What If....4E had been a modular option sub-set for 3.5?

[Mercurius]

In another thread I had the thought: What if Wizards of the Coast had published 4E as an alternate rules sub-set, or modular option, for 3.5? It would have focused on the AEDU power system and emphasized more "gonzo" play. I'm thinking something along the lines of Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle, and the 3E version of Unearthed Arcana, but as its own distinct line of products (Warlords and Dragonborn? Powers and Surges?). The key difference, though, is that this would have been under the umbrella of 3.5 rather than replacing it. 3.5 would have been the default, core game - but this variant would have been a line within D&D, not unlike the mega-settings of the 2E era.

I'm guessing that it would have been relatively successful and wouldn't have fractured the fan-base as much. Of course this would likely have meant no Pathfinder, or at least Pathfinder not being as successful or different (maybe marketed as "getting back to true, traditional 3.5").

If WotC had taken this route, say starting in 2007, my guess is that the edition cycle would have lasted a few more years and we would have seen a new edition sometime in the 2010-12 range. This edition probably would have been a simplified reboot somewhat similar to what we're likely to see with 5E. After 10-12 years of dense rules complexity and hundreds of rule books, WotC would have been chomping at the bit for a clean start. They'd be thinking, "We liked having that variant for 3.5, but we need to make the core simpler so we can more easily attach these modular options on."

Of course this is entirely speculative, but what do you think? What could have been?

 

[Zardnaar]

Maybe if it had been branched of D&DM and was only a few months in duration, otherwise the results would have been the same IMHO. Basically "where have my 3.5 books gone to?

 

[Stormonu]

Um, from WotC articles I've read, Tome of Battle WAS an attempt to convert 4E mechanics into 3E rules (along with skill stunts and reserve spells from the 2nd line of Complete books).

And Dragonborn appeared in Dragon Magic first under 3E.

Anyways, my reaction to it would be the same as my overall reaction to 4E - I would have ignored the product and not included it in my 3E games (in fact, for my 3E games, pretty much everything from PB2 onward is banned).

 

[Pour]

I think I would have ignored it, honestly, given my 3.5e fatigue. I would have lumped it into 3.5 and probably moved on to other systems sooner. 4e really was drastic enough to warrant its own edition, which convinced me (and many others) to try it out. For my part, glad I did. Ran a 1-28 campaign that was extremely satisfying over 5ish years, my best to date.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It would have made no difference to me. I was already becoming disillusioned with 3E and 4E has never done much for me. I'd have gone elsewhere regardless. As it is I went back to 1E, but I might have also gone to Pathfinder or E6.

 

[delericho]

Like other have said, I suspect it would have disappeared with barely a whimper. Back in 2008 there were actually plenty of people (myself included) who were ready for a new edition - many of those moved on to 4e, while others didn't get the new edition we wanted and did something else (be it PF, 3e, a different game, or whatever).

Had 4e been a subset of 3e, though, I think it would still have been rejected by those who rejected 4e (most of whom I bet also rejected "Book of Nine Swords" for the same reasons). Meanwhile, those for whom 4e was a clean slate would have been denied 'their' edition.

As far as I can see, the "path not taken" that WotC could have used was for them to basically do Pathfinder - essentially a 3.75e. Except that, by labelling it a new edition rather than a fractional update, they would have been free to break the "backwards compatibility" claim that has tied PF into some things that they might have been better ditching.

 

[the Jester]

First, the differences between 3e and 4e are fundamental and are much deeper, IMHO, than a "4e style patch" for 3e would enable.

Now, as others have noted, there were a bunch of 3e products that introduced 4e ideas. Dungeonscape, Tome of Battle, Complete Mage, etc.

I'm not sure, but I don't think any of those sold half as well as the 4e core books did.

I think that's the real, fundamental issue; supplements- especially "Hey look, here's something not very compatible with the rest of the game" style supplements- just don't sell compared to core books.

 

[Jester David]

It wouldn't have worked nearly as well.
When Book of 9 Swords was released there were complaints that the classes were not balanced, being better than the base martial classes. It would be tricky releasing a set of products with self-contained balance, especially without renaming expected content (mostly spells). There was also other mechanical problems in the system that couldn't be handled by changing classes.

 

[Tovec]

In my personal case, it probably would have affected very little. I would have continued to use the products I liked and ignored the 4e and TOB supplements entirely. As a large sub-system I think it would have either failed or seen very limited use, instead of being a large sub-section of the DnD host. While there are certainly games I have played in or read about online, most do not extensively use magic of incarnum, most things from unearthed arcana, tome of battle, or any other major supplement like them. Most faded to obscurity or are picked for very niche games, when the DM is curious in trying them out.

The most successful of those approaches have been psionics (which existed before 3.5), tome of battle (a hybrid of 4e and 3e) which is very divisive, and the WP variant from unearthed arcana (again very divisive though in different ways, more along playstyle/groups). So, I suspect that there would have been people who swear by the 4e classes, just as many do to ToB, but I suspect that as a whole it would not have been very successful unless it came to dominate the product lines. Basically, unless they did 4e in everything BUT name.

Now, again, if this had happened then PF would not have been a thing as there would have been no reason for paizo to change their lines - didn't we already discuss this recently (last month or two at most) about how paizo decided to go ahead with PF after seeing what 4e (didn't) have to offer?

No. My question isn't how much or little it would have played. I'm more curious what the 4e players and diehards would be doing. Would they have tried to use a cribbed together 4e system, would there be a 4e pure system developed (a la pathfinder) and been successful? I don't know. It seems like many, very many, seemed to jump to 4e when they were casual enough not to care, or when they did care enough but disliked what 3.5 had to offer. To this end, I summon @pemerton to try and add some insight.

 

[Storminator]

Would have been a disaster for me. I stopped buying 3.5 material long before the end, so I would have missed it completely. And I grew to loathe DMing 3.5 (and no one else would), so I would have abandoned D&D entirely.

Instead, I got 4e, which is my favorite edition by far.

So lucky for me that didn't happen!

PS