Is 3.5 backward compatible?

[JoeGKushner]

A lot of trouble? Usually not.

Some trouble? Yeah. Usualy with Monster's DR. If you're sticking with 3.0 then the DR of the monsters is going to suffer a bit.

Don't know how publishers will be hanlding spell durations in their newer products yet, but it'll be interesting to see. I'm especially interesting in Mongoose's book when it comes out, the Ultimate Spell Compendium or something, to see how they've updated spells.

Ranger variants won't match the 3.0 versions anymore so most probably won't have the d10 hit dice, something WotC started with Unapproachable East already.

Minor stuff here and there but it adds up.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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).

Instead of tweaking for Sneak Attack (since noone will let me), I usually play Urban Ranger/Rogue at evenly split levels. Sometimes, I play a normal Wilderness Ranger/Rogue, since the Sneak Attack is an integral part of hunting.

It works really well, especially with the similarity of skills and the overlaps-- Favored Enemy and Sneak Attack are particularly nice together.

 

[Kershek]

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.

A RogX/Rgr1 in 3.0 depended on the ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting virtual feats. In 3.5, RogX/Rgr1 won't give that to them. They will have to get two Ranger levels instead, or blow a feat on two-weapon fighting.

 

[bret]

Actually, I think converting Wizards and Sorcerers are the worst.

You've got a *lot* of spells that changed. You've got to find the changes, decide what effect those changes have, then figure out how to 'upgrade' the characters.

Specialist Wizards are the worst. since as already mentioned many spells changed schools. Sorcerers are the second worst, because they are all about making the absolute most of every spell that they get.

We looked at it for our campaigns and decided not to convert. Too many changes, some of them causing some pretty significant changes to what the PCs could do, without enough confidence that the changes were really balanced.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

A RogX/Rgr1 in 3.0 depended on the ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting virtual feats. In 3.5, RogX/Rgr1 won't give that to them. They will have to get two Ranger levels instead, or blow a feat on two-weapon fighting.

Which is a good thing. Taking one-level of a class to get pretty much all of its benefits is stupid and munchy in the first place. If you meant Ranger/Rogue is a viable combination in that sense, you'll have to pardon me if I never considered it one in the first place.

Now, also, the Rog X/Rgr X class combination is viable, though your combat style feats are a little late.

 

[dcas]

Which is a good thing. Taking one-level of a class to get pretty much all of its benefits is stupid and munchy in the first place. If you meant Ranger/Rogue is a viable combination in that sense, you'll have to pardon me if I never considered it one in the first place.

Now, also, the Rog X/Rgr X class combination is viable, though your combat style feats are a little late.

It's not "stupid" at all. It is a perfectly rational decision. It's not the player's fault that the 3.0 Ranger class is front-loaded with virtual feats.

 

[Kershek]

It's not "stupid" at all. It is a perfectly rational decision. It's not the player's fault that the 3.0 Ranger class is front-loaded with virtual feats.

You took the words right out of my mouth.