D&D General Why was 3.5 needed?

[Rabulias]

I also think that WotC saw 3.0's greater-than-expected popularity and took 3.5 as an opportunity to upgrade the physical product line. The splatbooks for 3.0 were softcovers with black and white interior art; 3.5 went to all color hardbacks.

 

[DarkCrisis]

From what I recall it was considered an errata and update included set. Hence 3.5 as it was just updated rules books.

And honestly One D&D feels more like a 5.75 to full on 6th ed IMO. Or a D&D to Pathfinder thing.

 

[Deset Gled]

However, the experiment failed. The player base saw 3.5 as basically a new edition, but not sweeping enough for a new edition, and felt that WotC was gouging them, forcing them to buy new books and trashing their existing collections. I think the lesson WotC learned is that you can't make major changes to an edition's rules, only add new things and tinker around the edges.

I definitely think that people claiming 3.5 was just some sort of a cash grab are forgetting just how much WotC was really testing out new ideas at the time (and frankly, still is). It's important to remember that how much status and market share D&D lost in the late 90s. There was no one who "knew" how the market would handle a rules revision at the time. People had guesses and hopes, but it's not like WotC was certain how it would go. I mean, just look at the 4e release if you need proof that WotC couldn't be sure of what was going to happen with some of the changes they were making to D&D just a little bit later.

And of top of that, I will say that the rules definitely benefited from the 3.5 change. I don't know if you could say that the rules 100% "needed" the 3.5 revision. But I do think 3.5 was A Good Thing for D&D in general.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I definitely think that people claiming 3.5 was just some sort of a cash grab are forgetting just how much WotC was really testing out new ideas at the time (and frankly, still is). It's important to remember that how much status and market share D&D lost in the late 90s. There was no one who "knew" how the market would handle a rules revision at the time. People had guesses and hopes, but it's not like WotC was certain how it would go. I mean, just look at the 4e release if you need proof that WotC couldn't be sure of what was going to happen with some of the changes they were making to D&D just a little bit later.

And of top of that, I will say that the rules definitely benefited from the 3.5 change. I don't know if you could say that the rules 100% "needed" the 3.5 revision. But I do think 3.5 was A Good Thing for D&D in general.

What "new ideas" do you think they're testing out now? So far I haven't seen anything creative or inspirational in the upcoming new edition materials. Admittedly I'm inclined to dislike it.

 

[Deset Gled]

What "new ideas" do you think they're testing out now? So far I haven't seen anything creative or inspirational in the upcoming new edition materials. Admittedly I'm inclined to dislike it.

Well, the most obvious thing they're testing out now is new ways to deal with the concept of species/race. I would say that there's also experimenting with moving more mechanics towards templates instead of individual cases.

But I don't see how any of this relates to 3.5. If you want to discuss OneD&D there's an entire forum for it. No need to hijack this thread.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It has been a long time but my impression was the change was mainly about fine tuning numbers, making miniatures more essential to the game, and nerfing some of the abilities (this last point may be debatable). My memory is it came out around the time that optimization was really a big thing, and so you could have wildly different experiences if you had players who were drawing on optimization boards. I don't remember 3.5 making a huge change to that though. It was also kind of odd because it was so filmier to 3E and came out pretty soon after, so I recall finding it awkward to read the new books and try to understand what had changed (sometimes you weren't sure if something was a change or a detail you just forgot about or missed in 3E). I do remember having fun with that edition. It had its problems and I didn't like the push towards miniatures but I did get a ton of gaming out of it and I had players who absolutely loved 3E

 

[James Gasik]

There may have been a culture aspect to monk-hate as well, since the class never met the "trappings of medieval Europe" assumed standard.

Probably, though I never minded it; I've always loved me some Hong Kong action films.

My problem with the Monk started when I played one and realized "wow, Monks really suck". It's a class that sure looks cool, but ever iteration has had some problems (I'd say my best experience was with Pathfinder 1e's Unchained Monk), and it can't escape the simple problem that D&D is a game where warriors fight with weapons and wear armor; and the Monk is built to use fists or wacky weapons and a strange inability to wear even the lightest of armor while doing so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, the most obvious thing they're testing out now is new ways to deal with the concept of species/race. I would say that there's also experimenting with moving more mechanics towards templates instead of individual cases.

But I don't see how any of this relates to 3.5. If you want to discuss OneD&D there's an entire forum for it. No need to hijack this thread.

You said they were still being new and creative, now. I was responding to you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Probably, though I never minded it; I've always loved me some Hong Kong action films.

My problem with the Monk started when I played one and realized "wow, Monks really suck". It's a class that sure looks cool, but ever iteration has had some problems (I'd say my best experience was with Pathfinder 1e's Unchained Monk), and it can't escape the simple problem that D&D is a game where warriors fight with weapons and wear armor; and the Monk is built to use fists or wacky weapons and a strange inability to wear even the lightest of armor while doing so.

Well, they're no worse armored than barbarians in WotC 5e as far as AC, but they have their insane damage resistance and pegged hit points to protect them too.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, they're no worse armored than barbarians in WotC 5e as far as AC, but they have their insane damage resistance and pegged hit points to protect them too.

Except at low levels, when the Barbarian can totally wear Medium armor until they get higher AC naturally.

EDIT: and a Barbarian can use a shield (though I've never seen it in play).