InShambles
First Post
JoeGKushner said:
Well what do we really know about the revisions? Nothing.
Dungeons & Dragons 2003 Core Rulebook Revisions FAQ
- Thread starter thalmin
- Start date
Well what do we really know about the revisions? Nothing.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
I agree. Outside of the FAQ and some other bits that have come here and there, nothing hence we really don't need another thread for people to start the pros and cons again.
If they stick to this statement,
"it is important to note that the revisions included in each rulebooks will be fully compatible with existing backlist products."
then I am all in favor of revised core rule books. Obsoletion of the many hundreds of dollars worth of WotC and D20 product is really my only fear. (Well, that, and eliminating as much errata as possible from the revised books. They should dramatically increase the time and resources in the editing phase of these books, compared to the standard process)
But it should be possible to institute balancing changes and maintain the complete compatability with older products without too much of a problem.
Let's say, for example, that they modifty the ranger to relieve it of its two-weapon fighting niche. They could allow the new ranger to choose any two virtual feats from a short list that includes ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting (and maybe the bow feats, endurance and run, etc). Beef up the spell list to give it a little more punch, and you have a revised class that is more balanced, has more flavor, but is completely backwards compatible to other products. (ie, all rangers in older products simply chose ambi/2 weapon ftng, and prepared only the spells from the older list)
There is already some precedent for doing this. Green Ronin's excellent "Book of the Righteous" has a Holy Warrior core class that is a deconstructed paladin. Choosing two specific 'domains' will give you the PHB paladin. Choosing different ones will give you a balanced combatant with slightly different abilities.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
"it is important to note that the revisions included in each rulebooks will be fully compatible with existing backlist products."
then I am all in favor of revised core rule books. Obsoletion of the many hundreds of dollars worth of WotC and D20 product is really my only fear. (Well, that, and eliminating as much errata as possible from the revised books. They should dramatically increase the time and resources in the editing phase of these books, compared to the standard process)
But it should be possible to institute balancing changes and maintain the complete compatability with older products without too much of a problem.
Let's say, for example, that they modifty the ranger to relieve it of its two-weapon fighting niche. They could allow the new ranger to choose any two virtual feats from a short list that includes ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting (and maybe the bow feats, endurance and run, etc). Beef up the spell list to give it a little more punch, and you have a revised class that is more balanced, has more flavor, but is completely backwards compatible to other products. (ie, all rangers in older products simply chose ambi/2 weapon ftng, and prepared only the spells from the older list)
There is already some precedent for doing this. Green Ronin's excellent "Book of the Righteous" has a Holy Warrior core class that is a deconstructed paladin. Choosing two specific 'domains' will give you the PHB paladin. Choosing different ones will give you a balanced combatant with slightly different abilities.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
InShambles
First Post
psionotic said:
That is a good idea. Essentally the pre-revision Ranger PCs took a set of class defaults while the post-revision PCs got to choose. Much like an PH Monk vs. a OA Monk.
Sanackranib
First Post
new revision
really the best thing we all can do is to adopt a wait and see aditude. How many of you were ready to jump on the 3e welcome wagon when it first came out. (I know I wasn't) but now that it has been out a while I've come arround. and I think it really is bettter then 2e. perhaps these "revisions will be too"
really the best thing we all can do is to adopt a wait and see aditude. How many of you were ready to jump on the 3e welcome wagon when it first came out. (I know I wasn't) but now that it has been out a while I've come arround. and I think it really is bettter then 2e. perhaps these "revisions will be too"
Similar Threads
