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

After one year of 3.5, what do you think of the new rules?

  • Vastly Superior to 3.0! I can't believe how horrible and broken 3.0 was!

    Votes: 16 4.0%
  • Better than 3.0! Things are better balanced and generally more playable.

    Votes: 234 58.2%
  • Neutral. Some rules are an improvement, others are detrimental.

    Votes: 105 26.1%
  • Worse than 3.0. Most rule changes were unnecessary and poorly thought out.

    Votes: 22 5.5%
  • Terrible! 3.$ has really screwed up D&D!

    Votes: 9 2.2%
  • Other, please explain.

    Votes: 16 4.0%

I am neutral on this topic. I think that 3.0 had a lof of life left and the change really seemed to fragment the community.

Also, it seems a complete cash grab when you add in the complete books that quickly followed the core change. Not to mention that the complete books seem to immediately change or break their own rules in favor of powergaming twinking....
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I had to vote Other for a couple of reasons. The first, and most important, is that I have not bothered to even look at the new books. I have been running 3.0 off and on since it came out. Now, the groups I have run have not gotten very high in level, but nobody has complained about anything yet. Well, actually, tehre have been minor complaints, but suprisingly most of those have been artwork issues.

The other reason is cost. When I started a new group last year most of the players had 3.0 PH and did not want to go out and buy another PH. I do not blame them, especially since several of the bought the books within a few months of the new books coming out. I am also glad they did not decide to go with 3.5. I did not want to have to go through the hassle of buying the new books (at a considerable cost) and reading them extra carefully to find the changes.
 


I've been enjoying most of the 3.5 books and have enjoyed the revisions as well. For example, while I was disappointed with the updates to the Complete Book of Eldritch Might, having all three books in one hardback, is a bonus. Same deal with The Book of Fiends for example.

Many of the changes to the 3.5 books, like the Monster Manual, are also straight out better. More filled out with more details.
 

Some things I like about 3.5

1. Rangers needed a boost, they got it. (possibly the worst 3.0 class)

2. Monks needed a boost, they got it. (and that stupid unarmed BAB thing had to go)

3. Bards needed a boost, they got it. (they've needed to be able to cast in armour for so long)

4. Spells like harm and haste needed to be nerfed, they were ridiculous. They were nerfed. And I might be alone in this, but I like the nerfs to buff durations. In 3.0 you might as well have just given everyone a +4 bonus on every stat, and not had to spend half an hour whenever a dispel comes into play.

5. Paladins getting more than one smite a day is good.

6. Some item costs were changed - boots of standard equipment getting more expensive and the skill boosting items likewise. These are good changes.

7. Greater weapon focus and specialisation are good because they give an incentive to stay with fighter longer - there needed to be some reason to stay beyond weapon spec.

8. The barbarian got a boost. I like the new version because he's a bit more differentiated from the fighter now.

Some comments on 3.5

The square facings didn't seem necessary to me, but there were things in 3.0 sizes that made no sense either. Look up the 3.0 dire tiger. It's the size of a bus!

The new weapon sizes do not confuse me. In fact, in 3.0 I used to be confused for a moment by the sizes of weapons wielded by giants. It seems a lot easier to me to refer to a huge creature with a huge greatsword than a huge creature with a gargantuan greatsword.

My gripes in 3.5

The divine casters, druids and clerics, are too powerful. They get second best everything - two good saves, D8 hitpoints, medium BAB... (okay, so skillpoints suck for the cleric) Then they get arguably the best set of spells in the game. Spells to heal themselves. Offensive spells like flamestrike. "Make me a fighter but better" spells like divine favour, divine power and righteous might. Tons of defensive spells like death ward, restoration, spell resistance. Proficient with heavy armour, and a decent selection of weapons. Wildshape.

Meanwhile, our poor old wizard has to make do with only one good save, D4 hitpoints, bad BAB AND no skillpoints! He's proficient with nothing, hasn't got armour proficiencies and can't wear it and cast spells even if he was to acquire the proficiencies! They can't heal themselves, their offensive spells have the unfortunate side effect of drawing attention to their frail, exposed bodies, and their defensive spells just don't stand up to divine ones.

Maybe if wizard spells were a lot more powerful than cleric/druid ones, their utter lack of any other redeeming features would be acceptable, but as it is it's just not.

My other gripe with D&D 3.5 is polymorph. I hate it. Someone takes an ECL race, but as soon as polymorph is around, everyone's a fire giant whenever there's a fight. What kind of fantasy book/film has it's main characters transforming into giants every two minutes? It's retarded. In my mind, the point of D&D is human-type heroes struggling valiantly against threats like dragons and giants and vampires and stuff like that using just their training and skills, not this polymorphing crap.
 

Nope, Bards were the worst class in 3.0 and they remain the worst class in 3.5. Bards just suck in this edition.

They should have learned from the old 2e clerics. No one wants to play a class whose claim to fame is what they do for everyone else. The casting in armor thing is just a way to keep them more lively while they prance around the field singing while everyone else does the work.
 


Neutral.

I absolutely love the spell and magic item changes, and considered it the prime reason to pick up 3.5.

I dislike the Pokemount, weapon size, DR/magic (rest of the new DR rules are fine) changes, as well as some ridiculous changes in the combat section (eg. cover/concealment was very poorly done).

I'm neutral on most other things (the rest of the new DR rules, the class changes, etc.).
 

I had a hard time choosing between "Better than 3.0! Things are better balanced and generally more playable" and "Neutral. Some rules are an improvement, others are detrimental". I ended up voting neutral. Overal I think the revision was an improvement, it's just that the unneccesary and poorly though out changes leave enough of a sour taste in my mouth.

Gort said:
My other gripe with D&D 3.5 is polymorph. I hate it. Someone takes an ECL race, but as soon as polymorph is around, everyone's a fire giant whenever there's a fight. What kind of fantasy book/film has it's main characters transforming into giants every two minutes?

Did something prevent them from doing that before? I can't remember what the specific changes were.
 

I voted for other because I'm still in 3.0. If I had to upgrade (like if my house burned down with my 3.0 books in it), I would drop D&D entirely and buy some new games I found that would better suits my need (Riddle of steel for instance). The only reason why I still play 3.0 D&D is because I'm a cheap bastard and I don't want to spend another 30-100$ on books 3.5 or other.

I'm also very lazy so if I had to read another book cover to cover to see all the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 (neglecting all the confusion) I would rather read something new.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top