Book of the Righteous Dethroned!

[Crothian]

A critic should not just answer the question, "Did I like it?" which is all that he does here. A good reviewer will also answer the questions, "Does this book achieve what it set out to do and would other people like this book?" .

Sort of. A review is an opinion piece and that does answer the first question. The second question is a judgement call as well as an opinion as well. Unless I have personal conversations with Aaron Loeb, the author, its really hard to say if the book achieves what its set out to do. But also, I might think it does and someone else might think it doesn't. And the third part is also not always something one can do, I can';t say for certain after reading a book if people will like it or not. I've given low marks to very popular books (MM2) and high marks to books not everyone found that useful (EXP's Ecology and Culture book).

But my main point is that not all reviews and reviewers set out to answer all these questions. Frankly I try to answer two "What's in the book? and "How well is it done?".

edit: no one saw that, right???

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

frontloaded is frontloaded, no matter what the edition. Just becasue the paladin was like that doesn't make it any better.

So the Holy Warrior that is suppose to be an extension of the paladin should never be as capable as the paladin? :\

I'll be the first to admit I don't agree with the review, I find it hard to believe that something I've found so useful, have used on many occasions including the forgotten realms, was simply utter trash for another... :\

Any who, as others have said it's interesting to see what others use and don't use in their gaming, but it’s not like some died so I'm not sure where all the "hate" is coming from.

So I would like to give CRGreathouse some credit for posting a review that he knew wasn’t going to make him a popular person.

 

[Crothian]

So the Holy Warrior that is suppose to be an extension of the paladin should never be as capable as the paladin? :\

Just because one class is found to be too powerful does not mean all other classes based on it need to be as or more powerful. That's how we get powercreep.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Just because one class is found to be too powerful does not mean all other classes based on it need to be as or more powerful.

So now the Holy Warrior is more powerful than a 3.0 paladin?

That's how we get powercreep.

Powercreep is just a natural extension of trying to sale the next book... It's also part of human nature; one need only look at the advances in technology to realize we are never really satisfied.

 

[CRGreathouse]

So now the Holy Warrior is more powerful than a 3.0 paladin?

In all seriousness:

That was my claim, yes.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

That was my claim, yes.

Well, I have no doubt that certain combinations are more powerful than others, anything with choice is going to be like that but I serious doubt the Aesthete I play is going to when I smack down contest with a 3.0 paladin that has equal stats and she's made with the Holy Warrior that's presented in the BotR.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

So the Holy Warrior that is suppose to be an extension of the paladin should never be as capable as the paladin?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that front-loaded is the same as being more powerful or more capable.

I don't think anyone would argue that the 3.5 ranger is less powerful than the 3.0 ranger but it is unambiguously less front loaded. I think the same is probably true of the 3.5 paladin. A 3.5 Pal 20 is more powerful than a 3.0 Pal 20 (ignoring changes in spells like Holy Sword)--if only because he can smite five times a day instead of one. However, the 3.5 Paladin is also less front-loaded than the 3.0 paladin. If CRGreathouse criticizes a class for being front-loaded, that is a separate concern from being overpowered. The 3.0 ranger managed to be both front-loaded and (in many peoples' estimation) underpowered. In fact, traditionally, classes that are front-loaded are underpowered--the very criticism of front-loading implies that there's a lot in the first few levels but no reason to stick around for the later levels. A character with lots at the first level and lots at every level thereafter would just be straight-up overpowered.

 

[Numion]

I'll be the first to admit I don't agree with the review, I find it hard to believe that something I've found so useful, have used on many occasions including the forgotten realms, was simply utter trash for another... :\

Who said it was 'utter trash'? No need to exaggerate here. The book was given 2/5. That's poor or below average. Not 1/5 or 'utter trash'.

 

[Crothian]

So now the Holy Warrior is more powerful than a 3.0 paladin?

Powercreep is just a natural extension of trying to sale the next book... It's also part of human nature; one need only look at the advances in technology to realize we are never really satisfied.

I'm speaking more generally and not about this review in particular. People are talking about how a review should be and what it should include, so I'm talking over all. But I do agree the Holy Warrior is a bit more powerful

And powercreep might have become the norm, that doesn't mean we have to accept it and expect it. I disagree that it is human nature. Technology adfvances and the next book in a fantasy RPG really have nothing in common.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that front-loaded is the same as being more powerful or more capable.

My question to Crothian was more about if the class is suppose to equal xxxx? The why not let it equal xxxx?

To be honest I didn't really get the answer I was looking for...

Anyhow, I've never claimed that either class was more powerful than the other, only that others explain why they think the Holy Warrior is "so over the top."

It's surly not the class that is to powerful its just certain combination that should be watched out for and I don’t really agree with CRGreathouse claim because of the broad nature of his claim.