[Rave] Happy with 3.5e core rulebooks.

[Will]

My only significant complaints about 3.5 are stuff I didn't like in 3, either.

I am very very happy about 3.5... classes, like people said. The variety and depth of skills and feats is great. I love some of the PrC, like Duelist... TASTY!

 

[jmucchiello]

Many of the nastier critters now have round-by-round rules for what they're most likely to do in combat

Go back and count. Very few monsters have such a section. The previews made it sound like many critters had this combat tactics section but the actual number of monsters with is under 5 unless I missed a bunch of them when I went through the book (Balor, Pit Fiend, Mind Flayer, and Titan).

 

[sircaren]

Without rehashing what's already been said, let me add my happiness with 3.5. Not much I don't like so far.

 

[Forsythe]

Two days ago, in response to a question from one of the players, I sent out emails to my group saying we would most likely stay with 3.0 until we had time to study 3.5 and see if it was worth using.

I bought the 3.5 books yesterday to look over. Without a doubt we will be converting ASAP. Granted house rules could fix the things that 3.5 fix, but I hate using house rules if a player has worked hard to exploit a strength in the rules.

This is not to say I don't think there are mistakes in the 3.5 but I think they are played. By that I mean, they have created new paradigms. 2000gp magic items that provide continuous "enlarge" will be the standard fare for every fighter. Craft wondrous item became even more critical if that is believable (mostly due to the short durations of the buff spells)

It's all good here.

Forsythe

 

[Vocenoctum]

My DMs word as I was discussing converting my paladin bard;
"Don't worry about converting Ego to 3.5. Vincent just put a lot of gold and XP into make a wand of haste, I'm not going to make it completely useless by suddenly springing 3.5 on everybody. If you find something in 3.5 you like, great, maybe we'll use it, but they're nothing more than new splatbooks to me."

Blah. Now I'll have no idea what rules are what. The Sunday DM already said he won't be converting for a while if at all and probably won't even get the books until late this year.

The problem: (besides 3.5 just being neater) there's plenty of clarification in places. Grappling seems a lot better to me. If I want to Sunder, does this mean we have to discuss the rule and waste time? If the DM does X which is unclear in 3.0, 3.5 is not really a valid "here's the explanation."

And yes, this matters. The Sunday DM really isn't very clear on placement and AoO's in general. The Thursday DM just seemed to dislike 3.5 long before it came out. (favorite word: nerf... ::sigh:

I disagree with the whole "draw houserules from 3.5e for your 3.0 game" it just makes things worse. IMO.

Go 3.5 all the way, house rule some stuff if you want, but start with a basis in the clearer rules. (For instance, I'll be changing buff spells to 10 min per level. I'll bet none of the 3.0 games will reduce it though, not wanting to "nerf" it for some of the players.)

ARGH! I want my 3.5!
(even if gnomes aren't bards IMG

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Overall, I'm really liking this 3.5 business. I even like the new weapon size rules, which I was SURE were going to suck. Only a couple things I plan on changing, or things I thought they would fix:

1 min/level stat boost spells: to my way of thinking, it should have been either 6 different spells with the old duration, or 1 big spell with the new short duration (which is, I believe, how D20 Modern does it). I think the latter may be how I end up doing it, just because it makes it more attractive to Sorcerers.

I LOVE the new Damage Reduction rules, but if they were going to make special materials so important, they really should have fixed the dumb rules for pricing. I'm talking about that flat +3 grand or whatever it is for an adamantine weapon, regardless of how much metal is actually used in its construction. This was always a house-ruled price multiplier in my games, but I was really hoping they would fix this.

That Eldritch Knight blows. I can see what they were trying to do, but it's just a flavorless mass. I'm not opposed to the concept, just the execution.

I can see how this looks like a rant, but it's not, I assure you. These are really the only problems I have upon first glance. Everything else is peaches. And I love the battle grid they included! I already had a vinyl one, but I can see using this paper one more often.

 

[Ranes]

Forgive me if this has been made clear already in other threads or news items; if it has, I've missed it despite trying to keep up with all the news.

And now, gentlepeeps, the question!

Are the 3.5 books stitched or glued?

 

[drnuncheon]

Forgive me if this has been made clear already in other threads or news items; if it has, I've missed it despite trying to keep up with all the news.

And now, gentlepeeps, the question!

Are the 3.5 books stitched or glued?

Not being an expert bookbinder, I'm not sure how to answer - they don't appear to have the 'loose' binding of the 3.0 books (the one that separates from the spine and makes alarming crackling sounds), though. They definitely appear sturdier (although probably not quite as sturdy as my old 1e DMG!)

J

 

[Ranes]

Thanks, J. 'Sturdier' sounds reassuring, though I liked the 'alarming crackling' sounds. Call it a weakness.

 

[Saeviomagy]

That Eldritch Knight blows. I can see what they were trying to do, but it's just a flavorless mass. I'm not opposed to the concept, just the execution.

The counterargument to this is that if you were to give it flavour, your would be enforcing role-playing limits. Just like those stupid "how this class interacts with other classes" sections in the splatbooks.

The rules are for mechanics. My creativity (or a sourcebook) is for flavour.