The Gaming Den

Posted: **Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:16 pm**

Considering that D&D has done the whole Halfway Edition thing before, it is a bit surprising that 3.5E's thing actually seemed to kinda sorta work.

So why did you think it worked in the first place?

Unlike the other D&D revisions, 3.5E flat-out stated that it was a 3.5E; since this didn't patronize the fanbase it didn't create as much resentment.
3.5E's reason for being was to fix things, or at least that's what the brain trust said. Since it didn't have the goal of making the game more accessible to new people or boosting sales, it made the fans feel like they were being listened to rather than abandoned.
3.5E came out after the mega-success of Neverwinter Nights; 3.5E came out right after that game caught fire, allowing it to catch potential D&D fans that 3.0E missed.
3.5E immediately came out with Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms products rather than let those campaign settings drift in limbo to help lube the fans.
3.5E slipped in unannounced with little fanfare; this happened quickly enough so that the fanbase wasn't able to build a resentment against the edition before it came out.
3.5E immediately released a flurry of sourcebooks which changed 'key' feats, prestige classes, etc.. So though the changes to the PHB and DMG were fairly minor, when the changes started to accumulate with the Complete series holdovers ended up switching anyway to jump on the Frenzied Berserker and Spellsword and such bandwagons.

Or what?

Posted: **Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:40 pm**

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Considering that D&D has done the whole Halfway Edition thing before, it is a bit surprising that 3.5E's thing actually seemed to kinda sorta work.

So why did you think it worked in the first place?

Why would it not work?

Tabletop RPGs have often developed in stages. E.g. 1E AD&D had Unearthed Arcana ("1.5" AD&D). 2E AD&D had Powers & Options. Second edition Champions had Champions 2 & Champions 3 before moving to third edition.

Posted: **Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:50 pm**

hogarth wrote: Why would it not work?

Because people don't like burning money on products without a good reason?

Posted: **Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:08 pm**

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
hogarth wrote: Why would it not work?
Because people don't like burning money on products without a good reason?

I don't know what to tell you -- as I said, there's a long history of (successful) books with new rules + changes to old rules that predates 3.5E. So how is 3.5 somehow a "one-time thing"?

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:01 am**

3.0 was a system that everyone saw with a ton of potential and people wanted to see it get balanced. 3.5 promised to balance a lot of the broken 3.0 stuff and that would basically get it sold. I mean there were complainers back then who said "we don't need a revision, 3.0 is fine" but I think they were largely in the minority. Most people's main beef with 3.5 is that they didn't change enough, but it was generally enough to make 3.5 into the standard base for people's house rules.

I don't think 4.5 will fare as well simply because the 4E system isn't anything that really excites people. While I do think the core 4E framework has a lot of untapped potential, the average gamer just isn't going to see it that way, because what they actually used that framework for was dull as shit. The 4E system just doesn't lend itself to exciting memorable combats, especially against the solos and elites, which are supposed to be your memorable opponents. There's really no room for creativity, you just spam the same power over and over again.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:15 am**

For me, after OD&D, 3.5 was the first official published version of D&D I played. Right after OD&D, our play group discovered Warlock, the D&D variant co-developed by students at CalTech & M.I.T. distributed on the ArpaNet. It was superior to OD&D, and contained the seeds of many good ideas in 3.X. When AD&D came out, we were less than impressed, and THACO was so glaringly stupid that we didn't even consider AD&D 2, even for one-offs at conventions.

When 3.0 came out, I heard a lot of complaints from AD&Der's, and glancing at the books on the shelf, I wasn't particularly impressed. But when I went to work at Legends in Cupertino, there were several 3.5 campaigns going on, and I found the game quite playable.

What I liked about 3.5 was that it was very rationalized compared to previous editions: D20 + bonus vs. difficulty is so much smarter than THACO! Skill points and feats resembled class abilities from Warlock, and like Champions, I found its pretty easy to go from character concept to character sheet (something I find difficult with 4E).

For example, my very first 3.5 character was Smeelbo. The idea was simple. Remember towards the middle of the Fellowship of the Ring movie, when Frodo is dragged, wounded, to Rivendell, and finally recovers enough to get out of bed? He sees his uncle Bilbo for first time in decades, and Bilbo asks to see his Ring again. There is a moment, when Bilbo hisses at Frodo, and gets, well, Smeagol-ly for a second.

And I thought to myself: "What would have happened if Bilbo had kept the Ring"? What if he had started getting all Smeagolly?"

Hence, Smeelbo.

Well, all it took was a halfling rogue with low charisma and a couple levels of ranger. "I'm a scout!" That, and a modified goblin mini. I've had a great time, and haven't looked back to earlier versions of D&D since. For me, D&D 3.5 succeeded because it was rationally systematized and adequate.

As for the 3.0/3.5 transition, my understanding is that the 3.5 PHB is better written and better organized than 3.0.

Basicly, 3.5 is "good enough" for me.

Smeelbo

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:16 am**

Ehhh, I do not see how 3.5 was an improvement upon 3e writ large. The change from 2nd Ed to 3e was a pretty dramatic improvement, however.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:58 am**

Smeel, dude, cut back on the italics. No, really, man. That made my skin crawl to read it.

Why didn't you go whole-hog and Randomly capitalize some Words?

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 3:12 am**

What are you talking about Maxus?

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:03 am**

A few too many psychoactives, Maxus?

-Crissa

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:25 am**

I kind of like the gratuitous BBCode. It gives posts character. Sort of a way to put tone of voice into your writing. It's only when someone starts using multiple fonts and colors in the same post that I'd really start to perceive the text as annoying.

That's not an invitation for anyone to use a different single font in every one of their posts, by the way.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:29 am**

Dammit.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:48 am**

Smeelbo wrote:For me, after OD&D, 3.5 was the first official published version of D&D I played. Right after OD&D, our play group discovered Warlock, the D&D variant co-developed by students at CalTech & M.I.T. distributed on the ArpaNet. It was superior to OD&D, and contained the seeds of many good ideas in 3.X. When AD&D came out, we were less than impressed, and THACO was so glaringly stupid that we didn't even consider AD&D 2, even for one-offs at conventions.

This intrigues me. At the risk of derailing the thread, tell us more of this "Warlock".

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:55 am**

BBCode is fine in moderation, but using too much emphasis too close together means nothing is emphasized and it becomes a distraction from the message rather than a way of conveying it more fully. Compare this to the original.

Smeelbo wrote:For me, after OD&D, 3.5 was the first official published version of D&D I played. Right after OD&D, our play group discovered Warlock, the D&D variant co-developed by students at CalTech & M.I.T. distributed on the ArpaNet. It was superior to OD&D, and contained the seeds of many good ideas in 3.X. When AD&D came out, we were less than impressed, and THACO was so glaringly stupid that we didn't even consider AD&D 2, even for one-offs at conventions.

When 3.0 came out, I heard a lot of complaints from AD&Der's, and glancing at the books on the shelf, I wasn't particularly impressed. But when I went to work at Legends in Cupertino, there were several 3.5 campaigns going on, and I found the game quite playable.

What I liked about 3.5 was that it was very rationalized compared to previous editions: D20 + bonus vs. difficulty is so much smarter than THACO! Skill points and feats resembled class abilities from Warlock, and like Champions, I found its pretty easy to go from character concept to character sheet (something I find difficult with 4E).

For example, my very first 3.5 character was Smeelbo. The idea was simple. Remember towards the middle of the Fellowship of the Ring movie, when Frodo is dragged, wounded, to Rivendell, and finally recovers enough to get out of bed? He sees his uncle Bilbo for first time in decades, and Bilbo asks to see his Ring again. There is a moment, when Bilbo hisses at Frodo, and gets, well, Smeagol-ly for a second.

And I thought to myself: "What would have happened if Bilbo had kept the Ring"? What if he had started getting all Smeagolly?"

Hence, Smeelbo.

Well, all it took was a halfling rogue with low charisma and a couple levels of ranger. "I'm a scout!" That, and a modified goblin mini. I've had a great time, and haven't looked back to earlier versions of D&D since. For me, D&D 3.5 succeeded because it was rationally systematized and adequate.

As for the 3.0/3.5 transition, my understanding is that the 3.5 PHB is better written and better organized than 3.0.

Basicly, 3.5 is "good enough" for me.

Smeelbo

That actually reads a lot easier, just by taking out all the meaningless italics. Which puzzled me, because it took me a few minutes of searching and deleting. Presumeably, adding them in would have taken about that long, and the reasons for adding them on names like Frodo or Bilbo would have made sense to Smeelbo, but they followed no grammar rules I could identify, except for those found in ads.

As a total pedantic nitpick, I'd like to point out that the name should be Billum or Golbo or similar, seeing as how Smeagol was the good side of Gollum's personality, and Gollum was him corrupted by the ring. Remember that bit in the book where Gollum argues with himself out loud, and the light in his eyes changes color to fit with the good/evil viewpoints he was arguing over, against himself? Yeah. Smeagol was the nice one, and Gollum, well, wasn't.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:18 am**

Maxus, please give the BBcode pedantics a rest. Maybe you have a good point in there, but my eyes glazed over half way though your rambling, nonsensical post.

For future reference, if you really want to remove BBcode formatting just copy the post to the clipboard and then paste it into a plaintext editor.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:04 am**

I did not think Maxus rambled or nonsensed. Italics and such are used for emphasis or distinction and their overuse renders them useless. Maybe Smeelbo cares, maybe not. I figure saying it once is fine and Smeelbo can act on it or not.

I am always happy to get good grammar or writing advice so long as I am still free to write as I wish afterward without it being raised repeatedly.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:43 am**

erik wrote:I did not think Maxus rambled or nonsensed. Italics and such are used for emphasis or distinction and their overuse renders them useless. Maybe Smeelbo cares, maybe not. I figure saying it once is fine and Smeelbo can act on it or not.

I am always happy to get good grammar or writing advice so long as I am still free to write as I wish afterward without it being raised repeatedly.

Thank you.

I'll shave the neckbeard off tomorrow and go back to normally scheduled Maxus.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:45 am**

Lago PARANOIA wrote:[*] Unlike the other D&D revisions, 3.5E flat-out stated that it was a 3.5E; since this didn't patronize the fanbase it didn't create as much resentment.

I'm not so sure about that. My impression was that a lot of 3.0 fans wanted a set of solid errata. What they were less sure was whether they wanted to buy a new round of books. If you look at the 3.5 core books, there's little side bars near their beginning which says the fans asked for the new books. If I'm right* that's a huge misrepresentation.

* please tell me whether I'm wrong. I was not around in D&D quarters in 2003 and only trade on sentiments I picked up later (particularly on internet fora) later on.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:44 am**

Smeelbo wrote:THACO was so glaringly stupid....

Really, THAC0 was worse than the arbitrary charts of previous editions?

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:55 pm**

Windjammer wrote:* please tell me whether I'm wrong. I was not around in D&D quarters in 2003 and only trade on sentiments I picked up later (particularly on internet fora) later on.

I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but among my group the feeling was that if there was going to be a comprehensive errata anyway, we'd like to have it incorporated into a new printing of the books so we could just look things up there.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:00 pm**

I wanted new books with incorporated changes, rather than errata.

That sort of accepting and agreeable attitude on my part was entirely torpedo'd by 4e.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:42 pm**

Warlock was a D&D variant from the mid seventies. The original documents look very much like a first generation RPG, because they are a first generation RPG. So you have all kinds of anachronisms you'd expect:

Different XP tables for different classes.
Races as classes (Elf, Dwarf, Halfling)
Attribute minimums for superior classes.
Multiclassing where players get the best of both worlds for taking more XP to level.
Arbitrary weapon and armor limits by character class.
Completely arbitrary bonus/penalty tables for each an every attribute.

But then, it also has some anachronisms you didn't expect. Archery is handled on a 20 sided die, but that die is numbered 0-19, because back then dice were labeled 0-9 twice and you colored in the tens place marker yourself. There are critical and fumble tables (though they don't get nearly as excitingly insane as some of the tables that come in later games).

But it's not all first generation craziness. There are a bunch of second generation and even more forward thinking concepts. Melee weapons get a to-hit table based on the weapon and the armor of the target. So maces are better against plate armor, while falchions are better against naked folk. Weapons also have a different bas number of attacks in addition to a base damage. Skill and magic bonuses then move the to-hit chances up and down from there - and those chances are rolled on percentile dice. Parrying involves attack negation chances based on the difference in weapon length. When you add it all together, the ideal melee weapon varies tremendously based on what your opponents are doing.

Spellcasting is handled on a spells known / spell point system - for magic users (and Elves). But Clerics still get spell slots pr day. Clerics really are heal-bots and get NPCed a lot of the time.

But where it really starts getting into the Twilight Zone is the expansion material - which I remind you is from like 1975. Thieves and Fighters get Thief Abilities and Fighter Abilities respectively. And those things are pretty much exactly Feats. The abilities come in tiers, and involve selecting bonuses (like Weapon Focus) or new abilities (like Spring Attack). Characters who aren't Fighters or Thieves still get these, just at a much lower rate.

-Username17

Posted: **Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:35 am**

FrankTrollman wrote:There are a bunch of second generation and even more forward thinking concepts. Melee weapons get a to-hit table based on the weapon and the armor of the target. So maces are better against plate armor, while falchions are better against naked folk.

Isn't that merely an incorporation of the Chainmail rules into the "Alternative Combat System"? It isn't really "second generation".

The Gaming Den

Was 3.5E's sales boost a good idea or a one-time thing?

Was 3.5E's sales boost a good idea or a one-time thing?

Re: Was 3.5E's sales boost a good idea or a one-time thing?

Re: Was 3.5E's sales boost a good idea or a one-time thing?

Re: Was 3.5E's sales boost a good idea or a one-time thing?