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

[FireLance]

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.

Well, I've read quite a number of posts with complaints like "I don't like the way X works" (e.g. the paladin's ability to summon a mount) or "Y is has been dumbed down" (e.g. cover and concealment). It seems to me that these judgements are made because 3.5e is being compared against some internal pre-conception of how magic and the world is supposed to work.

However, if you look at 3.5e as a game, I believe most (admittedly, not all) of the changes are for the better. Summon mount is just more useful to a paladin player, and the new cover and concealment rules simplify the game. Do you really need four different levels of cover and concealment? Why do you need to remember or look up four different AC and Reflex save bonuses, or four different miss chances?

My comparison with chess is to make the point that many traditional and well-loved games are not realistic and either place odd restrictions on what a piece can do, or allow it to do strange things. Why do we accept these in other games but not in 3.5e?

 

[KnowTheToe]

Ug, changes good!

 

[MerricB]

I love 3.5E. Almost everything is an improvement, and those areas I don't like I happily house rule away.

Are there things that still need to be tweaked? Absolutely!

Cheers!

 

[rangerjohn]

Basically, we just have to agree to disagree. Some of the changes so delude the powers there not worth using, almost all the buffs, if your using rounds to buff yourself up, you'll be dead before you attack. Or like flight which might as well be levitate of jump as far as usefulness. As far as comparing this to chess, your not trying to imagine a whole world behind chess. What were trying to do is compare it to what we've either read, or played before.

I just thought of something else, your comparing apples and oranges when you bring up chess. Comparing 3.5 to 3.0 would be like somebody making a set of rules for chess, that said bishops, rooks and queens can only move two squares at a time, because moving across the board is too powerful. There are some of us who simply believe the game was fine the way it was. You've also brought up another point, this isn't really a clarification, like they claim. It's almost like taking chess, and changing to checkers. Sure they use a lot of the same pieces, you could even use the chess pieces if you ignored thier differences other than color. That doesn't make checkers, chess however.

 

[Pants]

Some of the changes so delude the powers there not worth using, almost all the buffs, if your using rounds to buff yourself up, you'll be dead before you attack.

Actually, a buff spell (like bull's strength) will last at a minimum 30 rounds of combat. So it's quite easy to buff up before a battle and go in at suped up strength.
Anyway, with 3.5 my group actually uses the buffs more than in 3.0. We rarely ever used them, but I think that has to do more with how when 3.5 came out, I got to be a player more and as a player I was the designated buffer.
Back in 3.0, the hours long buffs really didn't come into play at all as we often had either one battle or a succession of several quick battles. I also much prefer the static +4 bonus rather than the 1d4+1 bonus, even if it means no empowering them.

But that's just me.

 

[MerricB]

What 3.5E has done is made the Buff spells much more of use primarily as the pre-requisites for creating the stat enhancement magic items (e.g. gauntlets of ogre power).

So, in my campaign, although the PCs don't cast those spells on each other that often, they do want the spells to create the items (and have done so!)

The spells are still good, but their purpose has shifted.

Cheers!

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

I'm an avid supporter of 3.5 and have finally got all the old 3.0 stuff pushed out of our next game. 3.5 isn't perfect, there are a few real problems with it still, but it's much nicer than 3.5 in my opinion.

-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.

He hated this feat in our group too, until we actually figured out how things work, now it is rarley used.
1) Even with Improve Trip, if you fail the trip, the opponent can try and trip you.
2) You can't use trip with your AoO against someone getting up from prone because they are still considered prone when the AoO goes off (AoOs occur before the action that provokes them happens).


Oh, and Shield is balanced with Mage Armor, because getting armor bonuses to AC is a fair amount easier than shield bonuses for most characters.

 

[GlassJaw]

You can't use trip with your AoO against someone getting up from prone because they are still considered prone when the AoO goes off (AoOs occur before the action that provokes them happens).

How "official" is this ruling? If it is, it would make the new trip stuff a little more under control.

 

[DonAdam]

My take:

Races- why did dwarves need more abilities? small minus net

Classes- almost all good, except the paladin mounts and spontaneous druid summoning; big plus net

Skills- all good, but nothing revolutionary; small plus net

Feats- a few improvements (two-weapon fighting, skill focus), lots of wasted space (+2/+2), a few minor problems (+4 on the Improved ___ feats is too good in a humanoid-centric campaign), and a couple really bad changes (power attack; i understand the twf concern, but the feat is used entirely too much for a 1st level entry feat); small minus net (lots of problems, but easily corrected)

Equipment- weapon size rules are a disaster; big minus net

Spells- a few good changes (rearranging schools, fatigue spells for necromancy), a few really good fixes (H spells), but lots of really bad decisions (tasha's, scorching ray, buffs [again, good intent, bad decision], polymorph granting type, enlarge, etc.); since the overall balance of the spells was thrown out of whack, i'll give it a big minus net despite quite a few minor good changes; that is, its much easier to adopt the good 3.5 changes using 3.0 as a base.

DMG: overall, some minor plusses for sections on urban adventuring and better organization

Prestige Classes: took more steps towards being powerups, so i'll call it a small minus since they're largely irrelevant to my games

Magic Items: nothing revolutionary; jump rings got too expensive, but yet the hat of disguise fell under the radar and actually dropped in price; adamantine weapons, however, were an unqualified disaster; big minus (again, a problem for humanoid centric campaigns that i tend to run)

Monsters: standardization big plus, square facing big minus (horses schmorses, i can't abide by 10x10 ogres)

Overall, I don't think it was nearly as well thought out as 3.0. It has lots and lots and lots of little improvements, but these are far outweighed when compared to fundamental balance issues. I voted negative, but not major negative. It's just way easier to use 3.0 as a base, especially for spellcasters.

 

[Sir Elton]

I can't make a judgment yet.

Now, I have decided that the Feng Shui RPG is the easiest RPG to learn, compared to D&D. With probably the exception of Diaglo's D&D, but I haven't played with him so I don't know the naunces of his version of D&D.

Now, why would I say that? Because I read Feng Shui and it's so simple in how it does things that it boggles the mind. In other words, its an RPG about roleplaying Action Films. Especially Hong Kong Action Films. Everything is about roleplaying in Hong Kong Action Films.

No need for stupid miniatures. No need for every different spell to be detailed, no worries about creature templates, no worries about balance. I still can't make a judgement on D&D, but I do know that Feng Shui is everything I wanted D&D to be in the first place. Simple, direct . . .

Diaglo would praise me for saying this, and suggest that I get D&D(1974). But the thing is 30 years out of print. However, forced to use D&D, I would say that D&D Basic Red Box is the best edition. Although I love the finesse of 3e.

For bloody heck, everyone, it's about roleplaying!