What did 3.0 do better?

[wilphe]

So what 3.0 features are worth backporting into 3.5?

I can think of maybe:

Missile and Weapon enchantment stacking

Multiclass at 1st level


I recall something about large being split into "long" and "tall"

What would you consider house ruling from 3.0 into a 3.5 game?

[Quertus]

So what 3.0 features are worth backporting into 3.5?

I can think of maybe:

Missile and Weapon enchantment stacking

Multiclass at 1st level


I recall something about large being split into "long" and "tall"

What would you consider house ruling from 3.0 into a 3.5 game?

It was easier and better to buff your muggles longer.

Haste was better.

Items were cheaper. Especially flight.

Items were better. Especially Vorpal.

Crit stacking.

And that bolded one, 1st level Multiclass.

EDIT: oh, and got could I forget... What was I saying? Oh, right - XP rules. There was actually a reason for higher and lower level characters to adventure together.

[Feantar]

A very similar thread surfaced recently, check it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?580194-Does-anyone-actually-play-3-0) out.

[wilphe]

It was easier and better to buff your muggles longer.

Haste was better.


I think we might want to distinguish between "better" = more powerful and "better" = "made a better game"

3.0 haste was too good

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think there's a 3.0 rule somewhere that range increments go up with size. I like that one--it prevents the whole "is in melee attack range but outside throwing range" problem.

[Quertus]

I think we might want to distinguish between "better" = more powerful and "better" = "made a better game"

3.0 haste was too good

"Free pounce" is something most muggles crave; Haste gave that. Haste also gave +4 AC - something muggles really need.


Nothing. Everything in 3.0 is one of the most OP things in 3.5

Phylactery of Change
Golem's Magic Immunity which blocks all spells and su abilities regardless of whether it's SR:YES or not.
Warbeast Template
Runic Guardian compared to its 3.5 counterpart Grisgol

and many more.

Just because 3.5 hit muggles with the nerf bat does not mean that the nerf bat is in the right.

[frogglesmash]

It's a small thing, but i really like how 3.0 did shurikens. You couldn't apply your Str mod to damage, but you could throw them 3 at a time. It made them interesting, and especially useful for throwing builds that relied on precision damage.

[heavyfuel]

For the actual question, I loved DR/+x instead of DR/Magic. DR/Magic becomes 90% irrelevant after level 5 and 100% irrelevant after lv 7 when even your secondary weapon is gonna be magical.

This means that Great Wyrms with 30 points of DR have effectively DR 0 against anyone who's actually a threat to them.

Yea yea, DR/+x is bad mundanes, and there are a dozen of better ways to handle DR. Still, I wish they somehow had kept it.


"Free pounce" is something most muggles crave; Haste gave that. Haste also gave +4 AC - something muggles really need.

It's only good for mundanes, it was absolutely overpowered for casters.

A better nerf would've been granting a move action instead of the 3.0 version which granted a partial (standard) action

[JoshuaZ]

How did level 1 multiclassing work?

[wilphe]

"Free pounce" is something most muggles crave; Haste gave that. Haste also gave +4 AC - something muggles really need.


Yes, but it also gave an extra partial action

Which is another spell for the mages...

[wilphe]

How did level 1 multiclassing work?

I can't find it in the 3.0 SRD and I am AFB from my 3.0 DMB

But basically you got to pick two classes and only got some of the features of 1st level from each

On reaching 2nd level you become full X1/Y1

[JoshuaZ]

I can't find it in the 3.0 SRD and I am AFB from my 3.0 DMB

But basically you got to pick two classes and only got some of the features of 1st level from each

On reaching 2nd level you become full X1/Y1

Huh. That is an interesting idea. It probably wouldn't be too broken to have that if done carefully. I wonder why they took it out. Maybe it just added one more complication for first level characters where many people would be starting the game? Or maybe they were worried that it would be too difficult to break down for every single base class as they added more base classes? I'd be really curious what the exact rule was and why they decided to take it out.

[frogglesmash]

How did level 1 multiclassing work?

You get all the skills, proficiencies, and abilities of both classes at 1st level, and then chose one of the two to determine HP and the number of skill points at 1st level. At second level you got the HP and and skill points of the other class.

[Torpin]

the reincarnation table, monk attacks and rakshasas

[Quertus]

It's only good for mundanes, it was absolutely overpowered for casters.

A better nerf would've been granting a move action instead of the 3.0 version which granted a partial (standard) action

Probably.


Yes, but it also gave an extra partial action

Which is another spell for the mages...

So they run out of spells faster? It was a stealth nerf for casters.


Huh. That is an interesting idea. It probably wouldn't be too broken to have that if done carefully. I wonder why they took it out. Maybe it just added one more complication for first level characters where many people would be starting the game? Or maybe they were worried that it would be too difficult to break down for every single base class as they added more base classes? I'd be really curious what the exact rule was and why they decided to take it out.

Well, keeping it in would have meant requiring all new classes to detail their "level 1/2"...


You get all the skills, proficiencies, and abilities of both classes at 1st level, and then chose one of the two to determine HP and the number of skill points at 1st level. At second level you got the HP and and skill points of the other class.

It wasn't quite that good. It was more like "stunted level 1 abilities of both", iirc.

[ksbsnowowl]

All-in-all, 3.0 did a much better job of emulating the magic you read about in myths and folklore. They nerfed a lot of stuff like Polymorph real hard for being "too powerful."

When I ran a Norse-themed game, I specifically ported 3.0 versions of several spells, because I wanted them to be like the magic described in the Sagas, etc.

Building on wilphe's comment above mine, the important distinction on 1st-level multiclassing was that the HD and the skill points were tied together. You couldn't be a 1st-level multiclassed Barbarian/Rogue and get a d12 for your first HD, and (8+Int)*4 skill points at first level. If you wanted the Rogue skill points, you had to take the Rogue HD, and vice versa. You also, IIRC, never started 1st level as such a character with a BAB of +1; it was always +0. You would also get +1 in each "good save" from each class. So the Barb/Rogue would start with a +1 base Fort save, and a +1 base Ref save.

I actually like the 3.0 Cover and Concealment rules, and my group recently voted to used them in our new campaign (that started ~6 months ago).

In previous 3.5 campaigns I have treated all DR/Magic as DR/+X, utilizing the 3.0 versions of monsters' DR for the requisite enhancement bonus to overcome it. Because like others I think it is stupid to give a CR 17 dragon DR 20/Magic.

[Doctor Awkward]

The biggest problem with 3.0 haste was that it allowed you to cast 3 spells per round when paired with Quicken Spell. This was obnoxiously more powerful than any benefits it conferred onto melee characters and the main reason why it was nerfed.

There's not a whole lot in 3.0 that wasn't greatly improved by 3.5, but if I had to single a few things out:

-While I think the speed granted by the fly spell deserved to be nerfed, the additional hit to duration was unnecessary.

-Flame arrow was turned from an unusual (if niche) ammunition buff + an okay (if slightly redundant) blasting spell, into a completely useless waste that no spellcaster should ever bother taking. The blasting component was separated into an entirely different spell (scorching ray).

-There are several other spell level changes make very little sense, such as lowering earthquake to 9th-level from 8th, and raising mass heal from 8th-level to 9th.

-Power Attack. Unpopular opinion, but I was not a fan of the change that allowed you to double the attack roll penalty when you wield the weapon with two hands. It was the various subsequent materials that built upon this change that were largely responsible for sword-and-board style melee characters being relegated to the waste bin in optimized combat.

[heavyfuel]

-Power Attack. Unpopular opinion, but I was not a fan of the change that allowed you to double the attack roll penalty when you wield the weapon with two hands. It was the various subsequent materials that built upon this change that were largely responsible for sword-and-board style melee characters being relegated to the waste bin in optimized combat.

I think this is more of a fault in regards to charge feats (Shocktrooper and Leap Attack) which were clearly meant to be used with a single attack, but then came the Lion Totem Barbarian.

At least Initiators somewhat fixed Sword an Board, since a bigger chunk of their damage comes from maneuvers and not PA.

[Jowgen]

This is a minor niche thing, but some of the skill rules had more depth. Like the +20 to DC for "almost impossible" tasks as a general rule, as well as some other instances of skill DC tables being more detailed.

The skill system did improve on the whole by them trimming stuff down, but some of the nuance was lost here and there.

[Yael]

It's a small thing, but i really like how 3.0 did shurikens. You couldn't apply your Str mod to damage, but you could throw them 3 at a time. It made them interesting, and especially useful for throwing builds that relied on precision damage.

This.

These shuriken rules were the best for rain of thrown objects.

[Khedrac]

Elemental Savant - in 3.0 it was a decent prestige class without being too powerful, in 3.5 it is pretty much unplayable (as in bad).

[Eldan]

Part of it is probably personal taste, but I was a fan of the longer lasting buffs that 3.0 had. A lot of the basics like bulls strength lasted for hours rather than minutes. It saved a lot of headache, as far as I'm concerned, ify ou could just have a buff list that everyone applied in the morning and then assumed was active near always.

[GrayDeath]

Phew....it was so long ago that I palyed 3.0 that I probably forgot a lot, but from the Top of my head:

Crit Range Stacking (instead of completely removing it it should ahve been streamlined into say 3 different Types of Crit Improvement that could stack, say Weapon make, Enchantment, and Skill or somesuch if one really wanted toa void Beheader Mosnters).

DR/Magic. Entirely useless. Modding DR/+x into a DR +X Or one Material would have been enough toa void mundanes suffering too much from it and kept the DR of high DR Mosnters relevant.

Some Race Changes.

Size Modifiers and Power Attack. Not that the new one was specifically WORSE; it just was a change that didnt really fix" anything.

Some needless Spell Changes (yes, Polimorph needed to be chenged in a setting where its so easy to get, but not everything needed a "erven more precise and anrrow, so that only Wizards take it" hit^^).

[Buufreak]

DR/+x


Crit Range Stacking


large being split into "long" and "tall"



I was originally going to just throw some snark with "it certainly wasn't editing!" but these things here are all solid. The idea that some things were longer or taller rather than just being a 3x3 cube made sense. DR/Magic is flat out stupid and pointless beyond being immune to commoners. And generally, I loved the idiotic crit builds, balance be damned!

[The Kool]

I actually have started backporting DR/+X. In fact, I might even make slight adjustments to it, where having partial enchantment partially negates the DR. For example, DR 10/+2 might be DR 5 against a +1. Or, to put this in alternative terms, it would be overlapping DR 10/+1 and 5/+2. Food for thought, anyway.

[Telok]

3.0 golems were better. Magic immunity was a real issue and a legitimate counterpart to the "immune to mundane attacks" style monsters.

Haste was better, with the note that it shouldn't have allowed for additional spell casting.

DR was better in that there was generally less stuff like "cold iron and chaotic" or other "annoying material + random alignment", which is an enchantment set up I've seen exactly zero times in play since 3e came out.

As I recall in 3.0 power attack and combat expert were mirrors of each other. You could take -bab, up to -5, to hit for a benefit and both had a greater version that lifted the cap. In 3.5 PA went right to the no-cap version and the greater combat expert got stuck in a splat book. I won't opine as to which of the cap/no cap was a better way, but the mismatch introduced in 3.5 always annoyed me.

In 3.0 the stat buff spells were useful. Having the roll was interesting and allowed for metamagic, odd stats could be useful, and they lasted long enough that people would use them. In 3.5 they got relegated to the rubbish bin unless you were doing some sort of persisting metamagic with mass level reducers.

[BassoonHero]

This means that Great Wyrms with 30 points of DR have effectively DR 0 against anyone who's actually a threat to them.
This was true in 3.0 as well. If a 3.0 great wyrm did not have effectively DR 0 versus a character (who cared about weapon damage), then that character was not actually a threat to the wyrm. 3.0 DR was all-or-none, scaling high enough that it rarely made sense to try to batter through it. It was an arbitrary gate for fighter-types: you must have a +X weapon to participate.

3.5 DR is less binary because the numbers are lower. You can still fight an enemy even if you can't pierce its DR, it's just harder. Also, because +1 weapons no longer bypass other types of DR, you're more likely to actually run into DR that applies to you.

I do like The Kool's suggestion.

[ksbsnowowl]

As I recall in 3.0 power attack and combat expert were mirrors of each other. You could take -bab, up to -5, to hit for a benefit and both had a greater version that lifted the cap. In 3.5 PA went right to the no-cap version and the greater combat expert got stuck in a splat book. I won't opine as to which of the cap/no cap was a better way, but the mismatch introduced in 3.5 always annoyed me.


This is incorrect. 3.0 Power Attack had no cap (other than the +20 non-epic cap). The only functional difference between 3.0 PA and 3.5 PA is that in 3.0 it was always a -1:+1 ratio, and you could power attack with light weapons. In 3.5 you can't PA with light weapons at all, and it's -1:+2 if the weapon is two-handed.

I think removing the ability to power attack with light weapons is dumb. Every used a hatchet or a tomahawk (AKA a Throwing Axe)?

There was a feat in a splat book that took the cap off Expertise, though I forget what it was. Well, with a search it appears to have been Superior Expertise. It was published in 3 books: Deities & Demigods, Faiths & Pantheons, and Oriental Adventures.

[Godskook]

Missile and Weapon enchantment stacking

What does this refer to?

[ksbsnowowl]

What does this refer to?

If you were an Archer with a Strength of 10, and had a +5 Longbow and a +5 Arrow, and shot that arrow from that bow, your damage was 1d8+10.

But, your arrows had to be magic to overcome Damage Reduction. Fire a mundane arrow from a +5 Longbow? It did not defeat the monster's DR.

I actually liked that set up.

[ShurikVch]

Slaadi Chaotic Variations

Alienist

Monk - with the unusual "extra attack every 3 levels" BAB (without suffering to-hit penalty from the Flurry of Blows)

Several "weapon specialist" PrC were all rolled into Exotic Weapon Master (which is just dumb! :smallmad:)

Minor Servitor was removed in favor of Awaken Construct (according to Spell Compendium)

[weckar]

It had Ravenloft.

[Luccan]

Well, keeping it in would have meant requiring all new classes to detail their "level 1/2"...


Not really, they could've relied on houserules for that. You had 11 examples in the DMG, I'm sure most groups could've figured it out on their own. Besides which, the actual abilities gained in 1/2 levels weren't really that complicated, so even if they did "have to" include the 1/2 level, it would've been really easy. A section at the end of each new book's selection of base classes (possibly a section regarding all alternate rules that might've interacted differently with the classes presented) wouldn't have been all that much work. That said, I think the 1/2 levels were kind of replaced with the Gestalt concept. I get that isn't the exact same thing as multiclassing, but Gestalt seems to be the idea of the first level multiclass extended out to all 20 levels.



Several "weapon specialist" PrC were all rolled into Exotic Weapon Master (which is just dumb! :smallmad:)


I mean, EWM isn't great, but were those PrCs any better? Genuine question, I'm not sure what classes you're referring to.

[wilphe]

Something else:

Gnomes were Favoured Class: Illusionist

+++++++++++

I understand the reasoning behind DR change was that they wanted to avoid the "you must be this tall to attack the monster syndrome", because it relied upon you having a +X weapon at certain levels and DR then was not just different typed but also larger

[wilphe]

-Power Attack. Unpopular opinion, but I was not a fan of the change that allowed you to double the attack roll penalty when you wield the weapon with two hands. It was the various subsequent materials that built upon this change that were largely responsible for sword-and-board style melee characters being relegated to the waste bin in optimized combat.

So THF got boosted, Archery was nerfed

Sword and board got made worse by comparison with TWF, especially as Power Attack was supposed to be a way past DR

TWF was technically boosted because it didn't require two feets anymore, but not otherwise changed


++++++++++++

What was the reasoning behind the changes to buff durations I forget?

Because it turned from "everybody can be buffed"

to

"Only worth buffing yourself via DMM or other way of getting cheap persist"

[ShurikVch]

I mean, EWM isn't great, but were those PrCs any better? Genuine question, I'm not sure what classes you're referring to.On closer inspection, there is one that matter - Weapon Master (Sword and Fist; nonpsionic variant of this one (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040827d)); it gives crit chance stacking (with possible increased damage multiplier), maximizes weapon damage, and Whirlwind as a standard action
As you can see - nothing alike to Exotic Weapon Master (Masters of the Wild)

[Scrollreader]

What was the reasoning behind the changes to buff durations I forget?

Because it turned from "everybody can be buffed"

to

"Only worth buffing yourself via DMM or other way of getting cheap persist"

Because basically, all NPCs (and PCs) had to have multiple stat blocks. Half a dozen stat boosters, plus other long duration spells that radically altered how the game was played, and even if you wanted certain items. All just a Dispel away from vanishing. As hard as it is to believe, in 3.0 casters won /harder/ than in 3.5.

[wilphe]

Is that the way it worked?

I would have thought being able for example to cast Bulls Strength twice on your melee guys would and have it last for hours would be better for melee

[atemu1234]

I liked how 3e handled weapon sizes. It made decent sense to me and made it less difficult to arm differently-sized characters.

[Scrollreader]

Is that the way it worked?

I would have thought being able for example to cast Bulls Strength twice on your melee guys would and have it last for hours would be better for melee

Oh, to some extent it did. But then the BBEG was still carrying a buff stack for Caster Level Hours (as well as various party members). And the enhancement bonus was random. Ultimately, less problematic than the faster rising DCs on save or dies and the haste meaning casters cast twice a round. (Round 1 was always haste, since you then got a partial action to cast whatever else you were casting anyway).

Back on topic, Ninjas. Ninjas were better in 3.0. (See Ninja of the Crescent Moon and Ninja Spy). And so were a few other PrCs. Notably, I miss the Lasher and the 3.0 elemental savant.

[Eldariel]

I mean, EWM isn't great, but were those PrCs any better? Genuine question, I'm not sure what classes you're referring to.

Both Master of the Chain and Weapon Master are quite good, to the point that I port them into 3.5 regularly.


Really, almost all martial PRCs I make use of are either Barbarian PRCs (Frenzied Berserker, Bear Warrior, Runescarred Berserker, Fist of the Forests, etc.) or 3.0 (Weapon Master, Deepwood Sniper, Disciple of Dispater, Master of the Chain, Order of the Bow Initiate, Peerless Archer, etc.). 3.5 has like...Dervish far as non-terrible warrior PRCs go (though admittedly many of the 3.0 PRCs have somewhat ridiculous feat requirements). And even Dervish is kinda non-spectacular (if certainly not terrible). Most of them are just straight-up worse than multiclassing between base classes.

Lots of caster PRCs too. Alienist, Elemental Savant, etc. are certainly up there. Really, most of the PRC updates to 3.5 failed. Even Arcane Archer, which is mostly **** in both editions aside from Imbue Arrow, lost its single reason to exist with the arrow bonus no longer stacking with the weapon bonus (not that Greater Magic Weapon wouldn't be better either way).

[Bphill561]

I would have to agree with other posters that magic buffs were handled better in 3.0. Persistent spell having an adjustment of +4 was better than 3.5's +6 with divine metamagic. Although hard to track down now, the game creators stated the change to +6 was to avoid divine power from being made persistent, but a few splat books later it was back on the table at even earlier levels. It that was really the case, it seems making a change to divine power so it could not be made persistent would have been a better move (Like divine agility, although I know occular spell gets around that as well for another +2).

The 1d4+1 stat spells were also quite a bit more useful. The only "abuse" was after the Sage ruled that you could apply the same metamagic feat to a spell more than once in 3.0. Before that a Maximized, Empowered Bull's Strength could only add a +7 which was marginally better than a +6 item at the cost of 7th level spell. Even with the campaign specific old style Dweomerkeeper, the spell level only fell to level 5. Also the unnecessary ruling on stacking of metamagic invalidated the epic feat Intensify spell which is a +7 for maximize and double, since it could already be performed with maximize and 2 empowers (feats were prereq's too for intensify spell). Although I do miss the days of apply extend several times to a spell.

So in the end, the nerf bat was swung several times against buffs and then completely invalidated and regressed with Divine metamagic.

[Quertus]

Also the unnecessary ruling on stacking of metamagic invalidated the epic feat Intensify spell which is a +7 for maximize and double, since it could already be performed with maximize and 2 empowers (feats were prereq's too for intensify spell).

Minor quibble.

Intensify Bull's Strength: +10 Str
Maximized twice-Empowered Bull's Strength: +1d4+6 Str

Intensify wasn't completely pointless.

[wilphe]

I liked how 3e handled weapon sizes. It made decent sense to me and made it less difficult to arm differently-sized characters.

Ah yes, need to add that to the list, at least in 3,5 it's an official option

[Vizzerdrix]

Animal companions. Rangers got the shaft in 3.5.

[Luccan]

Animal companions. Rangers got the shaft in 3.5.

I mean, they have more skill points... was that the only improvement?

[RNightstalker]

The Tempest PrC.

[ShurikVch]

Animal companions. Rangers got the shaft in 3.5.Then Rogues and Bards too

[wilphe]

I'm trying to work out why one would think the 3,0 Ranger was better

I wasn't here then but I remember ENWorld had a veritable cottage industry of Ranger fixes.

3.0 Ranger had d10 to be sure but also:

Very front loaded (you got virtual ambidexterity and TWF at level 1) and then not much else

No class features other than Favoured Enemy

Favoured enemy scaled in the order you got them, so if for example you picked goblins at 1st level to be useful at low level you'd end up with +10 against them at 20th level, or the other way around - pick potent opponents for the later game you'd never see at low levels

And you couldn't take your own race as Favoured Enemy

[Doug Lampert]

So what 3.0 features are worth backporting into 3.5?

I can think of maybe:

Missile and Weapon enchantment stacking

Multiclass at 1st level


I recall something about large being split into "long" and "tall"

What would you consider house ruling from 3.0 into a 3.5 game?

Druids weren't nearly as overpowered in 3.0. Animal friendship as a spell meant that if animal companions were all that good (and they weren't, remember that 3.0 dinosaurs are not animals), then nothing stopped almost everyone from getting access. No one bothered much, because the companions weren't all that good.

And no Natural spell meant that being a bear was a choice, not a no-brainer.

Basically, a 3.5 Druid is three characters at once, a spell-caster, a melee character, and another melee character.
The 3.0 Druid is one really powerful character with a minor pet not even as useful as a familiar most of the time.