The more I read about D&D 3.5. the more...

[Celtavian]

annoyed I become. It sounds like the changes are going to literally turn all my books into semi-useable junk awaiting further revision to bring them up to 3.5 standards.

This is sounding less and less like 3.5 and more and more like 4.0. I now feel like buying nothing until July comes around and I can see exactly how these revisions are going to change the game.

Can the friggin developers at WotC give any indication of how sweeping these changes are going to be?

Just the tidbits of info I have seen to date seem to indicate that many of my books and adventures will have to be modified. Man, very annoying.

 

[Apok]

annoyed I become. It sounds like the changes are going to literally turn all my books into semi-useable junk awaiting further revision to bring them up to 3.5 standards.

Highly unlikely. The core mechanics of 3e are going to remain the same, with a few tweaks. I don't know what books you have, but I can almost guarantee you that they will not become "semi-usable junk." Now, if they altered their Core Resolution mechanic, changed the way HP & Damage worked, altered the way armor works, the way skills and feats work, and the way spellcasting works then you would have plenty of reason to complain.

This is sounding less and less like 3.5 and more and more like 4.0. I now feel like buying nothing until July comes around and I can see exactly how these revisions are going to change the game.

No, actually it's more like 3.1 or 3.2. 4.0 would mean that they are making major changes to the way the game plays. A complete scraping & redoing of the combat system, dumping old classes in favor of new ones, changing the feat system, etc. That would constitue a new edition. What they are doing is mostly clarifying rules, making them more internally consistent, and rebalancing a few things that they didn't think would be a problem.

Can the friggin developers at WotC give any indication of how sweeping these changes are going to be?

I think they have, but to date we've only seen a little bit of the specifics. Just go & read over the collected Revised info page and that will give you a good idea of the scope of their changes.

Just the tidbits of info I have seen to date seem to indicate that many of my books and adventures will have to be modified. Man, very annoying.

Not necessarily. Sure, you will need different monster stat-blocks for the modules and NPC Bards, Druids, Monks, and Rangers may need to be looked over a bit. Other than that, not a whole lot of modification needed.

Also, keep in mind that all of the Revised info will be available for free and nothing compels you to switch to the Revised edition. I'm going to make the switch, because in my mind the changes are, for the most part, beneficial to the game. If there is something about it I don't like, Rule 0.

 

[Pielorinho]

I talked last night with my group about it for the first time.

Unless the new books are fantastically cool, we're likely to graze the forums and the SRD for changed rules, use the ones we like, ignore the ones we don't like, and wait to buy the books until there's a compelling reason to do so (e.g., our old books fall apart, or we give our old books to our nieces and nephews as presents).

The astonishing thing about this plan -- an ingenious plan, if I do say so myself -- is that I don't utterly freak out about every teeny little change I hear about in 3.5.

Try it!
Daniel

 

[Nail]

Re: Re: The more I read about D&D 3.5. the more...

A complete scraping & redoing of the combat system, dumping old classes in favor of new ones, changing the feat system, etc. That would constitue a new edition.

Uh.......

You've read about th' changes, right?

They are in fact, scraping old classes and adding new ones. They're just using the same names. Examples: Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin....

If you have a published adventure with NPC of these classes, will have to convert them. If you have players with PC of these classes, you will have to convert them. If you have monsters using the 3.0e template or ECL system, you will have to convert them.

And don't even get me started on 3rd party developers.....

And the "just rule zero it" rationale is as holey as my grandma's pasta strainer.

 

[EricNoah]

I think we're going to do the same thing here. 3E is still very fresh and new to my group. We may adopt a change here and there; the new MM sounds pretty cool actually; but I don't feel the same overwhelming compulsion to keep up with the changes in this revision as compared to switching from 2e to 3e.

 

[Nail]

but I don't feel the same overwhelming compulsion to keep up with the changes in this revision as compared to switching from 2e to 3e.

Wait a minute....yer not the Real Eric Noah, are you?

 

[EricNoah]

Hey, I pride myself on the fact that I never once told people they should switch to 3E. I laid out information and facts, expressed my opinion on what I personally might be doing, but that's basically it. And the same goes for 3.5 -- I'm not telling anyone what to do or how to do it. I'm just saying -- for me, there's little compelling reason for me to switch right now and some good reasons for me not to switch for the time being.

 

[Forrester]

Re: Re: Re: The more I read about D&D 3.5. the more...

If you have a published adventure with NPC of these classes, you will have to convert them. If you have players with PC of these classes, you will have to convert them. If you have monsters using the 3.0e template or ECL system, you will have to convert them.

And don't even get me started on 3rd party developers.....

And the "just rule zero it" rationale is as holey as my grandma's pasta strainer.

I will have to convert them?!?!!! Or what? Will Skip Williams come to my house and take away all my books? Will Monte Cook break in and molest my dog? Will Gary Gygax attack me with his +6 Dentures of Doom?

The horror . . . the horror . . .

This isn't a f'ing CCG. You can play A Non-Official-Version of the game without risking a lengthy jail term.

 

[Tsyr]

Re: Re: Re: The more I read about D&D 3.5. the more...

Uh.......

You've read about th' changes, right?

They are in fact, scraping old classes and adding new ones. They're just using the same names. Examples: Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin....

Actualy, I believe thats: Monk, Druid, Bard, Ranger. And from the sound of it, they are hardly -scrapping- them (Welllllll... I won't vouche for the ranger, I think he needs to be scrapped anyhow, but...), just tweeking them to make them play smoother, and in some cases (IE, bard) possibly be a bit better balanced.

If you have a published adventure with NPC of these classes, will have to convert them. If you have players with PC of these classes, you will have to convert them. If you have monsters using the 3.0e template or ECL system, you will have to convert them.

Actualy, no you won't. No, I'm serious, you really wont. If you bring the book home and decide "You know, I LIKE the way the Druid used to be", guess what? You can use the old druid. If your player who is playing a Monk decides he likes the old version, he can keep playing the old version (Provided you let him...) It's not like they are throwing away the core mechanics that power the class or anything.

Heck, even if you are just too lazy to bother to convert them, you really don't have to.

And don't even get me started on 3rd party developers.....

And the "just rule zero it" rationale is as holey as my grandma's pasta strainer.

What, you mean that legitimate rationale?

For the record, I hardly think 3rd party developers are going to be much hurt by this.

 

[Apok]

Re: Re: Re: The more I read about D&D 3.5. the more...

Uh.......

You've read about th' changes, right?

They are in fact, scraping old classes and adding new ones. They're just using the same names. Examples: Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin....

No, they aren't. Some of the classes are getting rebalanced, which is alot different from scrapping them completely and going back to the drawing board. Unless, of course, you know something that we all dont?

If you have a published adventure with NPC of these classes, will have to convert them. If you have players with PC of these classes, you will have to convert them. If you have monsters using the 3.0e template or ECL system, you will have to convert them.

Actually, you don't have to do anything. WotC isn't going to send big guys wearing tuxedoes and carrying baseball bats to your house to ensure that you are following the Revised rules to the letter. At least, I don't think they are...

But yes, if you do want to use older published adventures with the Revised rules, there will be some light conversion work. In fact, I believe I mentioned this at the end of my original post.

And don't even get me started on 3rd party developers.....

Depends what you buy your 3rd party books for. If you buy them for adventures, yeah you will need to do some conversion work. If you buy them for optional rules, PrC's, feats, spells, and/or concept information then you don't need to worry so much.

*sings*
"If you start me up, if you start me up I'll never stop..."

And the "just rule zero it" rationale is as holey as my grandma's pasta strainer.

You're gonna have to clarify that one for me, I'm afraid. No rule in the D&D Core Rules is exempt from Rule 0. The concept behind it is; "If you don't like it, don't use it." If you don't like the revised classes, don't use them. If you dont' like the revised spells, don't use them. If you don't like the revised monsters, don't use them. Where is it writen that All Must Convert to Revised? This ain't exactly the Borg Collective...

I think too many people are seeing the Revised edition as WotC scrapping everything and doing a complete redo. It's not. That would entail a new edition. These are just changes designed to enhance clarity and fix a few problems. That's it. They are not deliberately trying to invalidate everything you have bought in the past.