Thoughts on Races of War?

[Mjollnir075]

What does the Playground think of it?
I realize that its from dnd-wiki.org, but I was willing to give it a read.

Found Here (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Races_of_War_(3.5e_Sourcebook))

One of my players brought it to my attention recently, and I have to say, those are some pretty radical changes, but it definitely takes a big step toward closing the gap between casters and melee. However, I don't claim to have expansive knowledge on the systems finer points, and I'm not sure if this would be a little overpowered/underwhelming.

Also of note, any thoughts on the other, related ones I found?
Tome of Necromancy (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_(3.5e_Sourcebook))
and
Dungeononmicon (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dungeonomicon_(3.5e_Sourcebook))

[Flickerdart]

That content is by Frank & K, who wrote a ton of stuff on bringing the have-not classes up to par. However, their material is intended to have everyone playing at T1 (everyone is Wizards), whereas this community tends to hold T3 (everyone is Warblades) as the balance ballpark to aim for.

[Aharon]

Also, official content found on DnD Wikia is often changed. I would recommend using the official version found here (http://code.google.com/p/awesometome/downloads/list).

I used Tome material for my previous group, for example the widow queen for a girl who wanted to play a vampire. I also used a modified version of their economy. I was content with both. The Widow Queen wasn't substantially out of place in the group (Cleric/Radiant Servant, Warblade, Dread Necromancer, TWF Rogue, NPC Troll Tome Monk, DMPC Artificer). I don't know about the rest of the content.

[Answerer]

Races of War, in particular, has some really interesting flavor ideas on various races. I particularly like their Dwarves and their Sahuagin.

[Wise Green Bean]

I'm a big fan of the Tome of Necromancy as well, adds some rather interesting feats, flavor, and fixes to the undead and necromancy in general. It also makes a lawful good necromancer running around with his horde of zombies perfectly reasonable, which I find deeply amusing.

[Loki_42]

It's not bad material, as long as you make sure it's what you're looking for. As a previous poster said, they seem to like playing at a point where every character is a wizard, which while it does lower the gap between casters and mundanes, it also makes for a very different feel in power level than the average campaign shoots for.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm a big fan of the Tome of Necromancy as well, adds some rather interesting feats, flavor, and fixes to the undead and necromancy in general. It also makes a lawful good necromancer running around with his horde of zombies perfectly reasonable, which I find deeply amusing.

Yeah, Pumpkin King is kind of cool from that Book.

[Mjollnir075]

Do you think incorporating Races of War, as is, with pre-existing 3.5 stuff is alright? Is it as simple as plug n' play or do you have to adapt some of the other classes to match up to them?

[ThiagoMartell]

I strongly dislike both their writing style and their design philosophy. Then again, I'm not their target audience.

[Morph Bark]

I actually plan on doing a Tiering (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245701) of the Races of War classes pretty soon. If you're interested, I could shoot you a message when I'm done with it?

[Answerer]

Do you think incorporating Races of War, as is, with pre-existing 3.5 stuff is alright? Is it as simple as plug n' play or do you have to adapt some of the other classes to match up to them?
You can definitely use the fluff; a lot of that is quite solid. I don't even remember the mechanics, honestly.