Monte Cook reviews 3.5
- Thread starter Pielorinho
- Start date
Darrin Drader
Explorer
HellHound said:
You're on. I do have a Bastion Press panel to attend Saturday from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, and then a Bastion Press secret meeting
on Thursday, but otherwise I'm going to be free after hours. I'm flying in on Tuesday.
Last edited:
Hardhead
Explorer
The tone of a work is part of the statement. It is, by definition, the "emotional" factor of it. So while there is a difference, I was correct in saying that you called his claim "childish."
Even if you'd never used the word tone, that's still what you'd have meant in calling it childish, since you'd be refering to the manner of expression in emotinal terms.
You quite literally can't say that it's tone was childish, but the statement itself was not (well, you can, but it's as relevant as any other self-contradictory statement). Unless you meant that it came across as childish, but you don't think he was actually behaving that way. But if that's what you meant, you certainly didn't make it clear - and that's not what you said.
I see my assumption was false. You were just being rude.
Last edited:
BryonD
Hero
You can not see the difference between calling a statement childish and calling the tone in which it is delivered childish?
I mean, your denial that this is possible is just absurd.
A) This is yet another dodge of the issue. Insults where an answer is lacking.
B) I have been quite polite compared to your behavior.
So please, go wallow in your anger at the evil WotC empire. If you can't post a single reply to me without misquotes or dodges, there is no value in pointing them out over and over.
I mean, your denial that this is possible is just absurd.
A) This is yet another dodge of the issue. Insults where an answer is lacking.
B) I have been quite polite compared to your behavior.
So please, go wallow in your anger at the evil WotC empire. If you can't post a single reply to me without misquotes or dodges, there is no value in pointing them out over and over.
Tsyr
Explorer
BryonD said:
Regardless of if that was his goal or not, he should be applauded for what he has done.
Even skimming out the "bias", on purely the basis of the facts he presents, I was able to make a descision.
From the facts I have obtained elsewhere (This board, for example), I was sitting on the line. I wanted it to satisfy my "Must get new stuff!" urge, but I could already tell I probably would be mad at myself for buying it later. Now I know I just wont get it, at least until I find it used or in the discount rack somewhere, or something. I'll gank the ranger, bard, and monk classes off the SRD, see if I like them or not, and take a few new spells off it, but I can't justify the new books now.
And I suspect I wasn't the only one sitting on the fence... I've talked to a lot of people who felt similar to me.
BryonD
Hero
Tsyr said:
No problem there. But the impression I have developed over time is that this is exactly the opposite of Monte's desire.
I am not being critical of anyone for deciding they do not want it based on his comments.
I am just curious what he thinks. Not that I think he is under the slightest obligation to say. I just find it an interesting twist.
If the predictions of the proliferation of house rules come to pass, I am not looking forward with having to learn new rules every time I play with different people. That could be an even bigger blow to Monte's concept of mastery than the way the changes were made between 3 and 3.5.
Anyways, I don't like using miniatures. For those who wonder why, for me it interferes with my imagination. I like to imagine the battle as fluid and action-packed. When it's run on a battle mat two things happen:
1. Your imagination of what the actors look like are effected by whatever miniatures happen to be on hand - and by necessity they very often aren't anything resembling the creature they are supposed to represent.
2. Miniature combat accentuates the static turn based nature of D&D combat. It's harder to imagine everyone moving and fighting at once - the chaos of war - when you see them in front of you moving one at a time and waiting for each other to move.
Yeah, I can ignore these things, and of course I don't assume that other people should agree, but since someone was wondering earlier, this is why I, personally, prefer running it without minis.
Playing with minis just seems more like a video game or board game to me, rather than an act of imagination.
Anyways, I don't like using miniatures. For those who wonder why, for me it interferes with my imagination. I like to imagine the battle as fluid and action-packed. When it's run on a battle mat two things happen:
1. Your imagination of what the actors look like are effected by whatever miniatures happen to be on hand - and by necessity they very often aren't anything resembling the creature they are supposed to represent.
2. Miniature combat accentuates the static turn based nature of D&D combat. It's harder to imagine everyone moving and fighting at once - the chaos of war - when you see them in front of you moving one at a time and waiting for each other to move.
Yeah, I can ignore these things, and of course I don't assume that other people should agree, but since someone was wondering earlier, this is why I, personally, prefer running it without minis.
Playing with minis just seems more like a video game or board game to me, rather than an act of imagination.
Hardhead
Explorer
Are we reading the same thread? I think my behavior speaks for itself.
I would like to ask you why you are behaving this way toward me? I looked over my original response to your post, and I don't think I was being offensive. Yet you have been nothing but rude to me (and others) while I have been cordial.
For instance, when you pointed out that my quote from the D&D Revision announcement didn't fully support what I'd said previously, I conceeded the point and clarified my position.
When I pointed out that, despite what you'd said, not everything would be in the SRD, you asked me what my point was, as if I was speaking nonsense (apparently I was dodging the issue by disagreeing with your statement?), when my point was obviously clear.
When I reiterated it, and pointed out your rudeness in case you yourself weren't aware of it, you behaved in an even ruder fashion.
So, in summary, what's your problem?
Last edited:
Oh, and for the record I think that 3e worked just fine and didn't need a revision of this magnitude yet. The changes in 3.5e are all little fiddly bits that don't have enough impact on the game to be worth spending that much money. I think they should have waited (much) longer and done more.
Nightfall
Sage of the Scarred Lands
While a few changes I felt could have been used, I stand with a lot of you in that "There's some good stuff in 3.5...and not so good stuff" Was the revision needed? I honestly don't know...but I do think the changes made in this edition DO render 3.0 conversion far less useful in mastery than before.
Similar Threads
