Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JeffB" data-source="post: 6623538" data-attributes="member: 518">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) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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.</blockquote>

Verification