Monte Cook reviews 3.5
- Thread starter Pielorinho
- Start date
Hardhead
Explorer
If by "fixing," you mean "lumped even more stuff into the Wonderous Items category," you're right, but I don't consider that an improvement, though the issue is minor.
BryonD said:
I'm sorry, I guess my original post wasn't clear enough. WotC claimed over and over that it was a decision motivated primarily by feedback. This appears now it is not the case. That's what I meant.
Many buisness decisions make me mad. It causes changes in my purchasing habits and creates some of the most important feedback a company can get (as a general rule, if they're making people mad, they're doing something wrong). This one doesn't make mad, but it has made some people mad.
Anyway, that aside, I still don't see why it was "childish" of Monte to tell everyone the primary motivation behind the revision.
You said: "I do not know of a single 3.5 change that will not be in the SRD."
I said: "Illithids, Slaad, Githyanki, Githzeari, and the "tanar'ri and baatezu" names will not be in the SRD, at least."
I'm going to assume you actually somehow managed to miss that point rather than assuming that you were just being very rude for some reason and completly ignoring my statement.
So, to clarify, my point was that not everything in the 3.0 books will be playable in 3.5 with just the SRD. You'll have to go out and buy the MM to get the 3.5 versions of some of the monsters, if not more.
Note that there may be other things not in the SRD as well, since we haven't seen it to know what it includes and what it doesn't. For instance, I'd be very surprised if the Red Wizard ended up in the SRD.
Dr_Rictus
First Post
BryonD said:
Not really, no. I'm pretty aware of what I'm trying to do, since I'm the one trying to do it. Mainly, I figure if I can prevent anybody out there from being off-handedly dismissive of someone else's expressed and genuine woe, I'll have done somebody out there a favor. I feel like doing a favor tonight. It would make me feel good.
But if it gives you comfort to think that about me, well, I don't feel that it really does me any harm. But it does make it harder to have a discussion with you.
I really don't care to upset you, but it does seem that you're getting a bit heated about this, and I think it might be better to step back from the discussion for a while. Hmm, I hope that does not sound too ironic, as I actually do think you've tried to keep the discussion productive despite obviously feeling very strongly about it.
But besides, at least where I am, it's after midnight.
Last edited:
Dr_Rictus
First Post
BryonD said:
I'm sure you're right. To the extent that he wanted to inform people, though, hopefully he will not be disappointed at their making what is hopefully a better-informed decision (whatever they decide). I certainly appreciate his insight on the topic.
And with that, I recall my claim that I was going to turn in for the night.
BryonD
Hero
Hardhead said:
No, they said it was a motive. The primary motive of business it to produce a product that makes money. WotC can not be held accountable for people oddly assuming otherwise.
You seem to have a real problem with wildly mis-quoting people.
My actual quote was: "The idea that this should even be mentioned in a conspiritorial {nudge, nudge} they're pulling one over on you tone just seems childish and petty."
I never called telling childish. I did call the tone childish. Total difference.
YAWN. And I have stated numerous times that simple converstions of a handful of things like these will be VERY simple.
HellHound
ENnies winner and NOT Scrappy Doo
I fully agree with Kai Lord.
The strange debate over the weapon size issue is the one that makes the least sense to me.
The day a gnome picked up a Huge creature's Dagger (say, a Giant's dagger) and claimed he could wield it proficiently as a 2-handed sword was the day I house-ruled the old weapon size rules.
I mean... Sure the weapon is size Medium... but the handle on the bloody thing is NOTHING like the handle of a two-handed sword. It would be FAR thicker and therefore very difficult to grasp and use correctly.
Therefore, the new weapon size rules work perfectly, IMO.
And gnomes can finally make Gnomish Morningstars that work one-handed, just like human morningstars do.
---
Hound Post #1963 - The year the first commercial nuclear reactor went online at the Jersey Central Power Company. Next stop: Chernobyl.
The strange debate over the weapon size issue is the one that makes the least sense to me.
The day a gnome picked up a Huge creature's Dagger (say, a Giant's dagger) and claimed he could wield it proficiently as a 2-handed sword was the day I house-ruled the old weapon size rules.
I mean... Sure the weapon is size Medium... but the handle on the bloody thing is NOTHING like the handle of a two-handed sword. It would be FAR thicker and therefore very difficult to grasp and use correctly.
Therefore, the new weapon size rules work perfectly, IMO.
And gnomes can finally make Gnomish Morningstars that work one-handed, just like human morningstars do.
---
Hound Post #1963 - The year the first commercial nuclear reactor went online at the Jersey Central Power Company. Next stop: Chernobyl.
Let's just say after the 'argument' Monte made conscerning the Mystic Theurge, i take is design expertise with a grain of salt, especially because he tends to get personal with his opinions on the net, hoping to foster this 'bad boy' opinion for a few hangerons.
Most of his gripes are ridiculously opinionated and don't really speak to the balance of the game. Apparently he can make a backhanded swipe about paying $90 for +2 skill feats, but expects everyone to pay that same amount for nothing more than clarifications and a few price changes. But then, I doubt he actually gave his review (rant) another read to check such contradictions. He never really lays out what he would expect from a revision, but oh well. Pathetic.
Most of his gripes are ridiculously opinionated and don't really speak to the balance of the game. Apparently he can make a backhanded swipe about paying $90 for +2 skill feats, but expects everyone to pay that same amount for nothing more than clarifications and a few price changes. But then, I doubt he actually gave his review (rant) another read to check such contradictions. He never really lays out what he would expect from a revision, but oh well. Pathetic.
Last edited:
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
taliesin52 said:
Its pretty much here already. Expect new books, one for each class with PrC's, abilities, magic items, feats, etc.... which will now be known as a "Codex™." These Codecies™ will be in increacing levels of power as they're published with whichever one's most current being more powerful than all others before.
Second, your miniatures which are required and in a very TSR/WTC move will be trademarked "Combat Figurines™" (in a move to make fans of The Nazi™ and Tapping™ cards happy) will be specific to your character type. You'll be required thusly to have a Combat Figurine™ that's seen weilding two weapons if your character does. What's more, your character must dress identically to his Combat Figurine™.
Further, a new edition will be released every year. This edition will do its best to nullify and relegate away any and every rule/class/ability of the previous edition (although it may be identical to an edition published some time ago). If you want to continue playing in public you'll need the most current form of the rules (although you may play at home and in secret with previously published inferior rules). What's more, you'll only be allowed to discus the most current edition online in officially sanctioned messageboards/forums. Of course ones like Enworld which are not owned by WotC (or an affiliate) will still exist, but you'd not want to talk there anyhow since its not as good as the official™ message board and is mostly populated by those freaky old guys who only play older editions and grumble about attack matricies (the Official™ Messageboards will automatically filter out such archaic jargon such as this in your best interests).
In time the concept of printing new books and editions frequently will be abolished. Instead you'll buy an E-book™. This book will lock down after a few months and you'll be required to slide your credit card through the first chapter to pay for an update (which will also conveniently update all characters you have and will be accurate and bug free, much like WotC/TSR's editors).
Ok, that wasn't very serious... Well ok its a slight fear of mine but its mostly satire from someone who sees this literally happening in the miniature gaming industry and is amazed that it works so well for certain unnamed *cough GW cough* companies.
That said, I do agree with almost everything (95%) of what Monte's said.
It wouldn't suprise me very much if they adopted the GW model. It seems to be very sucessful.
Darrin Drader
Explorer
John Crichton said:Aw, c'mon Darrin. I, for one, would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.
* poke poke *
* prod prod *
Very well. I'll make a couple very general comments, and then after that, I'm keeping my silence.
First of all, I do very much respect Monte Cook's opinion. As his review points out, he was, after all, one of the three main people responsible for 3rd edition, which was such a huge leap forward from 2nd edition that everyone involved deserves a great deal of respect and praise. I also want to mention that I will be buying UA. Now, having said that, I have a few comments on a couple of his points.
First off, the stuff he said were good changes. I agree. Completely. All good changes, and relatively minor in terms of using old 3E stuff with 3.5.
Facing, I have no issues with one way or another. I didn't consider it broken to begin with. I don't consider it broken now. If I run into a situation where it is broken, I'll just use DM's fiat to make it more intuitive.
I think the only difference between squares and feet it that now a square on a battlemat represents a specific number of feet. But then again, it did before. No big deal there except that it forces you to think in a more linear and graphical way and makes it harder to game without minis and a battlemat. Any good DM can still make it work according to the old system. Again, IMHO, no big deal here.
Handedness is something that (I believe, possibly incorrectly) came about as the result of Savage Species. I don't know about the people on these boards, but there are definitely people using that book. Trust me on this! With character sizes varying now to a much greater degree than ever before, it helps to have a standardized set of rules on how to deal with weapons for size large and larger creatures. Yes, it called for a minor retooling of the old system, but I think when you actually get the book, you'll find the changes to be actually fairly minor.
I liked the NPCs in the old DMG slightly better. Open endedness on this particular table makes it less useful to me as a DM. Fortunately, I almost never used this table to begin with.
"The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened." This is what I would call a good change. You can still buff your character for a tough fight, but with the right combination of spells, you can no longer up your ability bonus for the entire day. This is a game balance issue that I think was properly addressed, but I can see Monte's point of view on this as well. I think the question is what you consider balanced, and that varies from designer to designer, DM to DM.
No problems with the new feats since most of them are reprints of feats that appeared in the splat books and simply add to the number of feats included in the core books. Again, no big deal one way or another. I still think spring attack is broken.
His point about prestige classes incurring a penalty under 3.5 is valid. I don't know whether this was intentional or not and I don't know if it will be erratta'd. Personally, I would use the old system of not having them incur a penalty, for reasons I think anyone can figure out.
Overall I think Montes review is good and gives you a peek behind the curtain that actual WotC folk are not likely to provide. Now, enough reviewing the review. As for backwards compatibility, I slyly snuck the 3.5 rules into my 3.0 game without calling for a change in character classes, and I did it without any problems. In fact, that is how I would recommend making the transition. Use all the stuff from the combat chapter, feats, equipment, and spells chapters immediately. Most of that stuff is clarifications and in most cases will not change you game a whole lot. Switch to the reworking of the character classes when you start new characters.
3E D20 supplemental books work for anyone capable of critical thought and the power of deduction. Anyone familliar with both editions should be able the replace facing with space and intuitively deduce the proper number of squares the creature should use. 3rd party supplements and adventures work with little to no reworking of stats, and again these are changes that can easily be made on the fly. You shouldn't need to bother with the prep work before a game session. In most cases its a simple matter of a skill name changing, although only a few of these were renamed. Same story with spells. I have yet to come across any 3rd party rules accessory (not adventure or monster book) that requires any changing at all.
Finally, I think some of the additional material in the DMG is very useful. If only it would have been there when 3.0 was released. This includes the one thing I found most lacking back then - epic levels - advancement beyonf level 20. You should still get the Epic Level Handbook if you want to take advantage of all the cool stuff in that book, but if you just want to know the basics on how it works, it's here. In fact, I consider a lot of the Epic Level stuff a little over the top, so I would be willing to toss much of that and keep the general guidelines given in the new DMG.
Now I'm going to shut up. If anyone wants to look me up at Gen Con to discuss this further, I'll be available after hours.
BryonD
Hero
Dr_Rictus said:
Fair enough. I totally accept that you are sincere. I apologize.
However, I REALLY am convinced that you are wrong when you use the term "off-handedly". I have been working with the 3.5 stuff for a few months now.
There are parts of it I really do not like. (MT comes to mind. I really hate that class, as well as the eldritch knight).
If you are smart enough to play D&D, you are smart enough to do backwards and/or forwards conversions. And I am NOT saying that not liking 3.5 means you are not smart. You can HATE 3.5, but if you are reading this, I can assure you, you are smart enough to do the conversions (you just won't want to
).So, please just accept that I truly believe this, based on what I believe to be sufficient experience.
Good night.
Similar Threads
