D&D 3E/3.5 [3.0] Why did they do a 3.5 version?

[Marc_C]

I'm looking at 3.0 for the first time in ages. It seems fine on the surface. What were the major problems that justified the release of 3.5?

 

[Gladius Legis]

Unplayably bad Ranger, Paladin, Bard and Monk classes, for starters.

3.5 only fixed two of the above though ...

 

[Marc_C]

Unplayably bad Ranger, Paladin, Bard and Monk classes, for starters.

3.5 only fixed two of the above though ...

So if you play just with the classic cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard it works fine.

 

[Weiley31]

So if you play just with the classic cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard it works fine.

Yes: but its strongly advised to add the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage from Tome of Battle to your list.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, Monte Cook was one of the people who helped make 3.0, along with Jonathan Tweet and Skip Williams, and he talked about the impetus for 3.5 on his website several years back.

 

[J-H]

Haste was pretty overpowered, granting an entire standard action. A 3rd level spell would let spellcasters cast two leveled spells per round, every round.

 

[Gladius Legis]

So if you play just with the classic cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard it works fine.

The classic 4 were changed relatively little between 3.0 and 3.5.

 

[Alzrius]

I'll add that 3.5 gave us the prestige classes that patched multiclassing. You won't find the mystic theurge, eldritch knight, or arcane trickster in 3.0, because it wasn't until after the game released that people realized just how badly multiclassing hurt spellcasting classes, and that a wizard 10/cleric 10 was nowhere near as good as a wizard 20 or cleric 20.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm looking at 3.0 for the first time in ages. It seems fine on the surface. What were the major problems that justified the release of 3.5?

 

[Mistwell]

Unplayably bad Ranger, Paladin, Bard and Monk classes, for starters.

3.5 only fixed two of the above though ...

1) They were all playable
2) You're two for two on hyperbole today. In a mood?