| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Feb 2017 : 03:33:29
|
A recent conversation in a different scroll made me truly realize how "edition blind" I am. I know 4e decently well, because, as much as I disliked what it did to the setting, I wanted to know what was going on. But I don't know all the details that were 4e exclusive in terms of lore changes, other than demigods being exarchs, high elves becoming eladrin, and of course the Spellplague and such.
I like think I know my lore decently well. I am by far not the expert some sages here are, but I can hold a conversation. I have bought sourcebooks for lore purposes, as I don't game, and I think that is one of the reasons I don't always realize which edition is which. I have looked to see which of my sourcebooks see what edition they are, but the only one that blatantly says it is The Complete Book of Elves , which says 2e.
Some advice on how to tell the editions a part, and more info on somE of the major changes that came with them, would be helpful. The only sourcebooks I recognize for their editions are 4e and 5e.
|
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6643 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2017 : 05:19:41
|
A rough guide:
Boxed sets - 1E
White(ish) or gray covers - 2E
Brown covers - 3E
Of course there are outliers - the 1E FR products had any number of colour covers but they also had the TSR logo so they are easy to pick.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
 |
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6643 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2017 : 11:33:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
I like the intentional or not omission of any edition after 3rd
Well, the OP said he already recognised the 4E and 5E sourcebooks. There are of course less than a dozen of those altogether.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2017 : 13:46:42
|
Just so you know as well, some of the major differences
1e - Assassins , 2e - Assassins bad, all must be thief, 3e/3.5e - Assassins
1e - magic-user & illusionist, 2e - specialist wizards for the schools, 3e - specialist wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, niche wizards for only some schools (i.e. warmage, dread necro, beguiler, etc...)
1e - psionics were a clunky add on mainly for monsters, but someone MIGHT have a wild talent, 2e - psionicists as a class, 3e - psionics as a class fixed more, but loses a lot of flavor, does get a lot of alternate builds though
1e - clerics & druids, 2e - clerics can only cast spells from the spheres that their deity provides, so deities of one god might be able to do fire magic and others can't, 3e - clerics are back to all sharing one spell list but they have a domain spell list of a handful of spells that are extra spells they know
BTW, if there's one thing I really think was a good idea, it was the idea in 2e of gods limiting the type of spells castable by clerics. However, I also understand from a book writer's standpoint, they don't want the readers going "he's a cleric of X, he can't cast that" just like what happened with specialist wizards. Personally, I think they should go back to the spheres concept, BUT take a cue from pathfinder kind of.... make it such that if a spell is in their spheres, they can LOWER its level such that they can cast it as a lower level cleric. That will influence which spells they memorize (i.e. why memorize a 7th level spell in a 7th level slot if you can cast a 9th level spell) without making it such that they CAN'T cast certain spells. With as few spells as you get in 5e at the upper levels, I don't see this as a problem necessarily. It would be somewhat of a task though. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2017 : 15:57:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
1e - psionics were a clunky add on mainly for monsters, but someone MIGHT have a wild talent, 2e - psionicists as a class, 3e - psionics as a class fixed more, but loses a lot of flavor, does get a lot of alternate builds though
I'd say that psionics has always been a clunky add-on, given the way it's been implemented and changed...
And the issue isn't the psionics themselves; I'm a huge fan of psionics, personally. I think the issue is that the game has always been built around the warrior/rogue/wizard/cleric combo, and psionics has always been added in later on, wedged into a space not really meant for it.
It's like that middle seat in the back seat of a car -- it's not really meant to accommodate an adult, but it technically can... So you wind up with three people squashed together in a space that's meant for two.
If an edition was built from the ground up, with psionics integrated from the start, it would work a lot better.
Dark Sun did make a viable go of psionics, but that was because the designers basically built the setting around psionics, and changed some of the other classes in the process. They made room for psionics to fit in, instead of forcing it into a spot that didn't exist.
Like I said, I love psionics -- but like cantrips, D&D has never quite made it work the way it should. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2017 : 16:31:21
|
THE BEST resource for this used to be the Paizo site, believe it or not. Back when they were carrying all the WotC products, you could just go to their store area, navigate to the Forgotten Realms section, and then look for books by nearly any type of category, not just edition. I used to use it AT LEAST once a day, trying to remember the name of an obscure source book. You could search by edition, region (Kara-Tur, Maztica, etc), whatever your criteria - and find a complete list of every book published by WotC pertaining to what you were looking for. It was a godsend.
One of the major decisions by WotC during the onset of 4e was to pull all their licenses away from everyone, including their primary 'partner', Paizo. Most people only noticed how this affected (more like 'obliterated') the magazines, or how they were no longer able to download PDFs they paid for. Aside from me, I don't think anyone realized the insanely great search tool we also lost (and WotC has NEVER had anything like that, for their own products... which just demonstrates how much more business savvy Paizo had then the guys left at WotC during the 4e era). Not a day goes by now that I don't curse not having that anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
I like the intentional or not omission of any edition after 3rd
Well, the OP said he already recognised the 4E and 5E sourcebooks. There are of course less than a dozen of those altogether.
In 3e, we would have called that "a slow month". LOL |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 16 Feb 2017 21:05:23 |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2017 : 20:37:21
|
| Thanks, everyone. I feel pretty silly asking, but since I would be the sourcebooks for lore that I was interested in, I didn't pay much attention to the difference in editions, until 4e came out, even when I did note changes in lore. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2017 : 21:20:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Thanks, everyone. I feel pretty silly asking, but since I would be the sourcebooks for lore that I was interested in, I didn't pay much attention to the difference in editions, until 4e came out, even when I did note changes in lore.
No worries. 
Despite having built near-complete collections of FR stuff twice, I've only had two characters that I actually played in the Realms. One was my very first character, both were only a handful of sessions, and both were back when 2E was going strong. |
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! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 16 Feb 2017 : 23:20:10
|
The timeline for the editions is pretty easy to follow regarding the Forgotten Realms. I'm pretty lost when it comes to TSR-era D&D and Forgotten Realms but suffice to say that anything written Post 1372 DR is 3rd Edition and that goes up to 1385 DR. We have the Spellplague and the time gap and the 4th edition starts in 1479 DR. Things happen and then 5e is released with, I believe, the start of 1485 DR(?).
Also the logo for the Forgotten Realms changed when they switched Editions too.
1e/2e Forgotten Realms logo. Anything detailed lore wise in here deals with these editions
3/3.5e Forgotten Realms Logo. Anything detailing lore wise in a book like this deals with this particular edition, either 3.0 or the Revised. SOME exceptions apply such as THIS as this is a 3.0 adventure for the game that was released fairly recently after 3.0's creation.
4e Forgotten Realms "logo" this you already know. I'm fairly certain 5e has no such thing. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2017 : 00:20:37
|
@Diffan: I knew the year 4e and 5e started. I figured 3e or 3.5 was somewhere in the 1360s-1370s, since a number of FR novels before 4e took place in the 1370s.
Ah,that makes sense. I recognize those logos, I just didn't know the editions they belonged to. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2017 : 02:12:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
1e - psionics were a clunky add on mainly for monsters, but someone MIGHT have a wild talent, 2e - psionicists as a class, 3e - psionics as a class fixed more, but loses a lot of flavor, does get a lot of alternate builds though
I'd say that psionics has always been a clunky add-on, given the way it's been implemented and changed...
And the issue isn't the psionics themselves; I'm a huge fan of psionics, personally. I think the issue is that the game has always been built around the warrior/rogue/wizard/cleric combo, and psionics has always been added in later on, wedged into a space not really meant for it.
It's like that middle seat in the back seat of a car -- it's not really meant to accommodate an adult, but it technically can... So you wind up with three people squashed together in a space that's meant for two.
If an edition was built from the ground up, with psionics integrated from the start, it would work a lot better.
Dark Sun did make a viable go of psionics, but that was because the designers basically built the setting around psionics, and changed some of the other classes in the process. They made room for psionics to fit in, instead of forcing it into a spot that didn't exist.
Like I said, I love psionics -- but like cantrips, D&D has never quite made it work the way it should.
Yeah, I'll agree that psionics was much better explored in Dark Sun than anywhere. The 2e psionics also (much like 2e magic) were broken though. The stuff you could pull off made the fighter classes pretty much useless. The 3e psionics, was much better controlled, BUT they were basically copying a lot of the rules for magic and just relabeling it psionics.
Its almost like they should get rid of the enchanter as a school of magic and make that something for psionic folk, but then that would piss off a lot of us wizards royally. In the end, they probably should trim back some of the wizard skills though, for instance the mind linking spells for having telepathic communication.... maybe the detect thoughts type magic. But then if you do that you need to give some bones to the diviners. Then develop more spy type magic for psionic individuals (i.e. sharing someone else's eyes, ears, nose, etc...). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2017 : 03:36:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The timeline for the editions is pretty easy to follow regarding the Forgotten Realms. I'm pretty lost when it comes to TSR-era D&D and Forgotten Realms but suffice to say that anything written Post 1372 DR is 3rd Edition and that goes up to 1385 DR. We have the Spellplague and the time gap and the 4th edition starts in 1479 DR. Things happen and then 5e is released with, I believe, the start of 1485 DR(?).
Also the logo for the Forgotten Realms changed when they switched Editions too.
1e/2e Forgotten Realms logo. Anything detailed lore wise in here deals with these editions
3/3.5e Forgotten Realms Logo. Anything detailing lore wise in a book like this deals with this particular edition, either 3.0 or the Revised. SOME exceptions apply such as THIS as this is a 3.0 adventure for the game that was released fairly recently after 3.0's creation.
4e Forgotten Realms "logo" this you already know. I'm fairly certain 5e has no such thing.
The 3E Realms logo was cool, but I will always love the 1E/2E logo the best. |
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! |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2017 : 03:44:15
|
| I knew the first logo (the 1E and 2e) was the older one. I have novels and a few sourcebooks wih that logo, and I knew it was an older edition, just not where the line was drawn. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2017 : 04:17:04
|
| It's making more sense now. Thanks, everyone. I guess I never really paid that much attention to which edition was which prior to 4e. I appreciated them all because they felt so much richer in lore. It just all kind of...blended together for me, I guess lol, until 4e, when I started paying more attention to editions. I came into the Realms haphazardly, reading novels and lore books that interested me. I like to think I have a good knowledge of the Realms as a whole (so I can be worthy of being a "Master of Realmslore, which I know is based on posts, but still) but I was "edition blind" lol. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
moonbeast
Senior Scribe
USA
522 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2017 : 04:21:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
I like think I know my lore decently well. I am by far not the expert some sages here are, but I can hold a conversation. I have bought sourcebooks for lore purposes, as I don't game, and I think that is one of the reasons I don't always realize which edition is which.
Just out of curiosity…. why don't you game? I realize that reading the FR lore and fiction (the source books, guide books, novels, Salvatore, Greenwood, etc) are enjoyable themselves, but role-play gaming is a unique and rewarding experience in itself. Is it simply because it's difficult to find fellow gamers in your area? |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2017 : 04:37:27
|
@moonbeast: that is part of the problem, yes. And I do roleplay, just not D&D style. It's either via writing (I have a friend I do this with. Our characters will interact, and we devise plotlines. It's over email), or oral storytelling (I have another friend I do this with. It's so much fun, and it is kind of like D&D, without the "gaming" aspect).
I have played a few times, but even though I have met quite a few people who game, (all of whom are my friends) they either have their own game going, or it's just been hard to set up anything, for various reasons. There will be the exchange of "oh, we should game sometime", but "sometime" hasn't happened yet.
I was introduced to FR through the novels. My friend (the one I do the oral storytelling with) recommended Icewind Dale to me. It's funny, becsuse I have read far more FR novels than she has now, and I am more up to date on my lore, but she is the one who games lol. Her brother is the DM, and it's family time for them, so I wouldn't want to intrude on that.
I played a few times with said friend and another friend. We had a small campaign going. Then I actelly played Pathfinder a couple times with the other friend I mentioned, but it was over skype because the other players were in a different state. It was hard for me to really get involved, and then the group disbanded (for reasons unrelated to the game). So yeah...I have never just been able to join a group. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
Edited by - CorellonsDevout on 17 Feb 2017 04:43:52 |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2017 : 15:26:14
|
| I can still remember the excitement of spotting a wondrous new 2E boxed set on the shelf at the local bookstore. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2017 : 22:31:33
|
1E naturally evolved into a mess: they were inventing the game and products for the game, each subsequent book was filled with new rules or errata that should've been written (or rewritten) in previous books.
2E was an ambitious cleanup. It streamlined rare/bizarre exceptions into a common (and common-sense) ruleset, it organized scattered things from unrelated books into indexed things in relevant books, it simplified complexities and clarified strangeness and made some hard decisions about borderline stuff (like psionics). And AD&D was great, again. And players only needed to buy one or two books (instead of all the books), again. But after some years and numerous products 2E became far messier and ugly and scatterbrained than 1E ever was, self-contradictions seemed to exist for everything and it was left to DM's to decide how they'd navigate the mess in their games.
3E was another ambitious cleanup. And a complete revision of the "traditional" (often confusing, unworkable, downright meaningless) D&D game mechanics. And Wizbro's reinvention of the brand. A rather brilliant new approach to licensing. Along with a rather predictable (failed) approach to marketing: WotC basically failed to secure a dominant position in the RPG "industry" (again) and instead just created its most successful competition. D&D 3E (and 3.5E) was probably the most popular edition, played by the most people for the longest time. It eventually became as unwieldy and internally self-conflicted as each previous edition, full of so many rules about rules and books about everything (published not just by WotC but by everyone!) that - once again - nobody could simply play the game "as-is" without first methodically determining which "house rules" would be used or ignored. 3E was heaven for powergaming rules lawyers, munchkins, etc. 3E-based products and settings published by Paizo (and others) are still popular today, nobody outside the industry really knows the numbers but it's fairly evident that, as a group, non-WotC products were (and still are) consistently outselling WotC products.
4E was another ambitious cleanup. And another complete revision of the fundamental game rules: partly to improve the game, but also partly to render it completely incompatible with any previous edition of the game - WotC wanted 4E to be incompatible with previous D&D products and licenses so that they wouldn't have to compete for "their own market" against non-WotC products. Much simplified and generally targeted at a much younger audience. 4E was (and still is) harshly criticized and poorly received by existing D&D players because: it was viewed as "childish", because WotC "ruined" the settings (the maps and lands and races and histories basically look like they come from different planets), and - perhaps most of all - because WotC retconned things too dramatically and too rudely ("the Realms were always this way, and new lore always trumps old lore so get over it, just ignore all the lies published in Realmslore over the past 30 years"). Many existing fans of D&D and the Realms were disenfranchised, some quite vehemently. You'll find all manner of perceptions and analysis about how and why 4E enraged D&D fans, who is/was to blame, etc, but in the end the thing that matters is that 4E (which was incidentally quite a good enough game) created a fairly major schism between WotC and WotC's customers from which D&D and the Realms have never really recovered.
5E is an attempt by WotC to retrograde and hybridize rulesets ... they're attempting to reconstruct a D&D based on feedback from D&D players (or so they say). So they're embracing a little bit of "the best" stuff from everywhere to make everyone happy. Apparently with some success, so far. Although many players like me still reject 4E and all of WotC's attempts to gloss it over, and competitors like Paizo are still going strong, and - to be honest - it's just a game so I'll enjoy it for what it is (if others play it) but I can as easily live without. I imagine that those who are forced to move forward from 4E might be as disgruntled as those who were forced to move forward into 4E. One thing that cannot be argued is that WotC handles change very poorly. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2017 : 22:59:00
|
| Agree with nearly everything you said except one thing "4E (which was incidentally quite a good enough game)"..... dude that ruleset was utter and complete garbage for spellcasters. The only redeeming idea I saw come out was rituals. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 00:08:18
|
I'm of the opinion that 4e ruleset was really good... if they were selling a wargaming game, not a roleplaying one. But I guess their take on spellcasters was good enough. But then, I'm of the mindset that, in a world full of magic, is stupid that a spellcaster at some point spent all their spells as if s/he was a gun and had to "recharge". So, having an always ready spells (at wills), spells that take minor time to get recovered (encounters) and spell that you need full rest to recover because they are more powerful, is more logical than "hey, guys, you take down those orcs, I spent all my spells and became useless for the rest of the day" (or depend on a hand crossbow for survival when you're a wizard, able to twist reality to your will... for three times per day). This is why I love cantrips in 5e.
My only problem with 4e was their take on melee characters (treating them as if were spellcasters). But this was mitigated to a minor issue with the Essentials line. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 19 Feb 2017 00:10:59 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 07:05:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Agree with nearly everything you said except one thing "4E (which was incidentally quite a good enough game)"..... dude that ruleset was utter and complete garbage for spellcasters. The only redeeming idea I saw come out was rituals.
It's the direct response to the ridiculously broken, OP, and otherwise unbalanced mess spellcasters were in 3e and revised 3e. I mean playing a Fighter that isn't cheesed and brimming with 30+ super enhanced magical items by high level play will literally do nothing the whole game. And when your best schtick is "I swing, I swing, I swing" rinse and repeat then there's gonna be issues. |
|
|
|
Wrigley
Senior Scribe
Czech Republic
605 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 12:17:27
|
Ayrik - that is a great review of editions I love it :-)
Diffan - one thing that got lost from the AD&D was that warrior was the leader on higher levels. Others could only gain their own place but have to support the ruler (warrior). It made sense in a way and gave them something to do at those levels. Later they let anybody have a leadership feat but if you look there are still many rulers in the Realms who are Fighters in 3ed. I have seen some great warriors in games I played and it was always about finding yourself something more to the character than smashing brute and play with it. Look at Three Musketeers, Xena or even Conan and you will find all of them pure fighters...
Zeromaru X - mages in old games were aimed at witty players who had to think about their spells and use them inteligently throughout the game to not find themselves without magic when it is needed. It prompted inquisitive minds who like to think ahead and search for knowledge. If you are a warrior you are prepared once you have your weapon in hand but if you cast spells you have to consider more things than that - if I memorize fire spell and we find ourselves facing fire giant my spell will be utterly useless. If I go for universal spell it will be less effective, ... |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 12:50:03
|
| Yeah, it was based in Vance's novels, if I recall correctly. And maybe worked fine in 1e or 2e (dunno, as I did not play in the Golden Ages), but when 3e came and was so "battle centric", this system of magic became flawed. All those attempts to give casters other sources of spells (such as spell-like abilities, Incarnum, and that stuff) just showed how this "limited" magic was becoming a problem in 3e. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 12:54:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigley
Diffan - one thing that got lost from the AD&D was that warrior was the leader on higher levels. Others could only gain their own place but have to support the ruler (warrior). It made sense in a way and gave them something to do at those levels. Later they let anybody have a leadership feat but if you look there are still many rulers in the Realms who are Fighters in 3ed. I have seen some great warriors in games I played and it was always about finding yourself something more to the character than smashing brute and play with it. Look at Three Musketeers, Xena or even Conan and you will find all of them pure fighters...
I'd say it's far more than that. For one, not everyone wants to be a Lord and have a keep and underlings and state-craft in their games. I certainly don't play D&D to play mini-Sims or Civilizations III. But the game DID lose a lot of stuff when it came to the creation of 3e.
For starters, different XP tracks. At first I was happy they were removed. It made sense to keep things simple and everyone advance at the same rate. WRONG! it's FAR more balanced to have different XP tracks based on what the class actually brings to the table in terms of utility, adaptability, and power - ALL things martial characters (the Fighter especially) lack. So them having a fast track to higher AC, Attacks, and Feats goes a LONG way when they're 3-4 levels higher than their Wizard, Cleric, or Druid counterparts.
Second, full-round attacks AND the crap that is a Fighter's "specialty". Fighters get nothing in terms of class features to call their own. Anyone can take Fighter feats assuming they have the appropriate prerequisites (only 3 feats in the whole PHB actually require Fighter levels). Then there's the ridiculous notion of the Full-Attack action. So the game decided that a wizard can harness arcane might strong enough to summon FREAKING demons or angels, stop time, call down comets, or erect a globe of impenetrable force in 6 seconds (1 standard action) BUT the fighter, a trained warrior, can't move less than 5-ft and make multiple attacks?! HOLY epic-level verisimilitude breakage there Batman! And even when the Fighter pulls off full-attacks, they take penalties on them!
There's SO much more wrong with this specific edition that I could go on and on and on.... but I think THIS analysis does the trick nicely.
quote:
Originally posted by WrigleyZeromaru X - mages in old games were aimed at witty players who had to think about their spells and use them intelligently throughout the game to not find themselves without magic when it is needed. It prompted inquisitive minds who like to think ahead and search for knowledge. If you are a warrior you are prepared once you have your weapon in hand but if you cast spells you have to consider more things than that - if I memorize fire spell and we find ourselves facing fire giant my spell will be utterly useless. If I go for universal spell it will be less effective, ...
That's still a very important way of playing in 3e, 4e, and 5e. That's why Wizards have spellbooks and why their versatility is pretty much the best overall. All 4e did was say "Ya know, people abuse certain spells in combat to trivialize encounters to the point where 1 spell wins the day." and attempted to put a stop to it. Thus we have these spells-as-rituals. Take Knock for example: This spell literally makes the Rogue pointless IF the rogue maxed out their Lockpicking skills. Why bother at all when a simple wand can be purchased with 50 charges to do the trick, no worries about failure. Oh, it's trapped? Luckily our Cleric friend has 5 scolls of "Find Traps" on hand in such an event. Then you have spells that pretty much ignore terrain and ANY sort of encounter that might occur on the ground OR environmental hazard put in place to be a challenge to everyone in the group. No need Mr. Fighter to put so many ranks in Climb when we can just float you to the top with this potion!
Magic in 3e/3.5 had become SO ridiculously common and expected that it's not a wonder 4e tried so desperately to tone it back down with limiting spells/day and potentially broken spells into 10-min or longer Rituals. What fun is creating a dungeon with fun monsters and traps IF they cleric or Wizard can just scry to the mcguffin, teleport there and grab it, teleport out? *yawn*. |
Edited by - Diffan on 19 Feb 2017 12:58:44 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 15:01:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Yeah, it was based in Vance's novels, if I recall correctly. And maybe worked fine in 1e or 2e (dunno, as I did not play in the Golden Ages), but when 3e came and was so "battle centric", this system of magic became flawed. All those attempts to give casters other sources of spells (such as spell-like abilities, Incarnum, and that stuff) just showed how this "limited" magic was becoming a problem in 3e.
Actually, 3e toned DOWN spellcasters from 2e... heavily. Having to have feats to do certain things meant many tricks turned many wizards down fine tuned paths, but they were still fairly versatile. 4e just made them this cookie cutter thing with few options. In essence, it would take little study to know what another wizard can or cannot do, and in essence they were more like sorcerers. The new 5e stuff returns back to the idea that they can learn different spells, which makes them more feasible. The key now is to introduce new spell options for 5e without making them wide open for every wizard to use.
The idea of only casting a certain number of spells a day is actually very feasible if you consider it somewhat akin to exhaustion. What it takes to swing a sword is nothing compared to drawing forth the energy of the cosmos, channel it into a precisely controlled ball, and then releasing it where you focus your will. That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 16:37:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells.
This is my point. You are right, swing a sword all day is tiring. But even if your arms hurt of tiring, you can still swing the sword. Not as effective as when you're at full energy, but at least you're not useless.
The cantrips and the rituals in 5e help to give the idea that even if you're tired of exerting your will over the cosmos, human (or demihuman, or monster) will is boundless (willforce is the last thing to be broken for heroic characters) and can exert control even over minor magic. Not as powerful as when the mage have all their spell slots, but still is powerful enough.
That is my problem with 3e magic. When the wizard cast their last spell slot, spell-like ability, incarnum, whatever, they became useless. And isn't logical within the parameters of fantasy fiction. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 21:53:04
|
Judging from what I'm reading in this scroll, the edition conflicts (and 4E bashing) are primarily based on how and why the rules and game mechanics govern character abilities and general gameplay.
I find that a little strange. Of course each edition revamped the rules, and there can never be a full consensus about the new rules being "better", there's always going to be fundamental arguments about balancing spellcasters vs fighters, how (or even if) psionics should be included, etc. But my understanding is that the rules are just the rules, like them or not they shape what the characters can do and introduce their own flavour to the game. I'd thought that the biggest edition schisms were less about the rules and more about the settings. I think it's fair to say that there's been far more bitterness about RSEs "ruining" or "destroying" the Realms, heralding each new edition with ever-increasing craters and body counts. I've often noted that while people will happily condemn apocalyptic things like the Avatar Crisis or Spellplague they also seem ready to ignore all the "problems" in the Realms (like rampant numbers of overpowered godlike NPCs) which such events have a tendency to correct.
I'm not trying to troll this scroll or flame up all the old (and now very tiring) RSE hatreds. I'm just commenting that it seems odd to me that people appear far more concerned about the D&D game itself (and the various fundamental design philosophies or decisions which define it) than they are about the "flagship" setting in which it's played. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 22:39:18
|
| Ayrik I don't think you're wrong insofar that the schism is more setting based than rules-based. Had the setting been 1. Better supported with existing lore and info (some supplements and Dragon issues aside) and 2. most of the drastic changes and retcons not occurred then the overall game might not have been so divided. I've come across many people who were "meh" on the game side of the Realms but would use it fine to play in the realms but the changes were too much that the entire thing was disliked. |
|
|
|
Wrigley
Senior Scribe
Czech Republic
605 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2017 : 23:14:05
|
| For me it is easy to tone down some NPC's from original sources to fit my game. It is much harder for me to think up explanation for things that happened in the Realms to make sense. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Editions
