Any 3.0 diehards out there?
- Thread starter Vindicator
- Start date
I would probably use an amalgam of the two systems if I had a choice, but among my PLAYERS are at least 2 diehards, one of whom I've gamed with over a decade.
I'm not going to switch and cause a disruption just because I like some of the 3.5 stuff better.
I'm not going to switch and cause a disruption just because I like some of the 3.5 stuff better.
CalicoDave
Explorer
My group of 7 has stayed with the 3.0 version. We did this for two basic reasons: We don't see anything really wrong with 3.0, and we had no desire to spend another $90 to re-buy books that already work.
When I get in the DM chair again, I will probably house rule a few things but these changes will easily fit on one page.
And Bard being the Gnome's favored class is just wrong!
When I get in the DM chair again, I will probably house rule a few things but these changes will easily fit on one page.
And Bard being the Gnome's favored class is just wrong!
feydras
First Post
For any change there will always be a certain percentage of people who reflexively reject it. They are called in social psychology neophobes. I am not trying to be insultive with this observation, but instead simply trying to put the discussion into perspective.
As an admitted neophile (the just as reactionary opposite of neophobe) i really enjoyed the changes in 3.5. I think the class changes to ranger, monk, druid and bard were absolutely necessary to balance the game. These changes, along with the others, were made directly as a result of the 3+yrs of playtesting by hordes of D&D fans. I don't agree with all the changes myself, the worst IMO are the size/spaces rules. These seem to be specifically changed to make the game more in line with the D&D miniatures game which i never intend to play. I think the majority of the changes were well done and streamlined, clarified or just plain fixed subtle or glaring oversights in the original 3.0 design.
I can certainly appreciate players and DMs not wanting to shell out the bucks to update. But i think the posting of the SRD addresses this pretty fairly. What i don't understand is the anger towards WOTC for publishing material intending to improve the game. Sure they make a whole hell of a lot of money in the process, but the game is fine-tuned, sort of like a patch to a computer game. I know, i know, patches are free but so is the SRD. Finally, you don't have to update at all if you don't want to as you're all aware of or this thread wouldn't exist.
My experience with folks who most vocally speak out against 3.0 is that often they haven't given it a good look over. I have seen many people who hated it and resisted the change for many months and then became converts once they tried it.
All that said, we each like what we like. There are still a fair amount of people out there who still prefer 1e or 2e as strange as that seems to me. I played them both and find 3.0/3.5 vastly superior and more fun.
I have to say, i am no WOTC appologist. I have strong negative opinions about more than a few of their products, just not the 3.5 revisions.
Well, if i didn't totally alientate all of you, i have a 3.0 PH and 3.0 DMG that i'd gladly sell for $15 for the pair, or $10 each. I'll pay mailing. They are just gathering dust. The 3.0 MM i gave to my 2 1/2yr old, he loves it so it's not for sale. Drop me a PM if you're interested, eh?
- Feydras
As an admitted neophile (the just as reactionary opposite of neophobe) i really enjoyed the changes in 3.5. I think the class changes to ranger, monk, druid and bard were absolutely necessary to balance the game. These changes, along with the others, were made directly as a result of the 3+yrs of playtesting by hordes of D&D fans. I don't agree with all the changes myself, the worst IMO are the size/spaces rules. These seem to be specifically changed to make the game more in line with the D&D miniatures game which i never intend to play. I think the majority of the changes were well done and streamlined, clarified or just plain fixed subtle or glaring oversights in the original 3.0 design.
I can certainly appreciate players and DMs not wanting to shell out the bucks to update. But i think the posting of the SRD addresses this pretty fairly. What i don't understand is the anger towards WOTC for publishing material intending to improve the game. Sure they make a whole hell of a lot of money in the process, but the game is fine-tuned, sort of like a patch to a computer game. I know, i know, patches are free but so is the SRD. Finally, you don't have to update at all if you don't want to as you're all aware of or this thread wouldn't exist.
My experience with folks who most vocally speak out against 3.0 is that often they haven't given it a good look over. I have seen many people who hated it and resisted the change for many months and then became converts once they tried it.
All that said, we each like what we like. There are still a fair amount of people out there who still prefer 1e or 2e as strange as that seems to me. I played them both and find 3.0/3.5 vastly superior and more fun.
I have to say, i am no WOTC appologist. I have strong negative opinions about more than a few of their products, just not the 3.5 revisions.
Well, if i didn't totally alientate all of you, i have a 3.0 PH and 3.0 DMG that i'd gladly sell for $15 for the pair, or $10 each. I'll pay mailing. They are just gathering dust. The 3.0 MM i gave to my 2 1/2yr old, he loves it so it's not for sale. Drop me a PM if you're interested, eh?
- Feydras
Buttercup
Princess of Florin
I'm running a 3.0 campaign, and when it finishes up, I'll run another one. I have adopted some things, like the +2-to-two-skills feats, and some (but not all) of the skill changes. I have not adopted the class changes, spell changes, weapon sizing or facing changes, and I won't. Maybe my campaign is 3.1 then.
I can't imagine ever convincing my players to switch, but that might be because I don't want to myself. Heck, I still have one player who never bought a PHB. She just uses the 3.0 SRD that Anna Dobritt annotated, from which she cuts and pastes into her notebook as she needs to. Actually, I have two players who never purchased one, but the second player uses one I gave her on long term loan. (Which is now so beat up that I wouldn't want it back.)
In fact, I should probably check E-Bay for a copy or two of the 3.0 PHB so I have some spares. I'm in this for the long haul.
I can't imagine ever convincing my players to switch, but that might be because I don't want to myself. Heck, I still have one player who never bought a PHB. She just uses the 3.0 SRD that Anna Dobritt annotated, from which she cuts and pastes into her notebook as she needs to. Actually, I have two players who never purchased one, but the second player uses one I gave her on long term loan. (Which is now so beat up that I wouldn't want it back.)
In fact, I should probably check E-Bay for a copy or two of the 3.0 PHB so I have some spares. I'm in this for the long haul.
Granted there's always a bungh of people who approach a new edition with the "I hate it" reaction, as well as those with the "it must be mine!" reaction.
I don't hate 3.5. I'm approaching it from an econominc standpoint that I've got all the 3.0 books I need (which I frugally purchased) as do my players. I've got a house rule document wherein we try to capture the critical changes from the 3.5 SRD (there are few, basically the Ranger and Bard class, and the 3 H's spells). And that's it. I don't want to run my game from a print-out of the SRD (I paid for real books). And I don't feel the need to buy the new ones. Especially since I have a huge selection of AD&D1e and AD&D2e in my closet already. There comes a time to simply say, "I have enough."
The fact that I ran AD&D2e for 10 years with the same books, says I ought to be able to do so with D&D3e for just as long. And when they wear out or I get a group that is predominantly based in the latest edition, I'll change. I won't bash AD&D2e, it was fun. Nor will I bash 3.5e which replaced my current edition.
Janx
I don't hate 3.5. I'm approaching it from an econominc standpoint that I've got all the 3.0 books I need (which I frugally purchased) as do my players. I've got a house rule document wherein we try to capture the critical changes from the 3.5 SRD (there are few, basically the Ranger and Bard class, and the 3 H's spells). And that's it. I don't want to run my game from a print-out of the SRD (I paid for real books). And I don't feel the need to buy the new ones. Especially since I have a huge selection of AD&D1e and AD&D2e in my closet already. There comes a time to simply say, "I have enough."
The fact that I ran AD&D2e for 10 years with the same books, says I ought to be able to do so with D&D3e for just as long. And when they wear out or I get a group that is predominantly based in the latest edition, I'll change. I won't bash AD&D2e, it was fun. Nor will I bash 3.5e which replaced my current edition.
Janx
feydras
First Post
Maybe i just don't understand the problems...
How are the 3.5 changes to classes not improvements?
The 3.0 ranger is frontloaded and ripe for 'cherrypicking'. Beyond that the ranger has nothing to offer at higher levels beyond spells. The 3.5 version introduces combat styles so you finally have the option of playing an archery focused ranger. The later abilities like camoflague and hide in plain sight are cool and fit the ranger IMO. The added skill points and lower HD make the ranger more of the skilled hunter archetype that i think the class was envisioned to be instead of a 1 level throw away class.
Not looking at both versions right now, but i believe that the druid and monk were changed largely to provide a more fluid progression of abilities so there would not be 1 or 2 levels where you get nothing. Also, the monk received a much needed boost with the improved unarmed attack BAB. It was too weak in 3.0. The monk's evasion was moved to 2nd level, again, i think to prevent someone from scooping up one level of monk just for that.
Bard - the change to bardic music abilities was necessary so a character couldn't just take 1 level in bard and pour skill points in perform from other classes and still increase their bardic music. Also the increase in skill points is nice and fits the jack of all trades image of the class.
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
How are the 3.5 changes to classes not improvements?
The 3.0 ranger is frontloaded and ripe for 'cherrypicking'. Beyond that the ranger has nothing to offer at higher levels beyond spells. The 3.5 version introduces combat styles so you finally have the option of playing an archery focused ranger. The later abilities like camoflague and hide in plain sight are cool and fit the ranger IMO. The added skill points and lower HD make the ranger more of the skilled hunter archetype that i think the class was envisioned to be instead of a 1 level throw away class.
Not looking at both versions right now, but i believe that the druid and monk were changed largely to provide a more fluid progression of abilities so there would not be 1 or 2 levels where you get nothing. Also, the monk received a much needed boost with the improved unarmed attack BAB. It was too weak in 3.0. The monk's evasion was moved to 2nd level, again, i think to prevent someone from scooping up one level of monk just for that.
Bard - the change to bardic music abilities was necessary so a character couldn't just take 1 level in bard and pour skill points in perform from other classes and still increase their bardic music. Also the increase in skill points is nice and fits the jack of all trades image of the class.
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
