# [WOTC] Revised Corebooks for July confirmed with info



## TalonComics (Dec 4, 2002)

Hey all,

Sorry I didn't post this early in the week. It's a little harder for me to post here like I use to.

Here's the quote from the catalog:

_Each of the D&D core rulebooks has been revised and updated for clarity and content. Each revision intergrates user feedback received since the original product release so as to address the specific wants and needs of the player and DM audiences. The overall rules system remains intact, with changes targeted specifically at elements of game play that were considered under-powered or incomplete.

These revised editions also contain bonus content, such as new feats, that are exclusive to these editions. In addition, the new and revised content instructs players on how to take full advantage on the tie-in D&D miniatures line planned to release in Fall 2003 from WotC.

Overall changes to all the titles include making complex combat easier to understand and provide more information on interaction with and summoning monsters. Specific changes include the following:

*Revised Players Handbook* received revisions to character classes to make them more balanced, and there are revisions and additions to spell lists.

*Revised DM's Guide* was reorganized to make it more user-friendly. Changes have been made to the item creation rules and pricing, and there are new prestige classes included. There is also expanded advice on how to run a campaign.

*Revised Monster Manual* now contains adjusted layout that makes the monsters statistics easier to understand and use. There will be some new illustrations and a new index, and there is now expanded information on monster classes and playing monsters as heroes.

- These revisions are fuly compatible with existing backlist products, and each title will include upgrade notes on how to intergrate new information into existing campaigns.
- Each revision includes some premium content from products that followed the original core rulebook release.
- The total amount of new and revised material is appproximately 25%.
- Editorial coverage throughout Spring 2003 in Dragon and Dungeon magazines.
*- These new editions will have revised covers that reflect and refresh the line look established upon the inital release of the titles.* _

All of the books will be released in July 2003. All are 320 pages with a cover price of 29.95.

That's pretty much all it says other than the item codes which are kind of strange:
177490000 - RPHB
177520000 - RDMG
177550000 - RMM

I'm really not sure why there is a 3 number gap between each book.

~Derek


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2002)

*well*

well, hrm......


joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2002)

well... i'd thought i'd revise my post.  see 25% more content and a lot more clarity..  here's some new art.


****
****
****
(its a door, ok)

joe b.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 4, 2002)

So that begs the question, will this new material be included in the SRD?


----------



## Tyrion (Dec 4, 2002)

Cool. I wonder if they changed the Bard, and whether the Duelist is included among the added DMG prestige classes.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2002)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *So that begs the question, will this new material be included in the SRD? *




yes, sir... just what i was wondering.....

i was also wondering about how much independant d20 material will now be made obsolete by 3.1E.....

joe b.
*done with being snarky*


----------



## Kilmore (Dec 4, 2002)

Gaarh!!  And I just spotted a PHB that was still priced at $20 today, too!  Fortunately I was $2 short so I didn't blow the money, but I had my sights on it!  I guess I'll wait.

I think it needed to be done, to be honest.  Not that the original version was THAT bad, but a few years have done a lot to shake the system down and show the weaknesses.


----------



## Henry (Dec 4, 2002)

Derek, Thanks for the heads-up.

And a double "hmmm" on this one...

Not sure what to make of it, but I should hope that all revisions will make it into the SRD, more for reasons of "reusing the wheel you invented" more than anything else...


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2002)

TalonComics said:
			
		

> *Hey all,
> 
> - These revisions are fuly compatible with existing backlist products, and each title will include upgrade notes on how to intergrate new information into existing campaigns.
> - Each revision includes some premium content from products that followed the original core rulebook release.
> ...




just me or does that sound like they're going to repackage what they've already put out in different books and just call it "new"?

ie? FR's spells, splatbook stuff...?

lemme guess, the new campaign setting will come out two months later and use the new revised rules?

A single new book, called, say perhaps "Errata and Clarifications" that would sell for 30$ is just right outta the picture... 

yah know, this kinda makes me downright angry. 

joe b.
*hrmm... planned obsolescence?*


----------



## Paul_Klein (Dec 4, 2002)

They'll all be 320 pages? Sweet! That's a lot more for the DMGuide and MM then!

What else is coming from WotC in Q2 for D&D and Star Wars?


----------



## Mark (Dec 4, 2002)

TalonComics said:
			
		

> *I'm really not sure why there is a 3 number gap between each book.
> 
> ~Derek *




How are you doing, Squiggle-D? 

I'll start the guessing..

Could it be that the gaps reserve numbers for Second and Third printings of each revised edition?

Perhaps they are for editions in foreign languages of the revised books?

Maybe all the good numbers are taken, these are the ones that are left and just happen to fall every three numbers...?


----------



## TalonComics (Dec 4, 2002)

Paul_Klein said:
			
		

> *They'll all be 320 pages? Sweet! That's a lot more for the DMGuide and MM then!
> 
> What else is coming from WotC in Q2 for D&D and Star Wars? *




Heh, that would be here:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32475

I wanted to get the revised books in their own post so there could be two different discussions. 

Mark, I'm hanging in there! Things have settled down and I'm pretty much caught up. Currently, I'm updating all of the product pages on my site. I'm back in the saddle again as it were. 
My son got a new PC for his Christmas/birthday so I'm reading EN World threads aagain from there. Hopefully I'll be a regular fixture again! 

~Derek


----------



## thalmin (Dec 4, 2002)

Derek, welcome back.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 4, 2002)

Yes it is nice to have you back Derek/Talon! 


Btw I've decided on a wait and see atittude concern this "revision". I guess CC revised, I don't know how much I would actually use compared to what I have now.


----------



## Ashy (Dec 4, 2002)

Welcome back, Derek!  Glad to see that you've worked things out!


----------



## TalonComics (Dec 4, 2002)

As I recall I believe many people were looking for the 2nd printings of the DM's Guide and the Monster Manual to allow for errata. This is it including a 3rd printing of the PHB.

What's odd right now is there is a hybrid PHB currently in print that contains the following:
- Inside says it's 1st print
- No character generator CD in the back
- The 1st print additional material in the back that previewed the DMG and the MM is replaced with the additional material from the 2nd printing PHB

I haven't been able to compare the content of the book to the 2nd printing of the PHB though. I honestly have no idea what to call this bizarre print of the PHB.

Thanks for the welcome back guys! 

~D


----------



## Ashy (Dec 4, 2002)

Yea, it'll probably be worth a gazillion bucks to a collector someday.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 4, 2002)

TalonComics said:
			
		

> *As I recall I believe many people were looking for the 2nd printings of the DM's Guide and the Monster Manual to allow for errata. This is it including a 3rd printing of the PHB.
> 
> What's odd right now is there is a hybrid PHB currently in print that contains the following:
> - Inside says it's 1st print
> ...




Also the cover has the newer $29.95 price actually printed on the cover instead of on a sticker.


----------



## greymarch (Dec 4, 2002)

I dont want to spend another 90 dollars for three books I already own, but if the changes are worthwhile, perhaps I will buy them.

I am a ranger junkie, and have always felt that they are under-powered in 3rd edition. Perhaps the revised PHB will restore my faith in rangers.


----------



## TalonComics (Dec 4, 2002)

Hey Curt,

I saw you mentioned a 3rd printing in another post. Is this the 3rd printing? Have you been able to compare the content at all to the 2nd prints? I'm really curious but there's no way to order specific printings of the PHB from Alliance... And I'm not curious enough to buy it at the bookstore for full price. 

~D


----------



## thalmin (Dec 4, 2002)

TalonComics said:
			
		

> *Hey Curt,
> 
> I saw you mentioned a 3rd printing in another post. Is this the 3rd printing? Have you been able to compare the content at all to the 2nd prints? I'm really curious but there's no way to order specific printings of the PHB from Alliance... And I'm not curious enough to buy it at the bookstore for full price.
> 
> ~D *




I have not yet checked through the book for changes but yes it is the 3rd printing. I got some from Blackhawk Hobby Distributors. (Don't you love the way the changes are treated like Easter Eggs?)


----------



## Zephyrus (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: [WOTC] Revised Corebooks for July confirmed with info*



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *
> .... A single new book, called, say perhaps "Errata and Clarifications" ....*




Well having found an interest in Warhammer 40K recently thats kinda how they seem to go with it.. releasing books like a yearly chapter approved or something that compiles new rules or clarifications or such with the understanding that anything in the newer book overrides anything in an older book.

this I dont like primarly for the reason that you've now got an additional book at the table and have to search or know that more recent ruling.

at least with republishing the three (and all at once) you know your getting errata, clarifications and additional content.

I for one know I'l be buying them even if the additional content is recycling of old material. hopefully it'll also make its way into the SRD's as well.


----------



## novyet (Dec 4, 2002)

Very interesting. If the content is good enough, then I'll get them, but if it's just errata and things they've already published...I'll reserve judgement on them until we know more, or I get myself a look at them. 

Oh, and welcome back Derek! Glad to hear that most of the troubles are behind you.


----------



## hong (Dec 4, 2002)

10 Austrian cents (about .000000625 USaian dollars) says that harm STILL won't get a save.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 4, 2002)

You never know, hong, you never know... 

Cheers!


----------



## Ysgarran (Dec 4, 2002)

I wonder if these will be 'new' feats added or feats moved in from the supplements?   Think any of the original writers will help out?  Most of them are no longer at WotC, correct?  

Guess we will just have to be patient and see...

later,
Ysgarran.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 4, 2002)

The more information I read about these revised books, the better I feel.  I guess I'll look them over when they are released, and decide at that time if I should shell out the cash.  

One thing for sure though.  If they start issuing revised editions of all their other stuff, FR Campaign setting, splatbooks and the like, I am NOT buying them.  I've got enough 3E material right now to support a lifetime of gaming, so if they jerk us around too much, I could just opt out.  

Because I can stop buying this stuff anytime.  Really.  No problem.  I'm not addicted.


----------



## JeffB (Dec 4, 2002)

TalonComics said:
			
		

> *Hey all,
> 
> Sorry I didn't post this early in the week. It's a little harder for me to post here like I use to.
> 
> ...





WOOHOOO!!!!!  It's Official!

And welcome back Derek!


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 4, 2002)

I bet the bard is beefed up, the ranger and monk have more options for customization, _haste_ is reduced in power, _harm_ gets a save, and there's yet ANOTHER version of _polymorph self_.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Dec 4, 2002)

You know, it's almost sad how willing I am to buy the revised books.  You'd think there would be one small iota of rationality within me saying "no! no! it's all the same game!  you don't need this stuff!"  But there isn't.

I am WotCs b****.


----------



## Vuron (Dec 4, 2002)

/me wonders if it's worth the hassle of speculating about possible VP/WP, class Defense bonus, and DR based armor  Not to mention a major revision or elimination of partial actions


----------



## Psion (Dec 4, 2002)

Vuron said:
			
		

> */me wonders if it's worth the hassle of speculating about possible VP/WP, class Defense bonus, and DR based armor  Not to mention a major revision or elimination of partial actions  *




Oh, do get real. They wouldn't do it with D20 Modern (with the exception of defense), what makes you think they would do it with D&D?

(Not that I WANT them to make any such revisions to D&D... these books should be _strictly_ backwards compatible... but it would have made _sense_ for d20 modern.)


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 4, 2002)

Why not?  Wasn't it always Wizards' intentions to revise the books after a while?  It's not like Star Wars which was revised, what, a year after first printing?  Even then, I'm glad they did it, as the revised book is so much superior to the original book (not that I bought the revised book, my original book being mint condition still and all, but one of the other guys in my group did.  It's an impressive book.)  Almost three years for a revised set of core books -- that's not so bad.


----------



## Gargoyle (Dec 4, 2002)

And I heard there will four versions of each book, each with a different collectible cover...

Just kidding.


----------



## Vuron (Dec 4, 2002)

Ooooh where do i get the special platinum nude cover


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 4, 2002)

Really, it is a very good move for both the consumer and WoTC.  Really, any of us that already own the books and are happy with our games, don't need them, but many people will buy them out of compusive purchasing habits (good for WoTC).

New players will have better material that needs less errata.  (good for the player).  When our books begin to get banged up and need replacing, we get books designed and written after extensive play testing and user comments (good for us).  

It is only bad if you feel a compulsion to own every book or every version of the book.  Right now, I don't feel the need, who knows if I will next year.  I just want the darned Kalamar Atlas.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 4, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *I just want the darned Kalamar Atlas. *




Amen, brother.


----------



## Gargoyle (Dec 4, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *Really, it is a very good move for both the consumer and WoTC.  Really, any of us that already own the books and are happy with our games, don't need them, but many people will buy them out of compusive purchasing habits (good for WoTC).
> 
> New players will have better material that needs less errata.  (good for the player).  When our books begin to get banged up and need replacing, we get books designed and written after extensive play testing and user comments (good for us).
> 
> <snip> *




I agree.  This is the right time to release a 3.5 edition.  If you look at the D&D FAQ you'll notice that it contains quite a bit of what is actually errata, and not merely Q&A stuff.  And there are balance issues with classes, spells etc that most everyone knows about.  But not everyone agrees how to fix those issues, so official guidance is needed.  It's time to overhaul the core rules, and it looks like they're going to do it without going too far and creating a whole new edition.  Bravo WOTC!

I still hope they release a leatherbound annotated edition of all three core books in one handsome volume..


----------



## Thorntangle (Dec 4, 2002)

Who provided feedback and in what way? Another round of playtesting? Surveys? Word on the street?

And more importantly, who wrote the changes?


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 4, 2002)

I'll be glad for a revised edition of the PHB. To say I'll have gotten $20 worth of use out of my GenCon2000-purchased PHB by the time this new one comes out is an understatement. The little part of me that likes to have things clean and neatly organized in one place is very happy this morning.

As for the DMG and MM, I'll see how many changes are made and how much lucre I have on hand before buying them, but the PHB is an auto-buy for me.


----------



## Neowolf (Dec 4, 2002)

I don't understand the (few) negative reactions I've seen in this thread so far.  Once these revised books come out, it's not like the ones you already own are going to burst into flame or something, forcing you to buy more.  If you want the new books, buy them.   If you don't want them, don't.  Personally, I'm planning to get at least the RPHB, because I'd like to see all the errata and new material incorporated into a core rulebook.

As far as the other two books go, I'll probably at least look at the RDMG.  I don't DM a whole lot, but the new prestige classes and item creation rules might be interesting.

As for the RMM, eh... I've already got monsters out the wazoo, I can make more, and I understand the existing stat blocks. 

Anyway, my point is that the sky isn't falling and WotC isn't trying to jerk the rug out from under you.


----------



## Vuron (Dec 4, 2002)

Thus far no Hasbro employee has sold his soul to me to create ritual magic causing the spontaneous combustion of all 3e core books, however I have been in contact with the Christian Coalition and White Wolf concerning the possibilities but to date the CC is more concerned with abortionists and WW is making good money so negotiations have been slow.


----------



## LoPaC (Dec 4, 2002)

Hasbro just wants our money.  They could give 2 s**ts about the game itself, save for keeping us happy.  All they care about is which corporate jet they are gonna buy next week.  Don't get me wrong, there are changes needed, clarifications and whatnot.  But wheres that little promise of low price core books back before 3rd Ed. even hit the stores?!?!?  Well, I guess its ok for Corporate America to go back on its promises, because its Corporate America, and they can do that.  I know I'll go out and buy the new PHB, but not because its supposedly got "new feats and spells", but because my PHB (which is the original print) looks like the Oriental Adventures book put some mad crazy kung-fu on it.  RDM and RMM.  If one of my other ones gets worn down, then I buy.  Sorry Hasbro, your not getting my extra money, you capitalist pigs!


----------



## Darkness (Dec 4, 2002)

Lessee...

Currently:
PHB - around 300 pages
DMG - 256 pages
MM - 224 pages

New:
All books - 320 pages

I'll certainly want the new PHB - and the other books get lots of stuff added.
So if much of it is new, I'm game, I guess...


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Dec 4, 2002)

LoPaC said:
			
		

> *But wheres that little promise of low price core books back before 3rd Ed. even hit the stores?!?!?*




They always were VERY plain spoken about the price increasing to around $30 in the future.  They have already done so.

They are inreasing the size of the books and NOT increasing the price.  The core books are still cheaper than the supplements, in terms of price per page...


----------



## Davelozzi (Dec 4, 2002)

This is a good thing, I'm pleased to hear it (okay, read it).  People complained about when they did this with Star Wars (of course that was only a year or so after the initial release) but the RCR is a huge improvment over the original core book.

I for one will be glad to have the eratta fixed and have clarified rules for skills and combat.  The skill chapters in all of WotC recent books are much better than the one in the current PHB.

The bonus material is just icing on the cake.

I agree that it would've been too soon for a major overhaul but this kind of clean-up is just what the doctor ordered.  And as others have mentioned, so long as its compatible with the stuff that's already out, there's really no need to buy them if you don't want them.  But I will.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Dec 4, 2002)

Just curious...

Do y'all think the changes will be as significant as, say, those made when going from 1e to 2e?


----------



## hong (Dec 4, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *Just curious...
> 
> Do y'all think the changes will be as significant as, say, those made when going from 1e to 2e? *




Which brings up the question, if this is going to be 3E 2nd Edition, or 3E 2E, would that make it 5E, or 6E?


Hong "is it even commutative?" Ooi


----------



## thalmin (Dec 4, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *Just curious...
> 
> Do y'all think the changes will be as significant as, say, those made when going from 1e to 2e? *




Being a revision, not a new edition, I doubt it.
They said character class revisions. We are doing those on these boards all the time.
Revisions and additions to the spell lists? Note they didn't say new spells.

I would expect bigger changes than we saw with the second style 2nd ed PHB (which was little more than layout change and new art) but much less than a new edition would warrant.


----------



## Droogie (Dec 4, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Which brings up the question, if this is going to be 3E 2nd Edition, or 3E 2E, would that make it 5E, or 6E?
> 
> ...




No. Like bonuses do not stack, except maybe for armor/shield and dodge.

Anyhoo, I hope they revise the CRs in the new MM. That would be worth the price of admission alone


----------



## thalmin (Dec 4, 2002)

Droogie said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Anyhoo, I hope they revise the CRs in the new MM. That would be worth the price of admission alone *




That would be a bonus!


----------



## Thorntangle (Dec 4, 2002)

Guess the changes time:

Half-orcs get Scent

Skill Focus is now +3

Tracking becomes a skill instead of a wonky feat.

Rangers get access to Tracking skill and bonus feats instead of TWF frontloading.

Monks may multiclass

AoO get Sage diagrams inserted

Shield/Tower Shield clarified


----------



## Dagger75 (Dec 4, 2002)

I am all for it as well. I am a WOTC addict and will buy all 3 books.    I bought the 2nd  3rd Edition Star Wars book the day it came out and it was worth to me.

  So in a few months we get have more rounds with  different players on how Clerics got the shaft, Magic Missle is broken, and is skill focus a  broken feat  because every character has it.  Ahhhh can't wait.


----------



## Darkness (Dec 4, 2002)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> *
> 
> They always were VERY plain spoken about the price increasing to around $30 in the future.  They have already done so.
> 
> They are inreasing the size of the books and NOT increasing the price.  The core books are still cheaper than the supplements, in terms of price per page... *



Absolutely.

Also, good to see you on the boards, Gene! 

- Darkness, now no longer just a "shadow of my former self"


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 4, 2002)

Neowolf said:
			
		

> *I don't understand the (few) negative reactions I've seen in this thread so far.  Once these revised books come out, it's not like the ones you already own are going to burst into flame or something, forcing you to buy more.  If you want the new books, buy them.   If you don't want them, don't. *




Some people just need to feel persecuted.


----------



## Urbanmech (Dec 4, 2002)

> I bet the bard is beefed up, the ranger and monk have more options for customization, haste is reduced in power, harm gets a save, and there's yet ANOTHER version of polymorph self.




Could it be that someone's group has been tapped for playtesting again?  Or just well educated guesses by the cat with 3 legs?


----------



## Tom Cashel (Dec 4, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *10 Austrian cents (about .000000625 USaian dollars) says that harm STILL won't get a save. *




That's because _Harm_ doesn't NEED a save.  That's your crazy house rule, Hong. 



			
				Thorntangle said:
			
		

> *Who provided feedback and in what way? Another round of playtesting? Surveys? Word on the street?
> 
> And more importantly, who wrote the changes? *




I'm wondering the same thing, since they recently laid off all their top designers in spectacular bullet-in-the-foot fashion.

But...I'm doing all right.  Revised Core Books (at $30 a pop) are fine with me if the content is quality.


----------



## JeffB (Dec 4, 2002)

Well here’s what I’d want (but I don’t necessarily have any real hope that I’ll get)

1)	They already said new covers. I’m happy!
2)	New art..especially for some of the monsters. For pete’s sakes, feed that poor displacer beast! And give us an Orc & Vampire I don’t chuckle at every time I see them! 
3)	Basically if the layout and formatting looks something like the RSWCB, I’ll be very happy. I thought the skill section was done particularly well in that book. The skill descriptions were much clearer, and also gave a fairly in-depth discussion of when the Take 10/20 mechanic applied for each skill. In addition, example DC’s are more clearly explained (and given a “rating”), and the Skill Synergy rule is improved.
4)	For the new players, the introduction to the rules mechanics like the RSWCB had would be good. 
5)	Get rid of those horrid college rule lines! They give me a headache!
6)	I’d like to see the ranger somewhat revised. Just so that class has more to look forward to after 1st level. 
7)	Either an official or more likely, a variant Item creation system that ties in with the XP/ECL/CR system so that individual DM’s don’t have so much guesswork when they run a campaign that differs from the core in how much or little magic is available. At the least some advice on doing so (other than the paragraph in the current DMG that does really nothing other than to say” things will change if you vary magic levels”..duh..thanx…)
8)	The “actions” system needs to be cleaned up and explained more clearly. Again, SWRCB did a good job of this.
9)	I’m not looking forward to the “miniatures” add-on, really but If the combat system overall is cleaned up and explained better (grappling, constriction, AoO’s,etc.), this will go a long way with convincing my group to keep playing 3E instead of playing through a module, then playing some other game for 6 months, playing a few sessions of 3E quitting again…etc.
10)	This is totally just an aesthetic preference and has no bearing on the game really, but I would prefer a more classic look to the art and feel of the revised books vs. the dungeon-punk, bizarre look and feel of the current 3E books. But I’m not terribly hopeful for this (and I’m sure many others would disagree with me) 

All I can think of for now.


----------



## Psion (Dec 4, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *Why not?  Wasn't it always Wizards' intentions to revise the books after a while? It's not like Star Wars which was revised, what, a year after first printing?   Even then, I'm glad they did it, as the revised book is so much superior to the original book.*




Oh, I agree. But as to why not - look at the very recently released d20 modern. WotC has obviously decided that deviating as much from the core forumala was a bad idea. Despite the fact that VP/WP were widely clamored for and (IMO/E) clearly superior for modern games, WotC went the "most compatible" route. I would expect the deviations between revisions to be far less than what we see between 3e and d20 modern, which with the exception of the class structure, is precious few.

I expect the scope of these revisions to be about the scale of the "black cover" revisions in 2e, with some bonus material to drive more sales. Of course, I fear something worse, as we have been burned before.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Dec 4, 2002)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *
> I’m not looking forward to the “miniatures” add-on... *




Speaking of this, do we have any more info on the Fall 2003 D&D Miniatures line?  Will they stink like the current line, or be really cool...like Reaper?


----------



## Thorntangle (Dec 4, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *Speaking of this, do we have any more info on the Fall 2003 D&D Miniatures line?  Will they stink like the current line, or be really cool...like Reaper?  *



Haven't heard a thing, but I'm sure they'll rely on the same sculptors they used for chainmail. To me, more minis can only be a good thing. Even with variable quality I'm sure a few good ones will make it into the line. More monsters would be good. It would be nice to see a few celestials and demons/devils.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 4, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Speaking of this, do we have any more info on the Fall 2003 D&D Miniatures line?  Will they stink like the current line, or be really cool...like Reaper?  *




Odd thing about this. To the best of my recollection, they never included miniatures in their prerelease catalogs.


----------



## Dave G (Dec 4, 2002)

Well, I'm excited about it... my original 1st printing PHB's spine is completely separated from the cover and is held in place only by the pages pasted on the inside covers...  If I can keep it intact until the new PHB comes out, I'll get a better book to replace my old one!  

But I'm pretty easy to please...


----------



## JDragon (Dec 4, 2002)

Well, I gotta throw my 2 cents in along with everyone else...

First Welcome back Derek, gald to see you back on the boards.

As for the new books,  It sounds like a good idea as long as its not going to totaly screw existing characters or require that they release revised versions of everything else.

Also my first PHB is falling apart and I was planning on getting a new one soon anyways, I guess I'll just apply some ductape and make it surrvive for a few more months.  (just wish I hadn't bought a brand new book for my wife thats started playing some  )

JDragon


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 4, 2002)

I hope they don't get rid of the background lines.  I get fairly regular migraines, and these don't bother me.  THey actually sem to help me read faster.  I would suspect those who don't like the lines of being particularly technical-minded, as they seem to act somewhat like super-serifs.


----------



## Creamsteak (Dec 4, 2002)

I'm drooling a little. My books just fine as far as condition goes. I just want to see the combat chapter fixes, some particular spell fixes, and some class fixes... that'll make me happy.


----------



## Davelozzi (Dec 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by JeffB _ *
> 2)	New art..especially for some of the monsters. For pete’s sakes, feed that poor displacer beast! And give us an Orc & Vampire I don’t chuckle at every time I see them! *




Agreed.



> _Originally posted by JeffB _ *
> 7)	Either an official or more likely, a variant Item creation system that ties in with the XP/ECL/CR system so that individual DM’s don’t have so much guesswork when they run a campaign that differs from the core in how much or little magic is available. At the least some advice on doing so (other than the paragraph in the current DMG that does really nothing other than to say” things will change if you vary magic levels”..duh..thanx…) *




Agreed.



> _Originally posted by JeffB _ *
> 10)	This is totally just an aesthetic preference and has no bearing on the game really, but I would prefer a more classic look to the art and feel of the revised books vs. the dungeon-punk, bizarre look and feel of the current 3E books. But I’m not terribly hopeful for this (and I’m sure many others would disagree with me) *




I _really_ agree on this one, although I'm just as doubtful about it happening.


----------



## Gargoyle (Dec 4, 2002)

Thorntangle said:
			
		

> *Who provided feedback and in what way? Another round of playtesting? Surveys? Word on the street?
> 
> And more importantly, who wrote the changes? *




WOTC pays close attention to these boards, as well as their own.  They also attend lots of conventions and have Q&A sessions where they do listen to the opinions of gamers.   They've also maintained an extensive FAQ for the game, and have provided e-mail support via thesage@wizards.com for D&D and customer service.  I assure you, they've collected plenty of feedback over the last couple of years, and unlike some companies they listen to what you have to say.  

And I'm sure it was the RPG R&D team who wrote any changes, led by Bill Slaviscek, so it's in good hands.


----------



## The Sigil (Dec 4, 2002)

Davelozzi said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by JeffB
> 10) This is totally just an aesthetic preference and has no bearing on the game really, but I would prefer a more classic look to the art and feel of the revised books vs. the dungeon-punk, bizarre look and feel of the current 3E books. But I’m not terribly hopeful for this (and I’m sure many others would disagree with me) *
> 
> I _really_ agree on this one, although I'm just as doubtful about it happening.



I'll throw my hat in for "I really agree on this one two."  In fact, you'll notice I revived my old .sig from the happy days when Henry was saying "C'mon August" and I was in heated discussions with fans who thought that the new "spikes" look was just what D&D needed...

Two years later, the "spikes" already look stupid, tired, and oh-so-dated... while my Elmore and Caldwell covers from the mid-80's still have a "timeless" fantasy feel. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Tom Cashel (Dec 4, 2002)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> WOTC pays close attention to these boards, as well as their own.
> *




Well, half their information will be useful...


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Dec 4, 2002)

Wow, it's strange to see how many people (in this and the other thread) think that their particular pet rules are going to get into the revision. 

And frankly, if WotC lets the discussion groups influence them much at all, they're crazy.  Discussion groups do contain some of the biggest experts on your game, so you have to pay attention to them if you want to catch the occasional insight.  But they're also just about the least representative sample of your overall market you could come up with.


----------



## JeffB (Dec 4, 2002)

OH!


11) The Revised Monster Manual would have additional information: Flat Footed AC. Touch AC. Grapple Check bonus, etc. these little things help a lot in a combat situation to keep the game flowing. And obviously the Stat-Blocks would not be split up.

12) How about a better Character Sheet (perforated for easy copying) in the book, and an improved DM’s screen (after all that’s been a staple of D&D’s past when a new revision or version of the game has surfaced)? Of course the Kalamar screen is great, but it’s almost too cumbersome and over-loaded with info. Using something like Angramainyu’s (sp?) reference sheets would be ideal: short but sweet explanations of all the abilities, conditions, etc. 

13) More examples. Or should I say more DETAILED examples. The original core books had examples. But they often only had the real basics covered. For example: the combat example. It’s extremely basic, and more complicated aspects that NEED an example, don’t have it. Give us an example of grappling and constriction, disarms…trips,… etc. Examples of item creation. Examples of using Metamagic feats, ranged touch attacks, etc, etc. More detailed examples take up space but also make for much less rules confusion. Feat examples: using some of the more “cumbersome” feats in the combat examples..whirlwind attack, great cleave, etc. The example of play in the DMG is another example…it’s entirely too basic for a system with so many additional rules/situations that come into play.

14) More Domains for the core (GH) Gods. There is not enough variety to really make a Cleric of Incabulos, much different than Nerull, or Iuz or whomever.

All for now…


----------



## Swack-Iron (Dec 4, 2002)

You know what else? If they do revisions to the classes, e-Tools will be out of synch. *sigh*


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Dec 4, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *I bet the bard is beefed up, the ranger and monk have more options for customization, haste is reduced in power, harm gets a save, and there's yet ANOTHER version of polymorph self.   *




I hear a various people prognosticating changes to the bard, and I really have to say I don't get it.  Anyone who doesn't like bards doesn't like playing support characters, as far as I can see, but that's not an argument not to have them.  Even if KidCthulhu still misses 2e bards being able to cast _fireball_.  I credit that to nostalgia, not thuggishness.  

I wouldn't be surprised if they did something to _harm_, and lord knows the _polymorph_ business still needs more errata.  That would actually be helped a lot by working on the terminology for special abilities so they had a way to differentiate natural, non-magical abilities and other extraordinary abilities.  I also wouldn't be surprised if they nerfed _haste_, though I actually don't think it needs it in a campaign where you actually have significantly more than one big fight a day.  Because of that, I think it'd be better served by just adding a specific variant for that case (in the DMG, where such things go).

I'd be surprised if they _didn't_ add the monk feat options from _Oriental Adventures_.  A similar system for rangers is about the only sensible plan I've heard yet for dealing with all the whining in a way that would be back-compatible with all the existing material.


----------



## Estlor (Dec 4, 2002)

My thoughts:

RPHB is something I'm more inclined to purchase for a couple of reasons.  The adjustments made to the book sound a little more interesting and the spine on my existing book never was in good shape and worries the heck out of me.   If I had to wager what they're doing, I'd figure this:

RPHB

Addition of feats from OA, S&F, and T&B.  Just a dusting of each, offering more choices for the martial arts-based monk and fighter plus a few of the (now) standard metamagic feats no in the PHB.
Bard class that gets six skill points, a slightly beefier spell list, and perhaps a few more bardic music abilities
Monks that can multiclass and can swap out class abilities like in OA
Ranger bonus feats instead of front-loading the class.
Clarification of Attacks of Opportunity with new picture examples.
Corrected Polymorph Self - though haste and harm will be left alone 

RDMG

Addition of a number of prestige classes from splat books that are generic enough for every campaign.
Clearer magic item pricing guidelines.
A generally less-sucky layout and content for the book on a whole.

RMM

Monster ECLs for most if not all monsters (as was done in the MM2).
Ever so slight layout changes.  Still not one monster to a page, but no more breaking stat blocks up and causing lots of widows and orphans across pages.
A picture for every monster type in the book.
Replacement of some of the blatantly BAD illustrations.
Tweaked monster CRs.

As I'm not psychic, I could be (and probably am) completely and totally wrong here.


----------



## blue crane (Dec 4, 2002)

*Disgusted!*

I just heard that WotC will be releasing new Core Rule-books for D&D.  I can not believe it!

Here in South Africa, the books cost me a whole lot more than what my US- and UK- counterparts would pay for them.  With our bad exchange rate ($1 = R10), how would you like to pay $300 for the Player's Guide alone?  

Well, it is not as bad as that, but it gets the point across!  I just completed my collection (all three core books) and now I have to go out and buy another set of them?

All I can say is that I am disgusted!  Next time, WotC, think about places beyond the USA - and loyal fans who have been playing D&D long before you were a twinkle in Hasbro's eyes!  Your actions are killing us out here in South Africa.

I fell for the revised Star Wars Core Rulebook - but this time I am sure that I'll give WotC a huge miss....

Highly disgusted!
Blue Crane


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 4, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's because Harm doesn't NEED a save.  That's your crazy house rule, Hong.
> 
> ...




I have a feeling these very same designers were involved in the revision before they were sacked. Who's to say this hasn't been in the works for a year or more? This is just, as somebody has stated, a good time for the release.


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 4, 2002)

And remember that AFAIK, Jonathan Tweet is still with WotC.


----------



## Dave G (Dec 4, 2002)

You know, people, there's nothing that says you will be held down and _forced_ to buy these....  I haven't seen such righteous indignation since my last political discussion with my family!

If you don't think you need them, *don't buy them!!!*


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Disgusted!*



			
				blue crane said:
			
		

> * I just completed my collection (all three core books) and now I have to go out and buy another set of them?
> 
> Highly disgusted!
> Blue Crane *




Nobody's forcing you to do a thing, crane. If you have fun with the products you have already, keep using them.

edit: You beat me to it, BillyBeanbag.


----------



## kenjib (Dec 4, 2002)

What to do with the old PHB if it's still in fine condition?  The trash can?


----------



## LoPaC (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Disgusted!*



			
				blue crane said:
			
		

> *I just heard that WotC will be releasing new Core Rule-books for D&D.  I can not believe it!
> 
> Here in South Africa, the books cost me a whole lot more than what my US- and UK- counterparts would pay for them.  With our bad exchange rate ($1 = R10), how would you like to pay $300 for the Player's Guide alone?
> 
> ...




Thats what I'm talking about!  Its all about making their pockets bigger.  And all this about "OOOOOHHHH!!!  320 Pages !!  OOOHHHH!!!"  "New" feats, spells, and the such.  Additional stuff from splat books and campaign settings, that we already have,  is what it is.  No, no ones holding a gun to my head, telling me to buy these books.  But this is where its going.  New books, updated rules, revised characters.  Gonna havta get them at some point, or the monk and ranger I talk about aint gonna be the same ones you talk about.  Thats why this sucks.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Disgusted!*

Ooooohhhh!!!!!

Then don't buy it!

Talk about a stupid gripe. Your old book will continue to function.





			
				LoPaC said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thats what I'm talking about!  Its all about making their pockets bigger.  And all this about "OOOOOHHHH!!!  320 Pages !!  OOOHHHH!!!"  "New" feats, spells, and the such.  Additional stuff from splat books and campaign settings, that we already have,  is what it is.  No, no ones holding a gun to my head, telling me to buy these books.  But this is where its going.  New books, updated rules, revised characters.  Gonna havta get them at some point, or the monk and ranger I talk about aint gonna be the same ones you talk about.  Thats why this is sucks. *


----------



## the Jester (Dec 4, 2002)

If there are major changes to pc tactics or preperation required by it (i.e. haste is now 4th level or whatever) it becomes a virtual must-have unless the changes are published on the website or in Dragon.  That would suck; I don't want to set a precedent where it's okay to put out a new core rules set every three years.

I'm with LoPac here- if there are a few major changes, is it worth another $30?  I'd tend towards no.  But is it essential to know the rules so everyone's game is compatible?  I tend towards yes on that one.

I hope the changes are mostly cosmetic- I don't think the bard needs changing.  I'd like to see more customization of monks and rangers built into the rules, but the dmg already talks about modifying classes.

I hope everything new is an optional rule, that way I won't feel "behind the times" if I pass the RPH up.


----------



## KenM (Dec 4, 2002)

I really hope Wizards does plan to release a new "core" set of books with DnD, like they do with magic: the gathering. To do that with a RPG is just dumb.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 4, 2002)

No one is going to force you to buy them, personally I've been happy with the PHB, DMG and the MM (well maybe not the jumbled mess that is the MM, but anyway you get the idea) so I don't see a need to rush out and buy them.

Will my 3E D&D game suddenly stop working because there is a new version out?

My 2E game still seems to be working okay last time I check (which was last Friday, we have a God level game that would be too much of a headache to convert), and I'm still getting good use out of those rulebooks.

If your game is fun now, it will continue to be fun when these new books, if you buy them or not.

What is your problem? Someone might have a 'newer' rulebook than you? Is it basically envy?


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 4, 2002)

Swack-Iron said:
			
		

> *You know what else? If they do revisions to the classes, e-Tools will be out of synch. *sigh* *



Well, they do have 6 months or so to patch it.  

I'm happy about the upcoming revisions.  I have to buy a new PHB anyway so mind as well have some cool changes in it.  Also, with all the added DMG pages I'm looking forward to that first.  And the MM could use some better formatting.  I'm happy.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 4, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> > _
> > Originally posted by Swack-Iron _
> > *You know what else? If they do revisions to the classes, e-Tools will be out of synch. *sigh*
> > *
> ...




Who's to say that this update might be part of the suspected dispute between Fluid and WoTC?


----------



## coyote6 (Dec 4, 2002)

I'm amused that given the rantings about errors & errata to correct those errors in various products, and the general acceptance of said rantings, that anybody is surprised or doesn't understand why people would be annoyed at having to buy whole new revised books three years after launch.

I think the annoyance is in part caused because there will be (allegedly) new material, and new changes, in the revised versions. Thus, one may _feel_ as if they "need" the books, so they can be "up to date". The revised books may be backwards compatible with old sourcebooks, but will new sourcebooks be compatible with the old core rulebooks?

If not, then I think it's a very curious decision, because it looks like WotC is risking fracturing their market again. v3.1 or 3.5 or whatever they call it, vs. v3.0.

I look forward to hearing more from A.V. about this. 

I also wonder how retailers & distributors will feel about this; I imagine that the more word of the revised editions spreads, the more trouble they'll have moving the old versions. Last couple of game shops I've went to had plenty of copies of the current, soon to be obsolescent, rulebooks.

Hmm, the last _bookstores_ I went to had a few copies; are they going to be returning them?

For myself, it annoyed me when other games (wave to White Wolf, folks!) did the "new version after 2-3 years" thing, too. But mainly, I think it's just that (a) I recently (last year) bought second copies of the core rulebooks to use as a pooled resource for my group, and (b) I've just been grumpy & out of sorts the last couple of days in general.


----------



## LoPaC (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> Then don't buy it!
> 
> *
> ...


----------



## JeffB (Dec 4, 2002)

Y'know this kind of reminds of all the people who complained when they changed editions...the old 1st edition guys complained about 2cnd...the 2cnd about 3rd...and now even the 3E fans are complaining about a revision...yeesh....

I wonder how many complaing about the revision are also the people who thought the 2E/1E fans were acting ridiculous when 3E was released.

This is not even near the same thing as a new edition. 

I'll admit I'm the first one to B&M about WOTC and Hasbro, but I think this is a needed product. The Corebooks in just  2 1/2years are already showing their age..the luster is off, and we are seeing all the rough spots....some things need polishing...fine by me.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 4, 2002)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> *Who's to say that this update might be part of the suspected dispute between Fluid and WoTC? *



Could be.  I'm sure we'll hear about it eventually.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 4, 2002)

Come on nobody really cares about the Monk and Ranger anyway...


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 4, 2002)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *This is not even near the same thing as a new edition. *



Couldn't agree more.  They are clarifying some things and making some additions.  If they were charging $40 per book I'd think something was up but they aren't.  This is much different than a new edition of the game.  They know the Core Books aren't perfect.  That's why we have pages upon pages of errata and clarifications.

I'm still happy.


----------



## LoPaC (Dec 4, 2002)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> *Come on nobody really cares about the Monk and Ranger anyway...  *




Well........yea.....but those were just examples that other people were talking about possibly being changed


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Disgusted!*

Talk about a dumb explanation.

You complain that you will have to buy the book because everyone else will buy the book and you won't be able to chat on the internet about it accurately any longer.

:rolleyes




			
				LoPaC said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nail (Dec 4, 2002)

*3.1e!*

I'm looking forward to it...although can you imagine all of the righteous indignation there'll be if (or when) a list of errata appears afterwards?  And of course, many will be dissappointed with the 3.1e.  After all, you can please some of the people some of the time, but.....

I'm hoping for rangers and monks with feat-lists (like the fighter-feats), improved feats (like skill focus), and a revised set of spells (Harm, haste, shield, dancing lights, polymorph, time stop....).

I'd especially like them to clean up the illusion school section.  The bit about illusions not being able to produce light is too silly.  (I'm sure my little rule pet-peeve will be given the proper attention, whereas yours will most likely be ignored.)

...even with the "clarifications", I'm positive there will still be plenty of room for arguements.  *Rule Lawyers!  Your new material awaits!*


----------



## thalmin (Dec 4, 2002)

A point of information here, for what it's worth. The same catalog that prompted this thread also lists, under "Key Selling / Marketing Points"


> Editorial coverage throughout Spring 2003 in *Dragon*  and *Dungeon* Magazines


----------



## Dave Blewer (Dec 4, 2002)

I was only thinking last night that my PHB is looking a bit "badgered" and maybe I should start thinking about planning the preliminary stages of possibly considering getting a new one...

By the time I decide whether to or not, it will probably be July!  

Indecisive?  Me?


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: 3.1e!*



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> *I'm looking forward to it...although can you imagine all of the righteous indignation there'll be if (or when) a list of errata appears afterwards? *



This is my one fear: more errata.  They have to fix 99.99999% of it in this edition to make it worth it for most I would think.  And if there turns out to be more for the revisions I will not be impressed.  I have faith that they will do right by it.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 4, 2002)

If, in a year, when a new 3rd party book or adventure comes out and it's still totally compatable with my 3.0 books in terms of spell lists, NPC stat blocks, etc. then I'll be happy.   If I have to go through them and modify a ton of crap to make it compatable with my old books I'll be pissed and done buying any new d20 stuff as I don't want to have to rework everything I buy.   

If compatable means, "well the mechanics are the same, but the classes are modified in terms of feats & skill lists, and the spell have changed in levels and descriptions in some cases.  It will work fine with old material if you don't mind some inconsistancies..." you can get I'll be dissapointed, and WOTC & the rest of the d20 guys will lose a customer.  But until the books hit I don't think I have much to whine about.


----------



## Technik4 (Dec 4, 2002)

I'll just chip in that I will probably buy the RPHB out the gate, and will eventually get the revised other 2. When I heard about the new revision they did not-so-long-ago I decided to wait, since it didn't seem decisive enough. If everything gets added to the SRD what reason is there to complain?

I mean, maybe there will be some actual "new" feats, like feats for people with Cha 13+ or Con 13+. Maybe the whole Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate thing will be cleaned up (or at least give intimidate a more definitive use). Maybe Spring Attack will be understandable the first time you read the feat, ditto Attack of Opportunity.

Honestly, I couldn't be happier about this. I haven't bought a WotC book in quite some time after I finished my splatbook collection. Looks like I have something to look forward to.

Oh yeah, I love miniatures, so I can't wait to see the new rules. I was an avid Chainmail fan (and have been buying up cheap miniatures instead of new books the last few months ) and am excited both about the new line, and the new ways they will work in our games.

Technik


----------



## thalmin (Dec 4, 2002)

They did say 







> These revised editions also contain bonus content, such as new feats, that are EXCLUSIVE to these new editions.



 (emphasis mine)


----------



## DonAdam (Dec 4, 2002)

My try at the guessing game:

1) Revised ranger, bard, and possibly sorc.

2) Changes to haste (and therefore possibly slow), harm, and polymorph other (self isn't the problem, other is permanent)

3) Skill focus goes to +3

4) Clarification of skills and AoO as per SWRCB

5) Comprehensive, horribly incorrect ECL's (a la Dragon Magazine)

6) The handful of good things from the 5 splatbooks and FRCS, making my money on them wasted (but at least I won't have to lug them around)

7) Better stat blocks

8) Magic item creation clarification

9) More spells from previous editions (feign death, etc)

What I want but there's no way in hell I'm going to see:

1) A generic woodsman- not all of them, to be competent, should be dual wielding spellcasting racists.

2) A unique bard (like Monte's or something like it) rather than something that just looks like a multiclassed character.

3) More generic core classes. There are several basic archetypes that can't be made.  A good skill monkey without sneak attack, and a non-combative priest.

4) Nerfed DMG prestige classes- the assassin and the shadowdancer are the only ones that do not siginficantly boost the power of the core classes at almost no cost. The loremaster is the worst culprit here, being a no-brainer for Diviners, which are already the best wizard specialists without the class. I want the prestige classes to have a 1 to 1 balance correspondence with the PHB classes rather than being blatant power ups.

5) Nerfed wands. Damage spells and healing spells aren't that problematic, but in general the idea that a spell trigger is less expensive per shot than a spell completion is absurd.

6) a flexible monk- it would be nice if there were several paths of powers that you could mix and match, so that you could do things like making sumo wrestlers who didn't have the movement capabilities and such- the monk is still my favorite class, but this would be nice, though difficult to balance

7) Organizations and roleplaying requirements for all prestige classes (at least examples)- without these, the classes are nothing but munchkinizing.

8) Nerfed archery- rapid shot and stacking enhancement bonuses make archery better than any other form of combat- it's got enough advantage as long as you're not retarded simply because of range- you have to use strategy without these, but with them when you do use strategy archery is horribly broken- i'd rather them assume non-retarded players, but that's not likely with the diablo generation being so dominant


----------



## kenjib (Dec 4, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *If, in a year, when a new 3rd party book or adventure comes out and it's still totally compatable with my 3.0 books in terms of spell lists, NPC stat blocks, etc. then I'll be happy.   If I have to go through them and modify a ton of crap to make it compatable with my old books I'll be pissed and done buying any new d20 stuff as I don't want to have to rework everything I buy.
> 
> If compatable means, "well the mechanics are the same, but the classes are modified in terms of feats & skill lists, and the spell have changed in levels and descriptions in some cases.  It will work fine with old material if you don't mind some inconsistancies..." But until the books hit I don't think I have much to whine about. *




I totally agree.  It works the other way as well.  It would be a real pain in the buttnik even if you do use the revised rules to have to update all of the old material as well.  Either way you are screwed.  There will be a bit of a confusing mess to constantly sort through everything and ferret out subtle incongruities.

I strongly suspect that they do not really mean fully compatible when they say fully compatible because in the very same sentence they say there will be conversion notes for updating older material.  Hmm...

On the other hand, I do agree that the rules could use some revision.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

What would my pet enhancement of choice be?  Lots of new feats and feat chains that don't revolve around killing things and casting spells.  That's all feats are good for in the core books.  We need more feats that enhance social abilities and the roleplaying aspects of the game.  I'd bet 50 to 1 odds though that a change like this will not be in the book.

Side note - the miniatures tie-in things worries me.  I really dislike miniatures and playing on a mat.  It takes the imagination out of the game for me.  I hope the rules don't become even more miniature reliant than they already are.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 4, 2002)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Side note - the miniatures tie-in things worries me.  I really dislike miniatures and playing on a mat.  It takes the imagination out of the game for me.  I hope the rules don't become even more miniature reliant than they already are. *




Doesn't WoTC have a new line of miniatures coming out soon? How are they gonna make big bucks off of 'em if their core books don't heavily pimp the use of minis? Promoting mini use in the books makes business sense.

edit: Back before we used minis in my game, we never used flanking, 5' step, etc... It took a lot out of the strategic combat. Our group loves battlemats because it helps them visualize _exactly_ where everybody is in relation to each other. This is important when using those big, area-effect spells...


----------



## Balgus (Dec 4, 2002)

Whew!! I am sure glad I did not click *order* for my last order.  My brother and a couple other people have shown interest in the game.  And as a Christmas present, i was gonna buy them each a PHB and a set of dice- just to get the dice rolin D ).  

But now hearing about this- i think I will just wait to see what happens.  Maybe I can pick up a copy for myself- and get a good deal with the gaming store by getting 4 at a time... 

Man- am i lucky...


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 4, 2002)

The Sage is just glad that not everyone is complaining about the Creature Collection Revised as much as these books...


----------



## Nail (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: 3.1e!*



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> *This is my one fear: more errata.  They have to fix 99.99999% of it in this edition to make it worth it for most I would think.  And if there turns out to be more for the revisions I will not be impressed.  I have faith that they will do right by it.   *




You can be assured there will be errata, in the sense of "mistakes".  They happen in the printing of any content, bar none.

Now, if there are additional _rules clarifications_ or *out-right* rule changes (e.g. _Polymorph_) after 3.1e is released....that's an open question.


----------



## Drew (Dec 4, 2002)

Overall, this seems like a good thing. Sour grapes about buying new books aside, I'm in favor of anything that improves the game. Besides, I like supporting the industry with my hard earned money. Another $90 is a very small price to pay for a hobby that has brought me so many hours of entertainment, especially since I'll get brand new, shiny books.

What do you think the books will look like? I can hardly wait...

C'mon July.


----------



## TalonComics (Dec 4, 2002)

Thorntangle said:
			
		

> *Who provided feedback and in what way? Another round of playtesting? Surveys? Word on the street?
> 
> And more importantly, who wrote the changes? *




One form of feedback that I recall was a survey sent out to a bunch of us something like a year and a half ago that had different layouts for the Monster Manual in pdf form. I think there were 4 different layouts and you took the survey based on that.

I would guess the rest would be message boards and email. Possibly even playtesters.

Btw, there is no mention as to who is writing the corebook revisions. There's no mention of the original writers either!

~D


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 4, 2002)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> *
> edit: Back before we used minis in my game, we never used flanking, 5' step, etc... It took a lot out of the strategic combat. Our group loves battlemats because it helps them visualize exactly where everybody is in relation to each other. This is important when using those big, area-effect spells... *




Before mini's I found combat more narative and hand things like people leaping on tables, swinging from chandeliars (sp?), etc. 
and graphic discriptions of monsters could be scary.

Now its more move the little figure here, hit that other little figure. No matter how scary your discription is no one is scared when you plonk an inch-high lump of metal on the table.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 4, 2002)

TalonComics said:
			
		

> *Btw, there is no mention as to who is writing the corebook revisions. There's no mention of the original writers either!
> 
> ~D *




No probably because most of them arn't on the payroll anymore.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: 3.1e!*



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You can be assured there will be errata, in the sense of "mistakes".  They happen in the printing of any content, bar none.*



Well, of course there will be little errors here and there considering there will be over 300 pages of content.  However, they should be able to minimize most of it being that a healthy chunk of the material has already been done.  Now they need to go over it will a fine-tooth comb and make sure they get it as right as they can.


----------



## Kilmore (Dec 4, 2002)

Does anyone expect to see any non-WoTC derived material in these books like in the MM2?  The way the OGL is designed, they've made sure that they have free use of a vast collection of material.  On the other hand, I'm sure they'd be sensitive to accusations of cheezing other publishers out of their creative work.

Oh, and I wonder if we're going to get design credit.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 4, 2002)

Kilmore said:
			
		

> *Does anyone expect to see any non-WoTC derived material in these books like in the MM2?  The way the OGL is designed, they've made sure that they have free use of a vast collection of material.  On the other hand, I'm sure they'd be sensitive to accusations of cheezing other publishers out of their creative work.
> 
> Oh, and I wonder if we're going to get design credit.   *




Hmmmm.... If they put a fan-made, OGL monster in their new monster manual, but then don't release the MMrev as OGL, is the monster OGL or not?


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2002)

Perhaps im in the minority here, but i would have appreciated a _single_ book with all 300 of the new pages in it.  Then of course, as their print runs come to an end, they could print the revised versions. That way i'd have the option of only paying 30$ as opposed to 90$ for the "new" material that were probably already house-ruling now..

New art?  Bah! 

joe b.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 4, 2002)

Well I do believe the monster is STILL OGC, just the names and RP stuff isn't. Clark Peterson would be the man to ask since he's the one with the copyrights to the Creature Collection Monsters that got in. (Though I believe I'm in the right.)


----------



## Numion (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Disgusted!*



			
				blue crane said:
			
		

> *I just heard that WotC will be releasing new Core Rule-books for D&D.  I can not believe it!
> 
> Here in South Africa, the books cost me a whole lot more than what my US- and UK- counterparts would pay for them.  With our bad exchange rate ($1 = R10), how would you like to pay $300 for the Player's Guide alone?
> 
> ...




Yadda yadda..

and you know what, the 2003 model of your car (if you have one) is better than your current. Doesn't that suck balls? 

And I don't think that currency exchange rates work that way... do cars cost there 10x what they cost in the states?


----------



## coyote6 (Dec 4, 2002)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *The Sage is just glad that not everyone is complaining about the Creature Collection Revised as much as these books... *




The owner of the FLGS wasn't terribly pleased; he couldn't sell the copy (copies?) of CCI, Unrevised that he had, even at 50% off.

Just so you don't feel left out.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2002)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The owner of the FLGS wasn't terribly pleased; he couldn't sell the copy (copies?) of CCI, Unrevised that he had, even at 50% off.
> 
> Just so you don't feel left out.  *




Yeh, i think there are alot of people in the gaming industry gonna be a wee bit cheesed off at WotC.  Retailers, distributors (great i bought how many of these things that no retailer is now going to re-order?), customers.

I think everyone agrees the updates are needed.. the contention seems to be over the form of the update...  I think WotC could have chose some alternate method that would have benefited everyone in the chain, not just themselves.  Kinda like the concept of OGL.


joe b.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> *And I don't think that currency exchange rates work that way... do cars cost there 10x what they cost in the states? *



No, of course not. A South African Rand is worth about .10 US dollars, so the book would be about 300 rand if it was purchased in the US with South African money.

However, due to duties, shipping, and general availability prices can vary a great deal. You can buy a huge chunk of amber in Berlin (brought in from the Ukraine) for $10 US, something that would easily run $100 or more here in the US. As such it's not hard to imagine that a PHB in South Africa is considerably more than 300 rand. 

But there's no way it's 3000 rand.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 4, 2002)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *I think everyone agrees the updates are needed.. the contention seems to be over the form of the update...  I think WotC could have chose some alternate method that would have benefited everyone in the chain, not just themselves.  Kinda like the concept of OGL.*



Personally, I'd _much_ rather have whole new books rather than a compendium book of changes. If I had to check two places for, say, clarified grappling rules (and had to remember which book had the current version), I'd go nuts.


----------



## Sulimo (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: [WOTC] Revised Corebooks for July confirmed with info*



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *
> 
> just me or does that sound like they're going to repackage what they've already put out in different books and just call it "new"?
> 
> ...




That was my reaction too. Its going to be interesting to see how much material actually noew-never-published material.

I wonder what they'll do with the Ranger.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 4, 2002)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> *
> Now its more move the little figure here, hit that other little figure. No matter how scary your discription is no one is scared when you plonk an inch-high lump of metal on the table. *




Really?  I've not had that experience.  My players' reactions haven't changed at all -- unless of course you include the fact that they are more coherent and there are fewer miscommunications.

Actually, I take that back.  The PCs are _more_ reactive when I throw in a big critter (dragon, etc.) because they can see just how big it is and they know how screwed they are due to reach.


----------



## Numion (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *No, of course not. A South African Rand is worth about .10 US dollars, so the book would be about 300 rand if it was purchased in the US with South African money.
> 
> However, due to duties, shipping, and general availability prices can vary a great deal. You can buy a huge chunk of amber in Berlin (brought in from the Ukraine) for $10 US, something that would easily run $100 or more here in the US. As such it's not hard to imagine that a PHB in South Africa is considerably more than 300 rand.
> 
> But there's no way it's 3000 rand. *




Yeah.. here in finland the books that cost $40 in states are around 50 EUR = $50, so it's a little bit more expensive. It's just that the original poster I quoted said something about the PHB alone costing $300, due to $1 being 10 rand.. 

I guess you got that already


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> *And I don't think that currency exchange rates work that way... do cars cost there 10x what they cost in the states? *



Since we sell cars there, I can answer that.  No.

Exchange rates are somewhat artificial -- in theory, the buying power is the same despite what the number says.  As a general rule, I've found this to be true when I've travelled abroad.  However, shipping, duties and other types of cost can make them more expensive for completely different reasons.


----------



## Agnostic Paladin (Dec 4, 2002)

I can see the advantages to clarified rules and better examples and layout. But I can't see any good coming of changed rules.

It's a matter of code forking (to stick with the OGL's own comparison to open source). We'll have almost three years of material written to the original books by the time these come out. (Well, except Monte's recent stuff, and the slowdown of releases that fear of rules changes may cause in 3rd party publishers.) After they're out, everyone has to decide which variant of d20 to write for. Original? Revised? Arcana Unearthed? Own variant?

Books aren't code, they can't all be easily revised to the current rules version, and, unlike open source code, can't simply be downloaded for (near) free when updates are put out.

Even if the only rules changes are simply feat and spell additions, that still means that players and DM's who want to be able to easily use future material will have to either buy the revised rules or be prepared to rewrite statblocks for npcs and creatures who use those feats and spells. (Or are new types of creatures.) I always approved of Wizards' policy of not referencing outside of the core books in their adventures. Now they'll have to choose which books to reference.

Actually, I think this is more of a new version of the rules, which, while a big problem in a dead-tree, non-free environment, isn't nearly as difficult to deal with as proprietary changes to the core system that makes one companies products not work with everyone else's.


On a different tangent; does anyone know if these books are finished yet? They're not releasing untill next summer, so where in production would they be right now?


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by Bagpuss
> 
> Now its more move the little figure here, hit that other little figure. No matter how scary your discription is no one is scared when you plonk an inch-high lump of metal on the table.
> ------------------------------------




Are you sure your played have not fallen into 3e's CR rigged fight system?[ they ALWAYS expect to fight things they can defeat]  If you players think you won't put a fig down they can't beat then Let the bodies hit the floor until they do. Heavy handed, yes, but I do NOT think a DM should have to EXPLAIN to the players there are fights they can't win. their own lives should of told them this. try using foes that CANNOT be beat by blade or spell. To get it through their tick skulls that battle mat does not = win with violence.

Act like the mini you are using for the thing is only a close approximation. If they don’t automatically know what they fight by the mini, they will be a lot less cocky. Don't stop describing the action once the mini is down on the mat. tell them that _they can now see on the horrid thing, not wholly ape and not wholly insect that towers over the group, are four dripping holes where its two eyes should be along with  a fist sized cavity in the thing midsection that vile rotting ichor pours from_ rather than just saying _here’s the mini for the zombie umber hulk. It looks like someone punched a hole in its thorax and plucked out its eyes._ Mark the drippings on the battle mat and maybe even say ”so are you stepping ON the slime?” when they close in for melee. most players are now going to worry about getting that gunk on them.

Try not using minis once in a while. Always having them out can degrade things almost to board game levels. Also don't be afraid to remove the mini from the board once it moves behind a sight blocking obstacle. once you destroy the "I always know where the foe is" mentality, one little peg that supports the player’s feeling of invulnerability is kicked out from under them. if one player peruses pull their mini off the board until the rest follow.

Inch high? If I want to scare the players in a Heroic game I bust out the monstrous action figures and Vinyl model kits.  little foes for little heroes, BIG foes for big heroes
I am working on a tarrasque from a star wars rancor and have 2 red dragon of Krynn model kits [2 feet long each]


----------



## the Jester (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Talk about a dumb explanation.
> 
> You complain that you will have to buy the book because everyone else will buy the book and you won't be able to chat on the internet about it accurately any longer.
> 
> ...




To me the issue is more like, will I be able to use the new products that came out?  Back before the release of 2e, there was a lot of talk about how you wouldn't need to buy the new edition- it would still work fine with 1e rulebooks.  But if you only had 1e rules, how did you run a module with a cleric with the animal and plant domains and access to a bow?

I'm afraid there may be similar problems here.  I can just see the new player bringing his bard into an established campaign that already has a bard... suddenly, the new bard (who's a level lower than the old one) has about thirty extra skill points.

   

I don't think I'm the only one who has real issues about this.  It would be one thing if there was a small, $10 booklet that would have just the changes in it.  But there won't be.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Dec 4, 2002)

I think the people expressing a bit of disappointment over this do have some basis for it.  I suspect it wouldn't be nearly as great if it weren't for the fact that it is coming so soon.  The price of the 3 core books represents a sizable investment for many--and they expect it to remain relatively current for more than a few years.

I know this is being touted as a revision, rather than a new edition (Where exactly is the line drawn when making such a distinction anyway?), but--unless the greatly increased page count turns out to be mostly "fluff"--it would seem that it is going to be a fairly substantial one.

So, I think there is room for concern about exactly how compatible material released after the revision will be with the current core rules.

Welcome to my world--Ye World of Olde Tyme D&D!


----------



## CSB046 (Dec 4, 2002)

I've got to agree with those who feel 3 years for a (fairly minor?) revision of such widely discussed, debated, and dissected rules seems pretty reasonable.  Then again, I only bought my original copies of the core books 4 months ago, and I still intend to grab at least the revised PHB as soon as it hits the stands.

No question: I'm EXACTLY the sort of completist WotC is counting on!

"Here, just take the wallet too..."


----------



## Vanye (Dec 4, 2002)

the Jester said:
			
		

> *If there are major changes to pc tactics or preperation required by it (i.e. haste is now 4th level or whatever) it becomes a virtual must-have unless the changes are published on the website or in Dragon.  That would suck; I don't want to set a precedent where it's okay to put out a new core rules set every three years.
> *





That's better than White Wolf's prior track record, though.   1 year between editions for their games, vs just under 4 for D&D?  I'll take that any day.



> *
> I hope everything new is an optional rule, that way I won't feel "behind the times" if I pass the RPH up. *




That's how it already is....


----------



## resistor (Dec 4, 2002)

A lot of people seem to be blowing those who are peeved off by saying "Well, you don't have to buy it."  That's not exactly true.  Most of my gaming I do online as I don't have a reliable group to play with in person.  I will probably have to at least get the new PHB, since any changes to the core classes would make entering new games with people who use that one rather difficult.

I probably will get them, but not immediately.  The RPHB will come first, as soon after the release as I get enoguh free cash.  Then the RMM, becuase I really really want level adjustments for all monsters are PCs.  Finally I might get the RDMG, which I find to be the least useful of the book, despite the fact that I DM a lot.  I've found that it contains very little that I couldn't have created for myself.  I only ever use it to look up magic items.


----------



## The Halfling (Dec 4, 2002)

Agnostic Paladin said:
			
		

> *I can see the advantages to clarified rules and better examples and layout. But I can't see any good coming of changed rules.
> 
> It's a matter of code forking (to stick with the OGL's own comparison to open source). We'll have almost three years of material written to the original books by the time these come out. (Well, except Monte's recent stuff, and the slowdown of releases that fear of rules changes may cause in 3rd party publishers.) After they're out, everyone has to decide which variant of d20 to write for. Original? Revised? Arcana Unearthed? Own variant?
> 
> ...




Well Excepting the fact that 3rd party publishers are not supposed to reference Core books directly, just the SRD. 

Some items from the Core books were not released into the SRD. The witch variant in the DMG is one such example. The expanded Suprise/Spot/Listen rules from the DMG are another example.

WotC, and the OGL itself, have always maintained that the SRD can and may be changed by the WotC. This has always been a provision the 3rd party pubs have worked under. Items may not nessesarily be removed, but they may be modified.

All things evolve over time. The OGL pretty much assures the D&D/d20 will change over time. As consumers, we are not garranteed the next upgrade as a freebie, no matter what he market.


----------



## Geoffrey (Dec 4, 2002)

I must admit that I get a cheap laugh out of imagining how much errata is going to be needed for this 960-page behemoth.


----------



## tbug (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				the Jester said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It would be one thing if there was a small, $10 booklet that would have just the changes in it.  But there won't be.*




If all of the changes are OGL then there's nothing stopping someone from printing up such a ten-dollar booklet, is there?


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				tbug said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If all of the changes are OGL then there's nothing stopping someone from printing up such a ten-dollar booklet, is there? *




are you saying that they _wont_ be ogl because someone can simply make a cheap little 10 book out of the "revision" or are you saying they _will_ be ogl so someone can go ahead and make the little book?


joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *I must admit that I get a cheap laugh out of imagining how much errata is going to be needed for this 960-page behemoth. *




yep. 

joe b.


----------



## The It's Man (Dec 4, 2002)

So, when will the _ Unoffical D&D Third-dot-one Edition News_ page be online?


----------



## Jarval (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				tbug said:
			
		

> *If all of the changes are OGL then there's nothing stopping someone from printing up such a ten-dollar booklet, is there? *




This is where the real issue is.  If the changes are OGL, and made part of the SRD, then I doubt anyone will complain.  In fact, most people are likely to agree, since we all have our pet peeves with the rules system as it stands.

I can't seriously imagine they won't add the changes to the SRD, just because they'll annoy all the 3rd party publishers, so I doubt we've got anything to worry about.  Still, I'd like to hear from AV on this issue.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *I must admit that I get a cheap laugh out of imagining how much errata is going to be needed for this 960-page behemoth. *




I like to think that this version will be the super errata-fixed version of the original version...

But you're probably right anyway.

I think it's about time. Honestly, people were running out of new things to complain about on these boards. A new version (with tweaked classes) will give the "it's broken" complainers a lot of new ammunition. Freshen things up a bit.


----------



## tbug (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *
> 
> are you saying that they wont be ogl because someone can simply make a cheap little 10 book out of the "revision" or are you saying they will be ogl so someone can go ahead and make the little book?
> 
> ...




I wasn't actually trying to say either of those things. I don't know whether or not the changes will be OGL. If they are, though, then I think that it's conceivable that we'll see them collected someplace in booklet form.

For what it's worth, I expect I'll be buying new copies regardless.

Cheers.

Dale


----------



## kenjib (Dec 4, 2002)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Before mini's I found combat more narative and hand things like people leaping on tables, swinging from chandeliars (sp?), etc.
> and graphic discriptions of monsters could be scary.
> ...




Exactly!  That's what I was getting at.  My DM is good at winging it, so we just rely on him for flanking, AOO, tumbling, etc.  As long as there are no rules lawyers it all works out just fine.

It's all a matter of preference though.  Personally I like visualizing things my own way in my mind and cheesed little figures interferes with that a little (cool as the paint job may be, it will never look anywhere nearly as good as what I see in my head).  I can see why some people like miniatures.  I'm just a bit concerned to see the game move even more in that direction, as I consider it somewhat overly weighted in that direction already.

Miniatures are too expensive and time consuming for me as well.  Even with counters, you can't get everything you need so you end up with the ultra frightening amorphous play-doh shape of doom, the "let's just pretend this goblin is a fire elemental" of destruction, the "hey this matchbox car is the same dimension as a young dragon" of fiery perdition, and the "I drew this ugly scribble myself" of annihilation.

Standard disclaimer, only personal preference, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## kenjib (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disgusted!*



			
				tbug said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If all of the changes are OGL then there's nothing stopping someone from printing up such a ten-dollar booklet, is there? *




Ten dollars?  I'm thinking more along the lines of a free barebones PDF file.  Get a few people together here on ENWorld to distribute the workload and get the job done.  I'd be more than happy to pitch in, myself.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 4, 2002)

*WotC = responsible*

To all those B&Ming about this revision:

What would you, as WotC, do if you saw all the anguish and endless, endless, endless arguments over "x got the shaft", "y is ken", "does spring attack beat Reach?", "is Shield an Armor bonus?" and so on? 

Well I hope you'd try to fix your product. I hope you'd realize that errata and shifty FAQ's just aren't doing the job. I hope you'd say "Hey, let's clean up our game and release a revised edition."

I'm sure glad that WotC made that exact decision. 

-z

PS: What I'm really excited about is the mention of miniatures. I'd love to see a line of cheap prepainted plastic minis, and the fabled resurection of Chainmail.


----------



## nobodez (Dec 5, 2002)

*Speaking of Minis...*

I know of a great thing for those extra 80-100 pages in the DMG...

Massive Combat Rules!

HEck, I'd buy the RDMG just for this, that is, if it ever happens.

I can see it now...The Battle of Helms Deep d20.

Hey, and with MASSIVE being the name of the program used in the battles in LotR anyway, a MASSIVE combat rules system would be about right!

Oh,a nd BTW, I've got a really bad copy of the PHB1 I bought in October 2000, a slightly nicer PHB2 from shortly after those came out, adn now I'm gonna have a nice new, and soon to be tabbed (makes flipping pages much quicker) PHB3/RPHB!


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 5, 2002)

Where's Henry's new sig?

C'mon July!


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 5, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *I think the people expressing a bit of disappointment over this do have some basis for it.  I suspect it wouldn't be nearly as great if it weren't for the fact that it is coming so soon.  The price of the 3 core books represents a sizable investment for many--and they expect it to remain relatively current for more than a few years.*



So soon?  At least we have some time to put money away for it.  If you are in the US, it's simply a matter of putting aside around $15 a month if you get all 3 or just $6 if you are picking up the RPHB.

Plus, I don't think one would have to buy it right away.  Most folks can take a look at a friends (like me, the guy who has to have everything the first day available) or stop by a store for a peek.  Decide for yourself whether or not it's worth a purchase.  If it'll make the game better for you, it would be worth the money.  If not, use the old PHB.  

Note:  *Thorvald Kviksverd*, this wasn't directed at you but more at the general populous against the revised movement.  You just had something good I could quote.


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 5, 2002)

_*major rant ahead, avoid if you're likely to be easily offended:*_

y'know, people get on my nerves a lot. to everyone who's griping about the new version and its relative costs, think about this:

would you say that you've gotten 20 dollars of value out of your copy of the PHB? i'm not a betting sort, but i'd wager that you've gotten a hell of a lot more value from it. here in NYC a movie will run you 10 bucks. have you gotten more enjoyment from the last 2 years of playing DnD than ANY 2 movies you've seen in the same time? what about music? the average CD will cost anywhere from $13-$18. have you had more fun playing DnD than the last 2 CDs you bought?

try to keep things in perspective. publishing, COSTS. development, COSTS. entertainment, COSTS. ever been to play LaserTag? how much did it cost you to play it for 15-20 mins? what about going to dinner, how much did that set you back? trip to GenCon? RenFaire? average board game? comic books? how much money have you spent at Blockbuster in the last month? PC/PS2/XBox/GameCube games?

if you're griping about the cost of a new revised (and i'm betting, likely to be improved) issue of the books that likely give you the most consistently good time that you've had in the last several years, then you're ungrateful at best. what you are at worst, i won't post here out of respect for Eric's Grandma.

get a grip already. it's call progress. it's really funny how everyone ALWAYS complains whenever something new happens. this irrational fear of change is really pathetic and all too common. especially considering how essential it is to human survival and sanity.

as for this person from south africa complaining about world politics and economics and exchange rates, take it up with your government and don't hold WotC responsible. your money is devalued. it happens. deal. and as an aside, don't try to make it sound like you're paying US$300 for it. you're not. begging for sympathy is just sad. and before you get all high and mighty; my home country has a ty conversion rate too.

the bottom line. if you want the enjoyment, pay. entertainment costs money. otherwise, go to a free park, and stick to the books that you already own. 

~NegZ


----------



## JeffB (Dec 5, 2002)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *So soon?  At least we have some time to put money away for it.  If you are in the US, it's simply a matter of putting aside around $15 a month if you get all 3 or just $6 if you are picking up the RPHB.
> 
> Plus, I don't think one would have to buy it right away.  Most folks can take a look at a friends (like me, the guy who has to have everything the first day available) or stop by a store for a peek.  Decide for yourself whether or not it's worth a purchase.  If it'll make the game better for you, it would be worth the money.  If not, use the old PHB.
> 
> [/SIZE] *




Not only that, but places like Amazon will likely have it for 30% off (so there's the darn near original price of the 3E corebooks), and heck, buy.com might pull another epic level goof and have 'em for $14.00 each!  


On another note:

I wonder if they will be changing the D&D logo (which I always though kinda looked cheesy) and "look" of the other products that follow?...i.e any modules, other hardbacks, rules supplements, etc. 

C'mon July!


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 5, 2002)

anyone want to take bets that they "copyright" the format of the revised books the way they did with D20 modern?....


joe b.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 5, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *Really, it is a very good move for both the consumer and WoTC.  Really, any of us that already own the books and are happy with our games, don't need them, but many people will buy them out of compusive purchasing habits (good for WoTC).
> 
> New players will have better material that needs less errata.  (good for the player).  When our books begin to get banged up and need replacing, we get books designed and written after extensive play testing and user comments (good for us).
> 
> It is only bad if you feel a compulsion to own every book or every version of the book.  Right now, I don't feel the need, who knows if I will next year.  I just want the darned Kalamar Atlas. *




That's not exactly true.  Since they said the classes would be rebalanced, just imagine this:

They assume the bard is underpowered so they add a power called "Self Depreciating Song" gained at 2nd level (or something like that, just a silly example).

After the Revised Core books come out, they release an adventure that you decide to buy, in it is a major bard NPC who has listed as his powers "Self Depreciating Song".  Then the description of what he'll do says "This NPC will try to use his self depreciating song on the PCs as much as possible.  If it works, he will then drag them off as they will be helpless."

This leaves you wondering "What the hell is self depreciating song and how exactly does it leave PCs helpless?"

Thus, you may say "All of us who are happy with our games don't have to buy it".  But, the fact that it was said somewhere that these new books would "contain information on how to integrate new material into your existing games" means that it is a big enough change to require some adjustments.  Possibly some people who don't plan on buying any new books now would be fine just to use all the old ones.  But without failure, at least a couple times you will run into a feat from a new book that makes no sense without the changes in the Revised Core books, or a prestige class that you can't take using the rules in the pre-revised core rule books.

Majoru Oakheart


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 5, 2002)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *
> I wonder if they will be changing the D&D logo (which I always though kinda looked cheesy) and "look" of the other products that follow?...i.e any modules, other hardbacks, rules supplements, etc.
> 
> C'mon July!  *




We can only hope, pray, and plead that they'll get rid of the spiky strappy crap and instead go for a look based on history and/or Elmore fantasy.

Or Otus.

-z


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 5, 2002)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *
> Not only that, but places like Amazon will likely have it for 30% off (so there's the darn near original price of the 3E corebooks), and heck, buy.com might pull another epic level goof and have 'em for $14.00 each!
> 
> > snip! <
> ...



I'll either be getting mine @ Amazon.com or at my FLGS because I get 20% off there.  Whoever can it for me first will get my money.  

This summer is going to be great for the RPG industry.  Arcana Unearthed plus 3 improved Core Books not to mention GenCon and other releases that I can't remember right now.    C'mon July is right!


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 5, 2002)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> *
> We can only hope, pray, and plead that they'll get rid of the spiky strappy crap and instead go for a look based on history and/or Elmore fantasy.
> 
> Or Otus.
> ...



I actually like the design of the 3e Core Books (and most of the WotC stuff) but I wouldn't mind some rockin' (Elmore, Brom, etc.) fantasy art to grace the cover as in the days of yore.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Dec 5, 2002)

If you don't like it, you can always wait until someone scans the revised rules into a PDF and puts it on Kazaa or Morpheus.

*Ducks the rotten tomatoes and errant .357 rounds*


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 5, 2002)

> We can only hope, pray, and plead that they'll get rid of the spiky strappy crap and instead go for a look based on history and/or Elmore fantasy.




HERE, HERE!!!  I'm sick of the neo-goth looking iconics, spiky armor, and non-functional weapons.  I miss Easley, Elmore, Parkinson, Otis, and Halloway.  I do like some of Sam Wood's and Todd Lockwood's monsters though in the MM.  I think it would be really cool if they did go back to one monster per page in the MM, and put the ecology section back in for each critter- otherwise the MM is just a one-dimensional hack-catelogue of beasties.  I know that most of the responsiblity of making creatures seem real is the DM's job, but the new MM isn't much help with fleshing out creature societies and behaviors.


----------



## Felon (Dec 5, 2002)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *If you don't like it, you can always wait until someone scans the revised rules into a PDF and puts it on Kazaa or Morpheus.
> *Ducks the rotten tomatoes and errant .357 rounds* *




Heck, those progs are wastelands thanks to all the spyware they're loadeed with. Try WinMX


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 5, 2002)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's not exactly true.  Since they said the classes would be rebalanced, just imagine this:
> 
> ...



We don't know if something like that will even make its way into the revised books.  I think that it probably wouldn't.  The core classes won't change all that much I'm thinking if they want to keep things backwards compatable.  And if they did make a major change like the one you mentioned, WotC would probably put a web enhancement or publish in the "product in question" what was needed for the campaign.  Additionally, the back of the product would surely say what was needed to run it (revised vs. original) so the consumer would know before buying.

And yes, there will be times where you'll run into something that you need from the rCore books.  But resourceful folks could find a way to get that little chunk of ruling (friends books, peak at something in a store, etc.).

I'm not saying that it's all good but we enjoy an industry that needs to have "upgrades" now and again.  3e is good and ready.  As others have said, It has been battle-tested for a few years now and is ripe for an update.


----------



## darkbard (Dec 5, 2002)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> HERE, HERE!!!  I'm sick of the neo-goth looking iconics, spiky armor, and non-functional weapons.  I miss Easley, Elmore, Parkinson, Otis, and Halloway.   *




well, i for one love the look of 3e.  to me, the "neo-goth" iconics are much more evocative of a dark fantasy where heroes risk their lives against creepy necromancers, powerful dragons, bizarre aberrations, and slave-taking races from the planes and the underdark.  my game isn't some mamby-pamby bucolic pseudo-medieval countryside.  it doesn't look like a variant historical setting but instead something dark, epic, and magical.


----------



## Agnostic Paladin (Dec 5, 2002)

The Halfling said:
			
		

> *
> Well Excepting the fact that 3rd party publishers are not supposed to reference Core books directly, just the SRD*




Yeah, well, if they're not going to put the revisions into the SRD, then they best reword the rules about "Requires the use of the Player's Handbook" to mention that it has to be a non-revised handbook.

And if they do do that, then revised goes right into the same category as Monte's UA as far as I'm concerned; proprietary modication of the open system so as to lock users into that companies accessories and adventures.



			
				The Halfling said:
			
		

> *As consumers, we are not garranteed the next upgrade as a freebie, no matter what he market. *




Who said anything about wanting anything for free? I just don't like seeing intentional fracturing of the d20 system player base.

I'm not really hell-bent against the idea of the revision; I just forsee it splintering the d20 market into incompatable, yet similar, games. Assuming that the rules are changed to make it (and future Wizards material) incompatable with the original game (and three years of material).


----------



## Agnostic Paladin (Dec 5, 2002)

The Halfling said:
			
		

> *
> Well Excepting the fact that 3rd party publishers are not supposed to reference Core books directly, just the SRD*




Yeah, well, if they're not going to put the revisions into the SRD, then they best reword the rules about "Requires the use of the Player's Handbook" to mention that it has to be a non-revised handbook. Which doubtless won't be being printed any longer. Which would mean that the OGL will be castrated without having to actually garner the bad press and ill will that formally killing it would have.

And if they do do that, then revised goes right into the same category as Monte's UA as far as I'm concerned; proprietary modication of the open system so as to lock users into that companies accessories and adventures.



			
				The Halfling said:
			
		

> *As consumers, we are not garranteed the next upgrade as a freebie, no matter what he market. *




Who said anything about wanting anything for free? I just don't like seeing intentional fracturing of the d20 system player base.

I'm not really hell-bent against the idea of the revision; I just forsee it splintering the d20 market into incompatable, yet similar, games. Assuming that the rules are changed to make it (and future Wizards material) incompatable with the original game (and three years of material).

Oh, and I like the fantasypunk look of the core books and was disapointed when it didn't seem to be kept up in the splatbooks to any great extent. The dark, violent style is more evocative of the sort of game that I run than the innocent look of the stuff from the eighties.


----------



## Dark Psion (Dec 5, 2002)

Having read this enitire thread, perhaps the best thing they can do with these revised books is use a much better binding material so they don't fall apart in two years  

One little question, what about psionics?
Will it finally be in a player's handbook or will we get a fourth revised book?
Even those of you who don't use (or like) psionics will agree of all these books, it is most in need of a revised edition. And a 300+ page book would not only "fix" the problems, but could also include all the stuff from The Mind's Eye that Scott and Mark have done.



			
				JeffB said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not only that, but places like Amazon will likely have it for 30% off (so there's the darn near original price of the 3E corebooks), and heck, buy.com might pull another epic level goof and have 'em for $14.00 each!
> 
> ...




*cough*Talon Comics*cough*


----------



## William Ronald (Dec 5, 2002)

First and foremost: *WELCOME BACK, DEREK!!!!!* 

I think the books may be a good idea assuming they clear up some of the confusion that has been addressed by errata.  Also, I can easily see making the ranger and the monk easier to customize, perhaps with advice on how to customize classes in general.  (For example, in some campaigns, a wizardly order may advise nobles and may have diplomacy as a class skill.  Or there may be priests who oppose evil outsiders as most oppose undead. Or at least some creative advice on skills and feats and how to use them.) The advice on using monsters seems to be an added bonus.  (Mass combat rules would be nice as well.)

RPGs, for the money, may be one of the most cost efficient forms of entertainment around.  Consider the cost of a movie ($8-$10) compared with a $30 RPG book.  If you game twice a month for four hours each, that is like seeing four movies at $8 to $10 each.

The key question is how will the books make the game more enjoyable?  I admit that there were some things that were puzzling about 3rd Edition when it came out.  Attacks of Opportunity alone could use some better examples.  

I have played D&D since 1980 and have seen a great many changes.  I am willing to give WoTC a chance.  Do I expect perfection? Of course not.  However, I hope that they give the new books their best effort.

The spikey armor art style really does not appeal to me that much, being a bit of a history buff.  I would like to suggest a modest compromise: some of the spikey armor and some more traditional.  Different looks can help to imply such things as different cultures and worlds.  After all, there is no reason why a suit of armor of the same type should look exactly the same in different cultures, let around worlds.  (That and I wonder what happens if someone in spikey armor falls hard  on to a wooden floor.  Might be time to cast that summon giant crow bar spell. )


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 5, 2002)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The owner of the FLGS wasn't terribly pleased; he couldn't sell the copy (copies?) of CCI, Unrevised that he had, even at 50% off.
> 
> Just so you don't feel left out.  *




Hey it's not my fault the artwork wasn't as good as some other stuff.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 5, 2002)

Agnostic Paladin said:
			
		

> * Who said anything about wanting anything for free? I just don't like seeing intentional fracturing of the d20 system player base.
> 
> I'm not really hell-bent against the idea of the revision; I just forsee it splintering the d20 market into incompatable, yet similar, games. Assuming that the rules are changed to make it (and future Wizards material) incompatable with the original game (and three years of material). *




Agreed. Changes are fine, but if they alter it so that I have to change a prestige class requirements, fix skill points, or alter spell levels, it's not exactly something I look forward to for d20 at large.


----------



## Roman (Dec 5, 2002)

> In addition, the new and revised content instructs players on how to take full advantage on the tie-in D&D miniatures line planned to release in Fall 2003 from WotC.




This is an extremely worrying trend. Miniatures were already made 'more desirable' by 3E than they were in 2E and now they want to make them even more essential. I absolutely refuse to play with miniatures and once WotC goes as far as making miniatures totally indespensible to playing the game, at that point I will quit playing D&D and move to some other roleplaying game.


----------



## hong (Dec 5, 2002)

*Re: Re: [WOTC] Revised Corebooks for July confirmed with info*



			
				Roman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is an extremely worrying trend. Miniatures were already made 'more desirable' by 3E than they were in 2E and now they want to make them even more essential. I absolutely refuse to play with miniatures and once WotC goes as far as making miniatures totally indespensible to playing the game, at that point I will quit playing D&D and move to some other roleplaying game. *




You don't need minis if you don't want them. You could use the Cardboard Heroes cutouts from Steve Jackon Games, or the counters from various collections (they're even included in Dungeon mag). You could even just use coins. Nothing says you have to shell out bigbucks for actual metal figures.

I'm one of those who absolutely needs some sort of visual representation of the battlefield. My brane seizes up otherwise, and I end up fireballing my party or charging off alone into the middle of the monsters.

What I'd really like is if they take the classes from OA and put them into the PHB. You could run an entire campaign with the samurai and shaman (slightly rejigged) in place of the paladin and cleric.


----------



## TalonComics (Dec 5, 2002)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> *Having read this enitire thread, perhaps the best thing they can do with these revised books is use a much better binding material so they don't fall apart in two years
> 
> One little question, what about psionics?
> Will it finally be in a player's handbook or will we get a fourth revised book?
> ...




Lol... I saw that question in your email today too... 

Gang, I literally typed out all the info I had on the revised books. You all know as much as I know at this point.

Thanks to all welcoming me back. I may be posting late at night but I'm posting. 

~D


----------



## TalonComics (Dec 5, 2002)

*So how early should I start putting together my sales package? *

While I'm here how early should I start advertising a sales package for the Revised Corebooks?

July just seems so far away...

~D


----------



## Gez (Dec 5, 2002)

What's the problem with _haste_ ? I can see a point for _harm_, but _haste_, WTF ?

The revised core rules in the SRD ? I don't believe in it, even if that would be nifty. As long as the rules stays compatible enough to let third-parties publish things derived from the SRD, WotC has no incentive to be extra-nice and give freebies. I havn't heard any errata had been made to the SRD.

The art is fine in the core books, except the DMG who's rather ugly; and all monsters in the MM who're done by Kaluta, Baxa, or Reynolds (just IMHO, of course  ). Frankly, I would *not* want a come back the old AD&D2 look. Easley covers... *shudder* 




I've made some speculations.

The PH gets 34 new pages. They can sure put any number of new nifties, but sadly, that would be insufficient for what I expected, integrating psionics in the core book (I've guesstimated that would take about 50 pages). The monk is definitely going to be like the OA monk, with bonus feats. I would not be surprised if we saw new feat descriptors, like [Fighter] (just like they did in the FRCS IIRC). 

The DMG gets 64 new pages. Among the PrC, there will probably be some of the splatbook; but I would also put some virtual money on the generic PrCs from the FRCS (archmage, hierophant, arcane devotee, divine champion, divine disciple, divine seeker).

The MM gets 96 new pages. Even with a more space-consuming layout, new art, and new explanations, they'll probably have enough space to add a bunch of monsters. Sure, they could adapt missing ones, or reprint some selected few; but on the other hand, I've heard the monster compendium Monsters of Faerûn was out of print. It's a 96-page, and it could be less by removing all the redundant infos and "In the Realms" section. On the other hand, if the revised books are tied with the new campaign setting, these 96 pages could be taken with "In the Realms"-esque fluff for that setting for each of the monsters.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 5, 2002)

Just adding my two cents to the chorus here.

Despite having posted some reservations on the other thread about this, Im pretty excited about these new books.

The way I see it, a book with errors that never get corrected is bad, a book with errors that gets an errata sheet is cumbersome but useful, and a book that eventually gets reprinted with all the errors fixed is probably the best. As someone who bought all the v3.0 core books, Im somewhat miffed about having to spend $90 again, but really, it'll be worth it, it really will, since carry around stapled errata that half the time gets forgotten is worse for running a game.

On personal points of note, I do want to see new art for monsters (whoever said to please feed that poor displacer beast, you had it right on!). The Tarrasque, for example, looked so much more ridiculous than it had previously. I like the art for the PCs now however. I've had enough "traditional fantasy" to last me a lifetime, keep the alternatives!

The bit with miniatures however does not sit well with me. I want to spend my money on books, not minis. Once you start buying those things, you can't ever stop, since eventually you want to quit using that same old orc mini for ever goblinoid encounter, or you have more characters on the battlesheet than you have minis. The fact that I don't like and am not good at painting is no help either.

That said, I plan on buying the books as soon as they premier. I'm guessing it'll be at GenCon (c'mon, a July release, GenCon in July, its obviouss). I always plan out where I want to go first when the Exhibit Hall opens and always stand at the front of the crowd, running in as soon at the gate is up. Looks like I know where I'll be headed this year!


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 5, 2002)

While I'm sure happy to know that all errata and clarifications plus the (few) universally acknowledged needed corrections will be printed in the revised corebooks, I am very skeptic about the consequences.

I really doubt that the new books will have only clear rules, and will be errata-free, let's be ready for this. We'll never get error-free books 

Plus, and most importantly, although many players (and some authors as well) dislike something from the core rules, be it a class, a spell or whatever, there are also many players that are perfectly fine with them. Change the Ranger and you may have more satisfied people than before, but you'll have new rants from the ones who like him as it is now.
Sure: first check the differences, and if you prefer the un-revised rules, simply don't buy the new books; but they will become the new standard, and this messageboard will see more arguing than before... which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since we like it a lot 

I think that if Monks, Bards, Rangers and maybe someone else is "heavily" fixed, basically it'll paved the road to a habit of simply write your own class and make it as you like. The DMG's Witch is anyway a suggestion to this, isn't it? Fine. I don't see any problem with it, except exactly the difficulties in balancing the PC with the others. I wonder if they are playtesting all the new classes or if they are just trusting that if so many of us think the Bard needs a fix, then it must be true. But there will still be thousands of house-ruled fixes for the Bard even after the revisions anyway...

Neverthless, if some of our expectations written in this thread become real in the new books, they'll make a great improvement in our games.

Personally, I'd like to find at least:

PHB:
- better explanations of some under-explained abilities (Wild Shape, Rebuke/Control Undead...)
- better explanations of some skills
- extra feats from splatbooks that are suitable for non-fighing classes
- full stats for few Animal Companions, Familiars, Divine Mounts AND comprehensive lists (similar to the spells lists would be fine)
- a longer list of Summoned monsters/nature's allies
- more Bardic Music forms (I supposed that the ones in PHB were only examples, but I've yet to see other ones printed anywhere)
- better book binding! definitely better glue 

DMG:
- how to calculate EL and how to really use it, or otherwise wipe it away forever
- a decent section on traps
- a decent section on area spells

MM:
- comprehensive pages on how to write a totally new monster from scratch
- ECL for all playable creatures
- ultimate rules for advancing creatures
- favored class for every monster that takes level
- touch and flat-footed ACs in the stats
- at least a couple of sentences about every creature's reason to exist in your world
- one picture for EVERY missing monster (the worst thing when I bought MM was to find out I would have never seen the Balor, my favourite monster)

But I'm quite convinced that of the MM 100-pages increase 99 pages will be because every monster will basically get his own page (they are over 500 - like the back cover says - only if you count each Dragon's age as a different monster: count 10 Dragons instead of 120, don't give single pages to Animals and Vermins and you fit them all in 320 pages).

A final word:
I hope that game mechanics will be almost untouched, or they may have unpleasant consequences on a lot of material already published.
I also hope that core classes won't change heavily. I have my own ideas on how I'd fix some things I really don't like from Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Paladin, Monk, Druid and Ranger, but I have resisted until now to change them, and they all still worked fine in my games; nobody prevents a DM to change whatever he wants, but although many of us wish for a new Ranger or Bard, I'm sure that each has its own new version in mind, and few will be much more happy with the ones they'll find in the reviewed PHB if they are very different from the current.


----------



## shadowlight (Dec 5, 2002)

Thank you *Negative Zero* and *William Ronald* for bringing up entertainment costs.  I compare nearly every discretionary expense to a 2 hour movie, and the 3 core books have already been worth WAY more than the money I spent on them.  (the splat books not so much, but that's another matter...)

For what it's worth, I'm excited about the new minis tie in and I hope that *psionics* aren't forgotten in the revision.

7 months and counting!!!!


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Dec 5, 2002)

Gez said:
			
		

> *What's the problem with haste ? I can see a point for harm, but haste, WTF ?*




I don't mean to re-open the debate here.  There are many old threads on this subject and anyone who wishes to discuss it should use one of those.  That said, here is the answer to Gez's question:

The main cited problem with _haste_ is that it allows spellcasters to blow their spells out the hatch very quickly.  The power of this effect is strongly dependent  on how many encounters the spellcasters can expect between rest periods (and whether, therefore, they have to be at all careful about using up all their spells).  This has lead to problems for a number of people.

The haste bonus to AC, because it stacks with everything, has also occasionally been cited as a problem.

Please note: I've tried to be factual and even-handed with that answer, and _just_ reply to Gez's question.   I have not claimed that there is a problem or that there isn't one, only what people have said is a problem.  Once again, please do not start the never-ending argument again in this thread.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Dec 5, 2002)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> *I have my own ideas on how I'd fix some things I really don't like from Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Paladin, Monk, Druid and Ranger, but I have resisted until now to change them, and they all still worked fine in my games; nobody prevents a DM to change whatever he wants, but although many of us wish for a new Ranger or Bard, I'm sure that each has its own new version in mind, and few will be much more happy with the ones they'll find in the reviewed PHB if they are very different from the current.
> 
> *




I certainly hope they will do better than my own feeble attempts at alt.ranger. Otherwise I'd be seriously disappointed. 

I say: Bring it on! If it's good I'll buy it.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 5, 2002)

darkbard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> well, i for one love the look of 3e.  to me, the "neo-goth" iconics are much more evocative of a dark fantasy where heroes risk their lives against creepy necromancers, powerful dragons, bizarre aberrations, and slave-taking races from the planes and the underdark.  my game isn't some mamby-pamby bucolic pseudo-medieval countryside.  it doesn't look like a variant historical setting but instead something dark, epic, and magical. *




Hmmm...I get the feeling of bad Rob Liefeld comics when I see 3e art.


----------



## Qlippoth (Dec 5, 2002)

*Curious...*



			
				Vanye said:
			
		

> That's better than White Wolf's prior track record, though.   1 year between editions for their games, vs just under 4 for D&D?  I'll take that any day.
> That's how it already is.... [/B]



Which of White Wolf's games got revised after 1 year in print?


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Dec 5, 2002)

darkbard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> well, i for one love the look of 3e.  to me, the "neo-goth" iconics are much more evocative of a dark fantasy where heroes risk their lives against creepy necromancers, powerful dragons, bizarre aberrations, and slave-taking races from the planes and the underdark.  my game isn't some mamby-pamby bucolic pseudo-medieval countryside.  it doesn't look like a variant historical setting but instead something dark, epic, and magical. *




Ditto. I feel the exact same way. I love the more "hard-edged" look.

In my games, there are no knight in *Shining Armor*. Armor does not shine when it is beaten and slashed almost daily. 

You get a hole punched in your armor, you plug it with a spike.


----------



## Felon (Dec 5, 2002)

*Re: Curious...*



			
				Qlippoth said:
			
		

> *Which of White Wolf's games got revised after 1 year in print? *




Good lord, when Vampire the Masquerade came out in seemed that there were endless revised editions. That's one of the things that make me laugh when people here complain that "it's only been three years and already they're releasing a revised version?"


----------



## Felon (Dec 5, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Hmmm...I get the feeling of bad Rob Liefeld comics when I see 3e art. *




Now now, no need to be cruel. Even the most maladroit WotC artist goes to the trouble of drawing feet on his characters


----------



## shadow (Dec 5, 2002)

I'm a little skeptical about the "revise" core rule books.  I wouldn't mind seeing a new layout with new art, but I don't like the idea of rule changes.  I've already spent close to $300 on d20 game products.  Will these new revisions render all of the old books obsolete?  Even small changes (such as with the character classes) will really affect future supplements, forcing me to buy the revised rule books.
  That said, I'm not opposed to rule changes.  I, afterall, would like to see a new official version of the ranger.  However, I think Wizards should release a book of errata and variant rules   like"Unearthed Arcana".


----------



## TalonComics (Dec 5, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hmmm...I get the feeling of bad Rob Liefeld comics when I see 3e art. *




Jeez, if that was the case the corebooks would all have swipes of TSR artists from the 90s and 80s. 

~D


----------



## belegost (Dec 5, 2002)

I've enjoyed reading the speculation, concerns, and blasting of concerns on the boards.   Both sides of the Pro-Revision/Con-Revision have their merits.  Unfortunately, it is hard to take stock when we have so little information right now.

I'm going to continue to speculate on what comes out but I'm certainly not going to stress or get too excited this early.  I can envision a new set of books that will frustrate me to no end.  I can also think of ways that WOTC could publish the revision that would have me lining up at my local gaming store the day it is released.  For now, I'm taking the optimistic approach that rules changes will be handled without breaking all the current and future d20 products which are becoming a greater percentage (compared to WOTC) of my gaming library.  

It will be interesting to see who is going to do the revisions.  While there are many talented staff members left at WOTC - this revision might have been more interesting before the artist and designer fire sales of the last year and a half.


----------



## Tiama'at (Dec 5, 2002)

*Re: Re: Curious...*

_Originally posted by Felon _
*Good lord, when Vampire the Masquerade came out in seemed that there were endless revised editions.*

If you mean that 3 editions in 10 years was "seemingly endless" then I cry for your math teacher.

- Ma'at


----------



## Zappo (Dec 5, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Curious...*



			
				Tiama'at said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by Felon
> Good lord, when Vampire the Masquerade came out in seemed that there were endless revised editions.
> 
> If you mean that 3 editions in 10 years was "seemingly endless" then I cry for your math teacher.
> ...



That's the point. Three editions in 10 years _aren't_ many, neither for V:tM nor for D&D, no matter how much it seems to be so.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 5, 2002)

I suspect that the changes to the PHB will be significantly less than folks expect.  Errata will be applied, clarifying text inserted (hopefully better combat examples and illustrations) and a smattering of new material and implemented material from the classbooks (particularly feats that have appeared multiple times).  34 pages is not a lot of space to add new material with, and I expect some art changes, clarifications, and not much more.  Personally, it would be nice to see the bard and ranger changed, to make them more interesting.  Both get most of their class abilities at first level, and never really get more interesting.  The ranger, the 'one level wonder' that many take one level of because of 'front-loading', is another problem.  I expect many rules will become more optional in this edition, such as the Paladin and Monk's multiclass restrictions.

The DMG will probably have incorporated new rules mechanics (such as the underwater rules from Dragon), a mass combat variant, a few new prestige and NPC classes, and perhaps some sections on how to create and balance prestige classes...and, of course, more magic swag.  I would expect charts to appear what they're actually supposed to be near.  Probably some additions on gametype alternatives (such as more emphasis on xp for non-combat encounters) and more DM advice.

MM will probably incoroporate the monster creation article from Dragon, new information (various ACs, ECLs, updated errata for all creatures) and some new beasties, too.  They may choose to format it differently, not just new art, to better appease one of the largest criticisms of the book.

I would pay full price just for errata-ed books, let alone new content.  I doubt older versions will become radically out of print, any more than they did prior to this, when WOTC released the classbooks.  I suspect if they do make sweeping changes to things like classes, that there'll be web-enhancements released with a summary of those changes, for the disenfranchised.

I personally think its much ado about nothing.


----------



## Psyder (Dec 5, 2002)

Personally I think its a scam to make money.  Wotc should post all changes clarifications and extras on their website.  Saving us, the gamers, $90.  
Its not like someone could play the game with out the original books and use the content of the website to play for free.  For most of us we already spent atleast $60 and for others much more.  For those of you comparing entertainment costs, did you not see a movie because you played the game?  You more than likely will still spend the $8-$10 on a movie you would like to see.  Therefore you aren't saving the money by purchasing the books instead of going to a movie.  
I thought RPGer's were sensible people.  Most products, when not properly working are recalled and a new product is sent out.  Why won't WOTC do just that?  If its to big of an expense, why change it?  
You more than likely work hard for you money, right?  Don't throw it away to have the latest and greatest.  I say we stand together and tell Wotc to stop rippin' us off.  Don't consume the corperate BS.  Save your money and buy something you actually need.  Like more dice, pencils, paper and caffeine.  

Ahh who am I kiddin'...see ya at the stores in july. (I'll be window shopping though.)


----------



## kenjib (Dec 5, 2002)

Man, the D&D core books are SUPER EXPENSIVE!  I wrestle with my kids in the living room and it's totally free to do so.  That means playing D&D is an infinite number of times as costly, since it seems to have been established that we can compare man-hours of various leisure time activities on a quid pro quo basis.  What a rip off gaming is.


----------



## Fast Learner (Dec 5, 2002)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *Man, the D&D core books are SUPER EXPENSIVE!  I wrestle with my kids in the living room and it's totally free to do so.  That means playing D&D is an infinite number of times as costly, since it seems to have been established that we can compare man-hours of various leisure time activities on a quid pro quo basis.  What a rip off gaming is.
> 
> *



Of course, it does make quite a bit of sense once you factor in the amount of actual entertainment and fun you receive for your money.

I know _I_ wouldn't hve any fun wrestling with your kids in your living room.


----------



## Conaill (Dec 6, 2002)

I bet the main changes to the PHB will be to add in all the corrections and clarifications from the FAQ. After all, that's what everybody has been asking for, right? (So why does everybody seem to be complaining now?) That alone, plus perhaps some combat examples such as the (corrected versions of ) Gamestoppers could easily add an extra 10-20 pages. So yes, WotC WILL release most of the changes online. In fact, they already have 

Look at it this way: If they're claiming 25% new and revised content, but at the same time they're expanding the page length by 34 pages, that really means only 16% of the original PHB content will get revised. _That is not much!_

Beyond the FAQ-based clarifications/errata, yeah there will be some "upgrades" in weak classes. Most likely in terms of adding flexibility, such as allowing for a non-TWF ranger, giving Sorcerors access to some CHA-based class skills etc. Minor, but since these are changes to the core classes, you're likely to see these changes online.

Then there will be some "exclusive material". Think of the sort of stuff WotC has published in their online supplementary material: a few extra spells, maybe a feat or two. This stuff may not ever make it into the SRD, just like the online spells haven't made it in either.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 6, 2002)

Conaill said:
			
		

> *Beyond the FAQ-based clarifications/errata, yeah there will be some "upgrades" in weak classes. Most likely in terms of adding flexibility, such as allowing for a non-TWF ranger, giving Sorcerors access to some CHA-based class skills etc. Minor, but since these are changes to the core classes, you're likely to see these changes online.
> *




I'd like to see them on-line.  In the SRD.  I'll wait and see if that happens.

joe b.


----------



## Agnostic Paladin (Dec 6, 2002)

I just thought of something I'd like to see in the DMG.

For magic item tables, I'd like to see tables that give you an item value and then the DM picks an item near that value; this will make it easier to add new items to the game world.

Or some other moodification of the charts that takes into account all the new items that DMs will want to use from other sources.


----------



## Wolf72 (Dec 6, 2002)

greymarch said:
			
		

> *I dont want to spend another 90 dollars for three books I already own, but if the changes are worthwhile, perhaps I will buy them.
> 
> I am a ranger junkie, and have always felt that they are under-powered in 3rd edition. Perhaps the revised PHB will restore my faith in rangers. *




estoy de acuerdo!!!!

geez, another 90 bucks ... especially when my wallet is getting even thinner!

l


----------



## DonAdam (Dec 6, 2002)

> Jeez, if that was the case the corebooks would all have swipes of TSR artists from the 90s and 80s.




Brutal.

True, but brutal.


----------



## Elwolf (Dec 6, 2002)

Psyder said:
			
		

> *Personally I think its a scam to make money.  Wotc should post all changes clarifications and extras on their website.  Saving us, the gamers, $90.
> Its not like someone could play the game with out the original books and use the content of the website to play for free.  For most of us we already spent atleast $60 and for others much more.  For those of you comparing entertainment costs, did you not see a movie because you played the game?  You more than likely will still spend the $8-$10 on a movie you would like to see.  Therefore you aren't saving the money by purchasing the books instead of going to a movie.
> I thought RPGer's were sensible people.  Most products, when not properly working are recalled and a new product is sent out.  Why won't WOTC do just that?  If its to big of an expense, why change it?
> You more than likely work hard for you money, right?  Don't throw it away to have the latest and greatest.  I say we stand together and tell Wotc to stop rippin' us off.  Don't consume the corperate BS.  Save your money and buy something you actually need.  Like more dice, pencils, paper and caffeine.
> ...




I've seen similiar attitudes on Wizard's boards as well - as well as more ticked as well (up to and including muttering about a lawsuit ), and I have to say, I just don't get it.  This talk of "wrong" information, comparisons to car recalls etc - have people been completely unable to play 3e for the last two years due to the faulty nature of the three core books?  My lurking at this site, particularly the story hour forum, would suggest to me that that's not the case.

As for the "Why print them?  Why not just a pdf of the changes?"  Why not print them?  Hopefully they will put up some form of pdf with the run down of changes, but for those who are starting out, why shouldn't they be able to get books that contain the changes, rather than having to then download a file of modifications to their books?

Without any solid indication of what's being changed, I just can't see that there is anything to get worked up about (yet).


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 6, 2002)

something puzzles me. does _every_one own copies of all three books? it certainly seems that way. when i started playing DnD, (which, admitedly, was not _all_ that long ago) owning a DMG or MM as a player was decidedly taboo. there was one copy of both of those and only the DM had access to them.  in the 6-7 years i've been playing, i've only ever owned the PHB. when someone else wanted to DM, the books got passed on to him. why does it seem like so many people own all three? what is it that i'm missing?

anyway, with respect to this idea of a web spplement: personally, i think that it'd be a heck of a lot simpler to browse a revised book than to flip through an outdated one, and then go check said supplement to see if there are any applicable changes. it's just more convenient.

~NegZ


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 6, 2002)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *something puzzles me. does everyone own copies of all three books? *




Of course not. But this site attracts hardcore D&D gamers/DMs--the type of people that have all three core books (and probably all the class books). 

-z


----------



## Roman (Dec 6, 2002)

Negative Zero - a disproportionate number of DMs comes to these boards, so no wonder most of us own all three of the books. 

Anyway, as far as price goes... Many people are comparing the price of one book to two movies, which means that movies cost about $15 in the USA. In my country, though, going to the cinema costs about $1 (or even less) and the books cost $40 (or even more) each, so as you can see that the cost of the three books is equal to 120 visits to the cinema for me... Also, the minimum wage in my country is less than $100 per month and the average wage is less than $200 dollars per month (Ok, I do not make the average wage, but still...). Let us for the moment assume that the average wage in the USA is $2,000 per month, so for a player in my country the relative cost of the three books is the equivalent of spending $1,200 on them in the US. Now, some people are willing to spend that kind of money on it, but most will think about it twice to say the least. Sure, if WotC is only interested in the US market, this makes sense for them, but let them not be surprised if they loose foreign markets to much cheaper local RPGs. Now this price tag is not going to stop me from buying the books (if they are good and if they do not make miniatures essential), but it may well stop many. Some of those will stick with their old books and some will move to other RPGs.


----------



## kkoie (Dec 6, 2002)

I personally find it irritating.  I'd rather buy a single book that has all the revised rules, or check the updated SRD than spend $90 on 3 books I already have.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Dec 6, 2002)

*Value for money*

To those who are complaining about having to purchase these books again, do you consider you have received value for money for those you currently have?

I purchased all three 3E core rulebooks as soon as they were released in Australia, at the then special introductory price of AU$30 apiece (they now retail for AU$60 apiece).  Have I received value for my entertainment money since October 2000?  Darn straight, I have.  A new release softcover novel costs AU$15. Get a day's worth of entertainment out of that.  A movie ticket costs $US10 _if you go on a discount day_.  Get 90 minute's worth of entertainment out of that.  A new release computer game costs AU$100.  Get 20-30 hours of entertainment out of that.  Wrestling with my kids on the lounge room floor; hmm, what's the cost of food, nappies, clothing, day care, externalities (irritating in-laws coming over, sleepless nights, suffering childhood diseases you should've caught when you were a kid, but didn't etc.)?  How many pairs of shoes have you gone through since you bought your 3E books?  How much did they cost?  Did you get the expensive name brand ones, or the cheap ones?  In the time you have had since you bought your 3E books, what other hobbies have you had, and how much money have they cost you?  Buy an old car and do it up, and see how much that costs you.  Then complain about how those bastards at WoTC are ripping you off not giving you "free upgrades" (no such thing, BTW).  It's all about value for money.  I have used my core rule books every week since I bought them.  I have played 3E D&D most weeks since I bought them.  I suspect there's an awful lot of other posters in the same boat.  I personally have no difficulty forking out upwards of AU$200 for another set of books, because I know darn well that I'm getting a whole heap of a value for money.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## drothgery (Dec 6, 2002)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *something puzzles me. does everyone own copies of all three books? it certainly seems that way. when i started playing DnD, (which, admitedly, was not all that long ago) owning a DMG or MM as a player was decidedly taboo. there was one copy of both of those and only the DM had access to them.  in the 6-7 years i've been playing, i've only ever owned the PHB. when someone else wanted to DM, the books got passed on to him. why does it seem like so many people own all three? what is it that i'm missing?*




Two things. The first is that a large percentage of ENWorlders DM occasionally, or at least want to. The second is that especially among older gamers, the idea of hiding official rules from the players gets to be a bit silly. After 3 or 4 years of playing D&D 2, I knew most of what was in the DMG even if I didn't own one. And since I wasn't a starving college student anymore when D&D 3 game out, and I intended to DM at some point, I got all three books.

OTOH, I still haven't run a game of D&D 3 yet (I have run d20 WoT), and prefer to use NPCs as enemies anyway, so I'm not picking up a revised MM. And the other two will depend on the changes, and the state of wear and tear on my PH by July.


----------



## Wolf72 (Dec 6, 2002)

kkoie said:
			
		

> *I personally find it irritating.  I'd rather buy a single book that has all the revised rules, or check the updated SRD than spend $90 on 3 books I already have. *




one of these days I'll enter something original ... but this statement sums my feelings pretty well!

one book 3 chapters; PHb, DMG, MM ... 

could be me being cheap, but I really don't want spend more on books (I really want to get DLA 3e though)


----------



## jmichels` (Dec 6, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *I personally think its much ado about nothing. *




I agree with you 100% WizarDru.  The biggest thing we will probably see is a slightly tweaked Ranger and Bard.  I have a feeling that they have no intention of doing something as foolish as fracturing their fan-base into 3.0 and 3.1 camps.  

The conversion stuff will probably be about how to convert your current Ranger and Bard into the newer version.  Any other changes bigger then this won't fit in the extra pages I should think.  

I will be buying them sight unseen simply to have all the errata in one place so I do not have to lug around a bunch of printed pages.


----------



## Dark Psion (Dec 6, 2002)

Here's a thought, WoC created the OGL, maybe here's a chance for them to use it. 

Things like the Thug NPC class from Traps & Treachery, Feats, new uses for Skills & Spells from various books and even a few new monsters.

Anything from other companies you would like to see in the revised books?


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 6, 2002)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> *Here's a thought, WoC created the OGL, maybe here's a chance for them to use it.
> 
> Things like the Thug NPC class from Traps & Treachery, Feats, new uses for Skills & Spells from various books and even a few new monsters.
> 
> Anything from other companies you would like to see in the revised books? *




Yeah Relics and Rituals ritual casting spell section along with true rituals. (Which is open content)

More monsters from CC1 and CC2. (They just can't use the names)

A few magic items from Relics and Rituals 1. (They just can't use the names.)

Those are the ones I know about being OGC.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Value for money*



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> * I personally have no difficulty forking out upwards of AU$200 for another set of books, because I know darn well that I'm getting a whole heap of a value for money. *




I think that it's all about supply and demand.  If you're already getting all that entertainment out of your books, why buy more?  Thus demand is reduced _because_ the books were a good buy.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Value for money*



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think that it's all about supply and demand.  If you're already getting all that entertainment out of your books, why buy more?  *




Hmm, you're asking an addict to justify his addiction ;-)

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## kenjib (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Value for money*



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> *Wrestling with my kids on the lounge room floor; hmm, what's the cost of food, nappies, clothing, day care, externalities (irritating in-laws coming over, sleepless nights, suffering childhood diseases you should've caught when you were a kid, but didn't etc.)?*




Those costs are unrelated to wrestling.  How about gas money going to and from games?  Snack expenses?  The long term health expenses from eating all of those tons of fat and sugar over the years directly because of gaming (how do you affix a cost to shortening your lifespan by a couple of months, anyway)?  The wear and tear on your shoes and clothing that wouldn't have occured if you were at home wearing pajamas?  Oh, and how about medical expenses so you can stay alive and healthy long enough to play your next game?

Furthermore, I don't spend all that money on my children just so I can have the benefit of wrestling with them on the living room floor, unlike the expenses I mentioned above which can actually be directly attributed to gaming (except for the last one of course  ).  The expenses you mentioned are the cost of raising children whether or not I wrestle with them.  If I raised my children solely for the purpose of wrestling with them, I think it would be time for me to re-evaluate my fatherhood.

This only serves to highlight my point though.  Comparing D&D books to a movie is completely irrelevant just like comparing D&D books to wrestling with my children is.  They are all based on completely different economic models and there are so many variables that it's irrelevant.  What about the fact that the cost is only for 25% new material, thus making the true cost of this purchase closer to $360 in value per dollar?

Furthermore, the price/value of something does not have a direct correlation to the number of hours you spend enjoying something.  The price/value of something is based on subjective matters of perceived value, competition, restricted availability, production and distribution method, economy of scale, advertising costs, etc. -- ultimately it's what the market will bear.  If we had to pay $10 per person for every two hours of roleplaying gaming, roleplaying would pretty much completely die out as a market.  I can pretty much guarantee you that.  I wouldn't play anymore myself.  It does not have the same perceived value per hour as going to movies does.

Comparisons along these lines have very little meaning in a direct hour-per-hour comparison.


----------



## Psion (Dec 6, 2002)

Posted this on ROE, though it should go here, too.

(...)
And actually, if people bothered to read the catalog blurb, it answers a lot of concerns and questions. The following are what I think are the important points of what these will look like:

_
Each of the D&D core rulebooks has been revised and updated for clarity and content. 
_

Okay... I would hope/expect that would be the case. SWRCRB and D20 modern handle many skill and combat rules better than the core rulebooks and I would welcome such revisions.

_Each revision intergrates user feedback received since the original product release so as to address the specific wants and needs of the player and DM audiences._

This worries me. Users have harped on many things that need change (monk and paladin class restrictions, skill focus, rangers, harm), but many have groused on things that do not need changed IMNSHO (weakening the cleric and/or monk comes to mind)

_The overall rules system remains intact, with changes targeted specifically at elements of game play that were considered under-powered or incomplete._

This gives me a little comfort, as it kills some of the more annoying "it's too powerful" whines.

_These revised editions also contain bonus content, such as new feats, that are exclusive to these editions._

Marketing at work here...

_In addition, the new and revised content instructs players on how to take full advantage on the tie-in D&D miniatures line planned to release in Fall 2003 from WotC._

I could give a rats patootie about the tie-in minuatures line, and will continue using minis the way I always have.

_Overall changes to all the titles include making complex combat easier to understand and provide more information on interaction with and summoning monsters._

Fixing summoning monsters? Can I get a "hell yeah!"

_Revised Players Handbook received revisions to character classes to make them more balanced, and there are revisions and additions to spell lists._

I worry. I think the only class that really need revision is ranger, and most of its problems aren't balance problems _per se_, but flexibility and front-loading problems.

_Changes have been made to the item creation rules and pricing,_

This makes me wonder. At the very least, I hope they fixed boots of speed.

_and there are new prestige classes included._

Probably recycled, but I hope to see some new ones.

_There is also expanded advice on how to run a campaign._

Big deal.

_Revised Monster Manual now contains adjusted layout that makes the monsters statistics easier to understand and use._

This is unclear to me. Is this a new PAGE layout or a new stat block format?

_There will be some new illustrations and a new index,_

Don't see the problem with existing illos with a few minor exceptions (displacer beast seems to the the most rued one, and unber hulk is also not loved by old timers.) Really, the book that need new illustrations is the PHB.

_and there is now expanded information on monster classes and playing monsters as heroes._

I wonder if this is just a repackaging of the ECL system that has appeared in all the cap books. At any rate, it probably means a lot of ECLs.

_These revisions are fuly compatible with existing backlist products,_

And, dare I ask, d20 fantasy products? I can only hope, but this statement is what I consider most important.

_Each revision includes some premium content from products that followed the original core rulebook release._

Already discussed

_The total amount of new and revised material is appproximately 25%._

New to the books or brand new?

_These new editions will have revised covers that reflect and refresh the line look established upon the inital release of the titles. _

Could give a crap.


There you have it. Most questions and concerns are addressed somewhere in there. The blurb here was much more informative than the press release.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: Value for money*



			
				kenjib said:
			
		

> *This only serves to highlight my point though.  Comparing D&D books to a movie is completely irrelevant just like comparing D&D books to wrestling with my children is.  They are all based on completely different economic models and there are so many variables that it's irrelevant.  What about the fact that the cost is only for 25% new material, thus making the true cost of this purchase closer to $360 in value per dollar?
> 
> ...........
> 
> Comparisons along these lines have very little meaning in a direct hour-per-hour comparison. *




Well, yes and no.  Wrestling with the kids is more than just pure entertainment: it's contributing to their health and mental well-being, and yours, too.  Playing D&D and the purchases necessary is more comparable to seeing a movie than playing with your kids because the former are pure leisure activities for most, and the other is a much more complex social interaction.  The costs associated with each are involved, but the former are fairly direct, while the latter is somewhat directly unquantifiable.  

Seeing a movie in the theatre has a specific cost and anticipated return.  You pay a fixed fee, and anticipate being told a story for a fixed time, and hoping that it will be enjoyable.  It is a commercial transaction.  Purchasing D&D rulebooks is a similar transaction.  You are purchasing a ruleset for reading and usage purposes, with the expectation that the application of said ruleset will provide a fair degree of entertainment.  The realization of these expectations is what determines the success of a particular movie or RPG, but they follow generally similar models.  Wrestling with kids or playing hide and seek does not.  The comparison in time is fair inasmuch as people often seem to have blinders concerned with the ROI involved with such activities.  I enjoy going to the movies, but once the experience is over, it's pretty much over, except for reminiscing.  A rulebook purchase, however, is only the beginning of the activity, an actual means to an end of entertainment.  Reading the books themselves is an enjoyable activity, let alone actually putting the rules into practice.  Look at how many people purchase modules purely to read them.  

What movies do, however, is provide a service that I can't provide myself...sometimes an intangible result of an enjoyable story that I would not have thought of.  This is no different than if I compared D&D to a novel, which has a much better ROI than a movie, but lacks its visual, somatic and auditory components.  People consider $8-$12 reasonable fare to pay for a new anticipated movie, though they may begrudge such a number, and often will see a film for less at a matinee.  During the summer, many folks may see a movie a week, and think nothing of it.  If they purchase soda and popcorn, that number may double.  

If you prefer, you could compare D&D with a DVD player or VCR, which also has a ROI closer to that of the D&D core rulebooks.  They both also give entertainment value over the long haul, but few people complain about purchasing a $65 DVD player (which will require additional spending to actually make use of) or $79 for a VCR (which again requires another service and additional equipment to actually use).  This is because of perception, not actual value.  That is the issue that is actually being argued about.  I rate the value on a dollar-to-hour ratio of my limited free time.  Super Mario Sunshine, for example, is a good deal at $49 (though I got a bundle system).  The amount of hours I'll play it for and derive enjoyment in so doing make it's value superior to me than, say, seeing the Spiderman movie.  But I still went to see the Spiderman movie, and didn't begrudge the price.  As you point out, it's what the market will bear.   Many people will also think nothing of spending $8-$12 on a printed module, for only 24-36 B/W pages, but will bemoan spending $30 on 320 color pages with hard bindings on better paper stock.  I just think people just tend to forget what a good entertainment value RPGs actually are. 

You are correct that it's not a one-to-one relationship, per se.  Playing Ballerina cards with my daughter is more valuable to me, than say, playing a game of Dance Dance Revolution or reading Heart of Nightfang Spire, irrespective of actual cost.   But I think folks have a skewed perception of actual versus perceived value.  YMMV.


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 6, 2002)

kenjib, the point here is that you pay for what you want. it's as simple as that. if you would prefer to wrestle on the floor with your kids, than spend more of your hard earned money on even _more_ DnD books, then don't spend the money, wrestle. or go to a park or find some other hobby that's more or less free. you might be able to get a hell of a lot more value out of a cheap deck of cards and marathon nights of solitaire.

you're right, there isn't a direct correlation between 90mins of a movie and 90mins of a DnD session. but i think that it's safe to say that over several years, the value of the entertainment gained from using those books, outweighs the money spent on them. meaning therefore, that you've already gotten back the money spent on the books. perhaps not literally, but in actuality, certainly.

it's all voluntary. all of it: the gas that you use (provided you didn't want to/couldn't take the train/bus), the junk food that you eat (you could always bring tofu and rice cakes if you prefer), hell you could fix food from home and bring it with you, there's no law that says you *have* to _buy_ junk food. and all of it comes down to what you're willing to spend/pay (not just in monetary terms) for something you love.

bottom line, if the new books aren't worth it to *YOU*, don't buy them. if they are, buy them. simple. if you think you're being ripped off by money hungry capitalists, don't support them. 

but then, those same money hungry capitalists are the same ones, unless i'm mistaken, who practically gave away their gaming license and directly made it possible for hundreds of new small business d20 publishers to make some money of their own, *AND* make this new incarnation of DnD probably the most successful version yet.

~NegZ

<EDIT>
very well said WizarDru. you expressed a lot of what i was thinking but wasn't able to say.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 6, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> _There is also expanded advice on how to run a campaign._
> 
> Big deal.[/b]




I'm suprised to hear you say that.  I realize WE are experienced DMs, but shouldn't the DMG actually BE a guide to DMing?  It's one thing I loved about the 3E guide and hated about the 1E guide...that it gave actual ideas and guidelines beyond a bunch of magic item tables.

Spelling out even more of the core assumptions of the system and ways to change it can only be good, IMHO.  For example, including the iconics stat-blocks to illustrate examples of what PCs might be equipped with to better illustrate wealth levels, as well as more details on things like item creation (always problematic, IMHO), more detailed information on constructing custom content, and so forth.  Not everyone has access to these boards, and the capable talent therein. 



> *Revised Monster Manual now contains adjusted layout that makes the monsters statistics easier to understand and use.
> 
> This is unclear to me. Is this a new PAGE layout or a new stat block format?
> 
> ...




I think it will be some new (in some cases badly needed) monster illos, a REAL index, not just a CR index and definitely a new stat block format (_try finding an osyluth on the fly, if you don't know what kind of creature it is...devil? demon? night hag?  flip flip flip_).  I'm of two minds concerning the layout...I just want the picture near the start of a statblock, overall.  I'd rather have detailed info than single-page entries.  I'm sure the ECLs from the Dragon article will be there, too, as well as an expanded monster character section in the beginning.

_and there is now expanded information on monster classes and playing monsters as heroes._

I wonder if this is just a repackaging of the ECL system that has appeared in all the cap books. At any rate, it probably means a lot of ECLs.



> *These new editions will have revised covers that reflect and refresh the line look established upon the inital release of the titles.  *




Please, please, PLEASE no embarrasing boobage covers.    I like the current covers, but if we must change them, please make them something I don't have to be embarrased to let my in-laws see.  Pretty please?


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 6, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> Please, please, PLEASE no embarrasing boobage covers.    I like the current covers, but if we must change them, please make them something I don't have to be embarrased to let my in-laws see.  Pretty please? *



Agreed.  We don't need another reason to defend ourselves and legitimize our enjoyment.  I don't think they'll change their art style too much for this version.  They have an established look that people know.  They'll make it different along the same theme I'm thinking.  I like the look of the current Core Book covers, as well.  I'd like to keep it that way.


----------



## Psion (Dec 6, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *I'm suprised to hear you say that.  I realize WE are experienced DMs, but shouldn't the DMG actually BE a guide to DMing?*




Certainly it should be. My statements here are in context of all the fear and loathing being leveled at the books here. I certainly don't think that new campaign advice is something that is going to throw a monkey wrench in current games, like some possible revisions could.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Dec 6, 2002)

I'll happily buy the new books IF they're bound more solidly than the last batch.  My 21 year old 1E PHB has a rock-solid spine;  my lightly-used 3E PHB is ready to disintigrate at a touch.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 6, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I'll happily buy the new books IF they're bound more solidly than the last batch.  My 21 year old 1E PHB has a rock-solid spine;  my lightly-used 3E PHB is ready to disintigrate at a touch. *



I have no problem with my 3E books, but now I only play once a week. But nothing compares to the early first edition books. I'll never forget when one kid got off his bike and unrolled the still-intact PHB from his back pocket!  Seeing my amazement, he then folded and unfolded the book from top-to-bottom! He used the book for at least 2 more years, and it was still intact, although the cover was getting rather, um, limp.


----------



## Felon (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Curious...*



			
				Tiama'at said:
			
		

> If you mean that 3 editions in 10 years was "seemingly endless" then I cry for your math teacher.
> - Ma'at [/B]




3 editions? I smell a snarky fanboy, 'cause that's flat-out nonsense. 3 "official" editions, fine. Quite a few unofficial revisions in the first couple of years. Remember when each extra success on the attack roll used to add to damage for all forms of attacks, not just firearms? That lasted about 10 minutes. Ah, how I miss my street-fighter vampire with pipe-cleaner arms, but coordination out the yin-yang.


----------



## Zander (Dec 6, 2002)

Hasbro claim that 25% will be new material and all three books combined will cost $90. So by their own figures, if you have the three current books, you'll wind up paying $90 for $22.50 (= 0.25 x 90) worth of new stuff.  Ergo:

* Ha$bro = T$R *


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 6, 2002)

Curse their black hearts!  Daring to (gasp)  TURN A PROFIT!

Don't they know the de rigeur of the gaming industry is to eek out an existence before going out of business entirely?  The fiends!  Why, I bet they were in it to make money all along!


----------



## Qlippoth (Dec 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Curious...*



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 3 editions? I smell a snarky fanboy, 'cause that's flat-out nonsense. 3 "official" editions, fine. Quite a few unofficial revisions in the first couple of years. Remember when each extra success on the attack roll used to add to damage for all forms of attacks, not just firearms? That lasted about 10 minutes. Ah, how I miss my street-fighter vampire with pipe-cleaner arms, but coordination out the yin-yang. *



How much did White Wolf charge you for "unofficial revisions"?


----------



## Kichwas (Dec 6, 2002)

This is serious right? This isn't a late April fools entry or anything?


It's great news where I stand, if it makes the revisions I desire (have to go read that list again).

Or it could be bad news, if it doesn't.


As long as Bioware puts out an extension with revisions to Neverwinter Nights to match it I'll be happy. 

Though I imagine that chances of that are just slightly greater than the chances of Bill Gates ever needing to beg me for some spare change...


----------



## The Halfling (Dec 6, 2002)

Zander said:
			
		

> *Hasbro claim that 25% will be new material and all three books combined will cost $90. So by their own figures, if you have the three current books, you'll wind up paying $90 for $22.50 (= 0.25 x 90) worth of new stuff.  Ergo:
> 
> Ha$bro = T$R
> 
> *




This seems to be a rather knee-jerk reaction, to say the least.

T$R received this moniker for many reasons, the main one being that many of their products required and/or referenced many other T$R products. Thus forcing you to purchase additional products if you wanted to play the game complete. 

WotC understood this, and so tries to keep each book as free-standing as possible. Any material referenced from another source or book has been included. But even this has caused consternation as the perception of rehashed/repackaged material floats about. 

It just shows that no matter what anyone tries to do, you just can't please everyone. You try to please/appease the majority. 

Now reprints WILL eventually have to be done for ALL of the books, and errata and errors should be corrected in those reprints. Now given the chance to make some minor adjustments to rules flaws that nearly 3 years of real-world gaming have uncovered, WotC decides to do so.

Given that the price of the current core books is already MSRP $29.95 ea, WotC decides to increase the size of the page count for all of the books, yet keep the pricing stable. Corrections, adjustments, rules pulled from other sources, and even some truly new material will all be included.

Why? Yes, to sell more core books. WotC has always stated the to 3 books (esp. the PHB) are always the best sellers. I can't fault them for this. Nor can I argue with it. Clearer rules, good presentation, and more material will sell this book, especially to new players.


----------



## Kichwas (Dec 6, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *I bet ... and there's yet ANOTHER version of polymorph self.   *




They could always save that for a monthly Dragon article...

This month's version of Polymorph Self...


I'd like to see a revised skill list for the sorcerer to take advantage of Charisma being their prime stat, and maybe something present in their level chart, even if it was just useless goodies for flavor. But mostly, the skill list revision.


----------



## Psion (Dec 6, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Don't they know the de rigeur of the gaming industry is to eek out an existence before going out of business entirely?*




"Eek" out an existence? There's one for the homonym/disfigure of speech file, as well as an interesting mental picture to boot. 

FFR: eke
eke1
tr.v. eked, ek·ing, ekes

1. To supplement with great effort. Used with out: eked out an income by working two jobs.
2. To get with great effort or strain. Used with out: eke a bare existence from farming in an arid area.
3. To make (a supply) last by practicing strict economy. Used with out.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 6, 2002)

The Halfling said:
			
		

> *
> Clearer rules, good presentation, and more material will sell this book, especially to new players. *




Spot on.

From what I've read and from what I am guessing, I believe the new revised edition is not really made for "people like us."  We're connected, we know where to find errata, we know how to look up the D&D FAQ.  We know how to get questions answered, and we know how to find house rules for some of the more "iffy" core D&D rules.  

I believe that the revised edition will be more for people who have gone these two (and it will be nearly three by the time the books come out) years without ever logging on to the WotC website.  And even moreso it will be for the (hopefully) ever-present group of new players who have yet to crack open a D&D book.  

I can see how it rankles -- some of the "value added" stuff put in specifically to lure "people like us" into buying the revised edition will be new.  And now they'll be core rules, where they weren't core rules before.  How WotC plans to share those things with those of us who are connected remains to be seen, but my bet is on an updated SRD if nothing else.  And that will be adequate for "people like us" who already have most of the rules and just might need some of the extra stuff for future use.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 6, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *Certainly it should be. My statements here are in context of all the fear and loathing being leveled at the books here. I certainly don't think that new campaign advice is something that is going to throw a monkey wrench in current games, like some possible revisions could. *




I don't think its so much fear and loathing as annoyance in the method of presentation. I'd like the option of not paying 90$ even if 25% of it is utterly completely new. This line in particular bothers me....

- Editorial coverage throughout Spring 2003 in Dragon and Dungeon magazines.


Hrm.. what do they need editorial coverage for?  Are they leaving good stuff out intentionally to see more Dragon product? Are they aware that somethings aren't quite right already and they'll just fix them in dragon instead of figuring them out beforehand? Or do they just know that they'll be things they didn't think of that need to be clarified? I'm interested in seeing which (or all) of the above are what they're talking about.

joe b.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Dec 6, 2002)

I'm just waiting on The Psionics Handbook 1.1.  

In my opinion, that is the one book that puts all other to shame when it comes to broken rules, crooked concepts, and imballances.


Followed closely by Sword and Fist...

I would however also like to see a hardback compilation of all the splatbooks.

Hey, I can dream can't I?


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 6, 2002)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I'll happily buy the new books IF they're bound more solidly than the last batch.  My 21 year old 1E PHB has a rock-solid spine;  my lightly-used 3E PHB is ready to disintigrate at a touch. *




what are you doing with yours??? mine's still pristine and up until a month ago, i played 3 times a week, _every_ week. now i'm down to once a week, tho once the season is over it'll go back up to a nice regular twice weekly schedule.

~NegZ


----------



## Agnostic Paladin (Dec 6, 2002)

Yeah, I think the people who's books are dying got them from a bad batch or something. Every book in our group is holding up great, quite the opposite of my old 2nd and basic books. They were all more or less bound and covered with nothing but masking tape by the time I gave up on them (say, 4 or 5 years use. But they were getting loose from their bindings within a year.).


----------



## MerakSpielman (Dec 6, 2002)

Agnostic Paladin said:
			
		

> *Yeah, I think the people who's books are dying got them from a bad batch or something. Every book in our group is holding up great, quite the opposite of my old 2nd and basic books. They were all more or less bound and covered with nothing but masking tape by the time I gave up on them (say, 4 or 5 years use. But they were getting loose from their bindings within a year.). *




I was a victim of the Bad Batch PHBs. Mind disintigrated totally - as in, the cover was no longer attached to the pages. I ended up salvaging it only by hole-punching the pages and sticking them in a binder. I took the PHB cover and put it in the transparent cover of the binder. It's sad, I know, but I wasn't about to go buy another one!


----------



## buzz (Dec 6, 2002)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> *I was a victim of the Bad Batch PHBs. Mind disintigrated totally - as in, the cover was no longer attached to the pages.*




Didn't WotC offer to replace these for free?

Buzz, who eagerly anticipates the revised core books and thinks naysayers are poopy-heads.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Dec 6, 2002)

I think a couple people are missing a few things in the description of the book.  Classes WILL be changed, WOTC says this in their description of the books.  They say to make them more balanced.

People here have been saying "I don't see why anyone would get annoyed over all the errata that we already have being put into a book, don't buy it."

But it ISN'T just errata.  There ARE rules changes.  I've been trying to think of any way that they could change the classes that would make all of them completely compatable.  I can't think of one.

I'm guessing they will only change the Bard and Ranger classes.  However, I'm virtually positive that they will change them in a significant way.  I REALLY doubt that the changes will be listed online anywhere (MAYBE in the SRD, but who knows).  It will be like the SWRCRB.  There was a revised Jedi Guardian class.  I searched online everywhere to see if I could find details of that new class as it is the ONLY thing I wanted from the revised book.  But WOTC didn't have that information anywhere.  They had a web enhancement on "converting from the old core rulebook" but it was useless without the revised core rulebook in hand.

I'm worried that the new book will include 2 revised classes, a better description of what already exsists, and all the errata so far.  To me, since I've read all the FAQ and every Sage Advice from Dragon and read through the whole errata, I don't really need any clarification.  On the other hand, I'll need to know the information on the revised classes as those will become the new standard in all later books.  So, in essence, I'll be forced to buy the new PHB just for 2 classes.

I assume they will likely do the same thing for both the DMG and MM, they will include at least ONE new thing with each book that you can't find elsewhere.  They will try to make it something very important in each one so "people like us" will want to buy it.  If asked why we will be required to buy a new book for so little information, they will reply "because we didn't want to change TOO much, so as to keep it as compatable as possible with the old core rulebooks."

Of course, because I love D&D so much, I'll end up buying the new books likely.  But it'll mainly be for:

PHB: New classes because no one in my group plays bards at all and no one is a ranger longer than 1 level.

DMG: Updated price lists for magic items and magic item creation rules.

MM: Updated rules on playing monsters as PC (and hope it doesn't completely nulify needing Savage Species)

Majoru Oakheart


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 6, 2002)

I love when people use terms like forced to, as if WOTC will send out some leg breakers to make sure your playing the most up to date game.

Look if your happy with the game as is, just don't buy the new books nobody will force you to, and you can have tons of fun with your books still.  And hey all the splat books will be more compatible with your game than with the revised books unless they take into account every prestige class that could be effeced by their changes.  


Me I like buying RPGs and so this isn't a tough choice, I'll get newer books with updated rules I'm all for it.


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 6, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *... as if WOTC will send out some leg breakers to make sure your playing the most up to date game... *




they didn't show up at YOUR house??? 

~NegZ


----------



## Vuron (Dec 6, 2002)

This discussion is pointless as the whiners will no doubt use that intraweb thingee to download scanned copies within days of them being released....

Let me put it this way, change can be good or bad but it's inevitable, whining about it serves nothing. So you can hide your head in the sand and continue playing 3e or get with the new and buy revised. Besides didn't we hear enough of these comments when 3e was announced 3 or so years back? "Oh no all my 2e stuff is worthless!" and "3e? hell I'm still playing 1e!".

Personally I'm hoping for dramatic changes much like Storyteller revised introduced for WW. I'd actually like a 4e rather than a short-term patch, but hell I'll buy it and hope that a real revision isn't that far off.


----------



## ced1106 (Dec 6, 2002)

Well, I'm happy. I started D&D since the "white box", stopped playing around college, but became interested again only a few months ago. I wasn't happy, either, when the $20 books went up to $30 (so bought the EQ RPG), and these revisions **will** get me to part with my money. On more of a soapbox note  revising the core rulebooks shows that WotC **is** committed to supporting D&D. Really, Hasbro/WotC could have just fired all their staff, kept the printing presses running, and printed the existing rulebooks ad infinitum and done nothing else.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^


----------



## kenjib (Dec 7, 2002)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> *But it ISN'T just errata.  There ARE rules changes.  I've been trying to think of any way that they could change the classes that would make all of them completely compatable.  I can't think of one.
> *




I suggested some ways in an older thread that come very close.  Adding cha-based skills to the sorcerer's class skill list would have very minimal compatibility conflicts.  Giving the ranger the option of choosing between ambi/twf or point blank shot/rapid shot would also have very minimal compatibility conflict.  Adding additional spells to the bard's spell list would have absolutely no impact on compatibility.

As regards your other concerns, I would be very surprised if the SRD wasn't updated to reflect changes to things contained therein, and it does contain the ranger and bard classes.  It's free for download.


----------



## Michael Tree (Dec 7, 2002)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *- Editorial coverage throughout Spring 2003 in Dragon and Dungeon magazines.
> 
> Hrm.. what do they need editorial coverage for?  Are they leaving good stuff out intentionally to see more Dragon product? Are they aware that somethings aren't quite right already and they'll just fix them in dragon instead of figuring them out beforehand? Or do they just know that they'll be things they didn't think of that need to be clarified? I'm interested in seeing which (or all) of the above are what they're talking about.*




Pay attention to the timing.  The books are coming out in the summer of 2003.  The editorial coverage will be in the spring of 2003.  They're essentially talking about the same interviews, personality spotlights, themed Dragon, and web previews that come out before all their books.  Maybe we'll see something like the "countdown to 3rd edtion" sneak peeks in Dragon.

I wouldn't be surprised if they post one or more of the revised character classes as a web preview, like they did for the revised Star Wars book.


----------



## Michael Tree (Dec 7, 2002)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> *I'm guessing they will only change the Bard and Ranger classes.  However, I'm virtually positive that they will change them in a significant way.*



I wouldn't be surprised if there were minor changes to most of the classes, such as changes in the sorcerer's skill list, a revised Wild Shape description for druids, the removal of the restrictive "flavor rules" for druids, paladins, and monks, and more customizable monks. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and give the fighter Intimidate and Profession as class skills.  You're probably right that the only classes that will be overhauled will be the bard and ranger.


> *I REALLY doubt that the changes will be listed online anywhere (MAYBE in the SRD, but who knows).  It will be like the SWRCRB.  There was a revised Jedi Guardian class.  I searched online everywhere to see if I could find details of that new class as it is the ONLY thing I wanted from the revised book.  But WOTC didn't have that information anywhere.*



If you're going to complain, get your information straight.   In the months leading up to the release of the revised Star Wars rulebook, WotC had web previews of not only the Jedi Guardian, but also the Noble, the Scoundel, and the Jedi Master, as well as the rules for playing Droids, and the Gamble and Craft skills.


----------



## Felon (Dec 7, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Curious...*



			
				Qlippoth said:
			
		

> *How much did White Wolf charge you for "unofficial revisions"? *




Whatever a new edition cost, I had to pay it a second time 'round about three months later. Just because you don't remember (or, for that matter, maybe even didn't notice) the re-write and re-release that occurred within a few months of vampire's initial release, that doesn't mean the events didn't take place. I already told you what the major change was to the rules that I recall (extra successes on the attack only added extra damage when using firearms). Frankly, it's a bit odd that you feel the urge to keep dogging such a minor topic for the sake of ardently insisting it didn't happen. The VtM core book had been revised a few times in its first couple of years. It was a decade ago. What's the big whoop? Nothing to take personally...unless you're Mark Rein-hagen


----------



## MerricB (Dec 7, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> ...on revised MM...
> *I think it will be some new (in some cases badly needed) monster illos, a REAL index, not just a CR index and definitely a new stat block format (try finding an osyluth on the fly, if you don't know what kind of creature it is...devil? demon? night hag?  flip flip flip).  I'm of two minds concerning the layout...I just want the picture near the start of a statblock, overall.  I'd rather have detailed info than single-page entries.  I'm sure the ECLs from the Dragon article will be there, too, as well as an expanded monster character section in the beginning. *




It is worth looking at the format of Monster Manual 2.

The font size was slightly increased, the special ability descriptions were made much clearer...

If MM1 is reprinted in the style of MM2, I expect that at least 50 extra pages could come from just such a printing. Which is an excellent thing - too much was squashed into MM1 because of the original page limit count (which was meanwhile increasing for the PHB and DMG!)

Cheers!


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 7, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *Pay attention to the timing.  The books are coming out in the summer of 2003.  The editorial coverage will be in the spring of 2003.  They're essentially talking about the same interviews, personality spotlights, themed Dragon, and web previews that come out before all their books.  Maybe we'll see something like the "countdown to 3rd edtion" sneak peeks in Dragon.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if they post one or more of the revised character classes as a web preview, like they did for the revised Star Wars book. *




heh, this was what the internet was made for..... it increases the abilities of the common man to appear like an idiot.  

thanks for the info, i plain out missed it.. 

joe b.


----------



## Kichwas (Dec 7, 2002)

> _My 21 year old 1E PHB has a rock-solid spine; my lightly-used 3E PHB is ready to disintigrate at a touch. __Originally posted by Negative Zero _
> *what are you doing with yours??? mine's still pristine*



My 3E books are all still near mint condition as well. And I lug them around with me weekly.

Of course I don't know if they could stand being chewed on by a dog AND a parot like my 1E Monster Manual. 

But they're sturdy enough.


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 7, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Curious...*



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> *Whatever a new edition cost, I had  to pay it a second time...*




ah, i see. clearly those kneecapping bruisers got to your house too. damn those enforcers.  

~NegZ


----------



## Tace (Dec 8, 2002)

It will be kind of interesting to see what changes are made.  I think we all are going to have a lot to talk about in a couple months with people comparing the old vs the new 3rd edition.

I hope not too much is changed.  I would hate to deal with any friction that may occur with new people joining my group with the newer edition while the rest of us have the original.


----------



## Felon (Dec 8, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Curious...*



			
				Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *ah, i see. clearly those kneecapping bruisers got to your house too. damn those enforcers.  ~NegZ *




Well, I was about say something regarding quibbling about semantics but....nah, you got me dead to rights on that one.  I didn't *have* to buy the revised book, I just didn't want to play without the most current and official rules. Poor wording on my part there. Mea culpa.

BUT, please realize the point wasn't about having to buy the books, it was simply pointing out that other games--even successful, well-regarded ones--revised their rules in a far shorter span of time than 3 years, and didn't make the same effort to maintain backwards compatability.


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 8, 2002)

yes, you did make a good point. just friendly ribbing there Felon. no hard feelings, eh? 

~NegZ


----------



## tleilaxu (Dec 8, 2002)

Remember the days when you could buy a video game with no obvious bugs? Sure, it was because Pac-Man was simpler than Ultima IX, but still that was pretty cool, huh?

These days people expect a game to have bugs. The patching system is an accepted (though not necessarily liked) part of the video-gaming world. 

This situation begs the question: Do game developers commit fewer resources to bug-removal than they would if they knew the game they released was the only one anyone would ever play, and their bugs would be in the game forever?

Of course the response to this is that there are so many possibilities for bugs that only playing in wide-release can help the company discover them all. 

However, back to WOTC books, I have to say the editting has in general been poor. I haven't seen a single 3e book that I haven't caught typos or other errors in the first read-through. So I guess the solution is "patching". Unfortunately with text objects this costs money. I think this is the source of lots of the holy griping that I've seen on this thread. The people have a point.

I think WOTC understands this perspective, which is why they've added extra content. They're trynig to sweeten the pot a bit.

The only thing that will piss me off is that I'm sure I'll find more editorial errors in my first read-through. If WOTC would like a new editor to work for them I'm availible and am reasonably sure I could get drunk before work every day and _still_ do a better job than those who are doing it now.


----------



## N Hammer (Dec 8, 2002)

I understand why WotC is bringing out revised editions of the core rule book....But I already have a set of rule books and I'm not spending money on the revised books. I'll just wait and get the changes from the 'net, I'm sure some website will have the changes posted...


----------



## Barcode (Dec 9, 2002)

tleilaxu said:
			
		

> *The only thing that will piss me off is that I'm sure I'll find more editorial errors in my first read-through. If WOTC would like a new editor to work for them I'm availible and am reasonably sure I could get drunk before work every day and still do a better job than those who are doing it now. *




Will you promise to spell available correctly?


----------



## tleilaxu (Dec 9, 2002)

haha... this is  a message board i can spell availible howevar i want  ((you missed the other errors in my last post... for shame... if you want to be snarky you should have nailed me on them all))


----------



## William Ronald (Dec 9, 2002)

I think the revisions may serve another useful purpose: they may help people who are undecided about making the switch between editions.  In my own gaming group, we have someone who has been largely inactive since 3E came out.  Essentially, he does not want to learn a new set of rules that seemed confusing to him.  (I miss him, but he also has been very active in collectible card games.)

Will the revised books be perfect? Of course not, human beings are involved in the process.  However, if they do clarify a few things, solve a few problems, and bring more enjoyment to my game it will be worth it to buy the books.

Perhaps the DMG could have more examples of role playing and creating complex characters.  It might help new gamers out.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 9, 2002)

I expect the ranger class to be changed... obviously far too powerful as it is, so they ditch the ambi & TWF and replace it with nothing. That'll stop people twinking!



Seriously, I would expect the jump skill to be completely replaced by the description from d20 Modern - a proper DC based way of handling jumps rather than the strange calculator-intensive method in the current PHB. The d20 Modern handle animals will probably find its way in there too.

The difference between star wars and starwars revised character classes was huge. I'd imagine that it will be on a much smaller scale than those revisions. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Cheers


----------



## Qlippoth (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Curious...*



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> *BUT, please realize the point wasn't about having to buy the books, it was simply pointing out that other games--even successful, well-regarded ones--revised their rules in a far shorter span of time than 3 years, and didn't make the same effort to maintain backwards compatability. *



Looks like we were on the same page after all. _Maxima mea culpa._


----------



## tleilaxu (Dec 10, 2002)

i bet they won't make as many changes to the classes as people think


----------



## Kamard (Dec 10, 2002)

i bet I will look at them and buy them if they are something I want.  If they aren't, I will make J. Random Player buy them for me. 

*insert cruel, DMesque laughter*


----------



## F5 (Dec 10, 2002)

*revisions to be posted in the SRD*

Well, apparently Bill Slavicsek and Ed Stark have confirmed that Wizards intends to publish the revised materials to the SRD the day the new books are released.  

That makes me a lot happier than I was, anyway.  People who are reluctant to buy new versions of the books we've already paid for can check out exactly what the new content is, and decide if it's worth the investment.  Those that aren't willing still have access to the most "current" version of classes and feats and etc.

Does that change any opinions out there?  Is posting the changes to the SRD right away a fair compromise?


----------



## Henry (Dec 10, 2002)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *
> 
> what are you doing with yours??? mine's still pristine and up until a month ago, i played 3 times a week, every week. now i'm down to once a week, tho once the season is over it'll go back up to a nice regular twice weekly schedule.
> 
> ~NegZ *




Neg Zero: Read Thalmin's post, and reference what others have said in dozens of posts over the past three years about their 1st edition books.

I don't know WHO Gygax got to bind those things, but those 1st edition books had _calf-skin_ pages, bindings of _dragon-sinew_, spines made of _Balrog-horn_, and covers permeated with _adamant_. Those things have lasted generations with gamers who left them *baking in cars, inundated with soda pop, buried under debris,* and generally abused like *red-headed stepchildren*.

I'm exaggerating slightly, but I have heard tales of 1st edition books surviving knifings, rain storms, and contortions unheard of. My own books have survived ME for 20 years now, while my 3rd edition players handbook, although still intact, has already begun to slightly separate its binding from its spine. It's not bad, but it _flops_ like it didn't used to.


People say this about things all the time, but in this one case, I can truly say: _"They don't make 'em like they used to."_

Just my two cents.


----------



## incognito (Dec 10, 2002)

My RMM wish list:

1) art for all the monsters
2) a full explanation of natural, ex, spell like, and supernatural abilities
3) better + CR set of conditions for appling templates (a feindish Troll is REALLY nasty)
4) a blurb explaining what mostner summongin, if any, a monster might fall under
5) more animals, vermin, and other 'common' creatures
6) there is no 6)


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 10, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Neg Zero: Read Thalmin's post, and reference what others have said in dozens of posts over the past three years about their 1st edition books. ...*




while i did read most of the other posts in this thread, (i kinda just skimmed pages 3 and 4 ) i didn't need them to tell me that pretty much across the board, things made 20 years ago were a lot stronger and more durable than things made 5 years ago. it applies to just about every manufactured product.

so if you treat anything that you buy now to buy today like you've treated things manufactured 20 years ago, then you have no one to blame but yourself. blaming the manufacturer is akin to the woman suing McDonald's for selling fattening food. disregarding common knowledge is your own fault.

besides, if you treat something badly, it will break. griping that something else survived the same kind of abuse, won't change the fact that it broke through _your_ misuse and abuse. while i have no factual data to back this up, i'm sure that for every claim of a 1E PHB surviving 20 years of abuse, there are a dozen people who destroyed theirs with less effort.

~NegZ

<EDIT>
edited for spelling and clarity


----------



## Forrester (Dec 10, 2002)

*How much do you want to bet*

that the new books are as full of typos and other mistakes as the old ones? 

For instance, yesterday, I learned that Web fills up a 10' cube per caster level. Says so right there in the short spell descript listings. *sigh*

If they actually hired editors this time . . . they'd be worth the price for that alone. I remain skeptical. 

As far as added content -- I'm hoping they explain why Bracers of Armor are armor, but they aren't armor, if you're a monk.


----------



## Felon (Dec 11, 2002)

*Re: How much do you want to bet*



			
				Forrester said:
			
		

> *If they actually hired editors this time . . . they'd be worth the price for that alone. *




They have editors. Some are very well-paid.

They just don't do squat.


----------



## ZansForCans (Dec 11, 2002)

*Re: revisions to be posted in the SRD*



			
				F5 said:
			
		

> *Well, apparently Bill Slavicsek and Ed Stark have confirmed that Wizards intends to publish the revised materials to the SRD the day the new books are released.
> 
> ...
> 
> Does that change any opinions out there?  Is posting the changes to the SRD right away a fair compromise? *




This is good news, of course. I personally have no beef with them wanting to do revised editions. As mentioned several times in this thread, the size of the errata and FAQ certainly warrant some major print changes. Perhaps this is why the SRD has never been updated for that material.

But still, the SRD hasn't even been fully officially released yet (I'm happy to see that spells & items were released recently). And frankly, RTF is a ridiculously poor distribution format for it, especially as the sole format for an _open_ product. (Yes, I know RTF can be read by things other than MS products, but there are always 'issues'. And yes, I know they are planning an ASCII version, but where is it? What's wrong with PDF like most of their other on-line content???)

Anyway, that all being said, the truth of the matter is that *I* bought the WoTC product, not the SRD. So did all the folks in my gaming group. If I want to run a game with the rPHB what do I tell my players? Suck it up? Do I pass around my rPHB to each player for a week? Or is it left to me to type up all the differences that might matter to my future campaigns?

Really, what I'd like to see is the _option_ to snag a PDF from their site. Who cares if it's unwieldy? I (and my players) get to see the changes and it might even provide more incentive for us to make a purchase. In the meantime, we'd get to play with the updated rules that might be used in products coming out starting next summer. I wouldn't expect to be handed all the new 'value-added' material like new PrC, monsters, etc. Rather, an accurate list of the differences in the core elements (rules, classses, spells, etc.) would be all I would expect. Isn't that the least they can do for all of us that have provided "reliable and valuable input" (oh, and those reliable and valuable $$$ too  ).

Maybe I'm wrong, but just publishing a revised SRD isn't going to be as accurate or as convienent as true core book update flyers would be. And the lack of this sort of question in the FAQ on the revised versions just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I hope it's just because they haven't decided...

That's my 2cp...


----------



## simon_mas (Dec 11, 2002)

*harsh and bitter. and long. very long.*

I agree with ZansForCans and with those that they have said that the printing new book is not what makes unhappy so many people.

the books are unbalanced? well, it's not really their fault, since anybody can make a mistake.
where are the errata? do i have to dig some hundred pages of SRD in order to spot those changes? if the system is flawed and they know what's wrong, can't they just post an errata NOW? or state exactly which areas will be updated?

there are two things that really drives me crazy.

1) they exploited their fans. some of the threads in the wotc boards really had some points. that conjurer guy has made clear to anybody that the system they used for pricing the magical items is broken. and that's just an example. there are dozens of new rangers, monks, haste spells, and so on.
one week ago, these people were just whiners. officially, the system was perfect. if you didn't like a part of it, it's your business.
now, all of the sudden, the system is broken. not completely to justify a 4th edition, mind you. just enough to reprint books incorporating those changes, and some more (which remains unknown to this date), probably those very house rules that were suggested on their boards.
will these people get credited? i don't really think so. these fans not even get a thank you. a "you know, you were damn right. we are the fools. sorry about that.". they are given 3 new manuals, $30 each (if you live in the u.s.a. probably $40 or more elsewhere). no errata. just the SRD that they would have updated anyway. wow!

2) when they give official information about the changes, they seem to do it as if they were doing us a personal favour.
if they're not sure about what is going to change, why don't they openly ask us?
if they already know, why are they keeping the secret?  because they want to keep us wonder? because a third party could steal the idea and print a "fix the d20 system" book? because they like fame wars and enjoy seeing more?
I'm bitter here, i realise, but it's incredible that they can't give us the complete information at this stage. this is only going to hurt them. 

in my humble opinion, they are really only trying to make more money out of the core books.
if not, they would have printed a d20 update book ALONG with the new core books (that are really useful for new fans, but not for old ones). they would have make clear that an errata will be available. they would have hired better editors for the original books. they would have listened to those that whined because not every monster in the MM had a figure.

if you think that i'm asking for the moon, i'm not. i decided to switch to GURPS. go checking the steve jackson website.
errata are up to date. they even have a page with the latest additions, so that you don't have to read the whole stuff again if they just added a line or two.
they have revised the core book. the additional material can be found on the site in one document. it's a free download.
when they switched form the 2nd edition to the 3rd one, they made a "GURPS update" book available, because: "while we hoped that everybody would want to buy the new edition, we couldn't very well demand it". ("we" is steve jackson games). the book contained all the new stuff and cost just 6 dollars, then.

please, don't answer my post saying that if i'm not happy with WotC i should change game system, or simply not buying the book. i'm not stupid (i don't think any of you is!), and i know what to do with my money without your advice.
i just say: don't accept change for the worse without doing nothing. if you're happy with wizards and their products, well, i'm happy for you. if you think that things are going don't in the toilet, don't just say: "well, it's the way anything is. yesterday's world was better".
this is exactly the attitude that makes anything go worse.

thank you for your attention. happy gaming. happy flaming (i assume there will be some...  ).

simon.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 11, 2002)

*What more can WotC do?*



> if you think that i'm asking for the moon, i'm not. i decided to switch to GURPS. go checking the steve jackson website.
> errata are up to date. they even have a page with the latest additions, so that you don't have to read the whole stuff again if they just added a line or two.




What more is it you want WotC to do?

I mean, WotC already offer downloadable errata. They offer downloadable rules clarifications. They offer their rules as a free download (minus the chargen section). They offer free adventures, free web enhancements, and a lot of other stuff.

What more can they do? is anyone else doing more than this? If so, what the heck are they doing that WotC aint doing?

They have stated that the changes will be made available in the SRD, on the date of publication of the new books. That means it will be downloadable for you to use, for free. Whether or not there will be a pdf with the changes hasn't been annonced, but hey, if people ask nicely, they might listen, and say that they will do it.

So what's the freaking problem? The fact that the errata has a bad layout? Is that the core of this complaint, that the changes are somehow difficult to read?

And why, oh why, is a revised version of the game "a change for the worse"? I've got my books, I play the game, and the new books won't change that. A bit. And all the changes will be heavily discussed, so I'm not in the least bit afraid that I will miss any of them. Or that they will be difficult to find.

Well, each to his own, I guess.

Maggan


----------



## Darkness (Dec 11, 2002)

*Re: How much do you want to bet*



			
				Forrester said:
			
		

> *I'm hoping they explain why Bracers of Armor are armor, but they aren't armor, if you're a monk. *



My take on it that _bracers of armor_ aren't armor per se; they're just providing an AC bonus of the type "armor."


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 11, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Neg Zero: Read Thalmin's post, and reference what others have said in dozens of posts over the past three years about their 1st edition books.
> 
> ...




Funny, my experience was exactly the opposite - my (softbound) PHB and MM from 1e days fell into loose-leaf segments within about 6 months of purchase (I kid you not!). The hardback DMG survived, sure, but I've never had books as badly bound as my 1st edition PHB and MM.


----------



## thalmin (Dec 11, 2002)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Funny, my experience was exactly the opposite - my (softbound) PHB and MM from 1e days fell into loose-leaf segments within about 6 months of purchase (I kid you not!). The hardback DMG survived, sure, but I've never had books as badly bound as my 1st edition PHB and MM. *



We were referring to the US hardbound editions, especially the earliest ones. The revised covers weren't as good. I don't believe the softbound editions were available in the states.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 11, 2002)

They were meant to be available in the states... but they fell apart on the shelves (ba-da-boom!) 

More seriously, the worst binding I've ever seen was UNEARTHED ARCANA. It fell apart within days of me acquiring it. Luckily, my father got it rebound for me. That binding stayed together.

I've had no problems with my (1st printing) 3E PH, DMG and MM...

Cheers!


----------



## simon_mas (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: What more can WotC do?*



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What more is it you want WotC to do?
> *




I think I made a fairly detailed wishlist. go back and re-read the post. you might have skip it.



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> *
> I mean, WotC already offer downloadable errata.
> *




yes, for some products. not for all. for most products they just have FAQs.



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> *
> They offer their rules as a free download (minus the chargen section).
> *




That's their business. It's a marketing move, if you didn't realise it. the immense popularity of the d20 system comes from that move, too.



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> *  They offer free adventures, free web enhancements, and a lot of other stuff.
> *




Again, that's their call. I guess it just depends on what you call product support.
I don't care for free bits, but I do demand clarity and game balance. If you prefer to use your own house rules and prefer to have free maps or adventures that's ok with me. It's your game.
But I'm certainly more likely to find these free bits over the internet as well. I can't say the same for quality editor and game designer (both of which WotC has, or had.).




			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> *
> They have stated that the changes will be made available in the SRD, on the date of publication of the new books.
> That means it will be downloadable for you to use, for free. Whether or not there will be a pdf with the changes hasn't been annonced, but hey, if people ask nicely, they might listen, and say that they will do it.
> *




I think you've got catch 55.
"if people ask nicely, they might listen". I'm tired to have the minimum and be thankful for that. They are updating the SRD, alright, but they would have done the same even with minor correction and no game change.
Again, I guess it all boils down to what you ask from a product you buy. I demand the best. In this moment, I think my money if far better spent somewhere else, in term of game designing and game support. (and I'm not talking about free maps and adventures.)




			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> *
> So what's the freaking problem? The fact that the errata has a bad layout? Is that the core of this complaint, that the changes are somehow difficult to read?
> *




Well, that alone would be worth complaining. Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that they take the time to correct their mistake and don't care about the readability of those documents?
For me, that's a sign that they don't care about what they're doing. For me, if I'm paid to do something, and I like my job, I try to do it in the best possible way, because my customer (some of them, at least) would demand it. And because, quite frankly, I want them to be happy and appreciate the difference.
They are not doing this. At least, I don't think they are. That's why I'm so bitter at them.
You think they are giving you the best you could have for that money? Nobody tried to convince you that you are mistaken or foolhardy.




			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> *
> And why, oh why, is a revised version of the game "a change for the worse"?
> *




Sorry, it's my mistake there. I was referring to the fact that a big portion of people seem to think that the binding now is crappier than it use to be because "in the old time, things used to be better".
Personally, I think that the d20 system is a good system, with some flaws, and that the revision is a good idea. I also think that that system is not more universal than the Storytelling system from White wolf, or any previous edition of AD&D and D&D game. And that the revision project is not being carried out professionally. I'm NOT referring to game designers. But to the people who should inform us on the changes that are going to take place (I'm not sure of what they are called), that are going to make errata and rule updates available, and so on.

You say that the changes will be discussed. I still don't see any official thread on this. All I see is the usual die-hard fans that are discussing, hoping, flaming themselves, defending their opinion. I don't see an official voice. Maybe I'm blind, or just too early.
I guess I won't wait to see which one applies.

,
simon.


----------



## buzz (Dec 12, 2002)

*Sheesh...*

Simon, it's been what, a week since the revised books were announced? WotC has already alleviated concerns that the revisions wouldn't be in the SRD in a timely manner. And all this with six or seven months to go before the product is out!

You're welcome to your opinion of WotC and their business practices, but I for one think your demands are both unrealistic and uninformed. WotC provides a level of support and product quality that few other companies even approach. C'mon: they've released erratta for all the major books (and in the case of the PHB even _corrected_ it in the subsequent printings), maintain a 100+ page FAQ that's updated monthly, and provide gigs of free support materials on their site. No other game in existence has the level of support WotC provides for D&D.

If I were a WotC employyee reading your comments, I'd probably be offended as heck.

Frankly, I think a moratorium on this subject needs to be enforced until the product actually hits the streets. The people predicting doom and gloom are just coming off as bunch of big whiners, imho.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 12, 2002)

*I think you're just early*



> I think I made a fairly detailed wishlist. go back and re-read the post. you might have skip it.




Sorry. I just can't find your detailed wish list. I keep rereading your post, and all I can find is a wish to have errata more readily available. And a d20 update book.

And that's about it. Maybe I'm tired.

My point is that the errata is reasonably available already, and that the SRD will cover the stuff that a d20 update book would, but for free.



> yes, for some products. not for all. for most products they just have FAQs.




And SJG offers errata for all their products? Not the last time I checked. Does anyone else in the business with close to 40 books released offer errata for all their books?

Not that I know of, but I must admit my standing on this is mostly based on conjecture. I simply don't think that WotC is doing a bad job with this.



> That's their business. It's a marketing move, if you didn't realise it. the immense popularity of the d20 system comes from that move, too.




I do realise that it is a marketing move. It is not done out of a genuine love for humanity, but to sell more D&D books, I fully realise that. And I have accepted it to be so.

But that doesn't mean that the SRD doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that it is not downloadable for free. Nor that it won't be updated when the revised books are released.

Actually I fail to see why any support WotC offers should be invalidated just because it is marketing. Why do you think SJG are offering GURPS Lite on their site?

Yeah, marketing.



> I think you've got catch 55.
> "if people ask nicely, they might listen". I'm tired to have the minimum and be thankful for that. They are updating the SRD, alright, but they would have done the same even with minor correction and no game change.




I only know that gamers can be a pain in the ass. A lot of times I see people not asking for stuff, but demanding it. Which makes a difference for the company that is being adressed, because believe it or not, there are people behind those name. Real people. And I think requests are more likely to be listened to than demands.

On a philosophical level, I don't think that the game will be changed. Sure, stuff will change, but it will still be D&D3e. It's the same game, slightly altered mechanics, and those changes I can probably easily identify through looking at the SRD and reading this board. 

That's good enough for me.

But yeah, if for example the AC system suddenly is reverted back to the old system, if the classes all disappear, if spells are cast by blowing bubbles through your nose and the skills and feats system dissappear, then it would be a changed game. But somehow I don't think the revision will be on that scale at all. The basic mechanics will be the same. At least that's what I think, without having any proof to support it. 



> You say that the changes will be discussed. I still don't see any official thread on this. All I see is the usual die-hard fans that are discussing, hoping, flaming themselves, defending their opinion. I don't see an official voice. Maybe I'm blind, or just too early.




For what it's worth, I think you're passing your  judgment too early. The news came out, what, a week or so ago. The books are to be published during summer 2003. Nothing has changed, except that now we have definite knowledge that there will be revised rulebooks and that the revsions will be available for free, on the internet.

As definite knowledge anyone outside WotC can have, that is. 

Is all this reason enough to switch to GURPS? Not for me. But for you. 

 

Thanx for your reply!

Maggan


----------



## Forrester (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: How much do you want to bet*



			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> *My take on it that bracers of armor aren't armor per se; they're just providing an AC bonus of the type "armor." *




Well, I'm glad that's finally cleared up.


----------



## coyote6 (Dec 12, 2002)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Seriously, I would expect the jump skill to be completely replaced by the description from d20 Modern *




Oh, I hope not. "Roll vs DC x to jump distance y" vs. "Roll & figure out how far you jumped" doesn't matter to me -- I don't particularly care which approach they use. But the specific DCs & modifiers given in d20 Modern give very different results than the current system. The d20 Modern version makes jumping long distances fantastically difficult; abilities like _leap of the clouds_ are basically fairly useless, since (IIRC) you need skill modifiers in the 20s to exceed the height limits.


----------



## simon_mas (Dec 13, 2002)

to Buzz.

Frankly, I think a moratorium on this subject needs to be enforced until the product actually hits the streets. The people predicting doom and gloom are just coming off as bunch of big whiners, imho.

Quite frankly, I don't think my ideas are unrealistic. My experience with the Steve Jackson games is not as profound as the one I have with wizard of the coast, sure, but I feel that they are giving me more. Sure, they don't have free adventures and maps. But I think I can find some hundreds of internet sites with those stuff on. I'm not sarcastic here. It's just that free adventures are not a big bonus to _ME_.
Please note that I haven't stated in my post that any gaming company is better than WotC. I agree with you that many companies give even less support to their product. But, in my humble opinion, Steve Jackson is better, when it comes to revisions and erratas. That's one of the reasons that convinced me to switch system.
You don't agree with me? Very fine. Diversity is the spice of life. I like a world where I can find people that don't agree with me.
I just think it's natural that erratas are incorporated in second printings, and that are provided for free on their web site, so I'm not so surprised that they are doing that. It's not that I'm not aware that other companies don't bother to do the same. It's that I don't espect much from those companies. That's why my collection of D&D books is bigger than, say, my Vampire the masquerade collection.

As for my offence to WotC employees, well, I have to disagree.
Have I stated something false in order to make the company look worse than it is? Not in my best knowledge. If so, I apologize.
Have I said something offensive? Not really. I did not say that their products are crappy, bad designed, or whatever. I'm just talking about errata here.
Now, you can agree with me that skimming a 100+ page FAQ is more time consuming as reading a 3 page errata (with only the _wrong_ information corrected, not with mispelling and clarifications that I might not need). You can disagree. I don't think I offend somebody if I say that I'm annoyed by their FAQ when I just need the errata. Please note that "I" means "simon mas" not "the humankind should be". I realise that I am a special case. I have 2 jobs, and no internet connection at home, so _for me_ it takes time to download things like FAQs. The same time I waste with that could be used to prepare my game.
If you are offended by that, well, it's your problem.

Sure, they can't tailor their releases and support onto my personal needs. But I'm voicing my opinion because my money is as good as anybody else's. If 51% of their audience prefers FAQs, they will keep doing it. I accept that, but I'm still going to complain. I guess you would call me a whiner. 
Maybe I agree. But I have my reasons.




to Maggan.

Yes, you're right. I'm talking about errata and revisions here, so my wishlist demanded only readily available errata and a d20 update books.
The fact that they announced about the revision only a week ago doesn't seem a reason to hold back any information. Remember that this is not a new product. New information has probably already entered the playtesting stage at this time. A list of the changes (a partial list? maybe with a big header that says "these changes are only LIKELY to take place"... ) could be printed.
Who is going to make the revision? I have no information on this. I'm sure it's my fault, since I didn't checked much their boards and site anymore, since I decided to switch to GURPS. Are these names available? If not, why?

As for my other concerns with the d20 system, and my switching to GURPS, I can assure you that errata and the printing of the revision is only the last strw. I do have other concerns, but I think this would be out of topic here. And, frankly, starting a tread to complain that the d20 D&D is not good to play a low fantasy campaign or a more modern fantasy (1700s-early 1800s), is stupid.
D&D assumes that you want to play in a medieval world with a certain amount of magic or more. Asking otherwise is asking for another game system. That's why I'm switching. I don't believe that D&D is stupid or badly designed because it doesn't suit me at this stage. But I have found out that I could play D&D with GURPS (with some house rules that a friend of mine has given me), and the campaign world that I want to play right now.

I realise that Steve Jackson is into marketing as well! He wouldn't have lasted years without doing so! .
I just don't feel that updating the SRD is enough for me. The basics of the game are not going to change? fine. But it's not just spelling and phrasing that they are changing. It means that a part of the game is officially unbalanced. Updating the SRD is the minimum. A comprehensive errata (not containing mispelling corrections, thank you) would be what I normally would espect.
Again, "I" does not refer to anybody but me.  (is it a gamer thing, confusing the meaning of personal pronouns? )
And since it's my money, I prefer to spend it somewhere else, where I will have the treatment that I want. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm wrong. I'm just voicing my experience. That's all.

bye bye,
simon.

ps to Meggan: to the best of my knowledge, Steve Jackson games mantain an updated errata for all in-print books they have, and probably, to most important out-of-print books (as long as they are not replaced by a newer edition). As soon as an issue is known is put in the errata of the book. The books that have no errata do not have any rule issue (apart from clarifications, that you can ask by e-mail to their staff). For some products (like the basic set) you can find a list of clarification and a FAQ as well.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 13, 2002)

simon_mas said:
			
		

> *I realise that Steve Jackson is into marketing as well! He wouldn't have lasted years without doing so! .
> I just don't feel that updating the SRD is enough for me. The basics of the game are not going to change? fine. But it's not just spelling and phrasing that they are changing. It means that a part of the game is officially unbalanced. Updating the SRD is the minimum. A comprehensive errata (not containing mispelling corrections, thank you) would be what I normally would espect.
> 
> [snip]
> ...




It should be pointed out that there are several key differences in the things that you're comparing here.  The SRD's modifications has legal ramifications, due to the nature of the OGL.  GURPS is not open source, and only SJG has the right to produce anything for it.  Changing the SRD is a little more intensive than updating a word document, like SJG does.

It's also not a fair one-to-one comparison.  The reason that SJG has less eratta is not due to their books being much more rules correct: it is due to their being much less rules related material.  GURPS Russia, Aztec and Cops combined have less new rules related material than the first twenty pages of Sword&Fist, for example.  Most GURPS books are world settings, and as such, only a small portion of the book actually has any 'crunchy' material in it.  Take a look at the eratta for GURPS Supers, on the other hand, and you'll see the eratta matches the volume one would expect from a WOTC classbook.

There's no denying that SJG has always been ahead of everyone else in having a dramatic online presence and being in-touch with their fan base.  However, they also have a significantly smaller fan base, and a rules-set that is 15 years old.  Comparing the release of a conversion booklet produced in 1985 in a limited print run to be sold in a relatively small number of locations hardly compares to revising the core rulebooks.

SJG can and does operate off-the-cuff much more: they are and remain an organization of 10+ full time employees and a handful of contracted writers scattered over North America and England.  WOTC was once over 300 employees, and RPGs are not their only business (nor their original core business).  They've had three layoffs since the SRD first appeared, including the man who spearheaded the effort originally.  Should they get it out, and soon?  Yes.  Could you cut them some slack?  Yes.


----------



## buzz (Dec 13, 2002)

*I'm with WizardDru*



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *Quite frankly, I don't think my ideas are unrealistic...
> 
> But, in my humble opinion, Steve Jackson is better, when it comes to revisions and erratas. That's one of the reasons that convinced me to switch system.*




Well, my beef isn't with SJG. My beef is that I think your expectations _are_ unrealistic.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *I just think it's natural that erratas are incorporated in second printings, and that are provided for free on their web site, so I'm not so surprised that they are doing that. It's not that I'm not aware that other companies don't bother to do the same. It's that I don't espect much from those companies. That's why my collection of D&D books is bigger than, say, my Vampire the masquerade collection.*




Well, then this is a double-standard. It _isn't_ natural for errata to always be corrected in second printings, and prompt offering of errata on company Web sites, while _ideal_, is still not quite commonplace. What you're saying is, "Ignoring all companies except SJG and WotC, WotC is terrible at providing errata." It's completely out of context.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *As for my offence to WotC employees, well, I have to disagree.
> 
> I don't think I offend somebody if I say that I'm annoyed by their FAQ when I just need the errata.*




I'm just imagining that, if I were a WotC employee, and I read your post about what a lousy job they do, when I probably work my ass off for a mediocre salary providing quality games to people who do nothing but whine in response, I'd probably be miffed.

I also don't understand your beef about errata: Wizards provides downloadable errata for Oriental Adventures,  Monster Manual,  Magic of Faerun, Chainmail Starter Set, Sword and Fist,  Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Dungeon Master's Guide,  Psionics Handbook, and the Player's Handbook. That covers the core books and then some, and I think that this list is even incomplete (grabbed off their Web site). No one is forcing you to read the FAQ.

And why is WotC having a FAQ bad, but SJG having a FAQ (which they do) good?



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *Sure, they can't tailor their releases and support onto my personal needs. But I'm voicing my opinion because my money is as good as anybody else's. If 51% of their audience prefers FAQs, they will keep doing it. I accept that, but I'm still going to complain. I guess you would call me a whiner. *




You are certainly welcome to make your feelings known. But...

Do you whine about the GURPS FAQ (and how it hadn't been updated since Feb 2000 until just recently, or that it only addresses maybe 5-6 out of the 150 books available?)

Or how about how SJG has been teasing people with the possibility of GURPS 4th ed (which it desperately needs) for years now? I give WotC points for addressing player's concerns so soon, as opposed to staunchly refusing to change anything because it might mess up their system of cross-referencing.  



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *Yes, you're right. I'm talking about errata and revisions here, so my wishlist demanded only readily available errata and a d20 update books.*




Which WotC generally provide. Eratta exists for most major books, and the revisions will be in SRD (for free!) on the day they're released. I'd prefer that to having to _purchase_ a book of revisions.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *The fact that they announced about the revision only a week ago doesn't seem a reason to hold back any information. Remember that this is not a new product. New information has probably already entered the playtesting stage at this time. A list of the changes (a partial list? maybe with a big header that says "these changes are only LIKELY to take place"... ) could be printed.*




So, they should post a list of changes that may not represent what's in the final product seven months in advance, thereby creating even more FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) than the mere announcement of the new books has already caused (at least among the doom-and-gloom crowd)?

You're being impatient, and you need to realize this. Not to mention, they _have_ basically stated what the general nature of the changes will be. Specifics can wait until the product actually gets released.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *Who is going to make the revision? I have no information on this. I'm sure it's my fault, since I didn't checked much their boards and site anymore, since I decided to switch to GURPS. Are these names available? If not, why?*




Uh, the D&D design team? Bill Slavisek and them? Read their Web page.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *I just don't feel that updating the SRD is enough for me. The basics of the game are not going to change? fine. But it's not just spelling and phrasing that they are changing. It means that a part of the game is officially unbalanced. Updating the SRD is the minimum. A comprehensive errata (not containing mispelling corrections, thank you) would be what I normally would espect.
> *




Comprehensive errata exists for the core books. "Officially unbalanced" is a matter of opinion. There's nothing "broken" about D&D3e, and throwing people into a tizzy by releasing revisions piecemeal seven months before the revisions are officially published seems like a bad idea to me.

You are more than welcome to switch over the GURPS. However, your liking GURPS doesn't indicate that WotC is doing a bad job. Neither does your holding them up to unrealistic expectations.


----------



## simon_mas (Dec 14, 2002)

buzz said:
			
		

> *
> Well, then this is a double-standard. It isn't natural for errata to always be corrected in second printings, and prompt offering of errata on company Web sites, while ideal, is still not quite commonplace.
> *




You know, I have these daydreams where I live in a world populated by intelligent beings. In my world, if somebody realises that he had done a mistake, he corrects it. Otherwise it's not doing his job properly. In which world are you living in?



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> What you're saying is, "Ignoring all companies except SJG and WotC, WotC is terrible at providing errata."



Not really. What I'm saying is: "Ignoring all companies except SJG and WotC, _I_ don't _like_ (appreciate the difference) how WotC provides errata. It makes me waste some precious time." Note that I'm ignoring other companies either because I am dissatisfied with them or because I know nothing of them.
I know I have high standards. I think that, since I work so hard for my money, I should be pleased only with the best. RPGs are _VERY_ expensive in Italy and I would spend much less if I had another hobby. So, please, give me a break.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> *
> I'm just imagining that, if I were a WotC employee, and I read your post about what a lousy job they do, when I probably work my ass off for a mediocre salary providing quality games to people who do nothing but whine in response, I'd probably be miffed.
> *



*
The fact that they have a mediocre salary it's not my fault at all. I am not saying that they are doing a lousy job, but simply that they could do it better, as far as _I_'m concerned. If that offends them, it's their problem. Really.
I think you are reading my posts not as a personal view that I want to share with other people, but as personal attacks to WotC employees. I assure that I have nothing personal against them.



			
				buzz said:
			
		



I also don't understand your beef about errata: Wizards provides downloadable errata for Oriental Adventures, Monster Manual, Magic of Faerun, Chainmail Starter Set, Sword and Fist, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Dungeon Master's Guide, Psionics Handbook, and the Player's Handbook. That covers the core books and then some, and I think that this list is even incomplete (grabbed off their Web site). No one is forcing you to read the FAQ.


Click to expand...



FAQs contain game related material only. Clarifications. Questions like: "Does a monk or other character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat provoke an attack of opportunity when starting a grapple?" are not meaningless. They could change the outcome of a combat.
I could provide a ruling on this on my own, sure, but I think I should stick to the official stuff.



			
				buzz said:
			
		



And why is WotC having a FAQ bad, but SJG having a FAQ (which they do) good?


Click to expand...



Where did I say this thing? I regard the WotC FAQ as bad because it's about game rules and clarifications. and if they change one entry, I have to read the whole thing again, and check the differences. The SJG FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with game machanics and rulings of obscure aspects of game.




			
				buzz said:
			
		



Do you whine about the GURPS FAQ (and how it hadn't been updated since Feb 2000 until just recently, or that it only addresses maybe 5-6 out of the 150 books available?)


Click to expand...



First of all, I don't whine. I complain.
Then, have you read the SJG FAQ? Most entries in it are not about the game, but about their message boards, where people can find erratas and a list of world books, how can they convert a game system into GURPS...
The questions that are game-related are there just for completeness. The books that I have (basic set, compendium I and II), already have that information inside. Maybe they got those questions anyway.
I don't think I will read the SJG FAQ again, unless I'm dying to know who to enroll in their message list.




			
				buzz said:
			
		



Or how about how SJG has been teasing people with the possibility of GURPS 4th ed (which it desperately needs) for years now?


Click to expand...



Funny. On their very web site (I just can't find it right now, but it's there), they were saying that they made a revision of the basic set, that they are NOT planning to made a 4th edition any time soon, and that they think that the current edition is perfectly working the way it is.
I'm damn sure about this, because I wouldn't have switched to this game now. I would have waited to see the 4th edition, before spending my money on the 3rd.
One more thing: the addition to the revised edition is available for free on their web site _just as it appears in the book_. mostof it is new rules compiled from other existing books, not clarifications or errata.




			
				buzz said:
			
		



Which WotC generally provide. Eratta exists for most major books, and the revisions will be in SRD (for free!) on the day they're released. I'd prefer that to having to purchase a book of revisions.


Click to expand...



And since that's your opinion, anybody on earth should agree with you?




			
				buzz said:
			
		



So, they should post a list of changes that may not represent what's in the final product seven months in advance, thereby creating even more FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) than the mere announcement of the new books has already caused (at least among the doom-and-gloom crowd)?


Click to expand...



I think that you make a revision when you know exactly what's wrong with the game. Things may be added, solutions may change slightly, but I think that they are not sitting there asking themselves what to do. They have left this stage behind, because they are professional and they don't make announcements without planning ahead. For me, whoever is working on the revision knows exactly which part of the game will be affected, and, probably, has one idea or two on how it will be changed.
If I am mistaken, than what are they revising? They would simply kneening to "whiners" that think that the game is unbalanced, when in fact it isn't.
If they have announced a revision, some aspects of the game (maybe meaningless, maybe significant) are unbalanced. Keeping the secret increase the uncertainty of _my_ game, so _I_ am not happy. You're happy? Good for you.
They are probably keeping their mouth shut on the exact changes not because they still don't have a clue, but because they don't want to piss anybody off, like they did with the software stuff.



			
				buzz said:
			
		



Uh, the D&D design team? Bill Slavisek and them? Read their Web page.


Click to expand...



"Them" who?
After so many layoff, I have simply lost track on who is working as a regular and who is a freelance. Also, isn't it impossible that they have hired some freelance (a la Monte Cook) to cope with the revision?



			
				buzz said:
			
		



Comprehensive errata exists for the core books. "Officially unbalanced" is a matter of opinion.


Click to expand...



They are making a revision because a part of the game is unbalanced. They have stated so in the official announcement.
So it's "officially" unbalanced.



			
				buzz said:
			
		



 There's nothing "broken" about D&D3e


Click to expand...



I never said that. Au contraire.



			
				buzz said:
			
		



and throwing people into a tizzy by releasing revisions piecemeal seven months before the revisions are officially published seems like a bad idea to me.


Click to expand...



We disagree here. But I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong. It's a matter of opinion and I believe (not just say) that you are free to espress yours even if I don't agree.



			
				buzz said:
			
		



You are more than welcome to switch over the GURPS. However, your liking GURPS doesn't indicate that WotC is doing a bad job. Neither does your holding them up to unrealistic expectations. 

Click to expand...


Oh, now I see what you want from me! 
I should have said:
"I love the D&D game. I think it fits my style of gaming perfectly. The expectations and the desires of my players are completely fulfilled in every single session. I love the WotC folks because they work underpaid and are giving me all the information I need in the best possible way I can imagine. I have never found, in 10 years, a better game company and a frendlier environment for gamers. I can't believe there's people out there playing anything but D&D. Despite all this, I'm switching to GURPS".
That sounds more logical to you?
 

Before trying to kill me on the spot, please, explain me one thing.

I have said that I'm not happy with the game, even if I think it works pretty well in most circumstances.
I have said that the campaign that I'm planning is simply too much work for me, if I keep using this system. GURPS is certainly more complex, but it's really universal.
I don't like the way errata are given by WotC. I'm not likely to make them change their mind, because I realise it's my lack of time that makes me so unhappy with the FAQs and the current errata.
I think that this new revision is good for new players, and for people with books in disrepair. My books are near mint.
I don't have the time to skim through the SRD and check what has change.
I want to start my new campaign by February (if everything goes as planned).

Who in the world should I praise the WotC?
It's not that I think they are stupid ***holes. I really think they are working hard. In the wrong way (_for me_... I thought it was useless to add this all the time).
Since they don't anticipate which specifics are going to change, I might correct something twice (their correction could be better than mine. In which case I would adopt the new rule and I would have wasted some time to correct the previous one.).
I just stated my opinion.
I gave them credits when I thought they deserved it (they designed a good game, a game that works), and I complained where I thought there is room for improvement.

I also tried to be contructive.
I could have said "WotC = sucking moneymakers". I have tried to articulate my feeling and my ideas in order to find a possible solution to my problems.
I have not said anything clearly false (like your conjecture on GURPS 4th edition) in order to discredit them of the intelligence of any reader of my posts.
I've always presented my ideas as personal opinions, not like dogmas that anybody should voice, and agree with.

If there is even another one in my same situation (very unlikely, but possible), and he is reading these boards right now, he has some insight on how I have solved my problems. That's why I used some of my time to post. Not to piss you or anybody elses off. Not because I want to start a SJG vs. WotC thread. Not because I think GURPS rules and it's prefect, and if you are still playing d20 you are losers.

If that's so difficult to understand, or to cope with, well, I'm sorry for you. I really don't know what more I can say.

Have a good day.
simon.*


----------



## buzz (Dec 14, 2002)

It's obvious that we're not ging to agree here, so I'm not going to respond to everything you've said. If you've switched to GURPS, by all means, go and hang out on r.g.f.gurps and leave us to worry about the upcoming revisions.




			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *
> You know, I have these daydreams where I live in a world populated by intelligent beings. In my world, if somebody realises that he had done a mistake, he corrects it. Otherwise it's not doing his job properly. In which world are you living in?*




The real one. Compiling errata when you're a company that puts out 200+ page rulebooks every month is something I imagine isn't the easiest task in the world. That WotC makes such an exceptional effort, even if SJG (and SJG alone) does a little better, is enough for me. If we were talking about any other company in the industry, you'd be lucky to get errata *at all*.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *Where did I say this thing? I regard the WotC FAQ as bad because it's about game rules and clarifications. and if they change one entry, I have to read the whole thing again, and check the differences. The SJG FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with game machanics and rulings of obscure aspects of game.
> 
> SNIP...
> 
> Then, have you read the SJG FAQ? Most entries in it are not about the game, but about their message boards, where people can find erratas and a list of world books, how can they convert a game system into GURPS...*




Then we're reading different FAQs. The SJG FAQ has 7 out of 11 sections that deal with rules questions, section 3 (Basic Set) being a whopper.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *Funny. On their very web site (I just can't find it right now, but it's there), they were saying that they made a revision of the basic set, that they are NOT planning to made a 4th edition any time soon, and that they think that the current edition is perfectly working the way it is.
> I'm damn sure about this, because I wouldn't have switched to this game now. I would have waited to see the 4th edition, before spending my money on the 3rd.
> One more thing: the addition to the revised edition is available for free on their web site _just as it appears in the book_. mostof it is new rules compiled from other existing books, not clarifications or errata.*




Then I guess you missed the big 4th ed. survey they did about a year ago. It was a big questionnaire asking people what kinds of revisions to all the "problem rules" they would like to see in a 4th edition. They still say "we're not doing a 4th edition," but they've been saying that for maybe a decade now. Go hang out on r.g.f.gurps and ask some people about it.






			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *"Them" who?
> After so many layoff, I have simply lost track on who is working as a regular and who is a freelance. Also, isn't it impossible that they have hired some freelance (a la Monte Cook) to cope with the revision?*




Then this is a failing on your part. Read the Web site. Also, give them more than a week. More info is obviously forthcoming.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *Oh, now I see what you want from me!
> I should have said:
> "I love the D&D game. I think it fits my style of gaming perfectly. The expectations and the desires of my players are completely fulfilled in every single session. I love the WotC folks because they work underpaid and are giving me all the information I need in the best possible way I can imagine. I have never found, in 10 years, a better game company and a frendlier environment for gamers. I can't believe there's people out there playing anything but D&D. Despite all this, I'm switching to GURPS".
> That sounds more logical to you?
> *




No, what's logical to me is, if you're now a GURPS player, you would go and hang on GURPS forums, rather than posting on D&D forums about, in your incredibly informed opinion, all your complaints with WotC. Posting "why I decided to dump the system you guys are here to discuss" is one of the more lame things to do on the 'Net.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *I have not said anything clearly false (like your conjecture on GURPS 4th edition) in order to discredit them of the intelligence of any reader of my posts.*




See my comment about the survey above. Since you're new to GURPS, I'll let this ad hominem slide.



			
				simon_mas said:
			
		

> *I've always presented my ideas as personal opinions, not like dogmas that anybody should voice, and agree with.[/ b]*



*

Then you should have no problem with people who disagree with you. It's a given that people are posting opinions here. I'm posting mine, and in my opinion, while I think you are welcome to yours, I also think that you're being a little unrealistic, as well as indulging in a bit of GURPS newbie fanboy-ism.

Granted, I may be indulging in WotC-fanboy-ism, but at least I'm on the right fourm.  

Thanks for the disucussion, and good gaming.*


----------



## buzz (Dec 14, 2002)

simon_mas said:
			
		

> *One more thing: the addition to the revised edition is available for free on their web site _just as it appears in the book_. mostof it is new rules compiled from other existing books, not clarifications or errata. *




It should be noted that this is due to SJG's obsession with their cross-referencing. The per-page content of their books *is not allowed to change*. Ergo, the additions made in Basic 3e Revised were collected in a booklet tacked on as an appendix to the book (and available in this format for download). One could argue, though, that it's a bit anoying to have a whole swath of core chargen rules tucked in an appendix, rather than in with the other chargen rules.

Of course, the additions also appear, iirc, in Compendium I. Still, while you find this ideal, the "scattershot" nature of GURPS' core rules is often a point of contention for fans and critics alike.

Regardless, we know that the D&D revisions will be available for free in the revised SRD. We can only speculate whether they will be collected in a downloadable "update", or simply highlighted in the new SRD (like they do with the FAQ revisions). You're assuming that they won't; I'm assuming that they will. Only time will tell, but dismissing them for *not* doing this before we even know if it's true is pretty ignorant.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 15, 2002)

*FAQ*



> I regard the WotC FAQ as bad because it's about game rules and clarifications. and if they change one entry, I have to read the whole thing again, and check the differences. The SJG FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with game machanics and rulings of obscure aspects of game.




And if questions on rulings and mechanics happens to be frequently asked questions on D&D, how can it be bad to provide answers to these questions? They are frequently asked questions, for crying out loud.

Like, questions that are frequently asked. By the fans. And therefore collected and answered in FAQs.

Frequently asked questions about GURPS evidently focus on different aspects (I'll take your word for this), but that doesn't mean that frequently asked questions on D&D should, or have to be, the same as those for GURPS.

Different fan base, different rules, different company, different approach. And different questions. And different answers.



> ...and that they think that the current edition is perfectly working the way it is.




Keep that quote in mind when the next revision or errata for GURPS hits the streets. I mean, if the first edition (plus errata) wasn't perfect, shouldn't they have fixed that by the second edition (plus errata)? Or even the third edition (plus errata). Or the third edition second printing (plus errata), and so on, so forth. Well, now that they are at third edition revised fourth printing (plus errata) , they seem to have the perfect game.

And it only took them what, eleven tries! Way to go, in a perfect world.

To sum it all up, I think you are being unfair both to WotC and SJGames, by setting standards neither of them lives up to. If you switched to GURPS (which you did even before the revision was announced) looking for the perfect game, I think you will find that SJGames, while indeed doing a very fine job with GURPS, will have a hard time living up to your extremely high (and in my opinion unrealistic) expectations.

Cheers

Maggan


----------



## Maggan (Dec 15, 2002)

*Naming names*

BTW, Andy Collins posted this on Monte Cooks board. Since this names the names you have been wondering about, this should save you the hassle of actually looking it up yourself.



> Qualifications
> 
> I'm not Sean or Monte, but I'll answer anyway.
> 
> ...




Well, that's the names behind the company facade. So now you know who you think should be doing a better job.

Cheers

Maggan


----------



## Maggan (Dec 15, 2002)

*Sorry to post so many...*

...consecutive posts. I'll try to straighten up after this one!



> Then we're reading different FAQs. The SJG FAQ has 7 out of 11 sections that deal with rules questions, section 3 (Basic Set) being a whopper.




It would appear that your are indeed discussing two different FAQs.

The first one I found deals with SJGames in general:

http://www.sjgames.com/general/faq.html

From this FAQ I then proceeded to the GURPS FAQ, which covers rulings and game mechanics:

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/faq/

There are also FAQs on In Nomine, INWO, Ogre, Dino Hunt, Knightmare Chess, Car Wars, and for the upcoming GURPS CD-ROM at SJGames site.

The WotC equivalent link for the general info would be:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=company/whatis

I can't reach the rules FAQs at the moment, so you'll get no link for that.

Hope this information is of use for those comparing different FAQs from different companies.

To me, it appears that WotC are providing the same type of information as SJGames, with the companies using slightly different approaches.

Cheers!

Maggan

(and again, sorry for the frivolous postings, I'll try to be a little bit more patient in the future, and keep stuff in one longer posting at a time)


----------



## Negative Zero (Dec 15, 2002)

buzz said:
			
		

> *It's obvious that we're not ging to agree here, so I'm not going to respond to everything you've said. ... *




i love the way he says he's not gonna and then does   

~NegZ


----------



## buzz (Dec 15, 2002)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *i love the way he says he's not gonna and then does    *




Well, not in the same post, at least.


----------

