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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 997488" data-attributes="member: 5868">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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?)</blockquote>

Verification