| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| sedrorovin murghurobag05-23-05, 02:27 AM | Not all edged criticism is trolling, people. |
| Da Dinictus05-23-05, 02:48 AM | I was rather fond of Frostburn, Races of the Wild and Lords of Madness - only Heroes of Battle have I not read. I'll certainly agree with you on Races of Destiny, though. Only thing worthwhile in there was the Half-Ogre update. Should've made excellent errata. |
| PoeticJustice05-23-05, 03:40 AM | I suppose I should have expected this exemplary level of analysis based solely on the name of the thread, but why don't you substantiate or warrent any of your claims? Then you might have a topic of discussion instead of something too short to be a rant and too shallow to be intelligent. |
| Acirema05-23-05, 04:03 AM | Reasons behind your statement would be nice. Me personally with the exception of Races of Destiny liked the newer stuff, as my sig would indicate. Fresh life should always be brought into this long lived and lively game. |
| Olly05-23-05, 07:04 AM | Heroes of Battle Sandstorm Frostburn Races of Destiny Races of the Wild Lords of Madness What do they all have in common? They suck. At this rate, we'll see 4e by 2006 This is such an obvious troll. It's a shame, these people aren't even trying any more. <SNIP> |
| Dark Voivode05-23-05, 07:32 AM | Personally, I've found something of value out of each of the latest products. The 'Races of' series have presented opportunities in defining the cultures of my realm and even if none of my players ever play the races from those books, I can use them as unusual NPCs and occasional BBEG. The Illumians, for example, are the worshippers of my goddess of knowledge and mysteries. I even picked up Races of Eberron. I'm using most of the races from that book even though I don't use the Eberron setting. I'd like to see a Races of the Mind book, but I think that's too much to ask. The Environmental series is fantastic. I've been moving my campaign out of the dungeon and into the environment. My players are actually enjoying learning what it's like outside of town for a change. The 'Complete' series is filled with crunchy goodness. I've found at least one class in each book that's really wowed me. The Hexblade, the Warlock, The Favored Soul, The Scout; all great ideas, all ideas my players are drooling over. That's not counting any of the feats or PrCs. My only problems with these books is the lack of a Complete Psionics so far and the lack of ingenuity when it came to the oriental flavored classes. They could've done so much more with the Shugenja and the Wu-jen has always been my least favorite class. But those classes are only a minor flaw in what I consider decent products. The Monster Focus series is great work. I've always enjoyed the Ecology articles in Dragon Magazine and always wanted more. This is fills that particular hunger nicely. I was slightly disappointed in the lack of info on illithids (not race-specific feats and no PrCs) but other than that, I'm very happy with those books. I haven't picked up Heroes of Battle yet, I'm looking forward to it, though. I'm slightly disappointed that the Marshall didn't make the transfer from the MHB since it would've been a great fit, but I guess they need to leave enough to make it worth it to buy the book. I will definitely be purchasing HoB. It sounds worth it so far. I like the new crop of material. I was a little disheartened initially since there doesn't seem to be anything new on the psionics front, but the stuff so far is cool. I'm looking forward to more. |
| Arilou_skiff05-23-05, 09:48 AM | I liked Frostburn (need to pick up Sandstorm) and Lords of Madness was great, let's hope they do a "Faces of Evil: The Fiends" for the next monster book eh? :) (Or possibly a book bringing up-to-date info on the other major outsiders *cough* WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO RE-INTRODUCE THE MODRONS! *cough* ) I was decidedly underwhelmed by the "Races of" Series. Moslty it was just inferior reprinted 2nd. ed. material, some uninspiring PRC's and some admittedly pretty nice feats. The new races weren't very interesting. |
| Cadfan05-23-05, 11:01 AM | Heroes of Battle is quite nice, but not for everyone. Its basically a recipe book for writing a campaign that involves a LOT of extra work for the DM, but a whole lot of payoff as well. I bought it, and I'll be using it this fall. I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, and most players shouldn't bother, its really a DMs book, but I think the game is meaningfully enriched by having this book available. I know books along this lines won't sell as many copies as your typical PRC-fest, but I'm glad wotc published it. The game is better because of it. As for the others, they're pretty clearly only useful if you're playing specific types of campaigns. Playing a desert campaign? Get Sandstorm. If you're NOT playing a desert campaign, don't buy it. The thing that bugs me the most about D&D (players, really, not the game) is the way that so many people expect every single expansion product to all fit seemlessly into one gigantic world, without realizing that packing 11 billion prestige classes and races all into one planet makes that planet MAKE NO SENSE. You have to pick and choose if you want to create a coherent gameworld. If you're not focusing on the desert, don't buy Sandstorm. Etc. It should be pretty obvious. |
| Board_Rider05-23-05, 11:57 AM | You have to pick and choose if you want to create a coherent gameworld. If you're not focusing on the desert, don't buy Sandstorm. Etc. It should be pretty obvious. Exactly. The books are great to those who find use with them. Of course they're going to "suck" if you pay 30 bucks for a coaster. |
| Sephyrill05-23-05, 01:34 PM | Yep, environmental books only make sense if you play in this environment ;) Races of the wild was nice. Nice description of the races, nice classes (though the elven substitution levels were sometimes a bit strange ^^) nice book. I didn't like Races of Destiny that much since I had hoped more for Planetouched and Half-x races information. Illumians don't go to me and there is too much about them in the book and the information of humans is too... uncertain. But humans are uncertain... Zarus and Urbanus were interesting deities as well. Lords of Madness is such a sweet book. I was totally inspired when I read it the first time. The depth is something I have missed in many books nowadays (though the "wideness" could have been better, which means: more aberrations in detail, more pages) there isn't much "crunch" but that in it is... whooo... and it is the first 3.x book that officially mentions Spelljamming :D I haven't read Heroes of Battle yet, but my DM said he was disappointed. Maybe he's right or maybe we have just different opinions (as it was with unearthed arcana) but I don't like battling that much, so... well, I will look at it |
| Shemeska the Marauder05-24-05, 12:45 AM | Heroes of Battle Sandstorm Frostburn Races of Destiny Races of the Wild Lords of Madness What do they all have in common? They suck. Great job of backing up your opinions there with a detailed analysis of each book. :P Frostburn was a very very good book. Wolfgang Baur rocks as an rpg writer. Lords of Madness was almost as good, if not better in portions, than Draconomicon which many people view as the best 3.5 book so far made. |
| Draco Strang05-24-05, 01:00 AM | Heroes of Battle Sandstorm Frostburn Races of Destiny Races of the Wild Lords of Madness What do they all have in common? They suck. At this rate, we'll see 4e by 2006 Back up the train folks, it seems WotC forgot to hire this guy as a market analyst and product developer. How could they pass on such profound insight and wisdom? Come on, if you're going to bash several excellent products by just saying they suck, then you might as well not bother. We have many more people that try to waste our time, and they're much more creative than this. Amateur. :bored: |
| guru789205-24-05, 01:11 AM | can anyone give me some facts as to why these books are sub-par? so far frost-burn and lords'o madness and Draconomicon seem to be the better books... why? will somone please analize this stuff! i might want to buy books... |
| Colmarr05-24-05, 03:42 AM | I thought I'd pop my head in and cast a positive vote for Heroes of Battle. My campaign is heading into a major war between goblins and a human nation, and the book could not have been released at a better time. Every other d20 book dealing with battles has been a mass combat system. Heroes of Battle takes a D&D game and puts it on the battlefield, rather than recreating a battle and using the D&D rules to resolve it. The difference in play style and approach could not be more simple, but the difference in outcome is massive. If you want a mass combat system, look at Cry Havoc by Malhavoc Press. If you want a way to allow your PCs to interract with battles, but don't want to give up the adventuring party vibe, Heroes of Battle hits the spot. |
| PrinceAzar05-24-05, 05:43 AM | I have Sandstorm, Frostburn, Races of the Wild and I must say, I enjoyed them greatly. |
| PrinceAzar05-24-05, 05:45 AM | Oh guys! I got a lovely private message from the OP. :D sedrorovin murghurobag sedrorovin murghurobag i some advice... you can suck it! His credibility is all gone now :) |
| Dark Voivode05-24-05, 06:01 AM | I hope you reported him. It doesn't matter anyway, we've turned his thread into a better critical analysis of the aforementioned books than he's capable of doing. :P He's also attempting to post it onto every board topic he can. I've known smarter trolls. |
| Cog05-24-05, 06:32 AM | I have all the books that were mentioned, apart from Heroes of Battle and Races of the Wild, and I found them to be a good read, overall. From each book, I took something new and some ideas. :) |
| PressureDrop05-24-05, 08:33 AM | Heroes of Battle Sandstorm Frostburn Races of Destiny Races of the Wild Lords of Madness What do they all have in common? They suck. At this rate, we'll see 4e by 2006 I agree with the 'Races' series, and Lords of Madness wasn't at all what I was hoping for. Sandstorm and Frostburn, however, I don't know how I ever lived without. |
| Arden Blackleaf05-24-05, 10:01 AM | Tell me where is your proof? Can you back your claims up? Give me five good reasons that these books are bad. And anyway ROD rocks. Who can resist the Illumians? Gotta love a race with a floating sigil. |
| Xaxor05-24-05, 10:30 AM | http://wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG248a.jpg Kill it with acid and fire. I haven't checked out the environment books or Heroes of Battle yet, but Races of the Wild was quite good. And Lords of Madness was even better. Seeing the Elven Hound reprinted was nice, as was all three stages of Neogi and the Eye of the Deep. Definitely want to toss a Half-Farspawn creature at my future players. The prestige classes have been cool overall, though a few aren't so good. But overall, this is some top-notch stuff. |
| Bluebrush05-24-05, 10:57 AM | I'll never be able to take Frostburn seriously. It always reminds me of this strip. (http://jackiesfridge.keenspace.com/d/20001225.html) |
| AmanitaEata05-24-05, 11:13 AM | I'll never be able to take Frostburn seriously. It always reminds me of this strip. (http://jackiesfridge.keenspace.com/d/20001225.html) That strip is awful. Jusy sayin' is all. |
| Derren S.05-24-05, 01:10 PM | Lets say it this way, while most of those books are ok, I always found something which makes me wanna puke in the new books ither because it is sickly broken, a power creep, totally flavorless or just plain dumb. Some examples: Elven Aging (Races of the Wild -> dumb), Piercing Cold (Frostburn -> illogical/dumb), Searing Spell (Sandstorm -> Power Creep + all what Piercing Cold is), Arrow Volley Rules (Heroes of Battle -> Illogical). Also the editing of the newer books isn't very good too. [Edit] And that Mind Flayers come from the future is imo also not the most flavorfull decision. |
| Derren S.05-24-05, 01:28 PM | <SNIP> I am probably biased because I am fed up with even more feats and PRCs appearing, but I think that the recent books are not the same quality as the earlyer books from a rules standpoint. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast05-24-05, 01:43 PM | I'll put in another positive vote for Heroes of Battle. While I haven't read it all yet, I have enjoyed the book so far. Though the arrow volley rules and the alignment restrictions on command auras seems a little strange, all books have some down side, and they are only a tiny portion of the book. Everything else I have read is excellent, especially the ready-made encounters and maps. The PrCs are pretty good too. It has inspired me to run a war campaign, which I will hopefully be starting in a month or two :) |
| ORC_Tuhteth05-24-05, 03:43 PM | Okay, guys, play nice. If you think someone is trolling, report their post -- do not start calling other patrons trolls. Also, it is okay to discuss the shortcomings of various books, but please make sure you're doing so in a polite and constructive manner. (I happened to be an editor for two of the books mentioned on this thread, so be nice or I'll have to go all WizO on you. :D ) |
| Seeker9505-24-05, 03:45 PM | I happened to be an editor for two of the books mentioned on this threadAlthough the books were mentioned, you didn't tell us whether the editing comments were positive or negative. I bet they were positive... ...after all, your posts are among the best edited on the boards. :D |
| BladeDrinker05-24-05, 07:24 PM | Lets say it this way, while most of those books are ok, I always found something which makes me wanna puke in the new books ither because it is sickly broken, a power creep, totally flavorless or just plain dumb. I'm going to guess that you're an "old school" DM. That's my style too, and I share most of your feelings about those books. But this is certainly not the only way (or even most prevalent way) of playing DnD. I may only take a maximum of one PrC for each character I play, but not everyone does. I may not buy the books, but if other people like that style then I'm glad they get material they enjoy too. I'm not upset that every book WotC releases isn't aimed specifically at me. If a third of their books appeal to me, that's still a lot of books to buy. . . |
| Flushmaster05-24-05, 09:50 PM | Yeah? So why edit your initial post, afraid to show others your sharp wit and criticism when it comes to these books? :rolleyes: Wit? There was wit there? I checked in earlier and couldn't find anything resembling wit on his part. The fact that he edited it out is evidence that he actually considers it better to withdraw his statement with a lame excuse rather than defend it. Heck, if a WizO who edited some of the criticized materials just says "play nice" and you go running, then that shows a real lack of conviction. He's quite effectively demonstrating that any statements he makes don't mean anything, even to him. If I criticized a book and it's editor politely suggested I actually explain my opinions in a civilized manner, well I'd have already done that (okay, maybe not so civilized, but only of I really hated it). And if you want to complain about something, remember that "it sucks" is not "edged criticism" unless you actually say why it sucks. If you just say "it sucks" and offer no explanation it is blunt, at best. I'd say ptetty limp too. And as to those books, I only own Races of the Wild and I really like it. I'm using several elements in my upcoming campaign (just got final confirmation that it finally starts tomorrow, yay!), which is set in a jungle area. Of particular use to this game is the information on halflings, plus a bit of the stuff about raptorans (I really like the raptorans). Races of Destiny actually looks kind of cool to me, and I'm considering possibly picking it up sometime. Frostburn actually looked quite cool to me (no pun intended) but I probably wouldn't use it nearly enough to justify buying it. Sandstorm, meh, I've never been a big fan of desert settings so I'm a bit biased to start; I have heard from several people who are quite happy with it and I'm sure there are more who would like it as well. It's not my style, I won't be likely to use it, so I didn't buy it. I haven't really gotten a good look at Lords of Madness or Heroes of Battle yet, but I find both intriguing. I briefly flipped through LoM once and it was good enough to catch my attention but I'd have to look at it a little more thoroughly to decide if it's worth buying to me. I like a lot of the stuff on armies and warfare from Complete Warrior, so I have hopes that Heroes of Battle has some simiilar goodies (my local stores haven't gotten it in stock yet). Most of the supplements that WoTC releases are much more useful to DMs than players. The Complete and Races of books are also applicable to players, if those players are specifically interested in the focus of those books. A DM can get a lot more use out of any book, even the Complete series, than a player can because the DM has a lot more stuff under their control that they can apply these things to. If you don't DM and prefer to play dwarven fighters then get yourself a copy of Races of Stone and Complete Warrior and don't bother getting any other supplements (maybe an AEG, but that's it) because you won't use them. Heck, if you play a specific campaign setting then don't even bother with the Races of books (unless you play Greyhawk, then maybe-or RoE if you do Eberron) becausethey won't apply to your setting. |
| Calico Jack Drake05-24-05, 11:51 PM | Personally, I've been pretty happy with the expansions. I don't play Eberron so I don't bother, but I have all the rest of the expansions except UA and The Mini's Hdbk. I was less than impressed with some of the Complete series due to a lack of relevant content for my campaign. But I picked the books up anyway in case it became relevant later on. Just because the book doesn't fit my campaign doesn't mean it sucks. The Races of... books gave me a nice insight into a day in the life of... It's easy to say an Elf is usually CG and tries to be as self-sufficient as possible, but the narration and examples brought the concept to some kind of life. I couldn't care less about the new races so to me they are a waste of a quarter of the book. But others have said they likes the Ilumians or Raptorans so there's something for everyone even if it's not the same something. The Monster books have to be at the top of my list, though. The pseudo-scientific descriptions and breakdowns of the different creatures was personally entertaining. That's a series I will keep looking for. Just my 2 cents -CJ |
| Flushmaster05-25-05, 12:27 AM | <SNIP> I have all the rest of the expansions except UA and The Mini's Hdbk. If you DM I suggest you pick up UA. I really, really like it. Nobody says you have to use any of the stuff from it in your campaign, but if you read it cover to cover you'll probably find something that you like and think will make your game better. For a player it's a bit more limited in use, but most supplements are and there's still some stuff that, with DM approval, can be great for a PC. Heck, even if you don't actually use material from it it's still a great source of creative inspiration. I'm definitely satisfied and consider that twenty-five bucks well spent (I know it's more expensive than that but I worked at a bookstore at the time and got a lovely employee discount, making it an even better deal :D ) The Races of... books gave me a nice insight into a day in the life of... It's easy to say an Elf is usually CG and tries to be as self-sufficient as possible, but the narration and examples brought the concept to some kind of life. I couldn't care less about the new races so to me they are a waste of a quarter of the book. But others have said they likes the Ilumians or Raptorans so there's something for everyone even if it's not the same something. I agree with the extra depth on the races. If you doon't play a specific campaign setting those books are great for fleshing out the races. I only own Races of the Wild, but I'm considering picking up Races of Destiny when I get some extra spending cash. Aside from really enhancing my ideas and "feel" for elves and halflings, I really do like the raptorans. But I guess they're not for everybody. |
| PrinceAzar05-25-05, 12:55 AM | plus halflings in ROW are soooooooo cute :D |
| Flushmaster05-25-05, 01:04 AM | plus halflings in ROW are soooooooo cute :D Frighteningly enough, I must agree. In fact, I'm considering sigging that comment. I must agree because for some strange reason I find extremely petite women appealing despite the fact that I'm 6'4" <SNIP>. |
| ORC_Tuhteth05-25-05, 09:26 AM | Ooookay, guys, I was hoping to see a more specific critique, but this thread has just disintegrated. So, let me contribute something to see if it can get back on track. And, seriously, lay off on the troll comments -- I don't like it when I have to go all Order 66 on people. :) Regarding this list of books, I was an editor for Races of the Wild and Heroes of Battle (but I wasn't the sole editor for either book, so I didn't get to work on everything). I actually liked both quite a bit -- in fact, I started borrowing stuff from the RoW manuscript for my elf-heavy campaign wayyyy before it was published, without telling my player's where all the detailed "house rules" were coming from. :D Heroes of Battle was also good -- it honestly reminded me of Rules of Engagement: The Rebel SpecForces Handbook, one of my favorite books in the old West End Games Star Wars RPG. It's a guide for running an entire campaign in a military or quasi-military setting while still remaining heroes who go out and do the fighting, as opposed to just being a collection of abstract mass combat rules more appropriate for kings or generals. If you're only looking for that sort of system, this is not the book for you -- I'll tell you that right up front. You don't calculate army points, make an opposed Knowledge (tactics) check to see who wins, and then allocate casualties -- instead, Heroes of Battle provides a nice way to make it where the PCs can turn the tide of a battle (the whole "victory points" system) depending on how many of their objectives they manage to achieve or how badly they screw things up. It's flexible, and simply reading the chapter on my first look at the manuscript gave me several adventure ideas. Also, the appendices are filled with stock soldiers and typical units for almost every occasion -- I think they're a nice change of pace from your typical monsters or generic NPCs from the DMG. Anyway, if there are shortcomings (and I'm sure there are), I'd love to hear about them. Likewise, if you have something nice to say about them, I'd love to hear that, too. It would totally make my day. :D |
| yeknom05-25-05, 09:36 AM | I'm not upset that every book WotC releases isn't aimed specifically at me. If a third of their books appeal to me, that's still a lot of books to buy. . . I couldn't agree more. |
| Bort33305-25-05, 11:11 AM | RoW... didn't that book have the Raptorians... I *HATE* all the new races WoTC comes out with. (Illuminans too yuck, though that was in RoD I think). Heres an idea guys... come out with more flavor and mechanics for existing races! |
| Seeker9505-25-05, 11:57 AM | Heres an idea guys... come out with more flavor and mechanics for existing races!You mean like the sections in each of the Races books that did this exact thing with the existing core races? Bort's statements are similar to the ones originally expressed (and deleted) by the oroginal poster. It goes through a process like this: 1. Mention a book. 2. Ignore all the aspects of the book that you do like. 3. Pick one aspect of the book you don't like. 4. Judge the entire book by that one aspect. 5. Blame the Publisher for never putting out good material. 6. Suggest that the publisher do something. 7. Ignore that the something you suggest is in the very book you blasted. Here's a parallel example: (After watching a Dodge commercial:) I hate the Dodge Ram. I can't stand red vehicles. Dodge sucks 'cause they make red vehicles. Hey, Dodge...why not make some vehicles in colors besides red? |
| Draco Strang05-25-05, 12:18 PM | (After watching a Dodge commercial:) I hate the Dodge Ram. I can't stand red vehicles. Dodge sucks 'cause they make red vehicles. Hey, Dodge...why not make some vehicles in colors besides red? Well, Dodge does sort of suck. Beside those famously crappy Dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler Caravans/Grand Voyagers (which were famously crappy) they have plenty of engineering problems, and they love to make false claims. For example, I'm sure you've all heard of the Dodge Magnum? Yea, it's a station wagon with a high performance engine and all-wheel drive powertrain. Yea, it's a good idea. Dodge called it an "unparalleled advance in the automotive field. Too bad Audi has been doing it for 20 years. Sorry about that. Dodge just irks me. |
| Calico Jack Drake05-25-05, 12:36 PM | Anyway, if there are shortcomings (and I'm sure there are), I'd love to hear about them. Likewise, if you have something nice to say about them, I'd love to hear that, too. It would totally make my day. :D Well, in sticking with the intent of critique... Heroes of Battle was too short (not something I would say about some of the other books I have bought). My campaign recently made a turn toward a major war and everything in the book was exactly what I needed to get it set up. The teamwork skills were excellent. I'm not trying to be overly effusive, here, I've been looking for something to promote teamwork in the group, especially in tactical situations and they were just what the doctor ordered. I'm fairly sure when war comes to my campaign it will be better for having HoB. -CJ |
| PrinceAzar05-25-05, 12:38 PM | Well, Dodge does sort of suck. Beside those famously crappy Dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler Caravans/Grand Voyagers (which were famously crappy) they have plenty of engineering problems, and they love to make false claims. For example, I'm sure you've all heard of the Dodge Magnum? Yea, it's a station wagon with a high performance engine and all-wheel drive powertrain. Yea, it's a good idea. Dodge called it an "unparalleled advance in the automotive field. Too bad Audi has been doing it for 20 years. Sorry about that. Dodge just irks me. Same with the Viper? :confused: |
| Draco Strang05-25-05, 12:54 PM | Same with the Viper? :confused: I could go on about the Viper for days on end. I post on a few automotive forums, and I've had countless Viper debates. Let me put it in list form: The "Triple Nickle" powerplant is horribly inefficient, and consumes too much fuel to boot. The Viper is the BIGGEST "compensator car" for middle aged men. The Viper is bloated and superflous, with far too many options and creature comforts The Viper sure as hell ain't no super car. Anything a Viper can do, a Corvette can do just as well, and it's $40,000 cheaper. That's the list that the anti-Viper camp has come up with, and it's all true. Do your homework, read as many objective sources as possible. I've driven a few, and they're piggish, nose heavy, and just a chore to wrestle around the track. I can think of so many cars I'd rather have than the Dodge Viper. |
| DungeonMaster05-25-05, 01:05 PM | I have some pretty severe criticism of all the newer books. Now despite my profound hatred of the 3.5 travesty don't be fooled - I will buy just about anything D&D if I think it's worth it. I have no problem forking out $100+ for the world's largest dungeon. I will likely pick these up when I can get them for less than $5. Races of the Wild: This book, like it's predecessor, makes the mistake that people will be interested in a hereto unheard of race and elaborates a great deal upon them. I don't understand this decision, from a DM standpoint or from a marketing standpoint. As a DM their sole purpose appears to be mechanical, to "justify" flight in a level adjusted 0 race - and that after Andy trashed the plain fly spell? It doesn't make sense. Introducing a new monster has historically been "hit or miss" - there are buckets of uninspired monsters that have no historical, mythological or actual fiction basis, that well, fail to appeal. Why spend so much effort and place on "raptorans" when you could have done, I don't know, dryads, nixies, sprites, brownies, heck even avariel! I don't honestly want to discuss all the mechanical blunders. The history of 3.5 will be the saturation bombing approach to game design, 500 misses and 1 hit. This might appeal to some people but honestly I would prefer a small set of feats, as in 7 or 8 that actually are not more powerful than the PHB feats and mesh with the other feats presented in other books . The same can be said of classes and the oxymoron prestige classes. Take the example of the "arcane hierophant". Was it or not a conscious decision to have this Prestige Class mix with the "mystic theurge" to allow 9th/9th spell casting? Did it not strike anyone reviewing it as blatant power-creep over the mystic theurge? Heroes of Battle: I have not read through this book so I can't comment that much - I'm working off of other people's readings. Who's bright idea (ANDY?!) was it to make avoiding archer fire a reflex save? Did it not strike anyone, not a single person, that a naked monk or rogue is better off on the battlefield than a full-plate fighter? That taking your armor to war is less useful than your cloak of resistance? Did the word evasion or improved evasion - a basic third edition mechanic not come to anyone's attention? Why does Int direct how well you lead men, as it gets factored into the attack roll of the archers? Why not the basic statistic of leadership in the D&D game Charisma? Did not a single paladin playtester ask: how come the wizard is better at leading men than I am? Or the fighter ask: why is the rogue in padded armor taking less damage from arrows than I am in full plate? |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast05-25-05, 06:11 PM | Why does Int direct how well you lead men, as it gets factored into the attack roll of the archers? Why not the basic statistic of leadership in the D&D game Charisma? Did not a single paladin playtester ask: how come the wizard is better at leading men than I am? Or the fighter ask: why is the rogue in padded armor taking less damage from arrows than I am in full plate? I believe Int is used because it is not about influencing people, rather directing them how to act. The soldiers are already on your side, so you don't need to influence them in a particular way to get them to fire how you tell them. It is based on Int because the leader must make a decision on where and how his men should fire. What angle is needed Should I compensate for the wind? These are the questions the leader asks himself then relays the information to the other archers. Those skills are based on mathematical ability (the Int bonus) and experience (the BAB). |
| Dark Voivode05-25-05, 06:15 PM | I thought those decisions would be based more on personal experience rather than mathematical analysis... Just my opinion. |
| MerricB05-25-05, 07:57 PM | Most of the supplements that WoTC releases are much more useful to DMs than players. That's actually fairly new. During the 3e days, most of the supplements were pretty much aimed at players, though DMs could (and did) use them. (Exceptions include Manual of the Planes, which was really a DM book, and Deities & Demigods, which no-one bothered using... ;)) The latest crop of D&D books have a lot more material aimed at the DM. Heroes of Battle is of that type, and has some of the most readable writing I've seen in a D&D book for years. Sandstorm and Frostburn I've found very useful in setting up adventures, and I'm eagerly awaiting DMG2. Moving to the player-type books, Races of Destiny was the only one of the Races series I found really disappointing. There were good things in it, but mostly they seemed to be in the wrong book. For instance, the material on urban adventuring was really screaming out for its own book - one set up like Sandstorm. I like both Races of Stone and Races of the Wild; though neither are great, both are solid. Races of Eberron is a step above the rest of the series, but is more specialised in usage. If you're happy with the standard D&D races, you don't need it. The Complete series is very good, assuming you want more mechanical options for your PCs. I did, and my players really did. :) The monster books (Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness) don't really interest me that much. I have both, and I think Lords of Madness is the better book - but I'm not planning on running a campaign based around an Aberrant race, so it is of very limited usefulness at present. Cheers! |
| DungeonMaster05-25-05, 08:50 PM | That's actually fairly new. During the 3e days, most of the supplements were pretty much aimed at players, though DMs could (and did) use them. I would like to compare the releases because I think you're wrong (I don't have time exactly now to list them all). The crappy splat books balance out the complete crap series. Then you have the manual of the planes for 3rd edition vs. the planar handbook (for players) and the player's guide to Fearun and the races books. (Exceptions include Manual of the Planes, which was really a DM book, and Deities & Demigods, which no-one bothered using... ;)) And the monster manual 2? And the fiend folio? And the campaign settings like Forgotten realms? Deities and Demigods is a very good book that I've used. What I'de never use and what doesn't get used are the 1000+ broken/moronic prestige classes, feats that clutter every single book since 3.5 went off the deep end on those. Compare the number of PrC in say, Deities and Demigods and then Frostburn. The difference is striking . One is a DM's book and I'll let you guess which. |
| Dark Voivode05-26-05, 08:14 AM | Actually, everything except for the Player's Handbook is a DM's book. All that other stuff is optional. You as the DM decide what to let in, and what not to. That includes the Races and Complete series. There's more to those books than PrCs and feats. I'm a little sick of PrCs and feats as well, but occasionally they hit the mark with something I wanted in those areas. I've liked all the new material so far except I wish they'd stop ripping material out of the Miniatures Handbook for filler. If you wanted to update that material, just update it. There's no need for making the book useless to those of us who don't use miniatures that often. Making it obselete in measures is worse. There's two lonely variant classes that would've been better served getting placed in the Complete series. I have no complaints about the Races series so far. Once we use the material a little more, I'll probably see something to discuss. |
| ieattrollsforbreakfast05-26-05, 11:58 AM | I thought those decisions would be based more on personal experience rather than mathematical analysis... Just my opinion. Thats what I said too. The personal experience side is represented by the BAB (which will often be higher than Int bonus for low ranking military leaders), but mathematical analysis will help. BAB remains the crucial factor unless your dealing with a spellcaster or perhaps a rogue. |
| Zherog05-26-05, 12:00 PM | Races of the Wild: This book, like it's predecessor, makes the mistake that people will be interested in a hereto unheard of race and elaborates a great deal upon them. I believe you're referring to the Goliath, in Races of Stone? I actually found that to be a very interesting and playable new race. The next time I build a "tank" it'll most likely be a Goliath. I don't have Races of the Wild (yet), so I can't comment on the race that's in there - though I've seen some comments about it around here and other message boards. *** The only "terrain" book I have so far is Frostburn, and I have to say - I personally found it to be a really cool book. So much so, in fact, I'm working on trying to find ways to include Frostfell areas within my current game. I enjoyed the Complete series overall. While I like prestige classes, I think these books had too many - especially Complete Warrior. I found Draconomicon to be the most creative book I've bought from WotC in a long, long time. For me at least, the mix of fluff and crunch was really good - and every chapter dripped with ideas for me, both as a player and a DM. I don't have Libris Mortis or Lords of Madness yet, so I can't comment on those. |
| PrinceAzar05-26-05, 01:52 PM | The primary races in Races of the Wild are Elves, Halflings and Raptorans. |
| weasel fierce05-26-05, 01:59 PM | Out of curiosity, this new raptoran race. Are they tied into any campaign setting, or are they just thrown in there as an example of some woodland critter ? |
| PrinceAzar05-26-05, 02:14 PM | As with the Illumians and Goliaths, Raptorans are flexible and thus can be included in any campaign. However, they are not campaign specific, the closest i guess is D&D's generic world, Greyhawk...but, even that might be pushing it. :) Hm, speaking of such, when I saw them, it reminded me of the Raptorans from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (original series) :D |
| weasel fierce05-26-05, 02:16 PM | Much appreciated |
| Flushmaster05-26-05, 05:28 PM | I really like the raptorans. I like their history, their mythology, and their culture. I also love the ability to have a LA 0 race capable of flight, and I think they're mechanically balanced as such. A good roleplayer can make a raptoran character just as convincing;y "real" as an elf or dwarf. They're setting-generic, but enough about their culture is described that you could probably fit them into just about any setting without much work. For example, they tend to prefer cliffs and step mountainsides for residences and tend to settle in villages of 50 to 200 (at most) individuals. Nearby villages (which can be quite a distance away by landbound reckoning) maintain contact and typically share a common over-reaching "High Chief" but that leader is largely limited in power to matters of resolving any disputes between villages and mutual defense (the Stormtalons, elite raptoran soldiers, report to their high chief). |
| amethal05-26-05, 06:37 PM | I really like the raptorans. They're setting-generic, but enough about their culture is described that you could probably fit them into just about any setting without much work. For example, they tend to prefer cliffs and step mountainsides for residences and tend to settle in villages of 50 to 200 (at most) individuals. Nearby villages (which can be quite a distance away by landbound reckoning) maintain contact and typically share a common over-reaching "High Chief" but that leader is largely limited in power to matters of resolving any disputes between villages and mutual defense (the Stormtalons, elite raptoran soldiers, report to their high chief).Is their culture quite "race specific", or would the Raptorian culture in Races of the Wild give me a good starting point for detailing the culture of the Aarakocra in my campaign world? Given I already have Aarakocra as a playable race, would you suggest not bothering with Raptorians, replacing them with Raptorians or having both races? |
| Derren S.05-27-05, 03:40 AM | The funny thing is that the history and mythology of the raptorans always classifies them as a flying race, but only 5% of all reptorans can fly. |
| Aeolius05-27-05, 06:45 AM | Given I already have Aarakocra as a playable race, would you suggest not bothering with Raptorians, replacing them with Raptorians or having both races? I too prefer aarakocra over "humans with wings". Aarakocra are simply more interesting. |