Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ripzerai" data-source="post: 2828358" data-attributes="member: 38324">Actually, it is less detail. Throughout much of the MotP, DMG, monster books, and Planar Handbook, it's the same material, only summarized. This is obvious if you look at them side by side.It's not more &quot;generic,&quot; just briefer. It's not like they only took out &quot;setting-specific&quot; portions - in fact, much of the setting specific stuff, like the factions and Sigil, were left in. They just spend less time on them. And that's only because they spend less time on everything.Yes, changes have been made. 1e and 2e said there were 18 inner planes and 3e says there are only 6, and the 18 number isn't &quot;canon.&quot; Neither, however, is the number 6. That's just the example cosmology, after all; D&amp;D no longer has a &quot;canonical&quot; cosmological system.But what does &quot;canon&quot; even mean anymore? Nothing in the 3rd edition Manual of the Planes is &quot;canon&quot; - it's just a book of suggestions. Nothing in Complete Psion, Magic of Incarnum, or Tome of Magic is &quot;canon&quot; either - they're optional books. Is anything canonical? Sure, settings like the Forgotten Realms or Eberron have fairly stable canons. D&amp;D in general does not. D&amp;D just keeps introducing new options you can accept or not accept as you will, depending on whether or not you buy the new books.So, to answer your question. No. Previous edition material isn't, barring specific campaign settings, &quot;canon.&quot; Neither is current edition material. Do previous editions have interesting material that's compatible with stuff from the current edition and can easily be used to enrich your 3.5 game? I think so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ripzerai, post: 2828358, member: 38324"] Actually, it is less detail. Throughout much of the MotP, DMG, monster books, and [i]Planar Handbook[/i], it's the same material, only summarized. This is obvious if you look at them side by side. It's not more "generic," just briefer. It's not like they only took out "setting-specific" portions - in fact, much of the setting specific stuff, like the factions and Sigil, were left in. They just spend less time on them. And that's only because they spend less time on [i]everything[/i]. Yes, changes have been made. 1e and 2e said there were 18 inner planes and 3e says there are only 6, and the 18 number isn't "canon." Neither, however, is the number 6. That's just the example cosmology, after all; D&D no longer has a "canonical" cosmological system. But what does "canon" even mean anymore? Nothing in the 3rd edition [i]Manual of the Planes[/i] is "canon" - it's just a book of suggestions. Nothing in [i]Complete Psion[/i], [i]Magic of Incarnum[/i], or [i]Tome of Magic[/i] is "canon" either - they're optional books. Is anything canonical? Sure, [i]settings[/i] like the Forgotten Realms or Eberron have fairly stable canons. D&D in general does not. D&D just keeps introducing new options you can accept or not accept as you will, depending on whether or not you buy the new books. So, to answer your question. No. Previous edition material isn't, barring specific campaign settings, "canon." Neither is current edition material. Do previous editions have interesting material that's compatible with stuff from the current edition and can easily be used to enrich your 3.5 game? I think so. [/QUOTE]

Verification