D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Based on your usage, then how do you differentiate between 1e/2e and 3e/3.5e?

The covers were clearly marked?

Indeed, we don't even know that 5e's slower release schedule will lead to it lasting any longer than previous editions - it's a good bet, but at only just over two years in we can't know.

There's other factors helping the bet, too. Like WotC doesn't seem to have the resources devoted to D&D to develop a new edition in only 2 years, even if it were doing no development work on 5e at all. (I mean, unless they have a secret Skunk Works somewhere...)

There's actually not very many games that last more than five years, and even fewer editions.

There are a lot of failed games, sure. But successful (and the bar for success in such a tiny market is /really/ low) ones go decades, even if over multiple editions, and/or have come-backs. And some individual editions go a long run, too - the 4th ed of Hero System ran from 89 to 2002, IIRC.

 

[draxthis]

...DMsGuild because it doesn't have the official stamp of approval...

Ok, I'll ask here, or again because I am not reading 51 pages to find out if this was asked. What if the DMsGuild was recognized, if WotC had certification of sorts that would give recognition to non-WotC content. I'm sure with a little forethought WotC could even monetize the certification.

I understand your points by the way, I'm just curious if there is another way to get there. The reason I mention this is because regardless of the quality of writers that work for WotC, their biggest resource for new ideas and expansion of existing ideas are the people playing.

Anyway, I realize I probably did not add anything new here, I'm just typing my thoughts as I read the thread.

 

[Satyrn]

There wasn't a misperception... a new edition was published and unless you wanted to convert or ignore the changes you didn't want 3.0 stuff, you wanted 3.5 stuff.

I remember picking up the 3e core books as they came out, a month apart. When 3.5 came out, I picked up the Player's Handbook.

Ever since, when I DM 3e, I use the 3.5 PH and the 3.0 DMG and Monster Manual. It works just fine.

Now Sword and Fist and its like were invalidated as they referenced 3.0 feats and class features, but I remember them being bad anyway - and what little was good wound up in the 3.5 core books - so I didn't care.

And if the 3rd party stuff was like Sword and Fist I wasn't going to use it anyway. But adventures, and spells, and monsters - it all worked fine for me as 3.0 in a 3.5 game.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Why are people trying to continue this bogus argument about 3.5 being new edition? The PHB clearly states this is not a new edition and anyone saying differently is just arguing for the sake of arguing. There was a crowd of people going around trying to say they were two editions to try and somehow say the 3rd edition run was shorter or something to that effect. Clearly the official statement was that 3.0 and 3.5 were all one edition. If 3rd edition had come out during the 4th or 5th edition era, we would have seen this stuff in an online article instead of printing new books.

 

[pkt77242]

Why are people trying to continue this bogus argument about 3.5 being new edition? The PHB clearly states this is not a new edition and anyone saying differently is just arguing for the sake of arguing. There was a crowd of people going around trying to say they were two editions to try and somehow say the 3rd edition run was shorter or something to that effect. Clearly the official statement was that 3.0 and 3.5 were all one edition. If 3rd edition had come out during the 4th or 5th edition era, we would have seen this stuff in an online article instead of printing new books.

That isn't quite true. While yes 5E does put errata online it also puts it in new printings without calling it 5.5. So your logic doesn't really hold water.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why are people trying to continue this bogus argument about 3.5 being new edition?

If you re-issue the same book with different rules, it's kinda a new edition. The other official line on 3.5, though, was that until something was re-done for 3.5, the 3.0 version remained 3.5-legal. So 'half ed' really sums it up. Not a completely new edition, not the same one, either.

But, yeah, I agree it's absurd to think of 3.0 and 3.x as separate runs. 3.x ran 8 years - at east 2 years shorter than it should've, IMHO. 3.x/PF has essentially had a 16 year run, and even if Paizo give up on it or creates a PF2 that isn't 3.x enough anymore, someone else could pick it up.
3e's essentially immortal thanks to the OGL/SRD. Stake through the heart? Decapitation? Kill it with Fire?
Not going to do the trick.

 

[Shasarak]

That isn't quite true. While yes 5E does put errata online it also puts it in new printings without calling it 5.5. So your logic doesn't really hold water.

You do know how the E.x system works, right?

 

[Imaro]

I remember picking up the 3e core books as they came out, a month apart. When 3.5 came out, I picked up the Player's Handbook.

Ever since, when I DM 3e, I use the 3.5 PH and the 3.0 DMG and Monster Manual. It works just fine.

Now Sword and Fist and its like were invalidated as they referenced 3.0 feats and class features, but I remember them being bad anyway - and what little was good wound up in the 3.5 core books - so I didn't care.

And if the 3rd party stuff was like Sword and Fist I wasn't going to use it anyway. But adventures, and spells, and monsters - it all worked fine for me as 3.0 in a 3.5 game.

So you admit the changes made 3.0 material unusable but because you didn't like the unusable material or want to use it... it worked fine. Ok, got it. Also there were spells in 3.0 that no longer existed in 3.5 how did you reference those with your 3.5 handbook?

 

[Chaosmancer]

How much is enough money to qualify as a success?

As someone who is completely unfamiliar with actual business finance. Isn't the basic assumption of success that it turns a profit?




As for 3.whatever, are we starting to hit bottom of the barrel for arguments. This is begining to sound like a return to old battlelines, if we've fought this war to a standstill before, we'll probably do it again. Better to save the energy and just agree to disagree isn't it?