The 3.5 version has both a Player's and DM's Handbook.
Ravenloft Player's Handbook
I can't find any copy right dates either.
All of the other information matches what RevIron listed above.
I lent out my Dungeon Master's Handbook so I can't look up it's ISBN, sorry.
I believe that title is for the 3.0 version. (Not there are any real changes from that to 3.5)
The 3.5 version has both a Player's and DM's Handbook.
Ravenloft Player's Handbook
I can't find any copy right dates either.
All of the other information matches what RevIron listed above.
I lent out my Dungeon Master's Handbook so I can't look up it's ISBN, sorry.
I strongly recommend skipping the 3.5 Ravenloft Player's Handbook, and getting the 3.0 Ravenloft Campaign Setting book instead. The Ravenloft Player's Handbook introduces a number of errors and broken mechanics to the setting. The changes needed to bring the Ravenloft Campaign Setting in line with 3.5 rules are minimal.
Chris Nichols
I strongly recommend skipping the 3.5 Ravenloft Player's Handbook, and getting the 3.0 Ravenloft Campaign Setting book instead. The Ravenloft Player's Handbook introduces a number of errors and broken mechanics to the setting. The changes needed to bring the Ravenloft Campaign Setting in line with 3.5 rules are minimal.
Chris Nichols
I agree. However, the 3.5 thing is more easily available, so if you get you hands on this 3.5 book, read the reviews and comments written for this book, to get rid of the broken things - see my sig.
Joël
The Ravenloft Campaign Setting was published in 2001 for 3.0 with the Raveloft Player's Handbook following in '03 with minimal updates for 3.5.
Both were published by ArtHaus, a division of White Wolf that had licenced the setting from Wizards of the Coast. Both are now out-of-print and likely harder to find.
Buy whichever you can pick up for cheaper.
I strongly recommend skipping the 3.5 Ravenloft Player's Handbook, and getting the 3.0 Ravenloft Campaign Setting book instead. The Ravenloft Player's Handbook introduces a number of errors and broken mechanics to the setting. The changes needed to bring the Ravenloft Campaign Setting in line with 3.5 rules are minimal.
Chris Nichols
I don't know about "a number of errors" but I do agree that you should stick with the 3.0 Campaign Setting Book. It contains everything that you need. I would look at ebay or amazon to get a copy. I didn't have any problem getting it there.
I wouldnt get either of them, they were not of great quality and the art was not very nice either, IMHO.
What would you reccomend then?
And since when did quality of art and publication reflect the quality of the writing? Shakespeare was published on crude paper folios that you can to cut apart.
I wouldnt get either of them, they were not of great quality and the art was not very nice either, IMHO.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'd like to say that I mostly read good reviews of this book, if they were not all good.
Joël
I would try to track down the older 2E stuff from TSR and just update it. It isnt all that hard to do.
True, but slightly harder to find and much more work than buying a book of the shelf.
Besides, most of the 2E campaign settings focused 65% on the darklords and 35% on the actually lands and places. Domains of Dread was cool and all but the new books have so much more usable world descriptions.
just because a domain isn't mentinoed, doesn't mean it no longer exists.
Yeah, that's true. But still, there is nothing about the Nightmare Lands and some others I just don't remember.
Yeah, that's true. But still, there is nothing about the Nightmare Lands and some others I just don't remember.
Actually, the Nightmare Lands are given at least a token mention in a sidebar from Gazetteer V, IIRC.
Actually, the Nightmare Lands are given at least a token mention in a sidebar from Gazetteer V, IIRC.
Dream spawn and dreamweavers are also included in Denizens of Darkness/Dread.
I would actually suggest you buy the 3.5 versions, because the 3.0 got very confussing in many places, as WW didn't fuly grasp D&D's rules very well initially. As far as background and story went, they are not to different, though I feel the newer one is more specific and detailed, though not in a bad way. Also, the revised DMG is so much better, (mostly mechanically), in that it amkes more sense. A lot of the weapons did not follow the basic rules at all, like making a +1 Disruption Scythe, or really screwing up different skill abilities.
I assume you are talking about the WotC PHB, i.e. the D&D Core Books, and not the Ravenloft campaign setting 3.0 vs Ravenloft PHB 3.5, which is what we are discussing in this thread?
Joël
Since I'm disagreeing totally on your assumption, I have no idea what mechanics is better in the 3.5 over the 3.0, or what was clarified in the 3.5 book, compared to the 3.0, as you said.
Examples, please!
Joël
And the adoption of 3.5 to the Campaign Setting and monster book was abysmal at best. Most of the monsters still lack appropriate numbers of skills and feats.
All in all, the Revised editions are much better. They do not redefine anything, nor change anything in the sense of making it new and improved. Instead, it simply explains things in a different light, makes better use of the existing rules, incorporates new 3.5 spell names, funtions, items, and Expanded Psionics rules, but in many cases simple rehashes the same material about the world, and different areas and histories.
There are two 3.0+ versions of all three core Raveloft books, and I have both of each.
The only two books that were revised for 3.5 were Ravenloft Third Edition, which was retitled the Ravenloft Player's Handbook, and Denizens of Darkness, which became Denizens of Dread.
Thus people's confusion above -- you refer to a "revised DMG," when there ain't no such animal in the Ravenloft product line.
There are no PRCs in the RL Core books (RL CS, RL DMG or DoD). So I really wonder what got revised in the 3.5 "RL core books" that was much better.
Beckett, by the way, please say which class and which book you are refering to, as we are completely clueless as to what you mean to say.
maybe he was speaking of MotRD (don't know if it was revised tough...)
FYI, no it wasn't revised with 3.5. But there is an extensive errata at the Fraternity site.
Joël
Some of the classes I was refering to, and I can understand why this is confussing, come from other books such as the The Gazeteer's or Heroes of Light & Champions of Darkness.
Specifically in The Gazeteer series, you can tell the differences from 3.0 and 3.5 material for classes. A good example is the Master of Curses, who Turn Cursed Undead??? The White Arcanist, who are scholarly,(they are chemists), good necromancers, but only get +1 Sorcerer levels of Spellcasting??? The Prestige Classes for Ezra are all screwed up, from Heroes of Light, but I can't find that book at the moment.
In 3.0 you could make up your own Knowledge skills, but they changed it in 3.5 so that all creatures are covered by the basic one, so Prestigue Classes in Raveloft have ne reason to have requirements such as 8 ranks in Knowledge: (Mummy Lore).
However, the revised Campaign setting (Ravenloft PHB) and monster book have some of the worst translations from 3.0 to 3.5 in gaming. They're terrible; monsters lacking skills and feats, bad stats, improper save DCs, missing hitpoints, etc.
You might want to doublecheck the publication dates for your Ravenloft DMGs. Because there is only a 3.5 version (as one of the authors of it said a few posts up). It was released in 2003, the same year as 3.5. And BEFORE the april, 2004 release of the Expanded Psionic Handbook.
No, no, no. Yes, the DMG has two 3.0+ versions, and I do have both. In fact, I am considering tearing out the maps of the inside cover to use as a world map in my older one right now (the newer version has rules for Expanded Psionics, while the old has 3.0 Psionics).
No, sorry, you are completely wrong. There was one, and only one, version of the Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide published. End of story.
Chris Nichols
No, sorry, you are completely wrong. There was one, and only one, version of the Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide published. End of story.
Chris is right, Beckett; there was one, count 'em one RL DMG. It was written for 3.0, then patchily updated for 3.5 prior to release, which frankly left it a little of both and a lot of neither. I say this as someone who wrote part of the book.
No, no, no. Yes, the DMG has two 3.0+ versions, and I do have both. In fact, I am considering tearing out the maps of the inside cover to use as a world map in my older one right now (the newer version has rules for Expanded Psionics, while the old has 3.0 Psionics).
No, sorry, you are completely wrong. There was one, and only one, version of the Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide published. End of story.
Chris Nichols
Chris is right, Beckett; there was one, count 'em one RL DMG. It was written for 3.0, then patchily updated for 3.5 prior to release, which frankly left it a little of both and a lot of neither. I say this as someone who wrote part of the book.
I'm sorry guys, but if there is a question (which there appears to be) then I'm going to go with the guy who says he physically has them both. I understand that an author may have said other wise but if you have the book, you have the book.
Specifically in The Gazeteer series, you can tell the differences from 3.0 and 3.5 material for classes. A good example is the Master of Curses, who Turn Cursed Undead??? The White Arcanist, who are scholarly,(they are chemists), good necromancers, but only get +1 Sorcerer levels of Spellcasting??? The Prestige Classes for Ezra are all screwed up, from Heroes of Light, but I can't find that book at the moment.
I didn't know that they redid the Gazeteers. Which books did they redo? How can tell which version you have?
I'm sorry guys, but if there is a question (which there appears to be) then I'm going to go with the guy who says he physically has them both. I understand that an author may have said other wise but if you have the book, you have the book.
He doesn't have the book. He says he has the book. Frankly, to go with the opinion of someone making an unbased claim over someone who was actively involved in the book's production is simply foolish.
I will gladly pay $1,000 dollars to the first person to produce copies of both a 3.0 and a 3.5 Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide. (And the fact that the thing's a muddle that straddles both editions doesn't count -- I mean two North American editions of the same book.) I'll also fall to my knees and ask them how they got here from the alternative universe of their origin.
I co-wrote several chapters of the RL DMG. The book I worked on was published under the 3.5 banner. I was involved in the Arthaus line from its beginning to this point. There was no 3.0 Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide. The closest we came to one was Secrets of the Dread Realms, which shares no material in common with the RL DMG.
Here is everything Arthaus published for Ravenloft:
2001
Ravenloft Third Edition
Secrets of the Dread Realms
2002
Denizens of Darkness
Van Richten's Arsenal
Ravenloft Gazetteer I
Champions of Darkness
Heroes of Light
2003
Ravenloft Gazetteer II
Ravenloft Gazetteer III
Ravenloft Player's Handbook (a revised 3.5 Ravenloft Third Edition)
Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide
Tarokka Deck
Ravenloft Gazetteer IV
Van Richten's Guide to the Walking Dead
2004
Denizens of Dread (a revised 3.5 Denizens of Dread)
Ravenloft Gazetteer V
Van Richten's Guide to the Shadow Fey
Legacy of Blood
Masque of the Red Death
2005
Dark Tales & Disturbing Legends
Van Richten's Guide to the Mists (unpublished; released online)
I didn't know that they redid the Gazeteers. Which books did they redo? How can tell which version you have?
We didn't redo the Gazetteers. None of the prestige classes he lists as examples are even from the Gazetteers.
Didn't the Ravenloft DMG come out before the Ravenloft PHB?
[/smartass]
I'm sorry guys, but if there is a question (which there appears to be) then I'm going to go with the guy who says he physically has them both. I understand that an author may have said other wise but if you have the book, you have the book.
But then it would make him the only person on Earth to have both edition of the RL DMG.
Does makes you think, no?
---
I'm sorry, but from everything I read so far from this poster, Beckett has a tendancy to mix WotC and WW, RL PHB/DMG vs other books, and the 3.0/3.5 editions.
No offence meant, Beckett, but you're sometimes difficult to follow
Joël
[smartass]
Didn't the Ravenloft DMG come out before the Ravenloft PHB?
[/smartass]
I think you're probably right, considering how close the RL DMG was to completion when 3.5 was announced, but honestly I have no idea. My list wasn't intended to be exactly chronological.
I *think* Beckett is referring to Secrets of the Dread Realms when he's talking about this 3.0 RL DMG. SotDR was originally intended for DM's eyes only, included the 3.0 stats for the Dark Lords, and came with a DM's screen. Much of that material, IIRC, was reprinted in the RL DMG for 3.5.
Hope that helps.
He doesn't have the book. He says he has the book. Frankly, to go with the opinion of someone making an unbased claim over someone who was actively involved in the book's production is simply foolish.
I will gladly pay $1,000 dollars to the first person to produce copies of both a 3.0 and a 3.5 Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide. (And the fact that the thing's a muddle that straddles both editions doesn't count -- I mean two North American editions of the same book.) I'll also fall to my knees and ask them how they got here from the alternative universe of their origin.
I co-wrote several chapters of the RL DMG. The book I worked on was published under the 3.5 banner. I was involved in the Arthaus line from its beginning to this point. There was no 3.0 Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide. The closest we came to one was Secrets of the Dread Realms, which shares no material in common with the RL DMG.
No, no, no. Yes, the DMG has two 3.0+ versions, and I do have both.
My comment was supposed to be contingent on him having the books. If as he claims he does, it sounds like some one owes you a royalties check. Otherwise I do not withdraw my comment; If he has the book, then the book exists.
We didn't redo the Gazetteers. None of the prestige classes he lists as examples are even from the Gazetteers.
Specifically in The Gazeteer series, you can tell the differences from 3.0 and 3.5 material for classes.
As for your later comment about the Gazeteers; the dates that I saw made it look like a few where pre-3.5. And that comment that I made was in reference to someone who said that their had been a difference in the 3.0 and 3.5 Gazeteers. Perhaps you could direct some of your Righteous Indignation? their way!
Of couse he may be wrong on both counts. I don't know, but comming after me for trying to say if it exists in fact it doesn't matter what the theory is and asking a question about someone elses comment seems a little too wound up to me.
.
Of couse he may be wrong on both counts. I don't know, but comming after me for trying to say if it exists in fact it doesn't matter what the theory is and asking a question about someone elses comment seems a little too wound up to me.
My intervention is mainly on the fact that if you do not correct errors like this, after a few times it becomes truth. To get it right after is hell. We've seen it often over the years.
So when you have a guy saying he has a 3.0 and a 3.5 version of the RL DMG, while nobody close to the setting has never heard of it, and it's not in the WW catalogue either, you have to strongly correct this extreme error, otherwise the poop might hit the fan hard: you see other people embark in the same boat (see this thread ;)), and in one month it's truth.
Joël
My comment was supposed to be contingent on him having the books. If as he claims he does, it sounds like some one owes you a royalties check. Otherwise I do not withdraw my comment; If he has the book, then the book exists.
Yes, but he doesn't have the book, because it doesn't exist. If one anonymous person online saying something's so is literally all you need to accept that something's so... well, I just hope no one ever offers to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
The $1,000 offer is valid for you, too. Buying both editions and sending them to me would probably net you about $930 of pure profit.
Hey Mangrum, sorry to be out of touch - I'll call you this weekend!
Yes, but he doesn't have the book, because it doesn't exist. If one anonymous person online saying something's so is literally all you need to accept that something's so... well, I just hope no one ever offers to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
The $1,000 offer is valid for you, too. Buying both editions and sending them to me would probably net you about $930 of pure profit.
If it makes you feel any better, I do believe you. At this point though it seems to be less about the truth and more about being right.
You tend to come across as rather hostile with comments like:
well, I just hope no one ever offers to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
I know that you can make your point without resorting to youthful jabs after all you
co-wrote several chapters of the RL DMG
This has been one hell of a debate over the question "which is the most recent campaign setting book?".
I’m rather surprised to find myself agreeing with you (you tend to be rather negative) but we probably should try to get a little more on topic.
I’m rather surprised to find myself agreeing with you (you tend to be rather negative)...
Yeah, that's the price of becoming more… respectable… in the fan-community. I can't be silly or dismissive and instead have to be helpful and post regularly. But that leads to cynicism.
I’ve definitely grown bitter in my old age…
Oh gawd! I’ve become Mangrum!!
If it makes you feel any better, I do believe you. At this point though it seems to be less about the truth and more about being right.
You tend to come across as rather hostile with comments like: I know that you can make your point without resorting to youthful jabs after all you...
I’m rather surprised to find myself agreeing with you (you tend to be rather negative) but we probably should try to get a little more on topic.
I'm not normally a troll, but JW and Jester are both too professional to do this themselves.
It's barbs and sarcasm like this that cause the authors to not come and play here anymore. The only reason I have ever visited these boards is to get the fleshing-out information that only the authors and developers know, and that they generously share with us - voluntarily, on their own time - on these boards.
This whole argument that YOU perpetuated? It was about "being right" the whole time; people that blindly argue ignorant points are infuriating, EVEN if they attempt (weakly) to derail the argument later by saying, "Oh, well, you have a point, but this whole thing has been off-topic anyway." If being off-topic is so important to you, why perpetuate off-topic conversation?
People that "tend to come across as rather hostile," tend to do so because they grow weary of trying to correct the same errors, over and over and over again, then being treated like somebody else's misbehaving kid for DOING so.
I say all this, fully aware that there will be people who disagree both with what I've said and with how I've said it. I won't come back later and attempt to retcon these remarks out of relevance. I support the authors, and anything that makes them uncomfortable, makes me uncomfortable, and ultimately devalues the community as a whole. It's a shame that, as much crap as we (gamers) have had to endure from the norms out there over the years, we also end up turning on OURSELVES in here.
*rimshot*
:D
It's a shame that, as much crap as we (gamers) have had to endure from the norms out there over the years, we also end up turning on OURSELVES in here.
You are right! We need to not come at each other. Hostility doesn't change a person's opinion (even when it's wrong - Like I was about the book :surrender). Rational arguments backed with sources (which you provided)
are a better way to go. These boards should be a safe place for gamers to learn, discuss and sometimes debate. I'm glad that you and I agree on this point. After all if people don't return to the boards we have gained nothing. We have simply alienated a person with whom we share a common interest.Oddly, this thread hasn't been a total loss. How Bush ever got re-elected is starting to make a lot more sense to me...
*rimshot*
:D
...Uh, he failed a powers check? 
Namely, Chris Nichols and John W. Mangrum.
http://www.kargatane.com/
If they say there was only one Ravenloft DMG for 3E or 3.5E? I think they would know.