PDA

View Full Version : So, who's sticking with 3.X?



Zeta Kai
2008-06-02, 01:38 PM
So, who's sticking with D&D 3.X? I know I am. I may be a fool, but I'll stick with the devil I know, rather than the demon I don't (at least devils will make a deal with you).

monty
2008-06-02, 01:40 PM
Count me in. I spent too much effort getting all of these books to make them obsolete.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 01:42 PM
I am.

Although I think I'm going to make a 3.7 edition (or a "How I think 4e should be" edition).

serok42
2008-06-02, 01:42 PM
I will give 4th a shot but my group just switched to 3.5 from 2nd.
It took that long to convince them :smallbiggrin:

On the plus side Half Price Books will have tons of 3.5 books pretty soon.

Renegade Paladin
2008-06-02, 01:47 PM
I am.

Although I think I'm going to make a 3.7 edition (or a "How I think 4e should be" edition).
I worked on that for awhile, but the team that came to the board and wiki I set up for the purpose couldn't agree on anything, so everyone lost interest. :smallyuk:

averagejoe
2008-06-02, 01:49 PM
I'll probably stick with 3.5. Don't get me wrong, 4e looks great, I'm just thrifty to the point of being cheap, so at the least I'll only be willing to buy the books used.

Ionizer
2008-06-02, 01:52 PM
Me. Partly because I don't have $100 to buy the new set, but mostly because the new rules kinda look stupid. No versatility. "You do this, and I do that!" "But I wanted to try..." "NO! That's not how it works! That's the other dude's job!"

Stupid crap like that.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 01:54 PM
I worked on that for awhile, but the team that came to the board and wiki I set up for the purpose couldn't agree on anything, so everyone lost interest. :smallyuk:

Team? If Fax every stopped being incommunicado I would draft him to help. Otherwise I would grab Solo, Jack Manycoats, and maybe one or two others and mostly use them to bounce ideas off of and for balance opinions. Then I would get people I trust to play test. Then I would post the updates.

Frankly, I would take ToB and the Expanded Psionic Handbook and chuck most every other class concept rules wise. A lot of refluffing and then most of the rest would deal with spell and power balance issues. I would dump the Sorcerer and maybe the monk (moving some of its capabilities onto the rogue).

All full casters would be based off the Psion. All half casters would be based on either ToB or the Psiwarrior. All other classes would be based on ToB. The only real hard part would be the druid, and that would be mostly balancing class features.

kamikasei
2008-06-02, 01:55 PM
I'm playing 3.5 in several PbP games and an RL group, so I'll certainly not be abruptly discontinuing it or avoiding it for new games. I won't be avoiding 4e, though. I'll look to play at least one game of it to see what it's like. I can't see myself deciding never to play it any more than I'd pledge never to try Exalted or WoD.

bosssmiley
2008-06-02, 01:55 PM
Sticking with 3.T(ome) (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453). I've just about got the system working the way I want it now. Still might steal a few of the less bad ideas from 4th Ed though. :smallwink:

I think - when it finally comes down to it - that the very idea of a wizard with anything other than a d4 hit die is deeply offensive to me. :smalltongue:

Gorbash
2008-06-02, 01:56 PM
I do, as do all of the people I play with (10).

ghost_warlock
2008-06-02, 01:58 PM
I still haven't received my PHB so I haven't read it to give it a fair review but, if what I've been hearing here and in the previews is accurate, I'll be sticking with 3.5.

3.7e Project: I'd, too, use the XPH and the ToB but I'd also keep the specialized spontaneous casters more-or-less intact (dread necro, beguiler, warmage, and my shadowmage). I've kind of got a soft-spot for Vancian spellcasting, so I don't know if I'd be comfortable re-working the wizard and cleric into Power Points system. I almost feel it'd be stealing some of the psionic "different" feel. Maybe swap the Animal Companion progressions for the druid and ranger...but I haven't honestly thought all that much about those classes.

Jack Zander
2008-06-02, 01:59 PM
I'll be sticking with 3.x but I'm leading the design of a homebrew system with my gaming group that will cater to our simulationist style of play. Once that's done it'll be good-bye DnD forever. (At least until I get rich off of my homebrewed system then buy out the mess 5th edition will have become and then I'll make a good RPG with the name DnD and not a half-assed one.)

D&DCapone
2008-06-02, 02:01 PM
Yeah im sticking with 3.5 all my screwed up house rules to boot

SilverClawShift
2008-06-02, 02:01 PM
My group looked at 4.e, and have been entirely unimpressed. We're sticking with 3.5, and we're going to be using homebrew stuff (ours and others) when we feel the need to expand into new content.

We might be leeching ideas and mechanisms out of 4.e though. "down-converting" new monsters or classes and such.

And for anyone interested, that means the Dustlands will remain entirely 3.5 compatible.

Frosty
2008-06-02, 02:04 PM
I am currently running a 3.5 campaign and will run it to its completion. Then, I will homebrew version 3.75. Basically, using ToB as a template and throwing in ideas from 4e, I will try to to do a re-balanced system using most of the 3.5 backbone and flavor, but doing it with at-will powers, encounter powers, per day powers, etc.

And then, I'll throw that into a Final Fantasy campaign setting :smallbiggrin:

potatocubed
2008-06-02, 02:12 PM
I haven't studied 4e much, but nothing I have seen makes me want to play it. I'll probably stick to 3.5 for my D&D and try to persuade everyone I know to play Exalted or Burning Wheel instead.

McClintock
2008-06-02, 02:16 PM
My group will be staying 3.5 (6 of us), we all feel very abandoned by the whole change.

obvious pun
2008-06-02, 02:17 PM
I'm sticking with 3.x, mostly because learning a new system will take too long, but also because 3.x books are now cheaper than before.

valadil
2008-06-02, 02:20 PM
I'm gonna play whatever my groups want to play. I won't be buying 4e books unless we like the system and I won't be selling off my 3.5 books unless we really like 4e and see no reason to go back.

As much as I enjoyed 3.x, it is a flawed system and it was time for something new. Whether or not 4e is an adequate replacement remains to be seen. As much as I want to rail on it for making casters less interesting, all I really know is that 4e casters are less interesting than 3.x casters. 4e casters compared to other 4e classes (which is the only comparison we should be making) may still prove to be fun and interesting.

Pronounceable
2008-06-02, 02:23 PM
Not me. But I suspect that doesn't count since I haven't been using 3E anyway. But there's some stuff that I'll be piching from 4E, just as I pinched much of 3E for my own twisted experiments...

Glyphic
2008-06-02, 02:38 PM
Has anyone heard if the SRD is staying online? It's going hurt my group alot if it goes down..

And we haven't decided. I have yet to look at it, and my friend who actually played it don't have a freaking opinion.

wadledo
2008-06-02, 02:48 PM
4e looks less than adequate, so I'll be sticking with 3.5 until proven wrong.

Bender
2008-06-02, 02:57 PM
I've still got plenty of stuff to try in 3.5, and its flaws haven't bothered me yet (I only read about them on internet fora). So there's no reason to spend the time and money to switch.
Maybe after our campaign finishes, or a while after that, because 4e looks ok, but at our playing rate, by then we might have 5th edition on the way...

Edea
2008-06-02, 03:04 PM
I'm not sure. I know I'll keep -using- 3rd Edition. As for actually playing 4E, I'm about to play it for the first time tonight, so I'll see if I like how it runs or not.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 03:08 PM
I'm not sure. I know I'll keep -using- 3rd Edition. As for actually playing 4E, I'm about to play it for the first time tonight, so I'll see if I like how it runs or not.

It runs fine and it is fun, just don't expect what you would generally consider D&D. Go into it treating 4e as an entirely different game from a different publisher and with no connection to the D&D franchise.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 03:10 PM
It runs fine and it is fun, just don't expect what you would generally consider D&D. Go into it treating 4e as an entirely different game from a different publisher and with no connection to the D&D franchise.

Not true. It feels like D&D to all 3 groups I've played/run with.

lin_fusan
2008-06-02, 03:10 PM
I'm sticking to 3.5 for the following reasons:

1) I'm cheap.
2) SRD was free (except for cost of paper and ink).
3) In the middle of paizo's Savage Tide Adventure Path and conversion will take time I don't have.
4) A couple players are new to DnD and a massive rules change will only confuse them more.
5) I'm old to DnD and a massive rules change will only confuse me more.

Maybe in a couple of years after the hubbub dies down, and the errata comes out, will I check out 4th.

Draz74
2008-06-02, 03:12 PM
I'll probably play a casual one-shot or so of 4e sometime, but I'm mostly going to be sticking with 3.5.

Until (and if) I finish my own 3.7e, that is. It's making excellent progress in some areas, struggling in others.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-02, 03:14 PM
I'll occasionally play 3.5, for obscene rules mastery implementation, wacky games consisting entirely of, e.g., a con artist group of Beguilers, Unseen Seers, &etc.

I'll mostly switch to 4E for my D&D needs. And, of course, there's all those other games that are actually really good to play...

Indon
2008-06-02, 03:14 PM
I'm still planning on running one of my campaign environments in 4'th edition. It'll require heavy houseruling, but less than other systems would require.

I have an online group running a 3.5 Iron Kingdoms campaign, and an Exalted 1'st edition campaign. We may eventually swap out the IK campaign for a homebrewed campaign setting which the DM said will probably be 3.x, but I dunno if he's read the books in-depth yet.

Quellian-dyrae
2008-06-02, 03:17 PM
I am very thankful for 4e; it gave me an excellent incentive to work on my homebrew RPG again.

For actual D&D though, yes, 3.5. 4e isn't nearly high-powered enough for my tastes.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 03:19 PM
Not true. It feels like D&D to all 3 groups I've played/run with.

If you go into it expecting a balanced 3.5 you will be disappointed. The rules system does not feel like any previous edition of D&D, just the flavor that is put on top of the rules system.

Animefunkmaster
2008-06-02, 03:24 PM
I will be sticking with 3.x. I think everyone is working on a 3.75, and I will be continuing my own efforts, as well as working on a homebrew system.

For me and my group we are sticking with 3.x and 3rd edition Besm... hopefully getting back into a little shadowrun again.

skeeter_dan
2008-06-02, 03:24 PM
I know that my group and I will be sticking with 3.5 for the foreseeable future and we may never make the switch to 4E. I have a fair amount of money invested in 3.5 books and, frankly, I like the system. My group tends to be optimization-lite, so we haven't really faced any problems with wizards, clerics, and druids dominating. In fact, thanks to a history of bad luck, most of the group has a low opinion of save-or-suck and save-or-die spells.

In any case, we won't be making the change.

nobodylovesyou4
2008-06-02, 03:26 PM
a better question on this board would be, is anyone switching to 4e?

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 03:31 PM
a better question on this board would be, is anyone switching to 4e?

As in forgetting about 3.5 and switching entirely to 4e? I'm sure a few people are but most appear to be of the opinion that at least for the foreseeable future they will at best play both, more likely try 4e and see how it goes, and maybe just stick mostly to 3.5

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 03:36 PM
According to the "are you getting 4e" poll I took last month, over 70% of playgrounders are getting 4e.

Enworld has a similar poll going now where 92% are getting 4e.

Take that as you will.

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 03:39 PM
As in forgetting about 3.5 and switching entirely to 4e? I'm sure a few people are but most appear to be of the opinion that at least for the foreseeable future they will at best play both, more likely try 4e and see how it goes, and maybe just stick mostly to 3.5

I'm probably going to be making a primary switch to 4e... Don't get me wrong, I love 3.5 to death, but as the resident DM of my group, I'm leaning towards the friendlier new ruleset. Besides, I'm still hopeful...

I may have considered continuing a 3.5 campaign but as I ended my last one on a rather sour note, that may not be on the table anymore... whoops... :smalleek:

anyway, I LIKE 4e, and I've got some spare cash. I'll still keep up with any new 3.5 rules glitches people will find, and maybe even play another campaign down the road with it. but for now, methinks I'll be going with 4e...

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-02, 03:40 PM
Sticking with 3.5, and finally convincing the group to move over to Inquisitor.

Morandir Nailo
2008-06-02, 03:44 PM
I'm making the switch, though my Homebrew setting will be staying 3.5 (though a heavily-changed system which gets rid of Vancian casters completely, replacing them with Binders, Warlocks, and Totemists, and is heavy on the ToB). I plan on running KotS as soon as my night to run comes around again, and considered that I've just dropped $60.00 (more than I've ever spent at once on gaming stuff) for the new books, you'd better believe that I'm going to use them. Besides, I like the new system. I'll be pushing Gnomes over Dragonborn though - those Dragonborn just really bug me for some reason.

The only way I won't make the switch wholesale is if my group decides they really don't like the new system. If that's the case I'll just run my homebrew full-time, but I'll most likely go looking for a 4e game somewhere else.

Mor

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 04:00 PM
Well, thanks to real life drama, most of the people I RP with have moved to other things. The handful left aren't overly interested in 4e (as the majority have children and clothing and feeding their spawn takes priority over new RPG books), so if we play DnD at all, it'll probably be 3.X for the time being.

If I could find a 4e group, I might try it with others.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 04:02 PM
I'm probably going to be making a primary switch to 4e... Don't get me wrong, I love 3.5 to death, but as the resident DM of my group, I'm leaning towards the friendlier new ruleset. Besides, I'm still hopeful...

I may have considered continuing a 3.5 campaign but as I ended my last one on a rather sour note, that may not be on the table anymore... whoops... :smalleek:

anyway, I LIKE 4e, and I've got some spare cash. I'll still keep up with any new 3.5 rules glitches people will find, and maybe even play another campaign down the road with it. but for now, methinks I'll be going with 4e...

Hell, I like 4e. It's easy and fun. I have no problem playing in 4e games. I most likely won't run any because it would require massive rebuilding on my 3.5 homebrew worlds and Eberron hasn't been updated yet (and I'm curious to see how that will be done), but I will gladly play it.

AslanCross
2008-06-02, 04:06 PM
I'm going to be flexible and will work with both.
-3.5 material now costs 60% less here.
-I'm running a campaign that will not be served by sudden rule changes.
-I'd be willing to run adventures in either edition. I like what 4E is doing, but 3.5 holds a special place in my heart.

Vortling
2008-06-02, 04:24 PM
I'll be sticking with 3.5 as far as DMing goes. For playing I'll play whatever is run when I can find someone else to DM, be it 3.5, 4e, or some other system for fantasy rping.

FlyMolo
2008-06-02, 04:32 PM
Me. 3.5 has its problems, but it's more flexible than 4e. I might nick bloodied rules, depending on what they are. And maybe adapt a minion template, although more of a state of mind than a creature type. "Completely :smallfurious: to the point of lack of self-preservation" sort of thing.

So 3.5 till I die. but maybe a 3.75 would be nice.

Indon
2008-06-02, 04:35 PM
According to the "are you getting 4e" poll I took last month, over 70% of playgrounders are getting 4e.

Enworld has a similar poll going now where 92% are getting 4e.

Take that as you will.

How did they define "get"?

de-trick
2008-06-02, 04:37 PM
wont change right away, but if I find a a 4e group id learn to play it

Nonanonymous
2008-06-02, 04:53 PM
For me, it depends on whether or not Lord Gareth's Paradigm Project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71041) goes 4ed, people on this board have already fixed everything that was wrong with the base classes that had serious issues other than the full casters (to my knowledge), and the absence of monks rather bothers me. Also, I really don't care for the Dragonborn.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 04:58 PM
How did they define "get"?

"Now that some people have the PDFs, will you be buying fourth edition?"

Edea
2008-06-02, 04:59 PM
How did they define "get"?

That was the question that immediately popped into my mind as well :3.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 05:09 PM
"Now that some people have the PDFs, will you be buying fourth edition?"

No. I got a free advance copy.

Chronicled
2008-06-02, 05:10 PM
I'm willing to play either, but I like 3.5 better. I'd also be up for a 3.7e style of rules; Kizara had a decent one going, and there's a couple others I need to look at more. There are a lot of things in 4e that I think would be well incorporated into a 3.7--the bloodied status/effects, some sort of minion template, self healing (whether by reserve points, healing surges, or something else). The 4e Rogue's double jump and Wizard's Prestidigitation at will would be a must, of course :smalltongue:.

Really, I think 4e might use the fix better instead. Create powers that have long lasting effects, make additional status effects, and give each class oodles of utility powers (ones that don't just have a combat purpose), for a start.

In the end, if I find a group that really likes Iron Heroes, Shadowrun, or... Exalted, M&M, or Spirit of the Century (haven't tried the latter three, but they look good and people gush about them), I'd probably stick with that.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 05:16 PM
In the end, if I find a group that really likes Iron Heroes, Shadowrun, or... Exalted, M&M, or Spirit of the Century (haven't tried the latter three, but they look good and people gush about them), I'd probably stick with that.
3e or 4e? Cause if 4e and you can find some more people on the boards I would gladly play.

Reinboom
2008-06-02, 05:24 PM
I'm going to try to stick to 3.5e mostly for about a year, then probably try to play both about equally.
Or just 3.5e. Some things in 4 are irking me.

Stycotl
2008-06-02, 05:34 PM
it took months of coersion to finally get me to switch to 3rd ed. there is no way that anyone is going to get me to switch to 4th. i might play a game or two, but i'm not spending a penny on the new video game... err, rpg. too many books to buy. too many books that would now be obsolete. too much time learning new rules that i currently don't really like the look of anyway. too many current homebrew and houserule projects that would be obsolete. i could go on, but i think you get my point.

Cruiser1
2008-06-02, 05:35 PM
Staying with 3.5 here!

3.5 world has dozens of sourcebooks. 4.0 has next to nothing. Unless you want to go back to playing base classes, there's no reason to migrate to 4.0 at this time. I might move to 4.0 in five years or so when it has the same amount of material as 3.5, but not before then. I want variety in character creation, not cookie cutter railroading.

3.5 is balanced. 4.0 isn't. 3.5 has been out for a long while, where the community knows its quirks. 4.0 is untested, and likely to acquire tons of errata (which will go in 4.5). Which would you rather use: Windows XP SP2, or Windows Vista hot off the presses? I thought so. Yes, 3.5 is balanced, or at least can easily be made balanced. For example, the Paizo modifcations to 3.5 are good. It's also easy to manually houserule away the most broken spells or other features. No need to throw out the entire system. For example, to balance casters, just allow ToB, toss the most broken spells, play at lower levels which are more balanced to begin with, and enforce four or so combats per day so casters have to conserve. I have no idea how to balance 4.0.

Does 4.0 have anything that 3.5 doesn't, other than less material and less options for characters? Then why move? Given $60, I'd rather buy more 3.5 books to extend and enrich my existing collection, as opposed to throwing it away on base material that I already have. Given free time (which for many of us is challenging to come by) I'd rather increase my understanding of existing rules, so I can play at a higher skill level, as opposed to junking my body of knowledge and starting from scratch.

4.0 is fragmenting our D&D community, making it harder to find real life games, with some staying with 3.5 and others moving to 4.0. For example it's already decreasing the signal to noise ratio on the message boards, with half the posts about 4.0.

Order of the Stick is staying with 3.5. If Rich isn't moving to 4.0, neither am I! :smallwink:

Swordguy
2008-06-02, 05:36 PM
If I was currently running a 3.x game, I'd probably finish that before even thinking about a 4e game. But since I'm not, and I'm so incredibly sick of the d20 system as presented in 3.5 (part of it is having a group that has moved from being an "I don't care about mechanics" to "more PC power makes the player a better human being") I'll give 4e a shot.

And, if nothing else, whomever mentioned that 1/2-price Books will have having lots of 3.5 stuff cheap is right on the money.

Chronicled
2008-06-02, 05:37 PM
3e or 4e? Cause if 4e and you can find some more people on the boards I would gladly play.

4e. The only Shadowrun campaign I've been in died almost as soon as it started, but I liked both the writing and how the system worked. I'd be up for trying it again, of course.

tarbrush
2008-06-02, 05:38 PM
I'm really stuck on this one. Both editions have features that I despise (Save or Die/Suck/etc in 3.X and the multiclass rules in 4).

I want to like 4e. It got rid of save or die, it made a serious attempt to be balanced and I can see fights being cleaner and more "visual". Plus they managed to trim rules without imposing cookie cutter characters.

I love the variety, I love a lot about 4e. But I don't love 4e. I've tried to read the PHB and I get massive massive Wall of Text syndrome when I try to read the class entries. I've read it few a few times, and I still have no real idea what a character I put together is going to be able to do.

I also think the feats are bland weak and utterly uninspired.

And I think that there is so much potential in the basic 4e system to have a great, easy and intuitive system for multiclassing. But the system they've written in capricious, hard to understand and ineffective. I love multiclass characters, but 4e multiclassing seems to be a constant hassle (repick your 3 swapped abilities every level! And it's difficult to understand initially. And it doesn't add much. On the upside, the multiclass rules were so clearly a shoddy afterthought it'd be eas enough to simple delete the 2 paragraphs devoted to multiclassing and write your own rules.

So I reckon 4e would be easier to homebrew into an excellent system (although i admit that rewriting all the feats and the multiclass system might be difficult and take awhile). And I don't want to go back to 3.X becuase 4e has helped me see just how much I dislike the stuff I dislike about 3.X

EDIT: Also interested in 4e shadowrun

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 05:41 PM
In all honesty, for me, any game that I can sit down at the table with my friends and enjoy a couple of brews while we play, that's a good game by me.

tarkisflux
2008-06-02, 05:57 PM
I'm in the middle of running a campaign, but even after I'll be sticking with 3.x, either 3.Homebrew like I've got or Paizo's Pathfinder RPG (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8253) (3.Pai) when it gets finished (it's still in Alpha, so it's too early to call). I don't dislike 4e, it just still feels incomplete and rather bland. There's a lot I want to like about it, and a it looks promising, but it doesn't have anything that calls to me.

EvilElitest
2008-06-02, 05:59 PM
I've been trying fix 3E from within, which is fair easier to do than with 4E because at its heart 3E is a good, if badly done game. 4E might have a few good elements, but simply isn't a good game
from
EE

Frosty
2008-06-02, 06:02 PM
I'm in the middle of running a campaign, but even after I'll be sticking with 3.x, either 3.Homebrew like I've got or Paizo's Pathfinder (3.Pai) when it gets finished (it's still in Alpha, so it's too early to call). I don't dislike 4e, it just still feels incomplete and rather bland. There's a lot I want to like about it, and a it looks promising, but it doesn't have anything that calls to me.

Heh, we should call it 3.Pi instead :smallamused:

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 06:06 PM
Heh, we should call it 3.Pi instead :smallamused:

3.141592653...? I'd play that, being the mathematics/geometry geek I am.

Edan
2008-06-02, 06:08 PM
I would prefer to stick to 3.5, but I am in a position where I won't be able to play DnD for 2 years. So I will be stuck with whichever ends up being played by the group I get drawn to after that time.

I am stocking up on 3.5 books now, I want to be able to run a basic game once they go out of print.

Stycotl
2008-06-02, 06:13 PM
I would prefer to stick to 3.5, but I am in a position where I won't be able to play DnD for 2 years. So I will be stuck with whichever ends up being played by the group I get drawn to after that time.

I am stocking up on 3.5 books now, I want to be able to run a basic game once they go out of print.

mission? if so, where?

FMArthur
2008-06-02, 06:15 PM
I think I might force my group (while I'm DM) to ditch certain classes from the PHB completely in favor of better ones, as a way of upgrading 3.5. As in, you're not allowed to be a Monk, Paladin or Fighter. Swap in Swordsage, Crusader and Warblade in their places, respectively. Fighter can be a template, but the other two are deleted. Bards don't make sense in D&D, and while I'd like to toss them out as well (for Factotums or Beguilers), they don't have a perfect replacement, can still function mechanically, and still get chosen by my players for some reason. Since my players aren't too familiar with these, it'll actually be introducing something new to our games while keeping the 3.5e that we know and love.

RTGoodman
2008-06-02, 06:21 PM
Honestly, I don't know ANYONE who's completely going with 4E.

I'm definitely buying the books (er, already bought them) but I'm not completely abandoning 3.x. My main group has a pretty involved 3.x game going that we're not planning on stopping, and at least two other people want to run some 3.x stuff they've got planned.

On the other hand, all of us are also really into the 4E stuff and we'll probably be running the KotS adventure and the rest of the Heroic-Paragon-Epic adventures as they come. I, on the other hand, have already started planning a 4E Red Hand of Doom revamp, and as soon as I get the books I'll be actually doing it.

So, yes, I'm sticking with 3.x, but I'm also switching over to 4E, too.

RS14
2008-06-02, 07:09 PM
I don't know. I'll see what I think of the SRD once it goes live (June 6th, isn't it?).

I'll certainly be finishing my current game in 3.5, and will probably play Return to Undermountain this summer, also in 3.5. Beyond that, I'll use whatever is available and appropriate.

Kizara
2008-06-02, 07:33 PM
I, for one, don't want to play the EM Mode of D&D, thanks. I have more self-respect then that.

So yes, I will be sticking with '3.5', although with a great deal of tweaks (ahem Tome of House Rules).

Edan
2008-06-02, 07:37 PM
mission? if so, where?

Ya quite the perception ability you have there. It's Barcelona.

If it is worth anything, my local game store decided to stop restocking 3rd once it sells out and its in house open campaign is going to 4e, along with most of my other gaming buddies except a diehard 2e player who won't move for anything.

John Campbell
2008-06-02, 07:44 PM
My group's attitudes towards 4E range from "lukewarm interest" to "won't touch it with a standard-issue 10' pole", with the balance towards the negative end. We won't be switching to 4E, as a group, though a couple of the players may play 4E with other people.

I'm way out on the negative end, myself, and getting more negative with every new thing I learn about 4E, but I'm not a big fan of 3.x, either. I intend to use 3.5 no longer being supported in an attempt to get the group to switch to AD&D, or even to an actually good game system. I think it's more likely that we'll end up playing Paizo's thing, though. Which is okay, I suppose... what I've seen of it seems to be an improvement on 3.5, and far, far better than anything I've seen of 4E. Though I'd still rather play SR3.

Counterpower
2008-06-02, 07:48 PM
Well, we're going to finish our 3.X edition campaign we have going. After that I don't know what we'll do. For me alone, though, I'm about to head off to college in a different state. Which means new gaming groups.

My future is thus very much undefined. If it was entirely up to me, though, I'd probably switch to 4e.

PaladinBoy
2008-06-02, 07:57 PM
Well, money isn't as much of a problem as it could be, since my parents are frequently willing to buy us books. That won't get us all three at once, but it'll be something.

However, that only gets us one set, and my brother has already expressed a desire to take that set to college with him. In Massachusetts. I'm going to be in Maryland... that's a rather long trip for a regular gaming sessions. Even considering I will actually get paid simply for going to college, there are other things I want to buy. So I guess this is just a really long and complicated way of saying that money might be a problem.

That, and in exchange for taking 4e books, my brother is willing to let me take my pick of the 3.5e books we have. So I'll probably be going with 3.5 for a while. I like what I see about 4e, though, so I'll probably switch to it eventually.

Sir_Elderberry
2008-06-02, 08:01 PM
I'll be in 4e, because my group played Living Greyhawk, and we'll be playing Living Forgotten Realms now.

bigbang99211
2008-06-02, 08:40 PM
My group will still be playing 3.5, because they all seem rather vocal about 4E ("It doesn't have gnomes!" Which is strange, because so far I'm the only one in the group that has even played a gnome). Also, I've just started playing DnD a couple of months ago at the most, and I just now completed the core books and psionics stuff, and now you're telling me that I have to go out and buy more books? That the books I just shelled out good money for are now obsolete? That I have to learn MORE rules? I just got into 3.5, right now it seems more fun than everything else I've ever played, which makes me nervous about 4E. It's not like our party needs to be balanced on the Wizards level (the bard is getting a couple of bonus feats, semi-randomly chosen by the DM, the closest thing we have to a batman wizard is a dragon who I have not seen cast any spells yet, our druid is using a "more balanced" variant from Complete Adventurer, one player is a homebrew class, and my new character is still in the works [as in, my gnome got the vanishing gnomes disease, which didn't turn out to be that much of a plot hook]). Until I start to notice big problems with 3.5, I'm going to stick with it.

Wow, too much of that is in parentheses.

Bleen
2008-06-02, 08:44 PM
I'll probably play both. 4e is definitely fun and more balanced, but I still need my 3.5 fix for crazy optimized characters using weird multiclass/feat/PrC combinations me and my friends manage to find. And because some of my favorite elements (Summons! Illusion! Enchantment!) have yet to be introduced into 4e.

RandomNPC
2008-06-02, 08:45 PM
im not a 4E fan, i'm sticking with my 3.5 untill the books fall apart, by then i should be ok enough in the wallet reigon to get some used 5th edition stuf.


but i'm actually going to change my groups game, our next game is going to be a World of Darkness set it a M Night Shamalan "the Village" rip off about two cities connected by one road.

so Booya wizards, booya.

Thurbane
2008-06-02, 09:42 PM
My group are deifnitely sticking with 3.5.

The reasons are:

- I've barely got to play any of the character concepts I wanted to in 3.5

- We've invested heavily in 3.5 materials, and want to get more use out of them

- I really don't like the flavour or crunch I've seen so far from 4E

I might browse or eventually buy a 4E PHB, but since 3.5 still has so much to offer, I won't be switching any time soon. Besides, I'm fairly suspicious of how long it will be before we have 4.5 or 5E, and have to go through the great book buy again...

PnP Fan
2008-06-02, 10:35 PM
I will probably be playing 3.5 in the near future. Most of the guys I play with have less disposable income to play with, and prefer to buy systems that bring something different to the table. While, from what I've seen, the 4.0 is a significant departure from 3.5, I don't think most of them will feel the need to buy another fantasy rpg any time soon. Now, when the 3.5 books get worn, and folks are needing new books, yeah, I expect we might switch over, but that's probably not for a year or two minimum.

Having said that, I do have a group that does have more disposable income, and they don't have as much invested in 3.5 books, and they seem willing to give it a try, so I am hopeful (because I don't really think 4.0 is spawn of hell or anything, it just isn't economically practical for most of my friends.)

Talya
2008-06-02, 10:44 PM
Having electronic copies of every book in 3.5 and all three 4e books as well, I think I'll stick with 3.5.

Don't get me wrong, 4e has some great ideas and interesting points, but overall, it seems shallow and uninspired compared to both the character options and DMing options available in 3.5...And that's not just a factor of the number of books available.

Eldariel
2008-06-02, 10:59 PM
Frankly, I would take ToB and the Expanded Psionic Handbook and chuck most every other class concept rules wise. A lot of refluffing and then most of the rest would deal with spell and power balance issues. I would dump the Sorcerer and maybe the monk (moving some of its capabilities onto the rogue).

All full casters would be based off the Psion. All half casters would be based on either ToB or the Psiwarrior. All other classes would be based on ToB. The only real hard part would be the druid, and that would be mostly balancing class features.

This is pretty much exactly what I intend on doing too, although it takes some reworking to get Divine Magic in synch with the Psionics system. I also intend to include Factotum, Binder, and maybe some Incarnum, and perhaps expand on Binder's features. Bard could also be more Music-based, snagging stuff from the different Prestiges and ACFs to make Bardic Music do more, thus de-emphasizing the casting side.

Druid I find pretty fair as soon as Wildshape gets restricted to one form (although if that one form is Fleshraker, there're still going to be bodies) with feats to acquire extra forms. I like how the system enables for effective multiclassing that doesn't even need Prestige Classes to function, so they can be pure extra fun instead of a required part of the system; a multiclassed character with 50/50 split in levels tends to be closer to 80/80 in power as opposed to the present 50/50 split leading to 50/50 power split.

I felt the one side that needs the most work is the skill system as right now, it's just not very interactive at all, since there isn't really much variety to dealing with skill-related problems, like there is to dealing with threats in combat.


So yea, I'll probably stick to 3.5 E, although I'll play some 4 E games along the way. Will make for good low powered games.

Chronicled
2008-06-03, 12:15 AM
Druid I find pretty fair as soon as Wildshape gets restricted to one form (although if that one form is Fleshraker, there're still going to be bodies) with feats to acquire extra forms.

The PH2 Druid ACF works quite well for balancing them. Alternatively, why not use the Astral Construct creation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/astralConstruct.htm) method? It would allow the Druid's player to quickly customize their form to suit the occasion while remaining balanced, and leave the description of which animal was chosen to aesthetic taste.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-03, 03:36 AM
I'm not "sticking" with any one system. I'm DM'ing 4E on its release day and a friend of mine is starting a campaign with it; then we have a running 3.5 campaign that's not converting, a short 3.5 thingy that has one session left, two Whitewolf games, the occasional bout of Paranoia, and plans for something involving Ctulhu. Given so much variation in the market, why on earth would I want to ignore 90% of it and stick with a single system? :smalltongue:

Elixia
2008-06-03, 06:36 AM
i am!
Given all the homebrewing we've done already with 3.5 rules in play in would be easy to stick to 3.5 til the end of this campagin at least plus i got given 'complete scounrels' for christmas seems a bit insulting to throw it away :(

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-03, 08:03 AM
This is pretty much exactly what I intend on doing too, although it takes some reworking to get Divine Magic in synch with the Psionics system. I also intend to include Factotum, Binder, and maybe some Incarnum, and perhaps expand on Binder's features. Bard could also be more Music-based, snagging stuff from the different Prestiges and ACFs to make Bardic Music do more, thus de-emphasizing the casting side.
I may after I get the "core" classes done. Might replace rogue with Factotum but it depends on the power level of the other classes.


Druid I find pretty fair as soon as Wildshape gets restricted to one form (although if that one form is Fleshraker, there're still going to be bodies) with feats to acquire extra forms. I like how the system enables for effective multiclassing that doesn't even need Prestige Classes to function, so they can be pure extra fun instead of a required part of the system; a multiclassed character with 50/50 split in levels tends to be closer to 80/80 in power as opposed to the present 50/50 split leading to 50/50 power split.
I think I'm just going to rebuild druids from the ground up. Natural Minions, Shapeshifter, or Spells. Pick 2, one main and 1 secondary. If you choose Shapeshifter as your main then you get Wildshape as written in the PHB, maybe even bumped up in power a bit. If you choose magic as your secondary then you get mana as a Psiwarrior, a smaller spell list, and can cast in wildshape. If you flip them then you get mana as a Psion and the full druid list but you get the wildshape variant and no natural spell.


I felt the one side that needs the most work is the skill system as right now, it's just not very interactive at all, since there isn't really much variety to dealing with skill-related problems, like there is to dealing with threats in combat.
Ug. The skill system is a pain. Not real sure wtf I'm going to do with it yet besides reduce the number of skills significantly (combining skills into new groups).

GlordFunkelhand
2008-06-03, 08:13 AM
No druid in 4e, so no way to upgrade my group at the moment. When the campaign is over, we'll see. I guess at that time there will be a druid class available as well.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-03, 08:21 AM
I'll be switching to 4E (haven't had a 3.x group in forever, the last one debanded quickly), so I'll try something new. I've been working on something with 3.x, though. When time allows, that it's not much nowadays :smalltongue:

brian c
2008-06-03, 08:45 AM
I worked on that for awhile, but the team that came to the board and wiki I set up for the purpose couldn't agree on anything, so everyone lost interest. :smallyuk:

Heh, sorry about that.


I'm also in the "sticking with 3.5 but probably doing some 4e-inspired houserules" crowd. I think the 4e alignment system is great, and I like the idea of healing surges. I don't have a group to play with right now, but I think most of the people I know (you know, in real life, not here) are stayng with 3.x, or at least I don't know anyone who has bought 4e.

Prophaniti
2008-06-03, 09:15 AM
Our main DM loves d20 a lot... he started playing back with original D&D, and I'm not really sure why he won't play the older editions anymore, but he's pretty well set in 3.5 now. The only things we do that aren't in 3.5 are d20 Modern and Dark Heresy. And I had to try pretty hard to convince him to play that with us (though he wouldn't DM).

So, yeah, not likely we'll play 4E in the forseeable future, for a variety of reasons (including $).

Duke of URL
2008-06-03, 09:17 AM
Look, I've been on the critical side of 4e, but "sticking" with 3.5 is kind of a strange way of putting it. I'll play some 4e, if for no other reason than to see how it really plays out, and for some more "professional" purposes for Victorious Press. I'll probably have large portions of the 4e SRD committed to memory by the fall.

I'll also still be playing - and developing - for 3.5.

So, no, I'm not "sticking" with 3.5, but I will still be using it a lot.

Tam_OConnor
2008-06-03, 12:53 PM
I'm looking at this as a beautiful time to learn new systems. I'm fairly sure that me and Werebear are going to gut 4E via SRD and take the pretty stuff for our local variant. But I don't think I'll be buying any 4th edition stuff until they've ironed out kinks. Maybe I'll see if I can regress the Serenity rules into a steampunk/psionics campaign...

But yeah, at bare minimum, I'm finishing out my current campaign in 3.5.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-03, 12:57 PM
4.5 will come, oh yes, 4.5 will come.

"Faster! Stronger! Dumber!"

InaVegt
2008-06-03, 01:21 PM
Why use a single system.

I still play 2E, and will continue for as long as I can find people.

I will continue playing 3E for as long as I can find people.

I will play 4E for as long as I can find people.

I will most likely play 5E when it comes out.

Shadowdweller
2008-06-03, 01:23 PM
I plan on obtaining at least the 4e PHB, and playing a few more games of 4e once my group has access to the books. But I suspect I'll either be sticking with some home-brewed update of 3.5, or possibly gravitating toward GURPS. What I've seen so far of 4.0 has left me utterly unimpressed.

hotel_papa
2008-06-03, 01:25 PM
I'll stay with 3.5. I'm a bit OC, so I own pretty much every 3.5 book in print (save for the FR books), and most 3.0's. Not really willing to turn away from what I see as an almost 3K investment.

4E gives me a serious Vista vibe.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-03, 01:28 PM
4E gives me a serious Vista vibe.

Except, you know... 4e is actually good for some people. Vista is bad for everyone.

JadedDM
2008-06-03, 02:52 PM
I'm sticking with 2E!

You heard me!

Indon
2008-06-03, 03:05 PM
Except, you know... 4e is actually good for some people. Vista is bad for everyone.

But, like Vista, 4'th edition's quality is expected to improve given sufficient time and market pressure.

EvilJames
2008-06-03, 03:34 PM
Actually I might just pick up the 3.5 books now that I should be able to get them on the cheap. Otherwise I'll be sticking with 2nd ed and the other 1/2 dozen games I have.

Curmudgeon
2008-06-03, 10:50 PM
I may buy 4e if they have a sale on a boxed set of core books for Xmas. I've bought too many 3.0 & 3.5 books to convert without getting more from my investment. It's like the PC I bought 1.5 years ago: I got Vista for an extra $10, but I've never opened the envelope it came in. I'll get around to it if I hear of some compelling reason to switch.

starwoof
2008-06-03, 10:55 PM
I still haven't converted fully to 3.5! I am sticking with that.

Jack Zander
2008-06-03, 11:20 PM
I still haven't converted fully to 3.5! I am sticking with that.

Yeah, 4e came out about 3 years too early I thought.

starwoof
2008-06-03, 11:27 PM
Yeah, 4e came out about 3 years too early I thought.

I agree completely. Honestly I don't even think of 4e as being DnD... its just another roleplaying game I won't play.

Lord Tataraus
2008-06-03, 11:33 PM
I agree completely. Honestly I don't even think of 4e as being DnD... its just another roleplaying game I won't play.

Same here, I've got tons of books and not enough time to play too many different RPGs, 3.5 will always be D&D to me and my group. Though I am highly considering Pathfinder, I like a lot of what Paizo's done.

Bosh
2008-06-04, 02:10 AM
So, who's sticking with D&D 3.X? I know I am. I may be a fool, but I'll stick with the devil I know, rather than the demon I don't (at least devils will make a deal with you).

Personally I'm bored sick of 3.5ed and 4ed looks like a very well-made game but not really my cup of tea. I'd be up for playing short 4ed campaigns or one-offs but there's no way I'll be GMing it, but what I really feel like now is going back to Rules Cyclopedia. But none of the other people in my play group want elves to be a class again :)

I'm tempted to say **** it and get my old Hero Quest board game out of my mom's attic and play it with my friends along with copious amounts of rum and coke. Am damn tired of adding up to hit modifiers, want something simple and fun :)

azalinthegreat
2008-06-04, 06:51 AM
Personally, I'm a little dissapointed with what I've heard about 4.0. So, at least for the moment, I'm gonna be sticking with 3.0/3.5.

I'll probably buy the books though at one point, just to keep current.

Swooper
2008-06-04, 07:21 AM
I'm sticking with 3.5, and in fact, on Friday night I'll start DMing 3.5 for a group of new players (7 players, there of only 2 are veteran and 1 has played a little bit so 4 complete newbies). It's just a coincidence this collides with the 4e release day, but it's a fun coincidence. :smallbiggrin:

serow
2008-06-04, 07:33 AM
I'll be using both 3.5 and 4E :smallcool:

Saph
2008-06-04, 07:55 AM
I'm going to try some 4e one-offs, to see how it plays, but for my long term campaigns, I'm probably sticking with 3.5. 4e just doesn't have enough character advancement to interest me.

I'll wait till I've played a few sessions before deciding for sure, though.

- Saph

black dragoon
2008-06-04, 07:59 AM
I'm sticking with 3.5e and D20 modern but, given time I may try 4E mabye...I don't like the vibe I get off it. yeah, that's right vibes baby!
Seriously I just feel really wary about it.

Surfing HalfOrc
2008-06-04, 08:01 AM
I'm going to stick with 3.x and the Moldvey/Cook Basic/Expert rules for a while. Like a lot of folks, I don't see the overwhelming need for the new rules.

Izar Goldbranch
2008-06-04, 09:32 AM
Why use a single system.

I still play 2E, and will continue for as long as I can find people.

I will continue playing 3E for as long as I can find people.

I will play 4E for as long as I can find people.

I will most likely play 5E when it comes out.

This pretty much echoes what I was going to post, but you said it well enough that I didnt have to. Thanks :)

Diamondeye
2008-06-04, 10:40 AM
I'll be doing exactly 2 things with 4E:

Admiring the artwork

Ridiculing the rules.

I'm not even allowed to use the kind of language here I would need to describe how I really feel about this heap of.. well, you get the idea.

I'd rather play under Palladium RPG rules than this.

PlatinumJester
2008-06-04, 11:30 AM
3.5 forever dudes. The only good thing about 4.0 is the ambolishen of Gimble and Jozan.

Dacia Brabant
2008-06-04, 05:20 PM
I'd rather play under Palladium RPG rules than this.

Woah, harsh, but I pretty much agree. From everything that I've read so far, it seems to me that WotC took the most poorly designed mechanics for characters from 3.x (Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Monk, which are all built on the same formula) as the baseline for the new system and scrapped everything else.

That's fine for pick-up one-shot games or for newbies they're trying to pull from World of Warcraft. That would be like when TSR released D&D Basic (contrasted from Advanced D&D, the basis for the magic system we have up through 3.5) way back when.

They should sell this as a parallel game to D&D 3.x, brand it as "Dungeons & Dragons Adventures" and re-issue 3.5 with the trash melee fighters replaced with material from ToB or d20 Past, and convert full casters to a power points system and/or force them to specialize. Give the melee types lots of Action Points to spend and Talents to choose from.

But to make the basic role the standard for measurement and reduce everything to it, rather than uplifting them to a more versatile level, is I feel a big mistake and even with all the problems with core 3.5 (which are fixable) I don't intend to buy into it.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-06-04, 05:46 PM
I don't know yet.

It probably can't be any worse than 3.5e, which is so full of exploits that it's basically unplayable without applying so many house rules that you've created a whole new game. Speaking of Palladium, in my opinion it's really only just one small step up from that.

It doesn't follow that 4e is any good either, though. Star Wars Saga Edition seems to be, so I'm hoping?

DigoDragon
2008-06-05, 06:59 AM
If offered I'll play in a 4e game, I have nothing against it, but personally won't be buying new books any time soon. I got a level 1 Baby in the household now and she eats a lot of mana each round for maintenance. :smallamused: