Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2013690" data-attributes="member: 172">"After reading this review, I went back and looked at the book, comparing it to your complaints..."(...)"the " " in the sections below at the beginning of each reference aren't direct quotes from the reviewer"So, you are trying to tear down my review based on things I did not say? For example, I did not decry absence of an index."You're upset because it doesn't reference a book that you seem to like (Beyond Monks). That's a little childish don't you think?"I'm not "upset." I just think that, when it came to selecting source material, they probably squandered some of the best opportunities."2)"The book doesn't reference where every feat came from...and there is no index." The table of contents...in case you missed it, it's at the front of the book...actually gives an alphabetical listing of the feats in the book, so no need for an index."That it does, which is why I didn't decry the lack of an index. That said, the ToC only lists feats in blocks. If you don't know if the feat you are looking for is in general or background feats, then you have to look in both. This was sufficient to preturb me when I was looking for one feat. But I consider this a minor point, which is why I didn't say anything about it."As for referencing where all feats came from. This would be extra text taking up space in the book, actually reducing space for more feats."It would take a few words per feat... or less if you simply made an asterisk code (like Necromancer's Legacy does.) Green Ronin did it with Pocket Magica; no reason that you couldn't have done so here. At any rate, so you wouldn't have found it a useful feature... well I would have, and I imagine that a fair proportion of my readers would have, too."Since you decided to reference only one feat in your complaint, that isn't much of a complaint."Since I already said I wasn't going to refer to every feat in the book, THAT isn't much of a complaint."Besides if you actually read the introduction, the second to last paragraph talks about why some feats may be overbalanced, and that GM's should pick and choose what they want in their campaign..."And if you read my review instead of going off half-cocked, you will see I mentioned that IN THE VERY SECTION THAT YOU ARE DECRYING! But, just because they owned that fact doesn't mean that we should tolerate it.""...it improperly uses the term metamagic to describe feats that do not modify spells." I would like to see your actual real proof of this statement, because the one you mentioned is an obvious editing error."So... are you arguing that it's valid to call this a metamagic feat, or that it's an error. Choose one, please.If your case is the former, please refer to the section entitled metamagic feats in the SRD or PHB under "feats." The entire section discusses applying metamagic feats to spells. If it is not applied to spells, it is not a metamagic feat."A true review should embrace the good things about a product and not dwell on the negative things."I did. For example, see how I praised the bloodgift feats, and their expansion therof?"If a movie critic reviewed movies like you review game books, nobody would invite that critic to showings of movies."And if companies control the reviewers, you cannot trust the reviews. I make it very clear to companies that provide me products that I promise no particular score, just a review. If they want to stop sending me products, that is their call. However, most choose to continue sending me products (including one company that I have given significantly worse scores than AEG) because at least their product is being talked about."Arrogant people who bash game products that are released, bring down the industry as a whole, and that's the last thing we all want."I do not "bash" products. I analyze their worth. This product has some worth, but you have to separate the 3's from the 4's, and this one has enough weakness that is does not deserve a 4. That does not make is worthless, just not (IMO) as worthwhile as other products, some by the same publisher and authors. For example, I LOVED Toolbox, which has many of the same names central to it's production.If a reviewer is not willing to call a product on it's weaknesses, then the public begins to distrust them. Go to the meta forum and look at the flak one of the affiliate reviewers is getting."Of course in the case of the reviews I've seen of this reviewer in the past, if it's not a WotC product then it's not worth of his praise in any way shape or form."This is a blatant mischaracterization, and demonstratably false. Count how many WotC products I have given 5's, as compared to third party products. Here, I'll help:5's by company:AEG: 2 (Spycraft, Rokugan)FFG: 2 (Dragonstar Starfarer's Guide, Monster's Handbook)Green Ronin: 4 (Plot & Posion, Book of the Righteous, Shaman's Handbook, Legions of Hell)Malhavoc: (BoEM I, BoEM III, Requiem for a God)Mongoose: 2 (Quintessential Wizard, Shamans, Seas of Blood)Mystic Eye: 1 (Necromancer's Legacy)Sword & Sorcery: 2 (Relics & Rituals, SLCS:Ghelspad)WotC: 2 (Monster Manual, Manual of the Planes)That's a lot of praise for products other than WotC.</blockquote>

Verification