| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| ShadowJack |
Posted - 24 Dec 2005 : 00:21:46
After being away from D & D for several years, it was quite a shock when I started reading 3rd edition material and discovered Dwarven Mages were allowed. I must admit, having spent years with 1st and 2nd edition rules I was opposed to this new idea. As I become more familiar with the new rules I am starting to 'come around' a bit. How do you Elder Sages feel about this. I am sure many of you spent much more time with the "old rules" than I did, so how did this first strike you? As DM's how have you incorporated this into your game worlds? I am sure this question has been asked before, but I was curious after digging into the DM's Guide to research some campaign issues.  |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 25 Jan 2006 : 01:17:12
Err you forget to inculde Draven Clerics, which clearly exist in 2nd Edition. |
| Elrond Half Elven |
Posted - 25 Jan 2006 : 00:30:52
According to the 2nd Edition PHB:
"Also because of their nonmagical nature, however, dwarves have trouble using magical items. All magical items that are not specifically suited to the character's class have a 20% chance to malfunction when used by a dwarf."
A rule that I've noticed is commonly 'forgotten' by your average dwarven player. A point of confusion is that dwarves forge magical items I cannot supply a reason for this as recently my copy of my dwarven guide got destroyed through a leaky roof  .
Dwarves where restricted to the following classes; Fighter, Thief & Cleric at least according to the players handbook. Several of the 'Classes and Races' supplements considered multi-classes and adjustments to allow PHB classes to assume a role similar to those classes. This being said I feel, and I've had this discussion with many people, that 3E is more rules orientated, with people treating it as the rules where set in stone. 2nd however always suggested the idea that if you don't like a rule then change it.
At the end of the day I'd agree that WoTC have produced no real explanation for the sudden inclusion for dwarven arcane spell casters, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least one person of this board had ran or at least seen a dwarven arcane spell caster. (I view these like I do psionics- there should be few of them in the realms, and almost always run as NPCs)
Hanx
Elrond |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 19:51:46
I agree. I don't have a problem with sorcerers suddenly showing up as a PC class, since I've ruled that there's only about 100 on the entire contient (they're duking it out with the psionicists to see which class can have the fewest practioners).
As for all the new core classes, well, first off, keep in mind that I still play 2e (with the one or two things I like from 3e added to it). But if a player of mine wanted to essentially port a warlock or whatever into my campaign my initial reply would be no. On the other hand, I'm one of those DM's who'll let his players get away with breaking just about any rule, provided they give me a darned good in-campaign explanation for it. So if my player sold me on warlock's backstory (which would be hard, but not impossible), then I'd probably let it in. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 15:23:19
There are pretty clear pros and cons to both approaches. Part of why I don't favour more RSEs is that I see a lot of these things as rules artefacts that will vanish the next time someone reconceives D&D or how to present the Realms, and turning them into events would cement them as in-Realms facts. Also, a made-up in-world explanation that has nothing to do with the real reason for the change is pretty dubious. And how are you going to explain lightfoot halflings except 'it's always been so'. Ignore, wait and hope, and such things may go away.
I'm not aware of a rise of sorcerers. The Realms has always had a rare kind of wizard that the 3E sorcerer roughly models (among many variant magic types, not of all of which have seen print at all) -- why not leave it at that?
Elastic as it may be, the Realms can't assimilate all the classes and races the core books throw up without returning to the TSR dumping-ground days. Leave that to DMs who want to implement such rules-driven additions or changes, rather than needlessly and compulsively adding it all to the official lore. |
| Mystery_Man |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 02:47:11
A lot of the new changes to FR at least personally for me (such as the Shades) have not had much of an impact. I just don't find them as interesting as the older stuff. First and foremost the priority for me is campaigning and using FR as a backdrop to run my games. After that, canon resources and how they might provide good ideas but that's all that canon means to me. Finally a book or two every now and then by only a select group of FR novel writers that don't bore me silly.
For me I thought the Thunder Blessing was kinda cool. At least it was interesting.
I'd have to agree about the sorcerer explanation (mostly because its just boring) but really don't see any other way around it. Because there we so few would be my reason for no one noticing (as in one or two every 100 years), then I'd take your suggestion about a major event that has brought more with the inate talent to the forefront. What do you do about all the other new classes such as warlocks? Ban them for canon FR sake? What if your player really wants to play one? This is where IMO canon gets in the way (remember I'm a campaigner first) and ruins the fun.
As an aside, after watching two of my players play sorcerers for serveral levels I personally think that it is the most useless class out of all the cores. Just...useless, but whatever. And the warlock is really kind of dumb but that's all another discussion.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 02:06:04
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Oooh, not me! I disliked what the Time of Troubles did to the Realms so as to provide an 'in game' explanation for game mechanics changes. I can only hazard a guess re the 'events' that would have had to have taken place to explain all the 3E game mechanics changes - the changes that were made to explain additions to the setting in 3E (i.e. the shadow weave) remain some of the most controversial and thread-heavy stuff going. Multiply that by 50 and that's what you would have got with a Time of Troubles II. And doesn't the Thunder Blessing count as an in-game explanation for dwarven wizards if you don't want to retro-fit them into your Realms and campaign?
-- George Krashos
The Thunder Blessing can be used as an explanation, yes. It's just that it's not entirely adequate.
I'm not saying that I want a huge, in-game event to explain all of the changes. What I am saying is that I want some explanation, and that I want it to be better than something a 6 year old could have come up with (the "always been like that" excuse).
The rise of sorcerers, for example, could have been tied into the return of Shade -- after all, these were people from one of the most magically advanced societies ever seen in the Realms, and they came from a society that used magic in an entirely different way. Something about their return could have caused a ripple in the Weave, for example, which would have allowed some people to access the Weave in a different way. Or the final battle, with Chosen fighting Shadow Weave users, could have caused a similar effect.
That right there is what I'm talking about. An existing event could have been used to explain sorcerers, rather than saying that for hundreds of years, no one noticed that there were people using magic in a different way. When you're a mage limited to memorized spells, someone being able to toss off more spells, who does it without even glancing at a spellbook, is something noteworthy. I can't believe that no one ever noticed that.
When I first was glancing thru a Previews, and read that there was a book coming that featured the return of Shade, I immediately assumed that was how 3E's changes were going to be ushered in. I was disappointed by the fact that that trilogy really didn't change anything (yeah, it was an RSE, but other than the loss of Tilverton and a new power in the Anauroch, nothing seems to have happened -- there's not been any follow-up to the events in the trilogy).
It doesn't have to be a huge thing. I just want some viable explanation. I feel that not getting an explanation is an insult to the people that have been supporting the setting for years. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 02:00:59
Not really, since the Blessing happened sixty-plus years ago. Technically, despite all of the 1e and 2e gaming products saying how depleted dwarven numbers are, the Thunder Blessing has been happening for over half a century. If you use the TB (hmm... all the dwarves have TB! No wonder they're dying off!) to explain dwarven mages, then they should have been around for the last fifty years or so as well, meaning in 1e and 2e.
The only instance of dwarven mages that I kinda like is the Xothol (sp?) mentioned in LEoF. There, Ammarindar got scared enough that Netheril might decide to expand in their direction they created a top-secret wizard school to defend the realm. *That* I kind of buy. If I bought the dwarves having arcane ability that long ago, which I don't. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 01:24:09
Oooh, not me! I disliked what the Time of Troubles did to the Realms so as to provide an 'in game' explanation for game mechanics changes. I can only hazard a guess re the 'events' that would have had to have taken place to explain all the 3E game mechanics changes - the changes that were made to explain additions to the setting in 3E (i.e. the shadow weave) remain some of the most controversial and thread-heavy stuff going. Multiply that by 50 and that's what you would have got with a Time of Troubles II. And doesn't the Thunder Blessing count as an in-game explanation for dwarven wizards if you don't want to retro-fit them into your Realms and campaign?
-- George Krashos
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 00:36:36
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The Thunder Blessing was partly an explanation of dwarven mages (FRCS p. 10). There aren't lots of nonhuman paladins in the new material, either.
Wooly, it's in large part because of the ill feeling towards the Time of Troubles that the 3E changes weren't given a matching in-Realms upheaval.
But the Thunder Blessing explanation still doesn't cover a more important (to me, at least) change concerning dwarves and magic: in 2E, dwarves were seriously non-magical, to the point that they had problems using magic devices. That's gone out the window, with no explanation as to why.
And that blurb you reference seems to indicate that the distrust of magic is a cultural change. This would mean that despite the decline of their race, dwarves were refusing to turn to something that could aid them in their many conflicts. Magic weapons and armor were acceptable, so why wouldn't spells be? And now, after generations of refusing to use something useful, a new generation reverses that, just because there's more dwarves around? Nope, that doesn't work for me.
About the lack of explanations... The 1E to 2E change had an upheaval specifically created for it. 3E could have taken advantage of one they were doing anyway, but it didn't... And, as I've said before, the changes from 1E to 2E were very minor. 3E ushered in a host of dramatic changes, and the "oh, it's always been like that, but no one knew about it!" explanation has generated no small amount of ill feeling... Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather see a serious shake-up than be told that everyone was too stupid to see something in front of their faces. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 12 Jan 2006 : 00:17:19
The Thunder Blessing was partly an explanation of dwarven mages (FRCS p. 10). There aren't lots of nonhuman paladins in the new material, either.
Wooly, it's in large part because of the ill feeling towards the Time of Troubles that the 3E changes weren't given a matching in-Realms upheaval.
I think the tedious template-frenzied hybridization and miscegenation has gone as far as it will; there's a sizeable backlash against it. |
| Rory |
Posted - 11 Jan 2006 : 23:56:31
I wonder if the mixed breeding will be one of the main themes for 4e. In Icewindale 2 you had creatures that were half Dwarf half goblin, in the novel Dissolution you had a half orc/goblin, dragon kin are becoming more popular, as are the Planetouched. I read about a Gnome/Dwarf mix in some novel not long ago.
|
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 07 Jan 2006 : 06:26:30
We did get an explanation of sorts for why drow weapons/armor don't disintegrate in sunlight any more, but that was the private initiative of Elaine Cunningham, who realized she had two books in the "sunlight bad" drow item time and one book in the "sunlight ok" time and decided to do something about it.
At least WotC didn't squelch it in editing... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Jan 2006 : 02:41:54
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
WotC seems to be relying on the flimsy argument of "Well, it's always been like that, but we never knew before."
Exactly. :)
Oh, how I've grown so weary of such an explanation... .
Indeed... And considering the lengths they went to for explaining the far simpler shift from 1E to 2E, it's odd that they decided to give such a lame explanation. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Jan 2006 : 00:26:53
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
WotC seems to be relying on the flimsy argument of "Well, it's always been like that, but we never knew before."
Exactly. :)
Oh, how I've grown so weary of such an explanation... .
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 17:54:06
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
That's one of the problems many of us have with the many changes third edition wraught: no attempt to explain it was made, even though there were several opportunities (the Thunder Blessing and the return of Shade being two of them). WotC seems to be relying on the flimsy argument of "Well, it's always been like that, but we never knew before."
Exactly. :) |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 13:06:18
That's one of the problems many of us have with the many changes third edition wraught: no attempt to explain it was made, even though there were several opportunities (the Thunder Blessing and the return of Shade being two of them). WotC seems to be relying on the flimsy argument of "Well, it's always been like that, but we never knew before." |
| Vvornth |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 12:05:44
I'm going somewhat off-topic here but please humor me as I had a DnD hiatus around 2000-01. How did WOTC handle the transition between 2e and 3e in regard to such things as Dwarven mages non-human Paladins? Were they simply written into the universe and their prior absence simply ignored? Or was there some kind of event that explained their sudden existance? |
| Gray Richardson |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 11:33:21
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I was bored one day and created a large spreadsheet comparing runes to similar, more mundane devices (meaning scrolls and wands, primarily). The end result, even using the 50 gp version from the Player's Guide, is that they were *never* cost effective, and were usually ridiculously overpriced. They had one or two advantages, and were cool from a flavor perspective, but didn't compare to the normal items.
Which is darned strange, considering 3e's penchant for sacrificing everything for the sake of parity.
Runes are twice as expensive as potions. Like potions, runes can be triggered by anyone. Runes can be triggered by anyone, it doesn't have to be on your spell list, it doesn't require a magic word to activate, merely touching the rune will suffice.
Runes can be maximized. And they can be keyed to only trigger in response to a password, or when read, or they can trigger to go off when someone passes by them. They can be set to go off according to physical characteristics, creature type, subtype, race, alignment, or patron deity. This particular feature is extremely versatile and useful.
Touch activation could be perhaps a great advantage also in certain circumstances. Especially if your DM allows you to touch a rune on your person as a free or swift or immediate action.
Consider that a healing potion requires a standard action to swallow and activate it. Time can sometimes be crucial in a fight. But if a fighter had an emergency healing rune on his armor, and he were about to be downed by impending fatal damage, if the DM were to let him simply touch the rune on his armor as a free, swift or immediate action, then he could possibly heal himself in time to survive.
I don't know for sure if rune activation is different from standard magical item activation. The FRCS would seem to imply that it is different, but I may be reading too much into it.
Though twice the cost of potions, they have a lot more flexible uses and might be worth the cost in certain situations.
Runes are also ideal for setting traps and warding things. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 05:51:12
Shadowstone was a strange duck of a novel, but I did find the differing magical traditions and their differing ways of writing out spells to be quite interesting. Too bad it seems to be one of those novels that got completely ignored in later game designs (IIRC it had a bunch of stuff happening in the Chessenta area, but it's been a while since I read it).
I can remember a really old Dragon article (somewhere in the mid 100's, but I can't remember which one) that had a bunch of dwarven cleric spells and the addition of rune stones that strengthened the effects of other spells (like divinations). I liked it a lot for the added flavor and have used it since. I like the concept of the runecaster, my problem is with how it's implimented. Either make the costs the same as scrolls/wands, or give it more advantages to offset the increased cost. |
| The Blue Sorceress |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 05:28:58
quote:
Where you see stereotypes, AD&D was written as a game, first and foremost, which encouraged strategic character choices and reenforced archetypes (Gary's justifiable complaint about 3E is that it neglects them).
This caught my attention, so I thought I'd say something. There's a certain amount of sense in what's being said, but there comes a time when the sort of game where archetypes limit fun creativity (which is what I think is the real charm of DnD.) I played a little 2E and I didn't like it. The level and class restrictions always bothered me, and I found 3E a relief. We know what Gimli is the stereotypical dwarf and so on, but the fact of the matter is that everything, even games evolve. Particularly when those games are so closely tied to language and creativity.
To use an extended metaphor, the sonnet form is very specific, almost rigid -if you're writing the quintessential sonnet, and even then there's the question of whether you mean a Petrarchan/Italian sonnet or a Shakespearian/English sonnet. It didn't take long for people to start playing with the sonnet form, in fact it could be effectively argued that the English sonnet is just such a play on the form of the Italian sonnet. The changes however were more drastic than that, to the point where modern sonnets sometimes only superficially resemble their forebearers. The fact that these poems change the rules doesn't mean they are any less valuable or that by changing these rules they're somehow "untrue" to the original intention of the creators of the sonnet form. I would even argue that the orignial creators' intent is irrelevant in anything but their own personal creations.
In short, if you prefer to be traditional and dislike the idea of spellcasting dwarves, that's fine, but to be quite frank, Gygax's complaint that 3E isn't in keeping with DnD as he originally concieved of it doesn't have anything to do with, well, anything. His baby's grown up.
-Blue
|
| scererar |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 05:10:14
I for one was glad for Dwarves to be able to employ arcane spells as wizards or sorcerers. Thanks be to the dwarven gods for the thunder blessing  I really like the idea of the dwarven rune caster or to take it up a notch, check out the novel the shadowstone. the main character created his spell book out of sticks. I can see a dwarven mage using some sort of stones/ rocks to create a "spell book" of sorts, and have to rummage through a huge bag of rocks to find that magic missle spell he wants to memorize.
anyways my 2 cents |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 04:53:33
I was bored one day and created a large spreadsheet comparing runes to similar, more mundane devices (meaning scrolls and wands, primarily). The end result, even using the 50 gp version from the Player's Guide, is that they were *never* cost effective, and were usually ridiculously overpriced. They had one or two advantages, and were cool from a flavor perspective, but didn't compare to the normal items.
Which is darned strange, considering 3e's penchant for sacrificing everything for the sake of parity. |
| Gray Richardson |
Posted - 06 Jan 2006 : 01:20:58
Runecaster is indeed a very cool prestige class, at least flavor wise. I have seen some people complain that the runes are too costly to craft, however they were made cheaper to cast in the Players Guide to Faerûn (it reduced their cost by half) and the price might be offset by their versatility.
Runes however use divine magic, so it is a prestige class for divine spellcasters, not arcane.
Giants and dwarves use runes, and I imagine they did all sorts of cool things with them in the past. Cloud giants used runes to float their castles and cloud lairs. Runestones are engraved across Faerûn.
Surely they could have interesting epic and planar related uses as well. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 05 Jan 2006 : 18:33:50
I think dwarven wizards are not such a bad idea - at least considering dwarven Runecasters (which is a prestige class for arcane spell casters, if I remember correctly?).
I also agree that the 3rd edition made the D&D system a lot more realistic, interesting and sensible. Just think about how well multiclassing, feats, magic, skills and prestige classes (if you ignore those published since DMG, MoF, and FRCS ;) work! |
| ShadowJack |
Posted - 05 Jan 2006 : 17:19:26
Rory,
You have summed up your feelings (and mine) about the 3.0 edition stuff very well. I am looking forward to exploring all of the options available. |
| Rory |
Posted - 03 Jan 2006 : 02:38:27
quote:
Originally posted by ShadowJack
After being away from D & D for several years, it was quite a shock when I started reading 3rd edition material and discovered Dwarven Mages were allowed. I must admit, having spent years with 1st and 2nd edition rules I was opposed to this new idea. As I become more familiar with the new rules I am starting to 'come around' a bit.
I felt the same way, but only for a few days. Now looking back I could never go back to 2nd edition. 3rd edition is just more realistic. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 31 Dec 2005 : 17:03:33
quote:
Originally posted by Kaladorm
You obviously never met my ogre illusionist, teehee
I hope you don't regular turn him/her into a bikini-clad dark elf. (Can you cast an illusion that'll let you appear as another gender now? Was never an option in EQ, to the chagrin of my high elven enchanter.) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Dec 2005 : 16:04:57
quote:
Originally posted by hammer of Moradin
Ya know, there really should be a Realms Yearbook published so we can get some of these burning questions answered.
Unfortunately, WotC has established a hands-off policy to explaining things, falling back on the "things have always been that way, but no one knew about it!" explanation. Thinks I that they fail the fans by doing this, since the transition from 1E to 2E (which was, admittedly, very minor) had a huge event to explain the changes. The 2E to 3E transition, a much bigger change, has passed by with the above lame explanation. There's been at least a couple of good opportunities to explain the changes, but they've been ignored.
But... That's all an aside, and it's not exactly on topic.  |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 31 Dec 2005 : 10:07:52
quote:
Originally posted by Beezy
This debate is similar to what happened with everquest. EQ1 certain races could be only certain classes and with EQ2 they changed it so any race can be any class. 99% of people stuck to the old EQ1 stereo types for EQ2 though. Dwarven warrior types etc. Sorry to talk about non-FR things but someone mention Dragonlance first! haha.
You obviously never met my ogre illusionist, teehee |
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 31 Dec 2005 : 09:03:29
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Sorry Hammer, I even thought of your article when I was replying, but in my haste to write up my opinions, I didn't cite it. Appologies. I know you also came up with an interesting place for dwarven druids as well, and my comments about a lack of dwarven druids only applies to canon sources for the Realms. But I see things pretty much as you just summarized. The Thunder Blessing opened up a lot of options for dwarves, and a percentage of them will take advantage of them, but the majority will remain axe wielding warrior, or miners, or smiths, or stonemasons. The whole society isn't going to immediately alter due to it, it will have some minor changes introduced.
No problem, especially since its one dwarf's opinion.
Also, what I came up with is just, what I think, a logical explanation of the rules as I interpret them. If anyone else has any good explanations, they aren't necessarily wrong, since, as Wooly points out, there is no official explanation.
Ya know, there really should be a Realms Yearbook published so we can get some of these burning questions answered. |
|
|
