Will anyone play test 3.5 "as is"?

[sithramir]

My question is this: Do any of you guys who complain and say how you are already going to have house rules for all these different things actually plan to at least play test the game as its given? I've noticed a lot of people who compare 3.5 to 3.0 too much and see changes that "weaken" things as bad. Don't you guys think that maybe it all is more balanced and thats why the did it?

So do any of you guys who feel so many things are "nerfed" actually try it for a while first? I have a strange feeling most of you WON"T yet will still complain that its not right. I just feel that this is a big show of ignorance if you don' t give it a month of two of trying it before shooing it out the door.

For every arguement against how something has been "nerfed" i've seen another arguement of new ways that it can be better than before. For exampe, the druid wild shape losing the ability of scent as a dog. Makes no sense to me either, however, keeping a lot of magical items working is a huge bonus a HUGE bonus. Oh my dog has 30 ac instead of 14 or what not. Things like this are very controversial because its power vs flavor vs people who abused what should be there for flavor(the idea of a dog with scent).

I'm not trying to take a side on that I just wondered if people will actually play as is to see if it works. I know I hated 3.0 at first cause I was hardcore 2e but now I loved the balance and changes. Perhaps people are a bit hasty?

 

[DonAdam]

I didn't give an answer, because I won't be playing 3.5 "out of the box," but mostly because of house rules we use for 3.0 that won't go away.

For example, grappling was just dominating our games too much, so I changed it to a standard action rather than an attack action.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I'll absolutely be using 3.5 out of the box with no changes. We're starting a new campaign anyway, so there won't be any existing house rules to worry about. I am a little skittish about some of the things I've read about 3.5. However, it seems to generally follow my philosophy of keeping the core game pretty reigned in power-wise (lowering spell DCs, crit ranges and what have you) while leaving the DM room to loosen things up when necessary or desired (ie lowering 'Raise Dead' costs back down if you run a low money campaign).

 

[Fenes 2]

No. I have houseruled 3.0E extensively, and don't see the point in testing a system whose designers did not have the same goals I have in mind when the revised it.

I don't follow either the "Back to the Dungeon" motto of the designers or the standard wealth/level tables. I don't have many battles either, and less than the expected number of players as well. And, finally, I don't believe that combat is the end and all of balance criterias.

In short, my campaign is too far removed from the expected D&D-"standard" to make me even consider playtesting the 3.5 system in its entirety. Most of the "problems" Andy Collins mentioned I never encountered, or did houserule away already.

I will pick and choose what I like from 3.5E, just as I do with any other sourcebook.

 

[thalmin]

While I like the idea of 3.5, I answered "Undecided" since I haven't yet read all the new changes.

 

[Bulletproof Monk]

You need a "NO - Because some of the changes have nothing to do with balance and are instead about gaming style" option

 

[Henry]

Waves hand

When we test it, it's going to be full-on, for at least one campaign; that way, we can see what works for us and what doesn't. There's always other campaigns to run.

 

[Marimmar]

I'll give 3.5 a chance to prove itself superior to 3.0. Should we find stoopid things like the old <i>haste</i> spell, we'll nerf it.

The new <i>haste</i> looks a bit dangerous since our parties consist of 7 players + animal companions and thus could be a tremendous power boost.

Only time will tell.
~Marimmar

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Our last 3.0 (well, 3.25 really) game is 13 July. First fully 3.5 game is 3 Aug.

I plan to give the whole system a shot as is before implementing any rules changes (beyond campaign-specific items like character creation, etc).

 

[Arnwyn]

No. I have houseruled 3.0E extensively, and don't see the point in testing a system whose designers did not have the same goals I have in mind when the revised it.
/snip/
In short, my campaign is too far removed from the expected D&D-"standard" to make me even consider playtesting the 3.5 system in its entirety. Most of the "problems" Andy Collins mentioned I never encountered, or did houserule away already.

I will pick and choose what I like from 3.5E, just as I do with any other sourcebook.

A-yup. This quote pretty much sums up exactly how I feel.

I couldn't care less if WotC thinks it's "balanced" - all I care about is how the game works for me and my players.

(Not that I'm saying that all the changes are bad - in fact, everything that gets "nerfed" gets the huge thumbs-up from me. I just wish they went farther with the "nerfing"!)