3.0 or 3.5 which do you play? [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.0 or 3.5 which do you play? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
bramblefoot
07-04-04, 09:53 PM I'm trying to determine what to do w/ my new game. I need to attract 2 new people to the group. So, are most people on 3 or 3.5 nowadays?
Seeker95
07-04-04, 10:11 PM You will get a better answer asking those at your local gaming store. The online crowd may not match your local community.

Further, it depends on the type of player you expect to attract. Brand new? 3.5 since they won't have 3.0 books. Older player? Probably split at or near 50-50, although if it is not even, it will be more playing 3.5 than 3.0. Availability of new material if nothing else.
elindred
07-05-04, 12:30 AM i play 3.5, and personally, i don't think i could ever go back. a lot of things were made a lot more fair and it also became easier to learn due to some clarifications and simplifications in the system.
ante_up
07-05-04, 03:43 AM I play 3rd edition.
The WarOverlord
07-05-04, 04:43 AM Originally posted by bramblefoot
I'm trying to determine what to do w/ my new game. I need to attract 2 new people to the group. So, are most people on 3 or 3.5 nowadays?

What does the Aurora D&D Game Development Tool Set/Aurora RPG Environment Gaming Engine (Neverwinter Nights) for the PC Use? :confused:

Man that was a mouthful. :D

No wonder they just named the thing after the Demonstration Campaign Module that came with it :rolleyes:

Remember "Unlimited Adventures" in the old "Gold Box Series" from SSI.......this is 10,000x better and the community is pretty huge with tons of Pen and Paper to PC conversions, Homebrews, and conversions of older P&P modules http://nwvault.ign.com/Files/modules/modulesTop3.shtml
Felonious Monk
07-05-04, 06:50 AM I play 3.0, with a couple of the modifications from 3.5 (gnome's favored class is bard, a few others) and some homebrew rules (crit fumble tables).

Call it 3.14159.
Seldarin
07-05-04, 11:46 AM I'm playing as a DM with the 3.0 rules, but all my players have 3.5.... I don't care :P
thalious
07-05-04, 11:53 AM 3.25 here.
WizO_Catoblepas
07-05-04, 12:01 PM I agree with the sentiments that the best approach is to find out what the people in your area are playing. However, at this time, our DM is palying 3.0. However, the next time I DM, I'm going to play 3.0/3.5 with a little Unearthed Arcana.
WhtKnt
07-05-04, 12:12 PM 3.75j, as it says in my sig. What it that, you might well ask (and I do get asked enough that I'm going to put it on my website one of these days)? Well, it's basically 3.5, with a number of options and house rules: We use the cover rules from 3.0, because I like the varying levels of cover that they offered
We use the vitality/wound point system from Unearthed Arcana
We use bloodlines from Unearthed Arcana
Allegiances from d20 Modern have replaced alignment, which has been removed
We use the rules for the Speak Language skill taken from Pinnacle's Weird Wars d20
We use Backgrounds from AEG's Spycraft, modified to be appropriate to D&D
Taint, freeform honor, reputation, and contacts are in use from Unearthed Arcana
Armor as DR and Defense Bonus from the same are also being used
Paladins do not exist in my game world; they have been replaced by the Divine Champion prestige class and there is one for each deity
Rangers are a prestige class; the base class has been replaced by the woodsman from Wheel of Time
I permit both psionics and psychics (from the Psychic's Handbook from Green Ronin)
I also allow nobles from the Noble's Handbook from Green Ronin
Some barbarians, depending on region, are automatically totem barbarians (see Unearthed Arcana)
I've lifted a few ideas and races from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed
Clerics do not spontaneously cast cure spells; instead, they spontaneously cast domain spells (and do not get domain bonus spells)These are a few of the more radical changes I've made.
Jecca-neko
07-05-04, 08:04 PM I use 3.5 though modified 3.0 stuff and variant rules are allowed. When my copy of Unearthed Arcana comes in that will be my friend. :D
bramblefoot
07-06-04, 10:27 PM I ordered the 3.5 set today. Seems that's what everyone in my area is running and the amazon.com prices was too good to resist. I'm kind of a sucker for books anyway.

I'm gonna probably end up running a 3.251475 or something along those lines. I'll have to get a hold of the books first to see it all. 3.5 dmg reduction does seem a bit odd tho. . . it might have to go.

So, what's the verdict on Unearthed Arcana - I've seen lots of mixed responses on it. I'll be sticking to the core stuff a good bit - that and forgotten realms. I bought that setting the day it came out then my group stopped - sheesh!
TheDarkLord
07-06-04, 10:48 PM Hmm. We play with 3.5 books. That said, we do sprinkle in some 3.0 rules, such as cover and stacking Imp. Crit. and keen. We also use some variants from Unearthed Arcana, all of the Wizard Variants (Transmuter, Abjurer, etc..), Battle Sorcerer, and the Cloister Cleric variant. So yeah, i guess i play a Hybrid game.. so oh well, do whatever you think's fine man.
Cortel2288
07-07-04, 03:04 PM I just started and are playing with 3.5 this game is so fun.
Jekler
07-08-04, 12:57 AM Our group is playing 3.5. About 6 months ago, our group tried to 'gradually' convert from 3.0 to 3.5. At first just incorporating the new progressions and rules for the classes, while still using the 3.0 spells, rules for skills, feats, weapons, and combat. After playing that way for 10 sessions, we all decided we liked almost everything about 3.5 so much better, so we switched entirely.

As for what 'most people' play, I really couldn't say. In my opinion, the majority of players probably still play 3.0, for the simple reason that they have the 3.0 books, and can't afford to replace all their books. There's 3 people in our group that don't have the 3.5 PHB. But that's not a problem for us, we just share the books with them (There's 11 people in our group and 8 PHBs to go around.)

I think our group was just unusually willing to buy the new material, because the groups that play at the gaming shop on the other 6 nights all run 3.0 games.
Darth K'Trava
07-09-04, 07:06 PM We switched entirely from 3.0 to 3.5 right when the books came out.
orcslayer
07-10-04, 02:23 PM 3.5
Duke Lupo
07-10-04, 03:54 PM 3.0 here with some small changes from 3.5. One of our players needs to replace his beat up 3.0 PHB and it is impossible to find in a used bin anywhere. Very few people around here have switched.
bahamut_0
07-10-04, 05:24 PM 3.5 will be easier as any new material coming out will be for 3.5.
TyrantOfPants
07-10-04, 05:32 PM I be playing 3.5
Jakar
07-10-04, 06:15 PM we went over to 3.5 when we first got it. Glad we did.
DungeonMaster
07-11-04, 02:54 PM 3rd edition. Never downgrading.
Jayr
07-11-04, 03:02 PM 3.25 with dashes of 2 and UA thrown in.
Seeker95
07-11-04, 03:03 PM Originally posted by DungeonMaster
3rd edition. Never downgrading. So he won't play 2nd edition. Nor will he ever join us in the 3.5 upgrade.
Kursk
07-11-04, 03:41 PM 3.0 with house rules. Looked at 3.5 but don't see any reason to switch. Would just have to make more house rules.
DungeonMaster
07-12-04, 11:28 AM Originally posted by Seeker95
So he won't play 2nd edition. Nor will he ever join us in the 3.5 upgrade.

Actually I would still play 2nd edition! I just wouldn't DM it ever again. 3.5 is not an upgrade. It would have to clearly better than 3rd edition, which it isn't in any respect.
Hell_Bane
07-12-04, 07:06 PM As a big fan of the Ranger class, I prefer 3.5...I mean, after the first few levels of the 3.0 Ranger, there wasn't much point in staying in that class instead of multi-classing. With the 3.5 Ranger, the role of the character is defined a lot better.
Seeker95
07-12-04, 08:34 PM Originally posted by DungeonMaster
It would have to clearly better than 3rd edition, which it isn't in any respect. Yes it is, in many respects. Unless you want to add an "in my opinion" to your disparagement of 3.5.

Choosing to play 3.0 over 3.5 is fine. There are many reasons to continue playing 3.0 instead of switching to 3.5, not the least of which is 3.0 is incredibly fun and if you already have the books, keep using them.

3.0 is great.
3.5 is great.

I prefer 3.5, but have no need to belittle 3.0 to justify why I play 3.5.
Edymnion
07-12-04, 09:15 PM I play 3.25.
As in, its half 3.0, half 3.5.

Majority of the spells are 3.0 (because, frankly, I do not agree with the 3.5 magic theme of "Nerf anything that has non-combat uses", see Overland Flight for an example). I use pretty much 3.5 classes, and 3.5 feats (like 3.5 TWF instead of 3.0 TWF and Ambidex). I use 3.0 skills.

And I use 3.0 Damage Reduction.
Don't like the golfbag approach, it makes it 100% pointless to EVER have a +5 weapon.

But, long story short, I run a 3.0 game with a liberal splash of 3.5. Aka, 3.25.
Count Arioch the 28th
07-13-04, 12:15 AM I mostly play an altered 3.5.

I especially love the fact that 3.5 has DR correctly. Not only does it not make +5 weapons useless, despite rumors to the contrary, it makes material Dr actually matter. I hated the +5 Munchkin ubersword that killed everything because it had so many pluses. Now, it's still a valuable weapon, because +5 to hit is valuable, and it makes it almost impossible to sunder, but you might have some problems with lycanthropes, which is how the game SHOULD be.
Edymnion
07-13-04, 12:35 AM Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th
and it makes it almost impossible to sunder, but you might have some problems with lycanthropes, which is how the game SHOULD be. Actually, I don't remember seeing anywhere in 3.5 that this was still the case, the plusses only added a bit to hardness and hp of the weapon, but an unenchanted adm sword can still sunder a +20 weapon, no sweat.

I may be wrong, but if I am, could you provide the 3.5 page number where it says "Magical weapons may only be sundered by other weapons with an equal or greater enhancement value"?
Geethree
07-13-04, 12:44 AM could you provide the 3.5 page number where it says "Magical weapons may only be sundered by other weapons with an equal or greater enhancement value"?I know this doesn't mean much, but I'm almost positive that rule does exist. My book isn't with me right now so I can't say, but maybe my opinion counts for something :behold:

I use 3.5e because I feel it's better in almost every way (except the paladin's mount! :sad: ). Even though 3.0e and 3.5e are more or less the same system, there are enough changes between them so that some people might prefer one over the other (as has obviously been illustrated here and many times before). Therefore I suggest to anybody that wants to know which one they should choose: just learn the facts, read both sets of books if you can, and decide for yourself.
Count Arioch the 28th
07-13-04, 01:37 AM Originally posted by Edymnion
Actually, I don't remember seeing anywhere in 3.5 that this was still the case, the plusses only added a bit to hardness and hp of the weapon, but an unenchanted adm sword can still sunder a +20 weapon, no sweat.

No it can't.

the +20 sword has a hardness of 20+ (Depending on the base material, I beleive steel is 10 hardness, making the least hardy +20 sword a hardness of 30), adamanatine is still affeccted by hardnesses above +15. Therefore, you need to do at least 30 damage with that hit, which is nearly impossible to do with an unenchanted sword, unless the sword is colossal, the weilder has a strength in the 60's, or both.

Plus, you are ignoring the +'s to attack, which are more valuable than simple more damage. More dmaage is useless unless you connect.

Plus, you are dancing around the fact that having a +5 sword hitting everything completely makes material DR's useless in every way.

If you play 3.0 DR rules, you are basically ignoring material DR, because it literally does not exist in a world where a 1st level cleric or wizard can cast MAgic Weapon. In fact, I bet no one would ever discover that monster have material DR, no one would know that silver harms werewolves, simply because no one would ever need to use them against them, they would have Magic Weapon cast on their weapons, as always, and fight the thing, never realizing it.

3.0 DR rules sucked, plain and simple.
Sphyre
07-13-04, 02:00 AM On the subject of sundering weapons:

3.5 DMG pg 222 states "an attacker cannot damage a weapon with an enhancement greater than his own weapon... each enhancement bonus adds 1 hp and 1 hardness..."

This was incorrect and was corrected by the errata. Replace that entire paragraph with "Each +1 enhancement adds 2 points to it's hardness and +10 hp."

A masterwork spork can eventually sunder a +20 Greatsword of Complete Brokenness if you have high enough damage to be able to break through it's hardness of 10(greatsword) + 40(enhancement) = 50. Also it will have (10 greatsword + 200 enhancement) 210 hp, so you're going to be hacking at it for quite some time if you can break that hardness.

I went through my 3.5 books and put all the eratta on post-its in there because I DM and I want the rules to back up my decisions in game - I beleive a DM should be fair to everyone, not just say "see my finger? this means no."

On the subject of versions:

I don't mind playing either version of the game. I would just as easily play a 3.0 game for old times sake as I currently play 3.5. I enjoy playing 3.5 because everything has been nerfed pretty well, save a few things. Did I say nerfed? yes. But I like it being nerfed. It allows for every class to play a partial role in the game as just the one person who wins initiative playing the entire role.

I also think that anyone who expresses their opinion as a fact of inferiority of versions needs to rethink what they are saying. I like 3.5 more but that by no means it's better than 3.0, it means that it's better for my purposes.
Count Arioch the 28th
07-13-04, 02:08 AM Thanks for the heads-up, Sphyre, that makes Edymnion's example even more ludicrous than even I thought.

I will update my copy of the SRD accordingly.

EDIT: And in editing my SRD, I stumbled acroos something even MORE interesting:

From the SRD, Magic items II, under weapon hardness and HP:
An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck.

:smirk:

Edit 2: And Sphyre, for the record, I'm not saying 3.0 rules are inferior. I AM saying that their DR rules are pretty off, they have useless DRs in there, and it bugs me. I find 3.5 DR much better.
Tevish Szat
07-13-04, 02:29 AM I play 3.1415926535897932386426433832795(etc.), pi for short!

Now to make sense of that, i play a bi of a mix. However, i embraced 3.5 even less than Edymnion did. i do not own the 3.5 core books but do use the SRD for whatt little i need. due to 3.5, i have made the following chnages to basic rules:

Half changed the DR system. i have material DRs unable to be bypassed by straight magic and changed some DR to /(material) such as fey to cold iron and fiends (all of them) to silver (Ocassionally silver and +x). When dealing with /magic DRs, i decided to leave the system be. rather than having "Magic" and "Epic" i have the full run from +1 up. so, conceivably, a particualr creature might have DR/+2 and Silver.

Yup. that half-conversion of DR was the only thing I really changed.

I do use new 3.5 books, including PRCs and Core Classes, and feats (from Complete Warrior, mostly) at my discression, but i ocassionally edit for backwards compatibility, just as i do monster sizes (not all monsters are square) from my Fiend Folio (the only monster book i know of printed with 3.5 or 3.25, as the case may be, rules)
Sphyre
07-13-04, 03:15 AM I much prefer 3.5 DR over 3.0 DR. I also think it's wise to enchant your weapon to a +2 for purposes of anti-sundering too. Note that it says enhancements add it, as opposed to being a +1 shocking flaming burst. That will have the hardness of +2 and hp of +10, but a +2 flaming burst weapon will have +4 hardness and +20 hp, making it less likely to be sundered. Not to mention... I love bonuses to hit, because without hitting, you deal no damage.

Many people have adopted this kind of DR system:

changing DR/magic to
DR/weak magic (+1)
DR/moderate magic (+3)
DR/strong magic (+5)

giving enhancements more of a purpose than just +1 to hit and damage.

Any such change though, I have not taken the time to apply to specific monsters. I'm content with the system as is. If I were to revamp the DR system I would have more partial DRs where something has DR 10/magic and DR 5/good and magic, so you can reduce the DR by having a powerful weapon but not negate it completely unless you have the right one.
Count Arioch the 28th
07-13-04, 03:47 AM You know, that's not a bad idea, actually, I might adopt that.

I'm keeping special materials how that are, though.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bramblefoot 07-04-04, 09:53 PM	I'm trying to determine what to do w/ my new game. I need to attract 2 new people to the group. So, are most people on 3 or 3.5 nowadays?
Seeker95 07-04-04, 10:11 PM	You will get a better answer asking those at your local gaming store. The online crowd may not match your local community. Further, it depends on the type of player you expect to attract. Brand new? 3.5 since they won't have 3.0 books. Older player? Probably split at or near 50-50, although if it is not even, it will be more playing 3.5 than 3.0. Availability of new material if nothing else.
elindred 07-05-04, 12:30 AM	i play 3.5, and personally, i don't think i could ever go back. a lot of things were made a lot more fair and it also became easier to learn due to some clarifications and simplifications in the system.
ante_up 07-05-04, 03:43 AM	I play 3rd edition.
The WarOverlord 07-05-04, 04:43 AM	Originally posted by bramblefoot I'm trying to determine what to do w/ my new game. I need to attract 2 new people to the group. So, are most people on 3 or 3.5 nowadays? What does the Aurora D&D Game Development Tool Set/Aurora RPG Environment Gaming Engine (Neverwinter Nights) for the PC Use? :confused: Man that was a mouthful. :D No wonder they just named the thing after the Demonstration Campaign Module that came with it :rolleyes: Remember "Unlimited Adventures" in the old "Gold Box Series" from SSI.......this is 10,000x better and the community is pretty huge with tons of Pen and Paper to PC conversions, Homebrews, and conversions of older P&P modules http://nwvault.ign.com/Files/modules/modulesTop3.shtml
Felonious Monk 07-05-04, 06:50 AM	I play 3.0, with a couple of the modifications from 3.5 (gnome's favored class is bard, a few others) and some homebrew rules (crit fumble tables). Call it 3.14159.
Seldarin 07-05-04, 11:46 AM	I'm playing as a DM with the 3.0 rules, but all my players have 3.5.... I don't care :P
thalious 07-05-04, 11:53 AM	3.25 here.
WizO_Catoblepas 07-05-04, 12:01 PM	I agree with the sentiments that the best approach is to find out what the people in your area are playing. However, at this time, our DM is palying 3.0. However, the next time I DM, I'm going to play 3.0/3.5 with a little Unearthed Arcana.
WhtKnt 07-05-04, 12:12 PM	3.75j, as it says in my sig. What it that, you might well ask (and I do get asked enough that I'm going to put it on my website one of these days)? Well, it's basically 3.5, with a number of options and house rules: We use the cover rules from 3.0, because I like the varying levels of cover that they offered We use the vitality/wound point system from Unearthed Arcana We use bloodlines from Unearthed Arcana Allegiances from d20 Modern have replaced alignment, which has been removed We use the rules for the Speak Language skill taken from Pinnacle's Weird Wars d20 We use Backgrounds from AEG's Spycraft, modified to be appropriate to D&D Taint, freeform honor, reputation, and contacts are in use from Unearthed Arcana Armor as DR and Defense Bonus from the same are also being used Paladins do not exist in my game world; they have been replaced by the Divine Champion prestige class and there is one for each deity Rangers are a prestige class; the base class has been replaced by the woodsman from Wheel of Time I permit both psionics and psychics (from the Psychic's Handbook from Green Ronin) I also allow nobles from the Noble's Handbook from Green Ronin Some barbarians, depending on region, are automatically totem barbarians (see Unearthed Arcana) I've lifted a few ideas and races from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed Clerics do not spontaneously cast cure spells; instead, they spontaneously cast domain spells (and do not get domain bonus spells)These are a few of the more radical changes I've made.
Jecca-neko 07-05-04, 08:04 PM	I use 3.5 though modified 3.0 stuff and variant rules are allowed. When my copy of Unearthed Arcana comes in that will be my friend. :D
bramblefoot 07-06-04, 10:27 PM	I ordered the 3.5 set today. Seems that's what everyone in my area is running and the amazon.com prices was too good to resist. I'm kind of a sucker for books anyway. I'm gonna probably end up running a 3.251475 or something along those lines. I'll have to get a hold of the books first to see it all. 3.5 dmg reduction does seem a bit odd tho. . . it might have to go. So, what's the verdict on Unearthed Arcana - I've seen lots of mixed responses on it. I'll be sticking to the core stuff a good bit - that and forgotten realms. I bought that setting the day it came out then my group stopped - sheesh!
TheDarkLord 07-06-04, 10:48 PM	Hmm. We play with 3.5 books. That said, we do sprinkle in some 3.0 rules, such as cover and stacking Imp. Crit. and keen. We also use some variants from Unearthed Arcana, all of the Wizard Variants (Transmuter, Abjurer, etc..), Battle Sorcerer, and the Cloister Cleric variant. So yeah, i guess i play a Hybrid game.. so oh well, do whatever you think's fine man.
Cortel2288 07-07-04, 03:04 PM	I just started and are playing with 3.5 this game is so fun.
Jekler 07-08-04, 12:57 AM	Our group is playing 3.5. About 6 months ago, our group tried to 'gradually' convert from 3.0 to 3.5. At first just incorporating the new progressions and rules for the classes, while still using the 3.0 spells, rules for skills, feats, weapons, and combat. After playing that way for 10 sessions, we all decided we liked almost everything about 3.5 so much better, so we switched entirely. As for what 'most people' play, I really couldn't say. In my opinion, the majority of players probably still play 3.0, for the simple reason that they have the 3.0 books, and can't afford to replace all their books. There's 3 people in our group that don't have the 3.5 PHB. But that's not a problem for us, we just share the books with them (There's 11 people in our group and 8 PHBs to go around.) I think our group was just unusually willing to buy the new material, because the groups that play at the gaming shop on the other 6 nights all run 3.0 games.
Darth K'Trava 07-09-04, 07:06 PM	We switched entirely from 3.0 to 3.5 right when the books came out.
orcslayer 07-10-04, 02:23 PM	3.5
Duke Lupo 07-10-04, 03:54 PM	3.0 here with some small changes from 3.5. One of our players needs to replace his beat up 3.0 PHB and it is impossible to find in a used bin anywhere. Very few people around here have switched.
bahamut_0 07-10-04, 05:24 PM	3.5 will be easier as any new material coming out will be for 3.5.
TyrantOfPants 07-10-04, 05:32 PM	I be playing 3.5
Jakar 07-10-04, 06:15 PM	we went over to 3.5 when we first got it. Glad we did.
DungeonMaster 07-11-04, 02:54 PM	3rd edition. Never downgrading.
Jayr 07-11-04, 03:02 PM	3.25 with dashes of 2 and UA thrown in.
Seeker95 07-11-04, 03:03 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster 3rd edition. Never downgrading. So he won't play 2nd edition. Nor will he ever join us in the 3.5 upgrade.
Kursk 07-11-04, 03:41 PM	3.0 with house rules. Looked at 3.5 but don't see any reason to switch. Would just have to make more house rules.
DungeonMaster 07-12-04, 11:28 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 So he won't play 2nd edition. Nor will he ever join us in the 3.5 upgrade. Actually I would still play 2nd edition! I just wouldn't DM it ever again. 3.5 is not an upgrade. It would have to clearly better than 3rd edition, which it isn't in any respect.
Hell_Bane 07-12-04, 07:06 PM	As a big fan of the Ranger class, I prefer 3.5...I mean, after the first few levels of the 3.0 Ranger, there wasn't much point in staying in that class instead of multi-classing. With the 3.5 Ranger, the role of the character is defined a lot better.
Seeker95 07-12-04, 08:34 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster It would have to clearly better than 3rd edition, which it isn't in any respect. Yes it is, in many respects. Unless you want to add an "in my opinion" to your disparagement of 3.5. Choosing to play 3.0 over 3.5 is fine. There are many reasons to continue playing 3.0 instead of switching to 3.5, not the least of which is 3.0 is incredibly fun and if you already have the books, keep using them. 3.0 is great. 3.5 is great. I prefer 3.5, but have no need to belittle 3.0 to justify why I play 3.5.
Edymnion 07-12-04, 09:15 PM	I play 3.25. As in, its half 3.0, half 3.5. Majority of the spells are 3.0 (because, frankly, I do not agree with the 3.5 magic theme of "Nerf anything that has non-combat uses", see Overland Flight for an example). I use pretty much 3.5 classes, and 3.5 feats (like 3.5 TWF instead of 3.0 TWF and Ambidex). I use 3.0 skills. And I use 3.0 Damage Reduction. Don't like the golfbag approach, it makes it 100% pointless to EVER have a +5 weapon. But, long story short, I run a 3.0 game with a liberal splash of 3.5. Aka, 3.25.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-13-04, 12:15 AM	I mostly play an altered 3.5. I especially love the fact that 3.5 has DR correctly. Not only does it not make +5 weapons useless, despite rumors to the contrary, it makes material Dr actually matter. I hated the +5 Munchkin ubersword that killed everything because it had so many pluses. Now, it's still a valuable weapon, because +5 to hit is valuable, and it makes it almost impossible to sunder, but you might have some problems with lycanthropes, which is how the game SHOULD be.
Edymnion 07-13-04, 12:35 AM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th and it makes it almost impossible to sunder, but you might have some problems with lycanthropes, which is how the game SHOULD be. Actually, I don't remember seeing anywhere in 3.5 that this was still the case, the plusses only added a bit to hardness and hp of the weapon, but an unenchanted adm sword can still sunder a +20 weapon, no sweat. I may be wrong, but if I am, could you provide the 3.5 page number where it says "Magical weapons may only be sundered by other weapons with an equal or greater enhancement value"?
Geethree 07-13-04, 12:44 AM	could you provide the 3.5 page number where it says "Magical weapons may only be sundered by other weapons with an equal or greater enhancement value"?I know this doesn't mean much, but I'm almost positive that rule does exist. My book isn't with me right now so I can't say, but maybe my opinion counts for something :behold: I use 3.5e because I feel it's better in almost every way (except the paladin's mount! :sad: ). Even though 3.0e and 3.5e are more or less the same system, there are enough changes between them so that some people might prefer one over the other (as has obviously been illustrated here and many times before). Therefore I suggest to anybody that wants to know which one they should choose: just learn the facts, read both sets of books if you can, and decide for yourself.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-13-04, 01:37 AM	Originally posted by Edymnion Actually, I don't remember seeing anywhere in 3.5 that this was still the case, the plusses only added a bit to hardness and hp of the weapon, but an unenchanted adm sword can still sunder a +20 weapon, no sweat. No it can't. the +20 sword has a hardness of 20+ (Depending on the base material, I beleive steel is 10 hardness, making the least hardy +20 sword a hardness of 30), adamanatine is still affeccted by hardnesses above +15. Therefore, you need to do at least 30 damage with that hit, which is nearly impossible to do with an unenchanted sword, unless the sword is colossal, the weilder has a strength in the 60's, or both. Plus, you are ignoring the +'s to attack, which are more valuable than simple more damage. More dmaage is useless unless you connect. Plus, you are dancing around the fact that having a +5 sword hitting everything completely makes material DR's useless in every way. If you play 3.0 DR rules, you are basically ignoring material DR, because it literally does not exist in a world where a 1st level cleric or wizard can cast MAgic Weapon. In fact, I bet no one would ever discover that monster have material DR, no one would know that silver harms werewolves, simply because no one would ever need to use them against them, they would have Magic Weapon cast on their weapons, as always, and fight the thing, never realizing it. 3.0 DR rules sucked, plain and simple.
Sphyre 07-13-04, 02:00 AM	On the subject of sundering weapons: 3.5 DMG pg 222 states "an attacker cannot damage a weapon with an enhancement greater than his own weapon... each enhancement bonus adds 1 hp and 1 hardness..." This was incorrect and was corrected by the errata. Replace that entire paragraph with "Each +1 enhancement adds 2 points to it's hardness and +10 hp." A masterwork spork can eventually sunder a +20 Greatsword of Complete Brokenness if you have high enough damage to be able to break through it's hardness of 10(greatsword) + 40(enhancement) = 50. Also it will have (10 greatsword + 200 enhancement) 210 hp, so you're going to be hacking at it for quite some time if you can break that hardness. I went through my 3.5 books and put all the eratta on post-its in there because I DM and I want the rules to back up my decisions in game - I beleive a DM should be fair to everyone, not just say "see my finger? this means no." On the subject of versions: I don't mind playing either version of the game. I would just as easily play a 3.0 game for old times sake as I currently play 3.5. I enjoy playing 3.5 because everything has been nerfed pretty well, save a few things. Did I say nerfed? yes. But I like it being nerfed. It allows for every class to play a partial role in the game as just the one person who wins initiative playing the entire role. I also think that anyone who expresses their opinion as a fact of inferiority of versions needs to rethink what they are saying. I like 3.5 more but that by no means it's better than 3.0, it means that it's better for my purposes.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-13-04, 02:08 AM	Thanks for the heads-up, Sphyre, that makes Edymnion's example even more ludicrous than even I thought. I will update my copy of the SRD accordingly. EDIT: And in editing my SRD, I stumbled acroos something even MORE interesting: From the SRD, Magic items II, under weapon hardness and HP: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. :smirk: Edit 2: And Sphyre, for the record, I'm not saying 3.0 rules are inferior. I AM saying that their DR rules are pretty off, they have useless DRs in there, and it bugs me. I find 3.5 DR much better.
Tevish Szat 07-13-04, 02:29 AM	I play 3.1415926535897932386426433832795(etc.), pi for short! Now to make sense of that, i play a bi of a mix. However, i embraced 3.5 even less than Edymnion did. i do not own the 3.5 core books but do use the SRD for whatt little i need. due to 3.5, i have made the following chnages to basic rules: Half changed the DR system. i have material DRs unable to be bypassed by straight magic and changed some DR to /(material) such as fey to cold iron and fiends (all of them) to silver (Ocassionally silver and +x). When dealing with /magic DRs, i decided to leave the system be. rather than having "Magic" and "Epic" i have the full run from +1 up. so, conceivably, a particualr creature might have DR/+2 and Silver. Yup. that half-conversion of DR was the only thing I really changed. I do use new 3.5 books, including PRCs and Core Classes, and feats (from Complete Warrior, mostly) at my discression, but i ocassionally edit for backwards compatibility, just as i do monster sizes (not all monsters are square) from my Fiend Folio (the only monster book i know of printed with 3.5 or 3.25, as the case may be, rules)
Sphyre 07-13-04, 03:15 AM	I much prefer 3.5 DR over 3.0 DR. I also think it's wise to enchant your weapon to a +2 for purposes of anti-sundering too. Note that it says enhancements add it, as opposed to being a +1 shocking flaming burst. That will have the hardness of +2 and hp of +10, but a +2 flaming burst weapon will have +4 hardness and +20 hp, making it less likely to be sundered. Not to mention... I love bonuses to hit, because without hitting, you deal no damage. Many people have adopted this kind of DR system: changing DR/magic to DR/weak magic (+1) DR/moderate magic (+3) DR/strong magic (+5) giving enhancements more of a purpose than just +1 to hit and damage. Any such change though, I have not taken the time to apply to specific monsters. I'm content with the system as is. If I were to revamp the DR system I would have more partial DRs where something has DR 10/magic and DR 5/good and magic, so you can reduce the DR by having a powerful weapon but not negate it completely unless you have the right one.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-13-04, 03:47 AM	You know, that's not a bad idea, actually, I might adopt that. I'm keeping special materials how that are, though.