D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3.5 available Print on Demand.

[teitan]

They probably won't, even though the two versions of 3e really aren't in competition any more. It wouldn't be too much different than having the different versions of the classic D&D game available. It's just that for every problem that 3.5 fixed, it seems to have added at least one new one.

The only thing 3.5 fixed was the Ranger and skills. I said it.

 

[teitan]

The 1995 editions weren't significantly different from the 1989 ones. Mostly they just corrected errors and had a new layout. TSR went out of their way to say they were just redesigned rather than a third edition at the time because some people thought it was a new edition. These were the books that were in print at the time WotC bought TSR, so it was probably easier for WotC to reprint those. Both 1e and 2e had new covers for the core books later in the edition, but they were not new books to the extent the 3.5 books were.

Content wise no but they’re uglier than a shaved possum.

 

[Voadam]

The only thing 3.5 fixed was the Ranger and skills. I said it.

I particularly liked 3.5 having the grapple bonus in the stat blocks.

And outsiders being tougher less glass canon walking spell like ability platforms.

And Shield not requiring figuring out facing.

And the stat enhancer spells not requiring rolls to determine their bonuses.

And classes having fewer dead levels.

And Unearthed Arcana options. And having them in the SRD.

 

[Alzrius]

And Unearthed Arcana options. And having them in the SRD.

They may have been put into www.d20srd.org, but technically Unearthed Arcana wasn't part of the SRD. Rather, it was the only book that WotC made for 3.5 that had most of its text declared Open Game Content. (There were also those two monsters in the back of the 3.0 Monster Manual II, where WotC themselves didn't use the OGL correctly.)

 

[Orius]

The only thing 3.5 fixed was the Ranger and skills. I said it.

Mostly. There's a little bit more about 3.5 that's slightly better.

 

[teitan]

Mostly. There's a little bit more about 3.5 that's slightly better.

Ever so but 3.0 was so much easier on the DM.

 

[Mannahnin]

The 3.5 DMG also removed the sidebar on making multiclass 1st level characters, which always made me sad.

I really don't like the a la carte leveling system of WotC era D&D, mostly because it means no 1st level character can be multiclassed. That sidebar was the last attempt they made to accommodate the idea, and I was not happy to see it go.

Yes, first level multiclassing was a really good thing to have for a number of concepts. Dropping it was a definite mistake.

The only thing 3.5 fixed was the Ranger and skills. I said it.

Druid animal companions were also a pain in 3.0. And as I recall Bards were pretty terrible.

 

[teitan]

Yes, first level multiclassing was a really good thing to have for a number of concepts. Dropping it was a definite mistake.


Druid animal companions were also a pain in 3.0. And as I recall Bards were pretty terrible.

Shhh shhhh shhhh we don’t talk about that because 3.5 was just small fixes and all compatible with 3.0 according to WOtC.

 

[Mannahnin]

Shhh shhhh shhhh we don’t talk about that because 3.5 was just small fixes and all compatible with 3.0 according to WOtC.

Well, I think that was the original intent, but the "little tweaks" wound up being pretty extensive.

 

[darjr]

Well, I think that was the original intent, but the "little tweaks" wound up being pretty extensive.

Not for groups I played with. Organized play, yea but that was by fiat. Outside that? 3.0 and 3.5 content was used together a lot.

H*ck we used PF1 and 3.5 and 3.0 stuff too.