Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[John Crichton]

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).

Isn't that a little close-minded? Why immediately shut yourself off from something that you could enjoy? Especially without seeing it first or even giving it a shot...

 

[BryonD]

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

I agree. I still think 3E is the best rpg design I have ever seen.

There are very few things I would call "mistakes" in it.

3.5 is an overall significant improvement simply because it is that solid initial design with the added advantage of 4 years hindsight and experience.

 

[Celtavian]

re

As long as this is the last update for a good number of years past three, I don't think it will be so bad. If WotC continues to update making invalid a great many of previously purchased books that will drive quite a few folks from the game.

For myself, the biggest buying point of this new edition is the change to a few key spells like Harm and Disintegrate. If I didn't want official changes to abusive spells, I wouldn't purchase the new edition. Many of the other changes aren't particularly compelling to me.

The changes also mak many of my other books, including the recently purchased Fiend Folio, somewhat harder to use. That I don't like.

I will not be held captive to upgrades. I hope WotC doesn't think it can pull this as often as it feels necessary. I certainly won't buy an upgrade every three to five years.

I hope they spend more time developing high quality non-core products. The original splat books were rife with errors and poorly designed rules and Prestige classes with occasional gems. The best books WotC has put out have been the FR books. I hope they bring all the other non-core books up to the quality of FR materials.

 

[DaveMage]

Isn't that a little close-minded? Why immediately shut yourself off from something that you could enjoy? Especially without seeing it first or even giving it a shot...

Yes, it is a little closed-minded. And I should have put a caveat in there. I will not be upgrading to 4.0 if it comes out within the next 8 years.

However, it's more than just personal close-mindedness, it's also a matter of personal economics. I've literally spent thousands on 3.0 (and will continue to spend on 3.5).

Many of the supplements I have purchased I would not get a chance to use if an update comes too quickly.

 

[John Crichton]

Yes, it is a little closed-minded. And I should have put a caveat in there. I will not be upgrading to 4.0 if it comes out within the next 8 years.

Fair enough. I'd like a least 4-5 years before I have the chance to buy 4e.

However, it's more than just personal close-mindedness, it's also a matter of personal economics. I've literally spent thousands on 3.0 (and will continue to spend on 3.5).

Many of the supplements I have purchased I would not get a chance to use if an update comes too quickly.

Same here. I still use old books and am not looking forward to buying tons of stuff for a new edition any time soon. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[BryonD]

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

I do not find it clunky at all. It works pretty logically once you adjust to it.

However, I still don't really like this change. I think this one was a change that adds logic at the expense of game play.

It makes sense that a halfling fighter can not just grab a human's longsword and use it the same way he would use a halfling sized greatsword. But, so? I agree with Monte that having a halfling and human both be able to use the +2 longsword they just found is more valuable. To me that adds more fun to the game than the new logic does.

So, right now I am still in a no house rules mode, to give everything a try. But this is on my list of likely changes after a while. Just not because of any clunkiness.

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Mastery

And making PCs is the least of the problem with this. It's trivial in fact. Knowing that now the rules have changed slightly on a spell your wizard uses every other session, or knowing that trips are calculated differently, or knowng that a skill does something slightly differently is very different than picking a spell, feat, or skill for a PC.

Yep. This is going to be a mess. Not the big changes, although I disagree with several of those and wont' be using them. BUt the little changes. Should I decide to convert to 3.5, a lot of records and resources I used will need to be revised in little, annoying, niggling ways.

For eaxmple: I have been keeping a data base in which I keep track of all of the general characteristics of spells (school, descriptors, classes that can cast them, spell level, and so on) so that keeping all of the supplemental and third party material in one place with the PHB stuff is possible. Overhauling this database to comport with 3.5 will be a pain in the butt due to the various minor and subtle changes made in the PHB spell list.

 

[molonel]

"Taking levels of a prestige class now apparently forces you to pay multiclassing XP costs. Whether intentionally or by accident, the prestige class chapter no longer states that they are free of this cost." - Monte Cook

What?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

How will anyone but a human even qualify for a PrC anymore without taking XP penalties? Even for a human, it's going to be tough.

 

[Tsyr]

So, right now I am still in a no house rules mode, to give everything a try. But this is on my list of likely changes after a while. Just not because of any clunkiness.

You know, this has always puzzled me... This attitude that I have to try something to know if I will like it.

To borrow(steel) from a Dilbert strip...

I don't have to try cramming a bag of potato chips up my nose to know I wouldn't like it. I just know I wouldn't. Likewise, I just know a lot of the changes in 3.5 I won't like.

 

[WizarDru]

You know, this has always puzzled me... This attitude that I have to try something to know if I will like it.

How about because experience has shown me that very often, many of the preconcieved notions I had about several rules were not borne out by actual gameplay? Many spells that I thought were overpowered turned out to be fine, when they actually saw play. The same is true of particular feats, skills and specific rules that seemed like they wouldn't work well, but turned out to be just fine.

We're not talking about swallowing battery acid, here. D&D is a complex system, relatively speaking, dependent on the interaction of lots of different rules and systems. As Gandalf might say, "Even the wisest cannot see all ends".

Oh, and the xp penalty for PrCs is an editing mistake, according to Sean Reynolds. The text was deleted by mistake, but it hasn't changed from 3.0....i.e. no penalty.