3.5 4e Editing Mistakes?

[Scribble]

Just wondering if anyone has noticed anything in the later 3.5 products that seemed like a typo, or just a badly worded feature, that in hindsight can be seen to be a 4e element accidentally released into 3e?

Like a feat or something that just didn't seem right, or had a word or referred to something that didn't exist?

Just curious.

 

[Ktulu]

I wouldn't say accidentally, but Red Hand of Doom, in hindsight feels more like a 4e game than a 3.x one. From the ways non combat encounters were presented (check out the diplomatic "skill challenge" between the players and nobles in the 4th act), to the way creatures seemed to have specific roles in the encounter, rather than, "There's x amount of creatures here."

Looking back, I do feel it was made with the newer mindset.

 

[malraux]

I wouldn't say accidentally, but Red Hand of Doom, in hindsight feels more like a 4e game than a 3.x one. From the ways non combat encounters were presented (check out the diplomatic "skill challenge" between the players and nobles in the 4th act), to the way creatures seemed to have specific roles in the encounter, rather than, "There's x amount of creatures here."

Looking back, I do feel it was made with the newer mindset.

I've had the same sort of feeling with EtCR. The multiple monsters model of encounter design is there. It also marked the intro of the delve format of encounters (flawed though it was). And there are a few places wherein there is at least the start of an idea of a complicated skill challenge.

 

[Rampaging Lawn Gnome]

IIRC in RHoD, there are a few references to movement in squares.

 

[coyote6]

Complete Mage had the Reserve feats, which are akin to "at will powers" (you have to keep a spell or spell slot in reserve, but otherwise, it's pretty similar).

Book of Nine Swords had "martial classes" with powers, with a variety usage methods (some of which seem like they could have been testing ideas for 4e).

MM4 & MM5 introduced a lot of variants of existing monsters (ogres, orcs, drow, etc), often with "adjectivenoun <monster name>"-type designations, which somewhat presages one precept of 4e monster design.

Iron Heroes also had a lot of martial-types with cool powers, different types of non-Vancian powers, and stunt rules. But that's probably more of a Mearls thing.

Edit: of course, none of those things are "editing mistakes".

 

[mach1.9pants]

I certainly have noticed a lot of stuff the other way, especially in 3PP and free stuff!

But I didn't get any more stuff once 4E was announced (in fact I had pretty much 'done my burst' on 3.5 products and was replete) so I can't really comment.

 

[Scribble]

While I DO find it interesting how they "snuck" lements in to 3e to kind of test run them, that's not really what I'm after.

I want the actual screw ups. The stuff that was obviously not intended to be in 3e, but ended up there anyway.

IIRC in RHoD, there are a few references to movement in squares.

This is a perfect example. At the time we probably would have thought... "Squares? What the heck?" and just figured it as a wacky typo... But now we see where it came from.

I certainly have noticed a lot of stuff the other way, especially in 3PP and free stuff!

But I didn't get any more stuff once 4E was announced (in fact I had pretty much 'done my burst' on 3.5 products and was replete) so I can't really comment.

Yeah but I'm not just interested in stuff after 4e was announced, as we know 4e was being worked on long before it was announced.

 

[coyote6]

I don't know if reference to "squares" is much of a 4e-inspired typo; the 3.5e core rules lists speeds in both feet and squares, and sometimes references squares only (e.g., the difficult terrain section on p. 148 of the PH: "Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement"). Conversely, the only place I can find/think of where the 3.5 rules mentions feet only it doesn't that I recall is 5-foot steps; they aren't listed as "5-foot (1 square)").

I think the "squares" thing started long before work on 4e.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Ignoring the 4e part and focusing on the typos?

Complete Psionic.

The entire book.

I still adamantly refuse to believe it was edited. No, they simple claimed it was edited while never doing it. The alternative - that an editor actually looked through the book and went "NO PROBLEMS HERE!" - is horrifying.

 

[Dice4Hire]

This is a perfect example. At the time we probably would have thought... "Squares? What the heck?" and just figured it as a wacky typo... But now we see where it came from.
QUOTE]

Seriously this is not a 4E prophetic screwup. Squares have been around a long time.