Monte's 4thed (?)


log in or register to remove this ad




It does look an awful lot like the changes that are coming for 4E. I'm not suggesting that Monte is playtesting 4E, but the fact that many of his house rules match 4E's changes is leaving a lot to coincidence. At worst, it makes it seem as though Monte is passing off the 4E changes as his own original ideas.

It's just plain weird.
 

Dave Turner said:
It does look an awful lot like the changes that are coming for 4E. I'm not suggesting that Monte is playtesting 4E, but the fact that many of his house rules match 4E's changes is leaving a lot to coincidence. At worst, it makes it seem as though Monte is passing off the 4E changes as his own original ideas.

It's just plain weird.
Eh, he talked about a lot of this stuff a while ago, especially about spellcasters. I think these were ideas floating around during 1) the 3E development, and 2) during the last years.

And Monte has written, that he uses the Bo9S in that game, so I guess it's a mix of some leftover ideas from earlier and, of course, a lot of newer development. I guess Monte isn't oblivious to recent changes, and a lot of that was partially predictable.

Cheers, LT.
 

Dave Turner said:
It does look an awful lot like the changes that are coming for 4E. I'm not suggesting that Monte is playtesting 4E, but the fact that many of his house rules match 4E's changes is leaving a lot to coincidence.
I don't think these ideas are that uncommon or new.

For example, I use a similar approach with damage and hit points in OD&D(1974). The main difference is that I don't use CON as the "physical" part, I just use the first hit die or so as the physical part. But the general concept, especially as it applies to describing combat and damage, is exactly the same. I've also been considering giving faster healing rates for the hit points above the first hit die.

Another good example is my house-rules for spell special effects, which are similar to some concepts in 3E and 4E, from what I can understand.
 

As noted, these all reflect things he has mentioned before in his blog...my guess is that games designers have realized for a while what some of the main weaknesses are.

Some Monte'isms I remember off the top of my head:

-(3rd ed) monster stat blocks are not very user friendly
-spellcasters should have at will abilities (or something close)
-more hit points/wider deaths door at low levels
-(from Arcana Evolved) if you want epic play, you should just add some levels
-(from Arcana Evolved) hero/action points.
-it would be cool if spell level coresponded with charecter level (this may have been proposed for 3rd ed).
-it would be cool if charecters had access to more feats/talents (like once per level)
-rounds are short, and given that play is frantic, PCs should take a breather every once in a while.

Pretty much all but the last coincide with what we know about 4thed. And actually, they might have a little something for that (regain hit points by taking an action).

On the other hand, the obsession that the 4ed people seem to have for roles/slots/silos for pcs and monsters is not something I have seen from him.
 

Isnt Mike Mearls, Monte Cooks homeboy? Because that sounded alot like the little tid-bits they have been throwing out. JMHO! :p

"Chris Perkins must be stopped!!!"​
 

SPECTRE666 said:
Isnt Mike Mearls, Monte Cooks homeboy? Because that sounded alot like the little tid-bits they have been throwing out. JMHO! :p

"Chris Perkins must be stopped!!!"​
My theories:
Monte created a brain copy of himself and put it into Mike Mearls.
Or at least payed him to do what he would have done at WotC. Monte couldn't leave designing behind entirely, so he can now rest safely with the knowledge that Mike does what he would have done.

Or maybe it is all his secret 10 year plan to destroy WotC / D&D (by giving them idea that look nice at the outside, but turn out to be fatal for the game) and then, when his career as a succesful writer has made him rich like Mrs. Rowling, he will buy D&D from Hasbro...

:)
 

Remove ads

Top