D&D 3E/3.5 The original SRD

[glass]

The changes to DR made creatures with DR something you could face even if you lacked the right gear- having survived AD&D where you could easily face a monster that you didn't have the right weapon for was just common enough to be a nuisance.

Yes. I thought I said as much....

It also made special abilities on weapons less desirable- sure, a flaming +1 longsword is cool, but when you need a +2 to overcome DR/10, not so much.

Which is why I said I am not sure how I feel about it, rather saying it was a definitely worse.

Some 3.0 monsters were busted as a result of this, like the Mummy. DR/5 doesn't sound bad, until you realize your scimitar does half damage to the thing (and of course, being undead, no critical hits for you)!

That seems to be more of an issue with the halving stacking with the DR, but 3.5 (and thereafter PF1) mostly ditched "half damage" in favour of DR. Except incorporeal creatures, of course but they do not usually have DR as well. And PF1 allowed crits on undead too.

_
glass.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes. I thought I said as much....


Which is why I said I am not sure how I feel about it, rather saying it was a definitely worse.


That seems to be more of an issue with the halving stacking with the DR, but 3.5 (and thereafter PF1) mostly ditched "half damage" in favour of DR. Except incorporeal creatures, of course but they do not usually have DR as well. And PF1 allowed crits on undead too.

_
glass.

Yeah, Pathfinder relaxing the rules for critical hits and precision damage helped, though Rogues were still held back by Elementals and other things.

I'm quite happy with the 5e Rogue not having that particular problem anymore. Like I understand what they were going for with undead and other creatures being immune to critical hits, but the juice wasn't worth the squeeze, in my opinion.

Crits are rare enough (usually) that negating them seems a bit silly.

That does remind me of one 3.0-ism. Keen and Improved Critical stacking. Personally, I didn't think an 11-20 critical on a Rapier was a big deal (oh boy, double damage on a d6 weapon!).

I do remember a developer comment about it saying that "if crits are common, they cease being special", which strikes me as hilarious in retrospect given how many things were immune to them...

 

[el-remmen]

I think I am one of the few who went back from 3.5 to 3.0 back then

Oh I know I prefer 3.0 to 3.5.

At the time, I was convinced 3.5e was significantly better than 3.0e. With the progress of time, I've increasingly come to think that many of the 'improvements' were nothing of the sort.

I felt 3.5 was an improvement over 3.0 at the time (and similarly PF1 over 3.5), and I largely stand by that. OTOH, I do not think it was an unalloyed improvement. I mostly agree with all the big-ticket changes, but I feel like there were too many little changes (so many I cannot remember them all now).

Yeah. All of the above and more is why we called what we played 3.25E or 3.xE - bc we took what we liked from 3.5 or split the difference between them, but otherwise kept it as mostly 3.0. In fact, I never bought the 3.5 DMG or MM!

 

[GMMichael]

Does anyone know of surviving and accessible copies?

I have a Player's Handbook 3.0, which is basically an SRD (if you skip the pencil-sketch-art pages). Ask nicely and I'll dig stuff up for ya.

Why the heck do I keep it? Once, it was because the ranger (druid?) had an awesome animal companion, and it felt like 3.5 Hardcore Mode. Now, it's because I'm expecting 6th edition to be Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, 3rd Edition Revised, and I don't want to have to buy the new rule book.

 

[Morrus]

One problem with using a site that republishes the SRD is you have to include it in your section 15 declaration.

Well, for certain values of ‘problem’, I suppose.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

So it wasn't 3.0 I liked better, it was "a lean 3.x".

It's at this point someone needs to say look at 3.5 E6.

 

[Blue]

It's at this point someone needs to say look at 3.5 E6.

That's a good suggestion. I did look at E6. It didn't quite scratch the itch - I liked the higher level abilities, I just wanted to keep it to a manageable place. Playing an optimized character in the teen levels with just the core 3.0 (or 3.5) books was a very different power level then doing the same with several years worth of books. Even if there wasn't explicit power creep (and there was), you still got more ways to fulfill prerequisites, more options that when taken together were more than the sum of their parts, etc.

I like a moderate level of character crunch - low 4e adventurer tier was too few options, high paragon tier and all of epic tier was too many. I don't mind the power level for a high fantasy type of game.

 

[Orius]

Honestly I think E6 cuts in too early, I'd rather use its ideas as E12.

 

[cbwjm]

Honestly I think E6 cuts in too early, I'd rather use its ideas as E12.

I always felt E9 would be good, I think it's basically due to the old name level being level 9 that it's stuck in my mind.

 

[Orius]

That's a possibility too, but I like to round up the concept of name level in the modern editions to level 10, just to make things more even. Some classes didn't hit name level at level 9 either with the usual old school consistency. E10 is also possibly doable.

Anyway for me this is all just theorycrafting with the game for now. I want to finish up my 2e game, and then I'll shift back to 3e and see what I really need to do with some practical experience.