PDA

View Full Version : bad dnd books



Pages : [1] 2

awa
2010-07-18, 03:07 PM
I was just looking through my monster manual 2 again and i started noticing this was bad very bad. I mean many monsters are grossly under crd (the weird the horrors) some are massively over cred (the mountain giant the fiend wurm) and others just weird (why bother putting in special section for player versions of unplayable creatures like the glimmerskin which cant even survive off the positive energy plane for a whole day.)

So im curious are their any books that are as consistently bad as mm2

Flickerdart
2010-07-18, 03:10 PM
Complete Psionic, aside from a few gems, is vomit-inducing, and a lot of things in Complete Champion are rather disappointing.

arguskos
2010-07-18, 03:14 PM
CChamp was pretty good I thought, at least in general.

The Miniatures Handbook was pretty disappointing. I personally felt It's Not Outside (Cityscape) was pretty disappointing too, though that's more a matter of taste. Weapons of Legacy was pretty bad too.

MM2 was pretty much the bottom of the barrel though.

Temotei
2010-07-18, 03:16 PM
CChamp was pretty good I thought, at least in general.

The Miniatures Handbook was pretty disappointing. I personally felt It's Not Outside (Cityscape) was pretty disappointing too, though that's more a matter of taste. Weapons of Legacy was pretty bad too.

MM2 was pretty much the bottom of the barrel though.

Those two are my favorite to insult. Weapons of Legacy was just...so awful. The concept was good; the execution, not so much.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 03:18 PM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

AsteriskAmp
2010-07-18, 03:19 PM
I personally felt It's Not Outside (Cityscape) was pretty disappointing too, though that's more a matter of taste.

Isn't "It's not Outside" Dungeonscape?

arguskos
2010-07-18, 03:20 PM
Isn't "It's not Outside" Dungeonscape?
They're both referred to as "It's Not Outside". It's fuzzy on what to call them. I like calling Cityscape "It's Not Outside" and calling Dungeonscape "It's Inside". That's just me though.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-18, 03:22 PM
Yeah, weapons of legacy has flavour up the wazoo. Such an integral part of classic fantasy, the special, unique weapon, what magic weapons should be.
The execution?
Ehhh. . .? *tilts hand back and forth*
*on the subject of fan names*
Why don't we call them. . . drum roll please, cityscape and dungeonscape?
You know, what their names are.

awa
2010-07-18, 03:23 PM
they have a whole great big list of play testers how could they play through a fight with say a elemental wierds 9th level spells at cr 12 and thought this was a fair fight. In fact I think even if you removed its spells just leaving its spell like abilities it would be a very rough fight for appropriate level characters.

edit if possible be more specific about what is bad about various books like take weapons of legacy im not familiar with it what was flawed about their mechanics.

ex cathedra
2010-07-18, 03:26 PM
Power of Faerun and Weapons of Legacy are among my least favorite. The former has what is perhaps the most poorly made (if legal) NPC I've ever seen, being an epic NPC with virtually no spellcasting, absurdly weak offensive capabilities, an AC of 20, a highest attribute of 16. He also declined to both have an animal companion and take an epic feat when he reached epic levels. I know that he's meant to be a Merchant Prince, but there is no conceivable way that this character could have ever reached epic levels by standard means.

Weapons of Legacy, on the other hand... just had no redeemable values.

Moff Chumley
2010-07-18, 03:26 PM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Hey, I thought that one was well balanced and well written... :smallwink:

arguskos
2010-07-18, 03:27 PM
Power of Faerun, there's another TERRIBLE book. The entire book was fluff, which I'm unwilling to pay for, and the only scrap of mechanics in there, the Merchant Prince, was so specific that it's rarely going to come up in your average game. :smallyuk: Not a fan, I am.

averagejoe
2010-07-18, 03:29 PM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

While you're not wrong in comparison with other DnD books, it's one of the best books that deals with such material out there.

Er, or, so I've heard. :smallwink:

I've always thought a lot of the 3.0 handbooks were much worse than even the worst 3.5 ones. 3.0 core rules weren't terrible, but the expansions were so bad, particularly the ones like Sword and Fist or Masters of the Wild.

Morph Bark
2010-07-18, 03:29 PM
Hey, I thought that one was well balanced and well written... :smallwink:

Well, it would have been more balanced if males could also get preg--*shot*

tyckspoon
2010-07-18, 03:29 PM
they have a whole great big list of play testers how could they play through a fight with say a elemental wierds 9th level spells at cr 12 and thought this was a fair fight. In fact I think even if you removed its spells just leaving its spell like abilities it would be a very rough fight for appropriate level characters.


Because you're not supposed to fight them. They're diviners- you go find one, and you bargain with it to get it to do its oracle thing and find out what you need to know. Its CR and combat abilities should only matter if your group is under the persistent impression that 'bargain with' means 'point a sword at'. They're still under-CR'd, but.. really, I'm not sure how you can read what the Weirds are and what they do and go 'man, that looks like just the thing to make my players fight!' WotC just has a really bad habit of giving full stats to certain things that are fundamentally plot-devices.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 03:32 PM
While you're not wrong in comparison with other DnD books, it's one of the best books that deals with such material out there.

Er, or, so I've heard. :smallwink:

I've always thought a lot of the 3.0 handbooks were much worse than even the worst 3.5 ones. 3.0 core rules weren't terrible, but the expansions were so bad, particularly the ones like Sword and Fist or Masters of the Wild.

Eh, thats like saying Weapons of Legacy is the best book of it's type. It is...for a very limited definition of type.

BoEF is so bad, you'd be better off using the bits and pieces available here and there throughout the rest of D&D, and cobbling together anything else you need from scratch.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-18, 03:34 PM
BoEF's material comes in two flavors: stuff that is well-written and mature, and stuff that is actually useful in a game. There is no overlap between the two.

Beyond that, I will say no more, as this is skirting the edge of what we're allowed to talk about on GiTP.

awa
2010-07-18, 03:36 PM
i understand their diviners and your not supposed to fight them but their cr is insanely low how did they come up with this cr roll a d20 and beside their only the worst (in my opinion) of a generally bad lot.

hamishspence
2010-07-18, 03:38 PM
They're both referred to as "It's Not Outside". It's fuzzy on what to call them. I like calling Cityscape "It's Not Outside" and calling Dungeonscape "It's Inside". That's just me though.

I favour "It's Crowded Outside" for Cityscape.

I liked Power of Faerun- but then, I was more interested in the fluff than the mechanical content.

Temotei
2010-07-18, 03:38 PM
If you're really curious, here (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12190.phtml)'s a review of Weapons of Legacy.

AlterForm
2010-07-18, 03:39 PM
They're both referred to as "It's Not Outside". It's fuzzy on what to call them. I like calling Cityscape "It's Not Outside" and calling Dungeonscape "It's Inside". That's just me though.

You could call Cityscape "It's Paved Outside."

arguskos
2010-07-18, 03:43 PM
I like "It's Crowded Outside" for Cityscape. Good call, hamishpence. :smallwink:

Boci
2010-07-18, 03:45 PM
Weapons of Legacy, on the other hand... just had no redeemable values.

I dunno. Remove/vastly reduce the personal costs and you have some flavourful and powerful magic items that get stronger in line with the character.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 03:45 PM
If you're really curious, here (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12190.phtml)'s a review of Weapons of Legacy.

I, unfortunately, own the book. I bought it without looking inside. I was very disappointed when I did so.

What...having a badass weapon makes me get weaker? WTF? And whats with this wierd feat thing...

arguskos
2010-07-18, 03:46 PM
I, unfortunately, own the book. I bought it without looking inside. I was very disappointed when I did so.

What...having a badass weapon makes me get weaker? WTF? And whats with this wierd feat thing...
I see the issue here. Why would you do such a thing?

Temotei
2010-07-18, 03:46 PM
I see the issue here. Why would you do such a thing?

Excitement, I'd guess.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-18, 03:47 PM
Isn't saying "bad D&D books" a tautology? :smalltongue:

I think, among the ones that I've read at least, that Complete Psionic still takes the cake. The others suffer from D&D's mechanics being generally subpar*, but Complete Psionic is one of the few books where the fluff is just as bad.

* This is an understatement.


I see the issue here. Why would you do such a thing?

It might have been covered in shrink wrap or some other kind of wrapping.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 03:48 PM
I was young and stupid, with a pocketful of money, all prior good experiences with D&D 3.5 books, and it had shiny weapons on the cover. What could go wrong?

arguskos
2010-07-18, 03:49 PM
I was young and stupid, with a pocketful of money, all prior good experiences with D&D 3.5 books, and it had shiny weapons on the cover. What could go wrong?
*shakes head* You poor poor person you. You have my sympathies.

awa
2010-07-18, 03:52 PM
you often need to actually read the book in some detail to get a good idea of it's mechanics but stores don't always want you to do that. i bought mm2 because it had interesting pictures.

hamishspence
2010-07-18, 03:53 PM
Of the 3.0 books, Hero Builders Guidebook was a little underwhelming. I got it free along with some other 3.0 books from a friend that was giving them away- so I didn't lose out.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-07-18, 03:53 PM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

hey i thought that book was hysterical. . . i wouldn't use it. . . (except maybe that one really broken caster PrC in a cheese build with incantatrix. . . that would be funny. . . ) but it was hysterical! I would put it right next to my Dirty Minds game. . . lol

Moff Chumley
2010-07-18, 03:54 PM
And I bought Frampton Comes Alive because he looks HAWT on the cover...

:smallcool:

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 03:55 PM
*shakes head* You poor poor person you. You have my sympathies.

It's not like I learned. I bought Complete Psionics the same way later.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-18, 03:59 PM
I find most 3rd party books to be poorly written for one reason or another. The general trend is taking WotC "what the dumb?" multiplying it a couple fold. Hell, some of the published books seem to not even know the own core rules!

As for WotC products, Weapons of Legacy could have definitely been done better. The ideas were awesome, admittedly, but, yeah. At the very least, they devoted a respectable portion to both the Legacy Champion and rules for making custom made legacy weapons that might actually be worth the investment.

Cityscape's organization really bugs me. The feats and spells are in the center of the book between a bunch of stuffs while the PrCs are thrown all over the place. It just irks me when your crunch for stuffs is hidden away in their vaguely fluff related sections instead of going 1) Fluff for nation Y, 2) Fluff for nation Z, etc.... before switching to the respective crunch for feats, spells, PrCs, and whatever else have you. Just kills quick searches.

Amphetryon
2010-07-18, 04:00 PM
:smallconfused: I'm in before Serpent Kingdoms?

hamishspence
2010-07-18, 04:02 PM
Main reason I don't list that one is I liked the fluff, even if the mechanics had issues.

Savage Species is similar- though it's fluff section was much shorter.

awa
2010-07-18, 04:05 PM
other then that one monster who need not be named i don't recall it being that bad. (and even that one monster was not so bad as long as the pcs never got a hold of the power and the monster only used it for the suggested examples.)

The Glyphstone
2010-07-18, 04:06 PM
Well, that and Venomfire.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-18, 04:06 PM
Yes, at least they gave us that, Thrice Dead Cat. So, while their ideas are pretty meh, they can be improved, we have the technology.

tyckspoon
2010-07-18, 04:08 PM
other then that one monster who need not be named i don't recall it being that bad. (and even that one monster was not so bad as long as the pcs never got a hold of the power and the monster only used it for the suggested examples.)

Pretty much all the detailed monster books (Serpent Kingdoms/Libris Mortis/Lords of Madness, etc) are like that.. they're actually quite interesting books, but have huge balance blindspots because the writer in question assumed there was no way a PC would ever have access to the ability.

TheMeMan
2010-07-18, 04:13 PM
It's not like I learned. I bought Complete Psionics the same way later.

To be fair, my Psy Warrior found a few neat powers to use out of it... and that was it really. My favorite was the one that increases your jump skill. Never found a truly "useful" point in which it was actually completely necessary, but having a 70-some jump skill is quite fun, if just for a single round.

Rixx
2010-07-18, 04:18 PM
Player's Handbook II has a lot of cringeworthy material - such as "This is how you're supposed to play your character AKA have we mentioned the Dragon Shaman likes power" and "how to replace an old language with a new one".

awa
2010-07-18, 04:19 PM
forgot about venom fire that is one deadly spell.

RE:Insanity
2010-07-18, 04:28 PM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.
Something like that exists? And my brother doesn't own it?

The Glyphstone
2010-07-18, 04:44 PM
Something like that exists? And my brother doesn't own it?

It's a 3rd party book, not WotC official. That might factor in, or it might not.

nyjastul69
2010-07-18, 04:44 PM
I think that the 2e Complete Handbooks are the worst line of books ever released for D&D.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-18, 04:48 PM
I think that the 2e Complete Handbooks are the worst line of books ever released for D&D.

They are not D&D, though. They're AD&D.

Coidzor
2010-07-18, 04:49 PM
And I bought Frampton Comes Alive because he looks HAWT on the cover...

:smallcool:

:smalltongue: They have PORN for that, good sir.

nyjastul69
2010-07-18, 04:53 PM
They are not D&D, though. They're AD&D.

Then I'll with go Gods, Demi-gods and Heroes. I never like the Companion and Immortals sets either.

Edit: It's also a bit nit picky. AD&D products are usually considered part of the Dungeons & Dragons family. If we are to be nit picky, the only 3rd party books that can be discussed are Kenzer & Company's books, they're the only ones that carry the D&D brand logo. The other books are compatible with 3.0 or v.3.5, but they are clearly not D&D.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-18, 05:07 PM
Something like that exists? And my brother doesn't own it?

I've heard it is actually pretty good, IF you want to include that in your game. The idea of a separate comeliness score is a pretty good idea in and of itself, though I really, and I mean really, dislike how it was presented in 1st editon AD&D Unearthed Arcana.

Satyr
2010-07-18, 05:07 PM
The Book of Erotic Fantasy is hilarious. The fluff is surprisingly well-written, I am not sure for what kind the games the crunch was written, but most of it is pretty tame, and why the publisher decided to use badly photoshopped Larp pictures instead of the bounty of skin-showing fantasy drawings which are so standard that adding a nipple here or there wouldn't matter much, is totally beyond me.But what takes the book into a certain special state of entertainment is the reaction to it. If I remember correctly, WOTC changed the 3rd party publisher regulations so that the BOEF couldn't use a D20 tag on the cover. The book is sometimes treated as if it were toxic waste or a NAMBLA premium membership card.
Because - shocking - it describes people having sex and enjoying it. While it is totally okay to publish anything about atrocities, genocide and fates worse than death you want - as long as it is good, pure virginal genocide that is.

The worst D&D books I know of are probably adventure modules. I have to admit I only know two official ones, but one of them, Red Hand of Doom is usually considered one of the better of this lot. I found it trite, repetitive and one-sided, basically consisting of little more than a number of monsters to kill and a threadbare plot to join the various massacres.

Flickerdart
2010-07-18, 05:15 PM
Oh, forgot to mention the Tome of Magic. The Binder is good, but its items and monsters are complete crap. The Shadowcaster is very poorly designed and the less said of the Truenamer, the better.

awa
2010-07-18, 05:17 PM
i know the reasons true namer is bad what about the shadow one no one ever mentions

Temotei
2010-07-18, 05:22 PM
i know the reasons true namer is bad what about the shadow one no one ever mentions

It's just not that great compared to what you can be with a shadow-based wizard, essentially. I'm not an expert, however (I'm obviously a swashbuckler).

Flickerdart
2010-07-18, 05:23 PM
i know the reasons true namer is bad what about the shadow one no one ever mentions
The theory behind it is that it's supposed to command a few powerful effects. The practice is that mysteries are more often than not weaker than similar spells, except you can learn and cast much less of them. A Shadowcaster has to agonize about every single round and constantly use low-level effects lest he be reduced to his crossbow as the only way he can contribute.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-18, 05:25 PM
:smallconfused: I'm in before Serpent Kingdoms?

Serpent Kingdoms gets a bad rep because of the Sarruhk, but if making one ability too vague was all that it took to make a book terrible, then ToB would be on this list because of IHS.

mrcarter11
2010-07-18, 05:29 PM
Honestly I like the shadow caster.. I've played one once or twice.. They are fun. And the Binder is one of my favorite classes of all time..

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-18, 05:34 PM
I find most 3rd party books to be poorly written for one reason or another. The general trend is taking WotC "what the dumb?" multiplying it a couple fold. Hell, some of the published books seem to not even know the own core rules!Emphasis on "most".

Pretty much everything Dreamscarred Press has ever released has been stellar, but they were founded on the idea that "Complete Psionic sucks ass, so let's do it ourselves this time, and let's do it right."

PId6
2010-07-18, 05:35 PM
Complete Warrior. I really loathe that book.

9/10th of the book is the embodiment of the adage "melee can't have nice things." Whether it's because it's so loaded with prereqs or because it's just weak, the vast majority of the book is composed of stuff that are just as bad as, or, mind-bogglingly, even weaker than core melee.

The remaining 1/10th of the book is broken.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-18, 05:47 PM
Emphasis on "most".

Pretty much everything Dreamscarred Press has ever released has been stellar, but they were founded on the idea that "Complete Psionic sucks ass, so let's do it ourselves this time, and let's do it right."

I've seen some of their stuff before and was honestly surprised at how well made it was - hell, it's better than practically all of early 3.5, but nearly everything I've seen from Mongoose AEG, or Green Ronin just causes me to turn my head and go "what."

Teln
2010-07-18, 06:14 PM
Power of Faerun, there's another TERRIBLE book. The entire book was fluff, which I'm unwilling to pay for, and the only scrap of mechanics in there, the Merchant Prince, was so specific that it's rarely going to come up in your average game. :smallyuk: Not a fan, I am.

Ha, you'd hate Exalted, then. The Compass of Celestial Directions and Compass of Terrestrial Directions are two entire five-book series devoted to nothing but fluff. And the fanbase is eagerly hoping for CoCD: Autochthonia.



But then, Exalted is known for the tremendous importance it places on fluff--to the point where several mechanical limitations exist only for fluff reasons.

Calmar
2010-07-18, 06:20 PM
Cityscape and Races of Stone.

Cityscape:

The sample cities are rather boring, the guidelines to create a city are the old DMG web enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20030719a).
The monsters, feats and prestige classes are bland. (Why spend thousands of gp on a "siege golem" that's basically just a walking catapult instead of hiring mundane siege engineers, or a band of stone-hurling giants?)


Races of Stone:

The substitution levels are ridiculus.
The dwarves are depicted like some kind of socialists (Soviet Socialist Dwarves would be a nice twist - but not in a generic book).
The gnomes... well, I've never been a fan of them and RoS' take on the gnomes does nothing to change that.
Goliaths - WHAT'S THE POINT?
Prestige Classes. Didn't thrill me. The PrCs from Underdark were much cooler.
The art is not as good as in other D&D books.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-18, 06:21 PM
And the fanbase is eagerly hoping for CoCD: Autochthonia.

On the one hand, that book is sorely needed, because Autochthonia is scarcely detailed and no one quite knows how it works.

On the other hand, they'll probably hand it over to Goodwin, who co-wrote the books with the worst fluff in Exalted 2nd Edition history, yet is strangely adored by everyone.

The problem with Power of Faerun, in my opinion, was not that it was only fluff. The problem was that it was only bad fluff.

arguskos
2010-07-18, 06:22 PM
Ha, you'd hate Exalted, then. The Compass of Celestial Directions and Compass of Terrestrial Directions are two entire five-book series devoted to nothing but fluff. And the fanbase is eagerly hoping for CoCD: Autochthonia.
Eh, I LIKE Faerun too. Just that Power of Faerun wasn't compelling really. TRD above got it right. :smallbiggrin:

Also, I do hate Exalted, but for entirely different reasons, none of which I feel like discussing here. :smallwink:

Wings of Peace
2010-07-18, 06:33 PM
Eh, thats like saying Weapons of Legacy is the best book of it's type. It is...for a very limited definition of type.

BoEF is so bad, you'd be better off using the bits and pieces available here and there throughout the rest of D&D, and cobbling together anything else you need from scratch.

Are we counting 3rd party D&D books? BoEF is 3rd party if I remember right, not that I haven't tried to convince many a DM otherwise just so that my Wizard could take the Metamagic focused prc in there.

DM: You... want to use material from THIS?

Me: Well yeah, it's not centered around combat as you can see so there isn't alot to worry about. It's just to help flush out some aspects of my character.

DM: Why do I feel like I'm being played like a sucker....?

Moff Chumley
2010-07-18, 06:50 PM
:smalltongue: They have PORN for that, good sir.

I seriously think you're underestimating the sheer manliness of Peter Frampton. :smalltongue:

IdleMuse
2010-07-18, 07:10 PM
Why do people hate on Complete Psionic? I quite like it, it might not be the powerhouse of options but it's certainly not the rubbish of Hero Builder's Guidebook, Power of Faerun, or MM2. Divine Mind is cool, if not powerful, Ardent is nice, Erudite is amazing (esp. if you ignore the StP version from the WE), and the plethora of extra options for Psionic campaigns and characters is highly useful...

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-18, 07:10 PM
I seriously think you're underestimating the sheer manliness of Peter Frampton. :smalltongue:

I read it more as of that, if you really needed that person in it. I have no idea who that is of course, but Rule 34 applies to everyone everything.


I'm going to say that Weapons of Legacy was probably one of the worst D&D books with CompPsi coming close because some of the book's better things are available for free legally on the Wizards of the Coast site (IIRC). It may be worth noting that my D&D book collection is rather lacking.

Flickerdart
2010-07-18, 07:12 PM
Why do people hate on Complete Psionic? I quite like it, it might not be the powerhouse of options but it's certainly not the rubbish of Hero Builder's Guidebook, Power of Faerun, or MM2. Divine Mind is cool, if not powerful, Ardent is nice, Erudite is amazing (esp. if you ignore the StP version from the WE), and the plethora of extra options for Psionic campaigns and characters is highly useful...
Mostly the pointless and arbitrary nerfs to a number of powers, and the Lurk and Divine Mind. You're the first person I've seen to say it's cool - the idea that psionic power comes from within and only within has been consistent before the Divine Mind messed it up for the sake of a terrible class.

PId6
2010-07-18, 07:18 PM
Why do people hate on Complete Psionic? I quite like it, it might not be the powerhouse of options but it's certainly not the rubbish of Hero Builder's Guidebook, Power of Faerun, or MM2. Divine Mind is cool, if not powerful, Ardent is nice, Erudite is amazing (esp. if you ignore the StP version from the WE), and the plethora of extra options for Psionic campaigns and characters is highly useful...
It's not so much bad, as it is mediocre and terribly disappointing. For the only splatbook of a popular subsystem, the fans really expected more of it, and it failed to deliver. The vast majority of the book is underwhelming, and it even nerfs a lot of things that didn't need to be.

Also, the fluff is just terrible. How in he world does a psionic class fall? And, given how illithids reproduce, how the Illithid Heritage feats make even a modicum of sense I'll never understand.

Flickerdart
2010-07-18, 07:21 PM
Also, the fluff is just terrible. How in he world does a psionic class fall? And, given how illithids reproduce, how the Illithid Heritage feats make even a modicum of sense I'll never understand.
Once upon a time, a mind flayer invaded a dwarven bar and woke up the next morning with twenty simultaneous hangovers next to as many ugly women.

Teln
2010-07-18, 07:24 PM
Mad scientistwizard, perhaps?

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-18, 07:28 PM
Emphasis on "most".

Pretty much everything Dreamscarred Press has ever released has been stellar, but they were founded on the idea that "Complete Psionic sucks ass, so let's do it ourselves this time, and let's do it right."

Weren't you part of the team behind Untapped Potential, Lycanthromancer...?

(Not sayin' your wrong though.)



I think the worst 3.x book I have is Deities & Demigods (3.0); as I thought it'd have stuff that mesh with the yet-unrealsed Epic Level Handbook. It was instead full of god stats, and the guidelines for creating your own pantheon were so gamist they made me cry...

Complete Psi was fairly poor, though as I bought it mostly for the powers, a few feats and the classes, I wasn't that disappointed. I found Complete Champion worse, as it was much more rooted in world-specific stuff and some offensively bad ACF (trade out the paladin's entire spell capability for FOUR feats?! The hell?!)

Though the grand prise, for me, personally, was 4E's Monster Manual. It's the ONLY RPG book I've ever sold on. I decided 4E wasn't for me, but I kept the PHB amd the DMG as some-one else was going to run it and it helpful. But the MM was a massive disappointement, as it was the first RPG bestiary I'd ever seen that wasn't fun to read for the sake of reading. Because there was barely any fluff (and what there was I thought was fairly crap.) (TWO LINES of fluff for the beholder?! Beg pardon WotC?!) Every other bestiary, in any game I've ever had was worth a read, just for the flavour; heck even my ancient copy of Warhammer Armies (for what, first or second edition Warhammer Fantasy Battle) was more fun to read. I was very disappointed in that.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-07-18, 07:32 PM
My opinion:

Worst 3.5 Books
- Monster Manual II
Most of the monsters seem bizarre (in a bad way) and badly designed, it had almost nothing I actually used or got any pleasure out of reading.
--------------------
- Monster Manual III
Almost as bad as the MMII for the same reasons.
--------------------
- Tome of Magic
Truenameing is such a cool concept but is 100% unplayable, now they want you to buy ANOTHER book to make the broken parts of the one you just bought playable. :smallmad: :smallannoyed:
--------------------
- Complete Psionic
Boken, broken, lame, obscure, and broken.
--------------------
- Player's Handbook II
All of the classes were crap besides the hexblade and the rest is just useless gibberish.


Worst 4.0 Books
- Player's Handbook III
2 of the 6 classes are so poorly executed and badly fluffed I don't actually let my players use them, The races are meh, the skill powers fail to impress, and the rest is a bit below average.
--------------------
- Monster Manual II
I have pretty much the same complaints about it as I do the 3.5 MMII, although it did come in handy a few times.
--------------------
- Player's Strategy Guide
Handy and kinda fun but NOT WORTH $30!



TWO LINES of fluff for the beholder?! Beg pardon WotC?!
That's because WotC assumes you already know about beholders so they instead reserve that room for stats.

Amphetryon
2010-07-18, 07:35 PM
- Player's Handbook II
All of the classes were crap besides the hexblade and the rest is just useless gibberish.Hexblade is from CWarrior. Duskblade is PHb2. [/nitpick]

DragoonWraith
2010-07-18, 07:35 PM
- Tome of Magic
Truenameing is such a cool concept but is 100% unplayable, now they want you to buy ANOTHER book to make the broken parts of the one you just bought playable. :smallmad: :smallannoyed:
Say what? What book made Truenaming playable? As far as I know it never got touched again outside of homebrew...


- Player's Handbook II
All of the classes were crap besides the hexblade and the rest is just useless gibberish.
Uhh... the Beguiler is probably about the best-designed arcane spellcaster made for 3.5. It's balanced, fills its niche beautifully, is good for 20 levels but is viable for prestige classing... what more could you want from a class?

The Knight and Dragon Shaman were awful, though.

Flickerdart
2010-07-18, 07:35 PM
- Player's Handbook II
All of the classes were crap besides the hexblade and the rest is just useless gibberish.
PHBII contained the swift action, did it not? Where would you be without it? :smallamused:

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-07-18, 07:36 PM
Say what? What book made Truenaming playable? As far as I know it never got touched again outside of homebrew...

Tome of magic II.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-18, 07:38 PM
Tome of magic II.
That book does not exist.

Also, I edited my post - I completely disagree with you on PHB2 re:Beguiler.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-07-18, 07:53 PM
That book does not exist.

Also, I edited my post - I completely disagree with you on PHB2 re:Beguiler.

Are you sure?
I heard about it somewhere. :smallconfused:

nyjastul69
2010-07-18, 07:55 PM
PHBII contained the swift action, did it not? Where would you be without it? :smallamused:

Haven't swift actions been around since the Miniatures Handbook?

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-18, 07:59 PM
Are you sure?
I heard about it somewhere. :smallconfused:

More than likely it was a fan project on the homebrew forums like the current "Tome of Battle II" thread. I vaguely recall something similar back on 339.

EDIT:
Haven't swift actions been around since the Miniatures Handbook?

Yes

Gametime
2010-07-18, 08:05 PM
Depending on the price tag, Tome of Magic might be worth it for the Binder alone. The Shadowcaster is also decently serviceable in a low-powered game where magic is treated as more mysterious (*rimshot*) and uncommon than the standard D&D world; it does an okay job of producing a spellcaster who has to really save his spells for the dangerous enemies (admittedly, because they get so bloody few and can't do anything else, but still).

The Truenaming section is terrible enough to stain the whole book, though.

If we're counting 3rd party products, my vote goes to Nymphology. Imagine if someone took the Book of Erotic Fantasy, removed all the mildly interesting fluff, stripped out any material that was either non-sexual or sexual but dealt with in a mature way, and then added in some sophomoric humor to fill the lines.

So yeah.

PId6
2010-07-18, 08:08 PM
- Complete Psionic
Boken, broken, lame, obscure, and broken.
What's broken about CPsi? I can understand broken-bad, and there's a lot of broken-stupid, but actually broken? There's one interpretation of Erudite (and StP isn't even in the book) that might count, a few feats can combo with some other things to create infinite PP combos, and Synchonicity, which can be used in some infinite action combos. That's it.

The combos tend to be pretty hard to pull off and likely won't be seen in actual play, while Erudite is just badly written. There's likely less broken stuff in CPsi than every other Complete book. It's a terrible book not because it's broken, but because it's bad.

Starscream
2010-07-18, 08:20 PM
Here's two I haven't seen talked about much.

DMG II: Basically this is a book that offers nothing that you won't already know if you are an experienced DM, and are better off learning for yourself if you are inexperienced. There are a couple of interesting and useful things here, but nothing to justify the book as a whole.

Heroes of Battle: Again, this seems to mostly be about stuff that you could come up with yourself. D&D isn't really designed for massive army against army battles (a half dozen high level casters renders any number of foot soldiers obsolete). There are a few nice things (I like the siege weapons), but as with DMG II, not enough to justify a whole book devoted to the concept.

FMArthur
2010-07-18, 08:35 PM
I... like Complete Psionic. There are a fair amount of things to dislike about it; the Lurk is bad and boring, the Illithid Heritage feats are perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read, and the few power nerfs are uncalled for. Despite this, we get Ardents (awesome), Divine Minds (decent) and Erudites (awesome). We get loads more psionic powers and useful feats. A variety of Prestige classes including the Soulbow and Anarchic Initiate, a few more items and a few more monsters. You gain quite a lot for psionics when you use Complete Psionic.

It's not as good as the Expanded Psionics Handbook by a fair margin, but EPH is probably one of the first noncore book you should get, with Tome of Battle and PHBII. Not being as essential as those is not a crime in my opinion, though, and there are so many truly awful 3.0 and 3.5 books that there shouldn't be room for mostly positive books like Complete Psionic in these topics.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 08:35 PM
But what takes the book into a certain special state of entertainment is the reaction to it. Because - shocking - it describes people having sex and enjoying it.

No, Im pretty sure thats not why it's bad.

First off, the images. The images range from merely odd to horribly strange. It's a book that somehow manages to avoid any images that are actually attractive.

Next, the amount of, and quality of rules. Sex gets described in general for the first, ooh, about 40 pages with no rules whatsoever. This may be useful to you if you wanted, say, a definition of homosexuality or the like. Most of us know these things without resorting to a roleplaying book.

Due to the stats, kids are hot. How exactly they thought this would be a great mechanical idea is beyond me.

Then they add STDs. All sorts of them. Basically, they are nothing more than a license for the DM to randomly screw with characters. See also pregnancy, which is a way for the DM to screw with female characters. Unless you are solely interested in this sort of game as the focus of your campaign, in which case, you're not really playing D&D anymore, it's basically just a penalty for engaging in the very thing you believe it promotes.

The feats and such are mostly useless outside the context of sex. Sure, every soucebook has a certain amount of this, but most of them are at least marginally useful in normal games. Whoever wrote this book had no concept of balance. If anything is mechanically useful in here, it's probably horribly broken. For instance, there's the three level PrC with 3/3 casting progression that gives you spont metamagic, a free metamagic feat, and the ability to reduce the cost of metamagics to 0 in return for minor ability damage. Oh, and it has the incantatrix capstone, too. Just in case the rest wasn't enough.

Reverent-One
2010-07-18, 08:44 PM
Though the grand prise, for me, personally, was 4E's Monster Manual. It's the ONLY RPG book I've ever sold on. I decided 4E wasn't for me, but I kept the PHB amd the DMG as some-one else was going to run it and it helpful. But the MM was a massive disappointement, as it was the first RPG bestiary I'd ever seen that wasn't fun to read for the sake of reading. Because there was barely any fluff (and what there was I thought was fairly crap.) (TWO LINES of fluff for the beholder?! Beg pardon WotC?!) Every other bestiary, in any game I've ever had was worth a read, just for the flavour; heck even my ancient copy of Warhammer Armies (for what, first or second edition Warhammer Fantasy Battle) was more fun to read. I was very disappointed in that.

I find the complaints about a lack of fluff in 4e's MM1 to be a bit unfounded. Comparing it to the first MM for 3.5, fluff for most of the creatures that are in both are rather comparable, sometimes with the 4e version having a bit more (with the notable exception of any race with a full on society and culture, which did get far more detail in the 3.5 MM). The 4e MM just splits it up more, between main text block directly under the name, the Lore section, and a bit in the Encounter groups section. And while the beholder entry could have used more space for fluff rather than including a full page image of a pair of beholders, it did have more than two lines of fluff.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-18, 08:45 PM
- Player's Handbook III
2 of the 6 classes are poorly executed.

Which two? I've heard bad things about the battlemind but I don't remember any others being criticized.

Moff Chumley
2010-07-18, 08:48 PM
I read it more as of that, if you really needed that person in it. I have no idea who that is of course, but Rule 34 applies to everyone everything.

...I think this reference was a little on the old side... >.<

Ravens_cry
2010-07-18, 08:55 PM
...I think this reference was a little on the old side... >.<
*looks around the internet*
That doesn't mean it isn't still true.

Moff Chumley
2010-07-18, 08:56 PM
I meant the Frampton Comes Alive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frampton_Comes_Alive!) reference. :smalltongue:

Cadian 9th
2010-07-18, 08:59 PM
I personally really dislike the fact that you can't get the Complete Psionic Errata. There are seventy mirrian spelling mistakes, twice as many grammar errors, and stupid extra words that nerf everything.

I also dislike the bardic music feats for the same reason. They keep saying, here, a feat that makes bards decent! And list a stupid skill pre-req, I mean it fits fluff wise but makes a bard player just gets annoyed.

The Elemental Envoy entry in CPsi is stupid, it doesn't say wether your envoy gains experience (as it is an intelligent creature with opposable thumbs) and doesn't say what happens when it dies, nor does it say what the envoy counts as which would've made it nice.

Practised Manifester is awsome bt doesn't tell you wether or not you get extra PP, powers known or even if you get a ML increase for casting spells. Heck, one could interpret it as "My Soulknife gets +4 ML so his 4 levels of X are now free as He suddenly gained 4 levels." (soulknife can get hidden talent. Power is manifested at his level. Ergo, PM boosts him to level +4)

CPsi gave us the Racial Proggresions and the Synad, and the Ardent is actually quite decent. Lurk is stupid since they failed to say "If you don't have sneak attack, count your SA dammage as 0 and then add as per your lurk power." Divine Mind is pretty terrible Unoptimized, even optimized its completely worthless compared to anything else you could make.

A huge glaring error in the erudite, and psionics in general, is that the way the rules are written, it suggests that you can use PP to manifest from another class known. It also says "to manifest a power, pick one you know", which leads me to believe If I multiclass (or gestalt) I can pick any power I know, but it is limited by the relevant classes ML. So the Erudite, when multi-classed, suddenly gets a huge ammount of extra powers (no longer limited to 1/day)

I also hate Coordinated Strike or whatver its called. It has a pre-req of Handle animal FIVE ranks, then the benefit is that IF your animal companion attacks the same target as you, you gain a +ONE competetance bonus on your attack rolls.

Also, Share Soulmeld. Despite numerous references to psionics, and feats, they decided to allow soulmelds to be shared with every single companion type EXCEPT a Psi-Crystal or elemental envoy. For some reason.

Dante

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 09:03 PM
I also hate Coordinated Strike or whatver its called. It has a pre-req of Handle animal FIVE ranks, then the benefit is that IF your animal companion attacks the same target as you, you gain a +ONE competetance bonus on your attack rolls.

Wow, that makes weapon focus look attractive.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-18, 09:09 PM
I meant the Frampton Comes Alive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frampton_Comes_Alive!) reference. :smalltongue:
I see. Carry on, Citizen.
*whistles until around the corner, then runs in panic*

Amiel
2010-07-18, 09:10 PM
They're both referred to as "It's Not Outside". It's fuzzy on what to call them. I like calling Cityscape "It's Not Outside" and calling Dungeonscape "It's Inside". That's just me though.

That's what she said Oh ho ho :smallamused:


The Epic Level Handbook gets my vote, as does Deities and Demigods.
Unfortunate, as they contained some really good ideas.

FMArthur
2010-07-18, 09:28 PM
I think of Cityscape as "It's crowded outside" and Dungeonscape is "It's not outside", but that's just me. I rarely use the book nicknames instead of their titles IRL.

The Tygre
2010-07-18, 09:29 PM
I can't honestly say there's a D&D book I don't like. Weapons of Legacy was a noble experiment, and the fluff is salvageable. The appendix of NPCs in Cityscape is a blessing to a DM like me. Dungeonscape is fun in a kitschy way. Hell, even Complete Psionics has really nice illustrations (although I bought it for a little under half-price, so there's that).

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 09:32 PM
Dungeonscape is fun in a kitschy way.

Dungeonscape isn't actually bad at all. First off, it has the factotum, which is just a great class all round. Secondly, it has great random ideas, like wand chambers. Thirdly, it's by far the most useful of the environment books. I mean, I love "It's wet outside", but some campaigns never touch the ocean. It's a rare campaign that doesn't involve dungeons, though.

PId6
2010-07-18, 09:42 PM
I... like Complete Psionic. There are a fair amount of things to dislike about it; the Lurk is bad and boring, the Illithid Heritage feats are perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read, and the few power nerfs are uncalled for. Despite this, we get Ardents (awesome), Divine Minds (decent) and Erudites (awesome).
I don't think I've ever heard anyone place Divine Mind above Lurk before. Or, for that matter, call it decent. It's basically paladin, but worse. I really don't see how anyone can justify 62 PP at 20th level; that's less than half of what PsyWar gets, and PsyWar is already strapped for PP.


A variety of Prestige classes including the Soulbow and Anarchic Initiate,
You've named the only two PrCs from that book worth caring about.


We get loads more psionic powers and useful feats.
Powers and items I'll give you. But I can probably count the number of feats in there I'd actually use on one hand. There are a few gems, but most of them are trash.

Yeah, I really dislike the book.

Claudius Maximus
2010-07-18, 09:43 PM
I can't honestly say there's a D&D book I don't like. Weapons of Legacy was a noble experiment, and the fluff is salvageable. The appendix of NPCs in Cityscape is a blessing to a DM like me. Dungeonscape is fun in a kitschy way. Hell, even Complete Psionics has really nice illustrations (although I bought it for a little under half-price, so there's that).

Yeah, Hero Builder's Guidebook is pretty pointless overall, but the collection of names in the back has helped me out a lot when improvising. Most books are useful for at least something.

PId6
2010-07-18, 09:47 PM
Yeah, Hero Builder's Guidebook is pretty pointless overall, but the collection of names in the back has helped me out a lot when improvising. Most books are useful for at least something.
Well, if all else fails, you can always use them to club in the heads of their writers.

thompur
2010-07-18, 09:55 PM
Magic of the Incarnum: utter crap. I hated that book. I sold it to a buddy of mine, warning him. Fortunately, he's a completist, so he would have bought it anyway. He thought there were a couple of interesting things, and the roots of a few good ideas, but agreed it was otherwise pretty bad.

As to Tome of Magic: 1/3 Golden(Pact Magic), 2/3 dross. But the good third was worth twice the dross, so I don't feel cheated.

Yeah, Complete Warrior was pretty lame.

Flickerdart
2010-07-18, 10:43 PM
Incarnum, really? The Soulborn is pretty bad, but the Incarnate and Totemist are exceptional - well balanced and useful members of an adventuring party, more that can be said for most Core base classes.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-18, 10:50 PM
Magic of Incarnum would be my second or third favorite book ever printed for 3.5. And Tome of Magic would probably also be second or third (hard to make the choice between the two), for that matter. Incarnum is the second most elegant sub-system made for 3.5* (after the Sublime Way), but I like Binders a lot.


* The system is very elegant. The explanation in the book, less so.

awa
2010-07-18, 10:58 PM
ill admit that incarnium is confusing and the classes seem front end loaded to me
and a lot of the fluff was kind of weird but i greatly enjoyed my multi class totemist.

I guess my point is while it wasn't perfect it was no mm2 it had things of use.

Starscream
2010-07-18, 10:58 PM
First off, the images. The images range from merely odd to horribly strange. It's a book that somehow manages to avoid any images that are actually attractive.

I've never actually read the book, so I can't speak for the content. But I did glance through the copy my library had (yeah, they had a copy, I absolutely can't fathom why), and noticed the art.

It mostly looks like the stuff you get on Deviantart accounts, where someone has a digital camera, ten minutes of experience with Photoshop, and the inexplicable belief that "nudity" and "sexiness" are automatically the same thing.

deuxhero
2010-07-18, 11:00 PM
Complete Psionic, aside from a few gems, is vomit-inducing, and a lot of things in Complete Champion are rather disappointing.

And all the gems in question are free, either as excerts or previews.

Optimystik
2010-07-18, 11:19 PM
I favour "It's Crowded Outside" for Cityscape.

Agreed - A large portion of most cities is outside. :smalltongue:


Emphasis on "most".

Pretty much everything Dreamscarred Press has ever released has been stellar, but they were founded on the idea that "Complete Psionic sucks ass, so let's do it ourselves this time, and let's do it right."

I agree here too, though the whole "Godminds" concept seemed forced.
But I'll put it this way - Untapped Potential has an SRD, (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/) and I still paid for it. Worth every penny too.

Best of all, it stacks right on top of Hyperconscious.


Why do people hate on Complete Psionic? I quite like it, it might not be the powerhouse of options but it's certainly not the rubbish of Hero Builder's Guidebook, Power of Faerun, or MM2. Divine Mind is cool, if not powerful, Ardent is nice, Erudite is amazing (esp. if you ignore the StP version from the WE), and the plethora of extra options for Psionic campaigns and characters is highly useful...

A combination of:

- Horrible PrCs
- Unneeded nerfs
- Terrible fluff (Illithid Heritage, lolwut)

SurlySeraph
2010-07-18, 11:57 PM
@^: The best explanation for Illithid Heritage I've heard is that since Illithids are from the future, it's actually Illithid Ancestry - your character's descendants will be illithids.
Granted, it's still stupid and evolution does not work that way, but it's at least interesting.

Complete Warrior wasn't the worst possible book, but it was very, very disappointing. The feats included some useful options, but most of them were just dangling a mediocre reward in front of you with excessively high prereqs. The ridiculously over-specific and over-priced Weapon Style feats exemplify that; other than Lightning Maces and Three Mountains, I am convinced that no one has ever used any of them. Well, maybe Anvil of Thunder for flavor reason in an ultra-dwarfy build.

Then there are the classes. Swashbuckler's only important level is 3 (though CompMage added an ACF that makes its 2nd level have a point), Hexblade is like Duskblade except with fewer options and less power, and Samurai is. The paladin and ranger ACFs are so bad that I can't believe I'm bothering to mention them.

There are a few good PrCs, but for most I struggled to think of a reason I would ever take them. "OK, if I was playing a Knight... and really wanted Supreme Cleave... and was built for using Supreme Cleave, instead of for standing in one place protecting the party like a character who has abilities that only function when he has allies adjacent to him should... I guess I could go into Knight Protector." "So, Nature's Warrior is basically a Wildshape Ranger, except - OK, it is a Wildshape Ranger, except it gives you a couple special abilities, and it is incredibly obvious which three of them you want to choose."

In short, there are plenty of options, but virtually none that are ever worth taking. As for what Complete Warrior should have been, well, at least we have Tome of Battle now.

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 12:28 AM
As said above, at least we have Complete Warrior 2.0, in the form of Tome of Battle.

We also have Complete Psionic 2.0, in the form of Hyperconscious+Untapped Potential.

Tome of Magic and Weapons of Legacy are larger disappointments.

Zodiac
2010-07-19, 12:48 AM
The PHB. Wizards can stop time, shapechange, summon angels and cast wish around the time monks learn to replicate a third level wizard spell. Three of the big five are in the packaged with the lowly fighter, paladin and monk, with no redemption for the latter until ToB.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-19, 12:51 AM
Oh man, can't believe I forgot to mention the PHB. Yes, absolutely, it's the worst book printed for 3.5 by far.

SocratesOnFire
2010-07-19, 01:41 AM
Magic Item Compendium: The entire book is hit and miss for balance, there are plenty of new and interesting items that seem fairly priced mixed in with so many horribly under priced or poorly written ones. A continuous non-detection hat is priced at 10,000, less that half the DMG equivalent item. The Ring of Spellbattle from CAr is priced at 12,000, less that a fifth of its original price.

PapaNachos
2010-07-19, 01:48 AM
I have a special hatred for the Fiend Folio.

PId6
2010-07-19, 01:53 AM
Magic Item Compendium: The entire book is hit and miss for balance, there are plenty of new and interesting items that seem fairly priced mixed in with so many horribly under priced or poorly written ones. A continuous non-detection hat is priced at 10,000, less that half the DMG equivalent item. The Ring of Spellbattle from CAr is priced at 12,000, less that a fifth of its original price.
I disagree; I consider the MIC to be one of the best books in 3.5. Many items are purposefully underpriced in there so that they can compete with standard items like stat boosters, Cloaks of Resistance, and the like.

The writers actually put the time and effort to consider the utility of items, rather than mindlessly follow a formula that never takes into account the true usefulness of that item. I mean, honestly, would you ever actually buy an item of continuous nondetection for the DMG price? I don't think I'd even buy one at 10,000 gp, but at least it's less overpriced than what it otherwise would be.

Jergmo
2010-07-19, 02:23 AM
I mean, honestly, would you ever actually buy an item of continuous nondetection for the DMG price? I don't think I'd even buy one at 10,000 gp, but at least it's less overpriced than what it otherwise would be.

I wouldn't buy an item of continuous Nondetection in any event because the DC to overcome it would be pathetic.

Psyx
2010-07-19, 04:56 AM
Book of Erotic Fantasy - Just pathetic

Complete Psionic - I hate psionics in fantasy settings, and I hate the mechanics, and I hate hate hate blah hate hate blah ramble ramble.

Races of the Dragons - Just lame. Full of fanboyistic stuff that wasn't thought through. Lots of blag that's too blaggy. Kobolds are sickeningly good at everything it seems. The book's sheer number of citations in over-the-top optimised builds speaks volumes for how badly balanced the contents were. It raised the power bar high enough to have been a Games Workshop product.

Cityscape - Just dross compares to Stormwrack, Sandstorm and ...er...the icy one. Dungeonscape was ok, but still not as good as the first three.

DMG2 - Not even worth buying.

Weapons of Legacy - Just a bit dull.


Oh... and every book that mentions Affiliation. This was possibly the worst idea since psionics. It's just...lame. And badly proofread. And spoon-feeding for GMs; giving numbers where GMs should be thinking instead. Does anyone even use them

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 05:09 AM
Oh... and every book that mentions Affiliation. This was possibly the worst idea since psionics. It's just...lame. And badly proofread. And spoon-feeding for GMs; giving numbers where GMs should be thinking instead. Does anyone even use them

Well, I've seen more Truenamers in the Paragnostic Assembly than Clerics, so they do.

And Psions change reality by thinking at it - sounds like fantasy to me.

Da Beast
2010-07-19, 05:33 AM
Oh, forgot to mention the Tome of Magic. The Binder is good, but its items and monsters are complete crap. The Shadowcaster is very poorly designed and the less said of the Truenamer, the better.

I don't know, a book with 1/3 great material is actually pretty good for WotC. And shadowcaster isn't that bad, it's just more on par with core melee than core casters.

Morph Bark
2010-07-19, 05:33 AM
And Psions change reality by thinking at it - sounds like fantasy to me.

They think about reality and then how to make it better and more to their liking. And then it simply happens, to boot.

TheArchmage
2010-07-19, 05:37 AM
Not a specific book, but the backstory at the beginning of Fiendish Codex II was facepalmingly bad. I could write better. Also, that "poem" at the start of Draconomicon. Finally, Dragon Magic was rather disappointing.

Psyx
2010-07-19, 05:55 AM
And Psions change reality by thinking at it - sounds like fantasy to me.

There's a magic system for doing that. With arm-waving and components. Then along comes sci-fi magic as well, and it turns out that you can do it all just by thinking really hard about it. Lame.

Please don't start me off on it: I'll rant for hours.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-19, 06:04 AM
I don't know, a book with 1/3 great material is actually pretty good for WotC. And shadowcaster isn't that bad, it's just more on par with core melee than core casters.

AFAIK, it was supposed to be that way.

Every Wotc book has redeemable characteristics, even if I noticed that in the last books it seems they hired people to wite them that simply didn't know a crap about the game itself (Illithid Heritage in CPsi, Corellon fav weapon in CC).

But for the book that really, really is pointless, I'd second Weapons of Legacy. One can manage bad fluff if there is good crunch, or vice versa: but that book is just pointless. It's the only one I never used, not even a page.

Boci
2010-07-19, 06:15 AM
As to Tome of Magic: 1/3 Golden(Pact Magic), 2/3 dross. But the good third was worth twice the dross, so I don't feel cheated.

The fact that you can fix shadowcaster in 5 minutes by homebrewing a recharge mechanic for their mysteries means they are worth at least half a point in my eyes.

Zen Master
2010-07-19, 08:06 AM
I was just looking through my monster manual 2 again and i started noticing this was bad very bad. I mean many monsters are grossly under crd (the weird the horrors) some are massively over cred (the mountain giant the fiend wurm) and others just weird (why bother putting in special section for player versions of unplayable creatures like the glimmerskin which cant even survive off the positive energy plane for a whole day.)

So im curious are their any books that are as consistently bad as mm2

I may well be an extreme case - but generally, everything outside core is horrendously bad in my view. With a few exceptions.

I like the Eberron campaign world, and a number of books adding to it aren't half bad.

I also looked over Tome of Battle (I've not actually gotten to use it), and ... it looks surprisingly useful.

But then .... that's it.

Lord Loss
2010-07-19, 08:09 AM
I find some good non-core books (for classes) are Tome of Magic, TOB, Magic of Incarnum and PHBII. I also like Factotum.

Morph Bark
2010-07-19, 08:13 AM
I may well be an extreme case - but generally, everything outside core is horrendously bad in my view. With a few exceptions.

I like the Eberron campaign world, and a number of books adding to it aren't half bad.

I also looked over Tome of Battle (I've not actually gotten to use it), and ... it looks surprisingly useful.

But then .... that's it.

And... core isn't, because? :smallconfused:

Yora
2010-07-19, 08:15 AM
I may well be an extreme case - but generally, everything outside core is horrendously bad in my view. With a few exceptions.

I like the Eberron campaign world, and a number of books adding to it aren't half bad.
I don't like most non-core books, because they only have forgettable Prestige Classes and races and unneccessary spells. Which makes them completely uninteresting for me.
The few ones I really like have ideas instead of crunch, like Heroes of Horror or Lords of Madness These books actually help me making adventures for our group.

Kylarra
2010-07-19, 08:27 AM
There's a magic system for doing that. With arm-waving and components. Then along comes sci-fi magic as well, and it turns out that you can do it all just by thinking really hard about it. Lame.

Please don't start me off on it: I'll rant for hours.Other than grandfathering, Vancian spellslots and pseudo-science amplification isn't really the stuff of fantasies.

If anything, the joke material components are much more science-y than psionics. :smallwink:

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 08:45 AM
If anything, the joke material components are much more science-y than psionics. :smallwink:

It's amazing how many people overlook that. Bat guano and sulfur = fire? Nothing sciency about that!


The fact that you can fix shadowcaster in 5 minutes by homebrewing a recharge mechanic for their mysteries means they are worth at least half a point in my eyes.

I personally consider the designer's fix (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/184955-shadowcaster-fixes-mouseferatu.html) to be errata. Plus, the Shadow magic third of the book actually has some of the best PrCs.

Truenaming was just such a letdown mechanically that it taints the entire book in my eyes. (Not irredeemably, but still.)

Zen Master
2010-07-19, 08:46 AM
And... core isn't, because? :smallconfused:

Some people consider Porsche to be the finest sportscar in the world - others prefer the Ferarri. Why? I cannot explain that to you either.

Core contains pretty much what I want. The other books add nothing I really want - and frequently stuff I certainly don't want.

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 08:48 AM
Some people consider Porsche to be the finest sportscar in the world - others prefer the Ferarri. Why? I cannot explain that to you either.

Core contains pretty much what I want. The other books add nothing I really want - and frequently stuff I certainly don't want.

While that is true, personal preference doesn't factor into whether something is broken or not - and core very definitely is.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-19, 10:22 AM
While that is true, personal preference doesn't factor into whether something is broken or not - and core very definitely is.

"Horrendously bad" doesn't necesarily imply "broken", though it may. He could very easily just dislike the flavor, mechanics, additional rules, insert aspect here, etc., of everything outside core.

deuxhero
2010-07-19, 11:55 AM
Races of the Dragons - Just lame. Full of fanboyistic stuff that wasn't thought through. Lots of blag that's too blaggy. Kobolds are sickeningly good at everything it seems. The book's sheer number of citations in over-the-top optimised builds speaks volumes for how badly balanced the contents were. It raised the power bar high enough to have been a Games Workshop product.

I wouldn't say the part about being cited in builds means it is overpowered. The biggest thing I see pulled from there (Glaivelock), makes the character type in question playable (Warlock is normally pretty iffy) and one of the few bits of support the class gets. It's like Talshatora, it isn't that the feat is overpowered, but that it is really the only way to make Monk work.

The dragon fanboyism and cheesewrought (which requires other books) however are valid reasons against it.

CubeB
2010-07-19, 12:04 PM
All I really know about the Book of Erotic Fantasy is that the creepy chick on the cover nearly gave me a negative level with her gaze attack...

kjones
2010-07-19, 12:14 PM
I'll second the criticism of DMGII. I read that book front to back and didn't learn a thing.

(Actually, aren't the rules for mobs from the DMGII? Those are slightly useful.)

Renegade Paladin
2010-07-19, 12:29 PM
Dragons of Faerun. There are no monster stat blocks in the book without fundamental errors. The steel dragon gets epic casting at the great wyrm stage... and is rated at CR 18, apparently because it's only Huge size category. The spelling was terrible. It was like they didn't even have a copyeditor glance over the book before sending it to print.

Jergmo
2010-07-19, 12:37 PM
Dragons of Faerun. There are no monster stat blocks in the book without fundamental errors. The steel dragon gets epic casting at the great wyrm stage... and is rated at CR 18, apparently because it's only Huge size category. The spelling was terrible. It was like they didn't even have a copyeditor glance over the book before sending it to print.

All a dragon needs is 21 HD and a caster level of 17 or greater to get Epic spellcasting.

Amphetryon
2010-07-19, 12:40 PM
I'll second the criticism of DMGII. I read that book front to back and didn't learn a thing.

(Actually, aren't the rules for mobs from the DMGII? Those are slightly useful.)
The Apprentice feats in DMG II make it worthwhile, on a limited scale.

Renegade Paladin
2010-07-19, 01:54 PM
All a dragon needs is 21 HD and a caster level of 17 or greater to get Epic spellcasting.
Nonsense. Sorcerers don't get 9th level spells until 18th caster level. :smalltongue: And this thing hits CL 21.

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 02:00 PM
The Dragons of Faerun Steel Dragon, given its CL and other abilities, looks like a reprint of the Dragon Magazine version- which was itself an updated version of the online Steel Dragon.

So it may just be a case of Wizards not bothering to proofread the Paizo version.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-19, 02:00 PM
Nonsense. Sorcerers don't get 9th level spells until 18th caster level. :smalltongue: And this thing hits CL 21.

Well, there's a template to replace sorcerer levels with wizard levels for dragons, IIRC. So, there you go. Swap over a feat, given your shiny new access to epic feats, and everything is lovely.*

*Dusk giant cheddar for skills may be required.

Siegel
2010-07-19, 03:24 PM
3.5 PHB 'nuff said

Boci
2010-07-19, 03:42 PM
3.5 PHB 'nuff said

I dunno, I've heard some good things about the spells in there.

PId6
2010-07-19, 03:45 PM
I dunno, I've heard some good things about the spells in there.
Yeah, but have you seen the classes? How dare they print something as overpowered as the monk!

Siegel
2010-07-19, 03:58 PM
I dunno, I've heard some good things about the spells in there.

I think it's the whole System for me. (but i dig this Paladin-Code thingy)

Lord Loss
2010-07-19, 03:58 PM
Yeah, but have you seen the classes? How dare they print something as overpowered as the monk!

Still, not as strong as a Samurai! it's like a fighter, an excellent class - but they ck our feats for us, so now we won't make any dumb decisions when we choose them, instead giving us the cream of the crop.

Boci
2010-07-19, 04:01 PM
Still, not as strong as a Samurai! it's like a fighter, an excellent class - but they ck our feats for us, so now we won't make any dumb decisions when we choose them, instead giving us the cream of the crop.

A crop grown disturbingly close to Chernobyl, that is.

Lord Loss
2010-07-19, 04:03 PM
A crop grown disturbingly close to Chernobyl, that is.

Eh. At least that has the potential to make a cool abberration. A samurai, not so much.

Boci
2010-07-19, 04:22 PM
Eh. At least that has the potential to make a cool abberration.

True, but then again it might just give you cancer.

Jergmo
2010-07-19, 04:31 PM
True, but then again it might just give you cancer.

Cancer Mage. *Nodnod*

Otodetu
2010-07-19, 05:28 PM
I would have to say monster manual 2, that one golem is horrilbe, what is the name, "dread guard"?

Cost 40.000 gp

for this price you get a 5 hd (27hp) construct with a highest stat of 17str, ac 17, and cold and fire resist 10.

That's it. No int, no skills, no feats. Not even magic immunity.

wtf?

Jergmo
2010-07-19, 06:41 PM
I would have to say monster manual 2, that one golem is horrilbe, what is the name, "dread guard"?

Cost 40.000 gp

for this price you get a 5 hd (27hp) construct with a highest stat of 17str, ac 17, and cold and fire resist 10.

That's it. No int, no skills, no feats. Not even magic immunity.

wtf?

Yep! CR 2 Construct, with nothing special whatsoever, for twice the price of a CR 7 flesh golem.

Sindri
2010-07-19, 08:09 PM
Races of the Dragon was actually pretty good; the part that most people object to, the chapter on Kobolds, did exactly what good fluff should- give a race a rich culture and background without increasing it's mechanical power. The trouble came when people started taking tiny details of the Dragonwrought feat and combining them with broken things from other books, to create hideous cheezy monstrosities.

BoEF is generally mature, well written, and has some good material, but a) the "art" is nauseating and b) you're never actually going to use this stuff.

My vote for most useless book would probably go to the Villain Design Handbook. It's officially licensed WotC material, with feats that make weapon focus look good, PrCs that are less useful than a 10 level monk dip, fluff writing that made me cry, and a system of anti-feats where somebody thought it would be a good idea to make flaws, but randomly generated 1/level, one bonus feat for two of them, and limiting you to a list of possible feats you shouldn't touch with a 10' pole.

The worst book in terms of balance is almost certainly the PHB; Polymorph Any Object? Wish? Shapechange? Druid? and on the other end, Monk? Fighter?

Jergmo
2010-07-19, 08:12 PM
BoEF is generally mature, well written, and has some good material, but a) the "art" is nauseating and b) you're never actually going to use this stuff.

There are some decent spells that don't have to do with sex - I like the Joining domain. I mean, what else are we going to use that fits the most for a deity of Love? The material components are sexually related on some of the spells, but that can be changed easily. Mantle of Love is rather useful, for an example.

Gametime
2010-07-19, 08:54 PM
BoEF is generally mature, well written, and has some good material, but a) the "art" is nauseating and b) you're never actually going to use this stuff.



The parts that are mature and about sex aren't mechanical; they're fluff. It's pretty good fluff, honestly - the parts about how different races view sex is nothing groundbreaking, but it's interesting and occasionally original - but most people don't need to buy a book to give them flavor ideas for sex.

The parts that are mechanical are either mature, and have nothing to do with sex - I think there are a couple of good healing spells in there, and Life Shell is obviously great - or stunningly immature and related to sex. As my witness, the spell "Ale Goggles." Yeah.

Oh, and the chart that says pixies and titans could "maybe" reproduce. lolwut? Yes, I know polymorphing is probably involved like with every dragon ever, but it's still funny.

nyarlathotep
2010-07-19, 08:59 PM
My vote for most useless book would probably go to the Villain Design Handbook. It's officially licensed WotC material, with feats that make weapon focus look good, PrCs that are less useful than a 10 level monk dip, fluff writing that made me cry, and a system of anti-feats where somebody thought it would be a good idea to make flaws, but randomly generated 1/level, one bonus feat for two of them, and limiting you to a list of possible feats you shouldn't touch with a 10' pole.


Are you talking about Exemplars of Evil or something else. If not, I have never heard of that book. Could you direct me to it? :smallconfused:

The Glyphstone
2010-07-19, 09:02 PM
The parts that are mature and about sex aren't mechanical; they're fluff. It's pretty good fluff, honestly - the parts about how different races view sex is nothing groundbreaking, but it's interesting and occasionally original - but most people don't need to buy a book to give them flavor ideas for sex.


Yeah, but it's got some of the greatest quotes...for example:

"Love Life of an Ooze: One ooze. Idiot hits ooze. Two oozes."
:smallbiggrin:

Sindri
2010-07-19, 09:09 PM
Are you talking about Exemplars of Evil or something else. If not, I have never heard of that book. Could you direct me to it? :smallconfused:

It was published by Kenzer and Company for the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting, but it's licensed by WotC as official D&D 3.5 material.

Though speaking of Exemplars of Evil, that should make this list.

Thurbane
2010-07-19, 09:10 PM
Those two are my favorite to insult. Weapons of Legacy was just...so awful. The concept was good; the execution, not so much.
Yeah, this is probably top of my list too.

Such an incredibly awesome concept, and such poor crunch to back it up.

nyjastul69
2010-07-19, 09:12 PM
Are you talking about Exemplars of Evil or something else. If not, I have never heard of that book. Could you direct me to it? :smallconfused:

It's a Kenzer & company product. The fluff is okay, the mechanics weren't the best. I don't know if the reference is to the 3.0 hardcover or the 3.5 soft cover update which, IIRC, addressed the anti-feat fiasco. I think I'll go check.

Teln
2010-07-19, 09:47 PM
Yeah, but it's got some of the greatest quotes...for example:

"Love Life of an Ooze: One ooze. Idiot hits ooze. Two oozes."
:smallbiggrin:

Okay, I just have to sig that.

Gametime
2010-07-19, 09:51 PM
It was published by Kenzer and Company for the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting, but it's licensed by WotC as official D&D 3.5 material.

Though speaking of Exemplars of Evil, that should make this list.

Exemplars of Evil has at least one useful section; the alternate class features have a few gems, I think. Invisible Fist and Feigned Death are both potentially really good for monks (the latter moreso than the former, but immediate action immunity to a whole slew of effects is pretty strong even if you do have to blow a standard action to get out of it). Inspire Hatred is just hilarious in any situation where you face multiple potential enemies who aren't allies.

Since the entire rest of the book is basically NPCs, and Wizards sucks at making characters... yeah, it's pretty shoddy.

hotel_papa
2010-07-19, 10:28 PM
I can't believe I'm the first to mention MM IV. The overwhelmingly numbered and underwhelmingly interesting Spawn of Tiamat got old very fast.

I, too was less than excited about Heroes of Battle, DMG II, Weapons of Legacy and the final two thirds of Tome of Magic. I always figured they called that class the "Binder" because you were supposed to pull those pages from the book, put them in a three-ring binder, and burn the rest (careful to not inhale the fumes, lest ye develop suck cancer.)

Zaq
2010-07-19, 10:52 PM
I agree with Weapons of Legacy. It's the only WotC book I ban out of hand when I DM. (There's plenty of stuff I ban, but I'll usually at least listen to what you want first. WoL just gives me a headache.)

I really hate the Draconomicon. I abhor the fluff in Dragon Magic and Races of the Dragon, too, but at least they had interesting crunch. Draconomicon has a single useful magic item and a bunch of utter nonsense. (It should be known that I really friggin' hate dragons, but anyway.)

If we're counting 3.0, I usually refer to Oriental Adventures as "The Book of James Wyatt Should Be Ashamed of Himself." Just about the only thing in there that doesn't make me cringe (either in terms of crunch or fluff... or Unfortunate Implications) is Iaijutsu Focus. Other than that? Ugh.

The Book of Exalted Deeds had a lot of potential, but ended up being, well, kind of infamous. You couldn't pretend to take the BoVD seriously as a discussion of even in-game philosophy, but it at least made for some interesting villains and had a few things that players could have fun with. BoED? Eww. There's very little in there that's well-balanced, the fluff is even worse than BoVD's (Poison is Evil! Here, have some Good poisons that do the exact same thing as Evil poisons, but are Good! Here's a nice space we've blotted out for you to slam your head against!), and there's a loooooot of party-wreckers in there (the most infamous being Vow of Peace, but that's by no means the only one). This one's not as bad as a lot of the others I've mentioned, and has a few saving graces, but still.

The Miniatures Handbook was utterly forgettable. Marshals are unplayable (oh, sure, they can be useful, but you don't actually play them. You put a "remember the +3, folks!" sticky note on the table and go play video games. That, or you dip them in theoretical how-high-can-we-pump-one-skill thought exercises.), Healers are the weakest and least interesting 9th level casters in the game, and there's really nothing else of note aside from some really hilariously bad PrCs (ever actually read the Dragon Samurai? Yeah.) and, um, the War Hulk. Which has its own problems.

DMG2 is full of advice that first-time GMs will find confusing and unhelpful (and which is sometimes even kind of misleading, in my experience) and that experienced GMs won't need or want.

I will go on the record as saying that Complete Psionics is no worse than any other Complete book. No Complete book was solid gold cover-to-cover, and most of them have a lot of crap you have to sift through to get to the good parts. Yes, it was classless of them to nerf some of the psionic powers, but honestly, it's no more worth calling for blood over than Complete Adventurer was.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-19, 11:22 PM
Complete Psionic had the Divine Mind. That alone makes it worse than any other Complete book published.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-07-19, 11:24 PM
Yeah, on the whole, I'd say the 'Completes' are the books I like the least. The 'early completes' (Arcane, Adventurer, Divine, and Warrior) are little more than giant lists of prestige classes, most of which will never see actual play. To make matters worse, for some reason, people who are new to the game often pick up a Complete at some point, and become hell-bent on playing one of the PRCs, often times hyper-crappy ones like Greenstar Adept... :smallsigh:

The 'later completes' are also pretty bland, replacing giant lists of PRCs with banal alternate class features, pointless organizations, a small smattering of spells that adds nothing Spell Compendium doesn't cover, and mediocre flavor. On the whole, I find Complete Mage to be the most tolerable of the Completes; I like the prestige classes, reserve feats, the artwork is decent, and it's got some okay flavor.

Complete Psionic has terrible art. Look at the picture of the half-giant for the half-giant racial progression. :smallconfused:
Complete Psionic likewise has terrible fluff. Storm Disciple gets my vote for being the Least Interesting Prestige Class Ever. Also, the whole book is strangely organized. Why do they list all of the old psionic powers again? It wastes so much paper! Who cares about ectopic forms? Why is the erudite in the back of the book? Durr durr durr...

I personally like the Monster Manual II. The monsters are strange enough that they can really throw a party a curveball. "Give'em the old Rukarazyll, Rukarazyll'em..."

Julajimmus, Jermlaines, Meenlocks, Myconids, Catobelpas, Abeils, Death Knights, Hook Horrors, Linnorms, Gem Dragons... there's lots of cool stuff in there, and I use a lot of those monsters quite regularly. They're much better than the friggin' Spawn of Tiamat, or the later trend of 'here's a bunch of pre-statted NPCs for races from previous books! Hope you like gnoll warlocks!'

Also, the 'new' stat block sucks.

Kylarra
2010-07-19, 11:25 PM
Complete Psionic had the Divine Mind. That alone makes it worse than any other Complete book published.
CW has a Samurai. :smallwink:

DragoonWraith
2010-07-19, 11:28 PM
CW has a Samurai. :smallwink:
The Divine Mind is 10x worse. It might be more playable, but it's also basically sacrilege against all things Psionic. The CW Samurai, bad as it is, is at the least a half-way decent of someone's idea of a Tier 5 Samurai. Some people like Tier 5...

Also, Complete Scoundrel is excellent, IMO. Mostly because I really like Skill Tricks, the Malconvoker, and the multiclassing feats.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-19, 11:29 PM
I personally like the Monster Manual II. The monsters are strange enough that they can really throw a party a curveball. "Give'em the old Rukarazyll, Rukarazyll'em..."

Julajimmus, Jermlaines, Meenlocks, Myconids, Catobelpas, Abeils, Death Knights, Hook Horrors, Linnorms, Gem Dragons... there's lots of cool stuff in there, and I use a lot of those monsters quite regularly. They're much better than the friggin' Spawn of Tiamat, or the later trend of 'here's a bunch of pre-statted NPCs for races from previous books! Hope you like gnoll warlocks!'

Also, the 'new' stat block sucks.

Plus, they have a lot of monsters from the Dark Sun setting.

Oh, and the leechwalker, cool monster.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-07-19, 11:30 PM
Oh, and the leechwalker, cool monster.

Ever play that weird MMO Resident Evil game for PS2? There was a level in a hospital where you were chased around basically by a leechwalker. It was BAD TIMES.

Kylarra
2010-07-19, 11:31 PM
The Divine Mind is 10x worse. It might be more playable, but it's also basically sacrilege against all things Psionic. The CW Samurai, bad as it is, is at the least a half-way decent of someone's idea of a Tier 5 Samurai. Some people like Tier 5...

Also, Complete Scoundrel is excellent, IMO. Mostly because I really like Skill Tricks, the Malconvoker, and the multiclassing feats.
I have a hard time taking fluff complaints seriously simply because so many people here are like "just discard the fluff and add your own". Admittedly, I personally also despise Divine Mind's fluff, so I can definitely see where you're coming from.

Sindri
2010-07-19, 11:35 PM
I really hate the Draconomicon. I abhor the fluff in Dragon Magic and Races of the Dragon, too, but at least they had interesting crunch. Draconomicon has a single useful magic item and a bunch of utter nonsense. (It should be known that I really friggin' hate dragons, but anyway.)


Any particular reason you decided to play Dungeons and Dragons?

Kylarra
2010-07-19, 11:37 PM
Any particular reason you decided to play Dungeons and Dragons?So he could kill them. :smallamused:

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 11:38 PM
I have a hard time taking fluff complaints seriously simply because so many people here are like "just discard the fluff and add your own". Admittedly, I personally also despise Divine Mind's fluff, so I can definitely see where you're coming from.

It's not all fluff; the "fall" is a mechanical drawback - one which no other psionic class, anywhere, shares.

And the Samurai can absolutely kick the Divine Mind's ass, at least until 11 when it starts getting 3rd-level powers.

Zaq
2010-07-19, 11:39 PM
Any particular reason you decided to play Dungeons and Dragons?

Names mean as much or as little as you make them mean. I've played many happy campaigns without dragons. They're no more an integral part of D&D than rakshasa, jermlaines, or spellweavers.

nyjastul69
2010-07-19, 11:48 PM
My vote for most useless book would probably go to the Villain Design Handbook. It's officially licensed WotC material, with feats that make weapon focus look good, PrCs that are less useful than a 10 level monk dip, fluff writing that made me cry, and a system of anti-feats where somebody thought it would be a good idea to make flaws, but randomly generated 1/level, one bonus feat for two of them, and limiting you to a list of possible feats you shouldn't touch with a 10' pole.



After re-reading both editions of the anti-feat system in the VDH, I think it's better than the flawed flaw system. It should be noted that the book wasn't intended for PC use. It's a DM resource. I understand that that players will get a hold of it and try to bastardize it. That's why players have to roll for the anti-feats, otherwise the anti-feats would be as silly as flaws. It might Kenzerco's worst product, but it's not the worst D&D product by a long shot.

I must also add that, as far I'm I concerned, evil PC's aren't villians, they're heroes in their own game.

Kylarra
2010-07-19, 11:50 PM
It's not all fluff; the "fall" is a mechanical drawback - one which no other psionic class, anywhere, shares.Fair enough, I'd forgotten about that particular aspect. The only part of CPsi I reference on any sort of consistent basis is soulbow.

Sindri
2010-07-19, 11:50 PM
Names mean as much or as little as you make them mean. I've played many happy campaigns without dragons. They're no more an integral part of D&D than rakshasa, jermlaines, or spellweavers.

I fully realize that Dragons are not a requirement for a D&D game, but I am a bit surprised that you trash three books for being primarily focused on a creature while playing a game named after it.

sonofzeal
2010-07-19, 11:54 PM
CChamp, to the point where I refuse to use anything from it, for any reason. Balance is shot all to hell, the editing is some of the worst I've seen in a WotC book, and there's more messed up stuff than you can shake a Flumph at. As a challenge once I proofread a random PrC, and found a list of serious issues as long as your arm including incompatible fluff, inappropriate bonus types, ambiguous abilities, and more. And that was just on a randomly selected one, too. I'm sure I could have found worse if I'd bothered to work through the others, but there's only so much I'll take before I give up on a book entirely.

BoEF, for all its issues, is a far better book than CChamp is. I wouldn't use everything from it, but there's enough in the sociology and spells sections that you can get some good mileage out of it and it'll add something even in PG games. CChamp, I'd rather just pretend it never existed, Lion Totem Barbarians and Travel Devotion Clerics be damned.

awa
2010-07-19, 11:55 PM
ill mention that in my like decade of playing dungeons and dragons Ive only ever fought 2 true dragons and one of them was just a minor enemy that burrowed a lot. So you don't need dragons to play dungeons and dragons.

Zaq
2010-07-19, 11:55 PM
I fully realize that Dragons are not a requirement for a D&D game, but I am a bit surprised that you trash three books for being primarily focused on a creature while playing a game named after it.

We have three non-setting-specific books dedicated to dragons, and at least two more setting-based ones that I can think of offhand.

We have one book dedicated to dungeons.

If we had more books like Dungeonscape, well, I'd still say that the collection of dragon books is stupid, but I'd probably be a little quieter about it.

Sindri
2010-07-19, 11:59 PM
After re-reading both editions of the anti-feat system in the VDH, I think it's better than the flawed flaw system. It should be noted that the book wasn't intended for PC use. It's a DM resource. I understand that that players will get a hold of it and try to bastardize it. That's why players have to roll for the anti-feats, otherwise the anti-feats would be as silly as flaws. It might Kenzerco's worst product, but it's not the worst D&D product by a long shot.

I must add that as far I'm I concerned even evil PC's aren't villians, they're heroes in their own game.

The problem with the anti-feat system is that since each of the random penalties is so situational, and the possible bonus feats so limited, that either a) you roll randomly and ruin the character, whether PC or NPC, or b) you pick them out carefully, and there is no penalty. In the first case the villain is probably crippled. In the second, you are effectively just adding feats to the villain arbitrarily, so why do you need a rule system for it? Speaking as a DM, I found the system completely without value, because in order to make an effective villain with it you need to alter the rules or fudge the rolls to the point where you might as well make a homebrew system for it. The only possible value to anti-feats would be if you were running your game 100% RAW, and wanted an excuse to give a villain another feat.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-19, 11:59 PM
CChamp, to the point where I refuse to use anything from it, for any reason. Balance is shot all to hell, the editing is some of the worst I've seen in a WotC book, and there's more messed up stuff than you can shake a Flumph at. As a challenge once I proofread a random PrC, and found a list of serious issues as long as your arm including incompatible fluff, inappropriate bonus types, ambiguous abilities, and more. And that was just on a randomly selected one, too. I'm sure I could have found worse if I'd bothered to work through the others, but there's only so much I'll take before I give up on a book entirely.

BoEF, for all its issues, is a far better book than CChamp is. I wouldn't use everything from it, but there's enough in the sociology and spells sections that you can get some good mileage out of it and it'll add something even in PG games. CChamp, I'd rather just pretend it never existed, Lion Totem Barbarians and Travel Devotion Clerics be damned.
I strongly disagree. The Domain feats finally had a pretty significant selection of actually balanced feats (as in, were worth a resource you would only get 7 of on the average character), which so few other feats were. Add in the fact that someone finally did something about melee's mobility issues (in the form of a way to easily acquire Pounce), and it's a very solid book in my mind.

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 12:01 AM
CChamp, to the point where I refuse to use anything from it, for any reason. Balance is shot all to hell, the editing is some of the worst I've seen in a WotC book, and there's more messed up stuff than you can shake a Flumph at. As a challenge once I proofread a random PrC, and found a list of serious issues as long as your arm including incompatible fluff, inappropriate bonus types, ambiguous abilities, and more. And that was just on a randomly selected one, too. I'm sure I could have found worse if I'd bothered to work through the others, but there's only so much I'll take before I give up on a book entirely.

Before you discard it, extract the Paragnostic Apostle, Fist of the Forest and Ordained Champion first!

Holt Warden isn't terrible either... oh, and domain feats.

Sindri
2010-07-20, 12:05 AM
We have three non-setting-specific books dedicated to dragons, and at least two more setting-based ones that I can think of offhand.

We have one book dedicated to dungeons.


I second the motion to get more books on dungeons, and with better material. The severely limited sets of available traps and hazards, and the small fraction of monsters that are actually appropriate for dungeon use, mean that we need to homebrew constantly or have the majority of our games above ground (or in the Underdark).

I enjoy the dragon based material, but in most cases you'll meet maybe one or two in a campaign if they're handled right, whereas I'd like a new dungeon every month.

sonofzeal
2010-07-20, 12:28 AM
I strongly disagree. The Domain feats finally had a pretty significant selection of actually balanced feats (as in, were worth a resource you would only get 7 of on the average character), which so few other feats were. Add in the fact that someone finally did something about melee's mobility issues (in the form of a way to easily acquire Pounce), and it's a very solid book in my mind.
Just because a resource is rare doesn't mean it should be massive. You have to look at what other feats do, and Domain feats are generally out of line by a significant margin. The fact that they're too powerful rather than too weak makes them seductive to many players, but they're still out of line and part of my whole issue with the book. Using them, or just about anything else from CChamp, would make me feel dirty.

And "Martial Study: Sudden Leap" solves just about the same problem that "Travel Devotion" does, albeit slightly differently.


Before you discard it, extract the Paragnostic Apostle, Fist of the Forest and Ordained Champion first!

Holt Warden isn't terrible either... oh, and domain feats.
I'm AFB, but again - just because an option is powerful doesn't necessarily mean it should be used. I feel like the book was rushed out the door at the tail end of 3.5, and they stopped caring about game balance so much at that point and just threw in whatever sounded spiffy without caring too much how it fit with the rest of the game, or whether it was even functional. I'm sure there's a few feats/PrCs/whatever that work well enough, but every time I open the book I find so much fail that I'd be deeply suspicious of anything else that came from it, and would only use it if it was obviously on par with previous material, but at that point I could probably get by just fine without it in the first place.

On the whole, me using CChamp feels like taking a Warblade into a PvP arena match against a Fighter. I could kick major ass, but I'd just feel dirty afterwards. D&D is a cooperative game, and I'm already a far better optimizer than the people I game with. I don't need the extra edge I'd get from allowing that as a viable source. Heck, I have to tone most of my characters down after a while, even ones where I gave myself strict limits from the outset.

......and then there's the horrible editing and poorly-written abilities and blegh. So yeah, I'm just fine pretending the entire book never existed, occasional gems be darned.

Skeppio
2010-07-20, 12:29 AM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Considering the subject matter involved, I think the writers of BoEF did a great job handling it maturely and intelligently. The only other book I know of that focused on such material was F.A.T.A.L. and well.....you should all know what F.A.T.A.L. is like by now.

I gotta agree on Monster Manual 2 though. The main problems stem from it being 3.0 material and not 3.5 like the others IIRC.

nyjastul69
2010-07-20, 12:41 AM
The problem with the anti-feat system is that since each of the random penalties is so situational, and the possible bonus feats so limited, that either a) you roll randomly and ruin the character, whether PC or NPC, or b) you pick them out carefully, and there is no penalty. In the first case the villain is probably crippled. In the second, you are effectively just adding feats to the villain arbitrarily, so why do you need a rule system for it? Speaking as a DM, I found the system completely without value, because in order to make an effective villain with it you need to alter the rules or fudge the rolls to the point where you might as well make a homebrew system for it. The only possible value to anti-feats would be if you were running your game 100% RAW, and wanted an excuse to give a villain another feat.

I agree the random nature of A-F's is wonky. The 3.5 version re-worked them slightly but not enough. They aren't all random but most are. I guess I'm trying to say that the A-F system for PC's is superior to the flaw system. PC's shouldn't be able to take a flaw that hardly affects them and at the same time a feat that certainly will benefit them in a most positive way, on a one for one basis. That just seems wrong to me. The A-F system for a PC can cripple him if he rolls poorly, or benefit him greatly if he does not. Although truth be said, a poor roll won't cripple him, it'll just set him back a bit. It's an 'old school D&D ' thing that I like K&Co considering.

That said, I never roll for a villians A-f's, I choose them so that there will be a negative consequence for the villian, as the RAI. YMMV.

Renegade Paladin
2010-07-20, 01:28 AM
Exemplars of Evil has at least one useful section; the alternate class features have a few gems, I think. Invisible Fist and Feigned Death are both potentially really good for monks (the latter moreso than the former, but immediate action immunity to a whole slew of effects is pretty strong even if you do have to blow a standard action to get out of it). Inspire Hatred is just hilarious in any situation where you face multiple potential enemies who aren't allies.

Since the entire rest of the book is basically NPCs, and Wizards sucks at making characters... yeah, it's pretty shoddy.
Not only do they suck at optimization; they can't even edit. The second chapter's NPCs were all apparently changed to one level higher sometime midway through writing it and they only halfway changed the stats, so that the 4th level rogue has 5 HD, the BAB of a 5th level character, the skills of a 4th level one, and so on and so forth.
I really hate the Draconomicon. I abhor the fluff in Dragon Magic and Races of the Dragon, too, but at least they had interesting crunch. Draconomicon has a single useful magic item and a bunch of utter nonsense.
Really? Geez, I can just sit down and read the first chapter of that book for pleasure, with no intent to use it in a game at all. I consider it money well spent just for that, and on top of it I've built some unbelievably pimped out dragons with it too. :smallbiggrin:

(It should be known that I really friggin' hate dragons, but anyway.)
Ah. Your problem, I think, is obvious. :smallamused:

Zen Master
2010-07-20, 02:06 AM
While that is true, personal preference doesn't factor into whether something is broken or not - and core very definitely is.

Well - I didn't say it wasn't broken. But ... I'd rather say that core is open to abuse. Used incorrectly (for want of a better word) it certainly is very broken. However, I've never seen that come up in play. Which is, of course, only significant to my group - however, having no experience with the broken-ness of core, I can't really argue anything else.

Morph Bark
2010-07-20, 04:24 AM
Really? Geez, I can just sit down and read the first chapter of that book for pleasure, with no intent to use it in a game at all. I consider it money well spent just for that, and on top of it I've built some unbelievably pimped out dragons with it too. :smallbiggrin:

Same. The Draconomicon was my first DnD book I bought, before even knowing what DnD was (or is). And I loved it even despite not knowing what the stat blocks meant until five months after.

It still is one of my more favourite books. Tome of Battle tops the list though, and Dungeonscape is awesome.

hamishspence
2010-07-20, 04:27 AM
The fact that I find fluff often more interesting than crunch, might be why a lot of the books that get complained about (Serpent Kingdoms, Power of Faerun, Dragons of Faerun, etc) aren't disliked by me.

BoED is a bit up and down- but I like enough of it to be able to tolerate it's less well inspired ideas.

acid_ninja
2010-07-20, 04:37 AM
I second the motion to get more books on dungeons, and with better material. The severely limited sets of available traps and hazards, and the small fraction of monsters that are actually appropriate for dungeon use, mean that we need to homebrew constantly or have the majority of our games above ground (or in the Underdark).

I enjoy the dragon based material, but in most cases you'll meet maybe one or two in a campaign if they're handled right, whereas I'd like a new dungeon every month.

I know its a bit off-topic but I would point you to traps and treachery I and II. Awesome third party dungeon stuff.

hamishspence
2010-07-20, 04:47 AM
the original thread starter didn't specify WOTC only:


I was just looking through my monster manual 2 again and i started noticing this was bad very bad. I mean many monsters are grossly under crd (the weird the horrors) some are massively over cred (the mountain giant the fiend wurm) and others just weird (why bother putting in special section for player versions of unplayable creatures like the glimmerskin which cant even survive off the positive energy plane for a whole day.)

So im curious are their any books that are as consistently bad as mm2

so if, say, you discuss third party sources that are bad, as well as good (or ones other people consider bad, but you consider good), it's still on-topic.

I don't usually object to little derails- as long as it gets back on topic fairly soon after.

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-20, 04:51 AM
Well, if we're going to mention 3rd party, I think Sword & Sorcery's Advanced Player's Guide was pretty awful. I bought it as they had a mana point system, but in the end, I ended up using my own. Their "Epic" classes were dreadful, the flaws weak and the new magic casters pretty dire; everything was poor to moribund at best, unfortunately.

Roc Ness
2010-07-20, 05:10 AM
I like the Monster Manual 2... but specifically I just like the Nimblewright and the Corrolax, though.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-20, 07:40 AM
Considering the subject matter involved, I think the writers of BoEF did a great job handling it maturely and intelligently. The only other book I know of that focused on such material was F.A.T.A.L. and well.....you should all know what F.A.T.A.L. is like by now.

Saying something is better than F.A.T.A.L. isnt much of a bar to shoot for.

I would not describe the BoEF as mature or intelligent. Hell, I wouldn't even describe it as erotic fantasy. Bad naked photoshops and rules about STDs do not constitute eroticism.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-20, 07:42 AM
I like the Monster Manual 2... but specifically I just like the Nimblewright and the Corrolax, though.

Is somewhat like I said above.. in this instance (I like the MMII too) is because the book, even if unbalanced, has monsters full of flavour and personality (IMO, even if some is just weird).

This make it more interesting than more balanced book.

Ilmryn
2010-07-20, 07:59 AM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Is this a joke or is there actually a Book of Erotic Fantasy for DnD?

Boci
2010-07-20, 08:03 AM
Is this a joke or is there actually a Book of Erotic Fantasy for DnD?

Third party book. Covers different races' and aligments' attitudes to sex, STD, and has some feats, spells, PrC and monsters, some of which would not be out of place in another book. Also has 100 adventuer seeds involving sex.

Overall, interesting book, and could definatly have been handled worse, but still not very important, unless you really need help deciding whether an orc or elf is more likely to cheat on his wife.

Rappy
2010-07-20, 08:04 AM
Is this a joke or is there actually a Book of Erotic Fantasy for DnD?
It's not an overly long gag; it actually exists, yes.

Also, for my vote for my personal least favorite, it's hard to say. I'd have to think about it.

Psyx
2010-07-20, 08:11 AM
"Is this a joke or is there actually a Book of Erotic Fantasy for DnD?"


The only joke about it is that WoTC allowed the author to then scribe Races of the Dragon. I'd have taken one look at her prior work and laughed her out of the office.

Frog Dragon
2010-07-20, 08:14 AM
I looked at the villains handbook. GAH! The prc:s are terrible, except for the Darklight Wizard which has the potential to be extremely broken (or not, given how stupidly limited their spell list is. Sucks too.). Anti feats are terrible. Stupid, stupid book.

Bharg
2010-07-20, 08:19 AM
Every D&D 3.5 book that instead of fixing the rules just implemented new ones.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-20, 08:20 AM
"Is this a joke or is there actually a Book of Erotic Fantasy for DnD?"


The only joke about it is that WoTC allowed the author to then scribe Races of the Dragon. I'd have taken one look at her prior work and laughed her out of the office.

Same. RoTD turned out much better, surprisingly, but if I'd been making the call, I woulda never gave her the chance.

sonofzeal
2010-07-20, 10:37 AM
"Is this a joke or is there actually a Book of Erotic Fantasy for DnD?"


The only joke about it is that WoTC allowed the author to then scribe Races of the Dragon. I'd have taken one look at her prior work and laughed her out of the office.
She also did Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, Planar Handbook, Frostburn, MM3, MM4, CArc, RotW, d20 Modern, RoE, Tome of Magic, and others. I'm pretty sure she was an established WotC developer before she wrote BoEF.

Amphetryon
2010-07-20, 10:43 AM
She also did Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, Planar Handbook, Frostburn, MM3, MM4, CArc, RotW, d20 Modern, RoE, Tome of Magic, and others. I'm pretty sure she was an established WotC developer before she wrote BoEF.Now there's a resume that's all over the map in terms of balance...

Kylarra
2010-07-20, 10:49 AM
Good thing balance wasn't a consideration in 3.X

sonofzeal
2010-07-20, 11:00 AM
Now there's a resume that's all over the map in terms of balance...
Those are just books she worked on. RotW, for example, was headed by Skip Williams and had five other "additional design" people besides Kestrel. For CArc, she was "managing editor" rather than design or development. And for Planar Handbook, she shares top Designer credit with Bruce Cordell.

Point is we can't really tell what's hers and what isn't in each book, but at very least she's a firmly established figure in the WotC development team, and her contributions span a wide selection of the books we regularly use. This confers a bit of extra legitimacy on BoEF.

Psyx
2010-07-20, 11:29 AM
NOTHING confers any legitimacy on BoEF.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-20, 12:19 PM
Compared to the GUCK, it's practically a work of art. Does that count as legitimacy?

sonofzeal
2010-07-20, 12:22 PM
NOTHING confers any legitimacy on BoEF.
I've used it more often, in my PG games, than many official books I payed more money for. I think that's one of the best measures of the quality of a suppliment.

I do skip the whole chapter on Prestige Classes, though. But it still gets used a lot, and has worked well for me when I do use it.

Boci
2010-07-20, 12:28 PM
I've used it more often, in my PG games, than many official books I payed more money for. I think that's one of the best measures of the quality of a suppliment.

I do skip the whole chapter on Prestige Classes, though. But it still gets used a lot, and has worked well for me when I do use it.

Out of curiosity, what do you use from gthe book?

kjones
2010-07-20, 12:30 PM
The rules for half-breeds are reasonable, when used within the bounds imposed by sanity.

Rappy
2010-07-20, 01:11 PM
After thinking about it, I believe that my vote is for the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. I'm not a fan of objective morality anyway, and these two tomes just made it worse with things like a certain clamp that produces exquisite pain. There are small saving graces, but, well...they're small.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion, obviously.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-20, 01:20 PM
No, thats quite reasonable. Those two books had much fail.

At least BoVD had some nice mechanical stuff to redeem it. Just ignore anything involving alignment, and its not a bad book. BoED can die in a fire, though.

monkey3
2010-07-20, 01:23 PM
I hate Book of Exalted Deeds.

I have to keep banning it because there are spells in there that are waaay higher powered that their equivalents elsewhere. I'll give just 2 examples:

Sublime Revelry (lvl 9): The cleric version of Mind Blank (Wiz 8) but it covers the entire party, and makes sure they all take half damage!

Luminous Armor, (Greater) Mage Armor on steroids for clerics. Same duration, The lesser version give 5 armor vs 4 for Mage armor. The grater version gives 8 armor vs 6 for Greater Mage Armor. But wait there's more! The opponent has -4 untyped penalty to hit you!

There there are the feats that are overpowered or party crippling (Vow of non-violence).

taltamir
2010-07-20, 01:25 PM
After thinking about it, I believe that my vote is for the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. I'm not a fan of objective morality anyway, and these two tomes just made it worse with things like a certain clamp that produces exquisite pain. There are small saving graces, but, well...they're small.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion, obviously.

I agree with you... those two books, I think, are the largest fail ever printed by WOTC.

Book of erotic fantasy was just VILE... (if you want sexy for dnd check out nymphology aka blue magic by a 3rd party publisher)... but being vile doesn't make it the epic fail of the exalted deeds and vile darkness books.

BTW... has anyone mentioned that 90% of the most broken spells and items are in core?

If you only used items from MiC and spells from Spell Compendium you would have a far more balanced game.

kjones
2010-07-20, 01:35 PM
Book of erotic fantasy was just VILE... (if you want sexy for dnd check out nymphology aka blue magic by a 3rd party publisher)... but being vile doesn't make it the epic fail of the exalted deeds and vile darkness books.


It's interesting that somebody else in this thread said that Nymphology was juvenile and crude, compared to the relatively sensible BoEF...

hamishspence
2010-07-20, 01:39 PM
I agree with you... those two books, I think, are the largest fail ever printed by WOTC.

I wouldn't go that far- some of the ideas were good (and had long-standing precedent behind them)- they were just poorly implemented.

Given the number of times I've seen "in standard D&D, the Good players should be slaughtering everything Evil, whether it's attacking others or not, right down to the last drow baby" BoED's "Actually, Good doesn't work that way" was something of an improvement.

Maybe not enough to excuse its poor implementation, and less well-thought out ideas, though.

mcl01
2010-07-20, 03:17 PM
I hate Book of Exalted Deeds.

I have to keep banning it because there are spells in there that are waaay higher powered that their equivalents elsewhere. I'll give just 2 examples:

Sublime Revelry (lvl 9): The cleric version of Mind Blank (Wiz 8) but it covers the entire party, and makes sure they all take half damage!

Luminous Armor, (Greater) Mage Armor on steroids for clerics. Same duration, The lesser version give 5 armor vs 4 for Mage armor. The grater version gives 8 armor vs 6 for Greater Mage Armor. But wait there's more! The opponent has -4 untyped penalty to hit you!

There there are the feats that are overpowered or party crippling (Vow of non-violence).

1) Sublime Revelry is a 9th level spell. I wouldn't say that's overpowered at all.

2) Luminous armor isn't that bad. It's about on par as a normal piece of full plate armor (and it doesn't even apply to ranged attacks) in terms of net AC bonus (it's a bit higher, but doesn't fully apply to ranged attacks). It basically substitutes a daily spell slot (or two) and 1d2 str damage for 1800 gp. Greater armor is better, yes, but it's still not above full plate + magic vestments.

They're simply better than mage armor because clerics were meant to be hardier than spellcasters in game design. Not to mention they're AC buffs, which don't matter as much as people make them out to be.

That being said, I actually liked BoED. Like someone said above, it's nice to have a morality aside from "slay all things evil". Sure, I disliked the evil poisons/ravage bit, but it was a nice breath of fresh air.

One book I have to say I disliked though... complete warrior. I only find a few redeeming features in that book. Most of the feats and prestige classes... utter garbage.

Gametime
2010-07-20, 03:40 PM
It's interesting that somebody else in this thread said that Nymphology was juvenile and crude, compared to the relatively sensible BoEF...

That would be me, and I defy anyone to find me a spell from Nymphology that doesn't look like it was designed by a giggling gaggle of high school sophomores.


Third party book. Covers different races' and aligments' attitudes to sex, STD, and has some feats, spells, PrC and monsters, some of which would not be out of place in another book. [b]Also has 100 adventuer seeds involving sex.[b/]


Possibly the worst choice of words you could have made. :smalltongue:



Point is we can't really tell what's hers and what isn't in each book, but at very least she's a firmly established figure in the WotC development team, and her contributions span a wide selection of the books we regularly use. This confers a bit of extra legitimacy on BoEF.

It makes the fact that they chose to use those creepy faux-3D pieces instead of the normal Wizards stock of art even more bizarre, though. It's not like your standard fantasy heroine is all that bundled up to begin with; you could easily slip more mundane art into the book and have it be "adult."

hamishspence
2010-07-20, 03:44 PM
That being said, I actually liked BoED. Like someone said above, it's nice to have a morality aside from "slay all things evil". Sure, I disliked the evil poisons/ravage bit, but it was a nice breath of fresh air.

Ironically, some of the people who complain about BoED, appear to have gotten completely the wrong idea about what it promotes:


This is why you have to remove absolute definitions of good and evil (at least when applied to actions- demons can be incarnations of cosmic Evil if you want), and add to the act an equal weighting of intention. From utmost good to utmost evil, your goals can vary. Combine that with the nature of the act.

Using a system like this to judge morality fixes a lot of other problems. Paladins and good characters that want to stay good can no longer invade a random goblin village, slaughtering everyone they see for treasure, which the Book of Exalted Deeds says is a good act, because goblins are evil. Instead, paladins are only attacking those that have done evil things, such as a tribe that has been robbing travelers, telling them to lay down arms first, offering quarter, and stopping the rogue from CdGing all the fallen goblins. If he ends up with gold at the end, that is a nice benefit, but he isn't going to pry out filings for it.

which, it turns out- is completely backward- it's BoED which supports:
"Instead, paladins are only attacking those that have done evil things, such as a tribe that has been robbing travelers, telling them to lay down arms first, offering quarter, and stopping the rogue from CdGing all the fallen goblins. If he ends up with gold at the end, that is a nice benefit, but he isn't going to pry out filings for it."

as an adventuring style, and "standard D&D" that has nothing in it inherently forbidding slaughtering everyone Evil for "being evil".

Of course, others prefer this, and argue that this is what D&D's supposed to be, and BoED was a bad mistake, precisely because it suggested that this sort of behaviour might be a bit immoral in the game world.

It's odd how BoED can end up taking flak from both sides- from the people who are under the impression that it justifies atrocities against those of evil alignment and don't like it because of this-

and from the people who believe there's no such thing as an "atrocity against the evil", that it should be OK to torture Evil people, for info, as punishment, and to deter others from committing evil acts- and dislike BoED because it disagrees.

Jergmo
2010-07-20, 05:01 PM
Ironically, some of the people who complain about BoED, appear to have gotten completely the wrong idea about what it promotes:

which, it turns out- is completely backward- it's BoED which supports:

as an adventuring style, and "standard D&D" that has nothing in it inherently forbidding slaughtering everyone Evil for "being evil".

Of course, others prefer this, and argue that this is what D&D's supposed to be, and BoED was a bad mistake, precisely because it suggested that this sort of behaviour might be a bit immoral in the game world.

It's odd how BoED can end up taking flak from both sides- from the people who are under the impression that it justifies atrocities against those of evil alignment and don't like it because of this-

and from the people who believe there's no such thing as an "atrocity against the evil", that it should be OK to torture Evil people, for info, as punishment, and to deter others from committing evil acts- and dislike BoED because it disagrees.

I think that the BoED is fairly ridiculous, but I do agree with it in some places. My Neutral Good Druid in a friend's campaign was against provoking a small army of orcs who were passing through the area. They didn't know if they were going to attack the village they were staying in or not - they had a common enemy, and it was along the way. She would have even suggested a trade for supplies if they would agree to it after speaking with one of them as an emissary.

Did the orcs attack them in the end? Yes - yes they did. However, they managed to get the villagers evacuated, and they damn well held that village, sending the survivors running! One could say that it was foolish of her to try peace with the orcs, but she knew that they had families too and she'd be damned if she wasn't going to at least give them the chance to prove themselves to be decent.

I believe your enemies should be given a chance, but there does come a point where what BoED suggests is just plain stupid.

sonofzeal
2010-07-20, 10:16 PM
Out of curiosity, what do you use from gthe book?
I've relied heavily on the sociological information in Chapter 1, and generally consider it "canon" as far as these things go. Yes it's just fluff, but it's solid and thoughtful and useful fluff. Elven thoughts on monogamy, family structures among Halflings, Dwarven attitudes towards homosexuality, patterns for Gnomish pregnancy and childbirth... these things are often useful to have. I could write my own fluff for these areas, it's true, but I could write my own entire game system if I wanted to. I buy these books to save that time and effort and provide a common frame of reference that others in the group can agree on.

The other thing I've used quite productively is the chapter on spells. There's a huge number of spells that are entirely PG, and deserve a place in any given game. I'll specifically mention "Healing Sphere" (ranged healing), "Life Shell" (opposite of Antilife Shell), "Calm Weather", "Pleasant Dreams", "Come to Me", "Limited Telepathy", "Privacy", "Magic Probe", "Analyse Ancestry", and "True Form" as spells that are entirely PG-appropriate, and your average game could also potentially make use of "Block The Seed", "Reverse Gender", "Detect Pregnancy", "Blessed Seed", "Jealousy", and "Hedonist's Delight". And those lists are by no means exhaustive.

Hope that answers your question.

Jergmo
2010-07-20, 10:24 PM
-snip-

Mantle of Love is fairly PG. It links the caster and a recipient, giving them both a +4 morale bonus on saving throws. The spell ends if they move out of sight of each other and has a Focus of a heart-shaped ruby worth at least 50 gp. 2nd level Bard, Cleric or Joining.

Skeppio
2010-07-20, 10:50 PM
Ugh, Book of Exalted Deeds...
You can commit the most heinous acts imaginable, but it's okay because these are [Good] spells! I didn't think it'd be that bad since the first chapter had a bunch of text on how to be good but not stupid. And then the rest happened.
Seriously, what is up with the Deathless? Oh no, undead are evil horrid monsters. But these guys are the exact same thing! But it's okay because they're deathless! W. T. F.

And MMIV & V. Let's overhaul the stat blocks to look like the upcoming 4th edition stats! And lets add pages upon pages of preset orcs, gnolls and crap instead of actually doing the work and making new interesting things, just like in 4th edition! It all reeked of one big attempt to make late 3.5 like 4th. A system completely incompatible with it!!!

I miss the Fiend Folio. Even with its woefully imbalanced monsters, it still had heart. :smallsmile:

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 11:02 PM
Deathless are also in Eberron Campaign Setting, though at least there they aren't painted as merely being saintly undead.

Skeppio
2010-07-20, 11:04 PM
Deathless are also in Eberron Campaign Setting, though at least there they aren't painted as merely being saintly undead.

What were they like in Ebberon?

Lhurgyof
2010-07-20, 11:04 PM
Ah, I LOVE the BoVD.
It's great to add that last bit of grim feeling to the villian, along with heroes of horror.
I like the idea of vile damage, too.
But BoED? I hate it. Poisons are evil, but oh hey, we gave some good poison lolz.
But, I never liked goody-two-shoes, either. xD

My least favorite book? Magic of Incarnum. Hate the fluff, hate the idea, hate the rules. xD

Jergmo
2010-07-20, 11:30 PM
Seriously, what is up with the Deathless? Oh no, undead are evil horrid monsters. But these guys are the exact same thing! But it's okay because they're deathless! W. T. F.

I'm cool with the Deathless - I like the concept of Knights and Paladins who choose to serve on as guardians when called upon. But then, Animate Dead isn't an Evil spell in my campaign - unless you use it to create actually Evil undead. Skeletons and zombies themselves are little more than crappy golems, but it isn't evil, although frowned upon in most societies. However, you can bind minor malevolent spirits to them - they are Evil and the spell switches to Evil in this event. The upside being that they are capable of understanding slightly more complex instructions due to having an actual spirit instead of just being animated.

Otherwise, though, yes. BoED = blech. Though I do love the Nymph's Kiss feat and have used it for a couple of characters. We haven't treated it as an Exalted feat, though, because that's made of stupid!

Hague
2010-07-20, 11:47 PM
Right. Illithid heritage makes no sense but being half-fire elemental makes more?

If a creature can polymorph, it can make a half-(creature) template. Since Illithids have the ability to polymorph, they could potentially breed with a human or other creature despite their natural mechanism for making other illithids, not necessarily half-illithids or illithid-kin.

sonofzeal
2010-07-20, 11:56 PM
Right. Illithid heritage makes no sense but being half-fire elemental makes more?

If a creature can polymorph, it can make a half-(creature) template. Since Illithids have the ability to polymorph, they could potentially breed with a human or other creature despite their natural mechanism for making other illithids, not necessarily half-illithids or illithid-kin.
I always thought of "Illithid Heritage" in terms of "oh yeah some brainsucker experimented on my great grandpapa ages ago, but he most got better."

T.G. Oskar
2010-07-21, 01:05 AM
Why do I feel like one of the few people that actually likes BoED? Granted, I do admit that it could be highly fixed, but nonetheless the nature of good as explained is perfect for discussion (just not here, since it might touch on real world stuff). I find that it's not as exaggerate as BoVD is exaggerate with evil.

Though, I find that a better way to handle it would be treating it as an Unearthed Arcana. Now, I find that the beginning of the book has the best advice on pretty much every single book; you won't use every single part of the book, so use what you feel you can use and drop that which you don't want to use. I'd add "and homebrew anything you might wanna use but feel like don't", as well.

Now, if I were to determine a horrible book that I wouldn't want to touch...that'd be hard. I was once against Magic of Incarnum, but after a good read I changed my mind (and also after seeing the power of Incarnum done easily). Complete Psionic has its good and its bad; Ardent is awesome, the other classes not so much (especially when Mind's Eye did a Lurk several years before this one; still, I like some of the augments).

Maybe Cityscape. I rarely could find something useful from it. Or the latter Monster Manuals where they mostly did builds instead of new monsters, and the new monsters were kinda pointless (oddly enough, I like Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II).

As for a closing thought...Luminous Armor is an Abjuration spell. Take it as you wish.

Renegade Paladin
2010-07-21, 01:17 AM
Seriously, what is up with the Deathless? Oh no, undead are evil horrid monsters. But these guys are the exact same thing! But it's okay because they're deathless! W. T. F.
Erm... That's not it at all. :smallconfused: Undead are evil, horrid monsters animated by evil spirits and the Negative Energy Plane. Deathless are the exact opposite, animated by positive energy. It's not like the whole ravage "it's totally not poison!" business, because they actually do fill a different role. If they were just a mirror of the undead (animated by good spellcasters to serve their ends, spreading their deathless state to their doubtlessly evil victims by making them into spawn, etc) I'd agree, but they're not. It's a mechanic for guardian spirits, not a poor excuse to have good-aligned wights running around making a good-aligned wight horde by attacking evil people. They didn't make deathless ghoul, vampire, wight, nightwalker, etc. equivalents. There's a lot of lazy "this is just like the evil thing except good" mirroring in the BoED, but that's not an example of it.

Optimystik
2010-07-21, 01:23 AM
What were they like in Ebberon?

Primarily they belong to the elven Undying Court faction. They're more a way for dead elves to stick around and be worshiped by their descendants, than the ghostly martyrs of anti-undeath portrayed in BoED. They are still Good overall, but in Eberron that term isn't quite as absolute as it is in BoED.

Skeppio
2010-07-21, 01:46 AM
Primarily they belong to the elven Undying Court faction. They're more a way for dead elves to stick around and be worshiped by their descendants, than the ghostly martyrs of anti-undeath portrayed in BoED. They are still Good overall, but in Eberron that term isn't quite as absolute as it is in BoED.

Ah, so they're pretty much Ebberon equivalents to the Baelnorn from Forgotten Realms? That's much, much better than the BoED deathless. :smallsmile:

taltamir
2010-07-21, 01:53 AM
"Instead, paladins are only attacking those that have done evil things, such as a tribe that has been robbing travelers, telling them to lay down arms first, offering quarter, and stopping the rogue from CdGing all the fallen goblins. If he ends up with gold at the end, that is a nice benefit, but he isn't going to pry out filings for it."
This is even worse, this means those "evil" goblins are not evil because they have done evil things, consistently, over time...
no, they are evil because its just a "team"... they are part of "team evil" but are actually nice and harmless innocents.

the very notion is ridiculous...

a paladin shouldn't slay anything that pings on detect evil because sometimes the spell is WRONG, specifically, if they carry an evil magic item... but to treat evil as a team rather then the result of personal actions...

It is also inconsistent, at times it invokes such fury inducing moral relativity, at others it has fury inducing moral absolutisms...

the problem is in the exact implementation of each, its not just "well, shades of gray are good / bad" and " absolutes are good/bad"...\
BOED and BOVD manage to to have both shades of gray and moral absolutes, and all of them are implemented in a specific way such as to be utterly horrendously bad.

Optimystik
2010-07-21, 02:01 AM
Ah, so they're pretty much Ebberon equivalents to the Baelnorn from Forgotten Realms? That's much, much better than the BoED deathless. :smallsmile:

Sort of. Baelnorn stick around to guard and protect things - mythals, artifacts, ancient groves etc. In short, they are postponing their reward for living good lives, in order to defend something in the material plane. Self-sacrifice; standard D&D Goodness.

The Undying Court are different; they just do it because "one lifetime isn't enough to reach enlightenment." They're staying alive more for its own sake. It's not quite selfish, but it comes close, especially for the ones that get mired in worldly politics.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-21, 02:16 AM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Am I the only one that likes this book? Sure, it's just something for people to laugh about, really, but it answered quite a few questions that I had about gestation periods of playable species, and it taught me more about the lives of playable races. In some cases, the "Races Of" books just aren't complete.

@Thread: tl;dr, so if this has already been discussed I apologise.

hamishspence
2010-07-21, 03:20 AM
This is even worse, this means those "evil" goblins are not evil because they have done evil things, consistently, over time...
no, they are evil because its just a "team"... they are part of "team evil" but are actually nice and harmless innocents.

the very notion is ridiculous...

a paladin shouldn't slay anything that pings on detect evil because sometimes the spell is WRONG, specifically, if they carry an evil magic item...

Actually, evil goblins who aren't attacking their neighbours, will probably be "evil by internal politics"- goblin parents tend to bully their children, the children tend to bully each other, and the guys in power got there via force.

Why are they like this? Possibly because they gods gave them certain inborn traits, possibly because their culture encourages this behaviour, probably a bit of both.

They will be far from nice and harmless innocents- but they won't necessarily be a danger to their neighbours either.

Its a case of "Just cause"- when you don't have Just Cause to go after somebody evil-aligned, slaughtering them is wrong.

Some creatures are evil not entirely because of personal actions, but personality. A newborn chromatic dragon has an evil personality even if it's never done evil actions.

And a being can do enough (mild) evil actions to be Evil without deserving to die.

BoED works best when combined with settings such as Eberron- or Heroes of Horror- in which it's explicitly stated that not all evil beings deserve to die. When dealing with ordinary, less harmful evil- the Exalted character is careful not to strike without just cause- and wants to redeem them rather than killing them, if possible- even when they do have just cause to go on the attack.

It actually says that the primary concern of Exalted characters should be seriously Evil creatures and plots- "ordinary scheming barons" are not people the Exalted character should walk up to and hack to death without further ado.

If they do have "just cause" - it's a different story- but even then they should be careful.

In 1st and 2nd ed, Detect Evil only detected the exceptionally evil- but Know alignment detected anyone of evil alignment.

Since 3rd ed Detect Evil works more like Know Alignment- it makes sense that sources like BoED, or Eberron, or Heroes of Horror, should demand that the player know more than "their alignment is evil"- and not go on killing sprees, but kill even the evil only when necessary.

Skeppio
2010-07-21, 04:59 AM
Sort of. Baelnorn stick around to guard and protect things - mythals, artifacts, ancient groves etc. In short, they are postponing their reward for living good lives, in order to defend something in the material plane. Self-sacrifice; standard D&D Goodness.

The Undying Court are different; they just do it because "one lifetime isn't enough to reach enlightenment." They're staying alive more for its own sake. It's not quite selfish, but it comes close, especially for the ones that get mired in worldly politics.

I could imagine it now.

Baelnorn - "I will cling to this life until I can keep this artifact out of evil's grasp forever."

Ebberon Deathless - "Screw dying, I start getting pension in a week."

taltamir
2010-07-21, 05:38 AM
Its a case of "Just cause"- when you don't have Just Cause to go after somebody evil-aligned, slaughtering them is wrong.

here is where you are wrong... just because they haven't attacked you PERSONALLY yet doesn't mean you have no just cause to stop their evil. If they are evil, even if they have never one evil to a HUMAN, but are genuinely evil and dangerous creatures, then it is perfectly justified to put a stop to it.
To do otherwise is to be:
1. extremely bigoted... as if innocent goblin children don't deserve your protection from evil goblins.
2. extremely short sighted... as if just because they hadn't gotten around to attack humans yet, they wouldn't later.

of course, a newborn goblin cannot be evil... it never had a chance to do any evil yet.


And a being can do enough (mild) evil actions to be Evil without deserving to die.
certainly, and such a creature wouldn't be evil. they would be neutral.

your post does nothing but support the notion that evil is merely a "team" they belong to, that they are not REALLY evil... that they don't REALLY deserve death for their horrid crimes... they were just born the wrong race, or did some minor bullying, and now they are branded evil...
If the gods of good brand someone as EVIL for merely being a bully then those gods are the evil ones.

note that it is a question of "are they evil" not "are they registering as evil by an extremely flawed spell"... the reason you shouldn't kill anyone who detect evil shows to be evil, is because the spell is a flawed POS.

hamishspence
2010-07-21, 05:52 AM
certainly, and such a creature wouldn't be evil. they would be neutral.

Not according to most of the splatbooks- including the Eberron Campaign setting.

Even with PHB "Evil implies oppressing, hurting, and killing others"- but it doesn't necessarily imply doing all three. A bully oppresses and hurts others, but they don't always kill others.

Fiendish Codex 2 emphasises that a big part of LE culture, is encouraging the children of that culture to bully others- this steers them to Lawful Evil alignment.

"Evil aligned" can mean anything from a complete jerk- to a complete monster- and the best approach to dealing with complete jerks, is not violence (except in direct defense of yourself or others), but gentle encouragement toward goodness.



If the gods of good brand someone as EVIL for merely being a bully then those gods are the evil ones.

The gods (good and evil) have no say in what alignment someone is. "Good and evil are the forces that define the cosmos" not "Good and evil are defined by the gods"


the reason you shouldn't kill anyone who detect evil shows to be evil, is because the spell is a flawed POS.

Or- because it detects the evil aligned, but not the "deserving to die"

Since according to the PHB, "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" then it can be argued that, on average, roughly 1/3 of the human population of a D&D world are evil. "Detect Evil" cast on an ordinary person (not a cleric, or an outsider, or an undead) detects "the worst third of the population" so to speak.

Conversely, for races that are "Often evil" or "Usually evil" it will detect a larger number, since (in the case of Usually Evil) more than 1/2 of them will be "as bad as the worst third of the human population"

But often, they will only be as bad as "the least bad of Evil humans".

Evil isn't "all one team" often the Evil guys will be infighting, and sometimes, Good and Evil people alike will join forces to face a greater threat.


If they are evil, even if they have never one evil to a HUMAN, but are genuinely evil and dangerous creatures, then it is perfectly justified to put a stop to it.
To do otherwise is to be:
1. extremely bigoted... as if innocent goblin children don't deserve your protection from evil goblins.
2. extremely short sighted... as if just because they hadn't gotten around to attack humans yet, they wouldn't later.

Of course they should try and put a stop to it- but not by violence- going in to a goblin camp and slaughtering every adult goblin for being "abusive parents" is worse.

Not attacking evil but non-aggressive groups, but being very alert to aggression from them- allows you to try and reform them by peaceful means.

"Genuinely evil" in D&D terms (evil enough to have an evil alignment) may not be so evil as to justify preemptive strikes "to protect ourselves from future evil acts".


of course, a newborn goblin cannot be evil... it never had a chance to do any evil yet.

A newborn dragon can though- and (because of cultural indoctrination and natural personality traits) a young goblin may gain an evil alignment without doing much in the way of evil acts.

Evil is partly acts, and partly personality. A Good person immediately after the effects of a Helm of Opposite alignment, is evil wholly by personality, not acts. A young goblin may be a bit of both.

Look up many of the evil splatbook NPCs- and what is to be found, is that some are Well Intentioned Extremists, and a lot are bullies, but not murderers.

Optimystik
2010-07-21, 07:46 AM
I could imagine it now.

Baelnorn - "I will cling to this life until I can keep this artifact out of evil's grasp forever."

Ebberon Deathless - "Screw dying, I start getting pension in a week."

Keep in mind that the Undying Court are not the only group that makes use of Deathless - just the most prolific. (They are the only one that grants the Deathless Domain however.)

Ironically, they are almost at the golden combination - they offer Planning and Deathless, coming closer to Planning and Undeath than any other deity/pantheon out there.


Am I the only one that likes this book? Sure, it's just something for people to laugh about, really, but it answered quite a few questions that I had about gestation periods of playable species, and it taught me more about the lives of playable races. In some cases, the "Races Of" books just aren't complete.

@Thread: tl;dr, so if this has already been discussed I apologise.

I love the concept behind it and quite a bit of the fluff, even if they tend to put sex up on a pedestal as this wonderful and sacred thing that can enhance your games almost without fail. Which makes sense, given that if you don't particularly care about sex in your games you won't buy the book.

I hate...hate...HATE the art. :smallyuk:

The Glyphstone
2010-07-21, 07:49 AM
I love the concept behind it and quite a bit of the fluff, even if they tend to put sex up on a pedestal as this wonderful and sacred thing that can enhance your games almost without fail. Which makes sense, given that if you don't particularly care about sex in your games you won't buy the book.

I hate...hate...HATE the art. :smallyuk:

Yeah, it's kinda like buying the Draconomicon if your custom campaign setting has no dragons in it. When the book is fairly self-explanatory about its #1 focus of material, blaming the book for its contents is silly.

Wait, the BoEF has art in it? I didn't see any.

Optimystik
2010-07-21, 07:56 AM
Wait, the BoEF has art in it? I didn't see any.

Perhaps "Poorly-lit LARP photos with vapid models" would indeed be more accurate.