Monte Cook?

[S'mon]

Uh, yeah. Monte's adventures are normal as per Monte's standards. Everything Monte writes is on full accordance with the principles of Monte.

There are other game systems out there (shock! horror!), some even from WotC, and there were other editions of (A)D&D. It's also noticeable that the 'official' Monte approach seems to be towards the upper end of the power/magic scale of the game as it's actually played, ie there are probably more less-magic-than-Monte-standard than more-magic-than-Monte-standard games these days. I don't think that was the case when the 'standard' magic/power level was much lower.

 

[Numion]

Uh, yeah. Monte's adventures are normal as per Monte's standards. Everything Monte writes is on full accordance with the principles of Monte.

There are other game systems out there (shock! horror!), some even from WotC, and there were other editions of (A)D&D. It's also noticeable that the 'official' Monte approach seems to be towards the upper end of the power/magic scale of the game as it's actually played, ie there are probably more less-magic-than-Monte-standard than more-magic-than-Monte-standard games these days. I don't think that was the case when the 'standard' magic/power level was much lower.

No shock, no horror! I was just saying that for example his Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil pretty well follows the guidelines in DMG regarding magic & loot. Actually there was a little less treasure than suggested. But you're right, those guidelines were written by Monte, so it's not a big surprise

My point point is this - the 'standard' 3e magic level should be used as the D&D baseline, otherwise there's no point talking about standard or normal magic levels, as those will all be subjective.

 

[Psion]

There are other game systems out there (shock! horror!), some even from WotC, and there were other editions of (A)D&D. It's also noticeable that the 'official' Monte approach seems to be towards the upper end of the power/magic scale of the game as it's actually played, ie there are probably more less-magic-than-Monte-standard than more-magic-than-Monte-standard games these days. I don't think that was the case when the 'standard' magic/power level was much lower.

I really beg to differ.

In 3e, there IS a standard in the DMG now (which Monte was the primary author of.) And unsuprisingly, Monte abides by the standard, which is more than can be said for many d20 publishers.

In 1e & 2e, it was not at all unusual to see holy avengers and staves of the magi in the hands of players by 10th level. In 3e, such items simply won't fit the standard until 20th level.

Further, Jim Ward (1e & 2e author) calls the DMG standard of magic item creation "conservative."

Finally, Monte's FIRST d20 supplement had classes with half-spellcasting level advancement, while there are still many publishers out there putting out classes with powerful abilities and full spellcasting progression.

In short, I think characterizing Monte's material as being especially giving when it comes to magic is extremely misleading. He set a standard (unlike authors of a previous editions) and abides by it (unlike other publishers.)

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I really beg to differ.

In 3e, there IS a standard in the DMG now (which Monte was the primary author of.) And unsuprisingly, Monte abides by the standard, which is more than can be said for many d20 publishers.

In 1e & 2e, it was not at all unusual to see holy avengers and staves of the magi in the hands of players by 10th level. In 3e, such items simply won't fit the standard until 20th level.

Further, Jim Ward (1e & 2e author) calls the DMG standard of magic item creation "conservative."

Finally, Monte's FIRST d20 supplement had classes with half-spellcasting level advancement, while there are still many publishers out there putting out classes with powerful abilities and full spellcasting progression.

In short, I think characterizing Monte's material as being especially giving when it comes to magic is extremely misleading. He set a standard (unlike authors of a previous editions) and abides by it (unlike other publishers.)

But he created the Bulette Tank. A fact for which he shall never be forgiven.


Actually I think the problem most people have with Monte is two fold.

1. The way he wrote the DMG takes the mystery out of magic. It is just another piece of magic.

2. Everyone has an opinion on RTTTOEE. It is a hackfest with one huge battle after another. Right or wrong that is its nature. Personally I think he should have made it a stand-alone adventure. Trying (badly in my opinion) to like it to the origional Temple of Elemental Evil was a mistake.

 

[S'mon]

I really beg to differ.

In 3e, there IS a standard in the DMG now (which Monte was the primary author of.) And unsuprisingly, Monte abides by the standard, which is more than can be said for many d20 publishers.

In 1e & 2e, it was not at all unusual to see holy avengers and staves of the magi in the hands of players by 10th level. In 3e, such items simply won't fit the standard until 20th level.

Further, Jim Ward (1e & 2e author) calls the DMG standard of magic item creation "conservative."

Finally, Monte's FIRST d20 supplement had classes with half-spellcasting level advancement, while there are still many publishers out there putting out classes with powerful abilities and full spellcasting progression.

In short, I think characterizing Monte's material as being especially giving when it comes to magic is extremely misleading. He set a standard (unlike authors of a previous editions) and abides by it (unlike other publishers.)

I don't disagree with you, your point about holy avengers at 10th level in 1e/2e is exactly what I meant - in olden times there were a lot more games 'higher powered' than what eg EGG seemed to advocate in his articles on treasure placement. And I'm certainly not saying that a Monte standard game is Monte-Haul!

 

[S'mon]

I don't have a problem with Monte or Monte Cook-style play.

(I _do_ have a problem with Skip Williams, but that's another topic...)

I like Monte's approach of bringing Balance to the For- I mean, to the game.

He set the default assumptions on magic & power pretty high, but that's ok. I like it that there is a clear standard. It would have been nice to see specific, exotic components required for the magic items, not just gold value, but that's mostly a flavour issue.

Only thing I don't like is too much use of exotic templating, but I don't know if he's really to blame for that.

 

[Psion]

The way he wrote the DMG takes the mystery out of magic. It is just another piece of magic.

You mean the magic items, right? (That's the only magic the DMG spends a lot of time on.) Yeah, I can sort of see that.

But at the same time, I can sort of see why the system needed made more consistant/less abusable with the stacking rules and so forth.

I think 90% of the blame for lack of mystery in magic items lies with the identify spell.

That said, I would like to see (make?) more flavorful rules for creating magic items than "pour XP and GP in, magic item comes out." The old Tome of Magic rules for magic items went way too excruciating depths to make a magic item; the DMG is more towards the other extreme. I would like to see something in the middle.

 

[Numion]

2. Everyone has an opinion on RTTTOEE. It is a hackfest with one huge battle after another. Right or wrong that is its nature. Personally I think he should have made it a stand-alone adventure. Trying (badly in my opinion) to like it to the origional Temple of Elemental Evil was a mistake.

The overall quality of RTTTOEE wasn't the point here. Someone claimed that montes scenarios are above-average magicwise, and I merely mentioned RTTTOEE as an example to the contrary. Without commenting it's overall quality. It's a fact that the module has about average treasure and magic.

 

[Luddite]

Monet Cook

A Monet Cook adventure is one where the players fight high powered Half-Dragon Half-Buttles Mind-Flyer Bards (BoEMII varient) to locate a collection of Impressionistic art.

The Final battle is with a lone Orc with a Pie.

-The Luddite

 

[maddman75]

I have to defend Monte here. I personally love his stuff. My last four purchases were by him (Book of Vile Darkness, Book of Eldritch Might, Book of Hallowed Might, and RttToEE) and I loved all of them.

- His approach is to use the templates, monsters, class levels to create unique characters. Don't think of them by adjectives, only the powers they have and their description. Demonstrates how to give new spark to old monsters.

- The treasure is a bit sparse in RttToEE, especially with the lack of any big market handy.

- His mechanics are inspirations to the imagination. Especially the BoVD, ideas seem to drip off the pages.

- I disagree that RttToEE is a pure hack and slash adventure. Certainly, there are a lot of foes. But there ARE options besides attacking everything in sight. Disguising yourselves as cultists and finding out what is happeneing/passing through areas is an excellent tactic. In fact, for the bulk of the adventure its not what you kill that's important but what you find out. (trying not to give spoilers, but those who have played/read it know what I'm talking about)