Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

(When 20% of the article was justifying why he isn't just whining and why it isn't because he has a conflict of interest, I think it disproves both points. EDIT: That does NOT make him wrong, but does make his opinions suspect imho.)

I feel the opposite way.

I thought it addressed the issue of bias and better allowed the reader to come to an impartial conclusion.

 

[BryonD]

I already knew I liked 3.5. So I did not expect Monte to change my mind.

However, I was waiting to see what insights he would have. Wondering if some inside knowledge would change my position.

It did not come close.

Honestly, most of the "bads" were trivial. Some I agree with. Most I either disagree with or just don't see any point in getting worked up over.

The "revelation" that a business was planning on long term strategy is laughable to me. Those evil greedy jerks have been planning for 3 years to produce a revision and offer it up for free in the SRD. The idea that this should even be mentioned in a conspiritorial {nudge, nudge} they're pulling one over on you tone just seems childish and petty. I mean, even if it is completely true, if you like the revision and are happy to buy it, then no harm is done. If you don't like it, don't buy it and STILL no harm is done. I can not see why this knowledge would make a reasonable person mad unless they were looking for an excuse.

And if the "design need" was absent, then the "financial need" would go unmet. I could care less about WotC's financial need. I will buy 3.5 because the design value (which is a more approriate term than "need") is there.

If they were thinking about profits from this 3 years ago, is it possible that this consideration went into deciding to continue to fund 3E development at that time?

And square facings actually fix one of the biggest logic gaps in 3E.

Lastly, everyone seems to be treating this as Monte's slam of 3.5. I did not see that at all. He simply listed things he likes and things he does not. He put more explanation behind the dislikes. But that is only reasonable.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Get all your friends to buy, buy, buy! If they don't sell enough we will see 4.0 by Christmas! And you will all be buying the core books again!



I still think 4.0 will be more of a collectable mini game than a classic RPG. What you you "PC" has isn't determined by the game play but by how many booster packs you have!!
A lot of revenue there.

Jody, can I bring my 1e books to the party?

 

[Zaruthustran]

I just don't understand the anti-miniature folks. I mean, in a game where spells and weapons have very specific spreads and ranges, how do you keep track of anything without miniatures?

Sure, you can "wing it" and not pay attention to specific spreads, lines of effect, and whatnot--but then you're not playing D&D, you're playing "D&D Lite".

Me, I see the greater focus on minis as a very good thing. Minis and a battlemat quickly end the age-old problems of hearing "Where am I? Can I see that guy? Am I in range? Can I get by him? If I cast fireball, will I catch my friends in the blast?" and similar annoying questions at the start of every player's turn.

Using miniatures = good.

Or, more accurately: using miniatures during combat = good.

-z

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Lastly, everyone seems to be treating this as Monte's slam of 3.5. I did not see that at all. He simply listed things he likes and things he does not. He put more explanation behind the dislikes. But that is only reasonable.

Reading through that entire review, I didn't see it as him slamming the Revision at all. He simply stated his opinion, and in the end, he seemed to say that its still helping D&D, so therefore: A good thing, even if some of the details are 'bad'.

 

[Renaissance Man]

I just don't understand the anti-miniature folks. I mean, in a game where spells and weapons have very specific spreads and ranges, how do you keep track of anything without miniatures?

Sure, you can "wing it" and not pay attention to specific spreads, lines of effect, and whatnot--but then you're not playing D&D, you're playing "D&D Lite".

I predict that remark will go over like a fart in church, but I got your back, Z...

 

[BryonD]

Reading through that entire review, I didn't see it as him slamming the Revision at all. He simply stated his opinion, and in the end, he seemed to say that its still helping D&D, so therefore: A good thing, even if some of the details are 'bad'.

Yeah, I agree. When I said "everybody" I should have specified that I meant the general attitude in this thread (as I perceive it).

 

[Enceladus]

I predict that remark will go over like a fart in church, but I got your back, Z...

"He who farts in church, sits in his own pew."

 

[SneakyB]

True. And I didn't say he wasn't qualified to have an opinion (as if any of us are!). Just that he has conflicts of interest. More than just hurt pride that 3.0 was changed, I mean. He has a current and ongoing financial stake that is threatened by 3.5.

I fail to see how Arcana Unearthed (or any other Malhavoc product for that matter) is threatened by 3.5. All of the products that have been published and are to be published should integrate fine into your game regardless of whether or not you are running 3.0 or 3.5. As with any product to supplement this game, you usually need to refine it further to fit into the specifics of your particular campaign.

I guess what bothers me about your statement is that you seem to feel that Monte is unfairly critical of the product due to what YOU perceive as a threat to his well-being. I don't see that, nor, based on what I've read from Monte so far does it appear that he feels "threatened".

So is his opinion off base? I don't know, DMs can decide that for themselves and their campaigns. I just wish it hasn't come from him.

(When 20% of the article was justifying why he isn't just whining and why it isn't because he has a conflict of interest, I think it disproves both points. EDIT: That does NOT make him wrong, but does make his opinions suspect imho.)

Again, I respectfully disagree. I think his opinion, and "insider knowledge" offer keen insight into the decisions made to release 3.5 as early as it was. Coupled with his background into the "how's and why's" in the 3.0 design, it further validates his perspectives.

Personally speaking, I think pretty highly of Monte, the job he does, and the quality of work his imprint puts out. I also have a great deal of respect for his integrity, and, to me, this is proven by him laying the foundations of his criticisms before examining, in detail, issues that he feels were not handled properly.

Bottom line, for me, at least is that while I have pre-ordered 3.5, I can already see a number of rules that will be house-ruled back to the way they were. But that's just me. My campaign, my decision. Everyone out there is free to pick and choose what they like and implement it or fall back to Rule 0.


Dan

 

[KenM]

Well I'm going to take the 90.00 I was going to spent on the 3.5 books and switch to Hackmaster. I totally agree that you need some sort of grid/ display showing where the characters are. You need to know who is in the fireball area of effect.