| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Paec_djinn
Learned Scribe
173 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 12:58:20
|
1. Anyone read any of the novels? If so which of them?
2. Would you recommend any of them to someone who has about 4-5 novels on his to buy list? Or should I just stay away from a particular novel altogether?
3. What stands out from the particular recommended novel?
4. I'm a person looking for original plots and a unique style. Do any of these novels bring any of these?
|
Edited by - Paec_djinn on 08 Aug 2006 13:01:08
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 13:26:20
|
1) Ghostwalker!!!
2) Ghostwalker!!!
3) Dark, moody...FUN!
4) Ghostwalker!!! |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
 |
|
|
Paec_djinn
Learned Scribe
173 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 13:38:04
|
| Care to elaborate more on them? |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2006 : 14:00:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paec_djinn
Care to elaborate more on them?
Nah, the book is that good...lots of novels out there I would not recommend, this one I really do recommend |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2006 : 00:49:40
|
So far I've read Master of Chains and Ghostwalker, and enjoyed them both very much. I know you want a more detailed answer, but my mind's a bit tired now, sorry.  |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 09 Aug 2006 00:50:46 |
|
|
|
Archwizard
Learned Scribe
USA
266 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2006 : 01:09:37
|
| I've read Ghostwalker and Bladesinger. I found them both to be enjoyable reads, easy to get into. |
|
|
|
Lord Nemes
Seeker
Canada
58 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2006 : 01:54:22
|
I've read Ghostwalker and Master of Chains. Both were good but if you ask, I'd say Ghostwalker was my favourite. It's principally the characters, main and support, that I liked.
Lord Nemes |
|
|
|
Renzokuken
Acolyte
USA
38 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2006 : 04:10:03
|
| I have only read Master of Chains but I definitely enjoyed it. |
Currently reading: Dark Elf Trilogy (FR) |
|
|
|
Lord Rad
Great Reader
United Kingdom
2080 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2006 : 08:44:27
|
The Fighters Series is great!  I'd definately recommend reading all these novels and i've really enjoyed all the "class" novel series on the whole.
Ghostwalker and Master of Chains stand out the most for me. Ghostwalker has a great feel to it and very eerie in places. Master of Chains is gritty and brutal and has some stand-out moments. Son of Thunder was also very well done and bodes well for me with an excellent Realms feel. Bladesinger also oozed with Realms flavor and was thoroughly enoyable.
It all depends on what you like, but they all have a distinct style and are worth getting without a doubt.
I think my comments in the book club for all these books were quite positive...best not to read those threads just yet though due to spoilers  |
Lord Rad
"What? No, I wasn't reading your module. I was just looking at the pictures"
|
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2006 : 12:25:53
|
I liked Ghostwalker and Son of Thunder, Bladesinger was okay, but I've got issues with Master of Chains (mostly the way Shyressa was portrayed, and the word "sexy" just doesn't feel right to me in a Realms-novel).
But Ghostwalker was great, and comes with my heartfelt reccomendations |
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 |
|
|
|
Ignorance Personified
Seeker
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2006 : 23:53:33
|
1. I have read Ghostwalker and Master of Chains.
2. Master of Chains was one of my favorite recent FR novels and is worth a look--even if you have five books on "your waiting list."
|
Carthago delenda est. |
|
|
|
Beezy
Learned Scribe
USA
280 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2006 : 20:40:07
|
I have read all four of them. I enjoyed them all and where as it is hard to rank them in any sort of order I would recommend Ghostwalker or Son of Thunder as my favorite of the group.
|
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2006 : 01:59:53
|
| Hmm might have to read Ghostwalker after I finish Swords of Eveningstar. |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
Paec_djinn
Learned Scribe
173 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2006 : 08:40:52
|
| Just thought I drop by to say, that I think I'll be getting Ghostwalker. I was beginning to think that I would have to skip this series, but just thought I have a look at the sample chapter, and boy was I awed. |
|
|
|
SuperNova
Acolyte
Canada
4 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2006 : 20:41:18
|
The Fighters was awsome! Ghostwalked was my favorite, Rhyn is the epitomy of bada$$ness. Master of Chains was my second because he uses a massive chain for a weapon... Son of Thunder and Bladesinger are ranked about the same for me both great books. |
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e227/Dr1fter/thehuntercopy.jpg
Need a sig/gfx/banner made? PM me!
Dwarves pwn your a$$ |
|
|
|
Ian-DV8
Acolyte
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2006 : 18:16:26
|
| Ghostwalker was my fav, I had high hopes for Master of Chains but...well, wasn't alot about the chain fighter in my opinion it was more about his brother. Was that last sentance a run-on? I believe it was/is...time for bed. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 02:51:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian-DV8
Ghostwalker was my fav, I had high hopes for Master of Chains but...well, wasn't alot about the chain fighter in my opinion it was more about his brother. Was that last sentance a run-on? I believe it was/is...time for bed.
Actually, it was about half-and-half between the Master of Chains and his brother. And I liked that. The novel was about people and their problems, not just about a guy swinging chains around.
I liked Ghostwalker too, although the actual protagonist was a bit too "dark" for my tastes. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 03:59:00
|
*Ahem*
Far be it for me to intrude, but I was going to offer this link to an additional short story related to Ghostwalker. . .
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=books/fr/wayfarer
. . .if you'd like more to judge on whether or not you'd like to pick up the novel.
"Wayfarer" takes place three hours after the prologue and roughly 15 years (minus half a tenday) before the first chapter. It shouldn't contain any spoilers. I also don't recommend reading it all in chronological order -- by all means, read this short before the actual novel, or after, if you like, for more perspective.
Carry on -- nothing to see here. 
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" |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 05:18:14
|
| I actually haven't read that story yet, myself. Perhaps sometime this week...thanks for the link. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
wwwwwww
Learned Scribe
116 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 15:37:06
|
The only book I've read from the "Fighters" is Master of Chains. While I wouldn't say it was a terrible book by any means, it did have a vast array of plot-holes and implausible quirks. It wouldn't be a top recommendation of mine.
I was a little disappointed in the premise of the four “Fighters” books, because not ONE of them had a normal fighter. You know, a guy/gal with a sword . . . no extraordinary powers save their ability to fight. Instead, we get dinosaur transforming barbarians, invincible ghostwalkers, a man that swings a thousand chains about his body like it’s the rapture, and a bladesinger (cool class, but far more than just a fighter).
All of those are cool/unique in their own right (I have no use for dinosaurs, though), but I just wish one book would have been about an actual fighter.
The basic fighter is a long forgotten class. There's no use for simplicity in dnd anymore. It's all about these spectacular prestige classes. |
|
|
|
Conlon
Learned Scribe
Canada
132 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 15:44:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by wwwwwww
The basic fighter is a long forgotten class. There's no use for simplicity in dnd anymore. It's all about these spectacular prestige classes.
I'm with you on that one. If I wasn't DMing right now, I'd be playing a good old-fashioned, no-PRC fighter with tons of feats.
Having said that, Ghostwalker kicked ass! (haven't read the others yet). |
My hopes are ashes, my dreams are dust. All my intentions mean nothing unless they are followed by action. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 15:56:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by wwwwwww
I was a little disappointed in the premise of the four “Fighters” books, because not ONE of them had a normal fighter. You know, a guy/gal with a sword . . . no extraordinary powers save their ability to fight. Instead, we get dinosaur transforming barbarians, invincible ghostwalkers, a man that swings a thousand chains about his body like it’s the rapture, and a bladesinger (cool class, but far more than just a fighter).
....
The basic fighter is a long forgotten class. There's no use for simplicity in dnd anymore. It's all about these spectacular prestige classes.
Again, not to intrude, and not to sound as though I'm being disagreeable, but I think the premise of the "simple fighter" is a little fallacious. I always had a bit of a problem with the 2e fighter, which I thought the most unrealistic of all the classes.
What? Unrealistic? Whatever does he mean? 
Historically, you were a good fighter if you mastered different styles, tricks, and moves. A clunky fighter with nothing but a sword that he would swing (think AD&D 2e) would be killed easily and quickly. The best and -- indeed, the only living -- combatants would be able to adapt to different styles, environments, and weapons.
(Incidentally, in 3e/3.5, there's a class for your "normal fighter": warrior.)
Now, D&D 3e/3.5e simulates this. There's a reason D&D fighters get lots and lots of feats, to give themselves abilities and skills that aren't universal. The thought is that they focus their training on learning tricks and skills beyond the simple slash/thrust/parry/block of swordplay that every swordsman would have to learn just to avoid killing himself.
These books show how a fighter can evolve to be quite different through different styles and outlooks, but still maintain the same basic core: fighter-ness, as it were.
As for the call for a "normal fighter" -- there are a bunch of characters in this series who are straight fighters. Ryder's brother in Master of Chains, for instance, is a straight fighter. So are many of the guards and men who surround Ryder (or, well, in game terms, they're probably *warriors*). What about those "other guys" in Son of Thunder?
As for my book: Arya Venkyr, other than 1 level of "Knight of Silverymoon" (which is pretty close to a straight fighter) -- you want a classic knight, you take her. Bars is a straight paladin. Heck, half the characters in Ghostwalker are straight fighters. Walker stands out among them, because he has a unique style and has developed certain powers (far from invincible, I might add). He isn't there for the "coolness" factor alone (though I'll confess, it is there ).
Again -- I don't want to come off as being argumentative. What I've said isn't contrary to what you're saying, WWW -- you're bemoaning that authors spend too much time making their heroes cool and unique (exoticism) and forgetting their roots. Maybe so, maybe not -- that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not saying your point isn't necessarily valid; I'm just offering a (somewhat tangential) perspective, and that about the series in general.
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" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 15 Aug 2006 16:10:30 |
|
|
|
Chosen of Moradin
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1120 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 16:05:47
|
And I agree fully with you, Erik. 
The great quantity of feats to a fighter in the 3.0/3.5 edition of the rules simply give to him more options than just thrust and parry, and open space to each one develop his own style.
And about the dinosaurs, well, they are 2nd edition old school. One of my old players already have played with a priest of Uthgar from the Thunderbeast tribe, after he look at the description of the god and of the thunderbeast in the Powers and Pantheons sourcebook. |
Dwarf, DM, husband, and proud of this! :P
twitter: @yuripeixoto
Facebook: yuri.peixoto |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 16:12:47
|
Personally, I wouldn't have liked to merely read about Walker being a simple fighter.
Imagine the Fighter series being solely about:
-a longsword wielding fighter
-a flail wielding fighter
-a halberd wielding fighter
-a bastardsword wielding fighter
-a zweihänder wielding fighter
Now that would have been a blast...not. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
wwwwwww
Learned Scribe
116 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 16:25:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Historically, you were a good fighter if you mastered different styles, tricks, and moves. A clunky fighter with nothing but a sword that he would swing (think AD&D 2e) would be killed easily and quickly. The best and -- indeed, the only living -- combatants would be able to adapt to different styles, environments, and weapons.
These books show how a fighter can evolve to be quite different through different styles and outlooks, but still maintain the same basic core: fighter-ness, as it were.
Well, if you want to get technical and "historical" (as you brought up), which one of the main characters in those books shows historical accuracy? C'mon, this isn't history. If a man can transform into a dinosaur, then I think it's okay for a no-frills fighter to kick ass. It's far more reasonable, in fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
As for the call for a "normal fighter" -- there are a bunch of characters in this series who are straight fighters. Ryder's brother in Master of Chains, for instance, is a straight fighter. So are many of the guards and men who surround Ryder (or, well, in game terms, they're probably *warriors*). What about those "other guys" in Son of Thunder?
But none of them are the main (or chiefly focused) characters. Of the main characters: two of the four are utterly supernatural. One is half-wizard, and the other is a walking chainlink fence (historically, how's that for mastering different styles and moves ). Again, I'm not saying these characters are stupid. Not in the least! But I still would have liked one of those books to have centered around a character that carried no magic, and wasn't supernatural. The set of books was called "Fighters." Not "warriors," "transformers," "ghosts," "skaters," "harlots," or any others class.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
As for my book: Arya Venkyr, other than 1 level of "Knight of Silverymoon" (which is pretty close to a straight fighter) -- you want a classic knight, you take her. Bars is a straight paladin. Heck, half the characters in Ghostwalker are straight fighters. Walker stands out among them, because he has a unique style and has developed certain powers (far from invincible, I might add). He isn't there for the "coolness" factor alone (though I'll confess, it is there ).
It's hard to comment on a book I haven't read. But I will say that I believe it's very possible to develop styles and skills and still wear good 'ol half-plate and wield a plain 'ol sword . . . and be non-magical.
|
|
|
|
Chosen of Moradin
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1120 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 16:38:11
|
quote:
]Originally posted by wwwwwww
The set of books was called "Fighters."
They are all "Fighters", and all of them have to fight, despite their other abilities in their areas of expertise. The PrC that the protagonists belong are stated in the Complete Warrior. Yes, they are "magical" and "supernatural", but this reflect the fact that they are protagonists in a fantasy novel, IMO. Oh, and as a DM, I have in my game tables fighters much more bizarres! |
Dwarf, DM, husband, and proud of this! :P
twitter: @yuripeixoto
Facebook: yuri.peixoto |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 16:57:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by wwwwwww
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Historically, you were a good fighter if you mastered different styles, tricks, and moves. A clunky fighter with nothing but a sword that he would swing (think AD&D 2e) would be killed easily and quickly. The best and -- indeed, the only living -- combatants would be able to adapt to different styles, environments, and weapons.
These books show how a fighter can evolve to be quite different through different styles and outlooks, but still maintain the same basic core: fighter-ness, as it were.
Well, if you want to get technical and "historical" (as you brought up), which one of the main characters in those books shows historical accuracy? C'mon, this isn't history. If a man can transform into a dinosaur, then I think it's okay for a no-frills fighter to kick ass. It's far more reasonable, in fact.
I wasn't saying that this *should* be history. I was only saying that a character who has a sword, a shield, plate armor, and an attitude, but no other skills or tricks or powers, and expects to survive (let alone entertain) in a fantasy setting as high-powered as the Realms, is S.O.L.
quote:
But none of them are the main (or chiefly focused) characters. Of the main characters: two of the four are utterly supernatural.
A very reasonable point. Once again, however, this IS the Realms we're looking at, which has a preponderance of magic items and spells and whozawhatzit. When they say "The Fighters," they mean a number of things: 1) D&D fighters (who of course wield magic, even if only very powerful magic weapons (like Ryder, for instance) in many cases), 2) people who exhibit "fighter-ness" (i.e. struggle and battle to resolve problems). I think, under that definition, the series is aptly named.
(Incidentally, if you're looking for low-magic, strictly "fighter" archetype characters, try David Gemmell.)
I believe I would also disagree with you as far as "main" or "chiefly-focused" characters. If you mean "title-characters," then yes -- none of the characters are strictly fighters. All of them are variations on the same theme. And I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, I like it. A lot.
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" |
|
|
|
wwwwwww
Learned Scribe
116 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 17:23:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I wasn't saying that this *should* be history. I was only saying that a character who has a sword, a shield, plate armor, and an attitude, but no other skills or tricks or powers, and expects to survive (let alone entertain) in a fantasy setting as high-powered as the Realms, is S.O.L.
I can agree with that, but it really has nothing to do with my orignial post.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A very reasonable point. Once again, however, this IS the Realms we're looking at, which has a preponderance of magic items and spells and whozawhatzit.
That doesn't make my point invalid. FR's strengths are it's sheer amount of variety. In no way should it be impossible to write a novel centering around a non-magical fighter. It would be quite unique and good (if well-written), considering everyone's predisposition for magic and stunning presige classes.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I believe I would also disagree with you as far as "main" or "chiefly-focused" characters. If you mean "title-characters," then yes -- none of the characters are strictly fighters.
Then why name the book after a single character? Of course the audience to going to automatically identify that character as the main character. That's only natural.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
(Incidentally, if you're looking for low-magic, strictly "fighter" archetype characters, try David Gemmell.).
Gemmell was a workhorse of an author, and had some bright spots in the genre. As far a pure story-telling goes, he right up there with the best. FR could have used a tale-spinner like Gemmell. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 17:39:31
|
| Everyone has different preferences. I see nothing wrong with exploring different aspects of a class, in a series devoted to that class. |
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! |
|
|
|
wwwwwww
Learned Scribe
116 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 17:44:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Everyone has different preferences. I see nothing wrong with exploring different aspects of a class, in a series devoted to that class.
That's EXACTLY my point. It's completely reasonable to have had one book focus on a standard, non-prestige fighter. Thanks Wooly! |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2006 : 17:50:40
|
| Well, I sympathize with wwwwww to a point, as I prefer "simple fighters" myself, but there has been a number of fighters in other books through the years. This series focuses on the non-standard fighters that have not had so much of a place in the sun until now. Would there then be a need for a series on standard fighters? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fighter series questions
