Things you prefer from 3.0

[Yora]

When 3.5e came out, I was all for it right away and never looked back for many years. But recently I've seen some people here and there mentioning prefering the original 3rd Edition core rule books over the newer versions. And looking back, I kind of see that there might be something to it.

Now I love that rangers get 2 more skill points and Hit Dice reduced by one size, and that monsters ignore significantly lower amounts of damage when they have Damage or Energy Resistance. The simpler system for cover and concealment is also a great thing.

But on the other hand, I'm not such a fan of using special materials and enchantments to overcome damage reduction. Yes, having to have a +3 weapon and then being able to ignore the DR of almost anything, while not being able to do any damage to some monsters without it wasn't the greatest thing, but "Cold Iron and Evil" or "Piercing and Good" actually gets rather annoying because there are just so many possible combinations and really, what Level 7 party has "piercing and good" weapons for both fighters and rogues when the run into a Rakshasa? Or want to buy them when they know they will face one?

There's also a difference in style, with 3.0 feeling a lot more like "AD&D 3rd Edition", while 3.5e books tend to drop any pretense of being medieval fantasy, but that's a pure fluff and optical design thing that does not really concern the rules.

But speaking of the rules, what things do you think were better in 3.0? There's lots of good things that 3.5e did better, but lets's keep it to those things in which you prefer the old way to do them:

---

As mentioned Damage Reduction, however with the limitation that I like the way with what weapons you overcame it (silver, +1, +2, ...), but prefer the 3.5e way of cutting the amount of damage that is substracted roughly by half.

I just recently noticed that the 3.5e Derro is a very different creature from all the previous editions. The sneak attack, spell-like abilities, and the supernatural insanty thing seem to be inventions of the 3.5e monster manual. All previous editions didn't have any of that. The 3.0 version was much closer to the AD&D creature.

Nitpicking, but why rename Wilderness Lore as Survival? Did it get mixed up with Knowledge (nature) too much? I like the old name a lot more.

[Larkas]

Let's see... From the top of my head:

Ranger's Hit Dice: I mean, really, it's not such a big deal, but why were they decreased from d10 to d8? Link (http://systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd3/theraven/SRDBasicRules/srdbasiccharacterclassesii.html)

Wizard's Specialization Rule: Specialization was much more deep back in 3E than in 3.5. You could ban Divination, and depending on the specialized and banned schools, you could have to ban either only one, two, or up to three schools. Unnecessarily complicated? I think not. The years have shown that Transmutation and Conjuration schools are worth much more than the others, and the system reflects that. It's only fault is overestimating Evocation, but with 2E in mind you can see where they were coming from. Link (http://systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd3/theraven/SRDBasicRules/srdbasiccharacterclassesii.html)

Jump skill check's results: Really, this guy (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) says it better than I ever could. 3E's results were more refined and realistic. Maybe the wording of the results could've been better (citing the above article: "The distance of a long jump is equal to your check result minus 5 feet."), but it made no sense to throw such a good rule out of the window. Link (http://systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd3/theraven/SRDBasicRules/srdskillsii.html)

Critical improvements stacking: Now, back in 3E, making a crit-fishing build was actually possible, and tremendously fun. In 3.5, they threw all the fun away by saying that improvements to the critical range doesn't stack (I don't remember if it is the same for the critical multiplier). Now, with uberchargers on the table in one side and GOD wizards in the other, this doesn't seem like a problem at all, or even an optimized way to create your character. It was a senseless change to the system, in my opinion. I can't actually give a link to this

[subject42]

But on the other hand, I'm not such a fan of using special materials and enchantments to overcome damage reduction. Yes, having to have a +3 weapon and then being able to ignore the DR of almost anything, while not being able to do any damage to some monsters without it wasn't the greatest thing, but "Cold Iron and Evil" or "Piercing and Good" actually gets rather annoying because there are just so many possible combinations and really, what Level 7 party has "piercing and good" weapons for both fighters and rogues when the run into a Rakshasa? Or want to buy them when they know they will face one?

Pathfinder actually moved back to something a little closer to 3.0 in this regard. Flat enhancement bonuses to weapons allow them to count as specific materials or alignments for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction.

[Larkas]

Pathfinder actually moved back to something a little closer to 3.0 in this regard. Flat enhancement bonuses to weapons allow them to count as specific materials or alignments for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction.

Pathfinder recovered quite a few things from 3E, even if unwittingly. The Ranger's HD is one of those things, for example.

EDIT: Oh, another thing I miss from 3E was Combat Facing and Combat Space. Back then, a character did have a back side in the battle mat, which came with extra bonuses for back attacks, IIRC. Also, tall creatures didn't occupy the same space as long creatures, which kinda makes sense. I don't know if it was better or worse, since 3.5 certainly streamlined things, but it did add another layer of depth to the game.

[subject42]

Pathfinder recovered quite a few things from 3E, even if unwittingly. The Ranger's HD is one of those things, for example.

It's been a long time since I've played the older editions, but didn't the ranger used to get d8 hit die prior to 3.0, but at first level he got 2d8 instead of 1d8? I vaguely remember that giving the ranger an early-level advantage against fighters.

[Amphetryon]

It's been a long time since I've played the older editions, but didn't the ranger used to get d8 hit die prior to 3.0, but at first level he got 2d8 instead of 1d8? I vaguely remember that giving the ranger an early-level advantage against fighters.

I recall the same thing. FWIW, I remember the devs saying something about "Ranger got sufficiently improved from 3.0 to 3.5 that reducing the HD from d10 to d8 was a balance thing." Granted, the devs also wanted us to believe that 3.5 Monk was balanced against a 3.5 Wizard. . . and for the love of Crom, don't let this example turn the thread into another Monk vs. Wizard debate.

[Zombimode]

But on the other hand, I'm not such a fan of using special materials and enchantments to overcome damage reduction. Yes, having to have a +3 weapon and then being able to ignore the DR of almost anything, while not being able to do any damage to some monsters without it wasn't the greatest thing, but "Cold Iron and Evil" or "Piercing and Good" actually gets rather annoying because there are just so many possible combinations and really, what Level 7 party has "piercing and good" weapons for both fighters and rogues when the run into a Rakshasa? Or want to buy them when they know they will face one?

Well, I feel thats kind of the point. 3.5 DR to me means more something like "This creature is simply resistant against weapon damage... except when you have juuuust the right tool for the job. If you do, the encounter is probably much easier then the CR would indicate."

When you have DR that is too easy to ignore you can almost save yourself the trouble even recording it. This is already the case with DR /magic. Barring very specific cases its useless (at least in settings with the expected availability of magic items... in my personal E6 setting, DR magic is quite useful...).
I like that in most cases 3.5 DR actually adds something significant to the creature.

[Spuddles]

I liked DR20/+5. It actually meant something. Now DR/magic is trash and virtually worthless.

3.0 haste was balls to the wall awesome.

But that's about it. Most of the stuff 3.0 did was wrong; 3.5 fixed some of it, but there is still a ton of badwrong stuff. But that's the WotC business model. Dungeons and Dragons: The Gathering.

Like some above poster opining that they lost their "more realistic jump rules." wtf is that. That's the sort of guy that doesn't see the problem with having a fighter that is incompetent at virtually everything while the druid runs around polymorphed into a bear with a pet bear and he summons bears and shoots lightning out of his eyes. You know, because magic.

A system that pretend at medieval fantasy, hoses half the classes because "realism", but doesn't tell you that half the classes are meant for NPCs is a terrible design. And judging by the stuff that half the designers have done, I don't think they did it on purpose. They fundamentally did not understand game balance. SKR still doesn't. Whenever he posts a rules "clarification" on Paizo, you can almost feel the rest of the dev team facepalming.

[Larkas]

Read the ******* article before you start drawing conclusions about people you don't even know. It is exactly about calibrating expectations in a D&D game, and why "low-magic" and "gritty fantasy" only work up to level 5. Furthermore, no one has to like the same things as you. A little respect goes a long way. :smallmad:

[Draz74]

Eh, the only thing mentioned so far that I really agree with is Jump checks. All the other changes, even if I disagree with them, were worth it for simplicity IMO.


It's been a long time since I've played the older editions, but didn't the ranger used to get d8 hit die prior to 3.0, but at first level he got 2d8 instead of 1d8? I vaguely remember that giving the ranger an early-level advantage against fighters.

This was the case in 1e. Not in 2e. IIRC, the Monk also got a double Hit Die at Level 1.

[Waddacku]

3.0 Haste was obscenely, ridiculously broken.

[Carth]

Crit stacking should have stayed, though the nerf to vorpal weapons was warranted.

I actually think DR/+2, etc. should have stayed, but also that all the new types of DR should stay too. I'm fine with Rakshasa DR and other oddball types. I wouldn't mind seeing jacked up skeletons with DR/+3 bludgeoning adamantine.


EDIT: Oh, another thing I miss from 3E was Combat Facing and Combat Space. Back then, a character did have a back side in the battle mat, which came with extra bonuses for back attacks, IIRC. Also, tall creatures didn't occupy the same space as long creatures, which kinda makes sense. I don't know if it was better or worse, since 3.5 certainly streamlined things, but it did add another layer of depth to the game.

This is something I don't miss at all. Whenever you start trying to add details like this you basically penalize mundanes and widen the gap between them and casters. One of the groups I play in does stuff like this, making up rules for the sake of verisimilitude, like that you can't cleave with a rapier, cleaving with piercing weapons is harder in general, etc. It slows things down and penalizes combat styles that already have the most restrictions. D&D combat is already so unrealistic that I'm very skeptical of attempts to bring realism to it, if it causes any type of compromise in another area, however small.

[Spuddles]

Read the ******* article before you start drawing conclusions about people you don't even know. It is exactly about calibrating expectations in a D&D game, and why "low-magic" and "gritty fantasy" only work up to level 5. Furthermore, no one has to like the same things as you. A little respect goes a long way. :smallmad:

I have read that. It's great if all you do is play D&D at level 3 and your expectations are "everyone is a normal person and we don't like high fantasy".

The jump rule from 3.0 that was terribad was the restrictions on maximum distance, which that dude conveniently left out. You know, because we wouldn't want to have a mundane jump check go too high, or that might upset or delicate sensibilities.

And there's no need to curse.

[navar100]

There is a minute change in a rule 3.5 did that my group overlooked and really doesn't care - breaking ties in initiative. We always use higher Dex breaks ties, if still a tie roll again. That was 3.0's rule, though they say flip a coin to break Dex ties. 3.5 changed the tie-breaker to who has the higher total modifier. I remind them from time to time, but they always go back to who has the higher Dex. I don't care that much either. Since I rarely take Improved Initiative I'm not adversely affected enough to worry about it. Besides, I'm notorious for rolling low in initiative and tend to go in the bottom of the order anyway. Over 11 years of playing in four campaigns, I've gone first in combat exactly once. I remember that combat precisely because it was the only time I went first. I rolled a natural 20 in initiative when everyone else, including the DM, rolled low.

[Larkas]

This is something I don't miss at all. Whenever you start trying to add details like this you basically penalize mundanes and widen the gap between them and casters. One of the groups I play in does stuff like this, making up rules for the sake of verisimilitude, like that you can't cleave with a rapier, cleaving with piercing weapons is harder in general, etc. It slows things down and penalizes combat styles that already have the most restrictions. D&D combat is already so unrealistic that I'm very skeptical of attempts to bring realism to it, if it causes any type of compromise in another area, however small.

Ah, indeed. That's why I said I miss it, but it being discarded was probably for the best.


I have read that. It's great if all you do is play D&D at level 3 and your expectations are "everyone is a normal person and we don't like high fantasy".

The jump rule from 3.0 that was terribad was the restrictions on maximum distance, which that dude conveniently left out. You know, because we wouldn't want to have a mundane jump check go too high, or that might upset or delicate sensibilities.

That article is not indicating a "right" level of play, it is merely advising people to calibrate their expectations. Einstein was not a level 20 Expert, he was level 6 at most, and all that stuff. It says that, if you keep this in mind, you'll avoid frustrations. Characters in levels 16-20 are demigods, not simple adventurers. And that's okay, but don't throw something a mortal could solve in the hands of a demigod, that won't even be fun.

And we can agree that the maximum distance when jumping was, indeed, senseless. I'm not against the revising of the skill. I'm simply stating that they could have not thrown a perfectly good formula out of the window. Just remove the maximum distance and it's all good.

[Alabenson]

Pathfinder recovered quite a few things from 3E, even if unwittingly. The Ranger's HD is one of those things, for example.

EDIT: Oh, another thing I miss from 3E was Combat Facing and Combat Space. Back then, a character did have a back side in the battle mat, which came with extra bonuses for back attacks, IIRC. Also, tall creatures didn't occupy the same space as long creatures, which kinda makes sense. I don't know if it was better or worse, since 3.5 certainly streamlined things, but it did add another layer of depth to the game.

A minor nitpick, but as I recall, wasn't Combat Facing an optional rule in 3.0?

As for myself, I much prefer how the darkness spell was written in 3.0 as opposed to 3.5 (shadowy illumination? Really, WotC?)

[Larkas]

A minor nitpick, but as I recall, wasn't Combat Facing an optional rule in 3.0?

Eh, was it? The group I played from '00 to '04 used, so I just assumed it was standard! Let me check here...

EEP! :smalleek: It's right at the top (http://systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd3/theraven/SRDBasicRules/SRDCombatBasics.html)! You're right! I've been living a lie! :smallbiggrin:

[Draz74]

The jump rule from 3.0 that was terribad was the restrictions on maximum distance, which that dude conveniently left out. You know, because we wouldn't want to have a mundane jump check go too high, or that might upset or delicate sensibilities.
Haha, true. That's one part of the Jump rule that was good to throw out.


As for myself, I much prefer how the darkness spell was written in 3.0 as opposed to 3.5 (shadowy illumination? Really, WotC?)

Good point. Darkness in 3.0 might have been too powerful for its level (slightly), but it was much more flavorful than a "darkness" spell that can actually illuminate the field. :smallyuk:


I don't care that much either. Since I rarely take Improved Initiative I'm not adversely affected enough to worry about it. Besides, I'm notorious for rolling low in initiative and tend to go in the bottom of the order anyway. Over 11 years of playing in four campaigns, I've gone first in combat exactly once.

Sounds like maybe you should be taking Improved Initiative more often. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

[ksbsnowowl]

Things from 3.0 that I house-rule back into my 3.5 game:

Keen and Improved Critical stack.

DR x/Magic is tiered like it was in 3.0 (DR x/+1, DR x/+2, x/+3, etc).

3.0 Darkness and Deeper Darkness return as True Darkness and True Deeper Darkness, each one level higher than the 3.5 counterpart. The 3.5 spells remain in play.

3.0 Haste returns as True Haste, a 5th level spell. It has a slight tweak that it is a full-round action to cast, and its effects don't begin until after your turn ends.

I use 3.0 Polymorph Other and Polymorph Self.

I use 3.0 Wildshape.

In some instances I specifically use the less-powerful 3.0 version of a Prestige Class (Incantatrix...)

Although I don't happen to use it in my current game, I prefer the 3.0 cover and concealment rules. You would prefer them too, if you fought a Shadow Dragon...

[Yora]

Oh yes, 3.5e Darkness is silly. What was wrong with everyone being completely blind? In 3.5e, the 1st level spell obsuring mist is way better. With those spells, a duration of 1 min/level or 10 min/level really doesn't matter.

[thethird]

3.0 Haste returns as True Haste, a 5th level spell. It has a slight tweak that it is a full-round action to cast, and its effects don't begin until after your turn ends.

If you miss 3.0 Haste check Battletide from player's guide to Faerun page 99, the best reason I know to revere Bane.

[navar100]

Sounds like maybe you should be taking Improved Initiative more often. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

Tee Hee.

I did take it once, as a prerequisite to become a Master of Nine. By campaign end I had +10 to initiative. Still never went first due to poor rolling, but admittedly I was not last when it got that high. It was a fun change of experience. Current campaign even with an 18 Dex I'm back to my usual low spot in initiative order. On the bright side, at least this is when I get most of my Natural 1's out of the way. :smallbiggrin:

[Agincourt]

I miss the longer spell duration of Bear's Endurance/Bull's Strength/Cat's Grace/Eagle's Splendor's/Fox's Cunning/Owl's Wisdom. It's good that they changed it to a flat +4 enhancement bonus, instead of 1d4+1, but my group went from sometimes taking it in 3.0 to never taking it in 3.5. Then we changed it back to the hour/level duration and people once again would take these spells.


3.0 Haste was obscenely, ridiculously broken.

You know it's a broken spell when a level 20 Wizard always starts off combat by casting it. 3rd level spells should be an afterthought by that point.

[Waddacku]

They did remake 3.0 Haste for 3.5, though. It's called Arcane Spellsurge. It's level 7.

Okay, so it doesn't work exactly the same, but the main utility of it is identical.

[andromax]

I'm sure it's been mentioned.. but I prefer maximized Bulls/Owls/Eagles/Cats etc's duration.

[Yora]

But as a 5th level spell?

[Psyren]

Darkness is another thing PF fixed. It drops light levels rather than setting it to one (that might be higher than prevailing conditions), and magical darkness doesn't automatically defeat darkvision. (But supernatural darkness does.) Deeper Darkness actually lives up to its name by being able to get down to supernatural.

[yougi]

IIRC, the Monk also got a double Hit Die at Level 1.

Yes, but Monks also got d4 as HD... Yes, 3E monks are actually an upgrade over the previous ones.

[Draz74]

Yes, but Monks also got d4 as HD... Yes, 3E monks are actually an upgrade over the previous ones.

Wow ... that, I did not remember.

[Eldan]

However, I think that monks were just about the best melee damage dealers? I haven't played any pre-3 editions, but I think someone mentioned it. Plus their class level to damage, or something?

[nyarlathotep]

However, I think that monks were just about the best melee damage dealers? I haven't played any pre-3 editions, but I think someone mentioned it. Plus their class level to damage, or something?

There were like 3 different version of the monk class prior to 3rd edition. Are we talking the clerics with slight alterations? Are we talking the scarlet brotherhood monk/assassins who were the basis of 3rd edition monks? Or are we talking the ones published in basic?

[Yora]

I think one thing I actually liked was dead levels. People say that dead levels are the worst thing ever, but I think the mentality of always wanting more and more new class features and special abilities was where D&D started to went wrong.
It made the game a hunt for new abilities which I think often lead to players approaching the game as a challenge to use their special abilities to "win the game". Without all that stuff, people are much more inclined to approach obstacles by starting to get creative with mundane things like hiding in the bushes and listening, digging holes for traps with shovels, or tricking people to get them access to guarded places by making up lies.
The more you focus on special mechanical abilities, the more players regard their characters as packages of class features and feats rather than people.

[nedz]

However, I think that monks were just about the best melee damage dealers? I haven't played any pre-3 editions, but I think someone mentioned it. Plus their class level to damage, or something?

IIRC their main advantage was having what is now called evasion. No other class had this — unlike in more recent versions of the game. They never did do much damage, they were always about high speed and resilience.

[yougi]

However, I think that monks were just about the best melee damage dealers? I haven't played any pre-3 editions, but I think someone mentioned it. Plus their class level to damage, or something?

As damage dealer, they had quite high unarmed damage (capped at 8d4 at lv17, back when there was no way for a mundane to do much more than 2d6+15-ish per attack), and more attacks per round. At lv13, they got a special ability which allowed them to make a killing blow once per week (kind of like a save or die, without the save).


IIRC their main advantage was having what is now called evasion. No other class had this — unlike in more recent versions of the game. They never did do much damage, they were always about high speed and resilience.

Yes, and eventually improved evasion. They also could make a save when they were targeted by a non-magical range attack, and if they made it, they negated the attack entirely.

Let's remember that in 1E, Monks had some thievery abilities, and were not that much behind Thieves after lv6 or so.

They also had fast (like, FAST) movement (a medium sized creature's speed was 120 ft per round, but a monk had 140 + 10/lv, which was quite ridiculous later on).


Back to the OP, sorry Yora.


I think one thing I actually liked was dead levels. People say that dead levels are the worst thing ever, but I think the mentality of always wanting more and more new class features and special abilities was where D&D started to went wrong.
It made the game a hunt for new abilities which I think often lead to players approaching the game as a challenge to use their special abilities to "win the game". Without all that stuff, people are much more inclined to approach obstacles by starting to get creative with mundane things like hiding in the bushes and listening, digging holes for traps with shovels, or tricking people to get them access to guarded places by making up lies.
The more you focus on special mechanical abilities, the more players regard their characters as packages of class features and feats rather than people.

That's true. And it also happens to some DMs (I know it happens to me), who fail to provide mundane ways out, thinking "they can get out of there with their abilities".