The whole POINT of 3.5 (that everyone is missing)

[Drawmack]

What's my biggest problem with 3.5e? They didn't make the covers different enough. While they look very good, they don't different enough to signify to the casual D&D gamer that there has been a change, and hence worth picking up and looking at it.

I don't agree. The big bold 3.5 on the cover and sidebar I think are enough.

 

[Shadow64]

The point of 3.5 is to get new people into gaming?

I don't buy that.

I think what nute is trying to say is that someone who walks in off the street with no prior knowledge of D&D will probably end up with the 3.5 books.

They'll walk into an FLGS, or a bookstore or someother venue and go look for the books. They may have one or two 3.0 books on the shelf, but will probably have a larger amount of the 3.5. So, the person looking to get into the game will pick up the 3.5 books. Simple.

Granted, if they go into a gameshop some kind soul may give them a heads up, or if they have found a group they will give the new player an idea of what to get. If the group plays 3.0, he'll go get 3.0, if they use 3.5, they will get 3.5.

Just like with cars, computers (either software or hardware), or anything that gets updated often, most people want the latest and greatest. Because, obviously, if it is newer it is better. We of EN-World may think different, but that is besides the point.

I am going to be picking up 3.5 mainly because from what i have seen from the various threads the changes are more for the good then the bad. Like many people I know I am planning on using a mix of 3.0 and 3.5, and my list of what is staying from 3.0 is going to be much, much shorter then 3.5 SRD update.

 

[Enceladus]

Like many people I know I am planning on using a mix of 3.0 and 3.5, and my list of what is staying from 3.0 is going to be much, much shorter then 3.5 SRD update.

Yuck. Go for it if thats your bag, but I'm not going to jump on board with this theory.

It's going to be a complete switch over for me I think. The monsters first then the skill system, then everything else.

From what I've read so far (into the feats now) from page one I like everything I see. I will have no use for my 3.0 books, too much of a hassle to flip back and forth.

 

[Estlor]

Bottom line is this:

The books are just tools you can choose to use or not use to make your game better. Most of the issues people have with them comes down to semantics. I don't see why a DM that doesn't want to take the time to convert monsters from D20 Monster Book X can't just throw the old-fashioned 3E ones at the party, ad-lib the damage reduction (magic instead of +X, iron if it's a fey), and pass it off as the same deal. Sure, some abilities might not work 100% right, but deep down, it doesn't really matter. Both use the same core mechanic and, therefore, are 100% compatable in their "incompatabilities."

Personally, I fully expect not to worry about anything other companies haven't revised on their own. The alternative stat-boosting spells in Relics & Rituals will continue to work all day, monsters from the Tome of Horrors will continue to have wanky skill point totals, and advanced paladin mounts from Defenders of the Faith will continue to have the same level equivalents. We'll just roll with the punches and have fun. That's what it's all about, right?

 

[TiQuinn]

The books aren't for you.

Let me say that again, because it bears repeating.

The books aren't for you.

You're an enworld.org reader. The very fact that you're on this message board implies that you take a view of D&D "beyond the game", so to speak. If it were only about playing the game, then it would be as simple as looking over the changes in 3.5, taking what you like, ignoring what you don't, and going on your merry way.

But that's not you, and that's okay. Because the books aren't for you.

They're for the NEXT guy. The guy who walks into his FLGS and wants to play this D&D game that he's heard so much about. "Here you go", the FLGS guy will say, "D&D, 3.5. Newest edition, most up-to-date rules. These older supplements (pointing to all previous D20 supplements on the rack) will work with a few tweaks, but this (taps the 3.5 book) will cover all the new stuff."

And the new gamer says "Wow", because he finally gets to be a part of the game that we (that being you and I) enjoy.

I disagree completely. Someone new to the hobby isn't coming in because he heard of a new version of the game. A newcomer is going to buy the game whether it's 3.0, 3.5, or whatever. Consequently, none of the 3.5 marketing or articles on WotC's website is directed at the new gamer. They are all about revisions...what has changed from 3.0 to 3.5....why they made the changes...what was broken, what was fixed, etc. All of this implies that this revision is directed at existing players who want changes made to the game.

 

[Tsyr]

Know what I think is telling?

That I have heard a half a dozen different theories on who 3.5 is 'for'.

I don't think anyone really knows who 3.5 is for, except that it's for WotC, to generate profits. Not that I'm saying they shouldn't care about profits, mind you... just saying.

 

[KenM]

If you read Monte cooks review of 3.5 on His site. He said that 3.5 was planned all along. But it was suposted to be 4-5 years after 3rd ed. came out. It was also suposted to just change some minor things, clear things up. They were not suposted to totally change a couple of the classes. That makes the 2 versions uncompatable. I understand the need for a revsion after 4-5 years, but this is too soon and too much. WOTC told Monte Cook a complete lie.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Re: Re: The whole POINT of 3.5 (that everyone is missing)

I don't fully agree. The 3.0 SRD is not so much a game as a toolbox for publishers. It lacks formatting and explanatory text. You can make do with th 3.5 one if you have the original books, but it just won't be pretty

I think that's the point though. He's saying for those that already have the 3.0, you can get the SRD.

I haven't seen the new books, but hopefully they are more intuitive. The 3.0 books were tossed in a closet because reading them was just not worthwhile for me.

I mean, they don't explain skills or anything. They just drop right into ability scores and then races...
I've played plenty of D&D through the years, but still think the PHB and DMG were badly laid out. The DMG has some useful information, but the seperation of the sections isn't very good IMO.

Hopefully 3.5 will be better. The MM is definetly getting a few changes that I cheer, and if spending under 60$ makes all the books easier to use, I'm all for it.

 

[Vocenoctum]

If you read Monte cooks review of 3.5 on His site. He said that 3.5 was planned all along. But it was suposted to be 4-5 years after 3rd ed. came out. It was also suposted to just change some minor things, clear things up. They were not suposted to totally change a couple of the classes. That makes the 2 versions uncompatable. I understand the need for a revsion after 4-5 years, but this is too soon and too much. WOTC told Monte Cook a complete lie.

They didn't lie to Cook. They simply changed business plans in the time since he left. When they were discussing the "revision" back when they were developing 3.0, they planned to do X.
Now they've changed their mind and are instead doing it sooner. While I'm sure they planned on making a profit on the books, it's just as possible that the books were planned because they got tired of hearing the same complaints repeated over and over.

I also assume D20 Modern influenced the decision, giving them a view of what they could have done differently.
The SW upgrade/ revision also probably was a practice session.

It's simple enough, Monte Cook isn't as in the loop as he used to be at Wizards. Plans change.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's simple enough, Monte Cook isn't as in the loop as he used to be at Wizards. Plans change.

And he (Montecook) knows it...

Mustrum Ridcully