Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 224239" data-attributes="member: 463">Well, I'd seen a lot of negative comments previously on the arbitrary inconsistent and rationaleness nature of the Sage's advice, but normally I just read the errata, I haven't read Dragon for a good while, and until I was prompted to read the FAQ yesterday by the discussion about stacking Empower metamagic (&quot;x2/x3/x4 Empower&quot;&nbsp; I had no idea how appallingly bad it was.I said something about the mediocrity of the Monster Manual - that's a bit unfair, in any other context it would seem a pretty good rules book, despite lacking an entry for humans or any sample encounter tables.&nbsp; But IMO the 3e PHB is probably the best single RPG rules book ever written - something I've slowly come to realise after GMing 3e since late '2000 - and by comparison the MM is a let down.&nbsp; Admittedly even Monte's DMG isn't quite as good either, but it's still very very good.&nbsp; The MM is a bit average.I guess my problem is that based on the quality of his advice, Skip Williams doesn't deserve to be the primary authoritative source on the 'true meaning' of the PHB.&nbsp; But many people seem happy with his rulings.&nbsp; As long as none of my players ever tries to enforce the FAQ on me, I'm happy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 224239, member: 463"] Well, I'd seen a lot of negative comments previously on the arbitrary inconsistent and rationaleness nature of the Sage's advice, but normally I just read the errata, I haven't read Dragon for a good while, and until I was prompted to read the FAQ yesterday by the discussion about stacking Empower metamagic ("x2/x3/x4 Empower" I had no idea how appallingly bad it was. I said something about the mediocrity of the Monster Manual - that's a bit unfair, in any other context it would seem a pretty good rules book, despite lacking an entry for humans or any sample encounter tables. But IMO the 3e PHB is probably the best single RPG rules book ever written - something I've slowly come to realise after GMing 3e since late '2000 - and by comparison the MM is a let down. Admittedly even Monte's DMG isn't quite as good either, but it's still very very good. The MM is a bit average. I guess my problem is that based on the quality of his advice, Skip Williams doesn't deserve to be the primary authoritative source on the 'true meaning' of the PHB. But many people seem happy with his rulings. As long as none of my players ever tries to enforce the FAQ on me, I'm happy. [/QUOTE]

Verification