Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wizards Releases 3.5 Edition System Reference

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the rules-lawyering-and-world-building dept.

Randar the Lava Liza writes "Wizards of the Coast have released the 3.5 Edition System Reference Document. Essentially it's the three core rulebooks in RTF format. This includes the 3.5 Edition Player's Handbook, 3.5 Edition Dungeon Master's Guide and 3.5 Edition Monster Manual. All of these are released under their Open Gaming License. You can also read a very interesting review of 3.5 Edition by Monte Cook, one of the original creators of 3rd Edition D&D. He goes into detail on a number of the changes in this new edition."

61 comments

  1. d20 Rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a big fan of D&D, but the core system (which Wizards has renamed d20) rocks. It's amazingly flexible, as seen in basically every Bioware game since Baldur's Gate (including Knights of the Old Republic). It almost makes me wish I could license it for less than the obscene amount that Wizards most likely charges.

    1. Re:d20 Rocks by blacksway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Re: Bioware
      Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II, and Icewind Dale all used AD&D second edition rules. Icewind Dale II used a mish-mash of the two I believe.

      Re: Cost to license D20 or OGL
      Nothing. Not a jot. Its Free. Use it, modify it and release under the same license.

      Re: Cost to license the "Dungeons and Dragons" name
      Lots!

  2. It's not quite the core rulebooks.... by Drantin · · Score: 5, Informative
    Q: What's missing from the SRD compared to the core D&D rulebooks? A: Mostly the "flavor" elements. There are no named gods, none of the spells have significant NPC names, there's no mention of Greyhawk, etc. You'll also note that there are no rules for character creation, for advancing characters in level, calculating experience, or anything else related to the topics forbidden by the Usage Guide.
    It doesn't seem to be quite the three core rulebooks, although the missing information shouldn't be hard to find elsewhere...
    --
    Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
  3. Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Informative

    My local gaming group has decided to switch up to 3.5, and we'll be starting a campaign this saturday with the ruleset. At first glance, this edition seems far more streamlined, more flexible, and much more open-ended when it comes to character development. I think it will promote a lot more variety, and overall will speed up the mechanics of game sessions. That and at first glance, the classes are better balanced.

    At the same time, there is no pressing reason to switch from 3.0 - the core of the game remains the same, and 3.0 is still a very solid ruleset. There is nothing terribly broken in 3.0 that was fixed in 3.5. That in itself leads to a fair amount of "wizards is grubbing for money" comments.

    I can see both sides of the coin here - while 3.5 is indeed an easy way for wizards to make money, it also provides some sweet new art, greater flexibility for classed monsters, and just feels slicker.

    Since I made pretty good use of 3.0, I'm not opposed to spending some cash on 3.5 - bare minimum it's cheep entertainment/hour compared to just about everything else.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    1. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by Outland+Traveller · · Score: 4, Informative

      In true software-development form, 3.0 introduced tons of new, poorly tested ideas. Even the copyediting quality was abysmal. If you turn to the combat section you will find the same information repeated again and again, without any clear organization. In some cases the exact same paragraphs repeat.

      3.5 is a cleanup, both on the production quality and on the rule balancing. I think it's much better, I only regret that more time wasn't spent making sure 3.0 was ready. There's a quite a bit of nerfing, but again that is 3.0's fault, not an intrinsic problem in 3.5.

    2. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by Sulihin · · Score: 1

      I think 3.0 harm was terribly broken, but I'll conceed that you don't need to buy a $30 book to fix that.

      I also thought the Bard class was pretty much broken, and to a lesser degree the fact that a lot of the classes gained a significant amount of power at level 1 then not much else. The bard was merely the largest example of this to some degree. 3.5 seems to do a good job of fixing that. I don't like Rangers having d8 HD, but I also didn't have a problem with 3.0 Rangers at all, which a lot of people did. Oh well.

    3. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I agree with harm and most of the class tweaks. I think the bard looks pretty good now, and overall, fixing the front-loading of classes was a great idea.

      But because I had an issue with the 3.0 ranger I have no issue with the d8 hd in 3.5, in light of all the other stuff they get. In fact, I'm playing my first 3.x ranger in our first 3.5 campaign. I almost fear that they're too powerful in 3.5, but it's hard to judge without playing one. Thus my "sacrifice" for the campaign... ;)

      I must be angsty this month, but I also have issues with the half elf getting +2 diplomacy and gather info. It forces half elves into a role that isn't right for all half elves. We're fixing this with a house rule that gives them a choice from a number of "quasi-feats" to replace the dip/gather info bonus. These being:

      Acrobatic (+2 jump and tumble)
      Athletic (+2 climb and swim)
      Deceitful (+2 disguise and forgery)
      Diligent (+2 appraise and decipher script)
      Friendly (+2 diplomacy and gather info) (yeah, I made the name up.)
      Magical Aptitude (+2 spellcraft and use magical device)
      Negotiator (+2 diplomacy and sense motive)
      Self Sufficiant (+2 heal and survival)
      "Elven" Weapon Proficiency (choose long/short bow, rapier, or LS)

      This list is designed to point half-elves towards a trait that fits in well with whatever human elements they have grown up with, but also represents their elven heritedge. It also purposely filters out a lot of feats which could be really be munched to overpower the race.

      I think they made a stride towards a better half elf, but something like this really rounds it out.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by Jonsey · · Score: 1

      Rangers as a class were fine. I had a wonderful low STR (~10) ranger that I loved playing as a hunter sort. Moderateratly high dex, really really high Con.

      It was one class level of ranger that killed it. Take one level ranger, get a d10 hit die, a +1 BaB added, Fort save increase, three free feats (two that only work in light armor) and you had a problem. 1st level: Rogue 2nd: Ranger 3-20 Rogue... and you had a game killer. : )

      --
      I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
    5. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really like where rangers are now - they really fit in well between rogues and fighters. Before they were too much like poor fighters without enough skill pts for the skills they needed. Now they are skillful hunters - what I view rangers to be.

      They aren't tanks - that's left for the fighters. They really have their own place now, and I like that. I think it's a stride forward towards making the class more of a core class, and less of a "we've got a fighter and a rogue, what else can I play?" sort of class.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    6. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by Sulihin · · Score: 1

      I guess my other problem is that my first character in 3rd edition was a rogue, and I was immensly pissed off at what I perceived to be major problems with the rogue class. Basically I felt that the rogue should be where the ranger is now melee wise. As it stood, the gnome psion in our group had more hp than my elven rogue at level 10, which was quite distressfull considering my rogue had to melee to survive (I didn't have spring attack yet, and spring attack means no multiple attacks/round) and so much of the system is designed around HP that a 10 con rogue got splatted a lot.

      I'm making a Duellist as an alternate for another campaign and wanted the d10 hit dice while taking ranger on the way, since i see duellist following ranger perfectly. Of course I also haven't seen the 3.5 DMG yet (thought it just arrived at home, ordered it from amazon sunday) so maybe they lowered duellist HD too.

      I do like the new focus of rangers on light armour skillful hunter types though. I might take it even with the d20 because it fits the character well, depends on if it means I lose feats I need.

      However, reducing their HD highlights a flaw from my pov in the D&D conception of rogues. I'm still irate that a freaking Cleric gets d8 and a Rogue gets d6. So I'm some clergyman who spends his life in a monastery praising my deity, and I'm tougher than a guy who grew up on the streets. This show my problem with the Paladin class as a whole, since Clerics originally were basically Templars, and Paladins are basically Templars between fighters and Clerics. Except that since they get the same HD and attack progression as Fighters, and lot of nifty other effects one could consider them better. I don't feel that what Rangers got really warrented the HD drop.

    7. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by August_zero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with your rogue complaints myself, at least I did during first and second edition as far as HP is concerned but the number of skills and abilities that they now have in 3rd/3.5 more than makes up for it.

      The medium leveled rogue will take no damage from powerful AOE attacks if they can pass a simple reflex save (which they likely will) where as the fighters and clerics are going to see a large chunk of their HP knocked off in a heart beat. Also the reworking of sneak attacks makes them ideal snipers/back stabbers. These abilities can let them eaisly out pace fighters in straight damage but of course you need to be careful and creative. If you have a "Final fantasy" DM (that is one that pictures combat as all the combatants just standing in a line and exchanging blows without any sort of strategy) your going to have a boring night.

      THe best way to get that tankable thief is to dual class. A few levels of fighter can give you an extra bunch of HP, better attack rolls and a few extra combat feats. These combined with your hiding and sneak attacks makes you a force to be reckoned with.

      --
      On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
    8. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by August_zero · · Score: 1

      +2 dipolomacy? I thought one of the traits of the race is that they never feel at home with either human or elves. Why would an outcast get a diplomacy bonus in neither parent race seems them as "one of us"?

      I never did like elves, maybe I have this backwards...

      --
      On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
    9. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by Golias · · Score: 1
      +2 dipolomacy? I thought one of the traits of the race is that they never feel at home with either human or elves. Why would an outcast get a diplomacy bonus in neither parent race seems them as "one of us"?

      Because years of practice at dealing with awkward social situations has honed their skills at smoothing out relations in tense situations. Also, their mixed lineage makes them perceived obvious choices when you need a neutral adjudicator in a dispute. "The king wants to clear out a forrest for more farm land, the elves say no... let's get a half-elf to help settle the dispute."

      Half-elves are the most shafted race by 3rd Edition. They lack the bonus feat and skills of humans, but do not gain most of the elven advantages either. Adding diplomacy almost makes them an interesting race to play again.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    10. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by Golias · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If your rogue was going into melee a lot, then you were playing him wrong. Rogues do not get many extra hit points because they make it their business to almost never need them.

      The Rogue Way is to let the foolish Paladins keep the monsters busy, while you sneak off and help yourself to the best gems in the treasure horde. They might resent your "cowardice," but what are they going to do about it? Kick you out of the trap-filled dungeon for not joining the fight?

      Insist that you are a pacifist by nature, and can't stand the sight of blood. They might not know about that noble Duke you once stabbed between the ribs in order to liberate the deeds to his properties in the East, which you later sold for a tidy sum.

      If you really want to help the party, buy items with your ill-gotten gains that enhance your sneakiness, such as a ring of invisibility. Then you can silently slip around to the enemies flank, use magic items to confound them from a hidden alcove, and finally emerge to backstab the poor bastard at just the right moment.

      If that kind of play does not appeal to you, then maybe you should play a fighter... or a rogue on EverQuest.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    11. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by Sulihin · · Score: 1

      While that's a perfectly viable way to play a rogue, to insist it's the only way is silly, especially given the whole point of them changing the class name from thief to rogue so as to encompass other rogue-like characters. Besides, by not fighting, you're basically neglecting one of the primary purposes of a rogue, the huge amount of sneak attack damage they can do. What's the point of being able to do +10d6 on a hit if you never melee (sneak attacks are much harder in ranged combat when you can't flank...)

      My mistake was going into melee with the young red dragon, even with the shield and an AC of 35 he splatted me in one round. I should have held back and plinked him with my crossbow and saved the sneak attacks for the puds I could pick off in one or two shots.

    12. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by Sulihin · · Score: 1

      I actually had a few levels of fighter. When we quit that campaign I was a 3 fighter, 4 rogue, 2 wizard (Elf) and 1 shadowdancer, IIRC. You have to be very careful with multiclassing. Sure, you get better hp (on average, but you can always roll a 1 as a fighter too) attack rolls and some feats, but you also don't get X levels of rogue, wich means more rogue skills, backstab and those nifty evasion abilities.

      I'm not claiming my character was perfect by a long shot, it was my first 3rd edition character, made before the DMG even came out. In a later campaign a friend played a rogue and kicked major behind with improved invisibility and sneak attack. I later made a shade rogue/wizard in a forgotton realms campaign who used a wand of darkness on himself and flew above things (when space allowed) sneak attacking with his bow. That was fun, but we only played once.

    13. Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5? by Golias · · Score: 2, Informative
      The other major "rogue" skill, besides thievery, is scouting. In large-scale campaigns, they are pretty good at sneaking behind enemy lines for recon.

      As for the backstab, it does a lot of damage, but the intention is that you avoid melee one way or another so the enemy will ignore you, then you sneak in to the flank and jab them, especially if it looks like that +10d6 will probably be enough to finish them off.

      If any monster lets a rogue just hang around on their flank for an entire melee confrontation without repositioning themselves, they deserve the quick death that will surely follow.

      Unless multiclassed as a fighter, the clever rogue avoids danger whenever possible, looking out first for their own safety before helping those heavily armed and armored thugs chop up the monsters. Giving the rogue a lower HP serves to motivate the player to adhere to this mentality.

      By the way, the Rogue hit die is really not so pathetic as you make it sound. Monsters, clerics, monks, druids, and now rangers all average 4.5 HP per level. Rogues average 3.5 per level, meaning that a level 10 rogue will only have an average 10 HP less that a cleric with the same constitution at tenth level. That's a difference of one good sword blow from a strong level 10 fighter. Add to that the fact that mid-level Rogues tend to have fantastic dodge bonuses, and can never be caught flat-footed, and I would insist that they are really well-balanced, if not a bit munchkiny. Sure, they don't melee as well as a fighter or barbarian, but they are not supposed to. Be creative and sneaky, and your rogue will be absolutely murderous.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  4. Damn you Hasbro!!!! by WildFire42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Damn you for making me buy something else to keep up with current D&D gaming! Damn you for not respecting the gamers, your true source of...

    Wait, you mean I can download it?

    Without Kazaa?

    I'm dead sure I'll get modded to hell for this, but for the cynicism impaired, I'm making a slight social commentary on bi*ching gamers who have, for years, complained about first about T$R, then about Wi$ard$ of the Coa$t, now about Ha$bro, if you catch my drift. Oddly, I don't hear that many Warhammer fans who bitch about GW though, and they actually have some very good reasons to (80 dollars for a few pieces of unpainted plastic? Some assembly required, of course).

    1. Re:Damn you Hasbro!!!! by analog_line · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised they released as much of it as they did. I don't know if levelling and all that is changed much from 3.0, but if it isn't, that pretty much means you don't need to buy the new books. Maybe the Monster Manual, but if you're the kind of person who's willing to hack together a ruleset between some old books and some RTF files, I expect you've already made monster entries for much of what got put into the new Monster Manual.

      In that sense it's about the same as how SuSE released their version of Linux "free". All in individual source files, and missing important pieces that are not open sourced. No easy ISO or the whole thing.

    2. Re:Damn you Hasbro!!!! by BMonger · · Score: 3, Funny

      People can complainin about T$R, Wi$ard$ of the Coa$t, and Ha$boro along with Micro$oft all they want... this is because these companies have letters easily replaced by the dollar symbol. Warhammer does not.

    3. Re:Damn you Hasbro!!!! by Mandoric · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Warhammer's the game. "Game$ Work$hop", as would be used here, is the producing company.

      And, yeah, I'll back up his point... everybody at uni complained about the prices -except- for those who played.

    4. Re:Damn you Hasbro!!!! by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 3, Funny
      People can complainin about T$R, Wi$ard$ of the Coa$t, and Ha$boro along with Micro$oft all they want... this is because these companies have letters easily replaced by the dollar symbol. Warhammer does not.

      ¥¥arhammr, perhaps?

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    5. Re:Damn you Hasbro!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kazaa? Why not hop on to IRC or Direct Connect for your RPG needs? Want those OOP books that sell for way too much on eBay? Scans are available in PDF format(There's some in RTF and Word format too, but both are way too print-hostile for this kind of stuff)

    6. Re:Damn you Hasbro!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


      These games are never going to be like Monopoly- buy the box once and play. You will ALWAYS be needing to get the next version in order to keep up. If you can't handle that, get out of the hobby or try and find people who still play 3.0 (though I suspect you may soon have an easier time finding people who still play 1st edition!)

      On the GW side. Unpainted and unassembled plastic is the whole point! Warhammer is just as much about building and painting your troops as it is about playing. If you are too lazy and uncreative, play Mage Knight or Heroclix. Some people really enjoy building models. Furthermore, the average cost for a regiment from GW is $25-$30. Thats a few weeks worth of assembling and painting if you have a regular 40 hr week job and a wife. Cheaper than a movie in dollars-per-hour of entertainment; and you get to be creative and use your brain. (not to mention inhale all that glue!)

      Honestly. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the stuff. If you are still clinging desperately to the last edition (I still love 1st ed AD&D) use eBay and look for other people who aren't so easily wooed by each new and shiny release from WotC.

    7. Re:Damn you Hasbro!!!! by Necromancyr · · Score: 1

      You definitely need to talk to my friends about GW. They are the devil, but unfortunately they are the true rulers of the minature wargaming market. Hell, they come out with revised books every 6 months...that alone makes Wizards look like saints. Though, I would have liked more new art and better editing for 3.5. Your going to see second print books w/in 6 months that correct alot of the typos.

    8. Re:Damn you Hasbro!!!! by naarok · · Score: 1

      Is anyone else as bitter as I that WoC has changed to pre-painted plastic miniatures? I get almost as much fun from painting miniatures as from playing the game. I wish they'd kept the chainmail line and added the plastic prepainted miniatures as a (required) option.

      Actually, I also dislike the 3.5 changes that make it a-lot harder to play without miniatures (I paint miniatures as a hobby, not to use in a campaign). What happened to imagining things in your mind? As Monte Cook mentions, many of the rules now assume the use of miniatures. I think this is a mistake.

    9. Re:Damn you Hasbro!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unpainted and unassembled plastic is the whole point!

      I disagree. If that was the whole point, then why would GW charge an arm and a leg for all those books which are outdated a week after you buy them? Most models are cheaper than GW miniatures and larger. People who really like model-building will buy models. People who really like wargaming will look for cheaper stuff to use, like green-army guys (they rock). People who have rich parents, like model-building and wargames will spend boatloads of $$$ on GW miniatures.

  5. editorial suggestion... by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    I know that we're all geeks here and such, but it would have been helpfull if someone would have mentioned that this was Dungeons and Dragons we were talking about. It took me a second to figure that out.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    1. Re:editorial suggestion... by WildFire42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      it would have been helpfull if someone would have mentioned that this was Dungeons and Dragons we were talking about.

      Yes, because Wizards of the Coast puts out so many other high-quality, well-loved games, it's hard to tell them apart. Such as Magic: The Gat...uhhh, well, there's always Lord of the Five...

      Harry Potter the Trading Card popularity milking?

      NFL Showdown?

      Hello? Is this thing on?

      /me sighs.

      The only other game that I respect Wizards/Hasbro/whatever for is Call of Cthulhu. Now that's a fun game.

    2. Re:editorial suggestion... by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the headline doesn't specify "Wizards of the Coast", just "Wizards". It took me a bit to figure out what they were talking about, too.

    3. Re:editorial suggestion... by slaker · · Score: 1

      Isn't Call of Cthulhu still a Chaosium product?

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    4. Re:editorial suggestion... by EllF · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. CoC-D20 exists, but the Cthulhu license and brand still belongs to Chaosium. They've an arrangement with Wizards to release some products, but it's specifically referred to as "Call of Cthulhu D20". Not sure how long-lived that venture will be -- the Delta Green D20 book seems to have gone on hold, and not much has been released in the line aside from the core rulebook.

      --
      We who were living are now dying
      With a little patience
    5. Re:editorial suggestion... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      The only other game that I respect Wizards/Hasbro/whatever for is Call of Cthulhu. Now that's a fun game.

      Roborally, don't forget Roborally. This has got to be one of the best board games ever made. Mind you, I don't think it was a WOTC original, but they do own the license to it now. No other game offers the sheer joy of watching your opponent finish out his registers after you bump him a square or two on the first phase, especially on the can crusher map.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    6. Re:editorial suggestion... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      MMMMmmmmMmMm.... Delta Green....

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    7. Re:editorial suggestion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Det. Thorn: Soon they'll be breeding us like cattle! You've got to warn everyone and tell them! Delta green is made of people! You've got to tell them! Delta green is people!

    8. Re:editorial suggestion... by ZzzzSleep · · Score: 1

      Roborally is in fact an original Wizards game. It was created by the same guy that created MTG, Richard Garfield.

      --
      Emerald Astrology
  6. Arcana Unearthed or D&D 3.5 by patch-rustem · · Score: 0, Informative
    The bad:
    Now, weapons are categorized by handedness, and they do different damage based on size. Thus, it's no longer the case that a longsword is effectively a greatsword for a Small character and a short sword for a Large character. Now, there is a small longsword, a medium longsword (and by implication) a large longsword.
    Well that's gone and spoilt it for me. I'm going to have to try out Arcana Unearthed.
    --
    Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.
    1. Re:Arcana Unearthed or D&D 3.5 by LordYUK · · Score: 3, Informative

      how in all that is Geekdom did this get modified as "informative"??

      A short sword and a long sword are not the same blade with differing lenghts. The SS is weighted for stabbing, whereas a LS is weighted for slashing. While a LS CAN stab and a SS CAN slash, they arent as effective as they are when used properly. The greatsword, or two-handed sword, was also weighted differently, and wouldnt have been as effective as a longsword because of its balance.

      That said, it was always a "convienience" rule which let, say, a halfling use a human longsword as a greatsword or a giant use a human greatsword as a shortsword. While these weapons are all "basically" the same (in that a mace is basically a fancy club), they are all used differently and require different sets of skills to use to full potential.

      It makes SENSE that each race would make their own "variant" swords sized to their stature, however, the damage that a halfling longsword would do would compare to the human short sword.

      all that really changes is that if you're small or large (human being medium), and you find a human sized sword, well, you're not going to be able to use it quite right.

      In the end though, unless the DM is a jerk off, if he is giving you magical items that he wants you to have, you'll be able to use them.

      On that note, 99% of the rules are "house approved" only... just because its in the rule book doesnt make it law.

      --
      This is my sig. Its pathetic.
    2. Re:Arcana Unearthed or D&D 3.5 by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. Not only that, but what is cooler: Having your halfling ranger make his way into the halfling warrior's tomb and finding a human short sword and short bow, or a halfling long sword and long bow with clan markings?

      I think this finally legitimizes weapons for the smaller races, and realistically deals with the fact that they would make arms built to their specs. Your great gnome warrior isn't going to go to the great dwarven blacksmith and have a human long sword commissioned for him - he's going to get a greatsword fitted and balanced for him.

      While it's more complicated and makes random treasure a little harder, I think it was a worthy change. Power to the little people!

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  7. It's quite nice really by Jonsey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've got the 3rd edition books, even bought 'em locally to help my gameshop. I now have a SRD with the majority of 3.5's changes.

    Due to easier format, I now have a snazzy, easy reference to rules I had been bending my DMG to get photocopies of (Those last ~8 pages)

    Maybe I'm somewhat alone in the no-screen DMing... But it makes my concience clear when I kill a PC :D

    --
    I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
    1. Re:It's quite nice really by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Eh, I'm 50/50 with no-screen DMing. I'd do it more often if it weren't for my bizzare rolling. I often have to tone down rolls in one fight when I crit 3 times in a row on the same PC, and then have to buff them up in another when I constantly roll under 5.

      It's supposed to be fun - if you smite the boss with ease and then fall to his puny henchmen, it's not that much fun. If both are good fights, it's more fun.

      But I agree - the format is much better than 3.0. Now I just have to re-memorize the page numbers for stuff...

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:It's quite nice really by Golias · · Score: 1
      My "DM screen" is an LCD. The iBook takes care of all of my roles, as well as holding all my notes and maps. I also have HTML-ized some of the core rules so I can look up spells, monsters and items quickly.

      Paperless, bookless DMing rocks! I no longer need to lug around 60 pounds of 2nd Edition books and notebooks when DMing away from home.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  8. Re:What the fuck is this?! by The+Zody · · Score: 1

    Every few years he great gaming company of the gods (Used to be TSR now is Wizards of the cost) releases a new version of the popular D&D rule set, in theory each version improves upon the last and fixes things that need fixing.

  9. Re:What the fuck is this?! by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

    So the fucking Open-d20 system changes what is already set in the DnD manuals? They should fucking print a new version of the DnD manuals that have pictures and shit in it, based on 3.5 for fuck's sake. Everything's a fucking cross reference.

    The Open-d20 system is simply the information in the books available for everyone's use, think of it as the source code for D&D, without the artwork and the elements that are specific to D&D (ie the names that are trademarks). The 3.5 manuals were already printed and released, and announced on Slashdot.

    --
    -PainKilleR-[CE]
  10. Re:What the fuck is this?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think you meant:


    Still no smurfing good. One one hand, why the smurf would I pay $30 for those smurfing books I see in the bookstore when I can get them for free? On the other hand, these downloaded books don't look anything like the smurfing books you can buy! How the smurf do you guys play D&D, by constantly cross-referencing two sets of books that are similar but different?! smurf that! Good thing we have smurfing games like Baldurs Gate because real D&D is like smurfing doing your taxes, always looking shit up in books when all you really want to do is smash some smurfing goblin skull.

    So the smurfing Open-d20 system changes what is already set in the DnD manuals? They should smurfing print a new version of the DnD manuals that have pictures and shit in it, based on 3.5 for smurf's sake. Everything's a smurfing cross reference.

    Or did you perhaps intend "I am adjective impaired, so I say 'fuck' a lot to make myself look cool and angst-ridden?"

  11. Because it was informative by JimTheta · · Score: 1

    I think I modded it as informative. And this post is going to flush it.

    I modded it because it was a rules aspect that I hadn't noticed or heard about yet, and one that doesn't really simplify anything. It is informative with relation to the game system, not with real swords. How many of us know crap about real swords anyway (yourself excluded)?

    Maybe some people like it, and some people don't. I haven't played with the new system yet. Regardless, it is informative for those of us who are debating on whether we should be arsed to convert to 3.5 yet.

    -Grant

    --
    My stupid web site
  12. damn RTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm very happy that WoTC released their rules, and I probably sound like a jerk for bitching, but I wish the information was in a more useful format then RTF.

    The D20 rules would really benefit from a conversion to heavily linked HTML, so that I can quickly hop around between skills/spells/feats etc.

    Anyone agree?

    More importantly, anyone willing to assist with such a conversion? We've got at least a couple of years before the next version is out, so a hyperlinked D20 ruleset would be useful for a long time.

    1. Re:damn RTF by metamatic · · Score: 1

      I started working on an HTML version of the previous edition of the SRD. I'm potentially interested, but I think I need to tackle it again, with more automation this time...

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    2. Re:damn RTF by Golias · · Score: 1
      I've found that it's totally worth doing, whether you are a player of DM. Especially if you index-link the spells from the class lists and such.

      Does the OGL let us share this sort of work, I wonder? (I probably can't share mine anyway, as I removed all the license information and stuff from most of the pages while I was editing them.)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:damn RTF by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. Just convert the license text to a license and copyright page, and add a link to that page to each of your HTML files, and you're legal.

      Unlike you, I looked into the legal questions before I started the work :-)

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    4. Re:damn RTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      matamatic sez:
      > with more automation this time...

      Amen. I've playing with XML and XSLT right now. Ideally I'd generate HTML and PDFs from the same XML source.

      Yesterday and today I converted a dozen skills to XML, with cross-references. I'm tweaking a style sheet to generate the HTML.

      There's a ton of material to convert, but marking up an individual skill or feat doesn't take very long. If a dozen people contributed 1 marked-up XML spell or skill or feat every day, the conversion would be complete within a month or two.

      First things first, I want to see if there is interest before I spend too much time. It's fun now, I'm learning about XML and XSLT, but there will be a lot of grunt work to do after I've stopped learning :)

      Anyone willing to help mark up (and clean up) some D20 reference docs?

      I also want to finalize a schema before soliciting contributions.

    5. Re:damn RTF by Golias · · Score: 1
      I started the work for my own use, so I didn't really care about the legal issues at the time.

      I might share the love eventually, but I only did it for 3.0, and somebody out there with more ambition than me will probably beat me to passing out an HTML-converted 3.5 version, complete with indexed linking.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    6. Re:damn RTF by Yuioup · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe you can open the .rtf with Word and then you can use a wizard to create a table of contents and an index.

      Does openoffice have functions like that? Are there any open source auto-indexers out there? It would be cool to be able to feed those .rtf in an app and generate indexes, etc...

      Yuioup

    7. Re:damn RTF by metamatic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://meta.ath0.com/d20/

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    8. Re:damn RTF by metamatic · · Score: 1

      http://meta.ath0.com/d20/

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  13. Re:What the fuck is this?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smurf my smurfing smurf-smurf.

  14. My players are crying... by Uriel · · Score: 1

    ...and that's without even having read the SRD or new books. Alas.

  15. More clearly... by Uriel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People are reacting without actually knowing anything. Many people in the community rail against this or that change they've heard about without considering the new rules as a whole. The SRD is free, go read it.

    Though reacting before reading is a pretty common /. problem.

  16. last post again. i suck by patch-rustem · · Score: 0

    last post!
    Baby Ruby says "bwarghhhhh!"

    --
    Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.