Love of 3.5E

[Darrin Drader]

Merric,

I totally agree with you on everything except for one:

I like it more than I did 3E... and that was a really good edition.

The differences in 3.5 do not constitute a new edition. They are errata. The game you are playing is still 3rd edition.

 

[MerricB]

Merric,

I totally agree with you on everything except for one:

The differences in 3.5 do not constitute a new edition. They are errata. The game you are playing is still 3rd edition.

Heh. Fair enough.

Cheers!

 

[Neo]

I'll add my voice to this tune..

I like 3.5, don't see what all the fuss is about between 3.0 and 3.5 personally. The vast majority of changes were implemented based on folks original complaints regarding balance issues... so in effect those that complain about 3.5 are actually complaining about thier original complaints try saying that after a few beers.<chuckle>

Anyway as has been said 3.5 isnt a new edition anyway its just a fixed 3.0..and it will do for me

3.5 is just a nice non intensive easy to use system that has had most of the balance issues resolved and the points of contention frectified or resolved in some manner.
Switching from 3.0 to 3.5 for my campaigns took all of about 20 mins of a session, painless and complaint free.

 

[Ssyleia]

Those are two great sets!!

IMHO Fallen Empires was - Homelands wasn't...

IMHO, both set were published during a phase where WotC marketing guys were visibly trying to expand their "know-how" on the market. Remember "Alliances"? This is when they failed, commercially...

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I like what I've seen of 3.5. I like the MM, I LOVE the Draconomicon, and I like the changed classes. I like the new/converted PrCs in the DMG. I really, really, really like how there are now meaningfully different bastard swords for large and small characters. Which is a pretty silly thing to be happy about, but that's one of the things about 3.0 that really bugged me.

 

[Henry]

You might want to examine the history of Magic: the Gathering as well - the last few years have shown that the designers have a really good handle on the game. Much better than they did in the early years. (Remember Fallen Empires and Homelands?)

I'll do you one Better - remember the Mox Artifacts, Time Walk, ancestral Recall, and Hideous 1000/1000 Atogs that turned opponents to goo? The Alpha-beta-unlimited went to show the VAST problems with using "rarity" as a game balance tool, and not just for Magic the Gathering.

I like 3.5 too, but you know something funny? We haven't played a single game of it yet. We still cling to our 3E books. I still only use the 3.5 SRD. Maybe one day I'll buy the new ones, but as it is, I'm stil looking like I'll just wait until a 4th edition before I do.

 

[Telperion]

I'll also have my say: 3.5 is very good .

Like Merric most of the changes that seem to irritate people don't really affect my campaign in any great way. We don't have any clerics or druids as PC's. No Paladins because it is an Evil campaign. Some of the spells have been nerfed, but that's okay. I still use Relics and Rituals, so nothing has changed there (although I here there's a revision to 3.5 coming next autumn in the form of Relics and Rituals 3).

All in all everything feels better than in 3.0. I totally agree that both the Bard and Ranger classes look much better now. Up until now no one really wanted to play bard, ranger or paladin in my group. Paladin is still not an option, but since the revision I have seen more interest towards the other two classes. I liked their flavor in 3.0, but they just didn't work. Looking back at the 3.0 ranger I just have to wonder what WotC was thinking?

I'm filling my bookshelf with 3.5 books, so hopefully the wells at WotC and S&SS won't run dry anytime soon.

I still haven't got XPH, but it has finally arrived to Finland. Hoping to pick it up next week .

 

[milotha]

I'll do you one Better - remember the Mox Artifacts, Time Walk, ancestral Recall, and Hideous 1000/1000 Atogs that turned opponents to goo?

Oh, my Moxes. How I miss them. My preciouses.

I always felt that between the lameness that was Homelands and the reprinting that was Chronicles the collectors flipped out. Card values started to take a dive and the singles market never really recovered where I was.

As for 3.5, it has many improvements over 3.0 (Rangers, Bards, Rules as others have noted), but I still wished they hadn't nerfed so many protective/buff spells.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Things I Love About 3.5e: The rebalanced classes, the wilderness and urban rules, the new monster manual, many of the new art pieces, the better-organized combat chapter, the balancing of haste, harm, and heal.

Things I Don't Love About 3.5e: People who think that "pokemount" and "pokepaladin" are clever terms. To paraphrase something that Pants said a while ago, it's almost like the person who created such terms looked at the paladin's new summonable mount and thought "I don't like this ability, it sucks. I know! I'll create a derogatory nickname for it that only makes the slightest bit of sense! That'll show WotC!"

Other than that, the only thing about 3.5e that I don't like is the new version of the darkness spell.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I have to agree with you, Merric. The only change I haven't allowed is darkness creating an area of shadow. I don't care about balance reasons: if it's called "darkness" then it's going to be dark....