3.5: The Beginning?

[Maerok]

How well received was 3.5 when it first came out? I hadn't joined at that time.

[Zincorium]

How well received was 3.5 when it first came out? I hadn't joined at that time.

A lot of very vocal and previously very sensible people ranted and raved about how it was just a money making scheme, it was ruining D&D as they knew it and they were NEVER, NEVER going to change.

And a few months later a bare minimum of people were still playing 3.0, most of whom never really had an opinion one way or another but were satisfied with the game they had.

This is essentially the same as all previous edition changes and why I don't think 4th edition is as big a deal as many people think.

[Frosty]

3.5 has its problems, but i like it for the most part. And also, having sunk many hundreds of dollars into 3.5 books, I will make full use of them for a long time befoer switching over to 4e.

[DraPrime]

A lot of people were indignant, but because marketing easily bends people's minds they eventually bought it. I still think it's unecessary, because the only serious change was the ranger. But, there are so many better sourcebooks for 3.5, so that factor is what won me over in the end. And the fact that everyone I knew switched over.

[Starbuck_II]

A lot of people were indignant, but because marketing easily bends people's minds they eventually bought it. I still think it's unecessary, because the only serious change was the ranger. But, there are so many better sourcebooks for 3.5, so that factor is what won me over in the end. And the fact that everyone I knew switched over.

No, they changed: They were 4 serious changes
Monk, Bard, Ranger, and Druid.

Monk has change to feats, etc.
Bard have change to music, armor, weapons, etc.
Ranger had change in level gain (but at low levels only) and Favored Enemy
Druid had Animal Companions change (1 powerful instead of many weak) and a few class abilities.

[Indon]

I barely noticed the 3.5 conversion.

One day it was all, "Hey, why is that PHB slightly different from this one? Oh, there's a different version? Well, that's amusing!"

[The_Snark]

There were also a few other important changes- Weapon Finesse used to only work for one weapon, like Weapon Focus, and a few spells were changed (Haste, Harm, Heal, the Bull's Strength spells).

Can't really tell you much about how it was received; I came in about as they were making the change, but I wasn't in contact with the community much. Personally, I think the changes were almost universally improvements, but I might have been annoyed if I'd already gotten all the previous books.

[Swooper]

I barely noticed the 3.5 conversion.

One day it was all, "Hey, why is that PHB slightly different from this one? Oh, there's a different version? Well, that's amusing!"

Exactly the same with my group, but then, none of us were paying much attention to any official or non-official sources of D&D news, such as this board or the WotC site. Now, at least I do.

[sonofzeal]

They also totally re-did Dwarves I believe, as well as a number of spells, DR, ECL, Wilderness Lore, and a bunch of other details that few people really care about.

I still know people who run 3.0 games, by the way. These particular ones are hardcore RPers who rarely end up needing dice in their session, so I suppose that works for them.

[Mr. Friendly]

I barely noticed the 3.5 conversion.

One day it was all, "Hey, why is that PHB slightly different from this one? Oh, there's a different version? Well, that's amusing!"

Really?

Barely noticed?

You didn't notice that, previously, you could cast a spell (Haste) cast a Quickened spell and still have a partial left to cast another spell thanks to Haste?

EDIT: Also, I wasn't on these boards during the 3.0/3.5 transition, though if I had, I would have been positive.

Had I been a poster fo rthe 2e/3e switch I would have been on the grognard side, because I used to to be a "change is bad" "they're ruining D&D forever" "that's so stupid" person. Then I played one game of 3.0 and loved it.

[Kurald Galain]

How well received was 3.5 when it first came out? I hadn't joined at that time.

I think that for many people it doesn't make all that big a difference. It's not that hard to use any 3.0 sourcebook in 3.5, or vice versa. I do believe that few people who owned a 3.0 PHB bought the 3.5 as well, though. Especially as people could get the info they wanted from d20srd.org

I don't recall any sweeping changes that people particularly objected to, really. But then there aren't all that many big sweeping changes (damage reduction and weapon sizing, to name two).

Oh, and they also changed paladin.

[AKA_Bait]

I was ticked when 3.5 came out but only because of my own bad timing. I had just come back to playing table top RPG's after an 8 year hiatus (read: highschool and college) and had literally purchased my very first books in years, the 3.0 PHB and DMG around a month before they announced 3.5.

I got over it. 3.5 really did make some good changes, and I eventually bought the 3.5 core books as well, but not because of the rather minor changes, because any non-philosophy book left in my posession for more than a year is doomed to be destroyed.

[Talya]

A lot of very vocal and previously very sensible people ranted and raved about how it was just a money making scheme,

It was, it really didn't need everything republished from 3.0, it wasn't that different...you could have changed much of it through splatbooks.

it was ruining D&D as they knew it and they were NEVER, NEVER going to change.

No, this part didn't happen much. Very few people complained about the actual changes in 3.5, because they were obviously needed. However, there was a similar lack of acceptance from 2e to 3.5...and there are probably still just as many people who play 2nd edition AD&D as there are who play 3.5.

This is essentially the same as all previous edition changes and why I don't think 4th edition is as big a deal as many people think.

4e makes far bigger changes both to the mechanics and fluff of D&D than there are differences between 1st edition and 3.5. 4e is no longer recognizable as D&D. It may be a good system...in fact, I'm approaching the "points of light" setting with a completely open mind...but it doesn't work with the existing flavor of D&D. It's a brand new game, while 3.5 only has minor differences from the first edition.

I think a lot of the issue I have with it is hasbro dumbing it down and removing things they feel some find "objectionable" in the fluff of it, as well. They're trying to make it 'kid friendly.' D&D shouldn't be kid friendly at all. It should be dark, disturbing, violent, adult oriented, without pulling punches with regard to any topic at all. If they want to make a kid-friendly D&D, it should be a separate "lite" version.

I also hate the dumbing down of the alignment system, which isn't as broken as most people think. There are no real arguments to be had, it's pretty straightforward as it is. The arguments come primarily from hack'n'slash types who think paladins should be able to slaughter villages of orc women and children just because they are orcs. The system works as it is designed.

[sonofzeal]

I got over it. 3.5 really did make some good changes, and I eventually bought the 3.5 core books as well, but not because of the rather minor changes, because any non-philosophy book left in my posession for more than a year is doomed to be destroyed.

That was another thing too. The 3.0 books were, on the whole, physically rather shoddy and tended to have problems with the binding and fall apart after extended use. The 3.5 books were mostly much sturdier. I think that alone helped people make the crossover.

[Indon]

You didn't notice that, previously, you could cast a spell (Haste) cast a Quickened spell and still have a partial left to cast another spell thanks to Haste?

Well, we didn't come across all the changes at once. There was no doubt a period in which we were running some 3.25 edition in which we had integrated some 3.5 changes and hadn't noticed others, because there'd be games in which we were using both 3.0 and 3.5 PHB's at once.

Had I been a poster fo rthe 2e/3e switch I would have been on the grognard side, because I used to to be a "change is bad" "they're ruining D&D forever" "that's so stupid" person. Then I played one game of 3.0 and loved it.

I loved that they got rid of THAC0, and the new save system was so much more intuitive. "You need to dodge something? Roll Reflex!" versus, "Hmm... maybe Breath Weapon. That's kind of like a Breath Weapon..."

Also, getting rid of all that "-1 bonus" ambiguity I thought was great. "Wow, this sword is a +1!" "Wait, so it's cursed? What else does it do?" "Er, no. +1 to the _hit roll_." "Ah."

[Charity]

I think a lot of the issue I have with it is hasbro dumbing it down and removing things they feel some find "objectionable" in the fluff of it, as well. They're trying to make it 'kid friendly.' D&D shouldn't be kid friendly at all. It should be dark, disturbing, violent, adult oriented, without pulling punches with regard to any topic at all. If they want to make a kid-friendly D&D, it should be a separate "lite" version.

Because that will help them bring in the new young players and thrill their shareholders, that sounds like a niche marketing opportunity rather than a market leading strategy. Wizards would be remiss to produce such a system, role playing is already vilified by certain religious groups, making the iconic D&D adult oriented would add to the controversy, on top of cutting down on the number of new players introduced to the hobby.
On top of this, I started playing D&D in the early 80's when I was 10, I was a child why should D&D grow up with you? I enjoy playing D&D with my children, simple does not = dumbed down, if you are looking for gritty realism and adult themes I think you are barking up the wrong tree with D&D.

I also hate the dumbing down of the alignment system, which isn't as broken as most people think. There are no real arguments to be had, it's pretty straightforward as it is. The arguments come primarily from hack'n'slash types who think paladins should be able to slaughter villages of orc women and children just because they are orcs. The system works as it is designed.

I think most roleplayers would prefer more freedom to produce a rounded character than the alignment system allows, it is generally considered to be unrealisticly limiting and ill conceived. Saying that it is hack'n'slash types that object to it is simply not justifiable from the evidence I have seen in the, oh so many threads I have witnessed on the subject over the years.

[Talya]

if you are looking for gritty realism and adult themes I think you are barking up the wrong tree with D&D.

...

I think most roleplayers would prefer more freedom to produce a rounded character than the alignment system allows, it is generally considered to be unrealisticly limiting and ill conceived. Saying that it is hack'n'slash types that object to it is simply not justifiable from the evidence I have seen in the, oh so many threads I have witnessed on the subject over the years.

Spoken like someone who doesn't use the Books of Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness...where as I'm of the opinion it's not D&D without them. As for the alignment system "limiting your character options", it provides great freedom for a well rounded character...it's not limiting in the slightest to one's character personality. It only limits your class choices and deity selections, which is as it should be.

[AKA_Bait]

Well, we didn't come across all the changes at once. There was no doubt a period in which we were running some 3.25 edition in which we had integrated some 3.5 changes and hadn't noticed others, because there'd be games in which we were using both 3.0 and 3.5 PHB's at once.

For my games, that period is still going. Every few weeks or so we go from memory and end up using a 3.0 version of a spell, ability or monster. Sometimes we discover it on the spot, sometimes not until the end of the session.

Spoken like someone who doesn't use the Books of Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness...where as I'm of the opinion it's not D&D without them. As for the alignment system "limiting your character options", it provides great freedom for a well rounded character...it's not limiting in the slightest to one's character personality. It only limits your class choices and deity selections, which is as it should be.

I think the main problem with Alignment, which isn't fully solved by the BOED and BOVD, is linked to the limitation of taking classes with alignment restrictions. First, in practice, it becomes ambigious even if there is a reasonably clear explanation in BOVD and BOED. Second, it's bad form to have a Core mechanic need to be explained in a splatbook. Third, some of the alignment restrictions flat out don't make much sense, like the one on Assassians. That those classes can be fixed with houserules doesn't make the original product free of those flaws and doesn't stop those flaws from leading to confusion and sometimes arguments among gaming groups.

[Talya]

I think the main problem with Alignment, which isn't fully solved by the BOED and BOVD, is linked to the limitation of taking classes with alignment restrictions ... some of the alignment restrictions flat out don't make much sense, like the one on Assassians.

Some alignment restrictions do make sense, some don't, but that's a problem with the class designs, not the alignment system itself.

[Renegade Paladin]

No, they changed: They were 4 serious changes
Monk, Bard, Ranger, and Druid.

Monk has change to feats, etc.
Bard have change to music, armor, weapons, etc.
Ranger had change in level gain (but at low levels only) and Favored Enemy
Druid had Animal Companions change (1 powerful instead of many weak) and a few class abilities.

You forgot paladin.

[Charity]

Spoken like someone who doesn't use the Books of Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness...where as I'm of the opinion it's not D&D without them. As for the alignment system "limiting your character options", it provides great freedom for a well rounded character...it's not limiting in the slightest to one's character personality. It only limits your class choices and deity selections, which is as it should be.

This is your opinion and you are more than entitled to it, but D&D has always been designed to accomadate a young audiance this is not something new.
If WOTC produce an adult oriented game they will hobble themselves in the marketplace. They will not be able to advertise in any non adult themed media, they will marginalise many of their existing customers many of whom are under 18.
The BoED and BoVD are both splat books that are on the fringes of D&D, though you may consider it desirable, making D&D adult themed in core is a bad idea for WoTC (and for the hobby generaly in my opinion) they will lose a lot of their existing customers, they will prevent minors from becoming new customers and it is generaly a hobby that is taken up in ones youth.

I own both books as it happens, though I do indeed neglect to use them.
The alignment debate is not something I can be bothered to be drawn into again, and so I shall just say that I do not agree with you on the subject.

[Crowheart]

4e makes far bigger changes both to the mechanics and fluff of D&D than there are differences between 1st edition and 3.5. 4e is no longer recognizable as D&D. It may be a good system...in fact, I'm approaching the "points of light" setting with a completely open mind...but it doesn't work with the existing flavor of D&D. It's a brand new game, while 3.5 only has minor differences from the first edition.

I agree. I'm looking forward to 4e. Excited even. But I understand that fact that 4e is indeed a very different ball-game than any previous incarnation of the game. I believe the change from 3.5 to 4e will be more significant, which is why there is even more heat than before concerning an edition change.

I think a lot of the issue I have with it is hasbro dumbing it down and removing things they feel some find "objectionable" in the fluff of it, as well. They're trying to make it 'kid friendly.' D&D shouldn't be kid friendly at all. It should be dark, disturbing, violent, adult oriented, without pulling punches with regard to any topic at all. If they want to make a kid-friendly D&D, it should be a separate "lite" version.

I have to go with Charity on this one. D&D has always been inherently a kid's game. But I wouldn't say that it is a little kid's game, either, though it can certainly be made to be. I guess this is just a matter of preference. I prefer my games to be serious, but relatively PG. I don't really fancy things like rape or grotesquery (is that even a word?) in my games anyway. *shrug*

I also hate the dumbing down of the alignment system, which isn't as broken as most people think. There are no real arguments to be had, it's pretty straightforward as it is. The arguments come primarily from hack'n'slash types who think paladins should be able to slaughter villages of orc women and children just because they are orcs. The system works as it is designed.

I really have to disagree here. The alignment system has always seemed, to me anyway, to be arbitrary. I'll be happy to see it go (or have less of an impact, anyway).

Concerning the 3.0/3.5 changeover, I only had the core 3.0 books and the City of the Spiderqueen module, so it wasn't too bad of a change. I enjoyed and agreed with every change made to 3.5. The game still needs a little work though, but fortunately, Paizo is doing something about that. :)

[Irreverent Fool]

A lot of very vocal and previously very sensible people ranted and raved about how it was just a money making scheme, it was ruining D&D as they knew it and they were NEVER, NEVER going to change.

And a few months later a bare minimum of people were still playing 3.0, most of whom never really had an opinion one way or another but were satisfied with the game they had.

This is essentially the same as all previous edition changes and why I don't think 4th edition is as big a deal as many people think.

Way to regurgitate the propaganda of the corporate overlords. I want to sell my soul too. Where do I sign up?

[[Insert Neat Username Here]]

A lot of very vocal and previously very sensible people ranted and raved about how it was just a money making scheme, it was ruining D&D as they knew it and they were NEVER, NEVER going to change.

And a few months later a bare minimum of people were still playing 3.0, most of whom never really had an opinion one way or another but were satisfied with the game they had.

This is essentially the same as all previous edition changes and why I don't think 4th edition is as big a deal as many people think.

Well, most 3.5 changes were relatively small. From what I've seen of 4e, I think Wizards is actively trying to prevent people from converting their 3.5 products.

[LoopyZebra]

Well, most 3.5 changes were relatively small. From what I've seen of 4e, I think Wizards is actively trying to prevent people from converting their 3.5 products.

What?

4e is different enough that it is possible that a conversion system for characters and splatbooks would be nigh impossible. Admittedly, WotC is a company, and will attempt to sell 4e products, but I think that the lack of "conversion" material is simply because the two systems are so different.

[[Insert Neat Username Here]]

What?

4e is different enough that it is possible that a conversion system for characters and splatbooks would be nigh impossible. Admittedly, WotC is a company, and will attempt to sell 4e products, but I think that the lack of "conversion" material is simply because the two systems are so different.

What I'm saying is that I think it's the other way around. The two systems are different to make conversions difficult. As you say, WotC is a company, and will attempt to sell as many 4e products as possible. Normally, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but some of WotC's profit-maximization practices, such as randomizing miniatures, make me somewhat more doubtful about their motives.

[Talya]

I have to go with Charity on this one. D&D has always been inherently a kid's game. But I wouldn't say that it is a little kid's game, either, though it can certainly be made to be. I guess this is just a matter of preference. I prefer my games to be serious, but relatively PG. I don't really fancy things like rape or grotesquery (is that even a word?) in my games anyway. *shrug*

And yet they've always been there. Half-orcs, tieflings, half-fiends...heck, a big chunk of the "half-anything" races are conceived in rape. The game is violent, bloody, with demons and devils and horrible deaths... I don't think it has EVER been a kids game. You have to take too much out of 1e, 2e, 3.0, or 3.5 to make it kid-friendly. That's fine.

4e is dumbing it down, trying to move it from PG-13/R rated down to just PG.

[Farmer42]

And yet they've always been there. Half-orcs, tieflings, half-fiends...heck, a big chunk of the "half-anything" races are conceived in rape. The game is violent, bloody, with demons and devils and horrible deaths... I don't think it has EVER been a kids game. You have to take too much out of 1e, 2e, 3.0, or 3.5 to make it kid-friendly. That's fine.

4e is dumbing it down, trying to move it from PG-13/R rated down to just PG.

You know, it never, ever says that any of those races are tied to rape. As far as anyone know, in D&D babies do come from storks. The core rules obfuscate the issue so that the game itself is kid friendly. You also don't do graphic, bloody damage to people, you hit their HP. What that means is up to the DM to describe. And horrible deaths? You mean like poison apples, being eaten by dragons or other magical beasts, or being stabbed? I can find you a Disney flick for all of those and more.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Yanno, methinks you got it wrong there. It even explicitly says in the PHB (Half orc introduction) that Half orcs are mostly conceived in times of peace between the orcs and humans. I think you're getting it wrong.

Also for the record, I consider the two alignment books bull****. Airheaded designers once again made LG the "goodest" alignment and CE the "Evilest" alignment, which is just plain wrong, not to mention the idiotic things they say ("Condemning millions to pain, torture, death, and sorrow is better than tarnishing your purity and losing your pretty exalted feats and status!").

[EvilElitest]

A lot of very vocal and previously very sensible people ranted and raved about how it was just a money making scheme, it was ruining D&D as they knew it and they were NEVER, NEVER going to change.

Good thin this isn't a thinly veiled references to current detabes. Because that would be wrong

from
EE