Actually this could be quite an interesting thread.  I know bugger all about 3.0/3.5 but I heard that 3.5 was an improvement and tidied up many of the playability loopholes and also eliminated rule-quirks that were readily munchkinable.

Gus Landt wrote:I didn't switch from 2nd Ed until 3.5, so I never played 3.0 myself.

I've never left Basic/Expert and 1E. Didn't do OCE, Mentzer, 2E or andything beyond, although I have bought and sold them. Never even read them. ATM I'm presuming 3.0 is completely worthless, while there seems to be value in 3.5E over and above RRP.

red_bus wrote:Actually this could be quite an interesting thread.  I know bugger all about 3.0/3.5 but I heard that 3.5 was an improvement and tidied up many of the playability loopholes and also eliminated rule-quirks that were readily munchkinable.

As an active player and collector of 3.5 (and some 3.0), here are some of the much improved differences that 3.5 fixed:

Polymorph Self - The 3.0 version allowed you to poly into Planatars and Solars. You didn't get their inherent spellcasting ability but you still got a lot more bang for your buck for a 4th level spell. The 3.5 version now allows you to polymorph into a creature based on your hit dice (caster level).

Haste - I think (because I'm at work and don't have it in front of me...) that haste in 3.0 allowed you to cast an extra spell (or an extra Quickened spell). Also the bonuses for haste were pretty big (+4 bonus to your armor class, etc.). 3.5 toned it down to where it should have been (+1 bonus to AC, 1 extra attack per round, etc.).

They removed a handful of prestige classes when converting from 3.0 to 3.5 (Weaponsmaster I think from the original Complete Warrior...), and modified or toned down a few prestige classes (Fatespinner). But nothing too drastic.

These are the two glaring spells that needed to be fixed when 3.0 first came out. If I remember anything else, I'll post it here.

But for the most part, the mechanics stayed the same

Personally, I don't quite see what was wrong with Basic/Expert. Surely the quality of the DM is what makes a game good or bad. Not adherence to a stack for 20+ hardback rulebooks. Both EGG and RJK have said as much, and I would tend to believe them. They know more about how to run a good game than I ever will.

On a similar note, I'd be willing to bet only a miniscule percentage of WoTC staff know anything about running or playing a good RPG. They may know how to flog horses, sell games in the market place, procure products and services, bean count, illustrate, distribute, hold games shows, shovel sh!t, whatever. But I'd be willing to bet only one or two in every hundred know what a good RPG experience is, and only a fraction of those able to do it themselves.

red_bus wrote:Actually this could be quite an interesting thread.  I know bugger all about 3.0/3.5 but I heard that 3.5 was an improvement and tidied up many of the playability loopholes and also eliminated rule-quirks that were readily munchkinable.

Yup.   That's pretty much it.

rob4 wrote: The ranger was heavily modified.  They were lowered from d10 to d8 hit dice, they were given more skill points, & the class abilities were staggered over more levels because a lot of people were 'level dipping' 1 level of ranger for the free two-weapon fighting feat.

I don't know what term everyone else uses, but my own group calls this a "rape and run,"  as in:

"So you're doing a rape and run on the ranger class?"

"Yup."

3.5 fixed a number of munchkin-isms in the 3.0 rules.  

All 3.0 ever did was provide a new version of AD&D with a working skill system and all the old gamer arguments settled in minute detail.

3.5 also added to monster stats and standardized things like space and reach.

The two rule sets are just...similar...enough to mess you up in small ways if you are using both versions.

While the 3.0 rulebooks might be lower value, the 3.0 modules are useable pretty much as written.

A gnoll from OD&D could rush into a 3.5 fight and swing his great sword just as well as a gnoll from any other edition.  The engine is the same.

3.0 was developed with a totally new, video-gameish approach in order to make money and attract the kiddies. Excellent business strategy in theory, but they neglected to factor in the lack of cash at that age, and requiring kids to buy hundreds of dollars worth of books is a bad business model.

mbassoc2003 wrote:On a similar note, I'd be willing to bet only a miniscule percentage of WoTC staff know anything about running or playing a good RPG. They may know how to flog horses, sell games in the market place, procure products and services, bean count, illustrate, distribute, hold games shows, shovel sh!t, whatever. But I'd be willing to bet only one or two in every hundred know what a good RPG experience is, and only a fraction of those able to do it themselves.

Wow, I'll take that bet and you can pay me by eating crow.

When I worked at WoTC, I don't think I've ever seen more passion go into a product, even trumping my time spent developing PC and console titles by hardcore gamers.

You're totally disparaging and disrespecting quite a few people with that statement of yours. I think the people who played in the weekly games with the likes of Monte Cook, Richard Baker, Sean K Reynolds, James Wyatt and many others might beg to differ with you.

Sure, Hasbro/WoTC management might be culpable with the direction of 3E/3.5/4E product and how it turned out in the average gamer's opinion, but to make an accusation like yours with apparently NO first-hand knowledge of the people involved is totally uncool in my opinion.

TollHouseGolem wrote:I think the people who played in the weekly games with the likes of Monte Cook, Richard Baker, Sean K Reynolds, James Wyatt and many others might beg to differ with you.

I know there are many writers involved in WoTC's version of D&D, but for each writer on WoTC's staff, there must be 50 or 100 supplemetary staff employed by WoTC, and I'm sure while a chunk of them play, the number of staff who have the passion and dedication to producing playable product is limited to those core writers etc. that you mantion. I'm talking percentages here, and about a company employing thousands of people with only a small amount of inhouse talent.

Compare this to the likes of TSR when they produced simpler and arguably more playable and flexible rules sets, and the percentage of talented DMs who understood the difference between being a DM and being a good DM was much higher.

Admittedly, most of that issue is one of corporate growth and the ancilliary staff that go along with large companies, but there you are.

I have to say I like a lot of the product produced by the newer well known writers in the industry, but on the whole those are not published through WoTC, presumably because tallented writers realise they are better off forming their own companies or writing independanly, than churning out the same corporate vision in the same corporate format for the same corporate audience. Yes, a writer needs a staple income, and WoTC can provide that in exchange for a certain amount of work on core product, but when you have talent and creativity it needs an outlet and freedom from constraint, and I suspect that is why talented writers write and publish independantly.