It's bad.
Charmingly bad, fun in it's own context, but doesn't play anything like you'd expect.
Contrary to popular belief, it's not 3.5e, but 3.0... it came out before 3.5e using some of the concepts they were working on, but lacked many of the big changes that were actually good for the game.
The biggest one, nerfing one level dips, was there though... so it's not all bad.
I poke it with the same stick I do Star Wars Saga edition that would follow in this way, but for 3.5e and 4e.
Speaking of which, if you like Saga, you'll find the neat super open classes are here as well.
They're really uninspired and not as open as they appear to be.
If you like the DnD3 combat, expect that with possibly less magic. Since DnD always has and always will rely on magic to keep combat interesting (4e doesn't count... it's experimental and will never happen again) we're left with the debate of Guns vs Swords.
The answer is Swords.
At the low levels guns do too much damage and upset the balance, but as characters get more durable... you wind up with them sucking royally.
Swords start off good enough to function, but scale much better.
Since you'll want to start off all your campaigns at level 4 (seriously, do this), swords are better in general.
The game relies on 3e's multiclass system.
I hate that multiclass system too much to accurately describe what's wrong with it, so I won't try.
This is actually why starting at 4th level is a thing though. It's the first level you can take an Advanced Class like Mage, Martial Artist, or Medic.
Until that point, you're just generically strong, fast, or... dedicated.
But the game does do something excellent.
It's "fully compatable" with DnD3e.
Basically, you can set up a Buffy/Dresden campaign using any monster from any 3e supplement as your baddie.
Or you can randomly place a gun or two in your DnD3e campaign.
At the time, I prefered it to the only equivalent in my collection, Hunter the Reckoning.
Now it's shelf decor.
