Any 3.0 diehards out there?

[rknop]

I'm pretty happy with 3rd edition. It works fairly well, but it shows it's warts. The changes they're planning to make with the next edition all sound pretty good, although I do admit to being leery of the $80 price of entry for the two new hardback. And, I am one of those freaks who likes Vehicles, and that won't be out for 4e for at least a year.... So, if I burn the money, I will probably switch eventually, because it looks like it will be a better system. But it may take some time.

Oh.

You mean we weren't talking about GURPS?

Sorry.

-Rob

 

[rgard]

Just wondering if any of you out there would classify yourself as a "3.0 diehard," someone who loves 3.0 and has little or no interest in 3.5.

Anyone?

We play some of both. I let the players play characters based on classes that came out during 3.0 or 3.5. One of my players stuck with the 3.0 Ranger, another converted his to 3.5.

Personally, I only bought the 3.5 PHB. I still use the 3.0 DMG and MM.

Does anybody have a complete list of changes that went into making 3.5 different from 3.0?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[DSC-EricPrice]

We're probably a blend of 3.0 and 3.5. Truth is we have so many house rules and do so much playtesting that its hard to say WHAT version we have. Looking over the SRD, much of what they did (such as giving Druids spontaneous Summon Natures Ally) was already in use at our table.

Maybe its because Im a guy who spent money to publish plastic counters with the face/reach of the original SRD, but I REALLY resent the changes to the monster face/reach. The idea that my horse is 10x10 just so it makes the rules for WotC's skirmisher game just irks me. The same with dragons and every other monster that is long. I keep meaning to look up the old Frost Worm (which was 50x5 IIRC) and see what they ended up doing with that. Other rules, such as using movement potential to "Squeeze" through tight areas are clever, if we can remember to use them.

 

[maddman75]

Maybe i just don't understand the problems...

How are the 3.5 changes to classes not improvements?

<snip>

Similar things were done to the prestige classes in regards to making them more desirable past 1st level.

Other great changes IMO - skill focus changed to +3, more synergy skill bonuses make skills more useful/fun/flavorful, fixed harm and haste.

Well, now that i've hijacked the thread, i'll shut up and await your answers. I am genuinely curious what is so bad about 3.5.

- Feydras

Personally, the class changes I thought were good. Other changes I'm not so crazy about. SPecifically
- Heal and Harm went too far IMO, making the spells marginal.
- The animal buffs were never really abused IMC, so I don't have a need for the change.
- The weapon size rules I really don't understand. I can't recall ever seeing anyone complain about the old ones. Thus this is inappropriate for a revision.
- I hate the new facing rules. Horses are not ten feet wide! This also makes my current counter/minis wrong.
- FR content in the core rulebook. This is insulting to Greyhawk fans, as that is supposedly the main setting. Fist of Hextor would have served the 'role in a campaign' example just as well as Red Wizard. If I wanted FR stuff I'd buy the FR book.

Most importantly was the cost. Sure I was willing to hunt for bargains and shell out $60 for new books. But because WotC decided to redo every damn spell in the book, my 7 players 3.0 PHBs were useless at a 3.5 table. Upgrading with a needed number of PHBs for the group would have cost something like $300. Not worth it, not by a long shot.

I don't have anything against 3.5. If someone asked about D&D I wouldn't hesitate to point them at the 3.5 books. But I see little reason to upgrade and force all my players' books into obsolescence.

 

[Mr. Lobo]

3.0 Diehards

I fall into the "I won't buy 3.5 but will house rule stuff from the 3.5 SRD" camp.

I think it's great that WotC made 3.5 available using the OGL. It's almost like downloading a patch for a computer game.

I don't think I'll ever purchase the 3.5 books unless I can pick them up at a yard sale for dirt cheap. But by then 4th edition will probably be out.

Since I use some 3.5 rules I don't consider myself a 3.0 diehard per se. The only thing I am diehard about is not buying the 3.5 books at list price.

Mr. Lobo

 

[Breakdaddy]

We play 3.5e (mostly). There was a time when we had to separate the detritus from the dominus, so to speak, but 3.5e works for us. I still participate in a 3e pbm game, but when given a choice, I go with 3.5.

 

[Remus Lupin]

If I could get into a game, I'd go with whatever the DM decreed (which would probably necessitate me buying the PHB at least, and maybe the DMG). However, if I had my druthers, I'd stick with 3.0 and house rule some of the 3.5 revisions. The downside to this is that it's really depressed my incentive for buying some of the recent D&D releases, although I know that they aren't hard to use for 3.0.

 

[Khairn]

3E for my gaming group with a few house rules and a couple of idea's from 3.5 thrown in.

Funny thing is that as a group we all bought copies of 3.5 the moment it came out (16 books in total), but after converting over and playing for a few months we found the changes had a greater (and negative) impact on our game and playing style. Too many annoying changes and not enough real improvements to justify the cost.

So now the only 3.5 books that actually are used are the MM's.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I still prefer 3.0 as a better system. Yes there were some useful changes (Monk unarmed BAB) but the trashing of the casters went to far. Currently we are running a 3.45 game with most of the holdout old rules being at my adamant request. Having now played both editions (for the most part) I personally find 3.0 a better overall system even with its flaws.

 

[Someone]

I play 3.5 SRD. Great improvement, specially the facing (and at a lesser degree the weapon size rules) And I can write on, bend and mistreat my printed, cheap books.