Essentials - calling a spade a spade

[keterys]

Well, it's taking a step forward in many respects... let's call that +.5
And it's totally appealing to grognards with some steps backward... let's call that -.5

Hmm. 4+.5-.5=4

But that's too boring, so instead I declare it Half-Dragon, Half-Newbie, Half-Grognard. Dragnewbnard.

Stop counting halves, it's never mattered in any edition - you could always slap a few more types on.

 

[AngryMojo]

But that's too boring, so instead I declare it Half-Dragon, Half-Newbie, Half-Grognard. Dragnewbnard.

Can it also be a were-tarrasque? I've always wanted a weretarrasque.

 

[GrandMasterofFlowers]

My only real concern is not that this is a new edition to the game (which i don't think it is, yet. it's just another crunchbook and a blip in a long list of errata which exist for errata's sake) but that it's basically like book of 9 swords. which heralds that WoTC folks are already working on a new edition, and leaking some of the ideas they are playtesting into the current edition.

 

[Obryn]

If what you are saying about Essentials is true, Colmarr, I don't see how it is not 4.5, or at least, as the Angry DM said in the comments field, "4.something."

It all depends upon how we define a ".5" edition and I think your definitions are as good as any. I don't think it needs to completely invalidate previous rulebooks--that would be a new edition altogether.

Well, that's the difference, though, isn't it?

If you're arguing - as Colmarr did in his blog - that 4e has flipped to 4.5 because Magic Missile and Infernal Wrath and Stealth and flexible stat choices and monster damage are different, it's 4.5 for reasons almost entirely unrelated to the release of Essentials. Which means we'd be in 4.5 with or without Essentials' September release. Which means, basically, that your reasons are logically disconnected from your conclusions.

-O

 

[CovertOps]

I don't think that's what really happened... but, Ok.

Yes, actually it is how it happened. WotC never released the SRD, it was done by 3rd parties under OGL. Why the hell would WotC give out an edition for free (other than being idiots in how the OGL was worded)?

My point was mostly that WotC wasn't responsible for the SRD. Yes it existed. Yes it was free.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Yes, actually it is how it happened. WotC never released the SRD, it was done by 3rd parties under OGL. Why the hell would WotC give out an edition for free (other than being idiots in how the OGL was worded)?

My point was mostly that WotC wasn't responsible for the SRD. Yes it existed. Yes it was free.

You are so totally wrong here.
WotC released the SRD. It was a not terribly user-friendly, but the raw SRD rtf files documents were directly released by Wizards.

 

[CovertOps]

Perhaps it got missed so I'll ask again. Among those that say Essentials = 4.5 which of the following is true:

1. 3.0 is to 3.5 as 4.0 is to essentials so I should get rid of my PHB because it's no longer valid.
2. It's just more errata and features, but my PHB is still valid (for the most part - errata aside)

I'm trying to make sure I'm objecting to the correct premise.

 

[MerricB]

Yes, actually it is how it happened. WotC never released the SRD, it was done by 3rd parties under OGL. Why the hell would WotC give out an edition for free (other than being idiots in how the OGL was worded)?

You are incorrect. The SRD was posted on the Wizards site - for both 3e and 3.5e. It was then copied (and hypertexted) onto other sites.

And here it is:
d20 System Archive
Revised (v.3.5)System Reference Document

There was never a SRD for Unearthed Arcana, which was OGL, but the basic system certainly was there.

Cheers!

 

[Charwoman Gene]

There was never a SRD for Unearthed Arcana, which was OGL, but the basic system certainly was there.

Cheers!

Yeah, that's the one that was back ported, bit that was probably because most of the UA stuff was stolen from other d20 games.

 

[fanboy2000]

Yes, actually it is how it happened. WotC never released the SRD, it was done by 3rd parties under OGL. Why the hell would WotC give out an edition for free (other than being idiots in how the OGL was worded)?

My point was mostly that WotC wasn't responsible for the SRD. Yes it existed. Yes it was free.

First, let's get something straight. Wizards did indeed release a d20 SRD for 3.5. It had to. The 3.5 PHB has a copyright notice explicitly stating that there is no Open Gaming Content in the book. It was in all of Wizards 3.5 D&D books, except two that I know of. Generally, this was Wizard's MO, release a book with a copyright notice denying there is any Open Gaming Content. Later, they might add in the content to the SRD. If you look at the link I provided, there are elements from the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Deities and Demigods in the SRD, despite those things not being in the 3 Core Rulebooks.

Now, about those two exceptions. First in Monster Manual 2. In MM2, Wizards reprinted two monsters from a non-Wizard's source, to promote the d20 license. The monsters appeared in the back of the book, with a plain white background and none of the normal MM trade dressing.

The second exception is a lot closer to what you are talking about. When Wizards release Unearthed Arcana, the copyright notice stated the book was Open Gaming Content, except for a things like trade dress, registered trademarks, and a few notable monsters like the Beholder. That content is not in the 3.5 SRD. However, online SRDs like The Hypertext SRD included the Open Content from UA.

Edit: Ninjed!