Monte Cook reviews 3.5
- Thread starter Pielorinho
- Start date
Gargoyle
Adventurer
Emiricol said:
Agreed.
Of course not, but we all make judgements of people based on what we know of them. I've listened to him speak at cons many times, read many of his posts and web site articles, and have met him at GenCon. From these experiences, I've come to the conclusion that Monte is two things: an honest person, and a true gamer at heart (that is, he really loves D&D and gaming in general). So I trust him to be sincere. Of course, I could be wrong, but obviously I don't think I am.
Maybe I'm a Monte fanboy. I don't think so. For instance, I think he could have written a more objective and informative review of 3.5. It was more of a bittersweet rant/rave than a professional review. And as noted above, I disagreed with some of his points. I enjoyed reading the article because of the insider's insight, but as a "review" it wasn't really that great.
I don't think we're really arguing are we? It struck me as more of a discussion. Sorry if I sound accusatory or inflammatory. I agree that there is nothing here to argue about.
Last edited:
John Crichton
First Post
After reading about the revisions to the rules, reviews from other sites and after Monte and Sean's words I'm starting to get a houserule vibe from all this that I hadn't gotten until now. Maybe it's because of the respect I have for Monte or maybe he just made a few points I hadn't considered before...
For about .5 seconds there he made me think about not buying the new books. I have been completely on board since I started reading about the changes in 3.5. I still think many of the changes are good (especially to the classes) but there is stuff in there that I don't like at all.
I'm less happy now that I have learned about the original 3.5 plan. I would have liked to have seen a combination of the 2 (new artwork for example and no errata). Not that I mind the timing of this revision, but it would have been nice to see a few more tweaks to the current system (the most obvious being the caster level requirements for magic item creation which I understand but never liked). One of my major concerns is learning about this oversight to PrCs/XP penalties (I don't actually care about this oversight as I hardly ever allow published PrCs in my games). If they missed that then we could be in for more errata than I would care for.
I was in no way a 'master' of 3.0 but I was getting there. I actually haven't DM-ed much D&D in the last year so getting back into it with new rules isn't such a bad thing. I am still purchasing the books day one as there seems to be more good than bad. I agree with the majority of Monte's issues but many of them won't impact my game much if at all.
I just hope there isn't a ton of errata and that we don't see 4th edition for at least 4-5 years. That new D&D game should be playtested to death and should include freelancers like Monte, Sean and many of the professionals that frequent this very website.
John "Not as enthused about 3.5 as he was before writing this response but still buying it" Crichton
For about .5 seconds there he made me think about not buying the new books. I have been completely on board since I started reading about the changes in 3.5. I still think many of the changes are good (especially to the classes) but there is stuff in there that I don't like at all.
I'm less happy now that I have learned about the original 3.5 plan. I would have liked to have seen a combination of the 2 (new artwork for example and no errata). Not that I mind the timing of this revision, but it would have been nice to see a few more tweaks to the current system (the most obvious being the caster level requirements for magic item creation which I understand but never liked). One of my major concerns is learning about this oversight to PrCs/XP penalties (I don't actually care about this oversight as I hardly ever allow published PrCs in my games). If they missed that then we could be in for more errata than I would care for.
I was in no way a 'master' of 3.0 but I was getting there. I actually haven't DM-ed much D&D in the last year so getting back into it with new rules isn't such a bad thing. I am still purchasing the books day one as there seems to be more good than bad. I agree with the majority of Monte's issues but many of them won't impact my game much if at all.
I just hope there isn't a ton of errata and that we don't see 4th edition for at least 4-5 years. That new D&D game should be playtested to death and should include freelancers like Monte, Sean and many of the professionals that frequent this very website.
John "Not as enthused about 3.5 as he was before writing this response but still buying it" Crichton
Last edited:
BiggusGeekus
That's Latin for "cool"
Re: minis
This is a topic that really deserves its own thread, but to just to be clear: when the rules create a greater dependency on minis that's fine for "established" players and even very helpful. But not for games that are played at the spur of the moment or in cramped quarters. These are conditions that are common in the junior high - college range.
Basically, I'm saying: "Think of the children". Which is kind of dopy, but I still think it is a concern that needs to be voiced.
This is a topic that really deserves its own thread, but to just to be clear: when the rules create a greater dependency on minis that's fine for "established" players and even very helpful. But not for games that are played at the spur of the moment or in cramped quarters. These are conditions that are common in the junior high - college range.
Basically, I'm saying: "Think of the children". Which is kind of dopy, but I still think it is a concern that needs to be voiced.
theoremtank
First Post
It's nice to see a viewpoint from one of the games designers. We far to often do not get to hear their honest opinion as they cannot speak out contrary to their companies interests.
Some thoughts on 3.5 changes...
+2 to two skills feats: This was a page wasting design decision for 3.5. They could have just created one feat that grants +4 skill points. You could spend these skill points on class skills and get either +4 or two +2's, or cross-class skills and get only a +2, etc. Then, leave it up to the player to create a clever name for his characters' new skillfullness. Or for a mechanic more inline with what these 3.5 feats give you...Just create one feat that allows you to allocate 2 ranks to two different skills.
Weapon Sizing: What I do like about the 3.5 weapon sizing rules is that it seems to promote the idea that small and large sized races make weapons designed for themselves. I don't think in all campaigns that halflings always relied on using human weapons. I'm sure they have their own weaponsmiths too. The 3.0 weapon rules didn't promote this concept and lacked choices of weapons for smaller creatures. Now I'm not saying the 3.5 sizing mechanic is a good rule change, only now that it seems to promote a more realistic mechanic for weapons.
Minis: I personnally don't like minis because you have to buy so many of them and they supply the visual as opposed to your imaginiation. I prefer to use things like push-pins or other types of symbolic placeholders as I do still find some type of grid to be essential if you want combat to be strategic.
Some thoughts on 3.5 changes...
+2 to two skills feats: This was a page wasting design decision for 3.5. They could have just created one feat that grants +4 skill points. You could spend these skill points on class skills and get either +4 or two +2's, or cross-class skills and get only a +2, etc. Then, leave it up to the player to create a clever name for his characters' new skillfullness. Or for a mechanic more inline with what these 3.5 feats give you...Just create one feat that allows you to allocate 2 ranks to two different skills.
Weapon Sizing: What I do like about the 3.5 weapon sizing rules is that it seems to promote the idea that small and large sized races make weapons designed for themselves. I don't think in all campaigns that halflings always relied on using human weapons. I'm sure they have their own weaponsmiths too. The 3.0 weapon rules didn't promote this concept and lacked choices of weapons for smaller creatures. Now I'm not saying the 3.5 sizing mechanic is a good rule change, only now that it seems to promote a more realistic mechanic for weapons.
Minis: I personnally don't like minis because you have to buy so many of them and they supply the visual as opposed to your imaginiation. I prefer to use things like push-pins or other types of symbolic placeholders as I do still find some type of grid to be essential if you want combat to be strategic.
Last edited:
Dr_Rictus
First Post
Emiricol said:
His saying that would indeed not make it so ... except that's not what he said. He said that he is biased, and that he's trying (which is all you could expect) to write around that. I accept your respectful intent, but you're not representing his statement fairly.
BryonD
Hero
Hardhead said:
Reference that please.
Are you REALLY saying that you (or anyone else) ever thought a business was doing something without financial basis????? (And why should they?)
Here are the facts. (Oh and by the way "I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad". Nope, no "tone" there.
Every single person who buys 3.5 will do so by free choice. And I do not know of a single 3.5 change that will not be in the SRD. If you have 3E and you get the 3.5 SRD I believe those two things will include everything.
John Crichton
First Post
Mini's
But seriously - I agree that there should be some kind of WotC supported freestyle way of running combat without miniatures that is either packaged with the DMG rules or distributed as a free handout. Being forced to play on a grid is no fun.
I like that they included better mini-rules and I will surely use them. But a non-battlemat option should be in there. I couldn't imagine running a game my first time out with all a DM has to do and worry about minis. Of course I started with 2e so what do I know....
I think you are a poopeyhead.BiggusGeekus said:
But seriously - I agree that there should be some kind of WotC supported freestyle way of running combat without miniatures that is either packaged with the DMG rules or distributed as a free handout. Being forced to play on a grid is no fun.
I like that they included better mini-rules and I will surely use them. But a non-battlemat option should be in there. I couldn't imagine running a game my first time out with all a DM has to do and worry about minis. Of course I started with 2e so what do I know....
Dr_Rictus
First Post
BryonD said:
This is perhaps the single most commonly-repeated untrue statement about the revision. WotC is ceasing to support version 3.0. I expect the vast majority of third-party d20 publishers to do likewise, and frankly there are very few of them out there in the first place whose product quality I trust anyway (Monte's imprint being one of them).
While I am willing to believe that this is not true for everyone, I for one require support materials to fit D&D into my busy schedule. Therefore, if I prefer to play 3.0, I most certainly am harmed by their lack of support, since my ability to play the game is seriously impaired. Monte addresses this fact directly in his commentary. 3.5 is now the D&D that's available.
Similar Threads
