The Great Debate: 3.0 vs. 3.5
- Thread starter Atom Again
- Start date
Teflon Billy
Explorer
jester47 said:
This is where I find myself as well.
3E had some issues I was not happy with (Haste, the Ranger, and Harm come to mind) , and 3.5 addressed them to my satisfaction.
IMHO
3.5 was little more than a random collection of poorly written, edited and play-tested house rules. The new edition solved a few problems, created a bunch more, and at the end of the day did very little to actually improve the over-all game.
To this day, of the 30+ players and GM's that I am in contact with on a regular basis, not a single one uses 3.5 fully. Most of them integrate a couple of odd rules into their 3E games, but nothing more than that. The most common rule changes involve character classes (bard & ranger) and a couple of spells (Heal & Harm).
3.5 was one of the main reasons why my primary gaming group switched over to AU.
3.5 was little more than a random collection of poorly written, edited and play-tested house rules. The new edition solved a few problems, created a bunch more, and at the end of the day did very little to actually improve the over-all game.
To this day, of the 30+ players and GM's that I am in contact with on a regular basis, not a single one uses 3.5 fully. Most of them integrate a couple of odd rules into their 3E games, but nothing more than that. The most common rule changes involve character classes (bard & ranger) and a couple of spells (Heal & Harm).
3.5 was one of the main reasons why my primary gaming group switched over to AU.
The Human Target
Adventurer
Is 3.5 perfect? No, of course it isn't. Is it a step in the right direction? For sure it is. I use mostly 3.5 rules with no real 3.0 backtracks. What I do change are things I've always had a problem with in one form or another. Modify a few skills, alter some spell durations, and a few more general house rules and I'm good to go. Viva 3.5!
Atom Again
First Post
BigRedRod said:
[Raises hand] Maybe some people like 3.0 better?
Similar Threads
