3.5, 3.0 products, and YOUR game....

[Melkor]

Now that 3.5 has been out for a stretch, I wanted to ask questions of the ENWorld crowd about some of the early topics that cropped up when 3.5 was released.

For those of you who have switched to 3.5, are you freely mixing 3.0 and 3.5 material in your games ?

If so, are you using the 3.0 material without conversion ?

Have you had any game balance issues with a mix of 3.0/3.5 material ?

How are your 3.5 games compared to how your 3.0 games played ?

Thanks.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I'm using tons of 3.0 material...some with conversion, some without. Mostly I just change Damage Reduction on the fly and other things can stay. It really isn't hard at all, and I've not had any troubles with it.
And for your last questions...I loved the 3.0 games I ran, and the 3.5 ones are just as good. Definatly better with the Rangers and Bards.

 

[Crothian]

I use it all. I convert anything that needs converted but it's easy. The biggest thing is skills and damage reduction. Most of it I can do on the fly. The rules have changed a little and I think the game is a little more smooth because of it, but other then that I run it the same way I ran 3.0 so it feels the same.

 

[Henry]

I am slowly introducing some pieces of 3.5 material - damage reduction, some 2x2 monster sizes instead of 1x2, and some magic items from 3.5.

No problems converting here, as the majority is of course compatible, but then we are not using a lot of splatbook and extraneous info anyway.

 

[Pants]

I freely mix the two. I'm running RttToEE right now with some 3.5 players and I've used a combination of 3.0 monsters and NPC's with 3.5 monsters and NPCs. So far, I haven't had a problem.

 

[EricNoah]

I'm in a game where we're strictly sticking to 3.0 rules except for a few spells (heal, harm, and disintegrate). I'm in a game where we're mostly sticking with 3.0 rules except for a similar group of spells (3.5 heal, harm and haste) and 3.25 buff spells (10 min/lv bull's strength, etc.). And I'm in a game where we're playing AU rules except where 3.5 is clearer/easier to understand, including the 3.5 Monster Manual, plus some house rules.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

In all 3 games I play in, we've converted to 3.5. We really don't argue about the rules much anyway, but it has gone fine. No issues to speak of. In the campaign that's been running 4 years, the PCs are 16th level, and they have grumbled a bit to the effect that "Well if there had always been these monsters running around that were semi-invulnerable to non-silver weapons, why doesn't my reasonably wealthy guildmaster rogue have a silver dagger handy?" But mainly we just roll with the punches and have fun playing.

 

[Harlock]

I play in a game in which we've semi adopted some 3.5 things, but it's mostly 3.0. What we've adopted is mostly for my bard character. Keep in mind the DM mixes a lot in this campaign already, freely using monsters from Everquest RPG, as well as a couple of classes, some FR stuff in a homebrew world...

In the Scarred Lands campaign I DM I went whole hog 3.5 conversion as soon as the books were in my hands. Things went very smoothly and still run fine. It's sort of a pain in the butt to have to remember two sets of rules, but then again, it very rarely comes up. the biggest pain in the 3.5 game so far is just remembering to look up rulings ASAP so we are sure something stayed the same or changed mildly. All in all, I'd say my conversion and the blending of 3.0/3.5 have both worked very well.

How do my games now compare to my games when 3.0 first came out? Hmm, since the ruleset is so similar, it was easier to convert from 3.0 to 3.5 than from 2nd ed to 3rd ed. Go figure.

 

[shilsen]

I'm using almost all of the 3.5 rules. Where there's a conflict between 3.5 and 3.0, it's invariably 3.5 that we use. The change to our game isn't major, but I do prefer the 3.5 ruleset overall.

 

[Psion]

I use some 3.5 stuff and some 3.0 stuff:

• New MM statistics with some tweaks (like giving back fiends their spell like abilities; see below for DR.)
• I use mostly new classes, the cheif exception being the paladin and specialist wizards.
• DR I use a mix and provide some mitigating factors. I use the material DRs, but keep "+" DRs instead of collapsining it into "magic." I tweak the material rules a bit, and add in the rokugan special material rules for adamantine. Some special new special materials in my game act as multiple other material types (e.g., mithril is good and silver, black iron is cold iron and evil, etc.)
• Spells I use 3.0 with the exception of the spells that really needed it (mainly haste and harm.) Among other things, this lets me use the Green Ronin grimoires, in addition to the simple fact I saw a lot of "fixin' what wasn't broke." Buffs I have a mixed opinion on -- I like the shorter duration, but I also like the idea that at high levels, you might use metamagic to make it better. So I split the difference on duration and keep the old variable range, so once my chars hit epic levels, they can intensify buffs for a +10 bonus.
• Feats, I add the new ones, but use the old rulings in most cases, except for metamagic.
• I totally and completely ditch square facings, slightly tweaking down CRs when needed.
• For magic items, I use the artificer's handbook. I stick with old modifier values for armor qualities because they work easier with Artificer's Handbook.
• Skills I mostly follow the lead of 3.5; nobody ever takes innuendo, for example, and I see little reason for exclusive skills. The cheif exception is I keep scry. I don't like the way scrying operates under 3.5, and I find that Monte's rules in BoEM III have the right feel and balance.