Do you allow 3.0 stuff in your 3.5 games?

[Condé]

Hi,

I'm curious to know how many people are allowing 3.0 content into their 3.5 games.

Personally, I'm more and more interested by 3.0 prestige classes and a bit sad most of them didn't get a reprint version in any 3.5 book. And sometimes, it doesn't make any sense to not count them as 3.5 content. (Let's be honest, a book like Unapproachable East was released in may 2003 could be considered for 3.5... Don't tell me it is more 3.0 than Underdark, which still has 3.0 Class wording... But because it has been published 6 months later, boom. It is now perfectly compatible. (And I'm not even talking about Arachnomancer who has been revised in DotU, which could be a proof that Underdark is more 3.0 than 3.5 content.)

Even WotC said it was compatabile in the DMG.

This revision is compatible with existing products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

And yes of course, each table is different and everyone is free to do what they want etc... BUT, a lot of people are not considering these options and I'm interested to know why.

Petit plus, I often look at builds from the Iron Chef, and what I really like is that a lot of ingredients are 3.0 prestige classes. Which is fun and a breath of fresh air because these are classes we do not see often. (And also because they are terrible. But eh.)



What do you think? Are you using one spcific book? Two? All of them? Ban them completely? Keep what you like and throw the rest away?
Oh and don't hesitate to tell us... Why.

Thanks.

[Doctor Despair]

As you quoted, 3.0 material is 3.5 RAW legal. With that said, I definitely appreciate their decision there -- reprinting all the 3.0 content just to say 3.5 on the cover would have been such a blatant money-grab for an already super profitable franchise.

With that said: one of the major strengths of 3.5 is the ability to create unique characters that perform niche and creative techniques to differentiate themselves from other similarly spec'd characters. One level 6 fighter can play entirely differently from another level 6 fighter, and that keeps campaigns fresh and interesting, and prevents characters from feeling same-y mechanically for those inclined to avoid that. Allowing 3.0 content only builds on that strength, so I see it as a major win.

On the other hand, restricting the amount of content could make it more accessible to newcomers. The sheer volume to content for 3.5 can make it daunting to learn to optimize, and is a reason why new folks often gravitate towards 5e. However, 5e, as I understand it, also lends itself very much towards a mindset of "If the rules don't allow you to play your concept, work with your DM and homebrew something that does." In 3.5, the volume of content is such that you don't need to homebrew something. Arguably 3.5 shifts the work from the DM to the player in that regard, and disallowing 3.0 content would be an attempt to shift it back as players inevitably need to come to the DM to beg for homebrew changes or exceptions to do what they want to do. Whether that's desirable for a group depends on the members, I'd imagine.

For me? I prefer to leave things open-ended. The game is playable with low system mastery, but has depth enough to seriously reward the interest and effort taken to research a topic. However, that effort is by no means required. Allowing 3.0 content is just leaving the door open for those that want to put in the work -- and I think that's a good thing.

[Remuko]

I had always and prefer to play with it. Even some 3.0 rules, like the different size rules. I liked the size(long) and size(tall) rules personally. among some other things.

[Melcar]

Hi,

I'm curious to know how many people are allowing 3.0 content into their 3.5 games.

Personally, I'm more and more interested by 3.0 prestige classes and a bit sad most of them didn't get a reprint version in any 3.5 book. And sometimes, it doesn't make any sense to not count them as 3.5 content. (Let's be honest, a book like Unapproachable East was released in may 2003 could be considered for 3.5... Don't tell me it is more 3.0 than Underdark, which still has 3.0 Class wording... But because it has been published 6 months later, boom. It is now perfectly compatible. (And I'm not even talking about Arachnomancer who has been revised in DotU, which could be a proof that Underdark is more 3.0 than 3.5 content.)

Even WotC said it was compatabile in the DMG.


And yes of course, each table is different and everyone is free to do what they want etc... BUT, a lot of people are not considering these options and I'm interested to know why.

Petit plus, I often look at builds from the Iron Chef, and what I really like is that a lot of ingredients are 3.0 prestige classes. Which is fun and a breath of fresh air because these are classes we do not see often. (And also because they are terrible. But eh.)



What do you think? Are you using one spcific book? Two? All of them? Ban them completely? Keep what you like and throw the rest away?
Oh and don't hesitate to tell us... Why.

Thanks.

Yes I do, why wouldn't I?

I mean if it has gotten a 3.5 update I use that, but if not I use 3.0 as is. Somethings like damage reduction, immunities and certain skills and feats needs to be opdated because they no longer exist in 3.5 but beyond that I use 3.0 wholeheartedly!

[Fero]

I would allow most of it but ask the players to disclose any 3.0 material so the DM can review and make appropriate adjustments. I may ban certain 3.0 books entirely. For example, 3.0 psionics are very different than 3.5 psionics and so likely not worth keeping.

[AnonJr]

In general, 3.0 equipment, feats, classes, and PrC material is allowed at our table within WotC guidelines you quoted. The only caveat is, like Dragon Mag material, it needs to be run by the GM just to make sure it's not one of the "this will ruin things" type changes.

For the most part, it's additive - especially on the equipment end. For ease of character building we use the "Forgotten Talent" "Lost Tradition" feat a lot...

(Edit: fixing the feat title for future readers... text posted in a reply later)

[atemu1234]

I play Pathfinder, primarily, and formerly 3.5, with the following rule: Any first-party 3e or 3.5e content is allowed so long as it still fits within the Pathfinder ruleset and is the most recent version or errata for that content. I also allow most "simple" conversions with oversight, and am in general pretty permissive of third party content. I've yet to have a problem with it that doesn't boil down to violations of the Gentleman's Agreement.

[redking]

Basically, no. Most of the magical items should be ok. But all the classes, no way. Those had a different design philosophy from 3.5 and it is too much work to fix them up.

The problem with the idea that you can just use 3.0 stuff that was never updated to 3.5 is that WotC dropped the most problematic material from 3.0 and didn't bother to update it. Therefore, the material that was not updated is the mos likely to cause problems at the gaming table.

I am more open minded to dragon magazine stuff, although it's a case by case basis. Something like psiotheurgy will not fly, for example.

[Doctor Despair]

Basically, no. Most of the magical items should be ok. But all the classes, no way. Those had a different design philosophy from 3.5 and it is too much work to fix them up.

The problem with the idea that you can just use 3.0 stuff that was never updated to 3.5 is that WotC dropped the most problematic material from 3.0 and didn't bother to update it. Therefore, the material that was not updated is the mos likely to cause problems at the gaming table.

I am more open minded to dragon magazine stuff, although it's a case by case basis. Something like psiotheurgy will not fly, for example.

This is almost the exact opposite of my philosophy (i.e., most 3.0 is fine with minor updates, but dragon mag needs thorough review before acceptance), so it's interesting to hear why you feel that way.

[Dimers]

I can't recall a single GM I've played with -- or even one whose forum recruitment thread I checked out -- who categorically nixed 3.0 material. Allowing non-updated material is the default, IME.

[ciopo]

those tables I played 3.5 with, they've been "no 3.0 material, no third party, no dragon mag"

with caveat "hey GM *this exists*, may I?" but the default assumption was "no"

[Robster]

The only time that ever occurred at our table was both completely unproblematic as well as foreshadowing Potential problems.

A battle cleric who went 10 levels in Wind walker from faiths&pantheons. Nicely roleplayed and fit well into the Party, but simulataneously, I don't know of any 3.5 Prestige classes that give both full BAB and full casting.

Ruby knight vindicator is considered powerful with reduced casting (although much of that stems from swift action economy shenanigans), same for ordained champion.

As I said, it worked well, but I'd also advocate for "usually fine, but run it by the DM first."

[redking]

This is almost the exact opposite of my philosophy (i.e., most 3.0 is fine with minor updates, but dragon mag needs thorough review before acceptance), so it's interesting to hear why you feel that way.

Because the good stuff from 3.0 was updated to 3.5, while the problem stuff was simply left behind, technically rules legal (but only suggested), but not even worth fixing by updating.

Re: Dragon Magazine - I don't see where we disagree. I'll allow 3.5 Dragon Magazine stuff on a case by case basis, which means there are cases in which Dragon Magazine material is not accepted at all. It's pretty late where I am so the noggin is malfunctioning a bit and I can't come up with a list of things I wouldn't allow from Dragon Magazine, although I did mention psiotheurgy (add caster level and manifester level together to determine CL/ML). On the other hand, articles like the one that expands constructs from Dragon #327 are very good, and add value to the very limited Craft Construct feat.

[vasilidor]

On a case by case basis do I allow them into my pathfinder game.
Some need tweaking before being allowed.

[pabelfly]

3.0 - sure, with the normal inspection of "is this too OP".
Dragon Magazine - as above, but have found this has some really good ACFs for character classes, in terms of power level and design.

[vasilidor]

It is not just under powered stuff you need to look out for, but also underpowered trap options. things that are broken in ways that make it so the game doesn't work or just do not work themselves.

[Zanos]

3.0 stuff is fine in my game but you need to keep the full context of the rule changes from 3.0 to 3.5 in mind. In general creatures with damage immunity/half physical damage were changed to have DR, all DR was reduced and the +x for DR was removed, partial actions were removed, haste was nerfed, critical stacking was nerfed(so no disciple/weapon master crit stacking). The earlier you go in 3.0 the goofier stuff gets.

But yes, I allow all 3.0 material with the changes required to bring it into conformity with the 3.5 ruleset.

[Thurbane]

I routinely pull from 3.0 sources in our 3.5 game: anything that wasn't given a 3.5 makeover in later books is fair game. *

As a DM, it's mainly monsters, but also have used magic items, PrCs, spells etc.

* I also ignore some of the conversion guidelines; I particularly dislike how many awesome 3.0 PrCs were folded into Exotic Weapon Master, even though it doesn't represent what those classes actually did. Lasher etc. will always have a place at my table.

Also, I love the Shaman base class from OA; the Dragon mag update didn't address some conversion issues, so it needs a little house ruling to work, especially around the animal companion.

[RandomPeasant]

Because the good stuff from 3.0 was updated to 3.5, while the problem stuff was simply left behind, technically rules legal (but only suggested), but not even worth fixing by updating.

I don't know that I really buy that. There's plenty of stuff that was discarded just because it wasn't all that interesting, and in cases like the Master of Shrouds, the updated version is worse for the game. As with a lot of content decisions, the stuff that did or didn't get updated from 3.0 to 3.5 is mostly down to chance. The fact that the Oozemaster didn't get updated says no more about the inherent worth of its concept than the fact that there is no published Conjuration or Divination Warmage-alike says about those concepts.

[Seward]

For "build" competitions, if allowed, sure.

In a real game, both times when the transition to 3.5 happened the 3.0 stuff was grandfathered in for a while till 3.5 supplements came out. Even though some things never changed, there was eventually a cutoff where the characters had to fully transition, and anything not replaced by a 3.5 source was banned. That process took between 1-2 years.

If I was to run a new game, I'd put 3.0 stuff in the "show me how you use it and I'll decide if I allow it" category, where I also stick anything that might cause a problem, be it a strangely effective combination of spells or abilities, or just variant rules or things that don't fit the flavor of the campaign.

For example, a character very devoted to a whip will probably get access to the Lasher PRC if they desire it because 3.5 Exotic Weapon Master and similar classes don't do enough with whips to make them really work as a primary melee method. But deepwood sniper, nope. The kind of critical stacking stuff it did was not really desired in 3.5 as evidenced by how keen and improved crit no longer stack, and damn little else can change that (the latest Iron Chef challenge had such an exception. It was limited to a single weapon and took a pretty deep investment in the PRC to get it).

I can write up a 3.5 version of deepwood sniper on an arcane archer chasse if the PC really wants the flavor, maybe swapping the Elf requirement for taking Far shot, and just having them take improved crit and improved precise shot on schedule, picking a class that gets guided shot in its spell list to qualify for arcane archer, and dip a level of something that gets poison use. (you know how an Arcane Archer does "take aim". Spend that first round casting literally any buff that gives you a +2 to hit. Except it will work on any target for the rest of the fight.....not just one guy who doesn't move.)

3.0 spells that were never updated are unlikely, unless their effect is basically flavor only. Feats again depends on the feat. If it fits the character concept and doesn't have any obvious 3.5 equivalent, it might be allowed over homebrewing something.

[bekeleven]

For ease of character building we use the "Forgotten Talent" feat a lot...
I don't recall this, what book is it from?

[AnonJr]

I don't recall this, what book is it from?

Probably because I remembered the name wrong and didn't double-check... It's "Lost Tradition" from Bastards and Bloodlines (p91)


Lost Tradition (General)

You are descended from a group of spellcasters who had very different ways of mastering magic, and you follow in their tradition.

Benefits: Choose one spellcasting class. You may change which ability score governs spellcasting with that class. That ability cannot be changed again.

For example, Meishel Ellazen is a houri cleric. She takes the Lost Tradition feat and chooses to base her clerical spellcasting on Charisma instead of Wisdom. She now uses her Charisma score to determine her bonus spells, spell save DCs, maximum spell level she may cast, and any other calculation regarding her cleric spells.

Special: You can take this feat only at 1st level.

Technically, as written, you can switch it to any stat. At our table we can use it for any other mental stat without issue, DM may let you switch for a physical stat at their discretion. E.g. I had a Warforged take the racial Paladin substitution levels, which moves Divine Grace and Lay on Hands to Con - so it was arguable that casting could also be moved to Con with the feat. (and, seriously, Paladin casting isn't exactly going to be broken by the change...)

I've used it a fair number of times to make multiclassing less MAD. My current Warforged used it to switch Battle Sorcerer casting to Int, so that it aligns with the Duskblade casting.

[Condé]

Honestly, I think we miss a lot of content by not allowing 3.0. (Obviously) What I mean by that is not reprinted prestige classes that have really cool concept and are not that broken or op or whatever and require almost no effort whatsoever to put in a regular 3.5 game.

It's like Web or Dragon mag content. I was refractory to use any content from theses sources. By now, I thin kyou just have to select what you like/dislike from these and what you allow or not. But, once again, I think you would miss some interesting stuff by just banning everything. Even if you can argue that there is already enough content with only 3.5 books.

Exemple I like from Dragon Magazine I learned recently: In issue #318, you have the following line for the Hengeyokai race
"Hengeyokai: Hengeyokai are now creatures of the humanoid (shapechanger) type, rather than the obsolete shapechangers subtype. Remove their level adjustment."

Far from gamebreaking, making this race playable (Hengeyokai are not worth LA+1 in my opinion). That's the kind of thing I would consider acceptable in my games, as a DM, because it seems reasonable. (And I know some content from the mags are not.)

Same for 3.0 content. Some are okay, some are not.
Same for 3.5... Some are okay some are... Man have you ever read Shivering touch? It's in a 3.5 book. Published by WotC. Allowed, licensed, everything... So by allowing all 3.5 content by default you allow this spell. Which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more broken than most of the stuff coming from most 3.0/dragon mag content.
And broken, but like, not in a good way. It is just plain dumb.

But I digress once again.

Thanks everyone for your opinion. I'm surprised so many people are allowing 3.0 content because it is something not a lot of people are talking about so... It is nice to see.

[Crake]

I'm surprised so many people are allowing 3.0 content because it is something not a lot of people are talking about so... It is nice to see.

That's probably because there's not a whole lot of particularly strong 3.0 content. That being said, there is some rather often cited 3.0 content, such as the savage species rituals, and illithid savant is often mentioned about the place.

My personal take on it is honestly that I'd rather homebrew something that fits what a player wants rather than have them trawl through a tonne of splatbooks and find an esoteric combination of 4 different prestige classes, six different feats, and this one weird, random template that matches together to make what they want.

After all, prestige classes were initially supposed to be something the DM made up for the players between campaigns, they weren't meant to be taken for granted and just cherry picked willy nilly like the forum does on here.

[Xervous]

It’s about the end product more than the component parts. I may nix a core build and allow some multi dip 3rd party food platter.

[bekeleven]

In general, yes. 3.0 and 3.5 both have a bunch of broken stuff in them, and I'll nix both if required to cultivate the correct power level from my group. God, I can't build low-level characters these days without buying 20 different mundane items from the Arms and Equipment Guide.


My personal take on it is honestly that I'd rather homebrew something that fits what a player wants rather than have them trawl through a tonne of splatbooks and find an esoteric combination of 4 different prestige classes, six different feats, and this one weird, random template that matches together to make what they want.

After all, prestige classes were initially supposed to be something the DM made up for the players between campaigns, they weren't meant to be taken for granted and just cherry picked willy nilly like the forum does on here.These approaches have different appeals, and while I understand both, I don't think they can substitute for each other for all people in all cases.

The appeal of book trawling is the joy of discovery. You can come across some random spell, prestige class, item, etc. and you get to figure out the following:


Does this let me do something I can't otherwise do?
Does this unlock any new character concepts?
How do I build for this? How do I optimize for this?

These questions can have varying degrees of difficulty. As a classic example, the Hexer asks a player, "How do I even quality for this?"

Now, I love homebrew. I'm always doing it. I homebrew more than I play; have since 2006. But you can't discover when homebrewing. You can never be inspired. You can't wonder, "Holy crap, is this what they had in mind when they printed it?" You can't feel clever in application.

Instead, homebrewing is "I want to do a thing. I guess I'll do it." And you can make thing interesting, sure, but restrictions breed creativity. And this gets even more muddled when you're just describing a character concept for someone else to brew. At that point you're saying "I want to play a mage-knight who buffs his hippogriff mount" or whatever, and basically handing over the reigns so your DM can straight build your character for you. Some people want that. I never would. I play video games to be handed cool ****. I play D&D, especially 3.5, to find and build it myself.

[Malphegor]

Yes. Although I’ve gotten a bit wary as sometimes stuff gets stealth updates that aren’t properly signposted. For example one of the guild thief classes in a faerun book has been reprinted under different names a couple of times in 3.5, virtually the same class with a few features reshuffled. Doesn’t matter too much except some have more or less pre-requisites.

Some stuff doesn’t fit a bit. For example Oriental Adventures’ Innuendo checks honestly doesn’t seem like it really fits the social skills as we have them in 3.5, which have been so solid they’re basically untouched even into 5e.

Psionics is something I really need to read more on the 3.0 versions. As thanks to the web enhancement psionics prestige classes you can get the old 0th level powers and attack and defence modes even if your base class no longer uses those features, and translating how that works is probably useful as there’s some cool prestige classes without an update floating around.

[Jay R]

The rules I run are 3.5e, with a few exceptions clearly outlined in my Introduction to the game. Players can ask for exceptions, and I will consider them. 3.0 rules are exceptions, neither more nor less than any other exception the player wants.

[Crake]

And this gets even more muddled when you're just describing a character concept for someone else to brew. At that point you're saying "I want to play a mage-knight who buffs his hippogriff mount" or whatever, and basically handing over the reigns so your DM can straight build your character for you. Some people want that. I never would. I play video games to be handed cool ****. I play D&D, especially 3.5, to find and build it myself.

As the DM in this case 90% of the time, I usually work alongside the player to come up with something that suits them. Personally, and this is also generally the experience of my players as well, we hate janky builds that get jury rigged together to kinda make something work. It's why we generally like pathfinder archetypes much more than 3.5 prestige classes in terms of build and style. I also hate boring feat progressions, and do away with most "feat tax" feats, like weapon finesse and two weapon fighting. We play dnd for the shared storytelling far more than we do for the character creation minigame, and we all much prefer rp prerequisites for cool stuff rather than mechanical ones.

But, as you said yourself, it all comes down to player preference. To bring it back around to the point of the thread: I allow any content, but I'd prefer to make something tailor-made for my players rather than trying to fit something together via mismatched material.