The 4e SRD

[Pheonix-IV]

Is it just me, or is the 4e SRD completely and totally useless?

Seriously, i went through it, and i think i'd be better off to just use my .pdf's, the SRD is totally worthless, even as a reference document. There's nothing at all on it.

[Sorontar]

Is it just me, or is the 4e SRD completely and totally useless?

Seriously, i went through it, and i think i'd be better off to just use my .pdf's, the SRD is totally worthless, even as a reference document. There's nothing at all on it.

Thats the way they want it methinks so that nothing can replace the core books. There was a heck of a lot of info that was allowed in the old SRD, WotC are tightening their belts.

[DNH]

I feel the same. I knew we were not going to be able to get the likes of www.d20srd.org but I had expected to be able to use it as an over-arching index of the core books, with page references and so on. But no. Now, if someone wants to take it and run with it ... ?!

I mean, pick a power, any power. Assume you only know the name of the power. Now find it in the PHB. Unless you know which class has that power, how are you going to find it? You can't.

[Pheonix-IV]

Exactly, it's totally useless even as a Reference Document, which is what it's supposed to be.

[Xorn]

Exactly, it's totally useless even as a Reference Document, which is what it's supposed to be.

I was pretty sure the SRD stated you could list, "Reaping Attack, Figher Attack 1", and so forth. The SRD facilitates writing 3PP content with the D&D logo on it, and not much else. I think that was the intent of the first one, wasn't it?

[Bumamgar]

The 4e SRD isn't supposed to be a rules document. It has a completely different purpose than the 3.5e SRD.

It's purpose is to act as a reference for 3rd party developers to know which terms from the 4e core rulebooks you can use, but not redefine, as well as a reference for displaying stat-blocks and layouts for defining races, powers, etc.

It's a design reference, not a rules reference.

[DNH]

It's a design reference, not a rules reference.

Ok, that's fine. But couldn't we have had then a few pages in the PHB with a page-referenced index of Powers (and Feats and Skills, while we're at it; although they are all in alphabetical order anyway)? I mean, in the 2e PHB we had an index of spells by level AND by School/Sphere. If the D&D devs are listening, how about a web enhancement to this effect?

[Bumamgar]

Based on what information is currently available, I believe that the D&D Insider feature, "D&D Compendium" will be exactly that.

From the D&DI FAQ:

D&D Compendium
---------------------
Every single D&D rules element (including all races, classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, skills, feats, powers, items, and rituals appearing in our printed books and in online magazine articles) is stored in a vast database that you can search online using the D&DI Compendium. Anyone can use this tool to search for D&D rules elements and locate them by sourcebook. Subscribers only gain full access to the rules text, as it appears in the printed book.

[Bidmaron]

What is so broken about 3.5 (or Pathfinder) that we just can't stay with it? I don't understand this mad rush to 4th ed. There was a clear reason to do it going to 3rd (the SRD, e.g.), but what is the compelling reason for 4, other than to stay with whatever WotC is pumping out?

[Griogre]

If 3.x works for you then stay with it. I, personally, will *never* run another high level 3.5 game. So not worth it for me - far too swingy, fiddly, and unbalanced. Far too much effort required to prepare my own stuff - even with computerized helper programs. On prep time alone as a DM I will never go back to 3.5.

[Bidmaron]

Well, with 4, you won't ever have any helper programs unless you use DDI, as I understand things. The effort to go in and manually input all the manuals into FG2 alone would seem to discourage the conversion. Guess I'll shut up so we don't make this an edition debate.

[Tenian]

I like to think my parsers make short work of converting the manuals. Definitely much shorter than typing them all in by hand. This is of course assuming you have PDFs of the rules to use as base material. It all depends on the level of detail you want.

I never played 3.5 and looking at it right now, there are just too many classes, source books, etc to consider it as a starting player. Not to mention there are numerous documented "infinite loop" flaws in 3.5. Using fewer books would help with this. The big draw of 4e (aside from the vaporish game table) was the fresh start.

[Bidmaron]

Tenian, I sure wish I could talk you into joining my 3.5 game I'll be starting in a couple of weeks. I own the 4 ed books, and I'm not saying I don't like it, just like I liked playing the 3.5 miniatures game occasionally. However, the more tactical focus I personally found just isn't the kind of game I'm interested in for the long term. 3.5 certainly isn't perfect, but it has enough sophistication that you rarely need to create a house rule. There is enough 3rd party material to cover almost anything you might want. That doesn't appear to be ever the case with 4 ed.
As for your parsers, I've not used them, but I downloaded them and they look excellent to shortcut the process.
Sorry I'm getting back to you so late, just got back from sea trials.
Anyway, God bless, and thanks for your service to the community.