3.5 - Is your game better?

[Stalker0]

When 3.5 came out, my character got nerfed a lot but I didn't really mind.

I like how the monk, druid, bard, and ranger got changed. That was excellent.

Spells I'm 50/50. Some spells like cloudkill, aid, etc are now more viable in my opinion. But some spells like the buffs got nerfed a little too much imo.

Skills are better now, especially with that wonderful synergy table.

The dmg is loads better. When I dm I like outdoors and planar adventurers, and now I have great new info at my fingertips.

Also, my friends and I have always been low magic, and I think 3.5 tends to push that a little more than 3.0. Standard 3.5 is definately not low magic, but lower than it used to be.

 

[Farganger]

Markedly better, I'd say.

Both as a DM and as a player, the changes to haste and the buff spells are very welcome. I am also quite happy with the culling and clarification that went on with respect to skills.

 

[jasamcarl]

When I first heard about 3.5, it did not bother me at all. I was even excited to learn about the changes. Now I have the books and have read through most of the material. I have created characters, played a few games and worked on creating an adventure. 3.5 does not make the game any better. It did fix some things, but for the most part I house ruled things I thought were ill represented or broken.

I think 3.5 is a crock and the more I read the rules and realized that most of my other books would need to be tweeked in order to be completely compatable, the more frustrated I have become of 3.5. If 3.5 meant keeping Wizards profitable and therefore in business, then I will change my mind, for the sake of the hobby. Personally, I don't think they were ni that dire of financial straights.

I just wanted to vent and let people know I have switched sides. I dislike the concept of 3.5. They should have waited a few more years and made 4E.

Ok, you contradict yourself. On the one hand, you say that it has fixed things and on the other you say it hasn't made the game better? Perhaps a better and more consistent statement would have been that the benefits it provides aren't worth the cost to you. Actually, the more i look at the new rules and the math behind certain feat trees, the more realistic high cr monsters, as well as the nerfing of certain key spells, i think the changes will have a dramatic impact on the longterm health of a campaign.

Of course, if one has only played a few sessions, these won't be obvious. Its also best to post a level range, as i think a lot of the boons come in at high levels.

 

[Wombat]

I look upon 3.5 in the same light as the latest sorry patch from MS -- it fixes a number of small problems, adds new complications, and still doesn't address the fact that too much is getting added onto what should be a simple program/game system.

3.5 exists.

It does not improve.

I am trying my best to ignore it.

And the increasing shift towards miniatures use (too heavy in 3.0 for my tastes) is just ridiculously out of hand -- this is just Hasbro trying to sell more toys and dolls.

 

[Desdichado]

Ok, you contradict yourself. On the one hand, you say that it has fixed things and on the other you say it hasn't made the game better? Perhaps a better and more consistent statement would have been that the benefits it provides aren't worth the cost to you.

Ummm, that's what I understood him to say. Especially when he responded to my post to further clarify.

 

[Teflon Billy]

3.5 has improved my game dramatically. Much, much closer to the kind of game I like to play.

The improvements on Rangers, Bards and Druids are all good.

The toning down of problem spells is near-exactly what I would've done (haste, Polymorph, Harm and Buffs are the major offenders).

Hell, I like the art better

I have yet to peruse the 3.5 DMG, but the PHB is spot on for my needs.

A lot of it likely could have been held off until 4E, but I'm cool with it. The value is there.

 

[Davelozzi]

I think the new rules are an improvement, and I don't mind having spent my money on the books, which are much improved IMO (especially the new Monster Manual) but I haven't noticed a significant change in the quality of our game in the couple of sessions that we've did since the switch. The new DR rules helped a little bit, I guess, since my group is in the middle of investigating a demonic incursion in their home city. One of my players (who plays a swashbuckler) got a few free feats out of the deal (thanks to the changes in Two-Weapon Fighting and Weapon Focus), so she isn't complaining. On the other hand, she wasn't complaining before either. Most of my players are either indifferent or unaware of the changes (most of them don't own the books anyway).

 

[Arnwyn]

Dunno. We stuck with 3.0 because the group decided that it wasn't worth the price of admission. (Though as DM, I use the 3.5MM - tweaked to fix what I consider "errors" in that book, of course. What the players don't know won't kill them. Uh, scratch that.)

 

[Melkor]

I would say that the hassle I had to go through to convert material for the few sessions of 3.5 I ran (a whopping 3) outweighed the "benefits" of the 3.5 rules
changes - and so I'm going to continue with 3.0 for the time being....

Once this campaign ends (which will be quite a while since I am running City of
the Spider Queen and Necropolis) or more likely, as a side project, I'm going
to run a 2nd Edition campaign (oh, the horror!) - I can't wait!

Maybe after all that, I'll run 3.5.....Or 4.0 since it will be a while.

Cheers!

 

[Crothian]

I like the new rules; I'd say it has improved the game.