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="jasamcarl" data-source="post: 999401" data-attributes="member: 1251">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.</blockquote>

Verification