Is 3.5 a new "edition" of the game?

[Quasqueton]

Is the coming "3.5 revision" actually a new edition?

Early word about the revision was that the new books would be updated with errata corrections, better explanations of certain mechanics, and a system-wide consistancy check. Certain broken aspects would be fixed, some tweaks would be made to make sense and balance among the classes. Many people saw this revision as being more in line with a name like "3.1".

Now, though, it seems the revision will be more than that. Some mechanics will be changed/altered/added, and some creatures are obviously being powered up. WotC is officially calling this "3.5".

Look at the changes from AD&D1 to AD&D2. That was considered a new edition of the game. Is 3.5 compared to 3.0 similar to 2 compared to 1?

So, from what we've seen so far, is 3.5 really going to be a new edition of D&D? More than was billed a month ago?

Quasqueton

 

[EricNoah]

I don't think it will have enough changes to be a new edition. Enough changes to maybe throw us for a loop the first or second time we encounter a revised rule, enough changes that using 3.0 e-Tools or PC Gen might not create particularly accurate characters, but not so new that you are really learning or playing a different game (as the 2e to 3e change was, in my opinion).

 

[shadow]

I think that 3.5 edition is really a 4th edition. When you look at the differences between 1st and 2nd edition, the differences were fairly minor. 3.5 Edition is going to change the system, the ranger is going to be overhauled, most of the spells will be revised. So what if the core d20 mechanics are the same, 1st and 2nd edition had the same mechanics for most situations. I've heard that I might have to do conversions for many of my 3e books for them to work with 3.5e. I think 3.5 will really be a new edition.

 

[Drawmack]

Well I don't think it will be a new edition. The main reson is, as simplistic as this sounds, WotC isn't calling it a new edition. This means that if I run around calling it edition 4 I am wrong. Though they are giving a nod to those who feel that way by giving it a different name (3.5 e). Though is still starts with a 3 and it's not 4.0.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I also feel that 3.5 is a new edition. Yes it is still d20 and easy to learn, just as d20 modern, WoT, Star Wars, CoC, but you woud not say that these are the same as D&D 3.0 just that they are using the same base mechanic. What realy makes me say this is a new edition is the amount of old 3E materials that will no longer be usable without conversion. The Changes to DR, Monster Stats, Spell lists, and Base Classes means that anything with monsters, PrCs, NPCs and magic and mundain items will need to be converted. Sure you can continue to use the old rules in your campaign, but just try that with the RPGA. In order to use these resources conversions will have to be made either by us or by WotC. If we do it it won't be official and won't be able to be used in the RPGA. This leaves WotC to do it in 1 of 2 ways. They can release errata for all thier old products but then you are left with even more errata than you had before the new edition (Something they claimed the revised versions would help eliminate) or they can release "revised" 3.5 versioms of everything else. Sure you are happy to purchase the new PHB, DMG, and MM now but will you feel the same way when they release "revised" copies of the splatbooks, FR materials, MMII, Fiend Folio, MotP, and PsyHB in order to deal with the amount of errata these will now have. If the old material isn't usable officially and new "Revised" versions of them become neccesasy to play by the official rules then it is a new version.

 

[Christian]

Neither. D&D 3.5 doesn't exist yet, so it is neither a revision nor a clarification.

It really doesn't look like there will be enough changes to core mechanics to warrant a 'new edition' title. But there's no way to tell for sure until the books come out ...

 

[WizarDru]

Simply a revision and some patches to the rules. Even the DR changes are not so radical as to be beyond the pale. As EN mentioned, most of the core mechanics are exactly the same, and most of those will only require a quick examination to determine what might be different.

Considering how I have to stop EVERY GAME to review some rules option, I don't see how this has changed much. Example: last Friday night, I had to make a ruling on Time Stop, and the vague wording in the PHB. Last Friday was also the first time that my party and I had encountered the effect of Severe winds on flying characters and medium or smaller creatures.

Given that, I expect this will be just like when 3E was announced and when it was brand new, and it will be just like when Sword & Fist came out, and Tome & Blood, and The Psionics Handbook, and the Epic Level Handbook and the Book of Vile Darkness. Been there, heard that. Two months after they hit the shelves, only the truly embittered will even remember why they were so dead-set against it.

 

[the Jester]

I think 3.5 is designated just about right. It isn't a new edition, but it's stretching into ideas that will be incorporated into 4e (not for six years, let's pray).

I'd say it's more akin to Unearthed Arcana than to second edition. But UA wasn't exactly a cleanup...

 

[diaglo]

i don't see it as a new edition.

i also don't see it as a be all end all for this edition in the consolidation or revision department.

i do see it as a step towards 4ed.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Its a patch, it addresses issues and concerns of the gamers while keeping the core the same.