Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="InVinoVeritas" data-source="post: 3983738" data-attributes="member: 41485">The Best &amp; Worst books of 3E threads are interesting, and made me think about the Complete series and previous efforts to &quot;flesh out&quot; races and classes. When are they done right? When are they done wrong? Why?My favorite splatbook is still the Complete Thief's Handbook from 2nd Edition. This was back when &quot;kits&quot; were used to enhance and alter a base class to make it more thematic. Many times, &quot;kits&quot; were another way to abuse the system, adding powers without definite drawbacks. However, this book got it right. Most of the tweaks were minor, and much more thematic in nature than not. Also, any roleplaying benefit had roleplaying drawbacks, and any mechanical benefit had mechanical drawbacks. Furthermore, it introduced good, useful mundane equipment that wasn't overpowering, spent a very large chapter describing how thieves' guilds would work and how to build them for your campaign, and discussed the thief's role in the party and in a campaign world. Years later, I noticed that much of the book was written by John Nephew, and it definitely shows.The Complete Book of Elves (also from 2nd ed) is a fine example of one done poorly. Elves became better at everything, suggested wholeheartedly handing them a bunch of extra powers for free, and loaded the kewl on top of the kewl. Flying elves? Got 'em. Instant intimidation? Yup. Who's the best stonesmith? Elves. Who's the best--Elves, just elves, that's all. The book did introduce the Bladesinger, though--a style of fighting that everyone would love to get right mechanically, is undeniably a great idea thematically, and always manages to upset the game balance one way or the other. How much I want to love you, Bladesinger.So, your thoughts? What do you want to see in a splatbook? What makes one bad?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="InVinoVeritas, post: 3983738, member: 41485"] The Best & Worst books of 3E threads are interesting, and made me think about the Complete series and previous efforts to "flesh out" races and classes. When are they done right? When are they done wrong? Why? My favorite splatbook is still the Complete Thief's Handbook from 2nd Edition. This was back when "kits" were used to enhance and alter a base class to make it more thematic. Many times, "kits" were another way to abuse the system, adding powers without definite drawbacks. However, this book got it right. Most of the tweaks were minor, and much more thematic in nature than not. Also, any roleplaying benefit had roleplaying drawbacks, and any mechanical benefit had mechanical drawbacks. Furthermore, it introduced good, useful mundane equipment that wasn't overpowering, spent a very large chapter describing how thieves' guilds would work and how to build them for your campaign, and discussed the thief's role in the party and in a campaign world. Years later, I noticed that much of the book was written by John Nephew, and it definitely shows. The Complete Book of Elves (also from 2nd ed) is a fine example of one done poorly. Elves became better at everything, suggested wholeheartedly handing them a bunch of extra powers for free, and loaded the kewl on top of the kewl. Flying elves? Got 'em. Instant intimidation? Yup. Who's the best stonesmith? Elves. Who's the best--Elves, just elves, that's all. The book did introduce the Bladesinger, though--a style of fighting that everyone would love to get right mechanically, is undeniably a great idea thematically, and always manages to upset the game balance one way or the other. How much I want to love you, Bladesinger. So, your thoughts? What do you want to see in a splatbook? What makes one bad? [/QUOTE]

Verification