Vow of Peace - Final Solutions

[Venger]

Complete Psionics, Dungeon Survival Guide, Weapons of Legacy, Dragon Compendium, Deities and Demigods, Planar Handbook, Miniatures Handbook, Tome of Magic, Power of Faerun, Explorer's Handbook

Oh, so you just have terrible taste in books. Ok.

You know, most of the time, when someone quotes a rulebook, it's because it supports their argument. I'm not really sure what that quote has to do with anything, but a rule saying "[good] spells cannot inflict pain or suffering" is notably absent.

[Doctor Awkward]

Oh, so you just have terrible taste in books. Ok.

https://www.logicalfallacies.info/pr.../subjectivist/

[Psyren]

Er... I think maybe y'all should take a deep breath and step back from the keyboards for a bit.

Anyway, for myself - BoED is a heavily flawed book, but I do appreciate WotC's attempt/intent to make something that says "you probably shouldn't run around beheading every orc you see even if they're evil, and even every demon might be tricky." The book has some pretty stupid stuff in it, but it has some very useful bits too., even in the fluff-heavy sections.

[Venger]

https://www.logicalfallacies.info/pr.../subjectivist/

Ah, you've reached the point of linking to random pages defining basic rhetorical terms rather than post on-topic because you know you're wrong. No response to how you were lying about [good] spells not being able to inflict pain or suffering? Well at least you've conceded gracefully.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Anyway, for myself - BoED is a heavily flawed book, but I do appreciate WotC's attempt/intent to make something that says "you probably shouldn't run around beheading every orc you see even if they're evil, and even every demon might be tricky." The book has some pretty stupid stuff in it, but it has some very useful bits too., even in the fluff-heavy sections.

I like it a lot. Yes, it has some very strange issues (poisons are bad because suffering so here are poisons BUT ONLY FOR EVIL PEOPLE that cause suffering, which is good*) but if over six millenia of wise and educated people cannot solve the ultimate question for good and evil a bunch of game designers sure are not going to but it is fashionable to fault them anyways, especially when their personal view of morality conflict with what is in the book. A major one is people constantly assign consent to good. On a fundamental level it is not: consider devils operate heavily on consent and demons do not. Further: why does it take the consent of the criminal to punish them? It is a complex issue, even in DnD, but I appreciate the effort put in and the gift of a baseline to start useful discussions on these things.

*Thus annoys me because to proscription on poisons and diseases and the existence of ravages and afflictions could have been easily justified but the DEVS lost their marbles a bit. Consider: posioms, and especially diseases, are imprecise tools. A poisoned cup of wine could kill the innocent taster and if I use a disease to wipe out an evil town one enterprising bad man could escape to a trading village and suddenly there goes 1/3 the world's population. Ravages and afflictions do not do that: they cannot harm those who are not evil. If I use an affliction to destroy an evil fortress and a man escapes it is likely that where he goes the affliction will not spread further, maybe only affecting one or two who affecting re also evil, but that is it. A ravage cannot kill the taster unless they have also been sampling some less savory fare...

[Venger]

I like it a lot. Yes, it has some very strange issues (poisons are bad because suffering so here are poisons BUT ONLY FOR EVIL PEOPLE that cause suffering, which is good*) but if over six millenia of wise and educated people cannot solve the ultimate question for good and evil a bunch of game designers sure are not going to but it is fashionable to fault them anyways, especially when their personal view of morality conflict with what is in the book. A major one is people constantly assign consent to good. On a fundamental level it is not: consider devils operate heavily on consent and demons do not. Further: why does it take the consent of the criminal to punish them? It is a complex issue, even in DnD, but I appreciate the effort put in and the gift of a baseline to start useful discussions on these things.

Who's assigning consent to Good? I think we've established pretty clearly Good doesn't care about that.

*Thus annoys me because to proscription on poisons and diseases and the existence of ravages and afflictions could have been easily justified but the DEVS lost their marbles a bit. Consider: posioms, and especially diseases, are imprecise tools. A poisoned cup of wine could kill the innocent taster and if I use a disease to wipe out an evil town one enterprising bad man could escape to a trading village and suddenly there goes 1/3 the world's population. Ravages and afflictions do not do that: they cannot harm those who are not evil. If I use an affliction to destroy an evil fortress and a man escapes it is likely that where he goes the affliction will not spread further, maybe only affecting one or two who affecting re also evil, but that is it. A ravage cannot kill the taster unless they have also been sampling some less savory fare...

due to the lack of degree in the alignment system, it's possible the taster just cast deathwatch 9 times, or some similar innocuous activity, and can still be accidentally killed by you. ravages may only be able to target evil-aligned people, but all the same issues with poison are still present.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Who's assigning consent to Good? I think we've established pretty clearly Good doesn't care about that.

Not Good, good. Please do not strawman with information that is not there. And to answer the actual question: you. In this thread. Post 4.

due to the lack of degree in the alignment system, it's possible the taster just cast deathwatch 9 times, or some similar innocuous activity, and can still be accidentally killed by you. ravages may only be able to target evil-aligned people, but all the same issues with poison are still present.

That does nothing to negate what I said. The person did an evil thing and is now vulnerable to an anti-evil weapon. Unless you would have a paladin fall for smiting that person? You are correct that DnD alignment lacks degrees but this is not the real world, it is Dungeons and Dragons. If you want to have a game that maps more closely to real world morality go play real life as there exists no game that can adequately map itself to that quagmire.

[Venger]

Not Good, good. Please do not strawman with information that is not there. And to answer the actual question: you. In this thread. Post 4.

If you're going to name random rhetorical fallacies, it might be helpful to learn what they mean.

Right. And like I said upthread, to avoid any confusion, I've been consistently using the terms
[Good]= spell descriptor
Good= alignment
good= normal use of the word

since they have discrete definitions and often contradict each other.

post 4 is saying the exact opposite of that, because Good doesn't care about consent, which is why we have stuff like sanctify the wicked

Good ≠ good. reprogramming your enemies minds to turn them into your slaves is super duper extra Good even though it's horrible and grotesque. this is fine by your vows.

That does nothing to negate what I said. The person did an evil thing and is now vulnerable to an anti-evil weapon. Unless you would have a paladin fall for smiting that person? You are correct that DnD alignment lacks degrees but this is not the real world, it is Dungeons and Dragons. If you want to have a game that maps more closely to real world morality go play real life as there exists no game that can adequately map itself to that quagmire.

so do you think paladins should go out and do hate crimes against everyone who pings with an Evil alignment, or not? Your earlier post seemed to imply you didn't, but now it seems like you do. I don't want to misunderstand your points.

[Doctor Awkward]

I like it a lot. Yes, it has some very strange issues (poisons are bad because suffering so here are poisons BUT ONLY FOR EVIL PEOPLE that cause suffering, which is good*) but if over six millenia of wise and educated people cannot solve the ultimate question for good and evil a bunch of game designers sure are not going to but it is fashionable to fault them anyways, especially when their personal view of morality conflict with what is in the book. A major one is people constantly assign consent to good. On a fundamental level it is not: consider devils operate heavily on consent and demons do not. Further: why does it take the consent of the criminal to punish them? It is a complex issue, even in DnD, but I appreciate the effort put in and the gift of a baseline to start useful discussions on these things.

*Thus annoys me because to proscription on poisons and diseases and the existence of ravages and afflictions could have been easily justified but the DEVS lost their marbles a bit. Consider: posioms, and especially diseases, are imprecise tools. A poisoned cup of wine could kill the innocent taster and if I use a disease to wipe out an evil town one enterprising bad man could escape to a trading village and suddenly there goes 1/3 the world's population. Ravages and afflictions do not do that: they cannot harm those who are not evil. If I use an affliction to destroy an evil fortress and a man escapes it is likely that where he goes the affliction will not spread further, maybe only affecting one or two who affecting re also evil, but that is it. A ravage cannot kill the taster unless they have also been sampling some less savory fare...

This is sort of the entire point of the book, and why, as I already mentioned, it is labeled as, "For mature audiences only". Morality in the face of unrelenting evil is a very complex issue, and there is not always a binary answer. Playing a game with an exalted characters is supposed to represent a completely different kind of challenge than normal groups face: can you defeat the evil in front of you without sacrificing your own sanctity to it?

I've found that the biggest problems a lot of folks have with the book stems from assigning their own sense of morality to the topics presented within it. They completely forget that D&D operates on an absolute moral scale. Category A is always good, and Category B is always evil. And when considering things that do not fall squarely into those two categories your motives and intent matter when adjudicating their acceptability.

For instance, you don't like the idea of ravages and afflictions because they serve the same mechanical function as poisons and diseases. Except the book explicitly tells you they aren't the same, and you could end with the fact that they only function on evil creatures. Poisons and diseases are horrific and painful experiences. Ravages and afflictions aren't. Simply suffering damage to an ability score does not mean you experience pain and discomfort while it happens. The fact that all ravages and afflictions are supernatural in nature (pg. 35) is license to assume that they work differently without any further fluff explanation.

In exactly the same way that the mechanics of Shadow Adept do not function if you are in a campaign world that doesn't differentiate between the Weave and the Shadow Weave, most of the mechanics in BoED don't effectively function if you ignore the rules on how character behavior should influence alignment. It should come as no surprise that most of the people people who believe this is one of the worst books also think alignment should be done away with entirely.

[ZamielVanWeber]

For instance, you don't like the idea of ravages and afflictions because they serve the same mechanical function as poisons and diseases. Except the book explicitly tells you they aren't the same, and you could end with the fact that they only function on evil creatures. Poisons and diseases are horrific and painful experiences. Ravages and afflictions aren't. Simply suffering damage to an ability score does not mean you experience pain and discomfort while it happens. The fact that all ravages and afflictions are supernatural in nature (pg. 35) is license to assume that they work differently without any further fluff explanation.

No, not at all. I don't like ravages and afflictions as presented because they say poisons and diseases are bad for a reason and then immediate design replacements that follow that reason. It is the inconsistency in the span of a page that annoys me, especially since a perfectly good and valid reason exists that does not violate their logic.

Edit: To be plain: my issue with their disparaging poisons and diseases is the whiplash inconsistency with their logic, not the concept itself.

[ZamielVanWeber]

If you're going to name random rhetorical fallacies, it might be helpful to learn what they mean.

I never said Good in my entire post. You began arguing about what I said about Good. You assigned consent to good and then used that as an example of why Good was bad, which is what I said. You ignored that to refute me, stating that "whose assigning consent to Good."

Right. And like I said upthread, to avoid any confusion, I've been consistently using the terms
[Good]= spell descriptor
Good= alignment
good= normal use of the word

Except, as I just showed, when it inconveniences you.

since they have discrete definitions and often contradict each other.

post 4 is saying the exact opposite of that, because Good doesn't care about consent, which is why we have stuff like sanctify the wicked

And again, where it inconveniences you. Consent is not a categorical imperative by any stretch.

so do you think paladins should go out and do hate crimes against everyone who pings with an Evil alignment, or not?

How is dispensing lawful justice derived from an absolute, objective, and demonstrably extant authority against someone who has provably committed wicked acts a hate crime? You will need to back up the statement.

Your earlier post seemed to imply you didn't, but now it seems like you do. I don't want to misunderstand your points.

You have misconstrued parts of every statement I have made in this thread to your own benefit. You also clearly intentionally misconstrued someone statement to justify insulting him for providing evidence you were unwilling to.

[Venger]

I never said Good in my entire post. You began arguing about what I said about Good. You assigned consent to good and then used that as an example of why Good was bad, which is what I said. You ignored that to refute me, stating that "whose assigning consent to Good."

Stop lying:

A major one is people constantly assign consent to good.

(emphasis mine)

I assigned consent to good (not Good: as quoted I said the exact opposite, by boed's own rules, Good characters do not care about consent) because, unlike Tonymitsu, I think consent is important, and if you ignore it, you're a bad person.

Except, as I just showed, when it inconveniences you.

again, stop lying.

And again, where it inconveniences you. Consent is not a categorical imperative by any stretch.

I think you're confused. Bakkan was the one advocating the categorical imperative. I disagreed with him, since it's not a sound, valid moral system.

How is dispensing lawful justice derived from an absolute, objective, and demonstrably extant authority against someone who has provably committed wicked acts a hate crime? You will need to back up the statement.

Because 1/3 of the population will have an Evil alignment through the performance of innocuous tasks and do not deserve to be murdered in the street. You may feel otherwise, but at the very least, have the decency to own up to it like Tonymitsu

You have misconstrued parts of every statement I have made in this thread to your own benefit. You also clearly intentionally misconstrued someone statement to justify insulting him for providing evidence you were unwilling to.

you know, if both Tonymitsu and I, who have opposite views on alignment, can't seem to get the true meaning of your posts, maybe the problem isn't on our end.

Yeah, he really put me in my place quoting those dresden files rpg rules.

[Doctor Awkward]

Because 1/3 of the population will have an Evil alignment through the performance of innocuous tasks and do not deserve to be murdered in the street.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-gamblers-fallacy

[Venger]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-gamblers-fallacy

that's not what the gambler's fallacy is. I can link to random logical fallacies too

You and ZamielVanWeber's views on murdering people in the street is actually a better example: if the last two people you murdered in the street for the crime of setting off your detect evil didn't deserve it, then the next person probably does.

[ZamielVanWeber]

{{scrubbed}}

[Doctor Awkward]

that's not what the gambler's fallacy is. I can link to random logical fallacies too

You assumed that, because exactly 1/3 of the possible alignments are evil, then precisely 1/3 the population of any given Material Plane would also be evil. You assumed this independent of any other possible mitigating factors.

That's exactly what the gambler's fallacy is.

EDIT: And as an aside, you dismissed my position over the books I listed earlier as inconsequential on the (false) grounds that a) it was a subjective opinion at all, and b) that it was an opinion capable of rendering my position invalid.
So I should probably to add a dash of ad hominem in there as well.

You and ZamielVanWeber's views on murdering people in the street is actually a better example: if the last two people you murdered in the street for the crime of setting off your detect evil didn't deserve it, then the next person probably does.

That's not how good works.
BoED states several times that indiscriminately punishing evil is not the same thing as being good. That you are unaware of this actually goes a long way to explain your attitude towards the book.

[Venger]

You assumed that, because exactly 1/3 of the possible alignments are evil, then precisely 1/3 the population of any given Material Plane would also be evil. You assumed this independent of any other possible mitigating factors.

That's exactly what the gambler's fallacy is.

The link you irrelevantly provided has a perfectly good example of what the gambler's fallacy is. It has nothing to do with what you're talking about

That's not how good works.
BoED states several times that indiscriminately punishing evil is not the same thing as being good. That you are unaware of this actually goes a long way to explain your attitude towards the book.

not how good works, no, but that's what being Good is all about according to you and ZamielVanWeber. you ping on detect evil? well, I guess you deserve to die.

boed may well say that in some places, but it contradicts that many times over with exalted behavior. I've provided exhaustive examples counter to this.

EDIT: And as an aside, you dismissed my position over the books I listed earlier as inconsequential on the (false) grounds that a) it was a subjective opinion at all, and b) that it was an opinion capable of rendering my position invalid.
So I should probably to add a dash of ad hominem in there as well.

Whoa, your opinion on splatbooks' quality is objective fact? That'll save a lot of time. Tell us which ones are good and which ones are bad, that way we won't have to use our non-objective opinions to try to figure it out on our own.

Your position is unsound and invalid on its own lack of merits. Your taste in splatbooks has no bearing on it. Oh, so because you don't like how my position is stated since it's different from yours, you imply it's fallacious?

[Doctor Awkward]

boed may well say that in some places, but it contradicts that many times over with exalted behavior. I've provided exhaustive examples counter to this. by now I know it's futile to ask you to back up your opinion with quotes from the book.

I could post quotes, but I'd certainly exceed the character limit allowed for a forum post.

You should probably start with the section titled "Mercy" on page 7, followed by the "Redeeming Evil" section on the next page. Then follow that up with the section titled "Violence" on the page after that (I particularly enjoy the part when it talks about just cause, and also says, "Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done."). Then there's the whole section of "Crime and Punishment" that's relevant to this point.

It might also be worth noting that the "Righteous Crusader" example character-- the archetype you seem to be so hung up on-- is the only sample character that has zero Exalted feats.
...or maybe that's a little too subtle...

What else...

Ooh, under "Bringing Good out of Evil" on page 22 it says, "As agents of good, many heroes find themselves in the situation of bringing good out of evil. This is grim work, and even the most exalted characters loathe the idea that all they can do is clean up the messes caused by evil.", almost like it's not okay to just indiscriminately kill everything you see that pings as evil.
That's another good section in general to read through.

That's probably about it for Chapter 1.
Do I really need to keep going?

Whoa, your opinion on splatbooks' quality is objective fact? That'll save a lot of time. Tell us which ones are good and which ones are bad, that way we won't have to use our non-objective opinions to try to figure it out on our own.

Your position is unsound and invalid on its own lack of merits. Your taste in splatbooks has no bearing on it. Oh, so because you don't like how my position is stated since it's different from yours, you imply it's fallacious?

There you go again declaring it an opinion.
The books I listed, in particular Complete Psionics and the Dungeon Survival Guide, are objectively terrible books for a variety of reasons. More than a few of which have little to do with mechanics.
Magic of Incarnum is my favorite subsystem in D&D, but that book also has awful writing and editing as well. Just not as bad as the others on my list.

[Malapterus]

I don't think we're counting 3.0 books, but if we are, the Arms & Equipment guide is atrocious

[Venger]

There you go again declaring it an opinion.
The books I listed, in particular Complete Psionics and the Dungeon Survival Guide, are objectively terrible books for a variety of reasons. More than a few of which have little to do with mechanics.
Magic of Incarnum is my favorite subsystem in D&D, but that book also has awful writing and editing as well. Just not as bad as the others on my list.

So, you don't know what the word "opinion" means. You disliking a book's fluff doesn't somehow make your opinion objective.

Incarnum's my favorite subsystem too.

I don't think we're counting 3.0 books, but if we are, the Arms & Equipment guide is atrocious

We can if you want. What's your beef with AEG? I don't commonly see it listed amongst books people hate.

[Psyren]

There are far worse 3.0 books. Savage Species? ELH? Heck, I remember there was a whole forum game around just reading entries from MM2 verbatim.

[Venger]

Was that the one where they were assigned different crs, or was it a different one?

[Malapterus]

What's your beef with AEG? I don't commonly see it listed amongst books people hate.

It's got some really, really stupid and badly written ideas in it. Like, the longspear that has two blades pointing backwards halfway down the haft so you can reach around someone in 5 ft range and stab them in the back, thus making a weapon that has both reach and regular range.

Now, I've got no problem with the idea of the mechanic, but the execution is ridiculous. Then there's Wolverine claws so spellcasters can have their hands free but still stab people. There's a rock that you can ricochet off multiple targets. One of them is actually a shotput. They have throat needles, which not only can be used as fast as any other thrown weapon, but can be spat out three at a time. The mercurial swords are pretty imaginative. The spinning javelin is a creative way to lose a finger. The Maul is the two-handed battle hammer oddly missing from the original weapons list, but instead of being the no-frills 2d8 smasher it should be, it's just a greatclub with more critical damage. The fullblade is just a size-too-big greatsword, but instead of being a 16 pound greatsword that does 3d6 (per the book's own rules) it's a 32 pound weapon that does 2d8, versus the 2d6 of a greatsword, and costs a feat to use. They have the Sai and the 'Triple Dagger' both introduced, even though they are the exact same thing, just one is smaller for some reason. The Manti is one I'm not even going to get into and I should not even mention the Stump Knife.

Also it's missing one of the weapons graphics so we can't see what half this madness looks like.

I'm all for crazy exotic weapons that do unusual things, but this book was written like a fever dream.

'Baatorian Green Steel' gives you a +1 enhancement to damage (that does not stack with other enhancement bonuses) for the same price as a +1/+1 magical enhancement, with the benefit that it doesn't have to be masterwork - so you can waste 2,000 GP to save 300.

For 1,000 GP you can buy a giant leaf that grows roots into your skin, taking up your Armor slot for a +1 Armor bonus.

You can also have a beetle that lives on your arm as a shield, which I guess is cute. I'd make it my familiar.

Dastana (wonder woman bracers) are exceptionally exploitable; they can be worn with light armor and with a shield, provide an Armor bonus, but that bonus stacks with your worn armor. RaW, enhancements on it would also stack with your worn enhanced armor. They require only light armor proficiency to use. Slip a +5 pair of these on under your +5 chain shirt & then double up on armor enhancements!

You also get rules on how to make your armor out of interesting things, such as wood, seashells, wicker, and rocks.

Out of the Arms and into the Equipment, you can get:
-a container to make prison beer in
-a citronella candle that does not work on any vermin that are actually dangerous
-a five-pound wooden mold to make your own candles (even fighters need a hobby)
--(I'm going to make an Orc Barbarian with Profession and Craft skills and his own line of scented candles for a side income)
---(Elf Blood over Orchids, Steel in the Moonlight, Glory of the Horde)
-a rope ladder made of two grappling hooks
-a Mission Impossible harness that gives you +1 to two useful burglary skills and -2 to six other ones.
-a virtually useless magnet
-portable bean grinder
-a quiver you can hide your dagger in in case the enemy takes away your other dagger but not your arrows
-screaming rock
-a bunsen-burner lighter that can light a torch faster but breaks after 10 uses
-a holy water sprayer
-a wall you can wad up into a ball and throw it so people run into it
-a 20-person tent (for impromptu victory parties?)
-a leather helmet with fake elf ears on it for +1 to listen checks
-old-timey suitcase with pop-out legs for selling crap on the street
-a beekeeper's outfit

I am too tired to keep scrolling through, but this book is just madness.

[Malapterus]

P.S. Brain Dust

[Venger]

Well, that's certainly a very detailed answer. (Reads more like an endorsement to me)

Personally, I found the exuberant stupidity of stuff like that in 3.0 books, like the stump knife, or the hamster ball a paladin climbs in to take a gelatinous cube as his special mount funny and whimsical, but I can see why they'd be off-putting if your conception of the game world is more serious.

[Malapterus]

I do like my silliness and exploration of unusual ideas. The best character I've ever made under legitimate core rules was a gnomish barbarian named Sugarcookie Skullcrusher.

I guess I just like a little sense in my silliness. The Duom spear's mechanic is good, but the description is just poorly made. A warhammer with a long spike on the end of a zweihander with a handle-loop could do the same thing without the awkward visuals of backward-gfacing blades.

I appreciate the ideas the book has tried to make & the completionism of all sorts of stuff you might care about carrying around, and there are some good things in there. The scope to your crossbow that treats targets to be two threat ranges closer is a great nonmagical upgrade and well-balanced, for as much use as I've ever had sniping in a D&D game. The exhaustive lists of dried fruits and vegetables are nice, though I'm not sure of the pricing on them.

I guess I feel a silly idea and a bad idea are not the same thing.

[ZamielVanWeber]

All that AEG stuff and you missed out on the ~11k item that gives you polymorph self at will with a 7 HD cap. I love the book for a few reasons but it definitely has some... exciting ideas about how to go about things. Sometimes you have to fail forward.

[Venger]

I do like my silliness and exploration of unusual ideas. The best character I've ever made under legitimate core rules was a gnomish barbarian named Sugarcookie Skullcrusher.

I guess I just like a little sense in my silliness. The Duom spear's mechanic is good, but the description is just poorly made. A warhammer with a long spike on the end of a zweihander with a handle-loop could do the same thing without the awkward visuals of backward-gfacing blades.

I appreciate the ideas the book has tried to make & the completionism of all sorts of stuff you might care about carrying around, and there are some good things in there. The scope to your crossbow that treats targets to be two threat ranges closer is a great nonmagical upgrade and well-balanced, for as much use as I've ever had sniping in a D&D game. The exhaustive lists of dried fruits and vegetables are nice, though I'm not sure of the pricing on them.

I guess I feel a silly idea and a bad idea are not the same thing.

Fair enough. When it comes to exotic weapons, I feel like they got bored describing stuff like real weapons, that's just a knife, sword, or spear or some variation thereof and decided to get weird and draw goofy bat'leh looking things.

I love AEG for little bonuses to stuff too, and for providing a bunch of cool stuff for shax's haversack, but occasionally there's this little twinge of, I'm not sure if the board has an agreed-upon term for it, but a "choice tax" as it were.

e.g. if you wanted to use your whip to wrap around a branch and then climb up it prior to complete scoundrel, I feel like most people would just let you do it. now that this option exists, a lot of people feel like if you want to do that, you need to make people buy whip climber to do it, or else the people who paid for it are being cheated.

I will occasionally feel this way when I read something like bolt cutters or fish hooks. if garlic weren't statted, I feel like most of the time you could say "samwise reaches into his bag of fixin's and takes garlic from the spice pouch" but now that it's extant, you've got to check if you remembered to write it down and spend the silver piece on it.

yeah I agree. I'll take silly any day

All that AEG stuff and you missed out on the ~11k item that gives you polymorph self at will with a 7 HD cap. I love the book for a few reasons but it definitely has some... exciting ideas about how to go about things. Sometimes you have to fail forward.

phylactery of change is pretty nuts.

[Psyren]

Was that the one where they were assigned different crs, or was it a different one?

It was just a "Let's Read" - though I remember the thread you're talking about too. (Let's be frank, the CR system was borked even after MM2.)