Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...

[Savage Wombat]

I've seen several people complain about the "halfling greatsword" rules problem - but no one who mentioned that, in the preview pages we've seen, there was an alternate chart for weapon equivalents.

In other words - if the DM doesn't think a halfling long sword is just like a human short, it isn't - but if Monte thinks that game play is better served by having them be the same - they are. Even in the core rules.

 

[der_kluge]

I hate to say it, but it could be that because the 3.5 rulebooks are coming out in July, and AU is coming out in July, that people who spend their money on 3.5 are people who are not spending their money on AU. It's a theory. As a publisher, Monte would be fully aware of the implications of trying to release a product at the same time the new core rulebooks are coming out. Bad timing, I suppose.

Now, I'm not saying that his review is slanted against 3.5 for that reason, but it's possible that he's at least subconsciously annoyed at the prospect that good sales of 3.5 will negatively impact sales of AU.

Sean - that is an interesting tidbit into the spell-naming convention. I didn't know that, either.

 

[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?

LOL! You must be new here... *checks Zogg's postcount*... yup.

Verbosity has always been one of my biggest strengths/weaknesses (depending on how you look at it) on the boards. I joke that while Crothian has me beaten by an order of magnitude in post count, I may have HIM beaten by an order of magnitude in word count.

I just figure I'd rather be verbose and explain myself as thoroughly as possible the first time than be brief and have to keep explaining myself.

--The Sigil

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

First of all, thanks to the people who took the time to review 3.5, review those reviews, and review those reviews, and finally, the people who reviewed the reviews of the reviews of the reviews...

I'd like to address some points...

Hasbro/WotC is doing this for the money...
Well, duh! That's the reason a company exists. Business 101.

There are no playtester listing in the credits.
Well, I wouldn't want my name on it either. I'd like to go to GenCon without getting beatup.
Plus, what makes you think they even HAD playtesters? That costs time and money. After all, with the lackluster playtesting of 3.0, what makes you think that 3.5 will be different?

The loss of Modrons...
So? Make them. Get the "Creating a Monster" doc, and make the damn thing, it's not THAT hard.

The Weapon Rules...
So? What, if I don't use it, will Wizards SpecOps teams come bursting through my door to beat me down with She-Hulk Annuals? Will I be electronically lynched on ENWorld?
If you don't like it, don't use it!

They're making me switch!!!!
Nobody is making you do anything. Come on. People are still playing 1E. Buddha on a go-cart, people are still playing Gamma World 1E!!!
Don't buy the books. Excersize the only way to get a company to pay attention. With money.

They have Pokemon, why do they have to screw up our game?
Please. If I'm right, Pokemon was stripped from Wizards, or will be. And any part of a corporation must make money, or be overhauled, or cut. One of the two.

Anyway...
Here is my review of books that I haven't gotten ahold of...

Mmmmm, shiney...

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

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.

Wow. Thats seems incredably nit-picky to me. It is something I never noticed. But of course, I couldn't care less if the names changed.

That said:

Well said Sigil.

EDIT - "nems" = "names" Wow, I really butchered that one.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Nice one.

 

[jasamcarl]

deleted.

 

[EricNoah]

Ok, so now Spencer -- since you're a publisher, is there an inherent bias/slant to your review of a rival publisher's review of 3.5? I'm curious if you see it that way.

 

[jasamcarl]

And does anyone else find the gripe of about the revision coming too soon at odds with the compatibility issue. The earlier it comes, the less of a back catalogue that requires conversion/revision. Seems simple.

And given that a great plurality of groups are by definition more dependent on the core rules, a revision to that would be more beneficial to the greater gaming public than supplement support. That is born out by the fact that this revision came about in the first place. Support for 3.0 is no longer driving core-book sales. If a revision does, that means its probably worth more to customers, as well as those d20 supps which conform to it. People wouldn't adopt if it weren't an improvement.

 

[The Sigil]

Ok, so now Spencer -- since you're a publisher, is there an inherent bias/slant to your review of a rival publisher's review of 3.5? I'm curious if you see it that way.

I'd wager there probably is deep down somewhere. We're all biased, of course. Everything we write reflects our biases, some of us just hide it better than others. But I'm probably too close to the situation to see it. I don't see myself as having a bias towards 3.5 over AU - I haven't seen either one in final form yet, so I can't say which one I prefer "mechanically."

I suppose I might have a "rooting interest" in 3.5 since I have pushed some products back to make sure they account for the changes in 3.5... though I don't know if that gives me a "negative rooting interest" because the impending release of 3.5 has forced me to delay them, and AU's release has not. (In other words, I'm not sure whether I give WotC bonus points for "new material" or take off points for "making me push back releases").

Perhaps someone will point it out to me - as I have said, I may be too close to see my own bias - but the only possible conflict I can see might be the "competition" between the Book of Eldritch Might II and the Enchiridion of Mystic Music as "bard books." (Though I did write the EoMM after seeing the BoEM2 and thinking, "that wasn't what I thought should be done with the bard at all" so I don't think there was much direct competition - the EoMM came out well after the BoEM2, so I doubt there was ever much head-to-head competition).

Perhaps that has a bearing on how I see Monte (I don't think it does; I love his stuff - as sales records on RPGNow will indicate, but maybe I'm wrong), but I don't think so... I think he's an excellent writer and in some ways, perhaps I idolize him a bit. In fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, AU is much higher on my "buying list" than 3.5e - so I don't think I have anything "personal" against Monte.

I don't have a license to produce AU stuff (but I don't have a license to produce 3.5e stuff either - at least, no more than anyone else has under the OGL).

In other words, I can't figure out why I might be biased against Monte any more than WotC - both are "competitors" though I suppose sales of my product are tied more into "d20" than "AU." I may well be - but again, if so, I'm be too close to see it and would be happy to have someone point it out to me.

I'll turn the question on you, Eric - does my review have merit and seem to rely upon fair argument, example, and logic to reach its conclusions? Do its premises seem inherently biased? If so, what bias am I exhibiting (I'm not asking this as a challenge; I'm genuinely curious to know what biases I have that I can't see because I'm "too close" to them to see them).

--The Sigil