| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First just some raw data:
(note that this is not including prestige, JUST lvl 1-20 classes made by WOTC)
Archivist
Ardent
Artificer (Eberron)
Barbarian
Bard
Basiran Dancer (KoK)
Binder
Brigand (KoK)
Cleric
Crusader
Divine Mind
Dragonfire Adept
Dread Necromancer
Druid
Eidolancer
Eidolon
Favored Soul
Fighter
Gladiator (KoK)
Healer
Hexblade
Incarnate
Infiltrator (KoK)
Lurk
Mariner (Dragonlance)
Marshal
Monk
Mystic (Dragonlance)
Ninja
Paladin
Psion
Psychih Warrior
Ranger
Rogue
Samurai
Scout
Shadowcaster
Shaman (KoK)
Shugenja
Sorcerer
Soulborn
Soulknife
Spellsinger
Spellthief
Spirit Shaman
Swashbuckler
Swordsage
Totemist
Truenamer
Warblade
Warlock
Warmage
Wilder
Wizard
Wu Jen
(same rule for D&D not counting prestige and has to be lvl 1-20)
Alchemist
Antipaladin *
Arcanist
Barbarian
Bard
Bloodrager
Brawler
Cavalier
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Gunslinger
Hunter
Inquisitor
Investigator
Magus
Monk
Ninja
Oracle
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Samurai
Shaman
Skald
Slayer
Sorcerer
Summoner
Swashbuckler
Warpriest
Witch
Wizard
On base count it's 55 to 32 in favor of D&D add in archetypes though Pathfinder has a lot more class. And it could be argued that most of the 'extra' classes are almost archetypes in of themselves.
So I hear a lot of people starting to claim 'bloat' by Pathfinder that 'plagued' 3.5, first off I'm not a believer in 'bloat' as much as content became to much for a casual player to digest. However as DM and a player I love options, so at first you'd think D&D wins...however!
Pathfinder IMHO is a different beast in some regards, for one I had to look in I know a good 30+ books and internet sources to root out just how many there were in 3.5 (And in all likely hood I'm missing more then a few.) Pathfinder's classes are all found in what 5? (Core, APG, ACG, UM, and UC?) The 30+ pathfinder classes are a lot easier to access for a regular player then 3.5 ever was. (digital releases 'could' have a play on that though, but hey internet WAS around in the 2000's too...it just took up the phone line to use.)
Archetypes again expand these base classes out even more. So is it bloat? Meh I don't think so. When Gunslinger got pushed out people whined about bloat, then people realized that like Summoner it still had major exploitable faults when facing them. (Or from a DM standpoint presenting a challenge.) The new classes right now are a mixed bag, some are dead sexy like Skald and Shaman (for my tastes at least) others bore me and otherwise worry the anti-power gamer in me. (Arcanist) however give it time and as APs and new monsters come out I think there will be newer challenges that make the hybrids out to be just as balanced as all the other classes.
tldr: Pathfinder isn't bloated yet, but it's actually deeper and does more with less then what D&D 3.5 offered. That said I still like all the D&D classes too, Options and choice is what makes my day when building characters, npcs, and worlds.
Next: A look at D&D 3.5 PLAYABLE at 1st lvl races compared to Pathfinder, and my rant on the stupidity of ECL and Level adjustment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, but compare bloat and usability if you only use 5 books from 3.5. ;)
That is how I've done it, and how others I know and play with have done it. The simple and clean 3.5 rules, with a dab of extra content (sometimes 2 books extra, sometimes 4, sometimes you change which books are used for which game) seasoned with some house rules that make sense for all involved. So much better than pathfinder's rush to bloat, and pf dms I know are seeing this as well (and getting tired of new classes they have to learn and challenge). Of course I make omelettes to my taste.
Yeah banning is important. Some players don't see it though.
Any game manufacturer has to either make supplements for their games, or create new games to keep feeding their families. Granted, there are exceptions, yet most game designers seem to expand their game for ten years until they run dry on things that make the game vibrant. They then release a new, revised edition or fade into obscurity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or just keep releasing adventures without turning the system into a bloody mess.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or just keep releasing adventures without turning the system into a bloody mess.
Yeah. There are quite a few systems that release a (set of) core rulebook(s), and then only release adventures, setting books, or monster books. Some even quite successful, as well. Call of Cthulhu has mostly followed this strategy, and while of may not be as popular as Pathfinder, its hard to argue that it isn't a successful game in its own right. The Basic D&D editions followed this strategy as well. AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f*#*-ton of adventures.
Options and rules bloat has been an occasional topic in a thread looking at Gary Gygax' Role Playing Mastery Book and I just posted, wondering how many classes there are in PF.
Then saw your post. Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or just keep releasing adventures without turning the system into a bloody mess.Yeah. There are quite a few systems that release a (set of) core rulebook(s), and then only release adventures, setting books, or monster books. Some even quite successful, as well. Call of Cthulhu has mostly followed this strategy, and while of may not be as popular as Pathfinder, its hard to argue that it isn't a successful game in its own right. The Basic D&D editions followed this strategy as well. AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f$#%-ton of adventures.
I understand why people might like this strategy but I personally do not. New classes and archetypes are the best thing to me. I like building characters and personalities. More classes and archetypes mean I can get closer to what I want.
If I wanted to build Captain America with the core I'd have to pick a fighter who punches things and has a shield. It's a start but the new Shield Champion archetype for the new Brawler class fits him perfectly.
That's a little unfair seeing as Cap was the inspiration for that archetype but I think the point stands. My first character was supposed to be a shadowy assassin who stalked the night but my Rogue sucked at it because, well, he was a rogue. Rogue don't seem to work for that concept. The new Slayer class on the other hand works perfectly. I can rebuild him in the character I imagined him to be.
More adventures doesn't help me because he isn't playing like the character I wanted. Since I couldn't perform well in combat and most adventures don't call for assassinations, I became a skill monkey disarming traps and picking locks. Now I can at least contribute even if I can't assassinate most people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Missed a few classes:
- Erudite (variant psion, Complete Psionic)
- Factotum (Dungeonscape)
- Beguiler (Player's Handbook II)
- Dragon Shaman (Player's Handbook II)
- Duskblade (Player's Handbook II)
- Knight (Player's Handbook II)
- Astral Deva* (1-20 monster class, Savage Species)
- Ghaele* (1-20 monster class, Savage Species)
*Included because I've been in games where the DM offered these alongside regular classes.
Missed a few classes:
- Erudite (variant psion, Complete Psionic)
- Factotum (Dungeonscape)
- Beguiler (Player's Handbook II)
- Dragon Shaman (Player's Handbook II)
- Duskblade (Player's Handbook II)
- Knight (Player's Handbook II)
- Astral Deva* (1-20 monster class, Savage Species)
- Ghaele* (1-20 monster class, Savage Species)
*Included because I've been in games where the DM offered these alongside regular classes.
There were a lot of monster class classes. They had a bunch on web articles in addition to Savage Species.
If Kenzer stuff counts as by WotC then I think Dragon articles by Paizo count as well.
Replacement levels are similar to archetypes and should not count, but there are a ton of variant classes from things like Unearthed Arcana and Dragon that are similar to Pathfinder's antipaladin.
I figured I'd end up missing a few. I don't have PH2, or knew anyone I could annoy for a look at the book. :P
But that does bring the point up that D&D still had a lot more 'classes' then Pathfinder, but Pathfinder has 'deeper and richer' classes. Neither are really bloat, though I agree with Larkos, as long as it's something 'different' that what was offered before. Personally I think Paizo will stop adding classes once their psionic book hits anyway, but I'm always happy for more APs too.
First just some raw data:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
On base count it's 55 to 32 in favor of D&D add in archetypes though Pathfinder has a lot more class. And it could be argued that most of the 'extra' classes are almost archetypes in of themselves.
1. "KoK"?
2. Ninja & Samurai are archetypes, just ones that have been statted out.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f**!-ton of adventures.
It's worth noting that in less than half the time, Pathfinder has already far exceeded this. And that's not even counting the fact that Paizo's books tend to be quite a bit thicker than TSR's were.
1. "KoK"?Kingdoms of Kalamar, which I didn't think was WotC...That's sort of a gray area.
***omitted***
Well now learn something new everyday. I liked Kingdoms of Kalamar's world it was simple and yet deep. And even humans that didn't make me want to pull my hair out and scream.
|
|
AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f**!-ton of adventures.It's worth noting that in less than half the time, Pathfinder has already far exceeded this. And that's not even counting the fact that Paizo's books tend to be quite a bit thicker than TSR's were.
Not to mention the fact that they also put mechanics into books from the AP, Player's Companion, and Campaign Setting lines.
Yep, but compare bloat and usability if you only use 5 books from 3.5. ;)
That is how I've done it, and how others I know and play with have done it. The simple and clean 3.5 rules, with a dab of extra content (sometimes 2 books extra, sometimes 4, sometimes you change which books are used for which game) seasoned with some house rules that make sense for all involved. So much better than pathfinder's rush to bloat, and pf dms I know are seeing this as well (and getting tired of new classes they have to learn and challenge). Of course I make omelettes to my taste.
3.5 had a new hardback out every month. PF puts out softcover books that are are smaller, and releases a smaller number of hardbacks(bigger books).
The number of things that should have have never existed in 3.5 is bigger than it is in PF, and both are currently at about the same mark for existence.|
|
3.5 had a new hardback out every month. PF puts out softcover books that are are smaller, and releases a smaller number of hardbacks(bigger books).
The number of things that should have have never existed in 3.5 is bigger than it is in PF, and both are currently at about the same mark for existence.
Being 20 lbs slimmer than a man that has to have double doors on his house so he can enter or exit it may not be the bragging point you think it is. You're still morbidly obese.
AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f**!-ton of adventures.It's worth noting that in less than half the time, Pathfinder has already far exceeded this. And that's not even counting the fact that Paizo's books tend to be quite a bit thicker than TSR's were.
1e had a crapton of splats. They were all just in their various campaign setting books. Also almost every single one of those had mechanics in it. Also given that all the complete books were setting neutral I have no idea where you're pulling the number 8 from.
Archetypes again expand these base classes out even more. So is it bloat? Meh I don't think so.
Inexplicably.
Thumbs down from me.
|
|
1e had a crapton of splats. They were all just in their various campaign setting books. Also almost every single one of those had mechanics in it. Also given that all the complete books were setting neutral I have no idea where you're pulling the number 8 from.AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f**!-ton of adventures.It's worth noting that in less than half the time, Pathfinder has already far exceeded this. And that's not even counting the fact that Paizo's books tend to be quite a bit thicker than TSR's were.
You misspelled 2nd Edition.
1st Edition splats:
Dieties & Demigods
Fiend Folio
Monster Manual II
Unearthed Arcana
Oriental Adventures
Dungeoneer's Survival Guide
Wilderness Survival Guide
Manual of the Planes
There were no Complete Books in 1E.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do know that you're not obligated to use EVERYTING a gaming company churns out?
There is no such thing as bloat. Just people who don't want to put their foot down.
One's bloat is another's much-anticipated expansion.
You do know that you're not obligated to use EVERYTING a gaming company churns out?
There is no such thing as bloat. Just people who don't want to put their foot down.
I totally agree. And if your post was triggered by my post, I'll have you know - that's not exactly what I'm talking about.
(Hint: It's the comparison part that counts.)
How could anyone miss the Factotum? That class was awesome!
Kinda hard to compare when Pathfinder has Archetypes but 3.5 had "interchangeable class abilities" scattered EVERYWHERE. Archetypes are basically the same thing, but with a series of 'linked' changes that may or may not exclude the use of others. Though, to be fair, that probably reduced the cheese factor a bit.
Being 20 lbs slimmer than a man that has to have double doors on his house so he can enter or exit it may not be the bragging point you think it is. You're still morbidly obese.
^^^ That is, near as I can tell, the money quote of this thread.
You misspelled 2nd Edition.
1st Edition splats:
Dieties & Demigods
Fiend Folio
Monster Manual II
Unearthed Arcana
Oriental Adventures
Dungeoneer's Survival Guide
Wilderness Survival Guide
Manual of the PlanesThere were no Complete Books in 1E.
Well dang you're right. Though by some metrics there are 9 depending on what you count as core. That doesn't completely invalidate my point about multiple campaign settings. For instance Forgotten Realms had 10 non-adventure books in 1st edition by itself, three of which were multipart box sets. Greyhawk had three rules supplements of its own as did Dragonlance. This also ignores that most of the dozens of premade adventures most of which had new monsters, new magic items, and sometimes new spells, which is pretty much the same new rules content as you say Paizo "sneaks" into its AP modules.
I think piano should consider printing more one off adventures which are not part of any ap or area specific
As i like there ap's a lot but dont alwayswant to play or run 6 linked adventures
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I presume you mean Paizo and autocorrect attacked you in a dark alley ;)
And they do, that's what the Modules line is. But the APs are Paizo's big moneymaker - it's what the vast majority of their profits are hinging on, is those monthly AP subscriptions. They're not going anywhere.
How could anyone miss the Factotum? That class was awesome!
Kinda hard to compare when Pathfinder has Archetypes but 3.5 had "interchangeable class abilities" scattered EVERYWHERE. Archetypes are basically the same thing, but with a series of 'linked' changes that may or may not exclude the use of others. Though, to be fair, that probably reduced the cheese factor a bit.
Being 20 lbs slimmer than a man that has to have double doors on his house so he can enter or exit it may not be the bragging point you think it is. You're still morbidly obese.^^^ That is, near as I can tell, the money quote of this thread.
I liked the Factotum to, though some would say it was easily abused.
Also liked the Duskblade.
Archetypes again expand these base classes out even more. So is it bloat? Meh I don't think so.Inexplicably.
Thumbs down from me.
I take it you disagree?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First just some raw data:
** spoiler omitted **
Here's my own list, ordered by WotC product;
11 Core – Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard
3 Complete Divine – Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman
3 Complete Warrior – Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler
3 Complete Arcane – Warlock, Warmage, Wu Jen
3 Complete Adventurer – Ninja, Scout, Spellthief
1 Dragon Magic – Dragonfire Adept
4 Player’s Handbook II – Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight
5 Oriental Adventures – Samurai, Shaman, Shugenja, Sohei, Wu Jen
1 (+5) Dungeon Master’s Guide – Witch, Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior
2 Heroes of Horror – Archivist, Dread Necromancer
1 Dungeonscape – Factotum
1 (+2) Eberron Campaign Setting – Artificer, Divine Adept, Magewright
3 Tome of Magic – Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer
2 (Warmage was already counted under CArcane) Miniature’s Handbook – Healer, Marshall, Warmage
3 Tome of Incarnum – Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist
3 Book of Nine Swords – Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade
4 Expanded Psionics Handbook – Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder
4 Complete Psionic – Ardent, Divine Mind, Erudite, Lurk
2 Ghostwalk – Eidolon, Eidoloncer
1 Magic of Eberron – Psionic Artificer
(1) Sharn: City of Towers – Urban Adept
2 Dragonlance – Mystic, Noble
1 War of the Lance – Masters
1 Age of Mortals / Legends of the Twins – Mariners
1 Races of Ansalon – Nightstalkers
So, not counting NPC classes, I've got 65 (although some, like the DMG Witch, are squiffy at best). Plus 8 NPC classes.
And then there's all the variants in Unearthed Arcana, including the Adept, Expert and Warrior variants.
KoK, IMO, is 3rd party, like the Nyambe/Hamunaptra/Green Ronin Advanced Players Guide/etc. base classes or the Arcana Unearthed/Evolved base classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I figured there would be people with bigger libraries then mine. You do have Shugenja and Wu Jen listed twice though. But still...good detective work man.
I really enjoyed 3.5's Knight class(PHB2). The closest thing to it I've seen in PF is the Cavalier, but I still prefer the Knight over Cav. Knight does the same thing Cav does, for the most part, with a lot less baggage. The "Knight's Challenge" can sometimes require a bit more DM intervention than usual, but works pretty straight forward.
I tried to roll up a Cavalier, and everything about it just seemed like an overly complicated reworking of the Knight. I'd scrap all the stuff about Orders and whatnot, myself. Not every game setting is going to have the same generic Orders.
|
I really enjoyed 3.5's Knight class(PHB2). The closest thing to it I've seen in PF is the Cavalier, but I still prefer the Knight over Cav. Knight does the same thing Cav does, for the most part, with a lot less baggage. The "Knight's Challenge" can sometimes require a bit more DM intervention than usual, but works pretty straight forward.
I tried to roll up a Cavalier, and everything about it just seemed like an overly complicated reworking of the Knight. I'd scrap all the stuff about Orders and whatnot, myself. Not every game setting is going to have the same generic Orders.
I feel like without the Order abilities the Cavalier wouldn't really be worth playing though. I guess you could rename the orders or call it something else, but I see no reason to gimp it by flat taking out one of its major class features.
I feel like without the Order abilities the Cavalier wouldn't really be worth playing though. I guess you could rename the orders or call it something else, but I see no reason to gimp it by flat taking out one of its major class features.I really enjoyed 3.5's Knight class(PHB2). The closest thing to it I've seen in PF is the Cavalier, but I still prefer the Knight over Cav. Knight does the same thing Cav does, for the most part, with a lot less baggage. The "Knight's Challenge" can sometimes require a bit more DM intervention than usual, but works pretty straight forward.
I tried to roll up a Cavalier, and everything about it just seemed like an overly complicated reworking of the Knight. I'd scrap all the stuff about Orders and whatnot, myself. Not every game setting is going to have the same generic Orders.
Instead of "gimping it," maybe replace it with something that's more dependent on the class itself, and not dependent on an external organization?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Pathfinder has yet to do as much that 3.5 did is create classes based on 'entirely new' subsystems. 3.5 had invocations, incarnum, psionics, martial maneuvers, binding, ect. Pathfinder as of yet seems skittish of such mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To put it more accurately, Paizo veers away from such mechanics. 3rd-party producers - Dreamscarred Press, Radiance House, Rogue/Super Genius, Kobold Press, and Rite Publishing off the top of my head - have dove right into those sorts of things for PF compatible variants.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Pathfinder has yet to do as much that 3.5 did is create classes based on 'entirely new' subsystems. 3.5 had invocations, incarnum, psionics, martial maneuvers, binding, ect. Pathfinder as of yet seems skittish of such mechanics.
Off the very top of my head: Hexes and Grit
^ also that ^
What Pathfinder has yet to do as much that 3.5 did is create classes based on 'entirely new' subsystems. 3.5 had invocations, incarnum, psionics, martial maneuvers, binding, ect. Pathfinder as of yet seems skittish of such mechanics.
One reason they haven't is that almost all those subsystems were either gnarly, horrendously overpowered, or just useless. Some were all three.
Psionics were notoriously broken as a system. Not necessarily game-breaking as a whole, though; the Psion was right-out Silver-Age-Superman overpowered, but the Soulknife was more manageable, while I recall the Wilder being all but useless. The rules for how Psionics worked were all over the place (literally and figuratively - important info for psionic point limits were no-where near the description of how to use PP, for instance), self-contradictory, there were disparities both among devs and among players whether magic and psionics interacted or not, etc.
Martial Maneuvers, while awesome as a design (I really liked the idea, frankly, and even made Bender classes from Avatar based on them), were maneuver-by-maneuver completely overpowered, making all but the most overpowered spells seem tame in comparison.
Incarnum was interesting but I've yet to see anyone use Incarnum seriously. Same with Binding.
Ivocations were the only thing that was unique that was used quite a bit, and even THAT was less a full-on "system" than it was an aspect of the Warlock Class, like how Extracts are to the Alchemist and Investigator.
Paizo has avoided branching out like this because most of the books that introduced these rules went unused by players.
Instead, they leave those endeavors up to third party groups, such as how Dreamscarred put out Ultimate Psionics - that way, Pathfinder players can have their Psionics if they want it, and Paizo could say "not our fault" if it proved totally overpowered (which, thankfully, it seems like it hasn't).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead, they leave those endeavors up to third party groups, such as how Dreamscarred put out Ultimate Psionics - that way, Pathfinder players can have their Psionics if they want it, and Paizo could say "not our fault" if it proved totally overpowered (which, thankfully, it seems like it hasn't).
Except now Paizo is going to do its own take on psionics....excuse me....psionic magic. Only they're using a system that has 15 years of playtesting proving it to be the most unbalanced thing in the d20 system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has avoided branching out like this because most of the books that introduced these rules went unused by players.
... wow your experience is completely the opposite of mine. I had lots of psionicists in my groups over the years, a fair smattering of Binders and Incarnum users, lots of Maneuver Initiators, and a good number of others using various subsystems. I'd definitely feel comfortable saying I had more spell- or spell-like focused characters who used something OTHER than the core casting system than I did who did, prior to Pathfinder.
Frankly I disagree with the majority of your conclusions as well, but am feeling too utterly lazy to get into yet another "is/isn't 3.X psionics broken" argument with someone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has avoided branching out like this because most of the books that introduced these rules went unused by players.... wow your experience is completely the opposite of mine. I had lots of psionicists in my groups over the years, a fair smattering of Binders and Incarnum users, lots of Maneuver Initiators, and a good number of others using various subsystems. I'd definitely feel comfortable saying I had more spell- or spell-like focused characters who used something OTHER than the core casting system than I did who did, prior to Pathfinder.
Frankly I disagree with the majority of your conclusions as well, but am feeling too utterly lazy to get into yet another "is/isn't 3.X psionics broken" argument with someone.
Same here. My groups use tons of psionics back in our 3.5 days. Lots of Warlocks/Dragonfire Adepts, etc. I'm a huge fan of Incarnum, and have made quite a few Incarnum-based characters over the years. My current PF character is a half-golem Incarnate of Law, that I've been playing for more than a year.
We loved us some sub-systems! Tome of Magic got lots of use in my games as well, as I loved the flavor(if not so much the mechanics) of Shadowcasters and Binders a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, the Binder mechanics worked fine. Shadowcaster was more iffy, and Truenamer just flat didn't work, but Binder at least did what it said and could hold its own in a party, usually in that same "jack of all trades" slot often occupied by a Bard.
I haven't gotten a chance to check out Radiance House's Occultist yet, mostly because I want to convert-up all the 3.5 Vestiges into Spirits before I play one. The Goetia flavor of the Binder was one of the main draws, and not many of the Occultist Spirits already printed have that same allure, though quite a few are cool for other reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Truenamer truly didn't work, which is a shame, because it had tons of flavor as well.
That book had some real hidden gems, but you had to work to find them; I once broke a campaign(accidentally) with Shadowcaster with the Dark Creature template and a MASSIVE Hide check. I'd give Tome of Magic 9/10 for flavor, but 4/10 on actual crunch.