Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Singer_of_the_Song 02-26-07, 09:32 PM	I did not switch 3.5; I stayed with 3.0. Did anyone else do the same? What were your reasons for doing so? If you did switch, why? This thread is not an attack on 3.5 or an attempt to flame anything, it's an opportunity for me to learn people's opinions and lines of reasoning.
OleOneEye 02-26-07, 09:40 PM	I changed to 3.5 because I preferred the spread of class abilities.
KurenaiYami 02-26-07, 09:47 PM	I did not switch 3.5; I stayed with 3.0. Did anyone else do the same? What were your reasons for doing so? If you did switch, why? This thread is not an attack on 3.5 or an attempt to flame anything, it's an opportunity for me to learn people's opinions and lines of reasoning. *Started playing after 3.5* Just out of curiosity, what were your reasons (for not switching)?
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-26-07, 10:24 PM	I didn't switch from 3.0 to 3.5, but I did switch from 2nd edition to 3.5... 3rd edition came out and I was perfectly happy with 2nd, then they updated 3.0 to 3.5, and I figured I was one and a half editions behind and switched. I never played 3.0, so I don't really know what all the fuss is about.
Azar_of_Faerun 02-26-07, 10:26 PM	Nothing really. The older generation will, almost always, claim their way is better. Even in small leaps like 3.0 to 3.5
Chrono Nexus 02-26-07, 10:26 PM	I never paid for the 3.0 core books. I played out of other peoples' and the srd until 3.5 was released.
Bopple 02-26-07, 10:29 PM	Because I knew they would be no more 3.0 books. Furthermore, I had only a couple of 3.0 books. Actually, I didn't even buy 3.0 core books. I used SRD. So, I could readily change to 3.5.
CedricBrooks 02-26-07, 11:00 PM	While I have been Rping since I was 16, I didn't get into D&D untill after 3.0 came out, wasn't able to afford any books untill 3.5 came out, but I went on Ebay to get 3.0 books as that's what I was playing with the group. Sadly all I can find group wise anymore is 3.5, there's been alot of surpises, and all of them range from bad to very bad. I've got a few 3.5 supplements that leave me very unimpressed, correction, feeling down right ripped off, and I'm questioning if I should stand by my word of "Not another WotC book" considering I keep hearing the PHB2 has alot of fighter stuff. Frankly I have high views of Monte Cook and Skip Williams(on the stuff he's designed and has the time to work on, not some cheap freebie articles), and some very low views of Andy Collins. Basicly it's a matter of taste. The two games, while at a glance pretty much the same, have two rather diffrent feels when you get down to it.
johnkretzer 02-26-07, 11:26 PM	I changed to 3.5 because: They designed the classes better Haste other spells The steamlined the game in some areas Haste Mainly every change they made I felt it was for the better. And I still use some 3.0 stuff they haven't updated yet so hey it isn't like a edition change between 2nd and 3rd where all the 2nd ed. books were useless. Oh and did I mentioned haste?
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 02-27-07, 02:02 AM	Because the Monster rules for 3.5 actually made sense, as opposed to the abomination that was the 3.0 monster rules.
Ranger REG 02-27-07, 02:30 AM	I did not switch 3.5; I stayed with 3.0. Did anyone else do the same? What were your reasons for doing so? If you did switch, why? Because I waited until 2005 to make the switch, not in 2003 when 3.5e were released. I'm still waiting for DMG and MM 3.5e Second Printings. :waits:
Chrono Nexus 02-27-07, 06:59 AM	Haste other spells The steamlined the game in some areas Haste Slow ;)
Mr. Master 02-27-07, 07:52 AM	I started playing D&D when I was 15 years old,with the old red/blue/green/black boxes.I've never played with AD&D,but I jumped directly to 3.0 in 2000/2001. I was fascinated by the new edition,but,just when I had already bought almost all I needed (PHB,DMG,MM,Faerun,Monsters of Faerun,Magic of Faerun,the 5 core classes books),3.5 jumped out... I didn't/don't want to change another time and throw all my stuff in the garbage,so I keep on playing with 3.0. Moreover,that are some things that I don't like about 3.5: -ranger:me and my players always viewed it as a warrior type class,not a scout one -disintegrate and haste:I like them as they are -the core books:I don't like how they have been printed -the tons and tons and tons of manuals with "amazing new prestige classes,feats and spells".It would be very difficult to create an adventure with all that stuff:just to read the manuals,I would loose too much time and,with the job and a life to live,I don't have so much time -some races,like dwarves and gnomes (gnome=illusionist,not bard!) I recognize that 3.0 has some things to be fixed,by I've done these changes with good house rules (ranger,overpowered spells like gate/imprisonment/force cage/etc,feats like Spell Prodigy,etc). In the end,I'm happy with my manuals and I don't find the need to buy tons of manuals just to play a game that,even if similar (so why should I play with it?),has differences that I don't like.
johnkretzer 02-27-07, 12:22 PM	Slow ;) What about it?
Witch 02-27-07, 12:26 PM	Because the Monster rules for 3.5 actually made sense, as opposed to the abomination that was the 3.0 monster rules. Word.
Escef 02-27-07, 12:47 PM	Nothing really. The older generation will, almost always, claim their way is better. Even in small leaps like 3.0 to 3.5 I gotta call cow flop on this one. I started on 1e, and I say 3.x is better. And there are a lot of folk on the boards who started even further back than I did who say the same. The Out of Print section of the boards sees significantly less traffic. Granted, this is likely a skewed sampling, but when say "always" you ask for trouble.
crimsonwolf 02-27-07, 12:55 PM	I The Out of Print section of the boards sees significantly less traffic. Granted, this is likely a skewed sampling, but when say "always" you ask for trouble. well... you can only talk about the same thing for so long...
swallowyersoul 02-27-07, 02:14 PM	we switched after reading a number of reviews and critiques, and liked the changes we saw mentioned: class design is better many spells are fixed in one way or another the books are organized a little more intelligently one thing i disliked was the addition of small vs. medium weapons. i understand the thinking behind it, but it's an added level of complexity that does not improve playability or fun.
Bowmore 02-27-07, 02:25 PM	My group changed because we looked at the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 and it seemed to us that Wizards was actually putting forth effort in fixing a lot of the things we saw as broken, unbalanced, or just plain nonsensical.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-27-07, 03:05 PM	I started playing in spring 2003. When I switched I only had the Player's Handbook and Tome and Blood. It was an easy transition for me.
fiendlurking 02-27-07, 04:52 PM	I DID switch to 3.5 ...but after awhile i decided i liked playing the old AD&D 1st edition best...so i sold all my books and just stick with the old Gary Gygax stuff! lol
CCS 02-27-07, 05:48 PM	I can't really claim to have switched or not switched. I just never did much with 3.0. .I started out back in the early '80's playing Basic/Expert/Companion(I'll just call all this basic) AND 1st ed. Advanced. Eventually this melded into Advanced with whatever "Basic" supliments we found usefull. .Then 2nd ed came out and we played that. Again, incorporating whatever basic & 1e stuff we liked. .3e; I played a few games of it up at GenCon the year it came out & even own the 3 core books. But that was pretty much the extent of it. My gaming group was pretty busy running all kinds of other systems during its shelf life & into 3.5's early days. So we didn't play D&D of any sort for a few years. The exception being myself as I play in a 1e "campaign" that runs at GenCon each year. .Last Sept. we picked it up again with 3.5 though. Currently; counting the GC game, I'm playing in 1 1st ed game, 2 3.5 games(alternating weeks), and am considering which edition to use (1e, 2e, 3.5, or even the old "basic-modified"?) for a campaign I'll run later this year. So I have a foot in almost ALL the editions save for 3.0.....
Count Arioch the 28th 02-27-07, 05:55 PM	I switched to 3.5, but really wish I hadn't later, for everything they improved, they ruined another thing and in addition made one change for no other reason than to just change it.
Aryxbez 02-27-07, 06:00 PM	Well I Run games with 3.5 because it made the classes, more magic items and stronger monsters The supplements are real nice too. More balanced than 3.0 Although I still use 3.0's Haste and I fused the abilities of 3.0 and 3.5 Admantine together. Also going to bring back the Amnidexterity feat, however it helps TWF and is not required only lowers the penalties and gives full str in off-hand Also a campaign I play in, Our DM uses 3.0 core books but allows 3.5 supplements. so it works out prrety good for now. Also I must wonder Singer_of_the_Song why did you not switch? just wondering.
Fencerboy 02-27-07, 08:20 PM	I learned D&D when I was 9...:cool: on 3rd edition... Then my mom bought me a PHB (3.5) and I loved the changes to Ranger, and so "ruined" my character in the eyes of the guy who taught me how to play. He is completely loyal to 3.0 and says 3.5 is heresy:rolleyes: however, wouldn't you feel the same if you had JUST completed your splatbook collection and the new edition came out? I will IF 4th edition ever comes (DON'T derail the thread on this please) Anyways my books started on 3.5 so thats what I do. I do think it is a better version though...
Azar_of_Faerun 02-27-07, 08:31 PM	I gotta call cow flop on this one. I started on 1e, and I say 3.x is better. And there are a lot of folk on the boards who started even further back than I did who say the same. The Out of Print section of the boards sees significantly less traffic. Granted, this is likely a skewed sampling, but when say "always" you ask for trouble. "almost"
Chrono Nexus 02-27-07, 08:55 PM	What about it? Take a good look at it. It used to be the opposite of Haste... but somewhere along the line all of the brokenness of 3.0 Haste was transferred to 3.5 Slow.
Light_Colonel 02-27-07, 09:16 PM	I switched because of the rules cleanups and general fixes. Haste and Partial Charges to name but two.
Kojiro James 02-27-07, 09:32 PM	I didn't switch from 3.0 to 3.5, but I did switch from 2nd edition to 3.5... 3rd edition came out and I was perfectly happy with 2nd, then they updated 3.0 to 3.5, and I figured I was one and a half editions behind and switched. I never played 3.0, so I don't really know what all the fuss is about. I did something similar. I even went back and sampled a 3.0 game and I'm still convinced 3.5 is superior.
fatal error 02-27-07, 10:35 PM	I changed originally because my 3.0 books were already showing some wear, and I liked the new look of the Ranger, as well as the updated AoO rules. After I switched, and began comparing the two, I found out that the bigger changes were in the spells, such as Haste and Harm. Now I'd almost feel obligated to abuse such spells if I ever encountered a DM claiming 3.0 superiority. I wouldn't, but I'd be tempted.
a_psh 02-27-07, 10:41 PM	When I realized that anyone new to the game would be getting a 3.5 PHB, I switched pretty quickly because it was worth the investment to support new players.
bholdr_mage 02-27-07, 11:01 PM	same here. Plus, there wasn't too many 3.0 books I owned. In fact, we played 2.0 through the 3.0 era, except the last 3-4 months aaaand we got ripped off. Seeing how psionics were SO much better in 3.5 and that haste spell that makes quicken spell obsolete....change was good.
johnkretzer 02-28-07, 12:20 AM	Take a good look at it. It used to be the opposite of Haste... but somewhere along the line all of the brokenness of 3.0 Haste was transferred to 3.5 Slow. The brokeness of 3.0 haste was a +4 Dodge bonus to AC and a extra spell per round. Slow is doesn't keep a spell caster from casting spells...Slow in 3.5 is powerful(though it is odd most people in my group don't use it....I can't wait to get a wizard high enough) It isn't broken as 3.0 haste which pretty much was game over if any caster got it up and running...also I shouldn't mention the Speed quaility on armor it spawned in Defenders of Faith...
pukunui 02-28-07, 02:15 AM	I never really "made the switch" as such. I started playing in the 90s with 2nd edition. When 3rd edition first came out, I got into a game that was basically a 2e/3e hybrid. I did buy a 3.0 PHB, but I stopped playing between 2001-2006, so when I got back into it I just bought a bunch of 3.5 books. They're all right. There are some things I don't particularly like about them, but I don't really know anything about 3.0, so I don't know if there's anything I'd prefer from that version instead. There are some things I remember fondly from 2nd edition, but for the most part, I prefer 3.5 to 2e. Plus Unearthed Arcana has a bunch of stuff from 2nd edition (like weapon groups) that I like, and I'm planning on incorporating them into my game. I'm still waiting for DMG and MM 3.5e Second Printings. :waits:Do you mean like how my PHB has got a regular cover, but the text on the inside is that of the Special Edition book with all the errata (except the most recent polymorph stuff) incorporated in? I agree, that would be nice ... although I've already gone and bought the faux-leather-covered Special Edition versions of the DMG and MM. I like having the errata included in the text.
Scavelock 02-28-07, 02:25 AM	I DID switch to 3.5 ...but after awhile i decided i liked playing the old AD&D 1st edition best...so i sold all my books and just stick with the old Gary Gygax stuff! lol If I knew anybody in my area still playing this edition, I would probably still be playing it too.
TyWebb 02-28-07, 02:44 AM	Our groups have always been slow to switch, mainly because our campaigns tend to run so long. We didn't go 3.0 until about a year or so after it was released because we were finishing up a long-running 2e game. We still haven't switched fully to 3.5 RAW, and won't until we finish our current campaign sometime this year. On the plus side, we tend to use *very* few non-core supplements, so we don't have shelves full of 3.0 splatbooks becoming less and less "canon" as 3.5 updates eclipse them.
Splendide 02-28-07, 04:43 AM	I got 3.0, and didn't get 3.5 because it felt far too close to 3.0 so I figured I'd wait for 4th ed, thinking that this was how often new editions would come out. Oh well.
StarFyre 02-28-07, 07:15 AM	We use a few things from 3.0 instead of 3.5 (spells, etc that we think make more sense, and critical hits from 2E optional rules) but otherwise, we are fully 3.5... Sanjay
Mr. Master 02-28-07, 08:21 AM	There's another thing that kept me loyal to 3.0.Here in Italy (I don't know if it's the same thing in other countries...but I hope it isn't)the D&D stuff is translated only after a loooong time.Even if I could easily run a campaign with the english manuals,my player's would find it difficult to read the books,so I've decided to always use italian manuals...therefore choosing to wait a lot. So,when 3.5 was released,I decided not to buy it ALSO because I had to wait a long time for the manuals.Moreover,who could tell me that WotC was not about to release a 4th edition? I prefer to wait and keep on playing with what I have got,with just some house rules to fix 3.0's errors.
Khatoblepas 02-28-07, 08:50 AM	I started playing on the tail end of 3.0, as the first rulebook I ever used was the 3.0 one. Since then, though, I've been mostly 3.5. I don't see many differences between 3.0 and 3.5 apart from some of the base rules and classes have changed - I mix 3.0 and 3.5 material pretty readily, disallowing anything that's obviously broken (3.0 miasma...) or just plain redundant due to rule changes or being updated in a more recent book (exotic weapon master etc). I like the Deepwood Sniper (MoTW), Savage Species, BoVD/BOED, and Monster Manual II, and I hate to see books go to waste. If it's usable and from 3.0, why disallow it? The only problem I have with 3.0 books is the awful formatting compared to (the core) 3.5 books. And the filler art, which is simply too weird sometimes. I'd really like to play 2nd edition, though. It looks a lot simpler... as long as you don't use THAC0. Reverse AC!
Ranger REG 03-01-07, 04:16 AM	Do you mean like how my PHB has got a regular cover, but the text on the inside is that of the Special Edition book with all the errata (except the most recent polymorph stuff) incorporated in? I agree, that would be nice ... although I've already gone and bought the faux-leather-covered Special Edition versions of the DMG and MM. I like having the errata included in the text. Well, it's been over a year since the leather-bound Special Edition DMG came out. You'd think they follow that up with the standard-bound Special Edition Printing of the DMG. After all, the $30 (US) standard-bound Special Edition Printing of the PHB, came out just seven months AFTER the expensive $75 (US) leather-bound version. :waits: :bored:
Ranger REG 03-01-07, 04:18 AM	I like the Deepwood Sniper (MoTW), Savage Species, BoVD/BOED, and Monster Manual II, and I hate to see books go to waste. If it's usable and from 3.0, why disallow it? The only problem I have with 3.0 books is the awful formatting compared to (the core) 3.5 books. And the filler art, which is simply too weird sometimes. So far, there is nothing wrong with porting the Deepwood Sniper into 3.5e rules. Just download the 3.5e Update Accessory Booklet.
aotrscommander 03-01-07, 12:32 PM	So far, there is nothing wrong with porting the Deepwood Sniper into 3.5e rules. Just download the 3.5e Update Accessory Booklet. *Twitch*twitch* Sorry, the words 'Deepwood Sniper' remind that I've got to deal with one of those in the next campaign I run...with one of those players who crits at least twice a round... I switched from 3.0 to 3.5 fairly shortly after it came out, thinking it was not a significant update, but going along with it anyway. However, when I actually came to use it in my campaign, I realised it really was significantly different and much better. In some games, we are still using the earlier versions of spells like Bull's Strength or Haste, though the changes to the 3.5 versions are being written into the game world so, I'm told... (plus there's an element of "we started, so we'll finish" for the moment). Besides a few tweaked classes, I think as has been mentioned before, the standardisation of the monsters in 3.5 was as much genious as 3.0 itself was when it first came out. While to start with, we left some bits of 3.0 in our game, they have been slowly phased out as we realised that actually 3.5 is more balanced (note, more balanced, not completely balanced!) with regard to elements like spells for example. I was leery of buying the Completes to start with (as for a while there we thought they were reprints of the 3.0 splatbooks) but I soon lost that as we moved in. Another thing worth mentioning is the 3.5 Psionics. Again, initially, I didn't bother seeing as how we didn't really use the Psionics Handbook, and it seemed a bit pointless to buy the new book. That was until I actually got a chance to look through the XPH and realised that it was vastly better than in 3.0; indeed, out of the three versions I've seen; the dire and often illogical 2nd AD&D version, the 3.0 and 3.5, the 3.5 is so much better it's not even funny. (The timing was also such that I was able to integrate psi into the groundwork of my newest campaign world, rather than have it stuck on top of the old one which started life in AD&D!) For the first time, we are starting to see psionic characters.
bob_the_great 03-01-07, 02:45 PM	the ranger alone was reason to change. I hated the 3.0 ranger. The bard change was equally huge and worthy of the switch.
LostPassWordDoesNotWork 03-01-07, 04:16 PM	I started in 3.0 but updated to 3.5 before I really learned D&D rules to a point I can comment on things other than the bigger changes. So I'm brecking out the book on this post. ** Races The standard races underwent some revision. Highlights include: Dwarves don’t have their speed reduced from Medium or Heavy armor or loads. They gain weapon familiarity with dwarven waraxes and urgoshes. Gnomes gain weapon familiarity with gnome hooked hammers and now favor the Bard class. Half-elves gain additional racial skill bonuses to Diplomacy and Gather Information. To the worthless half-elves got a small boost. they still suck in 3.5, but they are batter than 3.0's version. Races now have proficiency in their racial weapons. Makes sense to me. I like 3.5 better. *** Classes Almost all of the classes underwent some degree of change in the revision. Changes include: The levels at which barbarians gain many of their abilities changed. Bards get more skill points. In addition, many of the spells on the bard’s spell list changed, some added, others deleted, and a number changed level. They gain the ability to make small changes to their spells known. Clerics changes include clarification of their alignment aura and mass versions of cure and inflict spells that can be cast spontaneously. Druids’ animal companions advance now. Animal Empathy became a class feature. Fighters experienced the least change, but a number of their feats were revised. Monks’ flurry of blows works attack bonus advances differently. They became more diverse by having options for bonus feats instead of every monk getting the same bonus feat at set levels. Some class abilities, such as ki strike, changed. Paladins smite more often at higher levels. They now summon their mounts instead of having them always around. Rangers have a d8 for their Hit Die, more skill points, and the Animal Empathy became a class feature. Their animal companions, favored enemies, and other class features underwent substantial revision. Sorcerers gain the ability to make small changes to their spells known. Several familiar bonuses changed. Wizard school specialization works differently. Several familiar bonuses changed. Minor changes to the barbarian, ok. Clerics had their auras FAQ/errat'ed. Durid's pet now scales with it's masters level. Minor changes to the Fighter, ok. Monks get choice in their feats, and whatever on the flurry part. Paladin's smite ability scales up with more paladin levels. Rangers got a huge edit for better or worse. Minor changes to Sorcerer, ok. Minor changes to Wizard, ok. So, I can almost say 8 out of 9 classes were improved. Ranger (3.0): d10 HD, full BAB, good fort, gets spells, has a few favored enemies. Added bonus having yet not having TWF. Ranger (3.5): d8 HD, full BAB, good fort & refl, gets spells, has a few favored enemies, gets the option to sub out his TWF to focus in bows, more skill points, better hiding stuff. I like 3.5 better. *** Skills Skills function much as they always have. The amount of time using a skill takes and the ability to retry a task are clearly quantified. Synergy between skills expanded. Some skills, such as Perform and Ride changed in specialization. Other narrow, niche skills such as Innuendo and Intuit Direction folded into broader skills such as Bluff and Survival. A new skill, Knowledge (dungeoneering), appears. Minor changes, ok. Wait, survival did not tell you which was north is from looking at moss or the sun? Pfft, 3.5 ftw. *** Feats I don't care to go into feats, but I'm sure I like 3.5's better. :P *** Spells Spells, umm... *looks at haste* Yeah, 3.5 > 3.0, but I'm not a munchkin. I'm sure munchkins will agree 3.0's haste spell netting them freebie quickened spells as alot better than 3.5's haste. I like 3.5 better. *** DMG over all view DMG now lists some info on the planes, more details on traps, more random eoncunter tables, and magic item price changes. So says the update book. More bang for your buck I'd say. I like 3.5 better. *** Monsters Skills are a function of creature type and intelligence. They’re calculated just like player character’s are, <Snip> Feats acquisition follows the player character’s standard progression <Snip> We’ve also added the swarm type which first appeared in the Fiend Folio. <Snip> Sample spells prepared or spells known lists accompany spellcasting monsters. <Snip> The creatures that have the greatest potential as player characters have detailed entries on making PCs based on them. <Snip> The less obvious change is that it’s generally easier to break through a creature’s damage reduction even without the proper key. Most monsters subtract 5, 10, or 15 points of damage from most attacks, where prior to the revision this number might be as high as 40. A number like 40 tells players, “don’t even try it if you don’t have the right weapon.” A number like 15 sends the message, “You can try, but it’s going to be a lot harder.” So monsters in 3.5 use the same rules your used to as a PC. Which means 3.0's did not. More rules with 3.0 = more crap to remember and do. You also getting more details, a new type of monsters, a few more greater/lord versions of normal monsters too. The entire 3.0 DR system scares me. DR 60/+3 anyone? *sudders* Lets think about this. The TWF only ranger has to buy two +3 weapons to break the monsters DR, it costs him 36,700gp+ to even beable to damage it on the rangers normal attack setup. Now adays it costs 4,700gp+ to do it. And it thats not met atleast can he deal more than 1 damage. *** Closing comments From what I see, 3.5 is more detailed, nerfed overpowered stuff, gave more options, and simplified some rules. There is no reason not to update. You claim you don't want to rebuy your books. I say 1. Use the SRD. 2. Use your 3.0 rule books and the free update books. You claim you don't want to give up your 3.0 books. I say update them in your head as you use them. 3.0 to 3.5 is not a massive change, I'm sure you can do it. You claim you like 3.0's ranger is better. I say why and look at you like you don't know what your talking about. I use 3.5 rules and draw on stuff from 3.0's BoVD/BoED/A&E. 3.0 is not banned from most games, you just have to think about it before using it. @ 3.0 people making excuses to stay 3.0: Looks like your staying 3.0 becuse you want to. You have no other excuse than wanting to spam 3.0's haste so stop trying to make them up.