3.5 Backwards compatibility

Hi, all!

Well, let's have a heaping dose of reality, shall we?

There are pros and cons to the 3.5 release. The plus side is, as many have pointed out, that WotC has been listening to fan feedback and will be incorporating at least some of those concerns into the new revision. Furthermore, RPGs have, since their inception, been a form of game in which the players are encouraged to make suggestions for changes and additions and designers have constantly made changes and additions. The original D&D boxed set (1974) was not alone for very long. Shortly, there was the Greyhawk supplement, then Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and Gods and Demigods. The point here is that RPGS are always and have always been works in progress. The analogy to computer software that WotC has drawn with the numbering of this edition/revision is really rather appropriate. It is also, again as many have pointed out, appropriate that WotC try to make money off of its brand names. That leads us to the cons, though...

However it makes you feel and whatever you think of it, the 3.5 release is a marketing strategy, pure and simple. No arguments withstanding, this move was made primarily for one reason: so that all the folks who want to stay current (which is, I would guess, a sizable majority of the current 3E consumer base) will buy new PHBs. The DMGs and MMs are really just gravy, as it's been pointed out to us time and again (mainly by Ryan Dancey). The counterpoint made by some that the rules will be released for free in the SRD is a weak one. Most people, including myself, are not going to want to print out the hundreds (nay, thousands) of unadorned pages of material necessary to duplicate what will be contained in the three new core books and carry it around. Simple page count: the three 3.5 books are going to weigh in at over 800 pages of relatively small type. Granted some 20-30% or so of that will be artwork, but, when you think about printing that out on one-sided plain white paper, you're talking about well over a thousand pages, and most of us don't have easy (read: cheap) access to double-sided printers. I'm sure some folks will do this, but I'm betting most won't. Besides, many people will feel dorky sitting at a table with their 800-page PHB in a binder while everyone else at the table has a highly attractive, well-bound book in their hands. Yeah, I know that statement is going to piss some of you off... too bad. It's reality, and it's true. So, WotC has, rightly in my opinion, judged that the 3.5 revision will sell well, and they will make money off of it. That is reason numero uno why they're doing this. That is also makes a lot of fans feel like they're feedback is getting listened to and that the company wants to deliver the best product they can (both of which I think are true, BTW) is the icing on the cake.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I am grateful to WotC for saving and then updating D&D. On the other, three years really isn't very long, in my view, between editions. I played 2E for its entire run. In many ways, it did need revision from the moment it was released (and the release of a 3.5E implicity means that a lot of people held the same opinion of 3E, but I bet most won't admit it), but it sufficed to give me years of enjoyment before another edition came out. And, for those who are upset about the terminology, I'm sorry, but 3.5 appers to be, for all intents and purposes, to 3E what 2E was to 1E, a lot of changes that leaves the basic engine intact. So if 2E was a new edition, then 3.5 is, too.

I'd be interested to correlate the degree of irritation (or lack thereof) people have with the new release with how long they've played D&D (and whether they've played older editions). I have a niggling suspicion that most of those who are irritated are multi-edition, long-time players.

Well, that's enough hot air for now...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

One thing that's also very interesting to note, and I haven't seen it discussed here, is what Ryan Dancey said in a recent interview posted on EN World's front page, (paraphrasing) that this revision was coming out three years earlier than originally planned.

This means that a revision (to come out with a 6-year gap) was already planned prior to the release of 3.0. Is 6 years a good time frame? Should we set our calendars for 2009 for release of 4.0?

Once 3.5 comes out, I am going to treat affected 3.0 material as variant rules. Therefore, all unconverted monsters and NPCs are still usable as is (yes, even the 3.0 ranger).

I've invested a large sum in 3.0 material, so I'd like to still use all of it.
 

I wouldn't liken the 3.0 to 3.5 revision to the 1.0 to 2.0 change ... after all, we aren't eliminating entire classes or races, or making physical changes in the mechanics.

A more apt comparison might be 1.0 to 1.5 (Unearthed Arcana), or better yet the update from the Holmes edition of the Basic D&D Rules to the Moldvay edition -- the essence of everything was the same, but the details of some things differed.

Give it a year or two to get some prespective, but I think looking back that we won't see this change as particularly dramatic. That's why it's a revision, after all.
 

Bryan Vining said:
Hi, all!

Well, let's have a heaping dose of reality, shall we?

There are pros and cons to the 3.5 release. The plus side is, as many have pointed out, that WotC has been listening to fan feedback and will be incorporating at least some of those concerns into the new revision. Furthermore, RPGs have, since their inception, been a form of game in which the players are encouraged to make suggestions for changes and additions and designers have constantly made changes and additions. The original D&D boxed set (1974) was not alone for very long. Shortly, there was the Greyhawk supplement, then Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and Gods and Demigods. The point here is that RPGS are always and have always been works in progress. The analogy to computer software that WotC has drawn with the numbering of this edition/revision is really rather appropriate. It is also, again as many have pointed out, appropriate that WotC try to make money off of its brand names. That leads us to the cons, though...

However it makes you feel and whatever you think of it, the 3.5 release is a marketing strategy, pure and simple. No arguments withstanding, this move was made primarily for one reason: so that all the folks who want to stay current (which is, I would guess, a sizable majority of the current 3E consumer base) will buy new PHBs. The DMGs and MMs are really just gravy, as it's been pointed out to us time and again (mainly by Ryan Dancey). The counterpoint made by some that the rules will be released for free in the SRD is a weak one. Most people, including myself, are not going to want to print out the hundreds (nay, thousands) of unadorned pages of material necessary to duplicate what will be contained in the three new core books and carry it around. Simple page count: the three 3.5 books are going to weigh in at over 800 pages of relatively small type. Granted some 20-30% or so of that will be artwork, but, when you think about printing that out on one-sided plain white paper, you're talking about well over a thousand pages, and most of us don't have easy (read: cheap) access to double-sided printers. I'm sure some folks will do this, but I'm betting most won't. Besides, many people will feel dorky sitting at a table with their 800-page PHB in a binder while everyone else at the table has a highly attractive, well-bound book in their hands. Yeah, I know that statement is going to piss some of you off... too bad. It's reality, and it's true. So, WotC has, rightly in my opinion, judged that the 3.5 revision will sell well, and they will make money off of it. That is reason numero uno why they're doing this. That is also makes a lot of fans feel like they're feedback is getting listened to and that the company wants to deliver the best product they can (both of which I think are true, BTW) is the icing on the cake.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I am grateful to WotC for saving and then updating D&D. On the other, three years really isn't very long, in my view, between editions. I played 2E for its entire run. In many ways, it did need revision from the moment it was released (and the release of a 3.5E implicity means that a lot of people held the same opinion of 3E, but I bet most won't admit it), but it sufficed to give me years of enjoyment before another edition came out. And, for those who are upset about the terminology, I'm sorry, but 3.5 appers to be, for all intents and purposes, to 3E what 2E was to 1E, a lot of changes that leaves the basic engine intact. So if 2E was a new edition, then 3.5 is, too.

I'd be interested to correlate the degree of irritation (or lack thereof) people have with the new release with how long they've played D&D (and whether they've played older editions). I have a niggling suspicion that most of those who are irritated are multi-edition, long-time players.

Well, that's enough hot air for now...

I would encourage you to name a game that didn't "need revision". 3.0's (minor) flaws were not obvious the most people the day it hit stands. Making extreme statements is not synonomous with being insightful, and it certainly doesn't make you some rebel against the newgroup masses. :)
 

jasamcarl said:


I would encourage you to name a game that didn't "need revision". 3.0's (minor) flaws were not obvious the most people the day it hit stands. Making extreme statements is not synonomous with being insightful, and it certainly doesn't make you some rebel against the newgroup masses. :)

And being insulting doesn't make you witty :)

I do not think what I said was extreme at all. While the flaws were not obvious the day the books hit the shelf, that does nothing whatsoever to change the apparent consensus that there were enough of them on that day to warrant a revision and that those flaws did exist the day the books hit the shelf. Neither does the fact that some (or perhaps most) consider the flaws minor alter this consensus.

As for a game not needing revision, I do not think such an animal exists (nor did I suggest as much, if you read carefully). It's an impossibility as far as I'm concerned, since what is "perfect" for one person would not be perfect for everyone else.

I found the comments regarding me thinking that I'm some sort of rebel rather demeaning of you and insulting to me. Clearly something I said angered you, else you'd not have had the desire to lambast me. I suspected (and still do) that some of my comments would irritate others. I held those statements to be true (for me) and still do. My sense is that you are taking personally criticism of 3.5 and WotC. This is inappropriate, as I was not addressing anything to do with you personally (unless, of course, you helped write the revision).

To summarize, my points were these:

1. WotC is releasing 3.5 first and foremost to increase their revenues.

2. This is neither a good or bad thing necessarily, but it will irritate some D&D gamers, and those folks have every right to be irritated.

Changing gears...
That's an interesting bit about the scheduling of the revision, and I certainly had not been aware of that. I don't know that its startling, though, since its mostly an acknowledgment that their product will need tweaking. Strikes me as healthy.

We'll have to see how radical the changes are before a consensus can develop about whether this represents a revision or and edition change. My mind is not made up, but it does appear that the changes are manifold, though they may all be small enough in impact that nothing major is changed.
 

DaveMage said:
One thing that's also very interesting to note, and I haven't seen it discussed here, is what Ryan Dancey said in a recent interview posted on EN World's front page, (paraphrasing) that this revision was coming out three years earlier than originally planned.

This means that a revision (to come out with a 6-year gap) was already planned prior to the release of 3.0. Is 6 years a good time frame? Should we set our calendars for 2009 for release of 4.0?


Nah 2006 4e will be 3 years early as well.
 

Re: Re: Re: Wasn't 2e updated?

Jody Butt said:

Th black corebooks were not rules revisions, as is the case with 3.5E. Layout, and art were changed (not the rules). 1E lasted from 1977 to 1989. 2E lasted from 1989 to 2000.
I would differ with you. Compare the demihuman multiclass combination list between 2e and 2eR. The one thing that pissed me off is the shrinking list of combination allowed for elves. :mad:

But when it comes to revision, they actually mean the minor layout and cosmetic change. But call it what you will: revision or rerelease. All I know is what TSR called it back then.

Damn, I'm growing old. :(


Three years is too soon . . . unless you're a money hungry corporation who must keep the shareholders happy.
Didn't other publishers have done the same? I mean what edition of Stormbringer/Elric is it now? Or Pendragon? (Actually, I owned Pendragon 4th Edition, when it was published by Chaosium.) Even the HERO System is now in its 5th edition after having undergone management change.

As for keeping the shareholders happy, there are other ways. But to neglect them is a very risky business move. Again, I must remind you all, this is not a charity organization. They're publishing RPG to make money as any other hobby manufacturers in the industry.

Who knows? I may own a share of Hasbro. ;)
 

Ron said:
So a 30 ft. anaconda will need a 6x6 square to represent it? I don't think so. I agree with Psion that this is a poor move to help selling minis. However, this is the only thing that come to my mind that I actually dislike about 3.5.

The dragon tiles poster included with the latest issues of Dragon (#308?) contained the most satisfactory explanation that I've heard so far. Very long animals are considered to coil or rear up during combat in order to facilitate attacks and defense. I'd say the 30-foot anaconda is good example of a creature that doesn't actually stretch itself out to maximum length when it's trying to kill its prey.

Now, I will be the first to say that many long animals don't move all that well while coiled or reared-up, and I don't WotC has any plans to address that. I guess they'll just assume the critters uncoil, move, then coil up again right away, but DM's will have to make some calls on how that'll work in many situations.
 

Of course WotC is doing this for money. The fact is, though, that is not a bad thing. After all, they can only make money from the revision if people want the revision. Thus, the fact that they decided to make the revision is proof that we wanted, not some plot to force us to buy books.

Yes, it was a long time between editions in 1E/2E. This was not a good thing. Did anyone play in a regular campaign that wasn't heavy on house rules? I think one unstated mission of 3E/3.5E is to try to keep games mostly the same across the spectrum, rules-wise. They are putting out the new edition before houseruling in home campaigns becomes a necessity. It is a good thing for everyone to be playing the same game.

Do you guys remember playing D&D before it was a designed system and just some ad-hoc collection of rules? It was a mess! This is the first time in history that a fantasy roleplaying game has been so concise and complete. No wonder there needs to be a revision, nobody had ever done such a thing before and there were bound to be some hiccups. 3.5 is the hiccups removed.

Last thing, this is not a new edition. This is a rules update. Attacking, damage, hit points, magic system, base classes, experience. These are all the same. The things that are changing are mostly tweaks. Even those tweaks can be used or not used as you choose, because it is the same basic system.
 

Bryan Vining said:
I found the comments regarding me thinking that I'm some sort of rebel rather demeaning of you and insulting to me. Clearly something I said angered you, else you'd not have had the desire to lambast me.

Oh, don't let jasamcarl get you all upset. That's just his funny little way.

That's an interesting bit about the scheduling of the revision, and I certainly had not been aware of that. I don't know that its startling, though, since its mostly an acknowledgment that their product will need tweaking. Strikes me as healthy.

If we're talking about Ryan's comments about the revision being three years earlier than expected, then I'm not too stunned either. I've gotta wonder what's the big whoop really? They thought something could wait six years, then later decided it couldn't. Somebody out there think that long-term corporate policy is a policy engraved on a mithril tablet?

When three years become such a short span of time? I suggest some folks ponder how very few three-year increments can actually be squeezed into the space of an average human lifetime. Don't think about it too long though...it's depressing.
 

Remove ads

Top