Most helpful client reviews
287 of 312 people found the following review helpful.
I'd like to address issues raised in other reviews
By M. Spielman
My gaming group has swopped to edition 3.5 principally becuase we started adding new players, and the 3.0 books were no longer available. Also, I'd been rough on my 3.0 books and they were falling apart. It was a matter of convenience.
It is not a perfective system. As a matter of fact, it's only margionally "better" than the 3.0 game it's replaced. It is not a new edition - that will be D&D 4.0. But it's changed more than a simple errata sheet could explain, so it's not in truth 3.0 any more either.
It in all likelihood did not need to be made.
That said, I think numerous of the reviews here have been rather unfair.
There's the "I've been playing D&D since the 70's and this sucks" reviews. Version 3.x is a dissimilar game. Get over it. You may still play D&D the way you like - nobody's stopping you. Dust off your old rulebooks and have yourself a good time. It's awefully childlike complaining that the new version of the game isn't the game you fell in love with 25 years ago. Of course it isn't! When you complain that the things you loved regarding D&D have changed, you don't come off as a seasoned, intellectual role-player, you come off as a whiney old fogey pining for the "good ol' days."
There's the "how come they have to make everything balanced?" reviews. D&D has never made sense. No matter what edition you played, if you were a God and set up a world that followed the D&D rules, it would fall into chaos within weeks becuase things don't make sense. Why compain that wizards and fighters are now finelooking close to each other in terms of power? Why does it "make sense" to do it numerous other way? This is, ultimately, a game, not galore sort of simulation. All the players around the table is worthy of to have equivalent amounts of fun. It's no fun to have the player of a low-level mage being bored at low levels 'cause he only has one stinkin' spell to cast. It's no fun to have your high-level fighter eclipsed by a mage that may deal hundreds of times more harm than he may in a single round. The game is not regarding making sense, it's when it comes to having fun, and that's the way the rules ought to be designed. If you want to alter it, you may house rule it. The 3.x default of equally-powerful characters is a good thing, and ought to have been done earlier.
There's the "this game is the best thing ever" reviews. Get a great deal of perspective people. It's not perfect. Unless you may confess to the flaws in the game, you're going to be interpreted as a lacking in knowledge fanboy, mindlessly drooling over the next release.
There's the "version 3.x is for powergamers and is like D&D the video game" reviews. This is a bit unfair, but I have to confess that the rulebooks are very rules-heavy. In fact, there are almost no rules for "role playing" becuase this is an action that, by it's nature, can't be covered with rules. The quality and frequency of quality "role playing" (which means dissimilar things to dissimilar humans anyway) is going to vary depending on the humans in the group you've joined. It may take months or years to find a group with the battlegame-to-roleplay symmetry your actually like. This has not changed through the years.
Just for clarity's sake, and the sake of any individual reading these reviews, let me go over in brief a great deal of of the more contraversial changes from the 3.0 edition to the 3.5 edition.
1) Spells have been nerfed!
This is true. Several spells have been severely scaled down in power. Harm now allows a saving throw, Haste no longer lets wizards cast extra spells, and the stat-booster and invisibility spells are much shorter in duration (the stat-boosters, by the way, now increase a stat by a set amount, rather of rolling).
2) Rangers have been nerfed!
Previously, Rangers got all of their cool abilities at primary level. To the savvy power gamer, there was no need to take more than one level of ranger. It was pointless. Now, their abilites are gained more tardily as they level up. Also, they get less hit points per level now. This changes their special and significant stress from front-line warrior to something more akin to a wilderness-oriented fighter-druid multiclass. You now get to choose, at second level, whether you want your ranger to specialize in archery or two-weapon-fighting. This basically subdivides the class into two more classes, and a more refined and tasteful solution could in all likelihood have been found.
3) Bards have been increased in power
This is true. Bards in 3.0 were practically useless. Their spell progress was slow and their special musical powers useless at higher levels. To me, a bard is now a utile reputation and worth playing.
4) Somebody complained that Sorcerers are now overpowered equated to Wizards.
I don't see this. The major modify to the Sorcerer class was to concede them to, when they level up, swap out a single spell already in their repitoire for a dissimilar spell of the same level. This alter was made because persons playing sorcerers would keep away from sure spells on their spell list becuase these spells would become useles later on. A sorcerers primary less favorable advantages are still present. They get less known spells. They get 2 new spells per level that they may cast, and may never exceed this amount. Wizards can, conversely, scribe any spell into their spell book they feel like (for a price). Second, sorcerers have a slower spell progress than wizards. A 5th level wizard has access to 3rd level spells and a 5th level sorcerer doesn't. Wizards always gain access to the higher levels of spells more quickly than sorcerers do. A sorcerer's only compensation for this is the fact that they may cast more spells per day than a wizard, and they don't have to prepare their spells in front of time.
5) Square monsters
This makes no realistic sense, but is the logical progression of the "no facing" rules introduced in 3.0. It is assumed that, in battle, a reputation is constantly turning around, assessing threats, etc..., and can not be said to be "facing" a particualar direction. The rules aid this conception by permitting the reputation to strike opponents on all sides without penalty, letting his shield bonus affect creatures on all sides, etc... No "facing" rules means simpler, more quickly combat at the expense of realism. But a lot of creatures, dragons for instance, plainly have a front and a back. On a battle mat they are rectangular. Characters on all sides are still subject to all attacks, breath weapons, etc... This seems foolish when you have a rectangular critter. It would have to turn to point it's head in the right direction to bite or breath fire. But what if there's a reputation there and there's no room to turn? The rules say it may still do it, but it's silly. So they simplified the combat rules further and declared all creatuers, huge and small, take up perfective squares on the battle mat. Horses take up 4 squares now rather of 2. Again, it was a sacrifice of a lot of realism for a little more ease of play.
6) Weapon sizing rules
This was an odd change. In 3.0, a longsword was a "medium" weapon, a dagger was a "small" weapon, etc... The size of a weapon depended on the physical size of the weapon. This has changed. Now, weapon size is specified by the size of the creature intended to wield it. There are longswords. A Large longsword is a longsword meant for for a Large-sized creature to use. A Small longsword is a longsword meant for a Small-sized creature to use. If you use a weapon too big for you, you suffer penalties. This modify did not need to be made and needlessly elaborated the routine of buying equipement, as well as mixing up existent players.
7) Cover and Concealment
These are combined into one concept: Concealment. Anything that in any way obstructs your view of your target provides concealment, from invisibility to hiding behind an arrow slit. I feel this change primarily simplified the Cover/Concealment rules, specially in cases where both applied.
All in all, I feel the humans who complain that this revision was unnecceary are justified. The rules worked just fine before, and if you already have a 3.0 library there is no real convincing reason to change and undertake to convert everything. You might complain in that case that new productions and whatnot that are printed with 3.5 rules are not compatible with your 3.0 game, but I have often employed material from 3.0 and 3.5 interchangably and not a single soul has noticed or cared. The rules changes are so minor, and the odds of a player auditing the DM's NPCs and modules so slim, it works out just fine. Purists will cringe, but my last group had a new player join with a 3.5 bard, and I was the only person in the course of 4 months to have noticed that he had abilities our other bard did not.
So if you have 3.0, and have no need to upgrade, just don't. Go in front and use new material from Dragon Magazine or online message boards just as if not one thing had changed and it will someways all be fine.
129 of 143 people found the following review helpful.
If it was broke, then it necessitated to be fixed.
By Adam Tabb
I've heard all the backlash before I got a prospect to review this. I heard that this update was not only not needed, but an ill concieved try just to boost Wizard's profits for the year. I've heard some people describe the evils of the D20 system. I heard it all, and needless to say, I feel that critism was unfounded.
The Player's Handbook 3.5 does a fixes a good deal of of the difficultnesses of the initial book. Wizards of the Coast came up with a much overdue and spectacular idea a few years ago when they opened up their game mechanics wth the open gaming license making source books for any type of reputation (gladiators, necromancers, and even shamans) easy to find, and it all fit together. 3rd edtion was the grandaddy that started it, and it gets an overhall.
Most notably, they modify 3 of the classes. The Bard ultimately gets more skill points (6) so that he may more resemble the "Jack of all Trades" than a low rent, underpowered mage/theif that not anyone wanted to play.
The Ranger, perhaps one of the most loved classes in First and Second Edition D and D was closely unplayable in 3rd edition (past 1st level anyway.) This problem is fixed, with selections in specialization with the bow or two weapon fighting, more skill points, and increments in power more in line with the other classes. (No more playing for one bestloved enemy and a few cantrips you may cast at 8 level.)
The Monks are no longer cookie cutters of each other, as you have selections to make along the way so that you may do things that not each other monk you'd meet would be capable to do.
Oh, by the way, now each race that has a particular weapon (Dwarven Warhaxe) may fight with it without a feat. What an idea!!
The races have minor tweaking, with changes to the Gnome, Half Elf, and Dwarf the most notable.
Feats have been expanded, and galore combined. Gone is Ambidextarity, which is now just "Two weapon fighting." Some of this is from the class books (Song and Silence), and some new. Cool feats that give you bonus to a few attainments rather than one are a nice touch.
Skills have been combined. Gone is Intuit Direction and Wilderness lore. Hello Survival, that now does both. There are more examples like this. Slight of Hand, which is better, replaces pick pocket in one example of the new attainments that are listed.
The combat chapter is rewritten and top notch, answering a lot of of the questions that have come up since we primary adopted 3rd edition.
All in all, I think this was a much necessitated update, and will be imediatly adopted in our playing group. I told a few of the changes at our last session, and all of the ones who "swore" they'd never get it, were already making plans to do so.
Highly Recommeded.
15 of 17 humans found the following review helpful.
Not perfect, but an incremental improvement
By C. W. Lester
First things first: If you already have Third Edition, you in all probability don't need this book unless you're the Dungeon Master. The material is by and big similar sufficient to 3.0 that you may proceed using your PHB and trust your DM to advise you of any essential changes.
If you don't have 3e, though, or if you're a DM, this is the most usable, accessible, exhaustively playtested version of D&D yet. 3.5 came out of tons of feedback WotC received on 3rd edition, specially through the RPGA's Living Greyhawk (basically a huge global multi-party venture for D&D). It seems that there were a lot of play-balance issues that were not apparent for the duration of in-house development, but speedily emerged in the face of thousands of min-maxers attempting to game the system. Some things were too strong, others too weak, etc., for the game to be as fun as it could have been.
3.5 is an undertake to fix those imbalances, as well as make everything just a little posing no difficulty for the players and the DM. Examples:
--Skills have been condensed, so your hard-earned skill points go farther
--Rules for concealment and cover have been simplified. No longer does the DM have to try to figure out whether that rogue sniper has three-quarters' cover or only half cover.
--Spells that were being rampantly abused, such as haste, were doctored to fit the firstborn design intention -- no more hasted sorcerers walloping your party with two fireballs per round.
Some things were just modified so they made more *sense*. For example, 3rd edition rangers all had Two-Weapon Fighting, period. But the archetypal rangers, LOTR's Aragorn and Legolas, were known far more for their archery achievements than for two-weapon fighting (Legs' tricky knife work in the movie version notwithstanding). So now rangers may choose whether to primarily follow the melee path or the archery path. They also get cool new ranger-like abilities, like the capacity to run for days without tiring (again, harkening back to Aragorn and Legolas).
Some persons will always believe that things were better in the Good Old Days. More power to 'em -- let them curl up with their old boxed sets and dungeon modules and live in the 1970s. For those who are mesmerized in playing a sweet fantasy RPG that has gone through more playtesting and fine-tuning than any other, take a look at D&D 3.5. Is it perfect? No. But it's the nearest D&D has come yet, and it's well worth your time.
See all 133 client reviews...
A streamlined experience and old world...that falls off a cliff towards the end
Freed me from my WoW addiction
