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

[Voadam]

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.

The fighter is definitely added to that list. A fighter was just a warrior with d10 HD (which match the ranger) instead of d8 and a few bonus feats.

A rogue is arguably there too with their low HD, not optimal BAB, and sneak attack main feature that does not work against half of the expected opposition (undead, constructs, elementals, oozes).

This is kind of the non full caster/full caster divide.

And when it comes down to it, a warrior could do all right on the non full caster track with just their full BAB and heavy armor.

 

[Azuresun]

They continually fixed polymorph without revising the edition.

The word "fixed" implies Polymorph ever reached a non-broken state.

 

[Voadam]

The word "fixed" implies Polymorph ever reached a non-broken state.

I considered putting fixed in quotes too. They never shied away from officially revising it though. My favorite shape change rules ended up being the variant druid wild shape in Player's Handbook II late in the 3e lifecycle.

 

[billd91]

They continually fixed polymorph without revising the edition.

Sure, but most people felt there was a lot more to fix than just haste and harm - like the ranger, the bard, the increasingly dominant strategy of stat boosting spells + metamagic, etc. However, even all those fixes didn't extended nearly as far as the changes made from 3.0 to 3.5 and could have been handled in a supplement book. There was definitely another (or more) motives at work - I'm inclined to believe that they involved $ at the brand/corporate level and some form of OCD-like drive to push what 3.0 started into something even more regularized around a particular vision of how the rules should be structured at the designer level.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I disagree, but we've now established people are using hyperbole on this topic. And it's not helpful.

All four were meaningfully more powerful than the warrior class. I guess the argument is they were on the weaker end of the core class spectrum. But something is always on the weaker end of the spectrum. That were certainly not "unplayable" and no new 3.5 edition was needed to make them playable or even enjoyable as classes.

 

[amethal]

I seem to remember they tweaked a few classes (paladin? ranger?) to make a 1 level dip less attractive - so you needed a 2 level dip instead.

Also the "clarification" of the charge rules meant that in 3.5 the Ride By Attack feat no longer worked by RAW (something about having to charge directly up to something in a straight line, and then continue in the same direction, which resulted in you having to carry on through the opponent's square.)

I did like the way they "cleaned up" the monster rules to make them more consistent with the character rules.

I bought 3.0 then 3.5 and then Pathfinder, and had a lot of fun with each system. With the benefit of hindsight, we'd probably have been fine just sticking with 3.0 - but that would have made taking part in forum discussions and the like a lot more difficult!

 

[Thomas Shey]

There were all kinds of problems with 3.0, more than I feel up to enumerating (or, in some cases, can probably recall after all these years). Some weren't as visible at lower levels as they could be, so some people never saw them. How successful 3.5 was at addressing the set as a set is--debatable.

 

[DnD Warlord]

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

The last 2-3 years of 3.5 the only way we continued was to make the classes

Crusaider replace paliden
Sword sage replace monk
War blade replace fighter
Warlock warm age dread necromancy (I think I am missing one) replace wizard
And no druids or clerics

 

[Voadam]

Warlock warm age dread necromancy (I think I am missing one) replace wizard

Beguiler?

No druid or cleric means lots of out of combat cure light wound wand healing as the go to.

 

[DnD Warlord]

Beguiler?

No druid or cleric means lots of out of combat cure light wound wand healing as the go to.

That was it

there was a healing strike manuvers and other classes could pick up healing or potions or wands... but stopping CoDzilla kept the edition going until just before 4e was announced...

funny story we had given up and moved to a retro clone that we were nodding fo all of 1 campaign... mid campaign was the gen con announcement. We had already said never again to 3.5 so 4e was a good send