Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[the Jester]

I definitely respect Monte's opinion, and in this case I share his view about 75% of the time.

I agree that it's too much too soon, but I think there were some areas that needed polishing (rangers, haste, harm, the buffs, etc). I also like the change to square facing; I'm not sure about the rules for fitting in smaller spaces, I haven't seen those yet.

I also, however, agree that the concept of 'mastery' has just been demolished, at least for a while- until we all relearn everything.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I agree with Monte on one imporant idea he conveyed in the article: House Rules. For me, the 3.5 Revised edition has been a clear indicator that D&D is all about preference: My preference versus the preference of the official game designers. House Rules are the best way to obtain the best possible game to suit my own preference.

The fact of the matter is that we all have different experiences playing this game. There will be many different opinions about the rules. For example, I have never had a player empower a stat buff spell, so for me this hasn't been an issue. I have never had a player use Invisibility, Fly or Teleport combined with divination spells to bypass an encounter. My players like to face encounters, not avoid them. Many of these issues do not occur in our campaigns, so we have no reason to change the duration or effect of the above spells. Many campaigns might have seen this kind of abuse occur, so they are happy with the changes. Who can say but the individuals playing in a particular campaign.

I plan to House Rule vigorously. The new edition definitely has encouraged me to implement many of the changes I have been contemplating. I figure why not? This new revised edition is really just the new game design teams House Rules made official combined with some House Rules the community wanted to see in effect as a whole.

I'm kind of glad this Revision has happened. It has made my players more open to House Rules because they are not keen on implementing all the changes in 3.5. I have been able to work in House Rules they like as well as some of my own that I like to make the campaign world closer to my personal preference.

 

[Uder]

If this had been in a 900 Words everyone would be jeering and laughing at poor Jim Ward.

It's a testament to Monte Cook's character and writing ability that he is able to write a rant, call it a review and still come out sounding so damn charming and friendly. No wonder he's the gaming equivalent of a rock star.

It would be very simple to dismiss any of my negative comments with, "Oh, that's just sour grapes talking," or, "He's just trying to convince you to buy his competing product, Arcana Unearthed."

Very simple indeed. What did Ockham say about simple answers?

 

[ruemere]

My 1 point of damage:

I liked enough the 3.5 changes (Druids, Rangers, Monks and Barbarians, Power Attacks and spell changes) to buy it. While I agree with Monte on bad sides (skipping credits where credits are due is simply very bad form, new facings are going to be painful for mass combats with creatures of differing sizes, editorial mistakes should _not_ happen in _revised_ edition), I am not really worried about them. I can do it.

Nerfing buff spells was a great idea. After all, who uses 25 point spread, eh? And buff spells coupled with 32 or 36 point spread rendered CR system unstable.

In other words, 3.5 is a step in the right direction, just like 3.0 was. It's a smaller step than I'd like it to be.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[John Crichton]

If this had been in a 900 Words everyone would be jeering and laughing at poor Jim Ward.

It's a testament to Monte Cook's character and writing ability that he is able to write a rant, call it a review and still come out sounding so damn charming and friendly. No wonder he's the gaming equivalent of a rock star.

While I see your point, I disagree. A review of that type is unique to Monte (and maybe a few choice others) because he was such a big part of the original 3.0 design team. Jim Ward could not have written those same words because he was not in the position that Monte is in.

He did admit to its rantishness somewhere in there and no, it is not a slam of 3.5, he just doesn't love some of the changes and really wants some new art as it seems to me.

 

[Numion]

F that!

I'm going back to M:tG.



I'm not buying 3.5e. Not because of Monte's column, but because close to $120 will be too much for those changes. My biggest gripes with 3e are easily fixed with house rules (buffs, archery).

They could've made the game actually much better, IMHO.

 

[Nightstorm]

You know, I like Monte. I like the stuff he produces[ bought quite a few of it myself] and I all but totally agree with him on his views of 3.5 BUT if he thinks for one minute that I'm going to believe that Arcana Unearthed is coming out at the same time as 3.5 is unplanned, then I have some swamp water you need to bottle.

 

[John Crichton]

You know, I like Monte. I like the stuff he produces[ bought quite a few of it myself] and I all but totally agree with him on his views of 3.5 BUT if he thinks for one minute that I'm going to believe that Arcana Unearthed is coming out at the same time as 3.5 is unplanned, then I have some swamp water you need to bottle.

I believe him. It would be better if they were not coming out at the same time as there would probably be more buzz for his stuff if 3.5 didn't steal the thunder.

Edit: You can keep the swamp water.

 

[MerricB]

You know, I'd like to see Monte write an article taking issue with himself and the rest of the 3E design team for making so many bad choices on 3E.

Note the things he liked:

* It now costs less for wizards to scribe spells into their spellbooks.
* Rangers and barbarians have more interesting abilities at higher levels
* Bards have more of their own unique spells (and are a better class to play in general).
* There are rules for special familiars like pseudo dragons.
* Sorcerers can change out their known spells when they become useless (or simply were bad choices)
* Druid animal companions advance as the druid does.
* Githyanki and githzerai are in the Monster Manual (I'd wanted them in there in the first place, but they were saved for the Psionics Handbook.)
* Demons and devils are tougher.
* Monster skills and feats are more standardized.
* Harm and heal are more balanced.
* Blade barrier is now playable.
* Some potions are now oils, helping the logic of what can and can't be a potion.
* The glossaries and indexes are even better.

These are things he got wrong in 3E.

With regards to Monte's criticisms of 3.5E, there are some I agree with, some I greatly disagree with.

Interestingly, I've seen Andy Collins and other WotC designers discuss a few reasons behind the changes.

The +2/+2 feats in particular - almost every skill in 3.5E has a feat that corresponds to it - I think there's one exception. This was to stop more and more of these feats being added - so that you could theoretically take 5 feats to increase your Hide skill by using various d20 supplements. With all these feats existing, there is no real need to create more.

I do agree with the criticisms of the NPC layouts, though... assuming they're correct. (I've not yet seen the 3.5E DMG). I found those shortened stats to be incredibly useful... without equipment, I'll be dragging along my 3E DMG to a few sessions yet.

Cheers!

 

[Krug]

I don't think it was he who got it wrong. He had ideas on how it should be; maybe the overall committee didn't.

I think ppl will like some of the 3.5 changes, and dislike others, same as Monte.