Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[Tzarevitch]

But it's his unique viewpoint as a 3.0 insider that makes it interesting. You can't have that and perfect objectivity at the same time.

I agree. Some of Monte's points are valid, but there is enough that seems like nit-picking that I wonder about objectivity.

I agree with him on some of the new prestige classes. Some like the Eldrich Knight and the Mystic Theurge are pathetically easy to get into yet provide much more capability than most classes with much stricter entry requirements.

I agree that if they did not fix the "caster level" problem and the pricing for magic items that is very poor work on WoTC's part and the "handedness" bit sounds like far more confusion than it is worth, especially when nothing was wrong with the old "weaponn-sizes" rules.

A few of Monte's other complaints strike me as nit-picking.

1) New focus on miniatures? - Don't use them. They aren't pivotal to the game nor are they mandatory. If you like the rules, use them, if you don't, then don't. My games have always used miniatures (even in 2e) when necessary, but we can (and do) just as easily leave them out of some battles.
2) Square facings? - The creatures with rectangular facings NEEDED fixing. This is not just a miniatures issue. Square facings have their own problems, but there are fewer of them than are caused by rectangular facing.
3) Changes to spells? - This does not fundamentally re-order how the game is played. It is not a re-working of the entire cosmos. The sky is not falling. Players will adapt as they always do. If the players don't like the new Bull Strength then they won't use it. It does not suddenly mean that now Mordor will rule Middle Earth.
4) Playtester credits? - I would prefer to see some but who knows why they were excluded? That doesn't necessarily mean that no one playtested the new rules as seems to be implied.
5) House rules? - They will always be there. If the DM (or sometimes the players as a group) doesn't like a rule, he will house-rule it. It doesn't matter if it came from ver 3.0, 3.5, 2.0 or 2000.7541. Ver. 3.5 is no more likely to spawn them (as compared to 3.0) than 3.0 did with regard to 2.0.

With regard to the multi-classing penalty and prestige classes, can someone check and see if that is true? I house-ruled a similar rule in my Oriental Adventures game a year ago, but I never though WOTC would have the backbone to make that change and I am not sure that it is such a good change in mid-stream. If they have, I think Monte may be correct on this point, that IS a fundamental change. My campaign will be fine but many other characters in other games will be needing serious re-writes.

Tzarevitch

 

[seankreynolds]

{SeanKR, when it is up, please post so we can hammer your site }

Here you go, if you missed the other thread on it:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/3point5comments.html


{If you are smart enough to play D&D, you are smart enough to do backwards and/or forwards conversions. And I am NOT saying that not liking 3.5 means you are not smart. You can HATE 3.5, but if you are reading this, I can assure you, you are smart enough to do the conversions (you just won't want to ).}

I can totally agree with that statement.

 

[BryonD]

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.

I don't see any need to change it. It never assumed a druid anyway. Perhaos it is a little less powerful, relatively, than it was. But that is not a problem. It was already quite potent.

It already gained "animal form" at second level. So gaining abilities that a druid already has is built in before 3.5.

Also the greater mark spells from BoEM.

As 4th level spells I would pretty much leave them alone at 1 hour per level. Change Greater mark fo Earth to DR 10/magic OR, if you want, DR10/admantium (though that is probably a bit to much)

Because the normal mark spells trade some ability enhancement for other perks I think 10 min/level is easily comparable for those L2 spells.

YMMV.

I don't claim these are "correct". But they work for me.

 

[WizarDru]

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)".

I was a bit concerned at first, until I started another thread in Rules to discuss it, and had it explained to me in detail. I'm much happier with it now than I was. So far, so good for 3.5, afaic.

 

[Conaill]

The worst things is that Sean Reynolds just confirmed that the ERRATA FROM 3E DID NOT GET INCLUDED IN 3.5!!!!

Just to make sure nobody gets the wrong idea, here is SKR's latest correction on this issue:

And lo, from upon high SKR sayeth
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. Correction: The "CL is a prereq" is a commonly known error at WotC, but for some reason it never actually made it into the official DMG errata. So that helps explain why it didn't make it into the 3.5 DMG ... it wasn't on the existing list of things to fix. Still, it is unfortunate that it was not included, because it _is_ an error in the 3.0 book.

 

[Uder]

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?

You bring up good points... not against ever using rectangular facing, but as to why it's a PITA to include anything but square facing rules in the core rules.

Anything that involves the worm occupying squares it wasn't previously occupying is a move. Yes, the worm would have to bull rush or overrun to occupy a square that an enemy was in, but I'd rule that it wouldn't have to bull rush just to turn if none of its squares ended up occupying enemy spaces... it's a worm! This last part, however, becomes an ad hoc ruling that relies on a fair DM with a good sense of balance and the rules. As for AoOs, that's a little easier. It would draw AoOs when it left a threatened square. Here's the ad hoc part again... if none of its squares moved more than 5', I'd call it a 5' step and ignore the AoOs.

It would be cumbersome to come up with individual rulings like that for each different possible facing and monster anatomy. I can certainly see why they changed to square facings... it's easier than dealing with the can of worms (heh) questions like that bring up. Nobody wants to read an entire column of Sage Advice titled "How the Worm Turns". If you are the sort who cares about SoD in combat, get a DM who can handle making those sorts of decisions. If it doesn't break your SoD, use the new facings.

I had to create house rules for facing in 3.0, it comes as no surprise to me that I'll still be using them for 3.5.

 

[MerricB]

I'm going to say this straight: Monte's review is a terrible review.

It contains much that is of worth in it. Even if I disagree with some of his arguments and conclusions, I greatly appreciate seeing his thoughts on the matter.

However, as a review, it sucks.

The reason it sucks is one of balance.

Monte says, "most of the changes it presents are good."

Why then, does it read so much as a slam of the 3.5 books?

I think it's because he spends no time discussing the good changes, and why they are good changes, and spends a huge amount of time discussing those changes he thinks are bad.

Compare the following two excerpts from the review:

* Rangers and barbarians have more interesting abilities at higher levels

* The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened. Talk about changing the way the game is played. Cat's grace used to last an hour per level, mostly so you could cast it, adjust your stats, and not have to worry about it until you rested (again, it was that way to make game play easier and more fun). Now it lasts one minute per level, which means it sees you through one encounter, or two if you rush in between them. These spells have been rendered nearly worthless -- in particular a spell like endurance, now bear's endurance, for extra hit points are far more useful over the long term than just for one encounter, particularly for those who really need it, like wizards.

Why is there such a discrepancy in length? If "most of the changes it presents are good", why then does the emphasis fall on the negative?

Because Monte, despite his disclaimers, is concentrating on the negatives of the 3.5E books.

A review? No. It is a rant, and I wish he'd labelled it as such. The insights given are important, but I do believe, very strongly, that more attention needed to be given to the positives for it to be properly called a "review".

 

[Kai Lord]

I'm going to say this straight: Monte's review is a terrible review.

Agreed, and you make some good points. "Oh yeah all the classes are exciting and balanced now but the NEW 2ND LEVEL BUFF SPELLS WILL TOTALLY CHANGE THE GAME!!!11!"

Please.

I can't believe so many people are professing to have second thoughts on account of such a goofy rant that didn't even offer any new information that we didn't already know.

Imagine if 3.5 was actually the first version, and the 3.0 books we have now turned out to be the "revised" versions offered a few years later. The game would suck in comparison. People are getting way too hung up on isolated, unimportant changes they don't agree with, and melodramatic tantrums from designers they respect.

Do I agree with every little revision? No. But the game as a whole will be much better, and that's all that's needed to justify an upgrade.

 

[Greg K]

re Monte's review

Monte has clarified that his review might appear to be negative, but in actuallity he thinks there is actually more good stuff than bad about 3.5. The reason that his view seems negative is that he felt the need to back up his criticisms wheras he did not feel that he needed to back up any praise he might have, therefore supporting his criticsms took up much more space.

 

[Thrommel]

Why is there such a discrepancy in length? If "most of the changes it presents are good", why then does the emphasis fall on the negative?

The discrepancy in length is pretty straightforward -- it doesn't take a lot of space to say you like something. "Sorcerers can change out their known spells when they become useless (or simply were bad choices)" -- what more really needs to be said? Do we need to rehash why Harm was broken, for instance?

On the other hand, if you are going to criticize something, then it's incumbent on the reviewer to justify their opinion.

If all people heard was "Facing (now called space) is now always square " without any further reasoning, a lot of readers are going to say "So...?" Especially since precious few consumers have the book in their hands to flip through it and make up their own minds.

And the conclusion of his review states outright that "the fact is that none of my criticisms of the new material are so damning as to wreck the game. D&D is still a good game, whether it's 3.0 or 3.5."

In my experience, Monte has been consistently professional, direct, and honest. The review is no different. Does he have issues with the book? Yes. Does he recommend the book? Yes.

To me the disturbing thing is not what he wrote. It's the way some people are now twisting it to vindicate their own agenda (on both sides of the revision debate) or ascribe motives that frankly I don't think are there.

People have been bugging Monte for his opinion on 3.5 for a long time now. He gave it -- no more, no less.

-Thrommel