| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sightless |
Posted - 03 Jun 2012 : 22:45:31
I tried to make this title as accurate to the subject matter as possible, as I expect it might be somewhat explosive. Before I begin, let me state that I have the players handbook for second edition, in PDF. So I am not oblivious on the differences between second and third edition. I have however, discovered a significant degree of animosity towards third edition and am attempting to discover why and from what it springs.
So, what’s wrong with 3E?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 25 Jun 2012 : 08:07:03
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
The part I have always hated about 3.5/Pathfinder, despite it being the TSR/WotC/Paizo system(s) of choice, can be boiled down to one word:
Multiclassing.
I hate, hate, hate the multiclassing rules for 3.5/PF, and I have forbidden my players any multiclassing in my games. You are what you are. The rules in Second Edition concerning the multi/dual-class rules were annoying, but I could live with them. 3.5/PF went simply berserk with the classing system, like a rabid pit bull on meth.
Prestige classes, I can handle, provided I can find a class-system work-around for those that require base class abilities from more than one. But the endless multiclassing nonsense...ugh.
I rather like the flexable, but limited Multiclassing aspects of 4E as they require feats to gain some small abilities of the second class and it's restricted to one other class, not the craziness we saw with 3E. HOnestly, who many people adhered to the XP penalties for Multiclassing in 3E as they were? I never had a DM put those rules into play.
Were I to do v3.5 again, I think i'd restrict specific aspects of it. For example, in our Sons of Gruumsh adventure, we had a Scout (CAdv supplement) who Multiclassed to Ranger. It was a good move and one that made sense and there are other similiar aspects to Multiclassing I'm ok with Like Cleric to Fighter, Knight to Paladin, Warlock to Rogue, Barbarian to Fighter, or even Wizard to Sorcerer (and vice versa). But to have Rogue 2/ Fighter 4/ Sorcerer 3/PrC gets ridiculous
That was one of the things about the 4th Edition mechanics that gave me the Smiles - you could dabble in something else, and that was it. Dabbling, and no more.
The combinations you list, I could probably handle (Barbarian to Fighter and so on). It's too late for me to retract my ban on multiclassing this time around, but should I ever take up another campaign, I might consider those.
Might.
- OMH |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Jun 2012 : 06:51:49
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
but what do you mean under "balance problems"?
Probably the huge disparity between Spellcasters and Non-Spellcasters or more commonly known as LFQW (or Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards).
I'm afraid, i didn't made my point clear enough. Let's try with one word: what do you mean under "balance"?
Defining this easily localizes the problem. Conversely, keeping such basics as vague notions creates an air castle, which can be repaired indefinitely, simply because bricks don't stay long in thin air.
Balance in the fact that at mid- to high-levels Full spellcasting classes had more output (meaning options, answers for problems, and filled everyone's role) than non-spellcasting classes. With 2 spells, a Cleric could be better at Fighting than the Fighter, add in a supplement or two and he can extend that ability 24-hours for the rest of his career. Wizards could just about do anything ROgues could do with spells and easier just buy using some of their cash to buy wands of X, Y, and Z spell.
So to me, an unbalanced game is when specific characters of distinct classes become marginally less required at later stages of play. When two characters (both spellcasters) can do the job of 2 other players via spells, it's unbalanced.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
In what sense they are really meaningful? 
At 4E's debut this was the case. You only had a few options outside of COre (via DDI) but there was little to go on for Powers and Feats. In the 4 years later, it's not so much the case. From Backgrounds, Themes (different than D&D:Next ones), Races, Powers, Classes (either Hybrid, Multiclass, Paragon Multiclass), Class Features, Feats, Skill Training, magic items, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destines there are a LOT of options that can really help you embrace the specific style or image of a character.
Do they somehow allow things like Bear Lore, Bloody Path, etc, or a thief able to pick locks only 3 times per day and then losing this ability to the next sunrise (simplifying it a little) to make any sense?
[/quote]
There's no limit to being able to Pick Locks, though I'm not sure what you mean by Bear Lore or Bloody Path (unless your being literal?) IF that's the case, you can use specific skills (like Nature) to find out information on Animals or following tracks in the forest. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 19 Jun 2012 : 06:15:42
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
but what do you mean under "balance problems"?
Probably the huge disparity between Spellcasters and Non-Spellcasters or more commonly known as LFQW (or Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards).
I'm afraid, i didn't made my point clear enough. Let's try with one word: what do you mean under "balance"?
Defining this easily localizes the problem. Conversely, keeping such basics as vague notions creates an air castle, which can be repaired indefinitely, simply because bricks don't stay long in thin air.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
In what sense they are really meaningful?
At 4E's debut this was the case. You only had a few options outside of COre (via DDI) but there was little to go on for Powers and Feats. In the 4 years later, it's not so much the case. From Backgrounds, Themes (different than D&D:Next ones), Races, Powers, Classes (either Hybrid, Multiclass, Paragon Multiclass), Class Features, Feats, Skill Training, magic items, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destines there are a LOT of options that can really help you embrace the specific style or image of a character.
Do they somehow allow things like Bear Lore, Bloody Path, etc, or a thief able to pick locks only 3 times per day and then losing this ability to the next sunrise (simplifying it a little) to make any sense? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Jun 2012 : 05:36:38
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
Pathfinder did not fix the balance problems inherent in 3.Xe.
I doubt it's possible to improve anything much while retaining 3e core with feats, skill ranks inflation, etc - but what do you mean under "balance problems"?
Probably the huge disparity between Spellcasters and Non-Spellcasters or more commonly known as LFQW (or Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards). The linear fighter/quadratic wizard phrase, for those of you unfamiliar with it, refers to an environment where the fighter progresses at a steady pace, with its output increasing by a relatively set amount at each level. The quadratic wizard, on the other hand, gains output increases both from additional spells (more spells = more output) but also from those spells dealing more damage and having more powerful effects (turning people to stone, instant death, etc.). Thus, the wizard eventually outstrips the fighter in output thanks to an ever-increasing series of gains over many levels.
Pathfinder didn't fix this at all, just gave a few "bumps" to Fighters and other non-spellcasters which should've been significant improvements. They also only "patched" the Monk, fixing up his Flurry of Blows chart. Yet they still suffer from a number of mechanical issues at low levels. And the same problems can be attached to the Rogue with their 3/4 BAB. One rule I've made for Rogues is the gaining of extra attack modifiers when they apply their SA damage. Basically at 4th level and every 4 levels after that, they add an additional +1 to attack rolls when they make their Sneak Attack. This doesn't actually grant them additional attacks from a Higher BAB, just the bonus so they can keep up with Fighters in melee.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
4e's character building choices are much much much less meaningful in the terms of the possible changes you could make, which does make for a more balanced game.
In what sense they are really meaningful?
At 4E's debut this was the case. You only had a few options outside of COre (via DDI) but there was little to go on for Powers and Feats. In the 4 years later, it's not so much the case. From Backgrounds, Themes (different than D&D:Next ones), Races, Powers, Classes (either Hybrid, Multiclass, Paragon Multiclass), Class Features, Feats, Skill Training, magic items, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destines there are a LOT of options that can really help you embrace the specific style or image of a character.
Really, I think 4E is the first edition that let me make a solid character that kept all the originality that I had invisioned, gave him purpose, and let me do all the cool stuff I had in mind witout heavy sacrifices such as Level Adjustment, inane Prerequisites (ability scores, alignment, race, feats), and horribly low power from the start (such as DCs for spells and magic capability).
|
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 20:59:06
re: meaningful... I mean there are less broad options for really changing your character's abilities. Most of the actual character creation choices relate to how you do a certain amount of damage... this is dramatically different than 3.X or Legend, which offers much broader choices than 'how do you deal damage' or even 'what you are doing in combat'. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 20:50:25
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
Pathfinder did not fix the balance problems inherent in 3.Xe.
I doubt it's possible to improve anything much while retaining 3e core with feats, skill ranks inflation, etc - but what do you mean under "balance problems"?
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
3e said 'lets make all the options function from basically the same chassis, to make things easy so people only have to learn one system', which diiiiidn't really work out, but as books were added, it did eventually mean you could make anything, with enough system mastery.
Well, duh. "Eventually" everything (e.g. "AD&D2 + all sourcebooks") allows more and more options untill pretty much every typical use is covered. But then, PO allowed to do it better and in a more tidy way, no?
quote:
Originally posted by Gavinfoxx
4e's character building choices are much much much less meaningful in the terms of the possible changes you could make, which does make for a more balanced game.
In what sense they are really meaningful? |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 19:09:45
Actually, if you don't like 3.Xe/PF Multiclassing, you all need to really really look at how Legend does multiclassing, as well as how it overtly views its classes and reflavoring and such. It is a dramatically different viewpoint than you are expressing, but I think you might like it. It completely goes away from classes as in-game constructs, and overtly encourages reflavoring, for one thing... for another, multiclassing is now no longer horizontal, it's vertical. So if you want to be a barbarian/rogue, instead of taking some levels of rogue as a barbarian and then needing to find a prestige class which advances the barbarian features and the rogue features you like, or a swift-hunter-esque feat (like for ranger/scout) to advance both features while only taking one of the classes, instead you just swap out a third of your class features from barbarian for a third of the class features of the rogue. It's really nifty.
Go take a look!
http://www.ruleofcool.com/?page_id=49
https://s3.amazonaws.com/det_1/Legend.pdf |
| Diffan |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 19:04:17
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
The part I have always hated about 3.5/Pathfinder, despite it being the TSR/WotC/Paizo system(s) of choice, can be boiled down to one word:
Multiclassing.
I hate, hate, hate the multiclassing rules for 3.5/PF, and I have forbidden my players any multiclassing in my games. You are what you are. The rules in Second Edition concerning the multi/dual-class rules were annoying, but I could live with them. 3.5/PF went simply berserk with the classing system, like a rabid pit bull on meth.
Prestige classes, I can handle, provided I can find a class-system work-around for those that require base class abilities from more than one. But the endless multiclassing nonsense...ugh.
I rather like the flexable, but limited Multiclassing aspects of 4E as they require feats to gain some small abilities of the second class and it's restricted to one other class, not the craziness we saw with 3E. HOnestly, who many people adhered to the XP penalties for Multiclassing in 3E as they were? I never had a DM put those rules into play.
Were I to do v3.5 again, I think i'd restrict specific aspects of it. For example, in our Sons of Gruumsh adventure, we had a Scout (CAdv supplement) who Multiclassed to Ranger. It was a good move and one that made sense and there are other similiar aspects to Multiclassing I'm ok with Like Cleric to Fighter, Knight to Paladin, Warlock to Rogue, Barbarian to Fighter, or even Wizard to Sorcerer (and vice versa). But to have Rogue 2/ Fighter 4/ Sorcerer 3/PrC gets ridiculous |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 19:01:34
But ... geez, OMH, do you know how difficult it is to rack up 300hp on a single 3E character with fewer than three races and five classes?
Actually, I personally thought the older approach to multiclassing wasn't that bad. Certain things were allowed, certain combinations were allowed, certain things were not. And one required unusually high attribute scores to qualify for such stuff (although these, too, were inflated in 3E so that everybody could enjoy some respectable bonuses). |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 18:54:33
The part I have always hated about 3.5/Pathfinder, despite it being the TSR/WotC/Paizo system(s) of choice, can be boiled down to one word:
Multiclassing.
I hate, hate, hate the multiclassing rules for 3.5/PF, and I have forbidden my players any multiclassing in my games. You are what you are. The rules in Second Edition concerning the multi/dual-class rules were annoying, but I could live with them. 3.5/PF went simply berserk with the classing system, like a rabid pit bull on meth.
Prestige classes, I can handle, provided I can find a class-system work-around for those that require base class abilities from more than one. But the endless multiclassing nonsense...ugh. |
| Gavinfoxx |
Posted - 16 Jun 2012 : 21:36:15
First, I would like to categorically state that Pathfinder did not fix the balance problems inherent in 3.Xe.
That is one of the last things it did. If anything, many of the balance problems in Pathfinder got worse, as most of the powerful niche things that melee could do, which let them remain useful in a caster heavy party (well, useful at their tiny niche one trick pony ability), were nerfed. AND many of the spells which encouraged a party-friendly playstyle were nerfed in Pathfinder. Anyone who has done a focused, intense mathematical study on what the real problems in 3.5e, rather than just hearing about the tricks that people on other forums do, can quickly realize that pathfinder didn't really fix anything, by the expedient of checking the spell list.
With that said, 3e suffers from quite a few things. Rules bloat. Laughably bad balance between 'those who alter reality with their minds' (ie, casters) and 'those who hit things with sticks (ie, noncasters). It also suffers from quite a large number of badly written rules that just don't work the way they were intended to. This is getting to be the same problem in Pathfinder, of course.
The reason I, and many others, love 3e is that it gives you a very very large toolbox to pretty much express any concept you can think of, and then play that, without being a complete gurps-style point buy. IE, it's legos, rather than clay of GURPS. Further, for games where the player characters have a large amount of power and agency and ability to cause the setting to react to the wrenches they throw in it, it is really second to none.
4e is a miniatures tactical combat game that said to itself, 'okay, this is a game, lets make sure it works well as a game', and the designers balanced it quite well and did that. 3e said 'lets make all the options function from basically the same chassis, to make things easy so people only have to learn one system', which diiiiidn't really work out, but as books were added, it did eventually mean you could make anything, with enough system mastery. 4e's character building choices are much much much less meaningful in the terms of the possible changes you could make, which does make for a more balanced game.
As to the various alternatives in general, here's the way I look at it...
There's 3.5e, There's Pathfinder, which is like 3.55 (ie, a set of houserules that are sometimes good, sometimes bad), There's Trailblazer, which is like 3.60, There's Frank & K's Tomes, which are like 3.65, There's Legend, which is like 3.75, and there's 4e.
Of these, I like 3.5e for the crazy weird high optimization uber power stuff you can do, Trailblazer for being a commercially released game that actually fixes a few of 3.5e's balance problems without too many drastic changes, the Frank & K Tomes for being an interesting fan attempt to fix 3.5e, along with a good writeup of what the issues in 3.5e are, 4e for being a pretty good and balanced miniatures tactical game with optional roleplaying elements, and I like Legend for getting the best 'wow, you can do awesome stuff' feel of 3.5e with spellcasters, while actually managing to be very well balanced, and not boring and dry to read sometimes, like 4e can be. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 14 Jun 2012 : 20:39:01
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Now, I'm going to say something that some of you may not like, I could and perhaps should have introduced it earlier, and hinted at it in many respects, but now I'll come right out and say it. What is quoted above represents a disconect, I asked what was wrong with 3E, not what was wrong with the transition from 2e to 3e.
[...] if someone came to D&D having never played second edition, then they'd not know about anything as far as classes being restricted from playing this that or the other.
Well... if it does not appear to exist for players who came after one change and gone before the next, it is an issue with the transition. Of course, it still applies to all cases other than "came after one change and gone before the next".
On the other eyestalk, the underlying problem is treatment of settings as disposable skins for the Miniature Game(TM) in the given period. And this approach is a problem with 3e as it was.
If you mean purely technical problems caused by game mechanics, though...
Unsurprisingly, FR-specific problems are mostly an extension of common ones.
And the common problems with 3e are well known: skill point inflation, feats, 10.5 -centered stats, LA, general magic mess-up, domains artificially and painfully stretched in lines.
Feats as such are a problem rather than a solution. "Skill Tricks" were a step in a right direction, even if too small, too clumsy and too late. We can even call the landmark by name: Character Points (PO).
Regional feats were a good idea but turned up unwieldy because it's a choice of one from the thematic set / path of development. Which doesn't make much sense - e.g. why it's either Cosmopolitan or Silver Palm or Mercantile Background?! Or either Horse Nomad or Saddleback? They don't imply different flavours. 
Of course, there's dubious implementation on top of it.
Such as "Knifefighter" somehow is not a General/Fighter feat? One would think such training should be common wherever folk got to duke it out with any tentacly things, no?
It does represent a special training, not just a bundled set of otherwise accessible adjustments like most Regional feats do or exceptional circumstances like others ("Thunder Twin"). For that matter, same goes for "Saddleback" and what was dubbed "Mercantile Background".
For another exasmple, "Arcane Schooling" is good. But if classes had such properties explicitly as components, there won't be need to re-invent them every time and any "already have X" cases would become trivial.
And yes, too many weird things to list were done to magic, not even counting the Five Runaway Wheels of "energy". 
Again, FR took extra damage because it has more details.
Let's only mention a silly, but characteristic example: Aganazzar's Scorcher. Originally, it was guided, giving 2 cases with different damage calculations. In PGtF it was reduced to 1d8 dam / 2 levels in a path and that's all. Was a little too messy, became so primitive thare's no point to use it. Then, adding a red dragon scale as a component to 2-level spell... did anyone ever use this without modification and not in a game where red dragon scales are sold in every apothecary shop by weight, unlimited?.. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 13 Jun 2012 : 23:20:26
Actually, Tolkien's dwarves and Halflings, and yes, they were called halflings, only the ones that lived in Hobbitan were called Hobbits, were based on the larger European lore regarding those creatures. Those Halflings that lived in Bree, were called Breelanders, by the way, but I digress. Now, it could be argued that following this lore that Dwarvan magic was a biproduct of the race and that it was devine magic, it was never the case that they couldn't use arcane magic. Their use of elvan magic was mentioned several times by Tolkien and many more in the lore he used. This is even more true for Halflings. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 13 Jun 2012 : 16:06:57
quote:
Jeremy Grenemyer
If Gygax or Arneson hadn’t written the rules for Dwarves the way they did, do you think we’d be having this discussion right now?
That's an interesting observation, considering that Gygaxian dwarves were largely inspired by Tolkien's dwarves ... and I can't recall any mention of dwarves in Middle-Earth being anti-magical. Certainly Tolkien's dwarves (at least the main ones) were gruffy and suspicious of wizards and sorcery; yet they are often described as forging magical and wondrous things, including Rings of Power. The notion of dwarven magic resistance seems to be entirely invented by D&D. |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 13 Jun 2012 : 13:07:03
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I just edited my earlier post, and that got me to wondering - did TSR have a web presence?
I didn't bother with any D&D internet sites until maybe 2004.
I'm pretty sure they did have a limited presence, a basic site, with a few details and notices. I seem to recall the TSR Newsletter being available by subscription to their website.
Handling TSR's web presence is in fact how Sean K Reynolds got started in the business. I recall him telling the story on some podcast - possibly the Secrets of TSR episode from Know Direction's Paizocon coverage last year. (If you haven't heard it, it's worth a listen - Ed's got an anecdote or two to tell...) |
| Sightless |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 23:40:19
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Taking another stab at this for the lulz.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
In the Player's Handbook for 1st and 2nd Edition Dungeons and Dragons DWARVES COULDN'T BE ARCANE CASTERS AT ALL!
I’m glad you pointed this out. It shows that Realmslore follows the game rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Then SUDDENLY in 3.x Dwarves could suddenly use Arcane Magic and it was NEVER EXPLAINED WHY.
The new (at the time) Player's Handbook for 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons said that all classes are available for all races, so you can have half-orc bards, for example, and Dwarven wizards.
All Realmslore is doing is following the latest edition of the rules.
Just like with 1st Edition and 2nd Edition D&D, the rules for 3rd Edition D&D apply and take precedence in the Forgotten Realms, so it followed that the lore was adjusted to fit 3E.
Note I said “adjusted” and not “retroactively changed” because this wasn’t a retcon of prior Realmslore.
When the explanation we are given is that there were always dwarven wizards, and that we did not know about them, that is a retcon.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if facts are changed without any explanation, then facts cannot be trusted.
If elements of Realmslore can be changed without any regard to what was previously written, then there is nothing that says Drizzt Do'Urden can't suddenly become a one-legged lisping gnome or that Elminster has secretly been every single King of Cormyr since Ondath Obarskyr or that Erevis Cale isn't really a saucy barmaid living in a tiny Ewok village in the Great Rift.
Anyone producing material for a shared setting is obligated to stick to what is written for that shared setting, or they need to be doing something else entirely.
A setting is not a vehicle for showcasing rules -- a setting is a place to tell stories. The stories should always be the ultimate authority, not some arbitrary ruleset that's going to change again in 4 years.
If you want rules, read a rulebook. If you want lore, read about a campaign setting.
Now, I'm going to say something that some of you may not like, I could and perhaps should have introduced it earlier, and hinted at it in many respects, but now I'll come right out and say it. What is quoted above represents a disconect, I asked what was wrong with 3E, not what was wrong with the transition from 2e to 3e. they are in fact two different things. Let me try, and often these attempts don't turn out as expected, to show you what I mean.
First, if someone came to D&D having never played second edition, then they'd not know about anything as far as classes being restricted from playing this that or the other. If they came to a game headed by a DM that didn't follow that part of the rule set, which according to Gamer Magazine, some forty to forty five percent of the DMs of second edition didn't follow, then the Dwarvan wizard isn't an issue. If the individual didn't play second edition and never seen a second edition map, then the alterations in maps would also not be an issue. If the DM decided to use the older maps instead of the 3E maps then this wouldn't be an issue, as the player would probably assume that the maps were just from a different source. I find it interesting that nobody has considered that Wizards did that in part with the maps to add the appropriate feel of them being with the level of technology, yes even with magic included, that exists in the relms. The maps would be less than absolutely accurate and perfect as a result. Wotc didn't give an explanation, as they themselves |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 23:05:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
If you want rules, read a rulebook. If you want lore, read about a campaign setting.
Ha!
If Gygax or Arneson hadn’t written the rules for Dwarves the way they did, do you think we’d be having this discussion right now?
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 22:56:45
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Taking another stab at this for the lulz.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
In the Player's Handbook for 1st and 2nd Edition Dungeons and Dragons DWARVES COULDN'T BE ARCANE CASTERS AT ALL!
I’m glad you pointed this out. It shows that Realmslore follows the game rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Then SUDDENLY in 3.x Dwarves could suddenly use Arcane Magic and it was NEVER EXPLAINED WHY.
The new (at the time) Player's Handbook for 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons said that all classes are available for all races, so you can have half-orc bards, for example, and Dwarven wizards.
All Realmslore is doing is following the latest edition of the rules.
Just like with 1st Edition and 2nd Edition D&D, the rules for 3rd Edition D&D apply and take precedence in the Forgotten Realms, so it followed that the lore was adjusted to fit 3E.
Note I said “adjusted” and not “retroactively changed” because this wasn’t a retcon of prior Realmslore.
When the explanation we are given is that there were always dwarven wizards, and that we did not know about them, that is a retcon.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if facts are changed without any explanation, then facts cannot be trusted.
If elements of Realmslore can be changed without any regard to what was previously written, then there is nothing that says Drizzt Do'Urden can't suddenly become a one-legged lisping gnome or that Elminster has secretly been every single King of Cormyr since Ondath Obarskyr or that Erevis Cale isn't really a saucy barmaid living in a tiny Ewok village in the Great Rift.
Anyone producing material for a shared setting is obligated to stick to what is written for that shared setting, or they need to be doing something else entirely.
A setting is not a vehicle for showcasing rules -- a setting is a place to tell stories. The stories should always be the ultimate authority, not some arbitrary ruleset that's going to change again in 4 years.
If you want rules, read a rulebook. If you want lore, read about a campaign setting. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 22:43:54
Taking another stab at this for the lulz.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
In the Player's Handbook for 1st and 2nd Edition Dungeons and Dragons DWARVES COULDN'T BE ARCANE CASTERS AT ALL!
I’m glad you pointed this out. It shows that Realmslore follows the game rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Then SUDDENLY in 3.x Dwarves could suddenly use Arcane Magic and it was NEVER EXPLAINED WHY.
The new (at the time) Player's Handbook for 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons said that all classes are available for all races, so you can have half-orc bards, for example, and Dwarven wizards.
All Realmslore is doing is following the latest edition of the rules.
Just like with 1st Edition and 2nd Edition D&D, the rules for 3rd Edition D&D apply and take precedence in the Forgotten Realms, so it followed that the lore was adjusted to fit 3E.
Note I said “adjusted” and not “retroactively changed” because this wasn’t a retcon of prior Realmslore.
The adjustment didn't automatically create legions of dwarven wizards who boiled up out of the Underdark and battled Red Wizards, Zhentarim and Shadovar for arcane supremacy of the Forgotten Realms. In the Realms, Dwarven culture is still pretty much the Dwarven culture of old. Dwarven wizards are (under 3E and 4E) still pretty rare in the Realms.
Naturally some people have a hard time with this. They’re used to thinking of the Realms one way and view continuity as singular and inalterable. No matter where the lore comes from if it’s written down, it’s set in stone.
They would prefer the older lore still apply, even though it was based on now obsolete rules, and would like to see rules changes only apply to the part of the Realms timeline during which those rules applied/were used in D&D games.
The problem with this point of view is that it doesn’t recognize that Realmslore, with regard to its application to a game of D&D, is malleable.
Why? Because if you decide, today, to play in the Realms during any era of time in the setting, and you use the 1E or 2E rules, dwarves have a hard time with magic because those rules apply. They influence how you view the setting you’re playing your D&D game in.
Those gamers who feel the need to explain things in-game have the freedom to honor the older lore. They can do this by using the Thunder blessing as a dividing line; by saying the Dwarven pantheon granted newborn Dwarves an affinity that lets them use magic, while the parents of those Dwarves can’t.
This contradicts the 3E Player’s Handbook (PHB), obviously, but by not giving a canon explanation in the rulebooks the option is left open to DMs to work things out how they want without hamstringing every other Realms campaign.
When I say “hamstringing” what I mean is that by specifically not codifying any sort of contradictory-to-the-rules canon explanation for why some Dwarves can use magic and others can’t, the 3E Realms avoids having to answer in print a whole host of questions arising from the presence of a canon explanation, such as whether or not 3E rules should be written to reflect the “magic problems” for Dwarves born before the Thunder Blessing or whether there shouldn’t be different racial game statistics for Dwarves depending on when they were born.
Basically, this avoids the slow creep of obsolete 2E D&D rules back into the 3E Realms.
At this point, I am reasonably certain that if someone wrote down every single at-the-gaming-table conversation on this topic, the total number of words written would not even come close to matching the number of words written and posted to Candlekeep on the subject.
Your turn, fellow scribes. Let’s keep the hamster wheel turning, hey? |
| Sightless |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 22:43:30
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
while I don't have access to the numbers about who's using what supplements and what areas are more popular in the Realms than others, it's a fair bet that WotC does
In which way this isn't the usual hapless "But, but, they are smart guys and wouldn't!!" straw-catching?..
Which is even more funny than usual when applied to things we know to be sprawling between such aromatic milestones as "MTHAC" and "Bear Lore". 
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
It was emblematic of a generally cavalier approach to treat the long-term continuity of the setting as mere raw material for a one-time wish to fit as much land as possible on a particular map [...] To highlight popular bits and contract or remove unpopular ones is to move the Realms in the direction of a theme park
It's a move in the direction of a great unifying setting "Twilight of PonyCraft". "I've heard they like that stuff too..." 
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It was a limitation of the rules. 2E had a lot of restrictions on what races could take what classes. Only humans could take all classes, and have unlimited advancement in them.
Or that "slow advancement" option, default for nonhuman campaigns.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The thing is, you can't stay consistent with the rules and still change them... Either dwarves use magic, or they don't.
And what explains things for one setting might not work for another... Dwarves suddenly being able to use magic could be explained, in the Realms, by the Thunder Blessing. But on Krynn, there's no Moradin to bestow that blessing...
[...] So if you want consistency, it has to be explained in the setting. Otherwise, you can't trust anything that was written about the setting, because it may change without warning or explanation.
And the bottom line is the same old: either rules serve as a toolkit for modeling specific settings, or settings serve as a set of slightly recolored skins over the same Miniature Game rules.
E.g. for dwarven wizards there are decent ways to handle it. The easiest: add Magic Affinity to stats; give dwarves some hefty penalty to it (with possible further adjustments) - which can be overcome, but not likely and not by far. While negative values mean low-grade involuntary resistance. Here you go. This would also work for other innately non-magical folk like Jordaini and those... how them... "geldings"? And kill with fire the whole Cuteness Magic thing.
Then, if divine magic is not bound by he same limitations and there are specific ways around it like Dweomersmith or Alchemist, why not?
(Warning, this is off topic, something done rarely)
I wonder about how the world goes round, gravity is still something science is trying to quantify. It's a treaky thing to measure directly, even if we see it's affects every day. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 21:47:57
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by shandiris
Your 11th lvl wizard is using 2 quickened actions which is illegal.
He has 1 quickened spell (swift), one swift spell (he can use his move action) and one maximized standard spell (standard). The gust of wind is probably made the round after.
You can have only one quickened spell per turn, but many swift actions can be made in place of longer actions.
Indeed, I never claimed I was casting all the spells on the same round. Assay Spell Resistance persists for several rounds, so you cast that the round before. Then you blast the quickened true strike and disintegrate. Then the gust of wind the following round while the dust is floating down.
My main point here is that you compare this to a fighter of that level, who might be dishing out 50-70ish damage, assuming that she hits with a couple of her 3-5 attacks or varying effectiveness. By contrast, my wizard just did 132 damage, which reduced the target to a pile of dust.
Cheers
I'll be happy to brag and say a 3.x arcane caster can get a series of spells off that will boggle the mind...and lay out more damage than a Great Wyrm Red Dragon on a rampage!
They can Cast a Swift Spell, a Quickened Spell, and a Normal Spell...all at once essentially...sooo; we go into the Quickened spell being "The Simbul's Spell Trigger" which is going to let a wizard lay out four 4th level spells in addition to a Swift Spell and a Normal Spell.
Swift Spell: Spectral Weapon, Wraithstrike, Swift Fly, etc.
Normal Spell: Throw down a big ol' level 9!
4 Quickened Spell (4th level and lower) from "Sequence": any combination of spells to either damage or protect yourself.
Of course, we aren't even getting into Magical Tattoos, hanging Mantles, Contingencies and much more.
Wizards in my 3.0 games were deadly...but they were even WORSE in earlier versions of D&D where you could chain as many as 20+ spells together and unleash them all at once! I'll have to pull that up for 2nd Edition if anyone wants me to.
Ya didn't mess with MY Simbul in MY Forgotten Realms...or Elminster or the other Sisters and Khelben...just wasn't a good idea at all. 
Of course, all the preceding was only ROUND ONE...which the Simbul would have many rounds of because of a Hanging Time Stop spell, which made it appear that suddenly the Simbul had not only unleashed more spells than you could keep up with because of the constant "boom" in your ears (if you didn't die very quickly); but then she was nowhere to be found following this violent outburst! With Time Stop, it gets REALLY UGLY (talking over 20 spells before the party gets to scratch the flayed skin from their skeletal noses).
Until she WAS there...and it started all over again...
I love that woman.
Of course Khelben liked very much to use a slight variation on this, while his Time Stop was in effect he would drop a small coin into the open "something" of an enemy (such as a cloak hood, spell component pouch, boot...what have you) that had a 'Khelben's Suspended Silence' cast upon it...which meant for six rounds the enemy spellcaster couldn't even respond if he didn't have non-verbal spells or figure out where the hell the silence was coming from!
I love that man too!  |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 21:36:12
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
while I don't have access to the numbers about who's using what supplements and what areas are more popular in the Realms than others, it's a fair bet that WotC does
In which way this isn't the usual hapless "But, but, they are smart guys and wouldn't!!" straw-catching?..
Which is even more funny than usual when applied to things we know to be sprawling between such aromatic milestones as "MTHAC" and "Bear Lore".
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
It was emblematic of a generally cavalier approach to treat the long-term continuity of the setting as mere raw material for a one-time wish to fit as much land as possible on a particular map [...] To highlight popular bits and contract or remove unpopular ones is to move the Realms in the direction of a theme park
It's a move in the direction of a great unifying setting "Twilight of PonyCraft". "I've heard they like that stuff too..."
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It was a limitation of the rules. 2E had a lot of restrictions on what races could take what classes. Only humans could take all classes, and have unlimited advancement in them.
Or that "slow advancement" option, default for nonhuman campaigns.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The thing is, you can't stay consistent with the rules and still change them... Either dwarves use magic, or they don't.
And what explains things for one setting might not work for another... Dwarves suddenly being able to use magic could be explained, in the Realms, by the Thunder Blessing. But on Krynn, there's no Moradin to bestow that blessing...
[...] So if you want consistency, it has to be explained in the setting. Otherwise, you can't trust anything that was written about the setting, because it may change without warning or explanation.
And the bottom line is the same old: either rules serve as a toolkit for modeling specific settings, or settings serve as a set of slightly recolored skins over the same Miniature Game rules.
E.g. for dwarven wizards there are decent ways to handle it. The easiest: add Magic Affinity to stats; give dwarves some hefty penalty to it (with possible further adjustments) - which can be overcome, but not likely and not by far. While negative values mean low-grade involuntary resistance. Here you go. This would also work for other innately non-magical folk like Jordaini and those... how them... "geldings"? And kill with fire the whole Cuteness Magic thing.
Then, if divine magic is not bound by he same limitations and there are specific ways around it like Dweomersmith or Alchemist, why not? |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 21:12:46
Wooly is trying to say politely:
In the damnable Player's Handbook for 1st and 2nd Edition Dungeons and Dragons DWARVES COULDN'T BE ARCANE CASTERS AT ALL!
Lone exceptions in splat books are just that...
Then SUDDENLY in 3.x Dwarves could suddenly use Arcane Magic and it was NEVER EXPLAINED WHY.
That good? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 21:08:06
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The thing is, you can't stay consistent with the rules and still change them... Either dwarves use magic, or they don't.
So in the Forgotten Realms, it is clear that dwarves *do*, as evidenced by Greenwood in The North...
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So if you want consistency, it has to be explained in the setting.
And yet, The North is *not* in-setting? I guess I don't understand that...
Following this logic, could one say the Spellfire does not exist in the Realms, because we have limited examples of Spellfire users in the Realms?
Again, it was not an option available to PCs. In 1E and 2E, dwarves could not be wizards. This was changed with 3E, but the use of magic by a previously magic-resistant race -- one with a canon myth for why they couldn't use magic -- was unexplained.
|
| Sightless |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 20:25:49
See, I don't see how changing something and failing to explain it puts any limitations whatsoever on the DM. How would knowing that the Thunder Blessing allowed dwarven magic use limit you?
Not all of the staff liked that explanation, so the compromise was that they'd just not mention it at all. Remember WOTC is made up of a group of people that don't always see eye to eye on everything. Some decisions were made based on that.
And the fate of Manshoon's many clones was left undescribed... In fact, they removed DM fodder, there -- the Manshoon Wars were created to give DMs more to play with, and the 3E FRCS slammed the door closed on that by saying it was over and that there were three Manshoons left.
That was a result of several long letters by players complaining over the existence of so many and that all in all it was felt as something poorly done for the setting.
Similarly, the Harper Schism created more potential for DMs, and it was ignored for a good chunk of 3E.
That was something that was supposed to be for various authors to deal with, but issues held it up, don't ask me exactly what though.
However, those things aren't unexplained retcons, so they're really not relevant to the discussion.
Here's one that is relevant: Silverymoon went from having a series of wards in 2E, to have a mythal in 3E. This was unexplained. I can readily think of some possible explanations, and those explanations would have added to the lore. None of these explanations would have limited a DM in any way, since -- like with dwarven magic use -- it would be explaining something that was already done.
This is another issue of what's already mentioned, two of the individuals responsible for overseeing the production of the story involving this left the company, during re-organization and so forth it was one of those things that was dropped, as there were other projects in the works. Initially there was a plan to return to the subject, but like many projects in an organization, it was one that was never returned to. In short, these were more do to organization problems that happened to face WOTC during this version of D&D. They could have in fact happened during any production, in fact some of them did during the production of 4E, to my knowledge. There, at least that deals with that issue. |
| The Hidden Lord |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 19:54:14
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The thing is, you can't stay consistent with the rules and still change them... Either dwarves use magic, or they don't.
So in the Forgotten Realms, it is clear that dwarves *do*, as evidenced by Greenwood in The North...
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So if you want consistency, it has to be explained in the setting.
And yet, The North is *not* in-setting? I guess I don't understand that...
Following this logic, could one say the Spellfire does not exist in the Realms, because we have limited examples of Spellfire users in the Realms? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 18:51:47
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
The man's reply was, "we are living it open for the DMs to provide what explanation works best for them. Mostly though, I'd say it's part of the Thunder blessing.”
Whether apocryphal or true, there’s a good point in that statement: some things are better left unexplained.
I think the more we drive for explanations, details and cohesiveness, the less room we leave for DMs to fill things in and create, which is what the Realms are supposed to encourage DMs to do. Things like the lore behind Dwarves casting spells or the fate of Manshoon’s many clones (the Manshoon Wars)…that’s all great fodder for DMs to use.
See, I don't see how changing something and failing to explain it puts any limitations whatsoever on the DM. How would knowing that the Thunder Blessing allowed dwarven magic use limit you?
And the fate of Manshoon's many clones was left undescribed... In fact, they removed DM fodder, there -- the Manshoon Wars were created to give DMs more to play with, and the 3E FRCS slammed the door closed on that by saying it was over and that there were three Manshoons left. Similarly, the Harper Schism created more potential for DMs, and it was ignored for a good chunk of 3E.
However, those things aren't unexplained retcons, so they're really not relevant to the discussion.
Here's one that is relevant: Silverymoon went from having a series of wards in 2E, to have a mythal in 3E. This was unexplained. I can readily think of some possible explanations, and those explanations would have added to the lore. None of these explanations would have limited a DM in any way, since -- like with dwarven magic use -- it would be explaining something that was already done.
Explaining the past limits nothing, and it adds to the richness of the setting. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 18:41:06
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
(I can't confirm this, so take this with a grain, or pound, of salt)
A friend of mine once asked one of the game designers at a conviention back when 3E was just coming out why no explanation was given for why Dwarves were given magic. The man's reply was, "we are living it open for the DMs to provide what explanation works best for them. Mostly though, I'd say it's part of the Thunder blessing." Now, one, I wasn't there, but I don't think my firend is lieing, but as it's been a while he can't recall the name of the fellow he was talking to. Second, this explanation seems a little poor to me, but that's strictly my opinion.
The Thunder Blessing is the ideal explanation, thinks I. That's why I'm bugged that it wasn't used.
They would have had to cut one prestige class or one NPC stats |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 18:36:47
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
(I can't confirm this, so take this with a grain, or pound, of salt)
A friend of mine once asked one of the game designers at a conviention back when 3E was just coming out why no explanation was given for why Dwarves were given magic. The man's reply was, "we are living it open for the DMs to provide what explanation works best for them. Mostly though, I'd say it's part of the Thunder blessing." Now, one, I wasn't there, but I don't think my firend is lieing, but as it's been a while he can't recall the name of the fellow he was talking to. Second, this explanation seems a little poor to me, but that's strictly my opinion.
The Thunder Blessing is the ideal explanation, thinks I. That's why I'm bugged that it wasn't used. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 18:06:25
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
The man's reply was, "we are living it open for the DMs to provide what explanation works best for them. Mostly though, I'd say it's part of the Thunder blessing.”
Whether apocryphal or true, there’s a good point in that statement: some things are better left unexplained.
I think the more we drive for explanations, details and cohesiveness, the less room we leave for DMs to fill things in and create, which is what the Realms are supposed to encourage DMs to do. Things like the lore behind Dwarves casting spells or the fate of Manshoon’s many clones (the Manshoon Wars)…that’s all great fodder for DMs to use. |
|
|
