Café de Nuit

The question is obvious. I use 3.5 mostly, though I use a few rules of my own and a few from the 3rd edition.

Personally, I use the third edition for almost all of my roleplaying games. With my tabletop sessions being rather scattered and infrequent, I found that the rules in third edition were much easier to understand and follow for my players. The simple fact that the d20 is used for most of the rolls helps make things move a lot faster.

Having said that, there are a lot of things from the second edition that I do tend to miss. If nothing else, second edition tended to focus a little bit more heavily on the "acting" part of roleplaying and not the "dice-rolling" part. I certainly wouldn't say that you cannot do this for 3.0 or 3.5, but the newer editions have scores that determine it moreso than the player's ability.

As for 3.5, I have no intention to switch over anytime soon. I've read through the books, but they do not offer me anything that makes buying a whole new set of books worth while. Perhaps, I might buy the newer edition when my current books finally fall to pieces. Until then, however, I will use my 3.0 books (unless something truly better comes along).

Jason

None of the above. The last regular D&D game I played in was 1st edition (the DM was from WAY back) and any games I play now use my crossbreed system.

I play using my 3rd books but with 3.5 updates to some classes or monsters

Same as Charney. 3.0, but we grab some classes, feats and a few rules from the 3.5 SRD online.

It is best to say that I use 2.75. I use a mix of 2E, 3E and 3.5, taking what I like from each edition.

I wasn't going to switch over but I did and now play 3.5.
Partially it was because I like Rangers and really felt they were/are too weak in 3.0.
And also because I found copies of all three books at a con for dirt cheap. kinda a 3for2 special. I figured 'why not'?

I find the 3.5 edition more complete, though I prefer the 3.0. I don't like the very realistic rules, I like playing, not simulate the real life.

I use 3.5 ed. I liked what they did to the ranger and monk as well some of the spells that wetre tweaked. I pretty much use the SRD and 3.0 PHB to figure my way out.

I just picked up Arcana Unearthed and I really like it. May switch to that soon.

jamesravenwing wrote:I just picked up Arcana Unearthed and I really like it.

I have played a couple of sessions with it and...I don't like it.
I don't like the change with wizards, clerics and druids. I prefer play with the original ones instead of one spellcaster who can cast any spell of them if he has it in his spellbook. But most of all I hate the battle system. I prefer to know how much damage my character has done.

I use 2e, but there are one or two things I would adapt from 3e, such as poison effects and some of the commoner and aristocrat classes.

My most basic reason for not switching to 3e is that I'm more comfortable with the 2e rules and look. Whatever doesn't work for me or my game I can change. Plus it's not that difficult to back-convert useable material (such as Prestige classes to 2e kits or classes) when need be.

A more worldly reason is that I don't feel like shelling out around $60 for new rules to a game I feel I already have. The main exception, of course, being for RL books. If I decide to switch over to any d20 system rules, it will be for a game other than D&D, maybe Call of Cthulu for example.

I solely use 3.0 edition, mostly because I don't have the patience to learn all the new rules and refuse to spend money buying minor fixes and updates such as the Ravenloft Player's Handbook.

I use 3.5. I stuck to 2e longer than most, and by the time I realized that I liked 3e better they'd already come out with 3.5 and there was no sense in getting 3 instead.

3e for me. I've read through various parts of 3.5, and while I like a few of the changes, there are also a bunch that I don't care for. When my current campaign ends I plan on using a mixture of 3 and 3.5 for the next one (3.5 rangers, bards, monks, etc. but not going to all the trouble of altered spells and whatnot). I'm not going to change game mechanics in mid-campaign, though, so it's still 3e for me.

IMRVC we use 3rd edition rules, just because half my party hasn't ever played with 2nd ed...
When I play as a player (FR) we use 3.5. I have to admit it's pretty annoying building a theyan to become a red wizard and potentially an archmage, passing the DM control (of course that was hard, I'm asking weird things here, you see?), and loosing the character just because we converted into 3.5 in the middle of the campaign, the specialization requires abandoning two schools, Red Wizard PrC requires 2 more, so bye bye archmage. grrrr
Anyway, I kinda prefer 3rd - I had a nusty 3.5 welcome