disgruntledarcher
First Post
I've heard tales of this Book of exalted Deeds. Intriguing. Anything anybody know that would help an archer interested in damage and to hit mainly involved in theis book?
What is good about BoED???
- Thread starter disgruntledarcher
- Start date
Jolly Giant
First Post
Not much archer-material in BoED, but it's a good book. Makes a very nice pair along with BoVD. 
There is one archer PrC though, called Skylord. It gives you a Giant Eagle or Giant Owl mount and some nifty tricks you can do while mounted. There's also a couple of PrCs well suited for rangers (TWF'ers or archers), but nothing archery specific, IIRC.
There is one archer PrC though, called Skylord. It gives you a Giant Eagle or Giant Owl mount and some nifty tricks you can do while mounted. There's also a couple of PrCs well suited for rangers (TWF'ers or archers), but nothing archery specific, IIRC.
Eremite
Explorer
I personally refer to the BoED as the Book of Erroneous Design. While a player might like to use some of the overpowered feats, PrCs etc..., it might be difficult for a DM to include such material in his game.
Like many recent WotC products, it would have benefited from a more complete development process that included some proper playtesting.
Like many recent WotC products, it would have benefited from a more complete development process that included some proper playtesting.
Turanil
First Post
I have the BoED and find it disappointing. Apart from a few monsters, nothing really useful or exciting. BoVD was more useful in that it helped create more varied villains and atrocities to throw at the PCs. On the other hand, BoED looks like they did the Christian Angelic Mythos retold by Walt Disney. If you live in France (preferably in Paris), I could sell you my copy in pristine condition.
Shemeska
Adventurer
The book was hit or miss in many ways, filled with some really cool stuff and some really ... not quite so cool stuff. Darrin Drader had some pretty spiffy stuff in there I will say though.
The good:
Some of the PrCs are interesting concepts. I won't speak about their design and mechanics but they give me ideas and that's what I look for in a good book.
I was happy to see some of the older monsters that showed up and some of the new ones as well. Some interesting items as well. The Coure eladrin familiar was just spiffy.
The bad:
Deathless = dumbest concept Evar!
Ravages = they're exactly like poisons, but they're 'good' poisons. Whatever. There's an iceberg in Phlegethos I'd like to sell you if you believe that.
Swapping out all but one of the unique guardinals because you didn't like their old names and because you couldn't be bothered to go find the 2e material that detailed them all = inexplicably lazy
The good:
Some of the PrCs are interesting concepts. I won't speak about their design and mechanics but they give me ideas and that's what I look for in a good book.
I was happy to see some of the older monsters that showed up and some of the new ones as well. Some interesting items as well. The Coure eladrin familiar was just spiffy.
The bad:
Deathless = dumbest concept Evar!
Ravages = they're exactly like poisons, but they're 'good' poisons. Whatever. There's an iceberg in Phlegethos I'd like to sell you if you believe that.
Swapping out all but one of the unique guardinals because you didn't like their old names and because you couldn't be bothered to go find the 2e material that detailed them all = inexplicably lazy
Particle_Man
Explorer
I like my Vow of Poverty Monk from BoED. 
But for you archer character, you might want to look at those Ravages. You can use them on your arrows vs. evil opponents, without worries about becoming "ravaged" yourself (assuming you are not evil). So from a crunch point of view these are good to have. But, as with all books, check with your DM first.
But for you archer character, you might want to look at those Ravages. You can use them on your arrows vs. evil opponents, without worries about becoming "ravaged" yourself (assuming you are not evil). So from a crunch point of view these are good to have. But, as with all books, check with your DM first.
Squire James
Explorer
It had its dumb ideas in it, but it also gave the good guys enough power to explain why evil hadn't already won it all. Fortunately, it's easy to leave out the dumb stuff in you want to. There is other stuff that, while not exactly dumb, can easily disrupt a campaign and make the game unfun for other players (particularly Vow of Peace).
Pants
First Post
Was that the actual reason given?Shemeska said:
BOT, I like the BoED. It has some really nice stuff (Exalted Arcanist, Anointed Knight, Celestial Paragons, some feats and spells), some unbalanced stuff (Champion of Gwynharef (Sp?), and some stupid stuff (positive energy = GOOD!?), but overall I think the book is quite nice... although it has very little for archer characters.
The vows, I think, would work great in a group of good roleplayers, but can be unbalanced if the roleplaying side isn't enforced. That said, these types of things really shouldn't have 'roleplaying requirements' as balancing factors.
Shemeska
Adventurer
Pants said:
Indeed it was. Here's the quotation from the BoED chat where Wyatt says that.
"You say, "Mostly out of curiousity, was there a particular reason for replacing all of the Guardinal Lords / Companions, except for Talisid from those that had been mentioned back in Planescape like Lord Hwynn, Duke Lucan, etc?
james_wyatt says, "One: The old Planescape ones were almost all male. (All but one?) Two: I had a heck of a time finding that old Planescape material. Three: I didn't like their names. Four: I liked the idea that there's a lot of turnaround in that organization.
james_wyatt says, "We've got it all in the library, but it's buried pretty deep!"
Similar Threads
