| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 04:23:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
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.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dwarves and Halflings are completely unable to be Magic-Users because their very bodies repel magic. Gnomes also have the same bonuses versus magic; but can be Illusionists (a very different sort of class in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons).
The only time I would EVER allow a player to be a Dwarf Magic-User would be when the Dwarf character declared they were a Half-Dwarf (as per Forgotten Realms lore...these exist) and essentially they would have all the benefits of a Dwarf EXCEPT the resistance to magic and poison.
For a 1st Edition game...maybe...if my WIFE asked me.  |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36794 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 04:25:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I just edited my earlier post, and that got me to wondering - did TSR have a web presence?
If they did, I never saw it... Keep in mind that TSR was bought out in '97, and Wizards only used the name for a couple of years after that. Most companies had yet to make that much of a web presence, in those days.
Even wizards.com wasn't all that, for its first few years -- I recall that updates to the site were very sporadic, until 2003 or so, when they started ramping up their online presence and gave us so much good lore for free.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
EDIT: Great post, sage - I no longer have any of the unedited stuff from the WotC site (and a LOT has gone missing).
I think that original content was only up for a day or so before it was excised... I happened to get it, because I was checking the site sometimes twice a day, for new material. |
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!  |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31716 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 06:19:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
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.
I'm pretty sure they did have a limited presence, a basic site, with a few details and notices. I seem to recall the TSR Newsletter being available by subscription to their website.
quote:
EDIT: Great post, sage - I no longer have any of the unedited stuff from the WotC site (and a LOT has gone missing).
I make it a habit of checking new articles Wizards' posts several times a day -- just to be sure I catch any "before" and "after" edits or revised editions like I did with the "Spellplague" article. It's always handy having that stuff on-hand, especially when discussions turn to how lore released online, is developed. |
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 |
Edited by - The Sage on 06 Jun 2012 06:21:53 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31716 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 06:20:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
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.
Sorry, I quoted the wrong post. My reply was in response to Jeremy's quote query. |
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 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 10:04:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
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.
When they chop out large geographical areas (with comments having been made about no one using them anyway) it affects everyone who ever used these areas in their games and all lore concerning the same. |
No Canon, more stories, more Realms. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4435 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 13:29:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
When they chop out large geographical areas (with comments having been made about no one using them anyway) it affects everyone who ever used these areas in their games and all lore concerning the same.
That'd be me. And while I don't have access to the numbers about who's using what supplements and what areas are more popular in the Realms than others, it's a fair bet that WotC does, hence why certain areas get more treatment than others. I mean, would I be mad if they blew up Waterdeep? Yea, because I like that setting in the novels and such. Would that effet my campaign in the slightest? No, that would be ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 14:38:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
When they chop out large geographical areas (with comments having been made about no one using them anyway) it affects everyone who ever used these areas in their games and all lore concerning the same.
That'd be me. And while I don't have access to the numbers about who's using what supplements and what areas are more popular in the Realms than others, it's a fair bet that WotC does, hence why certain areas get more treatment than others. I mean, would I be mad if they blew up Waterdeep? Yea, because I like that setting in the novels and such. Would that effet my campaign in the slightest? No, that would be ridiculous.
It wasn't you it was a WotC employee if I remember correctly; I have no problem with fans having opinions about the relevance of the area, but designers saying that parts of the setting is pointless irritates me. And non-coverage I have no problem with; removal is a completely different issue.
As for effect. All 3ed. maps were of limited use to me, all information about distances and time was useless in newer products and both the Western Heartlands and Shaar to name a couple became less of a hindrance for travel and comers as the wilderness was removed, thereby changing the lands along their borders. Change I can live with (I don't like it but that's another issue, I know I am usually in a minority), but I prefer to not be told that something I use is irrelevant because someone a continent away has decided that it is. |
No Canon, more stories, more Realms. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 14:54:30
|
| It was emblematic of a generally cavalier approach to treat the long-term continuity of the setting as mere raw material for a one-time wish to fit as much land as possible on a particular map -- the same attitude we saw in the imposing of 3E rules norms, the addition of the Shades and the Cormanthan drow, the removal of Rhauntides, and so on. To highlight popular bits and contract or remove unpopular ones is to move the Realms in the direction of a theme park, in much the same way highlighting gates and making them craftable by PCs was. |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 15:36:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
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.
When they chop out large geographical areas (with comments having been made about no one using them anyway) it affects everyone who ever used these areas in their games and all lore concerning the same.
Now, I can see a problem there, but as to make my response clear, no one else mentioned that before. they just mentioned shortening a map. The better approach for WOTC then would have been to have left those places there and just only covered the areas that seemed to get the larger degree of play and interest. |
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. |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 20:15:20
|
1) A list of all changes would have been nice.
2) Sightless, I know Erlkazar was cut out completely (it was detailed in Lands of Intrigue). |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 21:35:29
|
| When I hear 3e, I consider the ruleset, not the Realms. True, they may have some interconnection, but, for me, D&D and FR are not synonymous although FR is the setting where I've spent the lion's share of my career. |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31716 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 01:54:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zireael
2) Sightless, I know Erlkazar was cut out completely (it was detailed in Lands of Intrigue).
Erlkazar wasn't cut out completely in the 3e maps/material. The fact that Erlkazar was the featured setting of Master of Chains, and it's follow-up, indicated that Wizards' did keep most of the parts they'd previously removed ready for [potential] inclusion in a future sourcebook [in the 3e-era].
In other words... Erlkazar was still in the 3e Realms, we'd just not seen it properly marked on any 3e maps. |
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 - 08 Jun 2012 : 02:01:53
|
Erlkazar - a region supposedly left open for DM's to detail - was the setting for no less then four novel series (that I know of) - two one-offs (MoC Sage just mentioned and Obsidian Ridge), and two series (Cleric Quintet and Double Diamond)!
Like I keep saying - you want lore about an area, just tell authors they're not allowed to touch it. Its like telling kids to stay out of the cookie jar.
The reason why Erlkazar (the name) was left off the maps was because that particular area got so screwed-over and mangled there was no way it would work on the 3e campaign map (as-is). Its one of those "its still there, but you figure it out" solutions (which is no solution at all). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Jun 2012 02:03:04 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 02:19:29
|
Cleric Quintet!
That's why the place seems familar. Lots of folks just kept saying they got rid of the place from the Cleric Quintet, and I've never been sure exactly where that was. |
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. |
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2012 : 06:03:22
|
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.
But then...how does one ever accomplish something that paradoxical? The Realms is a game and a setting. It always was.
Yes, I am sure Ed had his own versions of how wizards obtained and used magic, how magic items were crafted, why dwarves could not use magic, how a certain enchanted spring affected you before, etc., all before he sold them to TSR. At that point, however, it became a game. And a game needs rules. It also needs to state what effect happens whenever something that causes and effect occurs.
For minor things, I agree, you can divorce the rules. For example, if a specific site is known to "rain fire", than, heck, a DM of any edition can easily choose a fire-related spell effect from whatever ruleset he wanted and run that as his fire rain effect. Or if a fountain had "healing properties", sure, a DM of any edition can state what kind and how much healing.
It's the more detailed things, like artifacts for examples, that need the heavy rulesets. Or magic items and spells. The different types of magic, too. That can't be avoided.
I don't think the rulesets being ingrained in the lore is the problem. The real problem is the designers not staying faithful to the rules that came before. It's when magic, class abilities, and, yes, even races/monsters have their very rulesets changed over and over that ruin everything.
For example, beholders are known to use their disintegrate eye ray to create their hive tunnels. If, for some reason, WotC decides beholders no longer have that eye ray power and replace it with something else, you're now stuck with damaged continuity. Why then, are there disintegrated tunnels wherever you face beholders? Where did they get such magic? From their eye, but then what happened to that eye power?
Sure WotC could throw in a short blurb explaining it (a disease affecting beholder births that resulted in one less eye stalk, for example), but why bother with all that to begin with? Why not leave it all alone and just let the ruleset work with it?
So I believe the core problem has always been the inconsistency with the rulesets, which leads to inconsistency with the Realmslore. Separating them won't make anything easier, I think it'll be harder and this is because you have to realize and accept that as much as the Realms is a world we both narrate and have it narrated to us, it is also a game people participate in and that narration needs to fit the ruleset and vice versa.
Which leads to why I loved 3E the best. Not only was it enjoyable as a more streamlined, balanced, and easier game style than 1e and 2e and the universal mechanics for all things PC/NPC/Monstrous; but it did its best to stick with what came before and worked a ruleset for it. A lot of abilities, spells, and monsters from previous editions have stood out to be exactly as, or really closely similar, to its 3E counterpart.
The succubus? It's a demon, a tanar'ri, from the Abyss. Yes it still drains energy. Yes it still has those spell-like abilities. Yes, it is the same succubus from 2e, just with a 3e ruleset. (it is not suddenly a devil and there now exists 20 different versions of it with 20 completely different sets of abilities, thanks to 4E).
If they keep what existed before and made sure to just adjust it all to the whatever new ruleset was they wanted, while keeping true to the original, there wouldn't be any inconsistency problems. |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2012 : 14:24:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
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.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dwarves and Halflings are completely unable to be Magic-Users because their very bodies repel magic. Gnomes also have the same bonuses versus magic; but can be Illusionists (a very different sort of class in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons).
The only time I would EVER allow a player to be a Dwarf Magic-User would be when the Dwarf character declared they were a Half-Dwarf (as per Forgotten Realms lore...these exist) and essentially they would have all the benefits of a Dwarf EXCEPT the resistance to magic and poison.
For a 1st Edition game...maybe...if my WIFE asked me.
Let me note, that I've never taken issue with the dwarves inability to cast arcane magic. I can think of plenty of reasons for why theis was done in second edition that's inkeeping with dwarvan lore. If people will note, my comment was directed towards the halflings, I'll leave the Gnomes alone for a moment. A very long moment. Now, I can understand their reluctence to bring the Halflings in and there wanting to inssure that there was enough of a seperation between the Halfling and the "hobbit" as to avoid the lawsuit that the was being sent there way, by the holders of the Tolkien material, I'll not bore you with my angry rant over this stupidity on the holders part, but they staid true to the halfling lore, which pred-dated Tolkien in every other respect. Why exclue the magical element that was a part of Halfling conceptualization going back as far as Gremshtod? |
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
36794 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2012 : 16:35:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
But then...how does one ever accomplish something that paradoxical? The Realms is a game and a setting. It always was.
Yes, I am sure Ed had his own versions of how wizards obtained and used magic, how magic items were crafted, why dwarves could not use magic, how a certain enchanted spring affected you before, etc., all before he sold them to TSR. At that point, however, it became a game. And a game needs rules. It also needs to state what effect happens whenever something that causes and effect occurs.
For minor things, I agree, you can divorce the rules. For example, if a specific site is known to "rain fire", than, heck, a DM of any edition can easily choose a fire-related spell effect from whatever ruleset he wanted and run that as his fire rain effect. Or if a fountain had "healing properties", sure, a DM of any edition can state what kind and how much healing.
It's the more detailed things, like artifacts for examples, that need the heavy rulesets. Or magic items and spells. The different types of magic, too. That can't be avoided.
I don't think the rulesets being ingrained in the lore is the problem. The real problem is the designers not staying faithful to the rules that came before. It's when magic, class abilities, and, yes, even races/monsters have their very rulesets changed over and over that ruin everything.
For example, beholders are known to use their disintegrate eye ray to create their hive tunnels. If, for some reason, WotC decides beholders no longer have that eye ray power and replace it with something else, you're now stuck with damaged continuity. Why then, are there disintegrated tunnels wherever you face beholders? Where did they get such magic? From their eye, but then what happened to that eye power?
Sure WotC could throw in a short blurb explaining it (a disease affecting beholder births that resulted in one less eye stalk, for example), but why bother with all that to begin with? Why not leave it all alone and just let the ruleset work with it?
So I believe the core problem has always been the inconsistency with the rulesets, which leads to inconsistency with the Realmslore. Separating them won't make anything easier, I think it'll be harder and this is because you have to realize and accept that as much as the Realms is a world we both narrate and have it narrated to us, it is also a game people participate in and that narration needs to fit the ruleset and vice versa.
Which leads to why I loved 3E the best. Not only was it enjoyable as a more streamlined, balanced, and easier game style than 1e and 2e and the universal mechanics for all things PC/NPC/Monstrous; but it did its best to stick with what came before and worked a ruleset for it. A lot of abilities, spells, and monsters from previous editions have stood out to be exactly as, or really closely similar, to its 3E counterpart.
The succubus? It's a demon, a tanar'ri, from the Abyss. Yes it still drains energy. Yes it still has those spell-like abilities. Yes, it is the same succubus from 2e, just with a 3e ruleset. (it is not suddenly a devil and there now exists 20 different versions of it with 20 completely different sets of abilities, thanks to 4E).
If they keep what existed before and made sure to just adjust it all to the whatever new ruleset was they wanted, while keeping true to the original, there wouldn't be any inconsistency problems.
The thing is, you can't stay consistent with the rules and still change them... Either dwarves use magic, or they don't.
And what explains things for one setting might not work for another... Dwarves suddenly being able to use magic could be explained, in the Realms, by the Thunder Blessing. But on Krynn, there's no Moradin to bestow that blessing... Reorx could do it, maybe, but that's not quite the same thing (dwarves were never in decline, there). And the setting of Randomland may have some other explanation for the lack of dwarven magic, an explanation that doesn't have anything to do with the gods at all. Maybe in Randomland, the ability to use magic is ingrained in the blood, and every spellslinger can be traced to one common ancestor. This would preclude any non-magical race suddenly showing magical talent.
So if you want consistency, it has to be explained in the setting. Otherwise, you can't trust anything that was written about the setting, because it may change without warning or explanation. |
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! |
|
|
|
The Hidden Lord
Learned Scribe
148 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 09:12:45
|
I am somewhat surprised by the comments regarding dwarven wizards in this thread; the use of arcane magic by dwarves in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting prior to the 3rd edition of the game is established.
Or has the legacy of Behring, dwarven W3 of Daggerford been lost to these halls? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36794 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 10:26:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
I am somewhat surprised by the comments regarding dwarven wizards in this thread; the use of arcane magic by dwarves in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting prior to the 3rd edition of the game is established.
Or has the legacy of Behring, dwarven W3 of Daggerford been lost to these halls?
Not really. There were a few isolated cases, but they were very much the exception, not the rule. It certainly wasn't an option for PCs.
It's not the only thing that was retconned for 3E, but it's a good example. And I think it's a better example than most, because the designers gave themselves a way to explain it, and then didn't. |
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 12 Jun 2012 11:25:08 |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 12:51:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not the only thing that was retconned for 3E, but it's a good example. And I think it's a better example than most, because the designers gave themselves a way to explain it, and then didn't.
To me, that kind of details is pretty harmless, and doesn't bug me at all. Yes, it is a retcon, no, it is not explained, but I think the overall impact on the setting is not significant.
I prefer any of this over nonsense like the Tyr-Helm fiaso, which had a huge impact on the setting, but this is OT. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 16:10:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
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.
Indeed, I never claimed I was casting all the spells on the same round. Assay Spell Resistance persists for several rounds, so you cast that the round before. Then you blast the quickened true strike and disintegrate. Then the gust of wind the following round while the dust is floating down.
My main point here is that you compare this to a fighter of that level, who might be dishing out 50-70ish damage, assuming that she hits with a couple of her 3-5 attacks or varying effectiveness. By contrast, my wizard just did 132 damage, which reduced the target to a pile of dust.
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" |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36794 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 16:28:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not the only thing that was retconned for 3E, but it's a good example. And I think it's a better example than most, because the designers gave themselves a way to explain it, and then didn't.
To me, that kind of details is pretty harmless, and doesn't bug me at all. Yes, it is a retcon, no, it is not explained, but I think the overall impact on the setting is not significant.
I prefer any of this over nonsense like the Tyr-Helm fiaso, which had a huge impact on the setting, but this is OT.
I don't mind dwarven magic use, and it doesn't really impact the setting. I use that as an example quite oft, though, because of the fact that they gave themselves the chance to explain it and didn't. To me, that's quite indicative of the issues surrounding the 3E transition.
Even though it doesn't really impact the Realms all that much, the fact remains that an entire race -- and its subraces! -- was changed, and no explanation was given. The lack of an explanation is the issue for me, not the change 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! |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 17:20:58
|
(I can't confirm this, so take this with a grain, or pound, of salt)
A friend of mine once asked one of the game designers at a conviention back when 3E was just coming out why no explanation was given for why Dwarves were given magic. The man's reply was, "we are living it open for the DMs to provide what explanation works best for them. Mostly though, I'd say it's part of the Thunder blessing." Now, one, I wasn't there, but I don't think my firend is lieing, but as it's been a while he can't recall the name of the fellow he was talking to. Second, this explanation seems a little poor to me, but that's strictly my opinion. |
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. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 18:06:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
The man's reply was, "we are living it open for the DMs to provide what explanation works best for them. Mostly though, I'd say it's part of the Thunder blessing.”
Whether apocryphal or true, there’s a good point in that statement: some things are better left unexplained.
I think the more we drive for explanations, details and cohesiveness, the less room we leave for DMs to fill things in and create, which is what the Realms are supposed to encourage DMs to do. Things like the lore behind Dwarves casting spells or the fate of Manshoon’s many clones (the Manshoon Wars)…that’s all great fodder for DMs to use. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36794 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 18:36:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
(I can't confirm this, so take this with a grain, or pound, of salt)
A friend of mine once asked one of the game designers at a conviention back when 3E was just coming out why no explanation was given for why Dwarves were given magic. The man's reply was, "we are living it open for the DMs to provide what explanation works best for them. Mostly though, I'd say it's part of the Thunder blessing." Now, one, I wasn't there, but I don't think my firend is lieing, but as it's been a while he can't recall the name of the fellow he was talking to. Second, this explanation seems a little poor to me, but that's strictly my opinion.
The Thunder Blessing is the ideal explanation, thinks I. That's why I'm bugged that it wasn't used. |
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 - 12 Jun 2012 : 18:41:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
(I can't confirm this, so take this with a grain, or pound, of salt)
A friend of mine once asked one of the game designers at a conviention back when 3E was just coming out why no explanation was given for why Dwarves were given magic. The man's reply was, "we are living it open for the DMs to provide what explanation works best for them. Mostly though, I'd say it's part of the Thunder blessing." Now, one, I wasn't there, but I don't think my firend is lieing, but as it's been a while he can't recall the name of the fellow he was talking to. Second, this explanation seems a little poor to me, but that's strictly my opinion.
The Thunder Blessing is the ideal explanation, thinks I. That's why I'm bugged that it wasn't used.
They would have had to cut one prestige class or one NPC stats |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36794 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 18:51:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
The man's reply was, "we are living it open for the DMs to provide what explanation works best for them. Mostly though, I'd say it's part of the Thunder blessing.”
Whether apocryphal or true, there’s a good point in that statement: some things are better left unexplained.
I think the more we drive for explanations, details and cohesiveness, the less room we leave for DMs to fill things in and create, which is what the Realms are supposed to encourage DMs to do. Things like the lore behind Dwarves casting spells or the fate of Manshoon’s many clones (the Manshoon Wars)…that’s all great fodder for DMs to use.
See, I don't see how changing something and failing to explain it puts any limitations whatsoever on the DM. How would knowing that the Thunder Blessing allowed dwarven magic use limit you?
And the fate of Manshoon's many clones was left undescribed... In fact, they removed DM fodder, there -- the Manshoon Wars were created to give DMs more to play with, and the 3E FRCS slammed the door closed on that by saying it was over and that there were three Manshoons left. Similarly, the Harper Schism created more potential for DMs, and it was ignored for a good chunk of 3E.
However, those things aren't unexplained retcons, so they're really not relevant to the discussion.
Here's one that is relevant: Silverymoon went from having a series of wards in 2E, to have a mythal in 3E. This was unexplained. I can readily think of some possible explanations, and those explanations would have added to the lore. None of these explanations would have limited a DM in any way, since -- like with dwarven magic use -- it would be explaining something that was already done.
Explaining the past limits nothing, and it adds to the richness of the setting. |
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! |
|
|
|
The Hidden Lord
Learned Scribe
148 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 19:54:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The thing is, you can't stay consistent with the rules and still change them... Either dwarves use magic, or they don't.
So in the Forgotten Realms, it is clear that dwarves *do*, as evidenced by Greenwood in The North...
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So if you want consistency, it has to be explained in the setting.
And yet, The North is *not* in-setting? I guess I don't understand that...
Following this logic, could one say the Spellfire does not exist in the Realms, because we have limited examples of Spellfire users in the Realms? |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 20:25:49
|
See, I don't see how changing something and failing to explain it puts any limitations whatsoever on the DM. How would knowing that the Thunder Blessing allowed dwarven magic use limit you?
Not all of the staff liked that explanation, so the compromise was that they'd just not mention it at all. Remember WOTC is made up of a group of people that don't always see eye to eye on everything. Some decisions were made based on that.
And the fate of Manshoon's many clones was left undescribed... In fact, they removed DM fodder, there -- the Manshoon Wars were created to give DMs more to play with, and the 3E FRCS slammed the door closed on that by saying it was over and that there were three Manshoons left.
That was a result of several long letters by players complaining over the existence of so many and that all in all it was felt as something poorly done for the setting.
Similarly, the Harper Schism created more potential for DMs, and it was ignored for a good chunk of 3E.
That was something that was supposed to be for various authors to deal with, but issues held it up, don't ask me exactly what though.
However, those things aren't unexplained retcons, so they're really not relevant to the discussion.
Here's one that is relevant: Silverymoon went from having a series of wards in 2E, to have a mythal in 3E. This was unexplained. I can readily think of some possible explanations, and those explanations would have added to the lore. None of these explanations would have limited a DM in any way, since -- like with dwarven magic use -- it would be explaining something that was already done.
This is another issue of what's already mentioned, two of the individuals responsible for overseeing the production of the story involving this left the company, during re-organization and so forth it was one of those things that was dropped, as there were other projects in the works. Initially there was a plan to return to the subject, but like many projects in an organization, it was one that was never returned to. In short, these were more do to organization problems that happened to face WOTC during this version of D&D. They could have in fact happened during any production, in fact some of them did during the production of 4E, to my knowledge. There, at least that deals with that issue. |
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
36794 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 21:08:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hidden Lord
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The thing is, you can't stay consistent with the rules and still change them... Either dwarves use magic, or they don't.
So in the Forgotten Realms, it is clear that dwarves *do*, as evidenced by Greenwood in The North...
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So if you want consistency, it has to be explained in the setting.
And yet, The North is *not* in-setting? I guess I don't understand that...
Following this logic, could one say the Spellfire does not exist in the Realms, because we have limited examples of Spellfire users in the Realms?
Again, it was not an option available to PCs. In 1E and 2E, dwarves could not be wizards. This was changed with 3E, but the use of magic by a previously magic-resistant race -- one with a canon myth for why they couldn't use magic -- was unexplained.
|
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 12 Jun 2012 21:11:51 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What's wrong with 3E?
