Impressions on 3.5?

[satori01]

I am intrested in other people's general impressions on the makeup of 3.5 given the information at hand.

I have vaciliated many times now in my resolve to update or use.
My personal feeling right now is that I am not going to be purchasing the revised books.
The new class changes I will probably use, other rules I am iffy on.
I have some fears about a fracturing of the D&D community between 3.0 ers and 3.5ers. If a large segement of the D&D community perceives the new official direction of WOTC not serving their needs, one can expect a drop in product sales,(for WOTC), and possibly a drop in d20 system products as well.

As an aside here is an intresting quote by Monte Cook from the Gaming Report website:
GamingReport:
How do you see D&D 3.5, as a necessary step for WotC to take like the Star Wars revised core rule book?

Monte Cook:
To be clear, I have no relation to the revised edition. Not so much as a "Monte, we're thinking about doing this to the material you created, what do you think?" I personally think it's too soon to revise the books and have it on good authority it's got more to do with economics than what's best for the game. That said, the creative team for D&D over the years has a long history of taking the lemons handed them from the business people and making lemonade. I suspect that they've done that here.

I won't really go into detail (in fact, I can't -- I have signed a Non Disclosure Agreement). I can say that some of the changes are good, and some I'd never implement in my home game in a million years.

 

[LGodamus]

I have some trepidation with then new edition, but I will buy it take what I like and leave what I dont and house rule the rest

 

[Destil]

3eR will reduce the amount of house-ruling I'm doing by quite a bit (mabye cutting my 3 page document down to 1 page) while adding only a little that I'll need to be house ruling (mabye 1/2 a page). So all in all I'm using far more than I'm dropping, and many things I'm not using I'm toning to someplace between the two...

Now if they'd only get to psionics already... though I wonder how many powers will be brought to have 1 minuite / level durations

 

[Dark Jezter]

So far, I like most of the changes I've seen for 3.5e. It looks as though the classes are finally being balanced. People now have reasons to take more than five levels in barbarian, or take more than one level in ranger. Druids and bards will be a lot more useful than they previously were, and we'll probably be seeing more of them in actual gameplay. Wizards and sorcerer will still be valuable group members, but won't dominate high-level play and make the other party members unnessecary.

The big three H spells have gotten much-needed nerfings. New feats have been added, and a few old feats have been given some cool new changes.

And these are just changes to the PHB, which is going to be the book that recieves the least amount of changes.

I've already got my copies pre-ordered, and the middle of July can't come soon enough.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I will be purchasing the books because I like quite a few of the changes. Even so, I feel I will be making quite a few 'house rules'.

Some things I don't like that stand out:

1. Ranger's getting Hide in Plain Sight. This will only be in wilderness areas if it stays in at all. I have always pictured the ranger as a man of skill with some knowledge of nature magic, and Hide in Plain Sight doesn't fit them IMO.

2. Damage Reduction #/Magic. They have not clarified whether they will be incorporating a weapon + as they had before. Protection from Arrows will be quite useless at higher levels if it is 10/magic. I don't like spells that don't scale well.

3. Power Attack change seems a little insane. Two times damge for 1 point of base attack for two-handers. Two-handed weapon users already outclass just about everyone for damage. Did they really need this upgrade? Even my players are surprised.

4. Not altering the Quicken Spell feat so that is useable by pre-epic Sorcerer's.

5. Hold spells. I don't think I am going to use the new hold spells. I have seen Greater Command work. Multiple saves make it to easy to break a spell because you are bound to get a lucky roll. I see no problem expecting the cleric to have Remove Paralysis memorized.

Some things I like that stand out:

1. Change to damage reduction. Now players will actually have to be prepared to deal with certain creatures.

2. Change to Paladin. They needed more smites per day.

3. Change to druid animal companion. It needed some clarity. It was getting out of hand at higher levels.

4. Change to buff spells. I never liked all day stat enhancements.

5. Change to Disintegrate. The spell was too good for its level at killing. Now it still does a good job of destroying materials, while being a less effective killing spell.


I can't wait to lay my hands on the books to see the full extent of the changes. I am sure their will be more things I like and dislike and alot of house rules to be written.

 

[Trickstergod]

Thank golly for the SRD.

There was a time I championed D&D Revised, pointing out how some game systems, in the span of a decade, have gone through three or more editions, whereas D&D has only reached its own revision of 3rd edition after nearing up on thirty years, how we've all had our complaints and that they're likely be heard, that one shouldn't judge before they've seen the final product, and even then, money-grubbing bastards or not, WotC will be offering up all the changes, free of charge, within the SRD, so all those complaining about greed should stuff it.

Well, whew, while the final product may not be out yet, the glimpses thus far have been some stinkers in my opinion. I was with them on the Ranger, and feel I may use the new class over the current one, but other than that, things began to go downhill afterwards. I understand the logic of the changing of buff spells; still, I think the duration should have been clipped from one hour to ten minutes - having the spells for a dramatic encounter is good, but it seems to me most of the ones I've run across have allowed little prep time beforehand. Dwarves don't need buffing, or any encouragement towards homogenity. Improved Invisibility didn't need its name changed to "Greater", nor any of the other spells getting that alteration - it's a bit too uncreative and overly, again, homogenous for my liking. Damage reduction...eh, I'd rather they offered up two forms of it - say, Damage Reduction 15/Silver OR +3 Weapon, like with the Arak from Denizen's of Darkness. The new system seems like it will involve a lot of toting around spare weapons. Bleah. Power attack and two-handed weapons....eh. Times two seems a bit much - going with the way two-handed weapons and strength bonuses work, x1.5, instead, seems like a more balanced way of doing things. The new working of the Paladin's mount...yeah, I don't think so highly of that, either.

Over all, I think I prefer the current edition to what the new one may be. I'll likely institute a few changes - Rangers come to mind - but otherwise I think I'll just be griping until yet another Core rulebook edition comes out (and possibly even afterwards, at this rate).

Edit: And, as an aside, no, I don't, at the moment, see myself buying the new books, thus the thanks for the SRD. I'll probably just print what I want out of it, and not pay for a set of books that I don't see as being particularly useful to me.

 

[Drawmack]

Wasn't there a 1eR and what about the play options books for second edition were those not equivocal to 3.5?


Anyway I like most of the changes I've seen so far.

As far as DR I'm all for my PCs NEEDING a silver weapon to combat a werecreature.

 

[Someone]

Some of the changes strike me as un-needed, others are strange, but overall there´s a lot of changes I already used as house rules, so I think the revision is rather good.

 

[Gargoyle]

D&D is a game that has to evolve to keep players interested. It has to change. It should not do so too quickly or too slowly.

2E was a good revision in its day. No matter how much I loved 1E and OD&D, the clunkiness of some of the rule systems was too much to bear, and there were many, many house rules.

But TSR didn't let D&D evolve past 2E, and nearly killed it for many players, including me. The Options books did more to split the gaming community than 3.5 will. Refusing to update the core rules divides gamers more than updating those rules. The Complete Handbooks were horribly done, for the most part, because the provided variants to the core system, instead of building on the core. Psionics didn't build on the core rule mechanics either.

3.0 was a leap forward, but like the release of 2E, it was time for a big change. There was a large gap between the release of 2E and 3E. Many players had moved away from D&D to other systems, or had given up the hobby altogether. And 3.0 is just a darn good design, especially with the addition of the OGL and d20 licenses. The splat books for 3.0 build on the core rules rather than conflict with them, and the Psionics Handbook was one of the first optional books released, having been designed to work with the core rules. (Though I think the integration could have been better, it was an improvement over 2E).

However, it's possible that 3.5 is an example of the D&D core rules evolving a little too quickly. I think I would have liked to have seen a fully revised 4th edition after 5 years, rather than a 3.5 edition after 3 years. It would have been a better value for my money, and I believe the game would be better if larger changes had been made. Now it will be a long time before we see a 4th edition, and if the economy turns nastier, we might never see it. And that would be a shame, since I believe that it could be an incredible game that could incorporate the new material coming out from WOTC in the next couple of years, and hopefully some of the best d20 OGC.

In any case, Monte's analogy is spot on. Regardless of whether the edition was a good idea or not, I think they did a good job implementing it. I've been playing with the new DMG and PHB for a couple of months, and we've enjoyed the changes.

 

[Apok]

Re: re

I will be purchasing the books because I like quite a few of the changes. Even so, I feel I will be making quite a few 'house rules'.

Some things I don't like that stand out:

1. Ranger's getting Hide in Plain Sight. This will only be in wilderness areas if it stays in at all. I have always pictured the ranger as a man of skill with some knowledge of nature magic, and Hide in Plain Sight doesn't fit them IMO.

Given that their HiPS ability actually does only work in natural areas, I think you'll be pleased.

2. Damage Reduction #/Magic. They have not clarified whether they will be incorporating a weapon + as they had before. Protection from Arrows will be quite useless at higher levels if it is 10/magic. I don't like spells that don't scale well.

They won't, IIRC. DR of X/Magic can be beaten by any magic weapon, weather it's a +1 or a +10. Given how relatively easy it is to acquire a +1 weapon in D&D, I'd consider this type of DR to be one of the weakest.

3. Power Attack change seems a little insane. Two times damge for 1 point of base attack for two-handers. Two-handed weapon users already outclass just about everyone for damage. Did they really need this upgrade? Even my players are surprised.

Yeah, that one threw me for a loop also. I always thought Power Attack was fine as-is, but apparently some people thougth otherwise and the designers agreed with them.

4. Not altering the Quicken Spell feat so that is useable by pre-epic Sorcerer's.

Not to mention the fact that Quicken Spell, the only way to cast more than one spell in a round (barring Time Stop) is still a 4 level modifier. They admitted they didn't playtest the metamagic feats with the new changes very much, and I think this discrepancy will stand out in the new edition. Expect many complaints in the time to come.

5. Hold spells. I don't think I am going to use the new hold spells. I have seen Greater Command work. Multiple saves make it to easy to break a spell because you are bound to get a lucky roll. I see no problem expecting the cleric to have Remove Paralysis memorized.

I guess I'm sorta neutral on this one. On the one hand, it makes these spells less Instant Death spells or Completely Screw Over The Character spells, but they were definitely staples of manipulative evil spellcasters all over the campaign world. Now, if you want hordes of mindless, loyal minions, the only route to consider is Undead.

Some things I like that stand out:

1. Change to damage reduction. Now players will actually have to be prepared to deal with certain creatures.

2. Change to Paladin. They needed more smites per day.

3. Change to druid animal companion. It needed some clarity. It was getting out of hand at higher levels.

4. Change to buff spells. I never liked all day stat enhancements.

5. Change to Disintegrate. The spell was too good for its level at killing. Now it still does a good job of destroying materials, while being a less effective killing spell.

1. Concur. 2. Concur. 3. Concur. 4. Neutral, but not a bad change. 5. Concur.

I can't wait to lay my hands on the books to see the full extent of the changes. I am sure their will be more things I like and dislike and alot of house rules to be written.

Ditto. Mostly, I can't wait to see how some of the new spells work. I'm also curious as to weather or not they dropped the alignment restriction on Rangers who take their own race as a Favored Enemy.