0
\$\begingroup\$

This question already has an answer here:

The ring of the darkhidden wondrous item has been published in both MoF and MIC. I assume Magic of Faerûn was printed before Magic Item Compendium, but I want to know for sure. There is a similar question for 4e, so why not 3(.5)e?
The reason that I say 3(.5)e instead of 3e or 3.5e is because some people are willing to allow/use (unupdated) 3e material in their 3.5e game, and some products-released-close-to-the-release-of-3.5e can be described as 3.25e, like Savage Species and Book of Vile Darkness. I am particularly interested in 3.5e.
The reason that I say "material" is I don't assume that all crunch/rules/mechanics (and things that may-be-more-fluff-but-may-have-an-effect-on-crunch) were printed in books. For example, magazines and web articles may not be considered books.

So, can we have a chronological list of 3(.5)e material?

\$\endgroup\$

marked as duplicate by Hey I Can Chan, Oblivious Sage, KRyan dnd-3.5e Sep 22 '14 at 14:34

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Here's a list of actual printed texts in order of publication, but there are at least 321 Dungeons and Dragons 3.X articles on the Wizards of the Coast Web site and countless magazine articles. I fear this is too broad. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Sep 22 '14 at 11:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan I don't think it's too broad, there's a 4e version of the same question and what the question asks for is specific enough. The problem is that any good answer would have to be so huge that I don't think anyone will ever do it. \$\endgroup\$ – Tridus Sep 22 '14 at 12:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Tridus The Too Broad Close vote includes excluding "good answers [that] would be too long for this format." I'll happily retract my vote if some dude posts his 1,000-or-so-entry chronological list of all D&D 3.X material. And, if he gives me his IRL address, I'll mail him $20 because whoever did such a thing needs more than just Internet praise for his efforts. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Sep 22 '14 at 12:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan Ah, good point. :) \$\endgroup\$ – Tridus Sep 22 '14 at 12:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Regardless of whether or not a list is on-topic or not, this question is answered, effectively, by @HeyICanChan's list in the 3.0 vs. 3.5 question. Someone who actually wants to produce a more-comprehensive list can and should do it there. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 22 '14 at 14:36