Is 3.5 backward compatible?

[Kershek]

If you input your NPCs into a campaign manager (like DM Genie or DMF) to help run your combat during a battle, you may not have a choice but convert if 3.0 and 3.5 are different game modes.

Personally, I would much rather use those programs than run a combat by hand these days. I hated messing with NPC spell durations, and then making it worse by changing the initiative order and forgetting what init number the spell effect ended.

 

[Eternalknight]

Of course using specific software makes it harder, but the original poster didn't say anything about software.

Is 3.5 backwards compatible? Yes, very much so.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

It's very easy to convert if you're the DM, and don't mind NPCs being slightly off, because you really don't have to do anything.

If you want everything converted over perfectly, it takes a bit more effort, but not so much that I wouldn't call it "backwards compatible". Most future products from most d20 publishers this far look like they'll be 3.5, so there won't be any forward-conversion worries with them, and I don't think running 3.5 material in a 3.0 campaign would be to tough.

I haven't run into any snags converting my material thus far.

 

[MUKid]

So the consensus is yes?

I don't plan on buying the 3.5 books, but I'll probably grab the 3.5 SRD and scan through it. I think I'll get that PDF that haiiro suggested (thanks!) to help me convert. I do plan on continuing to buy new supplements to use in my 3.0 game, which is why I was wondering how badly I'd be wishing I just switched to 3.5.

So you guys pretty much think it's possible to take, say, an NPC from a 3.5 adventure and use it in an all-3.0 game, and it doesn't matter much? I realize that what Kershek said is true -- in a strict sense, it won't be playing by the exact rules that the PCs play by. Some spells that the 3.5 character has might not be possible for the 3.0 character to have, and so on. But I have no problem with that, and if my players do, then they're welcome to run their own game!

 

[HellHound]

With those criteria, you'll be FINE.

I backwards-converted a bunch of my books to be 100% in line with the new rules and it took up all of half a page per book.

Not a concern, IMO. The products are mutually compatable with only slight changes.

 

[Kershek]

If you don't need to be a stickler with the rules, then you should be fine, like the others have said. Maybe I'm just anal-rententive or something

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm curious about Kershek's comments about Ranger/Rogues. As far as I can tell, they've only grown more viable as a character, and in 3.0, I'd never seen a Ranger/Rogue with more than one level of Ranger.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Its very easily backwards compatible. Much MUCH easier(for me) than Star Wards d20 was to convert. And even then, SWd20 was just a few things here and there.

Funny though...I've had no problem at all converting anything, even PCs...and I have two Rangers and two Monks in a couple of my games...no problem there at all. And yes, I'm a stickler for the rules.

 

[drothgery]

I'm curious about Kershek's comments about Ranger/Rogues. As far as I can tell, they've only grown more viable as a character, and in 3.0, I'd never seen a Ranger/Rogue with more than one level of Ranger.

I've got a 13 Rgr (Urban, as per MotW)/3 Rog that just retired, though in 3.5 I'd probably build him as a pure tweaked Ranger (modify some special natural-environment abilities and the spell list, trade the animal companion for two or three sneak attack dice).

 

[Zogg]

This was my response to your thread question:

Pffffffffffffffffffffff!