Any 3.0 diehards out there?

[Gez]

I haven't had the opportunity of playing or DMing since 3.5 was released.

I spent my game time houseruling lots of stuff. If it continues, it will be hardly D&D 3.X anymore...

 

[trancejeremy]

It's funny how many 3.5 fans are so insecure about liking 3.5, they have to bash those of us that prefer 3.0...

And those of us that can't afford to upgrade, even if we wanted to. Sure, it's only $90, to you it might not mean much, but it's a good deal of money. If you have a problem with that, )#$%#@%#@

 

[Psiblade]

For me, I play in three campaigns (two home & LG) that use 3.5. I also run a 3.5 game. I do think that the haste, harm, and heal ruined many a cinematic encounter in our previous 3.0 games. Also, the ranger, bard, and monk changes really improved the playability of those classes.

The dominance of wizards and clerics at high levels in 3.0 because of the three h spells meant that you really did not need any other classes. The additions to the low level spells like ray of enfeeblement and scorching ray have improved the lot of low level casters. The nerfing of sleep is the one spell that they went to far on.

We have a player that would mostly prefer 3.0 due to his preference for wizards, but after some grumbling he has adapted to majority rule. Some people simply have different tastes.

-Psiblade

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why bother with updating?

I wouldn't call myself a diehard, but I see no reason to update. I just started my 3.0 game around the time 3.5 came out, and I sure intend to get use out of the 3.0 books.

On top of that, looking through the 3.5 rulebook, I realized that I would have to houserule things into campaign norm. Yeah, 3.5 has some good ideas (which I will happily steal), but paladins mounts becoming "pokemounts" is just silly.

Overall, I'm busily rewriting 3.0, and tossing in the bits of 3.5 I like. Soon I will have d20 Lakelands, a document which (for copyright reasons) will only see the light of day for my own personal use.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Overall, I'm busily rewriting 3.0, and tossing in the bits of 3.5 I like. Soon I will have d20 Lakelands, a document which (for copyright reasons) will only see the light of day for my own personal use.

Let me make clear: I gave up on 2nd Edition and started writing my own fantasy rpg when I wanted to have a "modern people travel to fantasy land" campaign ala Narnia, The Fionavar Tapestry, etc. When 3.0 came out, it incorporated a lot of my ideas, and in fact made that sort of game possible.

Having to retool existing sites and NPCs for every revision is just a collosal pain, though, unless there are really big, obvious benefits. For this reason, my d20 Lakelands document will be the official rule source for my home game until 1) I cease DMing, or 2) a revision comes out that is profound enough to make me change. Half a revision? Not worth it for me.

RC

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I love 3.5; I found it to be a big improvement over 3.0. Fixed a lot of things. I've found that a lot of the complaints about 3.5 centre around fixes that prohibit certain 3.0 tactics - resulting in a lot of people being unhappy that they can't use their uber-tactics anymore. Ergo, they think 3.5 in totality is crap. Which it's not. D&D is going stronger than ever.

Whenever 4.0 comes out, which probably won't be for another 3-5 years at minimum, it'll make the game even better. It's all about evolution. Staying in one place for too long isn't healthy; 'ya gotta branch out!

I think WotC has it right. They need to regularly "reinvent" the game to keep interest high and prevent players from losing interest in "official" materials and concentrating on their own campaigns instead. In the 2E era, I found that a lot of players lost interest in the official stuff and just developed their own; not good for the game in the broader sense.

 

[Liquidsabre]

It's funny how many 3.5 fans are so insecure about liking 3.5, they have to bash those of us that prefer 3.0...

Bash no, do whatever you like. But refuting weak arguments...yes.

And those of us that can't afford to upgrade, even if we wanted to. Sure, it's only $90, to you it might not mean much, but it's a good deal of money. If you have a problem with that, )#$%#@%#@

Been a student for nigh 7 years now, and somehow over the course of several months I managed to scrimp together enough to buy the 3.5 books. So it's not a matter of money but motivation. If you're not motivated to buy them, then just say so. But don't go griping about the costs, that's silly. Just be honest about what you think:

"That the 3.5 books aren't WORTH the cost for you to buy them."

Which anyone of course can accept.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I love 3.5; I found it to be a big improvement over 3.0. Fixed a lot of things. I've found that a lot of the complaints about 3.5 centre around fixes that prohibit certain 3.0 tactics - resulting in a lot of people being unhappy that they can't use their uber-tactics anymore. Ergo, they think 3.5 in totality is crap. Which it's not. D&D is going stronger than ever.

Paladin's pokemounts? All creatures have square bases? 3.5 might have fixed a few things, but it broke a few things, too. Also, it didn't address the things I personally want fixed. Enter the house rules.

Do I think 3.5 is crap? Nah. Do I think it's worth changing systems for? Also nah. What 3.5 addressed, my house rules generally addressed as well or better. In terms of 3.5 improvements, I'll use them. Especially from the later support books, such as Unearthed Arcana or Draconomicon. But I'll modify them, too, because the rules should fit the world (IMHO, of course), not the other way around.

Bash no, do whatever you like. But refuting weak arguments...yes.

But what arguments, exactly, are you refuting? The argument that says "I prefer 3.0"? How can you refute someone's preference? The argument that says "I don't feel like shelling out $90 for a minimal change in rules?" Again, you can hardly force someone to pay for the update if they don't think it's worth it.

I know that a lot of people are enthusiastic about 3.5. Some of the spells are toned down, which is nice. Some of the feats are toned up, which means I don't allow them in my game. Dwarves not being encumbered by armor? Nice, unless you include that non-encumbrance thing in Swim checks. Paladin's mounts disappearing when they go into the dungeon, to reappear whenever convenient? Give me good old original AD&D, where the paladin had to go on a quest to obtain the mount she wanted.

Where changes seem silly, make things unduly simple for the PCs, or seem too much like a video game, I toss 'em out. Where I like the changes and they seem to make sense, I feel free to incorporate them. But I am still 90% in the 3.0 camp, 1% 3.5, and 9% house rules (roughly, of course).

(Soon enough, though, that'll be 75% house rules. Lots of good 3rd party stuff that'll end up house ruled into my game. Medieval Player's Handbook? Love it!)

RC

 

[BluWolf]

I think 3.5 was a very un-neccesary product, in my opinion only. I took the very flexible strucutre of 3E and re-wrote a majoity of the material to create a very specific PHB for my campaign world. The issues I had were minor, well documented by many of the citizens here and adjust accordingly.

I have no use for it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd like to see a d20 version of the priest set-up from 2nd Edition. That would have been a significant improvement. I was disappointed by clerics in 3.0, and remain disappointed to this day. Sure, you can make a lot of prestige classes for your various religions, but the earlier priest system was cool and allowed a greater degree of gearing clerics to a specific campaign world.

In 3.5e, a halfling or gnome can still can pick up a standard sized short sword and it would be considered a one-handed (rather than a light weapon as it would be for a medium creature) weapon for them. Although they do take a -2 penalty on attack rolls with such a weapon.

So, it's not really the same thing, is it? I, for one, had no difficulty with sizing up weapons in 3.0, either. IMO, 3.5 created a problem here without adding anything useful. To me, at least.

Actually, I wasn't aware that's what he was talking about. Still, I don't see how square spaces favor miniature play any more than differently-sized spaces.

And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't assume things about me, thanks.

Everyone assumes things about everyone else all the time, Dark Jezter. From my reading, I assume that Lord Pendragon wanted to make sure the issue was addressed, as opposed to Shadow's terminology. And while the 3.5 books didn't say that the square spaces related to facing, in real play they do. Once, a creature like a behir would automatically have had a lot more flank than face, right? Now the largest centipede imaginable has the same front-to-side ratio as a human fighter.

This was clearly done to make Wizard of the Coast's miniature packaging easier. They don't have to make long figures. All the figures get a circular base. We have now seen this with the behir, specifically.

This change was made to aid in WotC's bottom line. It was a bad design so far as the rpg itself goes.

I think what I find fascinating are the arguments for sticking to 3.0 for the sake of money. When I bought my 3.0 books in the fall 2000 I shelled out some $60 bucks for the core three. 3 years later the 3.5 revision comes out. That's approximately $20/year....

Okay, and I've personally bought all of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition books, including the many, many sourcebooks that TSR put out over the years. And I get Dragon monthly, because most of 3.5 can be ported into 3.0 with very little change.

On the other hand, imagine if you could spend $20/year to go to the movies once a week. Sounds like a good deal, right? Now imagine that the only movies they are showing are B films. (I was going to use Danny Devito in Jack the Bear -- a great movie, but as depressing as hell -- or a real stinker, like Tarzan and the Lost City or Dungeons & Dragons, but, really, 3.5 isn't terrible, right? I'm only arguing that it isn't the best product available). Then, let us not forget, to get the first year's membership at the theater, you also have to pay for two additional years. Up front.

Still, it might not be a bad deal. There are a lot of B movies that I really enjoy. But, if you already had a membership at a theater showing better movies, which you have already paid for, and for which you will never be asked to pay again, why would you switch?

The question is not, is 3.5 too expensive. The question is, is 3.5 too expensive for what you are getting? I say yes. Others say no. To each his own. Just don't tell me that's cheap entertainment if I don't think I'm getting anything for my money.

RC