Complete Book of Eldritch Might...

[johnsemlak]

Are people buying it and how do they rate it?

 

[Voadam]

On order, has not arrived yet.

We already have some 3.5 conversions of spells we've been using but I only own BOEMI and none of the people in my group own BOEMIII so the extra material will be appreciated in our Ptolus based D&D game as all the monte cook spells are approved as available for the current campaign so I'm looking forward to a few more options.

 

[Dr. Niles Crane]

I've heard rumor it's available in stores but haven't actually seen it; Amazon still has it as "Not Yet Available"

 

[Garnfellow]

I /had/ put this book down as a "must-buy," but after getting the pdf patches I've changed that.

Keep in mind that I've only had these patches for a week, but so far I've been disappointed with the 3.5 updates -- they seem to be pretty shallow conversions. The obvious cut-and-paste stuff appears to have been caught, like changing skill and spell names. But there are several deeper changes in 3.5 that do not appear to have been addressed.

Here are a few examples:

• The "Conjure Mastery" feat from BOEM I, which improves the power of monsters you summon. Now that "Augment Summoning" is a standard, how do these feats match up? Is Conjure Mastery superfluous? Too powerful, given the prerequisites for Augment Summoning? Should they be allowed to stack?
• In a similar vein, compare/contrast BOEM I's "greater sleep" with 3.5 "deep slumber."
• Spell levels in the revised sorcerer spell list in BOEM II do not appear to incorporate the 3.5 changes to spell levels.
• In general, the BOEM spell school assignments do not appear to have been rethought in light of the extensive 3.5 changes.
• The requirements for making a "Magical Construct" do not include the 3.5 feat "Craft Construct."

These are just some quick observations, and maybe once I've had the pdfs for a while I'll change my mind.

One good thing I can say about the patches is that the new layouts for BOEM I and II are vastly approved . . . much easier on the eyes and the printer.

 

[Belen]

Garnfellow: The main problem with your assessment is that those items do not need to be changed. AU does not use 3.5 spells, so he is basically adding them to the AU inventory, even if they are similar to one's in the PHB.

The Sorceror is an ALTERNATE version, so it need not match with the PHB version. And maybe he does not agree with some of the spell schol changes.

I know that I ordered the book and I am really looking forward to it. I had the PDFs up till now, so it will be great to have all three in book format.

 

[DaveMage]

Garnfellow: The main problem with your assessment is that those items do not need to be changed. AU does not use 3.5 spells, so he is basically adding them to the AU inventory, even if they are similar to one's in the PHB.

TCBoEM is not an AU product so I think Garnfellow has some good points.

 

[Garnfellow]

Garnfellow: The main problem with your assessment is that those items do not need to be changed. AU does not use 3.5 spells, so he is basically adding them to the AU inventory, even if they are similar to one's in the PHB.

The Sorceror is an ALTERNATE version, so it need not match with the PHB version. And maybe he does not agree with some of the spell schol changes.

I know that I ordered the book and I am really looking forward to it. I had the PDFs up till now, so it will be great to have all three in book format.

Well, as DaveMage points out, the BOEM are /NOT/ Arcana Unearthed products.

If the Malhavoc team looked at the 3.5 spell level changes and made conscious design decisions to keep each of the alternate sorcerer's spells at their existing level, then I can buy (heck, applaud!) those decisions. As you say, it's an alternate sorcerer, and I believe that some of the assigned spell levels don't match what's in 3.0, either. But based on what I'm seeing elsewhere, I don't believe that's what happened.

Whether a publisher loves, hates, or is indifferent to the 3.5 changes, it really doesn't matter. If you're doing a 3.5 d20 book, you have to live by the 3.5 ruleset. Or, at the very least, explicitly point out where you have chosen to deviate from that ruleset.

 

[Silveras]

Well, as DaveMage points out, the BOEM are /NOT/ Arcana Unearthed products.

If the Malhavoc team looked at the 3.5 spell level changes and made conscious design decisions to keep each of the alternate sorcerer's spells at their existing level, then I can buy (heck, applaud!) those decisions. As you say, it's an alternate sorcerer, and I believe that some of the assigned spell levels don't match what's in 3.0, either. But based on what I'm seeing elsewhere, I don't believe that's what happened.

Whether a publisher loves, hates, or is indifferent to the 3.5 changes, it really doesn't matter. If you're doing a 3.5 d20 book, you have to live by the 3.5 ruleset. Or, at the very least, explicitly point out where you have chosen to deviate from that ruleset.

That's disappointing. I had hoped Monte would standardize, or at least explicitly acknowledge, that his use of Teleportation does not match the 3.5 standard of it being a sub-school of Conjuration (for example).

 

[Arnwyn]

Are people buying it...

That's a big "no" (especially if what people are saying about the patches are true - sounds like a complete rip-off). I'm more than fine with the 3.0 versions.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I might. I've only flipped through the 3.0 versions and having them all in one big book appeals to me.