Combining 3.0 / 3.5 [Archive] - Wizards Community

Combining 3.0 / 3.5 [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
frankenstien13
09-22-04, 11:16 AM My current gaming group is using 3.0 rules. We've been gaming for years (with this group we go back to second edition, and seperately some date back to first edition). The reason we still play 3.0 is we all purchased our books just before the 3.5 rules came out. We saw no reason to dish out another $100 or so a piece for 3.5. So here's my question: Do you guys use one system, ie: strictly 3.0 or strictly 3.5, or have you combined the two?

The reason this is coming up in our gaming group is a player was looking at a prestige class from the Complete Warrior, a 3.5 book. He wants to add it to the game. I'm concerned about mixing the two editions, I mean where do you draw the line. Spell effects are different, combat is different, and classes are different, so what gets added and what doesn't?

I'm looking for some feedback what you guys have done in your campaigns.

Also I'm not looking for 3.0 sucks 3.5 rocks, I don't care, I'm more interested in the pro's and con's of combining the two.

Thanks
algritz
09-22-04, 12:53 PM In our group, we often mix 3.0 and 3.5

most of the problem we encountered was with DR or monsters not being alike in the 2 versions and some spells (haste)

Other than that, it went fine for us
Gemstone
09-22-04, 01:20 PM I changed the entire Damage reduction system so that I keeped the +1, +2, +3 etc, while you still need a holy weapon to go through 10/holy

Why?

Because every single monster in the book with DR/magic effectivly hasn't any damage reduction at all...
Lord Stigius
09-22-04, 04:53 PM Gemstone I changed the entire Damage reduction system so that I keeped the +1, +2, +3 etc, while you still need a holy weapon to go through 10/holy

Why?

Because every single monster in the book with DR/magic effectivly hasn't any damage reduction at all...
You've hit the mark.
The only real issue you're going to face, Frankenstein13, is the Damage Reduction. Since you've been playing 3,0, I suggest sticking to it's rules on DR (they are better anyway IMHO). Other than that, these two mix well. When the effects of spells differ (Bull Strength for example) you could use the 3,0 and 3,5 versions as two different spells with similar results.

One thing to consider, though:
In general in 3,5 certain classes and monsters got a noticeable power-up. while in the case of monsters it is well reflected by increased CR, the 3,0 and 3,5 classes may not mix well. Nobody sane would play an old ranger when the new one is available. Same may happen to PrCs (haven't checked all one by one myself).

If the 3,5 class is more powerful than it's 3,0 counterparts you are using, tone it down (not ban it copletly, but push the special abilities to higher levels, reduce their number per day, etc). You should also consider introducing 3,5 feats available to the 3,0 classes to let then catch up with power (example: 3,0 skill focus gives +2 to a feat, while a bunch of 3,5 feats give +2 to two related feats).
frankenstien13
09-22-04, 09:00 PM Hey guys thanks for the replies. So far I hear Damage Reduction is the biggest change. I don't know, maybe I'm a purist, but mixing the two editions is just giving me a headache. I just don't see how it can be done. Not without some horrible mismatch, some rules here are 3.0, but these are 3.5. That just doesn't sound right. What you end up with is 3.25 rules.

I disagree that these two versions mix well. Buff spells are great in 3.0, but get nerfed in 3.5, so which do you use. Combat also changed. Take something as simple as 'getting up from prone'. In 3.0 doesn't provoke AOO, in 3.5 it does, this makes trip great in 3.5 great, and not so great in 3.0.

If I take the best of both it seems overpowered.

How do new players fit into your games that you've mismatched the rules? I could see getting frustrated jumping into a group and learning they play 3.25. Having to learn all of the 'house rules', and tugging along a PHB 3.0 and 3.5.
algritz
09-23-04, 12:20 PM usually when something pops-up like this (ie : getting up from prone) when have a "cocus" where we establish what we want it to be, but the DM has the final word. (We always try to keep in mind game-balance)

So far all went well that way.
darczero
09-29-04, 07:11 AM I'm reminded of the great argument that began in '89... Do we use 1st edition, or the new edition?
And again, when the Player's Option series came out... Do we stick with 2nd edition, or use the new edition?
And more recently, in 98 (ish)... Do we stick with 2nd/2.5 (as we called Player's Option) or use the new edition?

The answers:
When the systems are compatible (as 3.0 and 3.5 are for the most part), go ahead and combine the two. Just remember continuity.

If you're using the 3.5 Metallic dragons, then you should use the 3.5 Chromatics as well.

If you're using the 3.0 version of Heal, then you should use the 3.0 version of Harm too.

I've found that it is generally best to use the best of either, but as a package, not just little details here and there.
With classes, pick a complete class from either edition, but don't try to mix two versions of the same class. For example, the 3.5 Paladin is better in most ways than the 3.0, but some of their abilities are delayed. If you want the multiple Smite attempts per day as you advance in levels, then suffer with waiting for your Divine Grace. They rebalanced the classes, monsters, etc., attempting to make things "Better," but in many cases toned down player ability and beefed up monsters.

As for feats and spells, simply take whichever version you prefer if both editions have them and they are different. With the new feats published in 3.5, I have simply added them to my master list (which is currently 141 pages long, and still in the editing/research phase); all those feats that didn't make it into the new edition, or got toned down, remain unchanged from their 3.0 versions. Same with spells (although I haven't yet begun compiling a Master Spells List...).
Joe Khol
09-29-04, 07:46 AM We've stayed with 3.0 for exactly the same reason and haven't added much from 3.5. 3.0 works fine for us (with a couple of house-rules) so we don't see any point in changing.

I don't think bringing 3.5 PrCs should be much of a problem. With us, anything none (3.0) core needs to be run by the DM before it is included and I don't see why 3.5 PrCs shoud be treated much differently from those from (3.0) third party books. Obviously you need to take extra care of rule clashes and loopholes but you can always adjust the PrC to fit 3.0. I suspect that in most cases few if any changes would be necessary though.

If there are any 3.5 rule changes the group wants to introduce, treat them as house rules.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
frankenstien13 09-22-04, 11:16 AM	My current gaming group is using 3.0 rules. We've been gaming for years (with this group we go back to second edition, and seperately some date back to first edition). The reason we still play 3.0 is we all purchased our books just before the 3.5 rules came out. We saw no reason to dish out another $100 or so a piece for 3.5. So here's my question: Do you guys use one system, ie: strictly 3.0 or strictly 3.5, or have you combined the two? The reason this is coming up in our gaming group is a player was looking at a prestige class from the Complete Warrior, a 3.5 book. He wants to add it to the game. I'm concerned about mixing the two editions, I mean where do you draw the line. Spell effects are different, combat is different, and classes are different, so what gets added and what doesn't? I'm looking for some feedback what you guys have done in your campaigns. Also I'm not looking for 3.0 sucks 3.5 rocks, I don't care, I'm more interested in the pro's and con's of combining the two. Thanks
algritz 09-22-04, 12:53 PM	In our group, we often mix 3.0 and 3.5 most of the problem we encountered was with DR or monsters not being alike in the 2 versions and some spells (haste) Other than that, it went fine for us
Gemstone 09-22-04, 01:20 PM	I changed the entire Damage reduction system so that I keeped the +1, +2, +3 etc, while you still need a holy weapon to go through 10/holy Why? Because every single monster in the book with DR/magic effectivly hasn't any damage reduction at all...
Lord Stigius 09-22-04, 04:53 PM	Gemstone I changed the entire Damage reduction system so that I keeped the +1, +2, +3 etc, while you still need a holy weapon to go through 10/holy Why? Because every single monster in the book with DR/magic effectivly hasn't any damage reduction at all... You've hit the mark. The only real issue you're going to face, Frankenstein13, is the Damage Reduction. Since you've been playing 3,0, I suggest sticking to it's rules on DR (they are better anyway IMHO). Other than that, these two mix well. When the effects of spells differ (Bull Strength for example) you could use the 3,0 and 3,5 versions as two different spells with similar results. One thing to consider, though: In general in 3,5 certain classes and monsters got a noticeable power-up. while in the case of monsters it is well reflected by increased CR, the 3,0 and 3,5 classes may not mix well. Nobody sane would play an old ranger when the new one is available. Same may happen to PrCs (haven't checked all one by one myself). If the 3,5 class is more powerful than it's 3,0 counterparts you are using, tone it down (not ban it copletly, but push the special abilities to higher levels, reduce their number per day, etc). You should also consider introducing 3,5 feats available to the 3,0 classes to let then catch up with power (example: 3,0 skill focus gives +2 to a feat, while a bunch of 3,5 feats give +2 to two related feats).
frankenstien13 09-22-04, 09:00 PM	Hey guys thanks for the replies. So far I hear Damage Reduction is the biggest change. I don't know, maybe I'm a purist, but mixing the two editions is just giving me a headache. I just don't see how it can be done. Not without some horrible mismatch, some rules here are 3.0, but these are 3.5. That just doesn't sound right. What you end up with is 3.25 rules. I disagree that these two versions mix well. Buff spells are great in 3.0, but get nerfed in 3.5, so which do you use. Combat also changed. Take something as simple as 'getting up from prone'. In 3.0 doesn't provoke AOO, in 3.5 it does, this makes trip great in 3.5 great, and not so great in 3.0. If I take the best of both it seems overpowered. How do new players fit into your games that you've mismatched the rules? I could see getting frustrated jumping into a group and learning they play 3.25. Having to learn all of the 'house rules', and tugging along a PHB 3.0 and 3.5.
algritz 09-23-04, 12:20 PM	usually when something pops-up like this (ie : getting up from prone) when have a "cocus" where we establish what we want it to be, but the DM has the final word. (We always try to keep in mind game-balance) So far all went well that way.
darczero 09-29-04, 07:11 AM	I'm reminded of the great argument that began in '89... Do we use 1st edition, or the new edition? And again, when the Player's Option series came out... Do we stick with 2nd edition, or use the new edition? And more recently, in 98 (ish)... Do we stick with 2nd/2.5 (as we called Player's Option) or use the new edition? The answers: When the systems are compatible (as 3.0 and 3.5 are for the most part), go ahead and combine the two. Just remember continuity. If you're using the 3.5 Metallic dragons, then you should use the 3.5 Chromatics as well. If you're using the 3.0 version of Heal, then you should use the 3.0 version of Harm too. I've found that it is generally best to use the best of either, but as a package, not just little details here and there. With classes, pick a complete class from either edition, but don't try to mix two versions of the same class. For example, the 3.5 Paladin is better in most ways than the 3.0, but some of their abilities are delayed. If you want the multiple Smite attempts per day as you advance in levels, then suffer with waiting for your Divine Grace. They rebalanced the classes, monsters, etc., attempting to make things "Better," but in many cases toned down player ability and beefed up monsters. As for feats and spells, simply take whichever version you prefer if both editions have them and they are different. With the new feats published in 3.5, I have simply added them to my master list (which is currently 141 pages long, and still in the editing/research phase); all those feats that didn't make it into the new edition, or got toned down, remain unchanged from their 3.0 versions. Same with spells (although I haven't yet begun compiling a Master Spells List...).
Joe Khol 09-29-04, 07:46 AM	We've stayed with 3.0 for exactly the same reason and haven't added much from 3.5. 3.0 works fine for us (with a couple of house-rules) so we don't see any point in changing. I don't think bringing 3.5 PrCs should be much of a problem. With us, anything none (3.0) core needs to be run by the DM before it is included and I don't see why 3.5 PrCs shoud be treated much differently from those from (3.0) third party books. Obviously you need to take extra care of rule clashes and loopholes but you can always adjust the PrC to fit 3.0. I suspect that in most cases few if any changes would be necessary though. If there are any 3.5 rule changes the group wants to introduce, treat them as house rules.