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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Archer" data-source="post: 2008854" data-attributes="member: 2950">I don't feel the need to review the points already covered in Alan Kohler's reviews but I do have some things to add.I want to explain why I gave this book a 3 when it seems like everything I'm going to say about the book is bad. Alan's review covers the good and everything he says is true. I'm just giving the other side more coverage. If the 600 editing mistakes (about 5 per page) were fixed, I'd give this book a 4. I'm not joking, I could use up an entire red pen going through this book. If some of the questionable elements were fixed I'd give this book a 5. I realize its hard to come up with new feats and prestige classes not to mention a combat system and fighting styles.More about feats:A small note, there are a lot of feats that have the prereq of 1 level of fighter. The only feat like the before was specialization. I don't think this is a good thing but the authors of this book really wanted to separate fighter from everyone else. I think the effect is that more people will dip 1 level of fighter onto whatever array of classes their character has (not that a LOT of people don't do this already.)There are feats that are exactly worse than existing feats, improved defensive fighting could just be called lesser expertise. Don't have 5 ranks in tumble or 13 int, use the new "lesser expertise" and get -2 to hit for +2 AC.They also have "reverse expertise" or "exponential rage" (I'm not sure which is a better nickname) which trades AC for damage which stacks with power attack but not more than your BAB, so this is double power attack. This really piles it on if you can cast true strike. If you are going to blow something away, it hardly matters how low your AC is the round after, especially if it already hits you on anything but a 1. This is the same effect as rage (AC for dam) with only BAB as limitation.Like weapon focus and spec? Well now you can do the same for armor.There is also "anti-combat casting." This has applies a penalty equal to combat casting to spell casters.Double endurance, who would want double endurance when no one wants endurance in the first place.Double Imp. Init, who wouldn't want double init if they have it in the first place?Some feats just don't make any sense like Side-by-Side, you can aid another but it still costs a standard action but you don't have to make the unfailable roll against  AC 10 to do so. Hmmm..... This is different from not having the feat how?Don't like the way 2 handed and 2 weapon fighting are balanced? Increase your off hand str bonus to full instead of half, but don't require prereqs. Uh huh. Use 2 handed weapons? We have something for you too, increase your damge a half bonus as well but we will word your feat in an odd way so it sounds like we put a lot of work into it (or so we think you will think, but don't.) [sounds odd doesn't it?]My feel from the feats is that almost without exception is that they push existing feats further (do I mean to say too far?) or hold them up to mirror (a fun house mirror?) and do the opposite.Called Shots:For all those people who have been asking (over and over, forever) what happens when they do a called shot to the eye and didn't like the answer they have been getting for the last year (which was no called shots), they now have rules on exactly what happens when you want to shoot the leader in the eye. This was actually mentioned in Alan's review but I figure it was worth mentioning again.Armor and Weapons:I was positively sick after reading the weapon descriptions. They essentially copy and paste "allowing it to cause crippling damage to the enemy," "capable of causing damage in the hands of the unsophisticated fighter," and "the wounds it deals are usually severe" into 28 of 35 entries. I wanted to throw the book across the room but I refrained as the book was not mine and it costs $20.Now that we've mentioned how every single weapon deals severe wounds, let's give an existing exotic weapon a new name and call it a martial weapon. Heck, why not do this 3 or 4 times. (This is sad if you already have the exotic weapon feat and you really want to min-max)Let's take a (+6) +36,000 gc set of enchantments, make them non-magical, give it to a set of full plate and make all new enchantments start over at +1 and stack. I almost forget, we have to give it a new name and reduce the cost to 4,500 gcs. (I'm going to shamelessly try to push this past my DM because I'm an inveterate min/maxer)Lets take a chain shirt, rename it, increase the cost and make it medium armor but leave everything else the same. Fabulous! We are geniuses!While we are at it, take the list of equivalent weapons and actually reprint the whole stat line for the new name.There are a few new ideas like conversion kits for armor that change light to medium, and medium and heavy to something a little heavier but not beyond full plate. (bah, so balanced in a section that is beyond min-maxers dreams except that chain shirt thing, what were they thinking?)Fighting Styles: This is for the fighter what OA did for monks with certain sets of feats. If you meet a set of requirements then you get some synergy bonus. Some bonuses are better than other and some are easier to get than others but not necessarily harder to get better bonuses. The real sticker here is that you need 20 wis to max out. Aaaaugghhh, those monks are sticking it to us again and we aren't even sharing a book with them.-Tordek, dwarven fighterNot so fast there Tordek my friend, I think they meant (but did not say) you can know additional styles up to your wisdom modifier but when styles take 7-14 feats, how could anyone have more than 2 and would want more than 1 as they are exclusive? (One style only takes 1 feat but it is a complete statistical aberation) Prereqs are often redundant because if you require 9 feats then BAB 7+ is meaningless. Some styles require a feat without saying so such as the skill prereq Knowledge (Anatomy) 12 which requires either education or cosmopolitan feat (neither in the PHB or SRD) or a level of bard/wizard to achieve. No bard or wizard could ever meet the feat requirements and a 20th level fighter could not meet the skill requirements without having FRCS feats.You better not lose that cloak of resistance and gauntlets of dexterity or you'll forget all your training. (Or at least I think you will, that's why base save requirements should be used. Either that or let me borrow your cloak of resistance while I get some training because I just can't understand this sword technique without it but once I'm done you can have it back.)Styles give free feats, modify feats and add special abilies. Some abilities are not at all special but fill the space as it was decided all styles must have 5 levels.Two styles modify whirlwind. One gives attacks against everyone within 10' (13 feats and BAB 16+) and another gives 2 attacks at -1 to hit against everyone within 5' (14 feats, orc blood)</blockquote>

Verification