-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Moggose: The Quintessential Figher
- Thread starter noretoc
- Start date
Crothian
First Post
I really like it. The prestige classes are nice as five levels. It makes it easier for people to take them without becoming them. Most of the feats are pretty good, a few I found to weak and only one I think might be too strong (and that's only for a high Cha character). I like the new weapons. Ya, wizardsin S&F did the simple way, but it's nice to know that different weapons can actually be different in game mechanics instead of just look. I really like the Fighting Styles, though I'm not sure if they really thought about the prerequites (The staff fighting one you need a 5 stats of 13+ ).
The call shot rules seem intersesting, but I'll have to try it out. I like the duels and the jousting stuff. I didn't even read over the mass combat because that's not for me in general.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10. It stands on its own well, and makes a good addition to S&F.
The call shot rules seem intersesting, but I'll have to try it out. I like the duels and the jousting stuff. I didn't even read over the mass combat because that's not for me in general.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10. It stands on its own well, and makes a good addition to S&F.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
I didn't care for it at all and will be exchanging it for something else.
There were just too many little things that annoyed me. It eventually wore me down.
1) Fighting Styles. There's no real good reason that the fighting styles are keyed to your wisdom bonus. It is obviously included as a limiting mechanic, but the end result is that most fighters will achieve 1, maybe 2 levels in any fighting style. You would need a 20 Wisdom (+5 bonus) to master all 5 levels of a fighting style. Why should fighters have to dilute their physical attributes to excel at fighting? Why should a cleric have a better chance to master a fighting style than a fighter?
2) Each time I saw, "A penalty to all CHA based checks," I winced. Example, the Fighter Assassin: "The fighter assassin has great difficulty in relating well to any other person, for he always assumes they will betray him at the first opportunity. He receives a -2 penalty on all Charisma based checks." Oh really? Animal Empathy? That's a Cha based check. Will my horse betray me? (You're hard core, Trigger.) How about Use Magic Device? Geez, I can't trust my scrolls and wands, either? This is lazy game design. You can't possibly account for all the Cha-based checks that will ever exist-- but you could at least account for the ones that DO exist and take the time to list the skills by name that would logically be affected. We obviously know what the writer's intent behind the rule was, but the implementation was lazy.
3) Two-Handed Power Strike. "This feat may not be used in conjunction with Improved Initiative..." So how's this work then? In 3e, initiative is rolled once, at the start of combat. So how do I apply Improved Initiative vis-a-vis Power Strike? Do I decide at the start of combat if I will EVER use the power strike during that combat? "No, I won't use this feat at all this combat, I'll keep my initiative where it is," or "Well, I rolled a 1, so at best I'll have a 5... Might as well start power striking..."
4) Many of the illustrations are layed out on top of the text, but the background is not transparent and the runaround isn't set properly. As a result, you miss a word here or there. Sometimes those words are important, for example the base attack bonus prerequisite for an Acolyte of the Short Blade (p72). Oops. There are others.
5) Two-inch margins. An inch-and-a-half of art and another half-inch of white space. This is becoming a Mongoose "trademark."
6) The DM will need to do some work to get the OMCS to work correctly in conjunction with magic. For more on this problem, look for the Quintessential Fighter thread in the d20 Publisher forum.
In the end, the book looks lazy and rushed. I respect Mongoose's aggressive release schedule-- we are all hungry for d20 supplements-- but not at the expense of quality.
Wulf
There were just too many little things that annoyed me. It eventually wore me down.
1) Fighting Styles. There's no real good reason that the fighting styles are keyed to your wisdom bonus. It is obviously included as a limiting mechanic, but the end result is that most fighters will achieve 1, maybe 2 levels in any fighting style. You would need a 20 Wisdom (+5 bonus) to master all 5 levels of a fighting style. Why should fighters have to dilute their physical attributes to excel at fighting? Why should a cleric have a better chance to master a fighting style than a fighter?
2) Each time I saw, "A penalty to all CHA based checks," I winced. Example, the Fighter Assassin: "The fighter assassin has great difficulty in relating well to any other person, for he always assumes they will betray him at the first opportunity. He receives a -2 penalty on all Charisma based checks." Oh really? Animal Empathy? That's a Cha based check. Will my horse betray me? (You're hard core, Trigger.) How about Use Magic Device? Geez, I can't trust my scrolls and wands, either? This is lazy game design. You can't possibly account for all the Cha-based checks that will ever exist-- but you could at least account for the ones that DO exist and take the time to list the skills by name that would logically be affected. We obviously know what the writer's intent behind the rule was, but the implementation was lazy.
3) Two-Handed Power Strike. "This feat may not be used in conjunction with Improved Initiative..." So how's this work then? In 3e, initiative is rolled once, at the start of combat. So how do I apply Improved Initiative vis-a-vis Power Strike? Do I decide at the start of combat if I will EVER use the power strike during that combat? "No, I won't use this feat at all this combat, I'll keep my initiative where it is," or "Well, I rolled a 1, so at best I'll have a 5... Might as well start power striking..."
4) Many of the illustrations are layed out on top of the text, but the background is not transparent and the runaround isn't set properly. As a result, you miss a word here or there. Sometimes those words are important, for example the base attack bonus prerequisite for an Acolyte of the Short Blade (p72). Oops. There are others.
5) Two-inch margins. An inch-and-a-half of art and another half-inch of white space. This is becoming a Mongoose "trademark."
6) The DM will need to do some work to get the OMCS to work correctly in conjunction with magic. For more on this problem, look for the Quintessential Fighter thread in the d20 Publisher forum.
In the end, the book looks lazy and rushed. I respect Mongoose's aggressive release schedule-- we are all hungry for d20 supplements-- but not at the expense of quality.
Wulf
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
I only called out a couple of the more extreme examples. It hints at game design without reference to the existing rules. And I don't mind saying (again) it bugged the crap out of me.
I guess my main gripe is that the game design that is there isn't good enough, in my opinion, to be worth printing. You can get more thorough design from the various Netbooks. Just because it has a nice cover and it sits on a game store shelf doesn't (apparently) mean it's superior quality.
But it should, and that's my beef.
Wulf
I guess my main gripe is that the game design that is there isn't good enough, in my opinion, to be worth printing. You can get more thorough design from the various Netbooks. Just because it has a nice cover and it sits on a game store shelf doesn't (apparently) mean it's superior quality.
But it should, and that's my beef.
Wulf
trancejeremy
Adventurer
If Necromancer has First Edition Feel, then Mongoose has the feel of TSR when they were at their height of putting out crappy products (mid 90s)
(Sorry, I'm not a mongoose fan either.... bad design, rushed feel, gigantic margins, just sloppy products...)
(Sorry, I'm not a mongoose fan either.... bad design, rushed feel, gigantic margins, just sloppy products...)
baseballfury
First Post
Crothian
First Post
See it seems like I'm one of the few to like this product, I'll respond to Wulf's main points.
1) Fighting styles: Personally, I like that they are based off of Wisdom. Gives people a choice on what ability to boost. I hate the idea of a dump attribute. All attributes need to be inportant and anything that does that is good, IMO. Also, Basing it off wisdom makes it tough to learn. Especially to get that 20 wisdom. This makes master really rare and difficult for PCs to get to that level. I think that is how it should be. And clerics have a better chance to get the good wisdom, but they don't have the BAB or the sheer number of feats to qualify for many of the styles.
2) The complaint of Character Concept Chapter. I'm with you all the way on this stuff. I think it was a good idea to try this in theory, but it mostly failed.
3) Power striking is a good feat, just needs an errata. Whilke I don't like that it does, that is seeming to be the norm on d20 stuff. Personally, it's still not as bad as some of the stuff in S&F. They have room to improve, but most of the feats are perfectly fine.
4) I didn't even notice this as I read through it. Yes, they are and Mongoose shouldn't do this. But It didn't effect me as I read it and I needed this pointed out to me.
5) Mongoose: Lower the amount of White Space, please. I'd perfer to be complaining about pages to cramped with text, then pages blinding me with glare of the white spaces.
6) I've not read the mass combat system and I have no intention of ever using a mass combat system. So, I'll trust that Wulf's assessments are correct.
Overall, I am still happy with this book. It has many good ideas. Perhaps Mongoose does rush their products, on that I have no idea. I'm not going to judge by their rapid realease schedule because they do have many authors.
Feats I liked:
Combat Caster Defense: You are better at inturpting and interfering with spellcasters as they cast spells
Reckless Attack: You attack with great power in close combat giving up defence for shher damaging ability.
Sure Aim: THe longer you aim with a missile weapon, the better your chances to hit are.
Prestige Classes I liked:
Legend: You need a BAB 15+ and many, many feats, but this Pr Cl has really good flavour and abilities.
Peasant Hero: Yes, a Pr Cl designed for the Commoner NPC class. Again, really good flavour. It's a little weak, but I really like the idea.
1) Fighting styles: Personally, I like that they are based off of Wisdom. Gives people a choice on what ability to boost. I hate the idea of a dump attribute. All attributes need to be inportant and anything that does that is good, IMO. Also, Basing it off wisdom makes it tough to learn. Especially to get that 20 wisdom. This makes master really rare and difficult for PCs to get to that level. I think that is how it should be. And clerics have a better chance to get the good wisdom, but they don't have the BAB or the sheer number of feats to qualify for many of the styles.
2) The complaint of Character Concept Chapter. I'm with you all the way on this stuff. I think it was a good idea to try this in theory, but it mostly failed.
3) Power striking is a good feat, just needs an errata. Whilke I don't like that it does, that is seeming to be the norm on d20 stuff. Personally, it's still not as bad as some of the stuff in S&F. They have room to improve, but most of the feats are perfectly fine.
4) I didn't even notice this as I read through it. Yes, they are and Mongoose shouldn't do this. But It didn't effect me as I read it and I needed this pointed out to me.
5) Mongoose: Lower the amount of White Space, please. I'd perfer to be complaining about pages to cramped with text, then pages blinding me with glare of the white spaces.
6) I've not read the mass combat system and I have no intention of ever using a mass combat system. So, I'll trust that Wulf's assessments are correct.
Overall, I am still happy with this book. It has many good ideas. Perhaps Mongoose does rush their products, on that I have no idea. I'm not going to judge by their rapid realease schedule because they do have many authors.
Feats I liked:
Combat Caster Defense: You are better at inturpting and interfering with spellcasters as they cast spells
Reckless Attack: You attack with great power in close combat giving up defence for shher damaging ability.
Sure Aim: THe longer you aim with a missile weapon, the better your chances to hit are.
Prestige Classes I liked:
Legend: You need a BAB 15+ and many, many feats, but this Pr Cl has really good flavour and abilities.
Peasant Hero: Yes, a Pr Cl designed for the Commoner NPC class. Again, really good flavour. It's a little weak, but I really like the idea.
Last edited:
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
I'd like to rebut your rebuttal point by point, but I just exchanged QF for Of Sound Mind. =)
I will respond to that, however, and I'll borrow a comment from the d20 Publisher thread to do it:
That's the problem exactly. It is a limiting MECHANIC without a RATIONALE. I start by disputing that dilution of ability scores is a Good Thing. I don't see people advocating rogue abilities that require huge Constitution scores, or sorceror abilities that have massive Strength requirements, or Cleric abilities with huge Dex requirements.
Frankly I think the problem is that roleplayers tend to be educated folks and so we automatically put the mental attributes on a pedestal.
If you want to tie the fighting styles to an attribute, we can all agree that's fine-- but you need to take it on a case by case basis. The Feats in the PHB are a fine example. Some require Dex, some require Str, some require Int. But making a blanket Wis requirement is, again, LAZY GAME DESIGN. As MMU1 point out in the quote above, Wisdom doesn't make sense in every case.
Wulf
Crothian said:
I will respond to that, however, and I'll borrow a comment from the d20 Publisher thread to do it:
mmu1 said:
That's the problem exactly. It is a limiting MECHANIC without a RATIONALE. I start by disputing that dilution of ability scores is a Good Thing. I don't see people advocating rogue abilities that require huge Constitution scores, or sorceror abilities that have massive Strength requirements, or Cleric abilities with huge Dex requirements.
Frankly I think the problem is that roleplayers tend to be educated folks and so we automatically put the mental attributes on a pedestal.
If you want to tie the fighting styles to an attribute, we can all agree that's fine-- but you need to take it on a case by case basis. The Feats in the PHB are a fine example. Some require Dex, some require Str, some require Int. But making a blanket Wis requirement is, again, LAZY GAME DESIGN. As MMU1 point out in the quote above, Wisdom doesn't make sense in every case.
Wulf
Similar Threads
