Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerisate" data-source="post: 2009204" data-attributes="member: 5523">I just got the chance to go through this second of the Book of Eldritch Mights.  (One has to assume there will be more given the success of the first two.)Overall, like most of the Monte Cook offerings, this is a solid offering.  The real strength is is in the new spells (I particularly like the one where you can "steal" the spells currently "protecting" another character), but the entire selection is more than worth the 7.50 it will cost you on-line.Being a fan of the Bard, I like Cook's new direction for the Bard.  Afterall, the current 3E version is a dim copy of what bards used to be, and certainly a dim copy of what bards SHOULD be able to be in a fantasy setting (why the WotC 3E bard is handicapped with so few skill points and then does not have access to simple traditionally bardic type spells like Color Spray, I don't know).  I think its great that he bumped the skill points up to 6 per level plus intelligence.  As a close cousin to the rogue, the bard needs skills--particularly considering he/she has lost much of his/her punch in terms of real combat abilities.  If the Bard is to be a support character, then he/she needs the skills to be a successful support character that a party appreciates.And thank you Monte for Evasion.  WHY the 3E people gave evasion to the Barbarian and Monk and not the Bard, I have never been able to figure out.  The 3E bard as is cannot really stand toe-to-toe in combat, so why folks who out of necessity must rely on fast talking and fast moving to stay out of reach of the bulk of combat are not allowed evasion at any point in their class, I don't know.  Obviously Cook has been giving that same issue some thought, and his bard gets evasion.I also sort of like the "musical theme" controlling the character.  Elaborating on the "Bardic Music" bit in the basic bard, Cook's bards cast notes, chords, and melodies, not spells per se.  This system allows the bard the verstility to "combine" notes into individualized chords and melodies with the assistance of other bards (bands and back-up singers will just have to become standard henchmen for Bards).  My only objection (a nit-picky minor one) is that it pidgeon holes bards into the singer mode.  In "reality" most bards did not sing, per se, they were storytellers, messengers, and newsreporters--all forms of communication that require oratory, not singing.  But, that just means the bard who wants to be a Vergil needs a new label for the same concepts Cook presents for his musically oriented bard.The Sorcerer revision is also a solid re-think of the 3E.  While so many folks were excited about the Sorcerer when originally presented, the game rules clearly benefit the Wizard long term, and the sorcerer always seemed just "tagged on" to the system.  Cook's sorcerer gets marginally more spells available (not so many that the Wizard loses his/her "I can know more spells than you" benefit), more skill points per level, and a few more class skills in which to put them.  Overall, the added class skills particularly seem a good idea as they seem to recognize that someone whose primary ability is based on Charisma might just be a little more of a people person (for example, diplomacy was added) than the original Sorcerer considered.I particularly liked the bit accounting for sorcerer PCs NOT having to provide components.  It's not explicitely stated in the PHB, but it is implied that Sorcerer's don't need components, their magic is internally based.  So, Cook's detailing how the sorcerer throws spells traditionally limited by exotic or expensive components (he uses stoneskin as an example) is a solid set of rules to follow.  The sorcerer does not need the component, but like a wizard making a magical item, he pays for the "exotic element" with a small portion of x.p.  This is so appropriate and simple, I'm not surprised we've overlooked it before now.  Of course the sorcerer whose power is innate would use a portion of their lifeforce to power a more exotic spell.I found the Prestige classes to be passable--not nearly as interesting as the bard revision.And, while I tend to like Cook overall, he has a tendency to give Prestige Classes and spells awkard names (Diplomancer?).  There's the wicked part of me that says if a player can not pronounce the name of a spell (Obstufication, for example), they shouldn't be able to have their character cast them.Oh, and does anyone else find it ironic that in this "book" detailing a "new" bard class and system for bardic music that Cook presents two "NEW" bard spells for the other way of doing bards? HmmmmOverall, the work is worth the money, and it should be a good addition to many folks gaming.</blockquote>

Verification