Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kristian Serrano" data-source="post: 4217500" data-attributes="member: 13046">I'd like to clarify and defend my earlier post in this thread.1. I'm not a 4e troll. I'm not too keen on a lot of things related to 4e. There are several facets that compell me to switch from a time-saving perspective, but I have a lot invested in 3.5 and prefer to keep using them.2. The statement about Book of Vile Darkness being much disliked was not a reflection of my own opinion. I was merely trying to state my observation that there is a large community of individuals who refer to it as a ridiculous book and that it should have been titled the Book of Vile Grossness.The concept of the Book of Vile Darkness was something I loved when I first read it (back when I was switching my perspective from player to DM). I liked the context in which it is was written. After some time, though, I realized I didn't really need to use much of it to really emphasize truly vile and evil beings. It worked well when I was running Monte's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (some of the material in there found its way into the BoVD). Still, there's a lot of stuff that I found either game breaking or irellevant. Seriously, overly powerful corrupt spells that inflict ability score damage on the caster aren't really balanced if the NPC is going to die in a few rounds anyway (or the PCs for that matter). In the end, I felt as though the book was more about how to kill the PCs, which seems to be a common theme in Monte's work.For what it's worth, I still love the Kythons. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />3. My point about Monte's work with the 3.0 rules was to point out the fact that he is at least partially responsible for the issues in 3.0 and 3.5. Even some of his "fixes" add a layer of complexity that is relatively unnecessary. This might be a moot point since he's not actually designing for Pathfinder RPG.To summarize, I'm simply trying to bring a different perspective to the conversation. I personally don't automatically associate Monte Cook's approach to gaming with quality game mechanics, but that's just my personal opinion. He has certainly put out some quality products in the past, but I just don't think that everything he touches is necessarily gold.</blockquote>

Verification