[WOTC] Core Rulebooks to be revised?

[aleax]

Whew. Lots of novels. Here goes.

Thanks Curt your the best!!

 

[F5]

I think the big draw to a revised MM would be the hinted-at clarifications to ECL rules, and monsters-as-characters. But, isn't there an entirely new book due out on Monster Characters? Tooth and Claw, or something?
I doubt I would be willing to shell out 30 bucks for a material I've already paid for (I expect that anything "new" will be repritned from the splatbooks). But at the same time, I can see the benefits. It's just not worth $30 to me.

 

[Galfridus]

I hope they do something about the various HD/level/CR measures -- generalizing Summon so that you can include any monster without guesswork, stop basing Animate Dead on HD so that zombies are harder than skeletons, etc. Would also be nice to do all the monsters in MM2 format, so you can tell how they were constructed, what you get when you shape change into one, etc.

Oh, and fix Magic Missile and Shield.

 

[KnowTheToe]

if the new ranger looks like some wilderness ninja, I'm gonna freak out...

I did hear they were adding unarmed combat feats to the class as well as nun-chucks and throwing stars to the weapons list. The best improvement is the special ability Extra Lip Movement. The rangers mouth will not move in time with the words he is speaking, making it impossible for lip reading attempted by rogues. He will be just like Errol Flynn in Robin Hood.

 

[Robbert Raets]

I hope the rDMG has expanded options on story and rp-ing awards. That would be an improvement.

I'd like to mention that some of the 'splat-book' feats are already in the (d20-Modern) SRD. Since they're OCG, nothing is stopping anyone from using them for 'standard' D&D, right?

Anyhow, just €0.02

 

[Felon]

Here's to hoping that news is true.

I hope they revise Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. These skills are too similar.

These skills are explained much more clearly in d20 Modern, and in fact I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a copy-and-paste.

They certainly could benefit from taking a few other cues from d2M. For instance, each skill has details on whether it's possible to take 10 or 20, and details on what kind of action the use of each skill counts as (move, attack, or full-round).

Tweak classes? Hell yeah. There's a rather sizable balance discrepency between arcane spellcasters and divine spellcasters. The latter receive a much better class package than the former. I'd also like to see all of the front-loaded classes (paladin, ranger, barbarian, cleric) receive some tweaking.

As for the revised Monster Manual, I hope to GOD that grapple check bonuses are included. Those are a major pain to calculate for creatures with Improved Grab.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Re: WOuld be nice ...

If they included all the Open Game Content Spells, feats, equipment, etc. That would make it worth buying.

That's a horrible idea. Does anyone actually like all of the OGL material? I'd prefer a solid selection of core material, all of which I can use, than a 500 page book of grabage prestige classes that I need to sift through.

 

[Robbert Raets]

Mr. Felon's right. It's been said on these boards that reading d20 Modern can help one to understand the d20 rules. Any revision will most likely lean on d20 Modern and various playtests from the past 3 years.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Personally I'm more in favor of massive changes rather than small changes, SWRPG revised was a massive improvement over the original d20 version and that was generated in a fraction of the time. Face it guys alot of people want to move forward with the game into VP/WP etc, if people weren't willing to update don't you think we would all be playing original Dnd instead of 3e now?

I think, though, that stuff like VP/WP should be kept strictly as optional material, since, especially in the case of VP/WP, serious shortcomings have been found. Well, they're shortcomings to some. There's a reason why VP/WP don't show up in d20 Modern and CoC (at least, I know they aren't in d20 Modern; maybe they're an option in CoC? I don't have the book nearby). The massive damage threshold is moved instead.

This isn't a knock at VP/WP. I can see them being of use to many, and I'd like to see them given as options in the new revised books. I just wouldn't want them replacing the old system. In general, my point is that new optional material is welcome to me, but an effectively new core system isn't. Not that Vuron was implying anything like that; I just quoted him to make my point.

I look forward to this revised edition. It could be fun.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I hope it isn't true. I don't want to have to buy the core rule books again.

If they want to revise some of the rules, they should just put out a smaller handbook useable along with the core rulebooks with optional or official changes.

Sheesh!!