Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[Hardhead]

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?)

Sure. Check the original announcement where they say "The past two years have been filled with consumer feedback that has provided us with a wealth of information for making our books richer in depth and gameplay -- in short, more opportunity for every fan to enjoy the game a little more.

"After gathering this invaluable input from the fans and putting it together with our own observations, it was clear that some targeted revisions in the three core rulebooks would go a long way toward creating the requested improvements in the D&D roleplayer’s gaming experience. Therefore, we have incorporated fan comments and suggestions into upcoming revised editions of the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual."

Here, they're obviously saying that design revisions was the main impetus behind the revision - not a financial reason.

Of course, I'm sure no one is naieve enough to think money played no part, but there's a difference between it being a secondary reason, and it being the main reason.

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.

If it makes people mad, it makes them mad. That doesn't mean they shouldn't know the reasons.

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.

Of course, if you want to be able to use their future products, you'll need 3.5...

Oh, and Illithids, Slaad, Githyanki, Githzeari, and the "tanar'ri and baatezu" names will not be in the SRD, at least.

 

[dren]

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.

That's what these posting boards and other d20 publishers are for.
WoTC is great for broad rules and ideas, but when it comes down to it, it really has to be that holistic all emcompasing style, to get the big sales figures that Hasbro is pushing them for. It's then up to other d20 publishers to run with a specialized idea which may not appeal to everyone but big enough so the smaller publisher will eke out a profit. IMVHO, of course.

 

[Agback]

I'm in a 3.0 game now and GM is trying to play without miniatures or even a map. Not only have a lot of feats (like Combat Reflexes) been rendered pointless, but the game is actually *slower* without them.

Indeed! I have noticed this with lots of different games. A grid and counters not only encourages the use of abilities and tactics, it also makes things run much quicker and more smoothly.

But I always use counters of some sort rather than expensive miniatures.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Buttercup]

I'm no longer certain that I'll buy the 3.5 books. I'll download the SRD and work through it first, I think. At best, I'll be running a hybrid game. I should add that none of my players are enthusiastic about buying the 3.5 PHB anyway, so I won't have an argument if I decide not to upgrade.

I'm really glad that I spent so much money on 3e stuff, because I've got enough of it to last me pretty much forever, if it should come to that.

 

[Jody Butt]

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.

Exactly!

Some people don't seem to understand this. In order for me to use future D&D products, I will have to deal with 3.5 (as all future products will be 3.5). What if I don't want to deal with 3.5? Too bad, sucka. Cough up the cash, or be left behind in D&D history with not support for the game you play.

 

[Storminator]

I didn't actually get to his reviews of the different rules, as I fundamentally disagreed with his set up sections before that. I don't agree with the way he defines what "should" be in a revision and what "belongs" in a new addition.

I completely disagree on the "mastery" issue. Right now, if you head over to the rules forum and ask how to do a build, guys can lay out every feat for the next 10 levels, and half your skill points as well. But how long do we really think it'll take those folks to work up a tricked out 3.5 PC? 3 weeks? a month?

Also, the issue of revamping your PC...I play a monk. It doesn't get much more different than that. And my PC is done. I'm 3.5 ready, as I was last week when we gamed. There is absolutely no difference in playing my monk, just a few new numbers here and there.

So I didn't even get to the ticky-tacky stuff.

PS

 

[Quasqueton]

I copied the list of Monte's "The Bad Things" into a word processor. I then cut out the things I really didn't think were bad. My list has just 2 items -- one I'm not sure if I dislike or not (squre facings), and the other has been explained as an error (xp penalty for PrC). That takes my list of Monte's "The Bad Things" down to about 0.5. I'm feeling better about the revision now. Of the things an experienced game designer pointed at as bad, nothing will really affect my game.

And just to touch on something that many people seem to have a problem with:

The new weapon sizes actually seem to make things easier for me. For instance, think of a Huge greataxe. It's a greataxe for what size creature in 3.0? Now for 3.5?

For me, the new catagorization is quicker and easier. A Huge greataxe is a greataxe for a Huge creature in 3.5. In 3.0 you had to remember that sizes scaled up or down -- a Huge greataxe is a greataxe for a Large creature in 3.0. The weapon size and creature size didn't match up in 3.0. Now they will.

Quasqueton

 

[Jody Butt]

Re: Mini's

I think you are a poopeyhead.

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....

YES! 100 times YES! Why can't they do something like this? Oh, yeah, because if will hurt the sales of their collectible miniatures.

GURPS has a basic combat (which doesn't require grids) and advanced combat (for those who want grids). Why, oh why, couldn't WotC do something like this instead of forcing a miniatures wargame down our throats?

 

[Storminator]

<SNIP>

The new weapon sizes actually seem to make things easier for me. For instance, think of a Huge greataxe. It's a greataxe for what size creature in 3.0? Now for 3.5?

For me, the new catagorization is quicker and easier. A Huge greataxe is a greataxe for a Huge creature in 3.5. In 3.0 you had to remember that sizes scaled up or down -- a Huge greataxe is a greataxe for a Large creature in 3.0. The weapon size and creature size didn't match up in 3.0. Now they will.

Quasqueton

I would think this sort of change would work for Monte, as his new game has small, tiny, and large base PC races.

PS

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Exactly!

Some people don't seem to understand this. In order for me to use future D&D products, I will have to deal with 3.5 (as all future products will be 3.5). What if I don't want to deal with 3.5? Too bad, sucka. Cough up the cash, or be left behind in D&D history with not support for the game you play.

While its a drastic way of saying it, that's the truth...always has been the truth. Don't like 3.5? Then do what the people who don't like 3E do...play what YOU want. That's the beauty of D&D. No, you won't get new supplements and such, but that's the price you pay for not keeping up with the times. Its not the most wonderful thing to say, but its the truth, and this Revision isn't the start of some new trend. Its always been like this.