D&D 3.x Any of you roll back 3.5 rules to 3.0?

[qstor]

I'm running a 3.5e game now. I've used 3.0 mods in the game but just convert on the fly. I think some elements of 3.0 are overpowered like the Haste spell and others underpowered like the ranger and the bards skill points. So over all in general I just stick to 3.5.

Mike

 

[billd91]

I would probably end up just sticking with 3.5 as well, but I'd be sorely tempted to roll back to the 3.0 weapon size rules. 3.5/PF are definitely the odd-men out on this topic out of all editions of D&D. And I'm not sure that's for the best. I understand the simulative aspect of those rules, but I'm not certain they improved the game.

 

[Celebrim]

I was thinking of changing some of the 3.5 rules back to 3.0.

Broadly speaking, this is a very good idea. Other than a few clamored for spot improvements like Haste and Harm, most 3.5 rules are worse than the 3.0 rules that they replaced.

While you are doing it, use 3.0 Alter Self and 3.0 Blasphemy/Holy Word/etc., roll back to 3.0 weapon sizes and well, just use 3.0 unless you have a very good reason otherwise.

 

[Starfox]

I was generally happy 2ith what 3.5 did, and would have liked it to do more. These are points I spontaneously recall:

The 3.0 bard and ranger got quite a bit of upgrade to 3.5. I agree with both, and Pathfinder continued the trend, improving both even more.

The sorcerer did NOT get upgraded from 3.0 to 3.5, which was a sore thumb for me.

Simple buff spells like Bull's Strength had random results (1d4+1) which hard unless you had a computerized character sheet. They also had durations in hours. Definitely liked the 3.5 version better. Again, Pathfinder continued the trend of shortening buff durations (tough not of these spells). Some cleric buffs gave you a static score (divine might giving Strength 18 IIR), encouraging min-maxing to the n:th degree.

Some monsters in 3.0 had very odd challenge rating, such as the Mummy being CR3.

 

[billd91]

Simple buff spells like Bull's Strength had random results (1d4+1) which hard unless you had a computerized character sheet. They also had durations in hours. Definitely liked the 3.5 version better. Again, Pathfinder continued the trend of shortening buff durations (tough not of these spells). Some cleric buffs gave you a static score (divine might giving Strength 18 IIR), encouraging min-maxing to the n:th degree.

Mixed reaction on those for me. Their original variability made them fodder for empower/maximize metamagics and they became a pretty dominating strategy (and undermined any need for the stat boosting items), so I was glad the bonus was turned into a flat amount. I couldn't agree with the duration nerfing, though. It was too much, particularly for the mental buff spells. Going from hours to minutes (rather than 10 minute variables) took most non-combat uses of the buffs off the table and that was the wrong direction for the game to go.

Little did I know, at the time, where the increasingly combat-centric design would lead, but the problems many of us had with D&D 4 were already starting to be foreshadowed in the 3.5 revision of 3e.

 

[Zardnaar]

3.0 persistent spell feat is a bit bonkers and natural spell is even more abusable.

Overpowered PrC and spell DC stacking was the other broken feature of 3.0 along with the Shadow Adept, Incantrix, Red Wizard and especially the spell dancer. The Duelist was also more powerful than the 3.5 one but the 3.5 one sucked while the 3.0 one was not that broken all things considered.

 

[Greenfield]

3.0 had some oddities that I thought were better handled in 3.5.

For example, the Improved Critical feat used to stack with the Keen Edge spell and/or the Keen weapon property. The result was characters threatening a Critical on a roll of 12 or better. (Consider the Rapier, with its threat range of 18-20. Add Keen and that becomes 15-20. If you can also stack Improved Critical on that, 12-20.)

Magic ammunition used to stack with magic weapons, so an archer could effectively have a +10 weapon.

And, of course, the front-loading problem: Many classes and PRCs had their neat features come intp play at 1st level. This encouraged fruit-salad builds who took one level each in half a dozen classes for the special features, essentially giving you Captain Everything.

Polymorph Other (the predecessor of Baleful Polymorph) had no down side. Build a Wiz type with all abilities focused into the mental stats, then Polymorph Other on yourself to obtain ultimate physical stats. There was no reason for a higher level party not to go adventuring Polymorphed into Fire Giants.

Disintigrate was a Save or Die spell. Not that bad a thing, all things considered, since it both required a successful attack roll *and* allowed a Save, but I like the new version better.

 

[scourger]

Having read, run & played both - as well as almost every other edition - I prefer 3.0 to 3.5. I usually import a few 3.5 changes, like dwarves move at base speed even when heavily encumbered and the Die Hard feat, but the core is 3.0. The d20 system just seemed at its best to me with 3.0. Plus, all my D&D minis are for 3.0 as are my favorite d20 derivative games: Omega World & Judge Dredd. When I run it again, it will be 3.0; even though a switch to Savage Worlds would be so much simpler to run but the conversion work deters me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would probably end up just sticking with 3.5 as well, but I'd be sorely tempted to roll back to the 3.0 weapon size rules. 3.5/PF are definitely the odd-men out on this topic out of all editions of D&D. And I'm not sure that's for the best. I understand the simulative aspect of those rules, but I'm not certain they improved the game.

When I first got 3.5Ed, I was miffed by the weapon size rules. Then I noticed something in my own possessions that changed my perspective to completely endorsing the change: a dagger and a letter opener.

The letter opener was a scale replica of a basket-hilted longsword from a museum in Europe. The dagger was a skean dhu made by a local artist. They were identical in length, and would be the same weapon under 3Ed rules.

But side by side comparison put the lie to that. To a tiny creature, the human-scaled dagger would have been less like a longsword and more like a caber; for a human, using the letter opener like a dagger would result in bad cuts in the palm. The proportions were all wrong, blade width; the length ratio of blade to handle; the diameter of the hilts, etc.. Even the mass of the skean dhu is many times that of the scaled-down longsword.

I DO think 3Ed got some things better than 3.5Ed, but on the whole! I found 3.5Ed to be the better product. I've never really looked back.

 

[prosfilaes]

Haste in 3.0 made spell casters broken by granting an actual extra Standard Action. That meant two spells per round. In a party with any number of casters, that became the single best party buff out there. Spell casters were over done to begin with, power wise, particularly at higher levels. Doubling their power made them critically broken starting at 5th level.

My DM made 3.0 Haste a 6th spell in our 3.5 game. Never again, he swore. Maybe if you have but one sixth-level spell slot, there'd be something better to cast, but if you have seventh-level spells, why cast a seventh-level spell when you can cast Greater Haste and a seventh-level spell?