Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Anyone else remember that article on WotC's website that gave the Core classes extra (albeit minor) abilities to fill all of their dead levels?
D&D 3E/3.5 The original SRD
- Thread starter Yora
- Start date
Li Shenron
Legend
I think I am one of the few who went back from 3.5 to 3.0 back then (as a DM, because to keep playing as a player on other tables I pretty much had to accept that everyone else had moved to 3.5). Somehow, to me 3.0 always felt like a cohesive whole "designed organically", while 3.5 seemed a large set of patches decided individually without much regard to the game as a whole.
An example was the demotion of Spell Focus from +2 to +1. In a typical core 3ed game this feat was a boon for Sorcerers who, because of their limited amount of spells known, were more commonly focused on a theme or school, while Wizard always ended up a bit more generalists (even when choosing a specialization) due to the large number of spells known. So at least in my experience, a Sorcerer would more likely than a Wizard end up casting the same few spells over and over, therefore benefitted much from that +2 on a chosen school, while the Wizard always ended up having to cast a little bit of everything, and needing to spend more feats on multiple schools to keep that +2 bonus just as often. Then the problem came with the Greater Spell Focus feat which added another +2. People thought that +4 was too much in a vacuum, and then WotC cut in half the bonuses of both feats in 3.5. First of all, if you didn't own Tome & Blood (the book with Greater Spell Focus), you essentially got punished for nothing, because Spell Focus wasn't broken. But anyway in the bigger picture of a 3.5 revision which effectively boosted every single class except the Sorcerer, halving Spell Focus only exacerbated the divide in favor of the Wizard.
Then eventually, one unexpected blessing for staying with 3.0 was that of course they stopped releasing books specific for 3.0, because all books after the release were technically for 3.5. Certainly you could have used 3.5 books in 3.0 if you wanted to, and often with only very minor modifications. But at that time most players were obsessed with compliance to official rules, so it was extremely easy to say "we play 3.0 so we only use 3.0 books". So while when playing in 3.5 games I had to watch people add dozens of new books per year to mix feats, prestige classes, spells etc. to make the most broken build, in my own 3.0 games the amount of character material remained forever limited.
An example was the demotion of Spell Focus from +2 to +1. In a typical core 3ed game this feat was a boon for Sorcerers who, because of their limited amount of spells known, were more commonly focused on a theme or school, while Wizard always ended up a bit more generalists (even when choosing a specialization) due to the large number of spells known. So at least in my experience, a Sorcerer would more likely than a Wizard end up casting the same few spells over and over, therefore benefitted much from that +2 on a chosen school, while the Wizard always ended up having to cast a little bit of everything, and needing to spend more feats on multiple schools to keep that +2 bonus just as often. Then the problem came with the Greater Spell Focus feat which added another +2. People thought that +4 was too much in a vacuum, and then WotC cut in half the bonuses of both feats in 3.5. First of all, if you didn't own Tome & Blood (the book with Greater Spell Focus), you essentially got punished for nothing, because Spell Focus wasn't broken. But anyway in the bigger picture of a 3.5 revision which effectively boosted every single class except the Sorcerer, halving Spell Focus only exacerbated the divide in favor of the Wizard.
Then eventually, one unexpected blessing for staying with 3.0 was that of course they stopped releasing books specific for 3.0, because all books after the release were technically for 3.5. Certainly you could have used 3.5 books in 3.0 if you wanted to, and often with only very minor modifications. But at that time most players were obsessed with compliance to official rules, so it was extremely easy to say "we play 3.0 so we only use 3.0 books". So while when playing in 3.5 games I had to watch people add dozens of new books per year to mix feats, prestige classes, spells etc. to make the most broken build, in my own 3.0 games the amount of character material remained forever limited.
Orius
Legend
Oh I know I prefer 3.0 to 3.5. Back in the day, I though 3.5 was nothing but a cash grab, and none of what I've read of it -- and I've looked most of the core material -- has changed my mind. In fact, I think I feel more strongly that it was a cash grab through knowledge rather than ignorance.
3.0 added useful material to the game, but a LOT of 3.5's content is bloat with just more races, more classes,, more feats, more spells, more magic items, etc. This in and of itself isn't all bad, but it did bloat the game, and a lot of it was just selling points for books. "In Complete Munchkin, you'll find x new classess, y new feats, and z new spells in the indispensable supplement for breaking your DM's campaign!" Granted, the 5 3.0 splats added stuff too, but they were only 96 pages each and had less space for bloat, where 3.5 books went hardcover and had a minimum of 160 pages. Those hardcovers have some definite filler.
To be honest, 3.0 had junk too, and I admit that I prefer 3.5's revised skills. 3.0 simply had a shorter publishing schedule and its bloat got cut short by 3.5's release. 3.5 had more time to bloat, but that's complicated by its first maybe 18 months where it was doing a lot of updating of the supposedly compatible material from 3.0.
3.5 power creeps stuff too. 3.0 didn't add a lot of new base classes. There was the psion and the stuff from Oriental Adventures, generally new base classes tend to be unique, while character customization tended to focus on feats and prestige classes which I prefer. 3.5 adds base classes more often, in the Complete book, PHB II and so on. A good number of these classes are just hybrids of the original base classes which earns my disdain. There are caster hybrids which I detest as they try to get around the problems with multicasting casters. These classes undermine the non-casters and I'll never allow them even though charopers drop them in the middle tiers and consider them balanced. Then there are the classes that hybridize two non-casting classes which is unnecessary because those characters had fewer multiclassing problems, and those hybrids are generally seen as junk anyway.
Then 3.5 adds a lot of extra magic systems onto the game; there's something like 10 different ones at the end, and 3.5 never needed that. Problems with martial classes in particular were never properly addressed except by adding a book that did all the wrong things: it added new base classes to powercreep the game, addresses the problem by adding a (quasi)magic system and it obsoletes the the material it was supposed to boost in first place.
Weapon sizes and damage reduction changes I'm on the fence about. They make some sense, but they break compatibility.
I laugh at dead levels. Before 3e dead levels were the norm! I can see the problem with prestige classes having dead levels since they're supposed to be better.
3.0 does have a stronger 2e feel it too but edition flavor does tend to shift over time.
3.0 added useful material to the game, but a LOT of 3.5's content is bloat with just more races, more classes,, more feats, more spells, more magic items, etc. This in and of itself isn't all bad, but it did bloat the game, and a lot of it was just selling points for books. "In Complete Munchkin, you'll find x new classess, y new feats, and z new spells in the indispensable supplement for breaking your DM's campaign!" Granted, the 5 3.0 splats added stuff too, but they were only 96 pages each and had less space for bloat, where 3.5 books went hardcover and had a minimum of 160 pages. Those hardcovers have some definite filler.
To be honest, 3.0 had junk too, and I admit that I prefer 3.5's revised skills. 3.0 simply had a shorter publishing schedule and its bloat got cut short by 3.5's release. 3.5 had more time to bloat, but that's complicated by its first maybe 18 months where it was doing a lot of updating of the supposedly compatible material from 3.0.
3.5 power creeps stuff too. 3.0 didn't add a lot of new base classes. There was the psion and the stuff from Oriental Adventures, generally new base classes tend to be unique, while character customization tended to focus on feats and prestige classes which I prefer. 3.5 adds base classes more often, in the Complete book, PHB II and so on. A good number of these classes are just hybrids of the original base classes which earns my disdain. There are caster hybrids which I detest as they try to get around the problems with multicasting casters. These classes undermine the non-casters and I'll never allow them even though charopers drop them in the middle tiers and consider them balanced. Then there are the classes that hybridize two non-casting classes which is unnecessary because those characters had fewer multiclassing problems, and those hybrids are generally seen as junk anyway.
Then 3.5 adds a lot of extra magic systems onto the game; there's something like 10 different ones at the end, and 3.5 never needed that. Problems with martial classes in particular were never properly addressed except by adding a book that did all the wrong things: it added new base classes to powercreep the game, addresses the problem by adding a (quasi)magic system and it obsoletes the the material it was supposed to boost in first place.
Weapon sizes and damage reduction changes I'm on the fence about. They make some sense, but they break compatibility.
I laugh at dead levels. Before 3e dead levels were the norm! I can see the problem with prestige classes having dead levels since they're supposed to be better.
3.0 does have a stronger 2e feel it too but edition flavor does tend to shift over time.
Last edited:
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I don't know, I mean, the 3.0 Ranger was pretty bad. A lot of the stuff in the 3.0 splats was really strange as well, like Sword and Fist. The most broken spell I'd seen in a long time was in the Masters of the Wild book, briar web.
I was annoyed at having to rebuy the core books, but the presentation of 3.5 was improved IMO.
I was annoyed at having to rebuy the core books, but the presentation of 3.5 was improved IMO.
delericho
Legend
At the time, I was convinced 3.5e was significantly better than 3.0e. With the progress of time, I've increasingly come to think that many of the 'improvements' were nothing of the sort. (In particular, the 3.5e DMG is poor - it takes the 3.0e one, reorders the material badly, and then adds the extremely poor Epic level materials.)
Funnily enough, I have likewise come to think that many of the 'improvements' of moving from BECMI to AD&D 2nd Ed were likewise nothing of the sort. But, unfortunately, in both cases the older version has some really rough spots that are deal-breakers - I'd never want to go back to the 3.0e skills, or race-as-class.
Funnily enough, I have likewise come to think that many of the 'improvements' of moving from BECMI to AD&D 2nd Ed were likewise nothing of the sort. But, unfortunately, in both cases the older version has some really rough spots that are deal-breakers - I'd never want to go back to the 3.0e skills, or race-as-class.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
One thing I kind of liked about 3.0 was wizard specialisation. No picking just any two schools, there were, in some cases, a couple of choices for most schools. You might lose a single school, but if you really wanted to keep it, you'd have to pick another option which might include 2 or 3 other schools of magic. Certainly 3.5 gave more freedom, but something about the 3.0 version, I really liked.
Voadam
Legend
If you are interested in BECMI without race as class then there are options in Old School Essentials Advanced Classes for separating B/X rules races from classes as well as adding the AD&D specific classes to Basic D&D. Alternatively there is a Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion for the same type of options AD&D separate race and class in B/X rule set options.
glass
(he, him)
I felt 3.5 was an improvement over 3.0 at the time (and similarly PF1 over 3.5), and I largely stand by that. OTOH, I do not think it was an unalloyed improvement. I mostly agree with all the big-ticket changes, but I feel like there were too many little changes (so many I cannot remember them all now).
Regarding DR, I approve of reducing the DR numbers so that you are not completely naughty-worded if you cannot bypass them, and making material DR matter at all once you have a magic weapon. OTOH, I am not sure how I feel about the plus no longer mattering (unless it is +6). Pathfinder addressed this in its own way, but it feels a bit kludgey.
_
glass.
Regarding DR, I approve of reducing the DR numbers so that you are not completely naughty-worded if you cannot bypass them, and making material DR matter at all once you have a magic weapon. OTOH, I am not sure how I feel about the plus no longer mattering (unless it is +6). Pathfinder addressed this in its own way, but it feels a bit kludgey.
_
glass.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
The changes to DR made creatures with DR something you could face even if you lacked the right gear- having survived AD&D where you could easily face a monster that you didn't have the right weapon for was just common enough to be a nuisance.
It also made special abilities on weapons less desirable- sure, a flaming +1 longsword is cool, but when you need a +2 to overcome DR/10, not so much.
Some 3.0 monsters were busted as a result of this, like the Mummy. DR/5 doesn't sound bad, until you realize your scimitar does half damage to the thing (and of course, being undead, no critical hits for you)!
Mind you, they could have just lowered the DR numbers and kept the requisite "+" required to hit, but that took a lot of fun out of magic weapons- at least for those groups who hadn't figured out how to use Greater Magic Weapon.
A +1 Speed sword vs. a +5 sword is a hard sell already, made worse if you know there's a monster out there with DR +5 (even if it's not an insane number like 30 or something).
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I've also found an archive of the first SRD:
d20 - System Reference Document (Updated 4/08/03)
d20 - System Reference Document (Updated 4/08/03)
web.archive.org
Similar Threads
- Locked
