Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheLe" data-source="post: 2421169" data-attributes="member: 3981">I know. I was kidding about the ruples. I trust your judgement concerning who you send out your reviews too. I also fully accept the final judgement that was given to U.fighters. I may not totally agree with his review, but I do find that overall it was fair.I guess it was the little things that bothered me, like &quot;non-standard save progressions are a personal bugbear of mine&quot;, and &quot; particularly noticeable due to how many classes got abilities that allowed them to ignore the AoO rules entirely&quot;. My own personal feeling is that the reviewer would have prefered a cookie-cutter fighter book that is very close to the original fighter with only 1 or 2 modifications. Or maybe something closer to the Quintessential books. Whereas the whole point of the Unorthodox Series is to take a core class and twist and bend it to make it more interesting, even if it means breaking the rules a bit. I dunno. My biggest concern is that all the unorthodox books uses non-standard progression charts and has little things that breaks the normal rules. In other words, why send someone to a horror movie knowing that they hate horror movies?I dunno. And frankly I don't care. It's still a hell of alot better than the jack ass who said, &quot;Negatives: it's a d20 book.&quot; I'll take&nbsp; Capellan's review over that any day.A review is still a review, and getting any of those at all is gold in my book. By all means, send him more of my books. I trust your judgement. And frankly, I trust his judgement too.~Le</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheLe, post: 2421169, member: 3981"] I know. I was kidding about the ruples. I trust your judgement concerning who you send out your reviews too. I also fully accept the final judgement that was given to U.fighters. I may not totally agree with his review, but I do find that overall it was fair. I guess it was the little things that bothered me, like "non-standard save progressions are a personal bugbear of mine", and " particularly noticeable due to how many classes got abilities that allowed them to ignore the AoO rules entirely". My own personal feeling is that the reviewer would have prefered a cookie-cutter fighter book that is very close to the original fighter with only 1 or 2 modifications. Or maybe something closer to the Quintessential books. Whereas the whole point of the Unorthodox Series is to take a core class and twist and bend it to make it more interesting, even if it means breaking the rules a bit. I dunno. My biggest concern is that [b]all[/b] the unorthodox books uses non-standard progression charts and has little things that breaks the normal rules. In other words, why send someone to a horror movie knowing that they hate horror movies? I dunno. And frankly I don't care. It's still a hell of alot better than the jack ass who said, "Negatives: it's a d20 book." I'll take Capellan's review over that any day. A review is still a review, and getting any of those at all is gold in my book. By all means, send him more of my books. I trust your judgement. And frankly, I trust his judgement too. ~Le [/QUOTE]

Verification