[3.0] Backconversion from 3.5/PF for a Character

[Feint's End]

Hey people. I'll have a testsession in a group in my area this saturday I haven't played in yet. Only thing is they play 3.0 in Faerun and I have pretty much no idea about 3.0.

I hope somebody with good knowledge of 3.0 could give me the maindifferences for charactercreation for the 2 versions. Things about specific classes are not so important because I'll ask for a 3.5 class or even Pathfinder class to use (that should be fine).
The only thing I'm really concerned about are things that affect every character in a different way from 3.5 (feats? skills? level up? general powerlevel?).

I know there are already a punch of this kind of threads but going through a few of them they mostly focused on areas I didn't care so much about (like classdifferences in specific cases).

[(Un)Inspired]

The haste spell is thebomb.com in 3.0. I advise choosing a class that can cast it and take advantage of extra standard actions each round.

If I recall, bards are much weaker in 3.0; less skill points and they can't retrain their spells as they level up.
So avoid playing a bard... I guess?

[Feint's End]

The haste spell is thebomb.com in 3.0. I advise choosing a class that can cast it and take advantage of extra standard actions each round.

If I recall, bards are much weaker in 3.0; less skill points and they can't retrain their spells as they level up.
So avoid playing a bard... I guess?

Thanks for the fast answer (Un)Inspired! I thought though that I made myself clear that I don't need classspecific advise in the OP. If I didn't please let me know.

I need a more general advise on differences in skills, feats, general powerlevel since I'll be playing a class from 3.5 anyways (or PF). Was thinking about going Swordsage. Thanks for the haste spell advice though .... extra standardactions must be the bomb for Swordsages.

[(Un)Inspired]

Very true my bard advice was unimportant.

If I remember correctly a big difference between 3.0 and 3.5 was the way DR was handled. It's much harder to overcome in 3.0 so keep that in mind if you're interested in playing a melee class like a swordsage.

[Feint's End]

If I remember correctly a big difference between 3.0 and 3.5 was the way DR was handled. It's much harder to overcome in 3.0 so keep that in mind if you're interested in playing a melee class like a swordsage.

That's some great advice. Thank you. Is that because the material is harder to aquire (like cold iron, adamantine) or because it's just higher in general?

[(Un)Inspired]

That's some great advice. Thank you. Is that because the material is harder to aquire (like cold iron, adamantine) or because it's just higher in general?

It's because it's higher in most cases I believe.

[docnessuno]

The haste spell is thebomb.com in 3.0. I advise choosing a class that can cast it and take advantage of extra standard actions each round.

Haste IS one of the 3.0 bombs, but almost anyone can access it. Defender of the faith has a +3 armor propriety granting constant haste (witch, among other things, gives +4 AC)


Very true my bard advice was unimportant.

If I remember correctly a big difference between 3.0 and 3.5 was the way DR was handled. It's much harder to overcome in 3.0 so keep that in mind if you're interested in playing a melee class like a swordsage.

True and false. In 3.0 you need an increasingly high enhancement bonus to overcome DR (IE: higher level monster might have DR x/+4 and x/+5), but a +1 weapons already overcomes all material-based (silver, adamantium) and alignment based (good, evil) DR and there is a +1 weapon property (sure striking) that allows a weapon to overcome all pre-epic DR.

Other things worth noting:
In 3.0 you can apply the same metamagic feat multiple times to the same spell.
Ramping up spell DCs was much easier in 3.0 (spell focus and its improved version gave +2 each, Archmage could increase all DCs up to +6, just to cite some examples)
Many spells were slightly different (IE: Bear's strenght and similar spells duration, Greater magic weapon and similar spells scaling, Polymorph spells)
TWF line required ambidexterity, Ranger 1 was the best martial dip in the game for TWFers.

[Feint's End]

True and false. In 3.0 you need an increasingly high enhancement bonus to overcome DR (IE: higher level monster might have DR x/+4 and x/+5), but a +1 weapons already overcomes all material-based (silver, adamantium) and alignment based (good, evil) DR and there is a +1 weapon property (sure striking) that allows a weapon to overcome all pre-epic DR.

Other things worth noting:
In 3.0 you can apply the same metamagic feat multiple times to the same spell.
Ramping up spell DCs was much easier in 3.0 (spell focus and its improved version gave +2 each, Archmage could increase all DCs up to +6, just to cite some examples)
Many spells were slightly different (IE: Bear's strenght and similar spells duration, Greater magic weapon and similar spells scaling, Polymorph spells)
TWF line required ambidexterity, Ranger 1 was the best martial dip in the game for TWFers.

Wow that's some great stuff. Yeah I realised 3.0 has some wonky stuff (persistent power for 8 power points is pretty ridiculous too). Seems it would make a lot of sense to play a caster/manifester of some sort

[(Un)Inspired]

Do you know what the party you're joining already has?

[Feint's End]

Do you know what the party you're joining already has?

Hmm sadly not yet ... I'll know more tomorrow. I thought about going something initiatorlike though because I'm not a big fan about how boring most base classes in 3.5 are and I don't think they are much better in 3.0. Maybe I'm just too used to interesting classes from PF.

[(Un)Inspired]

Didn't you say that they would probably let you play a pathfinder class if you wanted ?

[Feint's End]

Didn't you say that they would probably let you play a pathfinder class if you wanted ?

hehe I did indeed. I'm not sure about classes that exist in both editions though. For example I might get an Inquisitor allowed or a Cryptic but I'm not so sure about Sorcerors or Psions.

So depending on the group (I'll probably have another post tomorrow or update this) I'll probably go with an Initiator because they work solidly and have interesting classfeatures while being close to 3.0 (something I can get allowed easily). I'm not sure how open the DM is to material outside of 3.0 but I think I can get some stuff from 3.5 without problems.

[Squark]

Oh. Also, DO NOT TOUCH 3.0 psionics with a ten foot pole. Do not touch them with an eleven foot pole. Don't touch them with a 20 foot pole, or even the 21 foot pole you can find somewhere. Do not even touch them with five of those 21-foot poles tied together.

Seriously. the 3.0 Psion is cited as an example of how to make a tier 6 with full spellcasting. The most MAD class in existence (Every discipline has a different key ability), power points and psychic powers scale poorly, AND psionic combat is... well... ungh, someone dig up that old quote.

So, yeah. The 3.0 psion rivals the truenamer for bad design.

[Feint's End]

Oh. Also, DO NOT TOUCH 3.0 psionics with a ten foot pole. Do not touch them with an eleven foot pole. Don't touch them with a 20 foot pole, or even the 21 foot pole you can find somewhere. Do not even touch them with five of those 21-foot poles tied together.

Seriously. the 3.0 Psion is cited as an example of how to make a tier 6 with full spellcasting. The most MAD class in existence (Every discipline has a different key ability), power points and psychic powers scale poorly, AND psionic combat is... well... ungh, someone dig up that old quote.

So, yeah. The 3.0 psion rivals the truenamer for bad design.

My god that sounds ... horrible ... indeed horrible. Thanks for pointing that out. If I decide to go for psionics I'll ask for the 3.5 or PF Version then.

[(Un)Inspired]

Yeah psionics is my favorite thing about 2nd edition except attack and defense modes (telepathy is for nerds ! Go telekinesis!)

3.0 psionics tried to directly use 2e ideas like manifesting off of multiple abilities and having these stupid mind battles.

[Karnith]

someone dig up that old quote.
I do love that story so.

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?"

[Feint's End]

I just got a message from the DM and it seems the current group consists of a Gnome Barbarian, dwarf fighter, halfling thief, Monk. I think I'll be unlikely to play in this group though because this DM is one of those core only **** who thinks other books are just for pulling money out of your pocket (even if I bring the book I assume ... but lets ask him tomorrow).

Also I'm pretty sure he won't allow any 3.5 or PF stuff so there is that.

God I hate those kind of DMs :smallfurious: .... rant rant rant. Why can't there be more open minded people in this world.

If this goes on like this I'll start looking for roll20 games or pbp games again.

[(Un)Inspired]

Ooof that's brutal dude. A core only game sounds really boring and that lineup sounds like it's... magically disinclined.

You'd think that in a core game someone would take advantage of how even more overpowered tier 1 is compared to the competition (especially in 3.0).

[Karnith]

Ooof that's brutal dude. A core only game sounds really boring and that lineup sounds like it's... magically disinclined.
Not to mention that core-only in 3.0 was even more restrictive than core-only in 3.5; you had noticeably fewer PrCs (the 3.0 DMG only had the Arcane Archer, Assassin, Blackguard, Dwarven Defender, Loremaster, and Shadowdancer) and feats (things like Augment Summoning, Deflect Arrows, Eschew Materials, most of the Greater X and Improved X feats, Manyshot, Natural Spell, Rapid Reload, and the +2 skill feats were not in 3.0 Core).

[Feint's End]

Not to mention that core-only in 3.0 was even more restrictive than core-only in 3.5; you had noticeably fewer PrCs (the 3.0 DMG only had the Arcane Archer, Assassin, Blackguard, Dwarven Defender, Loremaster, and Shadowdancer) and feats (things like Augment Summoning, Deflect Arrows, Eschew Materials, most of the Greater X and Improved X feats, Manyshot, Natural Spell, Rapid Reload, and the +2 skill feats were not in 3.0 Core).

Just more and more reasons to not go for this game :smallannoyed: ... how hard can it be to find a rl gruppe.