I had a chance to flip through the Complete Champion the other day, and I'm wondering about all these new completes in general.
I like the concept of the first four books. They had the Complete Warrior, Divine, Arcane, and Adventurer (although perhaps a name like Sneak, Thief, or even the more modern Scoundrel would have been better). A nice set of books dealing with the broadest groups of character types in the game and expanding on their options.
The Completes were complete (leave psionics out of this!).
But then I heard about the Complete Scoundrel and thought, "Wha...?" They had already covered all the bases, and hadn't they just made the Complete Adventurer? Surely, WotC would never rewrite the same stuff and sell it in a different packege, would they? (lethal doses of sarcasm here)
But, being an arcanist enthusiast, I did look through and purchase the Complete Mage and... I liked it! It was substantially different from the Complete Arance. It had a lot more fluff, a lot more internal consistency, and a more "core" feel too it.
While flipping through the Complete Champion, I noticed a lot of talk about the gods, what they are, how they are worshipped, etc. I liked this. I liked this a lot.
My personal thoughts seem to be that the first Compeletes were done in a philosphy of "Options! We need more options!" They had no focus on how to integrate these things, how they would affect a campaign (outside of pure mechanical balance), and they sometimes seemed like half-baked ideas thrown out there just so they could have the oh-so-precious options. The Complete Divine says very little about the gods, but lots about new spells for priests.
However, the new Completes seem to be what the first ones should have been. Much more focussed on their topic, and actually discussing the fluff side of those topics and giving things (like optional material components) that seem to reinforce those ideas. There appears to be much more interest in how one can place these new ideas and options in one's game, and also a large number of 5-level prestige classes (which I rather like).
So, what are the general Paizonian thoughts about the new Completes? And, more specifically, is the Complete Champion worth picking up, considering that I already have the Complete Adventurer, Arcane, Divine, and Warrior (and Mage)?
Personally, I really liked Complete Mage and Complete Scoundrel, and I agree that I liked that Complete Mage wasn't introducing more 20 level classes and the PrCs served to kind of help flesh out the ones introduced in Complete Arcane.
To tell you the truth, I think Complete Divine is way too specialized for something that isn't suppose to be "world specific." As a FR DM, I really don't have much that I care for in the book, and if I ran an Eberron game, I get the feeling I would think much the same thing. Sure, I could adapt a lot of the material for the Realms, but honestly, its not THAT great that I would rather adapt than to make up new material of my own.
I also thought the divine substitution levels were uninspired, at least in presentation, and I don't like the logic of giving reserve feats for divine magic (to me, divine power is granted, so it shouldn't be syphoned off to make lesser effects . . . its kind of making the difference between divine/arcane more gray).
Wasn't really thrilled with this supplement, and honestly, if they want to flesh out "core" divine religions to this degree, I'd almost rather see them actually put out a Greyhawk book and pull in a bit more of the lore of Oerth than to further create this nebulous "Core" setting.
|
I like the new books. I would say that the Complete Champion is probably the weakest of the three. A lot of it seems to revolve around very specific campaign ideas, although there usually are blurbs about how to adapt them for other worlds. In particular, the PrC's don't seem to function well if you're not using the organizations they set up in the book. (Again, they can be adapted; I'm just saying that a lot of the "fluff" text wouldn't fit into every campaign.)
Complete Mage and Complete Scoundrel are both wonderful. (Yes, Mike, mine is autographed!)
Edit: I would still like to point out that the material in Complete Champion is much better from an integration standpoint, and does have some great roleplaying hooks. It is an improvement over the "more options" model of Complete Divine.
Complete Scoundrel is by far my favorite...probably because it is obviously written by two Complete Scoundrels.
I haven't seen the Com. Champion yet... I'm assuming it's geared towards paladins. Yes/no?
Com. Adventurer is probably my favorite book, both for the scout class, my personal favorite, and the wide array of prestige classes available.
As far as the Com. Scoundrel goes, I'm half-n-half. I liked several of the prestige classes, but the ambush feats irritated me. Not in how they worked or anything, just the fact that rogues' now had so many more options available to them...
As stated, my class of choice is the scout, and tracing back to the "Which class is better" argument, the rogue is so much more versitile now due to the ambush feats. Yes, most of them make sense, but why wouldn't the skirmish ability work with some of the ambush feats? Why not give each class its own special list of feats?
-Kurocyn
I haven't seen the Com. Champion yet... I'm assuming it's geared towards paladins. Yes/no?
I just finished reading through Complete Champion and my personal answer is no.
That is what I consider great about the book, they put a lot of information concerning the worship of the various deities by non-divine characters. There are some interesting alternative class features for all the core classes. The affiliation score introduced in PHB2 is back in the book, it gives a couple of interesting ideas. As for the prestige classes some are good and some are sad. All in all, it's a pretty good book.
As for the other Completes, Complete adventurer is one of my favorites (with Complete Divine) and complete warrior is probably the one I dislike the most (I don't really know why).
Hmm,
I think that my newbie status is showing in my last thread...
What did I do wrong ?
Contributor
|
Why not give each class its own special list of feats?
I didn't have enough wordcount! ;_;
My friend, if I could have enough wordcount to write another 100 feat I woulda!
As stated, my class of choice is the scout, and tracing back to the "Which class is better" argument, the rogue is so much more versitile now due to the ambush feats.
We tried to include some scout lovin' in CS, because Complete Adventurer was my favorite Complete book. (Up until CS came out, natch.)
Yes, most of them make sense, but why wouldn't the skirmish ability work with some of the ambush feats?
I thought I wrote them so they would. That mighta got changed in development, though...?
|
Complete Scoundrel is by far my favorite...probably because it is obviously written by two Complete Scoundrels.
Yeh...I like it as much as Book of Nine Swords.
I perused the Mage and Champion; I couldn't get into them; maybe because I personally don't get into wizards and clerics that much, I don't know.
We tried to include some scout lovin' in CS...
That actually makes me feel better. ^ ^ If only they had stayed scout-compatable... Y.Y
-Kurocyn
From what I read about Complete Champ was that is was going to be extented Core beliefs that we already get from Dragon. Sure some PrCs and a few more feats that people will point at and say "Cool." but never use. Honestly not interested. Then again being a FR DM that could explain my opinion too.
Hmmm... it seems that almost everyone weighing in on the value of the Complete Champion is either a FR DM or really not that intersted in mages/clerics/etc. Seems to throw a bias into the reviews. Nothing wrong with that, I s'pose- I don't like the Complete Adventurer, because of the four "core roles" (warrior, divine caster, arcane caster, and specialist), I find "specialists" (read: rogues) the least interesting. Just my opinion and an observation.
The best thing about Complete Scoundrel are Skill Tricks.
I think that this is a very good concept that allows you to do low-power, funny and cinematic things without paying the full price of a Feat for it. A great idea, whoever came up with it.
Does someone know if there are new tricks in Complete Champion?
Bocklin
Hmmm... it seems that almost everyone weighing in on the value of the Complete Champion is either a FR DM or really not that intersted in mages/clerics/etc. Seems to throw a bias into the reviews.
I don't know how unbiased my review might be... But I'll give it a shot.
So far, I have enjoyed almost all of the supplements released so far. The only thorn in my side is the Book of Nine Swords... But I won't go into that here.
Each book has at least one thing I really like from it. If only for the flavor. If asked, I'll go further into that.
But for the Complete Champion, I am really liking some of the substitution levels. A Paladin who trades in the "useless" spellcasting for bonus feats... A Ranger that trades in the "useless" animal companion for a spiritual guide... All good stuff in my mind. Note: even though I don't feel Paladin spellcasting or Ranger animal companions are all that great, doesn't mean they are truly useless. YMMV.
I happen to also enjoy the divine reserve feats. Especially the healing one. It saves uses of "The Happy Stick."
But, I should point out that my main use for these supplements are in a long running game that is designed with limited returns on XP. (House rules, obviously. But XP handed out is smaller to begin with, and tends to get even smaller as we rise in levels. For example: Our 6th level characters are getting approximately 800 XP / session. Our 13th level characters are getting approximately 700 XP / session.)
So, that is likely altering my opinions on these options.
I guess my philosophy of how divine magic works and arcane magic colors my opinion on this one. I picture the cleric imploring his diety for the ability to do X, and the deity granting him a specific power.
Wizards I picture setting up spell formulae and gathering energy to "set off" later in a certain way, generally known as "spells."
So while I can see a wizard syphoning off some of the energy that they summoned up for their spells (since part of the preparation time wizard's go through is to "partially cast" their spells, allowing them to finish them on the fly), its harder for me to picture a cleric, who has been granted a specific power, syphoning off of that power to create a lesser effect.
In other words, the divine caster is essentially "asking for favors" from their god. They have to be able to handle the divine energy that they channel (thus the fact that a 1st level cleric can cast ressurection), and they get better and handling this energy, but its the difference between asking to borrow the car and asking to borrow 10,000 dollars to buy your own car, if you see what I mean.
Even Favored Souls only get to ask for favors more often, and different times, in a less structured manner than clerics do.
But again, this is how I see the difference, and not everyone is likely to see it the same way.
I thought skirmish damage and sneak damage were interchangeable when it came to qualifing for feats. I know the ninja's damage is written that way. They just aren't going to write "prereq. is 2d6 sneak,sudden strike,ambush" as it takes to much ink.
In most cases, they aren't. The extra damage dealt with the skirmish ability is a result from adjusting your position and seeing a more vunerable target. Sneak attacks and sudden strikes are similar, but they work off of the opponent not seeing the attack coming.
Which, is why I believe that skirmish doesn't work with ambush feats. You can only sneak attack a flat-footed enemy, but you can deal skirmish damage every turn, provided you have enough room to move the required 10'.
Though it sucks for scouts, it makes sense... Y-Y
-Kurocyn
*edit - and the skill tricks are sweet, btw. ^ ^