Experience with Collected Book of Experimental Might?
- Thread starter Erekose
- Start date
Ahzad
Explorer
we got to play with it for a short time, or at least the first half of it when it came out in pdf. my players that used it really liked it, 2 clerics, and a paladin, they enjoyed the disciplines that gave them a little more flexibility with the characters they were running. we switched over to 4e when it came out b/c as a gaming store manager i thought i should have some familiarity with the new system that i would be selling. so i never got to play w/ it as much as i would like to have had.
fwiw, personally i find myself wanting to go back to 3rd and using the stuff from BoXM. i really like what's there and what i see and it feels more like the system i would like to DM/play.
fwiw, personally i find myself wanting to go back to 3rd and using the stuff from BoXM. i really like what's there and what i see and it feels more like the system i would like to DM/play.
Varianor Abroad
Explorer
We liked it when we tried it! Good stuff. We didn't bring it into the current campaign because the DM didn't feel like retooling everything, but it really made sense.
Truth Seeker
Adventurer
Leave it to Monte, his tinkering knows no bounds.
Many uses, many variants...and honestly, the spell by spell level, is beautiful to use.
I HIGHLY recommend this book.
, of 10.
Many uses, many variants...and honestly, the spell by spell level, is beautiful to use.
I HIGHLY recommend this book.
, of 10.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Hm. Well, I haven't used it/them. But I can post some impressions I got from reading the two PDFs, I guess.
The new class abilities (Disciplines?) are neat, or some of them are. There is not much to speak of regarding feats or skills. And, though it is suggested to combine Hide and Move Silently into Sneak, the same idea is not suggested for Listen and Spot. :/ I don't mind the idea of spell levels equalling class levels, but there are some design decisions here (or oversights, I'm not sure) that really made me go 'hmm. . .' - like bestow curse being one level lower than remove curse. Maybe that works for some folks. Not for me. The HP variant rules look OK, and similar to stuff found elsewhere.
'Fighting Domains' seems like a silly term, given Cleric Domains 'n all. The feats in the second PDF, for the most part, look too Fighter-centric. That is, the other 'martial' classes seem left behind, in comparison. The general idea of feats scaling with level is good, but not new. And yeah, this seems to be confined to the Fighter class, at least mostly. Why? Well, never mind. I don't like the term 'Uber Feats', and the fact that only Fighters can take them. Oblation Feats don't do anything for me either, as it so happens.
So uh, I guess I'm not that big a fan. With some work and serious re-balancing, plus maybe acknowledging the Sorcerer and Bard classes' existence, it could be alright.
The new class abilities (Disciplines?) are neat, or some of them are. There is not much to speak of regarding feats or skills. And, though it is suggested to combine Hide and Move Silently into Sneak, the same idea is not suggested for Listen and Spot. :/ I don't mind the idea of spell levels equalling class levels, but there are some design decisions here (or oversights, I'm not sure) that really made me go 'hmm. . .' - like bestow curse being one level lower than remove curse. Maybe that works for some folks. Not for me. The HP variant rules look OK, and similar to stuff found elsewhere.
'Fighting Domains' seems like a silly term, given Cleric Domains 'n all. The feats in the second PDF, for the most part, look too Fighter-centric. That is, the other 'martial' classes seem left behind, in comparison. The general idea of feats scaling with level is good, but not new. And yeah, this seems to be confined to the Fighter class, at least mostly. Why? Well, never mind. I don't like the term 'Uber Feats', and the fact that only Fighters can take them. Oblation Feats don't do anything for me either, as it so happens.
So uh, I guess I'm not that big a fan. With some work and serious re-balancing, plus maybe acknowledging the Sorcerer and Bard classes' existence, it could be alright.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
This may have something to do with Monte publishing Sorcerer and Bard variants in the Book of Eldritch Might II. For what it's worth, I would allow those in any 3 or 3.5 game I run.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Granted, the CBoEM Bard is quite different. And not too shoddy, either.
But the Sorcerer is barely different from the 3e default. I don't really see that meshing too well with the revamped BoXM Wizard, Cleric, Druid. . .
Besides, I seem to remember hearing or reading something to the effect that the best thing to do is simply discard the Sorcerer class altogether, as the new improved Wizard makes it redundant anyway. Not sure if that was in the actual PDF, or um, somewhere else.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
I haven't read the BoXM, so I'll take your word for it, though it doesn't surprise me. 3.x sorcerer's seem to often become redundant with any major changes to the wizard class. I think this is partly because the sorcerer was designed to be a more newbee friendly version of the wizard.
Looking at the variant right now, there isn't really any difference between it and the 3.5 sorcerer. Of course, that's what makes it safe to allow!
Similar Threads
