D&D 3E/3.5 Have the designers of 3e said anything about 4e?

[Gundark]

Just curious as to what monte and others who designed and wrote the 3e books think about 4e.

 

[Morrus]

Well, a lot of the people who worked on 3E and 3.5 books are working on 4E. I don't know if Monte's in particular has said anything, though.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

He's added a 4E section to his message board. He seems to think it'll be interesting. I don't know that he's said anything terribly strongly one way or another.

Note that his "One More Thing" piece about wizard spells almost exactly forecasted the 4E approach. He either had some input into the process, possibly by playing in someone's playtest group, or he's on the same page as the designers in many ways.

 

[delericho]

J. Tweet (sorry, not sure of the spelling of the first name) has said he hasn't played 3e in some years, and is glad he can finally talk about the weaknesses he sees in it.

I haven't heard anything from Skip Williams, though.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I thought Monte was out of the business for good. I got his going away present, and liked it a lot. What's he doing now, anyway?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

As stated above, many of the previous designers are still with WotC.

As for Monte Cook, I recall reading his (and Sean K. Reynold's) comments on 3.5. Both made some good points, both seemed really angry about 3.5 (in terms of tone; Reynolds specifically said it might not be a good idea to buy 3.5) ... but Reynolds seemed really reasonable whereas Cook seemed like he was ranting. I don't know why I got that impression. If Monte Cook comments on 4e, I doubt I'll read what he says, based on my previous experience when he talked about a new edition.

 

[DaveMage]

Just curious as to what monte and others who designed and wrote the 3e books think about 4e.

Since 4e isn't out, most of them aren't saying anything.

I saw Tweet's comment referenced above, and I've seen JD Wiker's blog on the subject (he's a bit jaded on the process).

Other publishers are cautiously optimisic, but as they haven't seen the rules, they aren't saying anything of substance either.

Ask again in May 2008.

 

[Beckett]

Taking a look at the credits page for my 3.0 PHB, Richard Baker is listed as Additional Design, David Noonan is one of three names under Editorial Assistance. Bill Slavicsek is Director of RPG R&D. At the bottom, under Other WotC RPG R&D Contributors, we see names like Andy Collins, Bruce Cordell, , Rob Heinsoo, and James Wyatt.

So, if you want to see what some of the guys behind 3.0 have to say about 4E, I think this is probably your best place to check: http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=684

 

[SSquirrel]

*SNIP*

..whereas Cook seemed like he was ranting. I don't know why I got that impression. If Monte Cook comments on 4e, I doubt I'll read what he says, based on my previous experience when he talked about a new edition.

I rememebr the article you're talking about I think and yes Monte was having a bit of a rant. Mainly b/c while 3.5 had been planned from the get-go, they had been told it would be another year or 2. He felt, very strongly, that 3.5 was coming out too early. Then again, I think he was also upset about how he named his game Arcana Unearthed after confirming WotC had no plans to use the old UA title again, then shortly before AU was released they said "Hey we're releasing the old Unearthed Arcana as a new book of option!".

3.5 did come too early, but it did have a lot of things that were pretty nice. I've had 4E for awhile tho, AE+Ptolus=win

 

[Seeten]

He's added a 4E section to his message board. He seems to think it'll be interesting. I don't know that he's said anything terribly strongly one way or another.

Note that his "One More Thing" piece about wizard spells almost exactly forecasted the 4E approach. He either had some input into the process, possibly by playing in someone's playtest group, or he's on the same page as the designers in many ways.

Mike Mearls and Monte Cook are close, no?