-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Monte Cook reviews 3.5
- Thread starter Pielorinho
- Start date
Gargoyle
Adventurer
Emiricol said:
Any time a publisher posts anything publicly about someone else's product, there is a conflict of interest. But he didn't hide that conflict of interest, he went out of his way to make certain the reader was aware of it. I don't think he had any hidden agendas in the article. I just think he had some things to get off his chest about 3.5, and that's what he did.
All I have to say is that in my home campaigns will use the D&D 3.0 rules for weapon size. If I have any say in it, the books I design will also use those rules.
The other thing that bugs me a bit is listing distances in squares. I don't mind listing both feet and squares, but just squares will be annoying.
I'm intensely curious to see if 3.5 will prompt some d20 publishers to mix and match the rules they use between the two versions.
The other thing that bugs me a bit is listing distances in squares. I don't mind listing both feet and squares, but just squares will be annoying.
I'm intensely curious to see if 3.5 will prompt some d20 publishers to mix and match the rules they use between the two versions.
seankreynolds
Adventurer
Re: the XP penalty for multiclassing, that is apparently an error. I asked WotC about it a couple of weeks ago and I was told that prestige classes do not count toward a multiclassing penalty. When that section of the DMG was worked on, it must have accidentally gotten cut.
{I'm intensely curious to see if 3.5 will prompt some d20 publishers to mix and match the rules they use between the two versions.}
I've been saying for some time now that a lot of people will use 3.5 as a source of common "house rules" but will continue to play 3.0.
I'll be posting my own commentary (adding to Monte's) on my site later tonight.
{I'm intensely curious to see if 3.5 will prompt some d20 publishers to mix and match the rules they use between the two versions.}
I've been saying for some time now that a lot of people will use 3.5 as a source of common "house rules" but will continue to play 3.0.
I'll be posting my own commentary (adding to Monte's) on my site later tonight.
Last edited:
Flexor the Mighty! said: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?
You betcha!
Henry
Autoexreginated
Only one thing leapt out at me:
The new Weapon sizes?
BLAAEEECCCH!
The way it was described make me think I'll have more trouble with that than I EVER did with Attacks of Opportunity!
However, my opinions and Monte's have diverged on many other points. His dislike of 1 hour to 1 minute spells I enjoy, because unlike him I've seen rampant abuse of those in my games - people empowering them, extending them, making them last for OVER a day's time, and generally players acting like they are ENTITLED to a 3-point boost to all stats for 24 hours. As much use as they got, I might as well have abolished the spells, and just gave each player a 3-point stat boost to all abilities. Now, they give a tangible benefit, they last for one combat or two subsequent combats, and they aren't active all day.
Also, too, I like the facing - long-facing creatures used to give me fits with the 5x10' set-up - flanking, attacking creatures from one side to the next, etc.
In all, I appreciate his article, because it gave me some good in-depth perspective. (It also made me shed a tear for the good ol' days when Peter and Ryan used to run WotC and the Tabletop dept.)
And hopefully, he is right, and we will all come out stronger for the revisions.
The new Weapon sizes?
BLAAEEECCCH!
The way it was described make me think I'll have more trouble with that than I EVER did with Attacks of Opportunity!
However, my opinions and Monte's have diverged on many other points. His dislike of 1 hour to 1 minute spells I enjoy, because unlike him I've seen rampant abuse of those in my games - people empowering them, extending them, making them last for OVER a day's time, and generally players acting like they are ENTITLED to a 3-point boost to all stats for 24 hours. As much use as they got, I might as well have abolished the spells, and just gave each player a 3-point stat boost to all abilities. Now, they give a tangible benefit, they last for one combat or two subsequent combats, and they aren't active all day.
Also, too, I like the facing - long-facing creatures used to give me fits with the 5x10' set-up - flanking, attacking creatures from one side to the next, etc.
In all, I appreciate his article, because it gave me some good in-depth perspective. (It also made me shed a tear for the good ol' days when Peter and Ryan used to run WotC and the Tabletop dept.)
And hopefully, he is right, and we will all come out stronger for the revisions.
SJ
Explorer
weapon size
Does anyone have a technical justification for the weapon size changes in 3.5? Most of the other things I don't have a problem with, but that one just sounds stupid.
Is it supposed to be 'better' or 'simpler' than the light-same-two method we have in 3.0? I don't see how....
Does anyone have a technical justification for the weapon size changes in 3.5? Most of the other things I don't have a problem with, but that one just sounds stupid.
Is it supposed to be 'better' or 'simpler' than the light-same-two method we have in 3.0? I don't see how....
Similar Threads
