If WotC Released D&D 3.75 Tomorrow....

[brewdus]

I would stick with Pathfinder! Paizo has my full loyalty!

 

[Lancelot]

If I wanted to play D&D 3.75, I'd be playing Pathfinder. Which I'm not. I'm playing 4e.

If, hypothetically, 5e came out and it was a rule system that was similar to Pathfinder... then I'd probably start looking at Warhammer RPGs or something else entirely.

That's not a knock on Paizo. I've spent a lot of money with Paizo. They're a good company, they have good people working for them, and they make some fine campaign worlds (and adventure paths). But I am well over 3e and variants. Give me something new, please.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think it would be much smarter if they just started to make supplements for 3.5 again and got the core rule books back in print. They could siphon off some of the 3.5 market without needing to invest a lot of manpower or money.

Well, in a sane universe this would seem like the best choice....

The only real reason to do a 3.75 would be to start grinding out books again - and WotC was looking kind of tapped out in that regard by the end of 3.5.

A 3.75 might reawaken interest.

But, going by reactions here... maybe not.

It just seems foolish that WotC might end up ceding the field because they are backing only the one horse.

I will be honest, I am happier with Pathfinder than I was with 3.5, I would likely look at 3.75, and maybe steal stuff for use in Pathfinder.

I still play 3.5, and I play 4E.

I see no need for a 3.75, and I have NO idea what it would entail. What would change, what would stay the same, what ....... (I could go on and on and on)

I would not be interested.

Another sane view - if you like and play both games then you are already set.

Whatever the talent of MiniMonte, WotC will always have to face their major problem :

They can't make good adventures.

Seriously, in the 3.0/3.5 era they published several adventures. Few were excellent (Sunless Citadelle, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft are among them), half were crappy, and the rest was just correct. The vast majority of adventures (and the best ones) were either made by Paizo in Dungeon (and the first Pathfinders), or published by 3PP.

For what I read of 4th edition modules, they are really far from being great, and all the best 3PP refused the GSL.

So if WotC release a 3.75 edition, they will have to face Pathfinder (the previously called 3.75 ), that may suffer from several defaults but have a great support on adventures, with the monthly Pathfinder and its APs and independant modules.

MiniMonte will have to deploy a huge talent to make a 3.75 with no adventure appealing in front of Pathfinder.

I might add Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil to your list, but... yeah. WotC is not known for great adventures, and Paizo is.

No, I wouldn't be, unless new material for this putative 3.75 were highly backwards compatible with 3.5.

One thing that the release of 4e reiterate to me very strongly, and cemented to me personally, was that new editions serve the needs of the supplier of D&D, not me as a customer of D&D. I realised that I do not have any appreciable demand for a new edition. This is especially true of a new edition like 4e, that went a number of directions from 3.5 that I didn't like. This was also true for Pathfinder, which already is, for all intents and purposes, a 3.75 which is fairly close to 3.5 in structure. I don't really have any need for either of them.

I could potentially buy a new edition if it just so happens to fix all my problems with 3.5 without introducing more problems (for me) as both Pathfinder and 4e have done. Given that WotC catering to me personally seems unlikely, like I said, this reiterated to me once again that I prefer to be a player of D&D, not a customer of D&D. I simply have no need for another edition. Ever, really.

Although, like I said also, if backwards compatibility is high, I could see myself buying cherry-picked supplements for it on topics that I'm interested in.

Yeah, I should probably add 'High level of compatibility with 3.5' to the assumptions.

I would not have gone for Pathfinder myself, if it were not fairly compatible with 3.5

The Auld Grump

 

[AeroDm]

I think it would be much smarter if they just started to make supplements for 3.5 again and got the core rule books back in print. They could siphon off some of the 3.5 market without needing to invest a lot of manpower or money.

Maybe they could get that company that used to do the magazines to write some stuff for them. It seemed pretty popular back then.

 

[DaveMage]

If WotC were to announce a revised version of the D&D 3.X architecture would you be interested?

Nope.

 

[billd91]

I don't think I'd go back to WotC if they came out with 3.75. The bar for me going back has been set very high by Paizo. They're doing a lot of things with the D&D chassis through PF that I like right now.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd be willing to look at a 5E, but a 3.75E would be very unlikely to pull me away from Pathfinder. Not because of being some Paizo fanatic, but basically because I already have a ruleset that pretty much does what I want and have little incentive to put it aside for "the new shiny" (or spit-shined old, as may be the case).

However, I wouldn't mind some supplements - adventures, monsters and the like - as long as it worked with 3.5/Pathfinder.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'd be willing to look at a 5E, but a 3.75E would be very unlikely to pull me away from Pathfinder. Not because of being some Paizo fanatic, but basically because I already have a ruleset that pretty much does what I want and have little incentive to put it aside for "the new shiny" (or spit-shined old, as may be the case).

However, I wouldn't mind some supplements - adventures, monsters and the like - as long as it worked with 3.5/Pathfinder.

Heh - being able to easily swipe material from 3.75 for use in Pathfinder does have a certain charm.

But then, I liked the smorgasbord of the OGL.

The Auld Grump

 

[Nellisir]

No. 3e & its variants are just more complicated than I want to deal with now.

 

[am181d]

I'm running 3.5 now, so I'd give it a shot, but I'd probably be more interested in a 3.6 (consolidation, errata, and some new bridging material) or a 3/4 fusion...