• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Monte Cook reviews 3.5


log in or register to remove this ad


Krug

Newshound
He has very valid arguments. I agree about facing; why the need for it to be square? So does a 20' long serpent occupy a 20' square?

He also gives an inside view of what the Revised edition was intended to do.

Thanks Monte. Enlightening.
 

Enceladus

First Post
The only really major issue I have:

* The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you. Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition.

Uh oh Monte, don't you have a line of miniatures coming out for your game as well?
 

Emiricol

Registered User
I rather think the new square facing makes about the most sense of any of their 3.5 changes. But then again, regardless of his immense talent I disagree with Monte on a lot of things.

EDIT: Spelling.
 
Last edited:

Anabstercorian

First Post
Some of his points are a little foolish - Ogre's do NOT need 30 feet to walk abreast. They can do it in 15 feet, they'll just suffer movement penalties. But he also makes a lot of cogent points. Very much worth reading.
 

Emiricol

Registered User
Krug said:
He has very valid arguments. I agree about facing; why the need for it to be square? So does a 20' long serpent occupy a 20' square?

He also gives an inside view of what the Revised edition was intended to do.

Thanks Monte. Enlightening.

Didn't he say he wasn't at all involved in 3.5's revisions?
 

Krug

Newshound
Enceladus said:
The only really major issue I have:



Uh oh Monte, don't you have a line of miniatures coming out for your game as well?

He didn't make it so it was pretty much essential. WotC is definitely trying to make miniatures integral to the game.
 

Talath

Explorer
What's that sound?

See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning.

Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.

That's the sound of all the D&D conspiracy theorists having a party :D
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top