Sword of Spirit
Legend
I’ve believed for a long time that I prefer 3.5. But a while a go I started thinking about it, and the truth hit me: I don’t actually DM 3.5. I don’t “think” 3.5, and in reality, I don’t much care for 3.5.
What I actually prefer is a 2e setting (including all worlds and settings and the unified multi-verse cosmology) with moderately house-ruled core 3.5 rules.
I revert most 3.x cosmology changes back to 2e with house rules to take care discrepancies. I encourage what I call “legacy multi-classing,” which is essentially gestalt multi-classing with averaged hit points and an increasing level adjustment. I virtually eliminate prestige classes, although I allow the class variants (“kits”) from UA. I reject any base classes outside of the PHB, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Oriental Adventures (with very few exceptions). I enforce a default world with a lower magic, “less exotic” feel, and strongly encourage players to stick to core races (normal subraces encouraged).
I also realized that most of the 3.x books I have are 3.0 (although I use whatever official or unofficial updates are available). I have what I consider “the essentials:” PHB, DMG, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Manual of the Planes, Epic Level Handbook, and Deities & Demigods. Throw in the Monster Manual, Monster Manual 2, and Fiend Folio to cover my monstrous bases. (All 3.0 or updated from.) Add campaign settings. The few actual 3.5 books I have are all for a specific reason. Draconomicon: because I love dragons. Complete Arcane: because Warlock is the only 3.x class that I heartily get on board with. Planar Handbook: because I love the planes. And Magic Item Compendium: literally, because I was a player in a game that made heavy use of it.
Then I just add my own house-rules: eliminating all XP costs (power components only), eliminating all permanent level drain (while making resurrection actually more rare and risky through other means), creating my own assassin base class, re-balancing the skill list and armor types, creating vast quantities of complex terrain and climate based standard random encounter tables, removing incongruities in certain creature types and template, and several other rules.
But...other than that I mostly use the rules right out of the core 3.x, and have little use for any of the later 3.5 enhancements and innovations.
D&D 3.5? Once I look at the specifics...it doesn’t seem so.
I’ve seen more than once on the forums where a grognard (I use that term with respect rather than derision) will decry certain newer editions of the game, and express his strong preference for the old school style (usually ends up being AD&D 1e)...but then go on to mention in passing the few house-rules that their group has used since time immemorial, which are actually significant enough that it’s questionable whether or not it should actually be considered AD&D. No Vancian casting, changed classes, alternate healing methods, etc.
So I started wondering what editions we are actually playing (or preferring). Is it the edition you think it is? Or is it a hybrid? Are your house rules minor, or do they effectively make it a separate game?
This thread (as my example indicates) is all about whether our self-assessments of our preferences are accurate, not about which editions are perceived as superior or inferior.
Takers?
What I actually prefer is a 2e setting (including all worlds and settings and the unified multi-verse cosmology) with moderately house-ruled core 3.5 rules.
I revert most 3.x cosmology changes back to 2e with house rules to take care discrepancies. I encourage what I call “legacy multi-classing,” which is essentially gestalt multi-classing with averaged hit points and an increasing level adjustment. I virtually eliminate prestige classes, although I allow the class variants (“kits”) from UA. I reject any base classes outside of the PHB, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Oriental Adventures (with very few exceptions). I enforce a default world with a lower magic, “less exotic” feel, and strongly encourage players to stick to core races (normal subraces encouraged).
I also realized that most of the 3.x books I have are 3.0 (although I use whatever official or unofficial updates are available). I have what I consider “the essentials:” PHB, DMG, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Manual of the Planes, Epic Level Handbook, and Deities & Demigods. Throw in the Monster Manual, Monster Manual 2, and Fiend Folio to cover my monstrous bases. (All 3.0 or updated from.) Add campaign settings. The few actual 3.5 books I have are all for a specific reason. Draconomicon: because I love dragons. Complete Arcane: because Warlock is the only 3.x class that I heartily get on board with. Planar Handbook: because I love the planes. And Magic Item Compendium: literally, because I was a player in a game that made heavy use of it.
Then I just add my own house-rules: eliminating all XP costs (power components only), eliminating all permanent level drain (while making resurrection actually more rare and risky through other means), creating my own assassin base class, re-balancing the skill list and armor types, creating vast quantities of complex terrain and climate based standard random encounter tables, removing incongruities in certain creature types and template, and several other rules.
But...other than that I mostly use the rules right out of the core 3.x, and have little use for any of the later 3.5 enhancements and innovations.
D&D 3.5? Once I look at the specifics...it doesn’t seem so.
I’ve seen more than once on the forums where a grognard (I use that term with respect rather than derision) will decry certain newer editions of the game, and express his strong preference for the old school style (usually ends up being AD&D 1e)...but then go on to mention in passing the few house-rules that their group has used since time immemorial, which are actually significant enough that it’s questionable whether or not it should actually be considered AD&D. No Vancian casting, changed classes, alternate healing methods, etc.
So I started wondering what editions we are actually playing (or preferring). Is it the edition you think it is? Or is it a hybrid? Are your house rules minor, or do they effectively make it a separate game?
This thread (as my example indicates) is all about whether our self-assessments of our preferences are accurate, not about which editions are perceived as superior or inferior.
Takers?
