Revised d20 mark?

[yennico]

Perhaps all products using D&D 3.5 use the red logo (3.5) from the WtoC website on their covers.

Just my 2 cents
yennico

 

[Mark]

(Mark, big hair is out.)

Not really a problem for me...

Creative Mountain Games products that follow the new/revised SRD will have a line on their covers/cover pages stating that they are "For Revised Campaigns". I'm sure other publishers will take a similar tact where necessary. Simple enough for those seeking materials for their new games, and it is likely that other people will either take a while before they switch or not switch at all. I think d20 trademark will be fine as it is.

 

[Robbert Raets]

I don't think there will be that many compatibility problems, with the obvious exception of 'monster books'.

 

[MThibault]

Perhaps all products using D&D 3.5 use the red logo (3.5) from the WtoC website on their covers.

Unless WotC gives them permission to do so, they can't do this. The OGL forbids claiming compatability with any other product identity or trademark without a separate agreement. That 3.5 logo is a trademark.

I think that you could say somethine like "Compatible with the revised rules of the world's most popular role-playing game." But don't take my word for it, ask your lawyer.

Cheers

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I don't think there will be that many compatibility problems, with the obvious exception of 'monster books'.

And any product with rangers. Or bards. Or barbarians. Or constructs. Or shapechangers. Or anything with DR. Or quite a few of the spells. Or ...

Really, much as WotC continues to claim broad compatibility between 3.0 and 3.5, it's basically a joke. If I'm going to have to spend extra hours converting statistics, I want to know before I plunk down my 15 bucks.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I think that the various publishers will indicate what version of the d20 rules they use.

Except that under the d20 standard license as it currently exists, they're not allowed to. They're only allowed to say certain things in promoting d20 products, and compatibility with the "3rd edition rules, revised," isn't one of them. That's the whole point.

Whether they can sneak some indication of which version they adhere to into some place other than the standard "requires the use of ..." clause (as Mark suggests) is a legal point I'm not qualified to comment on, and is in fact one of the very questions of this thread.

 

[jmucchiello]

My plan is to dual stat where ever possible through the end of 2003. If it seems like 3.0 is still heavily used at that point, dual statting will continue. Otherwise, I'll stop. The Character Customization book which I will release by the end of this month even if it kills me, will be a 3.0 release only with a 3.5 followup after Gen Con. It will be a whole new layout and the zip file will contain both the 3.0 and the 3.5 book at that point.

 

[Crothian]

And any product with rangers. Or bards. Or barbarians. Or constructs. Or shapechangers. Or anything with DR. Or quite a few of the spells. Or ...

Really, much as WotC continues to claim broad compatibility between 3.0 and 3.5, it's basically a joke. If I'm going to have to spend extra hours converting statistics, I want to know before I plunk down my 15 bucks.

And it will be easy. DR has changed, there are just new options, so the creatures with DR 5/+1 doesn't need to be changed unless one feels it does. The classes are no bigf deal at all. I've been using alt versions of them for a while and that never caused any problems with books that assumed the standard PHB ones. Constructs get a few extra HP, I think a second grader can handle that.

I think the joke is saying it will take hours. I've played in games that had so many house rules it was basically a new system, yet all the d20 books were still very useful and took very little time to adjust.

 

[Fiery James]

Here it is...

The logo will be the same.

What is being looked at is this:

You know that bit on the cover that says, "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook...."

well, that would say, "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons REVISED Player's Handbook...."

So you've just got to read that little blurb to know.

Personally, I'm all for changing it to read:

Requires Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed....

- James

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Re: Here it is...

The logo will be the same.

What is being looked at is this:

You know that bit on the cover that says, "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook...."

well, that would say, "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons REVISED Player's Handbook...."

Yes, that would be great. That's exactly what we're talking about. The question remains, is there any indication that they're changing the license to allow it?