Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pants" data-source="post: 3289885" data-attributes="member: 8849">Overrated, yes. Bad, no.Let me count the ways...- The Thaumaturge - Waste of space. Really, some people complain about classes with utterly narrow focuses and I think this class fits that to a T. The real problem that I have with this class is it fills a niche that can already be filled without multiclassing. Need a cultist? You have several options: the adept, cleric, or even the sorcerer. The corruption mechanic would've worked better as something independent of the class.- Not really a 3.5 Update - What bugs me most about the book was that it really didn't update a lot of the fiends to 3.5. Sure the skills and stuff got switched, but in the change to 3.5 many fiends got physical boosts in power which the BoF ones did NOT get. This is especially bad in Devil section where there are several 'dukes' of Hell with very, very pitiful HD amounts and ability scores, in comparison with pit fiends. While the same argument can (and is frequently) leveled at the Demon Lords and the Arch Devils in Fiendish Codex series, at the very least those stat blocks are tougher than the average pit fiend and balor plus they also mention ways to advance them, admitting that such low powered fiend lords will not be to everyone's taste.- The Vile Darkness Angle - It's not much more vile or mature than the relatively tame BoVD. This wouldn't be much of a problem, IMO, if they hadn't taken the potshot on the book's back cover. The spells, actually, are on the same angle of silly-stupid evil that is pretty present in the BoVD.Not to say that it isn't a good book, but I see it get lauded all the time and I just don't understand why. No one ever criticizes it. For anything. Not that it's a bad book, but it's not perfect.Everyone seems to automatically read 'overrated' as 'steaming pile of donkey dung' when I never said anything like that.</blockquote>

Verification