| Author |
 Topic  |
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Aug 2010 : 22:03:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Just two things I'll add:
1) 3.0/3.5 had 11 base classes in the PHB, but with the ease of multiclassing and such, you were able to create a large number of combinations (even if you look at just two-class combos, you'll get over 100 possible combinations). Granted, the volume of Prestige Classes, additional base classes and other things (like racial substitution levels) resulted in an overabundance of choices (IMHO), but it still allowed for more freedom of characters than I have yet to see in 4E.
2) The Essentials line is being marketed to 'grab new players' by making the rules easier. Considering that was the original reason for the 4th Edition when 3rd Edition was still out there, I have no problems making a comparison that it's a half edition (since the basic rules set is the same as 4E).
What you said makes sense Ashe.
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
 |
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2010 : 23:31:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But specific rules such as actions in combat, charging, class features, etc... are staying the same. Something that coudln't be said for the 3.5 revision.
Right. Because 3.5 was such a HUGE step from 3.0.
Wiki's listing of differences 3.0/3.5
3.5 made changes to character classes, nerfed some spells and feats (that needed nerfing), made increasing the CR of monsters easier and clarified some of the combat rules.
Huh... Sound almost exactly like what they are doing for the Essentials line.
But y'know what? I don't care because I can understand why they need to do this, both for game-play reasons AND to make more money (and also because I don't play 4E). |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2010 : 15:59:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But specific rules such as actions in combat, charging, class features, etc... are staying the same. Something that coudln't be said for the 3.5 revision.
Right. Because 3.5 was such a HUGE step from 3.0.
I never said there was a HUGE difference between 3.0/3.5. I stated the changes they made and that were necessary but more broad than what changes are being made to 4E.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
3.5 made changes to character classes, nerfed some spells and feats (that needed nerfing), made increasing the CR of monsters easier and clarified some of the combat rules.
Huh... Sound almost exactly like what they are doing for the Essentials line.
There are very few (if any) changes to the existing Monster previously stated, there are few (if any) changes to classes or their features (clarifying a certain feature like battle-rager's temporary HP doesn't stack and Power revisons are common already) And changes to rules are only to "clarify" the intent of said rule. They re-worded some rules to make plain certain aspects the designers probably took for granted (like stacking the same vulnerablility was a no-no from the start). Whole classes aren't being re-done as was with the barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger of 3.5, rules for critical hits aren't being re-done, etc...
And when the Essentials line comes out, a Fighter made BEFORE the essentials line will still be very valid (in all it's feats/powers/equipment glory) and playable in RPGA unlike a character made with 3E and then having to change the character to 3.5E. Hence, not an edition change.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2010 : 20:35:49
|
Here ya go, found this little tid-bit of info in the last Dragon issue:
"The Most Important Thing to Remember:
If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged. Aside from the rules updates introduced over the past few months, of which the relevant pieces are included in the Rules Compendium, little (if anything) on your character sheet has changed. The only real changes rest in wizard encounter spells (they have miss effects now), and those changes are almost entirely additive in nature. Your burning hands spell is the same spell as before, except now it deals half damage on a miss.
This point bears repeating—Aside from rules updates and changes to one category of wizard spells, the character you are playing today does not change in any major way. It was crucial to us that someone playing a dwarf fighter today didn’t need to rebuild that character once the Essentials products were released."
And this is why I believe this isn't an edition revison. Even 3.0 characters needed re-tweaking after 3.5 came out, espically in the areas of feats and skills. Additionall, Rangers were given less hit-points as well as the other aspects Ashe had posted earlier.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36971 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2010 : 02:48:17
|
Maybe it's just me, and I'll admit I've not been paying any attention to this Essentials thing, since it's 4E...
But from what I'm hearing described here, it sound like this is like the Complete class books of 3.x or the Complete class Handbooks of 2E -- in other words, more splatbooks, with more rules. Yeah, it gives more options to the players and DMs, but it also means the ruleset gets more cluttered and puts us a little closer to the inevitable next edition. Whether that edition is 4.5 or 5.0, whether it gets announced next year or in 2012, this carries us just a little further down a road we already know quite well.
If I'm wrong in how I'm reading this, please correct me -- I'm willing to be proven wrong, provided I'm not attacked in the process. But I'm also wishing WotC could find a business model other than planned obsolescence. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 24 Aug 2010 02:51:29 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2010 : 04:10:43
|
| That's the heart of the debate Wooly. It's a little bit MORE than a splatbook, but less than a full edition change. From what's being tossed around about the Essentials book, the classes are different versions of current classes (cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter). So there's the element of confusion regarding players that will be playing a PHB fighter and ones playing an Essentials fighter. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2010 : 04:38:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
That's the heart of the debate Wooly. It's a little bit MORE than a splatbook, but less than a full edition change. From what's being tossed around about the Essentials book, the classes are different versions of current classes (cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter). So there's the element of confusion regarding players that will be playing a PHB fighter and ones playing an Essentials fighter.
That pretty much sums it up. I'll try to be clear here, the Essentials line are like "add-ons", "kits", "sub-stitution levels" of 3E/2E. For example I'll use the fighter: when a 1st level fighter is made, he has a few choices to make. First is his Combat Superority feature. He can A). take combat superority (granting Wis-mod to Opportunity Attacks) or B). Combat Agility (move and attack after a marked target attacks an ally). Then he gets Weapon Styles features which can be A.) Weapon Talent 1-handed or 2-handed (+1 to attacks with chosen weapon), B.) Tempest Style (benefits for fighting with two weapons), C.) Battle-rager style (benefits for using Invigorating powers and gaining temp. HP), D.) Brawler style (benefits for using a "free" hand or spiked gauntlet and can grapple/hold/pin foes). Now with the Essentials line, they'll have those options or can be more of a Gladiator or Slayer with different options for both. It's more like "hey, here's some new abilities that might flesh our that character you've been trying to make with existing rules that fit/mesh perfectly now!"
And each class are getting these I believe. The cleric received the Warpriest which loses his Turn Undead channel divinity power and instead gains Smite Evil power or something to that effect. The wizard gets the "Mage" which can choose different schools of magic and so forth....
Does that sorta explain how the essentials are supposed to work now? Instead of them doing a full-blown class with 30+ levels of powers, new paragon paths, new feats, new epic destinies for these classes, they just add on to the original stuff. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2010 : 10:56:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
*snip*
If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to.
I've heard this ridiculous line of patented horse manure recently from some 4E FR designers as well — "it's only canon if it's canon for you."
Besides the fact that that's not how the concept of canon works (go ask the Catholic Church, who invented it, if that's how they think of canon), it's blatantly self-serving.
It's claiming on one hand, that if you want to have the complete, correct rules, which will, by the way, be the ones that the Living campaigns and other WotC-sponsored campaigns and tournaments will be playing, then you have to purchase them. But if you complain that they're forcing you to purchase them, then you get the, "Dude, like, you totally don't have to buy it, man! It's all good! You're just whining. They're totally not important if it's not important to you..."
Right.
Quite honestly I don't see the problem with that sentence. Isn't that how its always been? |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2010 : 16:49:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
I've heard this ridiculous line of patented horse manure recently from some 4E FR designers as well — "it's only canon if it's canon for you."
As Jorkens stated, it's always been this way. No one's ever been forced to buy splat books to run D&D. Any one game can get along just fine with the Core books: PHB, DMG, MM and never have to worry about all the stuff that coems after. So the Essentials aren't any different.
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
It's claiming on one hand, that if you want to have the complete, correct rules, which will, by the way, be the ones that the Living campaigns and other WotC-sponsored campaigns and tournaments will be playing, then you have to purchase them. But if you complain that they're forcing you to purchase them, then you get the, "Dude, like, you totally don't have to buy it, man! It's all good! You're just whining. They're totally not important if it's not important to you..."
Right.
I don't think thats it at all. In fact, if you do RPGA (which is something I'm going to get into very soon) I'm fairly certain that you can ignore the Essentials line if you want to OR buy the material and have more options for your characters. As stated earlier, everything that came proir to Essentials are still valid, so you don't have to buy it if you don't want to. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 04:10:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
Rule changes have nothing to do with canon.
This was a separate, but similar issue. If you think that the statement "It's only canon if it's canon for you" can ever make sense, then I suggest you read up on it a bit more. The very concept of "canon" requires that canon be universal.
I'm still confused as to why canon is even being brought up in a subject that discusses edition revisions. The "it's only canon if it's canon for you." quote was posted to show that the upgrade involving the Essentials producs don't refute anything prior and are only incorporated into your campaign if YOU want them to be. Yes, if you want to play in the RPGA then your going to come across people who are Gladiators and Warpriests but that doesn't affect you in the slightest as long as your not the DM. If you DM an RPGA game then you might (possibly) need the additional content to conduct the adventure accordingly. Most who don't get the Essentials will just look off of people who do or use the content.
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
I believe if you look at the aforementioned "Magic Item Rarity", you'll see at least one rule change which you'll almost certainly be expected to follow playing by RPGA rules. So, far from agreeing with your assumption above, at least one official WotC notice has quite explicitly stated that not "everything that came prior" is still valid.
Actually, if you want to get technical, it's a deletion of a rule and thus falls under Errata. That is unless you believe that when they make errata then it's another edition revison. Then I think we're into 3.999001E and 4.783192E (gross estimiation on my part).
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
And I suspect you'll find that all the other tweaks, alterations, etc. will be required for organized play as well. Meaning that anyone interested in that, like yourself, will essentially be required to purchase Essentials. For the very simple reason, that if you want access to organized play and the benefits that come from it, you'll need to be playing with the up-to-date rules.
Quite the contrary, with the free Errata page all revisons/deletions/up-dates regarding the rules are posted and accessable to everyone (so far anyways). And yes, I used the word "revision" because there becomes certain balance issues when things such as spells, magical items, and feats are taken Out of context and/or used to find loop-holes in the mechanics of the game (3.5 was espically guilty of this). But again, I don't see that as an Edition Revison akin to 3.5.
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
You could try to play with the books issued prior to Essentials, but you'll almost certainly find that there are certain rules which you'll be required to follow that aren't available in those prior tomes.
See my reference to the Errata page with all the up to date rules people can access freely. Here, i'll even post it incase someone missed it -----> 4E rules update
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
So, from a practical perspective, is there really a difference between the publication of 3.5E and 4E Essentials? If you need(ed) to purchase the new books in order to continue participating in official play, does it matter if it's called an edition change?
Of course theres a difference, mainly because one is an edition change and the other is what many consider to be an add-on to existing play. I don't see WotC re-printing all the core books with the offical errata they've made so far, I don't see sweeping changes to character classes, I don't see any changes to how they do skills or the feats. Powers/spells/prayers have seen changes but that's apart of Errata, something 3.5 should've had more of IMO. But a good example of another edition change would be Pathfinder's wonderful take on 3E/3.5. They changed all the classes, added more, added/re-worked feats, re-did skills, completly changed how cleric domains work, and changed the progressions of prestige classes. It was a classic revision of 3.5 edition (which some say Pathfinder is just 3.75). 4E has not seen any sort of these sweeping changes and they won't even with the Essentials product coming out soon. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 15:22:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
*snip*
4E has not seen any sort of these sweeping changes and they won't even with the Essentials product coming out soon.
Well. It certainly sounds like you actually have your mind made up before the product ships. Rendering further discussion rather pointless.
I'm speculating, like everyone else. These are opinions I've gathered by looking at the released content and hearing from the designers. Sure, I could've been lied to and they change everything and render all the Core books pointless but I hope they don't and I've not read anything that proves other-wise. |
|
|
|
Wenin
Senior Scribe
585 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 16:30:54
|
quote:
From Magic Item Rarity:
"Before we bring this discussion to a close, it’s worth mentioning that the limits on using daily magic item powers are no longer part of the game. They existed to prevent the characters from stockpiling items that were far below their level but still had useful, daily powers. Under this scheme, such items are uncommon. Stockpiling a number of them is impossible without house rules or a Dungeon Master who willingly awards multiple copies of such items as treasure. With our new rarity scheme in place, we no longer need such rules."
That sounds like it's a post talking about a video game, and not a RPG. |
Session Reports posted at RPG Geek.
Stem the Tide Takes place in Mistledale.
Dark Curtains - Takes place in the Savage North, starting in Nesmé. I wrapped my campaign into the Hoard of the Dragon Queen, but it takes place in 1372 DR. |
Edited by - Wenin on 25 Aug 2010 16:38:53 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 17:07:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wenin
quote:
From Magic Item Rarity:
"Before we bring this discussion to a close, it’s worth mentioning that the limits on using daily magic item powers are no longer part of the game. They existed to prevent the characters from stockpiling items that were far below their level but still had useful, daily powers. Under this scheme, such items are uncommon. Stockpiling a number of them is impossible without house rules or a Dungeon Master who willingly awards multiple copies of such items as treasure. With our new rarity scheme in place, we no longer need such rules."
That sounds like it's a post talking about a video game, and not a RPG.
Well it's a rule that you can only utilize so many magical items per day and it scales with character tiers. It's a really really stupid rule that my group threw out. But I wouldn't be suprised if they deleted the rule cuz it really makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 23:58:12
|
And if you have a spell point system wherein there is a cost to the PC to activate said items, the problem also no longer exists. 
As for the rest of this, its all coming down to semantics again...
What is 'canon'? What is considered a 'retcon'? How much and what specifically needs to change for it to be considered a 'new' edition'?
Seriously - the 'spin doctors' are working over-time to disarm guys like me.
You can call it 'Manure' all you want, but at the end of the day it's all horse s*** to me. 
And BTW, this is NOT an edition-attack at all - TSR was doing this for years before WorC was even a twinkle in Garfield's eye. The 'Complete' line of books replaced the 'Options' books from earlier. They simply rename what they are doing to throw consumers off - its all part of business.
Lets just be glad they haven't tried to market X-treme D&D! That one is so over-used these days I am surprised they haven't marketed diapers using it.
X-ssentials?  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 12 Sep 2010 23:59:18 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2010 : 16:23:33
|
So if it's the nature of the beast when why all the hoop-la or aggression? Not you specifically Markus but concensus in general? If it's been done over and over and over then it's not a shocker or suprise that it's happen yet again.
As for retcons, the only one I saw with 4eFR was Sun/Moon/Star elves always being eladrin and frankly, I think it works. There was very little in ways to get that race into FR with out stepping on some toes. Additionally I think Eladrin work better for those sub-races than the regular Elf. |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 13 Sep 2010 : 22:11:30
|
| Speaking of retcons, what was the official 4E explanation for Abeir-toril's meaning changing from "Cradle of Life" in the 1e and 2e Forgotten Realms guides to it being two separate worlds? Did they hand wave it as a mistake of sages or something or did they just ignore it? I read the Campaign Guide for 4E but only once and not very closely so if it was explained in there I could have missed it. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36971 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2010 : 00:49:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
Speaking of retcons, what was the official 4E explanation for Abeir-toril's meaning changing from "Cradle of Life" in the 1e and 2e Forgotten Realms guides to it being two separate worlds? Did they hand wave it as a mistake of sages or something or did they just ignore it? I read the Campaign Guide for 4E but only once and not very closely so if it was explained in there I could have missed it.
It was ignored. They stopped explaining changes when 3E came out. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 14 Sep 2010 00:49:57 |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2010 : 02:00:18
|
| Alright, thanks for letting me know. I am a bit disappointed they didn't even attempt to explain the massive change, on the other hand I'm not sure any explanation, even one dictated to me by Ed himself and with his full approval, would make me like the changes so I can't be too angry that they didn't attempt to explain it. |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2010 : 23:35:20
|
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/redbox.aspx
Well there it is. They can do what they want because it is theirs. What makes me  is why copey the red box? Cant 4th edition stand on its own? They want a box set fine but dont play it off looking like something else. All of the older edition art to market it, why? 4th edition has no art? Dont play on the old school feel/look! 4th is a new car, go new. Dont use old school to help sale when you trashed it so bad is all I am saying.
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 02:18:31
|
| Its really interesting when you compare that to the direction wotc has taken with the novel carver art. |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
Edited by - The Red Walker on 15 Sep 2010 02:18:56 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 04:23:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/redbox.aspx
Well there it is. They can do what they want because it is theirs. What makes me is why copey the red box? Cant 4th edition stand on its own? They want a box set fine but dont play it off looking like something else. All of the older edition art to market it, why? 4th edition has no art? Dont play on the old school feel/look! 4th is a new car, go new. Dont use old school to help sale when you trashed it so bad is all I am saying.
John
I still don't see what's wrong with this. Having never experienced the Red Box (or any Boxed Set except maybe the 3.5 starter box) I think it appeals to newer and older players alike. For the older players, it has concepts like the Thief and Slayer classes which are very "Old School" and I think it's a Nod by WotC to those old-time fans. And it's great for new players as their not bogged down with books and supplements that costs $100s of dollars yet if they want to get more into the game, it fits perfectly with the current rule-set.
Of course 4E can stand on it's own, it's been doing that for over 2 years now. I just think they're trying to show some appreciation to the previous generations while still making it fun for people invested with the current edition. And for what...$20? It has all the rules you need to play the game, 4 classes to choose from, 4 races to choose from, dice, maps, a read-along adventure, plus other stuff.
I'm actually thinking of getting it to introduce some new people I've got gaming with me to D&D (we're currently doing Star Wars: Saga). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36971 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 05:04:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I just think they're trying to show some appreciation to the previous generations while still making it fun for people invested with the current edition.
I wish they'd done that a couple years ago... |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ionik Knight
Learned Scribe
USA
222 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 12:34:17
|
| Ah the old red box...I remember it fondly. I wonder if they reprinted the old solo adventure or wrote up a new one. |
Fools to right of them,
Jesters to left of them,
Clowns in front of them
Pun'd and parody'd. |
|
|
|
Bakra
Senior Scribe
628 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 15:14:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I just think they're trying to show some appreciation to the previous generations while still making it fun for people invested with the current edition.
I wish they'd done that a couple years ago...
As Ayunken-vanzan pointed out to us before 4e doesn't have a Wish spell. |
I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . .
So saith Ed. <snip>
love to all,
THO
|
|
|
|
Bakra
Senior Scribe
628 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 15:15:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ionik Knight
Ah the old red box...I remember it fondly. I wonder if they reprinted the old solo adventure or wrote up a new one.
They wrote a new one but you can substitute Bargle in there if you want too. I know they updated him to 4e two years ago in Dragon Magazine:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dnd/20081017a |
I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . .
So saith Ed. <snip>
love to all,
THO
|
Edited by - Bakra on 15 Sep 2010 15:18:23 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 16:41:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bakra
quote:
Originally posted by Ionik Knight
Ah the old red box...I remember it fondly. I wonder if they reprinted the old solo adventure or wrote up a new one.
They wrote a new one but you can substitute Bargle in there if you want too. I know they updated him to 4e two years ago in Dragon Magazine:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dnd/20081017a
With the changes in the recent up-date Magic Missile is now Auto-hit so the damage expression in Bargle's write-up should change. Possibly 4 or 5 magic damage. Additionally, they'll have to change a few things with Fireball as well. |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 16:44:03
|
| I was surprised to see the Old Red Box on the shelves at the local B&N store. I didn’t look at it up close (was walking with my date at the time) but now I’ll have a look-see to determine how well my sense of nostalgia blends with what’s new about the box. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3254 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 19:30:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I was surprised to see the Old Red Box on the shelves at the local B&N store. I didn’t look at it up close (was walking with my date at the time) but now I’ll have a look-see to determine how well my sense of nostalgia blends with what’s new about the box.
Ah, see? I made that save because I still have the original Red Box books... |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 20:07:02
|
Hrm...your Red Box modifier must be higher then mine then.
Off topic: while on my previously mentioned date, the woman asked about D&D while we were browsing the sci-fi section in the bookstore. Later over dinner as I was explaining the game she interrupted and asked, "Wait...can you overthrow the DM?"
She's a keeper. :) |
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 15 Sep 2010 20:19:49 |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3567 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 21:48:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I just think they're trying to show some appreciation to the previous generations while still making it fun for people invested with the current edition.
I wish they'd done that a couple years ago...
I appreciate the sentiment, but folks......there just trying to make more $....that's what corporations do! (and so do I ) |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
What were they thinking?
