3.0 vs 3.5

[Walkwalk]

So I recently (last two or three months) had the fun of running through two different campaigns separately. The first, a 3.0 game (Playing a Wizard) and the second, a 3.5 game (playing a Rogue).

And while the experiences were naturally similar, they were also pretty different. Basically, the 3.5 players seemed way more focused on their builds than the 3.0 players were, with basically none of them lacking an optimized Prestige class of some kind.

It's not hard to see why, what with 3.5 having far more options overall, but it was still a bit depressing to watch.

I actually found 3.0 to be more balanced than 3.5, simply because it didn't have that many options. The DM have some experience with all the source books, and know what had to be banned straight out and what could be allowed, with restrictions. The players didn't expect to get whatever overpowered spell or class they wanted. Whereas in 3.5, there's just so much official cheese that you almost have to go core or forget about balancing your game after level 5, because there's no way the DM is keeping up with that.

Now I know this sounds like I'm attacking 3.5, but I'm not. I actually used it more than 3.0 for a good while. It was just going back to 3.0 that made me notice the differences. Even then, it may have been the difference between the two DM's that made 3.0 come of so well. Or possibly some kind of nostalgia.

So I'm just here to ask for your opinions. Which system did/do you prefer?

[Hua]

3.0 has some easily exploited things that they fixed in 3.5. The most obvious are buff spells, such as Bull's Strength. in 3.0 it lasts and hour per level. The impact of that is you can expect it to be pretty much always on. Say you have a 12th level cleric in the party. The day before you head out, he memorizes a Bull's Strength spell in meta-magic extended 4 times, to get 5x the duration. He casts it on your main melee fighter the night before you leave and he then has the +4 STR for the next 2.5 days. First 12 hours might be wasted, but he still is buffed for 2 more days, during which time the cleric has rememorized spells so isn't even out the spell slot.

Do similar for Con, Dex for the rogue, and so on.
There are several other spells that need the adjustments made in 3.5 due to similar risks of being abused.

[ZamielVanWeber]

3.0 also had some absurd items and deeply hated mundanes (early on anyways).

[OldTrees1]

3.0 PHB is more unbalanced than 3.5 PHB which is more unbalanced than the rest of 3.5

In my experience the 3.0 and 3.5 communities had no difference in their opinion towards fluff vs crunch.

I prefer 3.5 since it imports all of 3.0 except what it updated (and I do not know of an update that I would dislike)

[Hiro Protagonest]

This reeks of "core-only is best" mentality, where you think limiting the player's options will stop the problems.

The reality is probably that barely anyone plays pure 3.0, and those that do aren't the type to post optimization guides on the internet.

[Z3ro]

3.0 has some easily exploited things that they fixed in 3.5. The most obvious are buff spells, such as Bull's Strength. in 3.0 it lasts and hour per level. The impact of that is you can expect it to be pretty much always on. Say you have a 12th level cleric in the party. The day before you head out, he memorizes a Bull's Strength spell in meta-magic extended 4 times, to get 5x the duration. He casts it on your main melee fighter the night before you leave and he then has the +4 STR for the next 2.5 days. First 12 hours might be wasted, but he still is buffed for 2 more days, during which time the cleric has rememorized spells so isn't even out the spell slot.

Do similar for Con, Dex for the rogue, and so on.
There are several other spells that need the adjustments made in 3.5 due to similar risks of being abused.

You know, extra long perma-buffs were never a problem in the groups I played in. We just kind of assumed they were always on, the same way you'd assume a fighter has a +str item. Just saved you a little cash.

Now haste on the other hand...

[docnessuno]

I actually found 3.0 to be more balanced than 3.5

Are we talking about the edition where haste did give you an extra standard action?

Where persistent spell was a +4 metamagic feat?

Where a lvl 18 caster could shoot DC 35 spells without even needing some obscure sources or serious cheese?

[Urpriest]

The reality is probably that barely anyone plays pure 3.0, and those that do aren't the type to post optimization guides on the internet.

This, essentially. What you're dealing with is a sample bias: the people who are still playing 3.0 are doing it because they didn't understand why everyone switched to 3.5, and didn't feel the need to investigate it for over a decade. They're not the sort of people you expect to optimize.

[Killer Angel]

I actually found 3.0 to be more balanced than 3.5,

And you draw this conclusion, while playing a wizard in 3.0?
Trust us, 3.5 is not balanced, but it was still a huge improvement.

[BrokenChord]

Well, I'm of a different opinion than everyone else here, as while I am usually forced to play 3.5 out of lack of people who play 3.0 anymore I vastly prefer 3.0 as a system. And yes, 3.5 does have a small overexpansion issue, simply because the more stuff a game designer makes, the less they can actually verify that it's balanced. As a whole, 3.5 has more broken things...

But that's just because it has more THINGS. On a per-book basis, 3.5 is more balanced.

Again, I vastly prefer 3.0. But you would be very mistaken indeed if you assume that somebody who is trying to break the game in 3.0 would have any more trouble than trying to in 3.5.

[OldTrees1]

Well, I'm of a different opinion than everyone else here, as while I am usually forced to play 3.5 out of lack of people who play 3.0 anymore I vastly prefer 3.0 as a system. And yes, 3.5 does have a small overexpansion issue, simply because the more stuff a game designer makes, the less they can actually verify that it's balanced. As a whole, 3.5 has more broken things...

But that's just because it has more THINGS. On a per-book basis, 3.5 is more balanced.

Again, I vastly prefer 3.0. But you would be very mistaken indeed if you assume that somebody who is trying to break the game in 3.0 would have any more trouble than trying to in 3.5.

I missed where you explained what about 3.0 you preferred. If I had to read between the lines I would guess the preference is due to 3.0 being smaller. However I do not like putting words in people's mouths.

[BrokenChord]

You missed that part because I didn't explain it. It wasn't really relevant to the point I was making.

That said, balance is a rather inconsequential thing to me unless I'm actively trying to write fair homebrew. I prefer many of the things people consider broken; for example, especially when used for dual-wielding blasting spells and allowing melee characters to move then full attack, Haste is very cool. And a lot of the stuff that was developed in 3.0 had a lot more flavor and mechanical variance and nuance. (And while archery still wasn't particularly great, at least its PrCs aren't randomly nerfed) The limited skill list and lower amount of utility spells also tended to force characters to help each other in their given roles a lot more, increasing interaction and involvement by necessity.

There are other reasons too, but really, I've already said too much. As it is, I'm pretty sure someone is going to get defensive about my "obviously wrong" view of things and write a post counteracting my every reason because I'm clearly not intelligent enough to formulate a proper view on my own and I'd have to be stupid to not instantaneously change my views when someone shows me their "facts" about why I'm wrong.

[OldTrees1]

You missed that part because I didn't explain it. It wasn't really relevant to the point I was making.

Thank you for sharing your reasons. I will definitely look into them. (Especially "move and full attack" and "mechanical variance and nuance")

[BrokenChord]

I guess Pounce is a thing, but I haven't seen other methods of achieving that bit in 3.5, so it's nice that Haste at least doesn't require possibly uncharacteristic or disadvantageous dips on the part of the moving character to accomplish.

I stick entirely by the other part you mentioned, though I confess that part is pretty much 99% subjective in nature so it's not really something to argue about in the larger picture. Though feel free to do so, I imagine you won't be unreasonable about it so I'll eagerly await what you have to say.

[OldTrees1]

I guess Pounce is a thing, but I haven't seen other methods of achieving that bit in 3.5, so it's nice that Haste at least doesn't require possibly uncharacteristic or disadvantageous dips on the part of the moving character to accomplish.

I stick entirely by the other part you mentioned, though I confess that part is pretty much 99% subjective in nature so it's not really something to argue about in the larger picture. Though feel free to do so, I imagine you won't be unreasonable about it so I'll eagerly await what you have to say.

I meant it more as "I thank you for telling me about them, I am going to go learn more about them and try to bring them to my table."

[BrokenChord]

I meant it more as "I thank you for telling me about them, I am going to go learn more about them and try to bring them to my table."

Oh. :smallredface: Whoops. My bad.

[Nihilarian]

"Core-only is more balanced!" is a myth. Half of the most broken classes (and their broken spells) are right there in the book, right alongside the fighter and the monk, who are practically required to cheese in order to reach basic levels of competence. You're actually better off banning core itself and just using splatbooks. A Crusader, a Beguiler, a Psychic Rogue and a Shugenja can make a balanced party where a Fighter, a Wizard, a Rogue and a Cleric might have trouble.

3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder are all the same game, with a different paint job. If there's a difference in play styles, it's probably because of a difference in players, or maybe the same players wanting to try a different kind of game.

[ericgrau]

I think 3.5 is the automatic choice. Rules-wise, they just plain fixed it. Splats are another story. Allowing things from splats on a case-by-case basis is a great idea. You shouldn't let powergaming deter you from 3.5; the DM just needs to fix a level of power for the gaming group that all players can attain. If they're all experienced then high power is fine, but if some are struggling to find combos to keep up with others, it pulls attention away from other things and/or causes the limited experience DM massive headaches then you have a problem.

There's also a line in the DMG about prestige classes being entirely optional and ideally DM created for a particular campaign. They did get way out of hand. I like base classes a lot better. And while people say nobody should ever use multiclassing xp penalties because xp penalties are retarded, I think they're missing the part where you pretty much can't single class among others who multiclass and prestige out. Not if you expect to keep up. Which is bad for the learning curve, and good for painfully ridiculous builds. As a group you could all agree to not go overboard with these things, which is a superb idea, but fact is all else being equal if one person does it then others need to as well to keep up.

Actually I was doing some number crunching a while back and found something interesting. The multiclassing xp penalty is in fact a convoluted way to gradually give you -1 level over time. You do not fall farther and farther behind like people think because it precisely balances out with bonus xp for being behind. And if you fix the penalty you gradually regain the entire lost level. Most of the time you still shouldn't engage in unfavored multiclassing at all, but if you really want something you can still take it without totally ending your adventuring career. That, or simply agreeing to roughly the same amount of optimization is even better.


"Core-only is more balanced!" is a myth.
Only in theory. The infinite combos, semi-infinite combos and other extreme exploits almost never see play since they are painfully obvious. Power creep isn't. Splatbooks are an even bigger issue with limited DM experience when he doesn't know what to look out for, so it's especially good for a limited experience DM to allow material on a case-by-case basis. Heck you could pick a single random splatbook and limit players to that and it would still be far less likely to become broken because the DM could examine it more thoroughly.

[Duke of Urrel]

There are a couple of things that I miss in the Dungeon Master's Guide v. 3.5 (2003) that were part of the Dungeon Master's Guide 3.0 (2000).


One is a section with the heading "Variant: 1st-Level Multiclass Characters." This appears on page 40 of my old DMG.


Another is the rules for "Hiding and Spotting" that appear on page 60 of my old DMG.


I have now made the switch to 3.5 rules, but I still allow first-level multiclass characters, and I have retained or adapted a few of the old spotting rules, especially the Spot-check penalties for various degrees of dim light.

I'm one of those hermits who switched to 3.5 only very recently. Those who know the kinds of questions and suggestions I've posted on these threads may now say, "Aha, this explains a lot!" Perhaps it does.

[Psyren]

Are we talking about the edition where haste did give you an extra standard action?

Where persistent spell was a +4 metamagic feat?

Where a lvl 18 caster could shoot DC 35 spells without even needing some obscure sources or serious cheese?

Sometimes I wonder if the folks who prefer 3.0 actually played it.

[TuggyNE]

Only in theory. The infinite combos, semi-infinite combos and other extreme exploits almost never see play since they are painfully obvious.

Yes, extreme exploits and infinite combos like casting color spray at level 1, Wild Shaping into an eagle and casting untraceable crowd-control spells through Natural Spell, using planar binding in downtime to amass a decent-size army of minions, or adventuring through astral projection to make sure you can't be killed.

Oh wait.

[ericgrau]

Color spray isn't broken, or even particularly strong compared to anything except other level 1 spells. In general games tend to be pretty tame.

[Psyren]

Calling color spray an "extreme exploit" is a bit hyperbolic.

Having said that I agree that core has the most broken stuff. Candle of Invocation, Dust of Sneezing and Choking, polymorph, planar binding, shapechange and gate are all core, as are Red Wizards.

[Nihilarian]

Only in theory. The infinite combos, semi-infinite combos and other extreme exploits almost never see play since they are painfully obvious. Power creep isn't. Splatbooks are an even bigger issue with limited DM experience when he doesn't know what to look out for, so it's especially good for a limited experience DM to allow material on a case-by-case basis. Heck you could pick a single random splatbook and limit players to that and it would still be far less likely to become broken because the DM could examine it more thoroughly.Core is as broken as non-core. You can ignore the "painfully obvious" exploits if you like, but the fact that they exist and you are forced to ignore them is proof enough. Since most of the broken spells are Wizard, Cleric and/or Druid spells, the fact that you're banning those three classes (along with all the other PHB classes) makes it a bit harder to break. (Archivist, Artificer and Spell to Power Erudite can still be a problem, though)

Limiting to core may help a DM with limited experience in 3.5 handle things, sure. Doesn't make it less broken. Mechanically, the tools are all there.

It should also be noted, core-only games hurt non-casters more than casters.

[eggynack]

Yes, extreme exploits and infinite combos like casting color spray at level 1, Wild Shaping into an eagle and casting untraceable crowd-control spells through Natural Spell, using planar binding in downtime to amass a decent-size army of minions, or adventuring through astral projection to make sure you can't be killed.

Oh wait.
You fool! You've only listed stuff from core. If you want the really broken stuff, you absolutely need out of core material. I mean, what classes are more unbalanced and poorly designed than the factotum, psychic warrior, beguiler, totemist, or binder? Where could you find a shape altering spell more absolutely busted than trollshape, or a minionmancy spell more crazy than dragon ally? Utterly ridiculous.

[BrokenChord]

Core is as broken as non-core. You can ignore the "painfully obvious" exploits if you like, but the fact that they exist and you are forced to ignore them is proof enough. Since most of the broken spells are Wizard, Cleric and/or Druid spells, the fact that you're banning those three classes (along with all the other PHB classes) makes it a bit harder to break. (Archivist, Artificer and Spell to Power Erudite can still be a problem, though)

I like the content of your post, but hilariously two of the three classes you listed lose their "broken" shticks if you assume that removing the class (ala banning Core) also removes that class's spell list.

[The Trickster]

So I recently (last two or three months) had the fun of running through two different campaigns separately. The first, a 3.0 game (Playing a Wizard) and the second, a 3.5 game (playing a Rogue).

And while the experiences were naturally similar, they were also pretty different. Basically, the 3.5 players seemed way more focused on their builds than the 3.0 players were, with basically none of them lacking an optimized Prestige class of some kind.

It's not hard to see why, what with 3.5 having far more options overall, but it was still a bit depressing to watch.

I actually found 3.0 to be more balanced than 3.5, simply because it didn't have that many options. The DM have some experience with all the source books, and know what had to be banned straight out and what could be allowed, with restrictions. The players didn't expect to get whatever overpowered spell or class they wanted. Whereas in 3.5, there's just so much official cheese that you almost have to go core or forget about balancing your game after level 5, because there's no way the DM is keeping up with that.

Now I know this sounds like I'm attacking 3.5, but I'm not. I actually used it more than 3.0 for a good while. It was just going back to 3.0 that made me notice the differences. Even then, it may have been the difference between the two DM's that made 3.0 come of so well. Or possibly some kind of nostalgia.

So I'm just here to ask for your opinions. Which system did/do you prefer?

3.5 > 3.0, mostly for the reasons others have already discussed.

But it is also fair to point out that in 3.5, they actually gave the Ranger some class features. Not game-breaking features, but at least something.

[Killer Angel]

You fool! You've only listed stuff from core. If you want the really broken stuff, you absolutely need out of core material. I mean, what classes are more unbalanced and poorly designed than the factotum, psychic warrior, beguiler, totemist, or binder? Where could you find a shape altering spell more absolutely busted than trollshape, or a minionmancy spell more crazy than dragon ally? Utterly ridiculous.

Guys, please, be fair.
We can find lots of broken material in Core AND outside core. Do we need to discuss planar sheperds, incantatrix, ice assassins, sarrukh, and so on?

That said, yes, PHB, as single book, is the most unbalanced of the whole bunch.

[Walkwalk]

This, essentially. What you're dealing with is a sample bias: the people who are still playing 3.0 are doing it because they didn't understand why everyone switched to 3.5, and didn't feel the need to investigate it for over a decade. They're not the sort of people you expect to optimize.

They weren't unaware of the existence of 3.5, as they haven't had their heads buried under a rock. I'll agree with Jade Dragon and you to an extent though, since they really weren't any kind of optimizing players.

That said, I do disagree with most of the comments here. Yes, the 3.0 PHB had plenty of broken stuff in it. But it was generally straightforwardly broken, with nothing but bigger numbers.

There were plenty of non straightforwardness to it as well, like the Wild Shaped Druid charging around the campaign, but the sheer volume of content for 3.5 buries that under the ground.

More options doesn't always mean more power, but it certainly helps that path. Take the Hathran. When it came out in 3.0, it was powerful, but only effectively so in Rashemen (without a fairly high degree of exploitation and a DM to let that pass). Then, in 3.5, the Acorn of Far Travel was introduced. And with just that, you had a character who could cast divine and arcane magic spontaneously from the best spell lists in the game. Take the Planar Shepherd. Well, I shouldn't have to get into this much. Essentially 10+ actions to everybody else's 1. Or just the Archivist class as a single entity.

A DM can balance around somebody getting an ungodly high caster level. But somebody who get's ten actions a turn is a bit harder to deal with.

[BrokenChord]

I think most of your issues with 3.5 can be solved by telling people not to powergame or turn the game into rocket tag, and using your more firm backhand/boot on those who deliberately screw with you. Setting standards of expectations would be extremely nice, but even the vague "don't break the game" generally gets people away from 10 actions per turn/double synchronicity action loops/Incantapersistatrix.

So basically, your problem is either with players in general, or with the whole of rules-heavy RPGs. The first one is solvable, but if it's the second one, you may just want to run away from everything d20 while you still can.

[Walkwalk]

I think most of your issues with 3.5 can be solved by telling people not to powergame or turn the game into rocket tag, and using your more firm backhand/boot on those who deliberately screw with you. Setting standards of expectations would be extremely nice, but even the vague "don't break the game" generally gets people away from 10 actions per turn/double synchronicity action loops/Incantapersistatrix.

So basically, your problem is either with players in general, or with the whole of rules-heavy RPGs. The first one is solvable, but if it's the second one, you may just want to run away from everything d20 while you still can.

I never said this was a problem. Balance is not inherently good. Sometimes, powergaming is fun. I simply enjoyed the 3.0 game more, but as others had mentioned, that was likely because the players as a whole were better.

And after ten years, I think I'm OK with D20.

[Nihilarian]

More options doesn't always mean more power, but it certainly helps that path. Take the Hathran. When it came out in 3.0, it was powerful, but only effectively so in Rashemen (without a fairly high degree of exploitation and a DM to let that pass). Then, in 3.5, the Acorn of Far Travel was introduced. And with just that, you had a character who could cast divine and arcane magic spontaneously from the best spell lists in the game. How do you do that?

[skyth]

3.0 has some easily exploited things that they fixed in 3.5. The most obvious are buff spells, such as Bull's Strength. in 3.0 it lasts and hour per level. The impact of that is you can expect it to be pretty much always on. Say you have a 12th level cleric in the party. The day before you head out, he memorizes a Bull's Strength spell in meta-magic extended 4 times, to get 5x the duration. He casts it on your main melee fighter the night before you leave and he then has the +4 STR for the next 2.5 days. First 12 hours might be wasted, but he still is buffed for 2 more days, during which time the cleric has rememorized spells so isn't even out the spell slot.

Do similar for Con, Dex for the rogue, and so on.
There are several other spells that need the adjustments made in 3.5 due to similar risks of being abused.

Actually, the more broken part wasllowed t was 1d4+1 instead of a set +4...That allowed empower to be used on it... Especially if you are an incantrix where you could reduce metamagic cost by 1 (each time) and putting it in a energy transformation spell...You're regularly running around with a +20 enhancement bonus to all your stats...

[Walkwalk]

How do you do that?

The Hathran can cast any spell she knows she knows spontaneously, as long as she is standing within Rashemen. The Acorn of Far Travel means that you are technically standing beneath the tree that produced it, no matter where you actually are. By a certain interpretation, this means that a Hathran is always standing in Rashemen, no matter where she is.

The Archivist, like the Wizard, can learn spells that they can't cast yet. But as the Archivist still knows them, a Hathran could cast them through her Arcane slots spontaneously.

Honestly, that Acorn is kind of bull**** all by itself. A sensible DM would put their foot down immediately on it.

[OldTrees1]

Actually, the more broken part wasllowed t was 1d4+1 instead of a set +4...That allowed empower to be used on it... Especially if you are an incantrix where you could reduce metamagic cost by 1 (each time) and putting it in a energy transformation spell...You're regularly running around with a +20 enhancement bonus to all your stats...

Your math is off. Maximum value of empowered 1d4+1 is 5+5/2 round down = +7

[Urpriest]

They weren't unaware of the existence of 3.5, as they haven't had their heads buried under a rock. I'll agree with Jade Dragon and you to an extent though, since they really weren't any kind of optimizing players.

That said, I do disagree with most of the comments here. Yes, the 3.0 PHB had plenty of broken stuff in it. But it was generally straightforwardly broken, with nothing but bigger numbers.

The problem wasn't just bigger numbers though, it was also smaller numbers. It was Bards and armor, or Rangers being a one level dip class. It was a lot of straightforward things.

There was also plenty that was broken just in the sense of being silly and inconsistent, like how animal skill points worked. One of the big virtues of 3.5 is the clarification and consolidation of the HD system, which made working with monsters much more interesting.

[The Cat Goddess]

You say "3.5 has too much stuff!" like it's a bad thing.

Personally, I like having more options. It allows me to try new things every time, rather than saying "since I'm playing a wizard, I have to get this and this and then do that at level (whatever), because that's the only way to get powers beyond what a default wizard gets".

My group has a player who is an uber-optimizer, and a couple of heavy optimizers. Me, I like doing crazy things like a WarMage/Favored Soul/Mystic Theurge... or a Rogue/Invisible Blade/Master Thrower.

Another person in our group is getting ready to run a Pathfinder game, and he's already heavily restricting our options... and what's the point? Trust me, our group can find game-breakers anywhere.

So give us even more options! Bury us in options! So what if the Incantrix is an all-new (for your game) way to break things? It's not like the players couldn't break things without it, after all.

[skyth]

Your math is off. Maximum value of empowered 1d4+1 is 5+5/2 round down = +7

Not if it's empowered 6 times...(1d4+1)*4 :)

[Agincourt]

Your math is off. Maximum value of empowered 1d4+1 is 5+5/2 round down = +7

In 3.0, it is legal to stack the same metamagic feat more than once. (See the 3.0 FAQ here (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) and read page 22 through 23.) With a metamagic reducer, reducing empower to a +1 level adjustment, you can add empower 7 times to Bull's Strength as a 9th level spell, which I believe gives a person a +19 enhancement bonus.

[OldTrees1]

In 3.0, it is legal to stack the same metamagic feat more than once. (See the 3.0 FAQ here (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) and read page 22 through 23.)
That was silly.

[Walkwalk]

That was silly.

Yep. So silly, even Neverwinter Nights put in a limit there.

[Magikeeper]

They did get way out of hand. I like base classes a lot better. And while people say nobody should ever use multiclassing xp penalties because xp penalties are retarded, I think they're missing the part where you pretty much can't single class among others who multiclass and prestige out.

I see, in gaming and otherwise, a lot of situations where someone says "We should do <suggestion> because <Blah> is a big problem." They then describes how bad Blah is, maybe even describe how <suggestion> is not too painful to implement, but don't ever go back and explain exactly how <suggestion> will solve the problem.

Who really suffers from that rule? It isn't the crazy high op builds - most of them don't take more than two levels in any base class anyway or go 2/3 or something. It's the middling optimizers that don't WANT to dive into the the deep end of the optimization pool that suffer. The guy that just wants a few levels 'cause it would be cool or something. Not to mention that base-class dipping is more of a non-caster thing.

So what we have is a rule that mostly hurts not-very-optimized non-casters. Particularly those that just want a level of something for flavor reasons. It doesn't stop prestige classing or hyper dipping at all - it encourages it!

Also, you can pull off single class builds in D&D outside of extreme high op and still keep up. Warblade 20? The issue with the PhB classes is that many of them don't really give you much of a reason to stick with them. Compare core-only paladin levels 1-5 with paladin levels 6-20. At least the splats gave them better spells.


Heck you could pick a single random splatbook and limit players to that and it would still be far less likely to become broken because the DM could examine it more thoroughly.

Agreed. I would further suggest, however, that doing that would also be much preferred to starting with the PhB. My first D&D book was the XPH, so I guess to me the PhB is a splatbook. :P

-----------------------------------

On topic: Our group allows non-spell 3.0 stuff that wasn't updated and does not refer to things that don't exist in 3.5. Like most of the magic items, feats, etc. I haven't found it to be that much different power-wise. Again, this doesn't include the spells.

[ericgrau]

So what we have is a rule that mostly hurts not-very-optimized non-casters. Particularly those that just want a level of something for flavor reasons. It doesn't stop prestige classing or hyper dipping at all - it encourages it!
Some people just want to be able to play a mundane 20 among unoptimized casters. The time it takes to plan a build gets a bit insane. And sorting out rules in session takes time too. The meta is already crazy enough as it is. I've had games where people haven't even had time to level, not even making a full character just 1 level, and such takes 1/3 of the session. With low-mid optimization. A lot of us want to play more than build. Crazy builds can be fun, but only if everybody has 10 hours to do it. And such should be agreed upon. Really whether its the multi-classing rule or something else, any agreed on standard works.

Some fun multiclassing and dipping is still possible with the rule, but within limits. Brief dips, favored multiclassing, or dual/tri classing isn't that complicated. Having prestige classes at all and how to introduce them is its own issue. I mean when they're strictly better than base classes and are easy to enter, they again become a more complicated requirement just to keep up with others. I am in favor of easy access to theurge/gish-type prestiges though, which address something that obviously doesn't work with the multiclassing system.

It all boils down to everyone using the same standard so that with someone with too much time on his hands and/or system knowledge doesn't vastly overshadow the rest. If you hate something about one standard, then using another is great too.

[Walkwalk]

Ultimately, it comes down to the players and the DM. If all the players want to munchkin, then they should be allowed to, and 3.5 is obviously better for that.

If they want to play a variety of roles with something like equal effectiveness, then either a house-ruled 3.0 (like no nigh infinite buff stacking) or a restricted 3.5 tends to be better. The magic users will still pull ahead by a healthy margin, but it won't be quite as extreme.

[Urpriest]

Ultimately, it comes down to the players and the DM. If all the players want to munchkin, then they should be allowed to, and 3.5 is obviously better for that.


Correction: if all the players want to munchkin, they should not be allowed to play, because munchkin is the term for playing and building in a sociopathic manner, and a DM shouldn't foster an environment where everybody is trying to screw everyone else over IRL.

If all the players want to optimize, that's a different story.

[Magikeeper]

@ericgrau

Multiclassing:

Your group agreement appears to work for you, but I don't see how the multiclassing XP rule itself helps. I mean, it sounds like your group agreement to not go overboard is why you don't go overboard. It is a fine agreement to make, I'm just talking about how the XP rule does [not] help with that.

As long as you never take more than 2 levels in a base class you can take as many classes as you want. Since non-casting tends to be frontloaded, and casters tend to not multiclass at all, extreme high op is almost never effected by that limit. Scanning some PC stats for a lvl 19 gestalt game I played/will be playing in - some with very complicated builds on both sides - shows only one PC* that would be effected by that rule (if we used it). And that PC could easily avoid it with a minor swap.

*Correction: I do not have the stats for another one of the players. I suspect he would be effected in a way he could not easily fix. He is the least optimal PC, and the only one that doesn't have a build planned out several levels ahead of time.



To summarize: I feel the Multiclass XP rule is unrelated to your success with reducing group time spent calculating builds, since the rule itself heavily favors calculated builds.

[eggynack]

Correction: if all the players want to munchkin, they should not be allowed to play, because munchkin is the term for playing and building in a sociopathic manner, and a DM shouldn't foster an environment where everybody is trying to screw everyone else over IRL.

Yeah, my definition of munchkin usually requires that someone bend or break the rules to acquire their power. It could also be someone who brings something alike to pun-pun to an actual game. It's definitely not a value neutral term, is the main point.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think 3.0 had a very finite number of extremely broken things (Haste, Harm, and Heal; the other few caster things mentioned), but it also...in the splats...was a bit nicer to the mundanes, at least until late 3.5.

All-day buffs like bull's strength is a boon to the mundanes, if anything. Having them all be combat-length encourages selfish caster-ism.
The weapon size rules meant small warriors weren't utterly boned trying to make use of loot, and more weapons were useful to the martials in general.
3.5 out of the gate also straight-up nerfed the hell out of a bunch of good martial options from 3.0. People to this day still hate Complete Warrior for the setbacks it doled out in "updating" sword & fist.

And let's not forget the insanely massive price jumps for wondrous items from 3.0 to 3.5. That hurt mundanes FAAAAR more than it did casters, who can mimick most of the effects through spells anyway. It really was crazy.... Just look at the loophole "abuse" of the Glove of the Master Strategist from Ghostwalk, which got an update booklet that, intentionally or not, didn't update the glove's price. So you end up with a 3500 gp glove of storing that *also* casts true strike 1/day, alongside the 3.5 DMG glove of storing for 10,000 gp.

I'm not going to say 3.0 was definitely more balanced than 3.5, but it's kind of sickening how massive the avalanche of "3.5 was better" is. Let's not forget, of all their sins...at least the 3.0 writers didn't put Natural Spell in core. :smalltongue:

[137beth]

I think 3.0 had a very finite number of extremely broken things (Haste, Harm, and Heal; the other few caster things mentioned), but it also...in the splats...was a bit nicer to the mundanes, at least until late 3.5.

All-day buffs like bull's strength is a boon to the mundanes, if anything. Having them all be combat-length encourages selfish caster-ism.
The weapon size rules meant small warriors weren't utterly boned trying to make use of loot, and more weapons were useful to the martials in general.
3.5 out of the gate also straight-up nerfed the hell out of a bunch of good martial options from 3.0. People to this day still hate Complete Warrior for the setbacks it doled out in "updating" sword & fist.

And let's not forget the insanely massive price jumps for wondrous items from 3.0 to 3.5. That hurt mundanes FAAAAR more than it did casters, who can mimick most of the effects through spells anyway. It really was crazy.... Just look at the loophole "abuse" of the Glove of the Master Strategist from Ghostwalk, which got an update booklet that, intentionally or not, didn't update the glove's price. So you end up with a 3500 gp glove of storing that *also* casts true strike 1/day, alongside the 3.5 DMG glove of storing for 10,000 gp.

I'm not going to say 3.0 was definitely more balanced than 3.5, but it's kind of sickening how massive the avalanche of "3.5 was better" is. Let's not forget, of all their sins...at least the 3.0 writers didn't put Natural Spell in core. :smalltongue:
If it were just a comparison of core-only, I'd probably prefer 3.0 overall. The main thing about 3.5 core that I liked more was the way damage reduction was handled: in 3.0, martials were largely pushed into getting weapons with straight enhancement bonuses to overcome DR. Now, 3.5 did make it harder to overcome DR, but I think the overall lower DR numbers make it easier to just push through it, allowing martials to get weapons with more potent (and more interesting) abilities. Of course, it would have been even better if they just let any weapon with a +X-equivalent cost count as a +X weapon for overcoming DR:smallsigh:
But it is the supplements that get me to prefer 3.5 as a system overall. I think the developers learned a lot more during the development of 3.5 than they did during the development of 3.0. Compare the 3.0 supplements like the Monster Manual II and Savage Species to the later 3.5 supplements like ToB. And of course, I don't think anyone on the boards wants to champion 3.0 psionics over the XPH.
Although at least the 3.0 designers learned more in those three years than Paizo has in the last five:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

The weapon size rules meant small warriors weren't utterly boned trying to make use of loot, and more weapons were useful to the martials in general.
3.5 out of the gate also straight-up nerfed the hell out of a bunch of good martial options from 3.0. People to this day still hate Complete Warrior for the setbacks it doled out in "updating" sword & fist.

Could you elaborate on this? What setbacks were in CWar specifically? How were the 3.5 and 3.0 weapon size rules diffrent?

Not saying you're wrong or right, just trying to better understand where you're coming from.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Could you elaborate on this? What setbacks were in CWar specifically? How were the 3.5 and 3.0 weapon size rules diffrent?

Not saying you're wrong or right, just trying to better understand where you're coming from.

Many of the feats and classes got nerfed, iirc. I really don't feel like trying to go look through all of them, but off the top of my head Order of the Bow Initiate is one example.

As for weapons... 3.0 it worked a lot different than 3.5. Weapons were categorized by "size" and not by "handedness." A Greatsword would be Large size, a longsword Medium size, a short sword Small size, for example. Large weapons had to be used 2-handed, Small ones were basically 3.5's light weapons. Note that this is in addition to the *actual* size of the weapon (a Giant's longsword is bigger than a human's longsword). There were equivalencies for the weapons, however. Such that if a human found that Large giant's longsword, he could wield it as if it were a greatsword, with the same magical properties and no penalties for wrong size. Likewise, the Halfling could use a human's shortbow as if it were a longbow for him.
It wasn't as clean or as sensible as 3.5's system. But...it really did help the martials out.
(I think I described how weapons worked accurately. It's been many years now, and they weren't the most clear rules to begin with.)

EDIT: The weapon rules change is made fun of in the very first comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html), also. Basically, in 3.0, Belkar was using Medium sized daggers as if they were shortswords. In the transition to 3.5...the invisible/non-existing DM apparently converted them into Small daggers. Also, while the differences may seem trivial, in some cases the transition actually caused Small warriors to end up w/ one lower damage die size on their weapons. I definitely recall that....

[Karnith]

Many of the feats and classes got nerfed, iirc. I really don't feel like trying to go look through all of them, but off the top of my head Order of the Bow Initiate is one example.
Another really annoying change (that was not by any means specific to Complete Warrior) was that a number of options got subsumed into other, often worse, options, were revised into something completely different, or both (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x). For example, the 3.0 Master of Chains, Weapon Master, and Exotic Weapon Master PrCs all got revised to become the 3.5 Exotic Weapon Master PrC.

[Rejusu]

I actually found 3.0 to be more balanced than 3.5, simply because it didn't have that many options. The DM have some experience with all the source books, and know what had to be banned straight out and what could be allowed, with restrictions. The players didn't expect to get whatever overpowered spell or class they wanted. Whereas in 3.5, there's just so much official cheese that you almost have to go core or forget about balancing your game after level 5, because there's no way the DM is keeping up with that.


This is an inaccurate assessment of the balance problems in 3.5. Going core only makes the game more unbalanced, not less. Oh sure many of the ridiculous TO options come from outside of core. But TO should never see play, the moment you see someone trying to play Pun-Pun rocks fall and everybody dies. And yes there's non-TO stuff that's just plain overpowered outside of core. But doesn't change the fact that the majority of it is in core, or requires core material to work (good luck going Planar shepard without Druid levels). But reducing the game to core only just exasperates the problems, it doesn't fix them. Casters are still ridiculous even without the frills, but losing splatbook access is crippling for everyone else.

Either way your experience is anecdotal, the reality is that 3.0 had horrid balance. Don't believe me? Take a look at the 3.0 Psionics handbook, the book that gave psionics its stigma of being overpowered despite the fact it's a generally balanced (the 3.5 Psychic warrior is hailed as being one of the most finely balanced classes there is) and well rounded system.

[Vrock_Summoner]

This is an inaccurate assessment of the balance problems in 3.5. Going core only makes the game more unbalanced, not less. Oh sure many of the ridiculous TO options come from outside of core. But TO should never see play, the moment you see someone trying to play Pun-Pun rocks fall and everybody dies. And yes there's non-TO stuff that's just plain overpowered outside of core. But doesn't change the fact that the majority of it is in core, or requires core material to work (good luck going Planar shepard without Druid levels). But reducing the game to core only just exasperates the problems, it doesn't fix them. Casters are still ridiculous even without the frills, but losing splatbook access is crippling for everyone else.

Either way your experience is anecdotal, the reality is that 3.0 had horrid balance. Don't believe me? Take a look at the 3.0 Psionics handbook, the book that gave psionics its stigma of being overpowered despite the fact it's a generally balanced (the 3.5 Psychic warrior is hailed as being one of the most finely balanced classes there is) and well rounded system.

While I haven't read the 3.0 Psionics rules, I can tell you for a fact that Psionics are stigmatized almost 100% because of 2e, not 3.0.

... Also, I personally can't believe people think Psionics are balanced in 3.5, but I'll pretend I don't notice and move on.

[ZamielVanWeber]

While I haven't read the 3.0 Psionics rules, I can tell you for a fact that Psionics are stigmatized almost 100% because of 2e, not 3.0.

... Also, I personally can't believe people think Psionics are balanced in 3.5, but I'll pretend I don't notice and move on.

3.0 psionics used all 6 stats. Simultaneously. Each discipline was keyed to a stat and its save DCs and maximum power of that discipline castable were keyed to that stat. A pan of 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 19 at 17 could not cast all of the 9th level powers available to them.

[Rejusu]

While I haven't read the 3.0 Psionics rules, I can tell you for a fact that Psionics are stigmatized almost 100% because of 2e, not 3.0.

... Also, I personally can't believe people think Psionics are balanced in 3.5, but I'll pretend I don't notice and move on.

Your mileage may vary on that. I know a lot of people that never touched an edition before 3rd who get their view on Psionics from the original Psionics Handbook. And I said generally balanced. I'm not saying it's perfect, you do have stuff like the Soulknife which is a horridly thought out class on the same level as Monk. And Psions are comparable in power to casters, but notably weaker in several ways. Psionics succeeded in toning down a lot of the crap that full spellcasters get away with.

Personally I can't believe people think Psionics aren't relatively well balanced in 3.5.

But if you're going to bring up Psionic Artificer or Spell-to-power Erudite I'd like to point out in advance that these are broken not because of their Psionic element (at least not purely because of it), but their magical ones.

[bekeleven]

While I haven't read the 3.0 Psionics rules, I can tell you for a fact that Psionics are stigmatized almost 100% because of 2e, not 3.0.

An old standby explanantion of 3.0 psionics. Credit goes to not me.


I have used this model before, but to really appreciate how this "class feature" worked you should see how it would apply if ported to mainstream D&D where they haven't been conditioned to accept inferior mechanics without question. Lets take the big sacred moo, a Cleric's undead turning ability:

DM: "Before we get started, Cleric, I just want you to know that I am instituting some changes in your turn undead class feature that will make your class more different and give it a unique divine mechanic."

Player: "OK. How does it work now?"

DM: "Well, for starters, when you attempt to turn undead you will now have to burn a spell."

Player: "A spell???? What level?"

DM: "Different levels. It depends on what turning mode you want to use. Sanctified Gesture takes a level 1, Divine Dance of Power takes a level 2, High Holly Homina Homina takes a level 3, and...."

Player: "Wait, I assume I will get a bonus on the roll based on the level of spell slot I sacrifice?"

DM: "Sometimes you will. Other times you will get a penalty based on the turning defense mode the opponent selects. Turning and turning defense modes will interact on a table. The table determines the actual DC of the roll, not the level of the spell slot burned. Choosing a given defense mode may actually mean you pay a spell to get a penalty on the save, but it will still be better than being defenseless."

Player: "The undead will get defense modes?"

DM: "Sure, so will you. Each round you will select a turning attack mode and a defense mode. In fact, you will need to select a defense mode against each undead opponent each and every round and each will cost you spell slots."

Player: "Wwwwwwhat????!!!!!! What if I am facing undead who do not cast spells, I assume they won't get to mount a defense?"

DM: "It doesn't matter if you face undead without casting ability because their turning and turning defense modes are free."

Player: "Wait a minute! This is stupid! One of my 3rd level spell slots could be spent on Searing Light which fries undead; why would I ever spend it on an attack mode that might help me on a turning attempt? And why would I ever take a turning defense mode, much less a separate one vs. each undead opponent? I would simply choose to ignore undead or cast spells against them or go at them with weapons. I would have to have brain damage to choose to turn with these rules!"

DM: "If you fail to mount a defense then each unblocked undead gets a special +8 bonus to hit you for having this wonderful class feature and choosing not to use it. They also get to drain your stats if they hit. This will apply also to anyone who adds a level of Cleric; multiclassing will be very flavorful."

Player: "But I am a spellcaster, I need to be able to cast spells. How can I do my job if my spell slots get sucked away every time we run into undead?"

DM: "Well, how can you do your job if you are dead or reduced to a mindless state? You need to use your spells this way or you may not live long enough to cast them anyway."

Player: Head down, silently weeping into his hands.

DM: "I should mention too that you will be able to make turn undead attempts vs. nonundead; if you succeed they will be stunned for a few rounds. Of course, everyone who does not have this feature will get a huge bonus on the save DC. The best part: If you blow a 5th level spell to use High Holy Hokey Pokey then everyone in a large area could be stunned for a long while and they don't get a bonus vs. this one mode -- that makes the entire system usable and balanced."

Player: "They should all be stunned if they ever see me willingly use these rules. This is preposterous! I need my spells to heal and buff and perform all the functions of a Cleric. How am I going to be of any use to the party if I hemorrhage spell slots every time we run into undead?"

DM: "That is the beauty of it: You get to choose whether to use your spell slots as they were intended or save your own hide by using them to turn. Come on and at least give it a chance. It will be a mechanic unique to your class so it must be a benefit. You don't want to be just another spellcaster do you? This will add so much flavor and.... Hey! Get him off of me!"

Player: "How ya like that fist flavor?"

[StreamOfTheSky]

3.0 psionics used all 6 stats. Simultaneously. Each discipline was keyed to a stat and its save DCs and maximum power of that discipline castable were keyed to that stat. A pan of 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 19 at 17 could not cast all of the 9th level powers available to them.

I kinda wish all casting was like that... Sounds like it would be a pretty hefty nerf... Let THEM deal with being hyper-MAD for once!

[ZamielVanWeber]

I kinda wish all casting was like that... Sounds like it would be a pretty hefty nerf... Let THEM deal with being hyper-MAD for once!

They were borderline unplayable (except for your ability to grab mind blast). Psionix combat was... Ridiculous.

[Nihilarian]

They were borderline unplayable (except for your ability to grab mind blast). Psionix combat was... Ridiculous.I don't think he was talking about the psionic combat aspect, but the need to use multiple ability scores. I could get behind that, honestly.

[Psyren]

I don't think he was talking about the psionic combat aspect, but the need to use multiple ability scores. I could get behind that, honestly.

Congratulations, now every psion in your campaign is a Kineticist (Con), Shaper (Int) or Nomad (Dex.)

[ZamielVanWeber]

I don't think he was talking about the psionic combat aspect, but the need to use multiple ability scores. I could get behind that, honestly.

I know. I just wanted to point out that there were even more clunky bits to old school psionics. Being a phone meant I shortened what I wanted to say; it looks like I over shortened it.

[Vrock_Summoner]

I know. I just wanted to point out that there were even more clunky bits to old school psionics. Being a phone meant I shortened what I wanted to say; it looks like I over shortened it.

You're a phone?

[ZamielVanWeber]

You're a phone?

Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please hang up and try adain.

[StreamOfTheSky]

You're a phone?

There's psion sandwiches, a psion phone isn't that strange.