D&D 3E/3.5 Combining 3.0 and 3.5 - A Thread

[earthsea_wizard]

I've been doing a lot of reading of the core books and internet forums to consider how best to approach comnbining the things I like about both of these editions. Right now, the below is what I am considering, but I've been flip flopping on how I want to do this so I may change what I'm looking for and figured I will use this thread as workshop.

If anybody else has done this or wants to do this feel free to talk about your experiences and thoughts here.

Currently, I am considering how to use the below 3.5 rules with the 3.0 core.

• Skills
• Monster spacing instead of facing
• Damage Reduction
• Ranger, Monk.

You might say that adding rules from 3.5 into your 3.0 is as easy as plug and play, but I have to imagine there are a lot of unintended consequences I'm not thinking of. And by consqueneces I don't so much mean balance, but rather areas in which the mechanics will suddenly contradict eachother or not make sense, especially when it comes to a new player making a character or playing the game.

For example, changing to 3.5 spacing for miniatures isn't as simple as writing "5x10 is now 5x5" etc. You'd have to note the implications of how movement, reach, AoOs, spell areas work etc. Using 3.5 skills likely affects more than I'm thinking of when using 3.0 classes. Their skill point allotment would change but there are class abilities tied to certain skills.

Currently the most important for me on the list is the spells. I like AD&D spells and many of the 3.0 spells were just ported over. 3.5 changed many of these. I don't have a group that would abuse anything in the game, so no worries there.

 

[earthsea_wizard]

Another option of course is using a 3.5 PHB and sticking with 3.0 spells (and other elements I like), but I think that might affect class spell lists in an annoying way.

 

[Mark Hope]

Have you looked at Arcana Evolved from Monte Cook/Malhavoc? It is an interesting take on 3.5 that you may find a source of ideas. He did a 3.0 version as well called Arcana Unearthed.

 

[Celebrim]

I think you are correct to import fixes to problems you have in 3.0e rather than importing 3.5e as a whole. The more I learn about what is actually different in 3.5e, the more I consider the whole thing a bad move.

I feel no desire to give up horses occupying a 5x10 area. Yes, formalizing what free facing changes mean on a non-symmetrical model, would be tough, but it's a rare enough problem that I don't think it's worth giving up the advantages in realism of the 3e size classes. 3.5e monsters occupy clunkily huge areas. But, on the other, this is also a small thing. If you can't be bothered, eh, I get it.

For DR I strongly encourage you to not go to 3.5e DR but instead to half (on average) the amount of DR in 3.0e (or otherwise adjusting to more interesting numbers). IMO, DR 5/+1 is more interesting than DR 10/+1, and DR 5/cold iron is more interesting than DR 10/cold iron. This is an easy fix and actually strongly covers the actual problem, which was too rigid of adherence to the all or nothing model of 1e. DR is an important defensive trait of monsters that helps monsters achieve the idea 3-5 rounds of combat that makes for visually and tactically interesting play. Try to avoid trending toward "glass cannon" models of combat where everything is over in 0-1 rounds.

If you still find DR annoying, a single adamantium sword solves most DR problems at high levels. Another solution is to assume that 'cold iron' refers to all ferrous steels and not a special alchemical item, and that admantium is a ferrous steel ("true iron") and mithral a form of silver ("true silver"). This drastically will reduce the toolbox problem while still keeping DR meaningful.

 

[Li Shenron]

For example, changing to 3.5 spacing for miniatures isn't as simple as writing "5x10 is now 5x5" etc. You'd have to note the implications of how movement, reach, AoOs, spell areas work etc.

I do not think there is anything you need to think in advance. IIRC 3.5 changed monsters spacings but I don't remember if it changed any of those others: if that's the case then either versions of spacing just works identically. If they did change something in reach, AoOs etc. I am still quite sure they didn't change those because or even together with the monsters spacing. The 3.5 revision was not organic, it was done as a list of patches with not a lot of thoughts put into evaluating the bigger picture. In the worst case, your combination will simply end up being another version of 3.x, neither better nor worse than the official ones.

Using 3.5 skills likely affects more than I'm thinking of when using 3.0 classes. Their skill point allotment would change but there are class abilities tied to certain skills.

IIRC a few skills were merged, but it should be easy to know what new skill replaces the old one if it comes up in a class ability.

I don't have a group that would abuse anything in the game, so no worries there.

That's the best guarantee! Why don't you just start playing with these changes of yours and then see for yourself if something doesn't work? I would be confident that it would take less time and be more reliable than trying to figure out in advance

 

[pawsplay]

I personally think the handling of DR, weapon sizes, and monster building all went backwards for 3.5. DR became complicated and made characters carry around more weapons. Bilbo takes a -2 to attack with Sting. Dinosaurs with 12 HD now suddenly have a bunch of feats and need to spend some skill ranks.

 

[Deset Gled]

Currently the most important for me on the list is the spells. I like AD&D spells and many of the 3.0 spells were just ported over. 3.5 changed many of these. I don't have a group that would abuse anything in the game, so no worries there.

The single biggest spell change is Haste. In 3.0 it gives an extra action, and can seriously screw with action economy in a bad way. I highly recommend using the 3.5 version.

• Ranger, Monk.

When you really get down to it, both of these classes ended up on the weaker side (especially as you add in more splat books). If you're not worried about your players finding something obscure and breaking the game, the simplest solution is to let a player who wants to be one of these classes just pick whatever version they prefer and run with it. The risk of having a problem is very low.

 

[earthsea_wizard]

When you really get down to it, both of these classes ended up on the weaker side (especially as you add in more splat books).

Weaker than their 3.0 counterparts?

 

[Deset Gled]

Weaker than their 3.0 counterparts?

No, IIRC the 3.5 versions are slightly better than 3.0. But they're on the weaker side of all the base classes.

 

[Mannahnin]

The single biggest spell change is Haste. In 3.0 it gives an extra action, and can seriously screw with action economy in a bad way. I highly recommend using the 3.5 version.

Both Haste and Polymorph are some of the most egregious offenders in 3.x, but yes, the 3.5 ones are a bit better. I'd be tempted to dump or re-write them entirely, to be honest.

@Celebrim how do you revise those two/three spells?