Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why was 3.5 needed?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8965819" data-attributes="member: 6799660"><p>There were some other systemic or conceptual changes as well. One I remember is: in 3.0, getting a special ability on a magic weapon would cost pluses, so a +1 flaming sword would effectively count as +2, for instance (in gp cost, level needed to make, whether it counted as epic, etc.). However, enemies might have Damage Reduction of '30/+2', against which the +1 flaming sword would not penetrate. Thus there was a strong incentive to always just take the pluses. With 3.5, they (presumably thinking games with energy weapons were more fun than everyone just chasing pluses) changed it so that Damage Reduction was more like '15/magic' and thus any magic weapon would work, (and the flaming would just be a overall plus to the gp cost, kinda solving the problem twice). There were subtle little quality of life changes like that. They just usually get dwarfed in the discussion by the larger concerns like the devs bizarrely picking on small races or them <em>not </em>fixing spellcaster vs. fighter/monk/everyone else, etc.</p><p></p><p>There certainly is an aspect of that. Just how much (and how many ways) they tried to make sure extra attacks didn't run away with the game -- no more than 5' step to get multiple attacks, massive feat trees for two-weapon fighting, <em>amulet of mighty fists</em>* costing 3x what an equivalent magic weapon would cost, etc. -- suggest that they really thought that whatever was a problem in 2e would be the problem in 3e. They also just did some things like realizing that X in 2e was widely considered unfun, so changed it to something else without reassessing whether the new version would then be unbalancing . Such as - no one liking being a caster whose spells are constantly disrupted, and when they do get to cast them they end up facing fixed percentage** Magic Resistance and enemies that saved X% of the time, regardless. So they changed it, making magic more reliable, easily cast in-combat (even without a special feat, just a skill check), and significantly more likely to land on the opponent -- without thinking about what that did for caster-noncaster balance. </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">*which would apply to offhand and flurry attacks as well as your regular allotment.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">**changed from 1E, where MR went down 5% per level over 12 the caster was, IIRC.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know that 3.5 really did anything to fix balance. I remember Natural Spell becoming core in 3.5, and many of the persistent balance issues (other than <em>haste</em>) not really being addressed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 8965819, member: 6799660"] There were some other systemic or conceptual changes as well. One I remember is: in 3.0, getting a special ability on a magic weapon would cost pluses, so a +1 flaming sword would effectively count as +2, for instance (in gp cost, level needed to make, whether it counted as epic, etc.). However, enemies might have Damage Reduction of '30/+2', against which the +1 flaming sword would not penetrate. Thus there was a strong incentive to always just take the pluses. With 3.5, they (presumably thinking games with energy weapons were more fun than everyone just chasing pluses) changed it so that Damage Reduction was more like '15/magic' and thus any magic weapon would work, (and the flaming would just be a overall plus to the gp cost, kinda solving the problem twice). There were subtle little quality of life changes like that. They just usually get dwarfed in the discussion by the larger concerns like the devs bizarrely picking on small races or them [I]not [/I]fixing spellcaster vs. fighter/monk/everyone else, etc. There certainly is an aspect of that. Just how much (and how many ways) they tried to make sure extra attacks didn't run away with the game -- no more than 5' step to get multiple attacks, massive feat trees for two-weapon fighting, [I]amulet of mighty fists[/I]* costing 3x what an equivalent magic weapon would cost, etc. -- suggest that they really thought that whatever was a problem in 2e would be the problem in 3e. They also just did some things like realizing that X in 2e was widely considered unfun, so changed it to something else without reassessing whether the new version would then be unbalancing . Such as - no one liking being a caster whose spells are constantly disrupted, and when they do get to cast them they end up facing fixed percentage** Magic Resistance and enemies that saved X% of the time, regardless. So they changed it, making magic more reliable, easily cast in-combat (even without a special feat, just a skill check), and significantly more likely to land on the opponent -- without thinking about what that did for caster-noncaster balance. [SIZE=1]*which would apply to offhand and flurry attacks as well as your regular allotment. **changed from 1E, where MR went down 5% per level over 12 the caster was, IIRC.[/SIZE] I don't know that 3.5 really did anything to fix balance. I remember Natural Spell becoming core in 3.5, and many of the persistent balance issues (other than [I]haste[/I]) not really being addressed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why was 3.5 needed?
Top