Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[d20Dwarf]

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".

Actually he has stated in several places that one reason he resents the revision is that it cuts into the audience for his products. But he also hates companies for making decisions based on financial well being, so...

 

[Azure Trance]

Obviously I was a bit misguided. For some reason I held the illusion that most, if not hopefully all the changes would be good. I'm going to have to do some thinking over this.

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

 

[SpiderMonkey]

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.

Whew! Thanks Sean! One of the PCs in my game is playing a H-elf who's multi-classing 4 classes before he goes into bladesinger. I would have rule 0'd it, but still, it's nice to know you've got cannon backing you (which, really, is the basis of the heated debate surrounding 3.5).

I also agree with Mr. Reynolds in that 3.5 will bring a wave of "house-ruling" to D&D tables, the likes of which probably haven't been seen since 2e. While I appreciated Monte's article, I'll stick with just about everything in 3.5 (except for the weapon sizing thing ).

Sorry, rant over. Play on!

 

[Hardhead]

What's wrong with taking good material from earlier products and making it core material? Even if I own all that stuff, which I do, it's nice to have the best of those products consolidated and made more official.

Because it adds to the page count, and drives up the price. I don't need the Arcane Trickster reprinted.


As for whether or not Monte is biased, the answer is "of course." There's no such thing as an ubiased opinion (it's a basic anthropological principle). I think his review was very insightful, though.

BryonD said:

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.

What, you mean considering that WotC has said over and over that it wasn't a financially based decision? It didn't seem to be a particularly conspiratal tone, though. It was simply a "here are the facts" tone. As for it being free, I tried to pay d20 Modern that way, and it just doesn't work. I guarantee that 99% of the people playing 3.5 will be buying the revised PHB, at least.

And keep in mind that the SRD doesn't include everything. They're not giving 3.5 away or anything.

Sean Reynolds said:

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 plan to use 3.5, and houserule some stuff (like the ridiculous weapon size rules) back to 3.0. But my campaign will definitly be a hybrid.

 

[KenM]

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 3.5 monsters that the previewed on the WOTC site, the face/ race is still given in 5 x 5. I think what they mean by square is now every creature has a square area.

 

[taliesin52]

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!!

Its pretty much here already. Expect new books, one for each class with PrC's, abilities, magic items, feats, etc.... which will now be known as a "Codex™." These Codecies™ will be in increacing levels of power as they're published with whichever one's most current being more powerful than all others before.

Second, your miniatures which are required and in a very TSR/WTC move will be trademarked "Combat Figurines™" (in a move to make fans of The Nazi™ and Tapping™ cards happy) will be specific to your character type. You'll be required thusly to have a Combat Figurine™ that's seen weilding two weapons if your character does. What's more, your character must dress identically to his Combat Figurine™.

Further, a new edition will be released every year. This edition will do its best to nullify and relegate away any and every rule/class/ability of the previous edition (although it may be identical to an edition published some time ago). If you want to continue playing in public you'll need the most current form of the rules (although you may play at home and in secret with previously published inferior rules). What's more, you'll only be allowed to discus the most current edition online in officially sanctioned messageboards/forums. Of course ones like Enworld which are not owned by WotC (or an affiliate) will still exist, but you'd not want to talk there anyhow since its not as good as the official™ message board and is mostly populated by those freaky old guys who only play older editions and grumble about attack matricies (the Official™ Messageboards will automatically filter out such archaic jargon such as this in your best interests).

In time the concept of printing new books and editions frequently will be abolished. Instead you'll buy an E-book™. This book will lock down after a few months and you'll be required to slide your credit card through the first chapter to pay for an update (which will also conveniently update all characters you have and will be accurate and bug free, much like WotC/TSR's editors).

Ok, that wasn't very serious... Well ok its a slight fear of mine but its mostly satire from someone who sees this literally happening in the miniature gaming industry and is amazed that it works so well for certain unnamed *cough GW cough* companies.

That said, I do agree with almost everything (95%) of what Monte's said.

 

[Hardhead]

Actually he has stated in several places that one reason he resents the revision is that it cuts into the audience for his products. But he also hates companies for making decisions based on financial well being, so...

I find that very hard to believe. I read his site every time it's updated and frequent his message boards, and I've never seen him say that.

Could you cite where he said this?

 

[KenM]

I also agree with Mr. Reynolds in that 3.5 will bring a wave of "house-ruling" to D&D tables, the likes of which probably haven't been seen since 2e.

With all these house rules, it will give WOTC the excuse they need to do another edition after 3.5.

 

[d20Dwarf]

I find that very hard to believe. I read his site every time it's updated and frequent his message boards, and I've never seen him say that.

Could you cite where he said this?

No, but if you do a search of the publisher's forum you should find a thread wherein he talks about it. He said that even if 90% of the customers switched, that's still a loss of 10% of his customer base.

 

[Hardhead]

No, but if you do a search of the publisher's forum you should find a thread wherein he talks about it. He said that even if 90% of the customers switched, that's still a loss of 10% of his customer base.

I can't search. Anyway, he can easily write material that works under both editions. I doubt it's either/or. Though, if I'm understanding you right, he was concerned over fracturing of the buyer base in the post you're talking aobut. Which, I think, is a valid concern.

But he didn't seem to dislike the revision's mechanics at all. He seemed to be generally positive in his review. He said "most of the changes it presents are good," after all. It didn't seem to me that he disliked it, except for the timing.