Review of Hunters of the Realm

This is my first RPG.net review. Polite critique is welcome and much appreciated :)

Scouring eBay has become a daily ritual for me. I love finding small press RPG materials that never make it into the full retail channel. While often lacking in substance and production values, they almost invariably contain some beacon of true inspiration that transcends the tripe that often fills the remainder of the product. Hunters of the Realm is not such a product. It is uninspired, rehashes commonly held fantasy concepts, and has precious few truly interesting components.

Hunters of the Realm is a Black Arrow Games production. (BAG, for short, can be found online at http://hometown.aol.com/blackarrow2525/index.html) It is a d20 sourcebook aimed at D&D. It strives to add an additional four character classes into the existing mix, all of which revolve around a "hunter" motif. The classes are the Beastmaster, Dragon Slayer, Ghost Stalker, and Giant Killer. The material is released as open content, but may not be reproduced as-is without permission.

The cover page displays the text, in bold, “Dungeon’s and Dragons is a registered trademark owned by TSR, Inc.” The cover of my Player’s Handbook shows the logo with the word “Dungeons”, not “Dungeon’s”. The trademark itself is owned by Wizards of the Coast, not TSR. Perhaps they should read the d20 System license that was so diligently printed on the second page. TSR does not even exist at this point, and hasn’t for years.

Oh oh

As it turns out, this humongous oversight was but a harbinger of things to come.

Production Values

Production values are acceptable - for a small press product. The look is clean, with typical black text and white space. No fancy borders or background graphics are to be found, and the space is very well used. The margins are appropriately sized, not 2” wide in order to artificially increase the page count *cough* Brave New World *cough*. The pages are also a nice meaty medium weight, so fumble fingers like me don’t tear them so easily.

There are some cosmetics of note that are poor, even for a small press release. Companies such as Mongoose and Avalanche have raised the bar of what the average consumer expects from the small press industry. In my copy, the layout is slightly crooked. I measured the distance from the picture of the Beastmaster to the edge of the paper, and there is approximately a 1/16" difference from the top border to the edge as compared to the bottom border to the edge. Overall, it is probably skewed 1/8" from top to bottom. I have seen this occasionally in products I paid much more for, so I can overlook it, although it does make the text just “feel” odd while reading.

The print quality is very poor. The cover picture is pixilated, and the type is hard to read in some sections. There are even light smudges here and there. It looks like it was printed on a home computer inkjet printer.

With roughly 10 pages of content (and only 12 overall), the cover price of $5.99 is disproportionately high when compared to other similar products. Many commercial adventure modules are 32 pages, and priced at only $8.99 or $9.99. This is with high production values to boot. I think $3 or $4 would be more realistic and tolerable.

The art is... adequate. Then again, I am used to small press publications. I think most people would regard it as fairly poor. At least there is a picture for every class to help set the right mood and to help demonstrate “fit” into a campaign. The class illustrations are just black and white line drawings though. Certain key textual items are nicely highlighted with colored gradient text boxes. This adds a pleasing splash of color to the simple layout. The titles are in a mid-tone blue, which is also pleasing overall.

The writing itself is, quite frankly, atrocious. Abysmal even. I have never read a commercial publication with worse grammar. Direct translation subtitles for foreign films are an easier read. For example, the proper possessive form is rarely used. This was taken from the Beastmaster class information:

"A Beastmaster must have a charisma score of 10 the spells [sic] level to cast a spell."

There are far too many mistakes like this. The above error alone is repeated at least a half dozen times. This is pretty comical when you consider the same relevant text could have been lifted verbatim from the Player’s Handbook, and only modifying the class name and relevant stat would have been necessary. The text has all the hallmarks of writing that was edited by the writer instead of an independent party. (This, not surprisingly, is in line with the book’s listed credits.) Anyone well versed in the rules of proper English would not let one tenth of the present errors get by. Writers are often the victims of their own familiarity of the material, and they tend to miss common errors when editing their own work.

As another example, let’s examine the last paragraph of the introduction:

"This book is a compilation of new classes for your d20(tm) campaign, though the classes are not prestige classes it is common for players to merge into them after aquiring [sic] levels in another class, who goes hunting dragons at level 1 right?"

There are at least three sentences there. Well, at least there should be. There are also a few instances of wrong word use which a spell checker would not pick up (e.g. “of” instead of “or”), and even spelling mistakes any spell checker would pick up. As it looks like it was printed on a home computer, I expect the word processor it was typed on would at least have a spell checker.

My high school Language Arts teacher would be rolling over in his grave, if he weren't alive and well. Reading this book would drive him one step closer to that point, at the very least.

There are also consistency errors throughout. The Contents lists the "Dragon Slayer" as one of the classes, but all of the text in that section concatenates it into the single word "Dragonslayer". The Beastmaster text lists "blowgun" and "hand-claws" as weapon proficiencies, yet the text box with the game stat information for those weapons lists "Blow Gun" and "Hand Claws". These are common continuity mistakes made by frequent revisions. A proper editor would look for continuity, and find these easily.

While I am on the subject of the Table of Contents, I should state that it properly lists the page numbers for the relevant sections. As it only has five entries, I wouldn’t expect this to be a complex task. It appears that it was a more complex task than it might seem at first glance however, as the pages themselves are not even numbered. Call me crazy, but I find that this does somewhat limit its usefulness. At least with only 12 pages you won’t be flipping for long to find what you need. No index is present, but that is hardly unexpected (or necessary) with 10 pages of content.

Mechanics-wise, things fare a bit better. But, just a bit.

Gaming Materials

In the introduction, the author stipulates that while they are not prestige classes, characters will typically “merge into” them acquiring levels in another class. Merge into? Isn’t that multiclassing? This instantly begs the question as to why they aren't prestige classes. There is nothing substantially unique about any of these classes to justify the creation of a new full-blown character class. The mechanics do not fit the concept.

If you can get past the mental hurdle that these should in fact be prestige classes, there are some decent concepts to be stolen... erm... “borrowed” for your own campaign. The classes are hardly original, but there are some interesting ideas to be found.

The Beastmaster’s main purpose is to rid the world of those that would do the creatures of the land harm for the purposes of fun or profit. This motivation somewhat limits the utility of the class. Playing park ranger at Yellowstone park is not exactly the most exciting role I can think of in a fantasy setting. Similar to Druids, they can shapechange and can gain animal companions. They may never be of Lawful alignment, and if they become so, they lose their abilities. Why the Lawful restriction? The descriptor in the Player’s Handbook for Lawful Good is “crusader”. This seems appropriate. Why would they lose their powers? What is it about being Lawful that removes their abilities? I just can’t make the leap in logic. At least for a Paladin, the stripping of class abilities with an evil act makes logical sense.

Beastmaster’s also gain some spell ability. For the most part, the spell choices make sense, but there are some oddballs. (Daze? Why?) With d8 hit die, and spell casting abilities only slightly worse than a Druid, the class is fairly well balanced overall. Personally, I think there are too many spells allowed for the concept of a “hunter” version of this sort of class, but that is just how I see it fitting in a campaign I would run. There are some interesting abilities, such being able to learn animal languages as if they were normal languages (rabbit, squirrel, etc), being able to identify animals with perfect accuracy, and animal companions gaining in strength as the Beastmaster increases in level. The more powerful spells are fairly extreme. “Summon Companion” and “Summon Greater Companion” are used to summon animal friends. They have XP costs of 5,000 and 10,000 respectively. I can’t recall any spells that require XP in the Player’s Handbook. It seems to me this could be done in a much better way, perhaps by making them spell-like or supernatural abilities, and without the ludicrous XP cost.

There are some questions left unanswered by the description text. How do they feel about Druids and their animal companions? The other night in our D&D game, the party’s Druid summoned a lion to help fight a devil. The lion was killed. How would the Beastmaster feel about that? Would the Druid be blamed? What if a character kills an animal in self defense? I suppose it’s acceptable to have these areas open-ended for customization in any campaign, but some suggestions or guidelines would be helpful. It is better to have material there that can be ignored than none at all.

Wizards and sorcerers are listed as disliked by the Beastmaster, “since they commonly use animals for spells”. Hmmm I must have missed the “one small hamster” spell component in the Fireball spell description. While these classes do occasionally use magical creature components in their spells (at least they have in the past), I do not think that non-magical animal components are commonly used, if at all. Admittedly, I cannot be bothered to check the entire spell section of the Player’s Handbook to be sure that statement is accurate, so please make your own judgement.

Dragonslayers (I will use the more pervasive single-word form of the class name) are exactly what you would think. They are warriors focused on the tracking and destruction of all dragon kind. If, as the introduction states, a 1st level Dragonslayer is unlikely, why can you *be* one? Come on now. This screams prestige class. Even the color text indicates that they often the guests of powerful lords, without making a level distinction. This is a sign of renown and respect - something a 1st level character would be short on.

Essentially a Fighter variant, there are some interesting aspects to the class. Alignment-wise, they tend to hunt only those dragons whose alignment is opposite of their own. Therefore, there are rarely Neutrally-aligned Dragonslayers. I would think Neutral slayers would just hunt *all* dragons indiscriminately, instead of simply being rare. Perhaps Neutral characters might lack the conviction to hunt the beasts full-time. The class has more skills available to it than the Fighter, including Rope Use. Of what use a character will find with this skill when hunting and fighting a dragon I’ll never know. Presumably due to their fairly numerous class skills, they have more skill points than average to spend. There is also the special “Slayers Blade”, which cannot be acquired until a special ceremony is undertaken, and the character becomes a True Slayer within the guild. The details of this process are fuzzy, and I would prefer that they had some basis in the game mechanics (e.g. at 5th level, the character may apply for True Slayer status with the guild, and be tested at that time).

For some unexplainable reason, Dragonslayers gain spell use at 11th level. The spell selection is limited, and aside from some oddities and over-generalized selections, they fit in line with someone who hunts dragons for a living. I would like to have seen them made into class-specific abilities instead, such as a save bonus vs. dragons’ breath weapons, or something similar. “Detect Magic” should be a “Detect Dragon Magic” ability instead. That seems more in line with the class concept.

Dragonslayers gain the Track feat for free at 3rd level. This should be made a class specific ability to track dragons only (although they do gain a 10 situational modifier when what they are tracking is a dragon). The 10 modifier shocks me into a sudden realization of the overall scope of the classes. Some of the bonuses are ridiculously high. They are out of line with some of the design methodologies seen in articles on prestige class design and feat design, and with the published and well-established character classes. Being talented at diverse abilities is necessary for a character class to be worthwhile. Being extremely talented at something should be a gradual improvement processes based on level, not some furnished, massive, and flat bonus. This has much precedent in the existing rules structure, and the very class/level system itself encourages it.

Once again, there are some questions left unanswered. How are Dragonslayers proficient with the Slayers Blade (an exotic weapon) when they are not presented with one until they become a True Slayer? Do they train with practice ones? What is the Dragonslayers guild? If the Dragonslayer itself is not appropriate for a prestige class, certainly the True Slayer screams of a prestige class. Simply facilitating it doesn’t fit well with the existing rules structure.

Ghost Stalkers seek out the undead, and destroy them. This class concept has been done to death, even as far as 3rd edition D&D is concerned, but there are still some nice ideas here. While still a class I would never use as-is in my own campaign, is the gem of the lot. There are some clever class abilities here, which I would cannibalize to create a more balanced prestige class. Again, there are some oddities.

The text states that Ghost Stalkers generally tolerate Necromancers. I just can't swallow that. I think they would condemn those that seek to maintain that which they are sworn to destroy. They have d10 hit dice and 2 Intelligence modifier skill points per level. I would have raised the skill points a bit and reduced the hit die to d8, but again, that’s just me. I envision this as more of a Cleric prestige class, but presumably the author feels the Fighter aspect outweighs this. They are supposed to be hunter variants after all. This is all a matter of taste, so I digress.

A 1st level Ghost Stalker gains a 1 bonus to hit undead, which is appropriate. This bonus should increase over time though, to perhaps 4 at 20th level. I find it odd that it just remains stagnant at 1 for the duration of the character’s career. At 3rd level, they can critical hit undead regardless of their immunity. This concept turns out to be the shining star of the product. The concept that specialty “slayer” classes are able to score critical hits on creatures that are normally immune to them really adds to the concept of a “slayer” style class. Perhaps 3rd level is a bit too early for this sort of bonus though. I also would have liked to see the addition of the Improved Critical feat at a higher level, as per Giant Killers.

At 5th level, Ghost Stalkers gain the ability to turn undead. The text does not say at what level, so I assume it is at the current Ghost Stalker level. It seems pretty odd that out of the blue a character can suddenly turn undead at the 5th level turning ability. I would set it at a (level - 4) ability, in order to represent the acquisition at 5th level.

Ghost Strike is yet another class ability received at 7th level, which negates incorporeal creatures’ ability to ignore some attack. Ghost Guard kicks in at 9th level, and it negates incorporeal creatures‘ ability to ignore armor when attacking. Both are appropriate to the character concept, although fairly limited in scope, and even in actual utility within a campaign which does not revolve around the undead.

The 15th level Ghost Form ability is rather wishy-washy. The character can assume incorporeal form, along with all items he or she is carrying. However, only the character’s weapons are usable while in this form – no other items. Why are only weapons useable? There is no logic behind this. It is a simple contrivance. It should be something more definable, like anything in the character's hands becomes a useable item, or perhaps only one item that the character concentrates on.

The 17th level Energy Siphon ability allows the character to have the level draining ability of the undead, which also increases the character’s hit points when used successfully. A bit out of the ordinary, but I guess acceptable. It’s a quirky turn-the-tables type of concept.

Ray of Hope is another matter. Useable once per day, any undead within 30 feet must make a Fortitude save at DC 15 the Ghost Stalker’s Cha modifier or be destroyed. A successful save still results in 10d6 damage. After the power is used, the character is unable to do anything for a full 10 minutes. Additionally, the character suffers two negative experience levels. That’s right, you drop two full levels. A save vs. DC 20 a full 24 hours later negates this loss. Otherwise, it becomes permanent. This is simply absurd. The power level of the ability is not commensurate with the costs involved. I would suggest something more moderate, such as the loss of one half of the character’s maximum hit point total, or perhaps a reduction in the scope of effect. Additionally, why does it take 24 hours to recover the level loss when the ability itself is useable once per day? Technically, 24 hours *is* a full day. Does this mean the character can use this ability while still recovering from the previous use? Changing this to 1-3 times per week, every second day, or some other limiting convention, may make it more playable.

The Giant Killer class should have an obvious focus. Oddly, they use d8 hit die. Dragonslayers have d10. Fighters have d10. I don’t see why they have d8. Ghost Stalkers have d10 hit dice, and giants hit much harder than undead as far as I’m concerned. Perform and Use Rope are class skills? Ahh wait… now I have it… all Giant Killers are tap-dancing cowboys. Right. How silly of me. Strangely, they are allowed 5 Int modifier skill points per level. That seems a bit excessive for a warrior-based class.

The Giant Killer’s abilities are at least suitable, although their scope is as grand as their namesake. The Nerves of Steel ability allows them to gain 50% of their maximum hit points as temporary hit points once they encounter a giant. 50%! That’s excessively excessive. Perhaps this explains the measly d8 hit dice. Logically, there should be a much more moderate increase, in order to bring it more in line with a Barbarian’s Rage ability. Strangely, the text explicitly states that Giant Killers find Barbarians “an uncontrollable liability”. If so, where does the hit point increase come from? I suspected that it was an anger-fueled rage? (Can you see how this could have easily been a Barbarian prestige class?) That would explain why they are never allowed to retreat from battle with a giant. I could see it as an abstraction of their pure skill in avoiding a giant’s blows (as per some similar race-specific abilities). Even then, it should be a gradual AC bonus developed over time, not just a huge hit point bonus.

They also have other appropriate abilities, such as Hated Enemies. The Careful Study ability grants an attack bonus vs. giants equal to ½ the character’s level. This is rather high, and fairly out of line with other established classes. Can’t Hit Me grants a flat 6 AC bonus. Once again, an excessive flat bonus is chosen as opposed to a gradual, level-based increase. At 7th level, they gain the Improved Critical feat, but only vs. giants. This is reasonable and appropriate; perhaps the most appropriate and best positioned ability in the product.

At 11th level, Giant Killers gain the ability to craft magic runes, “as do giants”. Perhaps I have a different printing of the Monster Manual than the author, but I don’t recall giants having any such ability. If this stems from a custom campaign element, it’s an odd inclusion. There is no other mention of any custom campaign setting elsewhere in the product. Aside from that nitpick, the runes themselves are acceptable… to a point. The 11 runes seem a bit odd, but I can grudgingly see how they fit into the character concept.

Problem - many of the runic abilities can stack. 1st level Runes of Strength each grant a 2 Strength bonus for 24 hours once activated. A high level character may have up to 4 1st level runes. You can see where problems can occur. While I personally like stacking abilities, and this is reflected in my own house rules, I don’t feel that they are appropriate in the context of the as-written d20 System rules. Perhaps it was intended to adjust for the fact that the runes are “hard-coded” in power level, and do not increase with level as other magic spells do. In this way, multiples of runes could represent a higher level “spell” of sorts. I would have to play test it in order to really get a feel for it.

The higher level runes are astronomical in power level. Lordly Rune costs 5,000 GP and 5,000 XP, but grants a permanent (yes, permanent) 4 Awe bonus to Charisma. Worse, this rune can be stacked with another Lordly Rune. Moon Rune (once again 5,000 GP and 5,000 XP) is also permanent, and grants a 6 dodge bonus, and a 10 Hide and Move Silently bonus. The Sun Rune is the most unbalanced ability I have ever seen in print. For 5,000 GP and 15,000 XP, the character can create a permanent rune that grants a 5 attack bonus and an additional attack. I can see the logic behind this ability – that a character is able to multiclass into the Fighter class at 6th level for the same XP – but this class is already essentially a Fighter-type. Multiclassing also bears with it additional baggage that this rune does not. The change from level 19 to 20 requires 19,000XP. For an additional 15,000 XP after that point, to be able to leap up 5 points in attack bonus and receive an additional attack is just plain munchkin. Thankfully, neither the Moon Rune nor the Sun Rune can stack, as 20th level characters can only possess one 4th level Rune.

I don’t understand the whole “rune” tie-in with the character concept. “Giant Killer” doesn’t evoke the mental image of someone magically creating runes. Methinks someone has been playing too much of the Diablo II expansion pack, Lord of Darkness. This product added magical runes to the mix of magical Diablo II items that you could carry, and their effects also stacked.

Conclusion

Hopefully I’ve provided enough detail in this review that you no longer have to purchase the product in order to discover that it’s a waste of time. The classes are a hodge-podge, and oddly don’t follow established conventions when appropriate. Worse, they do not follow conventions with each other. Perhaps that was part of the author’s desperate attempt to make four disparate character classes where four prestige classes would have sufficed. The 2/2 rating I provided is perhaps too generous, but I have a soft spot for small press publications. Take the 2/2 with a grain of salt in that these scores are relevant when comparing it to other small press publications. The product on a whole feels like the author is having growing pains switching from 2nd edition AD&D to 3rd edition D&D, and he seems to spend a fair bit of time hammering square pegs in round holes. Cannibalize the highlights that I have listed above for your own campaign, and save your money for a quality S&SS, Mongoose, or Avalanche publication instead.