LOL! Monte Cook's empassioned blunders in his 3.5 review revealed!

[Triumph]

Posted by James Quick on the DND newsgroup:

In article <n3avgv0mkbt6v4bk0hch8r2tpdhktsh4k5@news.supernews.com>,
Ed Chauvin IV <edc4@wherethearemypants.com> wrote:

> Gah! I take it back. Here's my new favorite quote:
>
> Monte Cook: "Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic
> item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains.
> You still have to be 17th level to make a 1st-level pearl of
> power."
>
> Wow. And here I thought this guy helped *design* 3rd
> edition. This makes me wonder if he's even actually read the
> rules yet?

What kills me about this quote, was he is the guy who dismissed
publicly the fallacy that caster level was a prerequisite. He did so
on his website *TWO ING YEARS AGO* and he used the ***gosh damn pearl of power as an example***. Does he think our memories are really that short?

From: <http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly3.html>

What is a Caster Level?

This is the level of the creator (or the casting level of the spells
placed within the item, if lower than the actual level of the
creator).

From the Dungeon Master's Guide*:

"Caster Level: The power of the item (just as a spell's caster level
measures its power). The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as the range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magicor similar situation."

Note what it doesn't say. It doesn't say that you have to be the
listed level to make a given item. It's not a prerequisite. You don't
have to be 17th level to create a 1st-level pearl of power -- you just have to meet the prerequisites. Prerequisites, you'll notice, get their own section. It comes next. All you do with caster levels is determine the level-dependent effects of an item. Those listed in the DMG are just averages. When you determine an item randomly, or pick one out of the book for your player characters to find or to equip an NPC, that's the caster level of the item. That's all it is.


Me: LOL. Just remember to take Monte's rants with a grain of salt people....

 

[Triumph]

Another good one:

"Lots of the new feats are the kind that just add a +2 bonus to two skills. For this we paid $90 for new books?" --Monte Cook

Yeah, Monte, that's the only thing they changed. THAT's what we're paying 90 DOLLARS for. The $60 ($40 online) that we pay for the 3.5 DMG and MM? All toward the new +2 skill bonus feats in the PHB. Nothing was added to those two books.

And they revised NO classes, NO spells, NOTHING in the PHB except the +2 skill feats. THAT'S what we payed $90 for! An outrage! LMAO. Unlike an Austin Powers film, Monte's review DOES get funnier the more you see it.

 

[Numion]

Another good one:

"Lots of the new feats are the kind that just add a +2 bonus to two skills. For this we paid $90 for new books?" --Monte Cook

Yeah, Monte, that's the only thing they changed. THAT's what we're paying 90 DOLLARS for. The $60 ($40 online) that we pay for the 3.5 DMG and MM? All toward the new +2 skill bonus feats in the PHB. Nothing was added to those two books.

And they revised NO classes, NO spells, NOTHING in the PHB except the +2 skill feats. THAT'S what we payed $90 for! An outrage! LMAO. Unlike an Austin Powers film, Monte's review DOES get funnier the more you see it.

I think you're taking it too literally. Monte himself lists changes in the review, and there are a lot more than the feats. So hobviously he doesn't really mean that anyone paid $90 for only those feats. I think that he implied that those bonus-to-2-skills feats aren't really the sort of extra material one would want to pay for.

BTW, why did he get under your skin so much? It's only a review, and I'm not sure what I should make of your great discoveries here. It's not like you had actually refuted his review, but hey, if it makes you feel good, go for it

Except maybe you'd want to buy a tinfoil hat too?

 

[Triumph]

BTW, why did he get under your skin so much?

He didn't. I've enjoyed a lot of his commercial work, such as his Prestige Classes in Dragon and The Book of Vile Darkness.

I was just caught by the humor of some of his errors. And I'm not the one taking him too literally. Those who are swearing off 3.5 because of his review are.

 

[Angcuru]

Or we could all shut our ears to this nonsense and join

BATGNOME!

 

[orbitalfreak]

Personally, I think Monte went a little over the top in his review, and there was enough hyperbole* that I didn't take the review seriously. I can understand being upset at repurchasing a set of books only a few years after they're published, but I prefer to listen to opinions from people who are a little truer to matters rather than over-doing things.


[cheTONGUEek]
*In fact, everything he said was [/b]completely useless and false[/b].
[/cheTONGUEek]

 

[Triumph]

I don't think bumping threads about Monte Cook errors is exactly the spirit of BATGNOME, Angcuru...LOL.

 

[Angcuru]

I don't think bumping threads about Monte Cook errors is exactly the spirit of BATGNOME, Angcuru...LOL.

Whups.

DAMN I DID IT AGAIN!

*bangs head against wall*

BAD Angcuru! BAD! BAD!

 

[Monte At Home]

I was referring then (and now) to unfortunate statement on Page 178 of the DMG: "the caster's level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).

That error (which is my fault) has caused many headaches and misconceptions. It's why I wrote the two-part web article on magic item creation that you mention. So thus, I was dismayed to see that it's still (basically) in the DMG.

Just remember to take Monte's rants with a grain of salt people....

Yes, like everything you find on the Internet, and particularly on Usenet.

 

[Triumph]

Monte, a genuine question for you. Do you get offended or think "why do I bother participating with gamers on the internet" when you read posts like the one I made to start this thread? I mean, I do honestly disagree with a number of your opinions and sentiments, and sometimes it is fun to see someone, even if its a designer of the game, taken to task for an error on an issue of disagreement, but I'd hate it if that turned designers such as yourself off to participating with consumers and players in public forums.

I appreciate your contributions to the gaming industry, but as I'm sure you can relate, sometimes its more fun to focus on the negative.



EDIT: And the main reason for my initial post was because I felt your review was unjustifiably influencing players to NOT buy 3.5, which I hope was not your intent, despite your approval of some of the changes.