| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| FallenCleric |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 12:03:03
Pretty simple question, really. Where are the cutoffs for the D&D versions in events in FR? I know the Spellplague is the start of 4th, but what about the others? |
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 25 Nov 2012 : 03:15:02
quote:
Originally posted by Lichprince
3rd edition set off with the restructuration of the multiverse when Vecna threw his dread realm into Sigil. This then leads to Toril getting the Great Tree instead of the Great Wheel, (snip)
Interesting.
Where did you get this info from, Lichprince? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Nov 2012 : 18:12:11
quote:
Originally posted by Lichprince
3rd edition set off with the restructuration of the multiverse when Vecna threw his dread realm into Sigil. This then leads to Toril getting the Great Tree instead of the Great Wheel, but they're still connected (as in, a planeswalker of Oearth can still visit Toril for example, and the other way around), and possibly only how Torilian planewalkers perceive the arrangement of the different planes around their own prime material plane.
Actually, we don't have anything in Realmslore that indicates this is the case. Many of the changes of 3E were either unexplained, or we were given the "it's always been that way, but no one knew about it!" explanation. Even things that contradicted prior lore were simply ignored.
I know that this is one of those places where we do have a potential explanation for the changes, but since there were not -- officially speaking -- any changes, then there's no need for an explanation.  (Please note that WotC's explanation of "it's always been that way!" is what indicates a lack of changes. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of 1E/2E knows that this is not the case. I personally take great issue with WotC's failure to explain the changes. But that's no longer a relevant discussion.) |
| Lichprince |
Posted - 24 Nov 2012 : 17:06:22
3rd edition set off with the restructuration of the multiverse when Vecna threw his dread realm into Sigil. This then leads to Toril getting the Great Tree instead of the Great Wheel, but they're still connected (as in, a planeswalker of Oearth can still visit Toril for example, and the other way around), and possibly only how Torilian planewalkers perceive the arrangement of the different planes around their own prime material plane.
|
| Zireael |
Posted - 20 Nov 2012 : 08:35:52
Good point. But I already knew that :) My question was more about the books without drow in them... |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 19 Nov 2012 : 10:49:04
quote:
Originally posted by ZireaelAlso, how to tell if a given novel was written with 2e or 3e in mind?
If the novel has drow in it:
- Infravision - 2e.
- Darkvision - 3e.
And drow before the Twilight & Shadows trilogy (end of 2e) lose their spell-like abilities if they spend any real amount of time on the surface when the sun is up.
It's why there are lesser and greater drow in 3e, by the way. The lesser drow lost the spell like abilities - they're the surface drow. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 18 Nov 2012 : 02:24:57
I didn't get the 3E shift really. So like many others, I just refer to it as Shade's Return. |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 16 Nov 2012 : 16:56:36
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
2nd: Time of Troubles
3rd: Return of the Shades
4th: Spellplague
Personally, if I had to peg a specific point for the transition over to 3E from 2E, it would be Vecna's assault on Sigil and subsequent battle with the Lady of Pain. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 16 Nov 2012 : 15:36:21
Zireal: check this link: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_novels_in_order_of_publication
Essentially, everything from 2000 and earlier was 2e (well, until 1990, before which was 1e). Elaine's Halruaa trilogy sort of straddles the line and has elements of both. There were some 3e elements slipped into some of 2000's novels (ie: City of Ravens has a sorcerer, which may have been the introduction of the class in the novel line). And of course both Ed and RAS's writing as sort of edition neutral, especially El in Hell, which spent most of its time in the past. El in Hell's only real nods to 3e are the very start (why El ends up in Hell) and the very end (where we get a bunch of rather inept Sharrans). |
| Barastir |
Posted - 16 Nov 2012 : 14:03:49
Pathfinder is really nice, and did a good job on the 3.5 system. About balance... Well, it depends on one simple thing: do you think this balance is desirable? I like the idea of mages being first weaker, and then very powerful. As I read somewhere about one of the Middle-Earth RPG systems, for example, you should not care if elves there are too powerful... It only reflects their clear superiority in Tolkien literature itself.  |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 16 Nov 2012 : 12:13:23
quote:
Originally posted by Barastir
I like and still DM in 2nd edition, and don't think THAC0 and AC are so complicated. I think, of course 3e is more intuitive in this way, and that the save system in 3e is better. But I like the 2e idea that only exceptional scores give you relevant bonuses, and then characters are somewhat simpler... Especially because I like the "normal people turned into heroes" theme.
The proficiency system is simpler in 2e (even if it also implies in rolling small numbers), and it is easier for a character to get skills out of his class expectations, what gives me more freedom to develop backgrounds... You - and monsters - also get less hit points in 2e, abreviating combat or making heroes less "superhuman" at the first and then in the higher levels. Of course, you can consider thinking about a strategy for making 1st level not so lethal (some give maximum HP, I use the minimum HP rule from 1st edition Unearthed Arcana).
Well, all that's written here is IMHO, and I've taken long talks with friends that love 3e, 3.5 and even 4e about it. Besides, I have a HUGE 2e library, and don't think I have to give it away because the game changed. I have material for years of adventure, after all.
Yeah, I can honestly say of the two systems, 2E and 3E, I find 3E more balanced for wizards. In 2E, man they were powerful at high levels (the numbers of contingent/long lasting protective type spells out there and what you could do with them just became staggering). 3E also gave more control over designing your image of your character. However, in 3/3.5e things began to spin out of control because people were making feats and prestige classes left and right with no real controls going in. Unfortunately the problem became separating the wheat from the chaff, and some of it came over time. I think Pathfinder's done a decent start from what I've seen, but there's still a decent amount that I think needs to be ported from what was made in 3.5 over to said system.... but that would be copyright infringement. They've made certain feats though that get rid of the "need" of certain prestige classes (like the spellsword in 3.5, since there is a feat to reduce arcane spell failure) |
| Barastir |
Posted - 16 Nov 2012 : 10:58:56
I like and still DM in 2nd edition, and don't think THAC0 and AC are so complicated. I think, of course 3e is more intuitive in this way, and that the save system in 3e is better. But I like the 2e idea that only exceptional scores give you relevant bonuses, and then characters are somewhat simpler... Especially because I like the "normal people turned into heroes" theme.
The proficiency system is simpler in 2e (even if it also implies in rolling small numbers), and it is easier for a character to get skills out of his class expectations, what gives me more freedom to develop backgrounds... You - and monsters - also get less hit points in 2e, abreviating combat or making heroes less "superhuman" at the first and then in the higher levels. Of course, you can consider thinking about a strategy for making 1st level not so lethal (some give maximum HP, I use the minimum HP rule from 1st edition Unearthed Arcana).
Well, all that's written here is IMHO, and I've taken long talks with friends that love 3e, 3.5 and even 4e about it. Besides, I have a HUGE 2e library, and don't think I have to give it away because the game changed. I have material for years of adventure, after all. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 16 Nov 2012 : 10:39:12
Hoondatha - there are a lot of 2e monsters and stuff which weren't converted to 3e. I find 3e easier to use, no THAC0 and increasing AC.
Caling before 1357 DR 0e is a nice idea, but then, when does it start...?
Also, how to tell if a given novel was written with 2e or 3e in mind? |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 16 Nov 2012 : 08:03:35
Iont defend its always been that way deal......
its bad idea..... not so bad on some things like when 3e brought in the sorcerer( TRASH) and they sais thesymbol always was...
and the retconning and shoehorning of things is just bad.
but
5e return of mystra and the rise of the new lord of spells to his rightful spot at mystra's side; her eternal servant and lover, Elminster.... |
| FallenCleric |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 23:55:47
The thought came up while I was flicking through the years on the wiki, trying to decide what year to start a 2nd edition campaign. The question isn't actually something that will affect my decision, it was just one of those sort of side jaunt thoughts. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 22:03:19
While I agree with THL's point (which is probably a first), I'll answer the question anyway. Those are the years that 2e products, novels and game products, were published in. However, you can run 2e mechanics at any point of the Realms' history. As stated, Arcane Age was a sort of "2e with tweaks" and that technically goes all the way back to the elven First Flowering some twelve thousand years ago.
You can also run the 3e "era" with 2e mechanics easily, with just a bit of down-conversion. A lot of the NPC's already existed and had stats in 2e, so you can revert to those. 2e was a less cumbersome, more fluid system than 3e, and anyway 3e was based on 2e, so it wouldn't be that difficult. Most 3e monsters exist in 2e, etc. etc. |
| The Hidden Lord |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 21:39:00
quote:
Originally posted by FallenCleric
Yes, that's pretty much what I wanted.
So could you say that 2nd edition runs (more or less) from 1358DR to 1371DR?
I wouldn't bother with this kind of artificial demarcation... but because I'm curious...
Why do you want to artificially demarcate the Realms in this manner? |
| FallenCleric |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 21:36:29
Yes, that's pretty much what I wanted.
So could you say that 2nd edition runs (more or less) from 1358DR to 1371DR? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 16:59:45
Yeah, the century from 1385 to 1479 DR is 'edition free', technically.
Anything before 1357 DR I call 0e, or the 'Zeroth edition' - the pre-published, Edwardian Realms.
Arcane Age would be another era, probably (roughly) from 1000 to 5000 years ago. However, that is still considered 2e... I think. It gets a bit weird. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 14:15:37
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Also the return of Shade isn't really an in-Realms transition between how things worked in 2e vs. 3e, since the designers opted to go with the infuriating "it's always been like this and you never knew it, even when it directly contradicts lots of existing lore" approach. Hate the Spellplague as much as you like (and I certainly do) at least it explained most of the massive 3e vs 4e changes.
But yes, if you're asking what the first set of novels in the 3e line was, it's the Return of Shade.
As much as I defend the Spellplague, I honestly prefer the "it's always been like that" approach to justifying mechanical changes. I don't much mind little inconsistencies like that(and when it comes to telling a story, I feel the mechanics should be a minor thing), as the big events never fully or adequately address the changes a new edition'll bring and always end up feeling forced.
But yea, I did like the Spellplague from a storytelling standpoint as I feel the Realms needed a major kick in the status quo and, by and large I like the changes it resulted in. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 12:47:24
Also the return of Shade isn't really an in-Realms transition between how things worked in 2e vs. 3e, since the designers opted to go with the infuriating "it's always been like this and you never knew it, even when it directly contradicts lots of existing lore" approach. Hate the Spellplague as much as you like (and I certainly do) at least it explained most of the massive 3e vs 4e changes.
But yes, if you're asking what the first set of novels in the 3e line was, it's the Return of Shade. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 12:10:58
The major ones would be;
2nd: Time of Troubles
3rd: Return of the Shades
4th: Spellplague
Note that the Spellplague is not really the start of 4th edition, as the timeline is set 100 years afterwards. Were you looking for something more specific? |
|
|
