1 year of 3.5e...How has the conversion gone?

[Cithindril]

My gaming group and I had only gotten our 3.0 books about a year before the revision, so we decided to ignore it and play 3.0 exclusively. I have looked over the SRD, but have not seen anything so earth-shaking that I feel compelled to shell out $70 or so and make my players relearn the game.

Just my two cents...

 

[Dehmner the Scarred]

i use 3.5 as well, with a few modifications. i think WoTC and the D20 community as a whole are doing a great job with the current version. as for buying the new core books, i found the PHB and DMG bundled together on amazon for $40.00 (us funds) and they even paid shipping. but nevertheless, the SRD works just as well

 

[rangerjohn]

I play 3.5 here on the boards, but wouldn't if I had my druthers. I never use buffs anymore as a spellcaster. The requirement to cast them in combat is just too harsh. Fly has been neutured. I really hate the golfbag of weapons syndrome. And as many others have pointed out, Pokemounts just do not make since. Oh, one other thing that came up in a thread recently, why don't improved critical and keen stack? Now if the weapon, just gave the feat, I could understand. But as written, with one, from training you know where to place your blows. With the other you have an extremely sharp blade. What has one to do with the other? That's like saying str and enhancement bonuses don't stack, because thier mechanics are the same. They both add +'s to hit and damage. Like the poll said, these changes weren't needed and often don't even make since.

 

[shilsen]

I made the change and never regretted the investment of money. I buy very few D&D books, so for me, that's saying a lot.

 

[nopantsyet]

I think 3.5 is a mixed bag, but overall it has been working out well. I think the things it fixed are bigger than the things I don't like as much. I was not planning on upgrading any time soon, but my players wanted to so we did, and I really can't say I have any big complaints. Not every rule makes sense, I don't agree with every change, but that's part of any game system, revision or not.

 

[BOZ]

given that i work with monster conversions, i think 3.5 has been wonderful. however, from a player's standpoint... SPELLZ AND MAGIC ITEMZ GOT NERFED DUDE!!!!!!111!!!!11!1!1!!!!!

so i had to go with option #2.

 

[beeber]

an improvement upon a welcome revision. nice to fix the bugs, but unfortunate to pay for the new books. yes, i could have just downloaded the srd. but at least the books still look cool.

i don't think wotc will try & pull a "4.0" in the near future. it doesn't make sense to anger their core audience further. they'll probably just post little errata & updates periodically. waiting for the BoED one. . . .

 

[Psion]

Overall, neutral. Some changes were a long time coming, and/or have interesting and useful consequences.

Some make me wonder what the hell they were thinking. Cover/concealment, for example.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Mostly good.

A few exceptions:

The Paladin's My Pocket Pony
Square Monsters (I liked the long critters, a square horse is just silly.)
The simplified cover rules.
Some (not all) of the nerfed spells. I am ignoring some of the 1 minute per level changes.

On the other hand I have a player who is actually sticking with Ranger! Something that just didn't occur in 3.

The Auld Grump, you know sooner or later Diaglo is going to show up, don't you?

 

[scourger]

I chose worse. There was nothing I wanted to change in 3.0, but I continually find things that I want to change in 3.5; mostly to change things back to the way they worked in 3.0. Weapon sizes and damage reduction are two things that spring to mind immediately. And, I haven't forced my munchkin players to switch their 3.0 characters to 3.5 since I know they will lose some "powers" even if they gain new ones--and I'll never hear the end of it. I'd just rather not run D&D or start a new 3.5 game. I think it's how publishers keep me buying new products.