Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 1804285" data-attributes="member: 172">I think that's a classic example in the vein the Mearls gave of great Fluff, sucky crunch.Of course, I've not exactly seen lots of people who defend this as a flawless gaming gem, rather view it as ripe for plunder in the fluff department.I certainly didn't hesitate to tell the Emperor he had no clothes:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Psion&product=DLOM" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Psion&product=DLOM</a>But then, that's why I don't totally buy into what mearls is saying about WotC getting flak just because more people read them. You just HEAR more flak. It's not like people like DLOM better than, say ELH. It's that there were less people out there to pronounce how they would never use DLOM's mechanics in their game.Mostly, yeah. But a few are pretty good. (Quintessential Sorcerer is a thing of beauty.)I'll agree especially the second one has some issues.As for R&RI, that's one of those books you can pry from my cold dead hands. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Not that it's perfect. I still think the DM would have to be smokin something to allow the vigilant in a game.Don't have it. Don't see people loving it though. Is this that "sneak attack" undead thing that some people are up in arms about? If so, doesn't sound broken so much as "inconsistent with some people's conceptualization of what sneak attack is."</blockquote>

Verification