3.5 - Is your game better?

[Nifelhein]

(...)many of the changes from 2e to 3e was simply consolidating to a single, coherent, system.(...)

Sometimes simplifying a system is the most sophisticated step to take.(...)

yes, that is it, I loved 3rd edition because they made it all about choices, this friend even dms on 3rd edition since we started on it, but always takes his way of saying it is bad, manga, combat-oriented, all about power, etc etc etc... He is not gonna anywhere near 3.5, for he thinks it is too much of a market maneuver, it is the capitalism that makes great things into products...

I have many friends who prefer to stick with 2nd edition and don't even want to try 3rd edition again, they played once, hated leveling up faster and say it i the worst set o rules for D&D ever.

I, for one, am not that innocent, of course D&D is a product made for a market, of course it has problems, but what set of rules didn't? You just have too choose which set of rules has the advantages you want and the problems you can accept. I am gonna buy 3.5, I read many parts of the SRD and have determined it is gonna improva my game greatly.

I like simplification and also believe 2e is too complicate to be worthwhile, I played it for more than 10 years, liked the games, but prefer 3.0 or 3.5 now.

My Answer:

I hope it will improve my game as much as I have thought it will when reading the SRD, it is a lot expensive, yes, but it is also not so much of a new game as I had thought before reading the SRD, the game is the same, the poblems are less, the rules are clearer, the game ought to be better!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

To use a simple and over-used mathematical analogy, 3.5 > 3.0, IMO of course.

In most areas. There are some changes that didn't need to be made (Bigby's Interposing Hand), or weren't changed enough (ranger), or should have been changed (Mord's Disjunction) but I find the good outweighs the bad by a lot.

PS the miniatures don't bother me at all. I don't use them, although I sometimes use counters if I really need to.

Besides, they are no longer required to keep track of that annoying 3.0 Shield spell.

 

[Kichwas]

I keep hearing all these people who say they have to change so much other stuff to be able to use it with 3.5, but I just bring in anything I need from any d20 source without needing to modify much at all.

About the most I've had to do was note that the bonuses for a familiar should be +3 on the skills and not +2...

 

[Nifelhein]

Originally posted by Arcady:
I keep hearing all these people who say they have to change so much other stuff to be able to use it with 3.5, but I just bring in anything I need from any d20 source without needing to modify much at all.

About the most I've had to do was note that the bonuses for a familiar should be +3 on the skills and not +2...

Yeah I think that the changes actually are not that great now that I have read most of them, but it seems that our first contact with them leads us to some difficulties on the transference, and that is something that isn't even there, it is just our own impressions.

Most changes can be done quickly, as far as I can see, the most complicated would be monsters, foir CRs and all that can be tricky.

 

[billd91]

As for calling 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons for dummies, many of the changes from 2e to 3e was simply consolidating to a single, coherent, system. Many of the systems in both previous versions was simply sloppy procedures. Let's be honest was THAC0 a good idea, given that 3.0 can crunch the same numbers with a step less in the math?

Actually, I'd say that THAC0 was a great idea considering what came before it. Dig out your old 1st edition DMG and check out the combat tables. Notice that 20 is on the table 6 times and, according to the explanation, there are some of those 20s that can be matched with some number + modifiers, others must be natural 20s, and others can only be rolled on a full moon on the 4th of July. Or some such nonsense.
THAC0 got us out of that bizarre and arcane table and to a mechanic that could be calculated on the fly (if you could keep your negative numbers straight). It did so within the parameter of a very small change in the core game.
3E finished the transformation into a truly simple mechanic.

As someone who has worked as a technical writer and who still reviews technical manuals, it cheeses me off whenever someone complains that the latest editions are D&D for Dummies. Clear and understandable writing and rules is not dumbed-down gaming. Clarity should be sought for in game rule manuals.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, I'd say that THAC0 was a great idea considering what came before it. Dig out your old 1st edition DMG and check out the combat tables.

THAC0 was a 1E mechanic as well.

It was just that instead of that "Natural 20 = autohit" , a Natural 20 was approximately a 25.

But apart from the case of rolling a Natural 20, you calculated using THAC0.

-Hyp.

 

[diaglo]

THAC0 was a 1E mechanic as well...

i agree. open up your 1edADnD revised DMG 1979 to the appendix on monsters. observe the To Hit Armor Class 0 (Zero) column.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think people who complain about 3E grappling rules probably never played 1E

But my favourite 1E mechanic is initiative.

Wally the Wizard is casting a spell, and Frank the Fighter is swinging a sword at him.

Both sides roll 1d6 for initiative.

If Frank rolls higher, he strikes first, and can disrupt the spell.

If Wally rolls higher, then Frank subtracts his initiative roll from his weapon speed factor and takes the absolute value of the result. If the figure thus calculated is greater than the casting time of the spell in segments, Frank strikes first. If the figure and the casting time are equal, the blow and the spell resolve simultaneously. Otherwise, the spell is cast first.

Why are there no absolute value calculations in 3E initiative?!

-Hyp.

 

[diaglo]

Why are there no absolute value calculations in 3E initiative?! ...

well i could answer that but many people would be upset.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

well i could answer that but many people would be upset.

I myself love both 3.0 and 3.5...didn't all this grumping also occur before 3.0 as well?

The only thing *I* miss is the focus on campaign worlds. I loved the ideas and rules tweaks as inspiration for my games, it's a shame that there is not more of a focus on campaign worlds in the print market.