D&D 3E/3.5 The "I Love 3.5 because..." thread

Melkor

Explorer
Hi folks, I've been asking questions and soliciting opinions of late from those who favor 3.0 to 3.5. Now I want to hear from those who favor 3.5 over 3.0. I don't want to start an edition war, so please keep it civil.

My current group wants to settle on one or the other (we consider there to be enough of a difference between the editions that they require more than just "on the fly" conversion - and we have our reasons for not wanting to combine the two). I have already presented the "pros" and "cons" of 3.0. It's time to present the flipside of the coin.

Now, I'd like to hear from those who prefer 3.5.

What is it (rules-wise) that you really like about 3.5 now that you have had a chance to play it for a while ?

What do you think it does better than 3.0 ?

Thanks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Melkor said:
Hi folks, I've been asking questions and soliciting opinions of late from those who favor 3.0 to 3.5. Now I want to hear from those who favor 3.5 over 3.0. I don't want to start an edition war, so please keep it civil.

My current group wants to settle on one or the other (we consider there to be enough of a difference between the editions that they require more than just "on the fly" conversion - and we have our reasons for not wanting to combine the two). I have already presented the "pros" and "cons" of 3.0. It's time to present the flipside of the coin.

Now, I'd like to hear from those who prefer 3.5.

What is it (rules-wise) that you really like about 3.5 now that you have had a chance to play it for a while ?

What do you think it does better than 3.0 ?

Thanks.
Its really too bad that your group isn't willing to combine elements between 3.0 and 3.5 because both of them have strong points, and both have things that have been done (in my opinion) horribly wrong and need to be fixed or your game could be less fun for it. That said, I prefer 3.5 because it fixes more things than it breaks. But it does break quite a bit :(
 

This isn't really an exact rules thing, but in general I tend to feel that when 3.5 breaks something, it usually errs on the side of underpowered, as opposed to 3.0, which can get rather... messy.
 



Hmm....

Knowledge skill synergies
Intelligent magic items (+ pricing)
Mighty Fiends
Real DR
Staves
Class minimal frontloading
Weapon finesse
+4 to checks with feats that sunder/disarm etc...
 

What I like about d20:

- it's a simple system ... if you don't know the rule you can pretty much guess what it should be ... roll a d20 add appropriate ability/skill/adjustment ... compare to an opposed roll or a scaled DC using 5/10/15/20/25 (d20 modern has a great chart for average DCs by character level for equivalent challenge).

More specifically 3.5:

- it cleared up a lot of mess that was left by 2nd edition
- i honestly believe it cleared up a lot of mess in 1st edition and it solidified a lot of things I used to read about Mr Gygax having in his games (e.g. spheres for priests in 1st edition - article related to priests of a nature goddess who lost their way and ended up redeeming themselves as druids).

D
 

Ranger favored enemy (and everything else too)
Dwarven armor and stability
No restricted skills
Additional utility of Knowledge skills (could be better done, though)

[edit] Pulled from other posts
DR types, except I think they should have left scaled magic /+1, /+2, etc. instead of /magic
Weapon Finesse
Frontload fixes

I'm sure there's others, but I don't really remember the differences anymore (except for those I disagreed with in 3.5).
 

The concepts seem simpler. How bonuses work is more streamlined. Being a TWF is easier. The Ranger, Bard, and Druid are cooler. Hardness is better. Psionics fit better.
 

Knowledge skills and synergies
Ranger, Bard, Monk and Druid are better (Yeah, I know about the Druid...)
Two Weapon Fighting became possible
DR got flavour!
You WILL fear Fiends.
The Three H's (Haste, Harm, Heal) became appropriate for their levels.
 

Remove ads

Top