[3.5] All, Some or None?

[Negative Zero]

my GM and i were talking 3.5e over the weekend and he commented that one of the problems with the new version is that now, a lot of people are gonna like some changes and not others. now this sounds obvious but, doesn't any specific rule take into account the other rules in the game? and if you take one rule (or a few) and ignore the rest, aren't you damaging the integrity of the rules system?

so the question is, how improtant is it to you to take the new rule-set as a whole?

~NegZ

 

[Fenes 2]

my GM and i were talking 3.5e over the weekend and he commented that one of the problems with the new version is that now, a lot of people are gonna like some changes and not others. now this sounds obvious but, doesn't any specific rule take into account the other rules in the game? and if you take one rule (or a few) and ignore the rest, aren't you damaging the integrity of the rules system?

so the question is, how improtant is it to you to take the new rule-set as a whole?

~NegZ

About as important as using an official character record sheet during play - meaning not at all. I don't use all the 3.0E rules, and I will not use all the 3.5E rules. Matter of fact, with each new load of snippets released I usually discover something I will not use respectively ban in my campaign.

 

[Estlor]

I didn't use all of the 3E rules as written, and chances are some aspects of 3.5E will get tweaked once I've absorbed it all. My game will most likely end up being a mix of 3/3.5 and it won't negatively effect it at all.

 

[Deadguy]

ALL rulebooks should be seen as a toolkit, with which the DM and players build a campaign. And different campaigns require different emphases and rules effects if they are to achieve a harmony between design and rules.

So that's how I'll be treating D&D3.5 - as a large toolbox of ideas.

 

[Psion]

3.5 is a supplement for 3.0 AFAIAC.

 

[the Jester]

I think it's important to use the new rules as a set before deciding what to change or eliminate. I suspect a lot of the changes were made to compliment or balance each other.

 

[Deadguy]

I think it's important to use the new rules as a set before deciding what to change or eliminate. I suspect a lot of the changes were made to compliment or balance each other.

In general, Jester, I'd agree. The effects of specific rules can be hard to predict without seeing them in the matrix created by the whole ruleset.

But sometimes, a specific rule can be seen from the outset to not fit the tenor of the campaign that you and your group want to run. In those cases there's little point in adopting a disruptive rule, only to drop it later as you predicted. Naturally, however, it's incumbent on the group as a whole to realise that any rules change is effectively a playtest, subject to amendment after using it for a while.


As an example from my own Shattered World campaign, I altered the costs and times for scribing (wizard) spells at least twice, until I got a simple rule that I liked and which seemed to produce the right in-game effect.

 

[Tsyr]

I think it's important to use the new rules as a set before deciding what to change or eliminate. I suspect a lot of the changes were made to compliment or balance each other.

Disagree.

For example, the new wild shape rules (Not getting Scent, Blindsight, etc)... I'm not even going to bother playstesting that. It is, in my opinion, a silly rule, and not one I'm going to enforce. And I don't need to play it to know that it's a silly rule (Unless, of course, access to the book provides a loohole, ie, "Scent and Blindsight still work"... But I doubt it will.).

 

[Apok]

There are at least a couple of things from 3.5 that I won't be using (primarily I'll be keeping the original versions of Spell Focus & Greater Spell Focus) but beyond that, most of the changes I either like or am at least neutral about.

 

[Liquid Snake]

I voted that I'll use everything, because I don't think minor tweaks count in this aspect.