Quote from: daniel_ream;485836Aside: I am not a D&D player much (any more) and I think I've only ever seen 1E, 2E, 3.5 and 4E. Was there enough material changed/added in 3.5 to justify calling it a new edition?[1] Am I starting an edition war just by asking this?
 
 
[1] Using as a benchmark the deltas between 1E -> 2E, and 2E -> 3E, which were much greater than, say, CoC's edition changes or even Shadowrun's for the most part.

In the core rules a number of spells were nerfed (heal, haste, harm, polymorph, darkness spells generate "shadowy illumination", stat boosting spells duration dropped significantly); weapon size rules changed; keen and improved critical no longer stacking; rogues got all simple weapons; rangers got more class features; more feats incorporated into the PHB; gnome favoured class became bard; two weapon fighting required only a single feat; some monsters beefed up (e.g. the pit fiend). Damage reduction no longer required a "+" and instead uses different materials. Energy resistance rules changed, and spell DC boosts got harder to find (most became +s to caster level).
When you take into account all the sourcebooks however, by the end 3.5 characters were a fair bit stronger than 3.0.

Quote from: 1989;485729I have to correct you here:

1e lasted 12 years.
2e lasted 11 years.
3e lasted a mere 3 years.
3.5e lasted 5 years.

(Total of 8 years for 3.0 and 3.5).

Counting 1E from the release of the MM seems a bit bogus.

If you want to divide 3rd Edition into two baskets, you probably need to do the same for 2E (pre-S&P and post-S&P) and could even make a pretty decent argument for 1E (pre-UA and post-UA).

The most enduring version of the rules, if you're not doing that kind of split, was the BECMI/Cyclopedia incarnation. ('83 to '99.)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;485845Under the hood there were quite a few changes that altered the game if I recall properly (i seem to remember types suddenly became very imprtant with magic weapons and monsters --- think stacking may have been different). But these were things i didn't really notice until the rules lawyer informed me during play. Personally Buying the 3.5 rule books felt like a needless waste of money to me.

In terms of meaningful compatibility, the biggest differences were the skills they renamed and the way DR worked. The changes to some of the core classes were also significant, but not from a compatibility standpoint: Playing a 3.0 ranger or druid in a 3.5 campaign was as simple as... using the appropriate class listing.

Similarly, a lot of monster stat blocks were changed because the underlying math was tweaked. These types of things meant that if you really needed every single number to add up perfectly according to the monster creation rules, the conversion between editions could be nitpicky and annoying. (As a professional designer, it was something that required a lot of effort because the only way to do it reliably was to go back and redo all the math from scratch.) But in terms of meaningful compatibility at the game table, using 3.0 stuff with 3.5 (or vice versa) was generally just a matter of doing it. (At my table, it's irrelevant -- except for DR and the names of a couple skills.)

To put it another way: The difficulty of using 3.0 material in 3.5 is roughly equivalent to the difficult of using OD&D material in AD&D.

Quote from: valency;485600What is it with your narcissistic butthurt posts about people you don't like, RPGPundit? It's possible she mentioned this because it's a piece of minor industry gossip and she's passing it along. It get no feeling from that brief post that this is either "whistleblowing" or "vindictiveness", but rather "I heard this from mutal friends." It's not exactly like revealing Valerie Plame is a CIA agent, now is it? The name Monte Cook didn't even register with me, and I'm guessing most people, so how can it constitute "whisteblowing"?

Your post is just further proof that the smaller the sandpit people live in, the more they like to throw the sand around.

If you do not know who Monte Cook is, you are lame...   If you do not recognize him for his contributions to the gaming world, then you are certainly a friggin MORON.   Go lay an egg or something.  :teehee::teehee:

Hey easy now. I didn't know who Monte Cook was. Of course, I also don't play D&D-and I tend not to pay attention to people behind the curtain. It kind of ruins things for me to know the guy who wrote the book I like has a web blog decorated in Hello Kitty or what not.

Quote from: Serious Paul;485943Hey easy now. I didn't know who Monte Cook was. Of course, I also don't play D&D-and I tend not to pay attention to people behind the curtain. It kind of ruins things for me to know the guy who wrote the book I like has a web blog decorated in Hello Kitty or what not.

I only knew who he was peripherally. Never used or even seen any product he's ever written or been associated with. D&D was never my game of choice; especially 3rd edition (which is what he is most known for).

Took about 5 seconds to find on google: http://www.ranker.com/list/monte-cook-books-and-stories-and-written-works/reference .

Here's one with his Rolemaster stuff also included: http://www.bookfinder.com/author/monte-cook/

I don't even play D&D - but I still knew who the heck Monte Cook was.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;486054I don't even play D&D - but I still knew who the heck Monte Cook was.


- Ed C.

Yeah, but don't you work in a game store?

Quote from: Serious Paul;485943Hey easy now. I didn't know who Monte Cook was. Of course, I also don't play D&D-and I tend not to pay attention to people behind the curtain. It kind of ruins things for me to know the guy who wrote the book I like has a web blog decorated in Hello Kitty or what not.

I am familiar with the name because of Dragon Mag. Can't say I know anything about his drama with Wizards. Most posters here know a whole lot about designers and the internal politics of game companies.

Regards,
David R

I consider myself lucky. I don't read any insider or trade magazines, I don't spend much time in game stores, and the one time I went to Gen Con I was so disgusted with my hobby I quit gaming for almost a year or so. I avoid most of the people in my chosen hobby because frankly they remind way too much of some of the people I work around, and given where I work....well that's way bad.

Edit

I guess all of that's a long winded way of saying I don't follow the industry that closely, and while it bears some passing interest I'd prefer a conversation about the game then the cat making it!

For what it is worth, I have a friend that works for WotC and he says the same thing. WotC has been developing 5e since last year.

Quote from: Clangador;486800For what it is worth, I have a friend that works for WotC and he says the same thing. WotC has been developing 5e since last year.

Has he mentioned what the company thinks about 4e ( success, failure, etc).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;486813Has he mentioned what the company thinks about 4e ( success, failure, etc).

Just that it didn't meet sales expectations.

No rpg will meet Hasbro sales expectations.

Quote from: Clangador;486800For what it is worth, I have a friend that works for WotC and he says the same thing. WotC has been developing 5e since last year.

Is this source factual? You have a friend on the "inside"? What's his or her name?