# Monte's 3.75? (A sequal is on its way)



## TerraDave (Feb 5, 2008)

There is a thread on this in the general, but I thought here we could focus on the "4th edition feel" of this anouncement:

*The Book of Experimental Might*

83-page eBook -- Price: $9
Buy traditional PDF starting Feb. 21.**

By Monte Cook
A 83-page sourcebook for all levels
Cover illustration by Kieran Yanner

Last year, Monte started up new d20 System campaigns and began experimenting with some house rules that he had mused about on this website and the message boards here. The response was overwhelming -- game fans wanted to see how these new, experimental rules worked. 

Because you demanded it!

So Monte took a break from his fiction work to compile this book, a collection of the house rules he currently uses in his own games. These include a spell progression system that ranks spells from levels 1 to 20, new rules for healing and curative magic, magical disciplines for spellcasters that always give them an active power and a way to contribute, and much more.

This book also includes an entirely new base class, the runeblade, for players wanting a character that combines magic and martial skill without the use of spells. New rules for wizards, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are provided, offering each class magical disciplines like Godhammer, Eldritch Bolt, and Nature's Senses. And, of course, the book also offers dozens of new spells, feats, and magic items.

Inherent within all the rule changes in this book is the idea that characters should be able to keep adventuring longer than the rules currently allow. Disciplines, more ample healing, and the other experiments in this PDF exclusive help bring down the barriers -- like casters running out of spells and characters running low on hit points -- that traditionally make parties stop to rest before they really want to. 

Start your own experiment this month!​


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 5, 2008)

Damn, couldn't he done that earlier - now I might be forced to buy it without ever using it, because I am running Iron Heroes and forsee switching to 4E after that is "done"...

Ah well, 9 Pesos$ isn't that bad...


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 5, 2008)

Yum...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 5, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Yum...



Why do I have the mental visual of a Mind Flayer slurping Montes brain... ?


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Why do I have the mental visual of a Mind Flayer slurping Montes brain... ?




That's a really offensive/unattractive image, Monte, not the Flayer…


----------



## Bacris (Feb 5, 2008)

Feb 21st?  Happy birthday to me!


----------



## Roman (Feb 5, 2008)

Hmm, it does look interesting.


----------



## Henry (Feb 5, 2008)

_It's the flayer & Monte's Brain
Flayer & Monte's Brain
One is a genius
the other's not quite sane,

He's eating Monte's Brain, brain, brain, brain,
brain, brain, brain, brain..._

Sounds like a really cool product -- and could be the 3.75 a lot of people are looking for (paizo included?)...


----------



## Khairn (Feb 5, 2008)

I few of those House Rules look very interesting indeed.  There is no doubting  (at least IMHO) that the house of Malhavoc (AE, IH etc) has played a key role in the creation process of a number of 4E elements.  It'll be interesting to see how Monte's latest experimentation with 3E rules stacks up in comparison with what we are hearing about 4E.


----------



## Vayden (Feb 5, 2008)

Yeah, I'd be all over this if 4E wasn't already coming out. As it is, I'm sticking with SWSE as my 3.75, and as cool as these look, I don't think I'm going to spend any more money on a game I don't plan on playing again (3.5).


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 5, 2008)

Sounds interesting and certainly worth a look. I'm hoping that Monte's ideas on allowing PCs to adventure longer are quite satisfying, without resorting to too much change to the underlying system.

Pinotage


----------



## vagabundo (Feb 5, 2008)

Vayden said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd be all over this if 4E wasn't already coming out. As it is, I'm sticking with SWSE as my 3.75, and as cool as these look, I don't think I'm going to spend any more money on a game I don't plan on playing again (3.5).




Anyone got this yet? 

Nine Dollars!! Get the hell outa here! 

Might get this tomorrow then..

Opps not out yet. DOH!!


----------



## Grimstaff (Feb 5, 2008)

Argh, yet MORE rules for 3.5!?

If nothing else, this is at least a pleasant reminder of why I am looking forward to a new edition.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 5, 2008)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> Argh, yet MORE rules for 3.5!?
> 
> If nothing else, this is at least a pleasant reminder of why I am looking forward to a new edition.





Yeah, exactly, 3rd Ed is sort of becoming like that Rick Mayal (The Young Ones) line:


"Your name spells I love you, is you remove a few letters and add some…"


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 5, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Yum...



Yum indeed. I'm such a sucker for new rules and variants...


----------



## Gundark (Feb 5, 2008)

Pre-August I'd be all over this. Now....meh. Only if for some unforseeable reason I don't like 4e. 

oh well


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 5, 2008)

At $9, I will buy it, as it might enhance my 3.5 experience the next few months, until 4e comes out, for a relatively small amount of money.


----------



## Tortoise (Feb 5, 2008)

This might make for a nice bridge between 3.5 and 4e for my Ptolus groups.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 5, 2008)

I think Monte Cook is the only designer that releases a D&D 3E product 4 months before the release of 4E and still gets me excited about it.
I hope he goes to 4E.
AE, 4E....


----------



## FunkBGR (Feb 5, 2008)

No thanks. 

Monte already broke 3.0 once , so I'll avoid this.


----------



## rkwoodard (Feb 5, 2008)

*4.ed elements*

Hi,
  So do we know how much if any is going to be declared open? If so, has he just given the OGL a shot of 4th edition elements that will pre-date the release of 4ed?  
  If so will this open the door for those that want to try and use the OGL instead of going to the GSL?

Just wondering, probably way off base here.

RK


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Feb 5, 2008)

Which statement is true:

(A) Monte read the updates and previews of 4E, liked them, and has decided to package them as his own "house-ruled" version of 3E in the hopes of paying the rent while he dips in his toes in the realm of writing fiction.

Or:

(B) The 4E design team perused Monte's boards and spoke to the good man at one time or another and based many of their changes on Monte's original concepts as espoused on those same boards or within certain Malhavok products.

Or:

(C) Doesn't matter if Monte came before Mearls, or Mearls before Monte, the concepts both are mentioning are extremely similar.



If (C) is correct - and I tend to personally think (A) is "more right" - then where's the dang love between self-styled 3E grognards and the progressive 4E group?  I fail to see a chasm between the two groups that inspires the negative rhetoric around here (and, more often and less intelligently, on Paizo's boards).

W.P.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 5, 2008)

Neat!

Thanks for the scoop, TerraDave!


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 5, 2008)

I know it's common parlance amongst the gaming community to give tribute before the altar of Monte Cook. Granted, his Planescape material was pretty revolutionary for its time. 

However, I don't really like his SPLAT material. I certainly wouldn't want to explore 3.5 addon material, especially with a new official edition coming out that will bridge the inadequacies of 3.0 and 3.5. It seems like a huge monetary gamble to risk publishing any material for older editions; I simply cannot see the reason why purists wouldn't upconvert to the new edition, especially since all of the material from first and third party publishers will clearly employ the 4E rule model.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 5, 2008)

Cheap and interesting, seems like a good deal to me. I'm likely to be playing 3E for a few months yet, and I love experimental rules.



			
				Moniker said:
			
		

> I know it's common parlance amongst the gaming community...




You mean common _practice_.

Parlance is quite different.

1. A particular manner of speaking; idiom: legal parlance.
2. Speech, especially a conversation or parley.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 5, 2008)

FunkBGR said:
			
		

> No thanks. Monte already broke 3.0 once , so I'll avoid this.




Say what?


----------



## Demigonis (Feb 5, 2008)

Normally I really like and respect Monte Cook's work, but this honestly just sounds like "Oh, I'll rip off everything I like about 4th Edition and sell it a couple months before 4th Ed comes out!"


----------



## Eldragon (Feb 5, 2008)

Whoo hoo! Another excuse to ignore 4e and play the D&D the way I like it.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Feb 5, 2008)

It'll be one more set of rules that will probably never see use in my games, but I'll buy it in case there is something I can salvage.  My group has voted we stay with 3.5 and not go with 4e, so it might actually see some use.


----------



## Ilium (Feb 5, 2008)

Demigonis said:
			
		

> Normally I really like and respect Monte Cook's work, but this honestly just sounds like "Oh, I'll rip off everything I like about 4th Edition and sell it a couple months before 4th Ed comes out!"



 Except that I'm pretty sure I recognize a lot of those ideas as having been posted on Monte's blog months to years ago.

I'll definitely check this out.  While I'm not a 4E hater by any means (actually I think it will be great) I can't justify the expense when I've already spent so much on 3.5.  If Monte's "house rules" give me some of the good stuff of 4E without shelling out $100 for it, I'll be happy.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 5, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Which statement is true:
> 
> (A) Monte read the updates and previews of 4E, liked them, and has decided to package them as his own "house-ruled" version of 3E in the hopes of paying the rent while he dips in his toes in the realm of writing fiction.
> 
> ...



I don't believe it's (A), because Monte created a few "One Thing Before I go" articles on his sight, in which he is discussing a few tweaks or general things he noticed in 3.x gameplay which I was reminded of reading the 4E comments (they definitely came before the first 4E announcement.

I think it is most a matter of showing that game designers (at least those that work or worked at WotC) think alike. There are certain design concepts that will always present themselves to an experienced designer. It certainly also helped that Mike & Mearls worked together at Malhavoc, and some of the designers at WotC also worked on 3E products together with him. They will bounce a lot of ideas off of each other, and this naturally creates similar thinking minds.

What does it say us about Grognards and 4E fanboys? We have neither seen 4E nor Montes house rules yet. It's possible that while the basic idea is similar, the implementations are different enough to attract different groups. 

But I reserve my doubts on that. I really believe that there are a lot of aspects that will be similar. A few things: 
- Monte himself stated that it's important to give DM good tools and not constraint him too much by rules. A few 4E design concepts seem to fit this idea - exception based monster design (don't use "NPC" classes, use guidelines to create and change monsters!)
- Monte likes magic and magic classes. Adding powers to non-spellcaster classes seems like something that Monte would do (and judging from the Arcana Evolved Ritual Warrior, he even did. And even the other AE classes seem hardly "mundane", most have some supernatural or spell-like abilities, or abilities that come close.)


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 5, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Which statement is true:
> 
> (A) Monte read the updates and previews of 4E, liked them, and has decided to package them as his own "house-ruled" version of 3E in the hopes of paying the rent while he dips in his toes in the realm of writing fiction.




He had been alluding to these in various posts on his webpage before 4th ed was announced.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 5, 2008)

Yet another reason not to go to 4E!   

I haven't liked a lot of what I've seen about 4E so far, but this sounds like it'll take the elements of it that aren't so bad, isolate each of them nicely as modular rules so I can pick and choose what I want, and let me plug them into my 3.5E game as needed. Happy happy happy!

I really hope most, if not all, of this book is OGC, since that'll let people reverse-engineer the OGL to a 4E-lookalike system even easier.


----------



## Demigonis (Feb 5, 2008)

I love how naysayers like 4th Ed content when it still looks like 3E, people are so afraid of change it's hilarious.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Feb 5, 2008)

I might check it out, but it's not going to stop me from buying into 4th Ed. I was pretty much underwhelmed by Monte's half-hearted attempt to provide powers for fighters in Arcana Evolved (the very lame Ritual Warrior class and the associated Combat Rituals), and even if he includes the parts I like most about 4th Edition, I'd still rather have it in a fully-integrated system than figure out how these patch bits play well or play poorly with D&D 3.5.


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 5, 2008)

For some of us, 4th edition isn't the reason we're not switching to 4th edition.  For me it's a) the timing (there's a lot of life left in 3e for me, and I have tons of material I haven't had a chance to use), and b) I don't trust WotC to be able to provide adequate electronic support (i.e. the character generator) based on past experience.  I'm certainly interested in seeing the direction of the game and trying a bit of this and that in my own game to see how it goes.


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 5, 2008)

Good stuff is good stuff no matter the wrapper -- I'll buy Monte's stuff at $9.00, even if I'll never use it, because he's probably worth $9.00 of entertainment just to read.

Does that make me sick?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Feb 5, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Good stuff is good stuff no matter the wrapper -- I'll buy Monte's stuff at $9.00, even if I'll never use it, because he's probably worth $9.00 of entertainment just to read.
> 
> Does that make me sick?



No, it just justifies my bahaviour. *buys*

And for "Monte ripping off 4E" - not true. He started with the ritual warrior, though he didn't let go of the "powers per day" paradigm. But after the Bo9S came out, I've sometimes heard "Ritual Warrior on speed" or "done right".

And the ritual warrior was Monte's own brainchild, while Bo9S was the product of 4E. And Monte's imprint started selling Mearls stuff soon. Go figure.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 5, 2008)

Demigonis said:
			
		

> I love how naysayers like 4th Ed content when it still looks like 3E, people are so afraid of change it's hilarious.




Maybe people like the idea of it because it changes things they don't like about 3E, without also getting rid of / making changes to everything they _do_ enjoy... Or because it costs almost nothing and can be used with all their existing books. Or because some prefer Monte Cook to Mike Mearls.

For that matter, while the goal of these changes might be similar to _some_ of the goals of 4E, there's no indication that the way these new mechanics work will have much in common with 4E - in fact, since they're keeping a lot of 3E rules intact, it seems pretty unlikely.

But go ahead, call it fear if it makes you feel better about being a lemming...


----------



## Grimstaff (Feb 5, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> call it fear if it makes you feel better about being a lemming...




*sigh*

Only 39 posts until the name-calling began.  :\


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 5, 2008)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> Only 39 posts until the name-calling began.  :\




More like 34 posts, actually.

*sigh*


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 5, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Yet another reason not to go to 4E!
> 
> I haven't liked a lot of what I've seen about 4E so far, but this sounds like it'll take the elements of it that aren't so bad, isolate each of them nicely as modular rules so I can pick and choose what I want, and let me plug them into my 3.5E game as needed. Happy happy happy!
> 
> I really hope most, if not all, of this book is OGC, since that'll let people reverse-engineer the OGL to a 4E-lookalike system even easier.




While I'm interested in Monte's product, what I'd really be interested in is a UA style product released _after_ 4e, which incorporates the best of 4e in a modular plug-and-play style way for the 3.5e system. That would be excellent!   Like you say, reverse engineer 4e for 3.5e.

Pinotage


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 5, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> For some of us, 4th edition isn't the reason we're not switching to 4th edition.  For me it's a) the timing (there's a lot of life left in 3e for me, and I have tons of material I haven't had a chance to use), and b) I don't trust WotC to be able to provide adequate electronic support (i.e. the character generator) based on past experience.  I'm certainly interested in seeing the direction of the game and trying a bit of this and that in my own game to see how it goes.




And add to that the fact that 4e is not really backward compatible with 3.5e, which really annoys me. I have close to a thousand pdf products for 3.5e, so it doesn't make sense to just throw that out for a new edition, no matter how good it may or may not be.

Pinotage


----------



## Demigonis (Feb 5, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> But go ahead, call it fear if it makes you feel better about being a lemming...




Actually, being a lemming would be purely following the crowd with no ability to have thoughts/feelings/opinions of my own about the situation.   

I've thoroughly researched all that is available about the choice I'm making in swapping to 4E, so my decision is actually quite well informed. 

I hardly think 4E is "getting rid of or changing everything there is to like about 3rd Edition." I think 4th Ed is going to be a lot closer to the "good parts" of 3E than a lot of people are willing to admit when they instantly insist that it's evil and bad because it's unfamiliar to them and that D&D couldn't possibly be due for a revision because 3E works perfectly.  

PS: 4E doesn't seem any less backwards compatible than any other new edition of D&D that has come out, so I'm confused by that complaint.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 5, 2008)

Demigonis said:
			
		

> Actually, being a lemming would be purely following the crowd with no ability to have thoughts/feelings/opinions of my own about the situation.
> 
> I've thoroughly researched all that is available about the choice I'm making in swapping to 4E, so my decision is actually quite well informed.




And yet you somehow assume that everyone who doesn't like 4E hasn't done the same research; they're just "afraid of change."


----------



## jeffh (Feb 5, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Which statement is true:
> 
> (A) Monte read the updates and previews of 4E, liked them, and has decided to package them as his own "house-ruled" version of 3E in the hopes of paying the rent while he dips in his toes in the realm of writing fiction.
> 
> ... I tend to personally think (A) is "more right"






			
				Demigonis said:
			
		

> Normally I really like and respect Monte Cook's work, but this honestly just sounds like "Oh, I'll rip off everything I like about 4th Edition and sell it a couple months before 4th Ed comes out!"




Riiiiight. Monte has a time machine and posted about this stuff long _before_ the 4E announcement _just_ so he could cash in now, of all times.


----------



## DandD (Feb 5, 2008)

Most really are, and only hate the up-coming edition simply because there won't be support anymore for the current edition (which is a dumb thought from the people who oppose 4e because of that, because having several hundred books is proof that the current edition had more than enough support, and it would take decades to play with all the options presented in it, more than the 4th edition is going to last anyway).


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 5, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> No, it just justifies my bahaviour. *buys*
> 
> And for "Monte ripping off 4E" - not true. He started with the ritual warrior, though he didn't let go of the "powers per day" paradigm. But after the Bo9S came out, I've sometimes heard "Ritual Warrior on speed" or "done right".
> 
> ...




Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and the Books of Eldritch Might both had a lot of elements that eventually changed into something that is principally in 4e.

For example they had normal levels beyond 20 for example, and more at-will, per day, and almost-per-encounter abilities (they were not per-encounter, but they had a number of uses per day, and limitations, that made it essentially almost per-encounter).  And they opened up healing to more classes.  And as you mentioned, the ritual warrior looks like a prototype for the Bo9S which was a prototype for 4e.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Feb 5, 2008)

While I may not end up using it, I will definitely be getting this. Thanks Monte!


----------



## mearls (Feb 5, 2008)

Ilium said:
			
		

> Except that I'm pretty sure I recognize a lot of those ideas as having been posted on Monte's blog months to years ago.




This is true. The move toward at-will abilities and encounter-based resources is something that, I believe, has grown in the design community based on years of playing 3e. If there are similarities, I'm sure it's simply a case of parallel development.

And frankly, if 4e looks like Monte's house rules I'm pretty dang happy. Monte's a really sharp guy who knows D&D inside and out. It would be reassuring to see him use rules that achieve similar ends as 4e, even if the methods might be different.

The best part is that, since I have a player in my group who works for a game company and thus can't playtest 4e at home, I can adapt Monte's rules for my current 3e game.


----------



## mearls (Feb 5, 2008)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Riiiiight. Monte has a time machine and posted about this stuff long _before_ the 4E announcement _just_ so he could cash in now, of all times.




Actually, Monte does have a time machine. He just uses it to steal great works of art from the future.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 5, 2008)

Demigonis said:
			
		

> I hardly think 4E is "getting rid of or changing everything there is to like about 3rd Edition."




That's good, because that wasn't what I wrote.


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 5, 2008)

Demigonis said:
			
		

> PS: 4E doesn't seem any less backwards compatible than any other new edition of D&D that has come out, so I'm confused by that complaint.




You're right, it isn't any more backward than most editions (3e and 3.5e aside, but they're essentially the same edition). That's not what I said, though. I want to give 4e a try. But it's really hard to justify doing just that on top of the investment in 3.5e. Being backward compatible would've made it a lot easier for people to switch if they could readily convert material to the new edition (and the 2e/3e switch is different since those editions were many, many years apart). Trying to convince an entire gaming group with the same level of investment to switch is even harder. Believe me, it's a rational decision based on sound principle which would've been different had most of the material been compatible.



			
				DandD said:
			
		

> Most really are, and only hate the up-coming edition simply because there won't be support anymore for the current edition.




That's not entirely true. 3.5e is going to be supported at least until the end of 2008, simply because many companies are not going to invest the $5000 in getting the GSL early. They'll have to wait until 2009, which means producing 3.5e material. Even beyond that 3.5e will still have support. And some larger companies like Paizo have not yet indicated whether they are switching or not. They'll likely drag a large company fan-base with them if they do switch. 3.5e could be supported nicely by Paizo alone.

Pinotage


----------



## Reynard (Feb 5, 2008)

This little tidbit reminds me that there are so many ways to improve D&D without completely reinventing the thing -- in either flavour or mechanics.  I am trying to "come to grips" with the fact that 4E is coming and that I need to at least play the thing before I write it off, but sometimes I think "Just scour the best of the best of 3rd party OGL and build the 3E you want" -- and Monte's work certainly fits that bill.

I mean, is it any more work at this point to put together a "personal 3.x" than it is to adjust to 4E?


----------



## Spatula (Feb 5, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Most really are, and only hate the up-coming edition simply because there won't be support anymore for the current edition (which is a dumb thought from the people who oppose 4e because of that, because having several hundred books is proof that the current edition had more than enough support, and it would take decades to play with all the options presented in it, more than the 4th edition is going to last anyway).



So if we already have decades worth of material for 3e... why should anyone switch to a new edition now?  You just refuted your own argument.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 5, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> So if we already have decades worth of material for 3e... why should anyone switch to a new edition now?  You just refuted your own argument.



Uh... because maybe people like what they're hearing about 4e and feel it improves on the game enough to warrant the switch?


----------



## Spatula (Feb 5, 2008)

That's fine, but my comment was in respone to "Most people who aren't switching really are afraid of change."  People who aren't switching have plenty of material right now and (obviously) don't see the current edition as completely broken.  The people who are switching (also obviously) feel differently, but they were not the subject at-hand...


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 5, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> This little tidbit reminds me that there are so many ways to improve D&D without completely reinventing the thing -- in either flavour or mechanics.  I am trying to "come to grips" with the fact that 4E is coming and that I need to at least play the thing before I write it off, but sometimes I think "Just scour the best of the best of 3rd party OGL and build the 3E you want" -- and Monte's work certainly fits that bill.
> 
> I mean, is it any more work at this point to put together a "personal 3.x" than it is to adjust to 4E?




If your gaming group is absolutely fixed for the next decade, then no.

But if you see the possibility of new players coming in at some point, then using the current version of the game will be a lot more advantageous than using a completely houseruled older verison.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 5, 2008)

I like Monte's stuff and may give this a look. But like another poster said, its basically yet more rules patching for an edition that I feel no longer works for me.

I'm ready for a fresh start with a whole new system. Bring on 4e!


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 5, 2008)

*Mr. Mearls:* As always, thanks for the reply/clarification/proper time machine usage.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 5, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I like Monte's stuff and may give this a look. But like another poster said, its basically yet more rules patching for an edition that I feel no longer works for me.




Out of curiosity, is this because of glut (i.e. supplements) or changes in your gaming habits?  IOW, if you started fresh with just the core, would 3.x still "work for you" or is there something fundamentally flawed, IYO, with 3.x?


----------



## Rel (Feb 5, 2008)

Don't make me come in here.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 5, 2008)

Deleted: Getting OT.


----------



## rkanodia (Feb 5, 2008)

mearls said:
			
		

> Actually, Monte does have a time machine. He just uses it to steal great works of art from the future.



If only he would improve his taste!  I keep trying to explain to him that the masterpieces of the early Robocratic period will be so much more interesting than any of the junk that comes out of the post-transhumanist movement.


----------



## Baron Opal (Feb 5, 2008)

Oh come on, the Robocrats can't hold a candle to the Zimbabwe Cubist Revivalists. Look at the pixels, man!


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Feb 5, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, is this because of glut (i.e. supplements) or changes in your gaming habits?  IOW, if you started fresh with just the core, would 3.x still "work for you" or is there something fundamentally flawed, IYO, with 3.x?




I know you didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway - I think 3.x was a better game prior to the onslaught of splat.  I know, I know - a company wants to make money and if I don't want those books, then don't buy 'em or use 'em at the table.

I started no less than three 3.x campaigns with a mandated "CORE ONLY" sign hanging around my neck...

...and I ended up opening Pandora's Box each and every time.  Just WotC stuff - no third party - but there's still a ton of splat.  

Part of the reason is because standard, core only 3.x got old.  Part of the reason was because I'm a pushover and a few of my players owned other books they wanted to see in use.

The problem isn't the splat. The problem is that I'm enough of a sucker to allow it.

W.P.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 5, 2008)

Rel said:
			
		

> Don't make me come in here.





Must...resist...urge...to...comment....


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 5, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, is this because of glut (i.e. supplements) or changes in your gaming habits?  IOW, if you started fresh with just the core, would 3.x still "work for you" or is there something fundamentally flawed, IYO, with 3.x?




Interesting question. When 3.x first came out I really was in love with it after having played 1e and 2e for years beforehand. In fact, I still consider 3e a vast improvement to 1e/2e. But after having played it for years, some of the issues became more and more apparent.

Here is a small sampling of what I dislike about 3e (yes, some of these existed in 1e/2e as well):

Level drain - Nothing is more unfun and frustrating than having to level down a character because a monster simply TOUCHED you and you failed a Fort Save. This is a mechanic that should never have made it to 3e, IMO.

Imbalance in ability score determination and what some classes need to be effective - Some classes like the Monk or Paladin require multiple high ability scores to truly be effective in the class. Others like the Wizard or the Fighter can get by with one good score. The default point buy system really hamstrings you in this regard, IMO.

Rolled HP - Discussed in depth in another thread, this is another area where I don't like the RAW. My personal philosophy is that randomness in character stats is a bad thing. It leads to oddities like a wizard potentially having more hp than a fighter. That should NEVER happen, IMO.

15 minute adventuring day - This has become a huge problem in my group's AoW adventure path. So much so that we now use a spell point system that effectively allows casters to renew all their slots in an hour or less of game time. Essentially a pre-4e per encounter casting system.

Overdependence on magical gear at high levels - A fighter is virtually required to be brimming with magical items to be anywhere near as effective as a high level spellcaster with even no magic items. This causes several issues with the game.

Too much save or die and the required ease of raising and resurrecting needed to balance it - People might feel that 4e seems videogamey, but nothing is more videogamey than players constantly being one spell away from instant death, or instant life.

Too many spells that break the game - Disjunction for one. High level fighters are required to be equipped with gobs of magic to be on an equal playing field with high level monsters or casters, but one spell can take it all away? Scry/Teleport for another. Oh look, the Dark Lord is taking a leak, we'll just teleport the party into the lavatory and whack him before he can pull up his breeches.  :\ 

Too much accounting involved in creating or running high level NPCs and monsters. Not so big a deal at lower levels, but at high levels, its a pain. I want to create a lich and his warrior lieutenants to challenge a high level party. I have to add class levels, find good spells and feats, outfit them with appropriate gear that is cool but won't be unbalanced if the party gets it. While I'm doing all of this, I have to bear in mind what resources the party has, then hopefully end up with something that won't wipe them out, nor be a speed bump. The CR system is less than perfect in this regard. And I just don't have the time for this that I had in my youth.

I could go on for pages. I have houseruled a lot of that stuff, and thats fine when I DM. But when someone else DMs I'm subject to their rules, or even worse, forced to play the game as written.  :\ 

When I first heard about 4e, I was optimistic that this may be the edition that fixes everything I dislike. Based on the previews so far I think I will not be disappointed. In fact, this may be the first time in a long time that I really enjoy playing D&D right out of the book.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 6, 2008)

As an addendum, I'll add this isn't an issue with splatbooks. Most of things I dislike are fundamental parts of the game. In fact, Bo9S really revitalized my interest in 3e for a bit. Until the 4e announcement that is.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 6, 2008)

It's too bad that I don't play 3E. Still, it's MONTE we're talking about, so I'll buy it anyway. It's a great deal and I'm sure I'll find something useful.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Feb 6, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Which statement is true:




This is just parallel development. Heck, we had a per encounter magic system, trimmed down skill list, and classes and races that had a lot more options throughout their levels in an OGL System we were working on for Violet Dawn. 4e is just a natural progression. I'm sure a lot of designers had the same things in their games.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 6, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Interesting question. When 3.x first came out I really was in love with it after having played 1e and 2e for years beforehand. In fact, I still consider 3e a vast improvement to 1e/2e. But after having played it for years, some of the issues became more and more apparent.
> 
> Here is a small sampling of what I dislike about 3e (yes, some of these existed in 1e/2e as well):
> ...
> I could go on for pages. I have houseruled a lot of that stuff, and thats fine when I DM. But when someone else DMs I'm subject to their rules, or even worse, forced to play the game as written.  :\




I actually agree with you on a lot of those points, especially in regards to the high level issues.  My problem, though, was that the only 3.5 high level game I ran was with evil characters so it exacerbated many of the problems.  And in general, I like a lot of what I am hearing regarding making monsters/NPCs simpler and easier.  However, the inherent "super-heroism" that seems to be an even greater component of 4E than 3E, as well as a huge number flavour changes I just plain don't like, keep me on the fence (hey -- at least I am *on* the fence now...)



> When I first heard about 4e, I was optimistic that this may be the edition that fixes everything I dislike. Based on the previews so far I think I will not be disappointed. In fact, this may be the first time in a long time that I really enjoy playing D&D right out of the book.




I was the opposite. i pretty much hated most of what i heard until we started seeing mechanics.  Worse case scenario, I guess, is there'll be stuff to port backwards to 3E.


----------



## epochrpg (Feb 6, 2008)

Hey, I may get this and not get 4e at all!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 6, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> ...a huge problem in my group's AoW adventure path....



At what point in the AP did your list of problems start to become apparent?  I only ask because my group is halfway through TFoE, and my spellcasters are using their Action Points (per UA variant) to recall spells after they have been cast.

Can you post specifics about the spell recharge house rule and how that has affected the fighters in the party (i.e. do they feel "left out" of the fun)?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 6, 2008)

If that book is DnD 3.75... then what will happen in 4 years when DnD goes 4.5 or 5.o?


----------



## Protagonist (Feb 6, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> If that book is DnD 3.75... then what will happen in 4 years when DnD goes 4.5 or 5.o?




Let's just rename 4E to 4.1 right now. Then, when PHBII,DMGII and MMII are released, we can refer to it as 4.2 etc.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 6, 2008)

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about Monte's 3.75?

Put me down for "parallel development". Many ideas have been developing since the debut of 3.0, facilitated in large part by the OGL. It's no coincidence that several very good game designers settle upon the same type of mechanics.


----------



## cougent (Feb 6, 2008)

I will get the book if for no other reason than curiosity about "Monte's House Rules".  I do believe it will prove useful though as long as I continue to play 3E.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 6, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> I will get the book if for no other reason than curiosity about "Monte's House Rules".  I do believe it will prove useful though as long as I continue to play 3E.



Yea. Me too.  Our AoW 3.5 game will run its course, even though I will also likely DM a 4e game at the local gamestore if there's some table room.


----------



## DandD (Feb 6, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> So if we already have decades worth of material for 3e... why should anyone switch to a new edition now?



Then you simply belong to that group that doesn't fall into 'most'. Feel glad about it, and play 3rd edition as long as you wish, without hating 4th edition simply because it's new or making support for 3e end right now.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 6, 2008)

I know this is getting off-topic, but there's some of this that I want to respond to.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Interesting question. When 3.x first came out I really was in love with it after having played 1e and 2e for years beforehand. In fact, I still consider 3e a vast improvement to 1e/2e. But after having played it for years, some of the issues became more and more apparent.
> 
> Here is a small sampling of what I dislike about 3e (yes, some of these existed in 1e/2e as well):




Dragonblade, you make a lot of good points, but from what I've seen, 4E isn't going to solve a lot of these problems. You'll still have rolled hp, magical gear is still necessary at higher levels (maybe not quite as much, but even that seems iffy), and the adventuring will still be over when the party's resources are drained; that just takes a bit longer now.

That said, I personally like some things that you mentioned here, but this isn't the place for the debate. I'm just pointing out that 4E isn't the solution to the laundry list of problems a lot of people have said 3.5E has.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 6, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Then you simply belong to that group that doesn't fall into 'most'. Feel glad about it, and play 3rd edition as long as you wish, without hating 4th edition simply because it's new or making support for 3e end right now.



I was talking about the general, not about me specifcally.  And I still don't know how you can claim that "most" people who have no intention of switching are afraid of change or angry that 3e support will be ending.  That's based on... what exactly?


----------



## Spatula (Feb 6, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Dragonblade, you make a lot of good points, but from what I've seen, 4E isn't going to solve a lot of these problems. You'll still have rolled hp, magical gear is still necessary at higher levels (maybe not quite as much, but even that seems iffy), and the adventuring will still be over when the party's resources are drained; that just takes a bit longer now.
> 
> That said, I personally like some things that you mentioned here, but this isn't the place for the debate. I'm just pointing out that 4E isn't the solution to the laundry list of problems a lot of people have said 3.5E has.



It'll fix some problems and introduce new ones, the same as 3e did.  It'll also probably be a great game, taken on its own merits.  And when it is creaking and groaning from the rules bloat and power creep of later supplements, they'll come out with 5e promising to fix all of 4e's problems... and to re-invigorate the hobby with new players... and to make play smoother, faster, cooler, all over again.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Feb 6, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Dragonblade, you make a lot of good points, but from what I've seen, 4E isn't going to solve a lot of these problems. You'll still have rolled hp...




He will? Has WotC said that hit points will be rolled in 4e?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 6, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, is this because of glut (i.e. supplements) or changes in your gaming habits?  IOW, if you started fresh with just the core, would 3.x still "work for you" or is there something fundamentally flawed, IYO, with 3.x?



The splat books never have been a real problem for me. Sure, there are some broken spells/feats and class combos possible with the books, but it has never been an issue for us. If we see something broken, we houserule it or disallow it in our group. That's pretty simple.

The core books would simply be insufficient. I have played every core character class by now, plus a few multiclass combinations, and so I sometimes need things outside of core to still feel entertained with my character. (Our group is pretty "gamist" in that regard, I guess.)

The key issues with 3.x I have experienced are hardly related to the splat books (though some splats can worsen things. The introduction of swift or immediate action spells are a strong example of something that worsens the 15 minute adventuring day problem.)


----------



## vagabundo (Feb 6, 2008)

Jez, You guys will argue about anything.

For 9 Dallors (6 Euro) I'll buy this, it is like a crunch preview of 4e and i'll drop in a few of the rules or classes in for a month or two, get my guys used to some changes. It may also be somewhat compatible with 4e, so it may be useful to me after the changeover. I believe there will be more compatibility with some late 3.5e stuff and 4e than 2e->3e....

One of the main problems with 3.5e, I found, is that the DM has to be far ahead of the players game knowledge. They can come up with real campaign killers at high levels, you really have to be on your toes. I'm lucky with the players I have, they are not power gamers, they just like heroic stories and bashing/blowing-up things.

I didn't experience this in 1e/2e as much, but maybe we werent playing the game _right_.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 6, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> But go ahead, call it fear if it makes you feel better about being a lemming...




If you can't communicate without insulting people, I'm afraid you can't participate in this thread. Don't post in this thread again.

Thanks


----------



## resistor (Feb 6, 2008)

This product sounds like a definite buy for me.

I've liked many of the mechanical changes in the 4e previews, but really dislike many of the changes in flavor and core assumptions.  I really like the fact that Monte's BoXM seems to be bringing some of these improvements to 3.5e.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Feb 6, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> However, I don't really like his SPLAT material.



His _Eldritch Might_ bard is the only bard class worth a damn.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Feb 6, 2008)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> Argh, yet MORE rules for 3.5!?
> 
> If nothing else, this is at least a pleasant reminder of why I am looking forward to a new edition.





yeah because 4th edition will be rules lite with just 5 or 6 books a year published for it .


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 6, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Has WotC said that hit points will be rolled in 4e?




That's one of the things I'm really curious about in 4th Ed – how will hp be generated at first level and when levelling.

Maybe it will be by role: Defender = 8 hp per level or something like that?

I can't stand random hp – "_Bummer, Hal, you've rolled nothing over a 4 for your paladin's hp the last 5 levels_…"


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 6, 2008)

Hey everyone, I don't want to threadjack, so I'll start a new thread later today to address everyone's questions. Posting at work and I didn't get home last night until late so I probably won't be able to get a long post in until this evening.


----------



## jeffh (Feb 7, 2008)

To me, the number one purpose of a 3.75 would be to, while keeping most of 3.5 intact, make high-level games smoother and easier to run. (Actually, from a publisher's standpoint, it would be to cut down on the size and complexity of stat blocks, but I suspect anything that accomplished one of these goals would go a long way toward the other as well.) I don't see anything that's been announced so far about this book that accomplishes that. So while I'll definitely pick it up (at nine bucks, why not?) and I'm sure there'll be some really interesting stuff in it, I doubt very much that it's the book the 3.75 crowd wants.


----------



## Grimstaff (Feb 7, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> yeah because 4th edition will be rules lite with just 5 or 6 books a year published for it .



Yep, WotC is publishing 5 or 6 different 4E rulebooks a year all right, yesiree... :\


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Feb 8, 2008)

Why is this thread in the 4E forum.  It really has no business being here despite whatever tenuous link the OP tried to draw to 4E.

Mods: Any chance we could get this outta here?


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 8, 2008)

HP Dreadnought said:
			
		

> Why is this thread in the 4E forum.  It really has no business being here despite whatever tenuous link the OP tried to draw to 4E.




Because this product has the power to bridge the gap between 3.5 and 4E, making us unite as one board!  One vision!  

Hugs for everyone!


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Feb 8, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Because this product has the power to bridge the gap between 3.5 and 4E, making us unite as one board!  One vision!
> 
> Hugs for everyone!




Hmmmmm. . . .

You stay right here.  I'm going to be back in a few minutes with some friends in white coats who are going to help you out, ok?


----------



## Grazzt (Feb 8, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Because this product has the power to bridge the gap between 3.5 and 4E, making us unite as one board!  One vision!
> 
> Hugs for everyone!




Please pass around what ever it is you are drinking/smoking...


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 8, 2008)

HP Dreadnought: if you don't like the thread, please stop posting in it.


----------



## Nine Hands (Feb 8, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Interesting question. When 3.x first came out I really was in love with it after having played 1e and 2e for years beforehand. In fact, I still consider 3e a vast improvement to 1e/2e. But after having played it for years, some of the issues became more and more apparent.
> 
> Here is a small sampling of what I dislike about 3e (yes, some of these existed in 1e/2e as well):
> 
> <SNIP>




Almost word for word my exact feelings about 3rd Edition, all those fuzzy, annoying things that made you sigh in despair every time it came up


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 9, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> HP Dreadnought: if you don't like the thread, please stop posting in it.



I think HP Dreadnought's point was that this thread doesn't belong in the 4E forum, not that this thread shouldn't exist. It's really a 3.5 thread, and should probably be moved out of the 4E forum.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 9, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> His _Eldritch Might_ bard is the only bard class worth a damn.





QFT


----------



## Starman (Feb 9, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> One vision!




Gimme fried chicken!

And Monte's house rules, too. I'd like to check 'em out.


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 10, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> _It's the flayer & Monte's Brain
> Flayer & Monte's Brain
> One is a genius
> the other's not quite sane,
> ...




The funny part is that part of me was putting this to the tune of "Painting the Roses Red" from Alice in Wonderland before I realized it was the Pinky and the Brain theme   No I don't have a 2 yr old daughter who loves Disney movies.  Not at all heh.


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 10, 2008)

Ilium said:
			
		

> Except that I'm pretty sure I recognize a lot of those ideas as having been posted on Monte's blog months to years ago.
> 
> I'll definitely check this out.  While I'm not a 4E hater by any means (actually I think it will be great) I can't justify the expense when I've already spent so much on 3.5.  If Monte's "house rules" give me some of the good stuff of 4E without shelling out $100 for it, I'll be happy.




Maybe I'm weird.  I still wanna play a game of D&D that is Ptolus in the AE setting using Ken Hood's Revised Grim N Gritty and Dr Spunj's Point Buy system, and maybe the thread about weapons as special FX, doesn't matter what you're using it does the same damage as you normally do.  Which is pretty much the Jackie Chan effect   I had people get all bent about the idea of GnG and AE tho, it was really amusing.


----------



## glass (Feb 10, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> But go ahead, call it fear if it makes you feel better about being a lemming...



4e players are going to become so numerous that food gets short, so the population collapses and the cycle starts again? 

_EDIT: I was going to edit this out since MMU1 can't respond, but since MR has now responded to me I can't really._


glass.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 10, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> 4e players are going to become so numerous that food gets short, so the population collapses and the cycle starts again?



The  last thing I heard is that the lemming problem is an animal version of the chaos that (used to) happen in Mekka - but except of travellers being trampled to death, the lemmins are just shoved to the borders, which unluckily aren't walls but cliffs...


----------



## glass (Feb 10, 2008)

Starman said:
			
		

> Gimme fried chicken!
> 
> And Monte's house rules, too. I'd like to check 'em out.



This! (Both the joke I was going to make if I'd been quicker and the sentiment. Its less that a fiver, after all).


glass.


----------



## glass (Feb 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The  last thing I heard is that the lemming problem is an animal version of the chaos that (used to) happen in Mekka - but except of travellers being trampled to death, the lemmins are just shoved to the borders, which unluckily aren't walls but cliffs...



No, lemming population fluctuations are due to a different kind of chaos -the mathematical one. The thing about lemmings going over cliffs is a myth -the famous 'documentary' that showed it had the crew just out of site shoving the poor little critters.


glass.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Feb 10, 2008)

I will buy Montes Book of Experimental Might though I won't buy and DM (playing is another thing) 4th edition for a long time to come.

Is that a contradiction?

No! Montes Book uses some of the 4th edition ideas in a Toolkit approach. That means I can use my 3.5 Books and simply add the things I like and do not use the things I o not like.

I do not have to buy completely new books and do not have to use the new Core Fluff which I personally (an I state this again to avoid flaming: I PERSONALLY!) do not like.

I think that there are a lot of good ideas in 4th but I do not need the whole new package.


----------



## carmachu (Feb 10, 2008)

Demigonis said:
			
		

> Normally I really like and respect Monte Cook's work, but this honestly just sounds like "Oh, I'll rip off everything I like about 4th Edition and sell it a couple months before 4th Ed comes out!"





Wow, just wow. Some of you 4e folks really take the cake. And you complain  about folks who dont like like 4e.

So he's ripping off 4e, despite the fact he hasnt seen it.

You do know this release is his home brew rules he's been playing with for a while now right? Before the announcement of 4e?

sheesh, some of you people....


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 10, 2008)

Anyway, as it's been pointed out by several people in this thread alot of what's going to be in that book has already been mentioned by Cook on his site. Some of the stuff he's mentioned prior to the 4E announcement, so everyone here who's crying either theft or shennanigans on Mr. Cook has no idea what the hell it is they were talking about. 

Second to those claiming that people are chirping a different tune because it seems like 4E changes in a 3E wrapper, well if those 4E changes allow me to use the 4E rules that I actually like without voiding the thousands of dollars in 3E material that I've already purchased, GREAT. So unless one of you guys (meaning the RABID 4E boosters, as opposed to the well reasoned ones who can reply to a post without attacking the poster or using snark.) are going to shell out for my 4E collection for the next 5 years, you should probably keep quiet about people sticking with 3E and not paying for a new edition.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 10, 2008)

HP Dreadnought said:
			
		

> Why is this thread in the 4E forum.  It really has no business being here despite whatever tenuous link the OP tried to draw to 4E.
> 
> Mods: Any chance we could get this outta here?




I think it is quite pertinent to 4e.  In any case, though, I think that the mods are alright with it being here, since one has posted in this thread already and it hasn't been moved yet....

I will just echo the sentiment of some posters here by saying that I am excited about this product as well.  I am hopeful that it will allow some new options into my v3.5 game that will mirror some of the things I've seen and liked about 4e without the many, many annoying things I've seen as well.


----------



## Grimstaff (Feb 10, 2008)

carmachu said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow. Some of you 4e folks really take the cake. And you complain  about folks who dont like like 4e.
> 
> So he's ripping off 4e, despite the fact he hasnt seen it.
> 
> ...



Why does he (HP Dreadnought) have to be "4E folks" just because he pointed out his opinion about about a 3.5 product? Don't try and shoehorn other people's posts into your anti-4E agenda. Throwing around terms like "you people" has been used before by other biased groups, and to no more respectable purpose.

HP's tone may have been a bit harsh to Mr. Cook, but it was in no way trying to influence anyone's taste in editions or attempting to offend other people, unlike your post. If you are so desperate to keep people from buying books no one has even seen, why not stand outside a bookstore until this June with a big sign rather than trolling around message boards 4 months too early. 

Furthermore, with all due respect to Mr. Cook, anyone who thinks the timing of this release or the content included within it are purely coincidental is hopelessly naive, imho.


----------



## Grimstaff (Feb 10, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> everyone here who's crying either theft or shennanigans on Mr. Cook has no idea what the hell it is they were talking about.
> 
> Second...you should probably keep quiet about people sticking with 3E and not paying for a new edition.




1)Unlike you, who knows exactly what you are talking about, because Monte checks with you before he does anything, right?  :\ 

2)I don't think anyone cares if you continue to play 3E or not.


----------



## Rel (Feb 10, 2008)

Look people, let's talk more about the product in question and less about the motivations of those posting in this thread.  If you happen to think that this thread has no business in this forum, I suggest that you go look at some threads you DO think have business here.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Feb 10, 2008)

Since it's cheap, I'll buy it; I'll check it out, I'll probably incorporate it into my current 3E game to some extent, but I'm still more interested in 4th Ed for a variety of reasons.


----------



## FormerlyDickensC (Feb 10, 2008)

The only reason this new product even exists is because people over at Monte's _own_ official forum begged and pleaded with him to write up a product describing his own house ruled which he had mentioned many times before (before 4E was a topic over here) but had never gone into deep detail about. 

Plus, selling a 9$ pdf is not exactly cashing in on anything.  This is merely a token gesture for fans that asked for it. Check out his own boards, the record is there.  I think that most ppl who really follow and use Monte's writings know that a lot of his ideas (from AE, Eldritch Might, Roguish Luck, et al) drive "new" ideas elsewhere.  Most of the time, I see his rules and then a "new" very similar but tailored differently in another product.

Its $9...if you don't want want don't get it...he did it for the ppl who like his work and begged him for it.  But don't denigrate a man you don't know and in a situation you don't understand.


----------



## ruemere (Feb 10, 2008)

I'd like to point out that Mr Cook has written Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. I think that many of the people who actually played it, found it different from the feel of core d20. 

Personally, though I was just a player, I found AU/E more appealing because:
- balance and flexibility (and elegance) of magic system,
- greater amount of character options,
- greater load of mundane options for items (you don't need to have a magic blade to make a difference).

While various books of his contain useful optional rules, I think the existence of a working setting product proves that Monte can design a functional set of rules which enhances core d20. That's why, while I am usually leery of optional rule supplements (manuals from various sources rarely work with each other), I think I'm going to check out this book.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Grimstaff (Feb 10, 2008)

I'd buy a book by Monte listing rules to remove from 3.5. Like AoO, iterative attacks, crit confirmations, etc. It would be cool to see one of the last edition's chief game designers detail what his take would be on a "Lite" version of D20. Like the Book of Expurgated Might, or something.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 10, 2008)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> I'd buy a book by Monte listing rules to remove from 3.5. Like AoO, iterative attacks, crit confirmations, etc. It would be cool to see one of the last edition's chief game designers detail what his take would be on a "Lite" version of D20. Like the Book of Expurgated Might, or something.




Book of Enervated Might?

Anyway, the whole idea of books like this is kind of beyond me. I get buying books for new classes and monsters and spells and such (heck, I did so myself), and I certainly get houseruling annoying stuff. But actually buying multiple rules supplements to significantly overhaul the core mechanics... it seems like it'd be way too confusing. You have to reteach everyone the whole system, except half of it is unchanged...

I'd rather just get a new edition with a complete rules overhaul every 6-8 years than a patch job every couple years (and yes, 3.5 counts in the second category ).


----------



## scruffygrognard (Feb 10, 2008)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> I'd buy a book by Monte listing rules to remove from 3.5. Like AoO, iterative attacks, crit confirmations, etc. It would be cool to see one of the last edition's chief game designers detail what his take would be on a "Lite" version of D20. Like the Book of Expurgated Might, or something.




I'd buy that for a dollar!  Actually, I'd buy that for $9...


----------



## Mr Baron (Feb 10, 2008)

*New stuff from Monte*

It will be interesting to see how Monte's stuff compares to 4th ed.  PDF's are inexpensive, so count me in


----------



## carmachu (Feb 11, 2008)

neevr mind....read the mods post after responding to the post.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Feb 11, 2008)

Demigonis said:
			
		

> Normally I really like and respect Monte Cook's work, but this honestly just sounds like "Oh, I'll rip off everything I like about 4th Edition and sell it a couple months before 4th Ed comes out!"




Well, if that way we can get some of the better 4e mechanics in an OGL 3.5 license, then I say more power to him... (Just kidding, I know he wouldn't do that)

I'd like to use some Saga-style mechanics in my homebrewed game, but since I have some illusions of publishing it someday as a pdf, then I'd better stick to my own design plus OGL stuff...



			
				Pinotage said:
			
		

> While I'm interested in Monte's product, what I'd really be interested in is a UA style product released _after_ 4e, which incorporates the best of 4e in a modular plug-and-play style way for the 3.5e system. That would be excellent!   Like you say, reverse engineer 4e for 3.5e.




That's *exactly* what the new WotC gaming license is designed to prevent.

There won't be any "4th ed Arcana Evolved", "4th ed. Mutants and Masterminds", etc...

The new license is (from what I have read) designed so third parties will only be able to use the 4th ed rulesets to publish Dungeons and Dragons supplements.


----------



## Turjan (Feb 11, 2008)

It's just now that I looked into this thread because I suspected that it was one of these threads begging Monte to publish his houserules. So they will actually be published! Cool!



			
				jeffh said:
			
		

> To me, the number one purpose of a 3.75 would be to, while keeping most of 3.5 intact, make high-level games smoother and easier to run. (Actually, from a publisher's standpoint, it would be to cut down on the size and complexity of stat blocks, but I suspect anything that accomplished one of these goals would go a long way toward the other as well.) I don't see anything that's been announced so far about this book that accomplishes that. So while I'll definitely pick it up (at nine bucks, why not?) and I'm sure there'll be some really interesting stuff in it, I doubt very much that it's the book the 3.75 crowd wants.



I have a great respect for Monte's books, and AU/AE and the Complete Book of Eldritch Might are some of my favorite books of the 3.x era, but I agree: Usually Monte's solutions complicate things and don't make the game easier. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to seeing what he came up with. 83 pages is not long, and I guess that much space in the booklet will be taken up by spell lists, sorting the SRD spells into 20 levels.

Honestly, I don't expect this to be halfway to D&D 4.0. I guess it will be a few minor twists to 3.x (I think Monte stayed with some kind of version "3.25" for his own games). That's fine with me, but might disappoint a few people who expect more from this.

Anyway, this "Monte rips off 4.0" talk makes me chuckle. As Mike Mearls mentioned, game design in the D&D world doesn't happen in a secluded cloister cell. Some stuff has its origin already from the time when 3.0 was designed, but was dismissed as too radical then. I'm curious. Let's see whether I will like it .


Edit: One thing I forgot: The title is absolutely horrible. Book of Experimental Might? *shudder*


----------



## Imaro (Feb 11, 2008)

Hey, after seeing the magic system he designed in MCWoD and alot of the changes he implemented in that game (which seem close to alot of 4e tidbits) I"ll pick it up...especially since I'm not sure if I'm switching to 4e or not yet.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 11, 2008)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Edit: One thing I forgot: The title is absolutely horrible. Book of Experimental Might? *shudder*



Worst thing about it: it ends up as *BoEM*. Just like the Book of Eldritch Might did.  Next time, think of the marketing, you dunce. 

Yeah, I expect it's really more 3.33++ or maybe 3.5++. Which, really, is what a lot of people have been clamouring for. Not so much a bridge between 3.5 and 4.0, as a totally independent expansion and improvement of 3.5.

I am _very_ curious to see what this book is like.


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Feb 11, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Worst thing about it: it ends up as *BoEM*. Just like the Book of Eldritch Might did.  Next time, think of the marketing, you dunce.



No problem for me, Aus... This new book's abbreviation shall be *BoXM* (at least, according to me... Or, is it the Helm.... Darn thing has a mind of its own, most of the time...).

I'm looking forward to _The Book of e*X*perimental Might_.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 11, 2008)

Hrothgar Rannúlfr said:
			
		

> No problem for me, Aus... This new book's abbreviation shall be *BoXM* (at least, according to me...).
> 
> I'm looking forward to _The Book of e*X*perimental Might_.



Yeah. Don't mind me, just being daft. 

I'm definitely picking up a copy, whatever the letterisation.


----------



## Turjan (Feb 11, 2008)

Hrothgar Rannúlfr said:
			
		

> No problem for me, Aus... This new book's abbreviation shall be *BoXM* (at least, according to me... Or, is it the Helm.... Darn thing has a mind of its own, most of the time...).
> 
> I'm looking forward to _The Book of e*X*perimental Might_.



That's also the abbreviation used on the website for the cover illustration (BOXM_Coverart.jpg).

I have more problems with the name per se. Experimental Might? So, maybe might? Maybe failure? I hope this is not a sign of a lack of self-confidence regarding the contents of the book .


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Feb 11, 2008)

No problem, Aus!

I like Monte Cook's _Malhavoc Press_ stuff.  His _Arcana Evolved_ was the first non-WotC book that I bought for 3/3.5e.  It set a very high standard for others to aspire to.  _Ptolus_ went way beyond that.

Monte's houserules will be considered extremely valuable by me (or the _Helm_...).


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Feb 11, 2008)

Turjan said:
			
		

> That's also the abbreviation used on the website for the cover illustration (BOXM_Coverart.jpg).



Hmmm... Clearly the archmage, Malhavoc, is using _The Book of Inverted Darkness_ to control the _Helm_.  


			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> I have more problems with the name per se. Experimental Might? So, maybe might? Maybe failure? I hope this is not a sign of a lack of self-confidence regarding the contents of the book .



I hope not.  It shouldn't be because of a lack of self-confidence in the houserules, unless he hasn't had time to test all of them in actual play.  And, I doubt that.


----------



## Turjan (Feb 11, 2008)

Hrothgar Rannúlfr said:
			
		

> I like Monte Cook's _Malhavoc Press_ stuff.  His _Arcana Evolved_ was the first non-WotC book that I bought for 3/3.5e.  It set a very high standard for others to aspire to.



The (Complete) Book of Eldritch Might was also groundbreaking. And Malhavoc Press has usually better editing than WotC - a rare trait in 3rd party companies.


			
				Hrothgar Rannúlfr said:
			
		

> I hope not.  It shouldn't be because of a lack of self-confidence in the houserules, unless he hasn't had time to test all of them in actual play.  And, I doubt that.



His stuff is not always completely balanced, but it's playtested and usually worth looking at. And that's important to me .


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Feb 11, 2008)

Turjan said:
			
		

> The (Complete) Book of Eldritch Might was also groundbreaking.



Very true.







			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> And Malhavoc Press has usually better editing than WotC - a rare trait in 3rd party companies.



But, a major complaint that I have... Typos, misprints, etc... really bother me.  So much so that I actually refused to buy a certain book that I was really looking forward to (from another third party company) because of the typos that were reported in reviews.







			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> His stuff is not always completely balanced, but it's playtested and usually worth looking at. And that's important to me .



Thorough playtesting is important to me, too.  And, his stuff is most always worth looking at.

As to balance, I don't know.  I like to think I have a pretty good grasp of what's balanced (but that could be the _Helm_, too).


----------



## epochrpg (Feb 21, 2008)

So does anybody have this yet?  How is it?


----------



## adamda (Feb 21, 2008)

I just got it and read through briefly - it's a fun read, and there's a fair amount of content. Same quality presentation I expect from Monte as well.

He pretty much makes the cleric, druid, wizard, ranger, and paladin brand new with the addition of disciplines. Some disciplines replicate old abilities (magic missile, lay on hands...) while some are new twists.

He throws in a second wind mechanic, more starting hit points, and a way to differentiate between serious wounds and just battle-worn heroes (using what he calls Grace).

I'm a little sad that he doesn't spice up the paladin beyond replacing turn undead, lay on hands, and spellcasting. I was hoping that the mount would be optional, cure disease removed, a new take on smites... but he really did wonders with what he did go into. He doesn't touch upon fighters, rogues, bards, monks, barbarians or sorcerers unfortunately.

All in all though, I'm really excited and would love to run a game with his revisions.


----------



## jasonbostwick (Feb 21, 2008)

I just finished reading the BOXM, and it was very enjoyable. I'm going to start using his spell system for the last three months of my 3.5 campaign (I've been using the Grace/HP rules and 1 feat/level variant since he mentioned them in his blog).

When Monte says that the rules increase the power level of a party, he's making a bit of an understatement.
In my experience with the feat and HP changes, the power of the characters increased dramatically. I've only got two PCs in my Ptolus campaign (a rogue and an urban ranger), and I figured that with these boosts they'd end up being as effective as a standard party of four. They completely outperformed my expectations, and ended up bulldozing through encounters in modules designed for their character level. The CR system in 3.5 is built on the idea that you can slowly wear down the party with a few speedbump encounters, but with more resources this isn't an issue. 

Once I got a handle on what they were capable of, I was able to redesign my encounters so that they would be a proper challenge, which entailed stripping away all of the extraneous fights with random monsters and beefing up the final encounters so that they would be huge and cinematic.


The tl;dr
The BOXM is well done and has a lot of good design philosophies in it (many mirroring 4e's), but if you want to use it in a campaign you'll have to put a lot of thought into changing how you design adventures - something the book doesn't offer much advice on.


----------



## Jaws (Feb 21, 2008)

http://enworld.rpgnow.com/


j.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Feb 21, 2008)

Turjan said:
			
		

> The (Complete) Book of Eldritch Might was also groundbreaking. And Malhavoc Press has usually better editing than WotC - a rare trait in 3rd party companies.




This would be Sue Cook's doing. She's an editorial ace.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 21, 2008)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> This would be Sue Cook's doing. She's an editorial ace.




I'm still awed by her work on Ptolus.  I've gotten through half of it (~380 pages), and I've seen a grand total of 2 typos/grammatical errors.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 21, 2008)

Monte Cook put a blog post  up on this...denying its his "3.75"...(and saying some other interesting things):

Book of Experimental Might

This book is going to be released in pdf at DriveThruRPG and RPGNow tomorrow morning. If you haven't been following, it's sort of a one-shot foray back into releasing Malhavoc products just for fun. My day job is still the novel (2nd draft is going very well). 

This book is the result of some experimenting I've done with the rules for my home campaigns. Hence the name. It's not, as some people have said, my "3.75 edition." And here's why: If you're going to do a whole revision to a game you approach it very differently than you do with a supplement. A supplement institutes changes and additions but changes only what is absolutely necessary for the additions to work. With a new edition or a revision, all bets are off, and everything's fair game. The game is a mass of interconnected pieces. When you change one, you have to be aware of how that affects all the others. With a supplement, you want the impact (the "footprint," if you will) to be absolutely no bigger than it needs to be. With a revision or edition, it doesn't matter how much you change (to a point), you just need to be aware of all the ramifications. 

It's also not any kind of indictment on the current rules, of which I'm still very proud and very happy with. It's just me playing around with things. In a way, it's like Arcana Evolved in that way--it's a different way to do things, not a condemnation of the existing way. When I wrote about greenbonds and warmains in AE, it wasn't because I didn't like clerics and fighters in the core rules.

The book has a lot of variant rules, but it really hinges around two concepts. One is that there are 20 spell levels, corresponding to character level. This is both a big change (because it has a lot of ramifications) and a small one--because once you learn how simple it is to convert back and forth, it's easy. Basically, you just double the existing spell's level, and if it's a weaker spell, you subtract one from the result. So fireball is now a 6th level spell. This book, of course, does that work for you, providing a framework from the core rules. However, in so doing, I found I had to flesh out the spell list with new spells. The book contains a number of spells from Complete Book of Eldritch Might, Book of Hallowed Might, and AE (converted to core rules). I know some of you have those books, but not everyone does, and I always want the system to be complete. Plus, I created a lot of entirely brand new spells. Lastly, I changed some core rules spells and presented all new versions of them, just because after all this time I think a few of them needed a little work.

The other concept the changes center upon is to allow characters to go longer without needing to rest. To that end, recovering hit points is a bit easier, and spellcasters have so-called "disciplines" that grant them minor powers that are not expended the way prepared spells or spell slots are. In other words, once the wizard casts all his spells, he's still got a few things to do. As an interesting added effect, this also means that a cleric need give up none of their spellcasting resources in order to heal his friends.

If you're playing d20, I hope you'll check it out. I must say, it's been kinda fun to stick my toe back into game design.

One last thing. While this will be available as a pdf on Thursday, next week sometime we're planning on playing around with lulu.com for a print version. So if you really prefer print to pdf, look for that announcement next week.​


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 21, 2008)

I started this thread to compare to what we know about 4th ed. Note, I do _not_ think Mr Cook "borrowed" from 4E. I am open to ideas going the other way. But what I guess really happened is that these guys talk about various problems, think about them on their own, and come up with their own take. 

Just to summarize:

-More HP at first level
-Faster feat progression (though we know now that this relies more on feats then 4E)
-Self healing
-A "bloodied/grace" type condition
-At will abilities for spell casters
-(thanks to the above) Clerics can use more of their spells for non-healing stuff
-Spell/Power level tied to charecter level (an idea that apparently came from the dev of 3E)


As an aside: Monte really seems to love magic. Of course this has new spells _and_ disciplines for spell casters...but thats not a bad thing.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 21, 2008)

Have it, skimmed it, like it.  I'd give it a 9/10 for what it is, which is a collection of optional rules to make the game a little easier, disciplines for spellcasters, and a reworked spell level system.  I like the changes to poison; I like grace/health; I like the fact that the character, not the healer, determines how much magical healing they can receive per day (and  I like that it includes potions); and I like disciplines.

I think I like WotC death/dying over Monte's, but that's an incredibly minor issue, since I prefer Monte's to the current official system.

It is not a complete "3.75"; there's no mention of races; nothing for fighters, thieves, monks, barbarians, etc; and sorcerers are made even more redundant (since wizards now have every round powers).  There is a new class (runeblades) because Monte is obsessed with building the perfect non-gish gish, and not because it really has anything to do with the rest of the book (it doesn't use disciplines or conventional spells, though I assume it uses the same death & dying rules).


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 21, 2008)

Nellisir, how much of the book is Open Game Content?


----------



## Cake Mage (Feb 21, 2008)

Is there any thing for the lowely fighter/ranger/paladins in there?


----------



## Animus (Feb 21, 2008)

Cake Mage said:
			
		

> Is there any thing for the lowely fighter/ranger/paladins in there?




Rangers and Paladins get Disciplines much like the Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Fighters get nothing. But Monte loves magic, so this is not surprising.


----------



## Cake Mage (Feb 21, 2008)

Ok I just bought it anyways

Something just stuck out at me



> However, undead
> Challenge Ratings in the Core Rules work on the assumption
> that no cleric is there to turn them, so no CR modification
> should be necessary




i didn't know that...


----------



## SteveC (Feb 21, 2008)

Animus said:
			
		

> Rangers and Paladins get Disciplines much like the Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Fighters get nothing. But Monte loves magic, so this is not surprising.



He does suggest that with the rules for extra feats (characters get one feat per level) that a fighter might get a bonus feat every level. That sounds like it would work to me...

--Steve


----------



## Psion (Feb 21, 2008)

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> Why does he (HP Dreadnought) have to be "4E folks"




For about the same reason that Razz (pre-banning) seemed  to be "3.5 folks" in the eyes of the 4e-excited.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 21, 2008)

Just bought it as well, and quickly looked it over. First impression is that it is solid work, as usual. I am not sure that I like all the changes he has made (will have to read some more), but will definitely talk to my players about trying out some of the rules (new HP version amongst others).


----------



## Animus (Feb 21, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> He does suggest that with the rules for extra feats (characters get one feat per level) that a fighter might get a bonus feat every level. That sounds like it would work to me...
> 
> --Steve




True, and if I were to run a game with these rules I would allow exactly that, or something along the lines of allowing the d20 Modern Strong Hero talent paths on the fighter dead levels.


----------



## Cake Mage (Feb 21, 2008)

The one thing I don't like is the total disregard for fighter.  

_Yeah, uhh, just give him so more feats.  If hes still too under power...uh..give him some more._

More like. Just use the Book of nine swords.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 21, 2008)

Cake Mage said:
			
		

> The one thing I don't like is the total disregard for fighter.
> 
> _Yeah, uhh, just give him so more feats.  If hes still too under power...uh..give him some more._
> 
> More like. Just use the Book of nine swords.




Or this...


----------



## Roman (Feb 21, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> The book has a lot of variant rules, but it really hinges around two concepts. One is that there are 20 spell levels, corresponding to character level. This is both a big change (because it has a lot of ramifications) and a small one--because once you learn how simple it is to convert back and forth, it's easy. Basically, you just double the existing spell's level, and if it's a weaker spell, you subtract one from the result. So fireball is now a 6th level spell. This book, of course, does that work for you, providing a framework from the core rules. However, in so doing, I found I had to flesh out the spell list with new spells. The book contains a number of spells from Complete Book of Eldritch Might, Book of Hallowed Might, and AE (converted to core rules). I know some of you have those books, but not everyone does, and I always want the system to be complete. Plus, I created a lot of entirely brand new spells. Lastly, I changed some core rules spells and presented all new versions of them, just because after all this time I think a few of them needed a little work.
> 
> The other concept the changes center upon is to allow characters to go longer without needing to rest. To that end, recovering hit points is a bit easier, and spellcasters have so-called "disciplines" that grant them minor powers that are not expended the way prepared spells or spell slots are. In other words, once the wizard casts all his spells, he's still got a few things to do. As an interesting added effect, this also means that a cleric need give up none of their spellcasting resources in order to heal his friends.
> 
> If you're playing d20, I hope you'll check it out. I must say, it's been kinda fun to stick my toe back into game design.




I am primarily interested in the first concept - 20 levels of spells. One spell level per one caster level is something I have wanted to do for a long time, but I don't have the patience to do the necessary work on all spells to decide what level they would be. Still, there is also the problem of giving the players appropriate numbers of spell slots of each level for memorization. Tracking slots for 20 spell levels sounds rather complex and dividing the number of slots per level by 2 reduces character power (by reducing flexibility). I guess the using the spellpoint system would be a viable solution to this conundrum. How does Monte deal with it? 

I am glad Monte is enjoying his brief return to game design - perhaps a more persistent return might happen one day.  

Whether I will get the product or not depends on if I will transition to 4E or not. If I do not (and I expect to know around the time of D&D Experience that should give us a lot of information on the new edition), this product will be for me, but if I do decide to switch then I will not buy it.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 21, 2008)

Sounds awesome,  if i don't hear good things about 4e i might pick this up


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 21, 2008)

I've read through most of the meat of the book now and I think the rules are very well done. I wouldn't mind seeing an alternate PHB with these rules incorporated so that you could just bring copies of this book rather than a whole book of what would function essentially like errata. It really is the "3.75" that would make the game more enjoyable in a lot of ways. It does seem to somewhat mirror a lot of what WotC appears to be doing to make 4E more playable.

Specifically, I like the 20 levels of spells, which is really a core concept to the book. It really simplifies the magic system. I'd imagine that this is similar to how 4E is going to work the spell slot system, and seeing how Monte implemented it, I can only imagine that the 4E version of the same will be very player friendly. I also like how healing, death and dying, and the magic using classes were reworked.

The only things that I feel should be addressed that isn't is attacks of opportunity balancing every special combat move, and simplifying grappling.

I also feel that Monte could have really competed with 4E with this product if he would have toyed with class progressions in a way that would extend the sweet spot out further. Of course extending out the sweet spot is already written into the core rules in the optional rule that would have you to double the XP threshold to gain each level.

Finally, I also like the conversational tone throughout this book. Not only does he present the new rules, but he does so in a manner that's just one gamer to another, and then he often explains his thoughts behind the design decisions.

All in all, I give this a 4.5 out 5 stars.

As an aside, I found it ironic how Monte alluded to the notion that he had planned on stepping out of RPGs altogether, but couldn't resist coming back in to keep tinkering with it. I can completely identify with this as I considered myself out of the design game just a couple months ago, but after about three or four months of having nothing on my plate, I've gotten back into it myself. I've taken on a project of great personal interest for a small publisher that has done some kickass stuff in the past, and I'm having a great time doing it again. No further comment than that, other than that I think once the game design bug has bit, the infection never really goes away. It will go into remission from time to time, but when it comes back, it hits with an all consuming fever, driving you to obsess over it until the project sees completion.... or something like that.


----------



## neceros (Feb 22, 2008)

Having bought, and read, the entire book (excluding details of spells), I can say this is Monte's 3.75. Definitely his crack into 4E material. I wonder if he's had this all along or if he picked it up as he heard bits from 4e.

At any rate I have been wanting rulee like this for quite some time for 3.x. The only thing I think I'd want to change are saving throws. Saving throws just don't scale well at all.

I love the Disciplines (At will abilities more or less than can be upgraded. Think d20 modern and talents, but way way better.) and the spell levels make the rules very interesting.



I can't wait to try these out.


----------



## Arkhandus (Feb 22, 2008)

I sincerely doubt any of it is stuff he 'picked up from 4E'.  Monte's talked about this kinda stuff for quite some time on his website, and this is just the result of him putting those ideas into concrete form.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 22, 2008)

I'd hazard that a nontrivial amount of 4e innovations were stewing in the halls of Wizards for quite some time and that Monte. Monte has previously said that they considered moving to 20 spell levels during the design of 3e but thought the change would be too jarring. Also the significant link between Mike Mearls and Monte also suggests that some of the changes might be connected to discussions between the two.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 22, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Also the significant link between Mike Mearls and Monte also suggests that some of the changes might be connected to discussions between the two.




That's an interesting observation. Monte held Mike Mearls in such high esteem at one point that he hired him as an employee. He said that Mike was one of the few people who truly _gets_ 3rd edition, so I'd think its fairly safe to bet that Mike Mearls could be considered a Monte Protege. The fact that he's one of the main brains behind 4E can't be an accident, so the publication of this book actually raises some very interesting questions, none of which I am willing to voice.

This is a great book though. Wouldn't it be cool if someone actually supported these rules with additional materials?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2008)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> That's an interesting observation. Monte held Mike Mearls in such high esteem at one point that he hired him as an employee. He said that Mike was one of the few people who truly _gets_ 3rd edition, so I'd think its fairly safe to bet that Mike Mearls could be considered a Monte Protege. The fact that he's one of the main brains behind 4E can't be an accident, so the publication of this book actually raises some very interesting questions, none of which I am willing to voice.
> 
> This is a great book though. Wouldn't it be cool if someone actually supported these rules with additional materials?



A lot of the ideas both in 4E and the BOXM have been around in the heads of the D&D design community for a long time. 
Linking spell levels with character levels just feels to natural to not consider it. At Will abilities for spellcasters make sense, since they mimic the "at will" abilities of mundane characters, and can help to remove the innante difference between non-magical resource management and magical resource management.


----------



## Flynn (Feb 22, 2008)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> This is a great book though. Wouldn't it be cool if someone actually supported these rules with additional materials?




That probably depends on the OGL declarations. What is considered Open Game Content?

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 22, 2008)

Animus said:
			
		

> True, and if I were to run a game with these rules I would allow exactly that, or something along the lines of allowing the d20 Modern Strong Hero talent paths on the fighter dead levels.




The fighter variant I came up with allows the character access to Fast, Tough, and Strong Hero talents on the dead levels.  I find this gives fighters more options and variance.  My houserules fighter also gets more skill points (4/level) and automatically receives Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Mastery, and Weapon Supremacy in his or her chosen weapon at the appropriate levels.

These changes have worked well for my campaign.  They've given fighers a lot more flavor and a real fighting chance.


----------



## Bacris (Feb 22, 2008)

Flynn said:
			
		

> That probably depends on the OGL declarations. What is considered Open Game Content?
> 
> With Regards,
> Flynn




Ask and ye shall receive.



> *Designation of Product Identity: *The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version 1.0a: Any and all Malhavoc Press logos and identifying marks and trade dress, such as all Malhavoc Press product and product line names including but not limited to The Complete Book of Eldritch Might, The Book of Hallowed Might, and Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved; any specific characters, monsters, creatures, and places; capitalized names and names of places, artifacts, characters, countries, creatures, geographic locations, gods, historic events, magic items, organizations, and abilities; any and all stories, storylines, histories, plots, thematic elements, and dialogue; and all artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, illustrations, maps, and cartography, likenesses, poses, logos, or graphic designs, except such elements that already appear in final or draft versions of the d20 System Reference Document or as Open Game Content below and are already open by virtue of appearing there. The above Product Identity is not Open Game Content.
> *Designation of Open Game Content:* Subject to the Product Identity designation above, the following portions of The Book of Experimental Might are designated as Open Game Content: the class tables and “Class Features” sections in Chapter One; the feats in their entirety in Chapter Three; the names, spell parameters (range, duration, etc.), and game mechanics of the spells in Chapter Five; the magic items in their entirety in Chapter Five; and anything else contained herein which is already Open Game Content by virtue of appearing in the System Reference Document or some other Open Game Content source.


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 22, 2008)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Ask and ye shall receive.



Are magic items really both open and reserved content?

Still, that's a mighty open book. Go monte!


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Are magic items really both open and reserved content?




That's why they're magic, duh!


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 22, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> The fighter variant I came up with allows the character access to Fast, Tough, and Strong Hero talents on the dead levels.  I find this gives fighters more options and variance.  My houserules fighter also gets more skill points (4/level) and automatically receives Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Mastery, and Weapon Supremacy in his or her chosen weapon at the appropriate levels.
> 
> These changes have worked well for my campaign.  They've given fighers a lot more flavor and a real fighting chance.




That's exactly the same I did for my fighter, except I gave him more feats on the dead levels. What are Hero Talents?


----------



## Bacris (Feb 22, 2008)

Only "proper name" magic items are Product Identity (i.e. Vecna's Eye).

Generic magic items are all open content.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 22, 2008)

Reasons I still might buy this book: 1) we still have a long way to go before 4e is fully playable by everyone, 2) it's inexpensive, 3) it will make for good reading, and 4) There were very likely be some new and interesting concepts in there that can be adopted for 4e play.

Of course, I also have the ulterior motive of wanting Monte's products to do well as a reminder to him that he can make good money, and have fun doing it, if he just comes back to the D&D field as a third party publisher.  I want Ptolus 4e.


----------



## Sqwonk (Feb 22, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> The fighter variant I came up with allows the character access to Fast, Tough, and Strong Hero talents on the dead levels.  I find this gives fighters more options and variance.  My houserules fighter also gets more skill points (4/level) and automatically receives Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Mastery, and Weapon Supremacy in his or her chosen weapon at the appropriate levels.
> 
> These changes have worked well for my campaign.  They've given fighers a lot more flavor and a real fighting chance.




That sounds interesting.  Do you play "feat a level" or make these changes to the more standard rules?


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 22, 2008)

Sqwonk said:
			
		

> That sounds interesting.  Do you play "feat a level" or make these changes to the more standard rules?




These are additions to the standard rules.

Feat a level sounds interesting, but I'm sure it can increase character power quite a bit.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 22, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> That's exactly the same I did for my fighter, except I gave him more feats on the dead levels. What are Hero Talents?




The various Hero Talent Trees are taking from d20 Modern.  

You can find descriptions of these abilities under Basic Classes here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/msrd


----------



## Gallo22 (Feb 22, 2008)

I picked mine up today and looked at it over lunch.  It's worth every penny and I plan I using quite a bit of it, especially since I'm one of those not changing over to 4th Edition.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 22, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> The various Hero Talent Trees are taking from d20 Modern.
> 
> You can find descriptions of these abilities under Basic Classes here:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/msrd




Thanks,

Cheers


----------



## Roland55 (Feb 22, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Reasons I still might buy this book: 1) we still have a long way to go before 4e is fully playable by everyone, 2) it's inexpensive, 3) it will make for good reading, and 4) There were very likely be some new and interesting concepts in there that can be adopted for 4e play.
> 
> Of course, I also have the ulterior motive of wanting Monte's products to do well as a reminder to him that he can make good money, and have fun doing it, if he just comes back to the D&D field as a third party publisher.  I want Ptolus 4e.




"I want Ptolus 4E."

Your mouth ... to the gods' ears!


----------



## Meowzebub (Feb 23, 2008)

Ptolus is likely the one thing that will keep one of my groups from switching, at least in the near future. We are only 6th level and are loving the setting.  If conversion is an issue, we will likely just continue with 3.X


----------



## Khairn (Feb 23, 2008)

Roland55 said:
			
		

> "I want Ptolus 4E."
> 
> Your mouth ... to the gods' ears!




Thankfully it looks like neither Monte or the Ptolus community are thinking of working on a switch, at least at this time.  Ptolus is already a masterpeice (IMHO) and breaking it just to handle 4E's paradigm's would be loss.  Again IMHO.

As for the new rule tweaks from Monte, I've picked them up and am reading them tonight.  Some look great, while others a little less so.  Certainly worth the price.  Man, what a steal!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 23, 2008)

Meowzebub said:
			
		

> Ptolus is likely the one thing that will keep one of my groups from switching, at least in the near future. We are only 6th level and are loving the setting.  If conversion is an issue, we will likely just continue with 3.X



I suspect that conversion of the adventure material in the Big Book, Banewarrens and Night of Dissolution will be among the first things posted on Monte's board this summer.

I will certainly be submitting my conversions -- created as needed -- to Delver's Square.

I suspect, in the end, conversion won't be a big issue for the most part.


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 5, 2008)

Now that we've seen the preview of 4e, 3.75 looks like a much better route for those whom like more of a rpg game.  What I've done is combined this book, with elements of the book of iron might.  Pretty fun so far.


----------



## Jaws (Mar 5, 2008)

You can now get the PDF for 25% off. GM's day sale through the 6th.

http://enworld.rpgnow.com/

Or in print:

http://www.lulu.com/content/2134528


j.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Mar 5, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Now that we've seen the preview of 4e, 3.75 looks like a much better route for those whom like more of a rpg game.



Okay, I'll bite. Would you care to elaborate that?


----------



## Starman (Mar 6, 2008)

Matrix Sorcica said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll bite. Would you care to elaborate that?




Never take the troll bait! Didn't your mother teach you anything?   

Some people think 4E more closely resembles CCGs or MMORPGs than a true PnP game. How's that for abbreviations?


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 6, 2008)

*re*

Good for Monte. I'm incorporating more house rules myself. Now that I'm sure I'm not upgrading, I can now work to implement changes I have wanted for a while without worrying future conflict with the new edition of DnD.


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 6, 2008)

Starman said:
			
		

> Never take the troll bait! Didn't your mother teach you anything?
> 
> Some people think 4E more closely resembles CCGs or MMORPGs than a true PnP game. How's that for abbreviations?



No troll, no bait, that's why I"m in the 3.5 forum. Experimental Might resembles an advancement of 3.5, not a new system and personally, I think 3.5 better conveyed the RPG elements I enjoy.  Combine the material here with Mearl's Iron Might book ,and you got a pretty good complete system to run a game off of.  

The spell system is nice, as well as the seperation of HP.  I also really enjoyed the mechanics of the newer spells. I also don't have to throw away all my books as there is a guide for converting classes and spells.  Very nice touch. After 2 weeks with this book, I"m convinced Monte has made a masterpiece. I'd say it's D&D 3.99


----------



## Starman (Mar 6, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> No troll, no bait, that's why I"m in the 3.5 forum. Experimental Might resembles an advancement of 3.5, not a new system and personally, I think 3.5 better conveyed the RPG elements I enjoy.  Combine the material here with Mearl's Iron Might book ,and you got a pretty good complete system to run a game off of.
> 
> The spell system is nice, as well as the seperation of HP.  I also really enjoyed the mechanics of the newer spells. I also don't have to throw away all my books as there is a guide for converting classes and spells.  Very nice touch. After 2 weeks with this book, I"m convinced Monte has made a masterpiece. I'd say it's D&D 3.99




Oh, I wasn't really being serious or anything. I haven't had a chance to really dive into the BoXM, but I also really like what I've seen. I think 4E has some intriguing elements and some that I'm not sure about, but I'm going to withhold judgment until I've got the books in my hands.


----------



## Harr (Mar 6, 2008)

I bought this thing, read it, thought it over, and whie I like it, I don't really see what the big deal is.

A huge chunk of the book is taken up with spell descriptions and alternative powers for some classes similar to PHB2. What's left is given to consolidating a few skills (Hide and Move Silently into Sneak, etc), everyone gains a feat every level, the 20 levels of spells, and the hit points thing.

Don't get me wrong, they're fine house rules. I'd use them. But I have trouble seeing the parallel to anything 4e, or to anything that could replace 4e, beyond the most fleeting and general of comparisons. SWSE was a lot closer to the mark, IMHO.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Mar 6, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> No troll, no bait, that's why I"m in the 3.5 forum. Experimental Might resembles an advancement of 3.5, not a new system and personally, I think 3.5 better conveyed the RPG elements I enjoy.  Combine the material here with Mearl's Iron Might book ,and you got a pretty good complete system to run a game off of.
> 
> The spell system is nice, as well as the seperation of HP.  I also really enjoyed the mechanics of the newer spells. I also don't have to throw away all my books as there is a guide for converting classes and spells.  Very nice touch. After 2 weeks with this book, I"m convinced Monte has made a masterpiece. I'd say it's D&D 3.99



You can do better than that 
You're really not elaborating on why 3.5 is more of a "rpg game" (roleplaying game game   )


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 7, 2008)

Matrix Sorcica said:
			
		

> You can do better than that
> You're really not elaborating on why 3.5 is more of a "rpg game" (roleplaying game game   )



Hahaha, not even falling for that one. I'll say that it has more rpg elements I enjoy and leave it at that.  4e may have rpg elements but from what i read i would not enjoy them.

One of the biggest things about d and d is casting spells, so a good portion of the book covers the changes in the spells, the changes in the spell casting and the changes in the spell classes.  The feat, poison and leveling rules are also pretty cool.  The diciplines are very well thought out as well.

Though, if you're looking for a complet esystem, you got to combine it with the book of iron might which introduced iron heroes like maneuvers and stunts for martial classes.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 21, 2008)

Monte Cook has announced in his blog  that he is doing a sequal:

So one month ago, we released Book of Experimental Might....Well, the response was pretty overwhelming for our little ebook... So much so that I thought it would be fun to do another one. A smaller one. The idea came from a few people who liked BoXM but wondered why there was so little in there for non-spellcasters, particularly fighters... 
I'd been kicking around ideas for scalable feats for quite a while too, and so I thought I'd play around with some fighter-focused ideas....I'll be discussing some of the material that will go into Book of Experimental Might 2, or whatever we'll call it, a bit later.

There is more in the blog, including some links to related posts.


----------



## ShadowX (Mar 21, 2008)

As I said in another thread, this ranks as among the worst things Monte  ever wrote and Malhavoc ever published (this coming from a Monte fan).  I have seen more innovative house rules posted on these forums that also displayed far more design work and a higher quality of thought.  I wouldn't mind paying for house rules, heck every supplement is the equivalent of someone's house rules, but I expect something I couldn't throw together rather quickly myself.  Furthermore, as a 3.75 (it doesn't matter if this was Monte's intention, people have labeled it as such) it fails in literally every respect by not even addressing minor problems well.


----------



## adamda (Mar 21, 2008)

If I wasn't such a huge 4e fanboy from all the promises of grandeur that have been given (and my own insane optimism), I'd probably eat up all that's in the BOXM. As it is, the at will powers he wrote up are amazing and if my DM wasn't already afraid of my love for tweaking the game, I'd have our group use them.

I don't know if I'm a fan of the way the spellcasting is set up, I prefer his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved work more. I'll buy Monte's fighter add on, but I doubt I'll use it for awhile unless 4e is hated by my friends or I.


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 24, 2008)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> As I said in another thread, this ranks as among the worst things Monte  ever wrote and Malhavoc ever published (this coming from a Monte fan).  I have seen more innovative house rules posted on these forums that also displayed far more design work and a higher quality of thought.  I wouldn't mind paying for house rules, heck every supplement is the equivalent of someone's house rules, but I expect something I couldn't throw together rather quickly myself.  Furthermore, as a 3.75 (it doesn't matter if this was Monte's intention, people have labeled it as such) it fails in literally every respect by not even addressing minor problems well.



Did you read the book or do you just not like Monte Cook. I read a lot of books and I've yet to see one that covers a compatible 20 level spell chart in it, and take the libirty to supply spells that would be affected by it.  

Don't feel bad that no one wanted to buy your posted house rules.


----------



## psionotic (Mar 24, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Did you read the book or do you just not like Monte Cook.




er, did you even read the post?  It specifically self-identified as "coming from a Monte fan."  

I haven't read BoXM yet myself, and am not weighing in on it, but if you're going to attack someone's opinions, you should at least read their post...


----------



## Khairn (Mar 24, 2008)

Hey ShadowX ... if you don't like BoXM because it doesn't fit into your style of game play ...  I can understand that.  If you don't like BoXM because you don't want to spend money on someone elses house rules ... that sounds like a valid reason as well.  But not liking something because it didn't address problems it wasn't even looking to solve seems kinda ... skewed just a bit, dontcha think?

BoXM was exactly what Monte said it was.  A collection of limited house rules that he enjoyed using at his gaming table.  Its never been promoted as anything more than that.  Your assertion that it "fails in literally every respect by not even addressing minor problems well" is ludicrous.  How can it fail at something it was not created for?

That's like saying 4E will be a complete failure because it doesn't address the use of powered armor on alien worlds.



Personally I liked what Monte wrote in BoXM, even though I won't be using much of it in my campaign as it doesn't quite fit.  But it was interesting to see how Monte tweaks rules for his personal games rather than writing them for the "consumer".  As for this new book, I'll take a look and add what I like and ignore what I don't.


----------

