Post/Author/DateTime	Post
babysamurai 07-14-06, 04:41 AM	I don't know, but looking back at the 3.0 books, it seems to me there was a definite return to the 1st edition approach. But obviously, with superior mechanics/crunch, yet I still felt a resurgent feeling of the old days. Now, don't get me wrong - I still dig a lot of the 3.5 books, but somewhere down the line; did it lose the "vibe"?
Seeker95 07-14-06, 07:30 AM	You lost the vibe, but it has nothing to do with 3.5 versus 3.0 rulesets. It has to do with too many years of playing in a spoon-fed age. Had they not released 3.5, you would still feel that sense of loss, as 3.0 was no different in approach.
babysamurai 07-14-06, 07:47 AM	You lost the vibe, but it has nothing to do with 3.5 versus 3.0 rulesets. It has to do with too many years of playing in a spoon-fed age. Had they not released 3.5, you would still feel that sense of loss, as 3.0 was no different in approach. I've taken it back. Sorry, Seeker95.
Milo HoBo 07-14-06, 08:03 AM	I never played first addition, but the little that I did hear about it lead's me to believe that they face the same problems that we do. Balance issues, being new to the mechanics (ours is from new rules poping up, back then it was because the game was new), and a slight stigma (not as bad as in the 80's). Another thing I hear was that the Tomb of Magic, especially Binding, reminded them of 1st edition. I don't think he ever said why. Good gaming.
Milo HoBo 07-14-06, 08:09 AM	Yeah, I should've known the first reply would be aggressive. Chill out, numb-nuts. His reply wasn't aggressive, it actually sounded as though he is sad at the loss of creativity within a group of players. Like we don't do enough to create our own way of doing things and just let WotC give us rules to use. Now this approach of being given all the rules definitely makes transfering from group to group easier, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to do things. They are still trying to fix polymorph! We just avoid it in my games, by an unspoken agreement. Don't be so quick to judge, you don't know where Seeker has been, nor do I.
Seeker95 07-14-06, 09:15 AM	Yeah, I should've known the first reply would be aggressive.How in the world do you get the impression that my reply was in any way aggressive?
babysamurai 07-14-06, 09:32 AM	How in the world do you get the impression that my reply was in any way aggressive? Okay, I'm sorry. It was just a random musing I had, and it seemed like you were saying that "I" lost the vibe. I haven't lost anything (except my mind), and I am enjoying the game, currently, more than ever.
Zardnaar 07-14-06, 09:35 AM	How in the world do you get the impression that my reply was in any way aggressive? Probably because he didn't get the response he was looking for. 3.0 had that new shiny feeling though. 1st ed. New. 2nd ed. Revamped 1st ed yawn 3.0 Totally new system shiny. 3.5. Revamped 3.0 yawn. Giving monsters ability scores managed to break polymorph though. Rarely used it in 2nd ed. Anyone remember when Fighters were good- ie 2nd ed. 1st ed had Barbarians and Unearthed Arcana- one of the most broken books in any D&D game ever.
zae 07-14-06, 09:45 AM	Unearthed Arcana still manages to add broken/undesirable things (Flaws, another way of just saying the players need or want more feats), though isn't as bad as what I've been shown from the 1st Ed one. Also, I don't think fighters were great in 2Ed either - wasn't that class a punishment for not rolling high enough to qualify for a good class? (Apart from the usual "good in early levels".)
Aeolus91 07-14-06, 01:15 PM	First ed. had mystique. I started playing in the late days of 2nd edition, and only really got into it in 2000 when 3rd came out. I dunno, the new editions make it seem more like a glorified board game than a.... whatever it was before. I think it's the colors. I'm not kidding, the colored pictures and the fancy trim tend to make the game seem less "adult". If they printed the current 3.5 books with "old school" cover art, in black and white, on no-gloss paper, with crappy pen illustrations, the game would seem much more innaccessible and would thus seem more special. The loss of "vibe" comes from the fact that the game is now easier, and is thus more accessible to "normal" people. It's a fact that first edition was REALLY, REALLY hard to learn and was still confusing after you learned. (although I have never played a first ed game myself, I have read the 1e rules book thing) A game that only smart people can play seems more mystical than a game that can be picked up by anybody. Rawr! :dragon:
questionc 07-14-06, 03:03 PM	Honestly... 3.0 and 3.5 are virtually identical. For the most part, it's just a flavour-free rule set (compared to 2nd edition at least). I suppose they're different... but in the big scheme of things.. the differences are just so marginal.
Verelor 07-14-06, 03:15 PM	Correct Answer?: Yes, 3.0 had a definite vibe. The same vibe as 3.5, in fact, except that "flow" was somewhat more broken, less balanced, and just slightly less balanced. In conclusion, 3.5 is the same as 3.0, except better. It is also false to say that 3.5 is a revamp of 3.0; it is an improvement. A revamp is fundamentally different in at least some aspects, and the 3.0 to 3.5 transition was not. I wish you the best gaming. :)
Bruunwald 07-14-06, 08:33 PM	Dare I try again? When I responded to this earlier, the system crashed for an hour and my post was lost. Anyway, it's not reasonable to think that the OP lost the vibe and that Wizards can't. All involved are human beings. Here's the deal: there are two ways a good thing can lose its vibe. One is that we become so familiar with it as to become disenchanted with it (familiarity breeds contempt). The other is that the creators lose sight of (or never really understood) what was so great about it, and mess it up themselves (bad judgment). I liken the current state of D&D to movies. Say you see a film you just love. The drama is excellent, the stunts are awesome and the lead actor nails the quirky antics of his character. You can mess it up for yourself by buying the DVD and watching it over and over until you are so intimate with all of its details (and faults) that it becomes boring and mundane. Or the producers could create a sequel under the misguided impression that heavier-handed drama, more stunts and the ridiculous ratcheting up of the protagonist's odd behavior is somehow a good thing. I think Wizards hit a kind of vibe with 3.0, but by the time they got 3.5 out, they had done what they basically had promised not to with 3.0: made a bunch of sub-par sequels (splat and supplements). And since we had 3.0 for awhile beforehand, 3.5 didn't hit us with as much oomph. But all this is just human nature. Yes, as humans, we get bored. Yes, as humans, creative people make mistakes. Again, not reasonable to assume this is all only on the OP or any other player. That assumes the people at Wizards are infallible (as is their product) and that just ain't happenin' in this world.
lint trap 07-14-06, 08:49 PM	I never played a lot of 3.0 (I stayed with 2nd edition until WotC was on the cusp of 3.5), but from what I've played there was a definite vibe. It really was a stepping stone from one system to the other. It had the hack-and-slash, dungeon-crawl feel of AD&D with the internally consistent ability score and skill system that we all know and love. Honestly, it felt more like Hackmaster than 2nd edition ever did.
protonik 07-14-06, 11:15 PM	Giving monsters ability scores managed to break polymorph though. Rarely used it in 2nd ed. Anyone remember when Fighters were good- ie 2nd ed. 1st ed had Barbarians and Unearthed Arcana- one of the most broken books in any D&D game ever. Fighters sucked canal water in 2e. They had 4 weapon slots and most people specialized. If you chose a non traditional weapon to specialize in you were usually screwed and OH MY GOD, I am at a -4 with a CLUB!!! If you didn't have a proficiency in the weapon you were at a -4 with it so if you were specialized in two handed sword and found a +1 Battle Axe, +3 vs Dragons you were STILL screwed using Battle Axe so it didn't matter! You didn't get enough Weapon Proficiencies to compensate for the rules issue either. Sure, you could stack a fighter pretty well but he was a one trick pony. 3e fighters are much better and with Prestige classes etc rock socks. I don't see the inevitable 4e having 20 level classes...
KJW 07-15-06, 09:44 AM	For me the difference between 2nd Edition and 3d Edition was that in 2nd Edition there was flavor (often quite good) and mechanics (absolutely dreadful), now with 3rd Edition mechanics and flavor have fused to produce better mechanics, but far worse flavor. Fortunately, as I use a homebrew setting this is not a problem and I can easily correct it.
Verelor 07-15-06, 09:51 AM	Basically my own analysis, KJW. I have, however, seen flavor also improving with Book of Nine Swords, and of course the campaign setting books that noone talks about too much. ;) And mechanics wise, lol...I have seen oldsters adamantly defend the idea that the current edition is horsecrap compared to their beloved 2.0. Figure that out. Add the fact that flavor is as what your DM makes of it and your really have to come to the conclusion that 3.5 is actually better than 2nd.
Limousine_Liberal 07-15-06, 10:23 AM	I didn't get a "1st edition" vibe from 3.0 at all. In the 1st edition, there were countless class/race restrictions and "multiclassing" was a completely different animal than it is in 3.0. Further, there were the simple/martial/exotic weapon distinctions, "high" armor classes being better (and "negative" armor classes no longer existing at all), spontaneous spellcasting, the elimination of "percentile Strength" and limits on the Constitution bonus non-Fighters get, there was a system of "skills," skill-points and feats--none of that existed in first edition. A thousand differences, major and minor, all gave it a very different feel to me.
Grandpa Gamer 07-15-06, 10:41 AM	Probably because he didn't get the response he was looking for. 3.0 had that new shiny feeling though. 1st ed. New. 2nd ed. Revamped 1st ed yawn 3.0 Totally new system shiny. 3.5. Revamped 3.0 yawn. I have to agree with Zardnarr. Just like in the good-ole AD&D (1st ed. to you yungins! :D ) when we were first learning how to play, v3 was such a departure from everything we knew that essentially we were learning how to play all over again. REVAMP - verb. ree'vamp To patch*up or renovate; repair or restore. v3.5 WAS a revamp of v3, as compared to v3, which replaced AD&D 2nd Edition. Now, don't get me wrong, there's a lot about v3.5 I like, but don't give it more than it's due. When v3.5 was first released, it was essentially applied errata, with 3+ years of accumulated additional game-testing. :tongue:
Verelor 07-15-06, 01:16 PM	v3.5 WAS a revamp of v3, as compared to v3, which replaced AD&D 2nd Edition. Now, don't get me wrong, there's a lot about v3.5 I like, but don't give it more than it's due. When v3.5 was first released, it was essentially applied errata, with 3+ years of accumulated additional game-testing. 3.5 is not a revamp of 3.0, because a revamp means that at least something is fundamentally different. 3.5 is an improvement.
KJW 07-15-06, 01:41 PM	Basically my own analysis, KJW. I have, however, seen flavor also improving with Book of Nine Swords, and of course the campaign setting books that noone talks about too much. ;) And mechanics wise, lol...I have seen oldsters adamantly defend the idea that the current edition is horsecrap compared to their beloved 2.0. Figure that out. Add the fact that flavor is as what your DM makes of it and your really have to come to the conclusion that 3.5 is actually better than 2nd. I agree I think the flavor in general is improving in WOTC products, but it lacks the spark that 2nd Edition had more often than not. I think this is mostly due to catering to a more generic audience and making things simpler, you lose originaltiy and character when you go that route. Yeah, I am also surprised at the dislike some old gamers have for 3.0, I came to hate 2nd Edition compared to everything else at the time it was a dinosaur and a disaster. I left D&D and only reluctantly came back to try 3.0, which I liked, and 3.5 to me is a great system. Really, I think the problem is more a hatred of WOTC than anything else, I remember well when WOTC bought TSR, all the gamers I knew said this was the end of roleplaying and that evil had triumped and all that...to be honest that is what I thought at the time. Time though has proven us wrong, WOTC revived the dying D&D brand and jumpstarted the roleplaying industry. There is no doubt in my mind that our hobby is stronger today than it was a decade ago.
Seeker95 07-17-06, 07:18 AM	3.5 is not a revamp of 3.0, because a revamp means that at least something is fundamentally different. 3.5 is an improvement.If you're going to quote someone, at least quote enough to make their point clear as well. You forgot this part from the very same post:REVAMP - verb. ree'vamp To patch*up or renovate; repair or restore.By the definition he provided, 3.5 is indeed a re-vamp.
Seeker95 07-17-06, 07:21 AM	I am also surprised at the dislike some old gamers have for 3.0I can think of a lot of things old timers might hate about 3.0, although most of those things were fixed in the 3.5 re-vamp/revision (depending on the definition you use). I don't know a lot of old-timers who hate 3e (third edition in general). *All but one* of the old-timers I know or play with much prefer 3e to 2e. And the one that prefers 2e to 3e freely admits it is because he hates change. For this guy, the new fall lineup on TV is worse than a root canal.
Edymnion 07-17-06, 07:38 AM	Correct Answer?: Yes, 3.0 had a definite vibe. The same vibe as 3.5, in fact, except that "flow" was somewhat more broken, less balanced, and just slightly less balanced. In conclusion, 3.5 is the same as 3.0, except better.Except that, you know, 3.5 isn't some glorious fix that made the game better. It broke just as much as it fixed to the point it was more like stepping sideways, not up or down. So lets not delude ourselves into thinking that 3.5 was God's Gift to Gaming, it was more like "How do we get them to buy the same books they already own without looking like it?". Anybody else remember when they lied straight to our faces saying "Someone playing with 3.0 could sit down with someone playing 3.5 and never know they weren't playing the same game." You know, unless they pick to play a class, or use magic in any way, or fight a monster, then you know the differance pretty darn quick. But anyway, 3e's vibe did change. The original 3.0 PHB and DMG had two main things that went the way of the dodo REAL fast. Weapon Equivolency and PrC as Worldbuilding Tools. You didn't need individual stats for every sword, knife, and club ever made in the history of the world, they all just fell under the mechanical rules for the normal stuff in the PHB. Yeah, that fell apart the instant they needed to fill a few pages in books with new weapons. Now we get books touting "Drow Longknives" like its a good thing. And they flat out removed the worldbuilding tool bit from the 3.5 DMG. They realized that they could get more money by packing books full of PrC and selling them directly to players, making them nothing more than glorified 2e kits, which the original 3e had touted as being gone for good. Anybody else remember the "No more kits!" stuff? The early days of 3.0 was all about "Here's a smoother set of rules to use, all you need is this and some roleplaying and you can get anything you want out of it!". Then it all hit the fan and the purpose of all the books became not to improve what we already had, but to add more rules, often for things that didn't actually NEED new rules. Essentially, if you want a good marker for when the "vibe" changed, it was when PrC turned into advanced classes instead of worldbuilding tool. When they were no longer had any prestige, and became player based character creation tools. When they stopped being elite members of organizations and became multiclassing patches. The addition of swift actions, and immediate actions, and all the rest of that nonsense was just icing on the cake. These days, you can hardly even find players that will play a Core Only game, and that says something to me. And what it says isn't good.
High Octane 07-17-06, 07:39 AM	Actually I get the exact opposite vibe from 3.0. It may be because I played 3.5 first, but to me 3.0 was a vibe of utter and complete change and fresh, unrefined feeling. Not a throwback to older systems. The edition commonly referred to as First Edition was actually Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. It was a somewhat refined version of the original Dungeons and Dragons. Though the system itself was absolutely screwed up (before you flame really, face facts. Read those rules again some time and think from an objective standpoint.) it was in fact much more refined and workable. To me, first edition D&D was like looking at a well made bow and arrow, ones with grooves in the right areas, made of better woods, etc. When 3.0 came around, it was like an early gun. Sure it works better in concept, but it lacks refinement. A later rifle would be 3.5. To me, Second edition was like trying to put gunpowder in a bow. Not following my metaphorical approach? You wouldnt be the first. Im weird like that. I noticed that 3.0 had a lot of things that would be removed later that were added almost experimentally. Examples being certain skills like scry and Intuit direction. 3.0 Did still have what I would not call a vibe, but more of a stigma thats attached to earlier Dungeons and dragons games. That would be class benefits that existed outside the character sheet (And would tend to give a DM a hard time). Things like in first edition a cleric at a certain level would be able to build a church and get followers based on etc etc.... and in 3.0 You had similar things like classes that had rewards in the form of a tower or stronghold or would be extremely situational like the gladiator class which was dependant on spectators.
babysamurai 07-17-06, 07:49 AM	The addition of swift actions, and immediate actions, and all the rest of that nonsense was just icing on the cake. I agree with you that a player who can't handle a core-only game has problems. Like a child who will only eat the same meal. But I do like the addition of the immediate action, as it can give combat a more reactive, flowing-feel. What I originally posted had nothing to do with mechanics. I think that 3.5 is the best incarnation of the rules yet. It's something else...I just can't put my finger on it.
Edymnion 07-17-06, 08:49 AM	But I do like the addition of the immediate action, as it can give combat a more reactive, flowing-feel.Lets see, add another entire type of action to the game, or just say "As a free action once per round on your turn"? Does anything in the new books actually say "as a free action" anymore, or are they all using the swift/immediant bunk now?
Dragonteuthis 07-17-06, 09:52 AM	Lets see, add another entire type of action to the game, or just say "As a free action once per round on your turn"? But that's not an immediate action.
babysamurai 07-17-06, 10:01 AM	But that's not an immediate action. Exactly. I think immediate actions are one of the coolest things to happen to this game since...since...well, since something else really cool hit the game.
High Octane 07-18-06, 02:12 AM	Immediate action and swift action in my opinion is just clarification of a free action. I dont see a big deal.
Encard 07-18-06, 02:24 AM	You know, I never got much of a vibe from 3.0 or 3.5, as such. 2ed? Sure, tons of it - maybe it's just because that's where I started playing, but it still has a definite (and rather fun) vibe for me. I think part of the reason is that the rules are somewhat disjointed and odd - it's harder to use at times, if you really worry about that, but it feels so much more organic and appropriate, somehow. 3.x feels more like LEGO blocks. Combine a bunch of stuff under a unified ruleset to create the character you want - put together the right classes, feats, PrCs, skills, and so on until you've got the character you were trying to build. Then play the character with a unified ruleset. No particular vibe there - maybe your setting had a vibe, or the particular PrC you chose or whatnot, but nothing was really inherent in the ruleset besides that build-your-own feeling. Without some more effort on your part and the DM's part, well... things seem likely to be a bit more bland, if more mechanically interesting.
a_psh 07-18-06, 02:44 AM	Let's call AD&D2e "The Two Towers" and 3e "The Return of the King". (Using the movies, not the books, for this metaphor, because books don't usually come in "extended editions"...) You've had "Two Towers" around for a while now and then "Return of the King" comes out. Boom! Tons of new stuff. Yeah, going in a different direction at times, and some folks definitely like "Two Towers" better, but, wow, look at all the delicious new content! Now you've had "Return of the King" for a while. "Return of the King: extended edition" is published (D&D 3.5e). It's definitely got some interesting changes in it, but, really, it's still the same thing (3.5e). A bit less exciting than the different between having "Return of the King", "Two Towers", and "Fellowship" and only having "Two Towers" and "Fellowship", ne?
Grandpa Gamer 07-19-06, 07:33 AM	Let's call AD&D2e "The Two Towers" and 3e "The Return of the King". (Using the movies, not the books, for this metaphor, because books don't usually come in "extended editions"...) You've had "Two Towers" around for a while now and then "Return of the King" comes out. Boom! Tons of new stuff. Yeah, going in a different direction at times, and some folks definitely like "Two Towers" better, but, wow, look at all the delicious new content! Now you've had "Return of the King" for a while. "Return of the King: extended edition" is published (D&D 3.5e). It's definitely got some interesting changes in it, but, really, it's still the same thing (3.5e). A bit less exciting than the different between having "Return of the King", "Two Towers", and "Fellowship" and only having "Two Towers" and "Fellowship", ne? Pardon me for mixing metaphors (always served over ice, with one of those little umbrella-sticks!), but I'm more reminded of the original Star Wars trilogy. AD&D was like the first Star Wars, AD&D 2nd Ed. was like The Empire Strikes Back, and v3 more like The Return of the Jedi. When AD&D came out, it was all 'new' and 'wow'. But everyone screamed that 2nd Ed. 'ruined it all', and was just an excuse to sell books (sound familiar?). v3 was hailed as 'finally pulling it all together'. As with the original trilogy, looking back years later, it seems that the second movie gets more of the critical acclaim now, as it had much better acting, the effects were far superior, and it greatly expanded the story's univers. I am seeing the same retrospective acclaim for AD&D 2nd Ed. It cleaned up the worse of 1st ed's rules, and greatly expanded the gaming universe it played it. Remember: The Forgotten Realms, Mystara, The Savage Coast, Dark Sun, Maztica, Al-Qadim, and Kara-Tur were all introduced in 2nd Ed. v3 changed how the game was played, making the mechanics much more sensible. But, most of the above game settings have since been discontinued, with only one replacement, Eberron. What I'm hearing is seems more a sense of nostalgia for when people were first learning to game.
Edymnion 07-19-06, 11:18 AM	Remember: The Forgotten Realms, Mystara, The Savage Coast, Dark Sun, Maztica, Al-Qadim, and Kara-Tur were all introduced in 2nd Ed. v3 changed how the game was played, making the mechanics much more sensible. But, most of the above game settings have since been discontinued, with only one replacement, Eberron.Of course, it can also be pointed out that it was all those settings that helped pull TSR under because it couldn't support all of them at once. Anyway, Eberron is well worth trading in those settings for.What I'm hearing is seems more a sense of nostalgia for when people were first learning to game.Hey, I learned to play under 2e, and played it that way for years. You couldn't drag me back into 2e, the game mechanics for it were just a MESS. Sure, 2e had a vibe, it had to. Every DM was forced to write half the game themselves just to make it work, so of course it would pick up any particular DM's vibe.
a_psh 07-19-06, 11:34 AM	When AD&D came out, it was all 'new' and 'wow'. But everyone screamed that 2nd Ed. 'ruined it all', and was just an excuse to sell books (sound familiar?). v3 was hailed as 'finally pulling it all together'. As with the original trilogy, looking back years later, it seems that the second movie gets more of the critical acclaim now, as it had much better acting, the effects were far superior, and it greatly expanded the story's univers.I don't know that many people who like 2nd Edition. The settings for 2nd Edition, heck yes! But not the rules. At all. Ever. I am seeing the same retrospective acclaim for AD&D 2nd Ed. It cleaned up the worse of 1st ed's rules, and greatly expanded the gaming universe it played it. Remember: The Forgotten Realms, Mystara, The Savage Coast, Dark Sun, Maztica, Al-Qadim, and Kara-Tur were all introduced in 2nd Ed. v3 changed how the game was played, making the mechanics much more sensible. But, most of the above game settings have since been discontinued, with only one replacement, Eberron.... Spelljammer, Planescape, Ravenloft... There were a lot of settings and a lot of ideas floating around. Some of the things in your list, however, sucked. Royally. Terribly. *glares at Maztica* The fact that only a few settings exist now in an officially-supported capacity is mainly indicative of the fact that gamers just don't want to buy 10 different setting books. Looking at the larger world of D&D-compatible d20 products, however, we can see a lot of variety, such as Iron Kingdoms, the Freeport Series, Monte Cook's giant hundred-dollar super-setting-book and his setting for Arcana Unearthed. Likewise, a lot of the material from the old settings has made it into generic D&D (becoming more generic in the process, of course). There is no more Planescape :_( , for example, but a lot of the setting has made it into books like Manual of the Planes or Fiendish Codex. Similarly, Kara-Tur is now just part of Forgotten Realms, more or less. Yes, something was definitely lost in the transition from 2e to 3e (the question on this thread seems to be whether something was lost in the transition from 3e to 3.5e, however, which is probably harder to answer). I'd much rather use my old setting books with the new system than ever, ever actually touch 2e, however.
TarlSS 07-19-06, 03:36 PM	I think what we have here in 3.5 is the old guard TSR folks realizing what there business really -is-. The destruction of TSR was a wake up call. An RPG company is an RPG company, NOT a universal publishing house for all things fantasy. 3.5 focuses solely on building strong mathematical mechanics and balancing the rules set. 2e focused on spitting out multiple settings and adding expanding to present worlds. What happened here? The folks at (formerly) TSR wised up and realized what they did best. They write rules and mechanics well. They do not write stories well, god no. They seperated their company into internally consistant portions- have a crew of guys deal with the mechanics, and hire some scrub writers to fill in the blanks. It's seperation and specialization, a good strategy for any business in a niche field. WOTC realized that frankly, most people didn't give a damn about their published settings. A majority of gamers play with their own custom worlds because it's so easy to write garbage fiction. It's hard to write fair and consistent mechanics. The trend of 2e was that many people used the multiple campaign settings, but revamped the ruleset because it was so terrible. You can look around the internet and just see pages and pages of 2e houserules that were introduced to make the game -work-. The game centered around the DM and players- because much of the mechanical materials and attempt at balancing the game came from thereof. There really was no reason to buy any book mechanics, because it probably wouldn't be consistant with the existing house rules. In 3.5, it's the reverse. Nearly everyone uses the same mechanics, and people can jump from game to game expecting to use the same rules-set. There is an expectation within the community that a game will more or less resemble what is presented within the book. People rely on themselves, dragon magazine, or outside publishing houses to play niche genre'd settings, leaving WOTC to do the more profitable work of continually tweaking mechanics. They've left the old business model of pushing stories behind, and started foing what they did best. TSR was never good at writing anyway, so most people can accept this. I guess this is anathema, because TSR has become WOTC, and started doing what Microsoft does- focus on business first, product second. WOTC creates the OS (D20 OGL), ships a flagship product (D&D) and then relies on outside developers to service the niche groups so that everyone knows how to use their product, and folks can easily shift gears from one part to another. WOTC realizes that many gamers want a story and flavor, but they don't want D&D's story and flavor. Players of D&D want their -own- story. So they leave that to the players to determine on their own.
Blauer Jaspis 07-19-06, 04:12 PM	Well, first I have to say that I prefer 3.0 towards 3.5, as it seems a bit more complicated to me, a web that was woven finer and more complicated that the other one. But this is something everyone has to decide for himself. Nevertheless, I am a great opponent of 3.5 - and not because of the 3.5 rules, but because of all the overpowered content that came with the 3.5 edition. I think that if you compare the PrCs of Song and Silence with those of Complete Adventurer, you know what I mean. I don't deny that 3.0 had this aspect too (Such as Tome and Blood). And AD&D (read official books that introduced artifacts only Ao himself could destroy). But the difference between 3.0(and 2.0) and 3.5 is that in 3.0 you had both - content for those who love a rogue with intrigues, and for those that want to fight undead abonimations. But in 3.5 you have almost nothing of the intrigue-style. Everything has to be magical-touched. Another problem of 3.5 is that the books become larger and widespread - you might find material in a book that is appealing to you - but you won't buy it as there is too much content in it thats just waste. The 3.5 expansions do what is typical for products today - one thing has to have it all. This means, every expansion must - introduce at least 3 new races (for those who want new races) - introduce 3 new PrCs - provide new options for the just introduced classes and races, which means - traditional classes - PSI-Classes - new-introduced classes [Warlock, Warmage, Hexblade to mention some] - new-introduced complete options such as - Magic of Incarnum - The upcoming Tome of Battle - provide the "normal" new magic items, spells, and of course lots of monsters that are at least twice as weird as those of the last accessory So, like one thing and hate the others and you won't buy the book, as it is just too much in one book. At last I can only agree with what others mentioned before - it has become more buisiness orientatet, and more people want to play it, so it looses its exclusivity :cool: [which, as unfair it may seem, for me results in loss of quality, too]
a_psh 07-19-06, 05:36 PM	- introduce at least 3 new races (for those who want new races)Most books don't introduce new races. Only the environment ones do, really, and that's not altogether odd, given that they're about giving you terrain-specific creatures, rules, and campaign ideas. - PSI-ClassesOutside of Eberron material, which is specifically designed to include psionics as part of the standard ruleset for the setting, support for Psionics content is minimal. There is absolutely 0 mention of psionics in most books released by WotC ('cept Complete Psionic, but you're buying that for the psionics). - new-introduced classes [Warlock, Warmage, Hexblade to mention some]They are supported in most published books, but generally only 2-3 pages of content between them. For a 128-page book, that's really not much. Most of that is just in the form of adding copies of Wizard/Sorceror spells to their spell lists. - Magic of IncarnumNope. Not getting any support in other products. WotC flat-out said this. Purely a one-time thing. - The upcoming Tome of BattleIf it's anything like Tome of Magic, it's a purely one-shot deal. No external support. - provide the "normal" new magic items, spells, and of course lots of monsters that are at least twice as weird as those of the last accessorySecondary books providing new and less well-tested crunch has been the way of D&D for 15 or 20 years. Nothing new here.
babysamurai 07-20-06, 09:56 AM	Anyway, Eberron is well worth trading in those settings for. ...For you maybe. I would take Planescape and Al-Qadim over "Pooferron" any day of the week.
babysamurai 07-20-06, 09:58 AM	Nope. Not getting any support in other products. WotC flat-out said this. Purely a one-time thing. Actually, that's not quite true. In the upcoming Dragon Magic book, "Incarnum" will be getting some love.
Blauer Jaspis 07-22-06, 05:20 AM	Outside of Eberron material, which is specifically designed to include psionics as part of the standard ruleset for the setting, support for Psionics content is minimal. There is absolutely 0 mention of psionics in most books released by WotC ('cept Complete Psionic, but you're buying that for the psionics). Hmm, take Races of Stone for example. Although it is only about 3 pages. They are supported in most published books, but generally only 2-3 pages of content between them. For a 128-page book, that's really not much. Most of that is just in the form of adding copies of Wizard/Sorceror spells to their spell lists. Well, but 2 or 3 here, 4 others there and very fast you have about 40 pages, which means almost one third of the book Secondary books providing new and less well-tested crunch has been the way of D&D for 15 or 20 years. Nothing new here. Yes, but the amount of not well testet crunch is rapidly increasing (in my opinion, for those who like it: Have fun ;) !)
Thanqol 07-22-06, 07:11 AM	...For you maybe. I would take Planescape and Al-Qadim over "Pooferron" any day of the week. How witty. :nonono:
ZeronHitaro 07-22-06, 08:47 AM	I don't know if it had a "vibe". But it left a good taste in people's mouths....which is a bad thing. And I'll explain why: It makes it all that much harder for new people to find a D&D game. Here's the problem I often run into (and why I haven't found very many games yet): "Oh we're playing the more superior 2e." "Our DM likes 3.0 Core rules better." "Nothing beats first edition!" I have nothing against the older verions. However, there's so many versions and tastes that those of us who are new to the game and/or only have access to 3.5 stuff since it's the most commonly sold version (in my local and distant retailers anyway), are left out of these games simply for the fact that we're new to D&D, and haven't had time/ability to gather up older versions. With at least 4 different versions of the same game, it's a wonder that games even get started up at all. :mad:
Elemental 07-22-06, 02:34 PM	Lets see, add another entire type of action to the game, or just say "As a free action once per round on your turn"? Does anything in the new books actually say "as a free action" anymore, or are they all using the swift/immediant bunk now? Yes, they are. For example, one of the Tome of Magic PrC's lets the character apply special effects to his attack as a swift action, until he gets to level 10, whereas he can use them as a free action (and thus, more than one in a turn).
ArcTan 07-22-06, 02:46 PM	Lets see, add another entire type of action to the game, or just say "As a free action once per round on your turn"? Does anything in the new books actually say "as a free action" anymore, or are they all using the swift/immediant bunk now? You do realize this is fundamentally different from a swift action, right? The point of a swift action is that it excludes *all other* swift actions. If you have 5 different abilities that all use a swift action, you can only use one per turn. If you have 5 different abilities that are all "free actions once per round on your turn", you can use *all 5* on your turn, unless each ability explicitly says "and you may not use this ability on the same turn as you use [big huge list of other abilities]". Swift actions are a much-needed balancing factor because they let you append an action to a normal turn *without* potentially letting you append thirty different actions to a normal turn. As for immediate actions, the whole idea of being able to do something other than an AoO on someone else's initiative *does* add a whole new layer of tactical complexity to the game. Call it overly Magic: the Gathering inspired if you want, but half the most interesting new spells in Spell Compendium depend on this mechanic to be at all worthwhile.
Tembo 07-22-06, 04:27 PM	Blauer Jaspis: Well, first I have to say that I prefer 3.0 towards 3.5...the difference between 3.0(and 2.0) and 3.5 is that in 3.0 you had both - content for those who love a rogue with intrigues, and for those that want to fight undead abonimations. But in 3.5 you have almost nothing of the intrigue-style. Everything has to be magical-touched. Here I thought I and mine were the only ones!!!!
not Yoda 07-22-06, 06:29 PM	No. It did not. The art was not particualrly stimulating in 3.0 or 3.5. The females had armor covering their entire bodies. In the case of a particular elven mage a veil would have been better. Even the worlds seem diminished. Eberron might be a nice addition to some games but it makes me think of Warhammer or Shadowrun more than it does D&D.
ArcTan 07-23-06, 01:43 AM	No. It did not. The art was not particualrly stimulating in 3.0 or 3.5. The females had armor covering their entire bodies. In the case of a particular elven mage a veil would have been better. Even the worlds seem diminished. Eberron might be a nice addition to some games but it makes me think of Warhammer or Shadowrun more than it does D&D. I don't think the fact that they occasionally take realism into account, along with potential hotness, when they design a female's outfit is really a bad thing. (Seriously. A plate-mail bikini that leaves your midriff and head and most of your arms and legs exposed. What's the effing point? To see how badly they can chafe metal against the woman's most sensitive parts while providing her no protection against your manly muscles to speak of?) For one thing, WotC being the money-grubbing, profit-maximizing corporation that they are, this probably helps them sell to female audiences better, potentially doubling their market from the old it's-so-obvious-all-our-customers-are-male-we're-not-even-going-to-deny-it days. You shouldn't complain about this, by the way: one real flesh-and-blood woman at the gaming table is worth a thousand poorly drawn skanky sketches in your PHB.
Aeolus91 07-23-06, 10:03 AM	For one thing, WotC being the money-grubbing, profit-maximizing corporation that they are, Show me a large corporation that isn't... that's the point of business, to make money, as much of it as possible. WotC's business is to turn rulebooks (and trading cards and novels and minis) into its employees' groceries and its CEO's plasma screen TV. If they stopped trying to make money, they'd go bankrupt and we'd have no more D&D, DDM, et cetera. And then my soul would die. Rawr! :dragon:
Roxlimn 07-23-06, 12:46 PM	1. 3e has always had that 1e vibe for me. The flavor is just more like 1e than 2e ever was. For one thing, the combats are faster in terms of rounds and more frenetic. 2e combats tended to last forever. 2. Swift Actions and Immediate Actions were good additions to the game, IMO. Classifying them as "free actions you can only do once per round" obviously misses the point of what these actions are all about. You can do more than one free action every round. The DM gets to decide how many free actions of particular types you actually get to do. Swift Actions narrow the scope of arbitrary ruling by imposing which particular free actions aren't doable more than once per round, and preclude other free actions of this type. Instead of stamping this phrase on every single such instance, it's neater to just create a new action and label the appropriate powers with it. Immediate Actions are even better. "As if you readied an action" used to be the rather cumbersome wording used for this neat all-inclusive and useful action category. Save space and makes the entirety more consistent. These are some of the few recent additions to the game that are actually worthwhile.
Millennium 07-23-06, 03:43 PM	3e had a definite vibe, but it was not necessarily 3e-specific. 3.5e still had it, at least at first. What killed the vibe was class-itis on the part of Wizards: the idea that every single possible archetype required its own classes, complete with custom abilities, or else it was somehow "weak." I believe that when Wizards caught this optimization disease, it really did serious harm to the vibe of D&D.
a_psh 07-23-06, 10:46 PM	Show me a large corporation that isn't... that's the point of business, to make money, as much of it as possible. WotC's business is to turn rulebooks (and trading cards and novels and minis) into its employees' groceries and its CEO's plasma screen TV. If they stopped trying to make money, they'd go bankrupt and we'd have no more D&D, DDM, et cetera. And then my soul would die.ArcTan was being sarcastic. Hence the hyperbole. ... What killed the vibe was class-itis on the part of Wizards: the idea that every single possible archetype required its own classes, complete with custom abilities, or else it was somehow "weak."I think the problem is more like "WotC realized a lot of players refuse to multiclass for some strange reason". Though I hate most of the new classes, too.
a_psh 07-23-06, 10:50 PM	The art was not particualrly stimulating in 3.0 or 3.5.Err, RPGs aren't really about that kind of "stimulation" anymore.
Aeolus91 07-23-06, 10:53 PM	The threat of WotC going under (specifically D&D going down with it) transforms me from a (semi-) rational person into a slavering maniac. Just think! No more Complete [insert cheese here]! Don't even kid about that kind of thing. Rawr! :dragon: EDIT:Err, RPGs aren't really about that kind of "stimulation" anymore. a_psh, you are my hero.
jimbo7987 07-24-06, 05:31 AM	...For you maybe. I would take Planescape and Al-Qadim over "Pooferron" any day of the week. You are joking right?! I never played Al-Qadim, but Planescape was so overated. Eberron is by far the best campaign setting I have ever seen.
babysamurai 07-24-06, 05:45 AM	How witty. :nonono: I'm glad you think so.
Yak of Darkness 07-24-06, 05:48 AM	The 3.5 expansions do what is typical for products today - one thing has to have it all. This means, every expansion mustMan . . . reading over your list/rant of what apparently every 3.5 expansion must have kinda makes me wish said list wasn't full of crap. I'd love for there to be things like mandatory psi-classes in expansions. As it is now, us XPH-fans are stuck with a couple of (mostly-usless) powers and a cool feat or two, maybe . . . and if we're real lucky, we might get one of the weakest PrCs in the book. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I wouldn't mind seeing new Incarnum options. I think it'd be interesting to see new ideas for that system. As for things like the warlock, I'd love it if every new expansion had to come with something as cool, fun to play, instantly-inspiring (both for ideas, and yelps of "Yes! Why was this never thought of before now?"), yet not overpowering, as the warlock is. Barring that, I'd like it if new warlock invocations/feats/love was mandatory in all 3.5 expansions. It really is too bad that a lot of your list was complete BS.
babysamurai 07-24-06, 05:51 AM	You are joking right?! I never played Al-Qadim, but Planescape was so overated. Eberron is by far the best campaign setting I have ever seen. No, I'm not joking. If you dig Eberron - great. Whatever floats your boat.