3.5e One Year Later

[Psion]

How convenient. I just covered this one last week on RPGnet.

Some things are better, some things are worse:

Better:

• Core classes generally improved (with the glaring exception of the Paladin.)
• Many spell changes desperately needed
• Attack of Opportunity rules and grappling rules explained much more clearly
• DR rules have many very flexible and interesting applications
• Monster creation is much more consistent and has better guidelines.

Worse:

• Yes, the rules are written more implicitly requiring minis. No, it's not impossible to make accomodations, but I prefer my game to require as little work as possible out of the box
• One consequence/example of the above, the replaced their "GM judgement" based cover and concealment rules with "corner tracing" rules that require more ad hoccing if you aren't using or aren't happy with the results of the mini based rules.
• The spell list is a mess and I still don't think the schools are balanced (nor should have they tried). Mangled many spells to puff up some schools.
• Many spell changes are questionable or worse (See here.)
• I seem to be in the minority on this, but I don't like square bases. AFAIAC, the point of minis is to represent the thing they are representing. I don't buy that the square space is "combat space" because most counters are already to big because of combat space without expanding them to a square, and square bases create many baffling situations that aren't logical (especially considering the "no DM judgement" cover rules...)
• DR rules can have some annoying consequences.
• Some changes were predecated on the "optimize everyone for the dungeon" principle, which made for some of the most flavor-poor changes, like the Paladin's mount.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I find it amusing that so many people are complaining that 3.5e is a minis game. I ran my 3.0 campaign without using minis, and when 3.5 came out we converted to the new ruleset. We had no more difficulty running 3.5 without minis than we did 3.0.

And I like the summonable paladin mounts. Big improvement over the 3.0 paladin, IMO.

 

[William Ronald]

Overall, I am pretty happy with D&D 3.5. I think the attacks of opportunity rules are much better. However, although I agree that some of the spell DCs were absurdly high, it might have been best to leave the spell focus feats alone. (Spell power, as now written, handles the problem that was inherent in the 3.0 versions of the archmage and red wizard of thay prestige classes. I saw some insane spell DCs in 3.0)

Hard to believe it has been a year.

 

[Mystery Man]

I find it amusing that so many people are complaining that 3.5e is a minis game. I ran my 3.0 campaign without using minis, and when 3.5 came out we converted to the new ruleset. We had no more difficulty running 3.5 without minis than we did 3.0.

And I like the summonable paladin mounts. Big improvement over the 3.0 paladin, IMO.

I've run entire combat encounters without a single mini (in 3.5 rules), mainly because I would be really comfortable in a reclined position in my big DM chair and was in a verbose, sort of mood and didnt want to lean over the table. Just me and some graph paper being really descriptive. My players really like minis so I do this until they start to whine.

It's entirely possible.

 

[Shade]

Overall, I like the changes. However, a have only gotten worse over the past year:

2-for-1 Power Attack with 2-handed Weapons: This gets absolutely sick at times.

Enlarge Person: This spell is every bit as broken as 3E haste. 10 foot reach for a 1st-level spell? It's not surprising how many fighters now have one level of sorcerer.

Darkness: Darkness spells now create light? This really put the hurt on devils, drow, and other creatures that rely on complete darkness as a tactical advantage.

Uber-dwarves: At least one of my players gripes about dwarven superiority at every gaming session, myself included. How can they be +0 LA, yet aasimar and tieflings are given a +1?

Damage Reduction: While the special materials and alignment factors are great, DR/magic is now next to worthless past 3rd level. Why couldn't they have kept the "+" system in addition to adding the other forms of DR? And I'm tired of every supplement finding a way around the existing DR types (align weapon, silvered weapon, adamantine touch, metalline and sure striking weapon properties).

Improved Critical and Keen Not Stacking: We still let 'em stack, and don't really have any problem with "too many criticals".

Blindsense (particularly for dragons): What was wrong with giving 'em blindsight?

On the plus side, I really like the streamlining of monster creation and improvement.

 

[Hjorimir]

I find 3.5 to be a far better game in terms of both balance and playability. The general consensus in our gaming group was that casters dominated too many aspects of the game and 3.5 went a long way to alleviate that.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I bought the 3.5 books slowly and reluctantly I thought they would be mostly filler. I don't regret it, and have been happy with the update.
I really like some of the changes including the clearly written terrain suggestions. The DR looks fun but hasn’t come up much in my low-level games. The changes to druids so that they weren’t forced to disband highly personable favored animals or go off in search of some titanic beast, just so it could survive a normal fight.
Overall the changes are for the better, but some house rules were clearly necessary.
The buff spells I HR to 10min level to restore some use, but they are no longer the best available choice. I liked the end of 1 level classes in of bard and ranger and HR the sorcerer using the boards here.

 

[MerricB]

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?

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.

There was no point from the terminology point of view - everything there worked fine under 3E.

The problem was in the proficiency system. If you have a "small dagger" (that is, a weapon that is a dagger for an ogre), who is proficient in it? The Ogre? Obviously. A Human? Not so obvious, because it does d6 damage. Surely it's a shortsword?

However, the halfling can use human weapons without penalty, so obviously the human can wield the small dagger. Thus you have a wizard using a shortsword with no penalty.

It got confusing and needed a bunch of ad-hoc rulings to fix. So, new system.

Cheers!

 

[scourger]

I like 3.5 better, overall. It presents some good changes and some that I don't like. In contrast 3.0 was such a VAST improvement over 2e. Also, I had more mastery over 3.0. I have not been able to attian the same mastery over 3.5, yet. I could have stuck with 3.0 indefinitely. I used it wothout any changes. It's a little harder to do in 3.5, but I'm trying. So, overall I could have done without 3.5; but I'm playing it now that it's here.

 

[rangerjohn]

I can't say I'm disappointed. Since I was never enamored with them in the first place. I haven't bought them, and the only Place I use the SRD is here. The thing I really dislike, are the new spell durations, making most of those spells useless, from buffs to flight, and the new DR for the golfbag of weapons syndrome.