So how many of you made the switch?

[Herobizkit]

I use a 3.5 hybrid; 3.5 feats and classes, 3.0 magic spells and items. And I kept the sizing rules for weapons from 3.0 as well because they made way more sense to me than those in 3.5...

 

[JeffB]

Wow.

I expected there to be more "I stuck with 3.0" folks. Seriously. About the time I was last really active around ENWorld was at the time of 3.5s release, and there was quite a bit of backlash about it being the latest "money-grub" from WOTC.

After reading this I'm starting to regret packing up the 3.5 books, and keeping the 3.0 versions

 

[DungeonMaster]

Enworld isn't representative of the rest of the gaming community. It's much more often than not representative of the 3.5 community. The people here like new books, and lots of them. There are people on this forum that buy literally a hundred gaming books a year. They're going to go with the flow of the "current" edition, whether it's crap or not. The Enworld population is not a discerning buyer's market. The average review grade is more than passing, when in all honesty the average gaming book is filled with crap.
This is something I've been tracking for some time now and I can make an unsubstatiated claim to inside information that the bulk of the gaming community didn't switch. Conversely it's not because the average gamer is discerning, it's because the average gamer doesn't care enough to switch.

And never regret packing up the 3.5 books, they're crap compared to 3rd edition and they'll be out of date crap in short order.

 

[MerricB]

What's the difference between that edition and the 3.5 DMG available everywhere?

Oh, and we switched to 3.5 from 3.0.

The errata is included in the SE printing (though there are flaws we've picked up that haven't been fixed). For instance, it has the text that means that Prestige Classes no longer count for XP penalties.

Cheers!

 

[Kularian]

My friends and I play whatever one we feel like. I personally prefer to play 3.0, as the ranger's multiclassing abilities are better, IMO. Whereas in 3.5 the ranger has to be a certain level to increase his TWF, in 3.0 it's just a BAB. So a Ranger 4/Fighter 5 has Improved TWF. Pretty nice. Also, I like the d10 hit die, hehe.

But I can see the benefits of both, so I don't really mind playing one way or the other.

 

[The_Universe]

I switched to 3.5, and thought I wasn't going to like some of the changes (like the oft-mentioned square facing, concealment, and cover). But, after playing for a while, I can't think of anything that I definitely, objectively prefer in 3.0 over 3.5. There's stuff that just isn't a big deal one way or the other, but very little that gets me riled up.

 

[Agamon]

I used to play Living Greyhawk, and was pretty much forced to get a 3.5 PHB. Noting how well it updated 3.0, my home game moved wholesale to 3.5 pretty quickly.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The one game mechanics complaint I've had with 3.5 over 3.0 is the nerfing of things like spell durations or the way some things stacked (like improved crit/keen).

Other than that, its largely been hunky-dory.

 

[Aaron L]

I use 3.5 almost entirely, with a few exceptions, such as buff spell furations staying at 10 minutes/level, Improved Crit and Keen stacking, and paladins mounts.

And a few other things. But mostly all 3.5. In general, I think the changes were excellent, like the things they did with rangers and barbarians, and the general small tweaking improvements.

 

[Aus_Snow]

[. . .] paladins mounts

Could you run that past me (how the 3.0 version differs) ? I can't remember for the life of me right now.