Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thrommel" data-source="post: 1000438" data-attributes="member: 12208">The discrepancy in length is pretty straightforward -- it doesn't take a lot of space to say you like something. "Sorcerers can change out their known spells when they become useless (or simply were bad choices)" -- what more really needs to be said? Do we need to rehash why Harm was broken, for instance?On the other hand, if you are going to criticize something, then it's incumbent on the reviewer to justify their opinion.If all people heard was "Facing (now called space) is now always square " without any further reasoning, a lot of readers are going to say "So...?" Especially since precious few consumers have the book in their hands to flip through it and make up their own minds.And the conclusion of his review states outright that "the fact is that none of my criticisms of the new material are so damning as to wreck the game. D&D is still a good game, whether it's 3.0 or 3.5."In my experience, Monte has been consistently professional, direct, and honest. The review is no different. Does he have issues with the book? Yes. Does he recommend the book? Yes.To me the disturbing thing is not what he wrote. It's the way some people are now twisting it to vindicate their own agenda (on both sides of the revision debate) or ascribe motives that frankly I don't think are there.People have been bugging Monte for his opinion on 3.5 for a long time now. He gave it -- no more, no less.-Thrommel</blockquote>

Verification