Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6772325" data-attributes="member: 996">Really, what other RPGs? Storyteller, perhaps? Do they have any one game in common?  It's rare to get a group together where D&D isn't the only RPG experience they have in common.  This might be an opportunity to play something else, entirely.  Their past gaming experience could also hint at which version of D&D might work better for them... The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are minor but pervasive and it's debateable whether they add up to much of an improvement.  Sticking with 3.0 vs 3.5 would probably be fine.  3.0 isn't substantially less broken than 3.5/PF (at high levels or otherwise), just not nearly as bloated (though, when 3.5 first came out, 3.0 sure seemed bloated).  If you have all the 3.0 stuff, go ahead and use it.  It wouldn't be hard to adapt to 3.5 but the gain is commensurately minimal.  5e isn't a lot less 'broken' than 3.x/PF, either, there's just a lot fewer broken options to choose from, because there's very little of 5e published so far.  You have the 3 core books some adventures published in the same hardbound format as other rulebooks, and one supplement, Sword Coast Adventurers' Guide, plus a few on line bits and pieces.  There's no '5e versions' of most of the stuff in your 3.0 library - not even close.The 'branching paths' in 5e are just a single sub-class choice at 2nd or 3rd level.  3.0 offers much more customization and interesting alternate 'paths' via multi-classing and PrCs, so I wouldn't change over for that reason, alone.The compelling case for 5e is that it is the current edition, and, while not any simpler in its basic system, it's not so bloated as 3.5 or even 3.0, so can actually be more accessible to new players.  AND, it's what's being played at public events under the AL banner.</blockquote>

Verification