I think it was a good thing too, and I'm glad for some of the changes. I think they were better off issuing new errata than completely revising the game, though. Plenty of other things were changed that weren't flaws, and in at least some cases, the change was for the worst. IMO, 90% of the changes from 3e to 3.5 were at best indifferent.TheAuldGrump said:Like J-Dawg I play 3.25, unlike him I felt that acknowledging that there were flaws in the 3.0 version was a good thing, in particular the H spells and the Ranger (even WotC NPCs were only taking one level of ranger....)
Odhanan said:D&D 3.5, because it can recreate most of the other editions' feel(s). The reverse is possible but not as easy.
Yeah, I know. I said that tongue in cheekish.Thanee said:That's not D&D.![]()
Don't give us that non-confrontational wishy-washyness, sniffles! That kind of indecisiveness simply WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! You must pick a favorite edition and defend it to the death against any percieved slight.sniffles said:I voted Other - my favorite version would be the version I'm currently playing.
In other words, I'm just happy to be playing D&D.![]()
J-Dawg said:I actually think 3.5 made at least as many things worse as it fixed. Ideally, I'd play a "3.25"--3e with some of the 3.5 fixes, but not all of them.