| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Paec_djinn |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 12:58:20
1. Anyone read any of the novels? If so which of them?
2. Would you recommend any of them to someone who has about 4-5 novels on his to buy list? Or should I just stay away from a particular novel altogether?
3. What stands out from the particular recommended novel?
4. I'm a person looking for original plots and a unique style. Do any of these novels bring any of these?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Paec_djinn |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 03:41:48
quote:
I mean, not all "The Wizards" are wizards (Morgynn is a sorcerer, and there's a distribution in Blackstaff). But hey -- whatev.
I guess the reason they're bunching sorcerers and wizards together is that they're not going to make a "Sorcerer" series just for another four books of sorcerers. The Yellow Silk from the Rogues series portrayed a bard main character and Son of Thunder portrayed a barbarian main character. |
| Archwizard |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 23:04:06
I think the Fighter series reflects fairly logical progressions based on what is present in the game world and the way D&D mechanics work. In a real world game, fighters begin to have difficulty finding interesting feats by the middle levels. There is little reason to stay as a fighter if you have the opportunity to specialize, which in D&D rules often means indirectly becoming more verstitile due to PrC abilities. Wizards on the other hand can specialize and customize through an infinite variety of spells, a fighters feats, feats in general, are less variable. Even then we do see a number of wizard PrCs that offer specialization, Red Wizards, Guildmage of Waterdeep, Silverymoon Spellguard, Cormyrian War Wizards, Rashemen Wychlaran Hathran, and even the regular Archmage.
Why be regular old Fighter Joe when you can be Spellsword Bob, Samurai Jack, or Cavalier Fred? While wizards are zipping around on spells, it's only logical for those who have the chance to tap into something of magic to take it.
Flavorful specialization is possible through feats, but there hasn't been implimented in core D&D or the Forgotten Realms. It is one of the reasons why I like the schools technique concept of Rokugan. Crane clan Kenshinzen duelists fight differently than Dragon clan Niten swordmasters due to a thousand year old difference in swordsmanship ideology. Their technique feats are different and can only be learned if you are part of the clan, or otherwise under very special circumstances. It sets warriors apart other than in name only.
But yeah, I lost track of where I was going with this.
It is usually harder to create a background for fighter feats in D&D/FR than it is for wizard spells. PrCs are even in this matter. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 22:36:01
To lighten up the discussion some, I'd like to see a "warrior"/"rogue" use a (straight from the Munchkin Master's Guide!) Sneaky Bastard Sword...
and on a related note, the German term for Battleaxe would be Streitaxt, "streiten" however could be used in at least 2 ways, one is to physically fight, the other to verbally fight... I'd love to see an intelligent battleaxe start hurling insults at people...at random! |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 21:37:43
I guess I'm officially back to this thread. 
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
'Fighter' is an unusual term in this sense -- I wonder how this series's name sounds to people unfamiliar with D&D.
Yeah, I can see that. Myself, I'd have preferred "Warriors" -- more along the lines of "The Priests." I mean, not all "The Wizards" are wizards (Morgynn is a sorcerer, and there's a distribution in Blackstaff). But hey -- whatev.
quote:
Interesting that Erik regards the Realms as high-powered; I thought Wizards considered it on par with the current D&D norms.
I think when I said that I meant "high power" as in "lots of magic," which is very much consistent with D&D norms. I think different settings vary quite a bit. Dragonlance, for instance, has less magic but is still very much a D&D world. Eberron has as much magic, but it's spread out in lower quantities among more hands (so you don't have a few handfuls of archmagi, but lots of lower-level wizardly folk).
Meh. Different styles.
Cheers |
| Faraer |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 20:26:22
'Fighter' is an unusual term in this sense -- I wonder how this series's name sounds to people unfamiliar with D&D.
Interesting that Erik regards the Realms as high-powered; I thought Wizards considered it on par with the current D&D norms. |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 19:31:50
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Oh -- you mean a pile of s. . . GOOD NIGHT, LADIES AND GENTS! 
Cheers
It´s really a good idea, but actually I´m under a pile of that job.   |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 19:14:04
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Moradin
Thanks, Erik. I´ll start my posts next week
Whatever I can do to clarify things, and provide you a "director's cut" commentary. 
quote:
(under a pile of job here).
Oh -- you mean a pile of s. . . GOOD NIGHT, LADIES AND GENTS!
Cheers |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 18:32:37
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Absolutely not. As long as the thread's still there, you can comment, and I'll respond heartily. My books never vanish for me.
Cheers
Thanks, Erik. I´ll start my posts next week (under a pile of job here). |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 18:07:10
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Moradin
My Ghostwalker arrived just two days, and I´m almost in the middle of the book.
Heh, maybe I change my list of the top 5 from the Chosen.
I'm glad you like it, and honored!
quote:
Hmmm... it´s too late to go to the book club?
Absolutely not. As long as the thread's still there, you can comment, and I'll respond heartily. My books never vanish for me.
Cheers |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 16:22:09
My Ghostwalker arrived just two days, and I´m almost in the middle of the book.
Heh, maybe I change my list of the top 5 from the Chosen.
Hmmm... it´s too late to go to the book club? |
| Xysma |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 15:34:03
I've read all but oGhostwalker, and I recommend all three of them. If I had to pick one it would be Son of Thunder, nothing against the others, I just loved the lore packed into this one. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 03:29:53
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
quote:
2) The novels wasn't really that battle-heavy to begin with (which I liked). It was more about people, their relationships, and politics (which I also liked!).
This? An excellent thing! :)
Definitely. I can recommend this novel. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 03:29:00
quote:
2) The novels wasn't really that battle-heavy to begin with (which I liked). It was more about people, their relationships, and politics (which I also liked!).
This? An excellent thing! :) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 03:06:52
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
True, Rino, but then you get into the, "The WotC novels never seem to portray the norm any more.." thing again. ;)
I know what you mean. But I do want to point out...
1) Ryder didn't strike me as "invincible" in the fighting scenes. The novel in general is about him being put in chains (literally and metaphorically), and in the end he isn't REALLY the "master of chains". The downer of an ending attests to that.
2) The novels wasn't really that battle-heavy to begin with (which I liked). It was more about people, their relationships, and politics (which I also liked!). |
| Lysan Lurraxol |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 18:22:16
I've only read Ghostwalker and Bladesinger out of this series, but I'll reply anyway.
Ghostwalker is extremely good, very dark, but really well written, Bladesinger is fairly bland though, it reads like a D&D game, OK though, if you like that kind of style. |
| Conlon |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 05:47:14
And what is "the norm" in a fantasy world?
I'm not complaining about the series anyway. Like I said earlier, I read Ghostwalker and loved it. It was a great character and a well-written book which kept me busy turning pages far later than I should have been. Hopefully though, someone will come out with that gritty, dangerous guy I spoke of earlier who is just a well-rounded "basic" fighter who doesn't fight pretty, he just fights.
Maybe it's like how in Hollywood, a lot of people got into the whole martial-arts-on-wires when Crouching Tiger and The Matrix came out. All of a sudden Jet Li is making those flicks again and they are popular again. Just watching a guy kick butt wasn't exciting if he couldn't do something unbelievable. Anyways, I'm tired and probably not making sense. I probably shouldn't even submit thi |
| Paec_djinn |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 05:41:39
I think what's important is there are still some "normal" fighters being portrayed in the Realms today. On top of my mind, we've got Ryld, Wulfgar (barbarian and doesn't use swords, but still) and Bruenor(doesn't use swords either, but pretty much a straight out fighter). I don't think that giving them a title role in a novel is very important, IMO.
But then again, it might be interesting if an author HAD wrote a "normal" fighter (as in sword and shield) as the title character and made the character step away from the normal cliches which plague this type of fighters. I'm referring to the mortal Kelemvor in the Avatar trilogy, btw. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 05:14:51
True, Rino, but then you get into the, "The WotC novels never seem to portray the norm any more.." thing again. ;) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 05:07:00
Well, I wouldn't say Ryder (the Master of Chains) had magical abilities, he just used an unusual fighting style.
I like reading about "plain fighters" and people who don't use magic, myself (though I DO like spellcasters the most)...but it's important to remember that these four protagonists don't necessarily represent all the fighters of the Realms. The novels in the Fighters series are just four stories out of many. |
| Conlon |
Posted - 17 Aug 2006 : 04:26:19
In regards to the whole fantastical PrC thing, I do agree somewhat with what wwww was saying. I do enjoy a gritty, no-nonsense guy who just takes people out and doesn't have any magical powers to assist him. I know that this is the FR and there is magic everywhere, but one book in the series which just details a pure D&D fighter-class guy would be cool. Having said that, I have only read Ghostwalker of the series. From other posts I gather that all the others also possessed some arcane abilities as well.
Just knowing that a guy can wade into a no-magic zone or anti-magic field or whatever and is at no disadvantage is cool. He doesn't have any crutches and only relies on his skills, his physical abilities, and his chosen weapon. Anyway, this is probably off-topic, but I just thought I'd throw in my 2 coppers worth. Peace out. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 17:10:08
Ah, yep, now I remember...and in case I haven't mentioned it before... get Ghostwalker! ... um...NOW! |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 16:11:51
Paec_djinn have requested some recommendations about the Fighters series.
So, going directly to the point of the topic, the serie is awesome. All the four books are excellent in their ways, and you will find a good realms-flavor in all of them.
And, yes, my vote for "the best of Fighters" go to Ghostwalker, too. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 15:54:43
Um...what are we talking about? |
| wwwwwww |
Posted - 16 Aug 2006 : 13:39:48
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm just saying that it isn't reasonable to condemn books because they explore things that aren't otherwise mentioned in the Realms because "they're not just standard fighters."
I just felt the need to express the fact that I NEVER, NOT ONCE "condemned" any book. In my posts, I took extra caution to mention that the classes were unique in their own right. To say that I'm "condemning" the books is simply deriving your own meaning from my words, and that's unfair. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 18:20:41
quote:
I can agree with that, but it really has nothing to do with my orignial post.
It's not addressing your original post, but the post that I quoted. I brought up an analogy I thought quite reasonable (saying that fighters shouldn't just be dumb stereotypes), and you decided to mock me into the erroneous view that the Realms should be historical. I was merely clarifying what I had said.
With that said, I shall let it go. EDIT: It's non-issue, as far as I can see.
quote:
That doesn't make my point invalid. FR's strengths are it's sheer amount of variety. In no way should it be impossible to write a novel centering around a non-magical fighter. It would be quite unique and good (if well-written), considering everyone's predisposition for magic and stunning presige classes.
I am not trying to make your point invalid. I have not said I find your point invalid. In fact, I find your point very much valid.
quote:
Originally posted by wwwwwww
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Everyone has different preferences. I see nothing wrong with exploring different aspects of a class, in a series devoted to that class.
That's EXACTLY my point. It's completely reasonable to have had one book focus on a standard, non-prestige fighter. Thanks Wooly!
Indeed. And I'm not saying it isn't completely reasonable -- it is. And I'm not trying to argue with you. EDIT: Wooly's right, you're right, and none of these points are mutually exclusive.
I'm just saying that it isn't reasonable to condemn books because they explore things that aren't otherwise mentioned in the Realms because "they're not just standard fighters." If anything, that should be worthy of praise.
I think you're missing the point of the series, which is to present variations on a theme that should be well known to the readership: Fighters.
I appreciate your respect for Gemmell -- a respect that I share. When he died, actually, I posted a rather long blog entry about the event. It was a sad day for fantasy.
Anyway. I think that on that note, I shall end my participation in this scroll.
Thank you.
Cheers
EDIT: I took out a tangential point about the "purpose" of the series, removed a repetitive sentence about "no-frills fighters," and added two sentences. Otherwise, I have left this post as it was. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 17:50:40
Well, I sympathize with wwwwww to a point, as I prefer "simple fighters" myself, but there has been a number of fighters in other books through the years. This series focuses on the non-standard fighters that have not had so much of a place in the sun until now. Would there then be a need for a series on standard fighters? |
| wwwwwww |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 17:44:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Everyone has different preferences. I see nothing wrong with exploring different aspects of a class, in a series devoted to that class.
That's EXACTLY my point. It's completely reasonable to have had one book focus on a standard, non-prestige fighter. Thanks Wooly! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 17:39:31
Everyone has different preferences. I see nothing wrong with exploring different aspects of a class, in a series devoted to that class. |
| wwwwwww |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 17:23:30
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I wasn't saying that this *should* be history. I was only saying that a character who has a sword, a shield, plate armor, and an attitude, but no other skills or tricks or powers, and expects to survive (let alone entertain) in a fantasy setting as high-powered as the Realms, is S.O.L.
I can agree with that, but it really has nothing to do with my orignial post.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A very reasonable point. Once again, however, this IS the Realms we're looking at, which has a preponderance of magic items and spells and whozawhatzit.
That doesn't make my point invalid. FR's strengths are it's sheer amount of variety. In no way should it be impossible to write a novel centering around a non-magical fighter. It would be quite unique and good (if well-written), considering everyone's predisposition for magic and stunning presige classes.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I believe I would also disagree with you as far as "main" or "chiefly-focused" characters. If you mean "title-characters," then yes -- none of the characters are strictly fighters.
Then why name the book after a single character? Of course the audience to going to automatically identify that character as the main character. That's only natural.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
(Incidentally, if you're looking for low-magic, strictly "fighter" archetype characters, try David Gemmell.).
Gemmell was a workhorse of an author, and had some bright spots in the genre. As far a pure story-telling goes, he right up there with the best. FR could have used a tale-spinner like Gemmell. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 16:57:18
quote:
Originally posted by wwwwwww
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Historically, you were a good fighter if you mastered different styles, tricks, and moves. A clunky fighter with nothing but a sword that he would swing (think AD&D 2e) would be killed easily and quickly. The best and -- indeed, the only living -- combatants would be able to adapt to different styles, environments, and weapons.
These books show how a fighter can evolve to be quite different through different styles and outlooks, but still maintain the same basic core: fighter-ness, as it were.
Well, if you want to get technical and "historical" (as you brought up), which one of the main characters in those books shows historical accuracy? C'mon, this isn't history. If a man can transform into a dinosaur, then I think it's okay for a no-frills fighter to kick ass. It's far more reasonable, in fact.
I wasn't saying that this *should* be history. I was only saying that a character who has a sword, a shield, plate armor, and an attitude, but no other skills or tricks or powers, and expects to survive (let alone entertain) in a fantasy setting as high-powered as the Realms, is S.O.L.
quote:
But none of them are the main (or chiefly focused) characters. Of the main characters: two of the four are utterly supernatural.
A very reasonable point. Once again, however, this IS the Realms we're looking at, which has a preponderance of magic items and spells and whozawhatzit. When they say "The Fighters," they mean a number of things: 1) D&D fighters (who of course wield magic, even if only very powerful magic weapons (like Ryder, for instance) in many cases), 2) people who exhibit "fighter-ness" (i.e. struggle and battle to resolve problems). I think, under that definition, the series is aptly named.
(Incidentally, if you're looking for low-magic, strictly "fighter" archetype characters, try David Gemmell.)
I believe I would also disagree with you as far as "main" or "chiefly-focused" characters. If you mean "title-characters," then yes -- none of the characters are strictly fighters. All of them are variations on the same theme. And I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, I like it. A lot.
Cheers |
|
|
