Wizards Releases 3.5 Edition System Reference

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."

Comments

It's not quite the core rulebooks....

[Drantin]

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...

Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5?

[apoc.famine]

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.

Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5?

[Outland Traveller]

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.

Re:Is it worth switching from 3.0 to 3.5?

[Golias]

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.

Arcana Unearthed or D&D 3.5

[patch-rustem]

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.

Re:Arcana Unearthed or D&D 3.5

[LordYUK]

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.

Re:editorial suggestion...

[EllF]

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.