Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[TiQuinn]

It seems that this review brought out all the usual suspects in 3.5 debate threads.

My own personal thoughts:

Regarding the review itself, I think that I wouldn't buy a copy of the revision that Monte describes. It sounds more akin to the update of the 2nd edition handbook which include primarily errata and minor changes. But I will buy a book that includes changes to Haste, Hold Person, Harm, the Ranger class, the Bard class, etc., etc. I'm unconcerned with whether this is called version 3.0, 3.01, 3.5, or 4.0. To me, it's money that I need to shell out if I want to have the book, so they're all new versions AFAIC.

Yeah, reading Monte's part of the review where he talks about being in the meeting where 3.5 was being discussed around the time of the 3.0 edition, I couldn't help but think there was a little drama being inserted there. But he has a great point that in business what you often begin plans for, ends up being implemented by someone else. But because it is a truism, you inevitably have to shrug and move on.

I don't get bothered by the fact that the decision to release this was financially motivated. I'm also not blind to the fact either.

I haven't seen a version of this game yet, or any other game, that somebody hasn't house ruled at some point or another.

I'm just a player and a DM, I'm not a game designer. I'm sure the new books have a different impact on them than it does on myself.

I'm amazed by the folks who are preparing to re-base their miniatures due to the new spacing rules. That's a lot of work just to keep current with the rules. I certainly wouldn't do it until I saw how much of a problem (or lack thereof) the new spacing rules cause...and even then, I probably wouldn't do it.

BTW, Merric, Monte's been pretty forthright about goofs made in 3.0 and things he would change if he could go back and do it again. I think his point is that he wouldn't make those changes for a revision, no matter how badly he wanted to. He'd wait and do it when it's time to release 4th edition.

 

[Wormwood]

Nice article, but I'm still eagerly awaiting my 3.5 books.

To be honest---the revision team didn't go far enough in removing some of the sacred cows and poor rules artifacts left over from the original 3.0 design team.

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we get 4.0 the better.

 

[TiQuinn]

Nice article, but I'm still eagerly awaiting my 3.5 books.

To be honest---the revision team didn't go far enough in removing some of the sacred cows and poor rules artifacts left over from the original 3.0 design team.

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we get 4.0 the better.

Yeah, but do you think they'd really do it with 4th edition? I think some of these sacred cows are going to stick around as long as the game is called D&D.

 

[Piratecat]

One of the most valuable points Monte made was the concept of Mastery. He's quite right; the subtle changes means that it's going to be quite difficult to keep certain rules straight. I bloody hate house rules, but I expect that I'm going to need to adopt a few of them no matter which edition i'm playing.

 

[drnuncheon]

Lots of the new feats are the kind that just add a +2 bonus to two skills.

And there needed to be more of these. Okay not as elegant as a catch-all +2 to 2 skills feat, but more flavorful.

There's one thing that people overlook when complaining about the +2/+2 feats: if they've got a name, they are more easily used as a prerequisite (for other feats, Prestige Classes, etc).

Heck, Monte himself does this - his Magical Talent feat (+2 to Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana)) is a prerequisite for several Eldritch feats and at least one PrC in BOEM2.

J

 

[Yeoman]

I still think spring attack is broken.

I just wanted to say I agreed with your post, but wanted to ask you about this line, what exactly is wrong with Spring Attack? I've heard others mention similar complaints.

Thanks!

 

[Ysgarran]

Catch-22, very few other game developers would attract this kind of attention with their thoughts/opinions.

Ysgarran.

Eloquent, maybe. I just would have truly preferred that was written by someone other than Monte. I just can't get past the conflict of interest(s).

 

[DaveMage]

I will be updating to 3.5, but I'll be keeping my 3.0 Player's Handbook.

However, I will not be buying the miniatures, and I will not update to 4.0 when it comes out.

I think it was Buttercup who said earlier in this thread that she has enough 3.0 material to last forever.

I'm in the same boat.

With all of the d20 companies offering 3.0 and 3.5 material (something that did not happen with 1E and 2E), I see no reason to go beyond 3.5 (which is about as much revision as I want to tolerate, sans miniatures).

As for the topic, I thought Monte's review was very insightful, and I'm looking forward to Sean K. Reynolds take as well...

 

[Henry]

Quoted from MerricB:

These are things he got wrong in 3E.

Remember the old axiom: "Hindsight is 20/20." The design process was about 4 years ago, after all.

Quoted from tleilaxu:

folks, mince words if you like, but that review was an absolute reaming of 3.5.

I disagree. How can it be a "reaming" when there are as many good points as bad? If I read it properly, his biggest beef is his seeming belief that it will split the gaming base. That it will split the enthusiasts, and by extension the majority who buy Monte's online products, I have no doubt. But the main core of gamers everywhere? They'll likely forge on with 3.5e and not think twice.

The funny thing is, our group already plans to switch. We debated for all of 5 minutes. Maybe this will change once the final product rolls in, I don't know. But I don't think it will have the same effect Monte thinks it will.

 

[WizarDru]

I think Monte has a point on some things, doesn't on others. Personally, I think one thing people have to remember is that D&D 3.0 was not designed by a group mind, it was designed by a TEAM, and that team had to make compromises they could all agree to. They didn't all agree to certain rules, and it's obvious the SKR, Monte, Skip and others didn't all see eye-to-eye on every rule.

And I'll be honest, even after three years, as DM, I STILL don't have the elusive 'Mastery', though I understand the idea. Maybe others can memorize how many sunbolts an 18th level cleric gets off the top of their head, or what the dispel check is for a 7th-level heightened Bull's Strength...but I still have to look it up.


Now, that handedness business....what the HELL IS THAT? I hope it's not nearly as clunky as it sounds...because it sounds terrible.