BOEF Errata/Updates?

[Gromnar]

Thank you, that is highly appeciated! My players wanted to try using the intimate material and we love Forgotten Realms, and thankfully there are deities there that fall under that porfolio. It was a rocky start, but we've gotten to a balanced point and things have really taken off. There's only three players right now (though there's more cohorts and such), which sort of limits things right now.

[Samloyal23]

Originally Posted by Gromnar

I'm currently running a Forgotten Realms campaign that uses the Sisters of Rapture material, BOEF and some other similar-themed 3rd party material. I've modified the Sisters background heavily to fit with Forgotten Realms and the campaign itself, but the campaign is a high-powered one with an excellent storyline. We play on d20Pro as well as have RP on our forums and MSN.

I'm pretty experienced with the Sisters of Rapture, BOEF and those kinds of materials. They can really add flavor to a campaign and make it unique: you just have to balance that flavor with the reality of the rules, adjusting things to fit. Just like any material you include, its only as hard as you make it.

I will say that Sisters of Rapture is an excellent book. It is an interesting take on the classic intimate theme, though unless you are really going to make the Sisters a central part of your campaign, it won't have a lot of information that can assist you, where BOEF is very wide-scoped (if odd).

Not to turn it into a shameless plug, but I'm always looking for new players and if anyone is interested in knowing more about the campaign I'm running, I'd be happy to link you.

d20 pro? Linkage much?

[Samloyal23]

So far, the most broken thing I have seen in the book is the spell Beauty's Caress. A Feykissed character with 20 levels in Imagist could use the maximize feat with this spell in and have an Appearance score of 65. I think that is a tad high... :-P

[Alzrius]

The most broken thing that I saw in the BoEF was the pleasurable magic weapon quality.

This magic weapon quality makes your weapon deal nonlethal damage, and also causes a creature hit by it - on every single hit, mind you - to make a DC 15 Will save, or be affected by an orgasmic vibrations spell.

Now, by itself the concept of a weapon that causes people to have an orgasm when hit with it is probably too silly for most people, but that's not the problem. The problem is that if you fail the save against orgasmic vibrations, you're dazed for 1 round per caster level (the magic weapon quality has a minimum caster level of 7).

So effectively, every hit with a pleasurable weapon forces a creature to make a Will save or be taken out of the fight for 7 rounds. I'm sorry, but that's broken as hell.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally Posted by Alzrius

The most broken thing that I saw in the BoEF was the pleasurable magic weapon quality.

This magic weapon quality makes your weapon deal nonlethal damage, and also causes a creature hit by it - on every single hit, mind you - to make a DC 15 Will save, or be affected by an orgasmic vibrations spell.

Now, by itself the concept of a weapon that causes people to have an orgasm when hit with it is probably too silly for most people, but that's not the problem. The problem is that if you fail the save against orgasmic vibrations, you're dazed for 1 round per caster level (the magic weapon quality has a minimum caster level of 7).

So effectively, every hit with a pleasurable weapon forces a creature to make a Will save or be taken out of the fight for 7 rounds. I'm sorry, but that's broken as hell.

Ouch! Somehow I missed that one.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally Posted by Samloyal23

So far, the most broken thing I have seen in the book is the spell Beauty's Caress. A Feykissed character with 20 levels in Imagist could use the maximize feat with this spell in and have an Appearance score of 65. I think that is a tad high... :-P

How do you get that high??

[Alzrius]

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

How do you get that high??

I'm curious about that too.

If you start with a character with an Appearance of 18 (presuming a base score of 18 and no racial bonus), and have it be a juvenile for an additional +2 Appearance for its age (though how it's still this young and 20th level is rather suspect), then add +2 for being a feykissed creature, add in +5 from the ability points you get once every four levels, and another +5 inherent bonuses from wishes or miracles, with a +20 from a maximized beauty's caress, that's still only a 52.

[Samloyal23]

Originally Posted by Alzrius

I'm curious about that too.

If you start with a character with an Appearance of 18 (presuming a base score of 18 and no racial bonus), and have it be a juvenile for an additional +2 Appearance for its age (though how it's still this young and 20th level is rather suspect), then add +2 for being a feykissed creature, add in +5 from the ability points you get once every four levels, and another +5 inherent bonuses from wishes or miracles, with a +20 from a maximized beauty's caress, that's still only a 52.

A beauty's caress adds 1d4 per 2 caster levels. If you have 20 caster levels that's 10d4. Maximized, that 10X4, +40. Add that to the 25 a feykissed character can have just by reaching level 20, you get 65. Throw in wishes and you can get to 70 App. Basically you make Aphrodite look like a mutt...

[Alzrius]

Originally Posted by Samloyal23

A beauty's caress adds 1d4 per 2 caster levels. If you have 20 caster levels that's 10d4.

You forgot the part of the spell that says it's capped at 5d4.

[Samloyal23]

Originally Posted by Alzrius

You forgot the part of the spell that says it's capped at 5d4.

Aah, missed that. Still, what other spell lets you add +20 to an attribute? Switch that to Strength and you can use an ogre as a golf club. And it affects BOTH Charisma and Appearance. I'm thinking this is way too powerful to be a level 3 spell. Fixes?

[Alzrius]

Originally Posted by Samloyal23

I'm thinking this is way too powerful to be a level 3 spell. Fixes?

I honestly think that the best fix for this spell is out-and-out deletion. It violates a number of principles of spell design in 3.5, such as the sheer amount of power it gives for its level (this is the big one), as well as that spells that enhance ability scores don't roll for the amount of the bonus they grant any more (they did in 3.0, but not 3.5).

Seriously, it's much better to just delete this spell; peacock's beauty already does enough in regards to what this spell wants to do (bonus to Appearance).

[Samloyal23]

Aside from the Rake not being a core class I like the classes in this book, they make sense from a role-playing stand. Anyone see any problems with them? Any faves?