3.0 vs. 3.5?

Bakunin · Post by **Bakunin** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:16 pm

Should I burn my hard earned cash on the 3.5 core rule books? I have the 3rd edition books and I need to know if there is reason to upgrade...The 3.5 Accessory Update from the D&D website seems sorta vauge on certain points...

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:38 pm

It depends.
There are some improvements in the 3.5 rules, but others may say some changes are for the worst. The general opinion is that 3.5 is an improvement though.

The question is, do you and your players want to? 3.0 and 3.5 assesories mix pretty easily so an upgrade is not a requierement.

Some people even still play 2ed ed rules simply because they want to. Many still play 3.0 rules, but there will be no more 3.0 publishes.

What do you value more, the new edition or money in the pocket?

The Great Hairy · Post by **The Great Hairy** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:01 pm

I personally think that 3.5 has some absolutely *dreadful* additions and changes (e.g./ weapon type resistances, buff spell durations, etc.) and so my group plays with a mix of 3.0 and 3.5, as 3.5 does have some useful changes.

I haven't actually gone out and purchased any 3.5 books (although my son will get some for his birthday later this year) and I tend to use online resources quite a bit (there are some excellent SRDs up on the web).

My suggestion - don't buy the 3.5 books, but bookmark http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm and reference that.

Cheers,
TGHO

Mr.Waesel · Post by **Mr.Waesel** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:52 am

Don't. There is some stupid stuff in the books, and if the game didn't collapse before, you're fine.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:06 am

I would use the 3.5 PHB and DMG, but NOT, I repeat, NOT, the MM. Various weapon-type resistances are SO annoying

[QUOTE=Rob-hin]The question is, do you and your players want to? 3.0 and 3.5 assesories mix pretty easily so an upgrade is not a requierement.
[/QUOTE]

This is true to some level. Many PrC's require some adaption with 3.5 as do some spells in Magic of Faerun for instance. Just for balance-sake.

Bakunin, you and your group should discuss whether you want to change or not. If you do change, then everyone should get their hands on a 3.5 PHB or things will go astray.

But there is no need to burn you 3.0 books. For instance, when you have a new player, he can use your books for a while to if he likes the game. He can take it home and read it, while you don't have to miss your precious PHB

Grimar · Post by **Grimar** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:15 pm

a lot of magic items is more balanced in 3.5, like elven boots and cloak(now only +5 bonus instead of +10), boots of springing and striding,periapt of persuasion(sp?) and so on...

i personally like 3.5 better becouse it is more balanced an so on, but as Rudar said, you should discuss this with your group first.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:20 am

Monks?

The main complaint I have with 3.0 vs. 3.5 is that monks get Ki strike so late in 3.0. I was using 3.0 and one of my players was playing a monk that was 8th or 9th level, a pretty powerful character. Whenever the party ran into undead however, he was useless. In 3.5 Ki strike was changed to 4th level, a pretty dramatic difference. If someone in your group plays a monk, think about this ahead of time.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:24 am

In addition, the ranger was toned down a bit.
It was more powerfull in 3.0 then in 3.5. This was needed as it was too powerfull.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:34 am

[QUOTE=Rob-hin]In addition, the ranger was toned down a bit.
It was more powerfull in 3.0 then in 3.5. This was needed as it was too powerfull.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree with you on this. The ranger is still very powerful, even tuned down like you said

Mr.Waesel · Post by **Mr.Waesel** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:37 am

[QUOTE=Rob-hin]In addition, the ranger was toned down a bit.
It was more powerfull in 3.0 then in 3.5. This was needed as it was too powerfull.[/QUOTE]

Frontloaded, yes. Powerful, nooooooo.

The Great Hairy · Post by **The Great Hairy** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:09 pm

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]The main complaint I have with 3.0 vs. 3.5 is that monks get Ki strike so late in 3.0. I was using 3.0 and one of my players was playing a monk that was 8th or 9th level, a pretty powerful character. Whenever the party ran into undead however, he was useless. In 3.5 Ki strike was changed to 4th level, a pretty dramatic difference. If someone in your group plays a monk, think about this ahead of time.[/QUOTE]

Nothing stops the monk from buying a couple of +1 Kamas or other monkish weapons to wave about when they face creatures requiring magical weapons to hit/damage. They make take a slight hit in damage, but they can certainly still use flurry and the like to retain their attack/damage ratio.

Personally, I really dislike how in 3.5 the monk gets extra-nostrilated because they never get "chaos" or "cold-iron" or the other half-dozen required weapon types required to actually damage monsters under 3.5 rules - monks are actually weaker in this rule-set!

As for rangers - I actually like some of the 3.5 changes (the newer two weapon fighting or missile weapon paths) but dislike the spell, feat and skill changes. No way should rangers get 6 skill points per level, or Hide in Plain Sight. Nope.

Cheers,
TGHO

Mr.Waesel · Post by **Mr.Waesel** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:51 am

Please don't cite "flavor" as your justification for that opinion.

The Great Hairy · Post by **The Great Hairy** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm

"Flavour"? What do you mean, mate?

Cheers,
TGHO

Mr.Waesel · Post by **Mr.Waesel** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:23 am

"Rangers are woodsmen and I don't see woodsmen as getting 6+ skil points/level."

The Great Hairy · Post by **The Great Hairy** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:39 pm

Rangers are fighter types. Regular fighter types (Fighter/Paladin) only get 2 skill points per level, with Barbs getting 4. What is the rationale for Rangers (still a fighter type) to get 6 skill points per level? That they are "rogue-like"? Nostrils. Absolute nostrils.

Let's examine the classes with higher amounts of skill points - Rogues and Bards. Rogues are the skill based class. It's one of their core functions. Bards are jack-of-all-trades, and require a wide range of skills to be effective.

Rangers, on the other hand, do not need that many skills, and 6 skill points per level is absolute overkill. The only reason they were given so many skill points in 3.5 was because, again, the whingers on the WotC boards complained that Rangers were too weak in 3.0. Now, that many have been the case (I personally didn't have a problem with them, although I like some of the 3.5 modification), but adding skill points to Rangers is not the way to fix the problems with the class. You're encroaching onto the rogue's territory with no justification or sound reasoning.

This is not "flavour". This is core rules.

Cheers,
TGHO

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:39 am

My guess would be that ranger tend to live all by themselves and be very self-relianced.
They do averything themselves, hence the amount of skill points.

I don't really have a problem with it, but a slight decrease could work well.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:18 pm

I don't have too much problem with the 6 skill points. Most Rangers will use light armor in order to retain all their benefits. This is kind of a disadvantage compared to other fighter types who will usually pile on the steel. Also, they basically get the equivilent of like 4 or 5 feats, but they don't get to choose them, fighter gets 11 and can choose them from a big list. I don't have 3.5 so I may be wrong, but I think it's an okay adjustment. I do like the addition of archery options. Everyone always pictured a Ranger with a bow, but there was no incentive for him to use one.