Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pblogic 03-14-04, 09:48 PM	Could someone point me towards a FAQ that gives the differences between the 2? My second question is, in the opionion of those here, is it worth upgrading to 3.5 if I already have 3.0 core books + 3.0 forgotten realms.
Chosen of Palm 03-14-04, 09:52 PM	Personally, 3.5 is not that good to deserve ditching your already paid for 3.0 books IMO.
q'afuu 03-14-04, 10:33 PM	You can find a chapter-by-chapter overview of the changes here (http://www.users.bigpond.com/steven_cooper/dnd/dnd-revised.htm). To be clear: that's not my work. No credit for me. ;) As for it being worth changing: I like 3.5 better and so does most of my group. I bought the books, several of my players didn't. They use their old books and the SRD. That works just fine. You don't have to pay to be able to change if you already have the 3.0 books, unless you prefer actually owning the 3.5 books.
pblogic 03-14-04, 10:34 PM	Can I get some more info/opinions? I really want to know also: Are all the other books upgraded to 3.5? like are the forgotten realm source books taht are being printed now all 3.5? Or will have to download a bunch of stupid web enhancments and spend tons of time trying to sort through new rules and have all obsolete books. I have to say, I think 3.5 was a bad idea, but im sure no one cares, it's here to stay
pblogic 03-14-04, 10:36 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu You can find a chapter-by-chapter overview of the changes here (http://www.users.bigpond.com/steven_cooper/dnd/dnd-revised.htm). To be clear: that's not my work. No credit for me. ;) As for it being worth changing: I like 3.5 better and so does most of my group. I bought the books, several of my players didn't. They use their old books and the SRD. That works just fine. You don't have to pay to be able to change if you already have the 3.0 books, unless you prefer actually owning the 3.5 books. No I don't really care that much about actually owning the books. Does the SRD detail all the changes? personally if they are just balance changes I dont even need them, I balance on my own. What I am really concerned with is this: What about all the future supplments being printed? are they compatible with 3.0 or do they require 3.5? I mean new supplements and adventures? Thanks!
q'afuu 03-14-04, 10:45 PM	Everything released after 3.5 is and will be 3.5. Some of the 3.0 books have basic guides you can use to update them - you can find them here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a). Personally, I see very few compatibility issues. Using 3.5 supplements for 3.0 games should be possible with a minimum of trouble changing a few things left and right. There's certainly no absolute 'need' to use the 3.5 rules if you want to get use out of the 3.5 supplements.
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger 03-14-04, 10:57 PM	If you don't own the 3.0e books then I personally would say go buy the 3.5e ones. But if you do own the 3.0e books, I would just use the SRD and maybe post it notes in the book if you don't want to actully write in it if you don't want to spend the money to buy a complete set of 3.5 books. What they did change is that they did some changes to the classes and abilities, especially the ranger which I personally like much better in 3.5 now. Also they got rid of partial actions but in reality they just made partial into either an action or movement, which, is pretty much all a partial was. They also changed a couple spells around making some less broken and added more spells. The Monster Manual they made the monsters more even and also they have gotten rid of DR -/+1, +2, etc. And changed it to something like DR -/Magic. Making bypassing DR easier. In my opinion it is slightly better than 3.0 but if your completely happy with 3.0 then no reason to change. Go to the 3.5 SRD and look at it and decide for yourself.
pblogic 03-15-04, 12:25 AM	Well, the only thing that is bothering me is that the SRD says that it doesnt list ALL of the changes... hmmmm maybe I should just forget it and go back to 2nd ed lol Seriously though, are there newer versions of all the other books? Like FR campaign setting? and manual of the planeS? and all the character books? If not, then what so I have to do to use those with 3.5?
BruteForce 03-15-04, 12:50 AM	Originally posted by pblogic Seriously though, are there newer versions of all the other books? No; the changes are small enough that there's no real need to update every book out there. Besides, it would be prohibitively expensive for both WotC and the players alike. Originally posted by pblogic Like FR campaign setting? and manual of the planeS? and all the character books? There's an updated version of the FRCS that's supposed to be out soon, but it's not so much a re-release of the old book with the new rules as it is a support book that also includes a lot of material on converting the existing FR material to 3.5. click here (http://search.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/fracc/886470000) for more on that... As far as Manual of the Planes, a lot of the info from that is in the 3.5 DM's Guide now, and what isn't is the kind of stuff that, like most 3.0 stuff, works just fine in 3.5 with little or no effort (okay, technically even the stuff that got moved to the DMG didn't change -- they just wanted to put it in a core rulebook instead of a supplement). As far as I know, there are no plans to update that one. In fact, the only book that I know is getting an actual 3.5 overhaul is the Psionics Handbook. No word on any splatbooks getting 3.5 facelifts, but Complete Warrior basically serves the same function as Sword & Fist did -- though it's a little more of a general-use book on combat for all classes that borrows heavily from Sword & Fist than a true "splatbook" specifically made for fighters and monks. Actually, I've found it very useful for my cleric/wizard. Originally posted by pblogic If not, then what so I have to do to use those with 3.5? Most of the time, nothing at all. Like a few others have said, the change from 3.0 to 3.5 wasn't all that sweeping -- just a lot of little tweaks here and there. To be honest, you can pretty much use supplements for the two versions interchangably, without even noticing the difference most of the time. The only books that can't really be mixed and matched are the core books themselves.
pblogic 03-15-04, 01:10 AM	Thanks very much for the info. I highly doubt I will upgrade. 3rd ed. works just fine for me, and I already have my own changed for rangers and bards. They have never fit my conception of them, so theres no reason for me to care about those changes. As long as I can use all of the supplements that come out with my 3rd books I will be happy. Can I assume this should be easy for the most part?
BruteForce 03-15-04, 03:04 AM	For the most part; there may be a few descrepencies here and there, but it shouldn't be a major issue. There's a reason it's called "D&D 3.5" and not "D&D Fourth Edition," after all...
GewdThyme the Foolhardy 03-15-04, 06:41 AM	You could always do what I did and download the 3.5 SRD and play DnD 3.25 ;) If you want to check out some ofthe changes here is a link to an on-line SRD you can skim through. http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/home.html
Taurren 03-15-04, 04:17 PM	Not wanting to start a fight, but in the opinion of many players, the changes in 3.5 were significant and troublesome enough that they wont play the newest edition because of them. Your own personal opinion is the only one that counts, so borrow the books from someone else or check out the SRD before you buy.
adiaven 03-15-04, 04:29 PM	3.5 is a great update. It is backwards compatible with the source books (FRCS, etc). It is better balanced (fixed haste and other broken spells and tactics), much easier and simpler to play by (no more partial actions!!), and has some nice new feats and other additions.
Mister Mayhem 03-15-04, 05:21 PM	Originally posted by Taurren Not wanting to start a fight, but in the opinion of many players, the changes in 3.5 were significant and troublesome enough that they wont play the newest edition because of them. And in the opinion of other players, 3.0 was seriously flawed and in need of a revision, and they refuse to play the flawed 3.0 version because of that. Every story has (at least) two sides. I reccomend that you follow the link q'afuu posted, (its the same as the "Just the facts" link in my sig) to get a true, purely factual review of the differences. Then make up your own mind. For at the end of the day, this isn't an exact science. "Better" is purely in the eye of the beholder, and when two such beholders disagree, that doesn't necessarily mean either of them is right or wrong.
Dragon Snack 03-15-04, 05:54 PM	You're right Mister Mayhem, they are both flawed... I make no bones about NOT liking 3.5 (although I do like the new Barbarian, Ranger, and Damage Reduction), but I also play two 3.5 games and I'm wrapping up a 3.5 game I DM (I DM a 3.0 game also). But PLEASE, STOP saying it's compatable! That is a joke. There are enough changes that it often leads to problems. One of my 3.5 groups has players who only have the 3.0 PHB and we are constantly running into problems. Sure, one of them plays a Cleric and it's usually a problem with a spell, but that's one of the big 4 classes. If that isn't compatable, then it's not compatable. End of story. Thankfully neither of them is playing a Wizard or Sorcerer... 3.0 has it's flaws (I was happy about the revision before I saw it), but so does 3.5. If you have already fixed 3.0 to your satisfaction, just pick and choose some gems from the 3.5 SRD.
q'afuu 03-15-04, 05:57 PM	You can't use a spell in the game without knowing about it on beforehand. Your character has to prepare it, pray for it or at least learn it before he can use it. It's dead easy to take a quick look at the SRD and check if it's changed or not.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-15-04, 10:01 PM	I'm gonna chime in here and say that the major compatability issues are in the core books. The newer books using the revised 3e system (sorry 3.5 is just a damned stupid name) are fairly compatable with the 3e system. You may have to get the SRD to back track a few feats etc that have changed but for the most part I have yet to have a major issue. But then again I play my own Psychotic and Eclectic amalgam fo rules so YMMV
pblogic 03-15-04, 10:07 PM	So, overall is it easy or hard to use the SRD ?
pblogic 03-15-04, 10:25 PM	Thanks for all the input. This has been a process of discovery for me. Contrary to my original inentions I think I am going to get 3.5 My main concern in this: I want to run the core adventures, will this be hard to do using 3.5 rules?
Taurren 03-15-04, 10:34 PM	Since there are no "Core" adventures for 3.5, that might be a little more trouble for you. The question of "is it easy or hard to use the SRD" is dependant on how well you work either with files on your computer or hard copy. I print virtually everything I download so that I can keep a physical copy and make notes. For me, I had to work with a physical copy of the SRD in order to properly figure out what had changed. It was easy to work with the SRD. I agree with Mister Mayhem that every story has 2 sides. Some people like the changes, and as he said, q'afuu's link to "Just the Facts" is a great place to start. But in IMHO in the end it comes down to how the changes in 3.5 effect you and your players. For my group it had a major impact with little benefit, and the time and effort needed to properly (again IMHO) convert the 3E material to 3.5 was not worth the effort.
J. Grenemyer 03-15-04, 11:30 PM	Hello pblogic, Originally posted by pblogic I want to run the core adventures, will this be hard to do using 3.5 rules? No, it shouldn't be hard for you at all. I've been using the Adventure Path series of adventures (which is what I think you mean by "Core Adventures") in my 3.5 Forgotten Realms game without any problems or conversion headaches. I'd go so far as to say what little you will have to convert will serve as good practice for learning the differences between the two sets of rules. Also, if you're looking for good 3.5 adventures to use, the best (and cheapest) source is Dungeon Magazine. Good Luck! :D
pblogic 03-16-04, 04:42 AM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Hello pblogic, No, it shouldn't be hard for you at all. I've been using the Adventure Path series of adventures (which is what I think you mean by "Core Adventures") in my 3.5 Forgotten Realms game without any problems or conversion headaches. I'd go so far as to say what little you will have to convert will serve as good practice for learning the differences between the two sets of rules. Also, if you're looking for good 3.5 adventures to use, the best (and cheapest) source is Dungeon Magazine. Good Luck! :D By the core adventures I mean, the sunless citadel, speaker in dreams etc. If many of the changes are class/spell based I dont see why it should be hard at all. As far as monsters go, I can just use the entry in the monster manual rather than in the adventure. I'm not sure why it would be hard. I decided to order the 3.5 books. I did not want to deal with the SRD even in printed form. Now I just wish I could get a copy of the new forgotten realms supplement. Also, is City of the Spider queen 3? or 3/5?
J. Grenemyer 03-16-04, 01:03 PM	Hello pblogic, Originally posted by pblogic By the core adventures I mean, the sunless citadel, speaker in dreams etc. Yup, those are all part of the Adventure Path series. Originally posted by pblogic If many of the changes are class/spell based I dont see why it should be hard at all. As far as monsters go, I can just use the entry in the monster manual rather than in the adventure. I'm not sure why it would be hard. Exactly. Having the revised Monster Manual on hand will pretty much cover all your needs when using the Adventure Path books. Originally posted by pblogic Also, is City of the Spider queen 3? or 3/5? CotSQ is written for 3.0, for which the free Monster Update download I mentioned (in your other thread) covers most of the creatures in that book. However, there are a TON of classed NPC's in that book, which haven't been updated. For what it's worth: I am currently running CotSQ for my 3.5 Forgotten Realms game. I pretty much run all the NPC's as written (which is to say I don't convert them to 3.5) and haven't had any problems. Have a nice day!
pblogic 03-16-04, 02:45 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Hello pblogic, Yup, those are all part of the Adventure Path series. Exactly. Having the revised Monster Manual on hand will pretty much cover all your needs when using the Adventure Path books. CotSQ is written for 3.0, for which the free Monster Update download I mentioned (in your other thread) covers most of the creatures in that book. However, there are a TON of classed NPC's in that book, which haven't been updated. For what it's worth: I am currently running CotSQ for my 3.5 Forgotten Realms game. I pretty much run all the NPC's as written (which is to say I don't convert them to 3.5) and haven't had any problems. Have a nice day! Thanks, for the tips and the patience. I know i've been asking alot, but I think I have it all cleared up now. Also, thanks for pointing out that you didnt convert npc's That seems like a GREAT solution to me personally. I mean, even if it is 3.0 it is still d20 so just leaving npc's alone will just make them a little unique. Which is FINE!. I actually like the idea of the NPC's and PC's classes being a little different I went ahead and ordered the 3 book giftset and am looking forward to reading throught it this weekend!
J. Grenemyer 03-16-04, 03:34 PM	Hello pglogic, Originally posted by pblogic That seems like a GREAT solution to me personally. I mean, even if it is 3.0 it is still d20 so just leaving npc's alone will just make them a little unique. Which is FINE!. I actually like the idea of the NPC's and PC's classes being a little different I wish more folks thought like you did. It'd make for less heated debates on these here boards. ;) I too like the idea of making NPC's slightly different, regardless of what the "rules purists" around here might say. Originally posted by pblogic I went ahead and ordered the 3 book giftset and am looking forward to reading throught it this weekend! That's great news. Feel free to come back here with any rules questions after you're done reading. We're all happy to help! :D
Dalaeck 03-16-04, 06:39 PM	Hmm... that's rather unfortunate that you downgraded pblogic. It is your money - and well wasted now. A pity.
J. Grenemyer 03-16-04, 07:07 PM	Hello D., Originally posted by Dalaeck Hmm... that's rather unfortunate that you downgraded pblogic. It is your money - and well wasted now. A pity. :rolleyes: This has thusfar been a positive and helpful thread. Let's try and keep it that way, OK? Thanks! :D
Dalaeck 03-16-04, 09:07 PM	He wanted opinions J, and he will get them. Sorry if they don't mix with your own. I find it in many ways amusing how people will coach a guy who's using 3rd edition modules to buy 3.5 core books then use 3.5 errata and dowloads just to make the original playable again. Brilliant. I'm truly amazed. You guys could sell refrigerators above the polar circle. I'm sorry pblogic, you just bought a sub-standard un-playtested system and a significant headache, in my humble opinion of course.
pblogic 03-16-04, 09:21 PM	That was so negative it's close to a flame, but I really dont mind. My decision was based on the fact that I plan on playing for awhile. Anything that is published from now on will be 3.5 I would rather convert a few old things to 3.5 now, rather than continuosly converting new things down to 3.0
J. Grenemyer 03-16-04, 09:28 PM	Hello pblogic, Originally posted by pblogic My decision was based on the fact that I plan on playing for awhile. Anything that is published from now on will be 3.5 ... I would rather convert a few old things to 3.5 now, rather than continuosly converting new things down to 3.0 Interesting, that. A player in my group came up with pretty much the same reasoning when we discussed what to do about the revision. At that time I (as DM) had put forth the idea of keeping 3.0 and cherry-picking rules from 3.5 as needed, but the aforementioned player pointed out a more practical solution and backed it up with the reasons you mentioned, which ultimately swung the vote into a unanimous group decision to fully convert to 3.5. Also, when you get started on running the adventure path series, feel free to start a thread on the FR General Board if you want any help or ideas on where the best spots are in the Realms to place each of those adventures. We're all of us happy to help! (And that includes Dalaeck. ;) ) :D
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-16-04, 09:53 PM	I have to just say one quick thing. I bought my 3e books at launch. I have yet to use any errata or other downloads to 'fix' anything. I plan on playing awhile and even though the new books are in 3.5(it's still a dumb-ass name) I see no need to buy new books. Yes I did get the SRD and use a few things from it. And yes I have made houserules but they were more for my own style rather than fixing anything broken. That said; my main two reasons for not buying 3.5 (stupid name)? 1. It was too soon for a revison. 2. Magic got shafted big time. Magic use to be what it should be in 3e a jackhammer inthe revison it became a hand-held 'massager' with worn out batteries. And one point I agree with D on is that too many peopl try to coax people into 3.5(it's not a damn videogame)wich wasn't playtested and is the sub-standard 3e.
q'afuu 03-16-04, 10:09 PM	Of course, your and Dalaeck's comments are in shrill contrast with that attitude since they so urgently suggest anyone should form his or her own opinion without bias. ;)
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-16-04, 10:16 PM	I'm just showing that not everyone are good little Wotc zombies and buy the new thing cause the big bad design team says to....;) :P
Dalaeck 03-16-04, 10:24 PM	Well that's a fair assesment. Another fair assesment is that they've already done all the "good" books in 3rd edition. They've done the manual of the planes, the psionics handbook, the fiend folio, the monster manual II, stronghold builder's guidbook, oriental adventures, the splat books, the main campaign settings, etc... Really in 3 years they produced 90% of the "big guns" of the 2nd edition hayday and many of the above will never be revised. Likewise I'm sure with the money you spent on getting "60% of the same only worse" you could have a nearly complete library of really good 3rd edition books. I'm sure everyone is looking forward to more "complete" re-hash and "revised" core books. I know I sure am. :P What's done is done. I hope you enjoy your game. It may not be easy to run, balanced or lord forbid somewhat traditional D&D but I hope it's fun. For your sake.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-16-04, 10:33 PM	Oh yeah the Expanded P$ionic$ handbook (rehash of Psionics handbook) the Planar$ handbook (MOtP 3.$) The player'$ guide to Faerun (hey it's 45% new material) Even better they are keeping their promise not to revise anymore books by reprinting them with 20% more crunch and a $50.00 price tag....Sorry I'll spend 20 on Castle and Crusade this summer (and it's even written by a real game designer ) :D :angel: :P
Dalaeck 03-16-04, 10:36 PM	I'm actually going to buy the map folio I, which I think is an excellent idea incidentally. I recently made a thread in the future releases forum congratulating WOTC on a great idea. Just so that my nay-sayers can't prone my opinion as 100% negative. I actually like WOTC alot. I think they made a great edition of my favorite game. I likewise think they slipped up royally with 3.5. Is the quote really 45% plunderer? That's amazing. I wonder if there will be playtester credits this time around. :P I've been so busy of late...
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-16-04, 10:43 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Is the quote really 45% plunderer? That's amazing. I wonder if there will be playtester credits this time around. :P I've been so busy of late... If I remember the interview right they said they were shooting for 50% new material in it and that they didn't get it so I'd say 45% but I may be being rather generous. That is knowing Lorriane like I do...(no hints there!!;) ) Nice thing is that if your like me and have most all of the 3e FR books the PGtF is pretty much useless well IMHO anyway.... And just as a note to the side here...yes there was Sarcasm in this post as well....a noprize to the one that finds it
halzmar of geoff 03-16-04, 11:08 PM	About the argument that all new adventures will be in 3.5 format - that doesn't exactly matter if one produces their own adventures does it? I don't think that any system will ever make everyone completely happy - just a simple fact that you can't please everyone all the time - but 3rd edition came very close but it had some minor problems. The revision didn't fix all the problems but it did address several issues and add some great features and revisions. They did some good things with the revision - I haven't yet heard the argument that the new ranger sucks and the breakdowns of flatfooted/touch ACs and grapple bonuses in the MM makes it a must have, but other things they did like breaking several spells, making the NPC section of the DMG useless, changing several feats to balance prestige classes not even in the core books simply makes me long for 4th edition when hopefully the keep the good changes and bring back the good things from the original. While it's very easy to berrate, and belittle the talents of the game designers for what doesn't work or what doesn't jibe with personal tastes in 3.5 I don't really think they had adaquate time to finish the product. Quite frankly I would have felt better if they had spent a year playtesting the new system before tossing it onto the market - a lot of the problems with 3.5 could have been worked out but unfortunately ended up in the finished product. That said there isn't much support - module wise - outside of Dungeon Magazine that I've heard about for 3.5 - and there are a ton of adventures out there from 3rd party sources for 3rd edition - they are as Dalaeck mentioned not always compatable and do require much more work on the DM's part to get them ready for play - which negates the best reason for using modules - less work for the DM.
q'afuu 03-16-04, 11:28 PM	Considering the work I had to make psionics somewhat workable, I'd have welcomed a thorough revision of the PsiHB regardless of the existence of 3.5. That's not saying I'm getting the Expanded PsiHB no matter what, but I'm definitely checking it out. As for the much vaunted no-playtesting argument against 3.5, considering what slipped through the 'rigorous' playtesting of 3.0 and especially considering the pre-3.5 supplements obviously weren't playtested, I'm not sure how much of a difference extensive playtesting would have made. I don't particularly care for the production process, it's the end product that'll have to make the grade everyone is free to set.
Geethree 03-16-04, 11:29 PM	I'm sure everyone is looking forward to more "complete" re-hash and "revised" core books. I know I sure am. I can perfectly understand that logic if you had purchased multiple 3e books. In fact, I would suggest that anybody with a whole lot of 3e material should just pick and choose anything they want from the SRD and leave it at that unless they really like 3.5e. However, some people haven't put a whole lot of money into 3e. These "re-hashes" might as well be brand new for the person who never spent a dime on the older books. Well that's a fair assesment. Another fair assesment is that they've already done all the "good" books in 3rd edition. They've done the manual of the planes, the psionics handbook, the fiend folio, the monster manual II, stronghold builder's guidbook, oriental adventures, the splat books, the main campaign settings, etc... Really in 3 years they produced 90% of the "big guns" of the 2nd edition hayday and many of the above will never be revised.Many of the above can also work in 3.5e with little to no trouble at all. I really don't understand all of the complaints about conversion. I use all of my D20 products interchangeably and I have never had a single problem. The small amount of conversion I have to do is easy as long as you're familiar with the major changes (Wilderness Lore + Intuit Direction is now Survival, etc). You can use nearly all of the 3e material in 3.5e. Some of the material has undergone change (various splatbook material is now in Complete Warrior, for instance) but it is largely the exact same system.
pblogic 03-17-04, 02:44 AM	Another consideration was that my group wanted to play 3.5 The only other book I had besides for core books for 3.0 was forgotten realms. I have some reservations about the whole topic as well, however my group wanted to go 3.5 so here we are. I appreciate the comments, but honestly all of the detractors sound to me just like the people that hated 3rd edition when it came out. No matter what you are going to have people who like it and people that hate it. Advice is great but some of the extreme negativity I think is a little bit overboard.
J. Grenemyer 03-17-04, 03:05 AM	Hello, They say ridicule is a device to end discussions, but then again so is lying. Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes 3.5 ... wasn't play tested. That’s an inaccurate claim. And not only that, it’s a dumb thing to say. No, ”Exceptionally stupid thing to say,” would be more accurate. Further, it's safe to assume the author(s) of the above claim are at least passingly familiar with the process of the revisions. Therefore, their claim can be construed as an out and out lie. Why would someone go out of their way to deliberately mislead others on a public forum like that, I wonder? Anyway, you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure out that WotC goes to great pains to collect customer feedback (these message boards, email, by phone, the little cards in each Core Book, FaQ updates, etc..), nor must one sift through the 3.5 rulebooks with a fine-toothed comb in order to figure our what parts of 3.5 were revised in response to all that collected customer feedback. Assuming average intelligence, it should be fairly obvious to anyone that all the feedback WotC received was generated from the hundreds of thousands of combined play hours 3.0 went through after it was released. That, kiddies, is called playtesting. A whole lotta playtesting. Now then, were there actual changes made in 3.5 that could be considered independent of feedback? Yes. Were those changes play tested in depth beyond the walls of WotC? Probably not. Is all of this Iron-Clad proof that 3.5 in its entirety was not play tested? Hell no. Now let’s all pitch in and do our part to keep lies and half-truths off the boards, OK? Thanks kids! :D Oh, there’s sarcasm in my post too, which makes everything in it entirely inoffensive, factually accurate and 100% CoC compliant.
pblogic 03-17-04, 03:35 AM	J. Grenemeyer Thanks again for all the input. I am now starting to prepare my campaign. One more question I have however, is how will I reconcile 3.5 with the epic level handbook? My players won't be there for a while, but they WILL want to be. Thanks!
J. Grenemyer 03-17-04, 03:47 AM	Hello pblogic, First off, I apologize for ranting on your thread (and for falling prey to one of Dalaeck's troll post for like the millionth time). Anyway... Originally posted by pblogic One more question I have however, is how will I reconcile 3.5 with the epic level handbook? My players won't be there for a while, but they WILL want to be. First off, the 3.5 DMG has a small section on Epic Play that includes revised rules information for advancing all the Core Classes, Epic Class Features, XP, Saves, Bab, etc... as well as revised info on some (but not all) of the Epic Feats listed in the Epic Level Handbook. Luckily, Wizards of the Coast made the Epic Rules open game content, which means they are on the SRD. This includes rules for Epic Spells, Treasure, Skills, Feats, Monsters, Prestige Classes, etc.. I'm making a lot of use of the Epic Rules in the SRD, as my players are all about 19th level and have been busy making their own Epic Plans for some time. Lastly, I'd like to invite Plunder, Dalaeck* and anyone else to offer thread-relevant advice to pblogic, particularly with regard to Epic Play. :D [*Dalaeck's high level play advice is very spot on, regardless of the edition one plays with. He personally helped me turn a two-part Balor encounter around and make it into something worth remembering. (And here I am ridiculing him. Aren't I an ungrateful bastard? :embarrass )]
pblogic 03-17-04, 03:57 AM	Thanks again for the reply. I'm not upset about anyone's rant. We all have our Axe to grind right? Another thing I was wondering about is prestige classes in the Forgotten Realms Core rules. Will the new FR supplement update those? Also, are they usable in 3.5 even without the update supplement? thanks agian
J. Grenemyer 03-17-04, 04:25 AM	Hello pblogic, Originally posted by pblogic …the Forgotten Realms Core rules. … Will the new FR supplement update those? To my knowledge, the Player’s Guide to Faerûn will update (to 3.5 specs) all Third Edition FR Feats, Prestige Classes and Spells, as well as provide revised Epic Rules information for advancing FR Specific Prestige Classes into Epic play, introduce new Epic Prestige Classes, Spells and Feats not found in the ELH, give info on how to incorporate the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds into your game and update FR specific magic items. The book will also revise and greatly expand on the limited Cosmology information found in the FRCS. It will not supercede or revise any of the world specific (of “fluffy”) information that comprises the majority of the FRCS book (and is really the purview of DM’s). Originally posted by pblogic Also, are they usable in 3.5 even without the update supplement? Yes, absolutely. It’s important to note you’ll see a lot of, “Oh, that’s FR so its non-Core, not balanced and should be banned from core games on principle,” posted on these boards, which is about as dumb as saying, “3.5 was never playtested.” Thus, “FR aint Core so ignore it” posts can be ignored. Once you’ve got a handle on your campaign I recommend reviewing third party material (such as that produced by Malhavoc Press, Sword and Sorcery and Green Ronin) for use in your FR game, in order to better represent the incredible diversity of the setting. (Which is to say that all the source material on the Realms barely scratches the surface of what the setting has to offer.) I myself love handing out new treasures and unleashing new monsters that can’t be found in the Core books, as doing so keeps my players on their toes and keeps them interested in discovering items they’ve never seen before (whether in character or in real life). Lastly, I would advise downloading the free Volo’s Guides. No other “fluffy” sourcebook is as useful at bringing the Realms to life than these guidebooks, in my opinion. Sorry so long winded. Talk to you tomorrow! :D
Dalaeck 03-17-04, 04:31 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Assuming average intelligence, it should be fairly obvious to anyone that all the feedback WotC received was generated from the hundreds of thousands of combined play hours 3.0 went through after it was released. Like 3.5 shapechange and 3.5 blasphemy and 3.5 improved trip and rising from prone provoking attacks of opportunity and.... Anyhow I could go on forever. It's painfully obvious from the complete lack of playtester credits at the back of the book and the wanton mistakes like the 3.5 "darkness" spell lighting up pitch black rooms, that NO. It wasn't playtested. It's a pile of houserules from some guy out there. And not very good ones. This thread is done with me. The original poster is satisfied and I have no more comments to make.
pblogic 03-17-04, 05:32 PM	I'm sure there will be aspects of 3.5 I don't care for. Does that make me happy? no! However I am not going to really let it get me upset. I like the fact that the DMG Now holds info both from the manual of the planes, as well as Epic rules. These are good things in my opinion. I'll post more when I actually get it and play it.
Geethree 03-17-04, 07:22 PM	and the wanton mistakes like the 3.5 "darkness" spell lighting up pitch black roomsI have heard that so many times. It is simply not true. The "shadowy illumination" or whatever the spell reads is just a flavorful description. These kinds of points hinder any kind of credible anti-3.5e arguments you might have. If you read the spell description darkness is very clearly a magical dark area that mundane light cannot penetrate. This is not an error, this is not a problem, this is a case of people making a huge, stupid deal out of something that is perfectly fine. And this is why we can't have nice things. :cool: On another note, the paladin's mount has been changed in 3.5e. You now summon it for 2 hours per day per level. This is a change that I and other people feel completely ruins the mount. It becomes a tool rather than a companion. I thought I would point this out to you because I didn't realize the change until well after I bought 3.5e.
pblogic 03-17-04, 07:54 PM	Originally posted by Geethree I have heard that so many times. It is simply not true. The "shadowy illumination" or whatever the spell reads is just a flavorful description. These kinds of points hinder any kind of credible anti-3.5e arguments you might have. If you read the spell description darkness is very clearly a magical dark area that mundane light cannot penetrate. This is not an error, this is not a problem, this is a case of people making a huge, stupid deal out of something that is perfectly fine. And this is why we can't have nice things. :cool: On another note, the paladin's mount has been changed in 3.5e. You now summon it for 2 hours per day per level. This is a change that I and other people feel completely ruins the mount. It becomes a tool rather than a companion. I thought I would point this out to you because I didn't realize the change until well after I bought 3.5e. Thats alright concerning the mount. I just won't use that rule, its a stupid rule. There are stupid rules in 3.0 that I woudlnt use either, but thanks for the headsup. :)
Manic Man 03-17-04, 08:37 PM	For PrCs, you will need to use some judgement on those. Skills have either been folded together, removed or changed in name. Pre reqs in this case may look very wierd (such as divine oracle). AFAIK, there aren't any abilities that add to DCs in the method of 3.0 archmage's spellpower. Now such abilities just add only to caster level
WhtKnt 03-18-04, 03:59 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Oh yeah the Expanded P$ionic$ handbook (rehash of Psionics handbook) the Planar$ handbook (MOtP 3.$) The player'$ guide to Faerun (hey it's 45% new material) Even better they are keeping their promise not to revise anymore books by reprinting them with 20% more crunch and a $50.00 price tag....Sorry I'll spend 20 on Castle and Crusade this summer (and it's even written by a real game designer ) :D :angel: :P You know, until now, I was giving your opinion a consideration of value. The use of the "$" in place of the letter "s" went out with TSR (and it was considered rude then). If you were over on the DND-L, this would be cause for a warning from the moderators. Maybe they'll let is slide here, I don't know, but my opinion of you just dropped several places. It's one thing to disagree with the upgrade. It's fine to say that it was too expensive to be worth it in your opinion. It's fine to say that you hated it and won't ever change. It's entirely another to be insulting about it.
WhtKnt 03-18-04, 04:05 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Considering the work I had to make psionics somewhat workable, I'd have welcomed a thorough revision of the PsiHB regardless of the existence of 3.5. That's not saying I'm getting the Expanded PsiHB no matter what, but I'm definitely checking it out. As for the much vaunted no-playtesting argument against 3.5, considering what slipped through the 'rigorous' playtesting of 3.0 and especially considering the pre-3.5 supplements obviously weren't playtested, I'm not sure how much of a difference extensive playtesting would have made. I don't particularly care for the production process, it's the end product that'll have to make the grade everyone is free to set. I was greatly resistant to psionics in my game. I allowed them once and then swore never again! However, that changed when I got my hands on Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook (http://www.d20zines.com/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=978). If anyone wants to play a mind-mage in my campaign now, this is the book they will use. I can only hope that WotC's revision will be along these lines (but it doesn't look like it, from the previews I've seen).
WhtKnt 03-18-04, 04:09 PM	Originally posted by pblogic Thats alright concerning the mount. I just won't use that rule, its a stupid rule. There are stupid rules in 3.0 that I woudlnt use either, but thanks for the headsup. :) FWIW, I and several of my players like this rule. I've seen too many cases where the paladin's mount could not physically journey with the party, making that special ability effectively useless. On the other hand, I mourn the "dumbing" down of cover in 3.5, and use the 3.0 rules regarding that aspect of the game. To each their own. That's why my game is called version 3.75j.
pblogic 03-18-04, 07:19 PM	Originally posted by WhtKnt FWIW, I and several of my players like this rule. I've seen too many cases where the paladin's mount could not physically journey with the party, making that special ability effectively useless. On the other hand, I mourn the "dumbing" down of cover in 3.5, and use the 3.0 rules regarding that aspect of the game. To each their own. That's why my game is called version 3.75j. My point was that regardless of the version you have, most people are going to use house rules anyway. As far as the mount goes, I think the new rule is awful and I wouldn't change that just because it was more convenient in certain circumstances. However if it works for your campaign thats great, i'm not going to tell you it sux and not to use it, I just dont like it myself.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-18-04, 07:48 PM	Originally posted by WhtKnt You know, until now, I was giving your opinion a consideration of value. The use of the "$" in place of the letter "s" went out with TSR (and it was considered rude then). If you were over on the DND-L, this would be cause for a warning from the moderators. Maybe they'll let is slide here, I don't know, but my opinion of you just dropped several places. It's one thing to disagree with the upgrade. It's fine to say that it was too expensive to be worth it in your opinion. It's fine to say that you hated it and won't ever change. It's entirely another to be insulting about it. By any chance did you miss the word sarcasm in that post? On another note, the paladin's mount has been changed in 3.5e. You now summon it for 2 hours per day per level. This is a change that I and other people feel completely ruins the mount. It becomes a tool rather than a companion. I thought I would point this out to you because I didn't realize the change until well after I bought 3.5e. It's called the Pokemount....:D
pblogic 03-18-04, 08:01 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes By any chance did you miss the word sarcasm in that post? It's called the Pokemount....:D lol... the pokemount.... Got my giftset today. I like the slipcase, pretty cool setup. I guess ill just ebay my 3.0