Amazon listing for the Book of Vile Darkness

[Aegeri]

I mean, how many Brawler Fighters and Skirmishing Warlords have you personally played for 30 levels in a regular game so far? And if you haven't done that, but they're your favorite parts of the game, how does that exactly work? Don't you think you could make use a dose of something different alongside your characters?

I run three games (third starting soon) and nothing to me is more boring than every party being the same fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue/ranger core with the odd one outside of it. I actually yearn for the days where I don't have a Wizard, because they are so common as muck that I am bored of them - so more viable options is more interesting to me. When some classes are just being left to die support wise, PCs aren't going to take them and hence I'll see more of the same fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue core to every party (which I find rather boring).

But anyway, I have no idea what I'll be able to do with the BoVD.

If it's like the 3.5 book it might be useful for propping up an unstable table. Given the "cling to the past" direction, I am not confident in the book being any good whatsoever and being more than just a tie in to their tie in TV movie.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I run three games (third starting soon) and nothing to me is more boring than every party being the same fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue/ranger core with the odd one outside of it. I actually yearn for the days where I don't have a Wizard, because they are so common as muck that I am bored of them - so more viable options is more interesting to me. When some classes are just being left to die support wise, PCs aren't going to take them and hence I'll see more of the same fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue core to every party (which I find rather boring).

So you're not actually a fan of playing any of them, you just like the fact that there's a shake-up in character types?

And the druid, hunter, invoker, psion, seeker, battlemind, cavalier, paladin, swordmage, warden, ardent, artificer, bard, runepriest, sentinel, shaman, warlord, assassin, avenger, barbarian, hexblade, monk, ranger, scout, sorcerer, and warlock aren't variety enough apart from the classic foursome to excite you as a DM?

I mean, that's 26 classes, with 30 levels each. Assuming those 3 games have 5 people each, you could have someone having a different class in each of your games and STILL not have ANY fighters, wizards, clerics, or rogues. Heck, you could ban those four classes from your game, and you'd be fine. And that's not including multiclass or hybrid craziness.

And, I dunno, if you're getting bored with the classic tropes of the genre, maybe it's time to hang up at least one of the D&D games for a little while, or try some Call of Cthulu or something Sci-Fi, or Dread, or whatever. Or maybe go for a change of pace and get one of your players to run a game including YOU as a player, so you could try out your own wacky character ideas?

You still seem to me, to be freaking out about something that doesn't require any sort of freak out. It's not like you don't have plenty of character options for your games, even given your higher-than-normal level of players and your lower-than-normal patience for the well-worn tropes.

If it's like the 3.5 book it might be useful for propping up an unstable table. Given the "cling to the past" direction, I am not confident in the book being any good whatsoever and being more than just a tie in to their tie in TV movie.

*shrug*. I was kind of fond of the 3e BoVD, and it saw some use in my games (the enemies were nice, and the spells culled from the d20 Call of Cthulu were what gave me the idea to run a Cthulu/FR crossover that ranks as some of the most fun I've had with D&D, ever). If it's at least that good, it'll be pretty good to me.

And if it's not, ah well. At least it's not just another bundle of dead trees.

 

[Aegeri]

So you're not actually a fan of playing any of them, you just like the fact that there's a shake-up in character types?

More diverse PC classes are as good for me as a DM as they are for players. More options means more diversity in choices and means those choices are just as competitive. For me, I can understand if a PC says "I don't want to play a seeker" because it's plain garbage at the moment and goes with a wizard. One is a mostly broken class desperate for support while one has about 10 boatloads of stuff dumped on it on a regular basis. What would you rather play?

And the druid, hunter, invoker, psion, seeker, battlemind, cavalier, paladin, swordmage, warden, ardent, artificer, bard, runepriest, sentinel, shaman, warlord, assassin, avenger, barbarian, hexblade, monk, ranger, scout, sorcerer, and warlock aren't variety enough apart from the classic foursome to excite you as a DM?

Here is the stick though and you seem to have missed the point. The point is out of all of that what is getting support just thrown at it from every book that is released? The same stuff that has been since the start. I don't regard Slayers/Knights/Scouts/Thieves as anything more than bland boring Fighters/Rangers/Rogues. So we can write those off. The Hexblade has proved very confusing rules wise and has some issues, but ultimately they are a Warlock variant. At the same time, I do like the Warlock and wouldn't mind seeing what they're like once the class compendium article buffs their damage.

The problem is though what out of that looks like it's going to get support? Oh, you mean every book published recently is giving the Wizard, Cleric, Paladin, Fighter, Rogue and Ranger support? Why yes, that's basically what has been happening lately. I mean I still get plenty of diversity, but that diversity isn't going to last if PCs figure that certain classes just won't have anything to look forward to in future. All the while Wizards pile yet more options onto the Mage/Wizard class. This means that some of those options just look worse and worse. Why play a controller likely to never get anything else when you could play the "I do everything and get endless support" Wizard?

Assuming those 3 games have 5 people each, you could have someone having a different class in each of your games and STILL not have ANY fighters, wizards, clerics, or rogues.

And yet I do. Because you seem to have missed the core point that people play what is best supported.

You know why you don't see certain classes? Because they don't work well due to having no support or looking like they will get any.

And, I dunno, if you're getting bored with the classic tropes of the genre, maybe it's time to hang up at least one of the D&D games for a little while, or try some Call of Cthulu or something Sci-Fi, or Dread, or whatever.

I didn't need to when Wizards were releasing interesting options and actually supporting them. I see things like Psionic characters because the support is actually good with PP. Lots of interesting builds and options. Stick a poor class like the Runepriest with hardly any options, some majorly confusing class features to get to grips with and no potential support ever - do you think that's a viable option?

Or maybe go for a change of pace and get one of your players to run a game including YOU as a player, so you could try out your own wacky character ideas?

I have monsters for that same purpose actually, I get a lot of joy out of making new monsters, scenarios and traps. I get even more joy out of doing it to party compositions I've not seen commonly before and so will deal with it in different ways.

I would of course love to be wrong, but right now I don't see a good future to DnD unless you're a wizard. The BoVD isn't a part of any future of DnD I am particularly interested in, because right now I've had very little to give me any faith in Wizards as a company are going to publish things I want.