3.5 player in a 3.0 world...(not to long rant) [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.5 player in a 3.0 world...(not to long rant) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
CuCulain42
11-10-04, 01:21 PM Ok so I have all the core 3.5 books but the group I get to play in uses 3.0 rule. It is unbelievably frustrating to figure out a character concept and then find out how much it sucks in the earlier version. Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't do lethal damage :banghead: , you have to burn an extra feat to use TWF :banghead:, Weapon finess is a weapon specific feat :banghead:, Feats like persuasive and nimble aren't there :banghead: what is up. It seems like every time I come up with a concept it doesn't work in 3.0.
I skipped straight from 2e to 3.5 and I know the 3.5 rules fairly well and at times it seems like they all contradict 3.0 rules. Why didn't they just call it 4e and be done with it. The 2 version are about as compatable as 2e and 3.5 you have to convert everything. :headexplo I'm sure there are others out there who have this problem.
I enjoy my group and a bunch of the same people in it are in the game I run (3.5) and I'm sure some of them have the same frustrations. We roleplay well it's just the mechanics that get frustrating.[/RANT]
I thank you for you ear just had the need to rant.
Morwen
11-10-04, 01:38 PM Well, have you tried asking that group if they would start playing 3.5 instead of 3.0? Since several of the players are in both your 3.5 group and in the 3.0 group, it would seem likely that they, at least, have the 3.5 books and would welcome the opportunity to only have to remember one rule set.
Doug McCrae
11-10-04, 02:01 PM You should be able to pick up 2nd hand copies of the 3.0 rules pretty cheap.
Board_Rider
11-10-04, 02:19 PM Go with Morwen suggestion and just go to 3.5. It will probably be easier for them to just do a full conversion.
CuCulain42
11-10-04, 02:38 PM Well, have you tried asking that group if they would start playing 3.5 instead of 3.0? Since several of the players are in both your 3.5 group and in the 3.0 group, it would seem likely that they, at least, have the 3.5 books and would welcome the opportunity to only have to remember one rule set.

Problem is most of us really can't afford to buy new books, and a couple of the 3.0 players have so much for 3.0 (including Mongoose press munchkin stuff :rolleyes: )that even the suggestion of converting turns into a whine session. Oh and those in my 3.5 group who are also in the 3.0 group pretty much are relying on the SRD for their rules or share books while we play with those of us who have 3.5. I pobably should find 3.0 copies of the core books but then again that's yet another set of rules that after a while I probably won't use (already have 1e & 2e.)
Like I said I just had to rant, some of the differences are just really frusrating when your working on a character concept and it just don't work like you thought it would.
Enialis Galadonels
11-12-04, 12:54 PM Nice, nice :). Mr CuCulain just proved my own idea how bad 3.5 is ;)

Well I would suggest going for 3.0. It is good, it is really good.
And how do you mean system is not supported by system? Although I do not know what Persuasiveness and Nimble is, but my guess is that skill focus on Diplomacy/bluff or pick pocket skills, isn't it?!

And how does your character concept sux brought from 3.5 to 3.0? In roleplaying or in character power way?

Supporting the ranting, because I just do not get that. 3.0 imho is really good.
MadApplejack
11-12-04, 01:02 PM I was reluctant to make the switch to 3.5 because I didn't want to spend more money for something I already had, which was the basic rules. I felt like the changes for all for the better, but I just didn't want to spend another $90 (more or less) for Core books, when that could be better spent on expanded material. So, I just went to the SRD page, cut & pasted all the changes onto a few documents, put them in a 3-ring binder, and highlighted the text in the core books concerning changes. When it's just that easy (and yes, it is just that easy), your group has no excuse not to update.
delroland
11-12-04, 02:21 PM Yeah, D/L the SRD, and have the group foot the cost to get it printed. If you go through school (if you are going to school...) It should only cost you about $20-$30 for the whole thing.
Thorak
11-12-04, 03:40 PM Everyone suggesting he should force his group to change to 3.5 should take a step back and realize they're encouraging him to be an arse. He's the lone 3.5 player. Everyone else in the group likes 3.0. And has no desire to switch. There's absolutely no reason they should. And it certainly wouldn't be 'easier' for his entire group, including the DM, to switch to 3.5 than it would for him to switch to 3.0.

Your problem, Cuculain42, is that you're trying to play 3.5 when they're playing 3.0. Read the 3.0 books. Forget everything you know about 3.5. They're not playing it, and it's irrelevant. Would you get annoyed by a 3.0 player asking why they can't take Ambidexterity, if you were playing a 3.5 game? That's exactly how your group feels every single time you complain about 3.0.

Either find a 3.5 group, or play the version your group plays.
Gnomish Zombie
11-12-04, 04:52 PM I'd try to think outside the box.
How close to the 3.0 rules as written is your DM?
In our games, whilst we mostly play 3.0, we use anything from 3.5 that we feel makes more sense than in 3.0 (haste, etc.). And we use the Complete Warrior instead of Sword and Fist.
I guess it's what most people reffer to as 3.25

Of course, it's all up to your DM, but maybe you could ask him once in awhile if you can use this or that from 3.5, as a house rule.

If he's not ok with that, you're just gonna have to accept to play it his way. IMO, get the 3.0 SRD (it's still up I think, just hard to find), and check it when you want to make a char. Read some of the other things. And discuss with the other player about what are the changes from 3.0/3.5. If the game is big enough, get used to 3.0 rules. Sure, it's not a long-term investment. Which leaves it a short-term investment. I don't see the problem. You might even come to like some of the older rules (like the simplicity of having no weapon sizes, for example), or enjoy some of the PrCs from the old book (as much as I like the 3.5 splatbooks, I'm pretty sure they failed to convert all the interesting PrCs).
CuCulain42
11-12-04, 06:00 PM <snip>
Of course, it's all up to your DM, but maybe you could ask him once in awhile if you can use this or that from 3.5, as a house rule. <snip>

You might even come to like some of the older rules (like the simplicity of having no weapon sizes, for example),

Ok we don't house rule much of anything( right now the only house rule we have is we use 3.5 keen/improved crit) because we have one of them rules lawyer/munchkins who will somehow find someway to abuse the ruling.
Oh and I happen to like the weapon sizes in 3.5(and the DR too.)

Your problem, Cuculain42, is that you're trying to play 3.5 when they're playing 3.0. Read the 3.0 books. Forget everything you know about 3.5. They're not playing it, and it's irrelevant. Would you get annoyed by a 3.0 player asking why they can't take Ambidexterity, if you were playing a 3.5 game? That's exactly how your group feels every single time you complain about 3.0.
Either find a 3.5 group, or play the version your group plays.
Ok first I don't complain to the group and I try to play the 3.0 version. Second, like I said, I run a 3.5 game so I am constantly making NPC's and such. I was just getting some steam spouted off here so I don't have to complain to the 3.0 group. I guess the bigest problem I have is that to me, having all my post 2e exposure is that 3.0 just seems clunky compared to 3.5. For instance, I'm still scratching my head over partial actions... :confused:
Oh and there really is no switching groups...I live in Cheyenne WY...I consider myself luck to be in the one I am.
MonkeyPaladin
11-12-04, 09:57 PM I'd say to take advantage of the situation. Playing a fighter or a rogue? Take a one level dip in ranger and get some two weapon fighting. Playing a cleric? Get harm, heal, and maybe some of that FR elf cleric action where you're a better archer than the fighters. Druid? Load up on the animal army. A wizard? Haste, auto kill spells, and all kinds of other sweet stuff awaits. There's a reason they revised this stuff away, you know. The articles on the revisions are practically a bible for power gaming. Either the group will go 3.5 to balance it all or you'll be pretty bad ass, either way.

The most important thing is that you're in a D&D group and playing regularly. If they DM and roleplay decently, the rules aren't that damn important anyway.
delroland
11-16-04, 12:25 AM Don't listen to these losers; 3.0 SUX! I mean, you can't even get a deluxe leather-bound copy of the PHB! Duhr! :P
Jallis 370
11-16-04, 08:02 AM I converted to 3.5 as soon as it came because all other books was gonna use those core rules. I thought the rules had improved (xept for haste) and was happy about it. I sold my dm guide and monster manual but kept the PH just in case. My original group allso converted because I got 5000kr (NOK) in support from a foundation (long story short; they give money for sosial activities that don't have money). Last sunday I played with them and they kept complaining about the new rules. (one was that reach must have changed because every 2nd square diagonally count as 5ft more. does that count when determining if a creature can hit you diagonally?) and so and so. I kannot find the flaws myself though...
kam_Islash
11-16-04, 10:14 AM I'm confused, what exactly do these changes entail?
Further, were the abuses so damn popular that people actually refuse to upgrade????
Cor blimey thats unsportsmanlike....

///
On_the_wings_of_TPK
11-16-04, 01:10 PM I'm confused, what exactly do these changes entail?
Further, were the abuses so damn popular that people actually refuse to upgrade????
Cor blimey thats unsportsmanlike....

///
I started on 3.0, and balked at 3.5. Hey it was scary! But over the last few campaign relms (I homebrew just about everything) I've been slowly switching over to it, as I get more source matrail, and I am finally ready to make a complete switch for our next relm. guess i should pick the core 3.5 set.
Yea there were a lot of changes, there all fairly easy to convert back and forth though. The only thing that doesn't convert to well is DR. It wasn't that the abuses were popular, just glaringly odviouse. With PrC's like the 'cheater of mystra' (Mystic of thurdge<--spelling!?!?!) right in the DMG, one really couldn't blame their players for being munchkins.
I also didn't like the idea of replacing my core rules set, $150 Canadain. Needless to say I was unimpressed when wizards made the change, but after looking over the matreil with an open mind it really isn't that bad. My only complaint is still that 3.5 is a munchkin's wet dream.

as for the OP, I recomend getting a copy of the 3.0 hand book, borrow it, and the compare it to the 3.5, just make notes on whats different. 99% of the stuff, with practice, will convert with a minnium of stress, as for the other 1% just toss it out the neartest port-hole and ask you DM to make something up.

cheers
fractal
11-16-04, 05:59 PM With PrC's like the 'cheater of mystra' (Mystic of thurdge<--spelling!?!?!) right in the DMG, one really couldn't blame their players for being munchkins.
Mystic Theurge really isn't that good, at least not unless you combine it with lots of non-core stuff.

You have a better selection of (low level) spells known, but you actually don't get any more spells/day of your top 3 or 4 spell levels, and much fewer of the top two.

I've currently got a low level character who rolled 18 Int and 16 Wis. I considered making her head towards Mystic Theurge, but then I did the math, and realized that she wouldn't even be competitive with a single-classed caster again until the mid-teens. Instead, I'm playing a Cloistered Cleric from UA. Not the most powerful build, but still better than a MT. At least I've got level 2 spells at level 3.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CuCulain42 11-10-04, 01:21 PM	Ok so I have all the core 3.5 books but the group I get to play in uses 3.0 rule. It is unbelievably frustrating to figure out a character concept and then find out how much it sucks in the earlier version. Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't do lethal damage :banghead: , you have to burn an extra feat to use TWF :banghead:, Weapon finess is a weapon specific feat :banghead:, Feats like persuasive and nimble aren't there :banghead: what is up. It seems like every time I come up with a concept it doesn't work in 3.0. I skipped straight from 2e to 3.5 and I know the 3.5 rules fairly well and at times it seems like they all contradict 3.0 rules. Why didn't they just call it 4e and be done with it. The 2 version are about as compatable as 2e and 3.5 you have to convert everything. :headexplo I'm sure there are others out there who have this problem. I enjoy my group and a bunch of the same people in it are in the game I run (3.5) and I'm sure some of them have the same frustrations. We roleplay well it's just the mechanics that get frustrating.[/RANT] I thank you for you ear just had the need to rant.
Morwen 11-10-04, 01:38 PM	Well, have you tried asking that group if they would start playing 3.5 instead of 3.0? Since several of the players are in both your 3.5 group and in the 3.0 group, it would seem likely that they, at least, have the 3.5 books and would welcome the opportunity to only have to remember one rule set.
Doug McCrae 11-10-04, 02:01 PM	You should be able to pick up 2nd hand copies of the 3.0 rules pretty cheap.
Board_Rider 11-10-04, 02:19 PM	Go with Morwen suggestion and just go to 3.5. It will probably be easier for them to just do a full conversion.
CuCulain42 11-10-04, 02:38 PM	Well, have you tried asking that group if they would start playing 3.5 instead of 3.0? Since several of the players are in both your 3.5 group and in the 3.0 group, it would seem likely that they, at least, have the 3.5 books and would welcome the opportunity to only have to remember one rule set. Problem is most of us really can't afford to buy new books, and a couple of the 3.0 players have so much for 3.0 (including Mongoose press munchkin stuff :rolleyes: )that even the suggestion of converting turns into a whine session. Oh and those in my 3.5 group who are also in the 3.0 group pretty much are relying on the SRD for their rules or share books while we play with those of us who have 3.5. I pobably should find 3.0 copies of the core books but then again that's yet another set of rules that after a while I probably won't use (already have 1e & 2e.) Like I said I just had to rant, some of the differences are just really frusrating when your working on a character concept and it just don't work like you thought it would.
Enialis Galadonels 11-12-04, 12:54 PM	Nice, nice :). Mr CuCulain just proved my own idea how bad 3.5 is ;) Well I would suggest going for 3.0. It is good, it is really good. And how do you mean system is not supported by system? Although I do not know what Persuasiveness and Nimble is, but my guess is that skill focus on Diplomacy/bluff or pick pocket skills, isn't it?! And how does your character concept sux brought from 3.5 to 3.0? In roleplaying or in character power way? Supporting the ranting, because I just do not get that. 3.0 imho is really good.
MadApplejack 11-12-04, 01:02 PM	I was reluctant to make the switch to 3.5 because I didn't want to spend more money for something I already had, which was the basic rules. I felt like the changes for all for the better, but I just didn't want to spend another $90 (more or less) for Core books, when that could be better spent on expanded material. So, I just went to the SRD page, cut & pasted all the changes onto a few documents, put them in a 3-ring binder, and highlighted the text in the core books concerning changes. When it's just that easy (and yes, it is just that easy), your group has no excuse not to update.
delroland 11-12-04, 02:21 PM	Yeah, D/L the SRD, and have the group foot the cost to get it printed. If you go through school (if you are going to school...) It should only cost you about $20-$30 for the whole thing.
Thorak 11-12-04, 03:40 PM	Everyone suggesting he should force his group to change to 3.5 should take a step back and realize they're encouraging him to be an arse. He's the lone 3.5 player. Everyone else in the group likes 3.0. And has no desire to switch. There's absolutely no reason they should. And it certainly wouldn't be 'easier' for his entire group, including the DM, to switch to 3.5 than it would for him to switch to 3.0. Your problem, Cuculain42, is that you're trying to play 3.5 when they're playing 3.0. Read the 3.0 books. Forget everything you know about 3.5. They're not playing it, and it's irrelevant. Would you get annoyed by a 3.0 player asking why they can't take Ambidexterity, if you were playing a 3.5 game? That's exactly how your group feels every single time you complain about 3.0. Either find a 3.5 group, or play the version your group plays.
Gnomish Zombie 11-12-04, 04:52 PM	I'd try to think outside the box. How close to the 3.0 rules as written is your DM? In our games, whilst we mostly play 3.0, we use anything from 3.5 that we feel makes more sense than in 3.0 (haste, etc.). And we use the Complete Warrior instead of Sword and Fist. I guess it's what most people reffer to as 3.25 Of course, it's all up to your DM, but maybe you could ask him once in awhile if you can use this or that from 3.5, as a house rule. If he's not ok with that, you're just gonna have to accept to play it his way. IMO, get the 3.0 SRD (it's still up I think, just hard to find), and check it when you want to make a char. Read some of the other things. And discuss with the other player about what are the changes from 3.0/3.5. If the game is big enough, get used to 3.0 rules. Sure, it's not a long-term investment. Which leaves it a short-term investment. I don't see the problem. You might even come to like some of the older rules (like the simplicity of having no weapon sizes, for example), or enjoy some of the PrCs from the old book (as much as I like the 3.5 splatbooks, I'm pretty sure they failed to convert all the interesting PrCs).
CuCulain42 11-12-04, 06:00 PM	<snip> Of course, it's all up to your DM, but maybe you could ask him once in awhile if you can use this or that from 3.5, as a house rule. <snip> You might even come to like some of the older rules (like the simplicity of having no weapon sizes, for example), Ok we don't house rule much of anything( right now the only house rule we have is we use 3.5 keen/improved crit) because we have one of them rules lawyer/munchkins who will somehow find someway to abuse the ruling. Oh and I happen to like the weapon sizes in 3.5(and the DR too.) Your problem, Cuculain42, is that you're trying to play 3.5 when they're playing 3.0. Read the 3.0 books. Forget everything you know about 3.5. They're not playing it, and it's irrelevant. Would you get annoyed by a 3.0 player asking why they can't take Ambidexterity, if you were playing a 3.5 game? That's exactly how your group feels every single time you complain about 3.0. Either find a 3.5 group, or play the version your group plays. Ok first I don't complain to the group and I try to play the 3.0 version. Second, like I said, I run a 3.5 game so I am constantly making NPC's and such. I was just getting some steam spouted off here so I don't have to complain to the 3.0 group. I guess the bigest problem I have is that to me, having all my post 2e exposure is that 3.0 just seems clunky compared to 3.5. For instance, I'm still scratching my head over partial actions... :confused: Oh and there really is no switching groups...I live in Cheyenne WY...I consider myself luck to be in the one I am.
MonkeyPaladin 11-12-04, 09:57 PM	I'd say to take advantage of the situation. Playing a fighter or a rogue? Take a one level dip in ranger and get some two weapon fighting. Playing a cleric? Get harm, heal, and maybe some of that FR elf cleric action where you're a better archer than the fighters. Druid? Load up on the animal army. A wizard? Haste, auto kill spells, and all kinds of other sweet stuff awaits. There's a reason they revised this stuff away, you know. The articles on the revisions are practically a bible for power gaming. Either the group will go 3.5 to balance it all or you'll be pretty bad ass, either way. The most important thing is that you're in a D&D group and playing regularly. If they DM and roleplay decently, the rules aren't that damn important anyway.
delroland 11-16-04, 12:25 AM	Don't listen to these losers; 3.0 SUX! I mean, you can't even get a deluxe leather-bound copy of the PHB! Duhr! :P
Jallis 370 11-16-04, 08:02 AM	I converted to 3.5 as soon as it came because all other books was gonna use those core rules. I thought the rules had improved (xept for haste) and was happy about it. I sold my dm guide and monster manual but kept the PH just in case. My original group allso converted because I got 5000kr (NOK) in support from a foundation (long story short; they give money for sosial activities that don't have money). Last sunday I played with them and they kept complaining about the new rules. (one was that reach must have changed because every 2nd square diagonally count as 5ft more. does that count when determining if a creature can hit you diagonally?) and so and so. I kannot find the flaws myself though...
kam_Islash 11-16-04, 10:14 AM	I'm confused, what exactly do these changes entail? Further, were the abuses so damn popular that people actually refuse to upgrade???? Cor blimey thats unsportsmanlike.... ///
On_the_wings_of_TPK 11-16-04, 01:10 PM	I'm confused, what exactly do these changes entail? Further, were the abuses so damn popular that people actually refuse to upgrade???? Cor blimey thats unsportsmanlike.... /// I started on 3.0, and balked at 3.5. Hey it was scary! But over the last few campaign relms (I homebrew just about everything) I've been slowly switching over to it, as I get more source matrail, and I am finally ready to make a complete switch for our next relm. guess i should pick the core 3.5 set. Yea there were a lot of changes, there all fairly easy to convert back and forth though. The only thing that doesn't convert to well is DR. It wasn't that the abuses were popular, just glaringly odviouse. With PrC's like the 'cheater of mystra' (Mystic of thurdge<--spelling!?!?!) right in the DMG, one really couldn't blame their players for being munchkins. I also didn't like the idea of replacing my core rules set, $150 Canadain. Needless to say I was unimpressed when wizards made the change, but after looking over the matreil with an open mind it really isn't that bad. My only complaint is still that 3.5 is a munchkin's wet dream. as for the OP, I recomend getting a copy of the 3.0 hand book, borrow it, and the compare it to the 3.5, just make notes on whats different. 99% of the stuff, with practice, will convert with a minnium of stress, as for the other 1% just toss it out the neartest port-hole and ask you DM to make something up. cheers
fractal 11-16-04, 05:59 PM	With PrC's like the 'cheater of mystra' (Mystic of thurdge<--spelling!?!?!) right in the DMG, one really couldn't blame their players for being munchkins. Mystic Theurge really isn't that good, at least not unless you combine it with lots of non-core stuff. You have a better selection of (low level) spells known, but you actually don't get any more spells/day of your top 3 or 4 spell levels, and much fewer of the top two. I've currently got a low level character who rolled 18 Int and 16 Wis. I considered making her head towards Mystic Theurge, but then I did the math, and realized that she wouldn't even be competitive with a single-classed caster again until the mid-teens. Instead, I'm playing a Cloistered Cleric from UA. Not the most powerful build, but still better than a MT. At least I've got level 2 spells at level 3.