The monster illustrations in the Monster Manual were labelled. The rules for monster PCs (and specifically, level adjustment) were made more clear, consistent, extensive, and workable. The DMG had some neat stuff, like detailed guidelines for wilderness combat maps, and descriptions of planes that saved me from having to buy the Manual of the Planes. More charts were used, to clarify graphically rules like flanking. Spells that were too powerful were either reduced or else brought to a higher level. There were more spells to "boost" abilities, and by a constant number rather than a die roll. There were more feats that I, unlike rabindranath72, felt should have been there. I felt that the vast majority of the changes in 3.5 were good. When I got a complete set of 3.5 core books, created a bunch of 3.5 characters, and ran them though most of The Red Hand of Doom, I came to the conclusion that I preferred 3.0 over 3.5, and I still feel that way.ĭon't get me wrong. After 3.0, I could never switch back to 2e despite my heavy use of AD&D material. First of all, when I got into 3.0, I said "Yes! This is the definitive tabletop fantasy RPG for me!" I had never said such a thing before.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |