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

[Dannyalcatraz]

One of my favorite things about the newer edition was the change in weapon sizing rules. I didn’t like them at first, but they grew on me (no joke intended)- the revision made more sense.

 

[Horwath]

I played all of them. Are you saying I didn't?

yes you did. And you can also play a commoner class.
And you can also race vs a Ferrari with your Fiat 128.

 

[Mistwell]

yes you did. And you can also play a commoner class.
And you can also race vs a Ferrari with your Fiat 128.

None were as weak as a commoner, nor did they compare to playing a Fiat 128 racing a Ferrari.

Hyperbole on the Internet is so 2008.

 

[Gladius Legis]

None were as weak as a commoner,

Neither was the NPC Warrior class.

The 3.0 Ranger, Paladin and Monk weren't much better than the Warrior. And the Bard not much better than those three.

 

[see]

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?

There weren't any major problems fixed. There was a pile of errata-level changes, a handful of things that were maybe too much change for a mere errata that were moderately improved, a few changes that seemed like they were for change's sake, and a desire to resell the core rulebooks.

 

[Azuresun]

I assumed that it was mainly there to fix Haste and Harm.

 

[tetrasodium]

3.0 had a lot of well meaning zero step unintended consequences & some truly "wtf how did that get printed!" overpowered stuff that others have mentioned already. 3.5 sanded down those rough edges and added some extra growth/customizing iirc. 3.0 was generally almost compatible with 3.5 but using it in a 3.5 game was often like using too much UA content in a 5e game where some was fine & some was really bad but just kept getting worse. That and TSR needed money.

 

[nevin]

I recall the spell harm being singled out as particularly overpowered as well...the 3.0 version was a touch spell with no saving throw that dropped a (non-undead) creature - no matter how many hit points it had - instantly to 1d4 hp. So all you had to do was touch that 660-hp Great Wyrm red dragon, cast a harm spell on it, and then a 1st-level wizard oo

You mean like it was in 1st and 2e. And yeah Allllll you had to do was touch the intelligent 660hp red dragon, who knew what clerics could do, had magic resistance, great saves, and could fly over breath weapon, fly over spell, land claw, claw, bite, wing buffet most likely save and the kill the cleric anyway. Nvm, the magic resistance vs the 1st level mage when you had to be around 10th level to have a chance of saving vs the fear.

No 3.0 design as stated by the devs was balance was not their job. Dms got content and they were responsible for balancing their own games. There were things far more in imbalancing than clerics and magic users in the official splat books.. 1st level barbarians with 10/hd battle cat mounts that had claw, claw , bite and barding for instance. 3.5 was the end of assuming it was the DMs job to run his own game. Every thing since has been an attempt to put rails on the game so everything is "played correctly"

 

[Voadam]

I assumed that it was mainly there to fix Haste and Harm.

They continually fixed polymorph without revising the edition.

 

[jasper]

The spicy meatball has the truth. And the truth will set you free. For the small price of........