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."

11 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. 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)
  2. 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 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
    3. 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
  3. 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 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.

    2. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.