Ravenloft 3.0 and Ravenloft 3.5 PHB/DMG... WTF?

[Herobizkit]

I am interested in adding some Ravenloft joy-joy-goodness to my campaign world, and I surfed eBay to see if I could find some good cheap swag. I remembered seeing the Ravenloft hardcover from Swords & Sorcery at my FLGS, and I thought "great! let's look for that". So off I went to eBay...

... and found that the hardcover version is 3.0, while those sneaky bastards at S&S have re-released a 3.5 version and then had the audacity to split it into two... a PHB and a DMG!

So my question is this:
Given that I use different aspects of 3.0 and 3.5 all helter-skelter (3.5 character classes, 3.5 psionics, 3.0 spells and magic items), and given that I am chiefly concerned with "fluff", is it in my best interest to

a) get the 3.0 hardcover
b) get the 3.5 DMG
c) get both the 3.5 DMG and 3.5 PHB
d) find some old AD&D2 stuff and cherrypick?

 

[Alzrius]

In all honesty, the RL DMG had almost nothing that was in the original 3.0 campaign book. The RL PHB, however, was a 3.5E update for the campaign book.

In terms of fluff, all of the RL core books are fairly fluffy. I found the RL DMG to be relatively non-specific compared to the campaign book/PHB. That is, the campaign book describes the rules and the world fairly well, whereas the DMG will give you a lot of example scenarios, organizations, and character ideas. It's largely a book of suggestions and advice for RL. I'd venture that it has less crunch than the PHB, and that's saying something.

The campaign setting/PHB is more "concrete fluff". It presents an ignorant person's view of the world of Ravenloft, ignorant meaning that it describes the world without referencing darklords or the dread secrets of the various domains, exactly the way someone ignorant of those dark secrets would. It also has character creation rules, altered spells, fear, horror, and powers checks, curses, and alterations to classic monster types. The PHB doesn't have much that the campaign book doesn't, save for things like Magic Ratings for domains (affecting what levels of spells can be used, and how powerful they are).

As for what'd work best...pick your poison.

 

[Trickstergod]

Avoid the 3.5 Players Handbook at all costs.

All it is is a vague up-date from the 3.0 Campaign Setting book with some tacked on, poorly conceived rules such as the aforementioned Magic Rating stapled into it.

The DMG has a few magic items, a few story ideas, and the like. I'm not especially impressed with it, but it has a few merits to its name.

Avoid the 3.5 Players Handbook at all costs. Get the 3.0 Campaign Setting. There's nearly no setting changes between them, whereas the rule additions from the Players Handbook are sloppy at best.

 

[Joël of the FoS]

Avoid the 3.5 Players Handbook at all costs.

All it is is a vague up-date from the 3.0 Campaign Setting book with some tacked on, poorly conceived rules such as the aforementioned Magic Rating stapled into it.

Avoid the 3.5 Players Handbook at all costs. Get the 3.0 Campaign Setting. There's nearly no setting changes between them, whereas the rule additions from the Players Handbook are sloppy at best.

Agreed. Get the 3.0 ("Ravenloft campaign setting") if you can, instead of the 3.5 ("Ravenloft players handbook"). However, should there is a big difference in cost or availability, get the 3.5 but make sure you read reviews to help you spot the crappy new rules added to it.

I'm a fan of the RL DMG, it has many suggestions to run an horror game. It's a fine companion to Tome of Horrors.

Joël

 

[Odhanan]

Get the 3.0 version "Ravenloft Campaign Setting" and the RL-DMG. This offers you the widest view on the "core" materials of Ravenloft 3E.

 

[Klaus]

Another vote for Campaign Setting (3.0) and *maybe* the DMG.

If it comes down to one book only, take the 3.0 book.

 

[M.L. Martin]

It should be noted that the Player's Handbook is, contrary to what it suggests, not a systematic update to 3.5. There are some things in there that are up to date with the new rules, but there appear to be as many or more elements that are not.

Matthew L. Martin