Ravenloft 3.5: yea or nay

[Treebore]

I own both editions of the monster book and don't find this to be true.

Same for me Whizbang, IE I found the 3.5 version to be "better" in terms of accuracy. Not that I ever really cared for Ravenloft. It has plenty of room for variant, and unique, creatures.

 

[silver_wizard]

The setting is really interesting, but I'm afraid I can't offer any advice about the 3.X books, as I haven't read them. However, the fact that White Wolf is vastly experienced in settings of that sort makes me optimistic. If you do get the books, I'd recommend you try and get hold of some old (2E) supplements as well, like the "Van Ricthen's Guides" series.

 

[Klaus]

Same for me Whizbang, IE I found the 3.5 version to be "better" in terms of accuracy. Not that I ever really cared for Ravenloft. It has plenty of room for variant, and unique, creatures.

And, may I add, the 3.5 version has art by ME!

 

[Joël of the FoS]

And, may I add, the 3.5 version has art by ME!

That was the only reason to get 3.5

---

And yes, Ravenloft with the right group of people can be a blast!

Don't worry about getting the 3.0 or the 3.5 setting, as long as you get one But as Matthew wrote, if you get the 3.5 (which is 99% similar to the 3.0), I suggest you read reviews of this 3.5 book to quickly pinpoint the insane new rules added to it (the infamous 1% different from 3.0).

And as another poster said, the Fraternity of Shadows website is a nice place to get advices. Many DMs there are playing Ravenloft since 1991.

Joël