3.0 class books now invalid? [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.0 class books now invalid? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
quix0te
05-21-05, 02:03 PM Pretty much what the question says. Are the old 3.0 class books (Song and Silence, Sword And Fist, et. al) now no longer valid for 3.5, or are they assumed to still be good unless otherwise contradicted?
plvsman
05-21-05, 03:41 PM That's DM discretion of course. It's always been my view point that you can do one of two things. You can play it safe and just use whatever is in the current edition of the PHB you are using or you can go over to supplements. Being someone who played 1e and 2e also, I can tell you honestly supplements are not always as well balanced as they should be and many of the suggestions in them are not ideal for every campaign/setting.
The best move by the DM is to consider anything taken outside the players handbook as questionable until he's considered it and approved it. I literally take it on a feat by feat, spell by spell, skill by skill, etc basis.

That having been said many DM's have declared the 3.0 class books invalid. I for one though am open to anything as long as I'm given time to consider it and reject/modify it as need be.
Ranger REG
05-22-05, 02:17 AM That's up to the individual owners of said class guidebooks. Personally, I still find some use for it, as I have with my old AD&D resources.
Lia Nightdemon
05-22-05, 03:26 AM The dm's I play with have combined the information from 3.0 and 3.5 thus making 3.25 and if something doesn't exist in either 3.0 but in 3.5 and vice versa then the person can use the source it is from.

After all with this unlimited (it's unlimited cause Wizards keeps making new books every month) about of sources for both editions why waste them.

Which brings up the question why do people run only core games.
q'afuu
05-22-05, 03:35 AM Which brings up the question why do people run only core games. Because it's easy, there's less chance of problems popping up the DM didn't foresee and when there are changes in the group, new players/DMs know exactly what the possibilities are. Oh, and it's a lot cheaper. ;)

I don't limit my group to core only, but I know other DMs that do and their games are just as much fun.
Arrowhen
05-22-05, 04:13 AM Which brings up the question why do people run only core games.
Because adding more rules doesn't make the game more fun?
Ut-Napishtim
05-22-05, 05:03 AM The dm's I play with have combined the information from 3.0 and 3.5 thus making 3.25 and if something doesn't exist in either 3.0 but in 3.5 and vice versa then the person can use the source it is from.

After all with this unlimited (it's unlimited cause Wizards keeps making new books every month) about of sources for both editions why waste them.

Which brings up the question why do people run only core games.

Actually this is a good question to bring up. Many regard cherrypicking the rules from both 3.0 and 3.5 to be powergaming. It's something I refrain from myself, as many things were corrected in 3.5 that needed it IMHO so I stick to 3.5 stuff. Not that I would call someone a powergamer simply on that basis alone, but using 3.0 stuff makes exrtra work for a DM if he wants to maintain balance. The same thing in regards to splatbooks. The supplements are desinged to supplement the Core Rules, but are often not balanced in association with each other. Personally I allow supplemental material as long as I get the chance to review it first to catch these combos, but other DM's prefer to not worry about analyzing someone's character to make sure they haven't made an overpowered build by drawing feats, spells, and classes from half-a-dozen sources.

When you get into third-party materials it gets a lot harder. For example, I was looking over a 3.0 third-party book a couple months back that had a feat to allow casters to buff their save DC's by +4 for having Fey blood, and made all their spells Illusions for categorization purposes. Stacking that with an Illusionist in 3.5 with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus would give you a specialist caster that can cast spells from any school with a +6 (before ability modifiers) to their save DC's for every spell they cast. Most would agree that's pretty unbalancing, especially considering how many folks whine about purely core arrcanists being overpowered at higher levels. That's why many folks find it a lot easier to simply say "Core Only" and stick with that.

I like to spice my game up a little bit by allowing my players some supplemental options to round out their characters, but if as a player I heard a DM say "Core Only" I really wouldn't mind as long as his NPC's had the limitations as well. It is understandable since it simply makes things easier for the DM. Ironically I've found that generally only more experienced DM's say "Core Only," while newer ones have a tendency to go for the everything and anything approach.
Planar Wanderer
05-22-05, 05:26 AM Which brings up the question why do people run only core games.
or when they're learning, having been introduced to D&D via neverwinter nights I have a hard enough time remembering all the rules as it stands without adding more (paricularly the turning rules for clerics for some reason)

on topic: since 3.5 was an update I'd say provided you run the conversion (changing DR and such) use your 3.0 books so long as it adds to the fun you want to get a good bit of life out of them
Ranger REG
05-23-05, 05:52 AM Which brings up the question why do people run only core games.
Because that's all they need. Supplements are simply optional. A savvy gaming group can design their own PrCs, skills, and feats for their own D&D game.
Maraxus
05-23-05, 06:36 AM There is one secret, Wizards want's to be forgotten and, in fact it is already lost in some gaming groups:

All you need to roleplay is some friends, imagination, pencil, paper and some dies (the last 3 are optional). :)

The books are only there to help you gaming. The core books are rules and the expansions (class books) are content ... sugestions! They make it much easier but basicly you don't need them. And on the other hand, is you have them, you can use them, even if the rules are updated.
The sugestions might not be that good anymore but player and dm can surely make it compatibe, if they try.
75RD Drum Clip
05-23-05, 03:20 PM My group is playing version 3.25. I still use the old class books as needed, and I still have my old 1 and 2E books for reference. Many spells from older editions were left out. Like Glassteel.
AmanitaEata
05-23-05, 03:31 PM Which brings up the question why do people run only core games.
Why not? The core rules provide everything one needs to enjoy a great game of D&D, and I'm more than capable of adapting the rules to suit my needs and for special situations, thank you very much.
75RD Drum Clip
05-23-05, 03:38 PM Personally, I could not go back to playing only a Core Books campaign, I would find it too limiting. I love the PrCs.
Seeker95
05-23-05, 03:51 PM Are the old 3.0 class books (Song and Silence, Sword And Fist, et. al) now no longer valid for 3.5, or are they assumed to still be good unless otherwise contradicted?You are making two huge assumptions here...
Assumption #1: The 3.0 Class Books were at one time "valid".
Assumption #2: The 3.0 Class Books were at one time "good".
:devil:

Everyone else has provided the right answer. It is up to your DM. The only place you can guarantee they are *not* automatically accepted is RPGA.
ChimericalWolf
05-23-05, 08:11 PM For the most part, the 3.0 X and X books are carried over to the new Complete books. I would say 70-80% of the material in the older ones has been updated or just dropped in there. I would suggest you get those, use them for the most part, and have the DM update any of the stuff that isn't carried over.
DungeonMaster
05-23-05, 10:06 PM For the most part, the 3.0 X and X books are carried over to the new Complete books.
You are making two huge assumptions here...
Assumption #1: The 3.5 Complete Books were at one time "valid".
Assumption #2: The 3.5 Complete Books were at one time "good".

:angelhide
Seeker95
05-24-05, 08:22 AM You are making two huge assumptions here...
Assumption #1: The 3.5 Complete Books were at one time "valid".
Assumption #2: The 3.5 Complete Books were at one time "good".If the original poster had said "good" or "valid" as a reference to the 3.5 books, this might be humorous. :P

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
quix0te 05-21-05, 02:03 PM	Pretty much what the question says. Are the old 3.0 class books (Song and Silence, Sword And Fist, et. al) now no longer valid for 3.5, or are they assumed to still be good unless otherwise contradicted?
plvsman 05-21-05, 03:41 PM	That's DM discretion of course. It's always been my view point that you can do one of two things. You can play it safe and just use whatever is in the current edition of the PHB you are using or you can go over to supplements. Being someone who played 1e and 2e also, I can tell you honestly supplements are not always as well balanced as they should be and many of the suggestions in them are not ideal for every campaign/setting. The best move by the DM is to consider anything taken outside the players handbook as questionable until he's considered it and approved it. I literally take it on a feat by feat, spell by spell, skill by skill, etc basis. That having been said many DM's have declared the 3.0 class books invalid. I for one though am open to anything as long as I'm given time to consider it and reject/modify it as need be.
Ranger REG 05-22-05, 02:17 AM	That's up to the individual owners of said class guidebooks. Personally, I still find some use for it, as I have with my old AD&D resources.
Lia Nightdemon 05-22-05, 03:26 AM	The dm's I play with have combined the information from 3.0 and 3.5 thus making 3.25 and if something doesn't exist in either 3.0 but in 3.5 and vice versa then the person can use the source it is from. After all with this unlimited (it's unlimited cause Wizards keeps making new books every month) about of sources for both editions why waste them. Which brings up the question why do people run only core games.
q'afuu 05-22-05, 03:35 AM	Which brings up the question why do people run only core games. Because it's easy, there's less chance of problems popping up the DM didn't foresee and when there are changes in the group, new players/DMs know exactly what the possibilities are. Oh, and it's a lot cheaper. ;) I don't limit my group to core only, but I know other DMs that do and their games are just as much fun.
Arrowhen 05-22-05, 04:13 AM	Which brings up the question why do people run only core games. Because adding more rules doesn't make the game more fun?
Ut-Napishtim 05-22-05, 05:03 AM	The dm's I play with have combined the information from 3.0 and 3.5 thus making 3.25 and if something doesn't exist in either 3.0 but in 3.5 and vice versa then the person can use the source it is from. After all with this unlimited (it's unlimited cause Wizards keeps making new books every month) about of sources for both editions why waste them. Which brings up the question why do people run only core games. Actually this is a good question to bring up. Many regard cherrypicking the rules from both 3.0 and 3.5 to be powergaming. It's something I refrain from myself, as many things were corrected in 3.5 that needed it IMHO so I stick to 3.5 stuff. Not that I would call someone a powergamer simply on that basis alone, but using 3.0 stuff makes exrtra work for a DM if he wants to maintain balance. The same thing in regards to splatbooks. The supplements are desinged to supplement the Core Rules, but are often not balanced in association with each other. Personally I allow supplemental material as long as I get the chance to review it first to catch these combos, but other DM's prefer to not worry about analyzing someone's character to make sure they haven't made an overpowered build by drawing feats, spells, and classes from half-a-dozen sources. When you get into third-party materials it gets a lot harder. For example, I was looking over a 3.0 third-party book a couple months back that had a feat to allow casters to buff their save DC's by +4 for having Fey blood, and made all their spells Illusions for categorization purposes. Stacking that with an Illusionist in 3.5 with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus would give you a specialist caster that can cast spells from any school with a +6 (before ability modifiers) to their save DC's for every spell they cast. Most would agree that's pretty unbalancing, especially considering how many folks whine about purely core arrcanists being overpowered at higher levels. That's why many folks find it a lot easier to simply say "Core Only" and stick with that. I like to spice my game up a little bit by allowing my players some supplemental options to round out their characters, but if as a player I heard a DM say "Core Only" I really wouldn't mind as long as his NPC's had the limitations as well. It is understandable since it simply makes things easier for the DM. Ironically I've found that generally only more experienced DM's say "Core Only," while newer ones have a tendency to go for the everything and anything approach.
Planar Wanderer 05-22-05, 05:26 AM	Which brings up the question why do people run only core games. or when they're learning, having been introduced to D&D via neverwinter nights I have a hard enough time remembering all the rules as it stands without adding more (paricularly the turning rules for clerics for some reason) on topic: since 3.5 was an update I'd say provided you run the conversion (changing DR and such) use your 3.0 books so long as it adds to the fun you want to get a good bit of life out of them
Ranger REG 05-23-05, 05:52 AM	Which brings up the question why do people run only core games. Because that's all they need. Supplements are simply optional. A savvy gaming group can design their own PrCs, skills, and feats for their own D&D game.
Maraxus 05-23-05, 06:36 AM	There is one secret, Wizards want's to be forgotten and, in fact it is already lost in some gaming groups: All you need to roleplay is some friends, imagination, pencil, paper and some dies (the last 3 are optional). :) The books are only there to help you gaming. The core books are rules and the expansions (class books) are content ... sugestions! They make it much easier but basicly you don't need them. And on the other hand, is you have them, you can use them, even if the rules are updated. The sugestions might not be that good anymore but player and dm can surely make it compatibe, if they try.
75RD Drum Clip 05-23-05, 03:20 PM	My group is playing version 3.25. I still use the old class books as needed, and I still have my old 1 and 2E books for reference. Many spells from older editions were left out. Like Glassteel.
AmanitaEata 05-23-05, 03:31 PM	Which brings up the question why do people run only core games. Why not? The core rules provide everything one needs to enjoy a great game of D&D, and I'm more than capable of adapting the rules to suit my needs and for special situations, thank you very much.
75RD Drum Clip 05-23-05, 03:38 PM	Personally, I could not go back to playing only a Core Books campaign, I would find it too limiting. I love the PrCs.
Seeker95 05-23-05, 03:51 PM	Are the old 3.0 class books (Song and Silence, Sword And Fist, et. al) now no longer valid for 3.5, or are they assumed to still be good unless otherwise contradicted?You are making two huge assumptions here... Assumption #1: The 3.0 Class Books were at one time "valid". Assumption #2: The 3.0 Class Books were at one time "good". :devil: Everyone else has provided the right answer. It is up to your DM. The only place you can guarantee they are not automatically accepted is RPGA.
ChimericalWolf 05-23-05, 08:11 PM	For the most part, the 3.0 X and X books are carried over to the new Complete books. I would say 70-80% of the material in the older ones has been updated or just dropped in there. I would suggest you get those, use them for the most part, and have the DM update any of the stuff that isn't carried over.
DungeonMaster 05-23-05, 10:06 PM	For the most part, the 3.0 X and X books are carried over to the new Complete books. You are making two huge assumptions here... Assumption #1: The 3.5 Complete Books were at one time "valid". Assumption #2: The 3.5 Complete Books were at one time "good". :angelhide
Seeker95 05-24-05, 08:22 AM	You are making two huge assumptions here... Assumption #1: The 3.5 Complete Books were at one time "valid". Assumption #2: The 3.5 Complete Books were at one time "good".If the original poster had said "good" or "valid" as a reference to the 3.5 books, this might be humorous. :P