What' your favorite class handbook?

[Eternalknight]

I wonder if people voted for MotW because it is new and people haven't found all its quirks yet

 

[jollyninja]

I may be alone on this but I hated song and silence. Admittedly, I had some really high expectations for this book but I honestly am still verry unhappy with the product. I found that either the prestige classes were just rogues who had specialised in one area but the prestige class was not different enough from a rouge to merrit existing (dungeon delver as one example) or was an absolutley terrible bard based concept that had no place in a group of adventurers (virtuoso anyone, WTF). All i really wanted from this book was an adaptation of a 2e kit from the bards handbook: the blade. a lightly armored, thrown weapon/ 2 weapon fighting specialist who's performances are as likely to frighten the audience as to please them. or anything half as interesting.

some of the book was exactly what i expected, and had waited for ever since 3e was anounced. great new stuff for the rogues i keep playing. the rest was decent but not great. The prestige classes bothered me with their stupid prerequisites (thief acrobat) and boring concepts (all unmemtioned prestige classes) to the point that i could not like what i thought would be my favorite of the series.


GO CHAOS MAGIC.

 

[Aaron L]

I liked Tome and Blood the most.

Sword and Fist, Defenders of the Faith, and Masters of the Wild (the Universe!) were good too.

Song and Silence; the first thing I thought after reading through it was "pretty useless." It seemed to me very much like one of the 2e complete books, which I didn't like generally. The only useful thing I ever see myself dredging out of it is the Thief Acrobat. (Then again, I am a fighter/mage type a' guy, so a book on rogues isn't my cup of tea!)

 

[ColonelHardisson]

But rather the subject matter is limited for some of them I mean fighters are fighters you can only do so much with them.

WHile that was true in 1e and 2e, it certainly isn't so in 3e. Fighters can be as varied as spellcasters, if not more so - look at all the real world warrior types that have existed, from Mongolian horsemen to Roman legionnaires to French chivalry to English longbowmen to Masai warriors. Sure, you can have new spells for the spellcasters, and thus new spell lists, but I still think Fighters are ultimately as customizable as any other class.