Book of the Damned versus the 3 paperbacks

[Piccolo]

I checked out the reviews on this website, and noted that the original 3 books got high ratings, while the hardcover Book of the Damned got terrible reviews.

If the hardcover is basically a reprint of the original 3 books, then why the bad reviews? What is the difference between the two? I ask because I am considering what to buy, either the original 3 or the new hardcover.

[captain yesterday]

I'd buy the new hardcover, most of the bad reviews are because they already own the first three.

I own them all, they all have their own worth, but if you're looking for value I'd definitely get the new hardcover, as it's more current and includes a lot of extra material not covered in the first three.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Like the good Captain I own the set and the hardcover. The extra material lends great flavor to the deities and fiends covered inside.

[Haladir]

Agreed with the above: Get the new hardcover rather than the earlier softcovers.

The hardcover republishes and updates pretty much all of the material in the earlier books. Any changes supercede the earlier material.

The bad reviews for the hardback are mainly along four lines...

1) "I already had the three softcovers, and this book didn't add enough to justify the cost. Waste of money!"

2) "They nerfed/changed [INSERT RULE HERE]. Now my favorite character is completely useless mildly inconvenienced! This sucks!!"

3) "I pedantically philosophically object to Golarion world content invading the (formerly) world-neutral RPG line! I can't use any of this material in my Midgard/Forgotten Realms/pseudo-historical homebrew game world campaign! This sucks!!"

4) "This book is too dark! I am morally offended that a publication called The Book of the Damned would be about devils and demons doing reprensible things!"

[Edward the Necromancer]

I have the Book of the Damned and I like it. I do NOT own the other three evil books, but considering that the Book of the Damned has most/all of that AND more (such as reprints of Deskari and Nocticula which were originally in the AP Wrath of the Righteous) I considered it a worth while purchase.

My ONLY issue (which is slight honestly) is that for evil creatures that DO have Monster stats (such as Deskari and Nocticula) the book does NOT offer those. But considering that this is NOT a Bestiary that is honestly a small issue in my opinion.

[Dasrak]

Haladir wrote:

2) "They nerfed/changed [INSERT RULE HERE]. Now my favorite character is completely useless mildly inconvenienced! This sucks!!"

Actually, many character concepts were entirely invalidated. The Diabolist, for instance, must now be a devil worshiper; the prestige class no longer works for a concept that hews closer to a classic Faustian pact. This makes it significantly less useful and versatile than the original version. I do think the hardcover is superior to the softcover collection in most ways, but the overhauls to the prestige classes were definitely steps backwards that heavily restricted the kinds of concepts they could cover.

[Tectorman]

Is there anything in the original softcovers that didn't make it to the hardcover? I don't mean "unchanged" (the changed Diabolist mentioned above), but not reproduced at all. I've got both the softcovers and the hardcover and I've been meaning to go through them and see if there's any point in keeping the softcovers, but I just haven't had the spare time yet.

[James Jacobs]

The most significant element of the softcovers that didn't get reprinted in the hardcover were the monsters. Because ALL of the new demons, devils, and daemons we published in the softcovers now live in hardcover bestiaries, it made no sense to reprint them again.

[Tectorman]

James Jacobs wrote:

The most significant element of the softcovers that didn't get reprinted in the hardcover were the monsters. Because ALL of the new demons, devils, and daemons we published in the softcovers now live in hardcover bestiaries, it made no sense to reprint them again.

Thanks for letting me know.

I've got all the Bestiaries, so I've got all that material again. Were there any other elements of the softcovers that didn't get repeated?

[blahpers]

Dasrak wrote:

Haladir wrote:

2) "They nerfed/changed [INSERT RULE HERE]. Now my favorite character is completely useless mildly inconvenienced! This sucks!!"

Actually, many character concepts were entirely invalidated. The Diabolist, for instance, must now be a devil worshiper; the prestige class no longer works for a concept that hews closer to a classic Faustian pact. This makes it significantly less useful and versatile than the original version. I do think the hardcover is superior to the softcover collection in most ways, but the overhauls to the prestige classes were definitely steps backwards that heavily restricted the kinds of concepts they could cover.

If you have a moment, what were the specific changes between the two diabolist versions? Are there other classes or character options that underwent a similar tightening of scope?

[James Jacobs]

Tectorman wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

The most significant element of the softcovers that didn't get reprinted in the hardcover were the monsters. Because ALL of the new demons, devils, and daemons we published in the softcovers now live in hardcover bestiaries, it made no sense to reprint them again.

Thanks for letting me know.

I've got all the Bestiaries, so I've got all that material again. Were there any other elements of the softcovers that didn't get repeated?

Not significantly. Some of the content got rephrased or reorganized, but it should all be in there still.

[Dasrak]

blahpers wrote:

If you have a moment, what were the specific changes between the two diabolist versions? Are there other classes or character options that underwent a similar tightening of scope?

Original Diabolist and New Diabolist.

The new Diabolist has a few more class features, but has higher prerequisites and loses an additional level of casting (which is really just an additional feat tax). More importantly it requires you to be a devil worshiper with the fiendish obedience feat, and you lose all your diabolist class features if you don't perform the obedience daily. It also is more restrictive on the alignment, requiring exactly LE rather than allowing you to be within one step. This pretty much ruled out a more classic Faustian pact concept, especially when you look at what most fiendish obediences entail.

There were others that were changed as well, such as the Souldrinker (old, new). I can't remember any others off the top of my head.

[doomman47]

Dasrak wrote:

Haladir wrote:

2) "They nerfed/changed [INSERT RULE HERE]. Now my favorite character is completely useless mildly inconvenienced! This sucks!!"

Actually, many character concepts were entirely invalidated. The Diabolist, for instance, must now be a devil worshiper; the prestige class no longer works for a concept that hews closer to a classic Faustian pact. This makes it significantly less useful and versatile than the original version. I do think the hardcover is superior to the softcover collection in most ways, but the overhauls to the prestige classes were definitely steps backwards that heavily restricted the kinds of concepts they could cover.

Is there a list of the direct comparisons of what was nerfed? I'm planning on getting book of the damned but don't really want to try and get the soft cover books but our group when presented with a nerfed version of content always picks the stronger of the options because nerfs are a bunch of hogwash.

[blahpers]

Dasrak wrote:

blahpers wrote:

If you have a moment, what were the specific changes between the two diabolist versions? Are there other classes or character options that underwent a similar tightening of scope?

Original Diabolist and New Diabolist.

The new Diabolist has a few more class features, but has higher prerequisites and loses an additional level of casting (which is really just an additional feat tax). More importantly it requires you to be a devil worshiper with the fiendish obedience feat, and you lose all your diabolist class features if you don't perform the obedience daily. It also is more restrictive on the alignment, requiring exactly LE rather than allowing you to be within one step. This pretty much ruled out a more classic Faustian pact concept, especially when you look at what most fiendish obediences entail.

There were others that were changed as well, such as the Souldrinker (old, new). I can't remember any others off the top of my head.

Huh. That's a bit painful, but I'll bet JJ and friends had their reasons. In a non-PFS game, it might make sense to just allow either version, the new one solely for devil worshipers and the old one for a wider audience.

[James Jacobs]

The reason was that I wanted all three of the prestige classes to work well with the fiendish obedience rules, to make the classes more focused on their specific alignments, to recalibrate some far too powerful options (particularly regarding the souldrinker's ability to spam energy drain effects), and to get them to fit into a two-page format.

Folks who still prefer the prior versions are of course free to use those in their games.

And frankly, none of them are appropriate PC choices, thematically, for games that don't allow evil PCs, like Pathfinder Society. I view the ability for non-evil characters to play earlier versions of these classes as something akin to a loophole that degrades and erodes the classes' position, as intended, to be the results of characters willingly devoting their lives to the pursuit of evil.

And while I appreciate that some folks enjoyed the diabolist's ability to model a Faustian bargain type theme, I feel that there are other ways to do the classic "Faustian" bargain, particularly in utilizing infernal contracts, that model that story element far better in my opinion than via a prestige class.

Part of my job as developer/creative director is to make decisions like this, and I try to make them so that they fit the setting best and make for the best overall gameplay experience, but that does mean that for some folks my decisions won't be as appropriate. Alternately, some of my decisions in hindsight might be errors I wish I'd done another way. In either case, the ability to adjust and adapt any RPG game content as you wish to your preferred play method is one of the great strengths of tabletop gaming.

[doomman47]

Firstly I would like to say I love pathfinder and really find it enjoyable and would like to say thank you guys for creating it however I have a few things to say.

James Jacobs wrote:

The reason was that I wanted all three of the prestige classes to work well with the fiendish obedience rules, to make the classes more focused on their specific alignments.

Alignment restrictions are just the worst and reinforcing them/making them worse just exacerbates the problem.

James Jacobs wrote:

Folks who still prefer the prior versions are of course free to use those in their games.

That works for some like myself who picks and chooses which of the options is best/less limiting to use however not every one has such liberties I have seen plenty of groups who only use the most recent version of content and treat it as errata. Which can be limiting to peoples game play since it can make their character unplayable or screw with the mechanics of their character.

James Jacobs wrote:

And frankly, none of them are appropriate PC choices, thematically, for games that don't allow evil PCs, like Pathfinder Society. I view the ability for non-evil characters to play earlier versions of these classes as something akin to a loophole that degrades and erodes the classes' position, as intended, to be the results of characters willingly devoting their lives to the pursuit of evil.

Then this should be a problem the PFS deals with themselves changing things based on PFS complaints can ruin the game for people who are not playing PFS nor have any intention of doing so yet because they complain options that they would have normally taken are now subpar or completely useless.

James Jacobs wrote:

And while I appreciate that some folks enjoyed the diabolist's ability to model a Faustian bargain type theme, I feel that there are other ways to do the classic "Faustian" bargain, particularly in utilizing infernal contracts, that model that story element far better in my opinion than via a prestige class.

I agree fluff should entirely be set on the player and the gm to put together class should have nothing to do with it, a class should in essence be a tool box of abilities that allows one to brig their character into fruition and nothing more. It is up to the player and gm role playing to determine how the character grows.

James Jacobs wrote:

Part of my job as developer/creative director is to make decisions like this, and I try to make them so that they fit the setting best and make for the best overall gameplay experience, but that does mean that for some folks my decisions won't be as appropriate. Alternately, some of my decisions in hindsight might be errors I wish I'd done another way. In either case, the ability to adjust and adapt any RPG game content as you wish to your preferred play method is one of the great strengths of tabletop gaming.

And that's fine but making decisions that bind classes to your setting might be fine if people are using your setting but 90% of the campaigns I have been in only use the mechanics of the system and they throw out the fluff in favor of creating their own which makes things very difficult if something is entirely tied down by the setting. Now I understand not every one does this and there is a great number of people who like and enjoy the setting there are still plenty of people who don't and avoid it. Now don't get me wrong I find that your work on the setting to be invaluable granting me inspiration to pull from but I'll still take creating my own lore over using it.

You guys have done a real good job with this game and I commend you for it, I just hope you can see were I'm coming from with these counter points.

[Dasrak]

James Jacobs wrote:

And frankly, none of them are appropriate PC choices, thematically, for games that don't allow evil PCs

Now, I'd disagree with that one. There are countless reasons why a non-evil character would be tempted into an infernal pact. Certainly the prestige class is more oriented towards evil characters, but I can definitely see it working in a much wider degree of concepts.

The bigger problem from a table perspective is that the big attraction of this prestige class is its synergy with the planar binding spell line. And even before devils enter the equation that's a problematic focus. Now I like planar binding because it gives immediate power to players in a very interesting and flavorful way, but with an unknown narrative cost that will come due later. It's great for story building, but it also means that planar binding will greatly affect the tone and style of the game, and the mere existence of a diabolist in the party is going to have an effect on the entire direction of the campaign. I don't feel that's an alignment issue, and more of a tone and gamestyle issue, and that would be true even if this were refluffed into an angel-binder class.

James Jacobs wrote:

And while I appreciate that some folks enjoyed the diabolist's ability to model a Faustian bargain type theme, I feel that there are other ways to do the classic "Faustian" bargain, particularly in utilizing infernal contracts, that model that story element far better in my opinion than via a prestige class.

I'm not sure I'm following you here; the original prestige class focused almost exclusively on giving the character bonuses towards dealing with devils and researching devils. That's pretty much exactly what a character going for a "Faustian pact" concept would want. There aren't too many other mechanical options out there that do anything quite like that.

And sure, you can do it without the PrC, but in the same breath we already have an entire class dedicated to worshiping stuff ;-)

[James Jacobs]

One of the hardest parts about building RPG books is knowing that no matter what decision you make, you're going to disappoint someone. I try to make the decisions that, hopefully, disappoint the least number of people possible. Sorry for those who are disappointed though. Not my intent.

[Isabelle Lee]

For those interested in Faustian pacts, though, you might want to give the feats chapter of Planar Adventures a read. ^_^

[Dasrak]

James Jacobs wrote:

One of the hardest parts about building RPG books is knowing that no matter what decision you make, you're going to disappoint someone. I try to make the decisions that, hopefully, disappoint the least number of people possible. Sorry for those who are disappointed though. Not my intent.

Most certainly; I'm not being accusatory here, and I do appreciate the challenges you face in catering to a diverse audience with different (and often contradictory) expectations. Of course, that's all the more reason for me to speak up and put in my two cents.

Isabelle Lee wrote:

For those interested in Faustian pacts, though, you might want to give the feats chapter of Planar Adventures a read. ^_^

There's definitely a lot of good stuff in there, but I'm not sure which feat you're referring to. Tempting Bargain only applies to the Summoner, and on its own it's not a huge deal (the kind of feat you'd only pick up if you're in love with its flavor).

With that said, now that you mentioned Planar Adventures, I would add that the Worldseeker's Planar Associates class feature is really cool for this kind of thing. It's more geared towards using weaker outsiders on a frequent basis rather than occasionally drawing upon more powerful ones, though.

[Isabelle Lee]

That's the one. I thought of it simply because I designed it with Faust in mind. ^_^

[Todd Stewart]

The only thing that I can recall that appears in the original BotD3 that doesn't show up in the hardcover compilation are a number of daemon related texts and tomes. It's largely flavor, and I think pretty cool flavor (including the first mention of the meladaemon Inusalia who shows up in Planar Adventures!), but as far as things left behind on the cutting room floor goes, BotD3 survived relatively unscathed!

:)

[blahpers]

James Jacobs wrote:

One of the hardest parts about building RPG books is knowing that no matter what decision you make, you're going to disappoint someone.

Ain't that the truth.