Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 1536475" data-attributes="member: 5834">reIt's not really a vendetta. I like alot of Monte's modules and some of his rules. I think he is a very creative game designer when it comes to flavor and rule design.But Monte always seems to  create at least a few things that make you go "Monte, what were you thinking?". Because of this, I shy a bit away from his products due to certain things within them that are vastly imbalanced and require house rules, often requiring me to end up in an argument with my players. I don't like ending up in arguments with my players because a game designer decided to create something that is vastly overpowered. A previous creation of his that I had a problem with was the Madness domain. Not only did I not enjoy being on the receiving end of spells cast by NPC priests with the Madness domain, I did not like being DM of a PC with the Madness domain. Now I have a problem with vile damage and a few of the Prc's in the Book of Vile Darkness for the same reason. They are troublesome both as a DM and a player of an evil group. Monte is one of the few game designers that seems to do this fairly often. Other prominent game designers such as Andy Collins and Sean Reynolds seem to err on the side of underpowered from my experience. Monte often errs on the side of overpowered.Just my 2 cents. I don't have a vendetta against Monte, I'm just wary of books and modules he designs for the above stated reasons.</blockquote>

Verification