D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3.5 available Print on Demand.

[Orius]

Well, Magic Item Compendium came out after the DMG, so it may have been responding to that. I'm not going to examine that table closely right now, but maybe something was taken from a supplement like Tome & Blood with properly adjusting it for 3.5.

That book is really emblematic at how I feel about 3.5 -- I don't like what it does for the most part, but there's just enough that's valuable enough to not throw it out. I don't like how it reorganizes items, I don't like the "let players get whatever they want" approach, I don't like how cheap some of those items are, but it's still a useful reference overall and I think the attempt to rework treasure awards is at least sound in principle, but I still need to redo the whole damn system so it works the way I want.

 

[Alzrius]

That book is really emblematic at how I feel about 3.5 -- I don't like what it does for the most part, but there's just enough that's valuable enough to not throw it out.

I liked a lot of what was in the MIC, and I agreed with a lot (though not all) of the decisions that it made (and the design articles on WotC's website were very insightful; it's where we got the now-ubiquitous term "Big Six"), but the fact that it needed over six pages of errata didn't help. Worse was how the 2013 premium reprint was advertised as incorporating the errata, when in fact it did no such thing.

 

[CleverNickName]

Keeping my fingers crossed for the Basic, Expert, Companion, and Masters books next!

 

[GreyLord]

I do wish they’d publish the 3.0 core books. Even if for historical reasons alone. Or reference. I’d like to have them in PDF.

Not as big a thing to do for them I think.

It probably is seen as redundant. This is why the Revised versions of 2e are the only ones in print and not the original version (the original printings with the man on horse PHB, the wizard casting spells DMG, and the original Monstrous Compendium).

The same would apply to the 1e printings, though that also has to do with ease of copy and creating it from the originals (reprints were already in the system, originals would need to be scanned in).

The other reason is that the revised and anniversary reprints (2e and 1e respectively) of those editions are seen as the final revision of them. To many, 3.5e was a revision of 3e, and the final revisions (or what is utilized as the most recent final revision) are what is probably being used for the PoD versions.

Just some thoughts on the matter.

AS far as BECMI and BX, they are already available on DMsguild from what I can see. They just are not available for PoD (yet). The Rules Cyclopedia IS available for Pod though, both in softcover and Hardcover.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Shame it's 3.5 though, the 3.5 DMG is organized more poorly than the 3.0 DMG IMO. I don't like how they chopped up some of the sections and scattered them around.

The 3.5 DMG also removed the sidebar on making multiclass 1st level characters, which always made me sad.

I really don't like the a la carte leveling system of WotC era D&D, mostly because it means no 1st level character can be multiclassed. That sidebar was the last attempt they made to accommodate the idea, and I was not happy to see it go.

 

[Orius]

Not as big a thing to do for them I think.

It probably is seen as redundant. This is why the Revised versions of 2e are the only ones in print and not the original version (the original printings with the man on horse PHB, the wizard casting spells DMG, and the original Monstrous Compendium).

The 1995 editions weren't significantly different from the 1989 ones. Mostly they just corrected errors and had a new layout. TSR went out of their way to say they were just redesigned rather than a third edition at the time because some people thought it was a new edition. These were the books that were in print at the time WotC bought TSR, so it was probably easier for WotC to reprint those. Both 1e and 2e had new covers for the core books later in the edition, but they were not new books to the extent the 3.5 books were.

 

[Voadam]

I really wish the 2e books were the original and not revised. I much preferred most of the original art and I am never sure if there are any subtle differences between the original books (which I had in hardcopy and used and so my memories are from there) and the revised PDFs I have.

I also wish they would put out the 3.0 core book PDFs. Unlike 2e original and revised, 3.0 to 3.5 had significant mechanical differences. Mostly when I want to look something up to compare 3.0 to 3.5 differences I pull up the 3.0 srd, but PDFs would be nice.

 

[Orius]

They're supposed to be more or less the same except for little things like errata, and the 1995 printings no longer steer new players to the classic D&D game. But that's about it. But I got my PHB in 1994 and my DMG in 1995, so I'm used to mismatched books.

And as it is the 2e DMG, it doesn't get used much anyway....

 

[GreyLord]

They're supposed to be more or less the same except for little things like errata, and the 1995 printings no longer steer new players to the classic D&D game. But that's about it. But I got my PHB in 1994 and my DMG in 1995, so I'm used to mismatched books.

And as it is the 2e DMG, it doesn't get used much anyway....

Ouch.

We used and abused the Class making rules.

 

[Orius]

No really. I seldom use anything outside the magical item appendices.