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

[Desdichado]

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

The Auld Grump

Yeah, my description there of how I'd react to a 3.75 is actually pretty much exactly how I deal with Pathfinder. I cherry-pick products that sound interesting to me, and integrate them into a 3.5 paradigm game (which currently, I'm not running, so it's a moot point).

 

[marv]

It's time for Hasbro to license the name and non-OGL DnD context (e.g. mind flyers) to Paizio and let Paizio control the name "Dungeons and Dragons", rules, production values (including electronic content) , and content (taking the best of 3.5 and PF) into 5th edition. Mostly, I want my favorite hobby to have a loving home of creative people. If WoTC can hire such, then I will be happy. Otherwise, Paizio has proven themselves.

 

[scourger]

I would probably buy more miniatures for 3.x if they were released, but not a "new" d20 edition.

 

[Stormonu]

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

Strangely, though I'm playing Pathfinder now, I find myself longing for the "less complicated" days of 2E (core) or even BECM. The latter has become my favorite for use at conventions.

 

[Truth Seeker]

If they did do that...good luck.

Getting me back....no.

Already moved on...there is no True reason to go back. (to Wotc)

Looking at the thread that covers RPG sales via Amazon I noticed that 3.5 is still selling well, not all that far behind either 4e or Pathfinder.

So, a mental exercise:

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

Assumptions:

0: WotC acknowledges a split in the market, and hopes to garner interest from those that remained with 3.X or switched to Pathfinder.

1. 4e remains in print, and still receives the current level of support.

2. 3.75 also receives full support, aided by breakthroughs in game designer cloning technology.

3. 3.75 is supported by the OGL, with all its warts and all its glories.

4. 4e remains covered by the GSL, and does not open itself to the OGL..

Would there be enough interest? The fracturing that WotC wanted to prevent with 3e has already happened, we will ignore the stretching of resources.

The Auld Grump, I will call him... MiniMonte.... Hmm....

 

[GreyLord]

It's time for Hasbro to license the name and non-OGL DnD context (e.g. mind flyers) to Paizio and let Paizio control the name "Dungeons and Dragons", rules, production values (including electronic content) , and content (taking the best of 3.5 and PF) into 5th edition. Mostly, I want my favorite hobby to have a loving home of creative people. If WoTC can hire such, then I will be happy. Otherwise, Paizio has proven themselves.

I'm actually MORE happy with their game being Pathfinder and them leaving it as Pathfinder.

I would not be fond of them changing the name midstream.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

The consensus seems to be that PF filled this niche.

I'm sort of in that group that feels abandoned by WOTC and misses buying stuff from them. Particularly I miss having 3.5 support for products like Dark Sun.

In the interest of being inclusive and uniting gamers I think it would simply be awesome if WOTC could produce content for PF and Paizo did the same for 4E. I want Golarion for 4E and beholders in my PF. Really I just want WOTC to reach for the gamers that bought PF, as some sort of token gesture of reconciliation.

I think there's a lot of room for WOTC to experiment with the PF framework and apply 4E ideas to PF without breaking comparability or producing a new edition. Some of these ideas aren't really fleshed out and they're all optional. WOTC could produce, for example
- A smaller "D&D-Pathfinder"-branded softcover PHB for $35. Keep it under 250 pages, use D&D gods and art and IP, remove the DMing sections. If Paizo can essentially reprint the 3.5 PHB then WOTC should be able to reprint the PF PHB, no?
- A digest PHB with 150 pages and a $20 price point. Maybe put all the melee classes in their and put all of the spells in a separate spell compendium/magic supplement. Possibly experiment with applying 4E stat-blocks and straight-forwardness with 3.5 rules (I saw a interesting application of 4E presentation to 3.5 rules on the web very recently).
- An optional variant PHB that balances classes using some of the design philosophies of the 4E PHBs within the PF rules system. It would essentially be an entirely new take on the existing classes like Essentials for 4E. You would have two completely different fighter classes within the same rules framework. For example wizards from the WOTC book can select rituals and spells and can cast magic missile at-will in PF (and come with certain disadvantages over PF wizards).
- An optional Pathfinder Arcana book that incorporates some of the 4E changes like healing surges/encounter powers into Pathfinder. This could be interesting...
- Reprint the best of 3.5/3E with PF crunch.
- Reprint WOTC IPs for PF. Setting books, monster books, etc. Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk.

The 4E/PF audiences are so different that I don't think they're really competing anymore. People have chosen sides. It just seems unfortunate that the companies follow seem to have followed and choose sides as well. They are unable to produce content for the gaming system on the other side of the edition war.

Honestly I just miss having WOTC produce products for the game I play.

 

[Rogue Agent]

What do you find to be the most pressing low and mid-level problems with 3.5?

The big ones:

- Scry and Die
- Polymorph
- Diplomacy

Smaller tweaks:

- Unless a class has Int as a prime requisite, the minimum number of skill points per level should be 4 + Int. (Getting rid of the Int bonus to skills entirely and going from a base of 5 skill points per level and scaling up from there might be an even better way to go.)

- Grapple is too complicated. (Most combat maneuvers could probably benefit from being put onto a unified chassis.)

I'm doing this off the top of my head, so I'm probably forgetting something gob-smackingly obvious.

 

[Walking Dad]

The thing that drew me to Pathfinder was the adventure paths and I have seen nothing from Wizards to indicate they can match that level of quality.

Depends. I'm mostly doing PbP now, and the adventure paths are just to long for it and to connected to each other to play them separately without loosing much of the story.

Some of their single adventures are quite good, but I prefer the length of the adventures in the Dungeon or the Worldbooks and One-Sheets of Savage Worlds for my current gaming medium.

I don't say that they are not great for many other people, just that this is not a universal truth.

It's time for Hasbro to license the name and non-OGL DnD context (e.g. mind flyers) to Paizio and let Paizio control the name "Dungeons and Dragons", rules, production values (including electronic content) , and content (taking the best of 3.5 and PF) into 5th edition. Mostly, I want my favorite hobby to have a loving home of creative people. If WoTC can hire such, then I will be happy. Otherwise, Paizio has proven themselves.

Uhm, no.
And Wizards has re-hired Monte and I like all of Mearls pre-4e work for d20.

I would also say "no" if you would suggest White Wolf to give Vampire to Paizo.

Don't forget that Wizards isn't selling to bad and there are many people liking their stuff.

And Golarion is good enough without the other D&D stuff.

what would be "taking the best of 3.5 and PF"? I thought Pathfinder is already "taking the best of 3.5".

 

[wedgeski]

No, I have no interest remaining in 3E or any of its derivatives. I'm very happy with the game as it stands right now.