# Monte Cook reviews 3.5



## Pielorinho (Jul 10, 2003)

Monte Cook  has some words to say about 3.5, and they're not all good

Daniel


----------



## Enceladus (Jul 10, 2003)

Just skimming over it, a lot of the changes Monte disagrees with, I like. 

Ah well.


----------



## Krug (Jul 10, 2003)

He has very valid arguments. I agree about facing; why the need for it to be square? So does a 20' long serpent occupy a 20' square? 

He also gives an inside view of what the Revised edition was intended to do. 

Thanks Monte. Enlightening.


----------



## Enceladus (Jul 10, 2003)

The only really major issue I have:



> * The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you. Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition.




Uh oh Monte, don't you have a line of miniatures coming out for your game as well?


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 10, 2003)

I rather think the new square facing makes about the most sense of any of their 3.5 changes.  But then again, regardless of his immense talent I disagree with Monte on a lot of things.

EDIT: Spelling.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Jul 10, 2003)

Some of his points are a little foolish - Ogre's do NOT need 30 feet to walk abreast.  They can do it in 15 feet, they'll just suffer movement penalties.  But he also makes a lot of cogent points.  Very much worth reading.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 10, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> *He has very valid arguments. I agree about facing; why the need for it to be square? So does a 20' long serpent occupy a 20' square?
> 
> He also gives an inside view of what the Revised edition was intended to do.
> 
> Thanks Monte. Enlightening. *




Didn't he say he wasn't at all involved in 3.5's revisions?


----------



## Krug (Jul 10, 2003)

Enceladus said:
			
		

> *The only really major issue I have:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh Monte, don't you have a line of miniatures coming out for your game as well? *




He didn't make it so it was pretty much essential. WotC is definitely trying to make miniatures integral to the game.


----------



## Talath (Jul 10, 2003)

What's that sound?



> See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning.
> 
> Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.




That's the sound of all the D&D conspiracy theorists having a party


----------



## gfunk (Jul 10, 2003)

In general a very well-written and eloquent article.

Props, Monte!


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jul 10, 2003)

For some reason I keep getting the review to Magical Medieval Society when I click the link.  Even when I hit refresh.  Would it be improper to ask someone to cut and paste the text here?

Does anyone else have this problem?


----------



## Benben (Jul 10, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> *He has very valid arguments. I agree about facing; why the need for it to be square? So does a 20' long serpent occupy a 20' square?
> *




Serpentine body types will probably be the same as 3.0, where the Monster Manual gives their facing when coiled, which incidentaly is always square.


----------



## Fenris (Jul 10, 2003)

Did anyone else catch the fact that he mentioned that PrC generate XP penalties for multi-classing? Nothing on Olgar's thread. Is it just not explict, or as Monte said, since it is not explict PrCs are not exempt?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 10, 2003)

I agree with Monte that the weapon size change is pointless and inelegant - the 3.0 version is much better.

I disagree completely with him over the square facings. Long creatures and "no facing in combat" rules simply didn't make sense on any level. This neatly solves that problem (and incidentally nicely solves the mounted combat problem that they introduced by putting the rider on the *back* of the horse!)

I also disagree with him over reducing the hour-per-level buff spells. I never liked the idea of buffing up first thing in the morning and then wandering around with all that on. Using spells on a per-combat basis suits my thoughts better.

My thoughts on prestige classes are probably going to be very similar to Montes here - I feel that so much potential in the idea of prestige classes as originally presented in 3.0 has been thrown away in the interests of providing different kinds of PC powerups. I'm probably being unfair, but I think they've missed the chance to tie a lot of campaign flavour into peoples games.

The NPC tables, IMO, would have been much better if they had been designed like Starwars or d20 Modern, giving some fully statted up examples at a selection of levels (4th/8th/12th etc). I've always found the existing ones useless (they chose such stupid feats for them!) and I don't have high hopes for the new ones to be any better!

An interesting review, though.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 10, 2003)

gfunk said:
			
		

> *In general a very well-written and eloquent article.
> 
> Props, Monte! *




Eloquent, maybe.  I just would have truly preferred that was written by someone other than Monte.  I just can't get past the conflict of interest(s).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 10, 2003)

I may not agree with some of the things Monty says, but its definatly a good read. I think the biggest thing though, and he's definatly write on this one though it was more implied than anything.
Good or bad...we'll cope with it.


----------



## Tsyr (Jul 10, 2003)

Thank you, Monte, for saving me $90.


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 10, 2003)

His list of the bad things, and my thoughts:



> * Facing (now called space) is now always square. In order to facilitate miniatures play (apparently), horses are no longer 5 feet by 10 feet when you put them on a grid, they're a 10-foot square. The horse has to "squeeze" to get through a 5 foot wide space. Three 9-foot-tall ogres require a 30-foot-wide passage in order to walk abreast. D&D, with its already abstract combat system, did not need this extra layer of abstraction. Not to mention the fact that this changes game play in strange ways, such as how many of the charging ogres you can get with your fireball spell.




I agree with this one.  I hate the idea of a horse now taking up a 10x10 square.




> * The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you. Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition.




I play with miniatures, so it doesn't bother me.  But I think there was already plenty of rules support for miniatures, so I don't see the need to make them _more_ important.




> * Now weapons are organized by handedness rather than by size. Perhaps the worst change and almost certainly the largest step backward 3.5 has to offer, the new way of handling weapons causes a lot of problems. As you know, in 3.0, weapons were categorized by size, and that size was compared to your own size. So a weapon of your size was a one-handed weapon for you, a weapon one size larger was a two-handed weapon, and a weapon one size smaller was a light weapon. Now, weapons are categorized by handedness, and they do different damage based on size. Thus, it's no longer the case that a longsword is effectively a greatsword for a Small character and a short sword for a Large character. Now, there is a small longsword, a medium longsword (and by implication) a large longsword. So what's the difference between a large longsword and a medium greatsword? About 20 gp. Aside from that bit of humor, though, there's actually a serious design problem here. Because in 3.0, a halfling picks up a magical longsword and uses it in two hands -- no problem. In 3.5, that longsword (presumably a medium longsword) is -2 in the halfling's hands because it's the "wrong size." The DMG doesn't hint one way or the other, but logic assumes that you've either got to roll randomly to determine the size of the magic sword in the treasure hoard, decreasing the chances that any given character will actually find treasure he can use -- and that's not fun. It's more complicated, it's clunky, and it hurts game play.




This is my least favorite change in 3.5 for exactly those reasons.  Bleh.  Sure, a Longsword for a human probably wouldn't be exactly like a Greatsword for a halfling.  But there are _far_ worse realism sacrifices in D&D than this!  What's the point?




> * The NPC tables in the DMG are now more open ended, and thus less useful. The NPC tables used to be there when you needed a 7th-level fighter or a 13th-level rogue right then and there, in the middle of a game. They came completely statted up and equipped. Now, if you want to use them in that way, you've got to stop in the middle of the game and decide which weapons the fighter uses and spend 8,000 gp on gear for the rogue. Thus, they are useless for the original goal. I guess the designers felt the charts were "boring," because you got the same 7th-level fighter every time. Now, they are clearly meant to be used as pre-game development aids to help make NPCs. Unfortunately, each 7th-level fighter is still going to be an awful lot like every other one using this method. What's more, if you're not in the middle of the game, there's no reason not to just make one up from scratch (or use one of the excellent character generators out there, many of which are free online).




I've only used the NPC tables once or twice, so I could care less.  OTOH, the one or two times I did use them were for NPCs I needed *right then*, not for character building (for that, I used PCGen).  




> * The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened. Talk about changing the way the game is played. Cat's grace used to last an hour per level, mostly so you could cast it, adjust your stats, and not have to worry about it until you rested (again, it was that way to make game play easier and more fun). Now it lasts one minute per level, which means it sees you through one encounter, or two if you rush in between them. These spells have been rendered nearly worthless -- in particular a spell like endurance, now bear's endurance, for extra hit points are far more useful over the long term than just for one encounter, particularly for those who really need it, like wizards.




The buffs probably were a bit too powerful.  I like the new buffs better, I think.




> * Lots of the new feats are the kind that just add a +2 bonus to two skills. For this we paid $90 for new books?
> * Inevitables are now in the Monster Manual. I (and a legion of 2nd Edition Planescape fans) miss the clockwork modrons these guys supplanted for some reason. Chalk it up to personal preference.




Yeah.  And I doubt these feats will see hardly any play in my group.




> * Taking levels of a prestige class now apparently forces you to pay multiclassing XP costs. Whether intentionally or by accident, the prestige class chapter no longer states that they are free of this cost.




Holy crap!  Can we get a confirmation on this?  This makes classes like the Mystic Theurge arguably balanced.




> * Some of the new prestige classes are uninteresting (eldritch knight, mystic theurge) and poorly designed. A cleric just falls into the requirements of the hierophant and any 5th-level sorcerer can become a dragon disciple. The requirements for the eldritch knight are also a joke. I won't rehash the whole mystic theurge debate here, but I will complain that there are far too many spellcasting prestige classes -- conceptually, having the archmage, the loremaster, and the Red wizard seems rather silly.




This has been a common complaint.  The new PrCs are uninteresting with laughable requirements and "pushing the envelope" level benefits.  




> * Lots of the "new" material in the DMG is just pulled in from other products -- prestige classes from the various 3.0 supplements, a big chunk of the Manual of the Planes, and the traps from Song and Silence. Lots of D&D fans already own this material.




I know I do.  And, personally, I'd prefer if they'd just left it out and let me buy $20 books.




> * There are no playtester credits. At all.




Sucks for the playtesters.  If there were any! 




> Things that should have changed, but didn't:
> 
> 
> * Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains. You still have to be 17th level to make a 1st-level pearl of power.




Amazing they couldn't even get such basic errata included.




> * Speaking of magic items, while the rules for pricing magic items have changed (in some cases, particularly those of constant items or 1 round/level spells), most of the prices haven't conformed to these changes.




What a surprising oversight.  The last six to eight months of books have gotten me to start wondering if WotC has _any_ editors left at all.




> * Keoghtom's Ointment: Why is this a wondrous item and not a potion/oil?




Eh.




> * Still no good guidelines for creating prestige classes, just more of them in the DMG.




Eh.




> * And the big one: The vast majority of the art in the books is the same. So we're expected to plunk down $90 for three books that cost us $60 three years ago, and most of the art is the same?




The price _is_ high.


----------



## Synicism (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Enceladus _*Uh oh Monte, don't you have a line of miniatures coming out for your game as well? *




That may well be, but miniatures should be a cool option for a roleplaying game, not a requirement.

I'm in a 3.0 game now and GM is trying to play without miniatures or even a map. Not only have a lot of feats (like Combat Reflexes) been rendered pointless, but the game is actually *slower* without them.

Using "squares" instead of feet and stuff like that is just stupid. I mean, if I am going to play a roleplaying game, I want a roleplaying game, not Mage Knight.


----------



## Terraism (Jul 10, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *Thank you, Monte, for saving me $90. *



Ditto.  Kinda.  Until my inability to not own the newest of the books kicks in and I buy them for the shiny new covers.  Against my better judgement.


----------



## Krug (Jul 10, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Didn't he say he wasn't at all involved in 3.5's revisions? *




Yeap, not in the rules revisions. But in his article he said that a Revised was supposed to come out in 2004/2005, not so soon, and with all new artwork.


----------



## BiggusGeekus@Work (Jul 10, 2003)

The one change that bugs me is the dependence on minis.  I will be fine.  Younger players in cramped college dorm rooms or in the back of the library during lunch will be boned.


----------



## Jody Butt (Jul 10, 2003)

Talath said:
			
		

> *What's that sound?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sound of all the D&D conspiracy theorists having a party  *




I knew it all along.  It certainly is satisfying when your conspiracy theories turn out to be exactly true.  Vindicated, at last.

Party at my place, tonight.  Bring your AD&D2E rulebooks.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 10, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Didn't he say he wasn't at all involved in 3.5's revisions? *




He said he was involved in the decision that there was going to be a set of revised rulebooks, but he wasn't involved in the actual design process.

Of all the problems he complains about, I agree with a few:

The weapon sizes thing. I'd have much rather they changed the rules so that weapon sizes were on the same scale as character sizes, just to make it easier to work out the AC of a longsword lying on the ground (for instance). I can't imagine why they went with the system they did - it seems to suffer from all the problems he suggests, and doesn't actually seem to be superior to the old system in any way...

The caster level prereq for magic items (although I could swear that I read somewhere it had been abandoned...)

NPC tables. Mind you, they pretty much always sucked - obviously people forgot they were supposed to be making generic NPCS, and attempted to give them some 'character' (they gave them some really odd gear for the class, made some very suboptimal choices - like the crossbow for the bard etc)

Things I totally disagree with him on:
Facings - odd-shaped monsters just didn't work in a game with no facing.

Focus on miniatures - personally, I can't see playing D&D without some form of map. Inevitably mapless combat has led to confusion and boring boring combats "I attack" "Now I attack" "I flank for a sneak attack" etc. And that's if the DM is being reasonable - it doesn't take much for the DM's differening take on a solution to end up with characters dying to truly stupid decisions, and then everything having to unwind as people explain what they REALLY meant to do...

Along with that goes measurement units. It's possible that in the US, measurements in feet mean more than squares. It's certainly not the case in most of the rest of the world. One is just as abstract as the other. Furthermore, whether you write the game in terms of squares or feet, someone has to do converting (either the mapless players convert from squares to feet, or players with a map have to convert from feet to squares). Having both is probably best.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 10, 2003)

I agree, the "squares" vs. "feet" decision was stupid.  How often have you done 1 sq = 10' or some other scale, until you closed combat?

That will be difficult now!

I'd like to hear WotC's reasoning behind the weapons size chages.  It may be a good reason I just can't think of


----------



## Gargoyle (Jul 10, 2003)

I can agree or at least understand many of his points.  But there are a couple of things on his list of Bad Things I can't help but disagree with:



> * Lots of the "new" material in the DMG is just pulled in from other products -- prestige classes from the various 3.0 supplements, a big chunk of the Manual of the Planes, and the traps from Song and Silence. Lots of D&D fans already own this material.




What's wrong with taking good material from earlier products and making it core material?  Even if I own all that stuff, which I do, it's nice to have the best of those products consolidated and made more official.  I'd be extremely upset if core-worthy material from the MotP and the Epic Level Handbook didn't make it into the new books.  I suppose this goes back to "is this a new edition or a revision".  If you see this as a revision only, then I might agree, but as he said 3.5 is clearly labeled as a hybrid of the two.   Given that definition of the product, even if you disagree with the wisdom of making it that way, they clearly did the right thing by including good material from earlier non-core products.  



> *  The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened. Talk about changing the way the game is played. Cat's grace used to last an hour per level, mostly so you could cast it, adjust your stats, and not have to worry about it until you rested (again, it was that way to make game play easier and more fun). Now it lasts one minute per level, which means it sees you through one encounter, or two if you rush in between them. These spells have been rendered nearly worthless -- in particular a spell like endurance, now bear's endurance, for extra hit points are far more useful over the long term than just for one encounter, particularly for those who really need it, like wizards.




I'm glad the "breakfast" spells are a thing of the past in my campaign.  I feel the fixed bonus on the buff spells makes adjusting your ability scores easier, since it's the same every time, and makes the spells more useful more often.  Players simply have to think and plan a bit more to get the use out of them, instead of handing the DM a list of spells they intend to cast each day at dawn.  But I'll stop beating this horse right now and just agree to disagree. 

Stuff I agreed with:

Anyway, I found myself agreeing with most of his article  (Although it read like a bittersweet rant/rave, rather than an objective and informative review).  His best point is about the new books being "halfway" between a revision and a new edition.  The biggest problem with 3.5 is that it's in-between a revision and a new edition.  If you look at it as a revision, there were too many changes.  If you look at it as a new edition, there were not enough changes, and some changes come off as band-aids to see you through till 4th edition.  I think I agree that the product's definition was a strategic mistake, and that they should have just started working on 4th edition for a release at a later date, or just release a revision with no actual rule changes.  

His second best point is about mastery of the game.  The revision has indeed slowed us down a bit so that we are second guessing some things.  That's probably the worst part of the new books.  The silver lining for my group, and one that Monte with his mastery of the rules wouldn't notice, is that my group knows the rules better than we ever did.  I don't know how many times I've read some obscure "new" little rule in 3.5, and flipping open my 3.0 books discovered that nothing had changed.  I just didn't know the rule that well to begin with. 

Good work Monte, it was a good read.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jul 11, 2003)

me thinks the SRD will become my friend ... cheaper to print out sections that I like and will use rather than buy all new books.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Jul 11, 2003)

I'm not surprised that Wizards planned 3.5 from the beginning. Indeed, I expected it once it overhauled the Star Wars game again.

It could be more silly. Remember those 1996-or-so reprintings of the core books, just to drive up the cost? Those were worthless.

Hasbro is a corporation. Its interest is making money. It doesn't give a damn about the game. It needs upgrade costs. As much as one of those adventures Monte extolled would be nice, it doesn't have the sales expectation of a new edition.

This is about quantity, not quality. Though I like most of what I have seen about the revision (save the arcane weapon size rules, the nerfed Spell Focus and a few other things), there will be a 4.0 sooner rather than later.


----------



## Gargoyle (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Eloquent, maybe.  I just would have truly preferred that was written by someone other than Monte.  I just can't get past the conflict of interest(s). *




But it's his unique viewpoint as a 3.0 insider that makes it interesting.  You can't have that and perfect objectivity at the same time.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But it's his unique viewpoint as a 3.0 insider that makes it interesting.  You can't have that and perfect objectivity at the same time. *




True.  And I didn't say he wasn't qualified to have an opinion (as if any of us are!).  Just that he has conflicts of interest.  More than just hurt pride that 3.0 was changed, I mean.  He has a current and ongoing financial stake that is threatened by 3.5.

So is his opinion off base?  I don't know, DMs can decide that for themselves and their campaigns.  I just wish it hasn't come from him.

(When 20% of the article was justifying why he isn't just whining and why it isn't because he has a conflict of interest, I think it disproves both points.  EDIT: That does NOT make him wrong, but does make his opinions suspect imho.)


----------



## BiggusGeekus@Work (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *(When 20% of the article was justifying why he isn't just whining and why it isn't because he has a conflict of interest, I think it disproves both points.  EDIT: That does NOT make him wrong, but does make his opinions suspect imho.) *




I feel the opposite way.

I thought it addressed the issue of bias and better allowed the reader to come to an impartial conclusion.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

I already knew I liked 3.5.  So I did not expect Monte to change my mind.

However, I was waiting to see what insights he would have.  Wondering if some inside knowledge would change my position.

It did not come close.

Honestly, most of the "bads" were trivial.  Some I agree with.  Most I either disagree with or just don't see any point in getting worked up over.

The "revelation" that a business was planning on long term strategy is laughable to me.  Those evil greedy jerks have been planning for 3 years to produce a revision and offer it up for free in the SRD.   The idea that this should even be mentioned in a conspiritorial _{nudge, nudge} they're pulling one over on you _ tone just seems childish and petty.  I mean, even if it is completely true, if you like the revision and are happy to buy it, then no harm is done.  If you don't like it, don't buy it and STILL no harm is done.  I can not see why this knowledge would make a reasonable person mad unless they were looking for an excuse.

And if the "design need" was absent, then the "financial need" would go unmet.  I could care less about WotC's financial need.  I will buy 3.5 because the design value (which is a more approriate term than "need") is there.  

If they were thinking about profits from this 3 years ago, is it possible that this consideration went into deciding to continue to fund 3E development at that time?

And square facings actually fix one of the biggest logic gaps in 3E.

Lastly, everyone seems to be treating this as Monte's slam of 3.5.  I did not see that at all.  He simply listed things he likes and things he does not.  He put more explanation behind the dislikes.  But that is only reasonable.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 11, 2003)

Get all your friends to buy, buy, buy!  If they don't sell enough we will see 4.0 by Christmas!  And you will all be buying the core books again!  



I still think 4.0 will be more of a collectable mini game than a classic RPG.  What you you "PC" has isn't determined by the game play but by how many booster packs you have!!
A lot of revenue there. 

Jody, can I bring my 1e books to the party?


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jul 11, 2003)

I just don't understand the anti-miniature folks. I mean, in a game where spells and weapons have very specific spreads and ranges, how do you keep track of anything without miniatures?

Sure, you can "wing it" and not pay attention to specific spreads, lines of effect, and whatnot--but then you're not playing D&D, you're playing "D&D Lite". 

Me, I see the greater focus on minis as a very good thing. Minis and a battlemat quickly end the age-old problems of hearing "Where am I? Can I see that guy? Am I in range? Can I get by him? If I cast fireball, will I catch my friends in the blast?" and similar annoying questions at the start of every player's turn.

Using miniatures = good.

Or, more accurately: using miniatures during combat = good.

-z


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *Lastly, everyone seems to be treating this as Monte's slam of 3.5.  I did not see that at all.  He simply listed things he likes and things he does not.  He put more explanation behind the dislikes.  But that is only reasonable. *




Reading through that entire review, I didn't see it as him slamming the Revision at all. He simply stated his opinion, and in the end, he seemed to say that its still helping D&D, so therefore: A good thing, even if some of the details are 'bad'.


----------



## Renaissance Man (Jul 11, 2003)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> *I just don't understand the anti-miniature folks. I mean, in a game where spells and weapons have very specific spreads and ranges, how do you keep track of anything without miniatures?
> 
> Sure, you can "wing it" and not pay attention to specific spreads, lines of effect, and whatnot--but then you're not playing D&D, you're playing "D&D Lite".
> *



I predict that remark will go over like a fart in church, but I got your back, Z...


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Reading through that entire review, I didn't see it as him slamming the Revision at all. He simply stated his opinion, and in the end, he seemed to say that its still helping D&D, so therefore: A good thing, even if some of the details are 'bad'.
> 
> *




Yeah, I agree.  When I said "everybody" I should have specified that I meant the general attitude in this thread (as I perceive it).


----------



## Enceladus (Jul 11, 2003)

Renaissance Man said:
			
		

> *
> I predict that remark will go over like a fart in church, but I got your back, Z... *





"He who farts in church, sits in his own pew."


----------



## SneakyB (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> True.  And I didn't say he wasn't qualified to have an opinion (as if any of us are!).  Just that he has conflicts of interest.  More than just hurt pride that 3.0 was changed, I mean.  He has a current and ongoing financial stake that is threatened by 3.5.*




I fail to see how Arcana Unearthed (or any other Malhavoc product for that matter) is threatened by 3.5.  All of the products that have been published and are to be published should integrate fine into your game regardless of whether or not you are running 3.0 or 3.5.  As with any product to supplement this game, you usually need to refine it further to fit into the specifics of your particular campaign.  

I guess what bothers me about your statement is that you seem to feel that Monte is unfairly critical of the product due to what YOU perceive as a threat to his well-being.  I don't see that, nor, based on what I've read from Monte so far does it appear that he feels "threatened".



> *So is his opinion off base?  I don't know, DMs can decide that for themselves and their campaigns.  I just wish it hasn't come from him.
> 
> (When 20% of the article was justifying why he isn't just whining and why it isn't because he has a conflict of interest, I think it disproves both points.  EDIT: That does NOT make him wrong, but does make his opinions suspect imho.) *




Again, I respectfully disagree.  I think his opinion, and "insider knowledge" offer keen insight into the decisions made to release 3.5 as early as it was.  Coupled with his background into the "how's and why's" in the 3.0 design, it further validates his perspectives.  

Personally speaking, I think pretty highly of Monte, the job he does, and the quality of work his imprint puts out.  I also have a great deal of respect for his integrity, and, to me, this is proven by him laying the foundations of his criticisms before examining, in detail, issues that he feels were not handled properly.

Bottom line, for me, at least is that while I have pre-ordered 3.5, I can already see a number of rules that will be house-ruled back to the way they were.  But that's just me.  My campaign, my decision.  Everyone out there is free to pick and choose what they like and implement it or fall back to Rule 0.


Dan


----------



## KenM (Jul 11, 2003)

Well I'm going to take the 90.00 I was going to spent on the 3.5 books and switch to Hackmaster.   I totally agree that you need some sort of grid/ display showing where the characters are. You need to know who is in the fireball area of effect.


----------



## Enceladus (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah, I agree.  When I said "everybody" I should have specified that I meant the general attitude in this thread (as I perceive it). *




Could you be overly sensitive?  I don't see anyone slamming it at all. I see a discussion over the article though. And that's, ok.....


----------



## Gargoyle (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> True.  And I didn't say he wasn't qualified to have an opinion (as if any of us are!).  Just that he has conflicts of interest.  More than just hurt pride that 3.0 was changed, I mean.  He has a current and ongoing financial stake that is threatened by 3.5.
> 
> ...




Any time a publisher posts anything publicly about someone else's product, there is a conflict of interest.  But he didn't hide that conflict of interest, he went out of his way to make certain the reader was aware of it.  I don't think he had any hidden agendas in the article.  I just think he had some things to get off his chest about 3.5, and that's what he did.


----------



## mearls (Jul 11, 2003)

All I have to say is that in my home campaigns will use the D&D 3.0 rules for weapon size. If I have any say in it, the books I design will also use those rules.

The other thing that bugs me a bit is listing distances in squares. I don't mind listing both feet and squares, but just squares will be annoying.

I'm intensely curious to see if 3.5 will prompt some d20 publishers to mix and match the rules they use between the two versions.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

Respectfully, I don't think that him saying he isn't biased makes that so.  But I don't really care to argue over what Monte's motives are or are not, since neither you nor I can know that.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

Wow this thread is really active!


----------



## seankreynolds (Jul 11, 2003)

Re: the XP penalty for multiclassing, that is apparently an error. I asked WotC about it a couple of weeks ago and I was told that prestige classes do not count toward a multiclassing penalty. When that section of the DMG was worked on, it must have accidentally gotten cut.

{I'm intensely curious to see if 3.5 will prompt some d20 publishers to mix and match the rules they use between the two versions.}

I've been saying for some time now that a lot of people will use 3.5 as a source of common "house rules" but will continue to play 3.0.

I'll be posting my own commentary (adding to Monte's) on my site later tonight.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Enceladus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Could you be overly sensitive?  I don't see anyone slamming it at all. I see a discussion over the article though. And that's, ok..... *




I went back and re-read the thread.  You are correct.  A few particular posts stuck out at more more than they should have (in other words, I was over-sensitive).

Sorry about that.

I retract that claim.


----------



## Jody Butt (Jul 11, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Get all your friends to buy, buy, buy!  If they don't sell enough we will see 4.0 by Christmas!  And you will all be buying the core books again!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You betcha!


----------



## Henry (Jul 11, 2003)

Only one thing leapt out at me:

The new Weapon sizes? 

BLAAEEECCCH!

The way it was described make me think I'll have more trouble with that than I EVER did with Attacks of Opportunity!

However, my opinions and Monte's have diverged on many other points. His dislike of 1 hour to 1 minute spells I enjoy, because unlike him I've seen rampant abuse of those in my games - people empowering them, extending them, making them last for OVER a day's time, and generally players acting like they are ENTITLED to a 3-point boost to all stats for 24 hours. As much use as they got, I might as well have abolished the spells, and just gave each player a 3-point stat boost to all abilities. Now, they give a tangible benefit, they last for one combat or two subsequent combats, and they aren't active all day.

Also, too, I like the facing - long-facing creatures used to give me fits with the 5x10' set-up - flanking, attacking creatures from one side to the next, etc.

In all, I appreciate his article, because it gave me some good in-depth perspective. (It also made me shed a tear for the good ol' days when Peter and Ryan used to run WotC and the Tabletop dept.)

And hopefully, he is right, and we will all come out stronger for the revisions.


----------



## SJ (Jul 11, 2003)

*weapon size*

Does anyone have a technical justification for the weapon size changes in 3.5? Most of the other things I don't have a problem with, but that one just sounds stupid.

Is it supposed to be 'better' or 'simpler' than the light-same-two method we have in 3.0? I don't see how....


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jul 11, 2003)

SneakyB said:
			
		

> *
> I guess what bothers me about your statement is that you seem to feel that Monte is unfairly critical of the product due to what YOU perceive as a threat to his well-being.  I don't see that, nor, based on what I've read from Monte so far does it appear that he feels "threatened".
> *




Actually he has stated in several places that one reason he resents the revision is that it cuts into the audience for his products. But he also hates companies for making decisions based on financial well being, so...


----------



## Azure Trance (Jul 11, 2003)

Obviously I was a bit misguided. For some reason I held the illusion that most, if not hopefully all the changes would be good. I'm going to have to do some thinking over this. 

SeanKR, when it is up, please post so we can hammer your site


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Jul 11, 2003)

> Re: the XP penalty for multiclassing, that is apparently an error. I asked WotC about it a couple of weeks ago and I was told that prestige classes do not count toward a multiclassing penalty. When that section of the DMG was worked on, it must have accidentally gotten cut.




Whew!  Thanks Sean!  One of the PCs in my game is playing a H-elf who's multi-classing 4 classes before he goes into bladesinger.  I would have rule 0'd it, but still, it's nice to know you've got cannon backing you (which, really, is the basis of the heated debate surrounding 3.5).

I also agree with Mr. Reynolds in that 3.5 will bring a wave of "house-ruling" to D&D tables, the likes of which probably haven't been seen since 2e.  While I appreciated Monte's article, I'll stick with just about everything in 3.5 (except for the weapon sizing thing  ).

Sorry, rant over.  Play on!


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> What's wrong with taking good material from earlier products and making it core material? Even if I own all that stuff, which I do, it's nice to have the best of those products consolidated and made more official.




Because it adds to the page count, and drives up the price.  I don't need the Arcane Trickster reprinted.  


As for whether or not Monte is biased, the answer is "of course." There's no such thing as an ubiased opinion (it's a basic anthropological principle).  I think his review was very insightful, though.

BryonD said:



> The "revelation" that a business was planning on long term strategy is laughable to me. Those evil greedy jerks have been planning for 3 years to produce a revision and offer it up for free in the SRD. The idea that this should even be mentioned in a conspiritorial {nudge, nudge} they're pulling one over on you tone just seems childish and petty.




What, you mean considering that WotC has said over and over that it wasn't a financially based decision?  It didn't seem to be a particularly conspiratal tone, though.  It was simply a "here are the facts" tone.  As for it being free, I tried to pay d20 Modern that way, and it just doesn't work.  I guarantee that 99% of the people playing 3.5 will be buying the revised PHB, at least.

And keep in mind that the SRD doesn't include everything.  They're not giving 3.5 away or anything. 

Sean Reynolds said:


> I've been saying for some time now that a lot of people will use 3.5 as a source of common "house rules" but will continue to play 3.0.




I plan to use 3.5, and houserule some stuff (like the ridiculous weapon size rules) back to 3.0.  But my campaign will definitly be a hybrid.


----------



## KenM (Jul 11, 2003)

mearls said:
			
		

> *The other thing that bugs me a bit is listing distances in squares. I don't mind listing both feet and squares, but just squares will be annoying.
> 
> I'm intensely curious to see if 3.5 will prompt some d20 publishers to mix and match the rules they use between the two versions. *




   The 3.5 monsters that the previewed on the WOTC site, the face/ race is still given in 5 x 5. I think what they mean by square is now every creature has a square area.


----------



## taliesin52 (Jul 11, 2003)

> I still think 4.0 will be more of a collectable mini game than a classic RPG. What you you "PC" has isn't determined by the game play but by how many booster packs you have!!





Its pretty much here already.  Expect new books, one for each class with PrC's, abilities, magic items, feats, etc....  which will now be known as a "Codex™."  These Codecies™ will be in increacing levels of power as they're published with whichever one's most current being more powerful than all others before.  

Second, your miniatures which are required and in a very TSR/WTC move will be trademarked "Combat Figurines™" (in a move to make fans of The Nazi™ and Tapping™ cards happy) will be specific to your character type.  You'll be required thusly to have a Combat Figurine™ that's seen weilding two weapons if your character does.  What's more, your character must dress identically to his Combat Figurine™.

Further, a new edition will be released every year.  This edition will do its best to nullify and relegate away any and every rule/class/ability of the previous edition (although it may be identical to an edition published some time ago).   If you want to continue playing in public you'll need the most current form of the rules (although you may play at home and in secret with previously published inferior rules).  What's more, you'll only be allowed to discus the most current edition online in officially sanctioned messageboards/forums.  Of course ones like Enworld which are not owned by WotC (or an affiliate) will still exist, but you'd not want to talk there anyhow since its not as good as the official™ message board and is mostly populated by those freaky old guys who only play older editions and grumble about attack matricies (the Official™ Messageboards will automatically filter out such archaic jargon such as this in your best interests).

In time the concept of printing new books and editions frequently will be abolished.  Instead you'll buy an E-book™.  This book will lock down after a few months and you'll be required to slide your credit card through the first chapter to pay for an update (which will also conveniently update all characters you have and will be accurate and bug free, much like WotC/TSR's editors).   

Ok, that wasn't very serious...  Well ok its a slight fear of mine but its mostly satire from someone who sees this literally happening in the miniature gaming industry and is amazed that it works so well for certain unnamed *cough GW cough* companies.  

That said, I do agree with almost everything (95%) of what Monte's said.


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> Actually he has stated in several places that one reason he resents the revision is that it cuts into the audience for his products. But he also hates companies for making decisions based on financial well being, so...




I find that _very_ hard to believe.  I read his site every time it's updated and frequent his message boards, and I've _never_ seen him say that.  

Could you cite where he said this?


----------



## KenM (Jul 11, 2003)

SpiderMonkey said:
			
		

> * I also agree with Mr. Reynolds in that 3.5 will bring a wave of "house-ruling" to D&D tables, the likes of which probably haven't been seen since 2e.   *




  With all these house rules, it will give WOTC the excuse they need to do another edition after 3.5.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jul 11, 2003)

Hardhead said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I find that very hard to believe.  I read his site every time it's updated and frequent his message boards, and I've never seen him say that.
> 
> Could you cite where he said this? *




No, but if you do a search of the publisher's forum you should find a thread wherein he talks about it. He said that even if 90% of the customers switched, that's still a loss of 10% of his customer base.


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> No, but if you do a search of the publisher's forum you should find a thread wherein he talks about it. He said that even if 90% of the customers switched, that's still a loss of 10% of his customer base.




I can't search.  Anyway, he can easily write material that works under both editions.  I doubt it's either/or.  Though, if I'm understanding you right, he was concerned over fracturing of the buyer base in the post you're talking aobut.  Which, I think, is a valid concern.

But he didn't seem to dislike the revision's mechanics at all.  He seemed to be generally _positive_ in his review.  He said "most of the changes it presents are good," after all.  It didn't seem to me that he disliked it, except for the timing.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: weapon size*



			
				SJ said:
			
		

> *Does anyone have a technical justification for the weapon size changes in 3.5? Most of the other things I don't have a problem with, but that one just sounds stupid.*



Possibly to adress things like classes that get specific proficiency lists instead of just weapon classes. The most relevant example would be the rogue, where medium rogues get a whole bunch of weapons the small ones don't.


----------



## Gargoyle (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *Respectfully, I don't think that him saying he isn't biased makes that so.
> *





Agreed.



> *
> But I don't really care to argue over what Monte's motives are or are not, since neither you nor I can know that. *




Of course not, but we all make judgements of people based on what we know of them.  I've listened to him speak at cons many times, read many of his posts and web site articles, and have met him at GenCon.  From these experiences, I've come to the conclusion that Monte is two things:  an honest person, and a true gamer at heart (that is, he really loves D&D and gaming in general).  So I trust him to be sincere.  Of course, I could be wrong, but obviously I don't think I am. 

Maybe I'm a Monte fanboy.  I don't think so.  For instance,  I think he could have written a more objective and informative review of 3.5.  It was more of a bittersweet rant/rave than a professional review.   And as noted above, I disagreed with some of his points.  I enjoyed reading the article because of the insider's insight, but as a "review" it wasn't really that great.  

I don't think we're really arguing are we?  It struck me as more of a discussion.  Sorry if I sound accusatory or inflammatory.  I agree that there is nothing here to argue about.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2003)

After reading about the revisions to the rules, reviews from other sites and after Monte and Sean's words I'm starting to get a houserule vibe from all this that I hadn't gotten until now.  Maybe it's because of the respect I have for Monte or maybe he just made a few points I hadn't considered before...

For about .5 seconds there he made me think about *not* buying the new books.  I have been completely on board since I started reading about the changes in 3.5.  I still think many of the changes are good (especially to the classes) but there is stuff in there that I don't like at all.

I'm less happy now that I have learned about the original 3.5 plan.  I would have liked to have seen a combination of the 2 (new artwork for example and _no_ errata).  Not that I mind the timing of this revision, but it would have been nice to see a few more tweaks to the current system (the most obvious being the caster level requirements for magic item creation which I understand but never liked).  One of my major concerns is learning about this oversight to PrCs/XP penalties (I don't actually care about this oversight as I hardly ever allow published PrCs in my games).  If they missed that then we could be in for more errata than I would care for.

I was in no way a 'master' of 3.0 but I was getting there.  I actually haven't DM-ed much D&D in the last year so getting back into it with new rules isn't such a bad thing.  I am still purchasing the books day one as there seems to be more good than bad.  I agree with the majority of Monte's issues but many of them won't impact my game much if at all.

I just hope there isn't a ton of errata and that we don't see 4th edition for at least 4-5 years.  That new D&D game should be playtested to death and should include freelancers like Monte, Sean and many of the professionals that frequent this very website.

John "Not as enthused about 3.5 as he was before writing this response but still buying it" Crichton


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 11, 2003)

Re: minis

This is a topic that really deserves its own thread, but to just to be clear:  when the rules create a greater dependency on minis that's fine for "established" players and even very helpful.  But not for games that are played at the spur of the moment or in cramped quarters.  These are conditions that are common in the junior high - college range.

Basically, I'm saying: "Think of the children".  Which is kind of dopy, but I still think it is a concern that needs to be voiced.


----------



## theoremtank (Jul 11, 2003)

It's nice to see a viewpoint from one of the games designers.  We far to often do not get to hear their honest opinion as they cannot speak out contrary to their companies interests.

Some thoughts on 3.5 changes...

*+2 to two skills feats:* This was a page wasting design decision for 3.5.  They could have just created one feat that grants +4 skill points.  You could spend these skill points on class skills and get either +4 or two +2's, or cross-class skills and get only a +2, etc.  Then, leave it up to the player to create a clever name for his characters' new skillfullness.  Or for a mechanic more inline with what these 3.5 feats give you...Just create one feat that allows you to allocate 2 ranks to two different skills.

* Weapon Sizing: *  What I do like about the 3.5 weapon sizing rules is that it seems to promote the idea that small and large sized races make weapons designed for themselves.  I don't think in all campaigns that halflings always relied on using human weapons.  I'm sure they have their own weaponsmiths too.  The 3.0 weapon rules didn't promote this concept and lacked choices of weapons for smaller creatures.  Now I'm not saying the 3.5 sizing mechanic is a good rule change, only now that it seems to promote a more realistic mechanic for weapons.

*Minis:*  I personnally don't like minis because you have to buy so many of them and they supply the visual as opposed to your imaginiation.  I prefer to use things like push-pins or other types of symbolic placeholders as I do still find some type of grid to be essential if you want combat to be strategic.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *Respectfully, I don't think that him saying he isn't biased makes that so.*




His saying that would indeed not make it so ... except that's not what he said.  He said that he _is_ biased, and that he's trying (which is all you could expect) to write around that.  I accept your respectful intent, but you're not representing his statement fairly.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Hardhead said:
			
		

> What, you mean considering that WotC has said over and over that it wasn't a financially based decision?




Reference that please.  
Are you REALLY saying that you (or anyone else) ever thought a business was doing something without financial basis?????  (And why should they?)



> It didn't seem to be a particularly conspiratal tone, though.  It was simply a "here are the facts" tone.




Here are the facts. (Oh and by the way "I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad".  Nope, no "tone" there.  



> As for it being free, I tried to pay d20 Modern that way, and it just doesn't work.  I guarantee that 99% of the people playing 3.5 will be buying the revised PHB, at least.
> 
> And keep in mind that the SRD doesn't include everything.  They're not giving 3.5 away or anything.




Every single person who buys 3.5 will do so by free choice.  And I do not know of a single 3.5 change that will not be in the SRD.  If you have 3E and you get the 3.5 SRD I believe those two things will include everything.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2003)

*Mini's*



			
				BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> *Basically, I'm saying: "Think of the children".  Which is kind of dopy, but I still think it is a concern that needs to be voiced. *



I think you are a poopeyhead.  

But seriously - I agree that there should be some kind of WotC supported freestyle way of running combat without miniatures that is either packaged with the DMG rules or distributed as a free handout.  Being forced to play on a grid is no fun.

I like that they included better mini-rules and I will surely use them.  But a non-battlemat option should be in there.  I couldn't imagine running a game my first time out with all a DM has to do and worry about minis.  Of course I started with 2e so what do I know....


----------



## Kerrwyn (Jul 11, 2003)

Listening to him, I think my games are going to be a 3.0/3.5 crossbreed.  Almost like 3.25, if you will.  Some things about 3.5 rock (like rangers- yeah!), but some I don't like or confuse me (like weapons now.  I thought I'd like the idea, but oh well.).


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *If you don't like it, don't buy it and STILL no harm is done.*




This is perhaps the single most commonly-repeated untrue statement about the revision.  WotC is ceasing to support version 3.0.  I expect the vast majority of third-party d20 publishers to do likewise, and frankly there are very few of them out there in the first place whose product quality I trust anyway (Monte's imprint being one of them).

While I am willing to believe that this is not true for everyone, I for one require support materials to fit D&D into my busy schedule.  Therefore, if I prefer to play 3.0, I most certainly _am_ harmed by their lack of support, since my ability to play the game is seriously impaired.  Monte addresses this fact directly in his commentary.  3.5 is now _the_ D&D that's available.


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> Reference that please.
> Are you REALLY saying that you (or anyone else) ever thought a business was doing something without financial basis????? (And why should they?)




Sure.  Check the original announcement where they say "The past two years have been filled with consumer feedback that has provided us with a wealth of information for making our books richer in depth and gameplay -- in short, more opportunity for every fan to enjoy the game a little more.

"After gathering this invaluable input from the fans and putting it together with our own observations, it was clear that some targeted revisions in the three core rulebooks would go a long way toward creating the requested improvements in the D&D roleplayer’s gaming experience. Therefore, we have incorporated fan comments and suggestions into upcoming revised editions of the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual."

Here, they're obviously saying that design revisions was the main impetus behind the revision - _not_ a financial reason.

Of course, I'm sure no one is naieve enough to think money played no part, but there's a difference between it being a secondary reason, and it being the main reason.



> Here are the facts. (Oh and by the way "I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad". Nope, no "tone" there.




If it makes people mad, it makes them mad.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't know the reasons.




> Every single person who buys 3.5 will do so by free choice. And I do not know of a single 3.5 change that will not be in the SRD. If you have 3E and you get the 3.5 SRD I believe those two things will include everything.




Of course, if you want to be able to use their future products, you'll need 3.5...

Oh, and Illithids, Slaad, Githyanki, Githzeari, and the "tanar'ri and baatezu" names will not be in the SRD, at least.


----------



## dren (Jul 11, 2003)

> But seriously - I agree that there should be some kind of WotC supported freestyle way of running combat without miniatures that is either packaged with the DMG rules or distributed as a free handout. Being forced to play on a grid is no fun.




That's what these posting boards and other d20 publishers are for.  
WoTC is great for broad rules and ideas, but when it comes down to it, it really has to be that holistic all emcompasing style, to get the big sales figures that Hasbro is pushing them for. It's then up to other d20 publishers to run with a specialized idea which may not appeal to everyone but big enough so the smaller publisher will eke out a profit. IMVHO, of course.


----------



## Agback (Jul 11, 2003)

Synicism said:
			
		

> *I'm in a 3.0 game now and GM is trying to play without miniatures or even a map. Not only have a lot of feats (like Combat Reflexes) been rendered pointless, but the game is actually *slower* without them.*




Indeed! I have noticed this with lots of different games. A grid and counters not only encourages the use of abilities and tactics, it also makes things run much quicker and more smoothly.

But I always use counters of some sort rather than expensive miniatures.

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Buttercup (Jul 11, 2003)

I'm no longer certain that I'll buy the 3.5 books.  I'll download the SRD and work through it first, I think.  At best, I'll be running a hybrid game.  I should add that none of my players are enthusiastic about buying the 3.5 PHB anyway, so I won't have an argument if I decide not to upgrade.  

I'm really glad that I spent so much money on 3e stuff, because I've got enough of it to last me pretty much forever, if it should come to that.


----------



## Jody Butt (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is perhaps the single most commonly-repeated untrue statement about the revision.  WotC is ceasing to support version 3.0.  I expect the vast majority of third-party d20 publishers to do likewise, and frankly there are very few of them out there in the first place whose product quality I trust anyway (Monte's imprint being one of them).
> 
> While I am willing to believe that this is not true for everyone, I for one require support materials to fit D&D into my busy schedule.  Therefore, if I prefer to play 3.0, I most certainly am harmed by their lack of support, since my ability to play the game is seriously impaired.  Monte addresses this fact directly in his commentary.  3.5 is now the D&D that's available. *




Exactly!

Some people don't seem to understand this.  In order for me to use future D&D products, I will have to deal with 3.5 (as all future products will be 3.5).  What if I don't want to deal with 3.5?  Too bad, sucka.  Cough up the cash, or be left behind in D&D history with not support for the game you play.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 11, 2003)

I didn't actually get to his reviews of the different rules, as I fundamentally disagreed with his set up sections before that. I don't agree with the way he defines what "should" be in a revision and what "belongs" in a new addition. 

I completely disagree on the "mastery" issue. Right now, if you head over to the rules forum and ask how to do a build, guys can lay out every feat for the next 10 levels, and half your skill points as well. But how long do we really think it'll take those folks to work up a tricked out 3.5 PC? 3 weeks? a month?

Also, the issue of revamping your PC...I play a monk. It doesn't get much more different than that. And my PC is done. I'm 3.5 ready, as I was last week when we gamed. There is absolutely no difference in _playing_ my monk, just a few new numbers here and there. 

So I didn't even get to the ticky-tacky stuff.

PS


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2003)

I copied the list of Monte's "The Bad Things" into a word processor. I then cut out the things I really didn't think were bad. My list has just 2 items -- one I'm not sure if I dislike or not (squre facings), and the other has been explained as an error (xp penalty for PrC). That takes my list of Monte's "The Bad Things" down to about 0.5. I'm feeling better about the revision now. Of the things an experienced game designer pointed at as bad, nothing will really affect my game.

And just to touch on something that many people seem to have a problem with:

The new weapon sizes actually seem to make things easier for me. For instance, think of a Huge greataxe. It's a greataxe for what size creature in 3.0? Now for 3.5? 

For me, the new catagorization is quicker and easier. A Huge greataxe is a greataxe for a Huge creature in 3.5. In 3.0 you had to remember that sizes scaled up or down -- a Huge greataxe is a greataxe for a Large creature in 3.0. The weapon size and creature size didn't match up in 3.0. Now they will.

Quasqueton


----------



## Jody Butt (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: Mini's*



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> *I think you are a poopeyhead.
> 
> But seriously - I agree that there should be some kind of WotC supported freestyle way of running combat without miniatures that is either packaged with the DMG rules or distributed as a free handout.  Being forced to play on a grid is no fun.
> 
> I like that they included better mini-rules and I will surely use them.  But a non-battlemat option should be in there.  I couldn't imagine running a game my first time out with all a DM has to do and worry about minis.  Of course I started with 2e so what do I know....   *




YES!  100 times YES!  Why can't they do something like this?  Oh, yeah, because if will hurt the sales of their collectible miniatures.

GURPS has a basic combat (which doesn't require grids) and advanced combat (for those who want grids).  Why, oh why, couldn't WotC do something like this instead of forcing a miniatures wargame down our throats?


----------



## Storminator (Jul 11, 2003)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> *
> <SNIP>
> 
> The new weapon sizes actually seem to make things easier for me. For instance, think of a Huge greataxe. It's a greataxe for what size creature in 3.0? Now for 3.5?
> ...




I would think this sort of change would work for Monte, as his new game has small, tiny, and large base PC races. 

PS


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 11, 2003)

Jody Butt said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Some people don't seem to understand this.  In order for me to use future D&D products, I will have to deal with 3.5 (as all future products will be 3.5).  What if I don't want to deal with 3.5?  Too bad, sucka.  Cough up the cash, or be left behind in D&D history with not support for the game you play. *




While its a drastic way of saying it, that's the truth...always has been the truth. Don't like 3.5? Then do what the people who don't like 3E do...play what YOU want. That's the beauty of D&D. No, you won't get new supplements and such, but that's the price you pay for not keeping up with the times. Its not the most wonderful thing to say, but its the truth, and this Revision isn't the start of some new trend. Its always been like this.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 11, 2003)

While I generally love Monte's work (and SKR's, too), I find that I'm not particularly moved by his criticisms.

Did we need 3.5?  Not really.  Deep down, you can't argue that we need any game revision.  Did WOTC need it?  Probably.  But I'm a cynic -- I expect money grubbing corporations to be money-grubbing corporations, and try and get every dollar from me they can.  Even given WOTC's track record, I think they've given more credit to the gaming public than many other companies do their customers in other lines of work (*cough* Microsoft *cough*).  So that doesn't bother me one bit.

Yeah, there are a lot of minor changes; his point about game mastery is well taken.  But at the level of detail of a lot of the changes, they're just that -- details, not changes in the mechanics.  So far, we've been playing a 3.0/3.5 mix game and it really hasn't been an issue.  Besides, I think there's a certain amount of fun in learning a rules set for the first time, and getting used to the quirks.  It's easier this time, 'cause 3.5 is so close to 3.0.  And I don't really expect to be switching back and forth between systems (heck, even AU is 3.5 compatible! If Monte wanted to make a real statement, he could have stuck with 3.0 only ...).  Much as I love 1E, I haven't played it in 15 years.

As to his specific criticisms of changes, the only one I think I may agree with is the weapon size change -- but as I haven't read the full system, I'm withholding judgment until I see it.  Since we know there's a variant in the DMG that's essentially the old system, I can always use that if I don't like the new system.

Anything added to the books is pure gravy -- even if it was printed elsewhere first.  WOTC could have just revised the rules and added the errata without adding anything else; they didn't have to add anything.  +2/+2 feats are everywhere now; might as well put them in the core rules.  Prestige Classes?  I personally couldn't care less -- it's the one 3E mechanic I hate the most.

Square facings?  It has its problems, but so does the 5x10 facings.  I've used both in game now, and frankly have had fewer problems with the square facings than the older system.  As I see it -- having read those sections -- the "focus" on minatures helps explain combat mechanics.  The game isn't any more dependent on miniatures now than it was before (posters here have implied this; Monte didn't).  Besides, I already play with minis in my game -- but people who don't aren't required to use them any more now than they were before.

NPC tables?  Please -- a minor gripe at best.  Given the electronic products available, free and otherwise, they're a waste of space.  Put out a new Rogue's Gallery if you need generic NPC tables.

Other changes -- well, maybe there's things I would do differently if I were in charge, but I'm not, and no one really cares what I think anyway. 

It's good to hear what designers think about game design, no question.  But I was hoping for a little more insightful, substantial criticism from the writer of the DMG (hey -- how come no opinions about the new DMG layout?)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 11, 2003)

> * Taking levels of a prestige class now apparently forces you to pay multiclassing XP costs. Whether intentionally or by accident, the prestige class chapter no longer states that they are free of this cost.




Now this is interesting. I'd like to say "this is a cool change" but it's probably an omission (and then I'd have to duck endless flames). (I can't think of any favored prestige classes for any races.)


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *I completely disagree on the "mastery" issue. Right now, if you head over to the rules forum and ask how to do a build, guys can lay out every feat for the next 10 levels, and half your skill points as well. But how long do we really think it'll take those folks to work up a tricked out 3.5 PC? 3 weeks? a month?
> *




I don't see what this has to do with the issue of mastery, so I suspect you may be misunderstanding it.  It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of gurus to plumb the game.  There will certainly be "masters" of 3.5 very quickly, but that's not what we're talking about. 

One of the play values that _ordinary_ people get out of a game is the feeling of expertise they get from learning the rules.  Changing just enough rules to call all knowledge into question seriously undermines that play value.  This is one of the things that turned an awful lot of people off of Magic: The Gathering.  The frequency of minor revisions left them confused and irritated, because they could never feel comfortable in their ability to acquire rewarding rules knowledge.


----------



## Azure Trance (Jul 11, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Now this is interesting. I'd like to say "this is a cool change" but it's probably an omission (and then I'd have to duck endless flames). (I can't think of any favored prestige classes for any races.) *




Someone on Montes message board did indeed say it was an omission. 

Whew.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> I don't think we're really arguing are we?  It struck me as more of a discussion.  Sorry if I sound accusatory or inflammatory.  I agree that there is nothing here to argue about. [/B]




No, not at all!  I didn't want it to turn into one, though.   Still don't


----------



## ForceUser (Jul 11, 2003)

After reading Monte's review I'm unhappy with some aspects of what's coming and intrigued by others. I'm not sold on 1 min/level animal buffs or the new weapon size rules. Like him and several others in this thread I'll probably end up playing with a mix of 3.0 and 3.5. Bleh.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *No, you won't get new supplements and such, but that's the price you pay for not keeping up with the times. Its not the most wonderful thing to say, but its the truth, and this Revision isn't the start of some new trend. Its always been like this.
> *




Yes, that is "the price you pay."  And if you can't pay that price?  You can't play the game, that's what.  Yes, it's always been like this.  That still doesn't make "if you don't like it, don't buy it" a satisfactory response to someone whose favorite game is being replaced.

So, I don't really see what your point is.  That we have to accept it when bad things happen to us that are beyond our control?  Philosophically true, but not really relevant when the subject at hand is people fallaciously claiming that no bad thing is even happening to anyone.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> *Re: minis
> 
> This is a topic that really deserves its own thread, but to just to be clear:  when the rules create a greater dependency on minis that's fine for "established" players and even very helpful.  But not for games that are played at the spur of the moment or in cramped quarters.  These are conditions that are common in the junior high - college range.
> 
> Basically, I'm saying: "Think of the children".  Which is kind of dopy, but I still think it is a concern that needs to be voiced. *




Graph paper!!  Heck, I already treat the combat board as a reference map more than a "game environment", so I'd easily survive off graph paper if I needed to for a pickup game.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

theoremtank said:
			
		

> *
> 
> +2 to two skills feats: This was a page wasting design decision for 3.5.  They could have just created one feat that grants +4 skill points.  You could spend these skill points on class skills and get either +4 or two +2's, or cross-class skills and get only a +2, etc.  Then, leave it up to the player to create a clever name for his characters' new skillfullness.  Or for a mechanic more inline with what these 3.5 feats give you...Just create one feat that allows you to allocate 2 ranks to two different skills.*




That is probably the best "new" idea I've seen in a long time.  I may just houserule that


----------



## Henry (Jul 11, 2003)

What some call mastery, I call comprehension.

I may be an aberrant case, but it only took me and my players a few weeks to get the basics to 3E down back in 2000, and 3 to 4 months to get fluent in it. Some people have more difficulty with certain things (Op Attacks, Grappling, Sorcerers and Metamagic), but on the whole, "mastery" is judged by comprehending the majority of the rules (about 55% or so) so that even new gamers can make good guesses about how a rule is handled.

Apple (and to a lesser extent Microsoft) are two companies who know and LIVE on the concept of user comprehension. It's why you can pick up any Apple or Micorosoft program and know how to use at least 50% of its features within 30 seconds of use. Back in "ye olden times" every software package had different commands, and even the way to save and open a file varied from DOS program to DOS program. 

So, there is something to be said for mastery, but in some cases (the new DR mechanic being one of them), the new mechanic is IMHO so improved over the old one, that it was worth the learning curve. Likewise with the toning down of many wizard spells, and the restructure of barbarians, rangers, and bards.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

Oddly, people still play 1e.   



			
				Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is perhaps the single most commonly-repeated untrue statement about the revision.  WotC is ceasing to support version 3.0.  I expect the vast majority of third-party d20 publishers to do likewise, and frankly there are very few of them out there in the first place whose product quality I trust anyway (Monte's imprint being one of them).
> 
> While I am willing to believe that this is not true for everyone, I for one require support materials to fit D&D into my busy schedule.  Therefore, if I prefer to play 3.0, I most certainly am harmed by their lack of support, since my ability to play the game is seriously impaired.  Monte addresses this fact directly in his commentary.  3.5 is now the D&D that's available. *


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *I may be an aberrant case, but it only took me and my players a few weeks to get the basics to 3E down back in 2000, and 3 to 4 months to get fluent in it.  *




Sure, but I think Monte makes a very insightful point about this.  Any change should either be incremental, so that your old knowledge remains essentially valid, or large enough that you know that very little of your old knowledge applies (which is what happened between 2.0 and 3.0).  Somewhere in between, you get a change where you are compelled to rely upon your old knowledge, but find that it often betrays you.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is perhaps the single most commonly-repeated untrue statement about the revision.  WotC is ceasing to support version 3.0.  I expect the vast majority of third-party d20 publishers to do likewise, and frankly there are very few of them out there in the first place whose product quality I trust anyway (Monte's imprint being one of them).
> 
> While I am willing to believe that this is not true for everyone, I for one require support materials to fit D&D into my busy schedule.  Therefore, if I prefer to play 3.0, I most certainly am harmed by their lack of support, since my ability to play the game is seriously impaired.  Monte addresses this fact directly in his commentary.  3.5 is now the D&D that's available. *




I still claim it is 100% true.

A) I already have everything I will ever need to play more game time than I possibly can.  

B) Monte says AU is both 3E and 3.5 compatible.  I 100% believe that.  Because 99% of the time the revision does not matter.

3.5 is now *the* D&D.  So?  People still play 1e.  People will likewise still be able to play 3E.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 11, 2003)

> * Facing (now called space) is now always square. In order to facilitate miniatures play (apparently), horses are no longer 5 feet by 10 feet when you put them on a grid, they're a 10-foot square. The horse has to "squeeze" to get through a 5 foot wide space. Three 9-foot-tall ogres require a 30-foot-wide passage in order to walk abreast. D&D, with its already abstract combat system, did not need this extra layer of abstraction. Not to mention the fact that this changes game play in strange ways, such as how many of the charging ogres you can get with your fireball spell.




This is interesting ... I didn't know ogres couldn't "overlap".
OTOH square facing means it's possible for a horse or other long creature to turn around properly, actually make AoOs, etc.



> * The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you. Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition.




I'm not seeing this as a barrier. Converting to feet from squares takes me about a fifth of a second.



> * Now weapons are organized by handedness rather than by size. Perhaps the worst change and almost certainly the largest step backward 3.5 has to offer, the new way of handling weapons causes a lot of problems. As you know, in 3.0, weapons were categorized by size, and that size was compared to your own size. So a weapon of your size was a one-handed weapon for you, a weapon one size larger was a two-handed weapon, and a weapon one size smaller was a light weapon. Now, weapons are categorized by handedness, and they do different damage based on size. Thus, it's no longer the case that a longsword is effectively a greatsword for a Small character and a short sword for a Large character. Now, there is a small longsword, a medium longsword (and by implication) a large longsword. So what's the difference between a large longsword and a medium greatsword? About 20 gp. Aside from that bit of humor, though, there's actually a serious design problem here. Because in 3.0, a halfling picks up a magical longsword and uses it in two hands -- no problem. In 3.5, that longsword (presumably a medium longsword) is -2 in the halfling's hands because it's the "wrong size." The DMG doesn't hint one way or the other, but logic assumes that you've either got to roll randomly to determine the size of the magic sword in the treasure hoard, decreasing the chances that any given character will actually find treasure he can use -- and that's not fun. It's more complicated, it's clunky, and it hurts game play.




This is going to drive people nuts. I don't take treasure straight from a treasure-generating program I've generated - picture rolling up a +4 flaming burst greatsword when you've got a fighter who put three (or five in 3.5) feats into his battleaxe.



> * The NPC tables in the DMG are now more open ended, and thus less useful. The NPC tables used to be there when you needed a 7th-level fighter or a 13th-level rogue right then and there, in the middle of a game. They came completely statted up and equipped. Now, if you want to use them in that way, you've got to stop in the middle of the game and decide which weapons the fighter uses and spend 8,000 gp on gear for the rogue. Thus, they are useless for the original goal. I guess the designers felt the charts were "boring," because you got the same 7th-level fighter every time. Now, they are clearly meant to be used as pre-game development aids to help make NPCs. Unfortunately, each 7th-level fighter is still going to be an awful lot like every other one using this method. What's more, if you're not in the middle of the game, there's no reason not to just make one up from scratch (or use one of the excellent character generators out there, many of which are free online).




Those charts list how much $ the character has left over - it's pretty easy to figure out what to do with that gear.



> * The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened. Talk about changing the way the game is played. Cat's grace used to last an hour per level, mostly so you could cast it, adjust your stats, and not have to worry about it until you rested (again, it was that way to make game play easier and more fun). Now it lasts one minute per level, which means it sees you through one encounter, or two if you rush in between them. These spells have been rendered nearly worthless -- in particular a spell like endurance, now bear's endurance, for extra hit points are far more useful over the long term than just for one encounter, particularly for those who really need it, like wizards.




Yup. Just like fixing Haste. Changing the game.




> * Lots of the new feats are the kind that just add a +2 bonus to two skills. For this we paid $90 for new books?




That's a good point. This should go in a web enhancement.




> * Inevitables are now in the Monster Manual. I (and a legion of 2nd Edition Planescape fans) miss the clockwork modrons these guys supplanted for some reason. Chalk it up to personal preference.




Um ... okay.




> * Taking levels of a prestige class now apparently forces you to pay multiclassing XP costs. Whether intentionally or by accident, the prestige class chapter no longer states that they are free of this cost.




Whoops.



> * Some of the new prestige classes are uninteresting (eldritch knight, mystic theurge)




The definition of prestige class has changed, so I wouldn't call them "uninteresting". They are fulfilling a role that previous prestige classes didn't fulfil.



> and poorly designed. A cleric just falls into the requirements of the hierophant and any 5th-level sorcerer can become a dragon disciple. The requirements for the eldritch knight are also a joke. I won't rehash the whole mystic theurge debate here, but I will complain that there are far too many spellcasting prestige classes -- conceptually, having the archmage, the loremaster, and the Red wizard seems rather silly.




Yeah ... there are lots and lots of PrCs out there.




> * Lots of the "new" material in the DMG is just pulled in from other products -- prestige classes from the various 3.0 supplements, a big chunk of the Manual of the Planes, and the traps from Song and Silence. Lots of D&D fans already own this material.




Agreed. Most of this doesn't affect me - except MotP.




> * There are no playtester credits. At all.




This has to be annoying.




> Things that should have changed, but didn't:
> 
> 
> * Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains. You still have to be 17th level to make a 1st-level pearl of power.




Whoops.




> * Speaking of magic items, while the rules for pricing magic items have changed (in some cases, particularly those of constant items or 1 round/level spells), most of the prices haven't conformed to these changes.




The Ring of Invisibility didn't fit the old guidelines either. After all, these are _guidelines_.




> * Keoghtom's Ointment: Why is this a wondrous item and not a potion/oil?




Because they've fixed the definition of Potion.




> * Still no good guidelines for creating prestige classes, just more of them in the DMG.




This doesn't bother me much, but I understood that these guidelines were supposed to be expanded. It won't affect my purchase of the books (Amazon.ca is counting my denairos) but it might affect someone else's purchase.




> * And the big one: The vast majority of the art in the books is the same. So we're expected to plunk down $90 for three books that cost us $60 three years ago, and most of the art is the same?




This is the big one? As long as they've got pictures for all the celestials and fiends I will be fine.

Anyway, aren't Monte and Sean supposed to wait until the 18th? Or is there something I don't know.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't see what this has to do with the issue of mastery, so I suspect you may be misunderstanding it.  It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of gurus to plumb the game.  There will certainly be "masters" of 3.5 very quickly, but that's not what we're talking about.
> 
> One of the play values that ordinary people get out of a game is the feeling of expertise they get from learning the rules.  Changing just enough rules to call all knowledge into question seriously undermines that play value.  This is one of the things that turned an awful lot of people off of Magic: The Gathering.  The frequency of minor revisions left them confused and irritated, because they could never feel comfortable in their ability to acquire rewarding rules knowledge. *




Oh, man


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *Oddly, people still play 1e.   *




I do find it odd, since I think it's a vastly inferior system.  But of course that's not the point.


----------



## Mortaneus (Jul 11, 2003)

A comment regarding the new weapon size rule:

So Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam were dealing with a continual -2 to hit for using Sting (an elven long-knife)?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Hardhead said:
			
		

> Sure.  Check the original announcement where they say "The past two years have been filled with consumer feedback that has provided us with a wealth of information for making our books richer in depth and gameplay -- in short, more opportunity for every fan to enjoy the game a little more.
> 
> "After gathering this invaluable input from the fans and putting it together with our own observations, it was clear that some targeted revisions in the three core rulebooks would go a long way toward creating the requested improvements in the D&D roleplayer’s gaming experience. Therefore, we have incorporated fan comments and suggestions into upcoming revised editions of the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual."
> 
> ...




Read those quotes again please.  I do not see the word "financial"  in either of them.  If you had stated before that WotC claimed that customer desire was a motive, I would have agreed with you.  They did make that true statement.  The fact that MANY people will willingly purchase this product proves that it is true.

But you are hanging your argument on the bogus idea that saying cutomers want it equates to a denial of doign it for finacial reasons is absurd.  As a matter of fact, if the customers did want it, but for some reason it would NOT make money, then they would NOT do it.

If you can not show me a quote that actually states what you claimed, then I will continue to insist that your state,ment was false.  (As it is.)




> If it makes people mad, it makes them mad.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't know the reasons.




ok.  So?  If business makign finacial choices makes someone mad, they are going to lead a sad angry life.




> Of course, if you want to be able to use their future products, you'll need 3.0...
> 
> Oh, and Illithids, Slaad, Githyanki, Githzeari, and the "tanar'ri and baatezu" names will not be in the SRD, at least.




and 100% of these things are already 3E available.  Your point would be?


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *Oh, man  *




Ah.  I see the discourse is shifting gears.  (ahem)

Did not.

Did too.

So's your mother.

I know I am, but what are you?


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ah.  I see the discourse is shifting gears.  (ahem)
> 
> ...




So stop it.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *A) I already have everything I will ever need to play more game time than I possibly can.
> *




Then you'll be fine.  That doesn't mean everybody else will be.  The problem with your reasoning is the three uses of the first person pronoun.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> *B) Monte says AU is both 3E and 3.5 compatible.  I 100% believe that.  Because 99% of the time the revision does not matter.
> *




Or because AU is a variant player's handbook, meaning it doesn't matter nearly as much what WotC's player's handbook says (yes, there are other core books, but the PH is central to most players' experience).



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> *3.5 is now the D&D.  So?  People still play 1e.  People will likewise still be able to play 3E. *




Sure, people will.  That's different from saying all people will be able to, or that nobody's experience will be harmed by the lack of support.   The "if you don't like it, don't buy it" mantra remains untrue. Not literally, of course, in that one is of course free _not_ to buy it.  But the mantra is presented as a facile refutation of people's complaints about 3.5, when in fact it does nothing to refute them.  If someone's complaining in the first place, then they obviously do not see themselves as being in the class of people who can choose to either convert or not without hardship.  The fact that such a luckier class of people (which clearly includes you) exists does nothing to address their problem.  To dismissively claim otherwise merely shows either lack of awareness (in the best case) or contempt for the needs of people other than oneself.

I'm not trying to claim that many people won't be able to convert over just fine, or decide not to and also be just fine.  What I'm trying to do is to get people to stop and think, when someone comes along who does not believe they'll be able to do one of these things, "hey, I guess maybe you do have a problem there, even if I don't."  I think that would be much better than saying "if you don't like it, don't buy it."


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *So stop it. *




Nice one.  I know that might not sound geniune, but I'm serious.  I couldn't help being satirical for a moment, so I'm glad you took it in like spirit.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jul 11, 2003)

I dunno...

I think a lot of posters have focussed strongly on the rules revisions Monte dislikes - and remember, he has stated that he now dislikes some of his own rule decisions - and not on what I felt was his real point.

Namely, that the marketing decision WotC made resulted in the release of a poor product.

He was content with the idea of a revised edition - but later, and with more bang for the customer's buck.  (Think about how you feel when you create a plan of action, and the person who executes it does it wrong.)

Instead, he got a new version two years earlier than he thought was appropriate, without the new art he thought would help sell the book, and with more rules changes than he thought needed.

It's not just a matter of "does he like the rules / does he think WotC is ripping us off" -  it's a matter of "I thought we had a well-thought-out plan of action here; why did you guys screw it up?"

Make sense?


----------



## Eldragon (Jul 11, 2003)

Sure WotC is a company, and needs to make profits. Profits are generated by selling books. WotC decides it needs more profits, so it comes up with more books to sell. whoop-de-doo. Quite the revelation. 

There are 2 ways that WotC can proceed with making books:
A) High quality books
B) Low quality books.

Low quality books are cheap to make. Dont have to pay as many writers, artists,  or game testers. By printing low quality books, WotC can stand to make more money than high quality books. I would rather have a high quality product, but thats sometimes asking too much.

At some point over the next 2 weeks, most people here will buy 3.5, and decide for themselves if 3.5e falls under column A, or column B.

Personally, I have not seen enough new art, content, or fixes to prompt me to buy the new books.  Perhaps if I liked every change in 3.5 I would overlook the lack of new content or artwork. But I don't even like some of the changes. How major or minor these changes are is subject to personal opinion. But the fact is, when I went from 2e to 3e, I was happy with 99.9% of the changes. Now, going from 3.0 to 3.5, I am only happy with *most* of them. 

How many people are going to have a few house rules that revert to 3.0? I have my house rules already drawn up. I call it Version 3.25.13453e  Why the extra 5 digits? because I am probably the 13,453th person to splinter away from the core 3.5e rules and using a few 3.0 core rules.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 11, 2003)

My response to Monte's criticisms (and those who agree with him):

*Facing (now called space) is now always square.*

Couldn't care less.  The combats of my games have always been fast, chaotic, and cinematic.  The DM describes where the bad guys are, the Players say what they want to do, combat ensues.  Who's facing what has been predominantly an exercise in common sense.

*The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures.*

See above.

*Now weapons are organized by handedness rather than by size. Perhaps the worst change...*

So this is it, possibly the WORST CHANGE.  Let's see, when you create a character, you buy a weapon that fits him.  When you adventure, any DM worth his salt provides an ample percentage of weapons that fit the characters, with a couple of odd fits to enhance "verisimilitude."  GOOD.  LORD.  Oh wait, that doesn't come remotely close to being a problem.  Next.

*The NPC tables in the DMG are now more open ended, and thus less useful.*

Considering in the three years of D&D I've used the 3.0 NPC tables oh about twice...can't say I'll shed a tear over this one.

*The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened.*

Now _there's_ a Sacred Cow that just got turned into roast beef.  Oh wait, casting a spell to make your muscles bigger and reflexes quicker every day with your morning porridge has _never_ been a staple of fantasy high adventure.  Or D&D before the year 2000.  

*Lots of the new feats are the kind that just add a +2 bonus to two skills.*

And there needed to be more of these.  Okay not as elegant as a catch-all +2 to 2 skills feat, but more flavorful.

*Inevitables are now in the Monster Manual.*

Never heard of 'em.

*Taking levels of a prestige class now apparently forces you to pay multiclassing XP costs.*

So the 3.5 books will have a typo or two.  I assume the PHB will still have the correct ruling under the section "Multiclassing?"

*Some of the new prestige classes are uninteresting (eldritch knight, mystic theurge) and poorly designed.*

Let's see, a fully armored warrior blasting lightning bolts out the end of his sword or a _dwarf who specializes in standing in one place._  Yeah the new PrC's suck.  They could have picked up the ball from 3.0 and given us the Halfling Deep Sleeper, complete with bonuses to mind affecting saves when utilizing _Defensive Slumber_.

*Lots of the "new" material in the DMG is just pulled in from other products.*

If done in moderation, not a problem.

*There are no playtester credits. At all.*

Won't affect my game.  At all.

I do wish more of the art was changed, at the very least Sovellis and the Paladin chick, but I'm happy that every critter in the MM will now have its own pic.  I know Monte's opinion carries a lot of wait on these boards, but I just don't see the things he criticizes as being problems.  In fact if those were the harshest complaints he could muster I'd say that bodes extremely _favorably_ for 3.5.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> Then you'll be fine.  That doesn't mean everybody else will be.  The problem with your reasoning is the three uses of the first person pronoun.




Are you saying I have things that are not available to other people?  If *I* have, other people can also have it.  Your "first person" reasoning is a meaningless red herring to the issue.




> Or because AU is a variant player's handbook, meaning it doesn't matter nearly as much what WotC's player's handbook says (yes, there are other core books, but the PH is central to most players' experience).




Nope.  I already use 3.5.  I also use a wide variety of 3rd party supplements.  I have had no problems at all.  Again, over 90% of the time I do not even need to think in terms of 3E/3.5.  It is a non-issue.  AU was simply a specific example.  The point is true nearly universally.  (Fantasy Flight Games Counter Collection is about the only product I can think of that is trully reduced in utility.)




> Sure, people will.  That's different from saying all people will be able to, or that nobody's experience will be harmed by the lack of support.   The "if you don't like it, don't buy it" mantra remains untrue. Not literally, of course, in that one is of course free _not_ to buy it.  But the mantra is presented as a facile refutation of people's complaints about 3.5, when in fact it does nothing to refute them.  If someone's complaining in the first place, then they obviously do not see themselves as being in the class of people who can choose to either convert or not without hardship.  The fact that such a luckier class of people (which clearly includes you) exists does nothing to address their problem.  To dismissively claim otherwise merely shows either lack of awareness (in the best case) or contempt for the needs of people other than oneself.
> 
> I'm not trying to claim that many people won't be able to convert over just fine, or decide not to and also be just fine.  What I'm trying to do is to get people to stop and think, when someone comes along who does not believe they'll be able to do one of these things, "hey, I guess maybe you do have a problem there, even if I don't."  I think that would be much better than saying "if you don't like it, don't buy it."




Sorry but that is simply not correct.  I mean, you have people like Jody Butt talking about 2e in on e post and then agreeing with you on this issue in the next.

Please explain the "luck" that I have that others do not.  

"Contempt for the needs"??  Needs?  

Are you saying that there are people whose games are dependant upon constantly buying new material?  If not, then they face zero burden.  If so, then they are already spending a steady supply of money, so again, no burden.

But even that overstates the issue.  I own a lot of 3rd party stuff.  I have yet to find a single item that I could not convert to 3.5 compatible in under 1 minute (for the small fraction that requires any change at all).  I assure you that the inverse is equally true.  Wait for 3.5 3rd party stuff to start coming out.  I will be able to take anything and convert to 3E in moments.  And again, only rarely will that even be needed.

There simply is no issue here.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 11, 2003)

I'm staying out of this discussion. Grrrrrr.... Staying out of this discussion.

[Meta]Plugs ears[/Meta]. Nah! Nah! Nah! Nah!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 11, 2003)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Graph paper!!  Heck, I already treat the combat board as a reference map more than a "game environment", so I'd easily survive off graph paper if I needed to for a pickup game. *




Yes! That's what's been nagging at the back of my mind for a while now, but I couldn't quite figure out what was bugging me. Graph paper! Good lord, I used it for more than a decade when playing 1e, to keep track of where everyone was at in combat. I didn't need miniatures at all, and almost never used 'em until recently. Back then, a sheet or two of graph paper and a pencil was all I needed. Small and convenient, perfect for games in small environments, where minis aren't a good option. Heck, laminate a few sheets of graph paper, and get some dry-erase markers, and you're set. Sure, the small size of most squares in normal graph paper could make it a bit tough, but one could always create their own graph paper of various scales, or use a small battlemat. For a game in a cramped room, I'd probably stick to regular graph paper, marking in pencil where everyone and everything was at, using initials or symbols to differentiate them. OK, so either the players or DM may be incovenienced, but it'll help solve the problem of "having" to use minis and battlemats.

I know I'm stating the obvious here, but remembering how I used graph paper years ago just gave me a firk-ding-blasted epiphany!


----------



## Storminator (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't see what this has to do with the issue of mastery, so I suspect you may be misunderstanding it.  It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of gurus to plumb the game.  There will certainly be "masters" of 3.5 very quickly, but that's not what we're talking about.
> 
> One of the play values that ordinary people get out of a game is the feeling of expertise they get from learning the rules.  Changing just enough rules to call all knowledge into question seriously undermines that play value.  This is one of the things that turned an awful lot of people off of Magic: The Gathering.  The frequency of minor revisions left them confused and irritated, because they could never feel comfortable in their ability to acquire rewarding rules knowledge. *




I don't misunderstand the mastery issue. If the "masters" have whipped the game into shape in a pair of weeks, others will follow shortly, and most anyone that plays regularly will have the new system down pat in a couple months. A far shorter timeline than the 3 years it took to create this revision, and surely shorter than the time to the next revision. 

Which naturally ties into your second point, on calling knowledge into question. That point didn't fly for me when Monte made it either. I guess I have a different perspective on the game. 

PS


----------



## ajanders (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then you'll be fine.  That doesn't mean everybody else will be.  The problem with your reasoning is the three uses of the first person pronoun.*




Well, in fairness, he's probably not entitled to speak for the universe.  Whose opinion is he supposed to express but his own?.



			
				Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> I'm not trying to claim that many people won't be able to convert over just fine, or decide not to and also be just fine.  What I'm trying to do is to get people to stop and think, when someone comes along who does not believe they'll be able to do one of these things, "hey, I guess maybe you do have a problem there, even if I don't."  I think that would be much better than saying "if you don't like it, don't buy it." *




That's a fair point, but many people had numerous problems with version 3.0 and were told, "Hey, if you don't like it, Rule 0 it/get a third party product/make up your own."
Which they did, in large numbers.  
Some of those people may find those problems were solved in 3.5.  Other people are going to find they now have problems with 3.5 they did not have in 3.0.
I find it hard to believe your problems are more worthy of "official" support than theirs were.  And unfortunately, many times solutions to the 3.0 set of problems and the 3.5 set of problems are going to be mutually exclusive, so someone's going to be unhappy.

You certainly deserve happiness, but if you think I'm going to sympathize with your problems over, say, those of Henry-the-Moderator, you're asking a lot.  I mean, that's like annoying Elminster in the Realms: you're just asking to wake up with your underwear Polymorphed into poison ivy or fiendish fire ants 
(Now, my understanding is that would be the unchanged Polymorph Other, not the extremely odd Baneful Polymorph/Non-Baneful Polymorph...hey, I'm not happy with all the changes either.)


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

Lol!  Yes, the moment was much like that for me too - DING.  You know, back in the days of 1E or OD&D I never used minis, either, unless one of the players happened to have a bunch.  I didn't get my first Battle Mat until about '97, and that was for BattleTech 




			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes! That's what's been nagging at the back of my mind for a while now, but I couldn't quite figure out what was bugging me. Graph paper! Good lord, I used it for more than a decade when playing 1e, to keep track of where everyone was at in combat. I didn't need miniatures at all, and almost never used 'em until recently. Back then, a sheet or two of graph paper and a pencil was all I needed. Small and convenient, perfect for games in small environments, where minis aren't a good option. Heck, laminate a few sheets of graph paper, and get some dry-erase markers, and you're set. Sure, the small size of most squares in normal graph paper could make it a bit tough, but one could always create their own graph paper of various scales, or use a small battlemat. For a game in a cramped room, I'd probably stick to regular graph paper, marking in pencil where everyone and everything was at, using initials or symbols to differentiate them. OK, so either the players or DM may be incovenienced, but it'll help solve the problem of "having" to use minis and battlemats.
> 
> I know I'm stating the obvious here, but remembering how I used graph paper years ago just gave me a firk-ding-blasted epiphany! *


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> *I'm staying out of this discussion. Grrrrrr.... Staying out of this discussion.
> 
> [Meta]Plugs ears[/Meta]. Nah! Nah! Nah! Nah! *



Aw, c'mon Darrin.  I, for one, would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.  

* poke poke *

* prod prod *

:: edited typo ::


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *Are you saying I have things that are not available to other people?  If *I* have, other people can also have it.*




Of course that's what I'm saying.  You also have needs and values that other people do not have.  Other people are not like you, and never will be.  Not like me either.  Lots of 'em.

I can only assume you really believe what you're saying, but I'm afraid that merely proves my point.  If you don't understand that, I suspect you never will.


----------



## bolen (Jul 11, 2003)

anyone have any idea how much profit D&D makes for Hasbro?  Is it profitable?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> I can only assume you really believe that, but I'm afraid that merely proves my point.  If you don't understand that, I suspect you never will. *




OK fine.  This of course is a simple evasion for the fact that you can not provide a single example to support your claim.

But, that is the best you have, because that is the best there is for you TO have.

(Come on, just one example of something I have that others can't.  It is so easy and I'll look so wrong.  If you right I'm just wide open here.  Problem: You are not right.)


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *Which naturally ties into your second point, on calling knowledge into question. That point didn't fly for me when Monte made it either. I guess I have a different perspective on the game. *




To me that is _the_ point I see in Monte's "mastery" construction.  It's not about the logistical problem of adapting to a new skill set, it's about the emotional problem of the impact of change on play value.

Whether that's a problem that 3.5e is apt to suffer, I don't feel qualified to say.  My point is simply that it isn't about whether people will adapt, but about how they will feel about having to, and what game designers can do to make that feeling better or worse.  As long as we agree on what the potential problem at hand is, I have no problem with different speculations and conclusions about whether 3.5e suffers that problem.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 11, 2003)

bolen said:
			
		

> *anyone have any idea how much profit D&D makes for Hasbro?  Is it profitable? *




Yeah, it's profitable. I'm sure others will arrive with figures, but the general conclusion is that D&D isn't profitable to the magnitude that Hasbro expected. Hasbro bought WotC primarily for Pokemon, which dwarfed D&D in sales - at least, until interest in Pokemon fell off the table.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> Of course that's what I'm saying.  You also have needs and values that other people do not have.  Other people are not like you, and never will be.  Not like me either.  Lots of 'em.
> *




OK.  Here is your edit.

Please connect this to a person's ability or lack thereof to use 3.5 materials to support a 3E game....


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *OK fine.  This of course is a simple evasion for the fact that you can not provide a single example to support your claim.
> 
> But, that is the best you have, because that is the best there is for you TO have.
> 
> (Come on, just one example of something I have that others can't.  It is so easy and I'll look so wrong.  If you right I'm just wide open here.  Problem: You are not right.) *




No, actually, it's a statement of resignation that I will never convince you of the seemingly self-evident fact that people suffer from and enjoy different circumstances, as well as different values and needs, in their lives.

And I would think it would also be obvious that I can't compare you to other people in any specific way since I don't have any specific knowledge about you.  But I don't need it to know that there are people who are different than you, because all around me I see people who are different from each other, and you can't be the same as _all_ of them.

I have no desire to make you look "so wrong."  I have nothing against you at all.  The things you say, on the other hand, are not true, and I'm compelled to point that out.


----------



## 2d6 (Jul 11, 2003)

wow, what was the topic?


2d6

/ibtl


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> No, actually, it's a statement of resignation that I will never convince you of the seemingly self-evident fact that people suffer from and enjoy different circumstances, as well as different values and needs, in their lives.




Well gee.  If you had ever made that vague and so obvious as to be meaningless statement, I would agree with you.

But now you are trying to hide your prior claims about the specific hardships of 3.5 behind a amorphous smokescreen of ultra generalities.



> And I would think it would also be obvious that I can't compare you to other people in any specific way since I don't have any specific knowledge about you.  But I don't need it to know that there are people who are different than you, because all around me I see people who are different from each other, and you can't be the same as _all_ of them.
> 
> I have no desire to make you look "so wrong."  I have nothing against you at all.  The things you say, on the other hand, are not true, and I'm compelled to point that out.




Again, please show me one specific thing I have stated that is wrong.  I never asked you to compare specific knowledge about me to anyone else.  I stated that any 3E product I have could be had by anyone else.  You disputed that claim.  Now you are trying to wildly misrepresent what BOTH of us said.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *OK.  Here is your edit.
> *




Thank you.



> *
> Please connect this to a person's ability or lack thereof to use 3.5 materials to support a 3E game.... *




I believe I already did this.  Using 3.5 materials for a 3e game will take time.  I do recall that either you or some other poster has already poo-poohed this idea.  But nevertheless the amount of time it takes them to convert will not be (categorically) the same as the time it takes you, either because they have different capacity for doing so or different standards for what kind of job of it they have to do (and I don't mean that to denigrate the kind of job you might do in only a little time, but simply to point out that some DM's are comfortable with very rough notes and others prefer to be highly prepared). And the amount of time they have available is not unlikely to be quite different from what's available to you.  Any given person's burden could easily be very different from your own.

Could they change this?  Sure, they could quit their job, or their bowling league, or whatever else it is they're spending some of their non-gaming time on.  However, that would not change the fact that they would probably be harmed by the need to do so, since they presumably valued that other activity as well.


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 11, 2003)

Something about a review, I think 



			
				2d6 said:
			
		

> *wow, what was the topic?
> 
> 
> 2d6
> ...


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *Again, please show me one specific thing I have stated that is wrong.  I never asked you to compare specific knowledge about me to anyone else.*




Yes, actually, you did.  You said this:



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> *Come on, just one example of something I have that others can't.*







			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> *I stated that any 3E product I have could be had by anyone else.*




No, actually, what you said was this:



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> *Are you saying I have things that are not available to other people? *




And I said this:



			
				Dr_Rictus[/i]
[B]Of course that's what I'm saying.[/B][/QUOTE]

"Things said:
			
		

> *Now you are trying to wildly misrepresent what BOTH of us said.*




Actually, I think you'll find I'm trying to represent it pretty accurately.  It's foolish to do otherwise when it's all down there to be read (or quoted).


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

I have yet to find any material that on an individual basis is more difficult to convert than it is to write up a 5th level character from scratch (3E or 3.5).

That has nothing to do with my personal ability.  If someone finds writing up character harder than I do, they will also find conversion more difficult.  If they can write characters more easily, conversion will also be more simple.

But it remains a distinctly easy task.  

It seems clear to me that you have the complexity of the revision greatly exagerated in your expectation.

If writing up a L5 character is to difficult for someone, then I am not certain they are a particularly typical example.  Rather I would consider them so far from typical as to be extraneous.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, actually, you did.  You said this:
> 
> *




And I still await your example showing the error in that statement.

As I said, I believe you have significantly distorted expectations regarding the revision.  Thus you are overestimating the "burden".


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 11, 2003)

bolen said:
			
		

> *anyone have any idea how much profit D&D makes for Hasbro?  Is it profitable? *




D&D is profitable.

But remember the Pokemon RPG has made WotC more money than all three editions of D&D combined.  There is NO compason.  the RPG industry is eclipsed by the quilt-making industry.  

In other words, D&D has such a low profit margin, that milking it makes little sense.  They'd be better off publishing a new version of Risk or Monopoly.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

And that statement does not require any knowledge of me.

Becasue there is not one single 3E product out there that I may own that other palyers may not.  You can assume I own everything available through any FLGS or only the core stuff.  You do not need to know a single thing about me.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 11, 2003)

I just got through reading the article. 

Well, well. 

I'd put aside any doubts I had, dsregarded the naysayers, and was prepared to plunck down some cash in a week or two.

Not now.


----------



## apocalypstick (Jul 11, 2003)

let's not forget that the new covers are much cooler than the old ones. especially that DMG cover! can i get a "wow" up in this piece, yo?!


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

I am curious what Monte's reaction would be to the people who claim they have changed their minds and will not buy the product now.

I certainly do not think that was his goal.


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> * Keoghtom's Ointment: Why is this a wondrous item and not a potion/oil?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




If by "fixing," you mean "lumped _even more_ stuff into the Wonderous Items category," you're right, but I don't consider that an improvement, though the issue is minor.


BryonD said:



> Read those quotes again please. I do not see the word "financial" in either of them. If you had stated before that WotC claimed that customer desire was a motive, I would have agreed with you. They did make that true statement. The fact that MANY people will willingly purchase this product proves that it is true.
> 
> But you are hanging your argument on the bogus idea that saying cutomers want it equates to a denial of doign it for finacial reasons is absurd.




I'm sorry, I guess my original post wasn't clear enough.  WotC claimed over and over that it was a decision motivated primarily by feedback.  This appears now it is not the case.  That's what I meant.




> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If it makes people mad, it makes them mad. That doesn't mean they shouldn't know the reasons.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




Many buisness decisions make me mad.  It causes changes in my purchasing habits and creates some of the most important feedback a company can get (as a general rule, if they're making people mad, they're doing something wrong).  This one doesn't make mad, but it _has_ made some people mad.  

Anyway, that aside, I still don't see why it was "childish" of Monte to tell everyone the primary motivation behind the revision.



> and 100% of these things are already 3E available. Your point would be?




You said: "I do not know of a single 3.5 change that will not be in the SRD."

I said:  "Illithids, Slaad, Githyanki, Githzeari, and the "tanar'ri and baatezu" names will not be in the SRD, at least."

I'm going to assume you actually somehow managed to miss that point rather than assuming that you were just being very rude for some reason and completly ignoring my statement.  

So, to clarify, my point was that not everything in the 3.0 books will be playable in 3.5 with just the SRD.  You'll have to go out and buy the MM to get the 3.5 versions of some of the monsters, if not more.

Note that there may be other things not in the SRD as well, since we haven't seen it to know what it includes and what it doesn't.  For instance, I'd be very surprised if the Red Wizard ended up in the SRD.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *But now you are trying to hide your prior claims about the specific hardships of 3.5 behind a amorphous smokescreen of ultra generalities. *




Not really, no.  I'm pretty aware of what I'm trying to do, since I'm the one trying to do it.  Mainly, I figure if I can prevent anybody out there from being off-handedly dismissive of someone else's expressed and genuine woe, I'll have done somebody out there a favor.  I feel like doing a favor tonight.  It would make me feel good.

But if it gives you comfort to think that about me, well, I don't feel that it really does me any harm.  But it does make it harder to have a discussion with you.

I really don't care to upset you, but it does seem that you're getting a bit heated about this, and I think it might be better to step back from the discussion for a while.  Hmm, I hope that does not sound too ironic, as I actually do think you've tried to keep the discussion productive despite obviously feeling very strongly about it.

But besides, at least where I am, it's after midnight.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *I am curious what Monte's reaction would be to the people who claim they have changed their minds and will not buy the product now.
> 
> I certainly do not think that was his goal. *




I'm sure you're right.  To the extent that he wanted to inform people, though, hopefully he will not be disappointed at their making what is hopefully a better-informed decision (whatever they decide).  I certainly appreciate his insight on the topic.

And with that, I recall my claim that I was going to turn in for the night.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Hardhead said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I guess my original post wasn't clear enough.  WotC claimed over and over that it was a decision motivated primarily by feedback.  This appears now it is not the case.  That's what I meant.




No, they said it was a motive.  The primary motive of business it to produce a product that makes money.  WotC can not be held accountable for people oddly assuming otherwise.




> Many buisness decisions make me mad.  It causes changes in my purchasing habits and creates some of the most important feedback a company can get (as a general rule, if they're making people mad, they're doing something wrong).  This one doesn't make mad, but it _has_ made some people mad.
> 
> Anyway, that aside, I still don't see why it was "childish" of Monte to tell everyone the primary motivation behind the revision.




You seem to have a real problem with wildly mis-quoting people.

My actual quote was: "The idea that this should even be mentioned in a conspiritorial {nudge, nudge} they're pulling one over on you tone just seems childish and petty."

I never called telling childish.  I did call the tone childish.  Total difference.



> You said: "I do not know of a single 3.5 change that will not be in the SRD."
> 
> I said:  "Illithids, Slaad, Githyanki, Githzeari, and the "tanar'ri and baatezu" names will not be in the SRD, at least."
> 
> ...




YAWN.  And I have stated numerous times that simple converstions of a handful of things like these will be VERY simple.


----------



## HellHound (Jul 11, 2003)

I fully agree with Kai Lord.

The strange debate over the weapon size issue is the one that makes the least sense to me.

The day a gnome picked up a Huge creature's Dagger (say, a Giant's dagger) and claimed he could wield it proficiently as a 2-handed sword was the day I house-ruled the old weapon size rules.

I mean... Sure the weapon is size Medium... but the handle on the bloody thing is NOTHING like the handle of a two-handed sword. It would be FAR thicker and therefore very difficult to grasp and use correctly.

Therefore, the new weapon size rules work perfectly, IMO.

And gnomes can finally make Gnomish Morningstars that work one-handed, just like human morningstars do.

---

Hound Post #1963 - The year the first commercial nuclear reactor went online at the Jersey Central Power Company. Next stop: Chernobyl.


----------



## jasamcarl (Jul 11, 2003)

Let's just say after the 'argument' Monte made conscerning the Mystic Theurge, i take is design expertise with a grain of salt, especially because he tends to get personal with his opinions on the net, hoping to foster this 'bad boy' opinion for a few hangerons.

Most of his gripes are ridiculously opinionated and don't really speak to the balance of the game. Apparently he can make a backhanded swipe about paying $90 for +2 skill feats, but expects everyone to pay that same amount for nothing more than clarifications and a few price changes. But then, I doubt he actually gave his review (rant) another read to check such contradictions. He never really lays out what he would expect from a revision, but oh well. Pathetic.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 11, 2003)

taliesin52 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Its pretty much here already.  Expect new books, one for each class with PrC's, abilities, magic items, feats, etc....  which will now be known as a "Codex™."  These Codecies™ will be in increacing levels of power as they're published with whichever one's most current being more powerful than all others before.
> ...




It wouldn't suprise me very much if they adopted the GW model.  It seems to be very sucessful.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 11, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Aw, c'mon Darrin.  I, for one, would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.
> 
> * poke poke *
> 
> ...




Very well. I'll make a couple very general comments, and then after that, I'm keeping my silence.

First of all, I do very much respect Monte Cook's opinion. As his review points out, he was, after all, one of the three main people responsible for 3rd edition, which was such a huge leap forward from 2nd edition that everyone involved deserves a great deal of respect and praise. I also want to mention that I will be buying UA. Now, having said that, I have a few comments on a couple of his points.

First off, the stuff he said were good changes. I agree. Completely. All good changes, and relatively minor in terms of using old 3E stuff with 3.5.

Facing, I have no issues with one way or another. I didn't consider it broken to begin with. I don't consider it broken now. If I run into a situation where it is broken, I'll just use DM's fiat to make it more intuitive.

I think the only difference between squares and feet it that now a square on a battlemat represents a specific number of feet. But then again, it did before. No big deal there except that it forces you to think in a more linear and graphical way and makes it harder to game without minis and a battlemat. Any good DM can still make it work according to the old system. Again, IMHO, no big deal here.

Handedness is something that (I believe, possibly incorrectly) came about as the result of Savage Species. I don't know about the people on these boards, but there are definitely people using that book. Trust me on this! With character sizes varying now to a much greater degree than ever before, it helps to have a standardized set of rules on how to deal with weapons for size large and larger creatures. Yes, it called for a minor retooling of the old system, but I think when you actually get the book, you'll find the changes to be actually fairly minor.

I liked the NPCs in the old DMG slightly better. Open endedness on this particular table makes it less useful to me as a DM. Fortunately, I almost never used this table to begin with.

"The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened." This is what I would call a good change. You can still buff your character for a tough fight, but with the right combination of spells, you can no longer up your ability bonus for the entire day. This is a game balance issue that I think was properly addressed, but I can see Monte's point of view on this as well. I think the question is what you consider balanced, and that varies from designer to designer, DM to DM.

No problems with the new feats since most of them are reprints of feats that appeared in the splat books and simply *add* to the number of feats included in the core books. Again, no big deal one way or another. I still think spring attack is broken.

His point about prestige classes incurring a penalty under 3.5 is valid. I don't know whether this was intentional or not and I don't know if it will be erratta'd. Personally, I would use the old system of not having them incur a penalty, for reasons I think anyone can figure out.

Overall I think Montes review is good and gives you a peek behind the curtain that actual WotC folk are not likely to provide. Now, enough reviewing the review.  As for backwards compatibility, I slyly snuck the 3.5 rules into my 3.0 game without calling for a change in character classes, and I did it without any problems. In fact, that is how I would recommend making the transition. Use all the stuff from the combat chapter, feats, equipment, and spells chapters immediately. Most of that stuff is clarifications and in most cases will not change you game a whole lot. Switch to the reworking of the character classes when you start new characters.

3E D20 supplemental books work for anyone capable of critical thought and the power of deduction. Anyone familliar with both editions should be able the replace facing with space and intuitively deduce the proper number of squares the creature should use. 3rd party supplements and adventures work with little to no reworking of stats, and again these are changes that can easily be made on the fly. You shouldn't need to bother with the prep work before a game session. In most cases its a simple matter of a skill name changing, although only a few of these were renamed. Same story with spells. I have yet to come across any 3rd party rules accessory (not adventure or monster book) that requires any changing at all.

Finally, I think some of the additional material in the DMG is very useful. If only it would have been there when 3.0 was released. This includes the one thing I found most lacking back then - epic levels - advancement beyonf level 20. You should still get the Epic Level Handbook if you want to take advantage of all the cool stuff in that book, but if you just want to know the basics on how it works, it's here. In fact, I consider a lot of the Epic Level stuff a little over the top, so I would be willing to toss much of that and keep the general guidelines given in the new DMG.

Now I'm going to shut up. If anyone wants to look me up at Gen Con to discuss this further, I'll be available after hours.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> Not really, no.  I'm pretty aware of what I'm trying to do, since I'm the one trying to do it.  Mainly, I figure if I can prevent anybody out there from being off-handedly dismissive of someone else's expressed and genuine woe, I'll have done somebody out there a favor.  I feel like doing a favor tonight.  It would make me feel good.




Fair enough.  I totally accept that you are sincere.  I apologize.

However, I REALLY am convinced that you are wrong when you use the term "off-handedly".  I have been working with the 3.5 stuff for a few months now.  

There are parts of it I really do not like.  (MT comes to mind.  I really hate that class, as well as the eldritch knight).

If you are smart enough to play D&D, you are smart enough to do backwards and/or forwards conversions.  And I am NOT saying that not liking 3.5 means you are not smart.  You can HATE 3.5, but if you are reading this, I can assure you, you are smart enough to do the conversions (you just won't want to   ).

So, please just accept that I truly believe this, based on what I believe to be *sufficient* experience.



> But if it gives you comfort to think that about me, well, I don't feel that it really does me any harm.  But it does make it harder to have a discussion with you.
> 
> I really don't care to upset you, but it does seem that you're getting a bit heated about this, and I think it might be better to step back from the discussion for a while.  Hmm, I hope that does not sound too ironic, as I actually do think you've tried to keep the discussion productive despite obviously feeling very strongly about it.
> 
> But besides, at least where I am, it's after midnight.




Good night.


----------



## HellHound (Jul 11, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> *Now I'm going to shut up. If anyone wants to look me up at Gen Con to discuss this further, I'll be available after hours. *




Darrin, tag me after hours on Thursday night (or Wednesday if you are there) and I'll treat you to a beer. 

Thanks!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 11, 2003)

HellHound said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Darrin, tag me after hours on Thursday night (or Wednesday if you are there) and I'll treat you to a beer.
> 
> Thanks! *




You're on. I do have a Bastion Press panel to attend Saturday from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, and then a Bastion Press secret meeting  on Thursday, but otherwise I'm going to be free after hours. I'm flying in on Tuesday.


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, that aside, I still don't see why it was "childish" of Monte to tell everyone the primary motivation behind the revision.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




The tone of a work is part of the statement.  It is, by definition, the "emotional" factor of it.  So while there is a difference, I was correct in saying that you called his claim "childish."  

Even if you'd never used the word tone, that's still what you'd have meant in calling it childish, since you'd be refering to the manner of expression in emotinal terms.

You quite literally can't say that it's tone was childish, but the statement itself was not (well, you can, but it's as relevant as any other self-contradictory statement).  Unless you meant that it came across as childish, but you don't think he was actually behaving that way.  But if that's what you meant, you certainly didn't make it clear - and that's not what you said.




> YAWN. And I have stated numerous times that simple converstions of a handful of things like these will be VERY simple.




I see my assumption was false.  You were just being rude.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

You can not see the difference between calling a statement childish and calling the tone in which it is delivered childish?

I mean, your denial that this is possible is just absurd.



> I see my assumption was false. You were just being rude.




A) This is yet another dodge of the issue.  Insults where an answer is lacking.

B) I have been quite polite compared to your behavior.

So please, go wallow in your anger at the evil WotC empire.  If you can't post a single reply to me without misquotes or dodges, there is no value in pointing them out over and over.


----------



## Tsyr (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *I am curious what Monte's reaction would be to the people who claim they have changed their minds and will not buy the product now.
> 
> I certainly do not think that was his goal. *




Regardless of if that was his goal or not, he should be applauded for what he has done.

Even skimming out the "bias", on purely the basis of the facts he presents, I was able to make a descision.

From the facts I have obtained elsewhere (This board, for example), I was sitting on the line. I wanted it to satisfy my "Must get new stuff!" urge, but I could already tell I probably would be mad at myself for buying it later. Now I know I just wont get it, at least until I find it used or in the discount rack somewhere, or something. I'll gank the ranger, bard, and monk classes off the SRD, see if I like them or not, and take a few new spells off it, but I can't justify the new books now.

And I suspect I wasn't the only one sitting on the fence... I've talked to a lot of people who felt similar to me.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> Regardless of if that was his goal or not, he should be applauded for what he has done.
> 
> Even skimming out the "bias", on purely the basis of the facts he presents, I was able to make a descision.
> ...




No problem there.  But the impression I have developed over time is that this is exactly the opposite of Monte's desire.

I am not being critical of anyone for deciding they do not want it based on his comments.  

I am just curious what he thinks.  Not that I think he is under the slightest obligation to say.  I just find it an interesting twist.


----------



## kenjib (Jul 11, 2003)

If the predictions of the proliferation of house rules come to pass, I am not looking forward with having to learn new rules every time I play with different people.  That could be an even bigger blow to Monte's concept of mastery than the way the changes were made between 3 and 3.5.

Anyways, I don't like using miniatures.  For those who wonder why, for me it interferes with my imagination.  I like to imagine the battle as fluid and action-packed.  When it's run on a battle mat two things happen:

1.  Your imagination of what the actors look like are effected by whatever miniatures happen to be on hand - and by necessity they very often aren't anything resembling the creature they are supposed to represent.

2.  Miniature combat accentuates the static turn based nature of D&D combat.  It's harder to imagine everyone moving and fighting at once - the chaos of war - when you see them in front of you moving one at a time and waiting for each other to move.

Yeah, I can ignore these things, and of course I don't assume that other people should agree, but since someone was wondering earlier, this is why I, personally, prefer running it without minis.

Playing with minis just seems more like a video game or board game to me, rather than an act of imagination.


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> A) This is yet another dodge of the issue. Insults where an answer is lacking.
> 
> B) I have been quite polite compared to your behavior.




Are we reading the same thread?  I think my behavior speaks for itself.

I would like to ask you why you are behaving this way toward me?  I looked over my original response to your post, and I don't think I was being offensive.  Yet you have been nothing but rude to me (and others) while I have been cordial.  

For instance, when you pointed out that my quote from the D&D Revision announcement didn't fully support what I'd said previously, I conceeded the point and clarified my position.

When I pointed out that, despite what you'd said, not everything would be in the SRD, you asked me what my point was, as if I was speaking nonsense (apparently I was dodging the issue by disagreeing with your statement?), when my point was obviously clear.  

When I reiterated it, and pointed out your rudeness in case you yourself weren't aware of it, you behaved in an even ruder fashion.


So, in summary, what's your problem?


----------



## kenjib (Jul 11, 2003)

Oh, and for the record I think that 3e worked just fine and didn't need a revision of this magnitude yet.  The changes in 3.5e are all little fiddly bits that don't have enough impact on the game to be worth spending that much money.  I think they should have waited (much) longer and done more.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 11, 2003)

While a few changes I felt could have been used, I stand with a lot of you in that "There's some good stuff in 3.5...and not so good stuff" Was the revision needed? I honestly don't know...but I do think the changes made in this edition DO render 3.0 conversion far less useful in mastery than before.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

I do not see how you can call constant mis-quotes and misrepresenting me as cordial.  Perhaps I find that kind of behavior to be more rude than you do.

I look back over your posts and see a long string of this.  

So I see no reason to continue discussing things with you.


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> I do not see how you can call constant mis-quotes and misrepresenting me as cordial. Perhaps I find that kind of behavior to be more rude than you do.




The entire thread is there for anyone to look at.  I did not misquote you, or anyone, at all.

EDIT:  As for misprepresenting, a much more nebulous claim, I don't believe I did that either.  I suppose you could argue that I misprepresented you when I said you called part of Monte's review "childish," but I don't believe I did.  I believe that you are picking nits in the whole discussion, but I maintain that tone is an inherrent part of any communication.  If you didn't mean it was childish, I don't know what you meant, but I apologize for misunderstanding.

As for the WotC quote, they clearly lay out feedback as the primary reason for the revision, and to the best of my knowledge have never even offically mentioned financial reasons as a reason to go ahead with the revision.  Of course, no one is naieve enough to believe that, but it's certainly the face I believe they've put forward.  If you believe I'm misrepresenting them, I've yet to see you put forward any quotes to back your assertions up.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 11, 2003)

Hardhead said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The entire thread is there for anyone to look at.  I did not misquote you, or anyone, at all. *




For two people who *agreed* half a page ago to stop talking to one another, you sure do still have a lot to say.

IOW, this is not the proper venue for mud flinging. If it continues I'll call the mods in.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 11, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> *
> 
> For two people who agreed half a page ago to stop talking to one another, you sure do still have a lot to say.
> 
> IOW, this is not the proper venue for mud flinging. If it continues I'll call the mods in. *




And if he won't I will.  Btw Darrin, I think your opinion is a great one...even if I don't agree with the weapon size change meself. (Or what they did to specialists)


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> For two people who agreed half a page ago to stop talking to one another, you sure do still have a lot to say.
> 
> IOW, this is not the proper venue for mud flinging. If it continues I'll call the mods in.




Actually, that was someeone else that agreed to stop talking to Bryon. 

Still, you're right, I did go a bit overboard and I apologize to the entire forum.  I should have just sent Bryon an email or something.  Again, sorry.


----------



## Jody Butt (Jul 11, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *If the predictions of the proliferation of house rules come to pass, I am not looking forward with having to learn new rules every time I play with different people.  That could be an even bigger blow to Monte's concept of mastery than the way the changes were made between 3 and 3.5.
> 
> Anyways, I don't like using miniatures.  For those who wonder why, for me it interferes with my imagination.  I like to imagine the battle as fluid and action-packed.  When it's run on a battle mat two things happen:
> 
> ...




You are certainly not alone.  The day a miniature appears on my table will be . . . well, it will never happen.


----------



## Steverooo (Jul 11, 2003)

*Facing*



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *I disagree completely with him over the square facings. Long creatures and "no facing in combat" rules simply didn't make sense on any level.*




Which could be easily fixed by having facing.  This would also allow Sneak Attacks from behind without Concealment/Cover, and solve some of the other ridiculous problems with 3.5.  Instead, we have a rule that makes horses charge down five-foot corridors at half speed, and other such "stuff".


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: Mastery*

For the mastery thing, I completely agree with Monte. We now have to relearn all the rules, not just the ones that have changed, because its impossible to know what has changed and what remains the same without going over everything with a fine toothed comb, and even then we might miss something. That's the thing, you can't relate anything in 3.5 to 3.0, you have to look at it as a separate entity entirely because it is now the Core books!

And making PCs is the least of the problem with this. It's trivial in fact. Knowing that now the rules have changed slightly on a spell your wizard uses every other session, or knowing that trips are calculated differently, or knowng that a skill does something slightly differently is very different than picking a spell, feat, or skill for a PC.

And that's not even going into how conditions, Supernatural Abilities, encounter distance, and lots of obscure facts that many take for granted are changing.


----------



## Olive (Jul 11, 2003)

Jody Butt said:
			
		

> *You are certainly not alone.  The day a miniature appears on my table will be . . . well, it will never happen. *




Aren't you a 1e fan? wasn't that game based on minis? Using 1 inch measures and all?


----------



## dcollins (Jul 11, 2003)

Wow -- great, fascinating article that I agree with 100%. And boy, is that _incredibly_ rare. My observations about 3.5E that I've developed from the previews are confirmed spot-on by the design process that Monte has described here.

I haven't read the whole thread -- probably all the main topics have been hit upon several times. I will, however, point out this:

Amusingly, the presence of "playtester credits" is one of my third-rail issues that I've identified as the true mark of a quality gaming product, as I wrote a few years before 3E here: www.superdan.net/grtdnd/grtdnd3.html


----------



## Kevin O'Reilly (Jul 11, 2003)

*Miniatureless Combat*

Jodi/Kenji

I'm really interested in how you run miniatureless combat. For me so many feats are designed to take advantage of the space based battlemat, that to ignore exact positioning reduces, or elimates their value.

However, I'm becoming tired of the slow pace of high-feat combat.

Feel free to email me, rather than hijack the thread


----------



## Jody Butt (Jul 11, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Aren't you a 1e fan? wasn't that game based on minis? Using 1 inch measures and all? *




I never DMed 1E (only played it once).  I liked a lot of the later 1E artwork, though.  I played much 2E, mainly.  2E was definitely not done from a minis point of view.


----------



## Jody Butt (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: Miniatureless Combat*



			
				Kevin O'Reilly said:
			
		

> *Jodi/Kenji
> 
> I'm really interested in how you run miniatureless combat. For me so many feats are designed to take advantage of the space based battlemat, that to ignore exact positioning reduces, or elimates their value.
> 
> ...




House Rule: All movement is abstract.  All rules related to movement no longer exist.  Common sense rules the day.


----------



## dcollins (Jul 11, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *Aren't you a 1e fan? wasn't that game based on minis? Using 1 inch measures and all? *




Short answer: no (oddly enough). Ranges were in inches that were converted to different scales whether indoors or outdoors. AD&D 1st Ed. DMG p. 10 had a short suggestion for using miniatures at yet another scale which didn't match either of the others.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 11, 2003)

My gripe with a more "mini" focused game is really quite simple. In an age when we communicate on a electronic level...and more often than not, people JUST can't find the right players or something similiar, just how in the name of Demogorgon's blue balls am I supposed to use facing when NO ONE sees these damn things except in their mind's eye?! So to me WotC is sincerely missing the boat when it comes to dealing with gamers that play online. The day they can build me software that can not only generate maps and build realistic combat sims, is the day we all end up doing D&D in "virtual" style.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Jul 11, 2003)

Kerrwyn noted:



> Listening to him, I think my games are going to be a 3.0/3.5 crossbreed. Almost like 3.25, if you will.




Oh Cyric. The minute I read your post I got this horrible image in my head:

Scene: Gamer's Table in some public area

Gamer 1:  "What are you?"

Gamer 2:  "I'm just 3.0. You?"

Gamer 1:  "I'm a 3.2, no, maybe a 3.25."

Gamer 3: " I'm 3.5, definitely."

Girl 1 as she walks by the table: "Did you hear that?"

Girl 2:  "Yeah.  I'm never going to date any of those guys if that's all they have down there."


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 11, 2003)

And yet Sirius I think that's exactly what will happen...


----------



## pogre (Jul 11, 2003)

In the end Monte's buying 3.5 and so am I. Well, OK, he did not have to buy his, but you know what I mean.

There's things he likes and dislikes so he will homerule them. Just like the rest of us I suspect.

Not a big difference from 3.0 for me - I liberally homeruled on it as well once I knew the system.

I do hope this is not a Games Workshop situation - with revolving editions. However, I recognize that may be a decent business strategy.

I hope 4.0 pulls a lot of new people into the hobby. I nominate for the designers of 4.0:

Robin Laws
Charles Ryan
John Tynes

Get to work men!


----------



## Psiblade (Jul 11, 2003)

After reading the review by Monte, I definitely disagree with him regarding the buff spells. I hate all the die rolling every mourning! I also happen to like the changes for DR and classes esp. the ranger. I am worried about the square facings and less about the weapon handedness changes. I definitely do not like the MT. Other than these issues, I am happyly awaiting my order for 3.5. 



-Psiblade


----------



## tleilaxu (Jul 11, 2003)

folks, mince words if you like, but that review was an absolute reaming of 3.5.

tis a sad thing that has happened.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 11, 2003)

I definitely respect Monte's opinion, and in this case I share his view about 75% of the time.

I agree that it's too much too soon, but I think there were some areas that needed polishing (rangers, haste, harm, the buffs, etc).  I also like the change to square facing; I'm not sure about the rules for fitting in smaller spaces, I haven't seen those yet.  

I also, however, agree that the concept of 'mastery' has just been demolished, at least for a while- until we all relearn everything.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 11, 2003)

*re*

I agree with Monte on one imporant idea he conveyed in the article: House Rules. For me, the 3.5 Revised edition has been a clear indicator that D&D is all about preference: My preference versus the preference of the official game designers. House Rules are the best way to obtain the best possible game to suit my own preference.

The fact of the matter is that we all have different experiences playing this game. There will be many different opinions about the rules. For example, I have never had a player empower a stat buff spell, so for me this hasn't been an issue. I have never had a player use _Invisibility_, _Fly_ or _Teleport_ combined with divination spells to bypass an encounter. My players like to face encounters, not avoid them. Many of these issues do not occur in our campaigns, so we have no reason to change the duration or effect of the above spells. Many campaigns might have seen this kind of abuse occur, so they are happy with the changes. Who can say but the individuals playing in a particular campaign.

I plan to House Rule vigorously. The new edition definitely has encouraged me to implement many of the changes I have been contemplating. I figure why not? This new revised edition is really just the new game design teams House Rules made official combined with some House Rules the community wanted to see in effect as a whole. 

I'm kind of glad this Revision has happened. It has made my players more open to House Rules because they are not keen on implementing all the changes in 3.5. I have been able to work in House Rules they like as well as some of my own that I like to make the campaign world closer to my personal preference.


----------



## Uder (Jul 11, 2003)

If this had been in a 900 Words everyone would be jeering and laughing at poor Jim Ward.

It's a testament to Monte Cook's character and writing ability that he is able to write a rant, call it a review and still come out sounding so damn charming and friendly. No wonder he's the gaming equivalent of a rock star.



> It would be very simple to dismiss any of my negative comments with, "Oh, that's just sour grapes talking," or, "He's just trying to convince you to buy his competing product, Arcana Unearthed."




Very simple indeed. What did Ockham say about simple answers?


----------



## ruemere (Jul 11, 2003)

My 1 point of damage:

I liked enough the 3.5 changes (Druids, Rangers, Monks and Barbarians, Power Attacks and spell changes) to buy it. While I agree with Monte on bad sides (skipping credits where credits are due is simply very bad form, new facings are going to be painful for mass combats with creatures of differing sizes, editorial mistakes should _not_ happen in _revised_ edition), I am not really worried about them. I can do it.

Nerfing buff spells was a great idea. After all, who uses 25 point spread, eh? And buff spells coupled with 32 or 36 point spread rendered CR system unstable.

In other words, 3.5 is a step in the right direction, just like 3.0 was. It's a smaller step than I'd like it to be.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2003)

Uder said:
			
		

> *If this had been in a 900 Words everyone would be jeering and laughing at poor Jim Ward.
> 
> It's a testament to Monte Cook's character and writing ability that he is able to write a rant, call it a review and still come out sounding so damn charming and friendly. No wonder he's the gaming equivalent of a rock star.*



While I see your point, I disagree.  A review of that type is unique to Monte (and maybe a few choice others) because he was such a big part of the original 3.0 design team.  Jim Ward could not have written those same words because he was not in the position that Monte is in.

He did admit to its rantishness somewhere in there and no, it is not a slam of 3.5, he just doesn't love some of the changes and really wants some new art as it seems to me.


----------



## Numion (Jul 11, 2003)

F that!

I'm going back to M:tG.



I'm not buying 3.5e. Not because of Monte's column, but because close to $120 will be too much for those changes. My biggest gripes with 3e are easily fixed with house rules (buffs, archery).

They could've made the game actually much better, IMHO.


----------



## Nightstorm (Jul 11, 2003)

You know, I like Monte. I like the stuff he produces[ bought quite a few of it myself] and I all but totally agree with him on his views of 3.5     BUT         if he thinks for one minute that I'm going to believe that Arcana Unearthed is coming out at the same time as 3.5 is unplanned, then I have some swamp water you need to bottle.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2003)

Nightstorm said:
			
		

> *You know, I like Monte. I like the stuff he produces[ bought quite a few of it myself] and I all but totally agree with him on his views of 3.5     BUT         if he thinks for one minute that I'm going to believe that Arcana Unearthed is coming out at the same time as 3.5 is unplanned, then I have some swamp water you need to bottle. *



I believe him.  It would be better if they were not coming out at the same time as there would probably be more buzz for his stuff if 3.5 didn't steal the thunder.

Edit:  You can keep the swamp water.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 11, 2003)

You know, I'd like to see Monte write an article taking issue with himself and the rest of the 3E design team for making so many bad choices on 3E.

Note the things he liked:


> * It now costs less for wizards to scribe spells into their spellbooks.
> * Rangers and barbarians have more interesting abilities at higher levels
> * Bards have more of their own unique spells (and are a better class to play in general).
> * There are rules for special familiars like pseudo dragons.
> ...




These are things _he_ got wrong in 3E.

With regards to Monte's criticisms of 3.5E, there are some I agree with, some I greatly disagree with.

Interestingly, I've seen Andy Collins and other WotC designers discuss a few reasons behind the changes.

The +2/+2 feats in particular - almost every skill in 3.5E has a feat that corresponds to it - I think there's one exception. This was to stop more and more of these feats being added - so that you could theoretically take 5 feats to increase your Hide skill by using various d20 supplements. With all these feats existing, there is no real need to create more.

I do agree with the criticisms of the NPC layouts, though... assuming they're correct.  (I've not yet seen the 3.5E DMG). I found those shortened stats to be incredibly useful... without equipment, I'll be dragging along my 3E DMG to a few sessions yet.

Cheers!


----------



## Krug (Jul 11, 2003)

I don't think it was _he_ who got it wrong. He had ideas on how it should be; maybe the overall committee didn't. 

I think ppl will like some of the 3.5 changes, and dislike others, same as Monte.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 11, 2003)

It seems that this review brought out all the usual suspects in 3.5 debate threads.

My own personal thoughts:

Regarding the review itself, I think that I wouldn't buy a copy of the revision that Monte describes.  It sounds more akin to the update of the 2nd edition handbook which include primarily errata and minor changes.  But I will buy a book that includes changes to Haste, Hold Person, Harm, the Ranger class, the Bard class, etc., etc.  I'm unconcerned with whether this is called version 3.0, 3.01, 3.5, or 4.0.  To me, it's money that I need to shell out if I want to have the book, so they're all new versions AFAIC.

Yeah, reading Monte's part of the review where he talks about being in the meeting where 3.5 was being discussed around the time of the 3.0 edition, I couldn't help but think there was a little drama being inserted there.  But he has a great point that in business what you often begin plans for, ends up being implemented by someone else.  But because it is a truism, you inevitably have to shrug and move on.

I don't get bothered by the fact that the decision to release this was financially motivated.  I'm also not blind to the fact either.

I haven't seen a version of this game yet, or any other game, that somebody hasn't house ruled at some point or another.

I'm just a player and a DM, I'm not a game designer.  I'm sure the new books have a different impact on them than it does on myself.

I'm amazed by the folks who are preparing to re-base their miniatures due to the new spacing rules.  That's a lot of work just to keep current with the rules.  I certainly wouldn't do it until I saw how much of a problem (or lack thereof) the new spacing rules cause...and even then, I probably wouldn't do it.

BTW, Merric, Monte's been pretty forthright about goofs made in 3.0 and things he would change if he could go back and do it again.  I think his point is that he wouldn't make those changes for a revision, no matter how badly he wanted to.  He'd wait and do it when it's time to release 4th edition.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 11, 2003)

Nice article, but I'm still eagerly awaiting my 3.5 books.

To be honest---the revision team didn't go far enough in removing some of the sacred cows and poor rules artifacts left over from the original 3.0 design team.

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we get 4.0 the better.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 11, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *Nice article, but I'm still eagerly awaiting my 3.5 books.
> 
> To be honest---the revision team didn't go far enough in removing some of the sacred cows and poor rules artifacts left over from the original 3.0 design team.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we get 4.0 the better. *




Yeah, but do you think they'd really do it with 4th edition?  I think some of these sacred cows are going to stick around as long as the game is called D&D.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 11, 2003)

One of the most valuable points Monte made was the concept of Mastery. He's quite right; the subtle changes means that it's going to be quite difficult to keep certain rules straight. I bloody hate house rules, but I expect that I'm going to need to adopt a few of them no matter which edition i'm playing.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 11, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *Lots of the new feats are the kind that just add a +2 bonus to two skills.*
> 
> And there needed to be more of these.  Okay not as elegant as a catch-all +2 to 2 skills feat, but more flavorful.




There's one thing that people overlook when complaining about the +2/+2 feats: if they've got a name, they are more easily used as a prerequisite (for other feats, Prestige Classes, etc).

Heck, Monte himself does this - his Magical Talent feat (+2 to Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana)) is a prerequisite for several Eldritch feats and at least one PrC in BOEM2.

J


----------



## Yeoman (Jul 11, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> *I still think spring attack is broken.*




I just wanted to say I agreed with your post, but wanted to ask you about this line, what exactly is wrong with Spring Attack? I've heard others mention similar complaints.

Thanks!


----------



## Ysgarran (Jul 11, 2003)

Catch-22, very few other game developers would attract this kind of attention with their thoughts/opinions.

Ysgarran.


			
				Emiricol said:
			
		

> *
> Eloquent, maybe.  I just would have truly preferred that was written by someone other than Monte.  I just can't get past the conflict of interest(s). *


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 11, 2003)

I will be updating to 3.5, but I'll be keeping my 3.0 Player's Handbook.

However, I will not be buying the miniatures, and I will not update to 4.0 when it comes out. 

I think it was Buttercup who said earlier in this thread that she has enough 3.0 material to last forever. 

I'm in the same boat.

With all of the d20 companies offering 3.0 and 3.5 material (something that did not happen with 1E and 2E), I see no reason to go beyond 3.5 (which is about as much revision as I want to tolerate, sans miniatures).

As for the topic, I thought Monte's review was very insightful, and I'm looking forward to Sean K. Reynolds take as well...


----------



## Henry (Jul 11, 2003)

Quoted from MerricB:


> These are things he got wrong in 3E.




Remember the old axiom: "Hindsight is 20/20." The design process was about 4 years ago, after all.

Quoted from tleilaxu:


> folks, mince words if you like, but that review was an absolute reaming of 3.5.




I disagree. How can it be a "reaming" when there are as many good points as bad? If I read it properly, his biggest beef is his seeming belief that it will split the gaming base. That it will split the enthusiasts, and by extension the majority who buy Monte's online products, I have no doubt. But the main core of gamers everywhere? They'll likely forge on with 3.5e and not think twice.

The funny thing is, our group already plans to switch. We debated for all of 5 minutes. Maybe this will change once the final product rolls in, I don't know. But I don't think it will have the same effect Monte thinks it will.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 11, 2003)

I think Monte has a point on some things, doesn't on others.  Personally, I think one thing people have to remember is that D&D 3.0 was not designed by a group mind, it was designed by a TEAM, and that team had to make compromises they could all agree to.  They didn't all agree to certain rules, and it's obvious the SKR, Monte, Skip and others didn't all see eye-to-eye on every rule.

And I'll be honest, even after three years, as DM, I STILL don't have the elusive 'Mastery', though I understand the idea.  Maybe others can memorize how many sunbolts an 18th level cleric gets off the top of their head, or what the dispel check is for a 7th-level heightened Bull's Strength...but I still have to look it up.  


Now, that handedness business....what the HELL IS THAT?  I hope it's not nearly as clunky as it sounds...because it sounds terrible.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2003)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> *I will be updating to 3.5, but I'll be keeping my 3.0 Player's Handbook.
> 
> However, I will not be buying the miniatures, and I will not update to 4.0 when it comes out.
> 
> ...



Isn't that a little close-minded?  Why immediately shut yourself off from something that you could enjoy?  Especially without seeing it first or even giving it a shot...


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> Remember the old axiom: "Hindsight is 20/20." The design process was about 4 years ago, after all.*




I agree.  I still think 3E is the best rpg design I have ever seen.

There are *very* few things I would call "mistakes" in it.

3.5 is an overall significant improvement simply because it is that solid initial design with the added advantage of 4 years hindsight and experience.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 11, 2003)

*re*

As long as this is the last update for a good number of years past three, I don't think it will be so bad. If WotC continues to update making invalid a great many of previously purchased books that will drive quite a few folks from the game.

For myself, the biggest buying point of this new edition is the change to a few key spells like _Harm_ and _Disintegrate_. If I didn't want official changes to abusive spells, I wouldn't purchase the new edition. Many of the other changes aren't particularly compelling to me.

The changes also mak many of my other books, including the recently purchased _Fiend Folio_, somewhat harder to use. That I don't like.

I will not be held captive to upgrades. I hope WotC doesn't think it can pull this as often as it feels necessary. I certainly won't buy an upgrade every three to five years.

I hope they spend more time developing high quality non-core products. The original splat books were rife with errors and poorly designed rules and Prestige classes with occasional gems. The best books WotC has put out have been the FR books. I hope they bring all the other non-core books up to the quality of FR materials.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 11, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Isn't that a little close-minded?  Why immediately shut yourself off from something that you could enjoy?  Especially without seeing it first or even giving it a shot... *




Yes, it is a little closed-minded.  And I should have put a caveat in there.   I will not be upgrading to 4.0 if it comes out within the next 8 years.

However, it's more than just personal close-mindedness, it's also a matter of personal economics.  I've literally spent thousands on 3.0 (and will continue to spend on 3.5). 

Many of the supplements I have purchased I would not get a chance to use if an update comes too quickly.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2003)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> *Yes, it is a little closed-minded.  And I should have put a caveat in there.   I will not be upgrading to 4.0 if it comes out within the next 8 years.*



Fair enough.  I'd like a least 4-5 years before I have the chance to buy 4e.  


			
				DaveMage said:
			
		

> *However, it's more than just personal close-mindedness, it's also a matter of personal economics.  I've literally spent thousands on 3.0 (and will continue to spend on 3.5).
> 
> Many of the supplements I have purchased I would not get a chance to use if an update comes too quickly. *



Same here.  I still use old books and am not looking forward to buying tons of stuff for a new edition any time soon.  Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> Now, that handedness business....what the HELL IS THAT?  I hope it's not nearly as clunky as it sounds...because it sounds terrible. *




I do not find it clunky at all.  It works pretty logically once you adjust to it.

However, I still don't really like this change.  I think this one was a change that adds logic at the expense of game play.

It makes sense that a halfling fighter can not just grab a human's longsword and use it the same way he would use a halfling sized greatsword.  But, so?  I agree with Monte that having a halfling and human both be able to use the +2 longsword they just found is more valuable.  To me that adds more fun to the game than the new logic does.

So, right now I am still in a no house rules mode, to give everything a try.  But this is on my list of likely changes after a while.  Just not because of any clunkiness.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: Re: Mastery*



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> *And making PCs is the least of the problem with this. It's trivial in fact. Knowing that now the rules have changed slightly on a spell your wizard uses every other session, or knowing that trips are calculated differently, or knowng that a skill does something slightly differently is very different than picking a spell, feat, or skill for a PC.*




Yep. This is going to be a mess. Not the big changes, although I disagree with several of those and wont' be using them. BUt the little changes. Should I decide to convert to 3.5, a lot of records and resources I used will need to be revised in little, annoying, niggling ways.

For eaxmple: I have been keeping a data base in which I keep track of all of the general characteristics of spells (school,  descriptors, classes that can cast them, spell level, and so on) so that keeping all of the supplemental and third party material in one place with the PHB stuff is possible. Overhauling this database to comport with 3.5 will be a pain in the butt due to the various _minor_ and _subtle_ changes made in the PHB spell list.


----------



## molonel (Jul 11, 2003)

"Taking levels of a prestige class now apparently forces you to pay multiclassing XP costs. Whether intentionally or by accident, the prestige class chapter no longer states that they are free of this cost." - Monte Cook

What?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

How will anyone but a human even qualify for a PrC anymore without taking XP penalties?  Even for a human, it's going to be tough.


----------



## Tsyr (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *So, right now I am still in a no house rules mode, to give everything a try.  But this is on my list of likely changes after a while.  Just not because of any clunkiness. *




You know, this has always puzzled me... This attitude that I have to try something to know if I will like it. 

To borrow(steel) from a Dilbert strip...

I don't have to try cramming a bag of potato chips up my nose to know I wouldn't like it. I just know I wouldn't. Likewise, I just know a lot of the changes in 3.5 I won't like.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 11, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *You know, this has always puzzled me... This attitude that I have to try something to know if I will like it.*




How about because experience has shown me that very often, many of the preconcieved notions I had about several rules were not borne out by actual gameplay?  Many spells that I thought were overpowered turned out to be fine, when they actually saw play.  The same is true of particular feats, skills and specific rules that seemed like they wouldn't work well, but turned out to be just fine.

We're not talking about swallowing battery acid, here.  D&D is a complex system, relatively speaking, dependent on the interaction of lots of different rules and systems.  As Gandalf might say, "Even the wisest cannot see all ends".

Oh, and the xp penalty for PrCs is an editing mistake, according to Sean Reynolds.  The text was deleted by mistake, but it hasn't changed from 3.0....i.e. no penalty.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

So far I have been right in most of my predictions as to what I will and will not like.

But I have found in the past that sometimes things are a lot better (or a lot worse) than they first appear.  There is no harm in trying them for 4 or 5 sessions to see.

To me there is nothing OBVIOUSLY hopeless.  (Well, maybe the MT and EK, but there is no real chance for those to come into my game now anyway)

But if one of the changes was a requirement that you put bag of potato chips up my nose, I would house rule that before trying it.
Fortunately, I don't find that analogy to fit any of the changes for me.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 11, 2003)

I didn't see it posted here yet, but if anyone is interested, here is Sean K. Reynolds commentary on Monte Cook's review.


----------



## Urbannen (Jul 11, 2003)

*My 2 cp*

I was very gung-ho about 3.5 because I see a lot of little problems with 3.0 that I would like changed.  I like/can live with the vast majority of changes in 3.5.  However, if 3.5 is what I read it is, I think I agree with a lot of Mr. Cook's criticisms.  It doesn't seem that backwards compatibility is of utmost importance to this new edition, regardless of what WotC might say.  It's not like they are just fixing some of the glaring problems that most players can already list by name, or adding some features to the problem classes.  They are changing the basic functioning of many, many spells, spells being the bread and butter of the game.  They are changing gnomes' favored class, fundamentally altering many existing characters.  They are changing the weapons system in what seems will be a fairly drastic way.  I like the current mechanic of weapon size - maybe the new system will be an improvement, but right now it seems a profound change that would only be appropriate under a totally new edition.  I am also disturbed by some of the editing errors that Mr. Cook mentioned, mainly the omission of the fact that PrCs don't evoke XP penalties and the fact that the given magic items aren't priced under the revised system.  

I understand that WotC is there to make money for Hasbro, but I think that there is a fair amout of manipulation going on.  It seems that the PHB has been tweaked just profoundly enough that really you do have to have the new books.  They do have a monopoly on this intellectual property after all.  It is in their best interest to change the official d20 rules periodically to ensure continuous sales.  A multitude of little tweaks and a few profound ones is a good formula that ensures continuous sales.  People won't really be able to play the old version as a stand-alone à la 1st Edition because newer revisions will be so similar to older ones, and if they want to continue to play, they will want to get the newer version because of the profound changes.   "That'll be 29.95 a piece, thank you for shopping at WotC, source for your "official" Dungeons & Dragons rules set.  Oh, and make sure to visit our website to pick up all the latest errata, completely free of charge."  

The criticism isn't really for the new edition's design and editorial team - nothing is perfect and they have a lot of different people to please.  I do like a lot of the changes and would expect some of them in a 4th edition at the proper time.  The criticism is for the corporate business practices, which right now feel kind of icky.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 11, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Same here.  I still use old books and am not looking forward to buying tons of stuff for a new edition any time soon.  Thanks for clearing that up.   *




The d20 system has been a blessing for the game, but a bottomless pit for my wallet.


----------



## Tsyr (Jul 11, 2003)

Things that I know I won't like:

Changes to Druid Wildshape (Unless we aren't being told something about Scent and so forth, but no indication of that thus far)

Changes to Call Lightning

Changes to buff spell duration (I agree they were too long. Now, however, they are too short. There should have been a middle ground).

The fact that paladins and monks still have stupid multiclass restrictions.

Some of the implications of the changes to Damage Reduction (IE, golfbag of weapons syndrom). I think what drove that home for me was a comment by a friend at my last gaming session... "Ok, I was brought into DnD by Baldur's Gate, but I like that... I always thought you were supposed to carry around a weapon for every situation." Gyeh.


----------



## Belen (Jul 11, 2003)

The worst things is that Sean Reynolds just confirmed that the ERRATA FROM 3E DID NOT GET INCLUDED IN 3.5!!!!  I am really angry at this.  So they published a book without the official errata that they promised back when they mentioned the third printing.

As the third printing is 3.5, then I am highly pee'd off.  Jerks.  Enough said.


----------



## MikeWilliams (Jul 11, 2003)

As something of a rebuttal to all of the folks who have said that they aren't going to purchase the 3.5 books because of Monty's review, I'd like to comment that I'd been planning to pick up the 3.5 PH and DMG, but Monty's review was enough for me to decide that I need to pick up the MM as well.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Jul 11, 2003)

Here's the statement from Monte that no one has yet quoted:



> Should you buy 3.5? Frankly, of course you should.




So there you have it.

Not plugging in the errata?  Well...Sean says that "he'd guess" this was the case.  Still, if I discover that this is true I will not be buying the new books, just like I didn't buy the black-cover 2.5 books.

You can still "keep up with D&D" by waiting until 4.0 to upgrade.  (If it's any good.)


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Jul 11, 2003)

_Originally posted by BelenUmeria _
*The worst things is that Sean Reynolds just confirmed that the ERRATA FROM 3E DID NOT GET INCLUDED IN 3.5!!!! *

This seems strange given that the whole point of 3.5 was in essence to be an errata and band-aid edition.

Artwork I could care less about (I'm not a big fan of putting out a new edition just for the sake of new art), but when the stated purpose of the edition was to fix problems, and the errata is left out... then what exactly is the point of the revision again?

This sort of thing seems to be an epidemic in the US now.

- Ma'at


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 11, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Regardless of if that was his goal or not, he should be applauded for what he has done.
> 
> ...





So does this mean you are going to become one of the "Mac Users" of the D20 world?


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *The worst things is that Sean Reynolds just confirmed that the ERRATA FROM 3E DID NOT GET INCLUDED IN 3.5!!!!  I am really angry at this.  So they published a book without the official errata that they promised back when they mentioned the third printing.
> 
> As the third printing is 3.5, then I am highly pee'd off.  Jerks.  Enough said. *



He said some errata, not all of it.  I wouldn't freak out until we see the books.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking forward to errata...


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 11, 2003)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> *The d20 system has been a blessing for the game, but a bottomless pit for my wallet.   *



Too true, just look to the left.


----------



## tleilaxu (Jul 11, 2003)

_Originally posted by Uder 
If this had been in a 900 Words everyone would be jeering and laughing at poor Jim Ward.

It's a testament to Monte Cook's character and writing ability that he is able to write a rant, call it a review and still come out sounding so damn charming and friendly. No wonder he's the gaming equivalent of a rock star._



Nope. The difference is that Jim Ward writes crap and Monte doesn't. 

_"You might say there's a little Uder in all of us, hahaha!" - Principal Skinner_


----------



## Storminator (Jul 11, 2003)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To me that is the point I see in Monte's "mastery" construction.  It's not about the logistical problem of adapting to a new skill set, it's about the emotional problem of the impact of change on play value.
> 
> Whether that's a problem that 3.5e is apt to suffer, I don't feel qualified to say.  My point is simply that it isn't about whether people will adapt, but about how they will feel about having to, and what game designers can do to make that feeling better or worse.  As long as we agree on what the potential problem at hand is, I have no problem with different speculations and conclusions about whether 3.5e suffers that problem. *




I do agree that this was the point he was trying to make. I'm saying I reject that point out of hand, so naturally, I don't agree with anything that follows from that point. I put that entire section down as a non-issue and moved on. Then I mostly put the rest of his points down as non-issues as well, then I stopped reading.

Probably irrelavent to the discussion at this point, as I'm 4 pages behind now. 

PS


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 11, 2003)

tleilaxu said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by Uder
> If this had been in a 900 Words everyone would be jeering and laughing at poor Jim Ward.
> 
> It's a testament to Monte Cook's character and writing ability that he is able to write a rant, call it a review and still come out sounding so damn charming and friendly. No wonder he's the gaming equivalent of a rock star.
> ...





Since I don't much like any of Monte's products I consider this to merely be a rant.


----------



## tleilaxu (Jul 11, 2003)

doc- whose comment, mine or uder's?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 11, 2003)

I just can't believe I got left behind by a new edition again, and so soon after buying the prior edition.   Aw well...Wizards did that to me with Star Wars and now D&D.


----------



## kkoie (Jul 11, 2003)

well Monte's review was the straw that broke the.. etc etc.  I for one will not be spending $90.  It will cost me far less  money to download the SRD and print them off myself.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 11, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Now, that handedness business....what the HELL IS THAT?  I hope it's not nearly as clunky as it sounds...because it sounds terrible. *



I think this is one of the changes that will be a lot better for newbies than for those who have played before. I know I would rather see "A greatsword made for a Huge character (like a storm giant)" than "A Gargantuan greatsword (suitable for two-handed use by a Huge character, like a storm giant)".

Edit: Forgot what the size above Huge was.


----------



## KenM (Jul 11, 2003)

Well, if WOTC does not mess up some things with 3.5, then they don't have a legitamate excuse to put out 4.0.


----------



## francisca (Jul 11, 2003)

From the Sean Reynolds rebuttal:

===============

True, and again this is a problem stemming from the brand team. Other than "make 3.5," the brand team didn't give R&D much direction as to how far they should go with the changes. Should it be just an incorporation of errata and rewrites of confusing rules? No answer. Should it be a step forward in the evolution of D&D, a hybrid between 3.0 and whatever 4.0 would be in the future? No answer. So the designers made changes they thought were needed and others that they thought would improve the game, but weren't really told when to stop. The result is a game that's much like 3.0 but different enough to require relearning of your game memory and reflexes.

==============

Excuse me, but it seems to me that the R&D team *should* the group that decides when to stop.  Not the brand team.  

I mean come on!  If the R&D team can't decide what is revised content and what is new edition material, then who can?  

Dunno if SKR is trying to deflect heat from his pals still at WOTC, but in my estimation, it is up to the R&D to reign themselves in on revision.  If 3.5 is a slushy mix of revision and new edition, then the responsibility for it falls squarley on the shoulders of R&D, especially if the brand team gave them no direction.

Chalk me up as another "3.25" player.  I'll get the SRD and house rule stuff in.  More than that, I'll do so sometime in 2004, after reading posts here on ENWorld.


----------



## dcollins (Jul 11, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *The worst things is that Sean Reynolds just confirmed that the ERRATA FROM 3E DID NOT GET INCLUDED IN 3.5!!!!  I am really angry at this. *




You're going to need to quote exactly where Sean said this, because I don't see it in his recent commentary.

Now, _if_ you're thinking of this passage...



> {Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains.}
> 
> I'd guess that's because the designers may have been working off the pre-errata files and didn't plug in all of the errata. Oops.




... then it's Sean that's making the bit of a mistake here. That rule was never altered in Errata or even the official FAQ.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 11, 2003)

Yep, I'm a 3.25er. Monte's review didn't tell me anything I didn't know already (or had long-since correctly guessed).


----------



## Hardhead (Jul 11, 2003)

> This seems strange given that the whole point of 3.5 was in essence to be an errata and band-aid edition.
> 
> Artwork I could care less about (I'm not a big fan of putting out a new edition just for the sake of new art), but when the stated purpose of the edition was to fix problems, and the errata is left out... then what exactly is the point of the revision again?




I don't think WotC has any editors left - they've all been fired.  Look at Savage Species, for example, where the chief ediotr was also one of the three writers of the book.  Everyone knows you never edit your own work!  That's a basic rule of publishing!  Maybe even _the_ basic rule!  

Considering the massive increase in errors over the last year or two, I'm not surprised that this book will have it's fair share.  Even though there's really no excuse for them in a revision like this.


----------



## dcollins (Jul 11, 2003)

Uder said:
			
		

> *Very simple indeed. What did Ockham say about simple answers? *




Well, it's Occam, and he's reputed to have said "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html )

Unfortunately, theory #1, that WOTC fired most of its design staff, decided to follow a proven Games Workshop business model, and turned out a sub-par product, is a lot more consistent with the known facts than theory #2, that Monte Cook for the first time ever became unreasonably bitter and was unable to write an honest review of a gaming product.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 11, 2003)

Here's Monte's first (and last) word on the topic (you'll have to scroll down a bit): 

http://pub58.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=248.topic&start=21&stop=37


----------



## Anubis the Doomseer (Jul 11, 2003)

_Originally posted by dcollins _
*Unfortunately, theory #1, that WOTC fired most of its design staff, decided to follow a proven Games Workshop business model, and turned out a sub-par product, is a lot more consistent with the known facts than theory #2, that Monte Cook for the first time ever became unreasonably bitter and was unable to write an honest review of a gaming product. *

You don't even have to look that far into it.  Theory #1 is also the easiest and most likely.  Some call it a sub-par product, but it is also an already _Bestselling_ sub-par product.  Bad or not, it's already made it's money and then some, and it hasn't even officially been released.

That's the reason the GW model works, and in fact it isn't even a model limited to gaming.  It's simple business math - why put extra costs/effort into a product if what you already plan has hit all the profit expectations and unit sales?  You are not going to be lauded at the next quarerly meeting for having spent 140% of the money needed to get the necessary return on investment.  

To put it in Enworld mechanics-speak, making a mastercrafted D&D book is a sub-optimal choice when for the same price you can make a normal, even marginal, Craft roll.  Why take 20 when you make the GPs you need with anything higher than a 1?

- Ma'at


----------



## Tzarevitch (Jul 11, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> *
> 
> He didn't make it so it was pretty much essential. WotC is definitely trying to make miniatures integral to the game. *




I am not sure that the square-facing rule is there just for miniatures. If you've DMed then you have run into the question of what happens if a large, long creature like a worm needs to pivot and there is a character on the flanks like this?

         _
        |  |
        |  | 0
        |  |
         V

Can the worm pivot through the character's square (is this a Bull Rush or something else) and does it draw an attack of opportunity since pivoting is not a move? 3.0 was supposed to do away with facing rules but effectively large, long creatures DO still have facing. Squaring the facings off solves all of these problems with very little damage to gameplay. 

Square facings neatly solve the pivot problem even if you don't use miniatures. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## Ysgarran (Jul 11, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *The worst things is that Sean Reynolds just confirmed that the ERRATA FROM 3E DID NOT GET INCLUDED IN 3.5!!!!  I am really angry at this.  So they published a book without the official errata that they promised back when they mentioned the third printing.
> 
> As the third printing is 3.5, then I am highly pee'd off.  Jerks.  Enough said. *



I agree 100%.  There is no excuse for this.  These are errors they've known about and haven't bothered to fix.   Unfortunately as long as the sales numbers are high enough WotC/Hasbro will never have the incentive to increase the quality.

Considering the amount of NEW errata (never mind the old stuff) I'm going to treat this like a new computer game.   I'll just sit back and wait to see just how bad things really are.  After we get a feel for just how the overall quality is I'll make the decision about purchasing 3.5

Ysgarran.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 11, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *But even that overstates the issue.  I own a lot of 3rd party stuff.  I have yet to find a single item that I could not convert to 3.5 compatible in under 1 minute (for the small fraction that requires any change at all).  I assure you that the inverse is equally true.  Wait for 3.5 3rd party stuff to start coming out.  I will be able to take anything and convert to 3E in moments.  And again, only rarely will that even be needed.
> 
> There simply is no issue here. *




How about a 1 minute conversion of the shifter class from WotC's Masters of the Wild.

Some of their powers are now core druid wildshaping.

We're debating it in my group as one of the PCs is a shifter.

Also the greater mark spells from BoEM.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Jul 11, 2003)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But it's his unique viewpoint as a 3.0 insider that makes it interesting.  You can't have that and perfect objectivity at the same time. *




I agree. Some of Monte's points are valid, but there is enough that seems like nit-picking that I wonder about objectivity. 

I agree with him on some of the new prestige classes. Some like the Eldrich Knight and the Mystic Theurge are pathetically easy to get into yet provide much more capability than most classes with much stricter entry requirements.

I agree that if they did not fix the "caster level" problem and the pricing for magic items that is very poor work on WoTC's part and the "handedness" bit sounds like far more confusion than it is worth, especially when nothing was wrong with the old "weaponn-sizes" rules. 

A few of Monte's other complaints strike me as nit-picking. 

1) New focus on miniatures? - Don't use them. They aren't pivotal to the game nor are they mandatory. If you like the rules, use them, if you don't, then don't. My games have always used miniatures (even in 2e) when necessary, but we can (and do) just as easily leave them out of some battles. 
2) Square facings?  - The creatures with rectangular facings NEEDED fixing. This is not just a miniatures issue. Square facings have their own problems, but there are fewer of them than are caused by rectangular facing. 
3) Changes to spells? -  This does not fundamentally re-order how the game is played. It is not a re-working of the entire cosmos. The sky is not falling. Players will adapt as they always do. If the players don't like the new Bull Strength then they won't use it. It does not suddenly mean that now Mordor will rule Middle Earth. 
4) Playtester credits? -  I would prefer to see some but who knows why they were excluded? That doesn't necessarily mean that no one playtested the new rules as seems to be implied. 
5) House rules? - They will always be there. If the DM (or sometimes the players as a group) doesn't like a rule, he will house-rule it. It doesn't matter if it came from ver 3.0, 3.5, 2.0 or 2000.7541.  Ver. 3.5 is no more likely to spawn them (as compared to 3.0) than 3.0 did with regard  to 2.0. 

With regard to the multi-classing penalty and prestige classes, can someone check and see if that is true? I house-ruled a similar rule in my Oriental Adventures game a year ago, but I never though WOTC would have the backbone to make that change and I am not sure that it is such a good change in mid-stream. If they have, I think Monte may be correct on this point, that IS a fundamental change. My campaign will be fine but many other characters in other games will be needing serious re-writes. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## seankreynolds (Jul 11, 2003)

{SeanKR, when it is up, please post so we can hammer your site }

Here you go, if you missed the other thread on it:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/3point5comments.html


{If you are smart enough to play D&D, you are smart enough to do backwards and/or forwards conversions. And I am NOT saying that not liking 3.5 means you are not smart. You can HATE 3.5, but if you are reading this, I can assure you, you are smart enough to do the conversions (you just won't want to  ).}

I can totally agree with that statement.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2003)

Voadam said:
			
		

> How about a 1 minute conversion of the shifter class from WotC's Masters of the Wild.
> 
> Some of their powers are now core druid wildshaping.
> 
> We're debating it in my group as one of the PCs is a shifter.




I don't see any need to change it.  It never assumed a druid anyway.  Perhaos it is a little less powerful, relatively, than it was.  But that is not a problem.  It was already quite potent.

It already gained "animal form" at second level.  So gaining abilities that a druid already has is built in before 3.5.



> Also the greater mark spells from BoEM.




As 4th level spells I would pretty much leave them alone at 1 hour per level.  Change Greater mark fo Earth to DR 10/magic OR, if you want, DR10/admantium (though that is probably a bit to much)

Because the normal mark spells trade some ability enhancement for other perks I think 10 min/level is easily comparable for those L2 spells.

YMMV.  

I don't claim these are "correct".  But they work for me.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 11, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> *
> I think this is one of the changes that will be a lot better for newbies than for those who have played before. I know I would rather see "A greatsword made for a Huge character (like a storm giant)" than "A Gargantuan greatsword (suitable for two-handed use by a Huge character, like a storm giant)".*




I was a bit concerned at first, until I started another thread in Rules to discuss it, and had it explained to me in detail.  I'm much happier with it now than I was.  So far, so good for 3.5, afaic.


----------



## Conaill (Jul 11, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *The worst things is that Sean Reynolds just confirmed that the ERRATA FROM 3E DID NOT GET INCLUDED IN 3.5!!!! *




Just to make sure nobody gets the wrong idea, here is SKR's latest correction on this issue:


> _And lo, from upon high SKR sayeth _
> *I'd guess that's because the designers may have been working off the pre-errata files and didn't plug in all of the errata. Oops. Correction: The "CL is a prereq" is a commonly known error at WotC, but for some reason it never actually made it into the official DMG errata. So that helps explain why it didn't make it into the 3.5 DMG ... it wasn't on the existing list of things to fix. Still, it is unfortunate that it was not included, because it _is_ an error in the 3.0 book.*


----------



## Uder (Jul 11, 2003)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> *Can the worm pivot through the character's square (is this a Bull Rush or something else) and does it draw an attack of opportunity since pivoting is not a move?*



You bring up good points... not against ever using rectangular facing, but as to why it's a PITA to include anything but square facing rules in the core rules.

Anything that involves the worm occupying squares it wasn't previously occupying is a move. Yes, the worm would have to bull rush or overrun to *occupy* a square that an enemy was in, but I'd rule that it wouldn't have to bull rush just to turn if none of its squares ended up occupying enemy spaces... it's a worm! This last part, however, becomes an ad hoc ruling that relies on a fair DM with a good sense of balance and the rules. As for AoOs, that's a little easier. It would draw AoOs when it left a threatened square. Here's the ad hoc part again... if none of its squares moved more than 5', I'd call it a 5' step and ignore the AoOs.

It would be cumbersome to come up with individual rulings like that for each different possible facing and monster anatomy. I can certainly see why they changed to square facings... it's easier than dealing with the can of worms (heh) questions like that bring up. Nobody wants to read an entire column of Sage Advice titled "How the Worm Turns". If you are the sort who cares about SoD in combat, get a DM who can handle making those sorts of decisions. If it doesn't break your SoD, use the new facings.

I had to create house rules for facing in 3.0, it comes as no surprise to me that I'll still be using them for 3.5.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 12, 2003)

I'm going to say this straight: Monte's review is a terrible review.

It contains much that is of worth in it. Even if I disagree with some of his arguments and conclusions, I greatly appreciate seeing his thoughts on the matter.

However, as a review, it sucks.

The reason it sucks is one of balance.

Monte says, "most of the changes it presents are good."

Why then, does it read so much as a slam of the 3.5 books?

I think it's because he spends no time discussing the good changes, and why they are good changes, and spends a huge amount of time discussing those changes he thinks are bad.

Compare the following two excerpts from the review:


> * Rangers and barbarians have more interesting abilities at higher levels






> * The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened. Talk about changing the way the game is played. Cat's grace used to last an hour per level, mostly so you could cast it, adjust your stats, and not have to worry about it until you rested (again, it was that way to make game play easier and more fun). Now it lasts one minute per level, which means it sees you through one encounter, or two if you rush in between them. These spells have been rendered nearly worthless -- in particular a spell like endurance, now bear's endurance, for extra hit points are far more useful over the long term than just for one encounter, particularly for those who really need it, like wizards.




Why is there such a discrepancy in length? If "most of the changes it presents are good", why then does the emphasis fall on the negative?

Because Monte, despite his disclaimers, is concentrating on the negatives of the 3.5E books.

A review? No. It is a rant, and I wish he'd labelled it as such. The insights given are important, but I do believe, very strongly, that more attention needed to be given to the positives for it to be properly called a "review".


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 12, 2003)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *I'm going to say this straight: Monte's review is a terrible review. *



Agreed, and you make some good points.  "Oh yeah all the classes are exciting and balanced now but the NEW 2ND LEVEL BUFF SPELLS WILL TOTALLY CHANGE THE GAME!!!11!"

Please.

I can't believe so many people are professing to have second thoughts on account of such a goofy rant that didn't even offer any new information that we didn't already know.

Imagine if 3.5 was actually the first version, and the 3.0 books we have now turned out to be the "revised" versions offered a few years later.  The game would suck in comparison.  People are getting way too hung up on isolated, unimportant changes they don't agree with, and melodramatic tantrums from designers they respect.

Do I agree with every little revision?  No.  But the game as a whole will be much better, and that's all that's needed to justify an upgrade.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 12, 2003)

*re Monte's review*

Monte has clarified that his review might appear to be negative, but in actuallity he thinks there is actually more good stuff than bad about 3.5.  The reason that his view seems negative is that he felt the need to back up his criticisms wheras he did not feel that he needed to back up any praise he might have, therefore supporting his criticsms took up much more space.


----------



## Thrommel (Jul 12, 2003)

> Why is there such a discrepancy in length? If "most of the changes it presents are good", why then does the emphasis fall on the negative?



The discrepancy in length is pretty straightforward -- it doesn't take a lot of space to say you like something. "Sorcerers can change out their known spells when they become useless (or simply were bad choices)" -- what more really needs to be said? Do we need to rehash why Harm was broken, for instance?

On the other hand, if you are going to criticize something, then it's incumbent on the reviewer to justify their opinion.

If all people heard was "Facing (now called space) is now always square " without any further reasoning, a lot of readers are going to say "_So...?_" Especially since precious few consumers have the book in their hands to flip through it and make up their own minds.

And the conclusion of his review states outright that "the fact is that none of my criticisms of the new material are so damning as to wreck the game. D&D is still a good game, whether it's 3.0 or 3.5."

In my experience, Monte has been consistently professional, direct, and honest. The review is no different. Does he have issues with the book? Yes. Does he recommend the book? Yes.

To me the disturbing thing is not what he wrote. It's the way some people are now twisting it to vindicate their own agenda (on both sides of the revision debate) or ascribe motives that frankly I don't think are there.

People have been bugging Monte for his opinion on 3.5 for a long time now. He gave it -- no more, no less.

-Thrommel


----------



## HellHound (Jul 12, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Now, that handedness business....what the HELL IS THAT?  I hope it's not nearly as clunky as it sounds...because it sounds terrible. *




I like it. It's better (In My Opinion, as I stated before) than a gnome being able to pick up a size Huge Giant's dagger and wield it two-handed without penalty (as he could do in the 3.0 standard).


----------



## Emiricol (Jul 12, 2003)

Gotta say, I agree with Kai Lord and Merric (as I often do).  Which is what  my problem was with the "review" in the first place.



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> Agreed, and you make some good points.  "Oh yeah all the classes are exciting and balanced now but the NEW 2ND LEVEL BUFF SPELLS WILL TOTALLY CHANGE THE GAME!!!11!"
> 
> Please.
> ...


----------



## William Ronald (Jul 12, 2003)

I will try to give 3.5 a chance.

Monte's review has several good points, but I wish he would have elaborated a bit more on the positive changes.  I am uncertain about the facing issue, but found that in 3.0 I used miniatures far more often than in the past.


The financial reasons for the revision were somewhat disheartening, as it will likely give fodder to those who are cynical about WotC.  I agree WotC has to make a profit or at least break even.  However, Monte Cook's statement that finances played such a large role in the revision will tend to make some of my fellow players a bit skeptical about future releases.  (One person I know has already "predicted" a 4th edition in two to three years.  I argued that this would be illogical, as it would probably alienate a lot of players.)

So, I wish Monte Cook had elaborated a bit more on the positive changes in D&D 3.5.  From reading him on line, and meeting him at Gen Con, he seems like a reasonable person.  Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt when assigning motives to his statements in the review.

Also, I think it might be wise to tone down the rhetoric a bit.


----------



## tleilaxu (Jul 12, 2003)

this is a product driven by money

what is more, many of the changes were changed with commerce taking the lead over needed improvements to the game 

this is according to monte

doesn't that make anyone else wary?

most people were happy with 3E. the changes that happened were great and a great improvement on 2e. sure, it wasn't perfect.

if this had been handled with more concern to gamers the .5 edition would be better. i'm not saying it sucks (i havn't seen it). i'm just saying that these indicators say to me that dnd is now driven by short term 3Q earnings, etc.

this is sad. its like computer games being released with tons of bugs in order to meet profit goals for the company. it sucks that this culture has permeated to the text publishing business as well. from what i've heard, what we're seeing is an edition being released prematurly. for all of you who are going to buy it and excited, good for you, have fun! i don't think you are stupid. don't accuse me or other 3.5 cynics of being silly for looking askance at all of these confidence deflating revelations.

we could have had better than this sort of calculating release


----------



## JLXC (Jul 12, 2003)

I think the scariest thing is that 3.5 was Supposed to be a eratta fix / minor update, and from the WOTC boards is seem that they didn't even get all the eratta from 3.0 fixed.  So they added a bunch of stuff, changed a bunch of stuff, but didn't even incorporate all the eratta from 3.0?  That sounds like a total botch to me regaurdless of how kewl the changes are.

Coming soon 3.65 the eratta for 3.0 and 3.5 fixed at last!

Coming almost as soon 3.75 the eratta to 3.65 plus some additional features!

I will not buy core books every 3 years.  This is not D&D:The Gathering.  Or is it?


----------



## Ondo (Jul 12, 2003)

I find it somewhat funny, and somewhat sad, that Monte doesn't like the changes to the ability score enhancing spells.  His spell Enhance Magical Flow from the Book of Eldritch Might was clearly inferior to the ability boost spell for your main spell-casting attribute.  Now it at least has 10 times the duration going for it.


----------



## jasamcarl (Jul 12, 2003)

JLXC said:
			
		

> *I think the scariest thing is that 3.5 was Supposed to be a eratta fix / minor update, and from the WOTC boards is seem that they didn't even get all the eratta from 3.0 fixed.  So they added a bunch of stuff, changed a bunch of stuff, but didn't even incorporate all the eratta from 3.0?  That sounds like a total botch to me regaurdless of how kewl the changes are.
> 
> Coming soon 3.65 the eratta for 3.0 and 3.5 fixed at last!
> 
> ...




Uh, if you are basing that off of reynolds comment, he was actually in error. Atleast have some grounding for your cynicism.


----------



## JLXC (Jul 12, 2003)

Fraid not.  I'm basing it off the folks who actually have the books on the WOTC boards.


----------



## Jeremy Crawford (Jul 12, 2003)

*Errors in the revised books*

I've had the three revised books for a week now and have, for the most part, been pleased and, in some cases, excited by what's in them.

The books do, alas, contain errors, from typos to substantive mistakes. While disappointing, the number of errors is at least significantly lower than in the first printings of the 3.0 books.

I think WotC needs to invest heavily in editing, as some of the errors in the revision are embarrassing. That said, I count our lucky stars that the books didn't sink to the editorial nadir occupied by  _Urban Arcana_.


----------



## JLXC (Jul 12, 2003)

Thanks for the heads up Jeremy.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 12, 2003)

*Re: re Monte's review*



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> *Monte has clarified that his review might appear to be negative, but in actuallity he thinks there is actually more good stuff than bad about 3.5.  The reason that his view seems negative is that he felt the need to back up his criticisms wheras he did not feel that he needed to back up any praise he might have, therefore supporting his criticsms took up much more space. *




I accept that. I also accept the fact that it makes no difference as to how it reads: as a negative view of 3.5E

Of course, he is also addressing people who didn't think that anything should have changed, for whom it would have been nice if he'd backed up his judgements of what was right about the revision as well.

Monte remains one of my top four game designers (the others being Gary Gygax, Richard Garfield and Klaus Teuber), but I do wish he'd read his article again before posting and edited it to make it more balanced.

Cheers!


----------



## Mark (Jul 12, 2003)

Why does someone who is vocally against the splitting of the market say and do other things that will obviously bring a degree division?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 12, 2003)

tleilaxu said:
			
		

> *this is a product driven by money*




Yes, but in a large, important sense, _every_ product is driven by money. I've yet to hear of a philanthropist publisher who chooses to sell gaming materials at a loss.

The motivations, to be honest, really aren't that important.  The real question is simple - is it a good product?

Many games get revisions on a timescale well under decade.  Shadowrun went from it's 1st to 2nd edition in three years, and it even survived the death of the company that made it.  White Wolf games get frequent revisions, and they are going strong.  Frequent revisions do not signal a death knell for a product line.


----------



## Daiymo (Jul 12, 2003)

seankreynolds said:
			
		

> *{I'm intensely curious to see if 3.5 will prompt some d20 publishers to mix and match the rules they use between the two versions.}
> 
> I've been saying for some time now that a lot of people will use 3.5 as a source of common "house rules" but will continue to play 3.0.
> 
> I'll be posting my own commentary (adding to Monte's) on my site later tonight. *




Ive wondered about this myself since revised 3e was announced. I kind of hope d20 publihers do support both versions in future material-but this seems it may be difficult given the scope and type of changes made by WOTC to the rules.

I wonder if were seeing a fragmentation of d20- sort of reminescent of ADnD 2nd edition were everyone had a list of house rules, kits, etc allowed or disallowed.

Just a thought- Could we possibly see a "New Coke" situation if the revised rules dont sell well. But I guess thats a moot point given the new rule books rationg at Amazon.com.

LOL we live in interesting times. I look forward to hear what SKR thinks.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jul 12, 2003)

My concerns about 3.5 follow from how it will impact my games. In other words, will I gain equal or greater value from the revision than my costs in time and money?

As a GAMING GROUP, someone will have to get the new books so we have the new version in hand while we discuss whether or not to change. Given that my current group does not consist of all (or even mostly) game gurus, there may be serious resistance to bringing in a new rules-set. After all, some of the players are only just now becoming comfortable playing certain classes - and by no means all of the classes. Assuming we do switch, then...

As a PLAYER, I will be going back to square one for several of the classes. Not just because special abilities have changed, but also feats, skills, spells, items, and so on. I will almost certainly learn how to properly play my new characters more quickly than I learned 3.0 initially, but it will still take time and effort. And the confusion I feel will be nothing compared to what the newer players will go through.

As a GM, I will have to read the new books with a fine-toothed comb, revise my (rather extensive) house rules, and muddle through the first several sessions as the entire group tries to learn the new system. Given the anal person I am, I'll have to rework many of my old classed npc's. Worse, I'll have to go through every single encounter I've already created to re-balance them, especially the monsters whose CR and/or vulnerabilities have changed significantly in the new version. To arguments that such thoroughness is unnecessary, or can be accomplished "on the fly", consider that it only takes one unbalanced encounter to result in a TPK. My players deserve better, so I have to do the work.

As a CUSTOMER, I will simply stop buying certain kinds of products until all of this settles down. For instance, why buy a 3.0 module, if I'll just have to rework virtually every npc, creature, and magic item within it? If I'll have to change some encounters significantly, because what was balanced before will now wipe out the party - a good example being the new mummy. Products I will continue to look for and possibly purchase will be more general - books of common npc's, taverns, riddles, etc. which depend very little if at all on the specific mechanics.

All of these issues revolve around the issue of mastery which Monte brought up. While many posters on these boards feel this is a non-issue to them, I assure you that for my group and me, it is probably the most important issue. 

So here I am, about to invest $63 (Wal-Mart) for the new core books. I am planning to invest a considerable amount of time reading and digesting the changes, big and small. If we switch, I will invest considerably more time in making the transition, whether as player or GM. Is it worth it? I don't know - but that's the question. If a year from now I wouldn't consider going back to 3.0, then the answer will be yes. If a year from now, I couldn't care less which set of rules I'm using, then the revision will lack value for me.

As a side note: I couldn't care less if WOTC planned this primarily as a money-making strategy. So long as I get value for my money, I'm ecstatic about WOTC earning a profit - that way they keep producing products I want. The question isn't did WOTC make 3.5 when and how it did for profit, but does it provide me real value for my gaming dollar. Did they do it well?


----------



## kenjib (Jul 12, 2003)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> *So here I am, about to invest $63 (Wal-Mart) for the new core books.*




It's cheaper at buy.com.  I believe 18.66 per book with free shipping.  If you are going to buy from a bulk distributor you might as well do buy.com instead of Walmart.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jul 13, 2003)

Kenjib, thanks for the tip. In my case, the books have already shipped, so it's too late for me (in oh so many ways...)


----------



## jaldaen (Jul 13, 2003)

Just a heads up for those who don't know Monte did a slight revision (with an "update note" as well) of his review to expand on the "good points" of his review...

One thing I think some (at least in my reading of the review and the responses) have missed is that Monte is really reviewing 3.5 on its premise that it is a "revision" and it is because of this (and his opinions on what a revision is) that he can essentially say that 3.5 fails as a revision, but should be purchased because although 3.5 is a bad "revision" it is a generally good product (I'd guess he'd give it a 6 or 7 on his normal review scale... but that's just a guess ;-).

My 2 cents,
Jaldaen


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jul 14, 2003)

_Agreed, and you make some good points. "Oh yeah all the classes are exciting and balanced now but the NEW 2ND LEVEL BUFF SPELLS WILL TOTALLY CHANGE THE GAME!!!11!"_

Have fun wrestling with that strawman.  From what I've read in this thread, he isn't the only one in need of a brain.

_People are getting way too hung up on isolated, unimportant changes they don't agree with, and melodramatic tantrums from designers they respect._

The only "melodramatic tantrums" I have seen are from you and your ilk.  Anyone who gets this worked up over someone's honest, oft solicited opinion concerning a _game_ really needs to get a life.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jul 14, 2003)

_In my experience, Monte has been consistently professional, direct, and honest. The review is no different. Does he have issues with the book? Yes. Does he recommend the book? Yes.

To me the disturbing thing is not what he wrote. It's the way some people are now twisting it to vindicate their own agenda (on both sides of the revision debate) or ascribe motives that frankly I don't think are there.

People have been bugging Monte for his opinion on 3.5 for a long time now. He gave it -- no more, no less.

-Thrommel_

I agree with my former moderator.  While this thread does contain some thoughtful, engaging remarks concerning Monte's review, they seem to be drowned out by a spiteful minority who, apparently incapable of cogent argumentation, have resorted to mean-spirited attacks, pedantry (e.g., using the rant-review-rave matrix, I have determined that there are not enough pluses for this to be a review.  A few more positive responses are needed to cause a shift), freudian entrail reading (Monte is bitter, resentful, jealous, etc.) strawman argumentation (Monte said the changes to the duration of certain ability-enhancing spells ruins the game!).

In fine, my response to this tempest in a teapot is as before--get a life.  If you are going to get worked up about something, get worked up about religion, politics, or Supreme Court decisions (isn't that right, Thrommel?)

PS Yes I am favorably disposed towards Monte and yes, he is my favorite game designer.  However, I do not think he is perfect, I do not always agree with him (this latest review of his is no exception) and I do not drool over him.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 14, 2003)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> *The only "melodramatic tantrums" I have seen are from you and your ilk.  Anyone who gets this worked up over someone's honest, oft solicited opinion concerning a game really needs to get a life. *



Nice.  Welcome to the boards.


----------



## Numion (Jul 14, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> Agreed, and you make some good points.  "Oh yeah all the classes are exciting and balanced now but the NEW 2ND LEVEL BUFF SPELLS WILL TOTALLY CHANGE THE GAME!!!11!"
> *




Maybe not changed totally, but in a major way in any case. In our 3.0e gaming group the duration of ability buffs (bull's strength, endurance, etc) determine how long our characters can function during a day. Meaning that we go to rest after the long buffs (1 h / level) wear out. 10 min / level buffs tell when to leave a dangerous situation (dungeon, for example).

This of course when there is no external pressure to keep going longer. And there isn't most of the time. 

I like to keep my character alive 

Having said that I think it was good that the durations were changed. 1 hour / level durations were just a way for spellcasters to avoid buying expensive stat-boosting items, making clerics even more powerful. My reasons for not buying 3.5e lie elsewhere


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Jul 14, 2003)

Here are my thoughts on Monte’s “bad things” section of the review.



> * Facing (now called space) is now always square. In order to facilitate miniatures play (apparently), horses are no longer 5 feet by 10 feet when you put them on a grid, they're a 10-foot square. The horse has to "squeeze" to get through a 5 foot wide space. Three 9-foot-tall ogres require a 30-foot-wide passage in order to walk abreast. D&D, with its already abstract combat system, did not need this extra layer of abstraction. Not to mention the fact that this changes game play in strange ways, such as how many of the charging ogres you can get with your fireball spell.
> 
> * The game has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you. Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition.




Rectangular squares created serious headaches for my game, especially for mounted combat.  Recall that 3.0 designers initially had facing rules and decided to scrap it because it would be too cumbersome if D&D was not to become a wargame.  I think this was a good choice, but rectangular figures is not really compatible with it.  Changing to squares is a good thing, IMO.  If Monte considers it too much of an abstraction, I think it behooves him to at least acknowledge (or deny) the problem of rectangular figures.  If he would rather see D&D with full facing rules, then he should come out and say it.  If he would not, then he should suggest how the problem should have been dealt with.

As far as the facing change relates to miniatures, I don’t see it as compelling miniatures play, and to the extent that it facilities such play, I see not problem.  If you don’t use a grid, then the shape of figures is irrelevant, and the change is meaningless.  No problem there.  I would have to see the actual text to see to what extent the new language for combat forces you to think in terms of miniatures.  If it’s by and large just using “squares” instead of feet, that’s really not so bad.  And the notion that using both is a step backwards is rather boggling to me.  Shouldn’t we want to facilitate play for everyone, minis or no minis?  I respect non-mini play, as I played OD&D all the way until 3e, but when you use 3.0 or really any version of AD&D, where spell ranges change with level in as small as 5’ (or one square, sorry to use the term), it’s hard for me to imagine how someone can’t use some sort of grid.  If you don’t, that’s fine, but then clearly you are making some rather intricate judgment calls or you’re abstracting away the fine-grained ranges.  I’m at a loss as to how someone can complain about excess abstraction of square figures but have nothing to say about how you avoid serious abstraction when using 3.x spell ranges without miniatures.

Oh, and I don’t doubt that WotC wants to sell people miniatures and want people to think minis with the newly-scripted rules for that reason.  But really, we’re not talking about mini-based rules, just a grid-based rules.  Pennies, dice, graph paper all work fine.  If the books make shameless plugs for their minis in the midst of the rules, then I’ll be upset.  Otherwise, come on.



> * Now weapons are organized by handedness rather than by size. Perhaps the worst change and almost certainly the largest step backward 3.5 has to offer, the new way of handling weapons causes a lot of problems. As you know, in 3.0, weapons were categorized by size, and that size was compared to your own size. So a weapon of your size was a one-handed weapon for you, a weapon one size larger was a two-handed weapon, and a weapon one size smaller was a light weapon. Now, weapons are categorized by handedness, and they do different damage based on size. Thus, it's no longer the case that a longsword is effectively a greatsword for a Small character and a short sword for a Large character. Now, there is a small longsword, a medium longsword (and by implication) a large longsword. So what's the difference between a large longsword and a medium greatsword? About 20 gp. Aside from that bit of humor, though, there's actually a serious design problem here. Because in 3.0, a halfling picks up a magical longsword and uses it in two hands -- no problem. In 3.5, that longsword (presumably a medium longsword) is -2 in the halfling's hands because it's the "wrong size." The DMG doesn't hint one way or the other, but logic assumes that you've either got to roll randomly to determine the size of the magic sword in the treasure hoard, decreasing the chances that any given character will actually find treasure he can use -- and that's not fun. It's more complicated, it's clunky, and it hurts game play.




I’m surprised Monte doesn’t mention the weapon equivalence rules in the DMG.  If they didn’t include that, I could see the problem.  Otherwise, I’m assuming there is a 3.0-like table that merely replaces small medium and large with light, one-handed and two-handed, and then does this again for multiple sizes of characters.  I don’t know what the tables look like, but I’m not sure.  Assuming it’s not a table nightmare, then I think this is a good thing.  Why?  Because if you want to use the same thing as 3.0, you just use the medium-sized character table and take the 10 milliseconds to convert, in your brain, light into small, one-handed into medium, and two-handed into large.  You forget the penalties for being differently-sized, end of story.  On the other hand, if you now want to play an all-halfling campaign (e.g. a Mystara Five Shires campaign) you don’t have to force Halflings to use human-sized weapons or come up with prices, weights, etc. for halfling versions, because they’re there.  The weapon-equivalence table essentially gives you advice on which weapons to allow without penalty, but ultimately the DM doesn’t even need it.  He or she can just think “does this sound okay or would this be so awkward that the character should get a penalty?”  If it’s awkward, give it a -2.



> * The NPC tables in the DMG are now more open ended, and thus less useful. The NPC tables used to be there when you needed a 7th-level fighter or a 13th-level rogue right then and there, in the middle of a game. They came completely statted up and equipped. Now, if you want to use them in that way, you've got to stop in the middle of the game and decide which weapons the fighter uses and spend 8,000 gp on gear for the rogue. Thus, they are useless for the original goal. I guess the designers felt the charts were "boring," because you got the same 7th-level fighter every time. Now, they are clearly meant to be used as pre-game development aids to help make NPCs. Unfortunately, each 7th-level fighter is still going to be an awful lot like every other one using this method. What's more, if you're not in the middle of the game, there's no reason not to just make one up from scratch (or use one of the excellent character generators out there, many of which are free online).




I tried but never found those NPC tables useful, because they fit only one stereotype for each class, and if your campaign doesn’t fit that stereotype, they are totally useless.  If you have campaign-based restrictions on weapons, magic items, feats, anything, you may not be able to use them.  I would never use an NPC straight off the table.  I would be more likely to use one as a development aid, as Monte thinks they intended, but only if certain things were generalized, which it sounds like they did.  I doubt I’ll be able to use them anyway, but my point here is that I think NPC tables are always going to fit only some people’s uses and be useless to others.  Personally, I wouldn’t have minded if they canned them completely in favor of something else.



> * The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened. Talk about changing the way the game is played. Cat's grace used to last an hour per level, mostly so you could cast it, adjust your stats, and not have to worry about it until you rested (again, it was that way to make game play easier and more fun). Now it lasts one minute per level, which means it sees you through one encounter, or two if you rush in between them. These spells have been rendered nearly worthless -- in particular a spell like endurance, now bear's endurance, for extra hit points are far more useful over the long term than just for one encounter, particularly for those who really need it, like wizards.




I don’t think an honest person can call this unequivocally a design flaw or bad move.  It’s a matter of preference.  If you don’t like the change, I respect that, but it’s not bad design.  Some people (like myself) DON’T like the idea of PCs serving ability buffs with breakfast every morning around the campfire.  And I know my players are not terribly happy (you can see it in their faces, although they never complain) when they roll a 2.  A flat +4 for a short time may make these spells less popular, meaning casting them very often rather than always.  I thought it was a general design philosophy that things that almost everyone always wants to choose (a.k.a. a no-brainer) means something is out of balance because it reduces choice.  Regarding the specific of (bear’s) endurance, I think hp for a fight or two is still useful, and let’s not forget the bonus to Fort saves and Concentration checks.  I think it’s quite logical that a wizard would choose this spell to get +2 Fort, +2 Conc, and +2hp/level for a fight, and then have the cleric heal him if he’s far down, before the spell expires after the fight.



> * Lots of the new feats are the kind that just add a +2 bonus to two skills. For this we paid $90 for new books?




Okay, this is the one with which I would register the most agreement with Monte.  The only argument I have heard in favor of all of these “new” feats is someone saying that they could be important prereqs for other feats or for prestige classes.  Okay, I guess they could.  Have they, though?  Otherwise, what a waste!  When I saw this in the splatbooks I thought it was very cheesy.  Here’s what I would have done:  put a very few of the most popular twofers in the PHB (e.g. Alertness), then, in the DMG, have a section giving advice to the DM on allowing twofer feats.  A short section that pretty much just says:  ‘you can use Alertness as a model for creating other feats that provide a +2 bonus to two skills.  If two skills can logically be seen as two facets of a broader theme, and the feat seems appropriate for your campaign, go ahead and suggest it to your players.  Consider letting players propose a +2/+2 feat for your approval.’  Then, the DMG would list, without standard feat blocks, flavor text, or any of that garbage, a table of suggested feats.  Each row consists of just three columns: the name for the feat, and each of the skills involved.  The title of the feat should make clear how the two skills are related.  End of story.



> * Inevitables are now in the Monster Manual. I (and a legion of 2nd Edition Planescape fans) miss the clockwork modrons these guys supplanted for some reason. Chalk it up to personal preference.




I don’t know what Inevitables are, so no comment there.  I thought Modrons were funny, but I don’t really care either way.  I’m not sure why Monte thought this admittedly personal preference-based issue was worth mentioning in the review, but whatever.



> * Taking levels of a prestige class now apparently forces you to pay multiclassing XP costs. Whether intentionally or by accident, the prestige class chapter no longer states that they are free of this cost.




Erratum.


> * Some of the new prestige classes are uninteresting (eldritch knight, mystic theurge) and poorly designed. A cleric just falls into the requirements of the hierophant and any 5th-level sorcerer can become a dragon disciple. The requirements for the eldritch knight are also a joke. I won't rehash the whole mystic theurge debate here, but I will complain that there are far too many spellcasting prestige classes -- conceptually, having the archmage, the loremaster, and the Red wizard seems rather silly.




Can’t comment here since a) I don’t know how the new prestige classes look and b) I don’t use them anyway and if I did they would only be homebrewed campaign-specific ones that at most use printed ones as help.



> * Lots of the "new" material in the DMG is just pulled in from other products -- prestige classes from the various 3.0 supplements, a big chunk of the Manual of the Planes, and the traps from Song and Silence. Lots of D&D fans already own this material.




Double-edged sword here.  Who is 3.5 for?  Vets who have all the 3.0 stuff, or new players.  Vets may feel cheated since they already have the material, but for new players it may be a very good thing.  If this is all added content and didn’t push out other stuff, I’m not sure why vets should care that much.  Hopefully, they made choices about what to make core based on playtesting, in which case this is telling us that this drawn-in material makes the cut because it’s better balanced than stuff that didn’t make the cut (examples of the latter can be drawn from nearly every page of Sword and Fist).



> * There are no playtester credits. At all.




That does suck, especially if it says something about the playtesting (or lack thereof).  On the one hand, I don’t really care that much about seeing the names.  On the other, I think those folks deserve to have their names in the book.  If it’s a space issue, print it so small that you need a magnifying class so it fits on one page.  What matters is that they’re there.



> * Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains. You still have to be 17th level to make a 1st-level pearl of power.




Irritating and extremely stupid.  It’s not excuse that this erratum didn’t get officially labeled as such for 3.0, because it should have been.  Fortunately, this, like the prestige class XP erratum is just a binary flip problem.  That is, instead of you do get XP penalties you don’t, and instead of caster level being a prereq it isn’t.  I’d be much more concerned about a pervasive or repercussive flaw.  Frankly, I’d even be more peeved about one monster having an attack bonus off by one, because I’d be less likely to catch it.  Errors like this are easy to fix in the brain, fortunately.



> * Speaking of magic items, while the rules for pricing magic items have changed (in some cases, particularly those of constant items or 1 round/level spells), most of the prices haven't conformed to these changes.




So I need to see the implementation, but I REALLY like the idea of basing prices in part on spells’ normal duration, since that really seems relevant but was not a factor in cost before.  I’m disappointed that Monte didn’t laud or attack that change.  I’d have to see the level of noncomformity to see whether I think Monte has a real issue here, but again I’m surprised that he didn’t comment on that change, which seems significant.



> * Keoghtom's Ointment: Why is this a wondrous item and not a potion/oil?




Why pick KO in particular?  How odd.  Anyway, KO is not a potion/oil because, unless it has changed, it allows for multiple different effects.  That doesn’t necessarily make it a good buy, but there you have it.  What this question is really getting at (or should) is how the magic item feats and categories are based too much on flavor and not enough on crunch.  Admittedly, 3.5 is too soon to revise that.  If anyone knows that, Monte should.



> * Still no good guidelines for creating prestige classes, just more of them in the DMG.




Have to see to formulate an opinion, obviously.



> * And the big one: The vast majority of the art in the books is the same. So we're expected to plunk down $90 for three books that cost us $60 three years ago, and most of the art is the same?




New art of the lack thereof is not a factor in my decision whether to purchase the books, and while I can see it mattering to some people, I don’t really see it as enough of an issue to deserve a negative mark in a review.  Especially when we’re talking about a revision.

Well, that’s my two coppers.


----------



## Belen (Jul 14, 2003)

Merric,

I have to take issue with your comments regarding Monte's review.  So what you're saying is that any review that does not portray 3.5 in a rose-colored light is a rant, while everyone who writes rave reviews of it is being balanced and fair?

This is complete bunk.  I was waiting for an honest review of 3.5.  Monte tells us the truth.  I have not seen another review with regards to 3.5 that details ANY negatives.  As we all know, 3.5 will not be perfect, yet all other reviews of the "revision" seem to be written by WOTC fanboys.

I thought the review balanced and fair.  It will not affect the fact that my group feels obligated to upgrade and that we have all ordered our books.  It paints an honest picture of the revision.  It is in no way a rant as he still tells us to buy the books.  We just get a heads up with regards to the revision.

Dave


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 14, 2003)

*re*

Personally, I tend to agree with Belen, not specifically concerning Merric's post. Most of the reviews do seem to have been written by people who seem unable or unwilling to voice any negative opinion concerning the upgrade. 

Even some of the folks on here who seem to think this upgrade is some of kind of immeasurable improvement really make me wonder about their ability to assess and analyze many of the changes that we know of. There are many bad changes from what I can tell. I don't just mean the ones I disagree with for stylistic and individual reasons like spell ranges and durations

The two most vocal camps seem to be "I love it" and "I hate it". That really doesn't give a person much to go on. I am glad Monte gave an inbetween review highlighting what he felt was wrong and right about the game.

I know I truly believe they went way overboard with the new DR system, though I like the concept. I really think its going to create a real "carrot on a string" effect when player's are choosing weapons and alignment.

I am already having trouble with the new facing system when mapping. Movement for 10 foot sqare horsemen with 5 foot square men on the map is very strange. 40 foot square creatures take up an insane amount of space on a piece of graph paper. Moving those much larger squares around on a map with alot of combatants or through hallways is pretty wierd and unwieldy at times. 

I have been using the new facing system since I heard about it because I wanted to test it out. It is more unwieldy than the old system, though I do see what they were trying to do.

The change to adamantine sounds hoky and seriously abuseable. If it truly does ignore the first 20 points of hardness, then we can assume that people with adamantine weapons can easily cut through stone or steel walls, steels bars on cell doors, iron doors, etc, etc. An adamantine weapon has now become the ultimate barrier destroyer which is real strange and hoky from a rules perspective and would make me less likely to ever allow Adamantine into my game because of how easily it can be abused.

Those are probably my biggest problems with the revision from a pure rules perspective. I'll probably have more once I get the books. All my other problems with the system are more in terms of style. That varies from campaign to campaign, so its no use to complain.

The things I like the best so far:

The change to _Harm_, _Haste_ and _Disintegrate_. They were abuseable spells that needed to be changed.

The change to resizeable armor. From a purely stylistic viewpoint this was hoky. Armor that automatically resizes to fit any wearer should have never been.

The new favored enemy ability of the ranger. Vast improvement so that everyone isn't picking dragon at first level so that it will be their highest bonus at level 20. It scales better and is more useful.

Ability to change spells as sorcerer or bard. A great little change that was sorely needed so a sorcerer or bard could choose one of the constantly upgradeable spell lines like the _Summon Monster_ line without penalty.

More smites per day as a Paladin. It was really needed.

_Two-weapon Defense_ feat. Sounds like the one from the FR Sourcebook and I like that it is core now.

The _Mass Cure_ line of spells. A great idea that will be extremely helpful for higher level clerics.


Overall, I think there are more good changes than bad. That is why I chose to upgrade. I have already purchased the books online. I can't wait to get them.

I just grow a little tired of the its all good reviews that don't really assess problems that certain rule changes will cause in game. I'm sure we'll see more once the books are released.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jul 14, 2003)

I don't see the point in the _Mass Cure_-spells. They will only act to prolong combat in an unnecessary way. If the casting time was one full round (or even a minute) they would be pretty useful, though. (Perhaps they are?)


----------



## hong (Jul 14, 2003)

*More Monte on 3.5 op-ed*

A slightly less inflammatory piece from rgfd. Scott is a Good Guy. He Knows His Stuff.


Subject: Monte on 3.5: Criticism vs. Review
From: "R. Scott Rogers" <scott@madforjam.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:47:37 +0200


After reading Monte's review, and some reaction here - which also revealed
what happened to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: MSB has 'em, and he's
deploying them here - I have the following reaction. Maybe even an insight,
who knows.

Anyway, it seems to me that Monte's "review" was actually a critical essay
with a review grafted onto the end. And I don't mean "critical" in the
common sense of "finding fault with," I mean critical in the higher sense by
which we differentiate articles about books in the "New York Review of
Books" as criticism and articles about books in "Entertainment Weekly" as
reviews.

Monte's criticism is the section where he writes about why he thinks the 3.5
project was undertaken and the principles he believes should govern such an
undertaking. In his criticism he finds almost nothing but fault, and he pins
his criticism to two theses: 1. There is some arbitrary point at which a
major revision would be appropriate, and this point is more than three years
after initial release; and 2. The designers appear not to have approached
the revision in exactly the same way that the designers of 3.0 did.

This is all well and good, and I think it is valuable for the designers of
3.0 to offer their critical assessment of the evolution of the game. But
this criticism is by its very nature almost devoid of practical usefulness
for game players. So what if Monte finds fault with the production of 3.5?
The production of "Casablanca" is a famous tale of woe in which almost
everything went wrong and almost all decisions were made for what we would
fairly call the wrong reasons. And yet the movie stands as one of the
classics of American cinema. (I wage an endless battle against
motivation-think in another forum. "I'd be in favor of switching to league
uniforms for the All-Star Game," baseball "purists" say, "except it's
obvious Major League Baseball only made the change as a cynical marketing
ploy." What rubbish. Why the thing was done has little bearing on the worth
of the thing once it is done, at least for things like changes to the way
games are played.)

However, after wading through the useless and questionably motivated
criticism of the process that led to the publication of 3.5, I think Monte
provides a pretty good review. By "good" I mean useful. I don't mean
"completely right-thinking" or "generally positive," although Monte's review
is the latter. As to the former, well, I have no doubt that some of MSB's
comments on 3.5 now will strike him, in a couple of years, as the
unconsidered crap they probably are, just as a similar proportion of Monte's
(or any reviewer's) comments are. So, a review that is useful in offering
insight from an identifiable perspective, one that leads to a conclusion
regarding the product's utility that is supported by the premises advanced
in the review. 

I do feel that the review section deserved more of the author's attention,
given its utility to the reader. I would like to know which elements of 3.5
Monte intends to houserule, whether altering them (and if so how) or
deleting them in favor of 3.0. I would also have liked to see a more overt
analysis of the changes in 3.5 that implement reforms that Monte believes
were necessary. We get a list of changes that are good, changes that are not
good, and changes that were necessary but not made. I would have preferred
to see the addition of a list of the changes that were necessary and that
were made.

So that said, I would give Monte's critical analysis low marks and his
product review high marks. If only the two had been different essays.

Cheers,

Scott

-- 
R. Scott Rogers
scott at madforjam.com
"Orc Liver - the Paladin's foi gras"
http://www.madforjam.com/dnd/main.html


----------



## Tsyr (Jul 14, 2003)

Just curious, but what point is this serving? Are we really going to have to sit through every important, semi-important, and un-important person in the D20 world giving their opinions on Monte's opinion?


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 14, 2003)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> *I don’t think an honest person can call this unequivocally a design flaw or bad move.  It’s a matter of preference.  If you don’t like the change, I respect that, but it’s not bad design.  Some people (like myself) DON’T like the idea of PCs serving ability buffs with breakfast every morning around the campfire.  And I know my players are not terribly happy (you can see it in their faces, although they never complain) when they roll a 2.  A flat +4 for a short time may make these spells less popular, meaning casting them very often rather than always.  I thought it was a general design philosophy that things that almost everyone always wants to choose (a.k.a. a no-brainer) means something is out of balance because it reduces choice.  Regarding the specific of (bear’s) endurance, I think hp for a fight or two is still useful, and let’s not forget the bonus to Fort saves and Concentration checks.  I think it’s quite logical that a wizard would choose this spell to get +2 Fort, +2 Conc, and +2hp/level for a fight, and then have the cleric heal him if he’s far down, before the spell expires after the fight.
> *




It all depends on what else you're basing your opinion about the buffs on... If you feel, like Monte does, that under 3E the system is no longer balanced for classes with a d4 hit die, because with the new bonuses to hit and to hit points the disparity between them and other classes is too great, and that they were kept around because they're one of the sacred cows, bumping them up to d6 would have made for problems with Rogues, and because the long-term buffs made them playable, then it's definitely a bad change.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 14, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *Merric,
> 
> I have to take issue with your comments regarding Monte's review.  So what you're saying is that any review that does not portray 3.5 in a rose-colored light is a rant, while everyone who writes rave reviews of it is being balanced and fair?*




Nope. Not at all. Please read what I wrote again.

"A review? No. It is a rant, and I wish he'd labelled it as such. The insights given are important, but I do believe, very strongly, that more attention needed to be given to the positives for it to be properly called a "review"."

Then, later:

"Of course, he is also addressing people who didn't think that anything should have changed, for whom it would have been nice if he'd backed up his judgements of what was right about the revision as well.... I do wish he'd read his article again before posting and edited it to make it more balanced."

Now, what has Monte done? He's edited the review, adding in his rationales for supporting certain changes.

Wow. That's exactly what I wanted. I feel good. Suddenly, it's no longer a rant, it's a review, and an excellent one at that.

If the original article had been called: "Monte's Misgivings about 3.5E", I'd have had no problem with it. Calling it a review, even though there were disclaimers in the text that it wasn't exactly a review, gave a false impression of it being more balanced than it was. Because the balance wasn't there, the resulting impression was "3.5E sucks!", rather than the more complex feelings I think Monte has about the revision.

How did he put it?

"My intention was to give a very mixed review, to show that, while I'm unhappy with the way it was done in principle, the end result is more good than bad."- Monte Cook (review 1.5?)

Do I agree with many of the misgivings Monte has about the revision? Yes, I do. Not all of them, but I can certainly see his reasoning and I appreciate that greatly.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Jul 14, 2003)

*Re: re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *Personally, I tend to agree with Belen, not specifically concerning Merric's post. Most of the reviews do seem to have been written by people who seem unable or unwilling to voice any negative opinion concerning the upgrade. *




I'm glad you're not specifically targeting my post! 

I do agree with Belen about the other reviews. As I do believe I've stated, there are some really important things in Monte's article that are worth considering.

When I consider the other reviews I've read, I realise that their main flaw is that the people haven't actually _played_ the revised game. Monte has probably had access to the 3.5E rules for the past several months, and as an original designer of the 3E rules has yet more insight into what the changes mean.

These are two things Monte has over the other reviewers. In time, playtesting will make reviews of 3.5E more relevant - of course, we want to know now! For now, mainly superficial reviews are what we're getting. Except for Monte's article.

Cheers!


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 14, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *Just curious, but what point is this serving? Are we really going to have to sit through every important, semi-important, and un-important person in the D20 world giving their opinions on Monte's opinion? *




Sure looks that way.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 14, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> Sure looks that way.   *




My Mom's writing up an analysis right now. I'll post it when she's finished.


----------



## Mark (Jul 14, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *Just curious, but what point is this serving? Are we really going to have to sit through every important, semi-important, and un-important person in the D20 world giving their opinions on Monte's opinion? *




Don't leave out us _self-important_ folks!  We have opinions, too, and ours are good uns'...


----------



## Barak (Jul 14, 2003)

Ok.  I see a lot of people, mostly those "pro-3.5", saying "well yes the 3.5 changes were motivated by money.  Why is that a bad thing?"

Here is -my- answer to that, for what it's worth.

If we remember, back when the "revision books" were announced, we were told that they would be 100% compatible with existing products, with no-or-few conversion needed.  And yet, the more we learned about the changes made, the more we realized that this wasn't true.  Let's face it, -any- 3.0 character will have to be heavily modified to be able to play in a 3.5 game.  While that may not be so bad, it makes previous products, especially modules, in need of even more heavy modifications as well.  Which, to me, is a Bad Thing.  Now, how does this tie-in to the motive for all the changes being money?  Well, if the changes were "light" enough to be 100% compatible (modifications to Harm/haste/etc., some modifications to spell durations, etc.), a lot less people would actually buy the books.  If the modifications were that simple, a read of the SRD, or even a list of the changes on a Message Board such as this one would have been enough for an owner of the previous books to update.  As it stands, however, it is easier, cheaper, less time-consuming to buy the books.  And if one wants to be able to use future products, ones written -for- 3.5, one needs to change to 3.5, since it isn't fully compatible.  Which means that if one wants to keep current, one needs to buy the new books (monetary consideration), as opposed to if it had been the revision promised.  And since I, for one, liked 3.0 just fine, while admitting that -some- small changes were needed, the monetary considerations on WotC's part leads to many changes with which I don't agree, and that I'd have to modify.  But if I do, I'll also have to modify every single product I buy in the future.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 14, 2003)

Barak said:
			
		

> *Ok.  I see a lot of people, mostly those "pro-3.5", saying "well yes the 3.5 changes were motivated by money.  Why is that a bad thing?"
> 
> Here is -my- answer to that, for what it's worth.*




And not a bad answer, either.

Although I'm happy with the changes, I'm less than happy about the compatibility issue. Because I'm happy with the changes, I can live with the compatibility issue - I wish others were so lucky. 




> Let's face it, -any- 3.0 character will have to be heavily modified to be able to play in a 3.5 game.




I love generalisations. 

Human Fighter 1, skills Ride, Climb and Jump, feats Weapon Focus, Power Attack and Cleave. Where are the heavy modifications?

_Some_ characters are going to need heavy modifications. Perhaps even most. Not all. 

Sorry, I'm being picky. 

### 

I'm not sure if the bigger changes were made purely out of a monetary consideration. Personally I believe that they wanted to fix the big problems with 3E, and then fix some of the smaller problems... and may have gone a bit too far.

Exactly where that point was varies for people, though. I think the new weapon size rules are excellent, whilst Monte thinks they're possibly the worst change of the lot. Heh. If I was laying money on who was right, it wouldn't be me. 

What I'm try to say is that it was practically impossible for the revision team to create a revised edition that would please everyone - some people would think they'd gone too far, others would think they didn't go far enough.

I also think that the compatibility issue was always going to come up - regardless of the change, there would have been something already printed affected.

As I recall, 3E was one of the most play-tested RPGs ever - if not _the_ most play-tested RPGs. It had lots of problems. Perfection isn't going to come easily - but I do believe the revision team gave it their best shot, and that most of the revisions will work for me.

(If you wanted to pick the one change I don't like so much, it's the splitting up of spells like _emotion_ and _Otiluke's freezing sphere_. Grr... sometimes, versatility in a spell is a good thing.)

Cheers!


----------



## Barak (Jul 14, 2003)

Well..  If your campaign is at first level, and you're switching to 3.5..  True, you'll have few modifications to your PCs.

And I'm not saying the modifications themselves were motivated by money.  That, I wouldn't have minded.  It's the -level- of the modifications.  They -had- to move things around enough for people to have to "choose" between 3.0 and 3.5.  Compatibility is the whole point.  They -said- it would be fully compatible.  Yet, if it truly was, there would have been little reason for people to upgrade.  So most wouldn't have.  They want to sell books.  So they had to make it at least partially uncompatible.  And that's where the motivation behind tha changes becomes important.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 14, 2003)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Human Fighter 1, skills Ride, Climb and Jump, feats Weapon Focus, Power Attack and Cleave. Where are the heavy modifications?*




The Jump skill has been completely revised, so if HF1 had plans that involved his jumping distances, he'll have to change 'em. Also, Power Attack has changed. If he was focusing on a one-handed weapon, he may want to rethink that, since Power Attack is now clearly meant to benefit two-handed weapons more than one handed weapons. 



More seriously, I suspect that the problem (if there is one) will be that, since there are many minor changes, one cannot assume that any particular character has been unaffected by the revision; instead, one will want to review every character to see what, if any, changes affect that character.

That's not a tragic Flaw of Doom, but it could be annoying. 



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *My Mom's writing up an analysis right now. I'll post it when she's finished. *




As soon as you do, I'll post my little sister's critique of your mom's analysis of Monte Cook's review of 3.5e.

I hope this doesn't double-post...


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Jul 14, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *Just curious, but what point is this serving? Are we really going to have to sit through every important, semi-important, and un-important person in the D20 world giving their opinions on Monte's opinion? *



Funny--I thought the point of public messageboards was for important, semi-important, and un-important people alike to all exchange and discuss opinions on relevant topics.  Dunno about everyone else, but if I realized posting had to serve a greater purpose, or that anyone was being forced to sit through all this, I for one would have bit my tongue (or fingers, I guess).


----------



## (contact) (Jul 14, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My Mom's writing up an analysis right now. I'll post it when she's finished. *




Here's my mom's analysis of the new books, transcribed from a garbled message she left on my voicemail from a public phone:

"The new covers make these books so much easier to sell for crack money, but I still need to borrow another hundred, baby . . . just until I get on my feet."


----------



## Mark (Jul 14, 2003)

(contact) said:
			
		

> *. . . just until I get on my feet." *




_. . . just until I get back on my back..._


----------



## Azlan (Jul 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by (contact)_
> *Here's my mom's analysis of the new books, transcribed from a garbled message she left on my voicemail from a public phone:
> 
> "The new covers make these books so much easier to sell for crack money, but I still need to borrow another hundred, baby . . . just until I get on my feet." *






> _Originally posted by Mark_
> *. . . just until I get back on my back...*




Shame on you, talking about your own mother(s) this way, even if only in jest!


----------



## Mark (Jul 15, 2003)

Azlan said:
			
		

> *Shame on you, talking about your own mother(s) this way, even if only in jest!
> 
> *




It's an old joke and was butchered.  I felt it best to repair it before someone began a thread about broken punchlines.  You can thank me later...


----------



## Melkor (Mar 13, 2012)

Was this review taken down?

Edit to add:

Nevermind. Found it here:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 13, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> My Mom's writing up an analysis right now. I'll post it when she's finished.




FYI, this never was posted.

EDIT: Link please!


----------



## Roland55 (Mar 13, 2012)

Let's see ... thread is about 9 years old.

I'd say this is a fairly high level feat of Necromancy.

So.  How long does the corpse walk before it lies down again?


----------



## MortalPlague (Mar 13, 2012)

Roland55 said:


> So.  How long does the corpse walk before it lies down again?




1d6 + 1 days.

I, too, was startled to see the topic, until I saw the date of the first post.


----------



## Melkor (Mar 13, 2012)

Roland55 said:


> Let's see ... thread is about 9 years old.
> 
> I'd say this is a fairly high level feat of Necromancy.
> 
> So.  How long does the corpse walk before it lies down again?




A Google search for the article brought me to this thread after the article links came up dead. I asked about the link before finding the archive. Simple as that.


----------



## kitsune9 (Mar 13, 2012)

I remember reading this review. I wasn't happy with a lot of changes, but it wasn't so different to me that I had quit playing D&D. There was some good things, some bad.


----------

