Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[HellHound]

Now, that handedness business....what the HELL IS THAT? I hope it's not nearly as clunky as it sounds...because it sounds terrible.

I like it. It's better (In My Opinion, as I stated before) than a gnome being able to pick up a size Huge Giant's dagger and wield it two-handed without penalty (as he could do in the 3.0 standard).

 

[Emiricol]

Gotta say, I agree with Kai Lord and Merric (as I often do). Which is what my problem was with the "review" in the first place.

Agreed, and you make some good points. "Oh yeah all the classes are exciting and balanced now but the NEW 2ND LEVEL BUFF SPELLS WILL TOTALLY CHANGE THE GAME!!!11!"

Please.

I can't believe so many people are professing to have second thoughts on account of such a goofy rant that didn't even offer any new information that we didn't already know.

Imagine if 3.5 was actually the first version, and the 3.0 books we have now turned out to be the "revised" versions offered a few years later. The game would suck in comparison. People are getting way too hung up on isolated, unimportant changes they don't agree with, and melodramatic tantrums from designers they respect.

Do I agree with every little revision? No. But the game as a whole will be much better, and that's all that's needed to justify an upgrade.

 

[William Ronald]

I will try to give 3.5 a chance.

Monte's review has several good points, but I wish he would have elaborated a bit more on the positive changes. I am uncertain about the facing issue, but found that in 3.0 I used miniatures far more often than in the past.


The financial reasons for the revision were somewhat disheartening, as it will likely give fodder to those who are cynical about WotC. I agree WotC has to make a profit or at least break even. However, Monte Cook's statement that finances played such a large role in the revision will tend to make some of my fellow players a bit skeptical about future releases. (One person I know has already "predicted" a 4th edition in two to three years. I argued that this would be illogical, as it would probably alienate a lot of players.)

So, I wish Monte Cook had elaborated a bit more on the positive changes in D&D 3.5. From reading him on line, and meeting him at Gen Con, he seems like a reasonable person. Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt when assigning motives to his statements in the review.

Also, I think it might be wise to tone down the rhetoric a bit.

 

[tleilaxu]

this is a product driven by money

what is more, many of the changes were changed with commerce taking the lead over needed improvements to the game

this is according to monte

doesn't that make anyone else wary?

most people were happy with 3E. the changes that happened were great and a great improvement on 2e. sure, it wasn't perfect.

if this had been handled with more concern to gamers the .5 edition would be better. i'm not saying it sucks (i havn't seen it). i'm just saying that these indicators say to me that dnd is now driven by short term 3Q earnings, etc.

this is sad. its like computer games being released with tons of bugs in order to meet profit goals for the company. it sucks that this culture has permeated to the text publishing business as well. from what i've heard, what we're seeing is an edition being released prematurly. for all of you who are going to buy it and excited, good for you, have fun! i don't think you are stupid. don't accuse me or other 3.5 cynics of being silly for looking askance at all of these confidence deflating revelations.

we could have had better than this sort of calculating release

 

[JLXC]

I think the scariest thing is that 3.5 was Supposed to be a eratta fix / minor update, and from the WOTC boards is seem that they didn't even get all the eratta from 3.0 fixed. So they added a bunch of stuff, changed a bunch of stuff, but didn't even incorporate all the eratta from 3.0? That sounds like a total botch to me regaurdless of how kewl the changes are.

Coming soon 3.65 the eratta for 3.0 and 3.5 fixed at last!

Coming almost as soon 3.75 the eratta to 3.65 plus some additional features!

I will not buy core books every 3 years. This is not D&D:The Gathering. Or is it?

 

[Ondo]

I find it somewhat funny, and somewhat sad, that Monte doesn't like the changes to the ability score enhancing spells. His spell Enhance Magical Flow from the Book of Eldritch Might was clearly inferior to the ability boost spell for your main spell-casting attribute. Now it at least has 10 times the duration going for it.

 

[jasamcarl]

I think the scariest thing is that 3.5 was Supposed to be a eratta fix / minor update, and from the WOTC boards is seem that they didn't even get all the eratta from 3.0 fixed. So they added a bunch of stuff, changed a bunch of stuff, but didn't even incorporate all the eratta from 3.0? That sounds like a total botch to me regaurdless of how kewl the changes are.

Coming soon 3.65 the eratta for 3.0 and 3.5 fixed at last!

Coming almost as soon 3.75 the eratta to 3.65 plus some additional features!

I will not buy core books every 3 years. This is not D&D:The Gathering. Or is it?

Uh, if you are basing that off of reynolds comment, he was actually in error. Atleast have some grounding for your cynicism.

 

[JLXC]

Fraid not. I'm basing it off the folks who actually have the books on the WOTC boards.

 

[Jeremy Crawford]

Errors in the revised books

I've had the three revised books for a week now and have, for the most part, been pleased and, in some cases, excited by what's in them.

The books do, alas, contain errors, from typos to substantive mistakes. While disappointing, the number of errors is at least significantly lower than in the first printings of the 3.0 books.

I think WotC needs to invest heavily in editing, as some of the errors in the revision are embarrassing. That said, I count our lucky stars that the books didn't sink to the editorial nadir occupied by Urban Arcana.

 

[JLXC]

Thanks for the heads up Jeremy.