Can someone summarize the changes in STYLE OF GAMEPLAY between 3.0 and 3.5?

[joethelawyer]

We play a base 3.0 game. We have adopted some 3.5 rules, but houseruled it so much that the style is all our own. I have read here that people noticed a difference in style of gameplay between 3.0 and 3.5, based on the changes WOTC made to the game. In what way did the game change for you in terms of the style of the game? The feel? The flavor?

Thx.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It has been a long time since we played 3.0. One of the changes that I suppose affect the play style strongly where how the "animal buffs" worked.

In 3E, they lasted 1 hour per level and added 1d4+1 to the ability score. In 3.5, they lasted 1 minute per level and added +4 to the ability score.

I think the fixed +4 bonus was "good", since it avoided the Empowering/Maximizing "abuses", while the duration limit enforced a shorter "work day". That might be in a large part because everyone was accustomed to get the animal buffs and not buy the ability score enhancement items, but it might be just that it was still a tactic too good to use.

In fact, this was one of the things we house-ruled, increasing the duration to 10/level. I think that wasn't a real solution, either. At low levels, you had the "short adventuring" day syndrome, higher levels were still as before, except that if you had to travel you waited a little to cast the spells.

Maybe the fix should have been +2 to score, and 1 hour/level duration. But well, that#s house rule territory to counter gameplay changes we haven't even fully discussed yet.

I think some of the spells changed "unfavorobly" for some classes.

Emotion was splitted up in several spells, as was Eyebite. Both were interesting spells for Bards or Sorcerers since they allowed a lot of variety. Nerfing these spells was mostly nerfing Bards and Sorcerers, and I am afraid it let to particular Sorcerers becoming more one-dimensional, and probably typically turning into a evocation specialist (blasting foes into oblivion).

The changes to Flame Arrow (or Fire Arrow?) and the split into Flaming Arrows and Scorching Rays certainly changed the standard low level attack spells around. Melfs Acid Arrow became less interesting, while Magic Missile and Scorching Ray became part the backbone of the spellcaster offensive capabilities. I think this leads to a more "offensive" play style for spellcasters (and also more "burning through spell slots). Though beware: The changes to Haste might compensate this again, since I definitely remember a lot of Haste abuse with spellcasters casting two spells per round.

I think 3.5 was also the time where my group really began seeing the merits of the Wands of Cure Light Wounds - but they were already in 3.0, so this was probably more a "learning" thing and not a revision change.

I am not sure the play style was really changed notably in 3.5. I suppose our group moved definitely stronger towards the "15 minute adventure day", but I don't think that was 3.5 influence, just as "gaming the system".

 

[Psion]

It has been a long time since we played 3.0. One of the changes that I suppose affect the play style strongly where how the "animal buffs" worked.

 

[Nifft]

3.0e: "work day" was "until the Sorc/Wizard can't cast haste anymore, or until our AniBuff(tm) spells get dispelled".

3.5e had different work day limitations.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Cadfan]

Other than the animal buffs, the changes didn't create a different style of gameplay. It wasn't really an edition change (hence the .5), it was more like large scale errata. I'll be honest- I never really understood those who felt that the 3.5 changes weren't a good idea. Its almost exactly the same game as 3e, minus all-day stat buff spells and minus two-spells-per-round Haste, and plus some improvements to the lamer classes. I really appreciated the changes, but didn't feel that they changed "the game" enough to justify disliking them. If 3e was a Honda Civic, 3.5 would be a Honda Civic with a nicer stereo and a quick run through a car wash. Basically the same, but a little nicer.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The only real difference to me besides minor tweaks and "errata" was that 3E didn't really do much in the way of introducing new base classes, while 3.5E gave us piles of them.

 

[Dimitri Mazieres]

I've always found quite interesting this article where Monte Cook expresses his initial impressions regarding the differences between 3.0 and 3.5, and their effects on gameplay.

Also, since we're at it, here is a page which specifically lists the changes in the three 3.5 core books, compared to the 3.0 ones.

 

[Remathilis]

One change I can recall was on weapons, fighters, and DR.

In 3.0, which still used the +X of better weapon to hit" style of DR, you'd see fighters gun for one big weapon (helloo greatsword) and try to enchant the blue Stevens out of it (+5). This was doubly trued because the damage soak for DR was typically 20 or 30 points for high-end foes.

RESULT: Fighters sought out +5 weapons.

In 3.5, DR changed to a variety of triggers. Suddenly, the type of weapon, the material it was made out of, and whether or not it was magical or aligned all mattered. Thus, it was nigh-impossible to have a single "one sword kills all" weapon, you needed a bludegoning weapon, a good weapon, a silver weapon, an adamantine weapon, etc.

Fighters began to carry at least 2-3 weapons (golf-bags, they were nicknamed) to beat the various types of DR. Because of this, individual weapons didn't need to enchant up very far (a +1 and +5 still beat DR magic) so secondary abilities (fire, holy, speed) became better spent money than a +1 to hit/damage.

RESULT: Fighters sought mutliple lesser enchanted +1 [descriptor] weapons and carried them to beat various DRs.

SIDE-EFFECT: Due to DR soak values being lower (maxing at 15 typically), you could muscle through high DR foes without proper DR-beating weapons. Power-attack was the most popular way (esp with the 1:2 conversion for 2-h weapons). Consequentially, Power Attack became a staple necessity to Fighters who lacked that odd combination weapon (good + bludgeoning? Ah heck, POWER ATTACK).

SIDE-EFFECT 2: This had an extra side effect of hosing monks, rogues, and anyone else who didn't fight for a living but wasn't a caster either. They had to spend more of their gold on weapons (+1 holy silver kama!) because they lacked the ability to do enough damage to beat DR without them (exception going to sneak attack, if possible).

 

[pawsplay]

Because of the change in weapon sizes and the changes in DR, PCs now spend a lot more money on magic items compared to simply using the ones they find. Small combat-oriented characters started taking a -2 for using a Medium longsword in two hands, while any fighter now needs to make sure he has magical silver, cold iron, and adamantine weapons. As an additional side effect, scrolls and oils of greater magic weapon became a must have in 3.5. You buy the weapon with the material and properties you want, then when you need it the most, you boost it with a spell to a higher enhancement bonus.

Magical bow + arrows, fixed. Armor + shield AC, made sensible.

Rangers and monks, better.

Prestige classes as class variants made a strong inroad with 3.5, especially with stuff like the Mystic Theurge and the Eldritch Knight, which primarily bridged some interesting but sub-par characters. Meanwhile, Wizards finally began to create new base classes with earnest. After all, does it really make sense to have to wait till 6th or 8th level to become a swashbuckler or an inspiring marshal? This resulted in something of a trainwreck in the middle, though... there are some interesting issues with regard to fighter/warmage/eldritch knight versus duskblade versus fighter/wizard/bladesinger, for instance. Or even hexblade versus duskblade, one a fighter that casts, the other a caster that fights.

3.5 was more modular and customizable. Besides Unearthed Arcana, of course, prestige classe were, for the most part, actually optional to a great extent, most new material was not spread out in a succession of only marginally related sourcebooks (Forgotten Realms, I'm looking at you), and a lot of new material was introduced with some thought as to how it would be integrated into a new campaign. Weapons of Legacy, totally optional.

3.5 does, however, begun a steady creep in tone. Races of Destiny was, in my mind, a very significant book. I think somewhere during 3.5 was a clear demarcation between old school swords-and-sorcery, with its Hyperborean feel, and something more clearly akin to modern fantasy, especially with its egalitarian, cosmopolitan feel and relatively humanstic viewpoint.

 

[steenan]

I played mostly 3.0 and only a little 3.5, so I may have missed some of the playstyle changes. The ones I definitely noticed:
- Many flexible spells (including, but not limited to, ones listed above) nerfed or split into single-use spells; other spells reworded to limit creative uses. It improved the balance in some cases, but definitely limited sorcerers that wanted some flexibility.
- Spells and feats that allowed ignoring various resistances and immunities, letting casters kill nearly every creature on their own.
- Many monsters were simplified and lost their exceptional strengths and weaknesses (example: rakshasa). Result: less suprises, less need to vary tactics, more predictable combat.
- As 3.5 lived longer than 3.0, more power creep happened. Classes that were seen as too strong when they were published became weak compared to later ones. Also, more choices bred more minmaxing - when books or builds were not strongly limited, characters used even 4-5 prestige classes each.