| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kes_Alanadel
Learned Scribe
USA
326 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 03:58:05
|
Tifus and I purchased this today. While I haven't had a good chance to really look it over well (will in a bit, since Tifus went to bed  ), the delighted chuckles from Tifus seems to indicate that it was a good purchase. Has anyone else purchased, or looked through it, and what are your opinions?
Oh, and we also bought Three-Dragon Ante as well. We did a quick run through of it, and I think it will be a fun game once we get some poker chips, or loose change to actually play it correctly .
~Kes
Edit:Woo Hoo, 100th post ....only a couple thousand to go 
|
Ack! I seem to have too much blood in my coffee stream!
When did 'common sense' cease to be common? |
Edited by - Kes_Alanadel on 04 Dec 2005 04:08:34
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 04:05:10
|
Bah . . . I did a quick run through of all the book stores and hobby shops in Champaign yesterday, but didn't find the tome at any of them. Champaign is fairly slow to get some D&D items (though thankfully my favorite pet store/hobby shop managed to have a copy of Champions of Valor pretty quickly after it came out).
I was definately interested in this once I heard that it had some of the spells that appeared in Dragon, and that it was going to list the sources for the spells (initially I was worried that, for example, initaite of x type spells would be listed without their prerequisite feats, thus causing lots more confusion). I don't know if any "initaite only" spells made it in, but it was a concern.
I was also wondering if any of the spells that were in the 3rd edition splatbooks that didn't get revamped for the "Complete" series show up in new form in the tome.
I guess I'll find out eventually . . .
Kes, definately keep up appraised of what you think of the book. |
 |
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 04:12:32
|
I saw it at my FLGS today, but had to stop at the price tag. $40 is a bit more than I want to spend on a book at this time of year, when I should be getting things for everyone else. So I'll probably wait until after the holidays before picking it up.
Did notice one thing that was posted at the Wizards site regarding and what was in the very front of the book, and not liking it one bit. How they made the names of several spells Generic. |
News of the Weird
D20 System Reference Document
D20 Modern System Reference Document
|
|
|
|
Kes_Alanadel
Learned Scribe
USA
326 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 04:19:18
|
Yeah, from what I saw in the couple seconds I got to look at it, they renamed some of the FR specific spells, but they also changed the names of some spells that were Greyhawk specific as well.
What really caught my eye, was that they give descriptions of what the spell looks like as it is cast/comes into effect.
And I agree Warlockco, $40 is a bit expensive....that's why it's Tifus' Yule present (even though he won't know till he reads this thread)
Edit: Can't spell this eve it seems |
Ack! I seem to have too much blood in my coffee stream!
When did 'common sense' cease to be common? |
Edited by - Kes_Alanadel on 04 Dec 2005 05:46:00 |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 05:38:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
Did notice one thing that was posted at the Wizards site regarding and what was in the very front of the book, and not liking it one bit. How they made the names of several spells Generic.
They can't do anything else, at least for the FR and Eberron ones, due to the new cosmology...I'm confused about why they renamed some of the Mordenkainen's spells, though. I'm looking forward to it, due to the fact that it will greatly lessen my load when playing a wizard. I just wish they'd included spell lists for non-PHB classes...I was really hoping for those.  |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 07:17:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
I saw it at my FLGS today, but had to stop at the price tag. $40 is a bit more than I want to spend on a book at this time of year, when I should be getting things for everyone else. So I'll probably wait until after the holidays before picking it up.
Yeah, I want the book, too, but I'm afraid I can't justify dropping that kind of cash on a non-Realms book. So I'll wait until I can get a copy on the cheap.
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
Did notice one thing that was posted at the Wizards site regarding and what was in the very front of the book, and not liking it one bit. How they made the names of several spells Generic.
They started doing that when they inflicted 3E on us... I don't like that, either. Having names on the spells made them more intriguing... But you know what? Acid Arrow, to me, will always be Melf's Acid Arrow. That's how I learned it, and that's how it's going to remain. |
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! |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 08:32:30
|
Initial impressions: Like the artwork, don't like the cover that much, think the renaming of spells with generic names was a mistake.
Picked up the book (5 copies of it) today. One for me, four for the guys in my campaign. Gotta take good care of players that stick with your campaign for half a decade.
I'm about as ticked at WotC as I've ever been over their using generic spell names. If their marketing strategy is to graduate gamers from the Core Books into one of the two campaign settings, how do they help things along by deleting references to (at least one of) those settings?
Anyone learn why they went generic? I couldn't find an explanation in the Spell Compendium itself, and I'm certain it's not for Cosmology reasons.
J. Grenemyer
|
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 11:17:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Anyone learn why they went generic? I couldn't find an explanation in the Spell Compendium itself, and I'm certain it's not for Cosmology reasons.
J. Grenemyer
No clue if it was for Cosmology reasons, then they should have done it with the PHB then. The only source that had generic names was the SRDs. |
News of the Weird
D20 System Reference Document
D20 Modern System Reference Document
|
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 11:48:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Anyone learn why they went generic? I couldn't find an explanation in the Spell Compendium itself, and I'm certain it's not for Cosmology reasons.
J. Grenemyer
No clue if it was for Cosmology reasons, then they should have done it with the PHB then. The only source that had generic names was the SRDs.
No, as those were GH-specific, and 3e uses GH as the basis in the core rulebooks, remember? Hence why it's so styming why they're removing the Mordenkainen's lines from some of the spells in the Spell Compendium... |
|
|
|
Crennen FaerieBane
Master of Realmslore
USA
1378 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 14:58:16
|
I've picked the book up and it's fairly cool. I don't like the generic names, but I know the spells well enough that I just refer to them by their proper names, anyway. I shouldn't have spent the $40, as like Warlockco said, I should have spent it on other things (like more Xbox 360 games). Overall, it's a neat book to have with decent artwork. And like Arivia said, it will lighten the load immensely.
C-Fb |
Still rockin' the Fey'ri style. |
|
|
|
Tifus Artwin
Acolyte
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 14:59:59
|
From what Ive read and looked over, they made all of the spells as Generic as possable, Im guessing so that any spell from the Compendium can be added to any existing campaign with no difficult explinations "Yes I know Mordenkainen is from Grey-Hawk, but he just got in from there and has a few spells he wants to share".
As for the rest of the book, so far Ive only noted a few discrepancys(sp?) such as the Sarcophagus of Stone spell pg180. Theres seems to be a major lacking of information on that spell, such as spell lvl, who can and cannt cast it, ect. and unlike other spells, (such as Iron Bones and Stone Bones) it doesnt say that it acts as another spell exept where noted.
Other then that, Id make sure that any DM gets this book, but think it over before putting it in the hands of PC's. Its not that the spells are overpowered, its that alot of them are weak for there levels, but there versatility balances that out and could give a DM a headache trying to challenge a druid PC with the Tsunami spell avalable.
And Three-Dragon Ante is a fun game, its just going to take about 3 or 4 times playing to really get used to all of its quirks. |
|
|
|
Kes_Alanadel
Learned Scribe
USA
326 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2005 : 18:13:10
|
Okay, I finally got a chance to look through it, and it's a pretty cool book. The artwork is really nice, and there are alot of really nice spells in it, but like Tifus said, some of the spell entries have errors in them.
The one thing that I really didn't like, is that they didn't give any suggestions with the new Domains for Gods that could grant them. I guess with their push for generics (is this a word ), they felt they shouldn't add that, but it will make some extra work for the DM if they want to add those Domains. I don't see how it would have hurt for them to add a couple of lines that were 'In FR, these gods would have these domains...... In Eberron, these gods,' etc.
|
Ack! I seem to have too much blood in my coffee stream!
When did 'common sense' cease to be common? |
Edited by - Kes_Alanadel on 04 Dec 2005 18:15:04 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 19:53:03
|
When I initially had heard that the book would have the source for the spell listed, I was hoping that that would be listed as part of each spells entry, not just having a list at the end of the book that says all of the sources that were used. If there had been a line in each of the spells saying where the spell came from, some of the FR spells would have been called out.
Why am I concerned about this? Becuase the book did just what I was hoping it wouldn't. By neutering the spells and not specifically calling out the sources, we now have a bunch of spells restricted as "Initiate" spells mixed in with everything else. Granted, you can still look at the front of the book to see the renamed spells, but it seems to make everything more complicated.
I know, you may not like initiate feats, but I like the idea that some things are held back for followers of certain gods that receive special training.
Oh, as to some of the earilier concern about player's getting their hands on this and wanting all sorts of divine spells, in my campaign, if you are a divine caster, you have been taught how to pray for the spells in the PH, but anything that comes out later (Miniatures Handbook, FR sourcebooks, Complete Divine, etc.) you have to find someone that has already learned how to pray for that clerical spell in order to learn how to pray for it yourself, though once you are tutored, there is no failure chance as there is with arcane spells, and no limit, nor requirment to keep the prayer listed in a "prayer book,"
|
|
|
|
Crennen FaerieBane
Master of Realmslore
USA
1378 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 00:44:59
|
Hey, that's a good idea, KEJR. I was wondering a way to limit my players from gorging themselves on all the crunch that has come out. And if you've ever had technical players, you know what I mean!
C-Fb
P.s. - KEJR, what's up with the Avatar change? |
Still rockin' the Fey'ri style. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 01:30:49
|
I just woke up and felt like an older knight . . .
|
|
|
|
Crennen FaerieBane
Master of Realmslore
USA
1378 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 02:27:38
|
ROTFL... yeah, marriage does do that to you!!
C-Fb |
Still rockin' the Fey'ri style. |
|
|
|
martynq
Seeker
United Kingdom
90 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 11:36:14
|
The comments above seem far more positive about this product than I was expecting. It seemed to me that it was mainly reprints (and corrections) of stuff that I already have all the original source material for. Is it still worth getting?
Martyn |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2005 : 11:51:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by martynq
The comments above seem far more positive about this product than I was expecting. It seemed to me that it was mainly reprints (and corrections) of stuff that I already have all the original source material for. Is it still worth getting?
Martyn
As I've said above, I'm mainly getting it to cut down on the amount of books in my bag. The spells from Dragon and stuff online is a bonus, too-up to you. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 04:52:12
|
I'll get it simply for the utility factor of having the latest versions of all the spells in one, nice, neat place. Mind you, the de-Realmsification (and de-Greyhawking) of all the names is really off-putting.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 05:00:54
|
| Yeah, I don't mind one bit if Mordenkainen wrote a spell . . . sure Khelbun could kick his tail with one staff tied behind his back, but the old balance freak has written a few useful spells in his day . . . |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31772 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 05:41:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I'll get it simply for the utility factor of having the latest versions of all the spells in one, nice, neat place.
That's pretty much my thinking on this as well.
I'm looking at it more as a handy reference resource to have on my desktop, when and if I need to refer to a particular spell quickly -- much like my quick reference book for the C++ language that I also have sitting here .
|
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 |
|
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2005 : 06:31:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I'll get it simply for the utility factor of having the latest versions of all the spells in one, nice, neat place. Mind you, the de-Realmsification (and de-Greyhawking) of all the names is really off-putting.
-- George Krashos
Very much so, I will get it, but most likely not til after X-mas, I need to get things for everyone else first. |
News of the Weird
D20 System Reference Document
D20 Modern System Reference Document
|
|
|
|
Alaundo
Head Moderator
United Kingdom
5695 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2005 : 16:58:34
|
Well met
Ahem, let us please get back to discussing the Spell Compendium. Thank ye. A tome which certainly intrigues me as to its usefulness. I'll certainly be purchasing this tome, if only for the interest in seeing how well done and creative the "read aloud" text is. |
Alaundo
Candlekeep Forums Head Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
An Introduction to Candlekeep - by Ed Greenwood
The Candlekeep Compendium - Tomes of Realmslore penned by Scribes of Candlekeep
|
|
|
|
Crennen FaerieBane
Master of Realmslore
USA
1378 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2005 : 17:27:33
|
Sorry, Big Al!
I really enjoy the descriptors in the spells. Where usually I make up the description on the spot, sometimes the creative part of my mind fails miserably! I do feel bad that they neutered a lot of the spells, but since we all know them so well, it's not hard to figure out which they are.
C-Fb |
Still rockin' the Fey'ri style. |
|
|
|
Kes_Alanadel
Learned Scribe
USA
326 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2005 : 22:25:24
|
Sorry as well Alaundo. I think it will be used alot in our campaigns, especially by a bard we have (no, not Ragnar ) that is using quite a few out of the Dragon magazines. It will help the magazines stay together better as well.
~Kes |
Ack! I seem to have too much blood in my coffee stream!
When did 'common sense' cease to be common? |
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2005 : 00:20:52
|
| Any good bardic spells in there that I should look up in the old Dragons i've scrounged together? |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Kes_Alanadel
Learned Scribe
USA
326 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2005 : 15:51:07
|
| I don't know off hand, but I'll try to get Tifus to figure it out, and let you know |
Ack! I seem to have too much blood in my coffee stream!
When did 'common sense' cease to be common? |
Edited by - Kes_Alanadel on 09 Dec 2005 15:52:00 |
|
|
|
Mystery_Man
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2006 : 17:58:58
|
| This book is well done. The best part about it are the spell descriptions, very cool. And as far as the generic renaming goes it's not much of a problem (at least for me) and they do redeem themselves by providing a list of the spells at the beginning of the book in one column and they're generic names in another. |
|
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 02:13:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery_Man
This book is well done. The best part about it are the spell descriptions, very cool. And as far as the generic renaming goes it's not much of a problem (at least for me) and they do redeem themselves by providing a list of the spells at the beginning of the book in one column and they're generic names in another.
Yeah, but the renaming is a bit stupid especially for the Greyhawk spells since any book published that isn't set in a specific world is supposed to be set in Greyhawk by default. |
News of the Weird
D20 System Reference Document
D20 Modern System Reference Document
|
|
|
|
Mystery_Man
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 02:35:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery_Man
This book is well done. The best part about it are the spell descriptions, very cool. And as far as the generic renaming goes it's not much of a problem (at least for me) and they do redeem themselves by providing a list of the spells at the beginning of the book in one column and they're generic names in another.
Yeah, but the renaming is a bit stupid especially for the Greyhawk spells since any book published that isn't set in a specific world is supposed to be set in Greyhawk by default.
I'm sure it might be to some, I just don't care. I'm more into the usefulness of the book, since I don't have some of the expansions. |
|
|
|
Arivia
Great Reader
Canada
2965 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2006 : 20:14:52
|
Just picked this up-I haven't looked at much of it, yet, but I've got a few comments on some things in there as Candlekeep's resident rulesmaiden.
Sarcophagus of Stone: A quick, cursory look at this spell suggests to me that to fix it, insert "As imprisonment except" at the beginning of the rules text block. THIS IS PROBABLY NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT BUT IS JUST A QUICK IDEA. A short clarification: Although the duration seems off at first glance, it's correct(see fabricate, I think.)
I'll look through the various threads on the Boards That Must Not Be Named and the rest of this thread about it and try and compile a rules edit list/informal errata for our use. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Spell Compendium
