I think we all agree that 4e isn't the answer and that a polished 3.5e (called 3.75e hitherto) is the way to go (if you don't agree with that, you should accept that you're wrong :P)
But I also think that "3.75th Edition" isn't that good a name for a polished version of the world's best RPG ruleset.
I had a couple ideas,
Ultimate 20
Final Third Edition
but then it hit me:
Score RPG
I think it fits of a D&D-like RPG because several meanings are just spot on:
A score is a set of 20, and Score RPG would be a Set of d20 Rules
There's also ability scores, which are very important to d20.
To score means to get points in a game, and since RPGs are a game where, basically, everybody wins, it fits, too.
Score is also background music, something many associate with their games.
And, of course, doing well in D&D helps people score with their love interests. Everybody knows that! ;-)
Maybe it's not perfect, since some of its meanings are negative (a score can be a debt, but then again, Roleplayers should be adept at the underlying rules), but I think it's a clever name (mainly because I came up with it)
What's your ideas for 3.75e's name?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Hmm, i may be "exceeding the station of my post count", but Crosswiredmind, i must ask - what exactly are you trying to do here? Just trying to "poison the waters" in any discussion regarding to further support of the 3.5 ruleset does not strike me as neither very effective guerilla marketing for 4th ed, nor a good way to prevent the idea from spreading. Many a nerd project has only gotten off the ground because someone had to bash it. ;)
What's your ideas for 3.75e's name?
Grognard d20 ;)
Seriously, if Paizo were going to revise 3.5 its title would mark it as independent of WotC's product.
I'd go with Mark Gedak's suggestion and use Pathfinder as a title.
The Pathfinder's Handbook for the PHB.
The Pathfinder Bestiary for the Monster Manual(s)
The Pathfinder Gamemaster's Guide for the DMG.
|
Hmm, i may be "exceeding the station of my post count", but Crosswiredmind, i must ask - what exactly are you trying to do here? Just trying to "poison the waters" in any discussion regarding to further support of the 3.5 ruleset does not strike me as neither very effective guerilla marketing for 4th ed, nor a good way to prevent the idea from spreading. Many a nerd project has only gotten off the ground because someone had to bash it. ;)
The reason i think it to be a big waste of time?
The desire to create 3.75 comes from those that do not want 4E to happen.
Will these new rules really be backward compatible to 3.5? If not then isn't really just an alternate 4E anyway? 3.5 has a solid set of interlocking rules and to change them will have unintended consequences, So all the 3.5 stuff becomes obsolete either way.
If the improvements are just cosmetic enough to keep all of the 3.5 stuff valid then what will have been accomplished? Why not just keep playing 3.5?
What would 3.75 do that all of the other OGL games haven't?
Why not just adopt one of the already existing OGL rules sets?
Is this just some act of rebellion against Wizards? If so - why not just play a different game? Why spend time wrangling over what stays and what goes?
Design by committee never works. So who will lead the effort? What's the goal?
Its just a big waste of time.
Besides, if this gets people motivated and they produce a great game then cool by me.
Score RPG
I think you might be pushing the envelop a little too much there... That is coming awfully close to infringing on Score Entertainment.
But then again, I could be very wrong on that.
Score RPGI think you might be pushing the envelop a little too much there... That is coming awfully close to infringing on Score Entertainment.
But then again, I could be very wrong on that.
Yup, that was my initial reaction too.
3.75's name = big waste of time
There's other threads, and other boards, to badmouth 3e and those who'd rather stick with it and have a polished version than switch to 4e. This thread is obviously for those who want a 3.75e to happen to discuss what it should be called. I ask you to refrain from straying off topic, especially with inflammatory remarks. Thank you.
Score RPGI think you might be pushing the envelop a little too much there... That is coming awfully close to infringing on Score Entertainment.
But then again, I could be very wrong on that.
Didn't know about them.
While there remains the question whether a word like "Score" can be trademarked, I guess naming it thus without clearing it with Score Enternainment first should not be done out of common courtesy.
The reason i think it to be a big waste of time?The desire to create 3.75 comes from those that do not want 4E to happen.
Actually, in my case and (I'm assuming) in that of many others, the desire to create 3.75 comes from a desire to keep 3.X alive and vital after 4th edition is released.
4th edition is a certainty and will dominate the market (unless it tanks). I'd bet my eye teeth, however, that there will be a market for a tweaked version of 3.X.
It would have to be completely compatible with 3.X and would address (more than anything else) the problems associated with high-level play. It would not be "some act of rebellion" but a means of preserving a game that we enjoy rather than accepting WotC's vision for the future of D&D.
As for why I don't take my ball and go home, leaving D&D behind, that's simple... I LOVE D&D! I've played it for 26 years and have enjoyed every edition that has been out since the early 80s. I intend to stick with the game, warts and all, for as long as I game. Yes, I enjoy other games (Pendragon in particular) but D&D will always be my "first love". If WotC wants to change the game into something that bears little resemblance to D&D, then (to my mind) it isn't D&D no matter what label they slap on the cover.
|
|
The reason i think it to be a big waste of time?The desire to create 3.75 comes from those that do not want 4E to happen.
Actually, in my case and (I'm assuming) in that of many others, the desire to create 3.75 comes from a desire to keep 3.X alive and vital after 4th edition is released.
4th edition is a certainty and will dominate the market (unless it tanks). I'd bet my eye teeth, however, that there will be a market for a tweaked version of 3.X.
It would have to be completely compatible with 3.X and would address (more than anything else) the problems associated with high-level play. It would not be "some act of rebellion" but a means of preserving a game that we enjoy rather than accepting WotC's vision for the future of D&D.
As for why I don't take my ball and go home, leaving D&D behind, that's simple... I LOVE D&D! I've played it for 26 years and have enjoyed every edition that has been out since the early 80s. I intend to stick with the game, warts and all, for as long as I game. Yes, I enjoy other games (Pendragon in particular) but D&D will always be my "first love". If WotC wants to change the game into something that bears little resemblance to D&D, then (to my mind) it isn't D&D no matter what label they slap on the cover.
YES! What he said.
|
Hmm, i may be "exceeding the station of my post count", but Crosswiredmind, i must ask - what exactly are you trying to do here? Just trying to "poison the waters" in any discussion regarding to further support of the 3.5 ruleset does not strike me as neither very effective guerilla marketing for 4th ed, nor a good way to prevent the idea from spreading. Many a nerd project has only gotten off the ground because someone had to bash it. ;)The reason i think it to be a big waste of time?
The desire to create 3.75 comes from those that do not want 4E to happen.
Will these new rules really be backward compatible to 3.5? If not then isn't really just an alternate 4E anyway? 3.5 has a solid set of interlocking rules and to change them will have unintended consequences, So all the 3.5 stuff becomes obsolete either way.
If the improvements are just cosmetic enough to keep all of the 3.5 stuff valid then what will have been accomplished? Why not just keep playing 3.5?
What would 3.75 do that all of the other OGL games haven't?
Why not just adopt one of the already existing OGL rules sets?
Is this just some act of rebellion against Wizards? If so - why not just play a different game? Why spend time wrangling over what stays and what goes?
Design by committee never works. So who will lead the effort? What's the goal?
Its just a big waste of time.
Besides, if this gets people motivated and they produce a great game then cool by me.
Of course it will be backwards compatible. That's the whole point. It's 3.5 with some tweeks, that let's you use your 3.5 library with minimal effort in conversion.
|
To take the car thing, some people want to buy a brand new car every year.
Some people would rather keep their car, and maybe get a new transmission when it wears out, just because the whole car isn't broken, just maybe the transmission.
It's not any more or less of a waste of time than playing Dungeons and Dragons is in general, if making up rules is what one likes to do.
|
Score RPG
I think you might be pushing the envelop a little too much there... That is coming awfully close to infringing on Score Entertainment.
They could change the name to 'Scone RPG', thus denoting their rules are still currant.
Why not just call it 'Dungeons and Dragons?' At any one time, there is only one official incarnation of D&D. Once the new thing hits the shelves, that's it. For all intents and purposes, everything else is obsolete. So there's no problem with confusion. Also, it's not a secret that the game has a long history; but dropping the 'E' might make it less intimidating for people new to the game. If I were to come to something in the 4th or 5th edition,
I might feel as if I were jumping in late in history, so to speak. Compare that to: ok, this is D&D. This is it. Personally, my problem with the numbers is that we are naturally misled by our number system. When we look at single digit numbers, we assign significance to the digit in the ones place. So it's natural to think that 3 to 3.5 is a less significant change than 3.5 to 4. But that isn't necessarily true. It's just the reality of our method of counting that once you get to 3.5, you pretty much have to go to 4.0. Smaller intervals (decimals) could seem a little silly.
Why not just call it 'Dungeons and Dragons?'
Because "Dungeons and Dragons" or "Dungeons & Dragons" is a WotC-thing. I guess these two names are two similar to not cause some lawsuite, although i'm not a lawyer and could be wrong.
So what about "Wildernes & Wyrms"... ;-)
Ok, some more (serious) possiblities:
... not so easy to come up with something ...
d-Twenty
Heroes & Horrors
Might & Magic (is this owned?)
Tombs & Trasure
:-/ ok. guess the naming-job should do someone else...
Call it . Old School Gaming.
I'll buy that for a dollar.
It's easy, it's memorable, it's hip.
Do it. Now.
"You play D&D?"
"I play OSG."
"I feel you."
Sticking with the intent of the thread, and not arguing if it's a good idea or not,
And noting that I place these ideas in the public domain for anyone who wants to call an rpg by them to do so,
Top Twenty RPG
Yan Tan Tethera
Jiggit, Ugent, Gun-a-Gun
Vicenary Roleplaying
Dungeons and Andrew Jackson
Adam Smith's Sword
The Twenty
Milk Tooth Gaming
d20/d20 (gaming that Sees clearly)
RPG: The Third Magic Number
Vigesimal Gaming
Scandium Minus One
Lame Duck RPG (or FDR RPG)
Drop them 20 bonz, grogdog. Roop roop.
Snoop Groggy Grog
Can we get an interpreter, please?
Might & Magic (is this owned?)
Might & Magic is trademarked.
Why not just call it 'Dungeons and Dragons?'
Because that's trademarked? I guess Wizards will have something to say about another game being called Dungeons and Dragons, and it wouldn't be "Hey, that's awesome, just like ours! Best of luck, dudes" if you catch my drift.
They could change the name to 'Scone RPG', thus denoting their rules are still currant.
Boo! Hiss! Now I have to reload the Pun Gun. ;-)
Call it . Old School Gaming.
I'll buy that for a dollar.
It's easy, it's memorable, it's hip.
Do it. Now.
"You play D&D?"
"I play OSG."
"I feel you."
Good idea, Jade! I second this notion!
(If I had more money I wouldn't have to be my own sock puppet)
|
|
3.75's name = big waste of timeThere's other threads, and other boards, to badmouth 3e and those who'd rather stick with it and have a polished version than switch to 4e. This thread is obviously for those who want a 3.75e to happen to discuss what it should be called. I ask you to refrain from straying off topic, especially with inflammatory remarks. Thank you.
And this is the 4E section of the forums - not the 3.75 section.
Perhaps you should ask the admins to give you your own section?
|
|
Of course it will be backwards compatible. That's the whole point. It's 3.5 with some tweeks, that let's you use your 3.5 library with minimal effort in conversion.
Tweaks.
If its just a few tweaks to the SRD then what's the point?
Again, there are already a bunch of tweaked rules sets out there. What makes this effort any better?
Why bother?
Why not just use True 20 or some such?
|
|
Of course it will be backwards compatible. That's the whole point. It's 3.5 with some tweeks, that let's you use your 3.5 library with minimal effort in conversion.Tweaks.
If its just a few tweaks to the SRD then what's the point?
Again, there are already a bunch of tweaked rules sets out there. What makes this effort any better?
Why bother?
Why not just use True 20 or some such?
The point is that many think that's all that is needed to make the system better while maintaining all the elements we already like about it. It would basically be a "house rules" version, but if someone big like Paizo could spearhead the effort, it has a shot at being a financial success as well as having a central location for such "house rules".
Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable posting on the Wizards boards, or Gleemax? I'm not asking you to leave - I think we need 4e proponents here to temper the discussion - but you're being very argumentative and leaning into the area of trolling... like you're just being aggressive enough that you're waiting for someone to snap at you so you can say "See! the Paizo board posters are horrible to anyone who defends 4e!!"
Fortunately it isn't true and it hopefully won't come down to that. But really... add something to the conversation other than "complete waste of time". You know, you don't have to reply to *every* thread just to push 4e - especially when the thread isn't really about 3e vs 4e... this thread is working under the base assumption that some people won't be switching. There are people who have already decided not to switch, and would like to discuss the alternatives. You certainly aren't going to convince anyone to change his or her mind with the kind of posts you're putting in here.
For you guys who are going on about the merits of 4th edition (which you've yet to play) in the language of bluster, just know that if you eventually find it lacking and want to come back to the OGL fold, we will be nice to you and all is forgiven. After all, we're family.
Seriously.
|
|
For you guys who are going on about the merits of 4th edition (which you've yet to play) in the language of bluster, just know that if you eventually find it lacking and want to come back to the OGL fold, we will be nice to you and all is forgiven. After all, we're family.
Seriously.
Here's the thing - 4E could totally suck.
My beef is with the folks that have had this knee jerk anti-4E reaction.
There are folks who have already buried 4E (which they have yet to play) in the language of bluster, just know that if y'all eventually find that it rocks and want to play, we will be nice to you and all is forgiven. After all, we're family.
|
|
But really... add something to the conversation other than "complete waste of time". You know, you don't have to reply to *every* thread just to push 4e - especially when the thread isn't really about 3e vs 4e... this thread is working under the base assumption that some people won't be switching. There are people who have already decided not to switch, and would like to discuss the alternatives. You certainly aren't going to convince anyone to change his or her mind with the kind of posts you're putting in here.
This is the section of the boards dedicated to 4E. Correct?
Then why don't the 3E holdovers talk about their plans somewhere other than the place they least want to be?
The trolling is done by the folks that come to the 4E thread to plan their 3.X preservation project thus thumbing their noses at those of us that would actually like to talk about 4E.
|
|
But really... add something to the conversation other than "complete waste of time". You know, you don't have to reply to *every* thread just to push 4e - especially when the thread isn't really about 3e vs 4e... this thread is working under the base assumption that some people won't be switching. There are people who have already decided not to switch, and would like to discuss the alternatives. You certainly aren't going to convince anyone to change his or her mind with the kind of posts you're putting in here.This is the section of the boards dedicated to 4E. Correct?
Then why don't the 3E holdovers talk about their plans somewhere other than the place they least want to be?
The trolling is done by the folks that come to the 4E thread to plan their 3.X preservation project thus thumbing their noses at those of us that would actually like to talk about 4E.
You should feel free to start your own thread about 4e. If you have a beef about how the boards are moderated, I'm sure there are avenues for you to follow to a satisfactory resolution.
Perhaps you could consider this thread about 4e by its very existence... it wouldn't exist but for the advent of 4e.
This was never a "4E thread" to quote you. And I don't think there is any thumbing of noses - the presence of this thread has in no way stopped you from being able to talk about 4e, has it? Or are the same people who are going to come and repossess our 3e books also visiting you to stop you from starting a new thread? :)
I guess I was just asking for a little respect from you to not jump into every thread with your rote 4e cheerleading, especially when it is very clear this thread isn't "anti-4e" but "pro-3.x". There's a difference. For instance, WotC has only been able to try to promote their 4e product by trying to tear down the very product they just created (3.x), thereby making 4e look good in contrast (if you believe what they say about 3.x). This thread is about keeping 3.x alive, with tweaks, without saying anything about 4e other than to say it's not going the direction that some people like. It's a subtle difference, but very different philosophically.
If you are hopeful for 4e, that's great. I don't think it's appropriate to come and threadjack something that doesn't even really concern you (since you're a proponent of 4e even though you only have as much information as we have, yet you criticise us for not liking it already), and then try to make it seem like you're doing some kind of community service by keeping all the threads directly related to the discussion of 4e.
I honestly hope you have something useful (or if not useful, funny :) to add to the thread. You post a lot, and most of your posts add to the discussion into which they are inserted. This one just didn't happen to.
----------------------------
As relates to the thread:
We could try to work the word "icosahedron" in there somewhere. When someone says "what the hell is an icosahedron" we could explain that it's a d20. :)
Here's the thing - 4E could totally suck.
My beef is with the folks that have had this knee jerk anti-4E reaction.
There are folks who have already buried 4E (which they have yet to play) in the language of bluster, just know that if y'all eventually find that it rocks and want to play, we will be nice to you and all is forgiven. After all, we're family.
The quoting me back to me thing drew a reflexive look in the mirror. Luckily I checked my shirt for blood spatter and found myself firmly unzinged. Whew. That was close, brother!
You assume that those here who say they don't want to go with 4th edition haven't played it. That is your assumption, not a fact.
Saying, "3.75's name = big waste of time," seems a pissy posture to adopt, given its immediate surroundings. To have a knee jerk reaction to what you perceive to be a knee jerk reaction (from some other thread) isn't a rational justification for insulting people's passions. We at least play the system we're defending when we raise issues with what we're allowed to know about 4th edition, and sometimes find we feel a logically funded apprehension. You jumped aboard someone else's ship and went after a conversation that wasn't about 4th edition to demonstrate your optimistic view of the future through negatively challenging ours in ram smash fashion. I get it. We can all take the hit. S'okay. But I don't see any 4th edition attack posts appearing before your rough-edged anti 3.75 comments on this thread. And to kick ass and take names when your approach is commented on because we've all dared to mention 3.75 in the "wrong" forum section... what is that? You see this post in the 4th edition section as being somehow deliberately inflammatory? 4th edition is what makes people think of 3.75 because it's an idea about possible futures for our game. It seems a natural enough decision to post it here, whether ideal or not, and yet you ascribe hostility to the action.
The desire to create 3.75 comes from those that do not want 4E to happen.
With all due respect, that's a baseless and inaccurate conclusion. I can say that factually as I am one of the people who'd like to see what 3.75 looks like because I like its authors and their judgements. Paizo has spoken about what they'd do with 3.75. It was to be a custom tweaking of those rules they thought could stand some improvement.
You say, why bother? Just use True 20? Well... why? Have we decided True 20 is the ultimate perfection of game rules in our lifetime?
Why can't we have another variation? Are you... are you actually ironically threatened by a new version of D&D?
Since I like the 3.5 system I'll continue to support the OGL market. I should switch support a new system so I can keep the official D&D label, when I have a plentitude of other options? 3.5 D&D is still D&D, whether the majority of you will agree in the years to come or not. Just like chess, with or without the castling an en passant rules, is still chess.
You crank out all the 4th edition you want, folks. I'm not stopping you. I just want my 3.5/OGL market to stay infused with vital creative energies, solid production values, and the ability to continue to evolve as a thriving hobby that lasts evermore on. Frankly, to have Wizard's corporate thinking (they hold around 70% of the gaming market) move away from the current edition may lead to many customers people moving away from buying only from a single company and they might check out a potential RPG renaissance, replete with some of the bravest game writing we've ever seen (as easily as it leads to the billion vanity project company free-for-all sure to rain down upon us). After an initial barrage, the cream will rise to the top.
Will these new rules really be backward compatible to 3.5? If not then isn't really just an alternate 4E anyway? 3.5 has a solid set of interlocking rules and to change them will have unintended consequences, So all the 3.5 stuff becomes obsolete either wayIf the improvements are just cosmetic enough to keep all of the 3.5 stuff valid then what will have been accomplished? Why not just keep playing 3.5?
Don't know. 3.5 is will still be there for 3.5ers, and I guess 3.75, regardless of the extent of rule changes, possible new books to buy, and the potential lack of backward compatability will be there for people who are curious what Paizo could do in the pilot's seat.
What would 3.75 do that all of the other OGL games haven't?
I guess Paizo's probably thought up a few things that other OGL games don't have, otherwise they'd be lame to suggest a fake "new" direction for the rules set. I knew those uncreative bastards would con me one of these days.
Why not just adopt one of the already existing OGL rules sets?
Well with that kind of logic, why adopt a new rules set like 4th edition when we already have 3.5? That was rhetorical.
Is this just some act of rebellion against Wizards? If so - why not just play a different game? Why spend time wrangling over what stays and what goes?
That is a woefully poor thing to say. You keep seeing the worst in people, and yet you're the one attempting to abrade the high spirits in this merry thread.
Design by committee never works. So who will lead the effort? What's the goal?
Another blanket statement. Design by committe seldom works. However, I've seen it work many times quite successfully.
Who leads the effort for what? Paizo's possible revision? Well, that would be Paizo. I suppose many companies will give their own versions a shot and gamers will vote with their wallets as to which deserve a seat at the table.
Its just a big waste of time.Besides, if this gets people motivated and they produce a great game then cool by me.
Though a man who knows his mind on the issues, you failed to prove your case to me but yes, let us hope your force-for-good efforts here help to evolve the possibility of a big waste of time.
|
I'm with Crosswiredmind here. I've posted previously against the idea of 3.75. And I'm not a 4E fanboy either. I believe that 4E is already splitting our community down the middle, but a 3.75 will split the 3.5 community even further.
Despite how it might appear, 3.75 is not a good thing for the 3.5 community.
Remember when 3.5 hit the market? Stores could no longer move 3.0 Edition books off their shelves. Some players will play by 3.5 rules, others will want to play by 3.75. Sure, this might only seem like house-ruling, but whichever version 3.5 or 3.75 the DM decides to play, ALL his players need to be playing the same game. Now, some players will be just as sore being forced to upgrade to 3.75 as they were to 3.5 or even 4E, why the need to purchase another book when they can keep playing 3.5? On the other hand, other players will be sore if their DM DOESN'T decide to go with the shiny new 3.75 book they just bought.
I'm in favour of an industry leader such as Paizo keeping the 3.5 rules in print. They would need to flavour the new rules with their own artwork, iconic characters, and campaign style. 3.5 used Greyhawk as the assumed setting. A Paizo republished 3.5 book should replace Greyhawk gods (even if they are in the SRD) with Varisian gods, include Starknives and Barbarian Chew in the equipment section, and other flavour changes. This isn't a 3.75, because the base rules still adhere to 3.5 standards. No-one's changing Armour Class to Damage Reduction or consolidating the skill list, you can find these house-rules already in places like Unearthed Arcana, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, StarWars etc. Players with either WotC's or Paizo's 3.5 book would be building their characters the same way, DMs with either book could pick up Shackled City or Pathfinder #13 and not be confused by different statistics. We don't need to create any more work for players or DMs by introducing variant "core" rules.
Now, once the 3.5 core has been republished, maybe that opens the door for supplement books for new base classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, creatures and so-on, filling the void left by WotC's Complete ..., Races of ..., MM..., etc books. But if that happens, I want them to work seamlessly with my current 3.5 books, and not require conversion.
And so I'm not accused of threadjacking, I agree with Chris Perkins 88's suggestions, something along the lines of Pathfinders Handbook, GameMastery Guide etc, because if Paizo were to publish these books, why wouldn't they take every opportunity to promote their own lines?
It would certainly be easier for me if Paizo stuck with 3.5, but I don't own the company. If they move on to something new, I'm likely to check it out is all.
I'm not threatened by the potential dangers of having more rules set options available to me. How many game systems do I own and support now? When asked to game, quite often I ask if I can play a new system just so I can see how that other fraction of the RPG market lives.
If Paizo doesn't go along with 4th edition, and rather than stick with 3.5 they try to create their own rule set niche whose intellectual properties they can own and control, I think the OGL market as it stands now will survive and continue to thrive. There are companies out there other than Paizo doing quality work, so they're not responsible for the safety of the hobby. If Wizards gets to spread their wings and shake off being a traditionalist institution, let's also allow Paizo (a for profit business) the chance to spread their own and try new things.
So, umm ... have we decided on a name yet?
What's wrong with Pathfinder 3.5?
Nothing, except it sounds a bit proprietary. I'd like the system open to all, not just Paizo (not that I think that Paizo does bad work - quite the contrary, they rock so hard Machine Head looks like a bunch of sissy boys in comparison ;-)). Pathfinder would, to me, sound like "Paizo's new rules to use in their new Adventure Paths".
I'd like it an open system, maybe even a joint venture between the greatest minds of 3e, and a name that would reflect that would be great.
It should be called "The Real D&D 4th Edition", actually ;-) (And what they're calling 4e should be "New Game From The Guys That Used To Publish D&D" or something that reflects how it ignores the previous stuff.)
I've posted previously against the idea of 3.75. And I'm not a 4E fanboy either. I believe that 4E is already splitting our community down the middle, but a 3.75 will split the 3.5 community even further.
The ideal Score (or whatever we end up calling it), would be compatible with 3.5 (with no messages like "haha, this is a new animal, throw away all your now useless books - but hey, it's still D&D, dude, so buy buy buy"), with all the good stuff about 3e - 6 ability scores where 10 equals +/- 0, different classes with defined, but not restrictive, roles and their own saves and skills and base attack bonuses and all that, and so on.
It would just iron out the wrinkles.
Who said we should throw them away?
Who said they'll be useless?
So that justifies jacking with this Kae Yoss dude on his thread?
Yeah, that guy's got feelings, too. And problems, I'm sure. He's probably schizo.
Who said we should throw them away?
Who said they'll be useless?
If you want to play the most recent version of the game, then yes, the 3e books will be useless. They explicitly said that a conversion of characters will be possible, meaning that the rules won't be reusable.
And seeing how much of the flavour is changed, I doubt you'll be able to use much of that from the old books, either.
Jade,
The reason for my crankiness and general negativity is his - the tone and tenor of the 3.75 boosters is cranky and negative towards WotC in general and 4E specifically.
BTW - DarkWhite actually expressed my views with a slightly different spin.
Fair enough. Thank you for explaining the feelings that fueled your words. A brave thing to do in public forum. Let's try to reach some measure of accord. All of us.
You encountered negativity on other threads and your fuse was still lit on the way over. I absolutely understand how that can happen, but your approach here felt out of context in its testiness, is all.
I think people have very good reasons for being upset with how Wizards has been handling the release of a new edition, and some of the changes we know they're making. That upset isn't aimed at you and those who choose to move on to 4th edition. No one is insulting your team's colors. We're all fans of the same team but we're arguing that the trade they just made was a bad one. So no soccer brawl loyalism, folks, let's just let people vent, because their expectations were dinged, and they're hurt.
We should all rise above ever making this personal. Even a single instance of personal attack tied to a certain viewpoint snowballs into a movement of tribal division amongst seperate ideologies. That's too easy an outcome for the great minds here to allow.
I still use Basic, 1e and 2e and 3.0 books in my games and grab bits of rules, flavour etc for use in my 3.5 games. I don't see how this will change. Or rather I do see how some might feel that all 3.5 books will become useless, I just don't think that it's true.
I still use Basic, 1e and 2e and 3.0 books in my games and grab bits of rules, flavour etc for use in my 3.5 games. I don't see how this will change. Or rather I do see how some might feel that all 3.5 books will become useless, I just don't think that it's true.
You believe in the melding of all that's good. An alloyist style of play. I like that. I think I'll join the ranks of that definition as well.
Alloyists unite!
Dryads & Triads?Or the blaxploitation supplement, Nymphs & Pimps?
Nice. :)
In honor of the "Bye Bye Power Attack" thread, how about:
Magic & Math
Spells & Spreadsheets
Rules & Arbitrations
Combat & Crunch
Min & Max
Monsters & Miniatures
(etc......)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Isn't there also a Hooters-esque style sports bar called Scores? I also think that's a bland name.
There's always 3e Revised.
(But generally I agree with crosswired mind to the extent this is a non-publisher/fan edition. You can't get 3 gamers to even agree about what's wrong with 3e, I'm not sure how you'd get them to agree as to what is wrong, much less what to fix. So, if this new edition is meant to be fan driven, I wouldn't expect it to be successful, much less widely adopted.
If Paizo were to put out a new edition, that would be a different story given their experience and professionalism. Such an edition would still face many hurdles, as discussed above, but I would no longer laugh it off the stage, as I may once have done.)
Edit: one thing that just struck me is that the 3.75 presumes starting with the 3.5 SRD and building from there. It's entirely possible that 4e will be the more robust rules set and that it could be the starting point for a more 3e-ish rules set. It could be to 4e what Iron Heroes is to 3e in terms of compatability. Maybe the 4e SRD will allow all the crappy WotC branded garbage to be peeled away and a good set of fluff (the 3e set) can be built on the worthwhile mechanics of 4e.
Just a thought.