| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4435 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 05:12:47
|
From the Realms standpoint, nothing really. I loved 3E realms (even the parts of the place that held ZERO interest for me). The storylines, the characters, the immersion one could get from the setting was pretty ridiculous (in a good way). Yet with all that lore comes those who feel the need to use ALL of it to run a campaign. To write in it? Yes, they need a lot of info so the story makes sense within the setting. But if your running it at home, no not all the info will be required (even in areas that your campaigning in). It all depends on the DM and how close he wants his story to be to he Canon Realms. I've learned that it's better to go with what you want than what you think is required by the setting.
WIth that said, the mechanics side has a lot of issues that I've found playing it for the past 12 years. They haven't kept me from continuing to play using v3.5/Pathfinder, but they're instances that I still shake my head at.
If you don't mind, I'll list a few concerns about the game side:
Full spellcasters out pacing non-spellcasters in balance. This is sort of a hot topic, but having played clerics of 3E I can contest that I am better than a Fighter in almost every single way. I can wear fullplate. I can use a shield. I can manifest my deities weapon to wield (and it's magical). I can heal myself and allies. I can make the whole party better at fighting. I can deal ranged damage and Area of Effect damage (known as AoE spells). I can cast utilitarian spells (Find Traps, Darkway, Dispel Magic, Invisibility Purge). I can contact the dead (Speak with Dead). I can smite my enemies (Smite domain, Holy Smite spell). I can summon monsters to my aid. I can use my ability to turn undead into fueling my Metamagic spells, adding more damage to my attacks, give me regeneraton, give me an Armor boost, AND destory undead monsters. The Fighter can do nothing like this and relies solely on magical items to carry him into the mid-levels.
The game becomes more complicated as the math becomes more screwy. I know few people who venture into the Epic levels and for good reason. There are so many other rules to worry about and combat drags to a halt.
Magical items become a requirment of the game's progression. Basically you're expected to have +X magial item by +Y level or you'll probably die. Spellcasters can get away from this somewhat, but non-spellcasters really can't.
Certain rules are wacky. You don't want to get into the Grapple rules, espically if your a Player that likes grappling. The subset of mini-rules can also be very hard to understand.
Your build is important from level 1-20 and poor options that are selected are ones your mainly stuck with for the rest of your character career. PHB 2 put out some rules to help change a feat or class level, but it's a bit convoluted for my tastes.
Item creation rules are a mess, mathematically
Now, thos are some problems I've encounterd playing v3.5 and there's also super-powerful Char_OP builds that can systematically end campaigns because of how powerful they can get. And there are a lot of 3PP material that's either too strong or particuarly weak. It's a crap shoot for game balance and mechanics. |
 |
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 05:13:16
|
| I think RAS explained too that Artemis was not an Assassin, so much as someone who killed for pay when needed. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4435 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 05:33:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I think RAS explained too that Artemis was not an Assassin, so much as someone who killed for pay when needed.
lol, isn't that almost a text-book definition of Assassin? But I think it's silly that they feel the need to make in-setting explainations for D&D-basic rule changes. |
|
|
|
shandiris
Seeker
61 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 12:22:09
|
As a system I love 3e (and I'm not totally convinced Pathfinder/3.75 is better). What I don't like about it are the books being cut in half. I love PrC's, feats and skill options, but if you put those in a book while also reducing the number of pages by 100 or so, there isn't much room for lore left. (It's not a insurmountable problem though: you use 2e books for fluff, and 3e for crunch)
Also to some of the posters on the first page:
I can calculate the number of attacks (it's not easy, but still)
Your 11th lvl wizard is using 2 quickened actions which is illegal. Caster are overpowered in 3e, yes. But that sequence is hardly the best example. Also: what's wrong with a 10th lvl monk being fast? (Diplomacy is broken, that is correct.)
In other words: 3e has problems (fluff, balance, brokenness), but it's also the one which has the least problems.
|
Edited by - shandiris on 05 Jun 2012 12:24:08 |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 13:06:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by shandiris
Your 11th lvl wizard is using 2 quickened actions which is illegal.
He has 1 quickened spell (swift), one swift spell (he can use his move action) and one maximized standard spell (standard). The gust of wind is probably made the round after.
You can have only one quickened spell per turn, but many swift actions can be made in place of longer actions.
...
I guess 3e had some complicated rules after all. Not surprising that they toned down the difficulty a bit in 4e. From what I've read (I've actually purchased 4e), they toned it down too much for my taste. |
Edited by - Kilvan on 05 Jun 2012 13:07:16 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 13:38:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
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?
That's my complaint, and I know I'm not alone in thinking that. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 14:32:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
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?
That's my complaint, and I know I'm not alone in thinking that.
If this is the case, then the problem here is more the process of transition, and not the lore of 3e itself. For instance, the changes in dwarvan magic could be explained as something that the early Mystra put in place, perhaps as a consequence of the dwarvan war against giant kind. When Midnight became Mystra this sanction was lifted.
This is the explanation I have given to my own DM regarding that particular issue, but as I only partially understand, it's not the only issue facing the transition form second to third that exists. |
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. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 15:56:44
|
Mechanically, I don't like the complex system of modifiers, the detailed definition of skills and combat manoeuvres, the presumption of miniatures, the compulsory extra complexity of feats and prestige classes, the promotion of system mastery and the idea of 'builds', fixation on a narrow idea of game balance, the very long stat blocks. It's both a larger and a tighter ruleset than I prefer.
The talk of rules being 'broken' is part of what I dislike about the game's cultural shift. Most of the time it was just a melodramatic, self-involved way of saying 'I don't like it'; people often claimed contradictory things to be 'broken' or overpowered. And it never seemed to be mentioned how many disparities that would be felt in a very mechanics-intensive game are trivial in one that refers less constantly to the rules -- because the people holding such discussions were the system-mongers the product line played to.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
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?
Not just poorly explained, but clumsily and insensitively implemented, moving too much of the setting's emphasis and texture from its own nature as created by Ed -- as acknowledged in the new James Wyatt article. Also, a general 'foreshortening' where things became easier, closer together, more common, more plainly and uniformly known, less local, and so on. |
Edited by - Faraer on 05 Jun 2012 15:59:04 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 16:04:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Mechanically, I don't like the complex system of modifiers, the detailed definition of skills and combat manoeuvres, the presumption of miniatures, the compulsory extra complexity of feats and prestige classes, the promotion of system mastery and the idea of 'builds', fixation on a narrow idea of game balance, the very long stat blocks. It's both a larger and a tighter ruleset than I prefer.
The talk of rules being 'broken' is part of what I dislike about the game's cultural shift. Most of the time it was just a melodramatic, self-involved way of saying 'I don't like it'; people often claimed contradictory things to be 'broken' or overpowered. And it never seemed to be mentioned how many disparities that would be felt in a very mechanics-intensive game are trivial in one that refers less constantly to the rules -- because the people holding such discussions were the system-mongers the product line played to.
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
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?
Not just poorly explained, but clumsily and insensitively implemented, moving too much of the setting's emphasis and texture from its own nature as created by Ed -- as acknowledged in the new James Wyatt article. Also, a general 'foreshortening' where things became easier, closer together, more common, more plainly and uniformly known, less local, and so on.
Forgive my ignorence, but what article? |
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. |
|
|
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 16:13:24
|
| My biggest complaint about the transition from 2nd-Edition to 3rd were the dramatic changes to the geography of Faerûn (so that everything could fit nicely on a poster map!). For what it’s worth, I've been slowly undoing the damage in every regional article I write. |
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 16:13:57
|
| This 'un, being discussed here. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 16:48:03
|
I wonder why nobody has mentioned any of the month by month Countdown to the Realms articles in Dragon Magazine, nor the Realms Roundtable web articles (and other Realms-related articles) that preceded the release of the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardback (FRCS)?
Through the avenues of print media and online media (such as it existed at the time), WotC pretty much made it clear what they were doing and why; they showed how prestige classes work in the Realms, talked about why certain things were changing and otherwise pulled the curtain aside so people could see what was going on.
The phrase “poorly explained” is just bad. It implies no communication, when that simply was not the case.
People wouldn’t have had nearly as much to gripe online in the run-up to the release of the FRCS if WotC hadn’t told them ahead of time what was coming. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 18:17:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I wonder why nobody has mentioned any of the month by month Countdown to the Realms articles in Dragon Magazine, nor the Realms Roundtable web articles (and other Realms-related articles) that preceded the release of the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardback (FRCS)?
Through the avenues of print media and online media (such as it existed at the time), WotC pretty much made it clear what they were doing and why; they showed how prestige classes work in the Realms, talked about why certain things were changing and otherwise pulled the curtain aside so people could see what was going on.
The phrase “poorly explained” is just bad. It implies no communication, when that simply was not the case.
People wouldn’t have had nearly as much to gripe online in the run-up to the release of the FRCS if WotC hadn’t told them ahead of time what was coming.
Those articles didn't touch a tenth part of the changes that they made, and those articles did not even imply that we were getting changes without explanation.
There was communication, just not explanation. The two are not the same. |
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! |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 18:24:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Those articles didn't touch a tenth part of the changes that they made, and those articles did not even imply that we were getting changes without explanation.
There was communication, just not explanation. The two are not the same.
Is there a list of such changes here in the keep? I'll admit I'm not so sure about what changed so much from 2e to 3e. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 19:21:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I wonder why nobody has mentioned any of the month by month Countdown to the Realms articles in Dragon Magazine, nor the Realms Roundtable web articles (and other Realms-related articles) that preceded the release of the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardback (FRCS)?
Through the avenues of print media and online media (such as it existed at the time), WotC pretty much made it clear what they were doing and why; they showed how prestige classes work in the Realms, talked about why certain things were changing and otherwise pulled the curtain aside so people could see what was going on.
The phrase “poorly explained” is just bad. It implies no communication, when that simply was not the case.
People wouldn’t have had nearly as much to gripe online in the run-up to the release of the FRCS if WotC hadn’t told them ahead of time what was coming.
You're assuming those articles were actually read. I've never even heard of them, and, fairly obviously, I'm a Realms-fanatic. That's a fairly obvious break-down in communication.
Besides which, putting something up on a website isn't a publication strategy. Especially not back when 3e came out; I doubt even a quarter of people who bought FR books would have wandered over to the WotC website and seen these articles. It could have been much lower. What I, and many others, were wanting to see was it addressed in print. After all, the changes themselves were in print, their in-Realms explanations should have been as well.
Remember, during the 2e transition, they printed an entire book detailing what was changed and why. So it's not like it isn't possible. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 19:29:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Those articles didn't touch a tenth part of the changes that they made,
Yes and no.
I mean, they didn’t cover every niggling little detail—and why should they? What’s the point of releasing a book if you put it all up on the internet ahead of time?
However, just like with 3rd Edition D&D several of the major changes to the Realms were talked about beforehand. They literally showed photographs of the map as it was being redesigned by the game designers!
Yes, to get the full experience you had to purchase the FRCS, but it’s simply not true that nobody knew ahead of time many changes were coming or why some of the more extreme changes were made.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
and those articles did not even imply that we were getting changes without explanation.
If the rulebooks inform me that, for example, dwarves can cast spells and the online articles explicitly tell me the Realms will be (re)envisioned through those rules, I don’t need a third piece of (contradictory, at that) information telling me there won’t be an in-setting explanation.
This quote from Ed on the "Ed Says" column titled Why a New Realms?* encapsulates the point I’m trying to get across: “ So a new presentation of the Realms to go with the 3rd Edition D&D game, to me, is just a new way of expressing the same glorious world -- a new language, if you will. A new language that can express things a little more clearly and colorfully than the last one we used.”
The transition from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition, both in terms of the D&D game and the Forgotten Realms, was noteworthy because of its transparency. This transparency happened because WotC recognized early on that D&D was faltering and fans of the game (and its various settings) cared about the fate of the game.
I’ve always appreciated WotC for this and I hope they continue being as transparent for DnD Next by the time a new Realms sourcebook is on the horizon.
*EDIT
The link is wonky: http://web.archive.org/web/20090504065545/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/20001006 |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 05 Jun 2012 19:34:36 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 19:57:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
You're assuming those articles were actually read. I've never even heard of them, and, fairly obviously, I'm a Realms-fanatic. That's a fairly obvious break-down in communication. Besides which, putting something up on a website isn't a publication strategy.
Are you sure?
Dragon magazine was the medium of communication for gaming news. As I said earlier, WotC used that medium to talk to its customers about the Realms. Have you read or seen those articles since? As I recall they’re not expansive, but they did a pretty good job.
In addition to that, WotC also included updates on its websites.
I wasn’t a convention goer back then, so I can’t speak to how much WotC pushed the new edition of D&D (and the Realms) at conventions, though I’m sure they were far from silent on the subject.
If you’re using the print medium and you’re also embracing the relatively new medium of online communication (both through your website and on the [older] e-mailing lists), can that reasonably be described as a breakdown in communication?
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Especially not back when 3e came out; I doubt even a quarter of people who bought FR books would have wandered over to the WotC website and seen these articles. It could have been much lower.
[/br] I agree it’s possible that traffic might have been low (I’m sure internet access back then was much less available than it is now).
EDIT: I'm starting to wonder if WotC measured their unique page views for their website vs. the number of subscribers to Dragon?
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
What I, and many others, were wanting to see was it addressed in print. After all, the changes themselves were in print, their in-Realms explanations should have been as well.
I think this is the breakdown right here.
When the game rules changed that meant the Realms had to change. People seem to be viewing these rules changes as something that can only happen linearly; that is, rules set A holds sway for a certain time in the Realms, then the Time of Troubles Happens so rules set B applies, now time advances and new rules set C is being released to the public, so it can only hold sway for the Realms from the point in (Realms) time where it takes over for B.
But that’s not what happened. Rules set C (3rd Edition D&D) was meant to envision the setting from start to finish. If you bought the new rules, you understand how the Realms has always worked. That’s the idea (and the trick).
I can’t say for sure if the Dragon articles covered this idea or not. If they didn’t, they should have.
I can see why this wouldn’t be satisfactory to people who place a very high value continuity, who only read the novels, or to someone who didn’t have access to the in-print Dragon articles or the internet. That said, I don’t think it’s unfair to say a leap of logic of this sort could be made by someone who at least has access to the new rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Remember, during the 2e transition, they printed an entire book detailing what was changed and why. So it's not like it isn't possible.
Consider, though, that you’re asking for another book to be printed and purchased by consumers on top of the (three) core rulebooks (at 300 pages each) and the FRCS (another three hundred page book).
Regardless, I think the FRCS did most of the explanatory work anyway by introducing the new concepts and showing in small ways how those concepts have always been around. Not exactly a retcon so much as just adding in new lore. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 05 Jun 2012 20:11:23 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 20:34:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Those articles didn't touch a tenth part of the changes that they made, and those articles did not even imply that we were getting changes without explanation.
There was communication, just not explanation. The two are not the same.
Is there a list of such changes here in the keep? I'll admit I'm not so sure about what changed so much from 2e to 3e.
There was, but it's years back, and I'll be dipped if my search fu is up to the task of finding it.  |
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! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 21:09:24
|
By the end of 2e, I really liked the Realms, probably slightly more then my much-beloved GH. I never bothered with their website, however (and I've had a home computer since 1979!)
By the end of 2e, with all the 'bad news' coming down the pipe, my interest in D&D waned (plus, my business was doing phenomenal, and I simply didn't have the time). I figured I just wouldn't bother any more. This was the late 90's, and I also gave up on comics around then.
I have always been an avid book-reader, and that's never changed (although my tastes have). I also continued to read FR novels along with everything else. I started to here about a new edition (3e), and then when it was released I saw all the great promo-stuff at the bookstores (ALL of them, and at the LGS' too). The life-size Redgar stand-ups, the tables right by the front doors, the end caps chock full of accessories, posters, etc. I couldn't walk into an LGS (I was still buying minis - I LOVE minis) without seeing at least one D&D game going on.
So I bought the 3e rules books - all three of the core ones - and I never looked back. That got me back into FR naturally (I never really left, I just put my gaming stuff away). The FRCG was pure joy (except for the Shades, but that was minor compared to how good I thought everything else was). It bothered me a little how halflings and dwarves could use magic, and some other changes, but I could just hand-wave that in my games (which meant I did NOT want to see it in novels - I still firmly believe that mechanical changes should not make authors feel obligated to rub our noses in it).
So I liked the Realms from the early 90's to about 2000, and then I LOVED the Realms, and its become an obsession (but a good one... I think). I bring all of this up to make a point - I don't think the changes that were all made in 3e affected me as much as many others here because I wasn't as devoted to the Realms at that point - it was 'just' a D&D setting to me.
By the time 4e rolled-around, I was fully immersed, and then every little change annoyed me (so if little things annoyed me, imagine how I felt about the complete overhaul that was 4e). 4th edition also changed the cosmology across the board, and being a fan of GH (and other official settings), this was just icing on the cake - they managed to piss me off on multiple levels. I realized the cosmology changed in 3e as well, but I just poo-pooed that in my mind (I just completely ignored it, and since FR stories should take place ON TORIL, I could just ignore it in novels as well).
3e's love affair with Eberron (it got the online love we should have gotten) always irked me, but then 4e's 'light touch' treatment of that setting - compared to our own annihilation - just rubbed a lot of salt in old wounds. They RESPECT EB... they did NOT respect FR.
I didn't mean to turn this into another edition-wars tirade; I just wanted to explain why I felt so different about the 4e changes compared to all past edition changes combined. 3e did to the Realms what 4e did to Eberron... which was not much at all (IMHO). The good certainly out-weighed the bad.
EDIT: And according to my Wizbro account, I've only been going there since 2006. I beleive I ah an earlier account, though, that i lost the info on, so its probably about two years earlier. Before that, I never bothered with the TSR/WotC sites (did TSR even have one?) |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 06 Jun 2012 03:15:40 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 22:52:08
|
I can't find where they gave an explanation for why Dwarves and Halflings couldn't use magic in second edition.
What's more, it doesn't make a whole lot of since with the halfling, especially given the entire lore behind them, and I'm not just talking about Tolkien, I mean Gurtner, and the Song of Zetathan, what's a halfling without magic? And clerical magic for them just doesn't seem to cut it.
But back to the topic at hand, not to disrespect anyone, but a map is a visual representation of a geographical local, alterations to the map with respect to scale shouldn't impact the world any. So if they altered the maps, then I'd say at worst it's a poor map in regards to scale. Now, as for the changes from 2e to 3e. I've already spotted a few, but am not terribly clear on all of them. That's not suprising, as I can't access dragon magazine directly, do to the format, nor can I access WOTC site directly eith. That's no big suprise they didn't design the place with screen-readers in mind. So, there are a few points that I will need to seek clarification on.
I know about the time of troubles, and that magic was altered during that time, I always assumed that changes, were a result of the death of one Goddess of magic and the rise of a new one. Those biengs that may not have had access to magic suddenly do so. As for the Assassin thing, was frankly somebody made a mistake back at WOTC, which wasn't caught directly. As that doesn't seem to make much sense. |
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. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 00:30:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
I can't find where they gave an explanation for why Dwarves and Halflings couldn't use magic in second edition.
It was a limitation of the rules. 2E had a lot of restrictions on what races could take what classes. Only humans could take all classes, and have unlimited advancement in them. |
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! |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 00:34:32
|
| I know the mechanics part, managed to buy the second edition PhD in pdf. I just assumed that there was some lore explanation for it, because If I used this system to DM halflings would be allowed to be mages. Sorry to those that don't think they should be so. It just seems like a crime to the lore that they were based on. |
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. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 00:51:31
|
| 'Because of their very nature, dwarves are non-magical and do not ever use magical spells.' In Gary's conception, and as far as we know in Ed's, magic is foreign to those races: they have no aptitude for it, and they resist its effects. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 00:57:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
'Because of their very nature, dwarves are non-magical and do not ever use magical spells.' In Gary's conception, and as far as we know in Ed's, magic is foreign to those races: they have no aptitude for it, and they resist its effects.
Yes...and as it was, so shall it ever be!
No Dwarf or Halfling in MY Forgotten Realms is ever going to be a Magic-User or Illusionist! Now clerics...sure!
If someone wants to play a Dwarf that can cast spells...he better be a disguised wizard! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 01:06:28
|
So, let me see if I've got this straight. The creators just said, Dwarves and halflings, you can always use devine magic, but never gave an explanation for it.
(there's a reason why I'm focusing on this and it involves a primace to conclusion disconnect)
I'll ignore that they kept every other element of Halfling lore, but there ability to cast magic, arcane magely magic, as they can do that if they want to. |
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. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 01:28:43
|
Halflings are in D&D because lots of people asked Gary to put Tolkien's hobbits in; they weren't based on any other direct influence, though in any case none of the elements of D&D was supposed to be a direct facsimile of its sources.
I say 'as far as we know' Ed concurs because I'm not aware of his having demurred from this aspect of these D&D races, as he has in some cases; in FR11 he wrote 'Elminster . . . knows of no dwarven wizards, and believes the inherent magic resistance of 'trueblood' dwarves makes their mastery of wizardry impossible.' But you might ask him if there are a few halfling or dwarven mages in his Realms. I wouldn't be surprised if there were; but if they're rare, that's consistent with the 1E/2E limits and leaving the DM to make discretionary exceptions.
Divine magic, on the other hand, is a more general thing; it's common to every race that doesn't somehow lack a religious tradition or all connection to the gods. |
Edited by - Faraer on 06 Jun 2012 01:31:09 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31716 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 01:37:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I wonder why nobody has mentioned any of the month by month Countdown to the Realms articles in Dragon Magazine, nor the Realms Roundtable web articles (and other Realms-related articles) that preceded the release of the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardback (FRCS)?
Through the avenues of print media and online media (such as it existed at the time), WotC pretty much made it clear what they were doing and why; they showed how prestige classes work in the Realms, talked about why certain things were changing and otherwise pulled the curtain aside so people could see what was going on.
The phrase “poorly explained” is just bad. It implies no communication, when that simply was not the case.
People wouldn’t have had nearly as much to gripe online in the run-up to the release of the FRCS if WotC hadn’t told them ahead of time what was coming.
Those articles didn't touch a tenth part of the changes that they made, and those articles did not even imply that we were getting changes without explanation.
There was communication, just not explanation. The two are not the same.
Bear in mind, also, that those articles were composed very early on in the development of 4e FR. So some of the changes and new elements incorporated into the 4e Realms, may not have been properly developed before they were briefly referenced in those articles. |
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 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31716 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 01:42:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I wonder why nobody has mentioned any of the month by month Countdown to the Realms articles in Dragon Magazine, nor the Realms Roundtable web articles (and other Realms-related articles) that preceded the release of the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardback (FRCS)?
Through the avenues of print media and online media (such as it existed at the time), WotC pretty much made it clear what they were doing and why; they showed how prestige classes work in the Realms, talked about why certain things were changing and otherwise pulled the curtain aside so people could see what was going on.
The phrase “poorly explained” is just bad. It implies no communication, when that simply was not the case.
People wouldn’t have had nearly as much to gripe online in the run-up to the release of the FRCS if WotC hadn’t told them ahead of time what was coming.
Those articles didn't touch a tenth part of the changes that they made, and those articles did not even imply that we were getting changes without explanation.
There was communication, just not explanation. The two are not the same.
Bear in mind, also, that those articles were composed very early on in the development of 4e FR. So some of the changes and new elements incorporated into the 4e Realms, may not have been properly developed before they were briefly referenced in those articles.
For example, the whole "Nobanion as an Exarch" issue in the original Spellplague article, before the revised article was then released:-
"Nobanion
Lord Firemane, Lord of Gulthandor
Unaligned Exarch of Silvanus
Seen as a great protector and guardian across the Vilhon Wilds, Nobanion (No-BAN-yun) appears as a great male lion of at least twice normal size. His coat gleams with the radiance of the sun, and his mane is incredibly thick and luxurious. Sometimes the Lion God's mane ignites in a nimbus of amber and golden fire, the origin of his title "Lord Firemane." At will he can sprout the wings of a gigantic eagle.
Thought to be a favored champion of Silvanus, Nobanion now rules the forested realm of Gulthandor from the druidic stronghold of Cedarsproke. Beyond Gulthandor, Lord Firemane is also honored as the titular ruler of the wemic Tenpaw tribe of the Shining Plains. Clerics of Silvanus who honor the tenets of the King of Lions are known as Roaring Avengers.
Exarchs
The exarchs are often called demigods or heroes, and many are ascended mortal servants of greater gods, brought up from the world to serve as agents of their divine masters. Many, but not all, attract worshipers of their own, and they have some ability to grant spells, but are more often simply conduits from the mortal world to the attention of the higher gods. For example, the druids of Gulthandor pay homage to the Lion God, but in reality the character's divine spells are being granted by Nobanion's patron, Silvanus. Unlike true deities, exarchs are not bound to live in Astral Dominions with their patrons. Like Nobanion, many choose to live on the Material Plane, more directly engaged in the lives of their mortal followers.
Finally, exarchs in D&D campaigns are fully intended to be defeatable by any epic-level PC strong enough to attempt it. Of course, immortal beings are not just sitting around waiting for epic-level adventurers to take their life. And should the PCs even succeed in such an endeavor, they'll surely have earned the wrath of the exarch's patron deity."
...
Note also, that one of the timeline entries concerning Nobanion, was also removed. As well as two bits from the entry on 'Turmish.'
Specifically:-
"1391 DR (Year of the Wrathful Eye)
The dark druid Zalaznar Crinios leads a great host of fell beasts to sack the forest community of Gurnth. Nobanion calls his followers to his side at Machran Spire in an effort to counter the pending invasion."
And:-
"North and west of Turmish beyond the Orsraun and Alaoreum Mountains stretches the forested realm of Gulthandor, ruled by a powerful and enigmatic druid in lion's form its followers name Nobanion."
--
"Nobanion is calling all able-bodied adventurers to his side at Machran Spire in an effort to counter the pending invasion."
|
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 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 03:16:48
|
I just edited my earlier post, and that got me to wondering - did TSR have a web presence?
I didn't bother with any D&D internet sites until maybe 2004.
EDIT: Great post, sage - I no longer have any of the unedited stuff from the WotC site (and a LOT has gone missing). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 06 Jun 2012 03:22:42 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36793 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 04:19:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I wonder why nobody has mentioned any of the month by month Countdown to the Realms articles in Dragon Magazine, nor the Realms Roundtable web articles (and other Realms-related articles) that preceded the release of the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardback (FRCS)?
Through the avenues of print media and online media (such as it existed at the time), WotC pretty much made it clear what they were doing and why; they showed how prestige classes work in the Realms, talked about why certain things were changing and otherwise pulled the curtain aside so people could see what was going on.
The phrase “poorly explained” is just bad. It implies no communication, when that simply was not the case.
People wouldn’t have had nearly as much to gripe online in the run-up to the release of the FRCS if WotC hadn’t told them ahead of time what was coming.
Those articles didn't touch a tenth part of the changes that they made, and those articles did not even imply that we were getting changes without explanation.
There was communication, just not explanation. The two are not the same.
Bear in mind, also, that those articles were composed very early on in the development of 4e FR. So some of the changes and new elements incorporated into the 4e Realms, may not have been properly developed before they were briefly referenced in those articles.
Actually, friend Sage, we were referring to the advent of 3E.
But I've left off from that discussion, since I didn't see any benefit to continuing it. |
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! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What's wrong with 3E?
