The older I get, the more I appreciate 3.0

[JeffB]

The core books anyway. I much prefer it over 3.5 and PF as written.

Yes it has some warts that needed fixing on the character and spells side of things..dead levels, the 'H" spells, some weird feat trees/taxes, too many skills, I have found most of them to be easily fixed, either with a patch from 3.5/PF or house rules. Easier to fix than adopting so many more changes that were done in 3.5. Thats all IMO, IME, of course.

On the DM side I much prefer it for the following reasons.

Weapon sizes make more sense and are less complicated to deal with. Wait, is that a small greatsword?, or a medium longsword?

Damage Resistance- the numbers are high-probably too high in many cases, BUT it eliminates a big chunk of the "golfbag full of weapons" issue with 3.5 and PF. In addition, I feel DR for creatures like skeletons (1/2 damage if using piercing/slashing) works better than a fixed number. It helps out lower level characters so they can usually at least rack up a point or two without feeling completely worthless-I have found DR/5 in 3.5/PF results in alot of disappointment from hits that do nothing most rounds. 5E I think has the best system though (reward bludgeoners-instead of penalizing piercing/slashing)

Easy peasy monster advancement-not as detailed, but if you need a big tough goblin, its much easier than 3.5 and easy to do on the fly/in your head.

Calculating XP is less complicated. PF wins here, but 3.0 is still better than the convoluted mess of 3.5.

The Monster Manual- Besides having the better cover of the two (3.0/3.5) It is easier to use at the table. No, Flatfooted and touch AC is not pre-calculated, but every entry includes a detailed description of unique abilities/qualities/traits. For example- in 3.5 a Skeleton says- Undead traits- then you go look that up. In 3.0, the Undead traits are described right there- immune to poison, crits, blah blah. You can crack open the 3.0 MM and flip to a page run an encounter with less need to reference elsewhere.

DMG- In general not fan of Monte's DMG ( way too much "Well, you can break that rule if you want, but here is why your game will suck if you do, I wouldn't do that if I were you'), BUT it's NPC tables are far more useful for pulling out a quick NPC on the fly. The 3.5 tables required way too much prep work beforehand.

In retrospect, I look more fondly back at 3.0 and see that it is closer to AD&D in many respects, and with a just a few house rules, cleans up nicely. At least for me. I didn't love 3.0 rules back in the day and 3.5 drove me away from D&D, and now I understand even more- there seems to be a great amount of change for change's sake or to conform to the (then) new business need.

 

[Celebrim]

It seems more and more people are noticing just how big of a down grade 3.5 was. I'm still playing a 3.0 derived version (probably as close to 3.0 as pathfinder is to 3.5).

3.5 took everything that was wrong with 3.0 and broke it. For example, one of the many things wrong with 3.0 is how complicated in play shapechanging could be. So what did 3.5 do? Make shapechanging even more abusable, and from lower level (compare 3.5 alter self to 3.0, for example). Another problem is how complicated high level play is, so 3.5 rather than dialing back the power level ramped everything up - monsters of a given CR are more powerful, PC's of a given level are more powerful, all the numbers are bigger and have more sources.

And tons of things that aren't broken in 3.0 - say Blasphemy/Holy Word - are utterly and completely broken in 3.5. So instead of errata of a few known issues - say Haste and Harm - 3.5 ended up being lots of completely unplaytested changes for no apparent purpose. It was literally like someone was allowed to import their untested house rules into the game. It was the sort of stuff that at the time, I was busy explaining to new rules smiths why it was a bad idea on the old D&D house rules EnWorld forum and then all the sudden it was canon.

 

[Parmandur]

I started playing in the 3.5 era, but in reality we we were laying some 3.25 hybrid house rule amalgam.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

3E was the edition we had to have. While 4E remains my preferred edition, 3E was the one that really dared to break with a lot of the crap behind Gygaxian D&D and provide some basic game design logic. Perfect? No. But very necessary for the survival of the game.

And, I agree with some of the other comments or at least what they imply: 3.5E was a lost opportunity to refine a pretty good system.

 

[Ranes]

Out of habit, I refer to the edition I prefer to play as 3.5, because I did take on board a fair amount from 3.5 that actually made sense to me (and I tried other elements that didn't appear as wonky at first as they eventually did). Certainly, I wasn't happy that when I heard WotC was going to release 3.5; I thought a less heavy-handed approach to fixing problems would have been a better approach. When I look at the game I play now, it's much more 3.[cough]. I agree with almost everything said above.

But overall, I still love third edition.

 

[gamerprinter]

I never actually played 3.0, as I was still playing 2e, for the first 4 years or so of the release 3x. Really the first time I looked at 3x, as about a year after 3.5 showed up. Now some of the players in our group had and were using both 3.0 and 3.5 books in the same game (as they did really understand the difference.) So when Pathfinder showed up, I didn't have any existing loyalty to 3x or WotC, per se. I jumped onto PF at Beta and never turned back. So unlike many D&D fans, I basically missed out on the transition 3.0 - I have no opinion of 3.0.

 

[Dimitri Mazieres]

I was quite upset when 3.5 was announced so (relatively) quickly after 3.0. Even more so after learning about some of the purposed changes (new ranger? Cool! Changing how weapon sizes work? What the hell?!) but, eventually I got used to it.

Anyways, I think it could be enlightening to re read Monte Cook's thoughts about 3.5 back in 2003.

 

[Random Bystander]

I was quite upset when 3.5 was announced so (relatively) quickly after 3.0. Even more so after learning about some of the purposed changes (new ranger? Cool! Changing how weapon sizes work? What the hell?!) but, eventually I got used to it.

Anyways, I think it could be enlightening to re read Monte Cook's thoughts about 3.5 back in 2003.

Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains. You still have to be 17th level to make a 1st-level pearl of power.

Caster level pre-requisites were an error? By induction, then:

* The requirement of being a caster to create a magic item is an error. All that is needed is for the requisite spells to be cast.
** Spell casting services can be hired: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell
** Alternately, item(s) which cast the required spell(s) can be used.

Edit: By induction of these:
* The donor of the experience for the item does not need to be the character(s) casting required spell(s), and most likely won't be any item(s) casting required spell(s).
** Thus, a non-caster can create a magic item (with appropriate assistance or tools), create magic items using their own experience, and thus take advantage of reduced pricing for creating their own magic items (plus the price of assistance).

Additional edit: Two price-point checks imply that this makes no difference in the final price of the item, as the cost of spellcasting services makes up for the reduction in cost of paying for the experience points. I shall stop editing here, for simplicity's sake.

We can then estimate, using the rules on reducing magic item costs by using restrictions: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#otherConsiderations
* Between Spell Trigger and Continuous/At-Will, a Spell Effect of "50 Charges, Triggered Spell; Caster Level x Spell Level x 1,000 gp; Wand of Fireball, Usable by Any".

Thus, one of the most major weaknesses of non-casters, the inability to neither create magic items nor use any but the most expensive magic items, may be entirely resolved by the removal and extrapolation from said removal, of this error.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I remember that one of my players at the time wanted to use the 3.5 ranger, and that I had thoughts about change for the sake of change, much like you. ~12 years later though, 3.0 and 3.5 tend to blur together in my mind. I remember that the ranger went from d10 to d8 HD (I think) and got more goodies, but it's been long enough that I can't remember the difference with most of the changes:

Weapon sizes make more sense and are less complicated to deal with. Wait, is that a small greatsword?, or a medium longsword?

Oy, I can't even remember what the difference was, let alone which one worked which way!

Damage Resistance- the numbers are high-probably too high in many cases, BUT it eliminates a big chunk of the "golfbag full of weapons" issue with 3.5 and PF.

Personally, I favor the 'Each +1 bypasses 5 points of DR/magic' house rule, with the higher DR values. Best of both worlds, IMO.

Yes it has some warts that needed fixing on the character and spells side of things..dead levels, the 'H" spells, some weird feat trees/taxes, too many skills, I have found most of them to be easily fixed, either with a patch from 3.5/PF or house rules. Easier to fix than adopting so many more changes that were done in 3.5. Thats all IMO, IME, of course.

And some of them I'm totally blanking on. Don't even remember there being a difference at all, for whatever reason:

Easy peasy monster advancement-not as detailed, but if you need a big tough goblin, its much easier than 3.5 and easy to do on the fly/in your head.

DMG- In general not fan of Monte's DMG ( way too much "Well, you can break that rule if you want, but here is why your game will suck if you do, I wouldn't do that if I were you'), BUT it's NPC tables are far more useful for pulling out a quick NPC on the fly. The 3.5 tables required way too much prep work beforehand.

Calculating XP is less complicated. PF wins here, but 3.0 is still better than the convoluted mess of 3.5.

How did 3.0 do xp? I don't remember monsters having static xp values between 2e and 4e/PF.

The Monster Manual- Besides having the better cover of the two (3.0/3.5) It is easier to use at the table. No, Flatfooted and touch AC is not pre-calculated, but every entry includes a detailed description of unique abilities/qualities/traits. For example- in 3.5 a Skeleton says- Undead traits- then you go look that up. In 3.0, the Undead traits are described right there- immune to poison, crits, blah blah. You can crack open the 3.0 MM and flip to a page run an encounter with less need to reference elsewhere.

That's certainly a plus!

 

[ksbsnowowl]

I remember that one of my players at the time wanted to use the 3.5 ranger, and that I had thoughts about change for the sake of change, much like you. ~12 years later though, 3.0 and 3.5 tend to blur together in my mind. I remember that the ranger went from d10 to d8 HD (I think) and got more goodies, but it's been long enough that I can't remember the difference with most of the changes:

Most of the changes had to do with the core spells. Bull's Strength, et al; Heal and Harm, Haste; Holy Word, et al.

Condensing the skill list and altering the Ranger were the other big items, as well as adding feats to Core that had previously been published in the 3.0 splat books, as well as the FRCS.

Also, Sorcerers and Bards didn't get to swap out spells as they leveled to 4th, 6th, 8th, etc. Once you picked a spell known, you had it forever.

How did 3.0 do xp? I don't remember monsters having static xp values between 2e and 4e/PF.

I forget the exact specifics at this point, but it was basically:
- Determine average party level
- Determine how much XP total should be awarded to a party of that level (& PC number) based on the CR/EL
- Divide the total XP by the number of players; that's how much they get

Basically, it didn't matter if there was one 5th level PC in a party where everyone else was 7th level; you all got the same XP. There was no "XP is a river," stuff that gave more XP to lower-level PC's.

 

[delericho]

Caster level pre-requisites were an error? By induction, then...

Thus, one of the most major weaknesses of non-casters, the inability to neither create magic items nor use any but the most expensive magic items, may be entirely resolved by the removal and extrapolation from said removal, of this error.

There's a big problem with this reasoning: they still need the appropriate Crafting feat, and those still require a certain Caster Level to acquire and use. Sorry.

 

[Random Bystander]

There's a big problem with this reasoning: they still need the appropriate Crafting feat, and those still require a certain Caster Level to acquire and use. Sorry.

If caster level requirements to make magic items were "an error", then it stands to reason that statement applies to caster level requirements to attain the feats needed to make magic items.

Short of Monte Cook showing up in this thread and explaining what he meant by "an error", we are left only with the semantics for interpretation. And "caster level requirements to make magic items were 'an error'", to summarize, logically applies, at minimum, to any 'artificial' caster level requirement to make a magic item. From that, the chain of logic follows as stated, and the only caster level requirements are the ability to cast, or access to, the needed spells.

However, Monte Cook may not have meant something that all-encompassing, and may have only meant, as you state, "caster level requirements...on the actual magic items themselves...were 'an error'".

While I think the game would be enhanced by my chain of logic, that is far from being authoritative.

 

[delericho]

If caster level requirements to make magic items were "an error", then it stands to reason that statement applies to caster level requirements to attain the feats needed to make magic items.

Monte specifies that it's a mistake in the 3.0e DMG. The feat descriptions are in the PHB.

Edit: And, in fact, Monte addresses the very point here.

That means it's possible to have a caster level of a rod lower than 9, even though you have to be 9th level to use the Craft Rod feat.

 

[Random Bystander]

Monte specifies that it's a mistake in the 3.0e DMG. The feat descriptions are in the PHB.

Edit: And, in fact, Monte addresses the very point here.

* Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains. You still have to be 17th level to make a 1st-level pearl of power.

Hmm...Yes, he does specify only the DMG.

The only relevant thing he seems to address in that post is that, although you have to have a certain caster level to create certain magic items and have the right item creation feat, which comes with its own caster level requirement, you may still create that item at a lower caster level, provided the item itself does not specify otherwise.

I shall review this later; I did not get a good night's sleep last night.

 

[delericho]

It's perhaps worth noting that there appears to be some debate on whether that Caster Level requirement was a mistake or not - in one of his "Rules of the Game" columns, Skip Williams (one of the other members of the 3e core design) reiterates the need for the right caster level. That suggests that possibly it was Monte who felt it was a mistake but that he was out-voted. Or perhaps not - WotC could have changed their minds in between, or SW could have simply been stating his interpretation of what the rules said, or...

FWIW, neither the "Rules Compendium" nor the "Magic Item Compendium" seem to say anything at all on the topic. I might have missed something, of course.

 

[Random Bystander]

It's perhaps worth noting that there appears to be some debate on whether that Caster Level requirement was a mistake or not - in one of his "Rules of the Game" columns, Skip Williams (one of the other members of the 3e core design) reiterates the need for the right caster level. That suggests that possibly it was Monte who felt it was a mistake but that he was out-voted. Or perhaps not - WotC could have changed their minds in between, or SW could have simply been stating his interpretation of what the rules said, or...

FWIW, neither the "Rules Compendium" nor the "Magic Item Compendium" seem to say anything at all on the topic. I might have missed something, of course.

It would be interesting, perhaps, to view an alternate Earth where the new edition happened in 2005/2006 as planned (presumably called "4th edition"; summerizable as AU4th, I guess), followed probably by an AU5th somewhere in the 2010/2011/2012. That the course of the previous and current editions may be entirely due to the premature release of D&D 3.5 in 2003.

That is, the primary complaint about 3.5 was that it was not balanced; the primary complaint about about 4.0 was that it went too far from D&D's roots. That, then, 4.0 was intended to be very balanced, and 5.0 is intended to encompass those roots. If, instead of 3.5 in 2003, a balanced AU4th was released in 2005/2006, the entire history of D&D for the last twelve years, and probably a notable portion of the RPG hobby for the same period, would be different.

For better or worse? That, I can't say. Probably, "yes".

 

[ksbsnowowl]

Regardless of what Monte Cook may have written 12 years ago, the DMG errata addresses the subject:

Caster Level Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 215
Problem: The last two sentences in the section on Caster Level are ambiguous and potentially misleading.
Solution: Replace with this text: For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.

Basically, the listed caster level for each item is just the caster level for the effects of the item that is randomly generated. It is not a pre-req, and any item made by the PC's will have its CL determined by the creator (presumably no higher than his own CL).

 

[delericho]

It would be interesting, perhaps, to view an alternate Earth where the new edition happened in 2005/2006 as planned

Indeed.

If, instead of 3.5 in 2003, a balanced AU4th was released in 2005/2006, the entire history of D&D for the last twelve years, and probably a notable portion of the RPG hobby for the same period, would be different.

That history would indeed have been significantly different. Though how different would also depend on WotC's handling of the OGL with AU4th and also what they did with the magazines (did they spin out Paizo at all, did they renew the license after 5 years, etc).

But I have some concerns whether it's actually possible to produce a balanced AU4th on the top of the 3e engine. As far as I can see, it has some fundamental issues (notably surrounding high-level play, multiclassing, magic item creation, and especially caster supremacy) that potentially make it impossible to balance. It seems to me that Pathfinder has gone some way to fixing some of the issues, while both 4e and 5e dealt with them by changing some of the foundations; but 16 years on it doesn't look like anyone has really gotten to the bottom of all the problems.

 

[Staffan]

If caster level requirements to make magic items were "an error", then it stands to reason that statement applies to caster level requirements to attain the feats needed to make magic items.

Short of Monte Cook showing up in this thread and explaining what he meant by "an error", we are left only with the semantics for interpretation. And "caster level requirements to make magic items were 'an error'", to summarize, logically applies, at minimum, to any 'artificial' caster level requirement to make a magic item. From that, the chain of logic follows as stated, and the only caster level requirements are the ability to cast, or access to, the needed spells.

However, Monte Cook may not have meant something that all-encompassing, and may have only meant, as you state, "caster level requirements...on the actual magic items themselves...were 'an error'".

While I think the game would be enhanced by my chain of logic, that is far from being authoritative.

This is how it's supposed to work. I'll use 3.5 items because the 3.5 SRD is readily available online, but the principle is the same for 3.0. Take the amulet of the planes:

CL 15th; Craft Wondrous Item, plane shift; Price 120,000 gp.

If you find an amulet of the planes as random treasure, or buy one, the caster level is 15th. However, that is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisites are the ones listed as prerequisites: the Craft Wondrous Item feat, and the plane shift spell. These in turn give you virtual prerequisites of 3rd and 9th level, because CWI has 3rd level as a prerequisite, and plane shift is a 5th level spell. If a 10th level PC acquired the resources to make this item, they could, and it would have a caster level of 10.

Let's look at another item, the amulet of natural armor:

CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, barkskin, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), or 50,000 gp (+5).

Again, being 5th level is not a prerequisite. However, this item does call out a level-based prerequisite, so in order to make an amulet of natural armor +3 you need to be 9th level.

 

[nijineko]

hmmm, i find that i prefer 3.x over 3.0. so that would mean all 3.5 content plus all non-updated 3.0 content.

though i find i do like certain specific examples of 3.0 content over 3.5 content.

in my games, i'll even include 2e or 1e or b/e things on occasion under the guise of an antique magic item/spell, or primitive race, etc. i find it amusing to occasionally toss something like an old-style scroll of fireball spell in there and watch the players blow themselves up.


in my case, i usually play psionics, and rules-wise the 3.5 system is the better system for psionics, imo, of all the versions of psionics from various editions. besides which, the 3.5 dark sun was quite handy and useful, despite mostly focusing on spell casters (?!).