If WotC Released D&D 3.75 Tomorrow....

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd definitely have to give it some scrutiny. Whether I'd buy it or not would depend on the actual details of the revision.

Because the thing is, I've purchased most of the top-tier 3.X RPGs out there, but none is significantly better IMHO than 3.5Ed. They all change things for the better...and the worse, amounting to games that are ultimately, just slightly different. So I'd really want to look to see what 3.75Ed changed...and what it didn't.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think I'd make my saving throw and resist buying. My track record over the last 20 years or so, buying stuff late in an edition is pretty much:

1. It is too niche to interest me and/or covers ground that I've already got adequately covered by what I own.

2. I give in, buy something late in the cycle, and then regret the purchase. That accumulated regret has made the first option more common, over time.

I didn't buy 3.5, let alone PF. (I did get about half of Arcana Evolved.) I'm mainly not buying the later 4E. Labeling something 3.75 is pretty much telling me, "don't bother to even check it out." Such a product has to get some major kudos and buzz to overcome that impression in my mind.

Assuming I want to run anything d20 soon, I'll simply run a short, hybrid 3E/AE game, from about levels 5 to 11th. That's where all the fun in that ruleset exists for me, anyway. Or I might just run Ptolus, and go a bit higher.

 

[Croesus]

If WotC were to announce a revised version of the D&D 3.X architecture would you be interested?

Probably not, for the basic reason that I doubt they would release what I really want from a new ruleset. I'm at the stage where I simply won't invest a lot of time in my gaming, outside of actually playing/GMing. I'm tired of prep, I'm tired of looking stuff up, I'm tired of focusing on rules instead of the game. For all that I loved 3.x when it was released, it's simply worn me down.

Maybe 5E will have what I want - a very basic, complete set of rules that are sufficient to play the game, then lots of splats with optional rules that can add all the complexity that others may want. Now if I could just remember where I misplaced that ring of wishes...

 

[Rogue Agent]

I'd have absolutely no interest whatsoever in yet another overly complex 3.x derivative game. However, a re-vamped streamlined "lighter" 3.x version without the need of software to make prep/character creation go smoothly would likely get me to buy in (ala PF's Beginner Box say with a "expert" level expansion product, and wealth of GOOD non railroad/adventure path style adventures).

Check out Legends & Labyrinths when it comes out of beta and becomes available for general sale again. The streamlined monster and hazard creation is worth it even if you don't do anything else with the game.

Re: The original question. I have a vain hope that 5E will be what 4E should have been: Keep the core gameplay of D&D, fix the handful of problematic abilities at low levels, revamp high level play so that it doesn't fall apart. I'd probably also want a cleaner/quicker system for creating monsters and NPCs.

I say vain hope, however, because I don't think WotC's corporate culture nor its design ethos is capable of producing that game.

A 3.75 that's just a variant of Pathfinder with a different name on the cover, though? Almost certainly not enough to get my attention. Heck, I don't even own the PF core rulebook (although I do buy Paizo's adventure products). I've got 3.5 and the 3 pages of house rules that it takes to fix the low- and mid-level problems of the game.

 

[Mark CMG]

I've got 3.5 and the 3 pages of house rules that it takes to fix the low- and mid-level problems of the game.

What do you find to be the most pressing low and mid-level problems with 3.5?

 

[Kaodi]

If Wizards were to release a new edition of D&D that was a rehash of 3e/v3.5, they would literally be doomed. Pathfinder owns 3e now (figuratively, of course). It is the 2nd Edition 3e.

5th Edition may fuse elements of 3e and 4e, or it may improve upon 4e, but it is not enough to improve upon 3e. It would destoy consumer confidence in the product for them to backtrack so heavily.

 

[Harlekin]

Looking at the thread that covers RPG sales via Amazon I noticed that 3.5 is still selling well, not all that far behind either 4e or Pathfinder.

So, a mental exercise:

If WotC were to announce a revised version of the D&D 3.X architecture would you be interested?

Assumptions:

0: WotC acknowledges a split in the market, and hopes to garner interest from those that remained with 3.X or switched to Pathfinder.

1. 4e remains in print, and still receives the current level of support.

2. 3.75 also receives full support, aided by breakthroughs in game designer cloning technology.

3. 3.75 is supported by the OGL, with all its warts and all its glories.

4. 4e remains covered by the GSL, and does not open itself to the OGL..

Would there be enough interest? The fracturing that WotC wanted to prevent with 3e has already happened, we will ignore the stretching of resources.

The Auld Grump, I will call him... MiniMonte.... Hmm....

I think it would be much smarter if they just started to make supplements for 3.5 again and got the core rule books back in print. They could siphon off some of the 3.5 market without needing to invest a lot of manpower or money.

 

[Shemeska]

The ship has probably sailed since I'm pretty dang happy with Pathfinder as my D&D of choice, plus I'm rather invested in PF's Golarion campaign setting.

That said, if WotC published certain campaign settings using whatever their 5e rules set ends up being, and which --remain faithful to those settings without rewriting/gutting/trampling upon them as in IMO 4e FR and to a lesser extent the use of Planescape and Ravenloft in 4e-- then I would happily buy those setting products. But no 4e tropes involved; that's a deal breaker right there. I won't purchase anything 5e FR for instance unless they retcon it back to pre-Spellplague/pre-4e.

I want back a lot of stuff that 4e threw out and proudly giggled about in the process. It leaves a sufficient distaste in my mouth that they've probably lost me as a customer unless they swallow some pride and go back on some of the more radical design decisions they made in 4e as they move towards 5e.

Publishing 5e versions of Ravenloft, FR, or Planescape prior to their getting hamhandedly forcefit to 4e tropes = a direct line to my bank account. The rules literally mean nothing to me, and it's the integrity of those campaign settings' flavor that makes me spend $. Between 2e and 3e the rules changed but the flavor was more or less intact, while both rules and flavor radically changed with 4e - and it was the wholesale lore/flavor/fluff changes that killed it for me. I want to play those settings, not core PoL 4e pervasively forced into them all.

 

[Nightson]

The thing that drew me to Pathfinder was the adventure paths and I have seen nothing from Wizards to indicate they can match that level of quality.

 

[Gryph]

No I wouldn't. I stopped playing 3.5 a good year before 4e was announced. A 3.75 release would not have brought me back and I have no interest in one today.