So how many of you made the switch?

[Dracorat]

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?

Monk attack/damage progression

As for switching, I showed up for gaming one day with the switchover sheet that wizards produced detailing all the changes from versions, slapped it down on the table (a copy for each player) and said "From here on out, we are playing 3.5. You can buy new books if you want, or you can keep using yours and use these sheets to keep up with the difference. It's your choice."

And actually, one of my players was first to buy the new books. And I was second. (I was poor at that point)

 

[marcusgrubbs]

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

I resisted switching over to 3.5 mainly because the system was so similar and I had only just completed my collection of 3.0 books. Once I sat down with 3.5 and went through the way they classified actions and their more clean cut descriptions of attack maneuvers I was sold. The differences, while subtle in most cases, make the game smoother and the book easier to navigate.

This is not to say that the new version doesn't have problems but as others have said the improvements are vastly more abundant than the downfalls.

 

[werk]

Ya, we switched when 3.5 came out.

Same, but we were eager to improve upon 3.o as it played (in out group) as terribly overpowered. It was a combination of leniant DM, too much outside materials, and powerhungry players with too much time/money of their hands.

Not so much with 3.5. I hear reports, but haven't seen it for myself yet.

 

[Rhun]

I use a mix of both. I've kept my 3.0 PHB and DMG, but try to use the 3.5 SRD as much as possible.

 

[Arnwyn]

As with a couple others, we a play a "mostly-3.5" hybrid (cover and concealment being a biggie).

 

[Cor Azer]

My groups didn't switch over immediately, but we did eventually (generally, either between camapigns, or at the very least, between major story arcs of a campaign). It wasn't much of a big deal for us - only one or two of had even purchased the 3.0 rulebooks in the first place, and we were all going to get the 3.5 books too, so... meh.

I like the most of the changes they made, and am rather uneffected by the ones I don't (square sizes annoy me a bit, but I don't use battlemaps all that often).

 

[Lanefan]

As DM: never used 3.anything, though I've stolen a few ideas (mainly monsters and some FR material) for 1e.

As player: still on a variant of 3.0, as the campaign predates 3.5 and mid-stream changes are a Bad Thing.

Lanefan

 

[sirwmholder]

Our group switched to 3.5 at release... even though it has taken a while for everyone to finally get their own books... I bought two copies of each... one to have as personal reference complete with my notes and bookmarks... the other set was for the gaming table... I later gave that set to the only player still gaming with us who hadn't the money for a single book.

Anyway, we mainly changed over due to the anticipation of future product releases... the size rules, weapon rules and concealment rules aren't necessarily better or worse but slightly different. I seem to recall our biggest issue was with Ambidexterity (removed), the new Survival check and rangers dropping down to a d8 HD... everything else has been smooth sailing.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder

 

[drothgery]

My group played a d20 Modern game and a 3.0 + XPH game around the 3.0->3.5 transition, but we're 3.5 now.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

we use 3.0 with the class fixes from ythe 3.5 sdr no point in rebuying all those books on a buget here after all