3rd Edition, Revised!!!
Clangador
Check this out. I'm unsure how I feel about it. Is it a good revision, or is it
to make more $$$?
~Clangador
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=afdff710ec70071f65d19854852c
f18f&threadid=32472&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
>
> They're releasing revised edition 3rd edition rulebooks. Here's the text
> on it:
>
> 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.
>
> -- Rob Bowell
Neosaurus
>it to make more $$$?
As long as they pull the old rulebooks and indicate what's new/revised, I don't
mind. If the changes (not counting 'new' stuff) gets posted in an errata file
or FAQ, I'll be fine with that.
--
Sean Curtin
Clangador
>don't
>mind. If the changes (not counting 'new' stuff) gets posted in an errata
>file
>or FAQ, I'll be fine with that.
Heh, they're not going to pull all the old books. No way they can really do
that.
~Clangador
==========================
Clangador on AIM, MSN & ICQ
==========================
Obligatory Quote: "I'll give up gaming when you pry my dice from my cold, dead
hands."
Jackhammer John
I have.
If they want explain some of the rules better and offer optional stats on
classes and feats and skills, etc, then I wish they would produce a PHB
companion or call it PHB House Rules. DMG House Rules.
Of course, now that the product has been out for a couple of years, it would be
interesting if they could improve on it.
sigh
========================================
Jackhammer John
"Sometimes the question is more important than the answer."
Alex Johnson
>
> Check this out. I'm unsure how I feel about it. Is it a good revision, or is it
> to make more $$$?
Of course it is to make more $$$. This is Hasbro! Anyway, I've owned
two copies of the core material of every previous edition (sooner or
later I lose one or it just wares away) and a copy of most of the
supplimental material for 1E and 2E (except the kit books). I was
thinking of buying a second PHB after they incorporated all the errata,
but if they are going to outright change things in the core rules and
ask me to pay another hundred dollars, then I'll just find another game
system. d20 is nice, but there are lots of other nice systems when it
comes right down to it. Some older stuff is good too.
If they were to offer a trade-in where we turn in our old book and US$10
for a new, revised version I might consider it. But there is no way
they will earn another dollar from me if they want me to deal with
multiple revision floating around with different classes, powers,
spells, feats, etc. I get the icky feeling this is like going from
Diablo II v1.06 to Diablo II v1.09 (at least that was free, and optional
if you didn't play online).
Alex
Stephenls
> Of course it is to make more $$$. This is Hasbro!
What you mean to say here, of course, is "Of course they want to make
more $$$. They need to be able to pay the salaries of their employees,
right?"
--
Stephenls
Geek
Peter Seebach
Clangador <clan...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote:
>Check this out. I'm unsure how I feel about it. Is it a good revision, or is it
>to make more $$$?
I would say that a good revision would be an excellent way to make more money.
If they produced a PHB which incorporated all the errata and FAQs, fixed
typos, and maybe incorporated a few things from other d20 games, such as
the +1..+9 "medium" save progression, +3 for skill focus, and a few other
fixes, I'd buy it for sure. If the new DMG or PHB included, say, the rules
for underwater combat and spellcasting, and other things that were missing...
You bet I'd buy it.
$100 next June is not all that big a deal. My friend who goes to movies in
theatres will have spent $150 or more between now and then on movies, more
like $250 including popcorn.
-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Peter Meilinger
>I would say that a good revision would be an excellent way to make more money.
>If they produced a PHB which incorporated all the errata and FAQs, fixed
>typos, and maybe incorporated a few things from other d20 games, such as
>the +1..+9 "medium" save progression, +3 for skill focus, and a few other
>fixes, I'd buy it for sure. If the new DMG or PHB included, say, the rules
>for underwater combat and spellcasting, and other things that were missing...
>You bet I'd buy it.
I'd probably buy a revised PHB, but only if it included a fair
amount of new stuff as well as errata. I just don't get to play
the game often enough to justify buying another DMG or MM.
>$100 next June is not all that big a deal. My friend who goes to movies in
>theatres will have spent $150 or more between now and then on movies, more
>like $250 including popcorn.
Well, yeah, but that's spread out over six months. And it also
assumes that you won't spend a similar amount on recreation
yourself in those six months.
Pete
Certic
Stephenls <step...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3DEF9818...@shaw.ca...
And pay for large fine the British courts just imposed on them...
--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
"Do not stand in our way: we will walk around you"
- the 'Perky Goth Manifesto'
--
Rupert Boleyn
thusly into the wilderness:
>In article <20021204202626...@mb-fb.aol.com>,
>Clangador <clan...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote:
>>Check this out. I'm unsure how I feel about it. Is it a good revision, or is it
>>to make more $$$?
>
>I would say that a good revision would be an excellent way to make more money.
>
>If they produced a PHB which incorporated all the errata and FAQs, fixed
>typos, and maybe incorporated a few things from other d20 games, such as
>the +1..+9 "medium" save progression, +3 for skill focus, and a few other
>fixes, I'd buy it for sure. If the new DMG or PHB included, say, the rules
>for underwater combat and spellcasting, and other things that were missing...
>You bet I'd buy it.
If they went to +2 for Skill focus I'd be unimpressed unless they
sorted out a way to make Combat Casting better. The d20 Modern rules
for Concentration would be an option, though at that point you may as
well forget AoOs vs high level characters.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
The media industry is a long, dark, narrow hallway where thieves and
pimps run free and good people die like dogs.
There's also a negative side.
Justisaur
Certic wrote:
>
> Stephenls <step...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:3DEF9818...@shaw.ca...
> > Alex Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > Of course it is to make more $$$. This is Hasbro!
> >
> > What you mean to say here, of course, is "Of course they want to make
> > more $$$. They need to be able to pay the salaries of their employees,
> > right?"
> -------
> And pay for large fine the British courts just imposed on them...
>
What's that about?
Link?
--
- Justisaur -
check http://justisaur.tripod.com/well.htm for my encounter generator,
xp calculator, and other usefull documents.
JamesMcP
> Check this out. I'm unsure how I feel about it. Is it a good revision, or is it
> to make more $$$?
Well, yes. I, like most of my gaming group, bought the 1st rev books
(actually got mine at GenCon). I now have a huge amount of erratas,
FAQ's, and notes from the sage updating those books. Druids alone
give me no end of trouble with wildshape. (3 different books, 3
different versions. sigh).
I expected a fully errated version to finally be released. 2 years of
game time before a .2 release isn't bad. It's not a game system
rewrite either; it's an update to specific instances of rules &
mechanics with clarifications.
IIRC, the erratas & FAQs easily sum up to 30 pages. Add in some new
clarification material to justify the new cover prices ("when I was a
boy, PHB & DMGs were only $20") or include rules that SHOULD have been
in the PHB/DMG but were in splat books and it's a valid product.
Will it make WotC money? Yes, but probably not hoardes. New gamers
who were going to buy the books will buy the new ones. GMs will get
the books to have the latest condensed erratas and the fanboys who
must own everything will buy it too. Fact is that GMs like to have
spare books and the previous revs will be "close enough" for off-hand
reference and to loan to potential players.
-James McP
Sorcier
>
> It's not a game system
> rewrite either;
Partially it is.
Specifically mentioned changes involves rebalancing the classes
and redoing the magic item creation rules.
The first may have a major impact.
> IIRC, the erratas & FAQs easily sum up to 30 pages.
Depends which version. ;)
> Add in some new
> clarification material to justify the new cover prices ("when I was a
> boy, PHB & DMGs were only $20") or include rules that SHOULD have been
> in the PHB/DMG but were in splat books and it's a valid product.
Yeah, I'd like to see _all_ feats from the splat books, and most spells,
and some prestige classes, go to the main books.
Some of the FR stuff likely should be incorporated too.
--
"He's a pacifict, not a floor mat."
- Sorcier.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Fact is that GMs like to have
>spare books and the previous revs will be "close enough" for off-hand
>reference and to loan to potential players.
Yup. Besides, my PHB is getting torn to shit. Nowhere near unusable yet, but
it took a pretty good fall, hitting hard and landing spine straight up. Caused
the binding to begin tearing away from the cover, and it's only getting worse.
I was going to buy a new one soon and donate the old one to the next player
needing one anyway. Now I just get to save my $30 for 8 more months.
Don't know if I'll get the new DMG and MM though, they're in pretty decent
condition. Have to see what the actual changes are there. Maybe if I can
unload the ones I've got for $15-20.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Jeff Heikkinen
foretold that on Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:55:08 -0700, Alex Johnson would
say...
> I was
> thinking of buying a second PHB after they incorporated all the errata,
> but if they are going to outright change things in the core rules and
> ask me to pay another hundred dollars, then I'll just find another game
> system.
>
company *stoips* printing new material for a system that's a reason to
switch. Switching just because they made something new for it is just
silly. It's not like your old books will spontaneoulsy combust or
anything like that.
Jeff Heikkinen
foretold that on Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:55:08 -0700, Alex Johnson would
say...
> for a new, revised version I might consider it.
>
gotten $20 worth of entertainment from your existing PH?
You have exactly what you paid for - a book. In July, you will still
have exactly the same thing.
Alex Johnson
Switching just because they made something new is silly. Switching
because they openly say they will keep sucking your money is a good
reason. Sure my book works fine (as far as books "work") but when I get
a bunch of friends who want to join my D&D game and buy incompatible
manuals? What happens when my my PHB wears out and I can't stomach
rubber-banding it together and buy a new one...that makes all my NPCs
and monsters invalid "by the rules" since classes, spells, and abilities
were revamped? Then what if this happens every year and a half? If
people could have knowledge of and access to older versions I could
easily stick with the first printing. But then if this were true, I
could still be playing BD&D. You'll find 99% of players are unwilling
to go buy and learn a different version than the one they found in the
book store and already paid for to learn the game. With ESDs it makes
things easier than when I had to search used gaming supply stores, but
still not reasonably doable since there is the time and money that seems
wasted when players already purchased what they consider a perfectly
usable set of books.
Alex
Brandon Blackmoor
news:3DF1276B...@acm.org...
>
> What happens when my my PHB wears out and I can't stomach
> rubber-banding it together and buy a new one...that makes all my
> NPCs and monsters invalid "by the rules"
The same thing happens when your Bernoulli drive dies and you need to buy a
new one, but they don't sell them anymore. Either buy a Zip disk or cry in
your beer.
Change happens. Adapt or die.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2002-12-06
Kevin Sours
> Switching just because they made something new is silly. Switching
> because they openly say they will keep sucking your money is a good
> reason. Sure my book works fine (as far as books "work") but when I get
> a bunch of friends who want to join my D&D game and buy incompatible
> manuals?
Given that they have emphasized compatability of the revised rules, I
think this a bit overstated. Will it be perfect. Probably not. Will
it be good enough to most people, probably. If it turns out that
they lied, *then* we can roast them alive.
Kevin
Reginald
"Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> "Alex Johnson" <comp...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > What happens when my my PHB wears out and I can't stomach
> > rubber-banding it together and buy a new one...that makes all my
> > NPCs and monsters invalid "by the rules"
>
> The same thing happens when your Bernoulli drive dies and you need to buy
a
> new one, but they don't sell them anymore. Either buy a Zip disk or cry in
> your beer.
>
> Change happens. Adapt or die.
Which is why you should invest in a scanner and OCR. Scan the PHB and when
it finally breaks down via wears and tears, print out a new one ... FOR
PERSONAL USE ONLY.
If you're clever, let a money-splurging, gullible gamer in your group buy
the revised, borrow them, scan them to update your current document, and
print it ... FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.
But we're all gullible and lazy by default. Most of us will buy the new
revised rulebook anyway (including those that admonished us by saying
"either adapt or die!"). It's an addiction, and not just D&D, but other
games in which you are a fan of, too. Besides, a plain binder containing the
D&D rules on the bookshelf looks fugly.
Robert FISHER
>
> Check this out. I'm unsure how I feel about it. Is it a good revision, or is it
> to make more $$$?
>
Doesn't seem like its a good way to make money to me.
(1) I really can't justify buying the revised books anytime soon. D&D3e
hasn't had enough time to accumulate enough cruft to really warrant a
revision. And D&D is only one of the games that take up my limited
gaming time & dollars.
(2) The appearant loss of talent at WotC--for whatever reasons--since
the release of 3e makes me skeptical about this revision. This time
around, I'll wait to see what other people say after having & using the
books for a while before deciding the buy them myself.
(3) Having the revised rules out there is going to mean that other WotC
D&D material is less compatible with what I've got, which is only going
to discourage me from buying supplements.
Looks like most of my gaming dollars in the near future are going to go
more towards completing my collection of the Classic Traveller reprints,
updating my GURPS collection, and getting some of Decipher's LotR
supplements. Heck, maybe I'll get some of the Dying Earth supplements or
pick up T20.
But then, I'm just one data point & not privy to WotC's market research.
Sorcier
>
> The entrails of a she-goat arranged on the altar of rec.games.frp.dnd
> foretold that on Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:55:08 -0700, Alex Johnson would
> say...
> > I was
> > thinking of buying a second PHB after they incorporated all the errata,
> > but if they are going to outright change things in the core rules and
> > ask me to pay another hundred dollars, then I'll just find another game
> > system.
> >
> I'll never understand this kind of thinking. To me, *maybe*, if a
> company *stoips* printing new material for a system that's a reason to
> switch.
Well, to some extent that's what they will be doing.
The new book will at least have the classes altered.
If you want to continue with the old versions it's extra work to convert
the new supplements.
If you want to use the new versions it's extra work to convert
the old supplements.
> Switching just because they made something new for it is just
> silly.
Agreed.
It would be. ;)
> It's not like your old books will spontaneoulsy combust or
> anything like that.
True.
But it is like you'll find fewer and fewer players for the old
version and less and less supplements for it.
Granted, if you like the current version, there's little need to stop
playing it, unless you get too irritated by fellow players who want
to use things from the new books, or keep getting lost when you play
with new groups. ;)
Sorcier
>
> You have exactly what you paid for - a book. In July, you will still
> have exactly the same thing.
That's too black and white.
We could as easily say he paid for the rules for D+D.
He won't have those come July. ;)
Mike Faulk
news:20021204202626...@mb-fb.aol.com...
>
> Check this out. I'm unsure how I feel about it. Is it a good revision, or
is it
> to make more $$$?
It's a beautiful ploy. Players who understand the game fine, and who's books
are in good condition probably wouldn't buy a revised copy. But, by adding
new content - that's how they get 'cha. Granted, it's not a NEW ploy, but I
think it's a ploy nonetheless.
I, like some other posters, can't afford to throw $100 on a set of books I
essentially already own. It'll get scanned. I'll download it. If it proves
to be worth my time, I'll go out and buy a set (or whatever individual books
standout). Otherwise, they'll just get scrapped.
It seems like only the Player's Handbook has a shot at being worth it.
Revised classes are good. A less than sucky, front loaded ranger? And the
revised spell lists will be worth a look. Also, I assume this is where the
majority or new feats will be. And while that's not enough alone (see my
prestige class comments), the whole deal may drive me over the edge.
A better layout is what the Monster Manual needed when I bought it, now I'm
used to it, and can navigate just fine. I doubt the "monsters as PCs" rules
are gonna be vastly superior to what's been in the original DMG and Dragon
Magazine. And while I greatly enjoy the art in the WotC products, a new set
of pretty pictures isn't gonna get my $30.
The DMG, again, maybe be a bitch to navigate, but now that I'm used to it,
I'm not gonna be another one. I have my bookmarks, and my notations. Item
creation is little concern to me (but then, that's just me - other players
may find the material worthwhile), and I've got prestige classes coming out
of my ass.
> > -- Rob Bowell
As a side note, no offense to the guy or anything, but Bowell is a rather
unfortunately last name. When you're one letter away from anything dealing
with feces, it's Bad News Bears. School must've been hell.
- Mike Faulk, who doesn't have that great a last name himself
"Nacho Cheese and anarchy
Sure sounds good to me"
Guttermouth, 'Perfect World'
Sorcier
>
> (1) I really can't justify buying the revised books anytime soon. D&D3e
> hasn't had enough time to accumulate enough cruft to really warrant a
> revision. And D&D is only one of the games that take up my limited
> gaming time & dollars.
That's a big one for me.
There's enough substance for a rules supplement or options book,
but not for a full core revision.
> (2) The appearant loss of talent at WotC--for whatever reasons--since
> the release of 3e makes me skeptical about this revision. This time
> around, I'll wait to see what other people say after having & using the
> books for a while before deciding the buy them myself.
I'd cite also the lack of playtesting and proofreading that's
only grown worse other the last two years.
(To be fair Sword and Fist's dreadful proofreading looks to have
improved, but the Cleric splat book had us asking if they actually
tried playing some of these things, and Song and Silence had us
wondering why they couldn't come up with any real substance.)
> (3) Having the revised rules out there is going to mean that other WotC
> D&D material is less compatible with what I've got, which is only going
> to discourage me from buying supplements.
That's the other one.
I like d20 Star Wars.
I've run it.
I actually like the improved revised rules.
But I'm not spending another 40 bucks for them.
Maybe when the do a new edition for Episode III... ;)
But they've already published supplements with the new rules that I
would otherwise have bought and I have no desire to spend time
converting
the old ones.
I dunno whether Revised Star Wars generated a lot of new sales.
But I know it lost some.
Now D+D will be doing the same.
> Looks like most of my gaming dollars in the near future are going to go
> more towards completing my collection of the Classic Traveller reprints,
> updating my GURPS collection, and getting some of Decipher's LotR
> supplements. Heck, maybe I'll get some of the Dying Earth supplements or
> pick up T20.
I'll likely be plugging some holes in my collections too.
Though most of what I'm missing is for games I won't run,
but might use as source material.
I've got other games I can run while I skip an edition though.
Including the D+D version and SW versions I have.
> But then, I'm just one data point & not privy to WotC's market research.
Likewise.
You probably aren't a mind reader either.
You'll likely be meeting some in this thread. ;)
Sorcier
>
> As a side note, no offense to the guy or anything, but Bowell is a rather
> unfortunately last name. When you're one letter away from anything dealing
> with feces, it's Bad News Bears. School must've been hell.
Heh, I had a college English teacher named Bowels.
I took it as a sign that it was college and that she was
a good teacher that no one ever made a joke about her name.
(Probably the best English teacher I ever had.
And one of the best teachers I had overall.)
Bradd W. Szonye
>> (1) I really can't justify buying the revised books anytime soon. D&D3e
>> hasn't had enough time to accumulate enough cruft to really warrant a
>> revision. And D&D is only one of the games that take up my limited
>> gaming time & dollars.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> That's a big one for me. There's enough substance for a rules
> supplement or options book, but not for a full core revision.
Huh? According to the rumor, the total page count for the three books
will increase by 192 pages. That's almost as much material as the
current Monster Manual -- a whole hardcover book's worth. Add to that
the incorporation of errata, clarifications, and allegedly better
organization. That justifies a complete re-release.
>> (2) The appearant loss of talent at WotC--for whatever reasons--since
>> the release of 3e makes me skeptical about this revision. This time
>> around, I'll wait to see what other people say after having & using
>> the books for a while before deciding the buy them myself.
> I'd cite also the lack of playtesting and proofreading that's only
> grown worse other the last two years.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The editing hasn't been
great in the paperback books, but it's still better than the industry
average, and it's almost as good as the editing in similar books like
technical manuals. The editing in the hardcover books has been
excellent.
> (To be fair Sword and Fist's dreadful proofreading looks to have
> improved, but the Cleric splat book had us asking if they actually
> tried playing some of these things, and Song and Silence had us
> wondering why they couldn't come up with any real substance.)
Do you own the same Song and Silence that I do? It doesn't see as much
use as the other splats in my campaign, but that's just because we don't
currently have a PC rogue. It included significant new material for
poisons and stealth in addition to the usual feats and prestige classes.
>> (3) Having the revised rules out there is going to mean that other
>> WotC D&D material is less compatible with what I've got, which is
>> only going to discourage me from buying supplements.
> That's the other one. I like d20 Star Wars. I've run it. I actually
> like the improved revised rules. But I'm not spending another 40 bucks
> for them.
That doesn't follow from what he wrote. He was talking about future
supplements being less useful to him because they might not be fully
compatible with the original printings of the core rules. Personally, I
doubt that will be a problem. Wizards tries to keep RPG supplements as
independent as possible. If you want to see a supplement nightmare, play
Shadowrun, where every book assumes that you own *all* of the other
books. Not just splats, either -- many Shadowrun books assume that you
own particular *adventures*.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Jeremy Reaban
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> That doesn't follow from what he wrote. He was talking about future
> supplements being less useful to him because they might not be fully
> compatible with the original printings of the core rules.
Personally, I
> doubt that will be a problem. Wizards tries to keep RPG supplements
as
> independent as possible. If you want to see a supplement nightmare,
play
> Shadowrun, where every book assumes that you own *all* of the other
> books. Not just splats, either -- many Shadowrun books assume that
you
> own particular *adventures*.
No offense, but I have almost every Shadowrun product until 3E (and
some 3E stuff) and I really don't think that's the case at all.
I've seen some references to what happened in an adventure. But I've
never seen where owning an adventure was necessary. Not even close.
There's not much rules material in them, maybe a new totem or two. But
that's it.
Robert FISHER
>
> You'll find 99% of players are unwilling
> to go buy and learn a different version than the one they found in the
> book store and already paid for to learn the game.
>
Again, I gotta ask, where are you people finding these players? In the
15+ years I've been roleplaying, only ONCE did I ever have a player
refuse to try a system he was unfamiliar with, be it brand-spanking new
or old-and-crufty.
In that one case, he had a strong objection to some aspect of Ars
Magica. (I don't remember exactly what it was.) In any case, that was
the ONLY time he refused to try a different system.
Mike Faulk
news:3DF18D...@cavtel.net...
> Heh, I had a college English teacher named Bowels.
> I took it as a sign that it was college and that she was
> a good teacher that no one ever made a joke about her name.
> (Probably the best English teacher I ever had.
> And one of the best teachers I had overall.)
I'd like to say I'm above juvenile humor.
I'd like to. But I'm not. A twenty-one year old with the sense of humor of a
twelve year old and the complexes of a forty year old.
Go me.
- Mike, for reference: farting = not funny, Bloodhound Gang = funny
"Why can't I get just one kiss?
Maybe some things I wouldn't miss
But I look at your pants and... I need a kiss"
-Violent Femmes, 'Add It Up'
Brad Murray
R> Which is why you should invest in a scanner and OCR. Scan the PHB and when
R> it finally breaks down via wears and tears, print out a new one ... FOR
R> PERSONAL USE ONLY.
Holy moly, your time is cheap if this actually looks less expensive to
you than a $40 book. I mean, even if you don't count the cost of
paper and ink and the fact that you have an extremely cumbersome
product at the end of the process, just counting your time in front of
the scanner with a book has got to add up to at least twice that $40.
Assuming you flip burgers.
R> If you're clever, let a money-splurging, gullible gamer in your group buy
R> the revised, borrow them, scan them to update your current document, and
R> print it ... FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.
It is still cheaper for you to buy the book and spend your time more
profitably.
R> But we're all gullible and lazy by default. Most of us will buy the new
R> revised rulebook anyway (including those that admonished us by saying
R> "either adapt or die!"). It's an addiction, and not just D&D, but other
R> games in which you are a fan of, too. Besides, a plain binder containing the
R> D&D rules on the bookshelf looks fugly.
All of these statements are true, regardless of the fallacy of
assuming that scanning and printing is somehow "cheaper" than buying
the book.
--
Brad Murray * That's not a straw man. That's a straw chorus line.
VSCA Founder * -- Chris Basken
Brad Murray
RF> Again, I gotta ask, where are you people finding these players? In the
RF> 15+ years I've been roleplaying, only ONCE did I ever have a player
RF> refuse to try a system he was unfamiliar with, be it brand-spanking new
RF> or old-and-crufty.
I agree completely. Hell I buy games I will never likely play just
because I like reading simulation rules. Bring on the new games and
the new versions of old games. New things are fun. Old things are
just comfortable.
Brad Murray
AJ> could still be playing BD&D. You'll find 99% of players are unwilling
AJ> to go buy and learn a different version than the one they found in the
AJ> book store and already paid for to learn the game.
Well, I'll buy the new books if and only if they have *enough* new
material. I am interested in new things. The old ones I bought will
always be there even if, as you suggest, they may be held together
with rubber bands.* In practice I haven't found rule changes to be
difficult to incorporate into a game, with the obvious exception of
the complete workover from 2E to 3E.
*It's worth noting, though, that I have never had any D&D book from
1ed or 3ed fall apart like this. Some of my old 1ed books are looking
a little fragile, but they are all functional.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Which is why you should invest in a scanner and OCR. Scan the PHB and when
>it finally breaks down via wears and tears, print out a new one ... FOR
>PERSONAL USE ONLY.
>
>If you're clever, let a money-splurging, gullible gamer in your group buy
>the revised, borrow them, scan them to update your current document, and
>print it ... FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.
Just a nitpick. Personal use doesn't make copying legal. Your first example is
fine, since you are copying your own physical book. The second is illegal.
Ed Chauvin IV
>silly. It's not like your old books will spontaneoulsy combust or
>anything like that.
This is a common urban legend, and while it's true your 3e books will not burst
into flames the day WotC releases the revised editions, they will stop working.
You'll still be able to play with your current characters, so long as you can
remember all the rules from memory. You won't be able to actually look up any
of the rules. (I expect it'll be really quiet in here as far as rules debates
go for a few weeks)
WotC is using a new, highly experimental technology developed by the US
government in conjunction with space aliens in the Nevada desert to accomplish
this. I could tell you how it works, but then I'd have to send an abduction
team to your house to subject you to RRI (Rapid Rectal Inversion, a very quick
and almost completely pain free process whereby your entire body is pulled out
of your own ass).
Ed Chauvin IV
>Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
>>
>> You have exactly what you paid for - a book. In July, you will still
>> have exactly the same thing.
>
>That's too black and white.
>
>We could as easily say he paid for the rules for D+D.
>He won't have those come July. ;)
He most certainly will.
Jack Rudd
> to make more $$$?
Yes.
Jack Rudd - without looking at it
Sorcier
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> > That's a big one for me. There's enough substance for a rules
> > supplement or options book, but not for a full core revision.
>
> Huh? According to the rumor, the total page count for the three books
> will increase by 192 pages. That's almost as much material as the
> current Monster Manual -- a whole hardcover book's worth.
There's some question as to how much is additions or changes
versus how much is expansions and examples.
> Add to that
> the incorporation of errata, clarifications, and allegedly better
> organization.
Which I assumed accounted for some of the 100+ pages.
> >> (2) The appearant loss of talent at WotC--for whatever reasons--since
> >> the release of 3e makes me skeptical about this revision. This time
> >> around, I'll wait to see what other people say after having & using
> >> the books for a while before deciding the buy them myself.
>
> > I'd cite also the lack of playtesting and proofreading that's only
> > grown worse other the last two years.
>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The editing hasn't been
> great in the paperback books, but it's still better than the industry
> average,
Agreed.
I think I'm spoiled by buying mainly from above average companies.
> and it's almost as good as the editing in similar books like
> technical manuals.
Which are notoriously poor.
Unless you mean the "Star Trek Technical Manual" sort of thing.
> The editing in the hardcover books has been
> excellent.
Not for the core books.
The others HAVE been much better but there has still been some glaring
gaffs.
> > (To be fair Sword and Fist's dreadful proofreading looks to have
> > improved, but the Cleric splat book had us asking if they actually
> > tried playing some of these things, and Song and Silence had us
> > wondering why they couldn't come up with any real substance.)
>
> Do you own the same Song and Silence that I do?
Likely that mine has similar contents.
> It doesn't see as much
> use as the other splats in my campaign, but that's just because we don't
> currently have a PC rogue.
We have a party heavy on rogues and roguish styles.
Plus numerous NPC rogues and assassins.
> It included significant new material for
> poisons and stealth in addition to the usual feats and prestige classes.
The guidelines on skills are about the only real use we've gotten from
it.
> >> (3) Having the revised rules out there is going to mean that other
> >> WotC D&D material is less compatible with what I've got, which is
> >> only going to discourage me from buying supplements.
>
> > That's the other one. I like d20 Star Wars. I've run it. I actually
> > like the improved revised rules. But I'm not spending another 40 bucks
> > for them.
>
> That doesn't follow from what he wrote.
Sure it does.
But more clearly, I was agreeing and expanding what he said.
The incompatibility of the later SW supplements kept me from buying
them.
To get up to speed to fully use them I'd have to pay the $40 for the new
rules edition.
> He was talking about future
> supplements being less useful to him because they might not be fully
> compatible with the original printings of the core rules.
So was I.
> Personally, I
> doubt that will be a problem. Wizards tries to keep RPG supplements as
> independent as possible.
They don't rely on material in one supplement to support another
generally.
I have no cause to believe that supplements won't rely on the core rules
though.
Their track record on SW says they will.
Logic says they will.
> If you want to see a supplement nightmare, play
> Shadowrun, where every book assumes that you own *all* of the other
> books. Not just splats, either -- many Shadowrun books assume that you
> own particular *adventures*.
I knew there was a reason I never really liked that game. ;)
Sorcier
>
> *It's worth noting, though, that I have never had any D&D book from
> 1ed or 3ed fall apart like this. Some of my old 1ed books are looking
> a little fragile, but they are all functional.
My 1e books which have seen far more use than my 3e ones are still in
usable shape.
Covers are faded and scarred.
Pages have some mold damage.
But it's all still legible and well bound.
Whereas my 3e books are coming lose from their bindings after about 2
years of age.
And some of my players have nasty ink smudges from the new paper and ink
types in the books.
Sorcier
>
> Mere moments before death, Sorcier hastily scrawled:
> >Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
> >>
> >> You have exactly what you paid for - a book. In July, you will still
> >> have exactly the same thing.
> >
> >That's too black and white.
> >
> >We could as easily say he paid for the rules for D+D.
> >He won't have those come July. ;)
>
> He most certainly will.
Semantics. :(
He paid for the current rules.
Unless he lays out $90 in July he likley won't have the
current rules then.
CARRIER LOST
> Which is why you should invest in a scanner and OCR. Scan the PHB and when
> it finally breaks down via wears and tears, print out a new one ... FOR
> PERSONAL USE ONLY.
guh. or spend the hours it would take you to scan it all working a
real job, and have enough money to buy the books several times over,
and pizza for game night.
i mean, the world industrialized so that we wouldn't HAVE TO live in
a monastery tediously copying things just to have books.
> If you're clever, let a money-splurging, gullible gamer in your group buy
> the revised, borrow them, scan them to update your current document, and
> print it ... FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.
...which, for the benefit of the ill advised, would be outside the
bounds of fair use and illegal. not to mention a second incredible
waste of time.
clever, perhaps. but only in a living your life in a cave coveting
your precious gollum kind of way.
--
._n_______n_. dr...@visi.com <http://www.visi.com/~drow/>
| --------- |== ---------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "Liddle bunnies? CUTE liddle bunnies vit' NO GUNS?
lJ | | No VAY!" -- Bruno
|_l
Peter Seebach
>Whereas my 3e books are coming lose from their bindings after about 2
>years of age.
>And some of my players have nasty ink smudges from the new paper and ink
>types in the books.
One of my 3E books got itself busted; I sent it in to WotC, and they sent
back a good replacement and a free set of character sheets.
-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Sir Bob
By that reasoning, anybody who's ever bought *any* version of *D&D which
forms part of the iterative process eventually leading to 3E should be
entitled free copies of all the latest books. Hey, all you guys who bought
the original "Chainmail" are getting ripped off! ;)
- Sir Bob.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>> Mere moments before death, Sorcier hastily scrawled:
>> >Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You have exactly what you paid for - a book. In July, you will still
>> >> have exactly the same thing.
>> >
>> >That's too black and white.
>> >
>> >We could as easily say he paid for the rules for D+D.
>> >He won't have those come July. ;)
>>
>> He most certainly will.
>
>Semantics. :(
Not hardly.
>He paid for the current rules.
>Unless he lays out $90 in July he likley won't have the
>current rules then.
That's akin to saying he bought today's NY Times, and unless he shells out the
buck tomorrow he will no longer have today's NY Times.
Sorcier
>
> > Semantics. :(
> > He paid for the current rules.
> > Unless he lays out $90 in July he likley won't have the
> > current rules then.
>
> By that reasoning, anybody who's ever bought *any* version of *D&D which
> forms part of the iterative process eventually leading to 3E should be
> entitled free copies of all the latest books.
Nah.
I'm saying he's lost value as far as his current property.
Not that he should get that replaced.
On this point I was avoiding judmentalism one way or the other. :(
Sorcier
>
> >He paid for the current rules.
> >Unless he lays out $90 in July he likley won't have the
> >current rules then.
>
> That's akin to saying he bought today's NY Times, and unless he shells out the
> buck tomorrow he will no longer have today's NY Times.
Will tommorrow's contain today's news?
Sorcier
>
> In article <3DF253...@cavtel.net>, Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> >Whereas my 3e books are coming lose from their bindings after about 2
> >years of age.
> >And some of my players have nasty ink smudges from the new paper and ink
> >types in the books.
>
> One of my 3E books got itself busted; I sent it in to WotC, and they sent
> back a good replacement and a free set of character sheets.
Cool.
None of ours are far enough gone for us to have thought of that.
I did this once from Last Unicorn though.
Wonder if there's a connection. ;)
Sir Bob
> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >
> > >He paid for the current rules.
> > >Unless he lays out $90 in July he likley won't have the
> > >current rules then.
> >
> > That's akin to saying he bought today's NY Times, and unless he shells
out the
> > buck tomorrow he will no longer have today's NY Times.
>
> Will tommorrow's contain today's news?
For many of the major stories, yes, it will - but there will be more
background material and flavor text. ;)
- Sir Bob.
Sorcier
>
> "Sorcier" <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
> news:3DF2CA...@cavtel.net...
> > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> > >
> > > >He paid for the current rules.
> > > >Unless he lays out $90 in July he likley won't have the
> > > >current rules then.
> > >
> > > That's akin to saying he bought today's NY Times, and unless he shells
> out the
> > > buck tomorrow he will no longer have today's NY Times.
> >
> > Will tommorrow's contain today's news?
>
> For many of the major stories, yes, it will
Nah, it'll contain tommorrow's updates and what of today's
they think is needed as background.
> - but there will be more
> background material and flavor text. ;)
And yet the same page count.
"There are no good analogies."
Ed Chauvin IV
>>
>> >He paid for the current rules.
>> >Unless he lays out $90 in July he likley won't have the
>> >current rules then.
>>
>> That's akin to saying he bought today's NY Times, and unless he shells out the
>> buck tomorrow he will no longer have today's NY Times.
>
>Will tommorrow's contain today's news?
When tomorrow is today, it will.
Jeff Heikkinen
foretold that on Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:40:43 -0700, Alex Johnson would
say...
> You'll find 99% of players are unwilling
>
Rupert Boleyn
<comm...@adelphia.net> spake thusly into the wilderness:
>It seems like only the Player's Handbook has a shot at being worth it.
>Revised classes are good. A less than sucky, front loaded ranger? And the
>revised spell lists will be worth a look. Also, I assume this is where the
>majority or new feats will be. And while that's not enough alone (see my
>prestige class comments), the whole deal may drive me over the edge.
I'll be pissed if they significantly change the Ranger. Making it so
you can choose a set of feats at first (or 1st-3rd) level or something
like that, so the current Ranger is a (near) subset of it would be
(just) okay. Any more change than that and backwards compatibility
goes out the window, and players with Rangers will have to lug round
two PHBs or 'convert' in such a way that their 'Ranger' isn't what he
used to be. Ick.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
The media industry is a long, dark, narrow hallway where thieves and
pimps run free and good people die like dogs.
There's also a negative side.
MasterCougar
posted news:apt5vus6v7nnigmcc...@enews.newsguy.com:
> When tomorrow is today, it will.
>
>
And remember, tomorrow never is, for it is always "today."
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
MasterCougar
news:3DF2CA...@cavtel.net:
> Will tommorrow's contain today's news?
>
>
Of course, for then it will be "today" no?
Matthew Miller
>Holy moly, your time is cheap if this actually looks less expensive to
>you than a $40 book. I mean, even if you don't count the cost of
>paper and ink and the fact that you have an extremely cumbersome
>product at the end of the process, just counting your time in front of
Well, actually, having a less-cumbersome product is a nice reason to do
this, everything else aside. If you've got a laser printer or even a really
good inkjet, you can make the D&D books look good reduced to four pages a
sheet (eight, back and front). Fit all the core rulebooks into a binder
smaller than just one of them.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Matthew Miller
>Heh, I had a college English teacher named Bowels.
>I took it as a sign that it was college and that she was
>a good teacher that no one ever made a joke about her name.
>(Probably the best English teacher I ever had.
>And one of the best teachers I had overall.)
I had a *middle school* teacher named Mr. Homo. And he was so good, he
completely got away with it.
Justin Bacon
>I'll be pissed if they significantly change the Ranger. Making it so
>you can choose a set of feats at first (or 1st-3rd) level or something
>like that, so the current Ranger is a (near) subset of it would be
>(just) okay. Any more change than that and backwards compatibility
>goes out the window, and players with Rangers will have to lug round
>two PHBs or 'convert' in such a way that their 'Ranger' isn't what he
>used to be. Ick.
The revised classes are probably the only thing which annoys me about these
revised editions (that I've heard so far). Yeah, there are some balance
problems (specifically with the ranger and barbarian), but I'd rather maintain
backwards compatibility than see these minor problems fixed in a way which
renders 2 years of supplements unusable without conversion. (Or changes the
ruleset so that I *can't* use future supplements without the revised ruleset.)
And if they're revising all (or most) of the classes, then I'll have
significant problems.
Now, if they simply included a variant version of the ranger and barbarian in
the revised DMG "for those who think the original classes are too weak", I'd
support that.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
MasterCougar
posted news:slrnav6sv4...@jadzia.bu.edu:
> Well, actually, having a less-cumbersome product is a nice reason to
> do this, everything else aside. If you've got a laser printer or even
> a really good inkjet, you can make the D&D books look good reduced to
> four pages a sheet (eight, back and front). Fit all the core rulebooks
> into a binder smaller than just one of them.
>
>
Please elaborate on how to do this.
Reginald
Well, I wouldn't say 99% but most hardcore fans of D&D are likely to buy the
new revised core rulebooks. The only thing that may stop them is money.
Other players of D&D are likely to ask a gullible hardcore fan to buy one
and share with the group or obtain the revision update through other means,
either legal or illegal. Legal, if Wizards is willing to provide a document
noting the change -- albeit may not contain any new information like new
feats, prestige classes, etc., which makes the purchase of the revised core
rulebook more valuable. Illegal, if it shows up on Kazaa or those e-book
binary newsgroup.
While I believe they should correct it,make the rules easier to understand,
and minimize any rules confusion and ambiguities (if not remove them), I
personally think it does not warrant a rules revision at this time (two
years since 3e debut). They could always make any changes in the monthly FAQ
you can download from their web site.
Sorcier
>
> Mere moments before death, Sorcier hastily scrawled:
> >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >>
> >> >He paid for the current rules.
> >> >Unless he lays out $90 in July he likley won't have the
> >> >current rules then.
> >>
> >> That's akin to saying he bought today's NY Times, and unless he shells out the
> >> buck tomorrow he will no longer have today's NY Times.
> >
> >Will tommorrow's contain today's news?
>
> When tomorrow is today, it will.
When June is now, the core books will contain most of November's rules.
And a signifigantly lower percentage of new material than the newspaper
analogue.
Sorcier
>
> On the dark and dreary 07 Dec 2002 Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> posted
> news:3DF2CA...@cavtel.net:
>
> > Will tommorrow's contain today's news?
>
> Of course, for then it will be "today" no?
Will today's contain yesterday's news?
Hey, I like word games too, but...
Will the December 9th edition contain most of the same
content as the December 8th one?
Or will it contain mostly new stuff and updates and such?
Ie, are you really paying for the same thing again?
That's the core (ha, ha) question, is the new editions new material
worth the capital layout asked for it?
For the June books some are saying "Hell, yeah!" and some "No way."
And all points in between.
I'm at the "very unlikely to be worth it" end myself.
Sorcier
>
> Well, actually, having a less-cumbersome product is a nice reason to do
> this, everything else aside. If you've got a laser printer or even a really
> good inkjet, you can make the D&D books look good reduced to four pages a
> sheet (eight, back and front). Fit all the core rulebooks into a binder
> smaller than just one of them.
I did something similar with the 1st printing errata for the PHB.
I seem to be the only one who can read it though. ;(
(Don't remember the exact numbers,
but I think I dropped it from about thirty to about ten.)
Sorcier
>
> On the dark and dreary 08 Dec 2002 mat...@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller)
> posted news:slrnav6sv4...@jadzia.bu.edu:
>
> > Well, actually, having a less-cumbersome product is a nice reason to
> > do this, everything else aside. If you've got a laser printer or even
> > a really good inkjet, you can make the D&D books look good reduced to
> > four pages a sheet (eight, back and front). Fit all the core rulebooks
> > into a binder smaller than just one of them.
> >
> >
>
> Please elaborate on how to do this.
Well, you likely need a scanner too.
But other details will depend on what word processor or
publishing tools you have.
And on what printer you have.
The general case he already explained in about as much detail as
he could without getting system specific.
Most obvious, I suppose, would be to have each rule book page
as an image, size them so four will fit on a printer page side,
place those in your document, and print it double sided.
The get a three hole punch or pay for professional binding.
Sorcier
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> >Heh, I had a college English teacher named Bowels.
> >I took it as a sign that it was college and that she was
> >a good teacher that no one ever made a joke about her name.
> >(Probably the best English teacher I ever had.
> >And one of the best teachers I had overall.)
>
> I had a *middle school* teacher named Mr. Homo. And he was so good, he
> completely got away with it.
A friend of mine has a boss, who is homosexual, named Mr. Gayland.
He gets away with it among most of the staff, but there are a few bad
apples who joke him when he's not around.
Most of his workers like him too much to do so though.
Malachias Invictus
"Alex Johnson" <comp...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:3DF1276B...@acm.org...
> You'll find 99% of players are unwilling
> to go buy and learn a different version than the one they found in the
> book store and already paid for to learn the game.
You'll find that reality contradicts you on that point.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Alex Johnson
>
> Besides, a plain binder containing the
> D&D rules on the bookshelf looks fugly.
You're telling me! My Basic manuals were falling apart (long ago) and I
decided to hold punch them and the Expert volume and put them in a 1.5"
3-ring binder. Ack!! It's the ugliest thing on my shelf.
Your plans to scan 3*320p books is ludicrous. Besides, the point is I
want to stay with what made all my adventures and NPCs with. If I
"upgrade" (debatable term) I lose that. If I stay and my players update
it could cause arguments.
Alex
Ed Chauvin IV
>Brad Murray <bjm-...@vsca.ca> wrote:
>>Holy moly, your time is cheap if this actually looks less expensive to
>>you than a $40 book. I mean, even if you don't count the cost of
>>paper and ink and the fact that you have an extremely cumbersome
>>product at the end of the process, just counting your time in front of
>
>Well, actually, having a less-cumbersome product is a nice reason to do
>this, everything else aside. If you've got a laser printer or even a really
>good inkjet, you can make the D&D books look good reduced to four pages a
>sheet (eight, back and front). Fit all the core rulebooks into a binder
>smaller than just one of them.
Yeah, but you'd need a magnifying glass to read it.
Bokman7757
>And remember, tomorrow never is, for it is always "today."
Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow,
You're always a day away...
Samy Merchi
> Mere moments before death, Matthew Miller hastily scrawled:
>>or even a really good inkjet, you can make the D&D books look
>>good reduced to four pages a sheet (eight, back and front). Fit
>>all the core rulebooks into a binder smaller than just one of
>>them.
>
> Yeah, but you'd need a magnifying glass to read it.
Only if your eyes are insufficient. In which case that wouldn't, of
course, be an advisable course of action. Some people have quite
sufficient eyes, though. He, for example, likely would not be planning
something like that, if he thought he'd need a magnifying glass.
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
Bradd W. Szonye
> Hey, I like word games too, but...
Yes. You like word games so much that it's nearly impossible to have an
actual discussion with you, because you never get past the "defining
terms" stage.
You don't get rebates on tomorrow's product just because you own today's
product. Not in any industry, unless the manufacturer is trying to hook
you in with an "upgrade rebate" (like some video game console makers
have done). People who expect otherwise are unrealistic whiners. If
you're worried about obsolescence, then pay attention to your suppliers'
release schedules so that you don't buy a product shortly before it
becomes obsolete. Wizards has given ample warning for this revision.
If you think three years (the time from "when I bought my PHB" to
"Wizards releases revised PHB") is "shortly before it becomes obsolete,"
then again you're being an unrealistic whiner.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Bradd W. Szonye
> While I believe they should correct it,make the rules easier to
> understand, and minimize any rules confusion and ambiguities (if not
> remove them), I personally think it does not warrant a rules revision
> at this time (two years since 3e debut).
August 2000 to June 2003 is three years, not two. And what does time
have to do with it? There's a large volume of corrections,
clarifications, and additions to the original rules already.
> They could always make any changes in the monthly FAQ you can download
> from their web site.
Which is inefficient to the point of being obnoxious. The FAQ is huge,
and "look for rules in two or more different places" is not really fun.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Besides, the point is I want to stay with what made all my adventures
> and NPCs with. If I "upgrade" (debatable term) I lose that.
That's pure speculation on your part, and probably unjustified.
Sorcier
>
> You don't get rebates on tomorrow's product just because you own today's
> product. Not in any industry,
False.
See the auto industry.
> People who expect otherwise are unrealistic whiners.
Thankfully I don't expect any such thing here.
> Wizards has given ample warning for this revision.
IYO.
But you didn't buy your books in the last two months.
Sorcier
>
> August 2000 to June 2003 is three years, not two.
When did the last 3e core book first come out?
I don't think it was August.
You round up, he rounds down.
Big deal.
Sorcier
>
> Alex Johnson <comp...@acm.org> wrote:
> > Besides, the point is I want to stay with what made all my adventures
> > and NPCs with. If I "upgrade" (debatable term) I lose that.
>
> That's pure speculation on your part, and probably unjustified.
I think the "rebalancing classes" bit justifies such speculation.
Agreed that as of now the degree of impact is a matter of speculation.
Clangador
>> 1ed or 3ed fall apart like this. Some of my old 1ed books are looking
>> a little fragile, but they are all functional.
I'd be happy with 3e books in a 1e style printing. I like the plain white
paper. It makes the print stand out better.
~Clangador
==========================
Clangador on AIM, MSN & ICQ
==========================
Obligatory Quote: "I'll give up gaming when you pry my dice from my cold, dead
hands."
Clangador
>gotten $20 worth of entertainment from your existing PH?
Indeed, look at how much people are willing to spend to goto the theater. Going
to the theater two times is the same as buying a single core book. And you
don't get anything out of a movie except entertainment. Then they actually have
the nerve to release the movie on to DVD a mere six months after the theater
release? teh nerve!
Douglas Bailey
> I'd be happy with 3e books in a 1e style printing. I like the plain white
> paper. It makes the print stand out better.
I'm assuming that part of the re-jigged layout will include dropping the
horizontal-lines background and adding coloured shading to alternate
rows of tables (as has been done for pretty much every 3e hardcover
since the core rules).
I hope that's the case: the absence of the horizontal lines makes the
later books considerably easier to read (especially when scanning in a
hurry for the correct rule).
doug
--
---------------douglas bailey (trys...@world.std.com)---------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
Bradd W. Szonye
>> You don't get rebates on tomorrow's product just because you own
>> today's product. Not in any industry,
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> False. See the auto industry.
The auto industry doesn't give you a rebate just for owning an older
car. If you give them your older car, they give you a trade-in discount
based on its depreciated value. That's completely different from what
you're talking about, because (1) you must surrender your old vehicle,
and (2) the depreciated value is enough to make such a trade worthwhile.
If cars only cost $30 new, you wouldn't see trade-ins, because the
depreciated value wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of the
transaction.
>> Wizards has given ample warning for this revision.
> IYO. But you didn't buy your books in the last two months.
If you bought the books in the last month, you can return them according
to most stores' return policies -- assuming that you don't need or want
the books for the next 8 months. If you bought them two months ago, then
you get 10 months of use out of them before the new books arrive. Since
when is $100 too much for 10 months' worth of entertainment? That's long
enough to play an entire D&D campaign.
While you won't get as much out of the books as somebody who bought them
two years ago, the entertainment cost is still lower than just about
everything except movie rentals, which are damn cheap. Complaining about
that is baseless whining. It's understandable baseless whining, I'll
admit, but it isn't justified when you look at the actual costs and
times involved.
James Quick
clan...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Clangador) wrote:
> >Sorry about the dual reply, but are you seriously suggesting you haven't
> >gotten $20 worth of entertainment from your existing PH?
>
> Indeed, look at how much people are willing to spend to goto the theater.
> Going to the theater two times is the same as buying a single core book.
> And you don't get anything out of a movie except entertainment. Then
> they actually have the nerve to release the movie on to DVD a mere six
> months after the theater release? teh nerve!
It's just a ploy to make money. They don't care about what anyone wants,
they just keep coming up with ways to take our money.
;-)
--
James Quick
jamesqu...@hotmail.com
I have great faith in fools - my friends call it self-confidence.
- Edgar Allen Poe
Sorcier
>
> >> *It's worth noting, though, that I have never had any D&D book from
> >> 1ed or 3ed fall apart like this. Some of my old 1ed books are looking
> >> a little fragile, but they are all functional.
>
> I'd be happy with 3e books in a 1e style printing. I like the plain white
> paper. It makes the print stand out better.
Tend to agree.
I also hate these ornate borders everyone uses these days.
Feels like we're getting less content (even when we aren't)
and looks claustrophobic and cramped.
I also like not getting the ink smudged by grubby hands thumbing
through looking for a reference.
Not a big problem with the 3e books but I've seen it happen.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> August 2000 to June 2003 is three years, not two.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> When did the last 3e core book first come out?
October 2000. It's still closer to three years.
> You round up, he rounds down. Big deal.
Well, you're right, in a way, because even two years is plenty of
entertainment for $100. Heck, even if you bought a set of core books
today, you'd be getting plenty of fun for your money. That's why the
"unfair! they cheated me!" complaint is just baseless whining. If I
spent $100 on new console video games, I wouldn't expect 8 months' worth
of entertainment out of them, let alone 2-1/2 years. Even at $100 for 8
months' worth of D&D, it's still cheaper than just about anything but
movie rentals.
Sorcier
>
> >Sorry about the dual reply, but are you seriously suggesting you haven't
> >gotten $20 worth of entertainment from your existing PH?
>
> Indeed, look at how much people are willing to spend to goto the theater. Going
> to the theater two times is the same as buying a single core book. And you
> don't get anything out of a movie except entertainment. Then they actually have
> the nerve to release the movie on to DVD a mere six months after the theater
> release? teh nerve!
C'mon, many play better on a large screen with a good
sound system then on our miniscule home sets. ;)
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Besides, the point is I want to stay with what made all my
>>> adventures and NPCs with. If I "upgrade" (debatable term) I lose
>>> that.
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> That's pure speculation on your part, and probably unjustified.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> I think the "rebalancing classes" bit justifies such speculation.
> Agreed that as of now the degree of impact is a matter of speculation.
It doesn't justify it at all. Take a Basic D&D or Advanced D&D
adventure. Run it in a D&D3 campaign, merely substituting the new
creature stats for the old ones. (That is, if an encounter calls for 3
hill giants, use 3 hill giants with D&D3 stats.) It works just fine.
Even with a *major* rules update, you only invalidate the game stats.
That's less than 25% of a typical adventure, by page count.
You're jumping at shadows.
Sorcier
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> You don't get rebates on tomorrow's product just because you own
> >> today's product. Not in any industry,
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> > False. See the auto industry.
>
> The auto industry doesn't give you a rebate just for owning an older
> car. If you give them your older car, they give you a trade-in discount
> based on its depreciated value.
Sorry, I thought that was implied.
> That's completely different from what
> you're talking about, because (1) you must surrender your old vehicle,
That's been suggested as far as the books go.
> and (2) the depreciated value is enough to make such a trade worthwhile.
That hasn't.
> It's understandable baseless whining, I'll
> admit,
Well, that's close. ;)
> but it isn't justified when you look at the actual costs and
> times involved.
IYO.
Clangador
>sound system then on our miniscule home sets. ;)
No argument there. =)
Sorcier
>
> >> Alex Johnson <comp...@acm.org> wrote:
> >>> Besides, the point is I want to stay with what made all my
> >>> adventures and NPCs with. If I "upgrade" (debatable term) I lose
> >>> that.
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> That's pure speculation on your part, and probably unjustified.
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> > I think the "rebalancing classes" bit justifies such speculation.
> > Agreed that as of now the degree of impact is a matter of speculation.
>
> It doesn't justify it at all.
"Probably" to "definately" in under an hour?
Do you make all changes this quick?
Would go a long way towards justifying your next assertion. ;)
> Take a Basic D&D or Advanced D&D
> adventure. Run it in a D&D3 campaign, merely substituting the new
> creature stats for the old ones. (That is, if an encounter calls for 3
> hill giants, use 3 hill giants with D&D3 stats.) It works just fine.
> Even with a *major* rules update, you only invalidate the game stats.
> That's less than 25% of a typical adventure, by page count.
>
> You're jumping at shadows.
Nah, I'm still working on my conversion of a 2e module to 3e.
It's far more involved than "substitute the new creature".
Classes have changed.
Multi-classing has changed.
Magic items have changed.
Spells have shifted levels and the amount available has changed.
It's quite a bit of work.
The change from 3e.0 to 3e.X will be smaller but I'll still
need to adjust saves and class abilities at minimum.
Kinda odd that you use a "substitute the new monster"
line to dismiss changes to classes.
Also, the "substitute the new monster" doesn't always work well
when some of these beasties have been revised powerwise or threat
level-wise.
Or when 3e creatures need individualizing.
They have a lot more options than say 1e.
For the nameless orc, no biggie, I sub the new version as written
so long as the challenge is appropriate for the setting or party.
But for the specially defined cheiftan or shaman?
I need to crunch some stats.
It isn't plug a play.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>>> [That upgrading will screw up your adventures and NPCs is] pure
>>>> speculation on [Alex's] part, and probably unjustified.
>> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>>> I think the "rebalancing classes" bit justifies such speculation.
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> It doesn't justify it at all.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> "Probably" to "definately" in under an hour? Do you make all changes
> this quick? Would go a long way towards justifying your next
> assertion. ;)
What change? I said that Alex probably isn't justified, and that your
proposed rationale doesn't justify it at all, because changes to classes
don't invalidate old adventures and NPCs. You need to read more
carefully. There may be other changes that justify his speculation, but
I highly doubt it.
>> Take a Basic D&D or Advanced D&D adventure. Run it in a D&D3
>> campaign, merely substituting the new creature stats for the old
>> ones. (That is, if an encounter calls for 3 hill giants, use 3 hill
>> giants with D&D3 stats.) It works just fine. Even with a *major*
>> rules update, you only invalidate the game stats. That's less than
>> 25% of a typical adventure, by page count.
>>
>> You're jumping at shadows.
> Nah, I'm still working on my conversion of a 2e module to 3e. It's far
> more involved than "substitute the new creature". Classes have
> changed. Multi-classing has changed. Magic items have changed. Spells
> have shifted levels and the amount available has changed. It's quite a
> bit of work.
So? You don't need to convert all of that stuff to get a playable
adventure. If you insist on converting it all to D&D3-book-legal stats,
that's your option, but don't complain too loudly about the work,
because you're really just making unnecessary work for yourself. You
*don't need* to update this stuff to get a playable adventure.
> The change from 3e.0 to 3e.X will be smaller but I'll still need to
> adjust saves and class abilities at minimum.
1. Do you have an advance copy of the new books that we don't?
2. No, you don't need to make those adjustments.
Do the characters work OK already? In that case, you don't need to
change anything. Just make a note that your "legacy" NPCs use variant
classes (relative to the revised version), and keep using the D&D3.0
versions. Unless the revisions change the game balance *radically*, that
should be sufficient.
If you feel like it, update NPCs at your leisure, when it would make an
important difference to the game. If you insist on doing more than that,
then you're just making work for yourself out of a personal need to keep
everything book-legal. That's not the revision's fault.
Also, note that you certainly don't need to go back and convert every
adventure you've ever played or every NPC you've ever used, unless you
plan on publishing them. You're *still* jumping at shadows.
> Kinda odd that you use a "substitute the new monster" line to dismiss
> changes to classes.
It's a perfectly good analogy, because in both cases, the stats have
changed but the relative balance has stayed about the same. (Again, this
assumes that they don't make radical changes to the classes.) In this
case, updating the characters probably isn't necessary at all, so you
don't even need to do "substitute by name." Just make a note that it
uses older rules.
> Also, the "substitute the new monster" doesn't always work well when
> some of these beasties have been revised powerwise or threat
> level-wise.
That kind of change is uncommon. I ran the first two thirds of the
Against the Giants series (AD&D2 version) in D&D3, and the only
conversion problem I had was the total absence of some monsters in D&D3.
In those cases, it was still an easy change; just replace them with
similar beasts of an appropriate challenge rating.
It simply isn't necessary to make the conversion *exactly* like the
original, and when the revisions are minor, it isn't necessary to
convert at all. Just keep using the old stats.
Heck, when I ran Keep on the Borderlands (Basic D&D version) with D&D3
characters, I didn't even convert the monsters. I just used the stats as
they're printed in the module, with minor exceptions like BAB and BSB.
Module "conversion" like this is dead simple unless you plan to actually
publish the result with book-legal stats.
> Or when 3e creatures need individualizing. They have a lot more
> options than say 1e. For the nameless orc, no biggie, I sub the new
> version as written so long as the challenge is appropriate for the
> setting or party. But for the specially defined cheiftan or shaman?
Yes, that's one of the most difficult parts of updating AD&D adventures
to D&D3, but how is it relevant? It's not like the revision is going to
invalidate your NPCs, as noted above.
> I need to crunch some stats. It isn't plug a play.
Why even bother with converting them? You only need to crunch stats if
you insist on converting, which just won't be necessary (unless Wizards
has decided to screw its customers and the third-party D20 market).
Don't convert, just make a note. Otherwise, you're just making more work
for yourself, bitching about the extra work, and blaming Wizards for
your own bad choice.
There's definitely some unfairness in that, but it's coming from you.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I also hate these ornate borders everyone uses these days. Feels like
> we're getting less content (even when we aren't) and looks
> claustrophobic and cramped.
I hear gamers make this complaint all the time, despite the fact that
this sort of thing is a very *good* typographic device. That just says
that gamers are freaks who don't understand or appreciate good
typography.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> The auto industry doesn't give you a rebate just for owning an older
>> car. If you give them your older car, they give you a trade-in
>> discount based on its depreciated value.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> Sorry, I thought that was implied.
Somebody suggested a trade-in for old books, but that's insane, because:
>> the depreciated value [isn't] enough to make such a trade worthwhile.
>> [The baseless whining in this thread is] understandable baseless
>> whining, I'll admit, but it isn't justified when you look at the
>> actual costs and times involved.
> IYO.
If your opinion disagrees, then I'll happily accuse you of wanting
something for nothing, of being exactly the kind of whiner I'm
reprimanding. As I pointed out before, somebody who buys a new set of
D&D rulebooks today will get his entertainment for about $1/hour if he
actually uses the books. That's cheap by any reasonable standard; only
movie rentals are cheaper (and only if you watch the movie with
friends). If you figure the cost to casual players, $30, rather than DMs
and collectors, then it's even cheaper than movie rentals.
How can you complain that the cost isn't justified when the cost is
competitive with the cheapest form of entertainment there is? The only
way you could spend less is to switch to completely cost-free forms of
entertainment like playing cops & robbers with imaginary guns.
If that's too expensive "in your opinion," then I must respond that your
opinion is so out of touch that it's not worth considering.
Fitz
wrote:
>Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>> I also hate these ornate borders everyone uses these days. Feels like
>> we're getting less content (even when we aren't) and looks
>> claustrophobic and cramped.
>
>I hear gamers make this complaint all the time, despite the fact that
>this sort of thing is a very *good* typographic device. That just says
>that gamers are freaks who don't understand or appreciate good
>typography.
In what way good? What function do thay serve, except to clutter up
the page?
If they were used as an aid to indexing, maybe. But for the most part
they're nothing more than pointless decoration. At worst, they're
actively distracting.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fitz
http://mojobob.netnet.net.nz
http://fitz.jsr.com
http://usa.spis.co.nz/fitz
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorcier
>
> > Nah, I'm still working on my conversion of a 2e module to 3e. It's far
> > more involved than "substitute the new creature". Classes have
> > changed. Multi-classing has changed. Magic items have changed. Spells
> > have shifted levels and the amount available has changed. It's quite a
> > bit of work.
>
> So? You don't need to convert all of that stuff to get a playable
> adventure. If you insist on converting it all to D&D3-book-legal stats,
> that's your option, but don't complain too loudly about the work,
> because you're really just making unnecessary work for yourself.
Work my players will appreciate.
Hm, isn't that what the game is about?
> You
> *don't need* to update this stuff to get a playable adventure.
Sure, but the playability and quality of the conversion increase if I
do.
> > The change from 3e.0 to 3e.X will be smaller but I'll still need to
> > adjust saves and class abilities at minimum.
>
> 1. Do you have an advance copy of the new books that we don't?
Why, you think the changes will be greater?
Or you don't believe the comjecture that saves will be rebalanced?
Or the statement that classes will?
> 2. No, you don't need to make those adjustments.
In the sense that I _need_ to breathe, no, you're right, I don't.
If I want my games to be up to current standard I will.
> Do the characters work OK already?
Yup.
> In that case, you don't need to
> change anything. Just make a note that your "legacy" NPCs use variant
> classes (relative to the revised version), and keep using the D&D3.0
> versions. Unless the revisions change the game balance *radically*, that
> should be sufficient.
That's awkward.
Especially as the players would be in the right were they to
say things like "How come the old Ranger gets that ability but
my new one doesn't? That's hardly fair."
Your inconsistant approach _is_ workable.
I don't find it preferrable though.
> If you feel like it, update NPCs at your leisure, when it would make an
> important difference to the game.
Basically what I would be doing.
I'd update the ones I expect to be "on-screen" as they come up.
The others can gather dust until needed.
> Also, note that you certainly don't need to go back and convert every
> adventure you've ever played or every NPC you've ever used, unless you
> plan on publishing them. You're *still* jumping at shadows.
Appearently you are now.
I made no such claim.
I claimed I need to alter the ones I'm going to use.
> > Kinda odd that you use a "substitute the new monster" line to dismiss
> > changes to classes.
>
> It's a perfectly good analogy, because in both cases, the stats have
> changed but the relative balance has stayed about the same.
That's thrown out with your
"Legacy characters mixing with New characters" bit.
> (Again, this
> assumes that they don't make radical changes to the classes.) In this
> case, updating the characters probably isn't necessary at all, so you
> don't even need to do "substitute by name." Just make a note that it
> uses older rules.
And thus is possibly unbalanced against the rebalanced set.
> > Also, the "substitute the new monster" doesn't always work well when
> > some of these beasties have been revised powerwise or threat
> > level-wise.
>
> That kind of change is uncommon.
That's what I thought, 'til I undertook the conversion of a major 2e
release.
> It simply isn't necessary to make the conversion *exactly* like the
> original,
Don't intend to.
> Heck, when I ran Keep on the Borderlands (Basic D&D version) with D&D3
> characters, I didn't even convert the monsters. I just used the stats as
> they're printed in the module, with minor exceptions like BAB and BSB.
> Module "conversion" like this is dead simple unless you plan to actually
> publish the result with book-legal stats.
I plan to use the old stuff with book legal stats.
You might find it excessive.
But I find that level of consistancy helps reinforce the setting.
> > I need to crunch some stats. It isn't plug a play.
>
> Why even bother with converting them? You only need to crunch stats if
> you insist on converting, which just won't be necessary (unless Wizards
> has decided to screw its customers and the third-party D20 market).
> Don't convert, just make a note. Otherwise, you're just making more work
> for yourself, bitching about the extra work, and blaming Wizards for
> your own bad choice.
Consistancy and fairness are bad choices now?
Sorcier
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> > I also hate these ornate borders everyone uses these days. Feels like
> > we're getting less content (even when we aren't) and looks
> > claustrophobic and cramped.
>
> I hear gamers make this complaint all the time, despite the fact that
> this sort of thing is a very *good* typographic device.
In what way?
> That just says
> that gamers are freaks who don't understand or appreciate good
> typography.
Or that layout artists are self absorbed freaks who don't
care about actual use and readability so long as their
aesthetic standards are superior to those of us mere mortals.
Really, if it's so bloody good, why aren't
newpapers and novels using it?
I see it mainly in game manuals (computer and RPG)
and in glossy style over substance magazines.
Brandon Blackmoor
news:slrnav7m55...@concentric.net...
>
> I hear gamers make this complaint all the time, despite the fact that
It's like anything else: it can be well done or poorly done. I happen to
think that the borders in the PHB and DMG are both well done.
I don't care for the watermark-style horizontal lines, on the other hand.
Potayto, potahto.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2002-12-08
Sorcier
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> The auto industry doesn't give you a rebate just for owning an older
> >> car. If you give them your older car, they give you a trade-in
> >> discount based on its depreciated value.
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> > Sorry, I thought that was implied.
>
> Somebody suggested a trade-in for old books, but that's insane, because:
But are you retracting your "no industry" nonsense?
> >> [The baseless whining in this thread is] understandable baseless
> >> whining, I'll admit, but it isn't justified when you look at the
> >> actual costs and times involved.
>
> > IYO.
>
> If your opinion disagrees, then I'll happily accuse you of wanting
> something for nothing,
Then you'd be baseless.
I've never asked for such.
(OK, I asked that the new rules be available on the web site.
But I asked that as an option.
Not as a demand.)
OTOH, I suppose you would never accept anything
that doesn't cost you. ;)
OK, so, such an accusation wouldn't be baseless.
I do want everything I want for nothing.
Who wouldn't?
I don't, however, expect it.
Sorcier
>
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnav7m55...@concentric.net...
> >
> > I hear gamers make this complaint all the time, despite the fact that
> > [a border] is a very *good* typographic device.
>
> It's like anything else: it can be well done or poorly done. I happen to
> think that the borders in the PHB and DMG are both well done.
They are a rather less egregrious example than some I've seen.
> I don't care for the watermark-style horizontal lines, on the other hand.
Agreed.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Somebody suggested a trade-in for old books, but that's insane ....
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> But are you retracting your "no industry" nonsense?
Fine. It just occurred to me that the software industry also gives
upgrade rebates, even without a trade-in. It still isn't something you
should expect in the entertainment industry, and it still isn't
something you should expect with a published book.
>>>> [The baseless whining in this thread is] understandable baseless
>>>> whining, I'll admit, but it isn't justified when you look at the
>>>> actual costs and times involved.
>>> IYO.
>> If your opinion disagrees, then I'll happily accuse you of wanting
>> something for nothing,
> Then you'd be baseless. I've never asked for such.
That's why I said "if." Would you please learn to read more carefully?
Twice now, you've accused me of illogic because *you* misread what I
wrote.
Anyway, if you aren't asking for it, then what's the point of the "In
Your Opinion"? Anybody who does want an upgrade rebate, or who thinks
Wizards is cheating their customers, is living in a fantasy world. Their
opinion isn't worth serious consideration.
> OTOH, I suppose you would never accept anything that doesn't cost you.
> ;)
Heck, I'd be pleased if they did offer revised rulebooks for free to
current owners. As usual, you're missing the point. The people who
*expect* it to be cheap or free, who bitch that it isn't, are still
unrealistic whiners.
> OK, so, such an accusation wouldn't be baseless. I do want everything
> I want for nothing. Who wouldn't? I don't, however, expect it.
However, several other posters *do* expect something for nothing, or
they wouldn't accuse Wizards of cheating their customers.
Just a bit of advice: You can add "stupid Devil's Advocate arguments" to
"pointless semantic arguments" on the list of annoying posting habits
you practice. While you often have interesting things to say, it really
isn't worth digging through the garbage to get to them.
Sir Bob
news:o2n7vug2fgirjsb7s...@4ax.com...
> On 08 Dec 2002 23:37:12 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> >> I also hate these ornate borders everyone uses these days. Feels like
> >> we're getting less content (even when we aren't) and looks
> >> claustrophobic and cramped.
> >
> >I hear gamers make this complaint all the time, despite the fact that
> >this sort of thing is a very *good* typographic device. That just says
> >that gamers are freaks who don't understand or appreciate good
> >typography.
>
> In what way good? What function do thay serve, except to clutter up
> the page?
<snip>
*Properly* done, stylized borders employ a combination of color coding and
pattern recognition to aid in identifying the content of any given page. If
it's done right, I could show you a random page from a random book and you'd
immediately be able to tell me which section of which book it's from without
actually reading any of the text. If it's done *really* well, you can even
tell how that page relates to other portions of the same and related books -
for example, using similar (but easily distiguishable) colors or geometric
patterns to to identify related material in different sections.
Poorly done (usually by graphic designers who think it "looks kewl" without
understanding its purpose), it just makes the fluids of your eyeballs
sizzle. ;)
- Sir Bob.
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >
> > August 2000 to June 2003 is three years, not two.
>
> When did the last 3e core book first come out?
> I don't think it was August.
> You round up, he rounds down.
> Big deal.
October. 32 months vs. 36. It's still much closer to 3 years.
--
E. D. Brooks | kalima...@attbi.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Why, in my day, we used to fight the Lord of
Terror with nothing but a sharp stick!" -- www.reallifecomics.com
Bradd W. Szonye
>> So? You don't need to convert all of that stuff to get a playable
>> adventure. If you insist on converting it all to D&D3-book-legal stats,
>> that's your option, but don't complain too loudly about the work,
>> because you're really just making unnecessary work for yourself.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> Work my players will appreciate.
Honestly, I doubt that they'd even notice.
>> You *don't need* to update this stuff to get a playable adventure.
> Sure, but the playability and quality of the conversion increase if I
> do.
I doubt it will improve things enough to make it worth the effort. Most
likely, you'll be the only person to even notice the changes.
>>> The change from 3e.0 to 3e.X will be smaller but I'll still need to
>>> adjust saves and class abilities at minimum.
>> 1. Do you have an advance copy of the new books that we don't?
> Why, you think the changes will be greater? Or you don't believe the
> comjecture that saves will be rebalanced? Or the statement that
> classes will?
I don't know. That's why I don't say things like "I'll need to adjust
saves ...." Why do you assume that you'll need to adjust them?
>> 2. No, you don't need to make those adjustments.
> In the sense that I _need_ to breathe, no, you're right, I don't. If I
> want my games to be up to current standard I will.
Why do you want that, though? Unless the revisions are radical, the only
reason to do that is a compulsive need to have book-legal NPCs. The
players aren't likely to notice the difference. Note that I personally
subscribe to the "keep NPCs book-legal" camp, but even I would not go
this far.
>> Do the characters work OK already?
> Yup.
>> In that case, you don't need to change anything. Just make a note
>> that your "legacy" NPCs use variant classes (relative to the revised
>> version), and keep using the D&D3.0 versions. Unless the revisions
>> change the game balance *radically*, that should be sufficient.
> That's awkward. Especially as the players would be in the right were
> they to say things like "How come the old Ranger gets that ability but
> my new one doesn't? That's hardly fair."
How do they know that it's a ranger in the first place, and not some
prestige class? Again, you're assuming that the changes will be radical
enough for the players to notice the difference, enough that they'll
care.
>> If you feel like it, update NPCs at your leisure, when it would make
>> an important difference to the game.
> Basically what I would be doing. I'd update the ones I expect to be
> "on-screen" as they come up. The others can gather dust until needed.
How often do you use recurring NPCs where the change in stats would
actually be noticeable? Heck, if the NPCs have leveled up since their
last appearance, then you're going to need to revise the character
anyway. I think you're vastly overestimating the amount of work
involved. And don't forget that it's work you don't really need to do in
the first place.
>> Also, note that you certainly don't need to go back and convert every
>> adventure you've ever played or every NPC you've ever used, unless you
>> plan on publishing them. You're *still* jumping at shadows.
> Appearently you are now. I made no such claim. I claimed I need to
> alter the ones I'm going to use.
You made it sound like a lot of work, enough to be a hassle. If that's
not what you intended to reply, then what was your point, anyway? Are
you just playing a pointless devil's advocate game again?
If you did intend to imply that it's a lot of work, well, how many NPCs
do you need to convert, anyway? How many NPCs do you have, already
written up, that will cause problems in the future if you don't revise
them? I use a *lot* of recurring foes, and even so it would take me
enough time just to level them up (to reflect the passage of time) that
any revisions would be a little noise compared to the rest of the work.
>>> Kinda odd that you use a "substitute the new monster" line to
>>> dismiss changes to classes.
>> It's a perfectly good analogy, because in both cases, the stats have
>> changed but the relative balance has stayed about the same.
> That's thrown out with your "Legacy characters mixing with New
> characters" bit.
No, it's not, for the reasons I give above. You're crying, "It's unfair
to the players!" when (1) you don't know whether it actually would be
unfair to the players, and (2) you don't know whether they would even
*notice*.
>> (Again, this assumes that they don't make radical changes to the
>> classes.) In this case, updating the characters probably isn't
>> necessary at all, so you don't even need to do "substitute by name."
>> Just make a note that it uses older rules.
> And thus is possibly unbalanced against the rebalanced set.
So what?! PC vs NPC balance is only ever approximate to begin with. Your
complaint boils down to bitching that somebody said that pi is 3.14159
instead of 3.1415926.
> I plan to use the old stuff with book legal stats. You might find it
> excessive. But I find that level of consistancy helps reinforce the
> setting.
Fiddly game mechanics are that important to reinforce the setting?
Again, you're basically just bitching about your own foibles, not
Wizards's business practices or the viability of the revision. While
your personal quirks may be a real problem for you, it's a bad reason to
keep defending the whiners in this thread. Heck, I'll go farther than
that: It makes you a whiner, just as bad as they are.
>> Why even bother with converting them? You only need to crunch stats
>> if you insist on converting, which just won't be necessary (unless
>> Wizards has decided to screw its customers and the third-party D20
>> market). Don't convert, just make a note. Otherwise, you're just
>> making more work for yourself, bitching about the extra work, and
>> blaming Wizards for your own bad choice.
> Consistancy and fairness are bad choices now?
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. The changes are
extremely unlikely to result in significant consistency or fairness
problems, as discussed above.
You're very close to a fallacy here, defending your complaint by
referring to well-respected principles while sweeping the actual problem
under the rug: Your standards are too high. You're fooling yourself,
just like the other whiners are.