A D&D question

[Graustein]

I've recently gotten back into D&D, and have successfully completed my first campaign, which I DMd for some friends. While it was major fun, we've been playing in 2nd edition (Since that was what my dad had for sourcebooks) and want to move on to 3rd.

Here's the rub: While I know the basic rules for 3 and 3.5, (mostly from extensive playing of Neverwinter Nights, admittedly), I'm not terribly sure of the differences between the two. So, I'd like to call upon all D&D buffs to arm me with their knowledge: What is the difference between 3 and 3.5? Sourcebooks are expensive and this is not a question I'd like to spend a few hundred dollars finding the answer to by buying sets of both.

Could anybody give me a brief list of the changes that were made between the two editions, or even direct me to a website that has those differences listed? I'd also appreciate recommendations as to which one you prefer (giving reasons, of course) and any other bits of advice you'd like to give to an aspiring DM. We're fairly sure we want to switch to 3/3.5, the only question is which one.

A few things to note here:
First of all, the guys I'm playing with are playing it for the roleplaying aspect of it, not for phat lewtz. So the ease with which the game can be "broken" by taking overpowered feats is largely irrelevant; these guys are far more likely to go for an in-character feat than a necessarily more useful one. So that's not too much of an issue. I'm looking more for overall balance and, more importantly, fun factor.
Secondly, I'm fully aware of 4th ed (at least enough of it to not want it), and can guarantee you all that I want no part of it - no need to warn me away from it.

 

[Fightgarr]

3.5 was made to make money. Go with 3.0, 3.5 I find pampers your characters too much. I also think that 3.0's skillset was a little better for RP. But don't trust me, I disliked both and used the d20 system to forge my own rulesets which I generally create for specific playstyles.

 

[Lyiat]

There is a very simple answer to this, and a very long-winded answer to this. I will give you the simple.

3.0: Broken and easy to make an utterly twinked character.

3.5: Far more streamlined and better explained, and easier to work with from a DM's perspective.

 

[TerraMGP]

Brief, no. but if you will PM me with your overall concerns and understanding of the rules thus far I can take you though a runthough. Quite frankly I adore 3.5 much more than 2E though both have their charm. I will say that thanks to things like Prestige classes you are able to build a character much closer to his or her personality because you get a wide array of abilities from a large number of Prestige classes and non-core classes. Granted this leads to more people power gaming but sadly a good game will usually have more quite a bit of room for such people to play with.

Still I think it does a good job of breaking away from 'party roles' and making the mechanics bleed into the whole of roleplaying. Its also easy for new players with the D20 roles and removal of Thaco and attacks based on BAB among other changes helps take some confusion out without destroying the complexity.

Just avoid 4E. Horrible horrible game.

 

[Fightgarr]

There is a very simple answer to this, and a very long-winded answer to this. I will give you the simple.

3.0: Broken and easy to make an utterly twinked character.

3.5: Far more streamlined and better explained, and easier to work with from a DM's perspective.

I find it just as easy to make broken characters in 3.5 as in 3.0, especially with tools like the complete warrior, scoundrel etc. That's why I disallow prestige classes in my campaigns, it was just a way for less creative people who believed the classes were pigeon-holing their characters too much. No-one said that because you were a fighter you had to where armor and get great cleave, just adjust your skills and feats accordingly and maybe multiclass a bit and you will NEVER need a prestige class. But again, I make my own rules most of the time.

 

[Varchld]

I haven't played for 10 or more years, but then recently got dragged into an online game using 3.0 rules. Was fine but then we took a break and moved up to 3.5, and it was basically fixing balancing issues from what I noticed.
I'd go with 3.5 because I think it's what more sourcebooks and reference materials, and help, would be based around these days.

4th edition was printed to make money and bring it into line with a computer game style ruleset imo

I think I enjoyed 2nd edtition the most because you actually had to craft your character rather then choosing a mould to try and work with. Though it was more work if you want to do things which aren't specified in the rules.

 

[Limos]

The 3.X rules are much more open to player cheese (cheese in this instance refers to working within the rules in order to do really overpowered things). The 4th edition is nearly unbreakable but that might change once there are more books for it.

3.0 is slightly more broken than 3.5. A lot of people still run 3.0 anyway, but the broad majority of DnD players and Homebrewers use 3.5.

 

[Tsuki Tanaka]

Personally, I prefer 3.5 over 3.0 for the sole fact that 3.5 does not require that you waste a feat in order to attain two-weapon fighting (you had to take "ambidexterity" previously). All in all, I found that 3.5 got rid of a lot of useless feats and prereqs and, in general, ironed out all the little weird inconveniences and rough spots.

I'm not sure if that really makes much sense, or is really too helpful at all.

There are a couple sites that have the basic rules of 3.5 posted, last I checked. I'll have to search for it, however.

 

[TerraMGP]

There is a very simple answer to this, and a very long-winded answer to this. I will give you the simple.

3.0: Broken and easy to make an utterly twinked character.

3.5: Far more streamlined and better explained, and easier to work with from a DM's perspective.

I find it just as easy to make broken characters in 3.5 as in 3.0, especially with tools like the complete warrior, scoundrel etc. That's why I disallow prestige classes in my campaigns, it was just a way for less creative people who believed the classes were pigeon-holing their characters too much. No-one said that because you were a fighter you had to where armor and get great cleave, just adjust your skills and feats accordingly and maybe multiclass a bit and you will NEVER need a prestige class. But again, I make my own rules most of the time.

Or you could just tell your players to stop being twinks and use PRCs for what they are intended.

Seriously why does everyone have such a hard time saying no to their players when they try to make an uber character? Its the Designers job to figure out how to make a good system that is complex, deep and fun to play. Its the DMs job and the job of the players to avoid twinking and just play the freaking game.

Not meaning to be offensive to you specifically so sorry if I come off as rude but I see this kind of thing all the time and I don't understand it. Then again I don't understand why anyone would abuse something as wonderful as the prestige class to be a twink, or twink in the first place for that matter.

 

[Pyrrian]

3.5 is definitely rebalanced, and I'd suggest this is for the better. Taking a look at, say, Ranger in 3.0 versus 3.5 you'll notice a pretty apparent difference. They've also altered some spell text and durations, from what I can tell.

Other than that, I find that most of the changes from 3 to 3.5 have little effect on play, as a whole. My recommendation with either, though, is that you limit the prestige class availabilty - or maybe have your players pick a selection they may use at the beginning. I find this tends to keep the party more balanced and involved, in the long run, as you can plan the encounters to include everyone. Plus it means you can much more easily help your players roleplay into their chosen PRC.

I have to say, that was one thing I really liked about 2E - you tended to pick a class/kit and stick with it. It meant you knew where you were going from the get-go. As a player, at least, I found this to be less involved than sorting through Prestige Class requirements.

 

[TerraMGP]

3.5 is definitely rebalanced, and I'd suggest this is for the better. Taking a look at, say, Ranger in 3.0 versus 3.5 you'll notice a pretty apparent difference. They've also altered some spell text and durations, from what I can tell.

Other than that, I find that most of the changes from 3 to 3.5 have little effect on play, as a whole. My recommendation with either, though, is that you limit the prestige class availabilty - or maybe have your players pick a selection they may use at the beginning. I find this tends to keep the party more balanced and involved, in the long run, as you can plan the encounters to include everyone. Plus it means you can much more easily help your players roleplay into their chosen PRC.

I have to say, that was one thing I really liked about 2E - you tended to pick a class/kit and stick with it. It meant you knew where you were going from the get-go. As a player, at least, I found this to be less involved than sorting through Prestige Class requirements.

again confusing. All the hate against PRCs. If anything shouldn't you have the personality fleshed out as it starts with a PRC in mind and then aim for another should you wind up with it matching your personality more? if anything 'picking one thing and sticking with it' seemed alot more restrictive to me. PRCs are a way to shape your abilities to the exact personality/personality changes your character has undergone.

 

[axia777]

2nd Edition IMO is the best and last real Dungeons and Dragons. Why do I say this? Because Wizards of the Coast, may their souls rot in hell, bought out and destroyed TSR(and everything DnD). 3rd Edition is the wretched child of WoTC. That is my 2 cents adjusted for 2009 inflation.

 

[MikeTheElf]

I really don't understand the hate with 4th edition, but I guess it could just be coming from the fact I haven't really touched anything pre-3.0, and only skimmed the surface of 3.0. 4E was meant to facilitate teaching people new to D&D how to play the game, and it kind of combines 3.5 with the Star Wars d20.

If you have to shoot down 4E, then go with 3.5, it fixes most of the problems with 3.0 and there's plenty of supplementary books still on the market. In addition, many online sites that supply custom supplements are also running on 3.5E.

 

[Elurindel]

I'm not too sure about 3.0.The only real difference I know is that buffs from 3.0 are measured in durations of hours, whereas in 3.5 they're measured in minutes. 3.5 has always worked well for me though, although for me it's because I use the power of narrative fairly well.

 

[vede]

2e is much looser than 3.x.

3 (assuming, only experience is with 3.5, 2, and Basic) and 3.5 are much, much more specific than 2 and as such end up running a lot slower than 2. While in 2e you'll have a lot of spots where the DM and/or players will just have to be creative and improvise, 3.x usually has a special rule or whatever.

Also, 3 and 3.5 have more complex combat mechanics. Where 2e really only has (assuming you did away with rolling initiative every freaking round) THAC0 and AC along with some conditions for bonuses or penalties (small lists, though) and everything else is just a simple Strength check or something, 3 and 3.5 will probably have special rules.

2e is better, and you should stick with it.

2nd Edition IMO is the best and last real Dungeons and Dragons. Why do I say this? Because Wizards of the Coast, may their souls rot in hell, bought out and destroyed TSR(and everything DnD). 3rd Edition is the wretched child of WoTC. That is my 2 cents adjusted for 2009 inflation.

That's another very, very good reason to stick with 2e. Because WotC is an evil, greed-filled corporation who destroyed D&D so they could get more dollars.

 

[Alex_P]

Anyone who tells you "Oh, 3.X was total crap but 3.Y is God's gift to roleplaying" is exaggerating... a lot. Ultimately they're the same game with the same virtues and flaws, just different details.

I can't give you a truly comprehensive list but I can mention the bits that actually made a splash in forum discussions. Core mechanics -- checks, DCs, rounds, &c. -- remained largely unchanged between the two iterations.
- The ranger class was overhauled. 3.5 Rangers have the option of specializing in two-weapon fighting or archery (bonus feats). They had their hit dice lowered to d8. Most players seem to regard the newer ranger as better, but less appealing as a "dip" class.
- Bards were changed to spontaneous casters (kinda like sorcerers).
- Paladins got some tweaks. Most notably, the mount became a creature that you can summon and dismiss, to make it more compatible with dungeon-centric play.
- 3.0 had a weapon chart based around the idea that a halfling who wanted the equivalent of a human's longsword would use a "shortsword". In 3.5, that halfling would instead get a Small-size version of the longsword. I believe it was stated that most magical weapons change size a bit to accommodate their wielders.
- Heal and harm had their healing/damage capped.
- Haste was changed to grant extra attacks and movement rather than an actual extra action. In 3.0 it was typically used by mages to double how many spells they could cast.
- The stat buff spells, such as bull's strength, had their durations lowered but their effect stabilized (+4 to a stat instead of +1d4+1 or whatever it was).
- A few weapon and armor abilities (mostly the ones that had a narrow purpose) were changed from being priced to "as +X bonus" to being just "+Y gp", meaning that you could stack them onto an item without jacking up the item's cost exponentially or wasting slots.
- The 3.5 DMG is substantively bigger. Most of the extra space is taken up by content about Planes of existence (largely a reprint of the 3.0 Manual of the Planes).
- Formulas for deriving monster statistics changed a bit.
- The 3.5 Monster Manual is slightly larger: many of the iconic monsters like dark elves and mind flayers have some examples of those creatures with class levels added, to make dropping in tougher versions easier.

The biggest differences are really in the secondary content:
- 3.5 had more supplements published and a broader range of kinds of supplements. Most supplements can be used with either interchangeably, especially if you're already selective about what elements of a book you incorporate into your games.
- 3.0's class splatbooks were softcover black-and-white books. 3.5 class splats were hardcover. 3.0 class splatbooks were explicitly targeted towards those classes; 3.5's tried to be more oriented towards, umm, I guess you can call them character roles. So, like, you might find some war-related wizard spells in the book dedicated to warriors and soldiers.
- A lot of the content in 3.5's class splats was a revision of older stuff from 3.0 class splats or Dragon magazine articles (which is, y'know, new to you if you didn't buy 3.0 splats or Dragon).
- Both editions include a psionics supplement. 3.0's is called the Psionics Handbook, while 3.5's is called the ]i]Expanded Psionics Handbook[/i]. Psionics rules are pretty similar on the surface, but the resource economy is quite different. Both are designed to be kinda like magic, but point-based rather than slot-based. The 3.5 psionics book is larger and incorporates additional classes and powers. 3.0 psionics had problems with damage-scaling powers (in that damage just didn't scale); 3.5 tried to resolve them by adding the ability to pay more for a power to get a bigger effect. 3.0 included psychic combat using "attack and defense modes" (reminiscent of 2nd Edition's psionics rules), which were removed in 3.5.
- 3.0 had a supplement called the Epic Level Handbook, designed around characters reaching levels above 20 (needless to say, it incorporated a lot of really big numbers). Ostensible the goal was to allow campaigns to reach level 30, 40, 50, &c. 3.5 turned the basic idea of that book into a small section of the DMG instead, designed more to accommodate exceeding level 20 by a little bit (for a particularly big villain or a few last grand adventures).

In general, I'd recommend 3.5. If you like buying supplements, there's a broader range of stuff available, so it's more likely you'll find something that strikes your fancy. If you don't like buying supplements, the 3.5 "core books" are a little bit meatier by themselves.

Do note that most of the core content for 3rd Edition D&D -- with a few bits strategically omitted to make you want the real books -- is available freely and legally thanks to "System Reference Documents" based around the Open Gaming License. Take a look at d20srd.org [http://www.d20srd.org/]. Here's a 3.0 SRD [http://www.zombler.org/files/srd30a/].

-- Alex

 

[Silver]

Think of 3.5 as a patch. It fixes some bugs, it adds a bit more content. That's all you need to know. Whichever one you get it's going to work, and work well. If you get the "patch" instead, it's going to go a little smoother, but with a few changes to before. Nothing big to worry about.

Every 3.0 book works with 3.5 too.

 

[Jhereg42]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you have a good group the edition you choose is meaningless. Put together a good game and everyone will have fun, no matter what books you buy.

If you can find a full 3.0 set at a used book store for a couple bucks, go with it. The newer version, 3.5, has been retooled a bit and I like it. If you had to buy new go with that. If you have a good group, don't worry about prestige classes and the like. As long as people build the eventual class into the character's personality, like say a noble swordsman with aspirations of becoming a blademaster, let them run with it. Make their aquisition of the Prestige class into a quest where they have to impress their teacher or something. Make them earn it and they will value it.

Just my two cents.

 

[Alex_P]

Why are you picking D&D, anyway? There are a lot of fantasy RPGs out there, after all.

3rd Edition's main selling point (other than "It's more coherently put together than AD&D 2nd Edition was") is the massive emphasis on fiddly character-building. Is that a priority?

-- Alex

 

[Jaythulhu]

I've played a lot of d&d in my not-so-extensive life, from the green & red box sets of my youth through to 3.5Ed, and I've had a lot of fun in all of them. If you're really sick of using th e2nd ed (which to be honest was my favourite), then 3.5 is probably the easiest way to switch. It's fairly well balanced, with a lot of the conflicting rules cleared up, but the emphasis in the edition is fun over rules, with the dm free to drop/change anything he/she sees fit. I had my favourite experiences running a kit-bashed hybrid of 2nd and 3rd ed, including the best parts of the later ed with my favourite bits of the earlier (combat in 2E was superior, in my less than humble opinion, to 3rd ed, for example, but I loved the concept of feats from 3E).

In the end, it's really down to what you prefer. I ran a successful hackmaster table for quite a while too, and it was really just a slightly modified 2nd ed.