Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zaukrie" data-source="post: 4719513" data-attributes="member: 2057">Overall I like it.However, if I was in charge:The barbarian is more of totem warrior, and I'd call it that. I remain afraid of its damage output.The race options would be 2 pages, not 1. I'd put a lot more in there about fluff/roleplaying stuff. Goliaths would be more interesting if they just stole all the data from earthdawn, instead of only some of it. Gnomes need more to be something other than elves/halflings that are tricky and a different height.The shaman seems cool. Definitely a different class than the others.Why is channel divinity only about undead (that one, at least)? Why not abberations, or demons or whatever?Backgrounds are weak here. come on WotC, you've done better work on this already - 10 to 20 more pages on organizations and backgrounds (basically stolen from 3.5 work) would have been huge here. It also would have addressed the "this is all rules, why wouldn't I just use the CB and Compendium" arguement somewhat.I like the book. I think it adds to the game. But if they want me to buy these, they need to put some fluff in them, or I'll be buying DDI only.</blockquote>