Is 3.5 a new "edition" of the game?
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
Sources, please?
This is something I read every so often in these 3.5 threads.
I would like a source for this information. Did you hear it from Andy Collins? Or maybe Anthony Walterra? Or maybe someone att WotC?
No?
Funny, because I figured they'd be the ones to know about those kind of things?
Oh, you read it in one of the 3.5-threads? I see... did Andy Collins post that information? Or mr Walterra? Did actually anyone from WotC post that information?
No?
Strange then, that this "fact" keeps resurfacing again and again.
In fact, the only word so far from the people doing the revision is "[There are] no plans to republish older products, and in fact, should not need to. Some tweaks will be necessary to use the Builder Books and other older products, but nothing fundamental."
Quote from ENWorld report on front page.
So, I'm curios as to who is saying that many or all of the old books have to be revised, or even scrapped (as some has alluded to), and what inside information they have that they aren't sharing with the rest of us!
And why we should actually belive what they are saying, rather than believing the ones that are doing the revision.
Cheers
Maggan
This is something I read every so often in these 3.5 threads.
I would like a source for this information. Did you hear it from Andy Collins? Or maybe Anthony Walterra? Or maybe someone att WotC?
No?
Funny, because I figured they'd be the ones to know about those kind of things?
Oh, you read it in one of the 3.5-threads? I see... did Andy Collins post that information? Or mr Walterra? Did actually anyone from WotC post that information?
No?
Strange then, that this "fact" keeps resurfacing again and again.
In fact, the only word so far from the people doing the revision is "[There are] no plans to republish older products, and in fact, should not need to. Some tweaks will be necessary to use the Builder Books and other older products, but nothing fundamental."
Quote from ENWorld report on front page.
So, I'm curios as to who is saying that many or all of the old books have to be revised, or even scrapped (as some has alluded to), and what inside information they have that they aren't sharing with the rest of us!
And why we should actually belive what they are saying, rather than believing the ones that are doing the revision.
Cheers
Maggan
Left-handed Hummingbird
First Post
Sorry... I could tell you, but then you would have to get out your dsixes.Destil said:
Oh lighten up! Eric Noah would never have been able to create this community if nobody was allowed to discuss the rumors and what the changes would be before they were published. Ah! This is like the good old days!
jmucchiello
Hero
Right. I voted other, meaning, ask me again in August.Destil said:
coyote6
Adventurer
I'm with KD -- Insufficient Data, Ask Again in Six Months.
Even then, I doubt you'll get a lot of consensus. Or there'll be vocal dissenters, at least.
If I were forced (by evil three legged cats armed with Discombobulator Guns, say) to try to judge or predict from what's been revealed so far, I'd say it sounds like a revision -- for everything except possibly the monsters. With all the changes to types, amounts of skills, number of feats, etc. (nevermind changes to individual monsters, like the "more everything" pit fiend), it seems like it could be a fairly hefty set of changes. No single change seems very big, but as a whole, the cumulative set might be large.
What really bugs me is the number of 3e monsters that aren't going to be in the revised MM or the revised SRD. ToH, MM2, BoVD, Monsters of Faerun, Green Ronin's fiend books, Monsternomicon, Eden & Atlas's bestiaries, etc., plus the odd beasts thrown in other books. That's a quite a lot of monsters for me to change (or try to ignore the nagging "Hey, the MM equivalent is so very different" thoughts; though with things like there not being a Shapeshifter or Beast type any more, it seems like there are some changes that would be very difficult to ignore); or it's a lot of product for me to buy again; or it's a lot of work for several publishers to do to make revisions available to their customers (publishers with less resources than WotC, which thus means less chance of free revisions).
But that's all pure guesswork. Thankfully, secret agents in the employ of the CIA stole the Discombobulator Gun from the buccaneer felines, so I'm safe.
Even then, I doubt you'll get a lot of consensus. Or there'll be vocal dissenters, at least.
If I were forced (by evil three legged cats armed with Discombobulator Guns, say) to try to judge or predict from what's been revealed so far, I'd say it sounds like a revision -- for everything except possibly the monsters. With all the changes to types, amounts of skills, number of feats, etc. (nevermind changes to individual monsters, like the "more everything" pit fiend), it seems like it could be a fairly hefty set of changes. No single change seems very big, but as a whole, the cumulative set might be large.
What really bugs me is the number of 3e monsters that aren't going to be in the revised MM or the revised SRD. ToH, MM2, BoVD, Monsters of Faerun, Green Ronin's fiend books, Monsternomicon, Eden & Atlas's bestiaries, etc., plus the odd beasts thrown in other books. That's a quite a lot of monsters for me to change (or try to ignore the nagging "Hey, the MM equivalent is so very different" thoughts; though with things like there not being a Shapeshifter or Beast type any more, it seems like there are some changes that would be very difficult to ignore); or it's a lot of product for me to buy again; or it's a lot of work for several publishers to do to make revisions available to their customers (publishers with less resources than WotC, which thus means less chance of free revisions).
But that's all pure guesswork. Thankfully, secret agents in the employ of the CIA stole the Discombobulator Gun from the buccaneer felines, so I'm safe.
jgbrowning
Hero
Quasqueton said:
My thoughts exactly. I think its a new edition. I think the differences between 1st and 2nd edition are of similiar scope to this new edition.
joe b.
Quasqueton said:
Semantics. It is what it is (or, more correctly, it will be what it will be). Whether it is call a "revision" or an "edition" is a matter for marketing.
Why should we care if it technically constitutes a new edition or not? If it's not particularly difficult to use the material published for 3E with the new books, they can call it a "revision" an "edition" or "spaghetti", if it makes 'em feel better.
Last edited:
jgbrowning
Hero
Re: Re: Is 3.5 a new "edition" of the game?
Heh, i like that. 3.5 Spaghetti version..... nice ring....
joe b.
Umbran said:
Heh, i like that. 3.5 Spaghetti version..... nice ring....
joe b.
Similar Threads
