Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 457378" data-attributes="member: 2013">Granted.  I just didn't see $33 worth of this.  I barely saw $5 worth of this.I don't think so.  It has sacrifice rules and prestige classes that I found poor, not excellent, but I suppose that's a matter of taste.which we had online a couple of years ago (thanks, Scott)which I found peurile and sublimely uninspiring.  It goes without saying that YMMV.  One person's trash is another person's treasure, right?IMO, it was their poorest product released to date, but reviewing is always subjective - and I didn't exactly give Song & Silence high marks, either <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> - I gave it a low 2.Flipped through in a store.  Then sat down and read.  Flipped through again with a notepad.  Took notes.  Posted review.  Got feedback.  Sat down with a notepad again and re-read.  Came to pretty much the same conclusion.  I am passionate about it because I thought it was that bad.  I needed the BoVD like I needed Hot Elf Babes In Chainmail Bikinis - which is to say, not at all, and I'm going to be pretty vocal when I tell WotC, "I thought this was utter crap and I don't ever want to see any more of this drivel."  If I don't, I fear they'll think they're doing a good job of meeting my needs (I won't speak for anyone else's needs, but they sure as heck haven't been meeting mine - and this goes back to pretty much everything released by WotC since Magic of Faerun).When a company doesn't meet my needs, they can expect to hear about it from me.  Obviously your needs are being met.  Conclusion?  We have different needs. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Not everyone has heard of them, but that's not the point.  WIZARDS had heard of them and if they're going to re-do them, I want them to be BETTER (or what's the point of a remake?).  I don't know if Scott still has them on his site or not, but my point wasn't just "you can get them elsewhere" - it was also, "if this material has been unofficially released for over two years - and WotC knew about the Creature Catalogue - then you darn well do a markedly superior job on your write-up."  I expect a LOT more of a d20 product published in 2002 than of a product published in 2000 because there are more examples (good and bad) out there to be used as benchmarks.  The Creature Collection (SSS) gets high marks from me (probably a 4) based on when it was released (which I do think needs to be taken into account).  If it was released today, it would rate a low 2, possibly a 1.  Many  products deserving of 4's and 5's two years ago would probably rate 3's or 2's if released today.I'm rambling, but the point is, "WotC did not make any significant upgrade compared to things that they were already aware of."  IMO, if you're going to publish something for the d20 system, it had better be superior to existing products that cover the same ground... because the "worst" you should be able to do is a straight re-print.I will get to what was right - and what was wrong - with SCoN when I get a chance to review it (since I'm in the process of a physical move starting Friday, there are no guarantees that this will be any time soon).--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification