So how many of you made the switch?

[Storyteller01]

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.

Ditto. That, and I've really not been impressed with the WotC splatbooks on either side. I stick with 3.0/3.5 compatible 3rd party stuff.

 

[Mercule]

We switched pretty quickly. As DM, I like almost all the changes, especially the new DR rules (which look like a house rule I've used since the 1980s). I'm pretty ambivalent about the size/facing rules.

 

[Nyaricus]

Not with 3.5. It's by and large a bunch of terrible house rules that a few idiots put together for 3E.

I wouldn't go so far as calling the same people who have, by and large, brought us so many other great books idiots, but yeah, there was a lot of repetition and unecessary (IMHO, of course) changes between that half-edition.

Of course, 3.5 was only supposed to be a 'revision' of the rules, but the hype went out and a bunch of people began to call it 3.5e and, as this story goes, WotC adopted the name. That's what I've heard, in any case.

Point is, WotC has DEFINITLY said in the past that there will be no more revisions until 4e, so we'll just have to see what happens

 

[airwalkrr]

I converted to 3e rapidly. But when 3.5 came out I hesitated. A lot of what I felt needed to be fixed I had already fixed in my house rules (namely haste). I eventually converted though since I was going to buy the books anyway (being the obsessive collector I am). However, I currently run a mish-mash of 1e and 3e. Character classes are basically 3e, combat is basically 1e without AoOs, feats (a 3e concept) are 3e, skills more like 1e, spells are mostly 3e (with the exception of casting times), multiclassing rules are 1e. So I choose the last option. I consider myself to have moved BEYOND 3.5 into a much greater realm. My rules are actually simpler and allow for faster gameplay, while at the same time being easy for 1e veterans and 3e veterans to learn.

2nd edition? That's the bastard-child of D&D that never should have made it into the books.

 

[Hussar]

Made the switch shortly after it came out.

Never looked back.

 

[The Human Target]

Ya, we switched when 3.5 came out. The classes are abit better, the DMG is a lot better and I'm happy with the improvements on the game.

Yessir I agree.

I also much prefer the Monster Manual.

 

[kikai]

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.

Same here. In the group i GM, it's mostly 3.0, but in the individual case we incoporate some 3.5 elements (like the ranger, haste or DR).

In the group where I play, we play a solid 3.5.

Regards,

kikai

 

[an_idol_mind]

I bought the 3e core books as they came out. When 3.5 came out, I skipped it because I didn't think the game needed another revision yet. I finally switched over earlier this year, and I'm happy with most of the tweaks they made. Some items, such as the increased focus on miniature-based combat and the paladin's poke-mount, get the axe, but I think the revision was largely good for the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

The young is more exciting, but ultimately the old is always the wisest.

I tried 3.5 for months (alongside 3.0) before declaring it not worth the change. I now enjoy the freedom of not having to deal with more expenses.

 

[Sunderstone]

3.5 here. So far so good. Im also hoping 4E is backwards compatible as well. Im getting tired of obsolete modules that require complete Stat block reworking (examples... RttToEE and City of the Spider Queen).