Qs about The Quintessential Fighter.

[Psion]

However, we also wanted to provide some more generic prestige classes that curved away from 3e's current high-high fantasy feel.

Which was my assessment of the type of game it would be useful in. Nice to know you hit the mark.

Psion: You are one of the chaps I always make a point of reading reviews from. Note to everyone else - this guy usually knows what he is talking about. Usually

If the Chaos Mage prestige classes had meant to add to the casting level, we would have said so

I would hope so, but as it stands, it seems like their special abilities are "swimming upstream" if they lack a bonus, or at least a partial bonus.

Speaking of Chaos Magic, were you the gentleman who did the review on RPGNet?

Yes it was. Most of my reviews (except those obtained through ENWorld) appear at RPGnet. And yes, you were right about the path of chaos thing.

Like you said, I usually know what I am talking about.

Damage bonus in the OMCS. Umm, p101, under Recording Damage. They are no longer 80 strong, they are 10 strong.

That makes sense (have to look when I get home... I couldn't find it.) I just didn't see anywhere where it says that unit hp corresponds to unit strength, especially considering that with modifiers, they can be different.

Our first three Slayer's Guides (Hobbers, Gnolls and Centaurs) do have some minor errors in the Reference Section. The reprinted Hobbers corrects this, as does the reprint of Gnolls. However, we have since brought on a few 'd20 freaks' and, all gods willing, such things will not rear their head again.

Good to hear. And it shows in your products. I am reviewing Sahuagin right now, and it looks very rules solid. My point in bringing up problems in the earlier books was as a counterpoint to Urklore.

 

[Bhadrak]

Bhadrak: First off, I would refer to anyone using Character Concepts to the very last sentence of the first column on p4. That is what they are intended for. However, if a twink comes along and starts to power up his fighter, what is the beef? How much further will he get with that one feat, as opposed to others he may choose instead. Feat choices at 1st level for fighters are all important - as is equipment, which can bve a real pain if you have suddenly had your gold docked and are still exdpected to take the front row position. . .

Mongoose Matt,

I think Character Concepts are a good idea, I just don't see the need to give them "benefits" and "penalties". It de-emphasizes their purpose in being a roleplaying tool.

As for what is so bad about giving a fighter weapon spec at 1st level? Why did WotC make it so that weapon spec could not be taken until 4th level?

And having less starting gold being an appropriate "penalty" is silly as starting gold is irrelevant beyond the first adventure.

Of course, I am biased, because I really, really disliked what "kits" did to 2E, and I see the character "concepts" as heading down that path.

The book is good. You should be proud of it.

 

[Mongoose_Matt]

Bhadrak: Thanks for the vote of confidence, always appreciated. The only thing I can really say to your copmments baout this chapter is imagine what people would have said if we had not put any rules info in there (and I _did_ consider doing just that). We would have got slated for 'wasting' pages

However, if you and your group would like to use them without the benefits/penalties, I cannot recommend that enough. Though any decent role-player should be able to come up with concepts of his own, it is always nice to have a little 'prod' for ideas now and again. Which, at its core, is the whole idea behind the Quintessential line.

One question I do have for all you chaps, whilst I have you;

I was a fan of the Complete Handbooks (I'll ignore the cries of twink, as I was the DM!). They are very collectible (look _very_ nice on the shelf when you have the whole lot!) and were packed full of ideas.

However, I always felt they lacked general utility beyond the kits and spells. Anybody else feel that way? This was the one thing I wanted to address with the Quintessential books, allowing players actual _options_ for their character to do cool things, rather than just put in a load of waffle. Having seen what Mike Mearls and Sam Witt have dopne to Rogue and Cleric respecitviely, this idea seems to have gone right up their flagpole. We will never be able to do a class book that is everything to everybody, but I have a feeling we are getting more right than wrong. Opinions?

BTW, in case any are worrying about a proliferation of class books, we are intending to expand the scope of the Quintessential series, even at this early stage. The books that follow will not be just class and race - we are going to be throwing a few 'curved balls' into the mix as well that should get people thinking about their characters in new ways. Or old ways, greatly expanded

As for us completing a book for every class. . . Well, it would be nice, but it kinda depends on you lot I am a bit dubious, though, about seperate Psionicst and Psychic Warrior books. Seperate Wizards and Sorcerers books, however, ah, have we got something planned there. . .

Catch you all soon,

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

Re: Re: Qs about The Quintessential Fighter.

Darn double-post...

-Zarrock

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

I find that the Quintessentual books, and actually 90% of the books that moongoose publishing puts out, are far better in content that the stuff wizards put out. Though the layout and artwork are not the same quality as wizards (they are bigger and got more cash), the content of the books is far superior to that of what wizards produces. And I have hardly seen any erratta for their books that our out now on the market, compared to just one of the class books by done by WoTC!

Moongoose shows with great skill what a small company can do with the d20 system when they care more than just making cash. And they listen to their playtesters too boot!

Lets be real here. WotC has already put out two products that are in a league of their own - Manual of the Planes and FRCS (if you counted the core books it would be five). Add to that a lot of excellent products - Magic of Faerün, Psionics Handbook, Oriental Adventures and Lords of Darkness.
Moreover, they have two products coming up that I think will blow the roof off - Epic Level Handbook and Deities and Demigods (and probably Monte's secret product). It's not just the resources that makes the difference (though of course it's an advantage)- Wizards are good - really good - and better than the rest IMO - but a few are closing the gap somewhat (but as they are basically supplementary to Wizards in their nature, they'll never close it)....

-Zarrock

 

[Bhadrak]

Bhadrak: Thanks for the vote of confidence, always appreciated. The only thing I can really say to your copmments baout this chapter is imagine what people would have said if we had not put any rules info in there (and I _did_ consider doing just that). We would have got slated for 'wasting' pages

A good point.

I was a fan of the Complete Handbooks (I'll ignore the cries of twink, as I was the DM!). They are very collectible (look _very_ nice on the shelf when you have the whole lot!) and were packed full of ideas.

However, I always felt they lacked general utility beyond the kits and spells. Anybody else feel that way? This was the one thing I wanted to address with the Quintessential books, allowing players actual _options_ for their character to do cool things, rather than just put in a load of waffle. We will never be able to do a class book that is everything to everybody, but I have a feeling we are getting more right than wrong. Opinions?

Well, with the fighter book, you've got lots of good stuff. The OMCS, Mercenaries, Tournaments, Strongholds. This is useful material for both players and the DM.

I think the most important thing to do with the Quintessential line would be to keep a level of consistency across the entire line. One of the major flaws with the 2E "Complete" was that there wasn't any real consistency between the books. It was like the writers of one book never read the other books.

Secondly, from a sales point wise, even though these books are supposed to provide the players with options, it is vitally important that the material include lots of DM type material. DM's buy more books than players. And if the DM doesn't have the book, because it doesn't have good DM material, he is unlikely to allow his players to use it.

 

[Mongoose_Matt]

Bhadrak: In terms of consistency, this is something we are very much aware of. So we have taken steps. Whilst the Quintessential books have several authors, each follows are very strict format - the Character Concept, Tricks of the Trade, and several other chapters are common to each book, and appear every time, thus ensuring internal consistency across the range. We also write each book with an eye towards other classes using them - in The Quintessential Fighter, you will see some fighting styles, for example, that are decidedly Rogue-like. In the Quintessential Cleric, every one can benefit from Divine Favour. However, the featured class does tend to do things better.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As for what is so bad about giving a fighter weapon spec at 1st level? Why did WotC make it so that weapon spec could not be taken until 4th level?

Because multi-classing is easier in 3e, and too many classes are already front-loaded.

You need to move some abilities up to at least 4th level to prevent "dabbling" in lots of classes without the penalty ever kicking in.

Wulf

 

[Bhadrak]

Because multi-classing is easier in 3e, and too many classes are already front-loaded.

You need to move some abilities up to at least 4th level to prevent "dabbling" in lots of classes without the penalty ever kicking in.

That was exactly my point.

The other reason is that 2 extra points of damage makes a much bigger difference at level 1 than it does at level 4.

 

[Kichwas]

Eric Noah's site was founded on the backs of 3E playtesters leaking information and posting opinions.

That's beena long held tradition here.

Even after WotC starting cracking heads to stop people from releasing information.


I'm shocked that you would all hold a playtester to Mongoose to a standard higher than you held Eric Noah and the people who helped him make this place the resource it is today.

At least Urklore waited till AFTER the book was out to say anything.