Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[MerricB]

Re: re

Personally, I tend to agree with Belen, not specifically concerning Merric's post. Most of the reviews do seem to have been written by people who seem unable or unwilling to voice any negative opinion concerning the upgrade.

I'm glad you're not specifically targeting my post!

I do agree with Belen about the other reviews. As I do believe I've stated, there are some really important things in Monte's article that are worth considering.

When I consider the other reviews I've read, I realise that their main flaw is that the people haven't actually played the revised game. Monte has probably had access to the 3.5E rules for the past several months, and as an original designer of the 3E rules has yet more insight into what the changes mean.

These are two things Monte has over the other reviewers. In time, playtesting will make reviews of 3.5E more relevant - of course, we want to know now! For now, mainly superficial reviews are what we're getting. Except for Monte's article.

Cheers!

 

[Dinkeldog]

Just curious, but what point is this serving? Are we really going to have to sit through every important, semi-important, and un-important person in the D20 world giving their opinions on Monte's opinion?

Sure looks that way.

 

[Piratecat]

Sure looks that way.

My Mom's writing up an analysis right now. I'll post it when she's finished.

 

[Mark]

Just curious, but what point is this serving? Are we really going to have to sit through every important, semi-important, and un-important person in the D20 world giving their opinions on Monte's opinion?

Don't leave out us self-important folks! We have opinions, too, and ours are good uns'...

 

[Barak]

Ok. I see a lot of people, mostly those "pro-3.5", saying "well yes the 3.5 changes were motivated by money. Why is that a bad thing?"

Here is -my- answer to that, for what it's worth.

If we remember, back when the "revision books" were announced, we were told that they would be 100% compatible with existing products, with no-or-few conversion needed. And yet, the more we learned about the changes made, the more we realized that this wasn't true. Let's face it, -any- 3.0 character will have to be heavily modified to be able to play in a 3.5 game. While that may not be so bad, it makes previous products, especially modules, in need of even more heavy modifications as well. Which, to me, is a Bad Thing. Now, how does this tie-in to the motive for all the changes being money? Well, if the changes were "light" enough to be 100% compatible (modifications to Harm/haste/etc., some modifications to spell durations, etc.), a lot less people would actually buy the books. If the modifications were that simple, a read of the SRD, or even a list of the changes on a Message Board such as this one would have been enough for an owner of the previous books to update. As it stands, however, it is easier, cheaper, less time-consuming to buy the books. And if one wants to be able to use future products, ones written -for- 3.5, one needs to change to 3.5, since it isn't fully compatible. Which means that if one wants to keep current, one needs to buy the new books (monetary consideration), as opposed to if it had been the revision promised. And since I, for one, liked 3.0 just fine, while admitting that -some- small changes were needed, the monetary considerations on WotC's part leads to many changes with which I don't agree, and that I'd have to modify. But if I do, I'll also have to modify every single product I buy in the future.

 

[MerricB]

Ok. I see a lot of people, mostly those "pro-3.5", saying "well yes the 3.5 changes were motivated by money. Why is that a bad thing?"

Here is -my- answer to that, for what it's worth.

And not a bad answer, either.

Although I'm happy with the changes, I'm less than happy about the compatibility issue. Because I'm happy with the changes, I can live with the compatibility issue - I wish others were so lucky.

Let's face it, -any- 3.0 character will have to be heavily modified to be able to play in a 3.5 game.

I love generalisations.

Human Fighter 1, skills Ride, Climb and Jump, feats Weapon Focus, Power Attack and Cleave. Where are the heavy modifications?

Some characters are going to need heavy modifications. Perhaps even most. Not all.

Sorry, I'm being picky.

###

I'm not sure if the bigger changes were made purely out of a monetary consideration. Personally I believe that they wanted to fix the big problems with 3E, and then fix some of the smaller problems... and may have gone a bit too far.

Exactly where that point was varies for people, though. I think the new weapon size rules are excellent, whilst Monte thinks they're possibly the worst change of the lot. Heh. If I was laying money on who was right, it wouldn't be me.

What I'm try to say is that it was practically impossible for the revision team to create a revised edition that would please everyone - some people would think they'd gone too far, others would think they didn't go far enough.

I also think that the compatibility issue was always going to come up - regardless of the change, there would have been something already printed affected.

As I recall, 3E was one of the most play-tested RPGs ever - if not the most play-tested RPGs. It had lots of problems. Perfection isn't going to come easily - but I do believe the revision team gave it their best shot, and that most of the revisions will work for me.

(If you wanted to pick the one change I don't like so much, it's the splitting up of spells like emotion and Otiluke's freezing sphere. Grr... sometimes, versatility in a spell is a good thing.)

Cheers!

 

[Barak]

Well.. If your campaign is at first level, and you're switching to 3.5.. True, you'll have few modifications to your PCs.

And I'm not saying the modifications themselves were motivated by money. That, I wouldn't have minded. It's the -level- of the modifications. They -had- to move things around enough for people to have to "choose" between 3.0 and 3.5. Compatibility is the whole point. They -said- it would be fully compatible. Yet, if it truly was, there would have been little reason for people to upgrade. So most wouldn't have. They want to sell books. So they had to make it at least partially uncompatible. And that's where the motivation behind tha changes becomes important.

 

[coyote6]

Human Fighter 1, skills Ride, Climb and Jump, feats Weapon Focus, Power Attack and Cleave. Where are the heavy modifications?

The Jump skill has been completely revised, so if HF1 had plans that involved his jumping distances, he'll have to change 'em. Also, Power Attack has changed. If he was focusing on a one-handed weapon, he may want to rethink that, since Power Attack is now clearly meant to benefit two-handed weapons more than one handed weapons.



More seriously, I suspect that the problem (if there is one) will be that, since there are many minor changes, one cannot assume that any particular character has been unaffected by the revision; instead, one will want to review every character to see what, if any, changes affect that character.

That's not a tragic Flaw of Doom, but it could be annoying.

My Mom's writing up an analysis right now. I'll post it when she's finished.

As soon as you do, I'll post my little sister's critique of your mom's analysis of Monte Cook's review of 3.5e.

I hope this doesn't double-post...

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Just curious, but what point is this serving? Are we really going to have to sit through every important, semi-important, and un-important person in the D20 world giving their opinions on Monte's opinion?

Funny--I thought the point of public messageboards was for important, semi-important, and un-important people alike to all exchange and discuss opinions on relevant topics. Dunno about everyone else, but if I realized posting had to serve a greater purpose, or that anyone was being forced to sit through all this, I for one would have bit my tongue (or fingers, I guess).

 

[(contact)]

My Mom's writing up an analysis right now. I'll post it when she's finished.

Here's my mom's analysis of the new books, transcribed from a garbled message she left on my voicemail from a public phone:

"The new covers make these books so much easier to sell for crack money, but I still need to borrow another hundred, baby . . . just until I get on my feet."