What did 3.0 do better?

[ShurikVch]

Slaadi Chaotic Variations

Alienist

Monk - with the unusual "extra attack every 3 levels" BAB (without suffering to-hit penalty from the Flurry of Blows)

Several "weapon specialist" PrC were all rolled into Exotic Weapon Master (which is just dumb! )

Minor Servitor was removed in favor of Awaken Construct (according to Spell Compendium)

[weckar]

It had Ravenloft.

[Luccan]

Well, keeping it in would have meant requiring all new classes to detail their "level 1/2"...

Not really, they could've relied on houserules for that. You had 11 examples in the DMG, I'm sure most groups could've figured it out on their own. Besides which, the actual abilities gained in 1/2 levels weren't really that complicated, so even if they did "have to" include the 1/2 level, it would've been really easy. A section at the end of each new book's selection of base classes (possibly a section regarding all alternate rules that might've interacted differently with the classes presented) wouldn't have been all that much work. That said, I think the 1/2 levels were kind of replaced with the Gestalt concept. I get that isn't the exact same thing as multiclassing, but Gestalt seems to be the idea of the first level multiclass extended out to all 20 levels.

Several "weapon specialist" PrC were all rolled into Exotic Weapon Master (which is just dumb! )

I mean, EWM isn't great, but were those PrCs any better? Genuine question, I'm not sure what classes you're referring to.

[wilphe]

Something else:

Gnomes were Favoured Class: Illusionist

+++++++++++

I understand the reasoning behind DR change was that they wanted to avoid the "you must be this tall to attack the monster syndrome", because it relied upon you having a +X weapon at certain levels and DR then was not just different typed but also larger

[wilphe]

-Power Attack. Unpopular opinion, but I was not a fan of the change that allowed you to double the attack roll penalty when you wield the weapon with two hands. It was the various subsequent materials that built upon this change that were largely responsible for sword-and-board style melee characters being relegated to the waste bin in optimized combat.

So THF got boosted, Archery was nerfed

Sword and board got made worse by comparison with TWF, especially as Power Attack was supposed to be a way past DR

TWF was technically boosted because it didn't require two feets anymore, but not otherwise changed


++++++++++++

What was the reasoning behind the changes to buff durations I forget?

Because it turned from "everybody can be buffed"

to

"Only worth buffing yourself via DMM or other way of getting cheap persist"

[ShurikVch]

I mean, EWM isn't great, but were those PrCs any better? Genuine question, I'm not sure what classes you're referring to.

On closer inspection, there is one that matter - Weapon Master (Sword and Fist; nonpsionic variant of this one); it gives crit chance stacking (with possible increased damage multiplier), maximizes weapon damage, and Whirlwind as a standard action
As you can see - nothing alike to Exotic Weapon Master (Masters of the Wild)

[Scrollreader]

What was the reasoning behind the changes to buff durations I forget?

Because it turned from "everybody can be buffed"

to

"Only worth buffing yourself via DMM or other way of getting cheap persist"

Because basically, all NPCs (and PCs) had to have multiple stat blocks. Half a dozen stat boosters, plus other long duration spells that radically altered how the game was played, and even if you wanted certain items. All just a Dispel away from vanishing. As hard as it is to believe, in 3.0 casters won /harder/ than in 3.5.

[wilphe]

Is that the way it worked?

I would have thought being able for example to cast Bulls Strength twice on your melee guys would and have it last for hours would be better for melee

[atemu1234]

I liked how 3e handled weapon sizes. It made decent sense to me and made it less difficult to arm differently-sized characters.

[Scrollreader]

Is that the way it worked?

I would have thought being able for example to cast Bulls Strength twice on your melee guys would and have it last for hours would be better for melee

Oh, to some extent it did. But then the BBEG was still carrying a buff stack for Caster Level Hours (as well as various party members). And the enhancement bonus was random. Ultimately, less problematic than the faster rising DCs on save or dies and the haste meaning casters cast twice a round. (Round 1 was always haste, since you then got a partial action to cast whatever else you were casting anyway).

Back on topic, Ninjas. Ninjas were better in 3.0. (See Ninja of the Crescent Moon and Ninja Spy). And so were a few other PrCs. Notably, I miss the Lasher and the 3.0 elemental savant.

[Eldariel]

I mean, EWM isn't great, but were those PrCs any better? Genuine question, I'm not sure what classes you're referring to.

Both Master of the Chain and Weapon Master are quite good, to the point that I port them into 3.5 regularly.


Really, almost all martial PRCs I make use of are either Barbarian PRCs (Frenzied Berserker, Bear Warrior, Runescarred Berserker, Fist of the Forests, etc.) or 3.0 (Weapon Master, Deepwood Sniper, Disciple of Dispater, Master of the Chain, Order of the Bow Initiate, Peerless Archer, etc.). 3.5 has like...Dervish far as non-terrible warrior PRCs go (though admittedly many of the 3.0 PRCs have somewhat ridiculous feat requirements). And even Dervish is kinda non-spectacular (if certainly not terrible). Most of them are just straight-up worse than multiclassing between base classes.

Lots of caster PRCs too. Alienist, Elemental Savant, etc. are certainly up there. Really, most of the PRC updates to 3.5 failed. Even Arcane Archer, which is mostly **** in both editions aside from Imbue Arrow, lost its single reason to exist with the arrow bonus no longer stacking with the weapon bonus (not that Greater Magic Weapon wouldn't be better either way).

[Bphill561]

I would have to agree with other posters that magic buffs were handled better in 3.0. Persistent spell having an adjustment of +4 was better than 3.5's +6 with divine metamagic. Although hard to track down now, the game creators stated the change to +6 was to avoid divine power from being made persistent, but a few splat books later it was back on the table at even earlier levels. It that was really the case, it seems making a change to divine power so it could not be made persistent would have been a better move (Like divine agility, although I know occular spell gets around that as well for another +2).

The 1d4+1 stat spells were also quite a bit more useful. The only "abuse" was after the Sage ruled that you could apply the same metamagic feat to a spell more than once in 3.0. Before that a Maximized, Empowered Bull's Strength could only add a +7 which was marginally better than a +6 item at the cost of 7th level spell. Even with the campaign specific old style Dweomerkeeper, the spell level only fell to level 5. Also the unnecessary ruling on stacking of metamagic invalidated the epic feat Intensify spell which is a +7 for maximize and double, since it could already be performed with maximize and 2 empowers (feats were prereq's too for intensify spell). Although I do miss the days of apply extend several times to a spell.

So in the end, the nerf bat was swung several times against buffs and then completely invalidated and regressed with Divine metamagic.

[Quertus]

Also the unnecessary ruling on stacking of metamagic invalidated the epic feat Intensify spell which is a +7 for maximize and double, since it could already be performed with maximize and 2 empowers (feats were prereq's too for intensify spell).

Minor quibble.

Intensify Bull's Strength: +10 Str
Maximized twice-Empowered Bull's Strength: +1d4+6 Str

Intensify wasn't completely pointless.

[wilphe]

I liked how 3e handled weapon sizes. It made decent sense to me and made it less difficult to arm differently-sized characters.

Ah yes, need to add that to the list, at least in 3,5 it's an official option

[Vizzerdrix]

Animal companions. Rangers got the shaft in 3.5.

[Luccan]

Animal companions. Rangers got the shaft in 3.5.

I mean, they have more skill points... was that the only improvement?

[RNightstalker]

The Tempest PrC.

[ShurikVch]

Animal companions. Rangers got the shaft in 3.5.

Then Rogues and Bards too

[wilphe]

I'm trying to work out why one would think the 3,0 Ranger was better

I wasn't here then but I remember ENWorld had a veritable cottage industry of Ranger fixes.

3.0 Ranger had d10 to be sure but also:

Very front loaded (you got virtual ambidexterity and TWF at level 1) and then not much else

No class features other than Favoured Enemy

Favoured enemy scaled in the order you got them, so if for example you picked goblins at 1st level to be useful at low level you'd end up with +10 against them at 20th level, or the other way around - pick potent opponents for the later game you'd never see at low levels

And you couldn't take your own race as Favoured Enemy

[Doug Lampert]

So what 3.0 features are worth backporting into 3.5?

I can think of maybe:

Missile and Weapon enchantment stacking

Multiclass at 1st level


I recall something about large being split into "long" and "tall"

What would you consider house ruling from 3.0 into a 3.5 game?

Druids weren't nearly as overpowered in 3.0. Animal friendship as a spell meant that if animal companions were all that good (and they weren't, remember that 3.0 dinosaurs are not animals), then nothing stopped almost everyone from getting access. No one bothered much, because the companions weren't all that good.

And no Natural spell meant that being a bear was a choice, not a no-brainer.

Basically, a 3.5 Druid is three characters at once, a spell-caster, a melee character, and another melee character.
The 3.0 Druid is one really powerful character with a minor pet not even as useful as a familiar most of the time.