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

[Monte At Home]

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?

Offended, no.

Feelings of "why do I bother?" Hmmm... Honestly? Yes.

It's easy to bogged down by the hot/cold atmosphere of the internet, where everyone either hates or loves something, where everything either rocks or sucks. It's easy to focus too much on the negativity of the Internet (one reason I stopped doing rants on my site, and only do "raves").

But I do bother, obviously, because there's a lot more good than bad. I guess it comes down to this: I like interacting with people who like to game. It's my passion, and it's cool to find so many people who have similar passions. I imagine that's why most of us are here, and on my boards, and elsewhere.

But it is true that there are places on the net where I don't go, where I find the discussions to be too often uninteresting or puerile. I like ENWorld, and I like (of course) the messageboards at montecook.com. Both are usually fairly civil places. I pop in at Nutkinland now and again, and the Necromancer Games boards once in a while.

 

[Dinkeldog]

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.

I didn't get that feeling at all. I also intend to pick up 3.5 at some point in the future when possible. I imagine, however, that it will carry many of the usual houserules that we had from 3.0, some of which pre-empt the changes in 3.5.

 

[Caliban]

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....

I don't think I've seen a ruder or more ignorant post in recent memory.

The caster level debate for item creation has gone on since 3e has been released, and it not so simply resolved as you seem to think.

 

[Triumph]

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

I don't think I've seen a ruder or more ignorant post in recent memory.

"It's easy to bogged down by the hot/cold atmosphere of the internet, where everyone either hates or loves something, where everything either rocks or sucks."

You might do well to make a note of that Caliban.

 

[Caliban]

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

"It's easy to bogged down by the hot/cold atmosphere of the internet, where everyone either hates or loves something, where everything either rocks or sucks."

You might do well to make a note of that Caliban.

Make a note of what? The quote you butchered doesn't excuse your behavior.

Trying to use a cryptic quote to make yourself sound cool, and then butchering it really doesn't help you. It just makes you look even more ignorant.

You might do well to make a note of that before you post pseudo-intellectual crap in the future.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Okay, this doesn't have to go any further. If you want to discuss whether caster level is a requirement, please do so in rules.