Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zachary The First 06-04-05, 12:37 PM	Just thought I'd do a quick survey and see how many DMs still allow players to use 3.0 source material, such as Song and Silence. I've got a transfer player in my group, and he was stunned I let my players use those books--evidently, his DM was a 3.5-only kinda guy.
Nykidemus 06-04-05, 01:46 PM	I let them use stuff as long as they give me a reasonable conversion to 3.5.
siege72 06-04-05, 01:48 PM	Just thought I'd do a quick survey and see how many DMs still allow players to use 3.0 source material, such as Song and Silence. I've got a transfer player in my group, and he was stunned I let my players use those books--evidently, his DM was a 3.5-only kinda guy. I'm running 3.0 "only". I'll let in things from newer books, *if* it seems balanced against the existing material. But in general 3.5 stuff is not used.
Zachary The First 06-04-05, 01:56 PM	I let them use stuff as long as they give me a reasonable conversion to 3.5. I don't imagine you run into too many difficulties that way...3.0's pretty easy to change over.
VerinBlod 06-04-05, 02:27 PM	Basically only 3.5. We used to play 3.0, a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 and as of recently we changed entirely to 3.5 And with the amount of books that come out we have enough material to not want to use 3.0 stuff.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-04-05, 03:52 PM	3e only. 3.5 is a pale, pathetic shadow of 3e.
Azar the Prince 06-04-05, 03:55 PM	3.5 only, 3e is an outdated and largely anqiuated system that's had it's time in the sun.
Zachary The First 06-04-05, 04:19 PM	Basically only 3.5. We used to play 3.0, a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 and as of recently we changed entirely to 3.5 And with the amount of books that come out we have enough material to not want to use 3.0 stuff. See, now, I've been considering just going with 3.5, but I have a bard and a rogue in the group, and I worry about the effect it will have on them if I take away Song & Silence....
Fixxxer 06-04-05, 04:31 PM	See, now, I've been considering just going with 3.5, but I have a bard and a rogue in the group, and I worry about the effect it will have on them if I take away Song & Silence.... I've never really understood those who play 3.5, but completely ban the use of anything from a 3.0 book. We're not talking about different systems here...it's not like taking something from 1st edition D&D and using it in a 3.5 game.
The Admiral 06-04-05, 04:53 PM	they did reprint a few of the things from Song and Silence to Complete Adventurer
Zachary The First 06-04-05, 05:17 PM	Since I have Comp. Adventurer ordered from amazon right now, perhaps that will solve the little conundrum.
siege72 06-04-05, 05:24 PM	3.5 only, 3e is an outdated and largely anqiuated system that's had it's time in the sun. If 3E is "antiquated" after three year run, that means that 3.5 only has a year of life until it's outdated too! ;)
snowlynx 06-04-05, 05:38 PM	my answer: 'after careful consideration' I would have to take it on a case-by case basis, and I would not be happy if someone wanted more then one or two things from a 3.0 book I don't have. (One-two feats are okay; a presitge class, 4 pieces of equipment, and 3 feats would be a lot of work to try to figure out.) I have seen far too many circumstances where people abuse the 3.0 rules in 3.5 to just allow it right away. Often, these same people convienently 'forget' the limitations of the item, feat, or class they want. If there's a 3.5 version, I will make them use that instead.
ksbsnowowl 06-04-05, 07:22 PM	I still allow 3.0 material. In fact, anything 3.0 superceeds anything 3.5. ;)
Sildatorak 06-05-05, 05:51 AM	3.5 takes precedence in my campaign, and 3.0 things are carefully scrutinized before I allow them. Errata is checked, I check to see if there is a 3.5 version of whatever it is, and I check to see if it deals with an area that underwent significant revision (e.g. pricing of magical items, ranger abilities, etc). Balance is also considered, and I'll tell the player any rulings I have before they decide whether to get it (e.g. telling a player that taking knockdown wouldn't trigger free attacks from improved trip).
Seldarin 06-05-05, 06:40 AM	I still allow 3.0 material. In fact, anything 3.0 superceeds anything 3.5. ;) Same here :D.
PearlJamaholic 06-05-05, 07:35 AM	alittle off topic but can someone point me to where there is a list of key differences between the two? im using mostly 3.5 since i started but i have a good deal of 3.0 books. what generally needs to be converted and how hard is it?
Planar Wanderer 06-05-05, 07:52 AM	Well off-hand the main differences are: the ranger class abilities the duration of buff spells and the way DR is implemented click here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a) for the 3.5 update booklet, everything you need to change 3.0 stuff to 3.5
dmbronzedragonbill 06-05-05, 09:26 AM	I’ve used a lot of the 3.5 rules and been in campains with them. In all, I can say that as a gm I still love 3e because of the spells and expanded class’s books, like song and silence. I allow some things from 3.5 as hose rules while maintaining a mostly 3e game. the points I don't agree with in 3.5 is some complete skill removal and feat editing that make that feat weaker then it originally was in 3e. An example is spell focus and greater spell focus. Spell focus and greater spell focus in 3.5 adds only a +1 to spell save dc per feat to the same school of magic that the pc or npc picks. In 3e those feats when applied to a school of magic would together raise the save dc of those spells by +4. The transfer from 3e to 3.5 was a weakening transfer to spell casters in my opinion as a gm. the spell change from 3e to 3.5 I have a hard time agreeing with; I fined that it's lacking some reason for the change and ultimately weakens the really useful mid-high level arcane offensive spells. The school of magic that a wizard can no longer take as a prohibited school in 3.5 is divination, but in 3e divination can be selected as a prohibited school and the wizard only needs one prohibited school in most cases. Why they moved detect magic and read magic from a universal school in 3e to divination in 3.5 still escapes me in some aspects. the weakening of the high level spell disintegrate in 3.5 really makes me angry as a player and a gm. the spell was always taken for its save or die factor in 3e that makes a arcane spell caster worth playing in upper levels. the 3.5 rules on disintegrate are that the target takes 10d6 on a failed save and only disintegrates if that reduces the target to 0hp. in 3e a failed save meant instant death and a successful save meant only 5d6 damage, though the successful save was kept in 3.5, the 3.5 version appears to weak to me as a player, not to mention as a gm who allowed use of the spell for his wizards in his own game before 3.5 came out. The skill changes that I agree with in 3.5 are the merging of intuit direction and wilderness lore into survival. I don't agree with innuendo being merged with bluff, because in 3e innuendo can only be deciphered by another pc/npc that had that skill and succeed on the roll. I do not like the removing of animal empathy as a class skill for fighter, ranger, druid, and barbarian. For the ranger they replaced that skill with an innate class ability depicted only on the ranger’s lvl in 3.5. This I don't like because I don't see animal empathy as class ability if the ranger spends little time around animals or doesn't really want to have influence over them. The class changes to the ranger and druid’s animal companion in 3.5 I don't agree with as well. the animal in 3e was just that, an animal friend that wanted to travel with the ranger or druid as a friend, but 3.5 has changed them into a familiar not that different from that of a wizard or a sorcerer’s. If 3.5 rules for these classes are wanted by the player in the game I gm, I make the "familiar" of the ranger and druid just that. When it dies they must wait a year and a day to summon a new one and because of its death the player must make a save as per the rules for a wizard or sorcerer who's familiar has been killed. The other changes to the ranger, paladin, barbarian, and bard in 3.5 I can agree with because they've made those classes more appealing to the player and they now add a new spin on creating the unique character. The changes to the races in 3.5 I can agree with all but the gnomes. In 3e the gnome's favored class was illusion while the half elf’s was bard. In 3.5 they changed the favored class of half elf to any while changing the illusion masters, gnomes, to bards. Gnomes don't like to travel so the change to a class that only travelers doesn't make any sense to me. the gnomes are masters of illusions not singing dancers/poets that travel from place to place only staying at one place a couple of days at best. I believe the bard would be better applied to the halflings given that they don't stay in one place endlessly preferring to go where the money is. Those reasons are why I run a 3e game with house rules on 3.5 to balance the game play out without cheating the players or unbalancing the game by giving the players to much power/nonrealistic tendencies in this fantasy game.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-05-05, 12:34 PM	alittle off topic but can someone point me to where there is a list of key differences between the two? im using mostly 3.5 since i started but i have a good deal of 3.0 books. what generally needs to be converted and how hard is it? My clearly biased take (http://www.ledgermaincomics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6)
Raynard the Black 06-05-05, 12:44 PM	3.5 is fine in my book, however there really isn't much of a difference between the two books other than clarifications and some tweaks. I think both sets of books should be usable. Song and Silence and Complete adventurer are really companion books in my mind. You shouldn't have to choose one over the other. Use both as long as the material doesn't conflict with itself.
Lord Ian Stark 06-05-05, 01:04 PM	I allow 3.0 and 3.5 material but play by the 3.5 rules only. Not all things from 3.0 books changed with 3.5. If a PrC, feat, ability, skill or class is different then we make the 3.0 part into a 3.5. No big deal.
Sildatorak 06-05-05, 01:15 PM	Spell focus and greater spell focus in 3.5 adds only a +1 to spell save dc per feat to the same school of magic that the pc or npc picks. In 3e those feats when applied to a school of magic would together raise the save dc of those spells by +4. The transfer from 3e to 3.5 was a weakening transfer to spell casters in my opinion as a gm. This change was essential to game balance. I'm going to assume that a sorcerer's charisma is the same as the stat with which the target resists the spell (dex, con, or wis depending on the situation), that the characters are the same level, and that the spell is of the highest castable level, and that a good save is being used against the spell. That means the DC (before feats) is 10+X+((level)/2) and the save bonus is 2+X+((level)/2). An 8 is needed to save, so the spell has full affect against someone who is resistant 35% of the time without adding any feats to the mix. Throw in +4 to the DC and suddenly the spell takes full affect 55% of the time. It is a sick situation where a save or die spell can affect someone who is fairly resistant to it over half the time. If you allow +4 to the DC, a caster targetting a bad save (this can be done to some extent without metagaming by aiming domination at fighter types, death spells at rogues, etc.) will make the DC pracitcally unbeatable. the spell change from 3e to 3.5 I have a hard time agreeing with; I fined that it's lacking some reason for the change and ultimately weakens the really useful mid-high level arcane offensive spells. The reason behind it was to weaken mid to high level offensive spells because they were too powerful. They easily outclassed anything a noncaster could manage in one round, so they took a slight hit. Unfortunately they didn't hit the cleric nearly as hard. the weakening of the high level spell disintegrate in 3.5 really makes me angry as a player and a gm. the spell was always taken for its save or die factor in 3e that makes a arcane spell caster worth playing in upper levels. the 3.5 rules on disintegrate are that the target takes 10d6 on a failed save and only disintegrates if that reduces the target to 0hp. in 3e a failed save meant instant death and a successful save meant only 5d6 damage, though the successful save was kept in 3.5, the 3.5 version appears to weak to me as a player, not to mention as a gm who allowed use of the spell for his wizards in his own game before 3.5 came out. It is 20d6 on a failed save. Considering that it bypasses DR and energy resistance, that is a boatload of damage. A spell that isn't a death effect or mind affecting (i.e. capable of being warded against) shouldn't be a save or die spell. I do not like the removing of animal empathy as a class skill for fighter, ranger, druid, and barbarian. Only rangers and druids had it. Fighters and barbarians only had animal handling (which they still have). Haste was out and out replaced with General Hurry, which grants no double speed, a crap +1 to attack, saves and AC, and can be cast on more than one person. Oh, and the mechanic that nerf monkeys howled about, the extra partial action (and spell) got the axe. 3.0 is the exception in this case. The 3.5 version is similar in power to pre-3e incarnations and it does in fact double speed for most humanoids. 3.5 is the product of significant informal playtesting on 3.0, and the majority of the changes were in the right direction. Some I disagree with (and houserule) but most are an improvement.
The_Wanderer17 06-05-05, 07:17 PM	3.0 was amazing, and I love it with all my heart. I don't think 3.5 was necessary at all, on the contrary, as a long-time DM I find much of it to be genuinely broken and over-powered. I will remain with 3.0 indefinetly.
siege72 06-05-05, 07:26 PM	3.0 was amazing, and I love it with all my heart. I don't think 3.5 was necessary at all, on the contrary, as a long-time DM I find much of it to be genuinely broken and over-powered. I will remain with 3.0 indefinetly. :clap: My thoughts almost exactly!!!! :)
Always-Late 06-05-05, 08:39 PM	I like 3.5 better because in 3.0 kobolds sucked big time.
dmbronzedragonbill 06-06-05, 06:54 AM	i have used 3.0 kobolds and nearly wiped out a mid level party. there where 9 kobolds who took position up on a ridge in a canion about 200ft. high. they blocked off the canion and traped the party's wagon with downed trees. then they blanketed the wagon its self with a scorpion blast, note that a scorpion seage engion fires alot of arrows in a designated spot. they soften up the party and then used their mw heavy crossbows and mw bolts while lying on their belly giving them 3/4 cover +2 cercomstance to range for higher ground and a +2 compatance bonuse for stabalising crossbow by fireing from prone. so in all the kobalds had a +6 range bonuse beyond that of their base and a +6 ac bonuse from cover. all the kobolds wanted was whatever the party had in the wagon, but the party fought back and killed 2 kobolds befor 3 of the 7 party members died, all the rest stabilised in the negatives.