Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sir Whiskers" data-source="post: 1584008" data-attributes="member: 6941">IMC, we've implemented the 3.5 classes. For the most part, they improved the Ranger, Monk, and Bard. Should have done more to flesh out the sorcerer though.DR is a mixed bag. One group used it and it greatly reduced the need for GMW, but some felt that made DR/magic too weak. The other DR's are good flavor, but a bit counter-intuitive.Never used the new spacing rules - we never felt the need to change just so WOTC could make the rules fit their miniatures game.Examples of the more difficult combat rules (such as grappling) are better in 3.5, but they probably should have taken the opportunity to dramatically simplify them altogether. Spell changes also a mixed bag. The obvious changes were mostly okay (haste, harm, etc.) but buffs should have been 10 min/level. Some changes really helped (ray of enfeeblement), but others seem to have been changed just for the sake of change. Switching around the schools to better balance them should have been done in 3.0 - changing many spells mid-stream was a bit jarring. Never ran a specialist wizard with the 3.5 rules - just not worth it.Item changes went a bit overboard, with many items dramatically changed from how they've traditionally been played in D&D (you have to activate your ring of invisibility now??). While the changes mostly weakened items, which may be a good thing, 3.5 also added in some items that are way, way overpowered (metamagic rods anyone?).Monsters mostly positive, as many creatures had too few hit points for their CR. Dragons are still too strong for their CR, though.Overall impression: If I was buying just one version, I'd get 3.5, but since I already had 3.0, I should have saved my $60 (on sale) and downloaded the SRD.</blockquote>

Verification