Differences between 3.0 and 3.5

[Felorn]

Hello all! I'm new here on the playground :smallsmile:. I hail from Dragonsfoot. This is actually a thread I started over there in their Other RPGs forum. But they said I would probably get the best answers here. The reason I am asking is because I have core 3.0 and core Pathfinder but no 3.5. And I was wondering how different the mechanics are, and how interchangeable the material is.

[Psyren]

Everything in Core 3.5 is legally and freely available here. (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) (Plus some extra goodies like Psionics and UA.)

There should be a list of what changed somewhere but I'm not sure. Off the top of my head, some spells changed, a lot of old skills were dropped and damage reduction changed a lot as well.

[nyarlathotep]

In overall principle magic items got weaker from 3.0 to 3.5 but prestige classes and spell got stronger.

[Yora]

The one big change really is Damage reduction. Spells also have changed, but mostly you simply can take the new description of a spell.
Skills have been changed a bit, mostly with a few kicked out and part of them being put into other skills that have more uses.

[Psyren]

In overall principle magic items got weaker from 3.0 to 3.5 but prestige classes and spell got stronger.

Spells were stronger in 3.0 I'd say. Compare 3.0 Haste to 3.5 for instance, or 3.0 Harm.

[Amphetryon]

Everything in Core 3.5 is legally and freely available here. (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) (Plus some extra goodies like Psionics and UA.)

There should be a list of what changed somewhere but I'm not sure. Off the top of my head, some spells changed, a lot of old skills were dropped and damage reduction changed a lot as well.

Notably, the skill Wilderness Lore became Survival. Additionally, whips changed from being (weird) fixed-range Ranged weapons to being Reach weapons, leading to some legacy weirdness with Pyromancer and other classes and abilities that ported their verbiage re: whips from 3.0 to 3.5 without doing a Find & Replace in the document.

[Douglas]

Spells were stronger in 3.0 I'd say. Compare 3.0 Haste to 3.5 for instance, or 3.0 Harm.
Also, Heal. I think Bards and Rangers also got overhauled a bit.

The big change with DR is that magic weapons don't automatically trump DR/material and DR/alignment (or DR/anything-but-magic) any more. If a creature's DR says you need X to bypass it, then you actually need to have X if you want to bypass it, rather than any generic +1 weapon beating it for free. Also, DR/+1 through DR/+5 were all combined into "DR/magic", which is equivalent to the old DR/+1. How much enhancement bonus you have doesn't matter any more, only whether you have one at all.

[Manateee]

The one part that isn't interchangeable is psionics. The rest is basically the same - if cleaned up.

Wizards released an overview of the changes (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a)along with the rerelease. There are a lot of small changes; you can get a pretty good summary by seeing what's changed in the pdf, then checking d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org/) for a detailed look at the specifics.

The ability enhancement spells don't get much mention there, but their change affected at least my gameplay pretty dramatically (+1d4+1 enhancement for hours/level, which could be maximized, extended, etc. to +4 for minutes per level).

And I don't see any mention of weapon enhancement changes. In 3.0, the enhancement on bows stacked with the one on arrows. In 3.5, it doesn't.

Cover and Concealment were also simplified.

That's all I've got off my head.

[nyarlathotep]

Spells were stronger in 3.0 I'd say. Compare 3.0 Haste to 3.5 for instance, or 3.0 Harm.

You may be right. The one I was thinking of specifically was polymorph and shapechange. As in 3.5 shapechange gives supernatural abilities and extrodinary while in 3.0 it only gave the latter. Meanwhile polymorph gave neither in in 3.0.

[Doug Lampert]

The one part that isn't interchangeable is psionics. The rest is basically the same - if cleaned up.

Wizards released an overview of the changes (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a)along with the rerelease. There are a lot of small changes; you can get a pretty good summary by seeing what's changed in the pdf, then checking d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org/) for a detailed look at the specifics.

The ability enhancement spells don't get much mention there, but their change affected at least my gameplay pretty dramatically (+1d4+1 enhancement for hours/level, which could be maximized, extended, etc. to +4 for minutes per level).
And I don't see any mention of weapon enhancement changes. In 3.0, the enhancement on bows stacked with the one on arrows. In 3.5, it doesn't.

Cover and Concealment were also simplified.

That's all I've got off my head.

Bold something I definitely agree with. 3.0 a reasonable use of a level 9 slot was a Bull's strength or whatever, empoweredx3 + extended.

You could empower multiple times for one feat.

You got 34 hours of buff, which meant you cast prior to going to sleep and it was good for the ENTIRE next day. You got up to a +12 on the ability. If you rolled badly and only got +5, then a level 6 slot the next day gave you another shot at +(1d4+1)*2.

You could reasonably be buffed on ALL important abilities ALL the time, usually multiply empowered.

[Felorn]

Okay now, a different question regarding 3.0, Is it still a fun valid edition? I know I said I have the core and I do, but I just recently got them. Is this game broken, or is it still just as much fun as any D&D edition?

[Hirax]

Vorpal weapons were nerfed, and multiple things that expand crit range no longer stack.

[Manateee]

It's playable, but I can't think of any system-wide differences between 3.0 and 3.5 or PF where 3.0 comes out ahead.

[Metahuman1]

In 3.0, we could have the flat bonuses added to both the ranged weapon and it's ammo seperatly and they stacked. So a +4 Bow shooting +3 Arrows came out to a total of +7 to hit and damage.

In 3.5, they overlap, not stack. So the +4 Bow shooting +3 Arrows got a +4 total to hit and damage.



In 3.0, the Vorporal Property went off on a critical hit. In 3.5, it's only on a nat 20.

[sonofzeal]

Okay now, a different question regarding 3.0, Is it still a fun valid edition? I know I said I have the core and I do, but I just recently got them. Is this game broken, or is it still just as much fun as any D&D edition?
It's... well, I'm sure you can still play it and have fun. But as others have said, the 3.5 rules are much more widely available (http://www.d20srd.org/), and there's a lot of excellent 3.5 resources (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/FindSpell.php, http://www.realmshelps.net/datafind/feats.shtml). Not to mention 3.5 is mostly the same but with a number of tweaks that generally the same. Honestly, if I got a pile of 3.0 books I might use them for at-table quick reference, but I'd spend most of the time using the 3.5 web resources instead.

[DrDeth]

Okay now, a different question regarding 3.0, Is it still a fun valid edition? I know I said I have the core and I do, but I just recently got them. Is this game broken, or is it still just as much fun as any D&D edition?

Really, 3.0 is dead. It was a intermediate step. Don’t get me wrong there’s still reason to play 2nd Ed or 3.5 (or PF), they all have their charms & warts. But 3.0 is the red-headed stepchild, it was more like a extended playtest for 3.5.

[Doug Lampert]

Really, 3.0 is dead. It was a intermediate step. Don’t get me wrong there’s still reason to play 2nd Ed or 3.5 (or PF), they all have their charms & warts. But 3.0 is the red-headed stepchild, it was more like a extended playtest for 3.5.

This. 3.0 was a perfectly playable system, but pretty much anything that changed in the swap to 3.5 was an improvement so why play 3.0?

They went MAYBE a hair too far in nerfing archery as an option, and I actually prefer the 3.0 method of handling cohort XP, but that's trivial.

The class changes were golden. 3.0 has several classes that might as well be one level, because there's no reason to ever take a second level. 3.0 has broken versions of haste, harm, heal, and mass heal. The original "playing a monster" rules for 3.0 were the second worst system I've ever seen for that (Pathfinder at least at issue managed to get this one WORSE, an astonishing feat really).

[DoctorGlock]

They went MAYBE a hair too far in nerfing archery as an option

What did 3.0 archery look like, because it does not work in any way shape or form in 3.5

[Manateee]

What did 3.0 archery look like, because it does not work in any way shape or form in 3.5
The biggest system-wide differences were that enhancements stacked between bows and arrows and that DR could be brute forced by throwing enough enhancement bonuses on an attack.

3.0 incidentally had some non-casting archery prestige classes that were actually worth taking. But you could ship those over to 3.5 without houserules anyway (well, except OotBI).

[Amphetryon]

In 3.0, we could have the flat bonuses added to both the ranged weapon and it's ammo seperatly and they stacked. So a +4 Bow shooting +3 Arrows came out to a total of +7 to hit and damage.

In 3.5, they overlap, not stack. So the +4 Bow shooting +3 Arrows got a +4 total to hit and damage.



In 3.0, the Vorporal Property went off on a critical hit. In 3.5, it's only on a nat 20.


What did 3.0 archery look like, because it does not work in any way shape or form in 3.5
See above. :smallsmile:

[Metahuman1]

See above. :smallsmile:

Was wondering if anyone was gonna pay any attention too that.

Incidentally, I like 3.0 Vorporal better. It actually is worth being a +5 equivalent property, and having that price tag attached too it on the right build. (Yes, any enchantment that's worth it at all is still only worth it on the right build. Anyway.)

[Telonius]

One other - very subtle - change about archery: in 3.0, the Mighty Composite Bow didn't go any higher than giving you a +5 bonus for 20 strength. In 3.5, there's no such cap, just an extra 100gp in price per bonus the bow would grant. So if you have a strength of 30, for an extra thousand GP, you can get a bow that gives you +10 damage.

[Tvtyrant]

My take on it is they attempted to nerf a lot of the abuses in the game, but they did not understand the game well enough to get more than just the most grievous. Hence the boosting of Shapechange and Polymorph when they crushed the stat bonuses. They also nerfed a lot of melee abilities but did not really offer anything to replace them inside core.

[Novawurmson]

(Pathfinder at least at issue managed to get this one WORSE, an astonishing feat really).

Pathfinder's rules on the subject are basically "don't (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monstersAsPCs.html)", which is probably the best advice out there for using monsters as PCs. (see also: Urpriest's Guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207928)).

[Metahuman1]

Um, ok, I don't have nearly as much System Mastery over Pathfinder as I do 3.5, but that actually looks manageable with a bit of home brew tweaking. It even, I'd go so far as to say, looks like it works better then LA Buyoff in 3.5 did if you have something more then 2 or 3 LA.


What am I missing?

[Doug Lampert]

Um, ok, I don't have nearly as much System Mastery over Pathfinder as I do 3.5, but that actually looks manageable with a bit of home brew tweaking. It even, I'd go so far as to say, looks like it works better then LA Buyoff in 3.5 did if you have something more then 2 or 3 LA.


What am I missing?

Take almost any monster, add PC gear, place in a party of PCs of level equal to monster CR, watch monster totally dominate entire game.

The Planetar is CR 16, and casts as a CR 16 cleric. Then he gets spell-likes and gobs of other specials.

Or take a Barghest and build a melee character. Or almost anything else actually. Melee type monsters routinely have a higher BAB than their CR, and throw on high abilities and natural armor.

Add gear and real armor and watch the fun.

CR == party level means that in theory WITHOUT PC gear the monster is ballanced with a PC of that level. Add PC gear, add support from the rest of the party. Game over. "Don't" would be good advice, unfortunately they follow "don't" with rules.

The rule is FINE as long as you assume that gear is worth absolutely nothing in terms of character ballance.

[nyarlathotep]

Pathfinder really tries to dodge the question and has no actual system other than a broad CR + 1 attempt. I've personally found it easier to just do ECL = Hitdice or use Oslecamo's improved monster classes.

[sonofzeal]

Um, ok, I don't have nearly as much System Mastery over Pathfinder as I do 3.5, but that actually looks manageable with a bit of home brew tweaking. It even, I'd go so far as to say, looks like it works better then LA Buyoff in 3.5 did if you have something more then 2 or 3 LA.


What am I missing?
As Doug says, it's broken in the other direction. The 3.5 system was poor because, by and large, RHD+LA meant most monster races were underpowered unless it was a specialized build... and y'know, that's not a bad idea. High-ECL races shouldn't be upgrades on the basic set, they should be a bit difficult to compensate for but occasionally worthwhile if you work something out.

PF erred in the opposite direction. High-CR monsters are usually significantly better than single PCs of their level. Anything with a CR of 4 or more is probably going to outshine comparable characters with base races - and that's just by default! Add a build that synergizes well, and they'll blow them straight out of the water.

[Tvtyrant]

I just use HD as ECL myself, with the right to reject anything that seems abusive (Genies with Wish, etc.) Anything that levels by age categories can be taken at any age category and leveled through either aging or levels.

Dragons for instance are easy, as are Neolithids, but Kythons would take a little more work. I have made a couple attempts to make Demon or Devil paths where they change types based on HD (they are described as doing this in the Fiendish Codexes) but it never seems to work out.

[ericgrau]

3.0 is playable and intermixable with 3.5 and PF, but there are 100 minor changes between editions that'll cause headaches if you try to use multiple editions at once. It's best to pick one of the 3 for game mechanics and stick to it so there's less confusion.

Pathfinder races, classes and feats are a little more powerful than 3.0/3.5 core. To mix PF material with 3.0 you either need to remove minor abilities from the new PF classes and ditch a +2 from the new PF races or you need to use PF races and classes for everything. The feats are slightly better but not any more than a 3.0/3.5 splatbook (and sometimes worse than those) so you can probably use them as-is.

Picking your favorite edition for game mechanics (3.0?) and Pathfinder for races and classes is probably the simplest option to combine the three editions. Feats may come from all 3. Add splatbook material from any of the 3 editions as-is.

- - - - -

As for monsters as races, the 3.5 method of LA + HD is actually a pretty good match to core builds. The problem comes when the value of a level increases with additional material you need to decrease LA & HD by some fraction. The thing is the value of HD depends on creature type so you need a different fraction for every creature type and another for LA. So that varies by your gaming group power level and I have no clue what that is, so good luck :smallbiggrin:. More seriously for mildly optimized groups your DM might guestimate a drop in ECL by 1 or 2 for high ECL races, or more for very high ECL races. At low levels with high LA and zero or low racial HD an additional temporary reduction of 1 or 2 to survive low level play is helpful too. ECL = CR is almost certainly a bad idea though unless you have 10s in all ability scores and monster wealth instead of PC wealth.

[Metahuman1]

As Doug says, it's broken in the other direction. The 3.5 system was poor because, by and large, RHD+LA meant most monster races were underpowered unless it was a specialized build... and y'know, that's not a bad idea. High-ECL races shouldn't be upgrades on the basic set, they should be a bit difficult to compensate for but occasionally worthwhile if you work something out.

PF erred in the opposite direction. High-CR monsters are usually significantly better than single PCs of their level. Anything with a CR of 4 or more is probably going to outshine comparable characters with base races - and that's just by default! Add a build that synergizes well, and they'll blow them straight out of the water.

Huh. I'd love to say that this was an attempt to give Melee something nice, but sadly Casters have access too it too.

But at the very least, it makes the idea of an all monster party easier to manage. Just treat it like a med-to-high op party.

[Chronos]

Another difference between ECL and CR is abilities with infrequent use, like something that can be used 1/week. If that's on a monster you're fighting, it's going to use that ability, because it's in the toughest fight of its life. On a character, though, it's hardly ever going to matter. So infrequent-use abilities are worth more CR than ECL.

Yet another difference is in the consequences of save-or-suck spells. To players, all save-or-suck spells are basically the same: Paralyzing a monster and then coup de gracing it is about the same effect as just killing it outright. On a monster, though, a monster that can paralyze is just a minor inconvenience: If it paralyzes one of the party, you just finish killing it and then wait for the paralysis to wear off (or at worst, spend a 2nd-level spell with no extra costs). But a monster that can kill instantly, you'd better be at least 9th level or you're screwed, and even then, there's a hefty cost in gems and a lasting consequence of a lost level. So kill effects are also worth more CR than ECL.

[Doug Lampert]

As Doug says, it's broken in the other direction. The 3.5 system was poor because, by and large, RHD+LA meant most monster races were underpowered unless it was a specialized build... and y'know, that's not a bad idea. High-ECL races shouldn't be upgrades on the basic set, they should be a bit difficult to compensate for but occasionally worthwhile if you work something out.

PF erred in the opposite direction. High-CR monsters are usually significantly better than single PCs of their level. Anything with a CR of 4 or more is probably going to outshine comparable characters with base races - and that's just by default! Add a build that synergizes well, and they'll blow them straight out of the water.

Right, the 3.5 system is actually PLAYABLE! Even without level buyoff melee characters will sometimes play ECL races and may do reasonably well with a bit of synergy and comparable optimization. Casters still never want anything that doesn't improve casting, but that's minor, the same thing applies to most multiclassing.

3.0 you paid a one time XP cost to be a monster race, and then you advanced as if your level were your HD, too generous, a template was effectively free at high levels. PF is sort of like that, only you can have HD much HIGHER than your level and you don't even pay the initial XP cost. Disasterously too good.

[nyarlathotep]

As for monsters as races, the 3.5 method of LA + HD is actually a pretty good match to core builds. The problem comes when the value of a level increases with additional material you need to decrease LA & HD by some fraction. The thing is the value of HD depends on creature type so you need a different fraction for every creature type and another for LA. So that varies by your gaming group power level and I have no clue what that is, so good luck :smallbiggrin:. More seriously for mildly optimized groups your DM might guestimate a drop in ECL by 1 or 2 for high ECL races, or more for very high ECL races. At low levels with high LA and zero or low racial HD an additional temporary reduction of 1 or 2 to survive low level play is helpful too. ECL = CR is almost certainly a bad idea though unless you have 10s in all ability scores and monster wealth instead of PC wealth.

I'm sorry but you are dead wrong. LA + HD only works for very specific monsters like the darkcreeper, but otherwise even in an unoptimized group you notice their abilities dont scale well and they have next to no hitpoints or ability to hit thanks to their non-existant BAB.

Also pathfinder's system only really falls apart at very high levels of monster CR. Even then it's still better than such jewels as the worse than monk elementals of 3.5.

[Chronos]

Would you prefer a rule of "monsters aren't playable"? Because I don't see any problem with that rule (you're supposed to be the folks who slay the monsters, after all), and that's even more restrictive than 3.5's "you can play a monster if you really want but in most cases it's probably not a good idea".

[Doug Lampert]

I'm sorry but you are dead wrong. LA + HD only works for very specific monsters like the darkcreeper, but otherwise even in an unoptimized group you notice their abilities dont scale well and they have next to no hitpoints or ability to hit thanks to their non-existant BAB.

Also pathfinder's system only really falls apart at very high levels of monster CR. Even then it's still better than such jewels as the worse than monk elementals of 3.5.

Last time I went through their monster document it OBVIOUSLY broke down completely for multiple CR3 monsters, grossly overpowered. If CR 3 is "very high levels of monster CR" then there's a problem.

[Psyren]

Would you prefer a rule of "monsters aren't playable"? Because I don't see any problem with that rule (you're supposed to be the folks who slay the monsters, after all), and that's even more restrictive than 3.5's "you can play a monster if you really want but in most cases it's probably not a good idea".

The reason most people think a bad rule is worse than no rule at all, is because all these methods to play monsters as PCs look nice and mathematical and well-thought-out. They mislead DMs (and players) into thinking that being a monster class doesn't require a lot of work or care on their part; when you're 2 months or 2 years into a campaign and problems start cropping up is a bad time to want to backtrack.

I personally like having rules like that because they are a starting point. They may not work for all monsters or all level ranges, but it's easier to tweak an existing system than develop one from scratch.

[sonofzeal]

The reason most people think a bad rule is worse than no rule at all, is because all these methods to play monsters as PCs look nice and mathematical and well-thought-out. They mislead DMs (and players) into thinking that being a monster class doesn't require a lot of work or care on their part; when you're 2 months or 2 years into a campaign and problems start cropping up is a bad time to want to backtrack.

I personally like having rules like that because they are a starting point. They may not work for all monsters or all level ranges, but it's easier to tweak an existing system than develop one from scratch.
Neither method has that problem. If you've got a bad match in 3.5, it's generally a bad match from the beginning and fairly obviously so. From the moment you calculate what your HP is going to be, the problem should be fairly obvious. It's not a problem that appears 2 years into the campaign, it's a problem that starts on day 1 and never goes away.

Same in PF. A moment's attention will show you your ECL 3 race is coming out miles ahead of its peers, right from the gate. Again it's not a problem that appears 2 years into the campaign, it's a problem that starts on day 1 and never goes away.

[ericgrau]

I'm sorry but you are dead wrong. LA + HD only works for very specific monsters like the darkcreeper, but otherwise even in an unoptimized group you notice their abilities dont scale well and they have next to no hitpoints or ability to hit thanks to their non-existant BAB.

Also pathfinder's system only really falls apart at very high levels of monster CR. Even then it's still better than such jewels as the worse than monk elementals of 3.5.
I calculated the statistics rather meticulously and all the examples I tried were within 0.5 ECL or less of LA 0 builds. LA + HD is an astoundingly close match to core builds.

ECL = CR is fail because you must assume that treasure and higher ability scores (e.g., a 15 instead of an 11) are worthless for it to make any sense. As is, it's nonsense because nothing could be further from the truth. Two +4s and two +2s on top of the massive amounts of treasure PCs have and monsters don't ARE worth something significant. Even a +1 for all that tends to be quite low on any level except level 1.