Like the title says. Discuss.
Note: I'm talking WotC products only. I know that most 3rd party d20 stuff (especially at the beginning) was unexceptional to say the least.

Quote from: dsivisLike the title says. Discuss.
Note: I'm talking WotC products only. I know that most 3rd party d20 stuff (especially at the beginning) was unexceptional to say the least.

:rolleyes:

You and JArcane should get married. Let's get this straight: many third party products rocked the house.

Anyways, snarky problem statement definition aside, for me, my interest in the D&D product line jumped the shark with Eberron. Which is not to say I think Eberron is bad, but it never thrilled me, and would portend a widening array of products that weren't bad but didn't thrill me.

If you want to know where the quality plummet happened, which is probably more what you are looking at, that might be a bit harder to narrow down. There are a few books I really didn't like but don't necessarily think they were Fonzie revving up the motorcycle.

 I'd say the last book I bought that I thought was really useful after which I came to regret my purchases was Stormwrack. So what was published right after that. (Jumps over to WotC site)

Weapons of Legacy!

Reflecting on that, I'll call that a palpable hit. Gimmicky mechanics sort of showing that they are running out of steam, and they keep on trying to reference it in subsequent books, dragging those books down too. Yeah. Weapons of Legacy.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadReflecting on that, I'll call that a palpable hit. Gimmicky mechanics sort of showing that they are running out of steam, and they keep on trying to reference it in subsequent books, dragging those books down too. Yeah. Weapons of Legacy.

Yes, books like Weapons of Legacy and keeping the "Complete" books going after 4, showing that the first batch wasn't so "Complete" after all.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I've plenty of 3rd-party books, I'm just unreasonably cynical at times.

And to be honest, I asked this question because I was tired of not knowing how a lot of people felt about 3.5 - I was especially curious about those posters on this site (:pundit:, etc) who pulled a Jekyll and Hyde at some point regarding D&D.

...maybe a wanted to start something too.

Oh, and Ceasar, I think I agree with you on Weapons of Legacy.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadLet's get this straight: many third party products rocked the house.

That's definitely true. But I think when you look at d20 publishers as a whole and not mainly the prominient ones, there are more bad products than good.

Seanchai

Quote from: dsivisLike the title says. Discuss.
Note: I'm talking WotC products only. I know that most 3rd party d20 stuff (especially at the beginning) was unexceptional to say the least.

Sorry to say... but I thought D&D jumped the shark with E2.   E1, as far as I was concerned, had everything I needed to expand on and create my own homebrew rules and setting, which I've used happily ever after.   E2 was already way over-complicated for what I wanted, and my impression was that it was only going to get more and more complicated with each edition, and so I never wanted to go there to begin with.   I like a streamlined simple system that lets me do a lot with a little, personally.   But of course, I blame the business model of TSR... they needed more rules so they could sell more books.  Simple to understand, but I never cared for the results.

D&D 3.x jumped the shark with Bo9S. Nothing they've done since that has been as important, interesting, controversial or game-changing. There have been a few bright spots - Complete Mage was very good; Forge of War and the Complete History of the Realms were very useful. Since Bo9S though, we've mostly been getting lesser works.

Quote from: VBWyrdeSorry to say... but I thought D&D jumped the shark with E2.   E1, as far as I was concerned, had everything I needed to expand on and create my own homebrew rules and setting, which I've used happily ever after.   E2 was already way over-complicated for what I wanted, and my impression was that it was only going to get more and more complicated with each edition, and so I never wanted to go there to begin with.   I like a streamlined simple system that lets me do a lot with a little, personally.   But of course, I blame the business model of TSR... they needed more rules so they could sell more books.  Simple to understand, but I never cared for the results.

Hold up - 2nd edition more complicated than 1st? How? There's no weapon speed vs. AC types tables, it's arranged much more neatly, the rules are almost exactly the same except for weapon and nonweapon proficiencies and the utterly ignorable specialist clerics and spellcasters...

Quote from: WarthurHold up - 2nd edition more complicated than 1st? How? There's no weapon speed vs. AC types tables, it's arranged much more neatly, the rules are almost exactly the same except for weapon and nonweapon proficiencies and the utterly ignorable specialist clerics and spellcasters...

You'll note that what I said was "E1, as far as I was concerned, had everything I needed to expand on and create my own homebrew rules and setting, which I've used happily ever after."

What I meant was not that E1 was in and of itself the best version, and if some things in E2 were streamlined so much the better - but when I got the first three little booklets of E1 I found those rules to be sufficient for me to work off of to create my own homebrew rules.   What I did was ironed out those things that I found overly complicated in E1 and simplfied them for my own purposes.   E2 struck me as more complicated than my revised version of E1, so I never bothered with it.   I simply never felt the need to.   I was, and remain, happy with my system as it is.   So it would be fair to say that I never really gave E2 much of a chance.   I scanned the rules book, and my reaction was... "Yup, getting more complicated by the version".  Overall I think that was pretty much the case, though I have to admit I perhaps I made that judgement in haste and without all due dilligence.   But again, being in a group of GMs who were determined to create our own rules and worlds, it was not part of my social setting to get into E2.   Now, though, maybe it would be educational to go back and give it a thorough vetting.  I may just be surprised at what I find.

AD&D2 Jumped the shark..

...and then D&D3 jumped back. If you didn't jump back, you missed out, big time.


I pretty much love all of D&D3 and 3.5, especially the monster books. I have to agree that Eberron is troublesome and unD&Dlike. I didn't feel like I "got" Eberron until a lot later in the cycle, after I had read the opening trilogy and sort of understood the "great war" and all the rest.

I have to say there are certain books that I would not have bought, but I got for free because I was doing RPGA judging (We sometimes get "paid" in free stuff). Some of those I am quite fond of, but I'm still not sure I would have bought for myself.

Of those I would say Complete Scoundrel and Races of the Dragon are pretty good examples. I kinda like both of them, not sure if they are worth paying a lot of money for, though.

Wow.. I had forgotten about weapons of legacy to be perfectly honest.

God... is that where the gimmicky alternate rules subsets started? IIRC, Magic of Incarnium, Tome of Battle, and Tome of Magic all fall under a similar category. UA doesn't 'cause it's chock full of... you know... actually useful actually variant rules, rather than mechanically wonky player options. Oh, and psionics might be considered a similar thing, but I happen to be partial to them anyway.

There a few other kind of sucky trends. Any completes after the fourth, for example. Actually... complete mage did have some useful alternate class features and "reserve" feats, but I wish those things could have just been included in Complete Arcane. Races managed to do okay with races of Eberron, but Races of the Dragon? C'mon, man! And then Dragon Magic? Ugh.

Well, I liked Races of the Dragon quite a bit, even the gay Spellscales. (Well, I loved the gay spellscales, actually).

The actual "bad" (or at least questionable) products in D&D3 were all quite early: The Hero Builders Guide, Tome and Blood, etc. Good ideas, but bad execution.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineD&D 3.x jumped the shark with Bo9S. Nothing they've done since that has been as important, interesting, controversial or game-changing. There have been a few bright spots - Complete Mage was very good; Forge of War and the Complete History of the Realms were very useful. Since Bo9S though, we've mostly been getting lesser works.

Like when walker and I agree, when Pseudo and I agree on something, another sign of the Apocalypse is set in stone. Beware!

ToB:Bo9S was the point, for me, at which the game...began to change. While I don't know if I'd use the term "jumped the shark" for a general review of the contents as it's approach might be hugely popular (see previous discussions on this particular book and it's influence on 4e) - but for me I could see something fundamental changing with that release.

I think it was a "shark jump" because nothing they've done since has been as interesting. Whether you liked Bo9S or not, it was the last major D&D release. Everyone _had_ to take a position on it and how they would or wouldn't use it in their games.

Contrast:

1st Complete X series, PHBII, Bo9S; Dragon Magic, 2nd Complete X series, Dungeonscape.

I think it's pretty clear which is the more interesting and important series of D&D supplements that can really be claimed to define the line outside of the core, and which is a bunch of epigonoi.

Pretty much before second edition came out.

But specific to the 3e stuff, when the designers decided they wanted to separate feats, class abilities, and skills and keep the armour and damage mechanics.