Worst 3.5 publishers?

[Darrin Drader]

Don't worry Darrin. I liked BoED. Just now it feels like they should have let you guys do BoVD as well. But that's just me.

I think Monte did an excellent job with the BoVD.

I feel the 3,5 offerings have so far all been outstanding and memorable. I have nothing but praise for the Draconomicon, the Complete Warrior, and the Miniature's Handbook. The Draconomicon finally gives us a number of different dragons fully statted out (saving the DM quite a bit of time), the Miniature's Handbook finally gives us official mass combat rules and some really cool monsters and classes, and the Complete Warrior gives us a reworking of the 3.0 prestige classes as well as a lot of new options that didn't exist before. I can understand the criticism that it all focuses on rules, but for those that perfer setting material instead (and I actually fall more into this category myself) there's the Unapproachable East and Underdark. Mid-year we'll get to see Eberron, which I'm really excited about.

I'm actually far happier with the current product line than I was with AD&D back in the late TSR days, and I think the 3.5 stuff is looking far better than 3.0. I just don't understand this 3.5 backlash. Sure, there's a couple of errors in the books, but there's less than there were in the 3.0 books, the books themselves are sturdier, and the revisions go a long way towards clarifying and balancing things that were just plain broken in 3.0

 

[johnsemlak]

For me the company that's really been atrocious this year has been Wizards of the Coast.

I mean, The Book of Exalted Deeds, Draconomicon, and Underdark, those are among the worst books on my gaming shelf. Just look at those books' authors--James Wyatt, Andy Collins, Skip Williams, Bruce Cordell (et. al.). That alone should tell you how bad they are.

WotC's artwork has been bothering me lately. Sam Wood and Tom Lockwood--I mean, who would choose them to illustrate their books? And I'm really bothered by WotC's full color books, it's beginning to hurt my eyes.

WotC also seem to have a real poor understanding of 3.5e mechanics. Their PrCs and feats are soooooo out of wack. I far prefer the balence of those found in 3rd party products.

Speaking of Feats, PrCs, and other crunch, I feel that WotC have really steered to far in that direction at the expense of flavor. I mean, WotC is the only company putting out books stuffed with PrCs, feats, spells, etc. Third party publishers are doing otherwise--they have realized that nobody wants such products.

Finally, I'm a bit worried about WotC's bindings. I've heard that other d20 publishers have been good enough to replace a book if the binding falls apart. However, none of my WotC books have had binding problems, so I don't know if WotC will replace one if needed. This really keeps me awake at night.

 

[Vaxalon]

I'd like to put in a complaint here about Malhavoc.

They made the name of their magic weapon special abilities closed content, among them "Gold," "Silver," and "Platinum."

WTF?

 

[maddman75]

My main problem with 3.5 is twofold. First, the fixes went a little too far. Yes, haste and harm needed fixing, but the fixes made them near worthless. I mean if Haste at least let you take a move action or attack action it would be a little bit more interesting. And the HP limit on harm was too much. A save for some damage was the house rule most people seemed to be using, and preserved most of the spell's punch.

The other was the sheer number of small changes. When 3.5 was coming out, I had envisioned getting the books myself and giving my players a guide to what had changed. Maybe not the full details, but listing which spells, classes, etc. had been altered. When I saw the actual listing, that nearly every other spell had been altered in some small, almost meaningless way I realized this would be too much work and too confusing to bother with. It's never going to matter to me if a spell has a 20' radius or a 30', just make it one or the other.

Add to that changes that seemingly didn't fix any problem I ever had or recall anyone complaining about such as the weapon sizes or facing dimensions, and it started to look less and less compatible. So I decided to stay with 3.0.

It's not that I think 3.5 is bad, it's just that it will have almost the same feel while being incompatible. It causes at least as many problems as it fixed. From the press release, I was expecting a few problem spells, such as haste and harm, to be altered, a couple of classes that needed it helped out, and some feats from the splatbooks as well as all the errata and corrections put in. That is not what was delivered.

 

[Emiricol]

Ooh! Another "3.5 suxxors!" thread! I foolishly thought this was about the publishers hehe

 

[Kichwas]

What we really should be doing here is guaging best authors and best editors.

Authors shift companies - I've got books by Mike Mearls for example under several different labels, but there's a certain similiarity to them all.

Editors in those companies though, round out the final flavor and fix up assorted issues in the author's initial drafts. In some cases they take good material and ruin it - such as mythic races. But in other cases I'm sure they can take good idea / bad mechanic writers and make them seem good on both ends.

But if you, in general, track your buys by authors you'll have a little better luck with quality than if you track by publishers.

Ideally though, you need to sit down and do case by case research to make sure your money goes to good use.

 

[maddman75]

Ooh! Another "3.5 suxxors!" thread! I foolishly thought this was about the publishers hehe

I just don't understand this 3.5 backlash. Sure, there's a couple of errors in the books, but there's less than there were in the 3.0 books, the books themselves are sturdier, and the revisions go a long way towards clarifying and balancing things that were just plain broken in 3.0

He asked.

And it's not that I think 3.5 is bad. I don't think it's what was advertised during its announcement, and I don't see any reason to convert. I wouldn't suggest that a new player stay away from it or anything - I'd suggest they use whatever their group uses.

 

[Tzeentch]

Malhavoc takes the cake as far as ridiculous Open Content licensing. It reminded me of the Open license information in the SJGames "Munchkin" books. I was amazed that Cry Havoc didn't have something like "All rules material is open content, unless the sentence contains a word with a vowel. We also claim the word "the" and "war" as Product Identity."

 

[mearls]

Editors in those companies though, round out the final flavor and fix up assorted issues in the author's initial drafts. In some cases they take good material and ruin it - such as mythic races. But in other cases I'm sure they can take good idea / bad mechanic writers and make them seem good on both ends.

This is an important point. People often forget the important role that editors play in the process of putting a book together. They do a lot of important work in putting a multi-author book together, or noticing inconsistencies for single author books.

One of the best editors I've worked with was Chris Seeman. He looked over my work on the Moria boxed set to make sure it fit with Tolkien's vision, and he really injected it with the essence of Middle Earth. I think my initial manuscript was pretty good, but the changes he asked for really gave it that extra push that bumped it from a good product to a great one.

As an author, I like having an active, demanding editor looking over my work. It gives me a very concrete sense that we're making the finished product better with each revision, and when I hear that a book doesn't need any revisions from me it feels good to know that the editor is saying that because he's truly happy with the product, not because he just didn't feel like reading it closely before sending it to press.

One of the things you find once you peak behind the curtain of the gaming industry is that there are a number of "names" in the biz who have pretty ridden the coattails of superior editors.

An addendum to that final point: You won't find anyone in this industry who'd be famous if only a meddling editor didn't ruin his work. Keep that in mind, would-be writers.

 

[Grazzt]

I just don't understand this 3.5 backlash.

I believe a lot of it has to do with the fact that 3.5 is seen as "too many changes too soon" by a lot of people. I mean, 3e was only out like what 3 years or so, and then 3.5 comes along. 1e and 2e both made it 10 years (more or less). Not saying WotC should've waited that long and not saying that its a good thing 1e and 2e had such longevity, just saying that a "new" edition came out very, very quickly this time.

Couple all that with statements made by peeps like Monte Cook (whose voice and opinions carry quite a bit of weight with a lot of people) and that might be another reason some people dislike 3.5 too.

(As a side note, here's what Monte said, so you guys dont have to try and dig it up:

"A few weeks ago, in an interview at gamingreport.com I said that 3.5 was motivated by financial need rather than by design need -- in short, to make money rather than because the game really needed an update. I said that I had this information from a reliable source.


That source was me. I was there."
http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html )