D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Edition Reprints

El Mahdi said:

They have not in any way, shape, or form said that 4E was a mistake. And anyone who says so is just flat wrong.

As to the last part, of course they're trying to win back some of the fanbase that gravitated towards Pathfinder. It's a competitive market...a competitive niche market. There are only so many people that buy RPG's, and yeah, WotC would love if every single one of them also bought the 1E Reprints, the 3.5E Reprints, and 5E...just as I'm sure Paizo would love if every single one also bought Pathfinder. The truth is, WotC is trying to win back each and every person that ever played any edition of D&D, and shooting for new players to boot. Every RPG game company does the same thing.

Click to expand...

They are trying to win back the - large - part of their former player base they drove away to Pathfinder with their insulting "3.X sucks, 4E rules" advertising campaign and their "we'll stop offering PDFs of earlier editions so you have to buy our new edition" decision. It's a good idea, but it may be too late already.

ShinHakkaider said:

Wow. "Rip off?" Someone has a real hate on for Pathfinder.

Click to expand...

Rip off is accurate.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rip-off
"2. Something, such as a film or story, that is clearly imitative of or based on something else."

Just because the d20 OGL legally allows for the creation of such a derivative game, that doesn't change "rip off" from being an accurate term.

ShinHakkaider said:

This whole thing isn't apparently for me as I still HAVE all of my WOTC 3.5 books. Oddly enough I was looking to put most of them up on Ebay last week to free up space for my Pathfinder books. Just havent gotten around to it yet.

Click to expand...

Wait too long and the newly available 3.5 reprints may nuke the ebay value of used copies.

Warunsun said:

You are wrong. Sorry. I said Pathfinder the game system is more complex. I was referring to the main rulebook line. The one you get when you tell the Paizo folks you want them to send you all the rulebooks. I was discussing how Pathfinder has become Skills and Powers like with replacement abilities for every racial trait and every class feature. It is more complex. That is a fact. Check out what I said in my post if you have doubts.

Click to expand...

You're still wrong, then.

If you're referring to the "main rulebook line" for Pathfinder, then you need to make a similar comparison for 3.5, which means including all of their hardcover rulebooks, as those are the direct comparisons to Pathfinder's hardcover rule supplements.

Given that 3.5 introduced alternate class abilities and alternate racial abilities, alongside much more, it's self-evident that 3.5 is much more complex.

Sorry.

ShinHakkaider said:

Dont bother. As soon as he stated that he was including ALL of the RPG line as mandatory rules for the sake of this discussion I bowed out of this particular discussion with him. This was after I pointed out that at this point comparatively speaking, in the life cycle of 3.5 that it had waaaaaay more splatbooks and feats and alternate rules. After I pointed out Tome of Magic or Tome of Battle he moved the goal posts by saying that they we'rent streamlined into the 3.5 system or something like that. If he can selectively include and exclude things to bolster his point then the discussing the relative complexity of both systems is in fact pointless.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I probably should have read that before replying. Oh well.

frankthedm said:

Rip off is accurate.

rip-off: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
"2. Something, such as a film or story, that is clearly imitative of or based on something else."

Just because the d20 OGL legally allows for the creation of such a derivative game, that doesn't change "rip off" from being an accurate term.


Wait too long and the newly available 3.5 reprints may nuke the ebay value of used copies.

Click to expand...

Rip off is not accurate.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition is:

"1 : an act or instance of stealing : THEFT; also : a financial exploitation.

2 : a usually cheap exploitive imitation"

EDIT: Also, from the Oxford English Dictionary:

"slang (orig. U.S.).
1. An act of stealing, a theft; (hence) a fraud, a swindle; (more generally) any instance of esp. financial exploitation."

So now that dictionary quotes are being thrown at people is it safe to say this thread has lost its initial point?

frankthedm said:

Rip off is accurate.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. Paizo used the OGL exactly how it is allowed to be used, and for what it was originally intended to do. Both Peter Adkinson and Ryan Dancey have stated that the "big" reason for the OGL, was so "D&D" could survive in perpetuity at least in some form. Paizo is doing exactly that, and I might add with the full blessing of WotC.

They didn't steal anything. They didn't Rip Off anything. They did exactly what the OGL was intended for and they did it in full compliance and with the acceptance of WotC. Saying they have stolen or ripped off anybody is completely spurious, fallacious, and pejorative.

If one doesn't like the game: Cool. Just play what you like.

If one doesn't like Paizo: Cool. Don't buy anything from them.

If one doesn't like the way Paizo has done things: again Cool. Just go your own way and leave them alone. I could understand if this was WotC we're talking about...in many gamers minds, "D&D" is "RPG's". However, I'd be very surprised if Paizo holds that same place in gamers considerations. And I'm also pretty sure Paizo doesn't hold that place in your considerations.

But making up false accusations or justifications other than the above to give oneself a reason to hate them is illogical, foolish, and maybe even a small bit cowardly*.



*(Cowardly in that not having the mental fortitude to be honest with oneself about what ones true emotions and motivations are is a form of avoidance. Avoiding something uncomfortable because one doesn't want to deal with the discomfort is a form of cowardice. If that's a factor here, then it's a form of cowardice.)

Holy Bovine said:

So now that dictionary quotes are being thrown at people is it safe to say this thread has lost its initial point?

Click to expand...

As the person who originally used said dictionary quoted term, lemme see if I can steer the train back onto the tracks.

I have a couple concerns with the upcoming reprints.

1. Gilded pages, what experience does everyone have with books with gilded pages? In my experience, they tend to flake an awful lot.

2. Covers, are they going to have the faux tome exterior of the originals, or is it going to be different?

3. Errata included, as in replacing the text in the book (my hope) or is it just going to be included in the back?

Holy Bovine said:

So now that dictionary quotes are being thrown at people is it safe to say this thread has lost its initial point?

Click to expand...

Yes, adv.

1 - used as a function word to express assent or agreement.

CasvalRemDeikun said:

I have a couple concerns with the upcoming reprints.

1. Gilded pages, what experience does everyone have with books with gilded pages? In my experience, they tend to flake an awful lot.

2. Covers, are they going to have the faux tome exterior of the originals, or is it going to be different?

3. Errata included, as in replacing the text in the book (my hope) or is it just going to be included in the back?

Click to expand...

My humble opinion in answer to your questions:

1. It depends. If they're done well, they'll flake much less. It's all in the production quantity.

2. Does it matter? If it's sitting on the shelf next to my original PHB then it would be aesthetically pleasing if the cover looked consistent. But if I'm going to be using it as a tool in my game, I'm not sure it matters to me. Of course, I realize I may be the minority in this view.

3. I like that the errata will be included, but I'd much rather it be in the back. I'll be picking up a copy for a brand new player and probably some extras for potential new players. I'd rather the pages, paragraphs, and text in the newbie's book match mine for simplicity's sake. I don't want to have to hunt for answers in more than one version of the book.

Alzrius said:

Yes, adv.

1 - used as a function word to express assent or agreement.

Click to expand...

*headdesk*

Well played, sir. Well played indeed.


On another note - what did people think of the survey about a future 'best of 3E' book? I voted mainly for supplemental books like Draconomicron, Stormwrack and the like. I also asked in the comments for the book to be big - 300+ pages. If I never see another 160 page hardcover again it will be too soon.