| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 07 Aug 2008 : 17:04:14
I hate this. No more Harpers. Now just some tiny group located in the Silver Marches whose sole purpose is oppose Netheril.
Dumb |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 17:43:36
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Other than the number 30 and the word Epic, I don't see how this description of 4E differs at all from 3.x or 2E.
I know, mechanicaly it is much the same, but the fluff of PHB/DMG pushes toward it a lot more than its 3.x counterpart did (and a lot more than 2E!).
We know that in 3.x it was still pretty common to try to "do something else" with the system than what it was intended to do and that's a left-over of the "too much" open-ended "toolkit" AD&D was.
Of course you know "my" answer to that, if you want do to something else, look for a RPG that was made with that thing in mind.
Okay enough of that in this thread. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 17:30:25
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
If you're willing to pay the extra fee per month.
Also, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say about 'goals'.
It's less than a subscription to the previous magazines.
Goal means, what you are expected/rewarded to do playing this game.
D&D 4E is pretty clear on that : you'll face Challenges, most of them will be Combat-based (some will be Skills-based) and they will be linked together with Quests, until you'll reach level 30 and retire according to your Epic destiny.
Other than the number 30 and the word Epic, I don't see how this description of 4E differs at all from 3.x or 2E. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 17:21:45
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
If you're willing to pay the extra fee per month.
Also, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say about 'goals'.
It's less than a subscription to the previous magazines.
Goal means, what you are expected/rewarded to do playing this game.
D&D 4E is pretty clear on that : you'll face Challenges, most of them will be Combat-based (some will be Skills-based) and they will be linked together with Quests, until you'll reach level 30 and retire according to your Epic destiny. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 17:16:57
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Neil
Well, I don't think you can call 1e or 2e 'incomplete', can you? After all, they both have thousands of pages of material.
I don't dig 4e, but it seems to me that it'll probably be seem more complete once they have some more material out for it. Although I heard a disturbing rumour about how there won't be any more Realms sourcebooks after the player's guide, which strikes me as unlikely. A company doesn't stay in business by not creating product to sell.
1E/2E doesn't lack of extra details, like setting lore, but lack of fundamental components, like a goal.
As for the rumour, there is no planned book for FR after the campaign guide, the players' guide and the adventure. Same goes for Eberron next year. Of course, at any time, they can change their mind. (Some says that Dark Sun will be the 2010 setting).
You'll find support for all those settings in the online Dragon and Dungeon.
If you're willing to pay the extra fee per month.
Also, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say about 'goals'. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 16:24:26
quote:
Originally posted by Neil
Well, I don't think you can call 1e or 2e 'incomplete', can you? After all, they both have thousands of pages of material.
I don't dig 4e, but it seems to me that it'll probably be seem more complete once they have some more material out for it. Although I heard a disturbing rumour about how there won't be any more Realms sourcebooks after the player's guide, which strikes me as unlikely. A company doesn't stay in business by not creating product to sell.
1E/2E doesn't lack of extra details, like setting lore, but lack of fundamental components, like a goal.
As for the rumour, there is no planned book for FR after the campaign guide, the players' guide and the adventure. Same goes for Eberron next year. Of course, at any time, they can change their mind. (Some says that Dark Sun will be the 2010 setting).
You'll find support for all those settings in the online Dragon and Dungeon. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 16:22:52
quote:
Originally posted by Neil
how there won't be any more Realms sourcebooks after the player's guide, which strikes me as unlikely. A company doesn't stay in business by not creating product to sell.
Its not unlikely, they have said this repeatedly. All that is coming out, as far as they plan, at this time, is the Player's Guide and 1 module. For more material, you have to get online through DDI or through novels. Each setting is only going to get 3 printed sourcebooks/modules per year, then they move on to another setting. Next year it's Eberron and then whatever it is for 2010. |
| Neil |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 16:16:37
Well, I don't think you can call 1e or 2e 'incomplete', can you? After all, they both have thousands of pages of material.
I don't dig 4e, but it seems to me that it'll probably be seem more complete once they have some more material out for it. Although I heard a disturbing rumour about how there won't be any more Realms sourcebooks after the player's guide, which strikes me as unlikely. A company doesn't stay in business by not creating product to sell. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 15:32:14
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
AD&D is wonderful -- a few core classes and a bunch of kits and character concepts to make up just about any type of character you can think of, and you get to play it in Ed Greenwood's actual Forgotten Realms -- like the ones he runs in his own games, not the ones he is ... ah ... "presenting." Best of all, you can buy a substantial library of AD&D books for the cost of one lousy -- AND INCOMPLETE! -- Hasbro 4.New.Coke book.
AD&D 1E/2E is a much less functional/complete game than 4E is even if the bard class is not in the PHB nor the frost giants in the MM.
Also, I don't want to play at "Ed Greenwood and friends", I want to play a good game with my players. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 15:20:51
I have to admit, I don't see anything wrong with the current setup (that is, more than one PHB). |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 13:10:13
"The next PHB"? You mean those batsards are splitting essential ... ugh! I release bodily fluids in the general direction of Hasbro.
Just DON'T BUY INTO THEIR CARP, PEOPLE! Play 3.0 or AD&D -- the goal is to enjoy the game, not to line the pockets of corporate schmucks. AD&D is wonderful -- a few core classes and a bunch of kits and character concepts to make up just about any type of character you can think of, and you get to play it in Ed Greenwood's actual Forgotten Realms -- like the ones he runs in his own games, not the ones he is ... ah ... "presenting." Best of all, you can buy a substantial library of AD&D books for the cost of one lousy -- AND INCOMPLETE! -- Hasbro 4.New.Coke book.
They want to screw us. Screw them, instead.
|
| Matt James |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 03:24:09
I spoke to several of the 4e designers at GenCon and they pretty much denied that bards would be somehow left out. I will try to find something I can cite. |
| R0GUE |
Posted - 26 Aug 2008 : 03:17:23
Yes thanks guys thats reassuring. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 19:01:59
Glad to hear it! |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 18:33:20
Bards are pretty much confirmed as Arcane Leader in PHBII.
They will also be expanded in Arcane Power IIRC. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 18:20:24
I don't think they are being ignored either, but the rumblings I've heard were that they were having difficulty fitting the "jack of all trades" into 4th Edition rules. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 18:17:28
Based on all I've heard, it's a good bet bards will be in the next PHB. I don't think they are being ignored. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 01:14:54
Well, *if* bards are in the next Players handbook, then you'll have to wait until March 2009. Otherwise, it will be longer. |
| R0GUE |
Posted - 25 Aug 2008 : 01:09:16
Well that's good news at last. Any chance someone else could point me toward where that information was released?
If bards survive, then there is hope for the Harpers. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 24 Aug 2008 : 21:56:51
I cannot remember where the listing of classes that will be in the PHBII was, but I do recall that they are looking at a 4E bard to be included, if they can figure out how to make a bard work in 4E. |
| R0GUE |
Posted - 24 Aug 2008 : 21:43:57
My issue/question is whether or not they even have bards in 4e FR? If they put bards in the Player's Guide then they can still have a semblance of the Harpers. But it sounds like to me they are just throwing the bard class away completely. With all the "just wait and see" talk about Barbarians, Monks, and Druids, bards are suspiciously left out of the conversation completely.
If there are no more bards, there are no more Harpers. No more Harpers, no more Realms, IMO. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 16:57:49
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
Yes, but let's wait what Ed will make out of the harpers. It is not the first time that Ed's lore overwrites official campaign setting lore by other designers (shadow weave!).
but Ed's novels take place in the 1360s or so, so I'm not sure what help that will be |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 16:51:06
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
Yes, but let's wait...
With all due respect, the "let's wait" argument can be used indefinately. Not saying waiting is never a good idea for anyone, but it can be used (and often is used) as a plea for people not to have an opinion, especially an unfavorable opinion.
By the way, Ed's lore regarding the Shadow Weave has since been overwritten in the "canon" Realms. |
| Sian |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 13:09:56
what Ed says does 'per Default' overwrite whatever someone not tried strongly to the setting though at least a lot of years in my world :P (lot of years being relative though dependent on how my mind is about them) |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 06:03:15
Yes, but let's wait what Ed will make out of the harpers. It is not the first time that Ed's lore overwrites official campaign setting lore by other designers (shadow weave!). |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 02:20:44
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
Good news, everyone: Ed has replied in regard to the Harpers, and according to this scroll there is not all as it appears ...
But if you read Rich Baker's thread he specifically says the Harpers had to be refocused onto the Shades as they didn't want a wide ranging power group such as the early edition Harpers |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 00:56:45
If the Harpers are becoming more secretive, then that is great. Working from the shadows and being less known is more effective in their line of work. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 00:54:15
In the end, the truth of the matter doesn't matter that much to me, because I thought the "old Harpers" were fine just as they were. I never thought they "overshadowed" my PCs. That wasn't an issue for me, so I don't need them to change in my Realms. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 10 Aug 2008 : 09:55:14
I had no love for the Harpers.
but those who Harp deserved better |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 10 Aug 2008 : 05:43:22
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Actually Merick, you're jumping to conclusions.
We know already that they aren't gone. We've got (canon) proof that one offshoot exists in Luruar.
Actually, I say that in my OP. However, what they call the Harpers is not the Harpers
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
The excerpt everyone is getting so huffy about isn’t nearly as absolute as everyone is assuming it is.
I hope you are right. But judging from Rich Bakers response on the WoTC Board (to my ? actually), that does not appear to be the case
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I am not personally going to abandon my creativity and Realms knowledge for the sake of dwelling 100% on the negative.
Everytime I try to get past the negativity another excerpt comes out proving just how pathetic the 4-Gotten Realms are
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
The Realms deserve far better than that.
It appears to me that the Realms are now dead
Good news, everyone: Ed has replied in regard to the Harpers, and according to this scroll there is not all as it appears ... |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 10 Aug 2008 : 05:07:36
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Actually Merick, you're jumping to conclusions.
We know already that they aren't gone. We've got (canon) proof that one offshoot exists in Luruar.
Actually, I say that in my OP. However, what they call the Harpers is not the Harpers
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
The excerpt everyone is getting so huffy about isn’t nearly as absolute as everyone is assuming it is.
I hope you are right. But judging from Rich Bakers response on the WoTC Board (to my ? actually), that does not appear to be the case
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I am not personally going to abandon my creativity and Realms knowledge for the sake of dwelling 100% on the negative.
Everytime I try to get past the negativity another excerpt comes out proving just how pathetic the 4-Gotten Realms are
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
The Realms deserve far better than that.
It appears to me that the Realms are now dead |
