are TONS of ways to build out, and even single class builds have huge variety.
Also, to clarify on animal companions, there are 2 5e ranger classes with dedicated companions, 2 artificer classes (with the 3rd having an optional one), 1 druid class with a summonable (expending a use of wild shape), a warlock pact( separate from subclass) that gives a greatly improved version of find familiar, and every spellcasting class has options to get powerful summon spells that can fill the role.
May I aslo add there are TCoE variant of Druid which just gives summonable find familiar if you forgo wild shape. And if I recall correctly spores druid in 5e, allows for spore zombies at higher level, as does hexblade warlock gives a you way to gain a ghost compaion.
What we now call multi-classing was a bit more like dual classing from first ed. Except you permanently stopped progressing in your previous class and couldn't use any of its abilities until the new class level was higher (and harsher prereqs) That used to be the only way to become a bard or druid.
Multiclass in 1e existed. It was only permitted for nonhuman characters. All experience points earned were spread between all classes. There was a very likely chance at higher levels. That there would be larger differences in number of levels for each class a character could have.
Love 3.5
Barbarian introduced in AD&D Unearthed Arcana . Prestige Classes are the 5e subclasses basically
5e subclasses are 3.5 alternate clas features or PF1e archetypes. Prestige classes are more like BECMI paladins and druids, or AD&D 1e bards.
The XP penalty for 3.X was really weird. If your core class levels that weren't your favored class(based on race) were different by more than 1 level, you woud get an XP penalty. Prestige classes didn't count.
I think Youse guys got presige classes completely wrong. Its not something on top of a class or after finishing a class, rather it was a sort of specialization you could take instead of continuing in a base class.
For example: the candle caster was an arcane prestige class that specialized in making magic candles that were essentially just better scrolls. To become one you had to show an appreciation for candles and magic by having a box of matches and keeping it full until you qualified for the prestige class.
Generally the base classes were really boring, the prestige classes let you improve them and specialize.
No, we do not have an OGL 2. It's all under Creative Commons.
5e did an Unearthed Arcana teasing Prestige classes early on but they didn't test well. Which is unfortunate because prestige classes were a great part of 3.5.
Prestige classes were essentially like sub classes... But more restricted
Also, multi class xp penalties didn't affect you if 1 class was your races preferred class... Ie dwarf fighter.
3.5 best DnD proven fact 😝😝😝
I can't be bothered keeping up with editions. With new editions coming every 5 years now, you basically only have time to play maybe 3 campaigns before you have to get new books.
3-3.5- multi class, your race had certain classes would not occur a pen to multi class; prestige classes had skill point, feat, sometime racial, and occasionally base attack bonus or save requirements to go into it: allot of old prestige classes are subclasses in 5e
I never had a dm use the penalty rules anyways...
I only play 1,2,3,3.5 and in Greyhawk
I still prefer this to all others. Though im discovering 2ea
retire at level 20? negatory!
3.5 forever. 😀
They improved the game in the update but artistically I find the original core rulebooks superior.
I played both 3ed and 3.5 but I don't remember what the difference was. I remember them as more of less the same.
1st ed and 3rd ed are the best IMO. Just don't like 5th.
Barbarians were in White Dwarf magazine and perhaps another in Dragon before 2e was published but they didn't even include it in the CB1 and CB2 Conan modules. 😝
Barbarian first showed up in White Dwarf. It later showed up in Dragon Magazine #63. Barbarian was officially released as a Fighter subclass in Unearthed Arcana (1st ed. AD&D).
I see 3.0, 3.5 and PF1e as a continuity and is my favorite edition. Not all in PF1e is an improvements. Say 3.0 garrote rules are way more effective and better suited for Rogues, Assassins etc. Also 3.5 and PF lowered too much the DR values for monsters, and removed all the "Immune to spells X level or lower". Such power should exist for some monster.
3.5 was a mixed bag for me. It had some cool stuff, like different types of DR (3e had things like DR 5/+1, and 5/silver where 3.5 added things like 5/cold iron for fae and other weapon types, also changing 5/+1 to 5/magic). But it also had some stuff that took away the coolness of things in order to better balance it, examples include making fly last 1 minute/level instead of 1 hour/level (making it a combat spell instead of a travel spell), and making call lightening work inside, not subject to the weather and giving it 1 balanced strike a round/level instead of 1 very powerful strike every 10 minutes/level (thematically cool and OP in rare circumstances, but practically one single bolt in most outdoor encounters encounters). I was never a fan of sacrificing thematic coolness for combat number balance.
I would houserule call lightning to allow to skip a round and merge strikes, with a caster level cap.
You know even 4 gets people still wanting to play it today. But not 3.