3.5e One Year Later
- Thread starter shadow
- Start date
MDSnowman
First Post
Was I wild about 3.5? No.
Did I buy the core books again? Yes.
Did I do it because I thought the rules needed an overhaul? No.
I did it because my old Core books (bought as soon as humanly possible) were falling apart, and I figured I might as well get the gift box with all three.
Here's a run down of what I think of it...
Pros: Fixed my issues with the ranger, greater weapon focus (because eventually a fighter would run out of feats to be a bad ass with just one weapon), fixed a few problem spells, and the crowning achievement they finally made damage reduction perfect.
Cons: Gave WotC an excuse to rehash everything again! I will never be convinced that the Weapon Size rules are anything but utter idiocy... I still use the 3.0 rules they make more sense to me. Buff spells got nerfed horriblly... 1 round/level is great if all you ever do is fight, but if you need to lift a portcullis 30 seconds isn't going to cut it. That being said 1 mintue/ Level is still better by me. Same could be said of invisiblity spells. Also boosting DC... am I alone in missing this? I'd complain about square spaces too, but I don't play with minis, in fact I intensely dislike them.
What do I give 3.5 on a scale of 1-10 (when comparing it to 3.0)? 6... it made some good changes but it wanted too much to be a minature game.
Did I buy the core books again? Yes.
Did I do it because I thought the rules needed an overhaul? No.
I did it because my old Core books (bought as soon as humanly possible) were falling apart, and I figured I might as well get the gift box with all three.
Here's a run down of what I think of it...
Pros: Fixed my issues with the ranger, greater weapon focus (because eventually a fighter would run out of feats to be a bad ass with just one weapon), fixed a few problem spells, and the crowning achievement they finally made damage reduction perfect.
Cons: Gave WotC an excuse to rehash everything again! I will never be convinced that the Weapon Size rules are anything but utter idiocy... I still use the 3.0 rules they make more sense to me. Buff spells got nerfed horriblly... 1 round/level is great if all you ever do is fight, but if you need to lift a portcullis 30 seconds isn't going to cut it. That being said 1 mintue/ Level is still better by me. Same could be said of invisiblity spells. Also boosting DC... am I alone in missing this? I'd complain about square spaces too, but I don't play with minis, in fact I intensely dislike them.
What do I give 3.5 on a scale of 1-10 (when comparing it to 3.0)? 6... it made some good changes but it wanted too much to be a minature game.
Kormydigar
First Post
crueldespot said:
I agree with you totally on the sampling issue. No one in our group took more than 1 level of ranger for a reason. I am of an opposite opinion with regard to the spell issues. Wizards have been consistantly and steadily weakened in power since the release of 2nd edition. 3.0 edition reduced the wizards power yet again and 3.5 nerfed them into the ground. Haste is nearly useless now. In its current form it should be no higher than 2nd level. When you think about it the wizard gets no real benefit from the spell anymore. "An extra attack...............I'm a frikin wizard here, I avoid melee........ohhh isnt this magical." I will say that I like the increase in the cost of magic items from 3.5. Some of the prices from 3.0 were ridiculously cheap. Overall, though the power of magic for a "standard, by the book" game has been needlessly clipped.
MerakSpielman
First Post
I liked the Wizard spell nerfs becuase certain spells had become "must haves," Haste being a prime example. A wizard with haste prepared in 3.0 was leaps and bounds more powerful than a wizard with any other 3rd level spell prepared in its place. The 3.5 version probably does deserve to be a 2nd level spell, though.
Thanee
First Post
MDSnowman said:
You need to be more careful with your books!
Mine are still pretty much in perfect shape (except for some scratches on the cover) and they surely saw a lot of use!
Yeah, can't really understand why they put in relative instead of absolute sizes, while mostly everything else uses absolute sizes (i.e. the whole size attack vs AC system).
Bye
Thanee
kigmatzomat
Legend
shadow said:
I downloaded the RSRD and been very happy with the expense. I'm in a 3.5 game I wouldn't be in otherwise, though I don't see any advantages to 3.5 that a 1 page errata to 3.0 wouldn't have fixed.
Personally the only useful changes were the square spaces (a requirement in a facingless system and one I'd already adopted in my games), the magic item costs being completely bonus based instead of spell based, and the class tweaks. I'm miffed over the spell durations (IMO they were the only way epic level mages continued to pull their weight) and spell related feat tweaks, irritated the half-orc still blows, and rather impartial to the new DRs.
I like the 3.5 MM (the only 3.5 book I bought) and use it 9 times out of 10 in my 3.0 game. Only about half the people I game with have 3.5 books and I'm generally seeing no rush to convert over.
I think 3.5 will be the "Players Options" of 3.0 for quite some time and the next mass migration with be 4.0.
MerakSpielman
First Post
I'm still a bit unclear here. Previously, the size referred to the size of the weapon, right? A longsword was a Medium weapon, a dagger was a Small weapon, etc..., correct?megamania said:
In 3.5, the "size" refers to the size of critter for which the weapon was designed to be wielded, right? So pixies fly around with "Tiny" daggers, as opposed to the "Medium" daggers a human wields, or the "Small" daggers a Halfling uses.
OK, so assuming I'm correct here, what was the point of changing the rules again? I'm understanding the terminology that was and is being used, but not the rationalle for change.
