Which 3.5 changes are you NOT using?

[nsruf]

None. Why bother with a mix of 3.0 and 3.5? I haven't seen a rule that got worse in the revision (IMO, of course). Some changes seem unnecessary, but I figure it is easier to just use everything in 3.5 instead of keeping a long list of exceptions. I mean, I started playing 3.0 with a long list of house rules and dropped most of them because it wasn't worth it - why should it turn out different for 3.5?

However, in the group I play in (not DM for) we discussed converting in mid-campaign and two people were completely against it. Let's see how that works out.

 

[isoChron]

-weapon sizes
-power attack
-improved crit/keen
-spell focus
-buff spells
these are used as in 3.0

-wildshape (used as in MotW)

-magic system: point based (a little like psionics)
-spells: several changes to limit some uber-power-game-shortcutting-blasting spells ...
-small AC Bonus based on number of iterative attacks

BYE

PS: Yes, we still play D&D

 

[clark411]

My gaming group has gotten one session of 3.5 under their belts. I have no real intentions of changing any of the 3.5 rules back to 3.0, because it will take a good amount of time for me to grasp the meta, the overarching rules and how all these seemingly minor changes impact play.

The only concern I've had thus far is the alterations to standing from prone and the use of imp. trip, simply because it seems to suck the cinematic potential of combat out of the game when used ad nauseum.

 

[ScyldSceafing]

3.5 adoption papers rejected

Yep. Yep, yep, yep. Spell Focus, stacking Improved Crit, pally mount changes, the buff spell durations - all those got the redline before the books even came out.

I told my group I'm not prepared to adopt 3.5 at this point, mostly because of time. I've got work, and love, and kids, and plots and NPCs to flesh out - I don't have time for a bunch of rules-learning at the moment. So I told them I'd be willing to consider house-ruling in changes they like piecemeal. Anyone else trying this middle ground?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Hmmm. The specialization for sure, as the HoHF: Elves system is good for us.

As a DM, I'm so glad the facing rules changed.

As a player of a druid, I don't like the lack of non-combat Ex abilities for wildshape. That may or may not change, although our compromise may be that the Shifter's greater wildshape gives those Ex abilities.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Lack of Profession from the Fighter and Barbarian. It was essentially a flavor skill, as I saw it, and really didn't need eliminating. The one Profession that immediately popped into mind as being appropriate for both classes was Profession (Sailor). Seems a good, solid, appropriate profession for both. Particularly in light of the fact that both classes best represent what a Viking would have for their class, and should have access to Profession for their sailing needs. Seemed an unnecessary skill elimination.

This isn't a change! It was there (and just as bugging) in the 3.0 rules too.

Cheers

 

[Romus]

pokemount? What's that?

 

[der_kluge]

Pokemount - the ability of a Paladin to summon his mount out of thin air.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm considering ignoring the increased material component cost for the Raise Dead chain, but otherwise I like all the changes I have come across.

-Tiberius

 

[Psion]

6. Rangers receive bonus feats, not combat paths.

I'm doing that too.