Picked up the 3.0 Players Handbook

[ken-do-nim]

I really like it! Wondering why we switched to 3.5. What I liked:

- Ability boost spells last in hours, not minutes. In 3.5, everyone is obsessed with getting magic items that give ability bonuses because the boosting spells are so limited in power. Eventually the Magic Item Compendium declared that an ability boost can be added to any item without a surcharge, presumably because the game designers realized that no one was taking any interesting items because ability boosts were too important. Just not an issue in 3.0. Also I like the 2-5 variable range, makes odd numbered ability scores important.

- Monks get ki strike +1, +2, +3. With a damage reduction system that only works on magic plusses, monks can continue to use their unarmed strikes at high levels and actually hurt things.

- Druids don't have uber animal companions

- Shapechange doesn't give supernatural abilities

- Rangers have d10 hit dice

- Righteous Might doesn't provide damage reduction or a con bonus

I'm sure there was more, but it is 5:53 in the morning and my brain still isn't fully functional. I'd like to hear your thoughts on revisiting 3.0 after playing 3.5 for so many years.

[Yuki Akuma]

You switched because Haste gives you an extra standard action, making Wizards even more ludicrously overpowered than they are in the revised rules.

[BobVosh]

I like the DR system more, made DR/magic actually potentially useful.

I didn't like having the harem of druid pets

Beyond that I don't remember 3.0 much at all.

Wait. 3.0 haste was godly.

[Saph]

The thing about 3.0 druid animal companions was that they didn't grow stronger. This meant that you had to find a new one every couple of levels. While in theory this made the druid weaker, it was incredibly annoying for the player ("sorry, Fido, I'm going to have to trade you in for a newer model. I'll try to find a nice farm for you or something.")

And yes, 3.0 haste was outrageously good. Free actions every round with no cost. You could even use it the same turn you cast it!

[ken-do-nim]

Playing a sorcerer, I do remember thoroughly enjoying 3.0 haste. But at any rate, if I felt it to be overpowered, I could add the lines "Only one spell or magic device can be used per round regardless, as the activation words cannot be rushed up." a la AD&D.

[Boci]

You could just house rule the aspects of 3.0 that you like into 3.5.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Then you cast silently, or play a Binder, or a Warlock, or something.

Ranger has 4 skill points/level. :(
Exclusive Skills. :smallmad:
TWF even weaker than in 3.5
Monks still aren't fixed
Righteous Might has little to do with the power of CoDZilla
Shapechange isn't the only reason mages are broken

But that's just what I can pick out looking at 3.0 SRD and your post. Don't actually know anything about the edition. :smallwink:

[ken-do-nim]

Did the original authors of 3.0 have anything to do with the rewrite of 3.5? Or is this another case like 1.0 to 2.0 where the rewrite was done by understudies? If that's the case, I'm curious what the 3.0 authors like Monte Cooke think of 3.5.

[lesser_minion]

Did the original authors of 3.0 have anything to do with the rewrite of 3.5? Or is this another case like 1.0 to 2.0 where the rewrite was done by understudies? If that's the case, I'm curious what the 3.0 authors like Monte Cooke think of 3.5.

3.5 had been in the pipeline right from the development of 3.0.

I really liked 3.0 as well. There is a lot of material in 3.5 that really, seriously, was not an improvement.

Monte wasn't too impressed - he mentioned that there were a lot of minor changes that did little more than trip up players.

And aside from Permanent Polymorph Other, the Polymorph line and Alter Self worked a lot better in 3.0 as well.

[Oslecamo]

The thing about 3.0 druid animal companions was that they didn't grow stronger. This meant that you had to find a new one every couple of levels. While in theory this made the druid weaker, it was incredibly annoying for the player ("sorry, Fido, I'm going to have to trade you in for a newer model. I'll try to find a nice farm for you or something.")


Hint: the druid also had wildshape and fullcasting. The AC was suposed to be a cute bonus.

If he found an animal he liked, he could take it. When that animal died, well, you didn't actualy need to replace it! You could still keep playing as a badass bear or a spell slinging dude! But not both at the same time, since natural spell wasn't core and when it came out in a splatbook the DM laughed and then said "Hmm, NO!"



And yes, 3.0 haste was outrageously good. Free actions every round with no cost. You could even use it the same turn you cast it!

Completely overshaddowed by the simple fact that 3.5 shapechange allows for stacking madness of SU abilities, including but not limited the chocker swiftness.

So instead of a wizard who casts two spells per turn, we have giant monsters with insane stats and powers still casting two spells per turn.

Three actualy, because in 3.5 they added the freaking METAMAGIC RODS!

Also alter self and polymorph were buffed to hell and back.

At least in 3.0 anyone could buy boots of haste pretty cheap and go to town. There, everybody is broken. The fighter/barbarian can at least move and full attack in the same turn!

I also ask myself why people changed.

[Amphetryon]

I really like it! Wondering why we switched to 3.5. What I liked:

- Ability boost spells last in hours, not minutes. In 3.5, everyone is obsessed with getting magic items that give ability bonuses because the boosting spells are so limited in power. Eventually the Magic Item Compendium declared that an ability boost can be added to any item without a surcharge, presumably because the game designers realized that no one was taking any interesting items because ability boosts were too important. Just not an issue in 3.0. Also I like the 2-5 variable range, makes odd numbered ability scores important.

- Monks get ki strike +1, +2, +3. With a damage reduction system that only works on magic plusses, monks can continue to use their unarmed strikes at high levels and actually hurt things.

- Druids don't have uber animal companions

- Shapechange doesn't give supernatural abilities

- Rangers have d10 hit dice

- Righteous Might doesn't provide damage reduction or a con bonus

I'm sure there was more, but it is 5:53 in the morning and my brain still isn't fully functional. I'd like to hear your thoughts on revisiting 3.0 after playing 3.5 for so many years.-Ability boosts in hours just meant most folks cast all the buffs they wanted in the morning and moved on; this was a tad silly-powerful.

-Monks still suffered from Flurry of Misses.

-Druids didn't have any motivation to keep companions, leading to lots of Druids who threw Fido under the proverbial bus as they were about to gain a level. So much for revering nature.

-Shapechange was still horribly b0rked. Fleshraker and such FTW.

-Rangers had a d10 HD but were considerably weaker. The 3.0 FE system encouraged 1st level Rangers to take FE:Dragons, even though they hoped to Bahamut that they didn't meet any for several levels.

-Righteous Might isn't the only reason for CoDzilla. :smallwink:

[Oslecamo]

-Ability boosts in hours just meant most folks cast all the buffs they wanted in the morning and moved on; this was a tad silly-powerful.

It also meant the casters could afford to easily buff everybody in the party, leading to more teamwork and you could spend your gold in something else.



-Druids didn't have any motivation to keep companions, leading to lots of Druids who threw Fido under the proverbial bus as they were about to gain a level. So much for revering nature.

Actualy, the rules stated that you needed to treat your AC with respect, otherwise it would just abandon you. And hey, it's not like druids respect nature nowadays that they can just replace their AC with a noncost ritual.



-Shapechange was still horribly b0rked. Fleshraker and such FTW.


WTF? Fleshraker is 3.5!




-Righteous Might isn't the only reason for CoDzilla. :smallwink:

Natural spell? Buffed up shapechange? Persistent spell? Metamagic rods? All 3.5 my friend.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Persistent Spell existed in 3.0, in some obscure sourcebook.
Are we really having a 3.0 v. 3.5 edition waR?

[Nai_Calus]

Looks like it. Someone needs to bring Pathfailure into the mix now.

[Saph]

Completely overshaddowed by the simple fact that 3.5 shapechange allows for stacking madness of SU abilities, including but not limited the chocker swiftness.

Shapechange is a level 9 spell, haste is level 3. The vast majority of D&D games are played below the level at which Shapechange enters the picture, but Haste is around from level 5 upwards. So the changes to Haste were far, far more significant than the changes to Shapechange.

3.5 Haste is a much better design than 3.0 Haste - it's a teamwork spell, as opposed to a solo-own-everything spell.

[lesser_minion]

I still prefer the 'small bonus' version of the animal companion to the 'here, have a pet fighter' version.

While there were utterly borked rules, the balancing was generally closer to the mark. Its only issue was a massive chunk of the rules that ended up being rushed.

3.5 was supposed to correct that bit, but it instead embarked on a round of 'simplification' which made the word synonymous with 'brutal slaughter of balance' while providing no benefit whatsoever in terms of usability, playability and the like.

I think Monte was right. 3.5 had a couple of good ideas, and more emerged as it continued, but the only real reason anyone had to buy it was that it was the new edition.

I'm really not sure where I stand on the "+1 trumps silver" question, but it works a lot better when creating a balanced game as opposed to having perfect fluff.

The Pathfinder compromise there was definitely a good idea, IMHO.

[Tyndmyr]

3.0 definitely wasn't bad...but 3.5 was, generally speaking, a bit of an improvement.

Now sure, I liked my +2con from my toad, but I'll admit that it was sufficiently good that nobody gave the other options a shot.

[ken-do-nim]

Are we really having a 3.0 v. 3.5 edition waR?

I didn't mean to have an edition war, just a discussion. The reason I picked up the 3.0 Players Handbook is because, frankly, I remember having more fun playing 3.0 than 3.5. Now that could be for several reasons:
1. It was shiny and new.
2. Most of my 3.5 playing was not started from 1st, but rather converting 3.0 characters over to 3.5, and was thus done at high levels.

Actually, the first 3.5 encounter we had the DM totally threw us under the bus. None of us had adamantine weapons yet - we ordered them but they wouldn't be ready for a week or more - and we were attacked by some constructs with adamantine damage reduction. Yay.

Besides that, everything that has been said about 3.0 was true. We buffed in the morning, and didn't need to stop for buffs later on. Many of us had boots of speed, and the spellcasters loved haste for getting 2 spells off. The druid didn't even take out his animal companion until we hit 3.5, but he was plenty useful in 3.0 because he summoned animals that were effective. He didn't spend all day in wildshape form because we didn't have natural spell.

I dunno. Like I said, I don't want a war, just a fresh perspective.

[Matthew]

TWF even weaker than in 3.5

Not really; the way power attack works in 3.0 the dynamics completely change for the various fighting styles. It is more like general melee damage is lower, rather than fighting with two weapons is even weaker.



Did the original authors of 3.0 have anything to do with the rewrite of 3.5? Or is this another case like 1.0 to 2.0 where the rewrite was done by understudies? If that's the case, I'm curious what the 3.0 authors like Monte Cooke think of 3.5.

According to Monte Cook (cited above) there was always going to be a 3.5, but originally with completely new art. In the event it was rushed through and none of the primaries on the original design team were consulted, the inference being that the revision had implemented things they were against during previous development, perhaps. Monte was very proud of the 3.0 DMG, so that might have something to do with his views.

[Keshay]

I really wish I had the 3.0 version of Harm. That spell was sparkly.

[jmbrown]

Deflect arrows was actually good because it required a raw dex check as opposed to the once-per-round mess. Monks were actually arrow slapping fiends.

I am glad 3.5 removed the useless skills and condensed the feats. Having to take two feats to wield two weapons to even get a chance of hitting stuff was dumb. The ranger and paladin were also nerfed by putting their best abilities at 2nd level so players would no longer min/max by taking ranger 1/whatever to get those free feats or paladin/sorcerer to get that massive boost to saves.

[Glimbur]

How about those 3.0 skills? I know I'd put max ranks in to Innuendo. You never know when you want a character who can pass a secret message without being good at lying in general. (3.5 folded Innuendo in to Bluff)

[Toliudar]

Our RL group did what a lot of others have done, I suspect - cherry pick the fixes to certain spells and effects (the shapeshift druid variant, for example), have a few 3.5 splats around for certain spells or PrC's, and kept playing with the 3.0 core books. It makes for very occasional bits of confusion, but is completely workable.

[lesser_minion]

I'm not sure where I stand on the skill revisions - Bluff was originally just a little bloated rather than being completely ridiculous.

Scry might have been a bad idea, although folding it into Spellcraft should have been the way forward rather than replacing it with a Will save.

Animal Empathy as a skill rather than a class feature also sucked, so I'll give you that. The same might go for UMD, although that issue wasn't fixed.

I believe the assumption might just have been that people wouldn't max out their skills past a certain level.

[The Glyphstone]

Fudge Ripple is vastly superior to Rocky Road. Everyone knows that, except the people who are blinded and unable to see the virtues of the truly delicious flavor...:smallconfused:

[ken-do-nim]

Okay, so let me pose the obvious question. If I announced that I was running a 3.0 campaign (with Rappan Athuk as the centerpiece), I lived nearby, and you had the time in your schedule, would you be interested? If I said 3.5 would it change things?

Ultimately, no matter how good the DM might think a set of rules are, if players can't be found than there isn't really a point in proceeding.

[lesser_minion]

I'd consider it, and I'd be more enthusiastic than if you said 3.5.

[Tyndmyr]

I'd consider it, and I'd be more enthusiastic than if you said 3.5.

This. 3.0 is not bad, but 3.5 did fix a few nice little things, and made a few changes I happened to like. It's not as if 3.0 is in the "won't play" category.

[averagejoe]

Bards got 4 skillpoints.

Rage never actually got better.

Your animal companion(s) tended to be based largely on DM fiat.

Monk was even more stupid. Flurry was just a straight "rapid shot" type attack, and it got a special unarmed BAB progression that gave an extra attack every +4 instead of +6, but only increasing with monk levels. So a 20 monk got an unarmed BAB of 15/12/9/6/3, or 13/10/7/4/1 with flurry.

Monks got no choice for their bonus feat.

Smite evil was once per day. Period.

Favored enemy was terrible. The best favored enemy bonuses would only become better if you took them early, and the bonus was only +1. Oh, and the only other things they got were track, TWF (no improved TWF or archery, I'm afraid), and spellcasting. And he had 4 skill points/level. But, hey, he gets a D10 and full BAB, so he's almost as good as the fighter!

The skills included:
Innuendo
Intuit Direction
Read Lips
Scry

Weapon Finesse only worked for a chosen weapon (like with weapon focus).

That's just what comes to mind immediately. In general the class design was pretty horrible, and that was a major motivation for my switching over. The druid, for example. Their 3.5 animal companion is a bit powerful, but, having played a 3.0 druid, it was always frustrating having to go find animals when the party wanted to do other stuff, and in the end it came down to the DM letting me find what I wanted anyways. Also, they could only choose one animal per shapechange (that is, one medium, one tiny, one large, etc.), which led to some weird decisions.

Druid issues aside, the class design in general. There were more dead levels than one could shake a stick at, especially in the full BAB classes. In addition, power attack was a straight 1-1 trade and TWF required two feats before it was worth doing at all.

There were some things that got downgraded in 3.5 (deflect arrows required a DC 20 reflex save, which was neat) but in general the 3.5 classes are a lot more fun to play. I mean, heck, the CWar samurai is probably more powerful and fun than the 3.0 ranger.

Edit:


Okay, so let me pose the obvious question. If I announced that I was running a 3.0 campaign (with Rappan Athuk as the centerpiece), I lived nearby, and you had the time in your schedule, would you be interested? If I said 3.5 would it change things?

Yeah, I probably would. In general I'd rather play 3.5, it's a better designed system, but I had a lot of fun playing 3.0 back in the day (and that was core only.)

That's one other thing. I really hate the 3.0 splatbooks. They're mostly annoying.

[dsmiles]

Dunno. I wnet straight from homebrewed 2e to 3.5e...

[Boci]

I'd prefer 3.5. 3.0 is not bad, but it is a small put off.

[Matthew]

Okay, so let me pose the obvious question. If I announced that I was running a 3.0 campaign (with Rappan Athuk as the centerpiece), I lived nearby, and you had the time in your schedule, would you be interested? If I said 3.5 would it change things?

Ultimately, no matter how good the DM might think a set of rules are, if players can't be found than there isn't really a point in proceeding.

I would be more enthusiastic about 3.0 than 3.5, though I probably would not bother in either case. Once I start looking for "fixes" with my D20 issues, I soon end up playing AD&D. :smallbiggrin:

[lesser_minion]

By the way, I said that I'd rather play 3.0 than 3.5.

I seem to have been seconded and thirded for the exact opposite of what I said...

[Zaydos]

I liked 3.0, but I do prefer 3.5. I've never seen any of the ubercheese that is possible in it, and I never had any problems with 3.0. Actually I mainly played a game with 3.0 core and splats and selected stuff from 3.5 for years (mostly from Dragon Magazine 310 or when I player would bring out the 3.5 for some spells).

[ken-do-nim]

By the way, I said that I'd rather play 3.0 than 3.5.

I seem to have been seconded and thirded for the exact opposite of what I said...

Original sentence:


I'd consider it, and I'd be more enthusiastic than if you said 3.5.




This. 3.0 is not bad, but 3.5 did fix a few nice little things, and made a few changes I happened to like. It's not as if 3.0 is in the "won't play" category.


That cracks me up. Yeah, if you read lesser_minion's sentence fast and with a certain expectation in mind, you do end up reading it that he'd prefer 3.5 but that's not what he actually meant.

[ken-do-nim]

There were some things that got downgraded in 3.5 (deflect arrows required a DC 20 reflex save, which was neat) but in general the 3.5 classes are a lot more fun to play. I mean, heck, the CWar samurai is probably more powerful and fun than the 3.0 ranger.

Edit:



Yeah, I probably would. In general I'd rather play 3.5, it's a better designed system, but I had a lot of fun playing 3.0 back in the day (and that was core only.)

That's one other thing. I really hate the 3.0 splatbooks. They're mostly annoying.

3.0 was by and large a less-powered game than 3.5, and I found myself nodding along to everthing you were ticking off as bad as just different.

I hear you about the splatbooks though. I don't plan on using them, except for Enemies & Allies.

[Boci]

3.0 was by and large a less-powered game than 3.5, and I found myself nodding along to everthing you were ticking off as bad as just different.

I hear you about the splatbooks though. I don't plan on using them, except for Enemies & Allies.

But full casters aren't that nerfed in 3.0. Melee is.

[Matthew]

By the way, I said that I'd rather play 3.0 than 3.5.

I seem to have been seconded and thirded for the exact opposite of what I said...

That cracks me up. Yeah, if you read lesser_minion's sentence fast and with a certain expectation in mind, you do end up reading it that he'd prefer 3.5 but that's not what he actually meant.

Heh, heh. I read that differently too! As It goes, I have been considering running the Fighting Fantasy series that Myriador put out using 3.0 recently. I was originally going to run it using C&C, but I am now undecided.

[ken-do-nim]

But full casters aren't that nerfed in 3.0. Melee is.

hmm... well I just repurchased the book yesterday. I'll need to have a look. Certainly I don't remember issues with ray of enfeeblement until 3.5 came out, but it is always possible that we didn't realize how good it was in 3.0.

But hey, no "assay spell resistance" to break through SR. SR was a formidable defense in 3.0.

[averagejoe]

3.0 was by and large a less-powered game than 3.5, and I found myself nodding along to everthing you were ticking off as bad as just different.

I'm not saying any of these things are necessarily bad (except the ranger) but the classes just aren't sexy. The barbarian is actually a pretty good melee class, but if I want to play a melee guy there's nothing about the barbarian that makes me say, "I want to play that." What differences there are were mostly superficial. It isn't even the power level; most people in my group will take power attack, but never use it because they only took it to get the awesomeness that is cleave. But when most of the pull beyond level 1-2 for an entire subset of classes is "getting a full base attack bonus." It worked fine for 2e, but with multiclassing working how it does in 3e this is just silly. A lot of the choices were just silly. It isn't fun to pick favored enemy (something absurdly powerful) at first level, just because you don't see needing the +4 bonus that favored enemy (goblin) gives you at level 15. It isn't fun being obligated to play the rogue just because no one else wants to and no other class gets more than 4 skillpoints. Even when I was playing 3.0, the guy playing our bard managed to snooker 6 skillpoints/level after hearing about it in 3.5.

Also, a lot of points I was bringing up pretty much meant to amount to Boci's previous post.

[Foryn Gilnith]

But hey, no "assay spell resistance" to break through SR. SR was a formidable defense in 3.0.

Because 3.0 didn't publish enough splatbooks to get to Assay Spell Resistance. 3.0 having less material is not a point in its favor IMO.

Nagging aside, would the 3.0 SRD be adequate for this sort of game?

[ken-do-nim]

Because 3.0 didn't publish enough splatbooks to get to Assay Spell Resistance. 3.0 having less material is not a point in its favor IMO.

Nagging aside, would the 3.0 SRD be adequate for this sort of game?

Can I have a link to the 3.0 SRD so I can take a look?

[Foryn Gilnith]

http://www.dragon.ee/30srd/ or http://dnd.banaan.org/srd/index.html or alternatively http://www.zombler.org/files/srd30a/ which doesn't work on my Firefox.

[Eldariel]

The thing I prefer about 3.0 are the Archer PrCs (and overall, martial PrCs in the splatbooks). That's about it. The classes in Core are horrible; that's my big no-no to 3.0. Really, while 3.5 core class design still leaves a lot to be desired for the kind of system it is, it's still leaps and bounds ahead of 3.0.

TWF wasn't worth it. THF did more damage without any feat investment after level 6; you couldn't keep up with iteratives while TWFing. And yeah, PA sucked meaning melee never really dealt that much damage. None of the combat maneuvers were much good (at least in 3.5, Tripping can be worthwhile if the others are still kinda meh) and yeah...


Oh, and the hour/level stat buffs? That meant that casters were even more important and that you either bought the Caster Pearls of Power or paid infinity for statbuffing items. It just meant casters got free stat buffs :/ 3.5 really did leaps to weaken the casters, if not enough.

[Snails]

I like 3.0. IMNSHO the thre e core books are among the most impressive RPG efforts ever written. Nonetheless 3.5 is a step up in a number of modest but important ways IMHO. These things are notably less good in 3.0:

(1) Some core classes are egregiously weak: Monk, Paladin

(2) Some core classes are extremely frontloaded (you get too much for taking just 1 or 2 levels), and weak at middling and higher levels: Ranger, Barbarian, Bard.

(3) PrCs were usually much more powerful than the core classes, making not taking as many PrCs as your DM could stomach highly sub-optimal.

(4) Haste was poorly designed -- it would have made a fine 9th or 10th level spell as written.

(5) Long duration buffs made the primary spellcasting classes much more potent and flexible than the non-spellcasting classes. (While this theoretically could be true in any edition under certain conditions, it was very common in 3.0 under all conditions.)

(6) GMW was too potent relative to weapons that a comparable level Fighter was likely able to afford, therefore strongly favoring over reliance on GMW.

(7) The DR system is boring.

(8) DR is either pointless (everyone has a good enough weapon) or overly harsh (I guess I will sit out this combat because I lack a good enough weapon).

(9) Energy resistance is per round, making it almost pointless. Anything but the very strongest energy resistance could easily blown through by just pounding away with the same energy type, which was very easily accomplished with 3.0 Haste.

(10) Divine feats are too weak. (Most are too weak in 3.5, but less so than in 3.0.)

[ken-do-nim]

(9) Energy resistance is per round, making it almost pointless. Anything but the very strongest energy resistance could easily blown through by just pounding away with the same energy type, which was very easily accomplished with 3.0 Haste.


Interesting fact - for monsters, energy resistance in 3.5 is still per round.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#resistanceToEnergy

I actually house rule the 3.5 resist energy spell to be per round as well. The 2nd level resist energy spell is otherwise better than the 3rd level protection from energy spell.

[Tyndmyr]

By the way, I said that I'd rather play 3.0 than 3.5.

I seem to have been seconded and thirded for the exact opposite of what I said...

Lol, reading failure.

Yeah, I prefer 3.5. I'd consider 3.0 still an excellent version, and probably preferable over any other save 3.5, though, with the exception of pathfinder, which I can't fairly judge due to not playing it yet.

[ken-do-nim]

http://www.dragon.ee/30srd/ or http://dnd.banaan.org/srd/index.html or alternatively http://www.zombler.org/files/srd30a/ which doesn't work on my Firefox.

Thanks! Those are a big help.

[Snails]

Interesting fact - for monsters, energy resistance in 3.5 is still per round.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#resistanceToEnergy

I actually house rule the 3.5 resist energy spell to be per round as well. The 2nd level resist energy spell is otherwise better than the 3rd level protection from energy spell.

Nice catch.

It would be a rare corner case where Resist Energy would be more desirable than Protection from Energy, but, yes, it can happen. I suppose it is possible you are planning on hacking through hordes of small fire elementals.... But in those adventures you will probably want BOTH at some point.

[erikun]

- Monks get ki strike +1, +2, +3. With a damage reduction system that only works on magic plusses, monks can continue to use their unarmed strikes at high levels and actually hurt things.
Not really, sadly. Monsters had stuff like DR 10/+1 which reduced all damage dealt by 10 unless you had a +1 or better weapon. The problem was that monster DR scaled faster than the monk's Ki Strike, so there was never a time when Ki Strike would overcome the DR of a level-appropriate monster.

Also, the flurry-for-base-monk only. It meant taking a monk PrC meant you didn't get flurry progression for 10 levels. Ouch.