Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darth Cyric" data-source="post: 4230329" data-attributes="member: 55722">I detested 3.0. It felt like a lot of great ideas poorly implemented and even more poorly balanced, so much so that I had gone back to 2e for a few years after.I did make a switch to 3.5 shortly after it was released, and, to be fair, it was a touch of an improvement over 3.0 (removal of the supremely retarded partial actions, classes a fair bit more flavorful even if those not named Cleric, Druid or Wizard still sucked). But it still didn't fix a lot of what ailed 3.0. Retarded amounts of prep work as a DM, far more than in 1e or 2e. Much of which still involved arseloads of house rules (I have never played an RPG system that has required as much houseruling as 3.x). Very poorly paced combats. Woeful imbalance, also unlike anything I had ever seen in 1e or 2e. AD&D had its problems, yes, but nothing that extreme. You get the picture.If it weren't for the timely arrivals of Tome of Battle, Player's Handbook II and the Spell Compendium, 3.5 would've fallen flat on its face much sooner than it has. Granted, those books and a couple others were testing grounds for 4e, so I give it credit for that, at least.</blockquote>