Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[Olgar Shiverstone]

While I generally love Monte's work (and SKR's, too), I find that I'm not particularly moved by his criticisms.

Did we need 3.5? Not really. Deep down, you can't argue that we need any game revision. Did WOTC need it? Probably. But I'm a cynic -- I expect money grubbing corporations to be money-grubbing corporations, and try and get every dollar from me they can. Even given WOTC's track record, I think they've given more credit to the gaming public than many other companies do their customers in other lines of work (*cough* Microsoft *cough*). So that doesn't bother me one bit.

Yeah, there are a lot of minor changes; his point about game mastery is well taken. But at the level of detail of a lot of the changes, they're just that -- details, not changes in the mechanics. So far, we've been playing a 3.0/3.5 mix game and it really hasn't been an issue. Besides, I think there's a certain amount of fun in learning a rules set for the first time, and getting used to the quirks. It's easier this time, 'cause 3.5 is so close to 3.0. And I don't really expect to be switching back and forth between systems (heck, even AU is 3.5 compatible! If Monte wanted to make a real statement, he could have stuck with 3.0 only ...). Much as I love 1E, I haven't played it in 15 years.

As to his specific criticisms of changes, the only one I think I may agree with is the weapon size change -- but as I haven't read the full system, I'm withholding judgment until I see it. Since we know there's a variant in the DMG that's essentially the old system, I can always use that if I don't like the new system.

Anything added to the books is pure gravy -- even if it was printed elsewhere first. WOTC could have just revised the rules and added the errata without adding anything else; they didn't have to add anything. +2/+2 feats are everywhere now; might as well put them in the core rules. Prestige Classes? I personally couldn't care less -- it's the one 3E mechanic I hate the most.

Square facings? It has its problems, but so does the 5x10 facings. I've used both in game now, and frankly have had fewer problems with the square facings than the older system. As I see it -- having read those sections -- the "focus" on minatures helps explain combat mechanics. The game isn't any more dependent on miniatures now than it was before (posters here have implied this; Monte didn't). Besides, I already play with minis in my game -- but people who don't aren't required to use them any more now than they were before.

NPC tables? Please -- a minor gripe at best. Given the electronic products available, free and otherwise, they're a waste of space. Put out a new Rogue's Gallery if you need generic NPC tables.

Other changes -- well, maybe there's things I would do differently if I were in charge, but I'm not, and no one really cares what I think anyway.

It's good to hear what designers think about game design, no question. But I was hoping for a little more insightful, substantial criticism from the writer of the DMG (hey -- how come no opinions about the new DMG layout?)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

* Taking levels of a prestige class now apparently forces you to pay multiclassing XP costs. Whether intentionally or by accident, the prestige class chapter no longer states that they are free of this cost.

Now this is interesting. I'd like to say "this is a cool change" but it's probably an omission (and then I'd have to duck endless flames). (I can't think of any favored prestige classes for any races.)

 

[Dr_Rictus]

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?

I don't see what this has to do with the issue of mastery, so I suspect you may be misunderstanding it. It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of gurus to plumb the game. There will certainly be "masters" of 3.5 very quickly, but that's not what we're talking about.

One of the play values that ordinary people get out of a game is the feeling of expertise they get from learning the rules. Changing just enough rules to call all knowledge into question seriously undermines that play value. This is one of the things that turned an awful lot of people off of Magic: The Gathering. The frequency of minor revisions left them confused and irritated, because they could never feel comfortable in their ability to acquire rewarding rules knowledge.

 

[Azure Trance]

Now this is interesting. I'd like to say "this is a cool change" but it's probably an omission (and then I'd have to duck endless flames). (I can't think of any favored prestige classes for any races.)

Someone on Montes message board did indeed say it was an omission.

Whew.

 

[Emiricol]

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. [/B]

No, not at all! I didn't want it to turn into one, though. Still don't

 

[ForceUser]

After reading Monte's review I'm unhappy with some aspects of what's coming and intrigued by others. I'm not sold on 1 min/level animal buffs or the new weapon size rules. Like him and several others in this thread I'll probably end up playing with a mix of 3.0 and 3.5. Bleh.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

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.

Yes, that is "the price you pay." And if you can't pay that price? You can't play the game, that's what. Yes, it's always been like this. That still doesn't make "if you don't like it, don't buy it" a satisfactory response to someone whose favorite game is being replaced.

So, I don't really see what your point is. That we have to accept it when bad things happen to us that are beyond our control? Philosophically true, but not really relevant when the subject at hand is people fallaciously claiming that no bad thing is even happening to anyone.

 

[Emiricol]

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.

Graph paper!! Heck, I already treat the combat board as a reference map more than a "game environment", so I'd easily survive off graph paper if I needed to for a pickup game.

 

[Emiricol]

+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.

That is probably the best "new" idea I've seen in a long time. I may just houserule that

 

[Henry]

What some call mastery, I call comprehension.

I may be an aberrant case, but it only took me and my players a few weeks to get the basics to 3E down back in 2000, and 3 to 4 months to get fluent in it. Some people have more difficulty with certain things (Op Attacks, Grappling, Sorcerers and Metamagic), but on the whole, "mastery" is judged by comprehending the majority of the rules (about 55% or so) so that even new gamers can make good guesses about how a rule is handled.

Apple (and to a lesser extent Microsoft) are two companies who know and LIVE on the concept of user comprehension. It's why you can pick up any Apple or Micorosoft program and know how to use at least 50% of its features within 30 seconds of use. Back in "ye olden times" every software package had different commands, and even the way to save and open a file varied from DOS program to DOS program.

So, there is something to be said for mastery, but in some cases (the new DR mechanic being one of them), the new mechanic is IMHO so improved over the old one, that it was worth the learning curve. Likewise with the toning down of many wizard spells, and the restructure of barbarians, rangers, and bards.