Why do you NOT like 3.5 ?

[diaglo]

Original D&D (1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just a poor imitation of the real thing.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Original D&D (1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just a poor imitation of the real thing.

Y'know you have said this same statement at least 5 times (that I have noticed) but you never say why you feel this way.

Now that is probably a really hard question to answer as I would have a hard time explaining why i like Warhammer Fantasy RP or D&D 3.0. Do you have an answer as to why OD&D is the best game for you? I am curious.

 

[Rashak Mani]

oh oh... I wouldnt prod people about their "religious" beliefs in ancient gaming systems.

(thou naturally we dont see cult members of 2.0 sort)

 

[MarauderX]

Original D&D (1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just a poor imitation of the real thing.

So true, so very true... and so balanced too...<cough>...

It was great just having 7 basic classes/races, and the limits of the hit points made higher level adventuring just as fun and dangerous as 'lower' levels. I think the highest time you rolled for hit points was at 9th level, although you kept advancing and getting better THAC0. So basically you were listed as a 9 HD creature, no matter the level.

And there were no skills, except for thieves, as you just did ability checks to see if you could do things. And wizards were powerful, manly men of magical might, and item creation was a dangerous task. Elves could cast in armor and were held back from advancing too far. And you rolled your stats, 3d6. That was it unless you cheated.

Enemies were powerful and unless you were careful you got creamed a lot. Dragons were thoughtful prowlers, dungeons made sense, and there was no 'unconcious' state from 0 to -10; at 0 you died. You rolled for HP at first level too.

Then again wizards were a bit overpowered once they reached 15th-20th level compared to the rest of the PCs. But living past the 5th level was a tough feat for a wizard.

Overall it was tougher. The game was a lot less defined by rules, and because of that you didn't have 'lawyering' in a game as it was much more open to how the DM would rule events. Nowadays you have the continued heroization of the PCs, and although the critters are tougher too, the PCs are harder to kill for doing obscenely stupid things, like charging into the next room simply to take advantage of the current buff spells.

 

[Grishnak]

I'm generally happy with most aspects but there will never be 1 book that every player takes to 100% and if there was such book I'm sure companies wouldn't release it because then we dont buy any others.

 

[Psiblade]

I definitely like 3.5 with a couple of different exceptions. The changes in 3.5 to balence the classes have been great in our campaigns! I am definitely happy with my investment.


-Psiblade

 

[diaglo]

Y'know you have said this same statement at least 5 times (that I have noticed) but you never say why you feel this way.

you should visit more sites. the mods here asked me to tone it down. so i only put the above statement in threads that mention older editions.

Now that is probably a really hard question to answer as I would have a hard time explaining why i like Warhammer Fantasy RP or D&D 3.0. Do you have an answer as to why OD&D is the best game for you? I am curious.

Original D&D (1974) not 1edADnD. i have my feelings about Gary's edition, too.

i was a wargamer before i ever played D&D. but when a friend introduced me to the idea of playing an individual character. the idea just stuck with me. i wanted to get away from the combat heavy side of wargaming. D&D to me is the perfect way to play in a world of fantasy. where dragons and magic exist. where evil is as real as good. so why OD&D? b/c it was what i played first. it was open to what i wanted to do with my game. and my friends enjoyed it.

of course, the backstabbers all wanted to switch to 1edADnD but that's another story.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

i like the changes about 50-50. Which means it was a waste of 90 bucks. Still its only 90 bucks.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I should have included a "I hate changes" option... I figured the last one would kind of do it.

Many of the complaining I see seems to be knee jerk reactions to 3.5. One reason I set up this poll. To really get a feeling to why people dont like 3.5.

Personally I think there are way more knee jerk i like change because its shiny and new reactions than knee jerk I hate it reactions.

And then there are the things like the stat spells where some people think there should be a change, and what do you know 3.5 changed it, so it must be good. There is no added step where they say yeah 3.0 needed a change here, but was the 3.5 change a good one.(though some do make that added tep and come to a differen comblusion, I've jsut seen way too many comments without the last steps in the stat buff spell discussions.) The stat spells I think are a bad change. The benefit you can gain in that duration with a mere +4 stat change is so small it is dwarfed by almost all other 2nd level spells. Chainging a too good spell into a suck spell isn't a good change.

And please I don't need to hear the if it had always been this way I'd think different mantra, quite frankly its insulting.

 

[lordmalachdrim]

I'm not a fan of 3e though I bit the bullet and bought the books as they came out and ran the game. Now with 3.5 you couldn't give the books to me if you tried (I've got enough ammo to keep you away too). I'm not going to just dump everything I find wrong with it but I will mention that $90 for books with only a few changes so soon after thier original release (at $60 with a character generator included) with only 20% (at most) new art.