Monte Cook reviews 3.5
- Thread starter Pielorinho
- Start date
Numion
First Post
Kai Lord said:
Maybe not changed totally, but in a major way in any case. In our 3.0e gaming group the duration of ability buffs (bull's strength, endurance, etc) determine how long our characters can function during a day. Meaning that we go to rest after the long buffs (1 h / level) wear out. 10 min / level buffs tell when to leave a dangerous situation (dungeon, for example).
This of course when there is no external pressure to keep going longer. And there isn't most of the time.
I like to keep my character alive
Having said that I think it was good that the durations were changed. 1 hour / level durations were just a way for spellcasters to avoid buying expensive stat-boosting items, making clerics even more powerful. My reasons for not buying 3.5e lie elsewhere
Magus Coeruleus
Explorer
Here are my thoughts on Monte’s “bad things” section of the review.
Rectangular squares created serious headaches for my game, especially for mounted combat. Recall that 3.0 designers initially had facing rules and decided to scrap it because it would be too cumbersome if D&D was not to become a wargame. I think this was a good choice, but rectangular figures is not really compatible with it. Changing to squares is a good thing, IMO. If Monte considers it too much of an abstraction, I think it behooves him to at least acknowledge (or deny) the problem of rectangular figures. If he would rather see D&D with full facing rules, then he should come out and say it. If he would not, then he should suggest how the problem should have been dealt with.
As far as the facing change relates to miniatures, I don’t see it as compelling miniatures play, and to the extent that it facilities such play, I see not problem. If you don’t use a grid, then the shape of figures is irrelevant, and the change is meaningless. No problem there. I would have to see the actual text to see to what extent the new language for combat forces you to think in terms of miniatures. If it’s by and large just using “squares” instead of feet, that’s really not so bad. And the notion that using both is a step backwards is rather boggling to me. Shouldn’t we want to facilitate play for everyone, minis or no minis? I respect non-mini play, as I played OD&D all the way until 3e, but when you use 3.0 or really any version of AD&D, where spell ranges change with level in as small as 5’ (or one square, sorry to use the term), it’s hard for me to imagine how someone can’t use some sort of grid. If you don’t, that’s fine, but then clearly you are making some rather intricate judgment calls or you’re abstracting away the fine-grained ranges. I’m at a loss as to how someone can complain about excess abstraction of square figures but have nothing to say about how you avoid serious abstraction when using 3.x spell ranges without miniatures.
Oh, and I don’t doubt that WotC wants to sell people miniatures and want people to think minis with the newly-scripted rules for that reason. But really, we’re not talking about mini-based rules, just a grid-based rules. Pennies, dice, graph paper all work fine. If the books make shameless plugs for their minis in the midst of the rules, then I’ll be upset. Otherwise, come on.
I’m surprised Monte doesn’t mention the weapon equivalence rules in the DMG. If they didn’t include that, I could see the problem. Otherwise, I’m assuming there is a 3.0-like table that merely replaces small medium and large with light, one-handed and two-handed, and then does this again for multiple sizes of characters. I don’t know what the tables look like, but I’m not sure. Assuming it’s not a table nightmare, then I think this is a good thing. Why? Because if you want to use the same thing as 3.0, you just use the medium-sized character table and take the 10 milliseconds to convert, in your brain, light into small, one-handed into medium, and two-handed into large. You forget the penalties for being differently-sized, end of story. On the other hand, if you now want to play an all-halfling campaign (e.g. a Mystara Five Shires campaign) you don’t have to force Halflings to use human-sized weapons or come up with prices, weights, etc. for halfling versions, because they’re there. The weapon-equivalence table essentially gives you advice on which weapons to allow without penalty, but ultimately the DM doesn’t even need it. He or she can just think “does this sound okay or would this be so awkward that the character should get a penalty?” If it’s awkward, give it a -2.
I tried but never found those NPC tables useful, because they fit only one stereotype for each class, and if your campaign doesn’t fit that stereotype, they are totally useless. If you have campaign-based restrictions on weapons, magic items, feats, anything, you may not be able to use them. I would never use an NPC straight off the table. I would be more likely to use one as a development aid, as Monte thinks they intended, but only if certain things were generalized, which it sounds like they did. I doubt I’ll be able to use them anyway, but my point here is that I think NPC tables are always going to fit only some people’s uses and be useless to others. Personally, I wouldn’t have minded if they canned them completely in favor of something else.
I don’t think an honest person can call this unequivocally a design flaw or bad move. It’s a matter of preference. If you don’t like the change, I respect that, but it’s not bad design. Some people (like myself) DON’T like the idea of PCs serving ability buffs with breakfast every morning around the campfire. And I know my players are not terribly happy (you can see it in their faces, although they never complain) when they roll a 2. A flat +4 for a short time may make these spells less popular, meaning casting them very often rather than always. I thought it was a general design philosophy that things that almost everyone always wants to choose (a.k.a. a no-brainer) means something is out of balance because it reduces choice. Regarding the specific of (bear’s) endurance, I think hp for a fight or two is still useful, and let’s not forget the bonus to Fort saves and Concentration checks. I think it’s quite logical that a wizard would choose this spell to get +2 Fort, +2 Conc, and +2hp/level for a fight, and then have the cleric heal him if he’s far down, before the spell expires after the fight.
Okay, this is the one with which I would register the most agreement with Monte. The only argument I have heard in favor of all of these “new” feats is someone saying that they could be important prereqs for other feats or for prestige classes. Okay, I guess they could. Have they, though? Otherwise, what a waste! When I saw this in the splatbooks I thought it was very cheesy. Here’s what I would have done: put a very few of the most popular twofers in the PHB (e.g. Alertness), then, in the DMG, have a section giving advice to the DM on allowing twofer feats. A short section that pretty much just says: ‘you can use Alertness as a model for creating other feats that provide a +2 bonus to two skills. If two skills can logically be seen as two facets of a broader theme, and the feat seems appropriate for your campaign, go ahead and suggest it to your players. Consider letting players propose a +2/+2 feat for your approval.’ Then, the DMG would list, without standard feat blocks, flavor text, or any of that garbage, a table of suggested feats. Each row consists of just three columns: the name for the feat, and each of the skills involved. The title of the feat should make clear how the two skills are related. End of story.
I don’t know what Inevitables are, so no comment there. I thought Modrons were funny, but I don’t really care either way. I’m not sure why Monte thought this admittedly personal preference-based issue was worth mentioning in the review, but whatever.
Erratum.
Can’t comment here since a) I don’t know how the new prestige classes look and b) I don’t use them anyway and if I did they would only be homebrewed campaign-specific ones that at most use printed ones as help.
Double-edged sword here. Who is 3.5 for? Vets who have all the 3.0 stuff, or new players. Vets may feel cheated since they already have the material, but for new players it may be a very good thing. If this is all added content and didn’t push out other stuff, I’m not sure why vets should care that much. Hopefully, they made choices about what to make core based on playtesting, in which case this is telling us that this drawn-in material makes the cut because it’s better balanced than stuff that didn’t make the cut (examples of the latter can be drawn from nearly every page of Sword and Fist).
That does suck, especially if it says something about the playtesting (or lack thereof). On the one hand, I don’t really care that much about seeing the names. On the other, I think those folks deserve to have their names in the book. If it’s a space issue, print it so small that you need a magnifying class so it fits on one page. What matters is that they’re there.
Irritating and extremely stupid. It’s not excuse that this erratum didn’t get officially labeled as such for 3.0, because it should have been. Fortunately, this, like the prestige class XP erratum is just a binary flip problem. That is, instead of you do get XP penalties you don’t, and instead of caster level being a prereq it isn’t. I’d be much more concerned about a pervasive or repercussive flaw. Frankly, I’d even be more peeved about one monster having an attack bonus off by one, because I’d be less likely to catch it. Errors like this are easy to fix in the brain, fortunately.
So I need to see the implementation, but I REALLY like the idea of basing prices in part on spells’ normal duration, since that really seems relevant but was not a factor in cost before. I’m disappointed that Monte didn’t laud or attack that change. I’d have to see the level of noncomformity to see whether I think Monte has a real issue here, but again I’m surprised that he didn’t comment on that change, which seems significant.
Why pick KO in particular? How odd. Anyway, KO is not a potion/oil because, unless it has changed, it allows for multiple different effects. That doesn’t necessarily make it a good buy, but there you have it. What this question is really getting at (or should) is how the magic item feats and categories are based too much on flavor and not enough on crunch. Admittedly, 3.5 is too soon to revise that. If anyone knows that, Monte should.
Have to see to formulate an opinion, obviously.
New art of the lack thereof is not a factor in my decision whether to purchase the books, and while I can see it mattering to some people, I don’t really see it as enough of an issue to deserve a negative mark in a review. Especially when we’re talking about a revision.
Well, that’s my two coppers.
Rectangular squares created serious headaches for my game, especially for mounted combat. Recall that 3.0 designers initially had facing rules and decided to scrap it because it would be too cumbersome if D&D was not to become a wargame. I think this was a good choice, but rectangular figures is not really compatible with it. Changing to squares is a good thing, IMO. If Monte considers it too much of an abstraction, I think it behooves him to at least acknowledge (or deny) the problem of rectangular figures. If he would rather see D&D with full facing rules, then he should come out and say it. If he would not, then he should suggest how the problem should have been dealt with.
As far as the facing change relates to miniatures, I don’t see it as compelling miniatures play, and to the extent that it facilities such play, I see not problem. If you don’t use a grid, then the shape of figures is irrelevant, and the change is meaningless. No problem there. I would have to see the actual text to see to what extent the new language for combat forces you to think in terms of miniatures. If it’s by and large just using “squares” instead of feet, that’s really not so bad. And the notion that using both is a step backwards is rather boggling to me. Shouldn’t we want to facilitate play for everyone, minis or no minis? I respect non-mini play, as I played OD&D all the way until 3e, but when you use 3.0 or really any version of AD&D, where spell ranges change with level in as small as 5’ (or one square, sorry to use the term), it’s hard for me to imagine how someone can’t use some sort of grid. If you don’t, that’s fine, but then clearly you are making some rather intricate judgment calls or you’re abstracting away the fine-grained ranges. I’m at a loss as to how someone can complain about excess abstraction of square figures but have nothing to say about how you avoid serious abstraction when using 3.x spell ranges without miniatures.
Oh, and I don’t doubt that WotC wants to sell people miniatures and want people to think minis with the newly-scripted rules for that reason. But really, we’re not talking about mini-based rules, just a grid-based rules. Pennies, dice, graph paper all work fine. If the books make shameless plugs for their minis in the midst of the rules, then I’ll be upset. Otherwise, come on.
I’m surprised Monte doesn’t mention the weapon equivalence rules in the DMG. If they didn’t include that, I could see the problem. Otherwise, I’m assuming there is a 3.0-like table that merely replaces small medium and large with light, one-handed and two-handed, and then does this again for multiple sizes of characters. I don’t know what the tables look like, but I’m not sure. Assuming it’s not a table nightmare, then I think this is a good thing. Why? Because if you want to use the same thing as 3.0, you just use the medium-sized character table and take the 10 milliseconds to convert, in your brain, light into small, one-handed into medium, and two-handed into large. You forget the penalties for being differently-sized, end of story. On the other hand, if you now want to play an all-halfling campaign (e.g. a Mystara Five Shires campaign) you don’t have to force Halflings to use human-sized weapons or come up with prices, weights, etc. for halfling versions, because they’re there. The weapon-equivalence table essentially gives you advice on which weapons to allow without penalty, but ultimately the DM doesn’t even need it. He or she can just think “does this sound okay or would this be so awkward that the character should get a penalty?” If it’s awkward, give it a -2.
I tried but never found those NPC tables useful, because they fit only one stereotype for each class, and if your campaign doesn’t fit that stereotype, they are totally useless. If you have campaign-based restrictions on weapons, magic items, feats, anything, you may not be able to use them. I would never use an NPC straight off the table. I would be more likely to use one as a development aid, as Monte thinks they intended, but only if certain things were generalized, which it sounds like they did. I doubt I’ll be able to use them anyway, but my point here is that I think NPC tables are always going to fit only some people’s uses and be useless to others. Personally, I wouldn’t have minded if they canned them completely in favor of something else.
I don’t think an honest person can call this unequivocally a design flaw or bad move. It’s a matter of preference. If you don’t like the change, I respect that, but it’s not bad design. Some people (like myself) DON’T like the idea of PCs serving ability buffs with breakfast every morning around the campfire. And I know my players are not terribly happy (you can see it in their faces, although they never complain) when they roll a 2. A flat +4 for a short time may make these spells less popular, meaning casting them very often rather than always. I thought it was a general design philosophy that things that almost everyone always wants to choose (a.k.a. a no-brainer) means something is out of balance because it reduces choice. Regarding the specific of (bear’s) endurance, I think hp for a fight or two is still useful, and let’s not forget the bonus to Fort saves and Concentration checks. I think it’s quite logical that a wizard would choose this spell to get +2 Fort, +2 Conc, and +2hp/level for a fight, and then have the cleric heal him if he’s far down, before the spell expires after the fight.
Okay, this is the one with which I would register the most agreement with Monte. The only argument I have heard in favor of all of these “new” feats is someone saying that they could be important prereqs for other feats or for prestige classes. Okay, I guess they could. Have they, though? Otherwise, what a waste! When I saw this in the splatbooks I thought it was very cheesy. Here’s what I would have done: put a very few of the most popular twofers in the PHB (e.g. Alertness), then, in the DMG, have a section giving advice to the DM on allowing twofer feats. A short section that pretty much just says: ‘you can use Alertness as a model for creating other feats that provide a +2 bonus to two skills. If two skills can logically be seen as two facets of a broader theme, and the feat seems appropriate for your campaign, go ahead and suggest it to your players. Consider letting players propose a +2/+2 feat for your approval.’ Then, the DMG would list, without standard feat blocks, flavor text, or any of that garbage, a table of suggested feats. Each row consists of just three columns: the name for the feat, and each of the skills involved. The title of the feat should make clear how the two skills are related. End of story.
I don’t know what Inevitables are, so no comment there. I thought Modrons were funny, but I don’t really care either way. I’m not sure why Monte thought this admittedly personal preference-based issue was worth mentioning in the review, but whatever.
Erratum.
Can’t comment here since a) I don’t know how the new prestige classes look and b) I don’t use them anyway and if I did they would only be homebrewed campaign-specific ones that at most use printed ones as help.
Double-edged sword here. Who is 3.5 for? Vets who have all the 3.0 stuff, or new players. Vets may feel cheated since they already have the material, but for new players it may be a very good thing. If this is all added content and didn’t push out other stuff, I’m not sure why vets should care that much. Hopefully, they made choices about what to make core based on playtesting, in which case this is telling us that this drawn-in material makes the cut because it’s better balanced than stuff that didn’t make the cut (examples of the latter can be drawn from nearly every page of Sword and Fist).
That does suck, especially if it says something about the playtesting (or lack thereof). On the one hand, I don’t really care that much about seeing the names. On the other, I think those folks deserve to have their names in the book. If it’s a space issue, print it so small that you need a magnifying class so it fits on one page. What matters is that they’re there.
Irritating and extremely stupid. It’s not excuse that this erratum didn’t get officially labeled as such for 3.0, because it should have been. Fortunately, this, like the prestige class XP erratum is just a binary flip problem. That is, instead of you do get XP penalties you don’t, and instead of caster level being a prereq it isn’t. I’d be much more concerned about a pervasive or repercussive flaw. Frankly, I’d even be more peeved about one monster having an attack bonus off by one, because I’d be less likely to catch it. Errors like this are easy to fix in the brain, fortunately.
So I need to see the implementation, but I REALLY like the idea of basing prices in part on spells’ normal duration, since that really seems relevant but was not a factor in cost before. I’m disappointed that Monte didn’t laud or attack that change. I’d have to see the level of noncomformity to see whether I think Monte has a real issue here, but again I’m surprised that he didn’t comment on that change, which seems significant.
Why pick KO in particular? How odd. Anyway, KO is not a potion/oil because, unless it has changed, it allows for multiple different effects. That doesn’t necessarily make it a good buy, but there you have it. What this question is really getting at (or should) is how the magic item feats and categories are based too much on flavor and not enough on crunch. Admittedly, 3.5 is too soon to revise that. If anyone knows that, Monte should.
Have to see to formulate an opinion, obviously.
New art of the lack thereof is not a factor in my decision whether to purchase the books, and while I can see it mattering to some people, I don’t really see it as enough of an issue to deserve a negative mark in a review. Especially when we’re talking about a revision.
Well, that’s my two coppers.
Belen
Legend
Merric,
I have to take issue with your comments regarding Monte's review. So what you're saying is that any review that does not portray 3.5 in a rose-colored light is a rant, while everyone who writes rave reviews of it is being balanced and fair?
This is complete bunk. I was waiting for an honest review of 3.5. Monte tells us the truth. I have not seen another review with regards to 3.5 that details ANY negatives. As we all know, 3.5 will not be perfect, yet all other reviews of the "revision" seem to be written by WOTC fanboys.
I thought the review balanced and fair. It will not affect the fact that my group feels obligated to upgrade and that we have all ordered our books. It paints an honest picture of the revision. It is in no way a rant as he still tells us to buy the books. We just get a heads up with regards to the revision.
Dave
I have to take issue with your comments regarding Monte's review. So what you're saying is that any review that does not portray 3.5 in a rose-colored light is a rant, while everyone who writes rave reviews of it is being balanced and fair?
This is complete bunk. I was waiting for an honest review of 3.5. Monte tells us the truth. I have not seen another review with regards to 3.5 that details ANY negatives. As we all know, 3.5 will not be perfect, yet all other reviews of the "revision" seem to be written by WOTC fanboys.
I thought the review balanced and fair. It will not affect the fact that my group feels obligated to upgrade and that we have all ordered our books. It paints an honest picture of the revision. It is in no way a rant as he still tells us to buy the books. We just get a heads up with regards to the revision.
Dave
re
Personally, I tend to agree with Belen, not specifically concerning Merric's post. Most of the reviews do seem to have been written by people who seem unable or unwilling to voice any negative opinion concerning the upgrade.
Even some of the folks on here who seem to think this upgrade is some of kind of immeasurable improvement really make me wonder about their ability to assess and analyze many of the changes that we know of. There are many bad changes from what I can tell. I don't just mean the ones I disagree with for stylistic and individual reasons like spell ranges and durations
The two most vocal camps seem to be "I love it" and "I hate it". That really doesn't give a person much to go on. I am glad Monte gave an inbetween review highlighting what he felt was wrong and right about the game.
I know I truly believe they went way overboard with the new DR system, though I like the concept. I really think its going to create a real "carrot on a string" effect when player's are choosing weapons and alignment.
I am already having trouble with the new facing system when mapping. Movement for 10 foot sqare horsemen with 5 foot square men on the map is very strange. 40 foot square creatures take up an insane amount of space on a piece of graph paper. Moving those much larger squares around on a map with alot of combatants or through hallways is pretty wierd and unwieldy at times.
I have been using the new facing system since I heard about it because I wanted to test it out. It is more unwieldy than the old system, though I do see what they were trying to do.
The change to adamantine sounds hoky and seriously abuseable. If it truly does ignore the first 20 points of hardness, then we can assume that people with adamantine weapons can easily cut through stone or steel walls, steels bars on cell doors, iron doors, etc, etc. An adamantine weapon has now become the ultimate barrier destroyer which is real strange and hoky from a rules perspective and would make me less likely to ever allow Adamantine into my game because of how easily it can be abused.
Those are probably my biggest problems with the revision from a pure rules perspective. I'll probably have more once I get the books. All my other problems with the system are more in terms of style. That varies from campaign to campaign, so its no use to complain.
The things I like the best so far:
The change to Harm, Haste and Disintegrate. They were abuseable spells that needed to be changed.
The change to resizeable armor. From a purely stylistic viewpoint this was hoky. Armor that automatically resizes to fit any wearer should have never been.
The new favored enemy ability of the ranger. Vast improvement so that everyone isn't picking dragon at first level so that it will be their highest bonus at level 20. It scales better and is more useful.
Ability to change spells as sorcerer or bard. A great little change that was sorely needed so a sorcerer or bard could choose one of the constantly upgradeable spell lines like the Summon Monster line without penalty.
More smites per day as a Paladin. It was really needed.
Two-weapon Defense feat. Sounds like the one from the FR Sourcebook and I like that it is core now.
The Mass Cure line of spells. A great idea that will be extremely helpful for higher level clerics.
Overall, I think there are more good changes than bad. That is why I chose to upgrade. I have already purchased the books online. I can't wait to get them.
I just grow a little tired of the its all good reviews that don't really assess problems that certain rule changes will cause in game. I'm sure we'll see more once the books are released.
Personally, I tend to agree with Belen, not specifically concerning Merric's post. Most of the reviews do seem to have been written by people who seem unable or unwilling to voice any negative opinion concerning the upgrade.
Even some of the folks on here who seem to think this upgrade is some of kind of immeasurable improvement really make me wonder about their ability to assess and analyze many of the changes that we know of. There are many bad changes from what I can tell. I don't just mean the ones I disagree with for stylistic and individual reasons like spell ranges and durations
The two most vocal camps seem to be "I love it" and "I hate it". That really doesn't give a person much to go on. I am glad Monte gave an inbetween review highlighting what he felt was wrong and right about the game.
I know I truly believe they went way overboard with the new DR system, though I like the concept. I really think its going to create a real "carrot on a string" effect when player's are choosing weapons and alignment.
I am already having trouble with the new facing system when mapping. Movement for 10 foot sqare horsemen with 5 foot square men on the map is very strange. 40 foot square creatures take up an insane amount of space on a piece of graph paper. Moving those much larger squares around on a map with alot of combatants or through hallways is pretty wierd and unwieldy at times.
I have been using the new facing system since I heard about it because I wanted to test it out. It is more unwieldy than the old system, though I do see what they were trying to do.
The change to adamantine sounds hoky and seriously abuseable. If it truly does ignore the first 20 points of hardness, then we can assume that people with adamantine weapons can easily cut through stone or steel walls, steels bars on cell doors, iron doors, etc, etc. An adamantine weapon has now become the ultimate barrier destroyer which is real strange and hoky from a rules perspective and would make me less likely to ever allow Adamantine into my game because of how easily it can be abused.
Those are probably my biggest problems with the revision from a pure rules perspective. I'll probably have more once I get the books. All my other problems with the system are more in terms of style. That varies from campaign to campaign, so its no use to complain.
The things I like the best so far:
The change to Harm, Haste and Disintegrate. They were abuseable spells that needed to be changed.
The change to resizeable armor. From a purely stylistic viewpoint this was hoky. Armor that automatically resizes to fit any wearer should have never been.
The new favored enemy ability of the ranger. Vast improvement so that everyone isn't picking dragon at first level so that it will be their highest bonus at level 20. It scales better and is more useful.
Ability to change spells as sorcerer or bard. A great little change that was sorely needed so a sorcerer or bard could choose one of the constantly upgradeable spell lines like the Summon Monster line without penalty.
More smites per day as a Paladin. It was really needed.
Two-weapon Defense feat. Sounds like the one from the FR Sourcebook and I like that it is core now.
The Mass Cure line of spells. A great idea that will be extremely helpful for higher level clerics.
Overall, I think there are more good changes than bad. That is why I chose to upgrade. I have already purchased the books online. I can't wait to get them.
I just grow a little tired of the its all good reviews that don't really assess problems that certain rule changes will cause in game. I'm sure we'll see more once the books are released.
Last edited:
Frostmarrow
First Post
I don't see the point in the Mass Cure-spells. They will only act to prolong combat in an unnecessary way. If the casting time was one full round (or even a minute) they would be pretty useful, though. (Perhaps they are?)
More Monte on 3.5 op-ed
A slightly less inflammatory piece from rgfd. Scott is a Good Guy. He Knows His Stuff.
Subject: Monte on 3.5: Criticism vs. Review
From: "R. Scott Rogers" <scott@madforjam.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:47:37 +0200
After reading Monte's review, and some reaction here - which also revealed
what happened to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: MSB has 'em, and he's
deploying them here - I have the following reaction. Maybe even an insight,
who knows.
Anyway, it seems to me that Monte's "review" was actually a critical essay
with a review grafted onto the end. And I don't mean "critical" in the
common sense of "finding fault with," I mean critical in the higher sense by
which we differentiate articles about books in the "New York Review of
Books" as criticism and articles about books in "Entertainment Weekly" as
reviews.
Monte's criticism is the section where he writes about why he thinks the 3.5
project was undertaken and the principles he believes should govern such an
undertaking. In his criticism he finds almost nothing but fault, and he pins
his criticism to two theses: 1. There is some arbitrary point at which a
major revision would be appropriate, and this point is more than three years
after initial release; and 2. The designers appear not to have approached
the revision in exactly the same way that the designers of 3.0 did.
This is all well and good, and I think it is valuable for the designers of
3.0 to offer their critical assessment of the evolution of the game. But
this criticism is by its very nature almost devoid of practical usefulness
for game players. So what if Monte finds fault with the production of 3.5?
The production of "Casablanca" is a famous tale of woe in which almost
everything went wrong and almost all decisions were made for what we would
fairly call the wrong reasons. And yet the movie stands as one of the
classics of American cinema. (I wage an endless battle against
motivation-think in another forum. "I'd be in favor of switching to league
uniforms for the All-Star Game," baseball "purists" say, "except it's
obvious Major League Baseball only made the change as a cynical marketing
ploy." What rubbish. Why the thing was done has little bearing on the worth
of the thing once it is done, at least for things like changes to the way
games are played.)
However, after wading through the useless and questionably motivated
criticism of the process that led to the publication of 3.5, I think Monte
provides a pretty good review. By "good" I mean useful. I don't mean
"completely right-thinking" or "generally positive," although Monte's review
is the latter. As to the former, well, I have no doubt that some of MSB's
comments on 3.5 now will strike him, in a couple of years, as the
unconsidered crap they probably are, just as a similar proportion of Monte's
(or any reviewer's) comments are. So, a review that is useful in offering
insight from an identifiable perspective, one that leads to a conclusion
regarding the product's utility that is supported by the premises advanced
in the review.
I do feel that the review section deserved more of the author's attention,
given its utility to the reader. I would like to know which elements of 3.5
Monte intends to houserule, whether altering them (and if so how) or
deleting them in favor of 3.0. I would also have liked to see a more overt
analysis of the changes in 3.5 that implement reforms that Monte believes
were necessary. We get a list of changes that are good, changes that are not
good, and changes that were necessary but not made. I would have preferred
to see the addition of a list of the changes that were necessary and that
were made.
So that said, I would give Monte's critical analysis low marks and his
product review high marks. If only the two had been different essays.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
scott at madforjam.com
"Orc Liver - the Paladin's foi gras"
http://www.madforjam.com/dnd/main.html
A slightly less inflammatory piece from rgfd. Scott is a Good Guy. He Knows His Stuff.
Subject: Monte on 3.5: Criticism vs. Review
From: "R. Scott Rogers" <scott@madforjam.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:47:37 +0200
After reading Monte's review, and some reaction here - which also revealed
what happened to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: MSB has 'em, and he's
deploying them here - I have the following reaction. Maybe even an insight,
who knows.
Anyway, it seems to me that Monte's "review" was actually a critical essay
with a review grafted onto the end. And I don't mean "critical" in the
common sense of "finding fault with," I mean critical in the higher sense by
which we differentiate articles about books in the "New York Review of
Books" as criticism and articles about books in "Entertainment Weekly" as
reviews.
Monte's criticism is the section where he writes about why he thinks the 3.5
project was undertaken and the principles he believes should govern such an
undertaking. In his criticism he finds almost nothing but fault, and he pins
his criticism to two theses: 1. There is some arbitrary point at which a
major revision would be appropriate, and this point is more than three years
after initial release; and 2. The designers appear not to have approached
the revision in exactly the same way that the designers of 3.0 did.
This is all well and good, and I think it is valuable for the designers of
3.0 to offer their critical assessment of the evolution of the game. But
this criticism is by its very nature almost devoid of practical usefulness
for game players. So what if Monte finds fault with the production of 3.5?
The production of "Casablanca" is a famous tale of woe in which almost
everything went wrong and almost all decisions were made for what we would
fairly call the wrong reasons. And yet the movie stands as one of the
classics of American cinema. (I wage an endless battle against
motivation-think in another forum. "I'd be in favor of switching to league
uniforms for the All-Star Game," baseball "purists" say, "except it's
obvious Major League Baseball only made the change as a cynical marketing
ploy." What rubbish. Why the thing was done has little bearing on the worth
of the thing once it is done, at least for things like changes to the way
games are played.)
However, after wading through the useless and questionably motivated
criticism of the process that led to the publication of 3.5, I think Monte
provides a pretty good review. By "good" I mean useful. I don't mean
"completely right-thinking" or "generally positive," although Monte's review
is the latter. As to the former, well, I have no doubt that some of MSB's
comments on 3.5 now will strike him, in a couple of years, as the
unconsidered crap they probably are, just as a similar proportion of Monte's
(or any reviewer's) comments are. So, a review that is useful in offering
insight from an identifiable perspective, one that leads to a conclusion
regarding the product's utility that is supported by the premises advanced
in the review.
I do feel that the review section deserved more of the author's attention,
given its utility to the reader. I would like to know which elements of 3.5
Monte intends to houserule, whether altering them (and if so how) or
deleting them in favor of 3.0. I would also have liked to see a more overt
analysis of the changes in 3.5 that implement reforms that Monte believes
were necessary. We get a list of changes that are good, changes that are not
good, and changes that were necessary but not made. I would have preferred
to see the addition of a list of the changes that were necessary and that
were made.
So that said, I would give Monte's critical analysis low marks and his
product review high marks. If only the two had been different essays.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
scott at madforjam.com
"Orc Liver - the Paladin's foi gras"
http://www.madforjam.com/dnd/main.html
Magus Coeruleus said:
It all depends on what else you're basing your opinion about the buffs on... If you feel, like Monte does, that under 3E the system is no longer balanced for classes with a d4 hit die, because with the new bonuses to hit and to hit points the disparity between them and other classes is too great, and that they were kept around because they're one of the sacred cows, bumping them up to d6 would have made for problems with Rogues, and because the long-term buffs made them playable, then it's definitely a bad change.
BelenUmeria said:
Nope. Not at all. Please read what I wrote again.
"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"."
Then, later:
"Of course, he is also addressing people who didn't think that anything should have changed, for whom it would have been nice if he'd backed up his judgements of what was right about the revision as well.... I do wish he'd read his article again before posting and edited it to make it more balanced."
Now, what has Monte done? He's edited the review, adding in his rationales for supporting certain changes.
Wow. That's exactly what I wanted. I feel good. Suddenly, it's no longer a rant, it's a review, and an excellent one at that.
If the original article had been called: "Monte's Misgivings about 3.5E", I'd have had no problem with it. Calling it a review, even though there were disclaimers in the text that it wasn't exactly a review, gave a false impression of it being more balanced than it was. Because the balance wasn't there, the resulting impression was "3.5E sucks!", rather than the more complex feelings I think Monte has about the revision.
How did he put it?
"My intention was to give a very mixed review, to show that, while I'm unhappy with the way it was done in principle, the end result is more good than bad."- Monte Cook (review 1.5?)
Do I agree with many of the misgivings Monte has about the revision? Yes, I do. Not all of them, but I can certainly see his reasoning and I appreciate that greatly.
Cheers!
Similar Threads
