Monte's 3.75? (A sequal is on its way)

[Wolfspider]

*sigh*

Only 39 posts until the name-calling began. :\

More like 34 posts, actually.

*sigh*

 

[Pinotage]

Yet another reason not to go to 4E!

I haven't liked a lot of what I've seen about 4E so far, but this sounds like it'll take the elements of it that aren't so bad, isolate each of them nicely as modular rules so I can pick and choose what I want, and let me plug them into my 3.5E game as needed. Happy happy happy!

I really hope most, if not all, of this book is OGC, since that'll let people reverse-engineer the OGL to a 4E-lookalike system even easier.

While I'm interested in Monte's product, what I'd really be interested in is a UA style product released after 4e, which incorporates the best of 4e in a modular plug-and-play style way for the 3.5e system. That would be excellent! Like you say, reverse engineer 4e for 3.5e.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

For some of us, 4th edition isn't the reason we're not switching to 4th edition. For me it's a) the timing (there's a lot of life left in 3e for me, and I have tons of material I haven't had a chance to use), and b) I don't trust WotC to be able to provide adequate electronic support (i.e. the character generator) based on past experience. I'm certainly interested in seeing the direction of the game and trying a bit of this and that in my own game to see how it goes.

And add to that the fact that 4e is not really backward compatible with 3.5e, which really annoys me. I have close to a thousand pdf products for 3.5e, so it doesn't make sense to just throw that out for a new edition, no matter how good it may or may not be.

Pinotage

 

[Demigonis]

But go ahead, call it fear if it makes you feel better about being a lemming...

Actually, being a lemming would be purely following the crowd with no ability to have thoughts/feelings/opinions of my own about the situation.

I've thoroughly researched all that is available about the choice I'm making in swapping to 4E, so my decision is actually quite well informed.

I hardly think 4E is "getting rid of or changing everything there is to like about 3rd Edition." I think 4th Ed is going to be a lot closer to the "good parts" of 3E than a lot of people are willing to admit when they instantly insist that it's evil and bad because it's unfamiliar to them and that D&D couldn't possibly be due for a revision because 3E works perfectly.

PS: 4E doesn't seem any less backwards compatible than any other new edition of D&D that has come out, so I'm confused by that complaint.

 

[Alzrius]

Actually, being a lemming would be purely following the crowd with no ability to have thoughts/feelings/opinions of my own about the situation.

I've thoroughly researched all that is available about the choice I'm making in swapping to 4E, so my decision is actually quite well informed.

And yet you somehow assume that everyone who doesn't like 4E hasn't done the same research; they're just "afraid of change."

 

[jeffh]

Which statement is true:

(A) Monte read the updates and previews of 4E, liked them, and has decided to package them as his own "house-ruled" version of 3E in the hopes of paying the rent while he dips in his toes in the realm of writing fiction.

... I tend to personally think (A) is "more right"

Normally I really like and respect Monte Cook's work, but this honestly just sounds like "Oh, I'll rip off everything I like about 4th Edition and sell it a couple months before 4th Ed comes out!"

Riiiiight. Monte has a time machine and posted about this stuff long before the 4E announcement just so he could cash in now, of all times.

 

[DandD]

Most really are, and only hate the up-coming edition simply because there won't be support anymore for the current edition (which is a dumb thought from the people who oppose 4e because of that, because having several hundred books is proof that the current edition had more than enough support, and it would take decades to play with all the options presented in it, more than the 4th edition is going to last anyway).

 

[Mistwell]

No, it just justifies my bahaviour. *buys*

And for "Monte ripping off 4E" - not true. He started with the ritual warrior, though he didn't let go of the "powers per day" paradigm. But after the Bo9S came out, I've sometimes heard "Ritual Warrior on speed" or "done right".

And the ritual warrior was Monte's own brainchild, while Bo9S was the product of 4E. And Monte's imprint started selling Mearls stuff soon. Go figure.

Cheers, LT.

Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and the Books of Eldritch Might both had a lot of elements that eventually changed into something that is principally in 4e.

For example they had normal levels beyond 20 for example, and more at-will, per day, and almost-per-encounter abilities (they were not per-encounter, but they had a number of uses per day, and limitations, that made it essentially almost per-encounter). And they opened up healing to more classes. And as you mentioned, the ritual warrior looks like a prototype for the Bo9S which was a prototype for 4e.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

While I may not end up using it, I will definitely be getting this. Thanks Monte!

 

[mearls]

Except that I'm pretty sure I recognize a lot of those ideas as having been posted on Monte's blog months to years ago.

This is true. The move toward at-will abilities and encounter-based resources is something that, I believe, has grown in the design community based on years of playing 3e. If there are similarities, I'm sure it's simply a case of parallel development.

And frankly, if 4e looks like Monte's house rules I'm pretty dang happy. Monte's a really sharp guy who knows D&D inside and out. It would be reassuring to see him use rules that achieve similar ends as 4e, even if the methods might be different.

The best part is that, since I have a player in my group who works for a game company and thus can't playtest 4e at home, I can adapt Monte's rules for my current 3e game.