As I said in another thread, this ranks as among the worst things Monte ever wrote and Malhavoc ever published (this coming from a Monte fan). I have seen more innovative house rules posted on these forums that also displayed far more design work and a higher quality of thought. I wouldn't mind paying for house rules, heck every supplement is the equivalent of someone's house rules, but I expect something I couldn't throw together rather quickly myself. Furthermore, as a 3.75 (it doesn't matter if this was Monte's intention, people have labeled it as such) it fails in literally every respect by not even addressing minor problems well.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Monte's 3.75? (A sequal is on its way)
- Thread starter TerraDave
- Start date
If I wasn't such a huge 4e fanboy from all the promises of grandeur that have been given (and my own insane optimism), I'd probably eat up all that's in the BOXM. As it is, the at will powers he wrote up are amazing and if my DM wasn't already afraid of my love for tweaking the game, I'd have our group use them.
I don't know if I'm a fan of the way the spellcasting is set up, I prefer his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved work more. I'll buy Monte's fighter add on, but I doubt I'll use it for awhile unless 4e is hated by my friends or I.
I don't know if I'm a fan of the way the spellcasting is set up, I prefer his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved work more. I'll buy Monte's fighter add on, but I doubt I'll use it for awhile unless 4e is hated by my friends or I.
DonTadow
First Post
Did you read the book or do you just not like Monte Cook. I read a lot of books and I've yet to see one that covers a compatible 20 level spell chart in it, and take the libirty to supply spells that would be affected by it.ShadowX said:
Don't feel bad that no one wanted to buy your posted house rules.
Hey ShadowX ... if you don't like BoXM because it doesn't fit into your style of game play ... I can understand that. If you don't like BoXM because you don't want to spend money on someone elses house rules ... that sounds like a valid reason as well. But not liking something because it didn't address problems it wasn't even looking to solve seems kinda ... skewed just a bit, dontcha think?
BoXM was exactly what Monte said it was. A collection of limited house rules that he enjoyed using at his gaming table. Its never been promoted as anything more than that. Your assertion that it "fails in literally every respect by not even addressing minor problems well" is ludicrous. How can it fail at something it was not created for?
That's like saying 4E will be a complete failure because it doesn't address the use of powered armor on alien worlds.
Personally I liked what Monte wrote in BoXM, even though I won't be using much of it in my campaign as it doesn't quite fit. But it was interesting to see how Monte tweaks rules for his personal games rather than writing them for the "consumer". As for this new book, I'll take a look and add what I like and ignore what I don't.
BoXM was exactly what Monte said it was. A collection of limited house rules that he enjoyed using at his gaming table. Its never been promoted as anything more than that. Your assertion that it "fails in literally every respect by not even addressing minor problems well" is ludicrous. How can it fail at something it was not created for?
That's like saying 4E will be a complete failure because it doesn't address the use of powered armor on alien worlds.
Personally I liked what Monte wrote in BoXM, even though I won't be using much of it in my campaign as it doesn't quite fit. But it was interesting to see how Monte tweaks rules for his personal games rather than writing them for the "consumer". As for this new book, I'll take a look and add what I like and ignore what I don't.
