| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 15:43:58
|
So I'm just now reading the article on 4E critical hits... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080104
In 4E, a roll of 20 is automatically a crit. This I can agree with.
But the damage is now maximized -- so a 1d6 damage weapon, on a critical hit, will automatically do 6 points of damage. And that's it! Not much of a critical hit, thinks I, since you have a chance to do that same 6 points of damage on any successful attack roll. 5% of the time, you get to do the same damage you already at a 16.6% chance of doing on a successful attack roll.
Apparently, nerfing crits across the board is supposed to keep monsters from killing PCs as readily. And, admittedly, the PCs do have some other crit damage options, also detailed in the article. And monsters don't get those options.
But still, if you don't have the right weapon or a magical one, getting a crit doesn't do that much for you. If automatically doubling the damage is just too much, like they seem to think, then just add another damage die. That 1d6 weapon will average 7 points on a crit. It could do more, it could do less. I think that having a chance at 12 points of damage (admittedly a small chance) is better than getting the same damage that you could get on a non-critical hit.
Or do the max damage, with another damage die rolled -- so the 1d6 weapon will then get 7-12 points of damage on a crit. That at least makes the crit worthwhile. |
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!  |
 |
|
|
Cyril Lokner
Seeker
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 15:51:12
|
I'm interested in seeing the core rules for 4e for the main purpose of improving my 3.5e game by tweeking my house rules. After reading this article, I am considering having a natural 20 get max damage and then if you back it up, you get to roll the extra damage for the critical hit. That way a natural 20 isn't completely wasted.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So I'm just now reading the article on 4E critical hits... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080104
In 4E, a roll of 20 is automatically a crit. This I can agree with.
But the damage is now maximized -- so a 1d6 damage weapon, on a critical hit, will automatically do 6 points of damage. And that's it! Not much of a critical hit, thinks I, since you have a chance to do that same 6 points of damage on any successful attack roll. 5% of the time, you get to do the same damage you already at a 16.6% chance of doing on a successful attack roll.
Apparently, nerfing crits across the board is supposed to keep monsters from killing PCs as readily. And, admittedly, the PCs do have some other crit damage options, also detailed in the article. And monsters don't get those options.
But still, if you don't have the right weapon or a magical one, getting a crit doesn't do that much for you. If automatically doubling the damage is just too much, like they seem to think, then just add another damage die. That 1d6 weapon will average 7 points on a crit. It could do more, it could do less. I think that having a chance at 12 points of damage (admittedly a small chance) is better than getting the same damage that you could get on a non-critical hit.
Or do the max damage, with another damage die rolled -- so the 1d6 weapon will then get 7-12 points of damage on a crit. That at least makes the crit worthwhile.
|
A Detail of Hadreth's Glen: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11314
A Detail of the Shattered Stone Orcs: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12873
A Detail of White Chalk Hollow: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13348
A Detail of Tachepp: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13336
A Detail of the Aer Ascaltia: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=17559
Cougarum: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13341
A Detail of Irythkeep http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18290 |
|
|
|
Odysseus
Seeker
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 16:38:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So I'm just now reading the article on 4E critical hits... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080104
In 4E, a roll of 20 is automatically a crit. This I can agree with.
But the damage is now maximized -- so a 1d6 damage weapon, on a critical hit, will automatically do 6 points of damage. And that's it! Not much of a critical hit, thinks I, since you have a chance to do that same 6 points of damage on any successful attack roll. 5% of the time, you get to do the same damage you already at a 16.6% chance of doing on a successful attack roll.
Apparently, nerfing crits across the board is supposed to keep monsters from killing PCs as readily. And, admittedly, the PCs do have some other crit damage options, also detailed in the article. And monsters don't get those options.
But still, if you don't have the right weapon or a magical one, getting a crit doesn't do that much for you. If automatically doubling the damage is just too much, like they seem to think, then just add another damage die. That 1d6 weapon will average 7 points on a crit. It could do more, it could do less. I think that having a chance at 12 points of damage (admittedly a small chance) is better than getting the same damage that you could get on a non-critical hit.
Or do the max damage, with another damage die rolled -- so the 1d6 weapon will then get 7-12 points of damage on a crit. That at least makes the crit worthwhile.
I believe you don't just get maximum damage. Certain weapons get extra damage dice, plus some s special abilities/feats perhaps , also increase the damage.
I would of thought double damage on a crit would be reasonable. But until I see the entire system i'll reserve judgement. |
“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power, that is not easy.” —Aristotle |
Edited by - Odysseus on 06 Jan 2008 16:41:36 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 16:43:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odysseus
I believe you don't just get maximum damage. Certain weapons get extra damage dice, plus some sort of special abilities.feats perhaps also increase the damage.
I would of thought double damage on a crit would be reasonable. But until I see the entire system i'll reserve judgement.
Well, yeah... I mentioned that in my post. But, if you just have a plain old weapon -- as a starting PC likely would -- then this new system does absolutely nothing for you. As I suggested, max damage plus an additional damage roll, keeps the crit as something worth getting.
And it is, in fact, now that I look at it, something that they do for magical weapons. I don't think it should be limited to just magical weapons. For non-magical weapons, the new 4E system is essentially a nerf. |
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 06 Jan 2008 16:46:11 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 17:41:36
|
I think that the new critical system is part of the mindset that not being able to do what you want to, all the time, isn't fun. If you get killed, you can't do what you want, so its not fun. Races and Classes even mentions, vaguely, making the game less lethal. I think the "second wind" ability ties into this as well. It kind of creates the feel that you are in danger, without making you actually have to be close to death.
Also, making other feats or talents make criticals more damaging helps to "spread out" abilities across 30 levels. Since you will either get a feat (general ability) or a talent (class ability) at each level, in order to make sure there is something at every level, you take stuff that was built in right from the start and spread it out. Eventually, if you take enough feats or talents, your criticals might do what they used to, kind of, but you "got something" at every level until you get to that point again.
Now, I don't know how well this will work. It gives me the feeling of being a bit artificial. But to someone new that has never played the game, who knows. I'm wondering how much this suspension of disbelief will hold up over time though.
"I was almost dead, until my second wind kicked in, and then that monster got a critical, and I was somewhat hurt badly again, and then after a few more rounds, I was almost dead again, but I'm human, so I got another second wind, and then the monster got three or four more criticals again, and, wow, I was almost a goner, but the Warlord granted me a second wind, and I was fine again, and now that we finally killed the beast, despite having nearly died three times and never having received magical healing at all, I feel almost as healthy as when I started the fight." |
Edited by - KnightErrantJR on 06 Jan 2008 17:44:01 |
|
|
|
Erundur
Acolyte
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 18:23:10
|
I recently read the Races and Classes 4e transition book almost in its entirety. It gave me mostly more bad thoughts of 4th Edition, but some surprising good ones.
For instance, the idea of making a wizard just a glorified blaster is a poor decision, if it will be made concretely later on. And I thought it reviled that they would weaken the necromancer, a staple of fantasy gaming everywhere.
But a day later, I found myself believing the warlock class to be tremendously more believable as a villain. Someone who makes pacts with demonic powers and uses blood and other gruesome things as material components seems far more sinister than a mean guy in black robes who has an undead fetish. Perhaps the storytellers of our age haven't done a good job of making necromancers feel that evil...
I know warlocks have been around since at least 2nd Edition, but they've never looked like this class concept.
Opinions/comments? |
Inye Erundur, Varyar Eruhinion. |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 19:23:11
|
quote:
And I thought it reviled that they would weaken the necromancer, a staple of fantasy gaming everywhere.
I think you've misinterpreted that. They're eliminating save-or-die spells, which would weaken some Necromancy spells as they are. But they're not weakening Necromancers, as they're planning on releasing a Necromancer class, which'll likely be a MUCH better Necromancer class then the 3E Necromancer ever was (Who wasn't that good of a Necromancer in comparison to the Cleric, or even a regular Wizard). |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 20:51:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erundur
I recently read the Races and Classes 4e transition book almost in its entirety. It gave me mostly more bad thoughts of 4th Edition, but some surprising good ones.
For instance, the idea of making a wizard just a glorified blaster is a poor decision, if it will be made concretely later on. And I thought it reviled that they would weaken the necromancer, a staple of fantasy gaming everywhere.
But a day later, I found myself believing the warlock class to be tremendously more believable as a villain. Someone who makes pacts with demonic powers and uses blood and other gruesome things as material components seems far more sinister than a mean guy in black robes who has an undead fetish. Perhaps the storytellers of our age haven't done a good job of making necromancers feel that evil...
I know warlocks have been around since at least 2nd Edition, but they've never looked like this class concept.
Opinions/comments?
It did seem to me like R&C was "pushing" the warlock class, but at the same time it was claimed in the text that the class was also tremendously popular for 3E gaming. There were an awful lot of warlock pictures...but there were a lot of fighter and rogue pictures, too.
I say if people like the class, good on them, although it isn't my style, personally, as I tend not to make "sinister" protagonists (the warlock isn't "nice" even if he isn't evil, according to the text--he's definitely an "ends justify the means" type of character). |
"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 06 Jan 2008 23:44:55 |
|
|
|
Erundur
Acolyte
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 21:21:45
|
quote:
I think you've misinterpreted that. They're eliminating save-or-die spells, which would weaken some Necromancy spells as they are. But they're not weakening Necromancers, as they're planning on releasing a Necromancer class
They are also eliminating save-or-die spells. They are weakening necromancers, as they are all specialists. There was even a heading describing the veritable abolition of schools of magic!
I either didn't see or forgot about a piece about necromancers in particular. And it's nice that you're optimistic about necromancers being better, but do you have any source for that assumption?
The last time they tried to redefine character classes (going into third edition), we got dwarven wizards and halfling paladins. To many of us in the "Middle" and "Old" guard, that wasn't such a good thing. There isn't a history of confidence coming from Wizards of the Coast. |
Inye Erundur, Varyar Eruhinion. |
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 22:13:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erundur
quote:
I think you've misinterpreted that. They're eliminating save-or-die spells, which would weaken some Necromancy spells as they are. But they're not weakening Necromancers, as they're planning on releasing a Necromancer class
They are also eliminating save-or-die spells. They are weakening necromancers, as they are all specialists. There was even a heading describing the veritable abolition of schools of magic!
You're making an illogical assumption that, just because one thing is being weakened, that it isn't being replaced with other things.
quote:
I either didn't see or forgot about a piece about necromancers in particular.
From Rich Baker...
quote:
On spell selection: "Every class gets cool "non-attack" power choices as well as attack power choices. Wizards will still be able to cast spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, or Levitate. It's true that we'd like to "narrow" wizards a bit, and save (for example) some illusion spells for an honest-to-gosh Illusionist class down the road, or necromancy spells for a Necromancer. But wizards will still "splash" at least a few of the iconic powers in these themes of magic. For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options."
quote:
And it's nice that you're optimistic about necromancers being better, but do you have any source for that assumption?
Do you have any source for your assumption that Necromancers are going to be crap? It's silly to assume the worst, without a shred of proof to back up that assertion. Barring anything of the sort, it's only logical to assume that they're going to make the Necromancer class as balanced as they can with all the other player races. And given that Clerics make better necromancers then Necromancers, it's reasonable to assume that the Necromancer class will be better at what it's supposed to be good at. Namely creating and controlling undead.
quote:
The last time they tried to redefine character classes (going into third edition), we got dwarven wizards and halfling paladins. To many of us in the "Middle" and "Old" guard, that wasn't such a good thing. There isn't a history of confidence coming from Wizards of the Coast.
It's a question of perspective. From my perspective, lifting those racial limits on classes was a good thing, but to each their own. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 23:48:05
|
| One thing about the R&C I noticed that disappointed me: Remember how when 3E came around, it was emphasized that being a Rogue didn't have to mean you were mischievious, untrustworthy outlaw? I didn't see that kind of emphasis in the R&C Rogue section. |
"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) |
|
|
|
Erundur
Acolyte
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 00:10:29
|
Hi Venger. A few responses.
quote:
You're making an illogical assumption that, just because one thing is being weakened, that it isn't being replaced with other things.
If you're going to use the word "illogical", think about what it means first next time. It is more logical to assume that a character class getting "narrowed" will have fewer powers, than to input the theretofore unspoken information that other things would replace it. If you had said, "ultimately incorrect assumption", then perhaps your attempt at sophisticated discourse might have succeeded.
In the end it appears you were correct, however, since Rich Baker would know what he was talking about, and I hadn't seen the "plus side" of it yet.
quote:
Do you have any source for your assumption that Necromancers are going to be crap?
Um. Why...yes. I enumerated it just below your (evidently) rhetorical question.
quote:
It's silly to assume the worst, without a shred of proof to back up that assertion.
I underlined the pertinent words to give an example of an actual logical inconsistency. If one had proof (which, by the original nature of its name, is always incontrovertible), then any assumption would be superfluous.
e.g. If you're holding an unwrapped blue lollipop (proof of said lollipop's color), you could not say that perhaps it was pink (assumption).
Anyhow, cognitive dissonance aside - yes, you have a different opinion on dwarven wizards. You have every right to your opinion. It's just strange seeing how the PREVIOUS rules (which, along with verisimilitude can be pesky concepts to Wizards of the Coast) said that dwarves had little to no magical ability whatsoever, and now they can be archmages without too much of a problem.
I leave you with that. |
Inye Erundur, Varyar Eruhinion. |
|
|
|
Arkhaedun
Senior Scribe
869 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 03:22:55
|
Guys, I don't often do this, but what I'm saying isn't as a moderator here at Candlekeep, but as a fellow scribe and someone that loves the roleplaying hobby, D&D, and the Forgotten Realms:
I really, really want to see people talk about what they like and what they don't like about 4th edition D&D and 4th edition Realms. I want to see pros and cons, and I want to see snippets of news that I may not have caught, and I want to read about perspectives that I may not have seen before.
I don't want anyone to turn away from their own point of view, and I don't expect anyone to evagelize someone else to their point of view. But what I do desperately want is for people to not make any of these discussions personal.
We love our hobby, and most of us have a lot invested in it, and as such, emotion tend to run high when you mix in the potent combination of change and uncertainty. Its understandable. But, please, please, remember you are talking to other people that you share a lot with.
I make this plea only because I veiw a lot of D&D sites across the internet, and honestly, I am sick and tired of discussions of interesting topics devolving into a string of invectives and name calling.
Again, this is only as a fellow scribe, and not singling anyone out. It's a general plea. I could care less what "side" you are on, and I want to hear your opinion, but please, please, don't make any of this too personal.
|
|
|
|
Erundur
Acolyte
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 03:34:53
|
Right. I'm likely correct in assuming that was directed at me and Venger. Or perhaps just me. Therefore, I apologize to the Moderation and to other members if my post was out of line. I did go on the attack. I saw "silly", "illogical" and 'baseless assertion' and fired back.
I shall try to remain more cordial in the future. |
Inye Erundur, Varyar Eruhinion. |
|
|
|
Ardashir
Senior Scribe
USA
544 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 17:24:05
|
quote:
But a day later, I found myself believing the warlock class to be tremendously more believable as a villain. Someone who makes pacts with demonic powers and uses blood and other gruesome things as material components seems far more sinister than a mean guy in black robes who has an undead fetish. Perhaps the storytellers of our age haven't done a good job of making necromancers feel that evil...
I know warlocks have been around since at least 2nd Edition, but they've never looked like this class concept.
Opinions/comments?
To be honest, I like the 3.5 versions of the necromancer, esp. the Dread Necromancer from HoH and the varied prestige classes from Libris Mortis.
I'd say a lot of the 'flavor' you're looking for is more a matter for the individual DMs and players.
And oen of the few things I like about 4th Ed. is warlock as a new base class. I just plain like the warlock as a class and for the built-in background hooks. ("I can't help the paladin against the local Cult of Graz'zt, he's the one who gave me my powers!") |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 23:21:23
|
These replies today from Rich wasn't really a FR post so I stuck it in this thread.
"We've got a new typing system, but I won't go into detail yet. I don't want to scoop some of our Monster Manual preview material.
One thing I will say: In general, we want more powers to affect more creatures. Saying that a PC race (or a bipedal, intelligent monster, for that matter) isn't a "person" because of some pretty arcane typing rules is something we're moving away from."
and
"I think the rogue article didn't give you the full picture of things. We're pretty happy with the idea that "rogue" might mean more than "thief," and we haven't consciously set out to change that. We might have simply fallen into old habits when writing that one article." |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 07 Jan 2008 23:22:27 |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2008 : 23:03:27
|
Since people were asking about the 4e SRD and OGL awhile ago here's a new press release from WOTC about it.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2008 : 23:10:42
|
Rich posted this today. It was more about core then FR so I'm sticking it in this thread.
"Hi, GK --
I'm afraid I can't say too much yet on the paladin. I've been getting quoted over at ENWorld a bunch lately and I'm getting nervous about being too out on front with some of my info. I don't want to get in trouble for spilling the beans! But I will try to address a couple of your Q's, here...
We're leaning toward making paladin mounts optional, not a built-in part of the class. So you might gain access to a cool mount by deciding to take the right paragon path or spending the appropriate feat. Paladin players who don't want the complexity of a mount can avoid it easily enough, but those who do want the mount can still make the decisions to get a unique mount.
Paladin multiclassing restrictions are gone.
Funny you should mention Tantras; I touch on it just a bit in my novel Swordmage, in that it's the last place my protagonist was before the book starts. With the growing shade influence in Sembia, the cities of the Vast are becoming home to a number of Sembian houses-in-exile; consequently, they're doing pretty well and are starting to acquire a Casablanca-like "this is where everybody meets" feel to them." |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2008 : 10:36:43
|
| Well, the Vast has seen little attention the later years, although I always envisioned Westgate as the Casablanca of the Realms. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2008 : 14:09:44
|
Jorkens, in case you haven't read it already, you'll find that some parts of the Vast received recent attention in the Crypt of the Moaning Diamond by Rosemary Jones.
|
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 10 Jan 2008 14:11:47 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2008 : 17:07:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Jorkens, in case you haven't read it already, you'll find that some parts of the Vast received recent attention in the Crypt of the Moaning Diamond by Rosemary Jones.
Thanks Sage. I might give it a look, its been a long time since I have bought any Realms books not written be Ed. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2008 : 02:03:26
|
A core post from Rich from today.
"Not all monsters that used to teleport at will do so in 4e. But there's no reason that archdevils or demon princes couldn't use teleportation rituals themselves to "beam up" minions to places they need to go. Those rituals may be expensive and tedious, so it might not be routine for demons to bamf into the middle of the town square--but it could happen if the DM needs it to. Anyway, I expect that most demons and devils rely on gates and portals now, too, which seems good to me. It means that dungeons containing gates to hell are important." |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Odysseus
Seeker
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2008 : 19:53:36
|
This article http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080111a is concerning.
It sounds like they are trying to erase three quarters of Faerun! |
“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power, that is not easy.” —Aristotle |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2008 : 23:29:14
|
| I can say that at this point, I'd rather play in D&D Extreme than in the 4E version of the Realms. |
"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) |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2008 : 23:37:19
|
| Honestly, not as a replacement for 3.5, but it does sound like an interesting game and implied setting on its own, just not as the next iteration of D&D. If someone else ran it, I'd probably play it, but it wouldn't be my choice to DM. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2008 : 19:01:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I can say that at this point, I'd rather play in D&D Extreme than in the 4E version of the Realms.
Too true, too true... |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2008 : 19:18:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Honestly, not as a replacement for 3.5, but it does sound like an interesting game and implied setting on its own, just not as the next iteration of D&D. If someone else ran it, I'd probably play it, but it wouldn't be my choice to DM.
Good point there, just what I felt. The game itself will probably be fun but not the next step for D&D imho. Just my 2 cents. |
" Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages...I intend to discover who are the prisoners and who are the warders." -the Prisoner |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2008 : 02:08:56
|
From Rich today.
"Drow appear in the Monster Manual as monsters. I'm not sure if we've included them in the "monsters as PCs" info in that book." |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
GS
Acolyte
14 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2008 : 21:31:14
|
I'm not sure where this post belongs, so please move it if it is in the incorrect place.
I have been reading this, and other, message boards for years now and have, as such, never posted my opinion about what is happening. I stumbled upon the FR setting almost by accident after having read the Dark Elf Trilogy somewhere in the early to mid nineties. I realised that there was this whole world, complete with history and lore, upon which the stories of Drizzt (and Elminster and Arilyn/Danilo, and now Cale ad so on) were being built. I was hooked from the get go. I loved getting my hands on the supplements in order to devour all the FR knowledge within them. I am quite sure that I have read almost every single FR novel published (with the exceptions of some “Realms of” books). But reading the novels was heightened by all the other accessories that TSR/Wizards published about the FR. I still enjoy reading the source books more than the novels (not completely true, but true enough). This is because the lore within the accessories fuels my already quite vibrant imagination; more so than the novels. But I also recall, as newer accessories were published, my annoyance at the quantity/quality trade-off in these books. Instead of building on existing lore or creating new lore in “lore sparse” areas (Chessenta, Chondath, Unther, Chult, say) the developers chose (or were forced to) include new spell, new races, new monsters, new classes in, almost, every new book. This is particularly true in 3ed.
I think there are many great thing in 3ed, don’t get me wrong, but the theme of almost all new accessories was “Uh, the gamers want new spells, new prestige classes, so let’s give it to them”. I think this was clearly shown in books such as Champions of Ruin/Valour and Dragons of Faerun. But even to a lesser extent this was seen in Shining South; City of Splendours: Waterdeep and Underdark. The best sourcebooks in 3ed, in my opinion, were: Faiths and Pantheons; Races of Faerun, Power of Faerun, Lost Empires of Faerun, Serpent Kingdoms (minus the classes/spells and adventure) and Unapproachable East. Why did I like these books? They took something that already was and expanded it or introduced new role-playing elements. I still think the Unapproachable East could have had much more in it, but it was better than nothing. I am not even going to start talking about the brilliance of books such as Cloak and Dagger and the Lands of Intrigue (my favourites).
But I am (and will continue to) rambling. Coming to the 4th edition I think that the developers have, at last, a chance to scale back some of the more foolish (again in my opinion) additions to the Realms. Even Races of Faerun had elements I hated. At one point someone must have sat down and said: “Ok, how many ‘climates are there in FR’? So we need a desert dwarf, snow dwarf, wood dwarf, sea dwarf and space dwarf.” This was then extrapolated to all races and, voila, we have way too many sentient races in the Realms. Again, this is my opinion. One of my problems with the realms is that it has more sentient races than “monsters”. Every single plot of land has some sentient race living there. Taking the Sea of Fallen stars as an example: Do we really need Sea Elves and Merfolk and Tritons and Shalarin? Some will say yes, but in my opinion sea elves and merfolk are just elves and humans with the “sea” template added. Can’t we eliminate merfolk and shalarin and expand on the lore surrounding sea eleves and tritons? Same goes for, say, goblins. Can’t we just say that there were a “race” of goblins that were called Dekanter goblins, but they died because they were sterile, or something? Then just go back to using goblins? And someone please tell me why we need Fire Newts? I am not saying that these examples are the ones need to be weeded out, but surely someone agrees with me that weeding is needed? By eliminating some of the more “similar” races, developers will have fewer “bases” to touch upon for each new supplement and can therefore focus more on and go deeper into the races, places and people in each region.
I think the same goes for deities. Even when I started my journey within the FR I felt that there were too many gods that were technically the same. So there is an opportunity to remodel some. GreenKnight did a good job with his argument about getting rid of Tyr and replacing him with Torm. I think this should be done with all interloper gods. I know, shoot me now. Oghma could be replaced with Deneir. Ilmater could merge with Eldath and become a god of peace (both natural and societal). Nobanion, Shialla and Lurue should become one god. The Mulhorandi pantheon should disperse and their respective portfolios given to the FR gods. Lathander finally rises to become Aumanator the Three Faced after Horus-Re gave his powers to Lathander. I called him the Three Faced because he is Lathander, god rebirth, in the morning (thus keeping Lathander). The he changes and becoms Aumanator the Just (this is from his old portfolio) during high day. At the late hours of the day he becomes (Insert name), which is the more militant arm of his portfolio, preparing to fight the onslaught of night. Talona could acquire Velsharoons portfolio of undeath. It could be argued that undeath is sort of a disease. And so on. I have other ideas for the gods, but they are just that, ideas.
These are all rambling and not completely important to the discussion of 4th edition, I know. What I want to say is that the FR is not perfect, as is, in the eyes of all FR lovers. There is room for change and evolution. Many of my gamer buddies think the same. Is moving the time line a hundred years and “nuking” some less developed regions the solutions? I am not sure. But I respect and enjoy Richard Baker’s work, both as an author and as a developer and thus I think we should wait and see before going ballistic. I have some concerns about the novel lines. For characters such as Drizzt, Elminster and Erevis Cal ether are no worries. But what of Drasek Riven (does he get immortality now that he is chosen?), Khaany Vhok, the Companions of the Hall and other newer, non longlived, heroes invented by newer writers? Jess Lebow wrote a good book in Master of Chains and he seems to be revisiting these characters in The Obsidian Ridge. But after that book, he cannot continue work on them (unless he stays in the 1370s). The same goes for other novel characters. I think this is a shame.
In the end of this very long rant I just want to plead to the developers. Please, after you have changed the Realms into this new version, please start writing more lore and less spells, classes and monsters. Please start developing fully this new Realms and don’t juts focus on the same areas all the time. I want to know what has happened in every city in Calimshan for the last hundred years. Not just Cormyr.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
