Masters of the Wild bloopers

[Plane Sailing]

Although Masters of the Wild is probably the best of the class books so far in many ways, it is also a big disappointment to me - for reasons that I'll go into later.

Just at the moment though, I thought I'd draw attention to two fundamental bloopers that I noticed on my first skim through the book, both to do with Rangers.

p13, para about "Humans"

Dividing a human rangers initial skill points evenly between bluff, listen, sense motive, spot and wilderness lore gives the 1st level ranger a +5 bonus on these checks against favoured enemies, in addition to any other bonuses he may have.

Well, if Bluff and Sense Motive were class skills he might, but as it is he will only have +3 max in those two skills. Didn't the writer read the Ranger class description? Or did they just assume that bonus skills would be likely to be class skills? Perhaps it is just another mystery about the PHB ranger??

How about p14, talking about Half Orcs?

... a 10th level half orc ranger with a Strength score of 22 and weapon focus(battleaxe) has a +20 attack bonus against his first favoured enemy, not including the bonus of the magic battleaxe he has in each hand.

Hmm, let me see. +10 BAB, +6 from Str, +1 from Weapon focus. Where does that other +3 to hit come from? Looks like they added in the +3 bonus against his first favoured enemy, but since favoured enemy only counts to damage and not to hit, this is fundamentally wrong. It may be a popular house rule, and a lot of people on these very boards talked about it a year or two ago, but it is not the rules.

I wonder whether there are any other bloopers as fundamental as these ones?

My disappointment in the book is principally because they have largely reinforced the one-dimensional ranger and barbarian. I'm glad that they included the urban ranger variant, and more of the class books should have shown "approved" class variants of one kind or another - a big missed opportunity in the series to my mind.

Another missed opportunity is looking in more detail at alternative uses for skills. I particularly think they should have done something about expanded uses for tracking/wilderness lore. They could have explained why a druid needs knowledge nature when he has his perfect "nature sense" ability. They could have done a lot more for Animal Empathy or Intuit Direction (that's a skill that could do with being made useful!)

The book wasted too much time on how different races fit into the classes and how the classes stereotypically react to other character classes, but gave very little in the way of suggestions about how these classes might fit into a campaign world.

I like this crop of prestige classes better than most of the other books, some as NPC villains and a few that I will modify for my own campaign. I can't help but wonder at the Tempest prestige class though - why it gets no benefits at levels 3/6/9? None of the other prestige classes have "gap" levels like that (apart from the verdant lord, but he still gets his spell progression).

Hmpf.

I suppose having three classes in one book reduces the amount of space that any individual class can enjoy, but overall it is only a little better. I wonder if Mongoose will get around to quintessential barbarian, ranger and druid books

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The one that gets me is the Bane of Infidels: Alignment=any non-good. And then pretty much all of the class features are human (humanoid really) sacrifice. The class is described as a xenophobic maniac who murders foreigners in the name of his religion. If that doesn't scream out EVIL, I don't know what does. . . .

 

[Crothian]

I'm happy with it. I'm glad then didn't make a lot of alt rangers. I've had my fill with that on these boards as it is. THe prestige classes are better then most, at least for giving me PC and NPC ideas. Those two mistakes mentioned in the first post are in sections I didn't even read. Had no real use for them. But there are sections in every book I have no use for, so I like it when the errors are in those.

 

[Ranger REG]

While I too would rank MotW as the better of all four classbook, it still fell short of my expectation as a high-quality print book. Too many errors (class markup table do not match the class markup description) and rules discrepancies, I wonder if the authors themselves...

David Eckelberry and Mike Selinker

...have actually read the Player's Handbook. Come on, guys. If you're going to give us tips on how to play an effective ranger, keep the standard ranger class rule in mind, don't base it off your own houseruled campaign.

(IMC, the ranger's favored enemy bonus also applies to attack rolls as a house rule.)

Bane of Infidel is more suited to high-level NPCs than PCs (unless your DM is running an evil campaign).

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Not so much a blooper, but the Intimidation Through Strength varient rule on page 18 irks me.

I know some people already play this way, but, IMO, using STR instead of CHR really misses the point. And now it is in an official WotC product.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not so much a blooper, but the Intimidation Through Strength varient rule on page 18 irks me.

I know some people already play this way, but, IMO, using STR instead of CHR really misses the point. And now it is in an official WotC product.

I completely agree. Strength check vs. constant DC should provide a possible circumstance bonus to the check, but shouldn't replace the Cha entirely. ("I twist the iron bar into a knot to intimidate the guy." "OK, make a DC 20 Str check; failure means a -2 penalty and success means a +2 bonus.")

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Yeah, that would work fine.

But in all cases CHA should still apply. By the MotW rule a STR 18 CHA 8 guy can be just as intimidating as a STR 18 CHA 18 guy. BLEEH

 

[Crothian]

They are bailing people out who use Charisma as a dump attribute. Intimidation was the one thing that a big, bad barbarian needed his charisma score for, now they take that away. I think it also comes from people not understanding what Charisma is.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

That, plus not knowing what intimidation is.

Some people seem to think it is a fancy word for scare.

 

[Killer Shrike]

I dont mind the STR based Intimidate at all.

The key thing to remember is that ability scores are an arbitrary breakdown of the defining characteristics of a person. They are not absolute nor are they definitive.

While it is true that a charismatic person can use thier 'presence' to awe, frighten, or cow people, it is also true that a mute hulk with the personality of a doorknob and a 56 inch chest capable of pounding you into red goo can scare the bejebus out of most people simply via the inherent threat of painful violence.

Additionally, Strength would be more likely to serve for passive Intimidations as well. Note the classic question 'How big is he?' in relation to any potential male contender even today. I.e.: 'She's already got a boyfriend'; 'Oh yeah? Well how big is he?'.

The average person is more frightened by a big dumb bruiser than a silver-tongued rogue.

Who's more frightening. Mike Tyson or Danny Devito? Ever seen Hoffa? Devito "Intimidates" several people in the movie, in game terms. He comes off as a tough little dude; obviously Charisma and skill points at work.

Tyson seems like he has the personality of a rabid pit bull; not exactly a charismatic guy. But at first glance he is more intimidating because of his gross physical strength.
**************
As far as the Tempest is concerned, I dont have the book here in front of me, but speaking in general terms prestige classes shouldnt necessarily give a benifit with every level if the abilities the class grants are sufficiently powerful already, just as not all classes get new abilities each level. Perhaps the designers felt leaving gaps in the Tempest's progression was a balancing factor.