Mongoose Quintessential Series

[Melkor]

What needs to be changed/updated with these books to make them work for 3.5 ?

How good are they (In other words, did Mongoose have a good grasp of the 3rd Edition rules when the first ones were produced ? Did they keep the line fairly balanced as 3rd Edition continued towards 3.5 ?) ?

Thanks!

 

[JustKim]

In other words, did Mongoose have a good grasp of the 3rd Edition rules when the first ones were produced ?

No. Some are better than others but the early Quintessentials are some of the worst examples of imbalance or rules misinterpretation in early third party material. Like the Slayer series I got them for cheap secondhand, they're not bad reading but the Quintessentials buff characters too much and the Slayers contradict canon too freely to be usable.

 

[Turjan]

How good are they (In other words, did Mongoose have a good grasp of the 3rd Edition rules when the first ones were produced ?

Well, the question is more like "did the author have a good grasp of the 3rd Edition rules when the first ones were produced?" If you see it from that point of view, you are left with Quintessential Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue and Monk as the pearls of the series. Note that these are all 3.0 titles. The 3.5 titles adorned by the "II" suffer from a strict format that the books had to follow, which shows.

 

[Psion]

Grab the ones by Mearls and Younts (sorcerer, wizard, rogue, monk). Forget the rest. Of those, Monk probably has the roughest translation to 3.5 (though some of that material was redone as a free download for Quint Monk II).

 

[Psion]

Well, the question is more like "did the author have a good grasp of the 3rd Edition rules when the first ones were produced?" If you see it from that point of view, you are left with Quintessential Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue and Monk as the pearls of the series. Note that these are all 3.0 titles. The 3.5 titles adorned by the "II" suffer from a strict format that the books had to follow, which shows.

What he said.