[Axel]

When I bought the new Player's Handbook I was disappointed. Not only were the rules so vastly different from the game I'd been so familiar with, but the classes were horribly designed, the book itself poorly laid out and badly written. But I could see something worth using in there. I didn't use it because 2e was still far better, but it was there.
Then I bought the DMG, just this weekend. It was disgusting what I found. I had never understood before when someone said that magic was too acccessible in D&D, but now I do. Being an old 2e-er I got used to the phrase from Player's Option about magic. If you want a high magic campaign it your scenario, if you want low magic its yours. If you want no magic go ahead. But 3rd, I discovered, doesn't work like that. They expect you to use a level of magic predertined by them, the book flatly states that magic should be common. The longest chapter in the entire book was on magic items. It seemed that they never realized the game could be played in a setting with little to no magic.
Well, that's my rant of the week.

[Post Sleeper]

A common sentiment. Do not wast money on the 3.5 editions either.

[Rintaran]

As time has passed, D&D seems to have taken more and more steps towards roll-playing as opposed to role-playing. The accessibility of magic that they "expect" of you is an example of this. However, you do have to remember that everything in those books are just recommendations, as a DM you can take or leave any part of it that you wish. I had the 2E books, and although I agree that the 3E books are less organized, I believe they have a certain visually appealing quality to them that 2E simply lacked. Before you go and curse the new rules because it's so different, I highly suggest you play a session or two of a campaign. There are many improvements in regards to the rolling portion of the game (which makes sense since they're moving towards roll-playing), and although the ranger and monk are a little out of whack, the remaining classes have turned out (IMHO) to be balanced well enough.

As a 3E DM, I run low (almost no) magic campaigns. I tweaked the alignment rules. I modified the critical hit stuff. And I've made countless other modifications. It takes forever to level in my campaigns because I don't give much experience for killing things because that isn't role-playing, it's roll-playing. They'll get experience ad hoc for staying in character, completing quests, and acting ability. That's the beauty of 3E, you take what you want, and throw out or modify the rest. I was heavily against 3E myself when I was given the PHB as a belated birthday present when it first came out. But my friends convinced me to go ahead and DM a couple sessions of it (the original 3.0 PHB came with a mini-DMG in the back), and I found that I liked it (mostly). So I highly suggest the same to you. Play it for a couple sessions (either as DM or as a player), you may just find that it grows on you... like a fungus...

[Dmoe]

I have to agree with Rin there. I played D&D way back in the day when it first came out all the way till the new additon came out - they took a break for about ...7 years or so. So when I finally picked it back up this year I found 3.5e to be drastically different but when it comes to actually playing the Game you can call your own shots as the DM.

it is nice to have rules to go by but this game, unlike many other, is very very flexible on how you play it and how you get exp.

I like the way Rin give out exp - I'll have to make the recomendation to my DM:

[Axel]

oh, d20 alone is a reasonably versatile rule set. Its a bit overly simplistic, but easily adaptable. But I've found that Wizards was either unwilling or unable to apply it to D&D in a reasonable manner. I completely rewrote the class system because I was so dissatisfied and when I DM I insist 2e or nothing. But until now it was just the rules... I dunno, it seems like Wizards is trying to regress to the days when you never left the dungeon...

[dragonhand777]

Mathmaticaly-yes the games tamed down quite a bit. I do like 3.0 and even more so 3.5. I guess you coould say 2nd ed. was kinda idiot proof, and they've taken much of that away.

Although the 3.0 ranger really sucked major puss infected donkey c***, the 3.5 was better.

Also, keep in mind the flexabilty and options that the supplement books have to offer.

Sorry about that whole ranger coment-had to throw in my 2 cents on it. The ranger class is probably my most fav.

[ikander]

I found 3E better than 2E, is more simplistic and is more fun, yes is becoming more roll playing, but not that much, and lets face it, D&D ... i think if you want to ROLE PLAY you should realy check other games, there are lots out there even MERP ( Middle Earth role play ) were you can get yourself killed just for jumping from a freaking tree, not like D&D wen you can impale someone with a greatsword and only do HP damage, and there is not much of roleplay there

[Hida Gabriel]

everyone is going to have differing opinions on what they like, and don't like. I persoanlly like the 3.5 system. I'm also a number cruncher, and for me it's simplicity sits well with me. I like the combat system more, and I make liberal use of the Unearthed Arcana book as it adds alot to character generation, and play.

I supose it's a to each their own scenerio.

Gabriel

[dragonhand777]

Quote

I make liberal use of the Unearthed Arcana

Yes!!! Unearthed Arcana! A must have-in my opinion.
Our DM decided to incorperate the Gesalt style (found in Unearthed Arcana)characters in our current campaign. I am playing a Sorcerer, adn since my stats weren't so great, decided to add Bard (since it favors cha.). Basicaly the gesalt style lets you take the best of both classes when you level up, rather than leveling up one class at a time. It makes for some high powered characters (so the DM has to compensate).

It was difficult switching to the 3rd ed., even more difficult for our previous DM (who's now just playing a char. after 20 some years of being a DM), because of being so imersed in the rules. Then to change so much so sudden. But no one in our group regrets it.

[Doomdreamer]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight Gestalt characters. You know, I couldn't think of a more horrific way for power gamers to become more prevalent. Its like a bad whitewolf scenario..... My soul is now bleeding.


But as for 3.X ed, yeah, I can see the additions tend to favor a more magic prevelant game style, but look at the headlinning games. There is Greyhawk, where you can find more artifacts in Verbabonc than any other campaign setting. There is Faerun, where even peasants have minor items to house work like in harry Potter, and then there is Dragonlance, where magic items grow on Trees.

But, 3.X in my favorite respect gives the power back to the DMs. Back in 2nd ed, the players had most of the power over what their characters could or could not do and level thingies and such. Its nice to see the game balanced back to where everyone is equal. I even make premade stat blocks for PCs or use the point buy system. That way, I can expect and plan what my PCs are capable of.

Everything has a bit more of a rules explenation where it may take away from style, it does add for ease of play. The additions to the game let combat and rolls go faster so you can go back to the role-playing part quicker.

But, as has been said by others take what you want, and drop the rest. I always do, and have fun ever since.

[Axel]

I like role playing, I do entire adventures without a single dungeon and very few battle encounters. I like inventing my world from scratch (I consider published materials near cheating) and I don't like having WotC or anyone else tell me what to incorporate in my world. 2e, I've found, is much more versatile, 3e seems to assume you'll be using their materials or something so similar as makes no difference. I could debate the idiocy represented in the rules, but I think what I've just said far more important.
As for power to the DM, I think the power's always been there. Actually I think that 3e takes away some of that power, gives the players more control over character development statwise than 2e did.
But I refuse to shell out dough for any supplements, so there could be a difference in opinion caused by that.
Anyway I've found that the d20 Wheel of Time RPG is much better on the aspects that D&D fails in. Especially when it comes to coherent writing...

[Post Sleeper]

Oh boy... I think we might lose someone...

[Hida Gabriel]

arguing about this is akin to asking which toilet paper is cleaner after it's been used. (Sorry for the disturbing analogy, but I needed to get a point across)

The point is noone wants to admit their paper is dirty, and so they will stick up for it through thick, and thin acomplishing nothing.

In the end it's still just tolet paper.

...

In the end is still D&D....

gabriel

[blacxthornE]

what the hell does that mean? you don't wipe your [CHAIR] with D&D do you?

[Rintaran]

As far as modules go, I've yet to see a better use! lol. Seriously, I much prefer planning my own quests and whatnot than follow someone's idea of a good hack and slash adventure...