| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| kahonen |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 12:57:28
Well, I finally cracked last weekend and bought a couple of the 3rd edition books (eg Lords of Darkness, Magic of Faerun). Not badly presented, quite an interesting read with a few bits and pieces I'll probably rob to add as house rules for my 2nd Edition game. On the whole though, not worth buying any more (well, maybe not  ).
One question I have to ask though: what's with all of the Prestige Classes and Feats?
It seems that Hasbro ( ) assume that it doesn't matter how much garbage the books contain, they'll still sell so long as half the book is full of PCs and Feats. Do people using these books believe these are needed or add anything to the game?
It seems that many of them have been introduced specifically to encourage the munchkin approach to D&D.
Still, it's nice to know that I can now play the tap dancing cattle rapist I've always wanted to try.
(That's a joke by the way)
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Faraer |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 18:48:12
It would be hard to argue that renaming all girdles 'belts', like removing all irregular plurals, wasn't treating the audience as idiots.
The 1E class/level restrictions were based not just on game balance (a legitimate decider of continuity, according to 3Ethink), but also on stated and implied social, cultural, and biological facts about the World of Greyhawk, the implicit setting. Dwarves don't have the ability to be magic-users; paladins and rangers are human institutions but elves have a tradition of multiclass fighter-mages. It's not, as sometimes said by 3E apologists, arbitrary.
2E softened those restrictions at the same time as forgetting about many of their reasons (a microcosm of David Cook ignoring or not understanding the game's original design principles). With 3E written to represent a broader range of heroic fantasy, not just Oerthalikes, it's natural that it doesn't write those limits into the rules. But the limits -- whether as absolute rules or DM discouragement -- should stand as applicable to specific campaign settings, and the assumption must be that the DM will say what's possible and what's not.
In the Realms, many of the norms that created the pre-3E class/level limits apply. The Realms mindset tends to say 'X doesn't do Y' rather than 'X can't do Y' -- as in the case of humans worshipping demihuman gods -- trusting the DM to allow or disallow exceptions and trusting players not to choose things that are disruptive but aren't forbidden. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 15:36:31
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
There's one thing I do prefer from 2e and do have every intention of converting this summer-the old magic item creation rules. You can probably guess the reasons why.
Which set? I can think of at least three or four different versions of how to create a magical item... As I recall, these four sources all had methods that were different from each other: DMG, The Complete Wizard's Handbook, Tome of Magic, Volo's Guide to All Things Magical.
I preferred the rules in the Volo book...
Ignoring the lore/rules aspect for the moment, the thing I dislike the most about the change-over to 3.x is how all the magical items were changed. I actually preferred the 2E versions of a lot of them, and if I ever get the chance to DM, that's what I'll use. Forget a 3E wand of fireball -- gimme a 2E wand of fire. The name is cooler, and it's a more capable weapon. I'll just use the 3E versions of the respective spells in that wand.
And bring back my wand of misplaced objects! 
Oh, and I was used to only humans being allowed to be paladins (except on Krynn, where they chucked a lot of rules out the window). I'm not sure I like that one now being open to anyone... |
| Arivia |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 14:07:12
quote:
Originally posted by Sarelle
I agree with this - PrCs are fine, in fact I might even use them, if they weren't made to take up space in Realms books. As you said - it means that previously statted NPCs seem out of place.
As for 3.x being more consistent - I actually do agree. I find the d20 system is much easier to use and to tinker with and change (use variant rules). I found parts of 2nd edition far too vague and other parts too hard-line. And designing balanced spells/monsters etc. was much harder, IMO. I'm sure some people prefer 2nd edition - I can even see why, but I would agree the new rules are better.
On the other hand, 2nd edition did have one big advantage - back then they produced lore instead of constantly expanding the rules.
There's one thing I do prefer from 2e and do have every intention of converting this summer-the old magic item creation rules. You can probably guess the reasons why. |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 12:47:42
quote:
Originally posted by Sarta
I'm actually all for prc's, new classes, and new feats. I just think that their place is in books such as the Complete X series. That way if we want to import them into the realms we may or if we want to use them in new settings they are available as well.
I'm against them being printed in Realms books since this technically makes them canon realms material. It also throws things out of whack when they churn out a new prc that should probably be applied to a previously statted npc.
Not to mention that they eat up pages that could be devoted to more realms info.
Sarta
I agree with this - PrCs are fine, in fact I might even use them, if they weren't made to take up space in Realms books. As you said - it means that previously statted NPCs seem out of place.
As for 3.x being more consistent - I actually do agree. I find the d20 system is much easier to use and to tinker with and change (use variant rules). I found parts of 2nd edition far too vague and other parts too hard-line. And designing balanced spells/monsters etc. was much harder, IMO. I'm sure some people prefer 2nd edition - I can even see why, but I would agree the new rules are better.
On the other hand, 2nd edition did have one big advantage - back then they produced lore instead of constantly expanding the rules. |
| kahonen |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 12:01:40
A general comment. 2nd edition didn't last 10 years. It's still going very strongly now, regardless of what anyone says. It's arguable that 1st edition is still being used as I know a considerable number of groups still using it.
Didn't 3rd Edition actually only last about 6 months? At that time 3.5 was released. I think 3.5 will do well if it lasts until 2006.
As for 3Ed being the most consistant - many people would beg to differ, I never had any problems with 2nd edition. A definition of consistancy is needed here. You only need to spend a few minutes reading the posts on this site to see the large number of contradictions and inconsistancies between the different books.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 10:23:08
quote:
Originally posted by martynq
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I think Chris Pramas recently guessed 4E would come in 2006. That's about what I'd think too.
I just noticed this quote in the above thread...
1st edition: Published 1979
2nd edition: Published 1989
3rd edition: Published 2000
So the first two editions both lasted 10 years... how come we expect the most consistent ruleset to last so much shorter?
Martyn
Because the ink was barely dry on the 3.0 stuff when 3.5 was inflicted on us.  |
| martynq |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 10:05:33
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I think Chris Pramas recently guessed 4E would come in 2006. That's about what I'd think too.
I just noticed this quote in the above thread...
1st edition: Published 1979
2nd edition: Published 1989
3rd edition: Published 2000
So the first two editions both lasted 10 years... how come we expect the most consistent ruleset to last so much shorter?
Martyn |
| Sarta |
Posted - 21 May 2004 : 07:15:10
I'm actually all for prc's, new classes, and new feats. I just think that their place is in books such as the Complete X series. That way if we want to import them into the realms we may or if we want to use them in new settings they are available as well.
I'm against them being printed in Realms books since this technically makes them canon realms material. It also throws things out of whack when they churn out a new prc that should probably be applied to a previously statted npc.
Not to mention that they eat up pages that could be devoted to more realms info.
Sarta |
| Faraer |
Posted - 20 May 2004 : 14:58:15
Magic in the Realms (as seen in Ed's fiction) is both more complex and slightly different from magic described in the Player's Handbook (any edition). Sourcebooks have mostly skirted this gap, instead filling in rare spells and unusual types of magic. Realms sourcebooks shaped in part the 2nd Edition magical design philosophy, which wasn't as centrally rigid as 3E's, but equally weren't able to spell out differences from the AD&D norm such as wizardly healing magic.
This is something to discuss with Ed, next time he's only usually busy and I (or someone) can think of a concise way to pose the questions. It would be interesting to see a spellcasting scene, say the Laeral Rythkyn story in Elminster in Hell, run through in 'what exactly's happening here?' terms.
I've mentioned before the tendency of RPGs to turn tendencies and nuancies into discrete factions, powers with special rules, etc... I remembered one of the examples: in (at least one version of) White Wolf's World of Darkness, the Toreador vampire clan is divided into two groups who actually call themselves Poseurs and Artistes. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 20 May 2004 : 14:48:31
quote:
Originally posted by martynq
The number of feats is definitely way out of control and the PrCs that are around are to be honest far too generic. IIRC, the original purpose of PrCs was to give flavour to a world, so they were supposed to tie in very much with a world's lore. The reality is that they are mostly rather generic and are designed on the whole as uber-classes, rather than having any link to the world.
I agree. The Prestige Classes are very generic and designed with that goal in mind. |
| martynq |
Posted - 20 May 2004 : 14:27:57
The number of feats is definitely way out of control and the PrCs that are around are to be honest far too generic. IIRC, the original purpose of PrCs was to give flavour to a world, so they were supposed to tie in very much with a world's lore. The reality is that they are mostly rather generic and are designed on the whole as uber-classes, rather than having any link to the world.
I'm in the middle of coming up with a list of various bits of crunch so I can plan which I will actually use in my next campaign... and I am finding that I have more feats available than monsters, and almost as many feats as spells and magical items. This seems ridiculous - you can only take a feat every three levels (roughly) but would meet far more monsters and learn far more spells during that time.
This feat-glut is just getting ridiculous... will we ever see the end of it?
Martyn |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 20 May 2004 : 13:47:32
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I will now fantasize about ten Realms sourcebooks I would enjoy taking the shrink wrap off and reading:
...
A kind of Volo's Guide to All Things Magical II about more central, less peripheral aspects of the Art: how students learn, all sorts of common spells that aren't combat-based enough for the Player's Handbook, more spells filled in from the novels, pieces on translocational magic and the magic of communication, adventuring wizards, what mages of power do, building towers, guidelines on fine-tuning and altering spells, locally prevalent spells, narrating spell effects...
Ooh! Yes. That would be very nice - we could finally see those Faming spells and job-related spells that Ed has always wanted to publish see light, and actually begin to understand how magic is implemented in the Realms.
I would add (though I doubt many people would agree with me):
- A book describing, but still leaving some mystery in, the Fey of the Realms - their place, their powers, and their opinions of the rest of the Realms
- Ditto with the races of the sea (a much-needed return of Koalinth, more description of the pushed-to-one-corner sea elves)
- A book that integrates Maztica with the Realms in a way that makes sense (IMO - if you're going to have it, it might as well work)
- All Things 'Mundane' in the Realms (the title reflects WotC's probable reaction) information in three groups - mysteries of the Realms (including references to many lost civilisations/Time of Dragons time but NOT any descriptive material), wildlife of the Realms (a moderate list of many real-world insects/birds/fish etc. and the regions they are found in, how they are seen by humanoids etc.), astronomy of the Realms (using some of the online information from Constellations of the Realms and Elven Astrology webpages, as well as Spelljammer's Realmspace and new material including astronomy-related spells, attitudes to the stars by the various races etc.) |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 20 May 2004 : 03:30:15
quote:
Originally posted by kahonen
The more I read of the books the more convinced I am that many of the players I've DM'ed played a lot of these PCs without needing piles of books. We made it up as we went along. If a player wanted to do something with a character we would discuss it and come up with a reasonable compromise
What? What? Talking between the DM and player? Coming up with someone not detailed in a WOTC book. It's a madhouse....a madhouse! 
|
| kahonen |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 23:52:03
I'm pleased it's not just me that thinks that these PCs and feats aren't really necessary - I thought I'd lost it completely.
The more I read of the books the more convinced I am that many of the players I've DM'ed played a lot of these PCs without needing piles of books. We made it up as we went along. If a player wanted to do something with a character we would discuss it and come up with a reasonable compromise - it seems that detailing everything to the extent they have is taking away what is, to me anyway, a very important element of the game.
I must admit though, the more I read of the 3Ed books I baought the more impressed I am. Mustn't get too keen though. It'd take me years to convert all of the FR 2nd edition stuff I've got. |
| hammer of Moradin |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 23:45:12
PrC's I can stomach if it takes up max. 15% of the book. The number of feats is out of control, however. When 3.5 came out I seriously looked at separating the ability based feats into another category to choose in addition to the other feats. Even then, you can limit the game with too many feats.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 18:37:40
I will now fantasize about ten Realms sourcebooks I would enjoy taking the shrink wrap off and reading:
Book of NPCs -- not famous novel characters, but wandering Harpers, adventurers, rogues, bards, evil mages, etc., one to a page (like the "Harpers Bold" and "Lone Wolves" articles). So many great novel and module (I'm thinking FRE1 and FA1) characters that fall between the cracks.
"Life in Faerûn" book: the kind of societal, economic, cultural, and linguistic lore Ed's doling out on his thread. A real player's guide to what a character would know.
Undermountain levels 4-6
The Dungeon of the Crypt
Compilation of stonedelve mini-dungeons like Irongard
Big Dalelands sourcebook putting in one place the geography (with as little overlap with Volo's Guide to the Dales as possible), the political landscape, the domains of dragons, the plots of Voonlar and Silver Morn and Malthiir and the churches, new "Elminster's Guide"-style farmsteads and dungeons and curiosities, local traditions and songs, current clack...
"Elminster's Guide to the Realms" reprint
Cormyr sourcebook as above and with the full history and noble families, plus the complete FRQ1 Haunted Halls of Eveningstar in 40 pages of mouse type
Book on adventuring: the culture, history, practices, mindset of adventurers, sample bands, player advice in naming your band and making it a memorable unit. This is a big part of the Realms that has never been tackled in one go; this one, suitably crunchified, I can see WotC doing.
A kind of Volo's Guide to All Things Magical II about more central, less peripheral aspects of the Art: how students learn, all sorts of common spells that aren't combat-based enough for the Player's Handbook, more spells filled in from the novels, pieces on translocational magic and the magic of communication, adventuring wizards, what mages of power do, building towers, guidelines on fine-tuning and altering spells, locally prevalent spells, narrating spell effects... |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 17:47:25
I'm with those who don't mind the crunch, as long as it doesn't interfere with distribution of lore (note: I'm nor calling it fluff, at Faraer's request ). In fact when I'm bored, I do enjoy tinkering with the rules, to create an odd, hybrid, templated monster or person w/an odd mix of PrCs - but that has nothing to with my interest in FR, nor even role-playing. And of course the crunch does interefere with the quantity of lore (or at least, has done, in recent products).
I guess it is because I started BUYING the non-core books only 3e/3.5 (I started buying in 2001, I believe) that I found Underdark to be a good crunch/lore ratio. I do believe you when you say it had too little fluff in comparison to 2e products, but it shows just how different recent products are, that for me it was a good book. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 17:14:39
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
After what I saw of Underdark being as thin on actual "Underdark" content (at least what I consider content Maps, NPCs, Histories, etc)
Remember that's fluff, not important. 
quote:
In various messages and boards people joke about 4E. But I honestly believe that it’s gonna happen.
Well, if you've ever seen me joking, let me assure you, I firmly believe it will happen. When it does, it will have about the same amount, maybe a bit more, of changes as 3.0 to 3.5. With 4th edition, WOTC can start up the whole cycle again of updating 3.5 material. And hey, as long as people buy it, can you blame them for repeating this process over and over...and over.... |
| Faraer |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 16:55:27
To quote one of Monte Cook's recent editorials, quote:
More importantly, though, robust mechanics allow for differentiation and tinkering. In short, they're more likely to hold a player's interest longer.
...It's not a rule for everyone, but it may encourage some of you to find a new way to tinker with things, and for many of us, that's half the fun.
And for people who enjoy rules-hacking, who'd rather have a special ability through a prestige class than roleplay it with an existing feat or skill, who talk about character 'builds' and mean the same thing by 'character development', who enjoy the game rules for their own sake... the appeal of new prestige classes and feats is obvious. They are, as Robin Laws put it, shopping for guys.
For me, roleplaying is a fictional medium like the novel or stage play; it's a game, but in the broad homo ludens sense rather than a strict definition. I see the appeal of rules-tinkering, but it has nothing to do with my enjoyment of D&D. And it happens that the Realms was created and originally DMed by someone else who thinks that way, and of all the worlds to put the rules-heavy, rules-tight 3E mindset, the Realms is a particularly bad fit.
They literally don't add anything to games I'd run. Nine times from ten, they don't offer any new choices that I couldn't play out just as well without the extra new rules. It's an illusory, consumerist choice, as meaningful as getting to choose which carbonated sugared drink to buy.
Certainly, not all the rulescentric people are 'munchkins'. But Wizards was from the start explicit in recognizing its powergamer contingent and playing to them, with a flow of extra toys and a design policy of making the rules rigorous and 'balanced' enough to resist most exploits.
And the problem, of course, with advertising '20 new feats!' is that the third-party publisher who offers '100 new feats!' is one up on you.
The player-centric 'useful' 'tools' approach appeals to many, there's money in it. But there's also money in the Realms qua the Realms, and rather than go for it directly Wizards is (I think quite deliberately) walking a fine line trying to give enough to the roleplaying-over-rules, setting-over-game people so they just about still buy the sourcebooks. Well, I'm buying about half of them.
I think we can infer that Wizards' high overheads contribute to the need to squeeze every last sale out of Realms products, by appealing to non-Realms players, at the expense of not only value to those who like the Realms but also showing the Realms as brightly and clearly as possible so as to entice new players. Why should I play in the Realms when its underlying principles and glories are submerged under rules crud, rules crud which I can find more of elsewhere? More of the burden in recruiting new players shifts to the novels. Of course, the biggest-selling novels are Bob Salvatore's, and although they've led many people to the Realms, if the rasalvatore.com boards are any kind of guide, very many of his readers are interested in his characters first and second and the Realms themselves hardly at all.
I think Chris Pramas recently guessed 4E would come in 2006. That's about what I'd think too. |
| Chyron |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 16:24:19
Prestige classes are all fine and dandy as are new feats...but there comes a time when enough is enough (and I am very near that point). 
After what I saw of Underdark being as thin on actual "Underdark" content (at least what I consider content Maps, NPCs, Histories, etc) It is going to take allot more than PrCs of ScaleSinging and feats of Projectile Venom Spewing to get me to shell out the $$$ for the new Serpents book next month. Although I am "upgraded" to 3E I can really relate to Kahonen's stance. I think the only way I would get 3.5 is by divine intervention.
I remember back when 2E was in its prime that many of my players and people I knew who played, continuously lambasted TSR for releasing umpteen guides to everything. Fighter Guide, Clerics Guide, Guide to Vikings, Guide to Charlemagne’s Paladins, Guide to Playing with Rules Lawyers....
With each successive product the rules got compounded and the quality of the product itself (module, guide, whatnot) seemed to diminish. We were seeing recycled art, poor layouts and optional rules out the wahzoo
Prior to its release, the buzz for WOTCs 3E was that it would do away with all of that….but it seems to me they are simply right back on the same road that TSR was skipping down. More manuals, more PrCs, more feats, more price….less quality. 2E might have called it all something different but a rose by any other name….etc…etc. In various messages and boards people joke about 4E. But I honestly believe that it’s gonna happen. Maybe when the next staff shakedown takes place at WOTC and the “new guy” wants to do things his way or maybe after another sell off / buyout….but it’s likely only a matter of time.
In the carefree days of my part time working youth, my boss at the time (a movie theater) had a saying, “New Broom Sweeps Clean” basically meaning that the new employee is a better/harder worker than the older veteran employee who learns how to slack off.
I think a similar phrase can apply to D&D. “New Edition Cleans Up” economically speaking that is. 
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 15:04:35
And to try and tilt this back on topic, The art for the Divine Seeker (By Carl Frank) in PGTF stands out as my favorite piece of prestige class art for this tome. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 15:04:22
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
She's done the covers of quite a few FR novels recently-the Sembia series and Venom's x(My memory is shot today.) standing out in my mind.
Venon's Taste? The Sembia series is where I recall seeing her. I think she did the cover for Tazi's novel.
Yes, that would be it. Her style is fairly distinctive-diffused watercolours and pencil, I believe. Look through the Magic part of Wizards' website-she had an artist bio awhile back. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 15:00:04
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
She's done the covers of quite a few FR novels recently-the Sembia series and Venom's x(My memory is shot today.) standing out in my mind.
Venon's Taste? The Sembia series is where I recall seeing her. I think she did the cover for Tazi's novel.
quote:
I find pieces to like in each-I should remember what artists I've liked
Exactly. I'm glad WOTC and some D20 companies are clealy identifying artists for various pieces in some of the products I'm purchasing lately. I don't recall this being done in previous years.
quote:
I found myself not liking the artwork in Races of Faerun-the watercolours didn't appeal to me under whatever artist's touch that was.
I didn't like the art for the most part in that product either. The best art I encountered the past year was in a D20 product. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 14:52:15
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Therese Nielsen's name stands out for some reason. Does the artist have a site?
She's done the covers of quite a few FR novels recently-the Sembia series and Venom's x(My memory is shot today.) standing out in my mind.
quote:
The Electric Bugaloo drow? You remembered! I like that. Ah, no wonder you are my favorite Senior Scribe. I'd love to help you out with a page number. I'll have to see if the multiple copies of the product are still on the bookshelf of my local Barnes and Noble whenever I visit the store. If so, and if I can remember, I'll try to get a page number after I clean off the dust they are apparently accumulating.
Please do-I may not have an encyclopedic memory like the Sage, but I can get by without taking notes.
quote:
Ah, no wonder you are my favorite Senior Scribe.
quote:
Art is something that can quickly divide a consumer base. I still firmly stand that recent FR products have contained superior art compared to what I saw in Underdark.
I find pieces to like in each-I should remember what artists I've liked-Raven Mimura and Matt Cavotta spring to mind. For me, at least, I found myself not liking the artwork in Races of Faerun-the watercolours didn't appeal to me under whatever artist's touch that was. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 14:41:19
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I do agree with you on most things regarding WotC products, Sirius. There was one thing from Underdark I didn't agree with you on-the art direction(I'm still looking for the drow with the electrified hairstyle), but then again, I find myself liking 3e art more than 2e(although I wish they'd get Therese Nielsen doing art for supplements).
Therese Nielsen's name stands out for some reason. Does the artist have a site?
The Electric Bugaloo drow? You remembered! I like that. Ah, no wonder you are my favorite Senior Scribe. I'd love to help you out with a page number. I'll have to see if the multiple copies of the product are still on the bookshelf of my local Barnes and Noble whenever I visit the store. If so, and if I can remember, I'll try to get a page number after I clean off the dust they are apparently accumulating.
Art is something that can quickly divide a consumer base. I still firmly stand that recent FR products have contained superior art compared to what I saw in Underdark. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 14:26:58
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I don't have a problem with the crunch-I just wish there was more fluff. Underdark was perhaps a great example of this-good crunch, but the fluff needed great expansion. I'm glad I have my copy of DGttU to fill things in.
Thank you! When Underdark came out many consumers seemed to think it was the be all and end all as far as underdark products. I felt it was very disappointing and your description is very accurate.
I do agree with you on most things regarding WotC products, Sirius. There was one thing from Underdark I didn't agree with you on-the art direction(I'm still looking for the drow with the electrified hairstyle), but then again, I find myself liking 3e art more than 2e(although I wish they'd get Therese Nielsen doing art for supplements). |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 14:23:09
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I don't have a problem with the crunch-I just wish there was more fluff. Underdark was perhaps a great example of this-good crunch, but the fluff needed great expansion. I'm glad I have my copy of DGttU to fill things in.
Thank you! When Underdark came out many consumers seemed to think it was the be all and end all as far as underdark products. I felt it was very disappointing and your description is very accurate. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 14:16:13
It's the new way of 3e-put the crunch in with the fluff. As someone around here noted awhile ago, prestige classes=kits, basically. I know it may be disconcerting to see this level of crunch, but(*casts protection from flame*) I don't have a problem with the crunch-I just wish there was more fluff. Underdark was perhaps a great example of this-good crunch, but the fluff needed great expansion. I'm glad I have my copy of DGttU to fill things in. If you're not liking that level, don't touch anything in the core line-it's all crunch, nearly no fluff, or only a chapter or two of it at best. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 14:09:24
quote:
Originally posted by kahonen
One question I have to ask though: what's with all of the Prestige Classes and Feats?
It seems that Hasbro () assume that it doesn't matter how much garbage the books contain, they'll still sell so long as half the book is full of PCs and Feats. Do people using these books believe these are needed or add anything to the game?
I think this goes back to Richard Baker's comments on the WOTC board where he mentioned many consumers were simply purchasing FR books to find something for their own generic world. Prestige classes and feats are much easier to transfer to another campaign world versus background content on a locale or figures that reside there. |
| kahonen |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 14:08:10
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Rad
I never thought id see the day... kahonen moving over to 3rd ed?  Not quite though, eh?
Well I have no interest in more and more Prestige Classes, Feats etc. (aka "Crunch") and tend to skip those type of sections. All I need for crunch are the D&D core books and thats it. Its the fluff of the Realms that grabs me and those are the main sections I read.
As you say, its all for munchkins and thats how Hasbro see it. Powergamers are killing FR fluff products.
I only looked out of interest, honest guv.
I actually saw a few of the books at a car boot sale. I got:
3.5 Edition DM Guide
3.5 Player's Handbook
3.5 Monster Manual
Latest Psionics Handbook
Book of Exalted Deeds
Camplete Warrior's Book
Unearthed Arcana
FR Monster Manual
FR Lords of Darkness
FR Player's Guide to Faerun
FR Book of Magic
(and a couple of others I've not had time to look at yet).
I only paid £40 for them and they are all in as new condition. Even feeling as I do about 3Ed, I couldn't miss them.
They probably fell off the back of a lorry but I don't care as it wasn't my lorry
(I suppose that as I bought them on Sunday, they could be out of date by now. It is, after all, two days ago and Hasbro have probably brought out two or three new editions in that time. I suppose I should check for amendments on the web-site) |
|
|
