Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pagan priest" data-source="post: 4163580" data-attributes="member: 7650">I have to disagree with the comments that the art was bad throughout.&nbsp; Yes, some of it was bad, a couple were really bad, but there were a couple that were fairly nice as well.&nbsp; Case in point:&nbsp; the pleasure golem.&nbsp; That picture still freaks me out when I see it, and given the nature of what was being portrayed, I'd say that means that it was a great success.Other folks here have focused on the &quot;kinky&quot; focus of the book.&nbsp; I would point out that talking about just the &quot;vanilla&quot; aspects of sex would leave the book much shorter, and falling short of its mandate as well.&nbsp; Fantasy realm or real world, those kind of things are part and parcel of sexuality for many people.I do have to comment on one massively annoying piece of errata, the one base class in there that I would consider tempting to play, the Kundala, is completely lacking in information on weapons and armor proficiencies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pagan priest, post: 4163580, member: 7650"] I have to disagree with the comments that the art was bad throughout. Yes, some of it was bad, a couple were [I]really[/I] bad, but there were a couple that were fairly nice as well. Case in point: the pleasure golem. That picture still freaks me out when I see it, and given the nature of what was being portrayed, I'd say that means that it was a great success. Other folks here have focused on the "kinky" focus of the book. I would point out that talking about just the "vanilla" aspects of sex would leave the book much shorter, and falling short of its mandate as well. Fantasy realm or real world, those kind of things are part and parcel of sexuality for many people. I do have to comment on one massively annoying piece of errata, the one base class in there that I would consider tempting to play, the Kundala, is completely lacking in information on weapons and armor proficiencies. [/QUOTE]

Verification