Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 3949399" data-attributes="member: 1465">I have run a 3.5 game for something over half a year, playing from the SRD. It wasn't terrible, but nearly all the changes ended up being negative for us, even if before playing most of them looked positive. We simply ended that campaign, and continue with previous ones in 3.0. When I start a new campaign now it's 3.0 either with a small set of HR for a spin, or none at all. OTOH I have been a player in a bunch of 3.5 games online. I'd prefer 3.0 as a player too, but I cannot find any of them anymore.What were the advantages?- Not having to spend money to buy the same material again (best books were written for 3.0)- Not having to bother converting what I liked of the 3.0 material that was never updated- Buying 3.0 books at a good discount- 3.0 rules give me a feeling of being designed as a whole, 3.5 as a series of unrelated stitches...plus a countless number of things which I definitely prefer in 3.0, in no particular order:- 3.0 races are more balanced with each other- Gnomes as illusionists are good, Gnomes as bards don't work at all for me- Sorcerer was still balanced with the other classes; 3.5 boosted everyone but forgot the Sorc, and nerfed spells- Druids, Bards, Barbarians and even Rangers are actually fine in 3.0; the 3.5 Ranger is way too good compared to other classes; furthermore I prefer the 3.0 concept of a Ranger "fighter of the wild" rather than the 3.5 concept "rogue of the wild"- multi-purpose spells were great, particularly but not only for sorcerers, before they were split- buff spells with random bonus were more exciting- buff spells with long duration: shortening them boosted buff items, and restricted the spells to combat use- many save-or-die changed to simple damage dealing, reducing spells diversity- swapping known spells: I dislike any retraining rules with a passion- Polymorph changes are confusing without improving the spell at all- I like a Darkness spell that actually creates darkness- Haste: yes it was powerful, but it also depleted daily spells quickly; it was an interesting tactical option, now it's just another buff- standing up not provoking an AoO is more balanced, and not less realistic- weapon sizes: old rules were simpler and were not less realistic really- damage reduction: while I do like special materials, I think the different +s were good as a balancing factor of monsters and magic weapon pricing, compared to just "magic"- facing: I still prefer my horses and snakes to be long and narrow- cover rules have become too simple for my taste, I like some bit of variety here- action types were simpler in 3.0, didn't need to get bloated with swift and immediate- skills: generally more expensive in 3.0, which means players are more motivated to use them well- exclusive skills: some of them were in fact class abilities (UMD, Decipher Script), and once available to everyone, they reduce niche protection- scry: Scrying spells are powerful, and deserve an extra cost (skill points) rather than being free; I prefer this to be still a skill- alchemy: in my favourite setting type, this should be available to non-casters as well- power attack: 2 for 1 is too much of an advantage, especially at high level- deflect arrows: automatic success is counterintuitive and doesn't give space for circumstance modifiers- stacking the same metamagic was a great tactical choice- spell focus +2 is not unbalanced at all, spell focus +1 devalues a perfectly fine featWhat were the disadvantages?- Becoming a grognard of the one edition that has the least number of them- Missing a couple of interesting books (the environmental ones, the prestige monster ones)- Not being able to find an HTML-based SRD for 3.0</blockquote>

Verification