Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 999278" data-attributes="member: 2013">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.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.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.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.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.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.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...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.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.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.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. 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.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*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.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?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.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.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."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.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 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.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.Difference in personal preference - fine.  I love modrons, too, for the record. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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.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? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />High marks on this paragraph, Monte. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.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.Most of these are self-explanatory, I suppose.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.And I might say "rays are horribly underrepresented in the core books."  It's all a matter of opinion, I guess.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.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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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.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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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</blockquote>

Verification