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

[Gothmog]

Having played both 3E and 3.5, I vastly prefer 3.5. In fact, I don't think I'd want to go back to 3E due to the insane powergaming the rules didn't take into account. And while 3.5 isn't perfect, I have a LOT fewer house rules for 3.5 than I did for 3E.

Good:
New DR system- finally some flavor and a reason for a character not to always use one weapon
Buff spell duration decreases
Harm/Haste/Heal
Bard, Monk, and Ranger fixed (or at least better)
Streamlined/enhanced feats
GSF reduced (some spell DCs in 3E got a little insane)
Monster creation is MUCH easier
Beefed-up monsters
Having a monster's BAB and grapple listed in the writeup!
Spell and magic item changes
Square facings- I know not a popular change, but I like it. If its assumed a one square character is moving and shifting position slightly in his area during a round, why don't the same assumptions apply to bigger critters? If an elephant turns, it takes quite a bit of maneuvering room, which is reflected in the square facing. Lets be honest- 12 humans surrounding an elephant WON'T prevent it from changing facing- it will just result in some squashed humans.

Bad:
Pokemount- the single dumbest change, but easily houseruled.
Cover/Concealment- this was just dumb, but again, easily houseruled
Weapon size rules- I know what they were trying to do, but its a little overly obtuse. However, I don't worry about it since I only allow human PCs.

 

[WizarDru]

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

With garden variety Polymorph Other, you could transform someone (with a touch/touch attack) to another creature from dimunitive to one size larger than their existing size. Under 3.5, you're limited instead by HD no greater than your level. So, to become a Fire Giant, you'd need to be a 15th level caster and a 15 HD target...and it caps at 15 HD, so Fire Giant barely scrapes by, there. 3.0 Polymorph was potentially more abusive, but they both are fairly similar...so I'm nto sure why he thinks it's worse.

 

[GlassJaw]

changing the classes from fighting man, cleric, and magic-user to their current versions i wouldn't call necessary.

so saying that the older versions were needing change i wouldn't call very accurate either.

edit: it just proves the adage that YMMV. and things look different from the other side of the fence.

Well we are just discussing going from 3.0 to 3.5, not from some dinosaur ruleset to present. Doing that is comparing apples to oranges.

So I will hold fast to my statement. Saying that changes to 3.0 were unnecessary I find inaccurate, Haste being the most obvious answer. Now was a brand-new version completely necessary? Well that argument will never end. Regardless, 3.5 does play better. I was adamantly opposed to it when 3.5 came out but I broke down and bought the books. Within weeks, both of the groups I was in converted and we've never looked back.

And while 3.5 isn't perfect, I have a LOT fewer house rules for 3.5 than I did for 3E.

This pretty much sums it up for me in a nutshell.

And I'm not so sure the ranger is all that much better than it was before

Other from not being front-loaded, favored enemy actually being worthwhile, and abilities that are actually useful in the wilderness, yeah, I can see how the 3.5 isn't as good. :\

 

[wingsandsword]

The skills shifts were appropriate, as were the spell tweaks. I really can't see what your complaint was on Polymorph Other, its just a name, and what else was it used for?

Well, Baleful Polymorph will only turn it's victim into a small animal. Polymorph Other would turn it's victim into anything within the limits of a Polymorph Self spell.

I'd at several games seen Polymorph Other used to give racist/sexist (or just generally snobbish) NPC's (or PC's) their comeuppance. It could also be used to great effect by infiltrators: turn a guard into a monstrous race like orc or kobold and when he sounds an alarm the other guards attack on sight, a great distraction.

Baleful Polymorph is a video-game spell, like a "Frog" effect from a Final Fantasy game, Polymorph Other had lots of utility use and roleplaying options if you could think "outside the box".

It seems like they removed all that functionality from Polymorph Other just so it would be easier to program into a video game. How was Polymorph Other so broken that they had to not only limit the new form to a 1 HD Animal but bump it up to 5th level, and they never discovered it until now, but it worked as a 4th level spell doing all that since 1e?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'm on the marginally positive side of neutral but still neutral.

Though my home group has long-since converted to 3.5 (before I joined actually), I've been playing some 3.0 RPGA games recently and have been able to compare them side by side after a bit:

The good:
-Harm made more sensible
-Ray of Enfeeblement turned into a GOOD spell. Actually, 3.5 Necromancy is a very very robust school of magic and I thoroughly like the change.
-Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, the core Arcane Trickster. Finally, mutliclassed spellcasters get a bone thrown to them.
-More paladin smites.
-The Pokemount. I didn't like it when I first heard of it but it's grown on me. I still think paladins should have more flexibility and should have options other than mounts but the pokemount is a workable and elegant solution. And it ties in fairly well with some legends and stories. I recently read a story about a Catholic Saint who found a massive dog nearby whenever he was in trouble. He didn't know where it came from or where it went when danger was past but it was there when he needed it. The pokemount seems to fit right in the genre.
-More monk flexibility
-The new ranger: more interesting and harder to cherrypick
-hp and hardness increases for magic equipment.
-For the first time in years, Spiritual Weapon is a good spell. Who'd have thunk it?

The neutral:
-I still don't like 3.5 haste. Going back to 3.0 haste made me realize I don't particularly like it either--two spells per round without quickening makes ambushes overly deadly but I don't like the new version.
-The new druid. I thought druids were balanced in 3.0 The animal companion makes a huge contribution every time it hits the table. Still, I can understand why they wanted to make druids more interesting. Spontaneous Summon Nature's Ally was enough though. Everything else is utter overkill. And the ridiculous druid spells that keep coming into the supplements makes me wonder if anyone at WotC actually reads the stuff they write for druids or has seen one in action. Also, despite the niftiness of monster summoning, druids summoning huge flocks of hippogriffs tend to take as much time as everyone else put together. Finally, they really tend to crowd out conjurers focussed on summoning rather than battlefield control. All in all, my reaction is ambivalence.
-The new charging rules. They're over-restrictive but the 3.0 rules were overly generous.
-The new Improved Trip. The feat is great. It needed a bonus to the trip roll in order to be useful since the characters who have it often have less strength than others. However, the AoO for standing up puts it over the top. WotC can't just hammer a nail in until it's flush with the wood, they keep beating and scarring the wood with their hammers even after the nail is driven in.
-The new Power Attack. There's a lot to be said for it. It makes power attack more useful at high levels. It helps balance the full attack disparity between melee characters and archers. It helps deal with DR. But it's really too much of a must-have feat.
-The new DR. Some of its effects are good and some are bad. I don't mind having a couple weapons but the golf-bag is pretty nuts and DR/magic needs more variability.
The bad:
-Why, oh why, did they not rename Darkness when they utterly changed the effect?
-The useless overrun rules. If you can't overrun as a part of a charge, what's the point? It's not as if it came up more than once or twice in 3 years of 3.0 play. Yet another example of WotC fixing something that wasn't broken and ruining perfectly good options while doing so.
-Paladins' turning nerfed into uselessness. Turning is useless enough past level 6 at cleric level. Cleric level -3 is just an insult. All it's good for is Aid Other and Divine Feats.
-Wizard specialization: Abjuration specialization is not as valuable as evocation or necromancy and losing enchantment just isn't the same as losing conjuration. 3.0 understood this. 3.5 doesn't.
-Hold Person. This was an idiotic change.
-Spell Focus/Greater Spell Focus: Sure, there were problems when you combined various prestige classes with Greater Spell Focus but once again, WotC "fixed" the problem from so many different angles that it's almost worse than when it started. Note to WotC: If one nail is good, 500 nails are not necessarily better.
-The great buff spell nerf: There was nothing broken here and even what was, at times abusive didn't need to be made utterly useless as the 3.5 revision made it. Oh, and if we're including Greater Magic Weapon in this, WHY ON EARTH DID YOU NOT CHANGE THE INFINITELY MORE ABUSIVE SPIKES SPELL WHEN YOU MORONS REPRINTED IT WITHOUT THOUGHT OR CHANGES IN COMPLETE DIVINE? (Rant over).
-The cleric spell list: On the one hand, clerics still have a great list. On the other hand, with the nerfs of Hold Person and Calm Emotions and the removal of of Random Action, Enchantment-focussed spellcasting clerics are no longer viable. And, since evocation focussed clerics don't become viable until 9th level, there's not a lot of room for the cleric who is focussed on using spells with saves to destroy his god's enemies.
-3.5 Shield: It's like Mage Armor only it's got 1/60 the duration. Why would I bother again? (I usually don't--oh OK). The 3.0 version needed changing and maybe the bonus needed to go down. But it should have at least scaled with level.

 

[Pants]

-3.5 Shield: It's like Mage Armor only it's got 1/60 the duration. Why would I bother again? (I usually don't--oh OK). The 3.0 version needed changing and maybe the bonus needed to go down. But it should have at least scaled with level.

It blocks magic missiles.

I prefer 3.5 over 3.0 mainly for several big reasons:
- Haste is much less abusive (the mage in my group used it in every battle. It was insane.)
- The Ranger and the Bard are viable characters now
- The Combat chapter is much clearer and easier to understand
- The MM3.5 is a very big improvement over the 3.0 version in nearly every way.
- Making monsters is much, much easier than before.
- Making Wildshape better

Some of my neutral or ambivalent changes:
- Changes to school specialization.
- Breaking spells down and removing their versatility (ie Symbol and Emotion)
- Powering up Druids (they really didn't need it)
- Dumbing down concealment

The rest is just gravy.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

I have to disagree. To quote no fewer than three players in three seperate games: 'The bard kicks ass!'

While he would not be my choice for 'first four' he is the best fifth in the game!

The Auld Grump

 

[Li Shenron]

changing the classes from fighting man, cleric, and magic-user to their current versions i wouldn't call necessary.

Although at least IMO it was necessary to at least change the names! "Fighting man" and "magic-user" sounded so boring...

 

[FireLance]

I prefer 3.5e to 3.0e, but that's because I see D&D as a game, and I am judging it on the basis of how easy it is to run and how fun it is to play.

Those who want the game to reflect their own preconceived notions of how magic "should" work, what characters "should" be able to do, what is "realistic", or are unable to come to grips with the concept of abstractions and simplifications for game purposes may, of course, be disappointed.

I wonder why they don't complain that in chess, the queen is "broken", bishops only being able to move diagonally is "unrealistic", and that castles shouldn't even be allowed to move at all?

 

[Arnwyn]

I prefer 3.5e to 3.0e, but that's because I see D&D as a game, and I am judging it on the basis of how easy it is to run and how fun it is to play.

I see absolutely no connection between what you say here, and what you say below that. I don't even see a connection between the first part of this sentence and the second part.