Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 3259401" data-attributes="member: 38357">I've seen it stated that AD&D & 3.5 levels map pretty closely to one-another, and 3.5 just "goes higher". I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Name level in AD&D was 9th level (or a bit higher), in 3.5 I'd put that closer to 15th. Likewise, a lot of the bigger monsters have been beefed up quite a bit. And on top of that there is no longer the gradual slow-down in level gain as one reaches the top levels. Two consequences of this are that your "plusses" get really big (a negative, for me), the other is that before the PCs "top out" they get access to a lot of high-level abilities (teleport, etc.; this is a positive to my mind).There is a definite feeling among a lot of players that 3.5 encourages or even demands a specific play-style (or, at least, that a specific play-stlye is the best way to have fun with D&D), and in the end this ends up being close to the same thing as if it specifically did so. If the players want to play min-maxed (or just plain poorly thought-out monstrosities with little RP possibilities, not that I'm bitter...) characters, then it's up to the DM who wants something else to either convince them otherwise or else find new players. And convincing them otherwise is, IMHO, hard.One thing I'm kind of interested in (because I've had it suggested to me, and I can't really be sure, myself): Does anyone here think that 3.5 assumes less willingness to kill PCs than AD&D did?</blockquote>

Verification