3.0/3.5 Playtest reports [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.0/3.5 Playtest reports [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
cthulhu42
01-06-04, 06:07 PM ***Deep breath***

OK, I've held off on starting a thread like this for a long time for a couple of reasons. A) I'm sure its been done before, but I can't find it, and B) because I don't wish to start another mindless 3.0 vs 3.5 rant thread.

Heres the deal: I'm looking for specific playtest reports of 3.5 rules that many people (including myself) seem to have issues with. 3.5 has been out long enough that the rules should have been well playtested, and I'm curious to know how they have affected your game.

Here are some specifics, though you may feel free to add any that I've forgotten.

Classes In the game I'm currently playing in our rouge is a 3.5 version, and it seems to work out pretty well. We havn't tried the new ranger yet. How about the new sorcerer?

Races Our dwarf is 3.5 and the player seems to love it, especially the increased movement rate w/ armor.

Skills We're still useing 3.0 Alchemy, and not many major headaches have arrived for useing 3.5 skills with the rest of em.

Feats We're useing a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 feats. How have the changes to some of the feats affected your game? An obvious example is Spell Focus. Personaly I'm a little miffed about this one since I'm playing a wizard, and I probably won't even bother burning a feat for a +1 DC to a single school. How about the loss of the Ambidextarity feat? How about TWF feat?

Equipment Specificly the weapon sizes thing. We've decided to ignore the whole weapon size mess, but I'd like to hear reports from folks who do use it. Do you think it actualy enhances your game in any way?

Combat New flanking rules, new movement rules, etc. In general my group has stuck with 3.0 rules unless we find a real gem amongst the 3.5 stuff. If your useing 3.5 exclusivly, how has it worked for you, and please compare with 3.0 if you can.

Spells This is a big one, and I know that whole threads have gone on for pages discussing single spells and their differences between editions. We've stuck with 3.0 spell rules with a few minor house ruleings (specificly we use 3.5 Haste, and set durations for buffs, Fly and Invisibility at 10 min/level). I'm curious to know if the 1 min/level 3.5 durations on these spells have drasticly affected your games. Any real examples?

Thats plenty to chew on, though, like I said, if you can think of other catagories or other specifics, please feel free to list them.

Again, I'm not looking for heated pro/con debates, but rather reports from people who have played both versions and can report on how the changes have affected their games.

I will say that when 3.5 first arrived we bought ourselves several 3.5 PHB's and have used them where it makes sence, but overall the new PHB has not made any of us want to run out and buy the 3.5 DMG/MM. Personaly when I DM again I'll be sticking w/ 3.0 sprinkled w/ house rules, some of which will come out of 3.5.

Still, I'm very interested to hear from exclusivly 3.5 users, especially those who can compare it with 3.0.

Thanks in advance, and remember, be nice!
q'afuu
01-06-04, 08:00 PM I'll address a couple of points.

Originally posted by cthulhu42
1) How about the new sorcerer?

2) We're still useing 3.0 Alchemy, and not many major headaches have arrived for useing 3.5 skills with the rest of em.

3) Specificly the weapon sizes thing. We've decided to ignore the whole weapon size mess, but I'd like to hear reports from folks who do use it. Do you think it actualy enhances your game in any way?

4) New flanking rules, new movement rules, etc.

5) I'm curious to know if the 1 min/level 3.5 durations on these spells have drasticly affected your games. Any real examples?
1) Pretty much the same as the old sorcerer. Bluff as extra class skill is nice, but doesn't make a lot of difference. The biggest impact 3.5 has on the sorcerer comes from the spell changes.

2) Agreed. Too much conversion troubles if all those rogues had to take a spellcaster class just to be able to use it. Besides, alchemy is science, not magic.
Other skills: Tumble got worked on or more specifically, was expanded. All good, IMO. Bluff, specifically using it to feint, was changed to make feinting (a lot) harder, which I think puts it in better perspective compared to a trained fighter's skill. Scry was removed: excellent decision. I hated that skill with a passion.
There's more, but those are the ones that come to mind right now.

3) Hell yes. Wouldn't have it any other way. Finally decent weapons for small characters. No more 'this collossal dagger is actually a longsword' or whatever.

4) IMX, not that much has changed. The whole array of possible actions got simplified, which is good, but in practice not much about movement or flanking has changed. The one thing that has is the spacing for large (and larger) characters. Again, a change for the better IMO since 3.0 facing is inconsistent, while 3.5 spacing isn't. Just remember that it applies in combat, not outside of it, and that it's the amount of space taken up if possible, notthe amount of space needed.

5) How can they not have an impact? The spells went from working all day long after a certain level to not long enough to clear a medium-sized stronghold. Anyway,this is one thing I'm not getting myself into - much too heated a debate. Suffice to say that on the whole I like most spell changes and specifically the short durations for the buff spells. A lot more spells warranted being changed though.

Something not brought up yet: the new DR system. IMO, a step in the right direction. I like the flavour of needing specific materials against specific foes. Folks complain about needing a golfbag full of weapons, but it's obvious that if the DM sends you up against something without giving you access to something that can beat it, he's screwing you over, plain and simple. Besides, there aren't that many different material-related DRs and something like silver can be combined with another material through the use of silversheen. Handy stuff.

There are a lot of other small and not-so-small changes, but I hope this gives you an impression of how I feel about the revision. I use pretty much all of it, except perhaps a dozen or so changes, half of which quite minor.
cthulhu42
01-07-04, 07:03 AM Thanks for the reply. Food for thought.
Gnarl
01-07-04, 09:08 AM Classes : They're 100% playable and not that different from 3.0 after all (except for the ranger of course). As for the sorcerer, it's much much better. Being able to use successive versions of "similar" spells as you gain them makes sorcerers a lot funner to play (you can ditch sleep after 5th level, can take Summon Monster I, then two and ditch the one...).

Skills: no major change, they work pretty much the same, including alchemy. They fixed a couple of broken things (like using bluff to feint) and made some skills more explicit.

Feats: I suppose all 3.0 edition material from the various books are usable. Of course spell focus droping to +1 is a pain, but +4 with greater spell focus is way too much. Now it's a bit more balanced (if you really want to hurt -> +2, if you really want to defend against (Great Fortitude...) +2).
And even with the +1, it's still worth it. Having 5% more chances to turn opponent into a frog is wicked.

Spells: Now that's probably one of the major changes in 3.5. Whether you like the changes or not is another issue. The spells are still 100% playable but used differentely. It also makes some class a bit more attractive (like the rogue, it's kind of annoying having a wizo that can clone the hiding skill with such ease and for so much time). You just don't cast your 30 buff spells in the morning anymore.

Combat: not much to say about it. It's merly a change in terminology, they describe a bit better the special manouvers and that's about it.

Question : I haven't read the 3.5 rules on illusions, are they nearly as crap as they were in 3rd edition ? (read the rules on the different kinds of illusions very carefully and you'll notice that they suck big time.)
q'afuu
01-07-04, 09:41 AM Originally posted by Gnarl
As for the sorcerer, it's much much better. Being able to use successive versions of "similar" spells as you gain them makes sorcerers a lot funner to play (you can ditch sleep after 5th level, can take Summon Monster I, then two and ditch the one...).
I forgot to mention this (played only one sorcerer since 3.5 myself, and the class is unpopular with my players), but it is a good point. Still, it's very limited: only one spell every other level (after 4th level only), which must be 2 levels lower than the highest level spell you can cast. IOW, you can ditch Summon Monster I for II, but not before 6th level when you get to cast 3rd level spells. Looking at when a sorcerer gets new spells, that means he must have taken Summon Monster II at 4th or 5th level (or used his third level spell choice at 6th for a 2nd level spell - very unlikely). That leaves him with both summon spells for at least one level, possibly two. With the limited number of spells known, that's something I personally would want to avoid at all cost. The sorcerer is limited in diversity anyway, I want to keep him as diversified as possible.

So obviously this change helps, but the benefit is somewhat limited. Sure, I'll want to ditch Sleep at some point. But only if I can get a better Will save spell instead, and preferably without having several Will save spells taking up space in my repertoire at the same time.
q'afuu
01-07-04, 09:45 AM Originally posted by Gnarl
Question : I haven't read the 3.5 rules on illusions, are they nearly as crap as they were in 3rd edition ? (read the rules on the different kinds of illusions very carefully and you'll notice that they suck big time.) Maybe this is something for another topic (in the Spells and Magic section), but I wonder why you feel that way. I kinda like the Illusion school and can't say that I found the rules for this school to be particularly bad.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cthulhu42 01-06-04, 06:07 PM	*Deep breath* OK, I've held off on starting a thread like this for a long time for a couple of reasons. A) I'm sure its been done before, but I can't find it, and B) because I don't wish to start another mindless 3.0 vs 3.5 rant thread. Heres the deal: I'm looking for specific playtest reports of 3.5 rules that many people (including myself) seem to have issues with. 3.5 has been out long enough that the rules should have been well playtested, and I'm curious to know how they have affected your game. Here are some specifics, though you may feel free to add any that I've forgotten. Classes In the game I'm currently playing in our rouge is a 3.5 version, and it seems to work out pretty well. We havn't tried the new ranger yet. How about the new sorcerer? Races Our dwarf is 3.5 and the player seems to love it, especially the increased movement rate w/ armor. Skills We're still useing 3.0 Alchemy, and not many major headaches have arrived for useing 3.5 skills with the rest of em. Feats We're useing a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 feats. How have the changes to some of the feats affected your game? An obvious example is Spell Focus. Personaly I'm a little miffed about this one since I'm playing a wizard, and I probably won't even bother burning a feat for a +1 DC to a single school. How about the loss of the Ambidextarity feat? How about TWF feat? Equipment Specificly the weapon sizes thing. We've decided to ignore the whole weapon size mess, but I'd like to hear reports from folks who do use it. Do you think it actualy enhances your game in any way? Combat New flanking rules, new movement rules, etc. In general my group has stuck with 3.0 rules unless we find a real gem amongst the 3.5 stuff. If your useing 3.5 exclusivly, how has it worked for you, and please compare with 3.0 if you can. Spells This is a big one, and I know that whole threads have gone on for pages discussing single spells and their differences between editions. We've stuck with 3.0 spell rules with a few minor house ruleings (specificly we use 3.5 Haste, and set durations for buffs, Fly and Invisibility at 10 min/level). I'm curious to know if the 1 min/level 3.5 durations on these spells have drasticly affected your games. Any real examples? Thats plenty to chew on, though, like I said, if you can think of other catagories or other specifics, please feel free to list them. Again, I'm not looking for heated pro/con debates, but rather reports from people who have played both versions and can report on how the changes have affected their games. I will say that when 3.5 first arrived we bought ourselves several 3.5 PHB's and have used them where it makes sence, but overall the new PHB has not made any of us want to run out and buy the 3.5 DMG/MM. Personaly when I DM again I'll be sticking w/ 3.0 sprinkled w/ house rules, some of which will come out of 3.5. Still, I'm very interested to hear from exclusivly 3.5 users, especially those who can compare it with 3.0. Thanks in advance, and remember, be nice!
q'afuu 01-06-04, 08:00 PM	I'll address a couple of points. Originally posted by cthulhu42 1) How about the new sorcerer? 2) We're still useing 3.0 Alchemy, and not many major headaches have arrived for useing 3.5 skills with the rest of em. 3) Specificly the weapon sizes thing. We've decided to ignore the whole weapon size mess, but I'd like to hear reports from folks who do use it. Do you think it actualy enhances your game in any way? 4) New flanking rules, new movement rules, etc. 5) I'm curious to know if the 1 min/level 3.5 durations on these spells have drasticly affected your games. Any real examples? 1) Pretty much the same as the old sorcerer. Bluff as extra class skill is nice, but doesn't make a lot of difference. The biggest impact 3.5 has on the sorcerer comes from the spell changes. 2) Agreed. Too much conversion troubles if all those rogues had to take a spellcaster class just to be able to use it. Besides, alchemy is science, not magic. Other skills: Tumble got worked on or more specifically, was expanded. All good, IMO. Bluff, specifically using it to feint, was changed to make feinting (a lot) harder, which I think puts it in better perspective compared to a trained fighter's skill. Scry was removed: excellent decision. I hated that skill with a passion. There's more, but those are the ones that come to mind right now. 3) Hell yes. Wouldn't have it any other way. Finally decent weapons for small characters. No more 'this collossal dagger is actually a longsword' or whatever. 4) IMX, not that much has changed. The whole array of possible actions got simplified, which is good, but in practice not much about movement or flanking has changed. The one thing that has is the spacing for large (and larger) characters. Again, a change for the better IMO since 3.0 facing is inconsistent, while 3.5 spacing isn't. Just remember that it applies in combat, not outside of it, and that it's the amount of space taken up if possible, notthe amount of space needed. 5) How can they not have an impact? The spells went from working all day long after a certain level to not long enough to clear a medium-sized stronghold. Anyway,this is one thing I'm not getting myself into - much too heated a debate. Suffice to say that on the whole I like most spell changes and specifically the short durations for the buff spells. A lot more spells warranted being changed though. Something not brought up yet: the new DR system. IMO, a step in the right direction. I like the flavour of needing specific materials against specific foes. Folks complain about needing a golfbag full of weapons, but it's obvious that if the DM sends you up against something without giving you access to something that can beat it, he's screwing you over, plain and simple. Besides, there aren't that many different material-related DRs and something like silver can be combined with another material through the use of silversheen. Handy stuff. There are a lot of other small and not-so-small changes, but I hope this gives you an impression of how I feel about the revision. I use pretty much all of it, except perhaps a dozen or so changes, half of which quite minor.
cthulhu42 01-07-04, 07:03 AM	Thanks for the reply. Food for thought.
Gnarl 01-07-04, 09:08 AM	Classes : They're 100% playable and not that different from 3.0 after all (except for the ranger of course). As for the sorcerer, it's much much better. Being able to use successive versions of "similar" spells as you gain them makes sorcerers a lot funner to play (you can ditch sleep after 5th level, can take Summon Monster I, then two and ditch the one...). Skills: no major change, they work pretty much the same, including alchemy. They fixed a couple of broken things (like using bluff to feint) and made some skills more explicit. Feats: I suppose all 3.0 edition material from the various books are usable. Of course spell focus droping to +1 is a pain, but +4 with greater spell focus is way too much. Now it's a bit more balanced (if you really want to hurt -> +2, if you really want to defend against (Great Fortitude...) +2). And even with the +1, it's still worth it. Having 5% more chances to turn opponent into a frog is wicked. Spells: Now that's probably one of the major changes in 3.5. Whether you like the changes or not is another issue. The spells are still 100% playable but used differentely. It also makes some class a bit more attractive (like the rogue, it's kind of annoying having a wizo that can clone the hiding skill with such ease and for so much time). You just don't cast your 30 buff spells in the morning anymore. Combat: not much to say about it. It's merly a change in terminology, they describe a bit better the special manouvers and that's about it. Question : I haven't read the 3.5 rules on illusions, are they nearly as crap as they were in 3rd edition ? (read the rules on the different kinds of illusions very carefully and you'll notice that they suck big time.)
q'afuu 01-07-04, 09:41 AM	Originally posted by Gnarl As for the sorcerer, it's much much better. Being able to use successive versions of "similar" spells as you gain them makes sorcerers a lot funner to play (you can ditch sleep after 5th level, can take Summon Monster I, then two and ditch the one...). I forgot to mention this (played only one sorcerer since 3.5 myself, and the class is unpopular with my players), but it is a good point. Still, it's very limited: only one spell every other level (after 4th level only), which must be 2 levels lower than the highest level spell you can cast. IOW, you can ditch Summon Monster I for II, but not before 6th level when you get to cast 3rd level spells. Looking at when a sorcerer gets new spells, that means he must have taken Summon Monster II at 4th or 5th level (or used his third level spell choice at 6th for a 2nd level spell - very unlikely). That leaves him with both summon spells for at least one level, possibly two. With the limited number of spells known, that's something I personally would want to avoid at all cost. The sorcerer is limited in diversity anyway, I want to keep him as diversified as possible. So obviously this change helps, but the benefit is somewhat limited. Sure, I'll want to ditch Sleep at some point. But only if I can get a better Will save spell instead, and preferably without having several Will save spells taking up space in my repertoire at the same time.
q'afuu 01-07-04, 09:45 AM	Originally posted by Gnarl Question : I haven't read the 3.5 rules on illusions, are they nearly as crap as they were in 3rd edition ? (read the rules on the different kinds of illusions very carefully and you'll notice that they suck big time.) Maybe this is something for another topic (in the Spells and Magic section), but I wonder why you feel that way. I kinda like the Illusion school and can't say that I found the rules for this school to be particularly bad.