[3.5] Significant Improvements?

[Henry]

It sounds like both you and he kind of have your minds made up anyway - which is not a bad thing; the biggest changes (The DR, the Spell alterations and rearrangements, the new facing & the feat and class changes) are really the only serious rules changes. So many people still think of it as an edition change, but it truthfully isn't. None of them (with possibly the exception of haste not giving casters an extra action) are disparate enough to leave whole class concepts behind, or make so big a difference as to desire a change.

I'm happy with either/or, so far, and as long as I know the rules brought to the table, I'm good to go. Personally, I survived the entire late 80's and early 90's not having one standard set of rules to play in; it's kind of retro-fun, for me.

 

[Voadam]

Easier monster creation, advancement, and playability as PCs. The standard feat progression and clear ECL and LA explanations are quite good.

Classes have fewer dead levels and less front loading on rangers and monks. Most are more interesting to play for 20 levels than in 3.0.

Those are the big ones for me.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Oi! And how could I forget? Druid's animal companions now get better and more experienced as the druid gains levels.

The evil Hs were desperately in need of fixing, esp harm, I could live with Haste, but having listened to the whining of a munchkin when the npc did unto him what the munchkin had been doing unto others I was glad to switch to the new version. (Similar case in 1.0, the partyt used the sleep spell all the time at low levels, routinely slitting the throats of the snoozing critters. But wo unto me if the enemy spell casters did the same unto the party.

And of course the needing to convert 3.0 stuff to 3.5 will be reversing itself over time, as more 3.5 stuff comes out.

And yeah, it does sound like you were more looking for confirmation for your decision not to get 3.5 than for actual reasons to like 3.5. People (including myself, gods know I've done it often enough!) can become very attached to a point of view and call out, hoping for an echo. Boy, it's annoying when people don't follow my scripts!

Not a bad thing not switching, I know a couple of people who just bought 3.0 because the price dropped to just a bit over 50% of the cover. And yes, it is just a revision, not a new edition. You really don't need to switch, except maybe the Monster Manual. (The only 3.0 book that I was really unhappy with, I could have done with half as many monsters and a better layout and more information for each critter.)

Something I find amusing is just how often WotC pointed this out, on their website and in Dragon, carefully not saying that the revision was a must buy. You can't really say that they did a hard sell in that regard at least.)

It does seem that a lot of the anti 3.5 rhetoric has been quieting down lately. Does anyone remember how loud the protests over 3.0 were? 'They're dumbing down the game!', 'PCs are getting too powerful, the monsters won't have a chance!', and my favorite: 'WotC is only doing the d20 system to kill GURPS!' (I wish I was kidding about this last, I encountered it both on the web and in person. One of the in person folks has now become an equally rabid d20 player.... Sometimes fanatics are just looking for a cause.)


The Auld Grump

 

[Urbannen]

You now get your level in Hps with a full night's rest, rather than with 24 hours of rest. Complete bed rest gives level x2 hp.

Wizards can no longer communicate telepathically with their familiars. They cannot even speak with their familiars until 5th level. (This is a balance issue - before you could take one level of arcane spellcaster and get what amounted to a roving scry spell. Also there is a benefit in increasing your arcane spellcasting class as opposed to a PrC, since you do not effectively get both speak with familiar and scry on familiar at 1st level.)

All familiars grant the equivalent of a feat and Alertness (whether Skill Focus, save bonus feat, or Toughness). More elegant and more attractive.

Skill Focus gives +3 to one skill.

The schools of magic make sense and are better balanced (bad for backwards compatibility, but otherwise good).

Shield is +4, not +7, and protects 360 degrees. Better balanced.

More +2/+2 skill feats and Skill Focus +3 means a character can truly use feats to gain a monstrous advantage with a particular skill.

Diviners get both read magic and detect magic as potential bonus spells.

 

[Trickstergod]

It does seem that a lot of the anti 3.5 rhetoric has been quieting down lately.

Well, as one of those who twitches at the mention of 3.5 (all right, bit of an exaggeration; I've a good chunk of the new SRD printed out, so it wasn't all that bad), my own rants against it have died down because, at this point, there's little more purpose to do it. Those who have bought it, bought it, and those who haven't, haven't. So the quiet, in my opinion, is just because an anti-3.5 rant is pointless by now.

 

[Number47]

Swim does not force you to add up the weight of all your equipment. You simply apply your armor check penalty doubled (and proceed to sink like a stone just like you did before).

 

[Rashak Mani]

Swim does not force you to add up the weight of all your equipment. You simply apply your armor check penalty doubled (and proceed to sink like a stone just like you did before).

Yep I agree... its just about impossible to make these checks. At least you dont have to calculate the weight of the 50' rope, extra sword, 10 days rations, 3 daggers and that longbow you are carrying.

I think the only time I really had to make a swim check I looked at the DM with a face that said it all.... there is no way I will even try to roll a swim check on a fully armoured Dwarf whose main phobia is water. I went straight down in 5 foot of water ! 1 foot too much.

 

[reapersaurus]

I started out playing 1st edition...a high level spell caster should be able to do these things.

I've never had a problem with save or die spells. I believe that the high level wizard should be unparalleled in terms of handing out destruction....

Well, there's your problem.

You're coming from a context where mages were completely unbalanced.

Personally, I think back at 1E and am embarassed at how silly mages could get.... aren't you?

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Well, as one of those who twitches at the mention of 3.5 (all right, bit of an exaggeration; I've a good chunk of the new SRD printed out, so it wasn't all that bad), my own rants against it have died down because, at this point, there's little more purpose to do it. Those who have bought it, bought it, and those who haven't, haven't. So the quiet, in my opinion, is just because an anti-3.5 rant is pointless by now.

I agree. I still see 3.5 as worse than 3.0 but as you said there is little point left complaining and I am tired of being yelled at by 3.5 supporters.

 

[Cedric]

Personally, I think back at 1E and am embarassed at how silly mages could get.... aren't you?

Not in the least. If you look at the fiction that most of us gravitate towards down through the years...the higher level spell casters are like that.

Raistlin
Elminster
Pug
Gandalf
Khelben
Rand Al`Thor

How many fantasy novels have high level spell casters who are no more special then the sword wielders and shield bearers around them?

These and other novels like them are where I've gotten at least some of the inspiration for most of the campaigns and most of the characters I've played.

I mean, come on...there is NO DOUBT that Gandalf is the most powerful member of the Fellowship of the Ring, but does Aragorn ever take a back seat to him? Or Legolas?

*sighs*

Cedric