Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...

[The Sigil]

While Monte's review of 3.5 has inspired a couple of other "is there a schism" threads, I felt this was different enough to warrant its own subject. I want to share my opinions on the review - my "review of the review" if you will.

In a nutshell, here's what I think: This revision is too much, too soon. In fact, it's much more than just a "revision." That said, most of the changes it presents are good. The bad changes, thankfully, won't have a huge impact on your game.

I am of a split mind with regards to this conclusion. I think the revision may have been too much, but given the reams of errata already out there, I hardly think it was too soon... though someone mentioned that SKR was of the opinion that not all of the 3.0 errata had even made it into 3.5, so that does concern me. As to the changes it presents, I think there is bound to be some good and some bad... I haven't seen 3.5 yet, but I know some of the tidbits that are floating around and I like some of them and think others are stupid.

But, before I really get into the review, let me say that I'm aware that it's a touchy situation for me to even be writing this at all. Aside from the fact that I'm friends with most, if not all, of the people who worked on 3.5, there's an obvious bias on my part, having worked on 3.0. It would be very simple to dismiss any of my negative comments with, "Oh, that's just sour grapes talking," or, "He's just trying to convince you to buy his competing product, Arcana Unearthed."
.
.
.
Still, you only have my word that I'm trying to write around these inherent biases, which make me lean both ways at once. You might want to read the review anyway, and form your own opinion. I can, for example, offer a few insights into some of the 3.5 changes as they relate to the 3.0 design process.

I think it is interesting to note that Monte points out that he does have biases both ways. No matter how hard we try to cover them up, our own biases will show through when we review something. So Monte comes out and says "here's what may bias me, keep this in mind." Fair enough, and it may help keep some of his comments in perspective.

See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning.

Not really mad about that - as some have said before, any company that thinks their way of doing things is the absolute shiznit and will never need revision is in trouble.

It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.
.
.
.
So, one has to surmise that the new business team determined that sales were slumping slightly earlier than predicted and needed 3.5 to come out earlier. One also has to surmise that someone -- at some level -- decided that it was to be a much, much more thorough revision than previously planned. Some of this is probably just human nature (two of the 3.0 designers were out of the way, and one would only work at Wizards of the Coast for about half the design time) and some of it is probably the belief that more revenue would be generated with more drastic changes. The philosophy of 3.5 has changed from being a financial "shot in the arm" into something with significant enough changes to make it a "must-buy." Perhaps they thought to strive for the sales levels of 2000. Perhaps there was corporate pressure to reach those sales levels again.

This does annoy me, however - but it doesn't exactly surprise me. The "life cycle" of revisions should, IMO, be dictated by how quickly problems and cracks in the game system itself, not by how soon the company producing the game needs to pick up a couple more bucks. Again, not surprising at all, just annoying.

You see, while some of the changes are merely revisions, many are also completely different rules. Despite what Wizards has said, there are conversion issues between 3.0 and 3.5 (your gnome illusionist with Spell Focus and boots of haste is going to be a fairly different character in 3.5). Many of the changes, some of them even good ones, are ones I would never have allowed in a "revision," but only in a new edition.

So here Monte states that he has some philosophical differences with what was and wasn't included in the revisions, separate and distinct from whether or not the revisions were a "good idea." Basically, Monte has an opinion on "how much" a game should be changed before labelling it as a "new edition."

I, personally, am of the opinion, that if a change needs to be made, make it. Who cares if it's a "big change" - if it's needed, do it - so I can't say I'm with Monte on this position.

Allow me to clarify. If I were in charge of the world (or at least D&D), I'd make sure that in a revision, there were no actual rules changes that could retroactively alter a character or a campaign.

This is not a clear line in the sand, unfortunately. Personally, I don't think any rule "retroactively alters" a character - do you go back and check to see "well, if the rules worked the same five months ago as they do now, would this character have made his save versus poison?" No.

I can only assume that "retroactively altering a character" means that you have to basically "rebuild" an existing character from first level... i.e., you can't just add a "plus" here or there and can't just add an additional ability or two.

Perhaps I can find more clarity if I keep reading...

Changing the price of magic item, clarifying an unclear rules{sic}, even adding a new piece of equipment or tweaking a spell is not going to significantly alter anyone's character or campaign. But if I'm running a 3.0 game (which I am) and was going to switch over completely to 3.5 (which I'm not), I'd have to deal with all kinds of changes to the game. Suddenly it costs a lot more to bring someone back from the dead. Suddenly dwarven armor is made of adamantite rather than mithral. Suddenly devas are called angels. Suddenly half-elves are the best diplomats in the game. And so on. You might see some or all of these things as good changes -- some of them are. But in my definition of a revision, they just shouldn't be part of these books. This is 4th Edition material. I shouldn't have to change my campaign just because Wizards needed cash.

Unless you had someone die last session and the party can't raise the cash this week because you're now in 3.5e, I don't see how the cost to bring someone back from the dead is "retroactive." Dwarven armor being made of adamantite? You can't just implement that as a "from here on out it's going to be adamantite, but all dwarf armor your characters currently have is mithral?" Changing the name of a creature to an "angel" (which Monte advocated in the first instance anyway, as I recall) is a world-shattering retroactive change? I guess none of these qualifies as a huge change for me.

Sorcerers using Int as their main spell-casting stat instead of Charisma would be a big change. Half-elves getting a +1 or +2 racial bonus to Diplomacy checks? Not a big change. Even changing a gnome's favored class to bard from illusionist is no big deal - just let pre-existing gnomes keep illusionist instead.

Is the game significantly better because random action has been renamed to lesser confusion or that word of recall is now a Conjuration school spell? Was the Alchemy skill really ruining so many games that it needed to be recast as Craft (alchemy)? Are chaotic weapons better now that they're "anarchic?" The fact that endure elements now only protects against extremes of temperature is okay, but is it better? It's difficult to think of a justification as to why.

In this I agree with Monte for the most part. Changing the name of a spell or skill or ability something is really not needed. I was never really clear on why 3.0 felt the need to change "Monster Summoning I" to "Summon Monster I" in the first place... a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet - why bother re-naming a spell? A slight re-categorization (Word of Recall -> Conjuration spell) may be in order, but hardly qualifies as a problem to me.

When we were designing 3.0, one of our guiding principles was, "If you're going to make a change, make it clearly a change." The reason for this guideline is that subtle changes are confusing. New editions shouldn't be any more confusing than necessary. Revisions shouldn't be confusing at all. Changing spell names, changing feat names, switching around the skills, and so on are subtle changes. Why are subtle changes bad, particularly for a revision? Because they trip players up and encourage bad decisions. "I cast bull's strength," a player states, confident that he knows how the spell works, because he's cast it many times before. The DM opens up the Player's Handbook and runs the new spell write-up, which is just different enough from what the player remembered to completely change everything.

I agree and disagree with this policy... I would add the qualifier, "unless the change is obviously needed." If the change is obviously needed, it doesn't matter if it's made subtly or not... you have to change it. I understand Monte's position, and agree that subtle changes are bad in a revision unless the need for change is so glaring as to warrant it, though. I disagree about the lack of need for change in a new edition. If you're going to start re-desigining the system from the ground up (as they did in 3e), don't worry about the changes being subtle or not - players of the game are basically learning a system from scratch anyway.

During the design of 3.0, one of the things that we realized was a huge strength of D&D is a concept we called "mastery." Mastery, in this context, is the idea that an avid fan of the game is going to really delve into the rules to understand how they work. We actually designed 3.0 with mastery in mind. For example, we created subsystems that worked like other systems, so that if you knew how one worked, you'd find the other one easier to understand. But I digress.

This is not a bad idea at all - "porting" the same basic concept engine into multiple areas makes it easier to understand how a tweak anywhere in the system would affect the rest of the system.

Anyway, the changes in 3.5 are so pervasive, and some of them so subtle, that any mastery people had achieved is gone. "Oh come on, Monte," one might reply, "the changes aren't that bad." I'm not even talking about "good" or "bad" here. The problem is that there are just enough changes that a player has to question everything. Even if fireball didn't really change, after you've had to re-learn how wall of force, flame arrow, and polymorph work, how can you be sure? Welcome to the game sessions where you've got to look everything up again. With 3.0, it was our plan to get people past that stage as quickly as possible. Obviously, 3.5 demonstrates that plan is no longer in motion and that mastery has been abandoned as a goal. With 3.5 coming out this quickly with this level of change, you can be sure that in three years, 4th Edition will have as many or more. And the cycle of learning and relearning will simply continue.

I haven't seen 3.5, so I can't comment on that and will reserve judgement. But I will say that with every supplement you bring to the table, the learning continues. I really don't think anyone's game ever "stops" getting the rules tinkered with, so this is not a big deal for me.

I've heard current D&D designers and editors say that once they got used to 3.5 and tried to go back and play a 3.0 game, they couldn't remember what had and hadn't changed or how anything worked. If that's true of the designers, why is Wizards inflicting this confusion upon the audience?

One of my complaints is that I have to go through pages and pages of errata to find out if something has changed or not in 3.0 - no difference to me. *shrugs*

But aside from the subtle changes, the "revision" also has some major changes. Virtually every monster is different. Your specialist wizard character might need to be redone. Your bard, ranger, and monk certainly will be. Damage reduction has been completely overhauled, as has size and facing for creatures larger than Medium-size. What on earth are changes of this magnitude doing in a revision? Changes of this magnitude seem to suggest only two possible explanations: (1) That these rules were so broken before that the game was unplayable; or (2) That the amount of change in the books was artificially increased beyond what was needed to force the player base to buy all new rulebooks. I've seen no evidence of the former, despite years of working professionally with the rules and paying attention to feedback on message boards and in personal email.

To be honest, that's a pretty harsh accusation for anyone to make... it's pretty much implying that the ONLY reason for the revision is cash, and that all other concerns (such as fixing things that were broken) were not even considered. Maybe they went a little farther than they should have, but nothing I have seen in the list of revisions tells me that they are actively trying to make 3.0 "totally unplayable" with 3.5 so that everyone is forced to upgrade. There are some minor differences, to be sure, but from what I've seen, the worst I can call it is changes resulting from "paradigm shifts" in thinking. After all, flanking rules were dastardly with the old creature size rules... if making creatures "square" makes flanking much easier to adjudicate, I'm all for it, myself.

It just seems to me that the entire first section is an attempt to cast WotC into a "they're only in it for the money now" light. And that's disappointing in something that's supposed to be a review of 3.5, not a review of WotC business practices. Monte may well be right, but when reviewing a gaming product, I think that's neither here nor there.

I'll start with the things I really liked. Some of these might cross the line I discussed above regarding the differences between revisions and editions, but let's move past that and take them on their own merits.

In no particular order:
* It now costs less for wizards to scribe spells into their spellbooks.
* Rangers and barbarians have more interesting abilities at higher levels
* Bards have more of their own unique spells (and are a better class to play in general).
* There are rules for special familiars like pseudo dragons.
* Sorcerers can change out their known spells when they become useless (or simply were bad choices)
* Druid animal companions advance as the druid does.
* Githyanki and githzerai are in the Monster Manual (I'd wanted them in there in the first place, but they were saved for the Psionics Handbook.)
* Demons and devils are tougher.
* Monster skills and feats are more standardized.
* Harm and heal are more balanced.
* Blade barrier is now playable.
* Some potions are now oils, helping the logic of what can and can't be a potion.
* The glossaries and indexes are even better.

These are some big issues, and they're all good.

But WHY are they good? Why is harm more balanced than before? What's inherently good about new familiar rules? Just saying, "this is good" does not a review make, especially when you claim you're going to examine them on their own merits. Where is the examination?

Putting aside the stuff about what should or shouldn't be in these books, there were a few of what I would call actual bad design choices made in 3.5.

In no particular order:

* Facing (now called space) is now always square. In order to facilitate miniatures play (apparently), horses are no longer 5 feet by 10 feet when you put them on a grid, they're a 10-foot square. The horse has to "squeeze" to get through a 5 foot wide space. Three 9-foot-tall ogres require a 30-foot-wide passage in order to walk abreast. D&D, with its already abstract combat system, did not need this extra layer of abstraction. Not to mention the fact that this changes game play in strange ways, such as how many of the charging ogres you can get with your fireball spell.

We did not need an extra layer of abstraction? What extra abstraction are we adding? I thought we added a layer of abstraction when we talked about Large (Tall) vs. Large (Long) creatures. I should think that reducing this to "Large" creatures REDUCES the abstraction level by one (we no longer have to distinguish between Tall vs. Long. Now the "three ogres requiring a 3-foot-wide passage" to walk abreast argument is there, but then again, Monte pointed out that the 10x10 abstraction is for "combat" and not for "walking abreast." I assume it is noted that a 10x10 creature can "squeeze" into a 5-ft wide area, but is that really another combat-related abstraction? No... because it takes place outside of combat.

I don't have the rules yet, but I'm going to guess a creature can "squeeze" into a space half as wide as its "space" listing - and that it suffers a penalty for being in combat while doing so.

You know, that actually makes MORE sense to me... three ogres "squeeze" to walk abreast in a passageway 15-feet wide as they did in 3.0 rules. Does anyone else think that the level of abstraction in 3.0 was just as bad when you had three 9-foot tall creatures with a ten-foot reach fighting abreast in a fifteen-foot-wide space, and they NEVER got in each other's way (even though the one on the left could reach all the way across the tunnel to the right)?

Yes, it DOES change significantly how many you can catch in a "fireball spell" but how often do you fight packed enemies that allow you to catch the maximum possible in your fireball spells?

I see this one as a huge overreaction with unnecessary justification. The level of abstraction has NOT increased, it is just different. Instead of having rules for (a) Large/Tall and (b) Large/Long we now have rules for (a) Large and (b) "Squeezing." Total abstraction is the same.

* The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you.

Again, a gratuitous shot (if perhaps accurate) at WotC as "money-grubbing." And as someone else mentioned, "doesn't Arcana Unearthed have a line of miniatures, too?" That last sentence of the quote really didn't need to be there.

Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition.

Um, unless I recall wrong, 3e used "feet" when citing size, movement rates, etc. - same as "inches," just without the 10:1 conversion. I fail to see the difference here.

If the game stats themselves refer to "squares" on a grid, I'll change my tune a bit, but if they simply refer to a "10x10 square" where 3.0 referred to a "10x5 area", I'll stand by my statement that there is no more "need" to use miniatures built into 3.5 than there was in 3e.

And maybe I'm the only one, but in 1e, I always read 12" as 120'.

However, at least in this case, Monte has provided some "line of reasoning" arguments when making his claim that a change in 3.5e is "bad."

* Now weapons are organized by handedness rather than by size. Perhaps the worst change and almost certainly the largest step backward 3.5 has to offer, the new way of handling weapons causes a lot of problems. As you know, in 3.0, weapons were categorized by size, and that size was compared to your own size. So a weapon of your size was a one-handed weapon for you, a weapon one size larger was a two-handed weapon, and a weapon one size smaller was a light weapon. Now, weapons are categorized by handedness, and they do different damage based on size. Thus, it's no longer the case that a longsword is effectively a greatsword for a Small character and a short sword for a Large character. Now, there is a small longsword, a medium longsword (and by implication) a large longsword. So what's the difference between a large longsword and a medium greatsword? About 20 gp. Aside from that bit of humor, though, there's actually a serious design problem here. Because in 3.0, a halfling picks up a magical longsword and uses it in two hands -- no problem. In 3.5, that longsword (presumably a medium longsword) is -2 in the halfling's hands because it's the "wrong size." The DMG doesn't hint one way or the other, but logic assumes that you've either got to roll randomly to determine the size of the magic sword in the treasure hoard, decreasing the chances that any given character will actually find treasure he can use -- and that's not fun. It's more complicated, it's clunky, and it hurts game play.

I absolutely agree with Monte here - and he provides a very coherent argument as to WHY this is a bad thing... a big need in a review.

The NPC tables in the DMG are now more open ended, and thus less useful. The NPC tables used to be there when you needed a 7th-level fighter or a 13th-level rogue right then and there, in the middle of a game. They came completely statted up and equipped. Now, if you want to use them in that way, you've got to stop in the middle of the game and decide which weapons the fighter uses and spend 8,000 gp on gear for the rogue. Thus, they are useless for the original goal. I guess the designers felt the charts were "boring," because you got the same 7th-level fighter every time. Now, they are clearly meant to be used as pre-game development aids to help make NPCs. Unfortunately, each 7th-level fighter is still going to be an awful lot like every other one using this method. What's more, if you're not in the middle of the game, there's no reason not to just make one up from scratch (or use one of the excellent character generators out there, many of which are free online).

Again, well-reasoned and I have a hard time making a case against this one. I happen to agree with it, which helps, but if you accept his premise, that the goal of such charts was to give you a "flash" NPC, he's right.

The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened. Talk about changing the way the game is played. Cat's grace used to last an hour per level, mostly so you could cast it, adjust your stats, and not have to worry about it until you rested (again, it was that way to make game play easier and more fun). Now it lasts one minute per level, which means it sees you through one encounter, or two if you rush in between them. These spells have been rendered nearly worthless -- in particular a spell like endurance, now bear's endurance, for extra hit points are far more useful over the long term than just for one encounter, particularly for those who really need it, like wizards.

The counter-argument is, of course, that these spells were massively over-powered and "broken." Why spend 16,000 gp on a stat-boosting item when an 8th-level caster level scroll of bull's strength (cost - 400 gp) will likely do the trick just as nicely?

This is one of the changes where I say, "yes it was a drastic change, but it probably was so broken that you had to do it." If everyone is using it all the time, it's probably broken.

Lots of the new feats are the kind that just add a +2 bonus to two skills. For this we paid $90 for new books?

The first sentence is a genuine complaint. It would have been easier to create a Feat called "related skill focus" that said, "pick two class skills or two spells keyed to the same attribute and gain a +2 bonus in each of them. This Feat may be selected multiple times; its effects do not stack for the same skill." The second sentence goes back to the "WotC is just after your money" theme which seems to pervade the article.

* Inevitables are now in the Monster Manual. I (and a legion of 2nd Edition Planescape fans) miss the clockwork modrons these guys supplanted for some reason. Chalk it up to personal preference.

Difference in personal preference - fine. I love modrons, too, for the record.

Taking levels of a prestige class now apparently forces you to pay multiclassing XP costs. Whether intentionally or by accident, the prestige class chapter no longer states that they are free of this cost.

I'd have to see the books to check this one, but it sure seems that a multiclassing XP penalty would balance out the mystic theurge. If he's taking a -40% penalty (-20% for difference between wizard and theurge and -20% for difference between cleric and theurge), I can't really complain about him being overpowered.

And while the reason this is bad should be self-evident, it wouldn't have hurt Monte to point out that this means PrCs will have to offer enough to offset such a penalty - which may well make many existing PrCs worthless if this is true.

Some of the new prestige classes are uninteresting (eldritch knight, mystic theurge) and poorly designed. A cleric just falls into the requirements of the hierophant and any 5th-level sorcerer can become a dragon disciple. The requirements for the eldritch knight are also a joke. I won't rehash the whole mystic theurge debate here, but I will complain that there are far too many spellcasting prestige classes -- conceptually, having the archmage, the loremaster, and the Red wizard seems rather silly.

Uninteresting seems to be a matter of taste. As for "poorly designed," I like the fact that he points out what "poorly designed" means - it means characters will easily qualify for a PrC with no effort on their part. A PrC should require a bit of specialization BEFORE the PC can take it - after all, if anyone can stumble into the class, it's not exactly "Prestige," is it?

High marks on this paragraph, Monte.

Lots of the "new" material in the DMG is just pulled in from other products -- prestige classes from the various 3.0 supplements, a big chunk of the Manual of the Planes, and the traps from Song and Silence. Lots of D&D fans already own this material.

And lots of D&D fans said it should have been in the DMG to begin with. There are two camps - one that wants "no reprinting of existing stuff" and one that says, "if it's relevant, put it in there." For people with just the core rulebooks, this is in fact new. For collectors of everything, it's not. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing really depends on which camp you're in... and probably also on whether you already own the books that contain the material.

There are no playtester credits. At all.

Were there outside 3.5 playtesters as there were in 3.0? If there were, "bad form." If there weren't, and the changes are as extensive as Monte claims they are, this is a different system anyway, so there's no need to keep the playtesting credits of those who playtested 3.0. Unless there were outside playtesters of 3.5 (and I don't know that there were), this seems disingenuous considering the argument Monte makes that this is a wholly different beast.

Things that should have changed, but didn't:

* Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains. You still have to be 17th level to make a 1st-level pearl of power.
* Speaking of magic items, while the rules for pricing magic items have changed (in some cases, particularly those of constant items or 1 round/level spells), most of the prices haven't conformed to these changes.
* Keoghtom's Ointment: Why is this a wondrous item and not a potion/oil?
* Still no good guidelines for creating prestige classes, just more of them in the DMG.

Most of these are self-explanatory, I suppose.

* And the big one: The vast majority of the art in the books is the same. So we're expected to plunk down $90 for three books that cost us $60 three years ago, and most of the art is the same?

Again, this goes back to the theme, "WotC is just in it for the money." For me, at least, it's gotten tired by this point.

In Closing
If a lot of the changes I take issue with had appeared in a supplement full of optional rules, this would be a very different review. But this isn't just the latest book from Wizards of the Coast, it's Dungeons & Dragons. I'm sure polar ray is a fine spell, but is it so important that it needed to be in a new version of the game? I'm partial to some of the spells in my own Books of Eldritch Might, but does that mean they belong in the Player's Handbook? I say no.

And I might say "rays are horribly underrepresented in the core books." It's all a matter of opinion, I guess.

And ultimately, that's why I decided to write this review. These are the D&D Core Rulebooks we're talking about. If Wizards needs a must-buy product, they should put out a cool mega-adventure by Bruce Cordell like Return to the Tomb of Horrors, not change around the game we all know how to play.

This conclusion, despite the well-known industry statistic that of Corebooks, Sourcebooks, and Adventures, adventures are by far the worst-sellers of the three? Come on, Monte, you showed us earlier in the review that you know the ins and outs of the RPG business as well as anyone. I'm disappointed. If you think WotC is making a must-sell item to go after money, then you of all people know that in order to do that, they are best-served making the Core Rulebooks and worst-served doing a mega-adventure. Your premise - WotC wants a must-sell item to bring in profit - combined with the knowledge that the worst-selling items are adventures - makes the conclusion that "a mega-adventure is the solution" completely illogical.

There are good changes here, and some much needed errata-fixing and clarifying. There's no doubt, that at some time, we needed a revised set of books. It should have been the revision as planned three years ago, however.

However much I might disagree with the timing of this release and the magnitude of the changes, though, the fact is that none of my criticisms of the new material are so damning as to wreck the game. D&D is still a good game, whether it's 3.0 or 3.5.

Just to quibble with word choice here, Monte's - or anyone else's - criticisms wouldn't be what wreck the game - the material itself would do so. I think it's interesting that some of the things Monte condemned as changes I loved. I don't think they'll "wreck" the game... again, it all goes back to personal taste.

Should you buy 3.5? Frankly, of course you should. The books are out, and if keeping up with future D&D and d20 products is important to you, you'll want to know what's up. And, once you finally get up to speed on the changes and toss out the bad ones, your game will be fine. In some ways, it will be better than it was. I predict that the majority of existing players out there will buy 3.5, and then house rule some of it back to 3.0. House rules, in fact, will become much more varied and prevalent from this point on -- but that's a whole 'nother article.

I think it's interesting that right here Monte implies that the new version is "unworkable" without house rules (and tossing stuff out). It's a nicely worded paragraph, but still an indictment of D&D 3.5.

--MY CONCLUSION--
Monte's article (not necessarily Monte himself) seems to me to be slanted towards denigrating 3.5e - he spends a lot of time reminding us that "it's all about the money" - the opening third of the review is all about his view that 3.5e's release is all about boosting WotC's earnings right now, and he keeps harping on the cost throughout the rest of the review. He also skims quickly over the "good changes", with no explanation of "why" they are good, but spends plenty of time explaining why the changes he didn't like are "bad" (including several more references to money).

I guess it's a truism that it's easier to rant and criticize than praise (I guess I'm doing it here, too LOL)... but I was disappointed that his "list of the good" was longer than his "list of the bad" - and yet because he didn't explain the reason the changes were good, you spend a lot more time actually reading about how bad 3.5e is.

Monte may be right - 3.5e may be bad - but I don't think his review gave it a fair shake - I would have liked to see a little more insight into "why the good changes are good" to balance the insight into "why the bad changes are bad." When I got to the final paragraph, I was frankly surprised... it seems like he's recommending "buy 3.5e because... well... it's D&D." He's not recommending it on its merits. He's just recommending it because, "change is coming, so you may as well buy." It doesn't strike a chord with me. Clearly, the overall tone of the article, fraught with criticism, suggests he doesn't recommend buying on the merit of the game itself.

Now, I will wait until I see 3.5e to make my own decision as to whether it's good or bad.

But seeing Monte's article, I can definitely tell you it's biased (the article, not Monte) and slanted... again, based simply on the amount of verbiage given to the "Bad" when you consider that he actually found by number more good changes than bad.

I have nothing against Monte... and in fact, as many of you know, I've been one of WotC's more outspoken critics... haven't bought products from them in over a year because I think third-party publishers (frankly) do a much better job with their content. I just didn't think this was a well-crafted review, and with all the controversy it's generating, I wanted to point out some of what I perceive as shortcomings in the review itself. Monte writes great d20 and gaming stuff... but this review is not his best literary work. But then, he gave us a disclaimer at the beginning of the review that his bias may show up, so at least he told us right off that this is to be expected. It's always hard to write unbiased reviews when we are in fact biased. Perhaps he just couldn't entirely eliminate his own natural bias when writing the review because things weren't done the way he would have done them himself (a natural bias for all of us, I think).

--The Sigil

 

[SemperJase]

I think I agree with your assesment of Monte's "review".

It was some bad judgement to publish it. Monte himself admitted his dependence on D&D. His own company essentially depends on WotC's success in his current business plan. Until and unless Monte publishes his own successful stand alone game, he should be partnering with D&D, not tearing them down.

WotC is publishing 3.5 to get more money? They are producing mini's to make more money? Of course they are! Everytime Monte publishes a new accessory he does it to make more money. Yet there is no criticism that he is money hungry. We don't need an alternative PHB! I don't hear a "demand" for it.

I still support his decision to take the risk and publish it. Hopefully its production creates the demand and will expand the hobby and strengthen the industry.

To criticize WotC's business practices in this case poor form.

 

[KDLadage]

Well put, Sigil.

 

[Zogg]

SHUT

 

[seankreynolds]

{I was never really clear on why 3.0 felt the need to change "Monster Summoning I" to "Summon Monster I" in the first place...}

FYI, that's because an effort was made to standardize naming of spells, feats, and skills to VERB + NOUN rather than NOUN + VERB. That's why the Rope Use skill is now Use Rope. If you know the verb is first, it's easier to remember what to look up.

 

[KDLadage]

SHUT

Why? No bickering here; no name calling, and no uncivility. Why shut anything?

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...

{I was never really clear on why 3.0 felt the need to change "Monster Summoning I" to "Summon Monster I" in the first place...}

FYI, that's because an effort was made to standardize naming of spells, feats, and skills to VERB + NOUN rather than NOUN + VERB. That's why the Rope Use skill is now Use Rope. If you know the verb is first, it's easier to remember what to look up.

That seems reasonable enough... at least I know now what the "rule" was for re-naming. I learned something new today!

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Why? No bickering here; no name calling, and no uncivility. Why shut anything?

Zogg pulled the cute trick of splitting a "shut up" between my thread and Drawmack's "critique" of Monte's review.

Apparently, Zogg feels it's bad form for me to point out that I felt Monte's review was on the biased side, even though I did in fact agree with most of the "rules-based" points Monte made.

--The Sigil

 

[jasamcarl]

I agree, Monte's review was pretty pathetic. His argument is essentially that the changes didn't weren't of benefit enough to justify the changes. But his review took almost no note on gameplay or balance, and just harped on the changes. In a cost-benefit analysis, you have to have the cost and BENEFIT, but this was really more of a rant than review.

Apparently, compatibility is the major criteria by which to judge this product. I quite frankly haven't heard anything that suggests that old material is completly obsolete; its no less balanced under this new system then it was under of the old, because the four iconic classes haven't really changed. The only compatibility problems come from the old material not having the broad, hindsight knowledge that the revisions had. You can use 3.0 monster in a 3.5 game. Spells haven't changed. A simple chart converts the old facing to the new, though you can easily adhere to the old standards; etc.

But what revisions would Monte have suggested that would have made it worth it to the DND fanbase to adopt? Who would have adopted the new books then? If anything that might have lead to more 'house rules' than a full, comprehensive overhaul that kept the basic paradigm in place, but made it work better.

And does anyone else see a contradiction in his logic, or even he? The release of a new addition forced people to adopt because all future support will be grounded in revised rules, correct? So there is a network extranality. But then he goes on to say that house rules will now be everywhere? If people purchase the books, its either for reasons of future support or because they like the changes? Either way, what incentive do they have to create a mangled hybrid, atleast to a greater degree than they do now? Atleast now they will have a set of playtested, commonly known alternatives to use. I don't see a problem, but then I don't have a gripe.

 

[Zogg]

Zogg pulled the cute trick of splitting a "shut up" between my thread and Drawmack's "critique" of Monte's review.

Apparently, Zogg feels it's bad form for me to point out that I felt Monte's review was on the biased side, even though I did in fact agree with most of the "rules-based" points Monte made.

--The Sigil

Actually I just think you and Drawmack are extremely long-winded. Both of your "review reviews" were almost as long as Monte's review itself. And, while you certainly win points for detail, you lose far more for lack of brevity.

So perhaps you can call my posts a very concise review of your review reviews. Anyone care to review mine?