Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 3000186" data-attributes="member: 158">Yeah, I admit that it bugs me, because 90% easily of pre-3.0 D&D is perfectly usable. I recently recommended the 3.0 take on Spellfire to someone in the Rules Forum because a 3.5 take wasn't available. Heck, I could grab a 3.0 Lasher and he'd fit like a glove in most 3.5 campaigns. As long as you alter save DC bonuses to caster level bonuses, limit keeness stacking (for very little reason, I might add) and eliminate powers that grant extra standard actions or their equivalent, there's very little material from 3.0 that wouldn't fit.This is the point where I have to disagree with Delta: The spell changes might be significant as a body of work, but they don't amount to significant divergence in their rules. (there might be changes in damage dice, or in spell resistance, but from one to another at least there IS still spell resistance, or the same hit point ranges for targets. In the 2E to 3E change, both of these were different enough in methematics and target averages that it was a very different situation.)I'd say it's as easy to integrate 3.0 material into 3.5 as it used to be to integrate 1E material into 2E - I can and DID do that latter all the time back in the 1990's, with absolutely no repercussions. On the other hand, I couldn't say the same about 2E material into 3E, because the very classes themselves and their means of accumulating XP are very different; such a fundamental change means that the flavor of most things could be translated, but not its mechanical aspects.=======================Now, with relation to expecting a divergent break from SRD to 4E: Until Eric's rumor source, I would've dismissed it out of hand. (I sort of do again, now that Eric finds it less believable. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />) A change that totally broke from the SRD, I know for a fact, would not be followed by my group, because we have no interest in such a game; otherwise, we'd have been playing Battletech instead of D&D these past six years (and I don't think I've played Battletech in five years tops.)Not to say you couldn't roleplay with a minified D&D - hell, that's where D&D got its start, for that matter. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> (Dave Arneson decides this one-to-one wargame rules called Chainmail would be good for a crawl through the sewers of castle Blackmoor, and BAM! The nascent genre of roleplaying is born!) But I enjoy the story element more than the battle aspects, and I have it now with what I have, PLUS a whole lot of other games besides.But would a minified D&D bring in droves of new potential roleplayers? I have to agree with Wulf Ratbane, it would. I have two players sitting at my table each weekend whose first tabletop experience was Magic the Gathering -- they played computer games before that time.</blockquote>

Verification