| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Jun 2012 : 22:45:31
|
I tried to make this title as accurate to the subject matter as possible, as I expect it might be somewhat explosive. Before I begin, let me state that I have the players handbook for second edition, in PDF. So I am not oblivious on the differences between second and third edition. I have however, discovered a significant degree of animosity towards third edition and am attempting to discover why and from what it springs.
So, what’s wrong with 3E?
|
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2012 : 23:14:24
|
Nothing.
Its my favorite edition (and I've run all but 4e, and many other systems besides).
Its far from perfect, and suffers from a great deal of 'bloat', but so did 2e. The few problems it had were mostly addressed by Paizo's Pathfinder. Still not perfect, but the best iteration of 3e out there.
4e just didn't feel right to me (from reading what little of the rules I had, not from actually playing). From what I've seen of 5e (the playtest), I think it could become my new favorite edition. Only time will tell. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 04 Jun 2012 00:47:16 |
 |
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2012 : 23:56:59
|
| I need a bit of clarification: do you mean 3e the ruleset, or the Realms as described under 3e? Crunch or fluff, basically. I have my issues with both, but an issue with one does not necessarily translate over to the other. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 00:31:36
|
| I mean both. I mean both story wise, and mechanics wise. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 00:44:04
|
My only problem with 3e Forgotten Realms was the "shrunken map syndrome" which caused lands to become smaller.
EDIT:
My main complaint regarding shrunken maps was that then there was complaint of "nowhere else to explore" of all things! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
Edited by - Dalor Darden on 04 Jun 2012 00:53:18 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 00:48:25
|
I'm still having nightmares over that.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 01:19:53
|
Probably my biggest problem with 3e, rules-wise, is that it sucked the magic out of the setting. It's table-top wargamming on a tactical level, which is fitting, I suppose considering the roots of D&D, but a major let-down compared to 2e.
2e had magic and whimsy built into the rules. It felt like a fantasy setting. Compare 2e and 3e magic item creation: 2e provided a bunch of wondrous suggestions that furthered role-playing, like monster body parts or impossible conditions right out of a fairy tale. 3e was an assembly line; you get this feat, that spell, and clank-clank! Magic item. Want another one? Clank-clank! Another.
2e was a lot more flexible as well. Much of both rule-books were explicitly optional, and even most of the stuff that wasn't could be thrown out with little impact on anything else. More than that, the DM was actively encouraged to do this. Don't want to worry about managing proficiencies? Poof, gone. Don't like racial level limits? Gone and no one notices. Etc. 3e is so horribly interconnected, not only can you not get rid of anything you don't like except in rare cases, you have to keep everything in mind at once for how it plays on each other. Armor affecting skills, which affect feats, which affect spells, and on.
Finally, 3e has an obsession with balance that went way beyond overkill and into joykill; even more hilarious for the fact that it was completely broken from the first book and got increasingly worse with each splatbook. Sometimes I wonder if the 3e designers were accountants before they came to WotC, because there's a manic obsession with tallying everything. Every single magic item, every single spell, every single monster has to given an exact number. An exact gp cost, an exact CR; every race has to be weighed and balanced and given an LA. Every feat has to be tweaked so as to be in line with its fellows. Considering that this is the same game that has the wizard/CoDzilla two pages over from the fighter, it's as insulting as it is bleak. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 02:19:01
|
| I personally loved 3.x (and almost exclusively play Pathfinder), but I know that many people who did not enjoy 3.x because of the complexity of the rules. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 05:06:10
|
I think 3E was a strong ruleset, and I favor its successor, Pathfinder, over anything else.
Realms-wise, though...
I object to retcons and unexplained changes, and the 3.x era had a lot of both -- particularly when it was introduced.
I also object to multiple RSEs, all happening at the same time or in rapid succession. Too much, too soon.
And I object to the way Shade was pretty much unstoppable, and either Shade, Shar, or both were at the center of everything. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 06:02:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
My main complaint regarding shrunken maps was that then there was complaint of "nowhere else to explore" of all things!
For 3rd Edition D&D, the game designers shrunk the map to fit the extant Realms on one poster sized map.
They didn't shrink the maps because there was nowhere left to explore.
The concept of "nowhere left to explore" was a symptom of the changes from 3E to 4E.
When you consider 3rd Edition D&D, it's important to understand from the outset that some of the changes in the Realms owed themselves to specific changes in game mechanics between 2nd and 3rd Edition D&D.
These inherent changes in the rules, such as all races having access to all the character classes available in the game, didn't need an in-setting explanation. Thus there was no canon blurb explaining why, for example, dwarves can cast spells and otherwise work well with magic when under prior rules they couldn't.
That would have implied a before and after that, so far as 3E was concerned, didn't exist.
Core changes to the game require viewing a setting like the Realms as though the changes were always there. In this case, setting continuity (that is, continuity derived from older editions of the D&D rules) takes a back seat to the latest edition of the D&D game.
There's no reason, then, to explain something what's always existed. Players were supposed to "get" that the D&D game changed, so the Realms changed.
This concept didn't sit well with some fans of the Realms, which is why you'll see complaints about no in-setting explanation for some changes. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 04 Jun 2012 06:26:01 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 06:06:11
|
Nothing's wrong with 3e, assuming that you're cool with all the broken rules and like having nigh-infinite options. 
But here's a brush with a complete analysis:
As a player, 3e presents a very customizable, sort-of-balanced (at least at low levels) play system that can be very engaging and very fun, assuming of course you have a good DM. As long as you limit the number of books you can use for character creation and don't get hung up on how grapple is supposed to work, you're probably going to be fine. It also takes at least an hour (usually more) to create 1st-3rd level PCs, particularly with people who haven't played the game or if you're opening it up to the thousands of optional rulebooks you could be using.
My own PCs have broken the system on a couple of occasions, but I'm not generally a power-gamer. Those who ARE, however . . . well, I spent a short campaign sitting beside a 10th level bard who would routinely get in the 50s or 60s on his Bluff and Diplomacy checks, which (according to the epic level handbook) was enough to ALTER REALITY (at least for a listener). He would routinely convince shopkeepers/guards/archmages/kings/etc that they were secret friends/villains/chosen/squirrels/etc. Our 10th level monk easily kept pace with a horse running at full gallop. My 10th level wizard used a spell combination that dished out 500 or so damage in her first turn on the first round of combat, killing every single enemy on the board. When she hit 11th level, she perfected a 95% kill spell combination: Assay Spell Resistance (setup if needed) / Quickened True Strike / Sudden Maximized Disintegrate / Gust of Wind for style. No save, just dust. Etc.
As a DM, I generally find 3e very frustrating to run. I'm constantly looking in various PHBs to check what spells do, and browsing 1000s of feats to figure out the right tactical way to run monsters. In 2e and then in 4e, it's pretty much all on the page in front of you.
Also, from a design perspective, building a monster is a scientific endeavor based on keeping the numbers exact. It's tiresome when every single NPC--from the lowly peon farmer to the ultimate badass evil archmage--has to be built with the same rules that you build PCs with (albeit with reduced ability scores and strict limitations on equipment). And skill points, which buy different ranks in skills at different levels? Ugh. It's just a huge hassle trying to create a statblock, and can take hours on each NPC at a high level of play. Basically, it's "mechanics-side creation": you combine cool mechanics to come up with a cool villain. If you're working from the other direction (i.e. you have a concept), you can try and match mechanics to your concept to recreate it with the building blocks that you have, but you can't make up new blocks.
By contrast, monster design in 2e and 4e is WAY easier. In 2e, the entirely artistic process of designing monsters basically made no sense, which the designers seem to have embraced. It was just this process of "what could the characters realistically defeat?" and POW, there was the monster. Monsters don't have levels (hit dice are a rough approximation of how tough they are)--it's up to the DM to determine what makes sense in his/her game.
4e turns monster design into an art form with a scientific base. It has specific expectations of what a monster at a certain level should be able to accomplish (attack modifiers, defenses, hit points, etc), and outside of that, you're free to create and innovate however you want as the DM. (On a side note, this is how I build 3e monsters for my own 3e games--I figure out what a monster is supposed to be able to do, and I just have it do that. I don't make all of its abilities spring from feats and skill points and spells from class levels, etc.)
All of this is NOT to say that 3e (or more accurately, the d20 system) isn't a perfectly good gaming system. Pathfinder went quite far in fixing the broken rules and zaniness that PCs often pulled. I spent many years of my life happily playing it, and I still break it out from time to time for a game. But what I run now has all the perks of 3e that I value and use, and none of the things that frustrated or limited me.
(Though I still question whether a d20 system is too swingy. Anyway. Mechanical talk. Moving on!)
I will say that the LORE for 3e was generally much more robust than it is for 4e, at least as far as the Realms is involved. This is not to deprecate the designers who work on the 4e Realms (I am one of them, after all!) but rather to point out that WotC poured far more resources into supporting the Realms as its own setting. It was really a golden era for the Realms, in my mind. It more or less matched 2e, in my approximation, but I confess that I came to the Realms DURING 2e, so I don't have the full beginning to end vision. After that, the powers that be seem to have opted for other priorities, and the Realms has been getting less loving than it did in the past.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And I object to the way Shade was pretty much unstoppable, and either Shade, Shar, or both were at the center of everything.
I think we might be overstating that a little (there were LOTS of 3e era FR books that had nothing to do with Shar or the Shades), but I certainly agree there was this perception. A lot of the 3e RSEs involved the Shades to a moderate or high degree, and many of the big stories (Erevis Cale, Return of the Archwizards, the Tearing of the Weave adventure series) were very much about them. It was just the new thing that was being hyped.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 06:32:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
My main complaint regarding shrunken maps was that then there was complaint of "nowhere else to explore" of all things!
For 3rd Edition D&D, the game designers shrunk the map to fit the extant Realms on one poster sized map.
Yes, but that is lazy to me. They wanted to sell a hardback book instead of a box...when they should have sold a hardback box. 
quote:
They didn't shrink the maps because there was nowhere left to explore.
Yes, I know...but THEN (as I have now boldened in my first post on the issue) they complained in the transition to 4e...
|
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 10:16:07
|
I will give my personal opinion.
For me it is a different game than all the TSR versions, not necessarily a bad game, but a different system (D20) which gives us a new version of D&D. In other words, D&D is now a brand, not a system. My definition of a single game with more than one edition? That a product is more or less directly transferable even if you only own one of the rules-systems. This works with GURPS, BRP versions and all older D&D systems.
As for 3ed. FR I don't like it at all, neither look, feel or format. so it is difficult for me to give an objective judgement here. Its far more cohesive than the older editions, but the end result is something I would never play. The older editions was often a mess, but that also made it easier to just ignore what you didn't like. It took me several 3ed. books to finally decide that I have had enough of 3ed. Realms too.
And don't even get me started with the maps.
|
No Canon, more stories, more Realms. |
|
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1279 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 14:03:15
|
quote:
Realms-wise, though...
I object to retcons and unexplained changes, and the 3.x era had a lot of both -- particularly when it was introduced.
I also object to multiple RSEs, all happening at the same time or in rapid succession. Too much, too soon.
And I object to the way Shade was pretty much unstoppable, and either Shade, Shar, or both were at the center of everything.
Can I get an Amen? Wonderfully put. (Give me a Shade-free Sembia anyday. )
I can't comment on the mechanics since I kept using 2nd edition rules, but I have a hard time with the post RoTA novels/lore. A lot of retcons and the stories just don't resonate with me the way the earlier ones did. |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 14:11:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
quote:
Realms-wise, though...
I object to retcons and unexplained changes, and the 3.x era had a lot of both -- particularly when it was introduced.
I also object to multiple RSEs, all happening at the same time or in rapid succession. Too much, too soon.
And I object to the way Shade was pretty much unstoppable, and either Shade, Shar, or both were at the center of everything.
Can I get an Amen? Wonderfully put. (Give me a Shade-free Sembia anyday. )
I can't comment on the mechanics since I kept using 2nd edition rules, but I have a hard time with the post RoTA novels/lore. A lot of retcons and the stories just don't resonate with me the way the earlier ones did.
RSES? I don't know what that means unfortunately, could you explain. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 14:20:45
|
Well, a large part of the (early) 3e FR books was that they were basically reprintings of existing 2e books, and not very good ones at that. Silver Marches was mostly just The North again; in some cases actually copy and pasting from the older work. Except that it was a bad copy job, like grabbing most of the skeleton but very little of the meat that made it interesting.
Underdark was even worse. Silver Marches managed to get away with just seven pages of PrC's, but Underdark wasted the first hundred pages on things that weren't actually lore related. The Races section, yeah, ok, though true to 3e form they were trying to give you options to play everything up to and including sentient dirt. But feats? Twenty pages of PrC's? I want to learn about the Underdark, what's there, what's going on, what the rumors are, ways in and out, that sort of thing. They don't get there until literally 122 pages in, and then it's mostly just copying from Drizzt's Guide to the Underdark, and not even most of the interesting bits. (Though to give Underdark credit, they did at least push the descriptions of things further east than DDGttU did, but then they copped out by saying "well, there isn't much out here except these one or two things")
This trend reached its logical conclusion in Mysteries of the Moonsea, which was either a really bad adventure masquerading as a sourcebook, or a really bad sourcebook masquerading as an adventure. It was useless as both.
It took years for them to work around to actually creating new material, but when they did they proved they usually could come up with interesting stuff. Personally, I really like Serpent Kingdoms and Power of Faerun, which were practically the only 3e stuff that didn't try to copy/paste from the previous edition.
Note, I don't think there's any problem with going over existing areas again. In fact, we were begging them for a long time to do just this. But there's a difference in how you do it. We wanted them to expand on what was already there. WotC seemed to take the view of "what can we steal from 2e and push out the door so that we can make money?"
I'll second what was said about all the RSE's. The 2e novel line focused on smaller adventures, and I think was better for it. Things could get dire locally, but they were never trying to blow up the world. Like the 2e Liriel books, where it's basically just this one drow trying to make her way in the world. Or Counselors and Kings, which was really important to Halruaa, but pretty unknown outside it. Or the entire Harpers series.
Which isn't to say that 2e's novel line was perfect. By no means. The worst Realms book ever published, Council of Blades, was 2e (though 3e had the equally-awful Obsidian Ridge). The 1e-2e bridging trilogy, The Avatars, is infamous for its bad writing, though it at least didn't make me stop reading Realms books entirely for a year like Return of the Archwizards. And 3e did have more local stories, some of which worked really well, like Frostfell, but they were overshadowed by the yearly RSE's.
2e might have invented the RSE, but rarely used them. The closest it came was probably the Threat from the Sea, but it was mitigated by the fact that most of it happened underwater, and aside from one-night-assaults, the surface wasn't overly impacted. 3e had one happen a year, every year, from 1372 onward, and sometimes more than one. It got tiresome, and stretched credulity. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1279 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 14:44:32
|
quote:
RSES? I don't know what that means unfortunately, could you explain.
We need a FAQ for acronyms it seems. RSEs are "realms shaking events". You know, those things they put out with alarming frequency in 3rd edition that take our beloved realms and change them irrevocably further away from what Ed's vision of the Realms in order to sell books now without thinking of the damage to the brand itself. Of course the ultimate RSE was the Spellplague and time jump to 4th edition, which well..you can see the damage that did to the brand. |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 16:42:02
|
What's wrong with 3e? Well, not much if you have reasonable players and a decent DM. It proved to be a major improvement over 2nd across the board. Great customization, plenty of material, well balanced before level 10. It took out the terrible saving throw system, and the THACO. I never liked the 3e skill system, but it could be because we never really used its full potential. Skills like jump, climb and swim were hardly ever used in combat, and outside of combat precautions were always taken so that failure is of no consequence except taking more time. In other words, you didn't need to take ranks in many skills in my campaign. The diplomacy skill is broken though, sleigh of hand too.
What's wrong with 3e, grapple I guess, and polymorph. High level campaigns are unbalanced, and battles soon take more that 2 hours. Xp is gained too fast, but that is easily corrected. Many core classes are useless after a few levels, this shouldn't be. A full cleric should gain something over another who used 5 prestige classes with full casting abilities.
As for the lore, I do not think the Shades took more place in 3e than the Zhentarim took in 2e. I don't care for the great wheel/tree, I fail to see the impact it could have on my campaign to begin with. I love the Moonstars, the Shades, the Manshoon war (at least the way I use it). Most of my former campaigns could have been set in 2e without much changes, but my current is using the Moonstars and the Shades at its core, so I would say that the Lore of 3e is great. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 18:05:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
When you consider 3rd Edition D&D, it's important to understand from the outset that some of the changes in the Realms owed themselves to specific changes in game mechanics between 2nd and 3rd Edition D&D.
These inherent changes in the rules, such as all races having access to all the character classes available in the game, didn't need an in-setting explanation. Thus there was no canon blurb explaining why, for example, dwarves can cast spells and otherwise work well with magic when under prior rules they couldn't.
That would have implied a before and after that, so far as 3E was concerned, didn't exist.
Core changes to the game require viewing a setting like the Realms as though the changes were always there. In this case, setting continuity (that is, continuity derived from older editions of the D&D rules) takes a back seat to the latest edition of the D&D game.
There's no reason, then, to explain something what's always existed. Players were supposed to "get" that the D&D game changed, so the Realms changed.
This concept didn't sit well with some fans of the Realms, which is why you'll see complaints about no in-setting explanation for some changes.
And yet, for the far smaller changes in the change from 1E to 2E, they gave us an explanation. For the changes from 3E to 4E, they gave us an explanation. With two out of three ruleset changes, they did feel compelled to explain things...
And when prior lore says something is X, new lore saying it's now Y needs to explain how the change happened. Otherwise, one of the strongest features of the setting -- its continuity -- is damaged.
Edit: typo.  |
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 04 Jun 2012 18:12:20 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 18:11:00
|
Firstly i will state i love 3rd edition (even more so with pathfinder), it is probably the best of the rulesets so far, i personally find 4E to be soulless, and 2E to be incomprehensible at times.
However from a rules point of view 3E has numerous broken bits. The main underlying problem is the level/class based improvement of certain statistics ie BAB, Fort, Ref, Will. The end result is that by level 20 (sometimes even earlier) the game is completely unplayable because a fighter will always hit a creature, a wizard will always fail a Fortitude save, a Rogue will always pass a Reflex save etc.
Much was done by various books to try and remove the issue, but really the only solution is to remove it altogether so that all attack bonuses, saves, and AC come from the stats, feats, magic items etc. This also has the added bonus of meaning that even a lowly 1st level orc stands a chance (although not terribly big) of hitting high level characters, and so an army will cut down a PC of almost any level meaning players have to think about their actions more.
Linked to the broken attack bonuses is of course the even more broken multiple attacks, the system is horrifically complex and when you introduce monsters such as a marillith or a thrikreen with class levels, i challenge even Albert Einstein himself to accurately track that creature's full attack and what bonuses he uses. My personal fix to this is that (assuming you have no level based bonus to attack) for every +5 attack bonus you possess you get an extra attack but suffer a -2 cumulative penalty to each attack, and wielding multiple weapons allows a further attack but with a further cumulative -2 penalty (it is more complex but thats its most basic and seems to work).
THe skill system was horribly broken and 4E did a remarkably good job of simplifying the system (unfortunately in some cases it simplified it too far) and with a little work that skill system could be ported to 3E to make something incredibly useful.
The classes in 3E are skewed towards the more unusual the better, thankfully Pathfinder corrects this making even a fighter a force to be reckoned with.
Death saves are of course the worst to deal with from a PC's point of view but 4E idea of 3 death saves equals dead is a nice fix.
Anything epic might as well be thrown in the bin, and if you remove level/class based improvements then epic isnt ever needed
However 3E gets so much else right, it is completely transparent in its rules. I can create a monster and the players know that the rules i use for it are the same rules used for them. Even better anything is possible, they can achieve what they desire in multiple ways, and this for me is the key. If my player wants to become some kind of outsider or aberration then it should be possible i just need to decide what obstacles to throw in the way, i should never say, this isnt possible the rules dont allow it.
Anyway those are just my personal thoughts. 3E is the best ruleset developed so far (and i have played them all, some more than others of course), but it needs quite a bit of work to make it perfect. Perfection is possible though |
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions Candlekeep Archive
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 1
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 2
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 3
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 4
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 5
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 6
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 7
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 8
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 9
Alternate Realms Site |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 18:16:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And yet, for the far smaller changes in the change from 1E to 2E, they gave us an explanation. For the changes from 3E to 4E, they gave us an explanation. With two out of three ruleset changes, they did feel compelled to explain things...
And when prior lore says something is X, new lore saying it's now Y needs to explain how the change happened. Otherwise, one of the strongest features of the setting -- its continuity -- is damaged.
Like when they simply eliminated all the (2e) assassins. If that wasn't an uber-obvious McGuffin, I don't know what is.
You just provided one of MANY reasons why the D&D rules MUST be divorced from FR - they continually damage its integrity as an IP. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 18:21:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And yet, for the far smaller changes in the change from 1E to 2E, they gave us an explanation. For the changes from 3E to 4E, they gave us an explanation. With two out of three ruleset changes, they did feel compelled to explain things...
And when prior lore says something is X, new lore saying it's now Y needs to explain how the change happened. Otherwise, one of the strongest features of the setting -- its continuity -- is damaged.
Like when they simply eliminated all the (2e) assassins. If that wasn't an uber-obvious McGuffin, I don't know what is.
You just provided one of MANY reasons why the D&D rules MUST be divorced from FR - they continually damage its integrity as an IP.
One problem is that the Realms as we see them now is the product of these changes for better or for worse. Each edition has added and removed from the old 1st ed. setting (which was also altered and refitted from Ed's original) At what point should rules and setting be separated? |
No Canon, more stories, more Realms. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 19:22:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And yet, for the far smaller changes in the change from 1E to 2E, they gave us an explanation. For the changes from 3E to 4E, they gave us an explanation.
These were the Time of Troubles (not universally liked, and the reason why there was no comparable RSE for the transition to 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition) and the Spellplague, which was even less liked than the ToT.
Whereas for 3rd Edition…nary a peep beyond some Shadovar showing up.
Edition changes coupled with in-setting explanations have always heralded massive events in the setting that rile up the fanbase and wreck the Realms. That’s not a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
When prior lore says something is X, new lore saying it's now Y needs to explain how the change happened. Otherwise, one of the strongest features of the setting -- its continuity -- is damaged.
If we’re talking game rules that force lore changes then no, it’s not necessary. All it requires is a willingness to look at the setting from the viewpoint of the new rules.
Don’t get me wrong. I do think continuity is important. But I also I think in some rare cases continuity shouldn’t get in the way of restructuring the setting to make it better if the change is caused by new rules that promote gameplay. Careful, limited lore-pruning makes the Realms better, not weaker.
All that said, there was a very clear explanation: dwarves that cast spells have always been in the Realms, we’ve just never seen them in print before. It may not be satisfactory, but it was given.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 19:33:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Careful, limited lore-pruning makes the Realms better, not weaker.
The problem is that this is only true if you like the changes. The problem with this method is for the designers to guess on changes that will appeal to a larger group than it aggravates. 3ed. was mostly successful (it annoyed me, but I am a minority, even I know that), whilst 4ed. did a worse job from what I have seen.
There is also the claim that "this isn't against canon" because it hasn't been said that it isn't so. This is a slippery slope. The Shining South products are a good example; there is little in the 3ed. book that contradicts the 2nd ed. book, but that doesn't change the fact that the end result is very different. If you don't like the way Counsellors & Kings filled out the area it is difficult to be convinced by the claim that this is the same area only more detailed. |
No Canon, more stories, more Realms. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 19:48:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And yet, for the far smaller changes in the change from 1E to 2E, they gave us an explanation. For the changes from 3E to 4E, they gave us an explanation.
These were the Time of Troubles (not universally liked, and the reason why there was no comparable RSE for the transition to 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition) and the Spellplague, which was even less liked than the ToT.
Whereas for 3rd Edition…nary a peep beyond some Shadovar showing up.
Edition changes coupled with in-setting explanations have always heralded massive events in the setting that rile up the fanbase and wreck the Realms. That’s not a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
When prior lore says something is X, new lore saying it's now Y needs to explain how the change happened. Otherwise, one of the strongest features of the setting -- its continuity -- is damaged.
If we’re talking game rules that force lore changes then no, it’s not necessary. All it requires is a willingness to look at the setting from the viewpoint of the new rules.
Don’t get me wrong. I do think continuity is important. But I also I think in some rare cases continuity shouldn’t get in the way of restructuring the setting to make it better if the change is caused by new rules that promote gameplay. Careful, limited lore-pruning makes the Realms better, not weaker.
All that said, there was a very clear explanation: dwarves that cast spells have always been in the Realms, we’ve just never seen them in print before. It may not be satisfactory, but it was given.
It's a very poor explanation when dwarves could not be arcane casters in the past, and when we were specifically given mythology explaining that. Contradicting prior lore without explaining how the old lore was incorrect or how the new lore is now in effect is not explaining something.
If "it was always that way, but no one knew" is a viable explanation for any unexplained change, then how can we trust anything that has been written in the Realms? Theoretically, the 5E Realms could say that Waterdeep has always been on an island in the Moonsea, and everyone just thought it was on the Sword Coast. Or they could say that there are no elves in the Realms, that everyone mistook really tall gnomes for elves. Or they could say that Drizzt Do'Urden is really a My Little Pony with enchanted horseshoes for weapons. And so on.
Yes, those are extreme examples, and it's not likely that such radical things would be done. But the point is the same: when something can be changed without any attempt at a reasonable explanation, than anything at all can be changed, and nothing that has gone before can be trusted.
If I'm watching a TV show, and the "nice guy" male lead suddenly becomes a womanizing jerk, telling people he's always been that way is going to do nothing but lose viewers. Why should continuity in a shared world be any different than in a TV show or any other media? |
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 04 Jun 2012 19:50:44 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 20:58:48
|
Wooly, I’m not trying to tell you what to think. I hope you’re not taking my posts that way. I do think asking for (even expecting) an in-game explanation on lore changes is a valid position to take, even if I don’t agree it should be the default option.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's a very poor explanation when dwarves could not be arcane casters in the past, and when we were specifically given mythology explaining that.
And yet dwarves can somehow create fantastical, magical weapons. I’m no expert on dwarven Realmslore but I do know that it was shaped on the extant rules. I’m sure the lore was cool but the rules, in a word, sucked.
That and I just don’t think a lot of gamers who’re fans of the Realms cared about the change. That some dwarves can now cast spells didn’t stop people from playing in the Realms. If anything, it encouraged them.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Contradicting prior lore without explaining how the old lore was incorrect or how the new lore is now in effect is not explaining something.
It wasn’t a contradiction. It was a revision. The lore has always been based around the rules, so when the rules changed, the lore changed. I don’t understand why it’s so hard to think of the rules as a lens through which to view the entirety of the Forgotten Realms. 3rd Edition D&D was not a rules set that took hold of the setting in 13whatever Dale Reckoning.
It was a rules set that encompassed the Realms from the dawn of its creation through to the (then) current year.
Also, I’m not sure why you’re saying there was no explanation. There was.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But the point is the same: when something can be changed without any attempt at a reasonable explanation, than anything at all can be changed, and nothing that has gone before can be trusted.
Wooly, just because an out of setting explanation was given doesn't mean no attempt was made at a reasonable explanation.
As for me yes, it's a good thing that the Realms can change; that prior lore can be overwritten with new lore; that nothing is sacrosanct or set in stone.
The Realms would be boring if it forever stayed the same or if it stopped yielding up to us its secrets.
This is my last post on the subject. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 04 Jun 2012 21:14:50 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 21:21:45
|
And my last post on the topic, for now: I'm not saying change is bad; I came to the Realms because it was a dynamic, changing setting. I'm saying unexplained change is bad. Contradicting prior lore without an explanation is bad, and offering nonsensical explanations is bad.
No matter the game, the edition, or the ruleset, I am interested in the lore first and foremost, and the rules are a distant second. Rules are just numbers and guidelines, and can be used anywhere. I don't play games for their rules, and I don't play in a setting for its rules.
I play a setting for its lore, and that lore needs to be logical and true to itself. |
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! |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 21:27:46
|
I'm not going to speak for Wooly, but from my perspective, I'm not saying the Realms shouldn't change. Change is good and healthy. What I object to is changing things for no reason, with no explanation given. It helps if it's a coherent explanation as well, but you can't always have everything.
What struck a lot of people as wrong during the 2e->3e changeover was not that lots of things were changing, it was that the designers didn't give any reason for them to change from the perspective of the world. Whoever said that from the viewpoint of the Realms, you shouldn't be able to tell "oh, this is Second Edition Era" was right; any changes in the editions need to have reasons in the world.
Say what you want about the Avatar Crisis (my opinion was it was a good idea, badly executed), but it gave explanations. And then the Forgotten Realms Adventures sourcebook came out and explicitly stated what had changed, and what the in-game reasons were. All for a change-over that was, comparatively, pretty minor. Two or three classes gone, a couple of classes with re-arranged spell lists, one class (bards) pretty drastically changed.
With 3e we had new classes, existing races in previously forbidden classes, new nations, new ways of doing magic, the return of old gods that died back during the end of 1e, this whole "prestige class" concept, drow wandering around on the surface with no difficulty, and all this with no explanation given. I read the Return of the Archwizards hoping it would be this new Avatar-esque series that would provide an in-game reason for why all these things were suddenly different, but all it did was explain Shade. Well, and prove that there could be an even-more-badly-written series of novels. Nothing else got explanations, ever, and the designers really annoyed people when they dismissively said that no explanation was needed.
That's why there's still a lot of rancor around the 3e Realms. It's faded a bit with time, but as this thread proves, neither time nor the much-worse disaster of 4e has completely healed it. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 22:44:15
|
| I actually thought that the Return of the Archwizards trilogy was better written then the Avatar trilogy. However, I do acknowledge that many of the things that you state were not explained in it are not explained. But it is a trilogy that I actually enjoy going back and reading, whereas the first two books in the Avatar trilogy are extremely hard for me to read because of the whole "murder of Elminster" mock trial in Shadowdale that just doesn't make any logical sense to me. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 01:51:30
|
This is very useful information, especially for someone that came to the game in 3e, as before I found the open source, I had little interaction with the game. It seems though, that the problem with Second edition to third edition, is very similar with the problem from third edition to fourth, which is the process of transition.
At least from a lore perspective. Many of the events and alterations were either poorly explained, or not explained at all. This is what I believe I am hearing here, correct? |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31716 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 01:58:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And yet, for the far smaller changes in the change from 1E to 2E, they gave us an explanation. For the changes from 3E to 4E, they gave us an explanation. With two out of three ruleset changes, they did feel compelled to explain things...
And when prior lore says something is X, new lore saying it's now Y needs to explain how the change happened. Otherwise, one of the strongest features of the setting -- its continuity -- is damaged.
Like when they simply eliminated all the (2e) assassins. If that wasn't an uber-obvious McGuffin, I don't know what is.
It is important to note that only those characters in the Realms who had the assassin class would've actually died [which means any unstatted characters before this time could have easily survived the event].
I say this, because I remember Steven Schend saying that the designfolk were still wrangling with "why didn't everyone who killed for money die during the Time of Troubles along with 1E assassins?" when he was writing Lands of Intrigue. That's where Steven first slipped the loophole in re: Bhaal-worshiping assassins only -- he needed a reason as to why the Shadow Thieves weren't utterly decimated in 1357. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What's wrong with 3E?
