| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kuje |
Posted - 01 Jun 2005 : 22:35:22
I'm asking this question since it came up in a debate on the Boards that Must Not be Named.
Those of you that started with 3/3.5e's lore for FR do you never use any of the old lore from 1e and 2e? If so why not? And if you do only use 3/3.5e's lore do you realize how much you are missing out on? I'm curious about why someone would only stick to 3/3.5e's FR lore and not use the old material. There's so much Realmslore from the older editions that has never been updated or expanded on in 3/3.5e.
This just boggles me that someone would just stick to using the 3/3.5e lore and never want to reference the other older lore.
Edit: I'm not talking about rules here, I'm talking about Realmslore. :) |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ode904 |
Posted - 04 Jul 2005 : 22:58:33
I have been looking for D&D books from the biggest library in Tampere(in FInland[SUOMI ]) and havent seen anything. But i didnt check all I presume...
-Mutta Oulussa Asgterion näkyy olevan
(translation:But there seems to be in Oulu) |
| Thureen Buroch |
Posted - 03 Jul 2005 : 18:20:08
I started playing the Realms with FRCS 3E. I definitely use 2E lore, though! After all, a lot of it is free. The WoTC website has a lot of 2E Forgotten Realms books available for free download as a pdf. Here's the link:
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 03 Jul 2005 : 12:45:41
quote:
Originally posted by AlacLuin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And it was originally a lot harder to become a druid, too.
On this note, how many people remember the process for becomeing a Bard in 1st ed?
You are a thief. (5-7 level)
No, you are a fighter (5-7 level)
No you are a druid.
No you are a Bard!!! finally after gaining some 12 charicter levels.
Considering that in Ireland or Cymru (I forget which) it took twelve years of education to be accredited as a bard (at a time when one year of formal education was an astonishing achievement in the rest of Europe), the length of time it took to become a 1st edition bard is quite reasonable. What was unreasonable was the ridiculous and historically untenable supposition that bards had to be both thieves and fighters (when they were usually not the latter and almost never the former -- why be a thief when you had the legal right to demand room and board and clothing from anyone, up to and including the monarch?).
3rd edition goes to the opposite extreme. 1st level teenager just starting out? Choose "Bard" as your class and -- hey presto! -- you are automatically assumed to have knowledge of things which most sages don't know. Have a seventeen year old fighter who you want to give a veneer of respectability? Multi-class as a bard -- presto! -- by eighteen he is a scholar and a gentlemen (and a spellslinger, too) with no effort at all. Balderdash. |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 03 Jul 2005 : 12:29:45
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I'm asking this question since it came up in a debate on the Boards that Must Not be Named.
Those of you that started with 3/3.5e's lore for FR do you never use any of the old lore from 1e and 2e? If so why not? And if you do only use 3/3.5e's lore do you realize how much you are missing out on? I'm curious about why someone would only stick to 3/3.5e's FR lore and not use the old material. There's so much Realmslore from the older editions that has never been updated or expanded on in 3/3.5e.
This just boggles me that someone would just stick to using the 3/3.5e lore and never want to reference the other older lore.
Edit: I'm not talking about rules here, I'm talking about Realmslore. :)
My campaign begins in 1360 DR. 2nd edition material is essential for it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Jun 2005 : 04:13:48
My bad, I meant bard. 'Tis been a while since I flipped thru that tome.  |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 14 Jun 2005 : 02:01:37
quote:
Originally posted by AlacLuin
On this note, how many people remember the process for becomeing a Bard in 1st ed?
You are a thief. (5-7 level)
No, you are a fighter (5-7 level)
No you are a druid.
No you are a Bard!!! finally after gaining some 12 charicter levels.
Optional class permitted by DM, however by those rules - be human or half-elven. Must be (and aparently start as) fighter of level 5 and can not reach level 8. There after they must choose thieve and obtain level 5 but not level 9 to be able to take Druid training.
The last step of course being achieving the frist level of Bard. |
| AlacLuin |
Posted - 14 Jun 2005 : 01:13:35
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And it was originally a lot harder to become a druid, too.
On this note, how many people remember the process for becomeing a Bard in 1st ed?
You are a thief. (5-7 level)
No, you are a fighter (5-7 level)
No you are a druid.
No you are a Bard!!! finally after gaining some 12 charicter levels. |
| DDH_101 |
Posted - 14 Jun 2005 : 00:10:18
Kentinal, LordAnki, that was the point I was trying to make over there. But really, it's like trying to teach a cow to read and write. It doesn't really work...
They are the type of people who are so into the novels that they have totally forgotten that the characters are D&D characters from the FR setting.
I've actually had one member flame me, basically yelling, "You idiot, why would you use stats to compare characters?! They are totally useless!" Then he saids something like, "I think Wulfgar is the strongest in FR, Drizzt is the fastest in FR, and Catti-Brie is the best archer in FR; because those are what I read from RAS's novels." (SIGH) |
| VEDSICA |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 23:33:44
I agree with Lysander that the cavalier class came from the UNEARTHED ARCANA. |
| LordAnki |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 15:56:43
I agree with Kentinal. If it were in the books like how the characters were developed in the novels by R.A. Salvatore then they wouldn't fight each other unless they were given a reason to fight. But if you were going to place em against each other then you would have to have stats and equipment or else there is no equation and w/o an equation then you cnat figure anything else. Also it depends on what they do. Dwarves in fact are not careless. In 'The Legacy' they came up with a wise battle plan to attack the goblins or drow I forget now but they used a big rolling thingy that they painted to look like stampeding dwarves, had dwarves in the front, and then they just rolled it down the corridors smashing into the monsters they were fighting. The dwarvs in front ducked into several alcoves. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 07:10:52
Err in BD&D Drawf, Elf and Halfling were classes (demi-humans) and not treated as races at all that I recall (just looked like strange humans with special abilities based on blood).
DDH, It becomes very hard to reply to somebody that places belief over facts. One could try to brute force or other wise calculate the chances of one beating another. However any such calculation would need to be based on stats, including equipment. The idea that "Wulfgar would win because he trained under Drizzt and dwarves are careless" has no meaning in game terms because everyone trains and gains experience (proficiencies, skills, feats, knowledge, etc.) as well and as fast as they can. Wulfgar might have the best teaching in the Realms, however until gaining levels has not learned enough to use what is being offered as education. Also I was not aware of the idea that Dwarves are careless, I rather had the impression they where very methodical and focused on what they were doing, killing goblins perhaps being only exception.
|
| DDH_101 |
Posted - 13 Jun 2005 : 06:50:50
Hmm... this is sort of off-topic but also relates to Realmslore.
I go to another topic that also discusses FR, and in one topic, people are discussing Bruenor vs. Wulfgar (see how this is going downhill already?  ), and I've been basically trying to kill that stupid topic by saying "Bruenor has a better weapon and higher level than Wulfgar so the dwarf king would likely win".
However, a new member comes in and saids like "screw game stats and all that, I think Wulfgar would win because he trained under Drizzt and dwarves are careless."  
I mean, how do you respond to stuff like that? I replied like, "Well, then how would you even compare two D&D characters without game stats then?" This is one thing that has been brought up many times at that other forum, where members seem to LOVE "X vs. Y" topics, but hate game stats, and always end topics by saying "Oh I think X would win, but these two would never fight each other."
So my rambling was this: shouldn't the importance of Realmslore and stats be equally the same? Or am I just being too uptight about this? |
| warlockco |
Posted - 08 Jun 2005 : 07:59:54
quote:
Originally posted by LordAnki
Okay thanks for clearing that clearing up Sage. Well thats why you are 'The Sage.' I'm glad there are alot of people who've been around D&D and FR forever. I just got into it like two years ago when I got my grandma to buy the PHB for me. Took me forever to get into D&D then I got into it. Played a session with my stepbrother and his friends and got hooked.
Gets even more confusing when you throw Basic D&D into the mix, because that was live and kicking at the same time as 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D.
In D&D, Elf, Dwarf, were a race and a class. Dwarves were all warriors and Elves were all Fighter/Wizards. |
| LordAnki |
Posted - 08 Jun 2005 : 02:02:10
Okay thanks for clearing that clearing up Sage. Well thats why you are 'The Sage.' I'm glad there are alot of people who've been around D&D and FR forever. I just got into it like two years ago when I got my grandma to buy the PHB for me. Took me forever to get into D&D then I got into it. Played a session with my stepbrother and his friends and got hooked. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Jun 2005 : 01:58:59
quote:
So from 2ed - 3ed Specialist Mage was changed to Sorcerer(sp)?
No. The specialist mage was really just a mage who specialised in a specific magic school -- like necromancy, or illusion for example. The specialist mage would sacrifice learning many of the more universal and multi-school spells in order to increase their knowledge and ability with their 'chosen' school.
|
| Lysander |
Posted - 08 Jun 2005 : 01:50:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by LordAnki
Well I know that I play only 3/3.5 Edition FR games but if I'm just reading up on things then I will check everything that I can get ahold of. Elves of Evermeet, Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark, and Demihuman Deities. Those are great things that go great for everything. I want to get my hands on some 2nd edition PHB so I can play a cavelier and I can't wait until Wizard's puts all the 2nd ed stuff online for download/sale. I'll gladly pay 4 dollars for a book that use to cost more than that and the only thing that is stopping you from taking the book with you is if you have a pda or a laptop. There is a great amount of information that is better in 2nd ed FR.
I'd have to double-check, but I'm fairly certain that the cavalier was not in the 2E PHB. It had been cut from 1E, and I think the Complete Fighter's Handbook brought it back as a kit (kits in 2E were kinda like class-specific templates).
The Cavalier class was a 1E Unearthed Arcana class. Paladins were a subclass of the Cavalier, leaving only the Ranger as a Fighter subclass. |
| LordAnki |
Posted - 08 Jun 2005 : 01:20:03
Well then I stand corrected. ^_^ Thanks Wooly. You know your stuff and thats why I cam to Candlekeep to learn. So from 2ed - 3ed Specialist Mage was changed to Sorcerer(sp)?
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Jun 2005 : 21:36:06
quote:
Originally posted by LordAnki
Oh okay. Cuz I had thought that 1ed there was Fighter, Magic User, and Healer or something like that. But there were alot more classes in 2ed than there are in 3rd edition. Or I think there are. Not to sure but if I had the 2ed stuff I would prolly play it.
The core classes in 2E:
Warrior
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Priest
Druid
Cleric
Rogue
Thief
Bard
Wizard
Mage
Specialist Mage
2E also had a lot of class and race restrictions, along with level limits for everyone but humans.
Classes that were dropped in the shift from 1E to 2E include barbarians, assassins, cavaliers, and thief-acrobats. And it was originally a lot harder to become a druid, too. |
| LordAnki |
Posted - 07 Jun 2005 : 19:18:11
Oh okay. Cuz I had thought that 1ed there was Fighter, Magic User, and Healer or something like that. But there were alot more classes in 2ed than there are in 3rd edition. Or I think there are. Not to sure but if I had the 2ed stuff I would prolly play it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Jun 2005 : 19:08:13
quote:
Originally posted by LordAnki
Well I know that I play only 3/3.5 Edition FR games but if I'm just reading up on things then I will check everything that I can get ahold of. Elves of Evermeet, Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark, and Demihuman Deities. Those are great things that go great for everything. I want to get my hands on some 2nd edition PHB so I can play a cavelier and I can't wait until Wizard's puts all the 2nd ed stuff online for download/sale. I'll gladly pay 4 dollars for a book that use to cost more than that and the only thing that is stopping you from taking the book with you is if you have a pda or a laptop. There is a great amount of information that is better in 2nd ed FR.
I'd have to double-check, but I'm fairly certain that the cavalier was not in the 2E PHB. It had been cut from 1E, and I think the Complete Fighter's Handbook brought it back as a kit (kits in 2E were kinda like class-specific templates). |
| LordAnki |
Posted - 07 Jun 2005 : 18:22:24
Well I know that I play only 3/3.5 Edition FR games but if I'm just reading up on things then I will check everything that I can get ahold of. Elves of Evermeet, Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark, and Demihuman Deities. Those are great things that go great for everything. I want to get my hands on some 2nd edition PHB so I can play a cavelier and I can't wait until Wizard's puts all the 2nd ed stuff online for download/sale. I'll gladly pay 4 dollars for a book that use to cost more than that and the only thing that is stopping you from taking the book with you is if you have a pda or a laptop. There is a great amount of information that is better in 2nd ed FR. |
| Neo2151 |
Posted - 07 Jun 2005 : 08:13:56
I have the answer for you Kuje, and it's a sad one. It's all about money and willingness to search. Almost all of the 2ed and earlier tomes are out of print (well, the ones with more fluff than crunch anyway) and with every minute they get older, they get more expensive. Not to mention that most people that are interrested in such tomes buy them whenever they get the opportunity to, which leaves 3.X newbies with nothing but the new material. Even online you can't find everything you're looking for without a desperate struggle and even if you do find something, it's likely not free. I've spent nearly $50 on just .pdf files. That's a little sad, don't you think? (the fact that the downloadable files have cost so much, not the fact that I actually downloaded them ). Also, being the only person in my D&D group that cares a whit about realmslore, they'll think "Why bother looking it up?" You have these four or five pages in the new books that "sum up" everything important you'll need to know, right?  Say, for instance, my group wants to run a campaign into Cormanthor. They'll pick up both the PGtF and the FRCS (forget Ancient Empires, I seemed to be the only one remotely interested in that) and think they know everything. Forget that theres the entire 2ed Cormanthyr: Empire of Elves to look at. ::sigh:: Truly sad indeed. |
| jebeddo |
Posted - 04 Jun 2005 : 23:09:33
I think some of the newer gamers just find it difficult to acquire 1e and 2e material. 3e and 3.5e are just so much easier to find, since most large book stores have them for sale. |
| khorne |
Posted - 03 Jun 2005 : 18:42:28
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by DDH_101
I've never seen an RPG or D&D sourcebook in a public library in my life. Not even at the Vancouver Public Library in Downtown, a 5 story tall building packed with books.
In fact, even huge chain bookstores like Indigo here in Canada rarely carries them. You have to order online and have them ship them over. The only time I ever saw D&D sourcebooks for sale in a store was this one little store in a ghetto part of downtown where they sell comics and stuff...
Strange... I live in northern Finland (Oulu), and our city library has all the core books for 3e & 3.5e, Dragonlance 3.5e setting, Gurps-rule books, RuneQuest, Harnmaster, Rolemaster etc. Perhaps about two hundred books, all in all. Local gamers just seem to borrow all the D&D books
I can`t believe it........ |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 03 Jun 2005 : 18:07:22
quote:
Originally posted by DDH_101
I've never seen an RPG or D&D sourcebook in a public library in my life. Not even at the Vancouver Public Library in Downtown, a 5 story tall building packed with books.
In fact, even huge chain bookstores like Indigo here in Canada rarely carries them. You have to order online and have them ship them over. The only time I ever saw D&D sourcebooks for sale in a store was this one little store in a ghetto part of downtown where they sell comics and stuff...
Strange... I live in northern Finland (Oulu), and our city library has all the core books for 3e & 3.5e, Dragonlance 3.5e setting, Gurps-rule books, RuneQuest, Harnmaster, Rolemaster etc. Perhaps about two hundred books, all in all. Local gamers just seem to borrow all the D&D books |
| Arivia |
Posted - 03 Jun 2005 : 04:22:14
quote:
Originally posted by DDH_101
In fact, even huge chain bookstores like Indigo here in Canada rarely carries them. You have to order online and have them ship them over. The only time I ever saw D&D sourcebooks for sale in a store was this one little store in a ghetto part of downtown where they sell comics and stuff...
Over the last few years, there has been exactly 1 time when i have found an Indigo/Chapters/Coles without WotC sourcebooks-and that was after i'd grabbed the last two of theirs. Are you checking the right sections(Games and WotC fantasy)?
That just strikes me as really odd. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Jun 2005 : 02:35:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've never seen an RPG book at a library unless someone carried it in with them.
Around the time I was eight, or was it when I was nine... my school library carried at least two copies each of the 1e PHB and the DMG. Eventually, they even acquired the 2e Monstrous Manual.
Strangely, and I think I've said this here before, the library at the university I'm presently studying at, has all three core rulebooks available for loan, and they are the updated 3.5e tomes.
|
| warlockco |
Posted - 03 Jun 2005 : 02:12:03
quote:
Originally posted by DDH_101
I've never seen an RPG or D&D sourcebook in a public library in my life. Not even at the Vancouver Public Library in Downtown, a 5 story tall building packed with books.
In fact, even huge chain bookstores like Indigo here in Canada rarely carries them. You have to order online and have them ship them over. The only time I ever saw D&D sourcebooks for sale in a store was this one little store in a ghetto part of downtown where they sell comics and stuff...
Hmm I know a couple of the players in my group have checked out 3E D&D, D20 Star Wars, and Shadowrun RPG books from one of the local libraries in the Denver Metro area.
And my 1st Edition DMG was from a High School Library, in Merced California. |
| Lysander |
Posted - 03 Jun 2005 : 02:06:53
Wait.... you mean there's newer stuff than 2E?!?!
I suppose it's bound to happen, after all; I do it in reverse. There's plenty of 3.xE Realmslore I look at and say "Um, no, not in my campaigns." But that doesn't mean it hasn't happened in someone else's campaign, so I need to keep it in the back of my mind.
But, to treat it as if it (the 2E material) never existed? Talk about closing opportunities, or even the old DM-misdirection trick (e.g. using 2E Realmslore knowing the players are reading 3.xE that might just be different ).
|
| VEDSICA |
Posted - 03 Jun 2005 : 01:39:07
Hey Wooly that was the very first RPG book that we us a group bought...I too have never seen any RPG books at any library.Though they did sell them at hobby shops in my town. |
