Alternative to WoTC D&D

[Fighter1]

Some of these are valid reasons. Some are not. Some just miss the point.It isn't a matter of fixing what's broken, it's more a matter of attempting to improve on what's there ANYWAY. You're being silly if you think that 3.5 is D&D/gaming perfection and ought to actually be graven in stone, never to be altered again.

And did your purchase of $x.xx amount of gaming material also buy you a guarantee that the game would never change? To say the money is an issue is only valid if you actually DON'T have the money to spend. And then it's just a personal problem - not a valid complaint that 4E even exists.

I hope you're just exaggerating to make a point because otherwise this doesn't really hold up. it was 3 years between 3.0 and 3.5. It was supposed to be 5 years and its eventual release was anticipated right from the start of 3.0 as INEVITABLE. Its release was accelerated by "bean counters". It was a bad move whose repurcussions are still being felt. But again - the game doesn't have to be widely "broken" for there to be sufficient incentive to try to improve on it anyway.

THIS is relatively valid.

That is eminently debatable. 2E had more issues, many that were still legacy issues from 1E that SHOULD have been fixed already, but as you say 3E is NOT perfect. Nobody was ever told that the system would NEVER again change. And, you say you spent large amounts of money on books. Well guess what? EVERY book you buy and use CHANGES the game that much more. One of the reasons given for both the change from 1E to 2E, and 2E to 3E was that the sheer volume of rules had become cumbersome and problematic, suggesting that a good solution is to start over with a revised system. That is also a valid criticism of 3.5. You say YOU can work around various issues with ease - but you DO HAVE TO work around them. And every book for it that you buy can only add to what you have to work around.

What did 2E offer you that you couldn't get in 1E? Again, it isn't that there is a claim that the existing system is broken or insufficient, only that it CAN be improved upon. Personally I can play/DM and enjoy ANY version of D&D, though some versions are definitely preferable over others. And for me the ability of a player to "do almost anything" with a character is not the defining attribute of the game, though it certainly is a positive factor.

Now that's just plain not true. In fact its SO not true it smacks of trolling.

But, what about all that MONEY you've invested? Weren't you saying that your expenditures to date must never be devalued by a NEW edition, much less a different name on the book covers altogether?

Look at Paizo's new version of 3E/3.5. It sounds like what you might want. You also might want to actually READ 4E when it comes out and give it an HONEST evaluation. I'm not saying you have to love it - just that you and your group are being extremely, unjustifiably prejudicial.

Thanks for the quotation...back to my original question...

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

so far the OP has been called.... Short sighted, not rational, possibly a troll, and that his group is being extremely, unjustifiably prejudicial. etc.
All because hes not looking to enter into 4E. Sigh.

QFT. The OP has a valid perspective and a valid question. Folks are being too defensive here.

Another vote for Pathfinder and Arcana Unearthed.

 

[Fighter1]

First let me preface this by saying...I am pretty much on the fence about 4e...it hasn't wow'd me in anyway (though this may be WotC lack of good marketing) so I'm more just meh about it. I will probably buy the 3 corebooks (on their second printing)but I can't say I will be switching over. I have alot of the concerns the OP is professing and replied to TMiTFH' comments about those concerns below



And the same could be said for 4e...Do you really think it will be the penultimate in game design? Do you think it won't have any flaws? Actually depending on what someone deems important for their roleplaying experience either D&D 3.x or D&D 4.0 could be the "perfect" gaming system for them. So how can you tell someone, for them, 4.0 is an improvement over 3.x (especially since, unless your a playtester, you haven't even seen the rules)



Uhm...isn't this thread about why his group won't be switching to 4e, and where did he talk about a guarantee? How is this not valid as a reason for his group. 4e involves a financial investment, if his group has made a previous financial investment and doesn't want to dish out more money for a new edition, it sounds perfectly valid as a reason.



Sooo..it was a bad move that cam early and unexpectedly from WotC...yet somehow he is wrong for being cautious it may happen again. Yeah, because you should never look to a company's past history in dealing with them as a consumer.



So 4e isn't going to produce splats and supplements? Otherwise the same issue will arise with 4e. The difference is 3.x rules are already known to both him and his group, they have had time to fix or work around what they don't like. With 4e it's starting from square one, spending more money, and (one could argue) you will have to deal with problems that haven't even been discovered yet.



Well 2e offerd me Dark Sun, Planescape, Skills and Powers build system, etc.
As far as the defining attribute of the game for you...this thread isn't about what defines the game for you.



Let's see...
The dynamics of encounters have changed, magic has changed, skill tests have(supposedly) changed, how characters are created has changed, available classes and races have changed, etc., etc.

I would argue it's kind of trolling to come into a thread where the OP states upfront why he doesn't want to switch to 4e and asks for suggestions of OGL games...and the reply is to tell him why his feelings and oppinions on the game are badwrong.



In all honesty most OGL games or alternatives don't cost the $100+ that the three corebooks do for another version of D&D.



And you seem overly eager to justify 4e as the "right" choice for someone who has stated they don't want to move to this edition (especially seeing as how you don't have the rules yourself).

To the OP: Besides Pathfinder, let me also suggest the Iron Kingdoms setting for D&D if you can get your hands on it for a decent price. Another suggestion, if you're into high fantasy(Dawnforge) or grim low fantasy(Midnight) both by Fantasy Flight Games.

IMaro: Thanks for your support of the basis of this thread and my OP - I appreciate it.

I also appreciate everyone offering suggestions and the like. Keep 'em coming please!

 

[LondonReign]

Piling on to the Pathfinder bandwagon

Paizo's products sound like the thing for you. Adventure paths if you are so inclined, related and non-related modules, ad lots of new content. The Pathfinder RPG will be compatible with 3.5.

However, what sets them apart from other supporting material IMO is the level of creativity. The took all the best writers from Dungeon and put them to work on a new world. Frankly, while WotC has plenty of financial support, Paizo has the creative minds.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Actually AU and AE didn't have a revision. AE includes everything that was in AU, and then Monte added a little more. Nothing that had been printed in AU had been deleted or changed. It was more like a Director's Cut of the original. I don't call that a revision as much as an expansion.

But you're right on target with the others.

Changes to the moj, the core classes with the addition of combat rituals, etc... means it's an upgrade.

A "director's cut" would merely have been in full color with perhaps some additional content (new race that many thought was already filled by the moj, new class with all new mechanics that are then passed onto other classes...) as opposed to whole new mechanics involved with them.

 

[malladin]

I'm not certain that True 20 is streamlined enough to solve your issues and Pathfinder is still in development. I'd stick with 3.5 or try something different. Savage Worlds can do D&D style fantasy easily, especially if you buy the fantasy toolkits, and uses game structures that are similar enough to 3.5 that players can adopt them quickly but works much smoother and quicker. Its only drawback for you may be character differentiation is smaller between characters of the same 'type'. I'll add my disgust at people attacking the OPs opinions because he doesn't want to go to 4th, sad but all too common these days! Noticable how these people threadcrap and disappear which says it all

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

We don't think its broke as I said - the advent of v4.0 sort of made everyone start thinking about alternatives. We had all looked at WoTC D&D as the only real option of everything in gaming - we might browse some alternatives but never really considered them. But when we look around we see that with OGL there are so many other options.

I experienced something sort of similar to the OP. Finding out that 3.5 wasn't going to be supported by WotC (not to mention the discontinuation of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines) really took the wind out of my sails for a while: my campaign slowed down, I stopped checking by ENWorld, I stopped making excuses to swing by my FLGS every other day, etc.

I'm the first to admit that it was a purely emotional response, not a rational one. I knew full well that I had enough material in my library to play until kingdom come. Nevertheless, I still kind of felt like I had been punched in the gut. I'm not sure why ... it could be that the week prior, I had finally made the leap and purchased the whole lot of the Complete Class series. It could be that, looking over my library, I had spend on the order of thousands on 3.5. It could be that the 4e spoilers left me cold. It was likely a combination of all of these. Nevertheless, a sort of gaming malaise took hold.

This whole feeling motivated me to look around at other gaming alternatives, both D20 based and otherwise. I'm sure I wouldn't have thought twice about these had these changes not transpired. I started looking at C+C, Chris Perkins' C+C, and Treebore's C+C. I pulled out my old Rules Cyclopedia. I pulled out my Cthulhu and my Delta Green. I studied my Grim Tales. I read Bogenhafen. I spent some time with my 1E PHB and DMG. I started buying adventures from XP and Rob Kuntz. Lately, I've been reading about M+M and Traveller and GURPS.

None of this would have happened otherwise. I'm sure I'd blithely be playing 3.5 still.

WARNING: FANBOY REQUIEM AHEAD

Now that Paizo and Logue's sinister company have taken up the 3.5 mantle, I'm excited about my 3.5 library again. It's a weird response, but it is very real to me. I've been thrilled by Pathfinder all along, and now that I know these brilliant authors will be supporting my system of choice, I feel far from abandoned. This is a much better feeling than sitting on top of a pile of unfashionable books. Funny how emotionally connected I am to this whole notion of support. Intellectually, I know I shouldn't care what might be "the most popular role-playing system in the world," but I do. I like knowing there will be brilliant new adventures to buy every month. That means a lot to me, as a gamer and a DM. Weird, huh?

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I hope it was on topic.

 

[Treebore]

I experienced something sort of similar to the OP. Finding out that 3.5 wasn't going to be supported by WotC (not to mention the discontinuation of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines) really took the wind out of my sails for a while: my campaign slowed down, I stopped checking by ENWorld, I stopped making excuses to swing by my FLGS every other day, etc.

I'm the first to admit that it was a purely emotional response, not a rational one. I knew full well that I had enough material in my library to play until kingdom come. Nevertheless, I still kind of felt like I had been punched in the gut. I'm not sure why ... It could be that the week prior, I had finally made the leap and purchased the whole lot of the Complete Class series. It could be that, looking over my library, I had spend on the order of thousands on 3.5. It could be that the 4e spoilers left me cold. It was likely a combination of all of these. Nevertheless, a sort of gaming malaise took hold.

This whole feeling motivated me to look around at other gaming alternatives, both D20 based and otherwise. I'm sure I wouldn't have thought twice about these had these changes not transpired. I started looking at C+C, Chris Perkins' C+C, and Treebore's C+C. I pulled out my old Rules Cyclopedia. I pulled out my Cthulhu and my Delta Green. I studied my Grim Tales. I read Bogenhafen. I spent some time with my 1E PHB and DMG. I started buying adventures from XP and Rob Kuntz. Lately, I've been reading about M+M and Traveller and GURPS.

None of this would have happened otherwise. I'm sure I'd blithely be playing 3.5 still.

WARNING: FANBOY REQUIEM AHEAD

Now that Paizo and Logue's sinister company have taken up the 3.5 mantle, I'm excited about my 3.5 library again. It's a weird response, but it is very real to me. I've been thrilled by Pathfinder all along, and now that I know these brilliant authors will be supporting my system of choice, I feel far from abandoned. This is a much better feeling than sitting on top of a pile of unfashionable books. Funny how emotionally connected I am to this whole notion of support. Intellectually, I know I shouldn't care what might be "the most popular role-playing system in the world," but I do. I like knowing there will be brilliant new adventures to buy every month. That means a lot to me, as a gamer and a DM. Weird, huh?

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I hope it was on topic.

Not wierd to me at all. A BIG part of why I went with C&C was not only that it made all my editions of D&D viable again, but that it kept 3e viable for me, and would likely keep 4E viable for me, not to mention Pathfinder now.

So it makes complete sense to me.

 

[Kishin]

Hi,

My gaming group has played v3.5 since it came out (and 3.0 before that). We all have hundreds of dollars worth of books. Now that v4.0 has come out we have universally and unanimously chosen to never, ever partake in it for the following reasons:

A. That they do not think v3.5 needs to be replaced anytime soon - it ain't broken.

Don't run many high level campaigns with spellcasters, do you?

Ok, sorry, I couldn't resist going with some of the (unfortunate) slings and arrows of this thread.

I'd recommend sticking with 3.5E as well. If you have any gaps in your library, you should be able to fill them very cheaply in the coming months. There's a wealth of Paizo material to be mined for adventure ideas, for one.

In terms of alternate 'systems' Midnight is very similar in terms of mechanics (its d20, of course), but its an entirely different (and very dark) tone. I personally love the setting and the crunch, but YMMV. Dawnforge is a fun setting as well, with a handful of mechanical differences, not to sound like a Fantasy Flight Games fanboi/representative.

Really, though, if you want heroic fantasy and don't want to do 4E stick with 3.5. For all its flaws, it still does the genre heads and shoulders above the rest. I still really enjoy the system even though I'm switching (I just can't stand the total caster dominance, really, and I suppose I take some secret glee in a quasi escape from the realm of Vancian casting.)

Basically, all the other 'fantasy' RPGs I'd suggest play radically differently.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I'm with the OP on some levels. With the funeral dirge of 3.5 playing the background, my group and I lost some wind in our sails for "real D&D" and tried out a few different systems. I'm somewhat ashamed to admit this, but I had been a D&D monogamist since the time when Star Frontiers was a new game. It was very, very refreshing to try a few different systems and different genres.

Of course...D&D is still The One for me. I'll be coming back once 4E is out. If 4E stinks, I'll probably kick it back to 3.5E. Pathfinder doesn't interest me (though I may pilfer some of their stuff), nor do the other and various systems that were mentioned.

Um...I really don't have much of a point except to suggest that the OP (and others) that use their investment in 3.5 as a reason for not switching check out the definition of a sunk cost.

From Wikipedia:

[A sunk costs is] for example, when one pre-orders a non-refundable movie ticket, the price of the ticket becomes a sunk cost. Even if the ticket-buyer decides that he would rather not go to the movie, there is no way to get back the money he originally paid.

In other words, it's considered irrational to base a future decision on a sunk cost.

Sure, we all do it. But looking at it that way may help swallow the bitter pill when you stare at your bookshelf and see all those dead and dying 3E books. It does for me. (And, hey - if you're not upset - there's more bargain basement 3E discounts on books out there than you can shake a stick at!)

Wis