So how many of you made the switch?

[Henry]

We switched, mainly because I liked some of the things they did, like the sizes, the improvements in some feats, and the alterations of certain key spells (harm and haste for example) and so far we haven't regretted it.

 

[Barak]

Mostly 3.0, but I integrated enough 3.5 changes that I voted the third option. That, plus I have many books that came out after the switch, and those are 3.5.

 

[kigmatzomat]

My campaign was waaaay too involved in the 3.0 magic system to ever consider the switch to 3.5 spells. I agree with a handful of the class adjustments made but generally dislike the base assumptions used in the 3.5 revision.

I'm allowing a smattering of 3.5 classes into my game as PrCs, though anything I feel is particularly questionable gets made an Epic PrC. Which phases my players not, since the game is now at 20th level. IMO the more powerful 3.5 classes work out pretty well in epic while I think they are a bit overpowered compared to base 3.0 or even 3.5 classes.

 

[sjmiller]

We switched, mainly because I liked some of the things they did, like the sizes, the improvements in some feats, and the alterations of certain key spells (harm and haste for example) and so far we haven't regretted it.

I think one of the changes thay made that bugged me, and was one of my personal sticking points on converting, was the changes in sizes. To me, at least, it made sense to have long and narrow areas of influence for some creatures. The "square horses" along with "square snakes" made me question that whole line of logic. The other size objection I had was the changes to weapons. It made no sense to me then, and makes even less sense now.

Those are just a few of the reason I did not switch that did not involve the cost of the books I mentioned before. They are, I guess, the rationalization behind my frugality.

 

[Nyaricus]

I think one of the changes thay made that bugged me, and was one of my personal sticking points on converting, was the changes in sizes. To me, at least, it made sense to have long and narrow areas of influence for some creatures. The "square horses" along with "square snakes" made me question that whole line of logic. The other size objection I had was the changes to weapons. It made no sense to me then, and makes even less sense now.

My group averaged 15 years of age when 3.5 came out, and thus that sort of stuff didn't really matter to us (well, more like we just didn't 'get' the game enough for that to really matter) but in any case, looking back I think that those were much better rules for area and for weapons. I also have the same opinion on 3.0s concealment - it was, and is, better than 3.5e.

I agree with PC - 3.5 did take MANY more steps forward than it did back, but square ares for dragons, horses, snakes et al doens't make sense to me. At all. C'est la vie

As for classes which had many change, from memory:

Bard
Druid
Paladin
Monk
Ranger

Also, any classes in 3.0 which got "all shields" as a proficiency now have "all shields (except tower shields)", except for the fighter. This was to give the fighter one-up against the other classes. Small comfort, that (IMO).

cheers,
--N

 

[scruffygrognard]

Mostly 3.5...

The 3 D&D games I play in all use modified 3.5. We kept 3.0's weapon size rules and cover/concealment rules.

 

[Umbran]

Basically playing 3.5e. More improvements than detriments, and more forwards-compatability with future releases.

 

[diaglo]

First, I will say that my group did not switch. We started shortly before 3.5 came out and we decided that nobody wanted to spend the money buying a second set of books. Besides, the changes were not all that dramatic.

Now, getting to the quote. I know they "fixed" the Ranger and made some changes to the Druid, but what other changes were made to classes?

back before the release of the revision my DM was keeping track here with a thread for all the changes.

see if you can find threads by Olgar Shiverstone in 2003.

 

[Psion]

Mostly 3.5, but I consider several aspects of 3.5 a step back and don't embrace them in home games. I still use old cover and concealment rules, for example.

 

[The Forsaken One]

3.5 all the way, the second it came out and damn glad with it ever since .