Has Monte Cook made 4th ed Unnecessary?

[Wolfspider]

I don't think its an insult. Its a fair argument, despite the curt presentation.

It's not an argument at all, since the statement has no substance that would help us figure out exactly what the poster is saying.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I can see how someone could take the comment as an insult (and I have no insight at all into the mind of the poster), but that isn't how I read it. I took it to mean that 3e required (in the opinion of many) a lot of tweaking to make it work. Monte Cook was one of those designers always jumping in with something interesting that made the system work a little better (IMO). The question is whether 4e will be good enough from the first as to make such tweaks unnecessary.

I imagine most of us will be creating house rules to make the RAW better reflect the flavor of the setting, but that's not the same thing as rewriting/redesigning the system for better (or at least different) utility.

This is pretty much how I saw it, also. It appeared to me that the original post in this regard was wondering if 4th edition may solve enough basic mechanical problems that Monte Cook-like variants would be unnecessary or less necessary. And was trying to do so in a catchy way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This quip is very, very close to a direct insult in my opinion. It's uncalled for in any event.

It's not an insult and it's completely called for. I was going to post it if someone else hadn't got in first, it's a fairly obvious switcheroo. It doesn't really mean anything, it's just playing with words.

 

[Irda Ranger]

To any of you who have gotten to see Monte Cooks book of experimental might, I ask you; is 4th ed even necessary at this point.

Yes. The BOXM is an interesting patch on 3.5, but it's still a patch. There are important changes in 4E that he doesn't (and can't) fix.
1. "The math." The way it's balanced from 1-30. This effects everything.
2. The NPC/monster design rules. And the 500+ monsters in the 4E MM1.
3. The scalable item guidelines (from very-low-magic to Rockefeller Plaza in December).

I haven't read BOXM, so my opinion is based solely on reviews and such, but in general I can say that I've seen how much work it takes to "fix" a 3.x campaign and I'm tired of all the effort. I'm really looking forward to 4E's rethinking of a whole slew of concepts (and the slimming down of the rules base).

 

[Pssthpok]

I'm more curious to know if 4E will make Monte Cook unnecessary.

Ditto!

edit...

...

oops. I think it's funny, witty but not insulting, and begs a good question. Monte has moved alongside WotC since his departure and has a considerable fanbase. If 4E bowls over 3rd, what market does he have?

 

[Lord Fyre]

Longer: No. He doesn't change the general problems of the 3.x "math" - the sweet spot is not affected by his modifications. I suspect that the game balance changes notably.
Tthe healing rules will probably help the party as a whole a lot, the spellcaster options make them probably a little stronger then they already are.

Could the reverse question be asked?

Did Monte Cook's work make 4th Edtion necessary by pointing out some of the most glaring weaknesses of D&D 3rd Edition?

Consider also - How much has Monte Cook's work influenced 4th Edtion?

 

[Minicol]

To any of you who have gotten to see Monte Cooks book of expermental might, I ask you; is 4th ed even nessessary at this point. For the cost of 9 bucks, you can incorperate most of the talked about 4th edition elements into your 3.5 campaign right now and you don't have to change your whole campaign.

At this point I think WOTC might be trying to ignore the 800 pound gorillia but the fact is that 3.5 is still covered with the OGL and they have already said they can't change that. 4th will be different in that there will be restrictions in what can and can not be published under the new 4th ed GSL.

So what I'm asking is will the community support this or will they take something like Monte's book and incorperate them into a sort of 3.75 that will still exist as a free and open source game?

To me, the 3.0 PHB made 4e unnecessary.

 

[Jack99]

Very true. Its not their rule development skills that tells me they could do it - it's just that I don't think anyone else could pul it off even if they had impeccable skills. I'm talking about this more from a "market penetration" point of view than pure design. I wouldn't be surprised if 5-10 versions of a 3.75 eventually get made. They'll all be tiny, tiny fractions of the gaming world - although they may well sustain small companies. Only Paizo has the name recognition and market power to create a 3.75 that could break out of the tiny, PDF-based market.

Good point. You might even be right.

 

[Incendax]

If Monte Cook is an 800lb Gorilla then WotC is the Cloverfield Monster. Sure, both are capable of bursting into our house and turning our lives upside down, but only one is going to change the face of the entire countryside. Like any other third party publisher, Monte Cook is going to wait a while to ensure that 4th Edition is a popular success and then he's going to shift over to publishing items for use with the Edition that receives the most popularity.

Of course, that's assuming the Gorilla doesn't just put on a pair of glasses and resign himself to writing novels. (Which will also be 4th Edition novels).

 

[Wolfspider]

Of course, that's assuming the Gorilla doesn't just put on a pair of glasses and resign himself to writing novels. (Which will also be 4th Edition novels).

Huh?