Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5555244" data-attributes="member: 78116">I would buy this logic if the next MV book had epic monsters - but it doesn't. Also returning to a previous point, I think you need to look up the number of creatures in each book that has been released. Epic monsters have never ever had equal support to heroic and paragon. MM3 has 303ish monsters and 74 of them are in epic. That means the majority ARE in Heroic and Paragon. Also there are more than a few creatures in MV that could be culled for epic monsters happily as well (Drakes as a good example). Either way, MV was merely disappointing but the second book also dumping epic tier is infuriating and what gets my ire.But saying that monster books ever supported epic equally is just incorrect. It's also missing the problem that I've already highlighted: Epic monsters pre-MM3 are the most worthless and require the most work to make competitive with newer creatures. There is far more need for a MV to have around 50ish epic monsters out of 300, than having 40 extra monsters on top of 180 heroic monsters out of 300. 180 heroic monsters that inundate a tier that is filled with hundreds of choices. Hundreds.Actually, it's more that they suck as strikers and have pretty poor damage. I think the vampire is mechanically interesting in lots of other ways though, but they almost win the award for "failing at their role entirely". That puts them up there with luminaries in the game at this like the Binder and the OAssassin. That is not esteemed company.I liked *almost* everything about the book. I liked most of the new options they introduced (not all of them of course, but that is just about impossible for any book regardless of what game it is). I also - especially ironic given my general focus on discussions - liked the supporting fluff too. I generally liked the new build and having seen 2 battleminds in play (and an Ardent) I disagree the ardent is a bard (it's not) and the Battlemind (post-errata to Blurred step) is a perfectly viable defender. Overall though I liked the new mechanics, new builds, many of the new PPs and I really enjoyed the fluff. Just a really surprising book to me, because I didn't warmly receive psionics in the first place.Of course, some psionic stuff still needs its justified whack with the nerf bat, but we'll have to see what happens in June!</blockquote>

Verification