So what did you think of 3.5 overall?

[KDLadage]

Went too far in some areas, in my opinion. Did not go nearly far enough in other areas, in my opinion. Overall, a '4.'

 

[Hackenslash]

Disappointed....

I voted 3. I appreciate the necessity of a new edition for clarification and game balancing and have no problem with that at all. In fact some of the rules changes are excellent. I will be using 3.5 in my own campaign and I'm currently playing in a converted 3.5 campaign at present. However my major gripe is that the presentation was not really up to par, some of the Art Work was a little poor to say the least (What is up with the new picture of the Dragon Disciple in the DMG) and How Much Errata ?? Hello !!! WoTC clearly rushed this product and did not give it the attention to detail it very much deserved, IMHO. More test reading should have been done by experienced DnD gamers(I would have gladly volunteered for free just for a my name credit in the books as a test reader) together with cross version analysis and that, I think, would have helped all 3 Books be more accurate and show the correct transition from 3.0. So overall verdict was a must buy for the DnD enthusiast but disappointed in poor editing and way too much errata. That's why I gave it a 3.

 

[Etan Moonstar]

According to the initial poster, 5 means "Completely satisfied with the upgrade and purchases of new books," not that "there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and it could not be improved." It is possible to recognize the existence of the occasional flaw and room for improvement and still be completely satisfied with one's purchase.

 

[Painfully]

I'm definitely a "pick and choose" DM when it comes to adding or changing rules. I also have no trouble changing house rules from campaign to campaign to add flavour.

3.5 could have well been a very short book of, "look at these great house rules OPTIONS you could try." Instead, it just kind of turned into a stew of some good extras, and some bad extras, all mixed into the 3.0 rules.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I voted 0, I know this seems harsh but I realy feel this way. I would have loved an Errata update version 3.1 but 3.5 irks me in several ways.

1. Backwards compatability non-existant despite promises.

2. The new DR that makes magic weapons even less special than they were under 3.0.

3. Nerfing of casters to make Fighters more powerful. Fantasy is all about spellcasters shining, not providing fighter support.

4. The Poke-Paladins have got to be the most crack-addled concept that WotC could have come up with.

I will play in my groups 3.5 converted campain because I like them and the campaign but I hate the new rules as much as I hated 2e. I was looking forward to playing D&D for awile when 3.0 came out. Now I will be happy to move to HERO when our current campaign ends.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I concur. I voted zero, only because "biggest piece of crap I've ever seen" wasn't a choice.

3.5 made me seek a new game system entirely.

 

[Ferret]

4, I liked it alot with only a few unsavory things.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Ive liked as much as Ive disliked about it, so I gave it a 3. Normally I disagree with a lot of what psion says (nothing personal, psi!) but many of his problems with 3.5 would be echoed at my game table, as with much of what I like about it!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Many of the changes were very nessecary.

But too high of a number of them were frivolous and pointless.

I paid $90 for Andy Collin's house rules and erratta.

 

[Dinkeldog]

3.5 could have well been a very short book of, "look at these great house rules OPTIONS you could try." Instead, it just kind of turned into a stew of some good extras, and some bad extras, all mixed into the 3.0 rules.

Not really. Not if they wanted things to be official for things like the RPGA. Sometimes you need an authoritative stance.