Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 305035" data-attributes="member: 172">I did do a review (see: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/d20reviews.asp?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Psion&product=CNEC" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/d20reviews.asp?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Psion&product=CNEC</a> ), but here's a few thoughts. I think conceptually, the book had a lot to offer, and it had some nice historical observations (like how graverobbing REALLY occured) that you can use in your game. And the spells sound like great, creepy necromancer type concepts.But it shows that they are not experts at 3e conventions. The book throws standard BAB and save advancements out the window for no good reason; I can see doing that if you have your own d20 system game, but if you are targeting D&D, your product should follow the D&D conventions IMO.The classes are overpowered as are some of the spells. Many spells ignore SR for no good reason, and many spells are much more powerful that core spells of the same level, without compensations like XP cost or costly components.Finally, the book seems to recognize how powerful its material is, but just recommends that if you allow the players to use them, you just plague the players with more overzealous good guys. That, in my mind, is 1e thinking and just a generally poor excuse.In short, I like the book conceptually, but I would have to tone almost everything I used from the book down before using it.</blockquote>