Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[John Crichton]

The worst things is that Sean Reynolds just confirmed that the ERRATA FROM 3E DID NOT GET INCLUDED IN 3.5!!!! I am really angry at this. So they published a book without the official errata that they promised back when they mentioned the third printing.

As the third printing is 3.5, then I am highly pee'd off. Jerks. Enough said.

He said some errata, not all of it. I wouldn't freak out until we see the books. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking forward to errata...

 

[John Crichton]

The d20 system has been a blessing for the game, but a bottomless pit for my wallet.

Too true, just look to the left.

 

[tleilaxu]

Originally posted by 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.



Nope. The difference is that Jim Ward writes crap and Monte doesn't.

"You might say there's a little Uder in all of us, hahaha!" - Principal Skinner

 

[Storminator]

To me that is the point I see in Monte's "mastery" construction. It's not about the logistical problem of adapting to a new skill set, it's about the emotional problem of the impact of change on play value.

Whether that's a problem that 3.5e is apt to suffer, I don't feel qualified to say. My point is simply that it isn't about whether people will adapt, but about how they will feel about having to, and what game designers can do to make that feeling better or worse. As long as we agree on what the potential problem at hand is, I have no problem with different speculations and conclusions about whether 3.5e suffers that problem.

I do agree that this was the point he was trying to make. I'm saying I reject that point out of hand, so naturally, I don't agree with anything that follows from that point. I put that entire section down as a non-issue and moved on. Then I mostly put the rest of his points down as non-issues as well, then I stopped reading.

Probably irrelavent to the discussion at this point, as I'm 4 pages behind now.

PS

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Originally posted by 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.



"You might say there's a little Uder in all of us, hahaha!" - Principal Skinner

Since I don't much like any of Monte's products I consider this to merely be a rant.

 

[tleilaxu]

doc- whose comment, mine or uder's?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I just can't believe I got left behind by a new edition again, and so soon after buying the prior edition. Aw well...Wizards did that to me with Star Wars and now D&D.

 

[kkoie]

well Monte's review was the straw that broke the.. etc etc. I for one will not be spending $90. It will cost me far less money to download the SRD and print them off myself.

 

[Staffan]

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 think this is one of the changes that will be a lot better for newbies than for those who have played before. I know I would rather see "A greatsword made for a Huge character (like a storm giant)" than "A Gargantuan greatsword (suitable for two-handed use by a Huge character, like a storm giant)".

Edit: Forgot what the size above Huge was.

 

[KenM]

Well, if WOTC does not mess up some things with 3.5, then they don't have a legitamate excuse to put out 4.0.