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

[Klaus]

I like a whole lot, but I'll state here something I like, but that I know some people usually don't:

Square fighting spaces.

They make more sense. It's the *space* the creature needs to fight effectively, not the room its body takes up.

Some complain about "square horses", without realizing that you can still put two horses side-by-side in a 10-ft-wide corridor, they just won't fight as effectively in such constrained conditions (i.e., they suffer penalties to attack and AC). Look for a picture of a ranch with wranglers trying to approach a bucking stallion. They form a circle around the stalling, who tends to kick and whirl around, marking its own circle of fighting space (translated to a square in DnD's grid).

Plus square fighting spaces allow me to draw full-bodied counters!

 

[Pants]

- DR that actually 'reduces' damage instead of either being 'completely useless' or 'negating damage.'
- The three H's (namely Haste, which was horribly abused in my 3.0 game).
- Ranger
- Bard
- Monk
- Attack of Opportunity rules that are written in an easy to understand manner.
- Power up of the Fiends
- Making easy to use Monster Creation/Advancement rules
- Square spaces (Do they make sense? No. Do the old ones make sense in a game without a Directional Facing mechanic? No. I never liked facing, so the square creatures is a boon to me.)
- Psionics are better.
- Got rid of the 'class specific skills' or made them cross-class for many classes (Paladins and Sorcerers with UMD!)
- Loss of Scry, the DUMBEST skill in the game, loss of read lips and innuendo
- Knowledge Skill Synergies
- Tumble is harder to use
- Some actual higher level Fighter only feats
- Fixed the Archmage and Red Wizard

 

[palleomortis]

The one thing that I like, are the options, and how it is set up. It is rather detailed, but it's still rather simple

 

[Nail]

I like a whole lot, but I'll state here something I like, but that I know some people usually don't:

Square fighting spaces.

I'll second this.

It makes combat simpler, especially with large creatures. And it completely removes the impression that a creature has a "front" and a "back" in combat. Much less confusion and arguement that way.


...and I, too, like the fact that square counters allows for more "monster picture".

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There are a number of frontloading and/or balance issues relating to the Ranger, Paladin, and Monk in 3.0. These three were borderline non-viable in 3.0 (depending on your gaming style, of course). Bard and Barbarian also got a welcome facelift. All these classes have a more sensible power progression that makes singleclassing reasonably attractive in 3.5.

The 3.0 PrCs were all over the map in power level. Many way too powerful compared to the core classes. A few bizarrely weak. Ditto feats. The Complete series is far from perfect, but the material is pretty much playable out of the box -- that is a vast improvement over the 3.0 splatbooks.

The overall quality is better.

We just shifting on the fly and never looked back. Was not too difficult for us because we had put the 3.0 PrC under long term quarantine and nobody had any. Just a few odd feats that needed updating.

 

[Longbow]

Yep, me too. I really like the changes for the Barbarian, Bard, Monk, Ranger (oh, those crazy threads on the WOTC-boards when the new Ranger was revealed...) and Paladin. Better class features and more balanced. And of course the nerfing of Haste and the 2nd level buff spells.

 

[darkelfo]

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).

I agree with this point in general about 3.0 and 3.5. I really like the opposed rolls and the ability to specialize in skills.

I don't like that "elven chain" no longer means anything. Elven Chain in 2nd Ed. was really freakying cool and special.

 

[Shellman]

I think we all cringed when 3.0 was updated and everyone had to buy new books for 3.5. In the long run though I think 3.5 was a natural evolution from 3.0.

Afterall, look how long it took for 3.0 to be developed. Compared to 2nd E, 3.0 streamlined and standardized so much. There was not as much guess work involved. I think 3.5 just took 3.0 one step further down the evolutionary road.

 

[Tatsukun]

I personally consider 3.0 to be '3.5 Beta'.

Think of it this way, which would you have preferred happen; 3.0 coming out and everyone playing it for a while before 3.5, or everyone having to wait until 3.5 came out and it not having the benefit of thousands of unofficial play testers?

I happily coughed up the huge cost of books (each book is/was about 5,000 - 6,000 yen in Tokyo) for 3.5 and have enjoyed them.

The only thing I like more in 3.0 is weapon sizes, but even that needs house ruling to be 'right'.

-Tatsu