I have no problem with whatever changes are made in D&D3.5. I frankly haven't looked at them, but I imagine some of them may be quite useful. My reason for being a "3.0 diehard" is that I am too cheap to buy the new books, and so are my players. Four out of nine players had the 3.0 PH before we started, and the DM, that would be me, already owned the three core books. Why would I want to go and shell out $90+ for books which have not drastically changed? The game works just fine as it is, at least for my group.feydras said:
Any 3.0 diehards out there?
- Thread starter Vindicator
- Start date
shadow
First Post
You can count me as a 3.0 diehard. The release of 3.5e nearly killed D&D for me. The same goes with people I play with. To keep peace on the boards I have restrained myself from using "3.$e" and making random negative comments about 3.5e. Still I have a burning hatred for 3.5e. Why this intense hatred? To me 3.5e did just about every possible thing wrong. For example:
1. The weapon size rules: They added an unneeded level of complexity to the game to correct a non-existent problem. Now a halfling or gnome can't simply pick up a short sword, they have to get a "small" short sword. Even worse is the absurd, oxymoronic terms such as "tiny greatsword".
2. The facing rules are absurd. They are geared completely to miniature play (my next point).
3. The reliance on miniatures: It's ironic that I always enjoyed using miniatures. However, I have often gamed without them. The 3.5 PHB states that players need miniatures and a battle mat, which is a cheap plug for WotC's new mini line.
4. The nerfing of the wizard: Wizards have always been the weakest class at low levels. 3.0 gave wizards a boost in power, but the 3.5e philosophy seems hellbent on restoring the status quo. Buff spells are now only useful for a single combat, haste is now totally useless! The list goes on and on!
5. Even the much lauded ranger doesn't seem that great to me. It seemed to much of a half-a---d revision. Now instead of being able to specialize in two-weapong fighting, the ranger can specialize in archery or two-weapon fighting! The ranger should be defined by skill in woodcraft and wilderness lore, not by combat styles and virtual feats.
6. The silly monster description flavor text in the MM: Sure I would like to see a physical description of the monster listed, but these are just poorly written and silly!
7. No playtest credits: Was this edition even playtested!? (Apparently it was to some extent, although it was an "in-house" playtesting.)
These are just a few things that I hate about 3.5e, an exhaustive list would be way to long! Needless to say, I'm sticking with 3.0e.
1. The weapon size rules: They added an unneeded level of complexity to the game to correct a non-existent problem. Now a halfling or gnome can't simply pick up a short sword, they have to get a "small" short sword. Even worse is the absurd, oxymoronic terms such as "tiny greatsword".
2. The facing rules are absurd. They are geared completely to miniature play (my next point).
3. The reliance on miniatures: It's ironic that I always enjoyed using miniatures. However, I have often gamed without them. The 3.5 PHB states that players need miniatures and a battle mat, which is a cheap plug for WotC's new mini line.
4. The nerfing of the wizard: Wizards have always been the weakest class at low levels. 3.0 gave wizards a boost in power, but the 3.5e philosophy seems hellbent on restoring the status quo. Buff spells are now only useful for a single combat, haste is now totally useless! The list goes on and on!
5. Even the much lauded ranger doesn't seem that great to me. It seemed to much of a half-a---d revision. Now instead of being able to specialize in two-weapong fighting, the ranger can specialize in archery or two-weapon fighting! The ranger should be defined by skill in woodcraft and wilderness lore, not by combat styles and virtual feats.
6. The silly monster description flavor text in the MM: Sure I would like to see a physical description of the monster listed, but these are just poorly written and silly!
7. No playtest credits: Was this edition even playtested!? (Apparently it was to some extent, although it was an "in-house" playtesting.)
These are just a few things that I hate about 3.5e, an exhaustive list would be way to long! Needless to say, I'm sticking with 3.0e.
Dark Jezter
First Post
shadow said:
Halflings and gnomes can still use standard-sized short swords. They're simply considered a one-handed weapon instead of a light weapon.
The 3.0 weapon size rules did make sense, until Savage Species came out and people began to notice that the 3.0 weapon size rules created a whole lot of problems when it came to playing as PCs larger than medium-sized. I, too, was skeptical with the 3.5e weapon size rules until I got used to them. Now, I prefer them over 3.0's weapon size rules.
Unless you're using the variant rules for facing found in Unearthed Arcana, there are no facing rules in 3.5e.
I played 3.0 without miniatures, and I play 3.5 without miniatures without any more degree of difficulty. Although you are correct; WotC should not have listed miniatures as a requirement.
When exploring dungeons, I've had buff spells last for 2-3 combat encounters. I also don't feel sad about haste getting nerfed, as it was too powerful before. In 3.0, combats often became "quick-draw" contests between the mages on each side. Whichever mage got the higher initiative roll would cast haste on himself, and then blow the opposition out of the water with two spells per turn.
Generally, I don't feel too bad about the nerfing of the wizard in 3.0 and 3.5e, because in 1e and 2e, mages were the dominant class after the first few levels. Now the other classes finally have a chance to shine.
It seems like if you were to ask 10 people what a ranger class should be like, you get 10 different answers. Some people say that a ranger should be like Davy Crockett, some people say that a ranger should be like Aragorn, some people say that it should be like Legolas, some people say that a ranger should be a medieval green beret, some people think that a ranger should be a woodland ninja, et cetera.
It's gotten to the point where I've started tuning out rants by people who are upset because the ranger dosen't fit their own personal vision of what a ranger should be.
Then by all means don't use them. The descriptive paragraphs at the start of each monster entry were meant to exemplify how a DM might describe a monster to his players. I personally thought that they were a nice touch.
I agree with this one. There should have been playtester credits included.
Last edited:
Lord Pendragon
First Post
I believe this is incorrect. The halfling/gnome would take a -2 penalty to attack rolls for using an improperly-sized weapon. 3.0 is the version that allowed the halfling to just pick up the human-sized short sword and use it as one-handed weapon.Dark Jezter said:
I haven't played or run anything larger than Large, so perhaps I'm not aware of the issues, but 3.0's weapon-sizing seemed to work perfectly fine. I'm interested in what wonkiness there is, since I still use 3.0 weapon-sizing rules.
I believe he was referring to the new rule that all creatures take up a square-space. i.e. a warhorse is no longer 10'x5', it's 10'x10'. And I believe you knew that.
This is an interesting illustration of how everyone's game is different. I've never had buff spells last 3 encounters in 3.5 (and very rarely 2). And in 3.0 after the first wizard cast Haste and then [some other spell], the other wizard's next spell was usually Greater Dispelling.
But again, this can be different in every game. Personally, I do think there were some problems in the 3.0 spells, but 3.5 goes much, much too far.
I didn't have a regular group back during 1e and 2e. Why should I have to deal with imbalanced rules now, because the wizard stole the show in your campaigns then?
This one I have to agree with.
Dark Jezter
First Post
My hate of double posts know no limit.
Last edited:
Dark Jezter
First Post
Lord Pendragon said:
In 3.5e, a halfling or gnome can still can pick up a standard sized short sword and it would be considered a one-handed (rather than a light weapon as it would be for a medium creature) weapon for them. Although they do take a -2 penalty on attack rolls with such a weapon.
Ah man, somebody (I think it was MerricB) made a very nice post on this subject a while back, but I can't find it. I'll try my best to give a condensed version of his post.
In 3.0, the regular weapon list does a good job for covering small and medium-sized creatures. When you get to creatures like storm giants, you start running into problems. None of the weapons on the main list make suitable weapons for them (even a greatsword is only considered a light weapon by storm giant standards). So you have to start making irregularly-sized versions of the normal weapons, which isn't as neatly-organized as it is in 3.5e.
Another problem some people had with the 3.0 weapon sizing rules was that there were a lot less weapon choices for small creatures: gnomes and halflings never got to use weapons like spiked chains and polearms, for example. 3.5e makes the system more consistant by allowing each size category of creature to have access to the same list of weapons (appropriately-sized, of course).
Actually, I wasn't aware that's what he was talking about. Still, I don't see how square spaces favor miniature play any more than differently-sized spaces.
And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't assume things about me, thanks.
Perhaps I misrepresented my position. I'm not saying that wizards should be weaker than the other classes, mainly that they shouldn't dominate higher-level play. One thing I love about 3.5e is that combat isn't as prone to being decided by the mages as previous editions are. In 3.0 and 3.5e, warrior-types, rogues, and the like are actually able to contribute to higher-level combat and keep up with the mages, something that didn't happen much in 1e or 2e.
Liquidsabre
Explorer
I think what I find fascinating are the arguments for sticking to 3.0 for the sake of money. When I bought my 3.0 books in the fall 2000 I shelled out some $60 bucks for the core three. 3 years later the 3.5 revision comes out. That's approximately $20/year.... 
If that isn't cheap entertainment...I really don't think anything compares. Even buying more books over those three years, at even ~$100/year is still, very, very, very inexpensive entertainment. Not to mention how fullfilling it can be to share rpg experiences with a group of friends (both new and old). So skip take-out a few times over the course of a year and you've already paid for those books, or miss a few of those movies over the course of the year. Not too bad, especially when some folk compare to the amounts they DO spend on such entertainment. Makes RPGs look like a bargain-bin lover's dream come true.
As for rules changes in 3.5, they smoothed over problem areas that have made play better for our group's games. If it doesn't matter to you, each to their own. Whatever gets your dice rolling I say. I myself would never play in a 3.0 game, likely I would go out of my way to avoid one (and my favorite class is the Wizard heh).
It really just sounds like gamers who didn't enjoy the process of learning the 3.0 rule set when it came out don't want to have to re-live the experience again with the revision. *cough* lazy gits *cough*
But then again I hate learning how to program the new VCR/DVD (after I'd already gotten a handle on the old one, sheesh) or whatever it is we get. Again, whatever buffs your full-plate.
Happy Gaming!
If that isn't cheap entertainment...I really don't think anything compares. Even buying more books over those three years, at even ~$100/year is still, very, very, very inexpensive entertainment. Not to mention how fullfilling it can be to share rpg experiences with a group of friends (both new and old). So skip take-out a few times over the course of a year and you've already paid for those books, or miss a few of those movies over the course of the year. Not too bad, especially when some folk compare to the amounts they DO spend on such entertainment. Makes RPGs look like a bargain-bin lover's dream come true.
As for rules changes in 3.5, they smoothed over problem areas that have made play better for our group's games. If it doesn't matter to you, each to their own. Whatever gets your dice rolling I say. I myself would never play in a 3.0 game, likely I would go out of my way to avoid one (and my favorite class is the Wizard heh).
It really just sounds like gamers who didn't enjoy the process of learning the 3.0 rule set when it came out don't want to have to re-live the experience again with the revision. *cough* lazy gits *cough*
But then again I hate learning how to program the new VCR/DVD (after I'd already gotten a handle on the old one, sheesh) or whatever it is we get. Again, whatever buffs your full-plate.
Happy Gaming!
