Is 3.5 a new "edition" of the game?

[Destil]

Hopefully everyone who's responded with a 'yes' or 'no' will be kind enugh to list all the changes for thoes of us who havn't seen anything beyond little smidges of info thus far...

 

[Maggan]

Sources, please?

I've heard that I might have to do conversions for many of my 3e books for them to work with 3.5e.

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]

Hopefully everyone who's responded with a 'yes' or 'no' will be kind enugh to list all the changes for thoes of us who havn't seen anything beyond little smidges of info thus far...

Sorry... I could tell you, but then you would have to get out your dsixes.

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!

 

[KDLadage]

Voted: OTHER

Even with all of the things that have been released, it is IMPOSSIBLE (in my estimation) to judge just what 3.5 is and is not.

 

[jmucchiello]

Hopefully everyone who's responded with a 'yes' or 'no' will be kind enugh to list all the changes for thoes of us who havn't seen anything beyond little smidges of info thus far...

Right. I voted other, meaning, ask me again in August.

 

[Chauzu]

Nope, it's obviously a clean-up.

 

[coyote6]

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.

 

[jgbrowning]

Curious:

All you who say this is not a "new edition", would you have classified AD&D2 a "new edition" of AD&D1? The core mechanics were pretty much the same. The only heavy modification was the addition of a skill system.

And if you have to use the word "conversion" to describe updating a character or campaign to a revision. . . .

Shouldn't a "revision" entail merely adopting some new/clarified wording for spells effects or mechanic descriptions?

Quasqueton

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.

 

[Umbran]

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

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.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: Is 3.5 a new "edition" of the game?

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.

Heh, i like that. 3.5 Spaghetti version..... nice ring....


joe b.