Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[francisca]

From the Sean Reynolds rebuttal:

===============

True, and again this is a problem stemming from the brand team. Other than "make 3.5," the brand team didn't give R&D much direction as to how far they should go with the changes. Should it be just an incorporation of errata and rewrites of confusing rules? No answer. Should it be a step forward in the evolution of D&D, a hybrid between 3.0 and whatever 4.0 would be in the future? No answer. So the designers made changes they thought were needed and others that they thought would improve the game, but weren't really told when to stop. The result is a game that's much like 3.0 but different enough to require relearning of your game memory and reflexes.

==============

Excuse me, but it seems to me that the R&D team should the group that decides when to stop. Not the brand team.

I mean come on! If the R&D team can't decide what is revised content and what is new edition material, then who can?

Dunno if SKR is trying to deflect heat from his pals still at WOTC, but in my estimation, it is up to the R&D to reign themselves in on revision. If 3.5 is a slushy mix of revision and new edition, then the responsibility for it falls squarley on the shoulders of R&D, especially if the brand team gave them no direction.

Chalk me up as another "3.25" player. I'll get the SRD and house rule stuff in. More than that, I'll do so sometime in 2004, after reading posts here on ENWorld.

 

[dcollins]

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.

You're going to need to quote exactly where Sean said this, because I don't see it in his recent commentary.

Now, if you're thinking of this passage...

{Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains.}

I'd guess that's because the designers may have been working off the pre-errata files and didn't plug in all of the errata. Oops.

... then it's Sean that's making the bit of a mistake here. That rule was never altered in Errata or even the official FAQ.

 

[Arnwyn]

Yep, I'm a 3.25er. Monte's review didn't tell me anything I didn't know already (or had long-since correctly guessed).

 

[Hardhead]

This seems strange given that the whole point of 3.5 was in essence to be an errata and band-aid edition.

Artwork I could care less about (I'm not a big fan of putting out a new edition just for the sake of new art), but when the stated purpose of the edition was to fix problems, and the errata is left out... then what exactly is the point of the revision again?

I don't think WotC has any editors left - they've all been fired. Look at Savage Species, for example, where the chief ediotr was also one of the three writers of the book. Everyone knows you never edit your own work! That's a basic rule of publishing! Maybe even the basic rule!

Considering the massive increase in errors over the last year or two, I'm not surprised that this book will have it's fair share. Even though there's really no excuse for them in a revision like this.

 

[dcollins]

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

Well, it's Occam, and he's reputed to have said "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html )

Unfortunately, theory #1, that WOTC fired most of its design staff, decided to follow a proven Games Workshop business model, and turned out a sub-par product, is a lot more consistent with the known facts than theory #2, that Monte Cook for the first time ever became unreasonably bitter and was unable to write an honest review of a gaming product.

 

[DaveMage]

Here's Monte's first (and last) word on the topic (you'll have to scroll down a bit):

http://pub58.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=248.topic&start=21&stop=37

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Originally posted by dcollins
Unfortunately, theory #1, that WOTC fired most of its design staff, decided to follow a proven Games Workshop business model, and turned out a sub-par product, is a lot more consistent with the known facts than theory #2, that Monte Cook for the first time ever became unreasonably bitter and was unable to write an honest review of a gaming product.

You don't even have to look that far into it. Theory #1 is also the easiest and most likely. Some call it a sub-par product, but it is also an already Bestselling sub-par product. Bad or not, it's already made it's money and then some, and it hasn't even officially been released.

That's the reason the GW model works, and in fact it isn't even a model limited to gaming. It's simple business math - why put extra costs/effort into a product if what you already plan has hit all the profit expectations and unit sales? You are not going to be lauded at the next quarerly meeting for having spent 140% of the money needed to get the necessary return on investment.

To put it in Enworld mechanics-speak, making a mastercrafted D&D book is a sub-optimal choice when for the same price you can make a normal, even marginal, Craft roll. Why take 20 when you make the GPs you need with anything higher than a 1?

- Ma'at

 

[Tzarevitch]

He didn't make it so it was pretty much essential. WotC is definitely trying to make miniatures integral to the game.

I am not sure that the square-facing rule is there just for miniatures. If you've DMed then you have run into the question of what happens if a large, long creature like a worm needs to pivot and there is a character on the flanks like this?

_
| |
| | 0
| |
V

Can the worm pivot through the character's square (is this a Bull Rush or something else) and does it draw an attack of opportunity since pivoting is not a move? 3.0 was supposed to do away with facing rules but effectively large, long creatures DO still have facing. Squaring the facings off solves all of these problems with very little damage to gameplay.

Square facings neatly solve the pivot problem even if you don't use miniatures.

Tzarevitch

 

[Ysgarran]

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.

I agree 100%. There is no excuse for this. These are errors they've known about and haven't bothered to fix. Unfortunately as long as the sales numbers are high enough WotC/Hasbro will never have the incentive to increase the quality.

Considering the amount of NEW errata (never mind the old stuff) I'm going to treat this like a new computer game. I'll just sit back and wait to see just how bad things really are. After we get a feel for just how the overall quality is I'll make the decision about purchasing 3.5

Ysgarran.

 

[Voadam]

But even that overstates the issue. I own a lot of 3rd party stuff. I have yet to find a single item that I could not convert to 3.5 compatible in under 1 minute (for the small fraction that requires any change at all). I assure you that the inverse is equally true. Wait for 3.5 3rd party stuff to start coming out. I will be able to take anything and convert to 3E in moments. And again, only rarely will that even be needed.

There simply is no issue here.

How about a 1 minute conversion of the shifter class from WotC's Masters of the Wild.

Some of their powers are now core druid wildshaping.

We're debating it in my group as one of the PCs is a shifter.

Also the greater mark spells from BoEM.