| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Pazuzu |
Posted - 12 May 2010 : 15:08:54
Another question bothers me, and until now I couldn't get a clear answer.
The Weave ist destroyed more or less, since Mystra is dead. Portals doesn't work anymore and most arcane magic is unreliable, but arcane powers like Fireball or Magic Missle still function. Why?
What about the Shadow Weave? It's said the in 3.5 rule books, that the Shadow Weave is independent from the Weave, so I think every 3.5 spell should work, when cast with the Shadow Weave feat.
Many thanks for your help! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 17:39:04
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
From a balance and logic standpoint, I have to wonder why they did it that way. Those ma be the most popular classes, but didn't they ever hear of variety? I'd prefer more diverse roles, myself. And what happened to the bard?
I think the big problem with the original PHB is the fact that they just didn't have all the mechanics set out for the other classes and room. The bard, as Alisttair mentions, is in the PH2 along with 3 other classes that originally apperaed in the 3e/v3.5 book (barbarian, druid, and sorcerer). Also, each class requires something like 10-15 pages for their description, class features and 30 levels of spells of which there are 3 to 4 options available. That leaves very little in the way for other Player's options such as specific races, Paragon Paths for those races, feats, skill-usages, rituals, equipment, etc....
And I think the Bard of 4E is just a great class altogether, much more so than the Bard of 3e/v3.5E in that it really does a great job of being versatile (the only class allowed more than one Multiclass-feat) and it's a pretty good leader to boot.
The 3 main builds (I use that term loosely) or styles that are common of the 4E bards are Valorous bards (guys and gals who go in swinging and singing), Cunning bards (guys and gals who use wits, charms, and stratagems), and the Prescient bard (guys and gals who use luck, minor divinations, and the bow).
They get skill versatility (a +1 bonus to all untrained skills) and the word of friendship power ( a heavy +5 bonus to your Diplomacy checks until the end of your next turn, which is a small compulsion/charm).
They also get Song of Rest (play an instrument or sing while resting, regains additional hit points equal to your Charisma modifier with each healing surge spent during this time. A character can be affected by only one Song of Rest at a time (meaning multiple bards cannot do the same thing and give double the bonus).
@ Alisttair and Christopher: Great job of compiling the classes into their specific roles and Power sources.
|
| Alisttair |
Posted - 04 Mar 2011 : 19:22:49
Nice idea. Let us know how it works in play. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Mar 2011 : 19:18:10
Thanks guys, very informative. I appreciate the effort. 
I can't help but want race-related sources, like 'Runes' for Dwarves and Giants, or 'Creation' for Fey/Elves/Eladrin.
I think my hybrid system may borrow heavily from 4e, and yet still be basically OGL at its core (although I am leaning toward a d6 system now - I want to include a set of RPG rules that everyone can use immediately when I premiere my setting online).
Using Christopher's template, I would have something like this:
Source Power Associated Race Result
Fey Glamours Elves/Eladrin Illusions/Charms
Symbolism Runes Dwarves/Giants Runic Inscriptions
Inspiration Devices Gnomes Tinkering (creation)
Trickery Deception Halflings Misdrirection/Beguiling
Just the first two I am 95% sure about - the others I just thought-up. Anyhow, sorry for using this thread as a sounding-board. I really was curious as to the breakdown of roles and how many of each class there are in 4e - My Thanx
|
| Alisttair |
Posted - 04 Mar 2011 : 18:38:38
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
Never mind, found it!
Source|Power
Arcane|Spells
Divine|Prayers
Martial|Exploits
Primal|Evocations
Psionic|Disciplines
Shadow|Hexes
Thank you for both initially giving me the task and then saving me the trouble.  |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 04 Mar 2011 : 18:22:11
Never mind, found it!
Source|Power
Arcane|Spells
Divine|Prayers
Martial|Exploits
Primal|Evocations
Psionic|Disciplines
Shadow|Hexes
|
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 04 Mar 2011 : 17:59:36
Hey Alisttair, while you're being all ambitious and informative, how about listing what the various "powers" gained via different power sources are called. I know Martial is Exploits, Divine is Prayers, Arcane is Spells, Primal is Evocations, right? What are Shadow and Psionic then? |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 04 Mar 2011 : 17:01:34
Here's a list of the classes (pre-essentials) by book:
Player's Handbook Classes
Class Power Source Role
Cleric Divine Leader
Fighter Martial Defender
Paladin Divine Defender
Ranger Martial Striker
Rogue Martial Striker
Warlock Arcane Striker
Warlord Martial Leader
Wizard Arcane Controller
Player's Handbook 2 Classes
Class Power Source Role
Avenger Divine Striker
Barbarian Primal Striker
Bard Arcane Leader
Druid Primal Controller
Invoker Divine Controller
Shaman Primal Leader
Sorcerer Arcane Striker
Warden Primal Defender
Player's Handbook 3 Classes
Class Power Source Role
Ardent Psionic Leader
Battlemind Psionic Defender
Monk Psionic Striker
Psion Psionic Controller
Runepriest Divine Leader
Seeker Primal Controller
Eberron Player's Guide Class
Class Power Source Role
Artificer Arcane Leader
Forgotten Realms Player's Guide Class
Class Power Source Role
Swordmage Arcane Defender
Dragon magazine Class
Class Power Source Role
Assassin Shadow Striker
Here's a list of classes by role:
DEFENDERS (5)
Swordmage
Battlemind
Warden
Fighter
Paladin
STRIKERS (8)
Rogue
Ranger
Warlock
Assassin
Monk
Barbarian
Avenger
Sorcerer
LEADERS (7)
Artificer
Runepriest
Ardent
Shaman
Bard
Cleric
Warlord
CONTROLLERS (5)
Seeker
Psion
Invoker
Druid
Wizard
Also, PHB3 introduces the Hybrid (which is basically two classes in one, so dual-role - an alternative to the multi-class feat). And each class I think starting in PHB2 has a secondary role (which in some cases, the class can be built to act more in their secondary role). |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 04 Mar 2011 : 15:51:39
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
From a balance and logic standpoint, I have to wonder why they did it that way. Those ma be the most popular classes, but didn't they ever hear of variety? I'd prefer more diverse roles, myself. And what happened to the bard?
Well not too many classes are controllers. Off the top of my head, there is the Wizard, Druid, Psion, Seeker and either the Sorcerer or the Invoker (one of those two).
The bard is a Leader, they put it in PH2. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 04 Mar 2011 : 06:14:35
From a balance and logic standpoint, I have to wonder why they did it that way. Those ma be the most popular classes, but didn't they ever hear of variety? I'd prefer more diverse roles, myself. And what happened to the bard? |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 03 Mar 2011 : 16:00:56
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Thank you for your input Allistair, I was thinking along much the same lines (that they wanted the 'kewl factor'). It just makes my OCD-inspired need for balance make my eye twitch when I see that (Eight Classes, Four Roles, but not two for each... just typing that makes me wince). LOL
hehe, yeah I can understand that  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Mar 2011 : 15:56:29
Thank you for your input Allistair, I was thinking along much the same lines (that they wanted the 'kewl factor'). It just makes my OCD-inspired need for balance make my eye twitch when I see that (Eight Classes, Four Roles, but not two for each... just typing that makes me wince). LOL
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I'd like to point out (again) that the PDF is only $10. Very reasonable to give you an insight into the game.
I have the PDF - its just that the book looked so.... awesome.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Do keep in mind it's both PHB and DMG, so it's a reasonable price.
I wasn't complaining so much about the price, but rather about the fact I am on a monthly fixed-income these days, and I need a desk chair a lot more then I need another RPG book.
Its only the 3rd and I've already spent a good portion of my allotment on comp-upgrades. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 03 Mar 2011 : 14:26:18
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I did (briefly) hold the Pathfinder rules in my hands (Heavy book ), but couldn't justify the $50 price-tag for re-vamped OGL. Maybe someday, but yesterday wasn't the day.
I combined a coupon and a sale at Barnes and Noble, and got mine for like $30.
Do keep in mind it's both PHB and DMG, so it's a reasonable price.
I'd like to point out (again) that the PDF is only $10. Very reasonable to give you an insight into the game. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 03 Mar 2011 : 12:30:46
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I am going to try again (Lord knows why...)
I am reading through the 4e rules in-depth ATM - I only spot-read them before, at various times, to check certain things (NOT the setting - I read the entire 4e FR setting guide). I am starting a new group soon, perhaps two, and I really wanted to know the core mechanics before I just write it off (IF I do).
I have question that may seem like I'm nit-picking, but I'm really curious. The rules make a fair amount out of "each class has it's role", and how "each role is equally important". Fine.
There are 8 'base classes' in the PHB, and four defined roles. I assumed immediately that there would be a choice of two classes per role... but there wasn't. 
Has it ever been discussed anywhere why with 8 classes and four roles to fill, only one Controller was included in the basic rules, while there is a choice of THREE Strikers? 
It even goes on to say that if there are enough players for more then one person per role, that the first thing that should be doubled-up on is the Defender... yet we are given more strikers then anything else.
So if I want to run a Controller, using just the basic rule book, I have ONE choice, correct? (which isn't a choice at all, BTW)
Maybe its just me... I don't know... I was just wondering about the logic behind this decision (and if any 4e designers are reading this, I would really appreciate your input).
Here's what I think. I think it's because they wanted to ensure that the classic classes were present (Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric) while keeping some of the popular ones for this book (Paladin/Ranger) and introduce a few new ones (Warlord/Warlock). With that in mind, the four classics cover all four roles, the two popular non-classics are easily Defender and Striker, and then Warlord obviously a Leader and instead of going with a second controller, they supplied a third striker with the Warlock. I think because of two reasons:
1 - Warlocks seemed cool (and they are) 
2 - Strikers are generally more fun and straightforward (they have something called the sex factor) 
(the campaign I'm running with 6 PCs has 1 controller (Druid), 1 Defender (Paladin), 1 Leader (Runepriest) and 3 strikers (Avenger, Ranger and Barbarian))
Actually, I must add a third possible reason that controllers might be more complex to play so they wanted the learning curve to be simpler perhaps.
Oh and they ran out of room |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Mar 2011 : 03:00:42
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I did (briefly) hold the Pathfinder rules in my hands (Heavy book ), but couldn't justify the $50 price-tag for re-vamped OGL. Maybe someday, but yesterday wasn't the day.
I combined a coupon and a sale at Barnes and Noble, and got mine for like $30.
Do keep in mind it's both PHB and DMG, so it's a reasonable price. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Mar 2011 : 01:10:49
I am going to try again (Lord knows why...)
I am reading through the 4e rules in-depth ATM - I only spot-read them before, at various times, to check certain things (NOT the setting - I read the entire 4e FR setting guide). I am starting a new group soon, perhaps two, and I really wanted to know the core mechanics before I just write it off (IF I do).
I have question that may seem like I'm nit-picking, but I'm really curious. The rules make a fair amount out of "each class has it's role", and how "each role is equally important". Fine.
There are 8 'base classes' in the PHB, and four defined roles. I assumed immediately that there would be a choice of two classes per role... but there wasn't.
Has it ever been discussed anywhere why with 8 classes and four roles to fill, only one Controller was included in the basic rules, while there is a choice of THREE Strikers?
It even goes on to say that if there are enough players for more then one person per role, that the first thing that should be doubled-up on is the Defender... yet we are given more strikers then anything else.
So if I want to run a Controller, using just the basic rule book, I have ONE choice, correct? (which isn't a choice at all, BTW)
Maybe its just me... I don't know... I was just wondering about the logic behind this decision (and if any 4e designers are reading this, I would really appreciate your input).
And I'm not just stirring the pot - I actually went to Borders yesterday to buy D&D Essentials, but they were out. I did (briefly) hold the Pathfinder rules in my hands (Heavy book ), but couldn't justify the $50 price-tag for re-vamped OGL. Maybe someday, but yesterday wasn't the day. |
| Arioch |
Posted - 20 Dec 2010 : 16:56:38
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You guys can keep telling the emperor his new clothes are dynamite, but I know he's naked.
Agreed.
I've found this thread only now and I want to add my opinion to it (hope no to offend no one, really):
I see a great problem behind the "secrecy" about the close-past/actual FR event: it makes really hard for the fans to produce their lore:
- too few details to work on to solidly connect an event with other clues (a thing we can do easily with the past editions). The home-conceived events too often seems taken out from nowhere... one plausible like another... Maybe original but missing the feeling that they are plausible BECAUSE of the lore, because the lore justify them!
(And... Lore here is a way to express both love/appreciation/enthusiasm/understanding for the Realms, not a contest of "how many trivials about FR can I win!")
This carries to my second point:
If a given event, with too few details to describe it, is explored by fans the possible outcomes are:
- The new version is considered criticism to the authors (and this is not always the case!)
- The new version is futile, because ONE DAY the official explanation is going to be released... But that day never comes!
Ok... maybe I'm starting to be too much negative...  |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 30 Nov 2010 : 04:28:32
@Erik: thanks for the information. I didn't see your response until today.
I'm still iffy on some things (like why go searching for treasure when the spell scrolls you find are instructions for spells that hardly work anymore?) but I'm gonna just work around it.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't care if the Deep maw is just a named 'thingy' for DMs to do whatever they want with - just TELL ME THAT.
Markus, I see your frustration, but come on: if it's not named or described, it's fair game to play with and fill in.
You know as well as I do that it's always been this way. I.e., Erik hit the nail on the head: some places are just names so DMs (or others) can fill them in.
Besides, it's not like it's some great herculean task for you to edit a name and placeholder information.
I'll just say this (IMNSHO, of course): It's not WotC's job to fill in all the details. That's where we come in.
So, Markus, what'll it be?  You're in the lead on the map, so I say what you detail is what goes. You've got the skill.
Take your best shot I say! |
| Therise |
Posted - 30 Nov 2010 : 00:55:01
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
Phaerlin? Described where?
There isn't much on Phaerlin, but it's in theSerpent Kingdoms supplement. It's just after the entry on Isstosseffifil, in the "major geographical features" portion and a small additional note in the "regional history" segment just afterwards. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 24 Nov 2010 : 23:20:58
Phaerlin? Described where? |
| Therise |
Posted - 24 Nov 2010 : 18:41:26
Frankly... there's nothing on it. There's hardly anything on the new Underchasm either.
If they did want to do something interesting and smart with the Deep Maw, they'd connect it to the ancient war between the Phaerimm and the Sarrukh Empire. Back when the Sarrukh had their realm of Isstosseffifil, they decided to make a final attack against the Phaerimm and re-routed the Narrow Sea so it flooded the Underdark (and unfortunately caused massive ecological damage to their own empire, leading to its downfall).
Perhaps the Deep Maw has re-opened the buried underdark realm that was once known as Phaerlin, home to the first Phaerimm.
Naahh... it's probably just a smudge with a "kewl name"! 
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 21:14:48
Woolys right people. 
As frustrated as I am getting trying to give 4eFR the benefit of the doubt (and actually create something that will DRAW more people to both the Realms and 4e), the very last thing I want to see is another thread closed because people can't keep opinions to themselves.
If it pertains to the question (as my opinion does), then fine, but bashing just for the sake of bashing is getting really old.
If this thread gets closed I won't know what to do, because I am trying to build something here for ALL of us, and there are questions I need answered pertinent to the work I am doing. There are people here (designers, LFR guys, authors, etc) that have way more information then the rest of us, and I'm hoping to get at least some of this stuff sorted out.
I don't care if the Deep maw is just a named 'thingy' for DMs to do whatever they want with - just TELL ME THAT. I do not want to assume that, because it could also be a 'placeholder' that some author/designer has plans for. because of the way it is presented on the maps, I can't even tell if is a chasm or just a depression (as I said earlier, it is 'grayed-out' on the Underdark map, like all the surface terrain). The word 'deep' is relative, BTW, so there is no way to gauge by that. On a world with Titans and Jermlaine, a 50' span could be considered a short jump and a 6' drop could be considered a 'deadly fall'. Even amongst humans/demi-humans there would be a difference of opinion - would a Dwarf of the great rift think it was 'deep', as compared to someone who lives in the Wastes? A person living in a very flat desert could consider a 10' hole deep... and that's unfortunately right where the 'Maw' is. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 20:51:02
quote:
Originally posted by Dracons
The biggest 4th edition question of them all of Forgotten Realms is why did Ed allow this.
*bangs head into the wall* Because Ed is just a freelancer, and has NO control over the setting! This is something that's been expressed repeatedly since 4E came out.
Also, this is more 4E-bashing. We've been trying to keep this thread clear of that. I'm going to start deleting anti-4E posts from this thread, if they keep popping up. |
| Dracons |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 20:19:30
The biggest 4th edition question of them all of Forgotten Realms is why did Ed allow this. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 19:32:03
Just Wow....
I just learned that Osse was in the middle of Faerûn!!! 
'Faerûn' - NOT the planet - is CENTRAL to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Dead center of 'The Heartlands' (note the name) is Anauroch. Right in the middle of that CENTRALIZED desert is a big black smudge with the name 'Deep Maw'.
You are not comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and aardvarks!
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
In 1E the map said "Sword Coast" - "Cormyr" - [RESERVED] - "The Dales" - etc.
BUT the campaign guides had information on ALL of those things!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
"Deep Maw" is just a more exciting name for an old idea. For all I know it's just the residue of Ravenloft taking a bite out of the Realms. In any event I know this - there will be lore, eventually, about Deep Maw.
That doesn't help me NOW. I can not draw a 'smudge' - even my paltry artistic skills can do better then that. I need to know precisely what it is or it goes on no map I create.
And by the time they get around to detailing everything, everyone will be playing in Golarion. 
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We're trying to keep this thread clear of anti-4E sentiments, please.
Too true.
Too bad it couldn't last.
As soon as I start asking questions (that CAN'T be answered), people start defending FR4.0.
There comes a point in everyone's life, when they spend half of it defending something, that they must question why they need to defend it so much.
I just want answers. Someone must have named the damn thing, which means SOMEONE knows what it is supposed to be - whats with all the secretiveness? Is it truly just a smudge that got named? REALLY? |
| Therise |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 18:29:10
Actually, this is one of those moments where I'm glad that I stayed with an older version of the Realms. I don't have to worry about anything "new" or modified in 4E Realms because I'm not buying or using any of it. And the more new stuff I see, I'm quite happy I did, haha!
|
| Bakra |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 13:58:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Seriously, are you guys comparing vague lore regarding certain subjects with a BIG BLACK SMUDGE dead-center of the new 4e FR map that apparently NO-ONE knows a things about?
Name one other setting - game or otherwise - that has a major geographical feature central to the campaign area (with a name and everything) that doesn't get a single mention anywhere.
Not mentioning something so large, and being 'vague' are two completely different things - that's just really bad design. You guys can keep telling the emperor his new clothes are dynamite, but I know he's naked.
Thanks Markustay! Best laugh I had at work all morning. I’m going to stick with FR related materials.* It’s going to take me at least seven days to get around to looking through the various 4e novels, articles, Living Forgotten Realms adventures, and the two main books**. So here are some questions for you or anyone else until after Thanksgiving:
How is the Deep Maw central to the campaign?
How is the Deep Maw central to MY campaign area?
More questions for everyone:
In second edition I played in a pirate campaign and the island nation Lantan was central to OUR area. Using any lore from TSR/WotC supplements and the two magazines (Dragon & Dungeon) please name four port cities, two interior cities, a river, the name for a mountain, the name for the mountain ranges, the name for the active volcano, three minor temples, three major temples, interior trade routes, and one local bay. Please be sure to cite your sources. Also we had a FR Spelljammer campaign using the Interactive Atlas…let’s see you said , “…that has a major geographical feature central to the campaign area (with a name and everything) that doesn't get a single mention anywhere.” So please point me to information for Osse before January 2000.
Last few questions for which I don’t really need an answer. How many years did we have to wait before an Undermountain Box set? How about Skullport? How long before we received information about Nimbral, the Border Kingdoms, etc…
Gamers need to understand everything takes time. And a popular area central to the campaign will receive more coverage than others. For example,Cormyr,the Dalelands, and Waterdeep.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone,
*I own material for Ebberon, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Isle of Legend, Rifts, Werewolf, Castle Mourn, Sovereign Stone, Battletech, and various other campaigns too numerous to list.
**Honestly, I’m not going to bother. If you are not happy with the answers provide then why should I try to reply?
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 11:49:43
We're trying to keep this thread clear of anti-4E sentiments, please. |
| BARDOBARBAROS |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 11:25:24
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Seriously, are you guys comparing vague lore regarding certain subjects with a BIG BLACK SMUDGE dead-center of the new 4e FR map that apparently NO-ONE knows a things about?
Name one other setting - game or otherwise - that has a major geographical feature central to the campaign area (with a name and everything) that doesn't get a single mention anywhere.
Not mentioning something so large, and being 'vague' are two completely different things - that's just really bad design. You guys can keep telling the emperor his new clothes are dynamite, but I know he's naked.
That's is a true statement!!But it is obvious that wizards of the coast promotes their D&D core world ...There are too many book about it that they are useless ..Also i think now we are unofficially(!!??) in 4.5 edition because they have published the SECOND The Essential Dungeons & Dragons Starter box probably for the 4.5 edition(with the old ELMORE painting) look here : http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244660000 , while there were and the FIRST one for the 4.0 edition , look here: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/217120000.... I wonder who buys these box set for a second time in 4th edition and also the other books of 4th edition core !!!!!???
Wizards do not care so much about FAERUN any more!!!
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 07:59:45
In 1E the map said "Sword Coast" - "Cormyr" - [RESERVED] - "The Dales" - etc. "Deep Maw" is just a more exciting name for an old idea. For all I know it's just the residue of Ravenloft taking a bite out of the Realms. In any event I know this - there will be lore, eventually, about Deep Maw. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 01:42:59
Seriously, are you guys comparing vague lore regarding certain subjects with a BIG BLACK SMUDGE dead-center of the new 4e FR map that apparently NO-ONE knows a thing about?
Name one other setting - game or otherwise - that has a major geographical feature central to the campaign area (with a name and everything) that doesn't get a single mention anywhere.
Not mentioning something so large, and being 'vague' are two completely different things - that's just really bad design. You guys can keep telling the emperor his new clothes are dynamite, but I know he's naked. |
|
|
