Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 2689082" data-attributes="member: 1465">I have the same feeling. We played 3.0 since 2001, and started the first new 3.5 campaign in late 2003/early 2004, but we kept playing 3.0 in the existing campaign. At first, 3.5 seemed to me definitely better and I was the one advocating that we should switch, but slowly after playing I changed my mind. Now I think that 3.0 and 3.5 are about the same, and because we had more 3.0 than 3.5 books, we are now back to playing more 3.0.Some specific considerations from my experience...CLASSESDespite my early enthusiasm, I think they are about the same as before. I think improving the Bard was good, but I think the Druid and the Ranger were improved too much, and the Sorcerer was indirectly weakened by changes to spells and feats.The general idea of fixing front-loaded classes was not as good as I initially thought, and IMO it was needed only because a lot of gaming groups don't enforce the multiclassing xp penalty rule, but that rule wasn't changed.Many individual class features were changed, but those for good are just as many as those for bad, and most of them all are however not really significant changes.RACESMost changes not significant enough, but I do think the Dwarf is now a bit too good, and that charismatic Gnomes are very off from their original image.SKILLSMerging some narrow skills was good to make them more popular, but also made them less special. The 3.0 UMD was essentially a class feature of Bards and Rogues, making it not exclusive anymore has again made it more popular but less special. These were ambiguous changes for me (good and bad at the same time).Jump was improved, adding monsters to Knowledge makes sense, more synergy bonuses very welcome.Changes to Perform and Alchemy get definitely a thumb down from me.Other changes are basically neutral.FEATSDefinitely a plus to have more feats in the PHB of course. Except the many +2/+2 to skills (a few were fine in 3.0, but not so many).Good changes: Greater WFocus & WSpec, Imp Feint, removal of AmbidexterityBad changes: Power Attack, Spell Focus, Deflect Arrows, Augment Summoning, Imp Precise Shot, Manyshot, and dropping the stacking of same metamagic featsCOMBATI like the streamlining of actions and special initiative actions.I dislike the square facing, the simplified cover, and the AoO for standing up.EQUIPMENTI prefer the 3.0 weapon size rules, but that's not a big deal.I like material- and alignment-based DR, but I still like various +X to make a difference.SPELLSThere are some good changes, but overall I largely prefer the 3.0 versions. Some examples:- I liked that Harm/Heal were given a ST, but I dislike how they do damage now- I think Haste only needed a rise in level, but 3.0 version is a completely different spell- I dislike that multi-purpose spells were broken down- I dislike that Conjurations now always bypass SR- I dislike changing several spells' random results (i.e. buffs, sleep) into fixed numbers- I dislike reducing the casting time of certain spells, most notably those to identify magic items</blockquote>

Verification