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

[diaglo]

it is a definite learning process.

many of the changes pre-conversion were hinted at and noted by the DM (see above) and the players.

but we still find some things...like the current module (read the story hour in my sig) that had errors in them due to the conversion. i think the DM has a thread around here somewhere with a few of those gripes.

 

[The_Gneech]

In the games that I run/play in, the PCs are all 3.5, but some NPCs and/or monsters haven't been converted, mostly because they're 6-9th level and were built with E-Tools and it's easier to just leave 'em be. As long as you use the 3.5e spell writeups and ruleset, it works well enough.

I will mention that my fighter/wizard got a major boost when I converted him to fighter/wizard/eldritch knight ... he basically gained a level of spellcasting ability, and isn't quite so pathetic as he was before.

Still has no hit points, tho.

-The Gneech

 

[Desdichado]

I'm a marginal 3.5 user. The only 3.5 book I own is the new MM. I've also downloaded and used the new classes, especially Ranger. Nobody in my group is too keen on expanding our 3.5 saturation. However, we haven't really noticed a problem with either of these mixing. Skills are a little off, but we haven't actually had that come up as an issue. If we did (need ranks of x to qualify for a prestige class, for example) we'd just make a judgement on the fly and move on.

 

[Davelozzi]

Our group uses a mix and it's been no problem. I have my own versions of bone devils and vrocks that are more or less the new versions, with some slight adjustments to make them seem the same to the players.

 

[Nine Hands]

I'm using 3.5 mostly. The core of the game system is 3.5, with some additions of my own creation (I changed how undead work, never liked them anyway, some minor tweaks here and there. Changes some spells that did not allow saves since it made high level play boring). I also added UA classes but not spellcasting. I personally prefer the UA spellcasting method, but the time required to convert every spell in the game was way too time consuming and we had used it during playtesting of the book. UA also gave me spell templates, true names, and some additional spell descriptors. I think I even scammed some spells out of UA, but I forget.

So basically I took the SRD and modified the crap out of it. Now I have a completely customized game books. Its pretty cool

 

[Desdichado]

I'd agree; right now our little game as a 3.0 rogue, a 3.0 fighter, a 3.5 ranger and an AU Magister. We rotate DMing, and when I go, I use the 3.5 MM, but the other two DMs use the 3.0 MM.

Despite this somewhat tangled mess, we still haven't had a problem.

 

[Voadam]

The biggest issue we had was the two DMs in the same campaign disagreeing about 3.0 versus 3.5 DR.

I pointed out monster abilities are in the DM's purview and there can be different sets of demons, some requiring different plus items and some requiring cold iron and good weapons. Now my eldritch knight uses his planar knowledge to identify just what kind of Vrock we are fighting today and advises the group on appropriate tactics.

We also had some issues with 3rd party spells based on changed ones such as the greater marks from BoEM I. My former ranger wizard loremaster used to be a walking mark board, now he is an eldritch warrior with different spells selected.

 

[Psion]

The biggest issue we had was the two DMs in the same campaign disagreeing about 3.0 versus 3.5 DR.

Perhaps unsurprising, because its probably the biggest actual shift (vice just tweaking) in the rules. Many other changes, even fairly significant ones like monk and ranger, remain fairly transparent from an in-game standpoint. But DR rules shift the paradigm of the game in significant ways (not all of them for the better IMO).

 

[Nifft]

I like 3.5e a lot more than 3.0, so I've moved the whole game over to it. It's taking some time to re-write my custom PrC list for 3.5e, especially given the new strengths of the Ranger -- there's not nearly so much to compensate for anymore!

-- N

 

[Vocenoctum]

I run a game, which had pretty much been running to an end regardless. So when that game ended I started a new one using 3.5 and it's been fine. I believe 3.5 is totally superiour to 3.0

However, I"m in three other games.
One is run by a person that hates 3.5 because they "nerfed" everything. She picks and chooses from 3.5 as well as various other things (such as AU). So in that game I'm a 3.5 bard/ 3.0 paladin/ 3.5 Dragon disciple.

ANother DM has the 3.5 books, and wants to change, but the above mentioned player is very much against it, so he keeps putting it off. She does the same picking and choosing to make her characters stronger, but she's addicted to 3.0 haste.

Last DM doesn't have the 3.5 cores, though he mentioned that buying new books that reference 3.5 is a bit odd. Same player opposes 3.5 while abusing her Haste boots. She did get him to allow some of the armor 3.5 enhancements that benefitted her character.

My main problem with teh games that dip into 3.5 is that the dips are unclear until they come up. I've tried convincing the Second DM above to adopt the combat chapter at a minimum, so it's clear exactly what rules we're using. (especially since i think 3.5's combat chapter is much better written.) He still "thinking about it" and will probably never act on anything.

So, my experiences with 3.5 are more based on individual bias rather than any effect they're having on the games. DR is a perfect example though of something that bugs me, since I like the new DR much better.
Oh well.