Back to the roots! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Back to the roots! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Blauer Jaspis
06-06-06, 05:12 PM I once was a great fan of D&D and also the FR 3.0 Edition. I was happily looking for new supply, because a pictured book with lots of illustrations is just nice to read and to look at. But after the last year, it seems to me that no one wants to have books that do not at least include 20% Epic spells, items and monsters, especialli weird and more weird undead abonimations and exptraplanar horrors. I admit that I prefer the "medieval roleplaying game with a fantasy touch" (The title of the first-first edition of D&D was similar to that). I like to play at low levels, my players do not have to be very rich and the overall magic is limited - it is still the dark and mysterious art that holds secrets in it. I loved the old books like Volo's Guide to Cormyr (my favorite one) and really enjoyed reading it - it was just flair and not just only a raw collection of rules I can make on my own. Even if the illustrations were fare not as detailed as they're now, I'd prefer that book. I do not deny that also in the past there was some accessory that had a similar high grade of epic-undead-powergaming, and I do not want to say that the old edition has been better, but I'd really welcome a book that provides more feats like tactical options - the Complete Warrior was a quite good beginning, also the only book of the 3.5 Edition that had something good in it.

Of course it is a question of taste whether one likes a high level of fantasy and magic or not. But I think that low level play and also low level magic has been neglected by the stuff for quite a long time and I would really like to see a good sourcebook in the style of Volos good old guides again (I mean there were even cooking recipes, do you remember?)

Am I the only one who ist thirsty for more medival and low-level oriented accessory?
mhacdebhandia
06-06-06, 06:19 PM I admit that I prefer the "medieval roleplaying game with a fantasy touch" (The title of the first-first edition of D&D was similar to that).
It was actually Dungeons & Dragons: Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures.

I don't share your tastes, for what it's worth. Not in that I prefer high-magic, high-powered campaigns, but in that (a bit like Gygax himself; Arneson was the Tolkien fan) I prefer a "Weird Tales" style of D&D to a pseudo-medieval Tolkienesque campaign.

It's why I like Eberron so much.
Korhal_IV
06-07-06, 01:31 AM It's why I like Eberron so much.
Given that Eberron is designed for low-level, wide-magic play, why is that? I play Eberron precisely because I despise play past, say, level 15 or so.
GhostStepper
06-07-06, 02:03 AM Theres a ton of low level stuff. Just look at all the new base classes...they cater to every level of play (except the "epic" that the OP specificall mentioned ironicaly) from 1st to 20th level.
mhacdebhandia
06-07-06, 02:06 AM Because I said Weird Tales, not fantasy superheroes or WTFBBQ high magic. It's the pulp action and the noir intrigue and the vast dark continent and the descents into the depths of the Eart^W^WKhyber and the interwar feel and the exotic cultures and religions I love.
Blauer Jaspis
06-07-06, 02:29 PM Well, I once was a great fan of a high fantasy gary gyax style too, but now I really prefer the "tolkien way" even if I would never dare to compare this with anything D&D like, as it is something wounderful and completely different. But this is just an example of how the personal taste can changen.

But nevertheless, I just don't see what I could possibly do with tons of classes - I mean, sometimes a NPC of this class ist nice, ok, but the basic are not so different in their appearance as a NPC that this would be somehing spectacular (as what matters are skills,saves, AC, AB and HP)

And where's all the flair of the good old books? I mean, there were books in 2. Edition that were full of epic adventures and also (very) high levels of magic. But there had also been some accessory for those who prefer the medieval "Arneson-style". And today, all of those books seem to have gone.

I want some books that do not provide swarms of new monsters, I want nice historys, hooks and such things!
GhostStepper
06-07-06, 02:43 PM Well, I once was a great fan of a high fantasy gary gyax style too, but now I really prefer the "tolkien way" even if I would never dare to compare this with anything D&D like, as it is something wounderful and completely different. But this is just an example of how the personal taste can changen.

But nevertheless, I just don't see what I could possibly do with tons of classes - I mean, sometimes a NPC of this class ist nice, ok, but the basic are not so different in their appearance as a NPC that this would be somehing spectacular (as what matters are skills,saves, AC, AB and HP)

And where's all the flair of the good old books? I mean, there were books in 2. Edition that were full of epic adventures and also (very) high levels of magic. But there had also been some accessory for those who prefer the medieval "Arneson-style". And today, all of those books seem to have gone.

I want some books that do not provide swarms of new monsters, I want nice historys, hooks and such things!

Actually theres a recent trend in WotC's products to include more "fluff" ("nice historys, hooks and such things" as you mentioned). If you read some of the other thread in the Furture Releases youll find that unfortunatly you are in the minority since alot of people do want more monsters, magics, rules, etc...and WotC seems to be leaning toward putting out books that focus on exactly what your talking about: hooks, adventures, background information, lore etc...

If you want a book with lots of "fluff" or background information and ideas i suggest you check out the Fienish Codex. Its not tolkien-esque, but it appears to be atleast as much background and adventure information as straight rules and stats.
Blauer Jaspis
06-12-06, 02:23 PM Well, I remarked some trys to envolve some "fluff" as you are calling it in the races of series, but ok, there werde some nice storys, but all of the races of series introduced an entire new race, and I mean who needs all the thousands of races? With savage species and Races of Faerun there are enough rules to incorperate almost every monster of the 4 (with the upcoming) MMs, so I really ask myself why I need an extra race like the raptorans.
Of course, I admit that if you want a race with fluff, the MMs provide a pity for u, but I think there are still far enough races that could be treated in books before they should introduce tonns of new ones.

And even if theres something good in FC, I hate, it, because first, I have no use for demons in my campain, and if I sould ever need one, I have enough in MM 1 . and on the other hand, FC is in one row with the Book of Vile Evil which - in my very personal opinion - is much to bloody. I have no need for such things.

What I want is some book that does not waste 20% for given examples (as class - soulblade and then "Risus, Soulblade lvl 18 Stats"), another 5% to provide an epic counterpart to the new rules (that'd be Risus, Soulblade lvl 24), 10% for new Monsters and then another 20% to incorperate all the classes from other expansions, such as the warlock, hexblade and so on.

That does not mean that I want a book that is only about female elvish warriors that posses the whirlwhind attack feat, but which is a little more precise, and no allrounder.

Is there no one who thinks similar to me?
Blauer Jaspis
06-15-06, 04:33 AM *reactivate*
ajs
07-06-06, 03:58 PM What I want is some book that does not waste 20% for [...crunch...]

Is there no one who thinks similar to me?
There are huge mobs of people who think like you. They play in this setting called Greyhawk where 99% of the material that we get our hands on comes from sites like canonfire and the side-notes in Adventure Paths.

That said, most of what you are saying rings a bit dull to me. You say you have no use for demons, but if you needed one you'd use the MM... and yet the MM is almost entirely crunch, while a book like FC has a fair amount of crunch, but an awful lot of high-quality fluff as well. I would think that if you needed a demon you'd get yourself FC1 rather than the MM.

I'd also suggest getting a subscription to Dungeon. The modules presented in there are excellent resources. Don't think of them as "modules" if that bothers you. Just think of them as collections of settings and other resources.
Blauer Jaspis
07-16-06, 08:06 AM Well, I jsut wantet to say that I would not buy a new book about demons as I don't need any demons at all but if I'd ever need one, I would take him out of the MM because this is a book I already own. So, if u say that the MM is more crunch than FC, this may be right, but as I said I loved high-variety once, too.

But you don't really get my problem: There might be lots of fluff, but this fluff is as overpowered and epic as the monsters it is related to. So, a nice history that provides an authentic background for the madness of a werebat arc-wizard is as useless for me as the stats of the werebat arc wizard itsself.

But recebntly, I took a look at the upcoming products, and Cityscape looked not bad, but I can't say more about it, as it is easy to spoil a good city with overflow of insane, weird monsters as well (and the products dissapointed me a lot of time lately - the last book that seemed okay to me [with the exception of material like fantastic locations, which I havent looked at] was Complete arcane)

Tome of battle sounded promising as well, but now that I got to read the excerpt, I'm almost convinced that all of it will be quasi-psionic-magical feats for warriors to make them more fantsy-like, although I have to admit that I can't yet say that it is overpowered.
SilvercatMoonpaw
07-17-06, 06:03 AM Everyone wants something different. You complain about too much crunch. Others complain about too much fluff. If you have crunch but no fluff often the product is just boring. If you have fluff but no crunch you run the risk of putting in flavor that some people don't like. And when you have both these things in you can have both problems at once.

I'd have to say I prefer crunch over fluff. I can make my own fluff easily enough. What I really hate is the overabundance of "good vs. evil/these things which we think of as evil-related in real life are evil/monsters are smackdown targets with no culture and no influence beyond being villains or wise sages/humans and 'humanoids' dominate" and I especially hate the "magic is mysterious" kind of thinking (please note that this is my opinion and should not constitute a personal attack on anyone). This is why pure crunch is good: I can take it and decided all the alignment and power issues myself. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if monsters weren't presented so one-sided and settings weren't designed so that 99% of the world wants to kill you (Eberron in particular).

Everything isn't going to be perfect. If you aren't satisfied with what WotC is doing, search elsewhere. rpgnow.com has a bunch of supplements for download that could enhance low-level play (NPC classes play even). If you want more "old-school" feel then look up Castles & Crusades. There are even alternate systems out there other than d20. I've found so many that are just boring that I've learned to stop complaining.

Also, medevil Europe has been done to death. I'd like to see some Byzantine and Muslim empire sort of stuff, also more Oriental.
aotrscommander
07-17-06, 07:47 AM I have some sympathy. I too, prefer a more tolkienesque style world. Most of my worlds are primarily run by the big four 'good' (re: nonevil) races, Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings, with Orcs, Hobgoblins, Goblins and Kobolds being the main 'evil' races, with a light smattering of some other, self-created races (usually only one or two).

I don't see the need for all the extra races and bizarre monsters that are there just for the sake of being a different race/fill a new bestiary. I try to make my campaigns believable and consistant (since I'm a big consistancy freak), and adding all these extra races would seem incongrous if I didn't add in their cultures, lands etc, and that would be a huge undertaking. It's bad enough, for example, trying to do the cultures for the fourteen cultures based on the 'big four' in my lastest campaign world. For this world I went back to mythological inspiration to re-write the entire bestiary (a long job, but I'm getting there); I created a list of mythological beasts and am working my way through them. (Granted, many of the new monsters have a Monster class progression - but then again most of them are not humanoid races, so they at least have an excuse they are genuinely different.)

Because of my heavy bias to writing my own worlds, I do find there are large parts of D&D that are too flavour specific. I use the most crunchy parts of the rules, and adapt the fluff as needed. So I only buy the expansions that are mainly crunchy (the Complete Books, XPH); I passed on all of the 'races of' series, and the PHB II, Complete Psi and Spell Compendium were the first books I bought since the last Complete came out. Complete Psi was probably the least useful of the books, since it didn't have any classes that I thought were particularly clever (like the Warlock or Dragon Shaman, and I had to tweak that as Dragons in my world aren't the same as core D&D).

I do often adapt most of the crunchy apsects (spells, new classes etc), but weirder Presidge classes and races I often right off straight away. I don't know, they just feel, well, untidy to me. Most of the new races just feel like lumpy-headed aliens that you see in the background in Sci-Fi as 'random alien'; they just feel superficial, like psionics was in 2nd Ed, reconned into the world. Mind you, I don't use Gnomes or Half-Orcs either!

So, I too, would like to see more 'generic' type rule books that are usuable by us that don't play on Greyhawk, Faerun or Eberron. For my money, I'd prefer a little less fluff and more down-to-earth rules; some nonweird prestidge classes would be nice.

I don't object, by the way, to the campaign-world specific stuff; Eberron sounds quite interesting for a good read; I've occasionally been tempted to get Sword and Sorcery's Scarn books for the same reason. I would just prefer it if they kept the world-fluff to world-fluff books and had more stuff that was suitable of everybody in the generic books (the PHB II was a step in the righ direction, though the roleplaying chapters I could have lived without!)
20102000
07-18-06, 12:02 PM Am I the only one who is thirsty for more medival and low-level oriented accessory?

I do come accross people with the same interest. As mentioned above dragon/greyhawk as good sources. I would also suggest have a look at some of expeditious retreat stuff, medieval society etc. And avoid wotc material, as it pretty much caters for high magic only.
Blauer Jaspis
07-19-06, 04:25 PM Well, perhaps it is from to call what I like fluff - as what I appreciate is something like,

I make a book about fairs and try to give the fair a good atmosphere

..and it doesn't matter in which campain the fair is and why it is (background), just that u have flair, some nice images and so on.

But what you just said sounded good, although I am a bit irritated as what I read from the dragon were epic nesseril spellcaster classes and no low level stuff.

I know that it is difficult. But I think if they wouldn't try to get everything in one book, but split the content up, it would be better - as I would be able to buy a book about good old rogues without the whole - sorry he expression, I don't want to insult anybody, remember that I was I great fan of this once, too - PSI-magic-incarnum trash.

But comlaining won't help much so I will calm down and wait for the point that WOTC decides to be less money-orientated and create some nice product that somebody that is so hard to satisfy as I also loves :D .

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Blauer Jaspis 06-06-06, 05:12 PM	I once was a great fan of D&D and also the FR 3.0 Edition. I was happily looking for new supply, because a pictured book with lots of illustrations is just nice to read and to look at. But after the last year, it seems to me that no one wants to have books that do not at least include 20% Epic spells, items and monsters, especialli weird and more weird undead abonimations and exptraplanar horrors. I admit that I prefer the "medieval roleplaying game with a fantasy touch" (The title of the first-first edition of D&D was similar to that). I like to play at low levels, my players do not have to be very rich and the overall magic is limited - it is still the dark and mysterious art that holds secrets in it. I loved the old books like Volo's Guide to Cormyr (my favorite one) and really enjoyed reading it - it was just flair and not just only a raw collection of rules I can make on my own. Even if the illustrations were fare not as detailed as they're now, I'd prefer that book. I do not deny that also in the past there was some accessory that had a similar high grade of epic-undead-powergaming, and I do not want to say that the old edition has been better, but I'd really welcome a book that provides more feats like tactical options - the Complete Warrior was a quite good beginning, also the only book of the 3.5 Edition that had something good in it. Of course it is a question of taste whether one likes a high level of fantasy and magic or not. But I think that low level play and also low level magic has been neglected by the stuff for quite a long time and I would really like to see a good sourcebook in the style of Volos good old guides again (I mean there were even cooking recipes, do you remember?) Am I the only one who ist thirsty for more medival and low-level oriented accessory?
mhacdebhandia 06-06-06, 06:19 PM	I admit that I prefer the "medieval roleplaying game with a fantasy touch" (The title of the first-first edition of D&D was similar to that). It was actually Dungeons & Dragons: Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures. I don't share your tastes, for what it's worth. Not in that I prefer high-magic, high-powered campaigns, but in that (a bit like Gygax himself; Arneson was the Tolkien fan) I prefer a "Weird Tales" style of D&D to a pseudo-medieval Tolkienesque campaign. It's why I like Eberron so much.
Korhal_IV 06-07-06, 01:31 AM	It's why I like Eberron so much. Given that Eberron is designed for low-level, wide-magic play, why is that? I play Eberron precisely because I despise play past, say, level 15 or so.
GhostStepper 06-07-06, 02:03 AM	Theres a ton of low level stuff. Just look at all the new base classes...they cater to every level of play (except the "epic" that the OP specificall mentioned ironicaly) from 1st to 20th level.
mhacdebhandia 06-07-06, 02:06 AM	Because I said Weird Tales, not fantasy superheroes or WTFBBQ high magic. It's the pulp action and the noir intrigue and the vast dark continent and the descents into the depths of the Eart^W^WKhyber and the interwar feel and the exotic cultures and religions I love.
Blauer Jaspis 06-07-06, 02:29 PM	Well, I once was a great fan of a high fantasy gary gyax style too, but now I really prefer the "tolkien way" even if I would never dare to compare this with anything D&D like, as it is something wounderful and completely different. But this is just an example of how the personal taste can changen. But nevertheless, I just don't see what I could possibly do with tons of classes - I mean, sometimes a NPC of this class ist nice, ok, but the basic are not so different in their appearance as a NPC that this would be somehing spectacular (as what matters are skills,saves, AC, AB and HP) And where's all the flair of the good old books? I mean, there were books in 2. Edition that were full of epic adventures and also (very) high levels of magic. But there had also been some accessory for those who prefer the medieval "Arneson-style". And today, all of those books seem to have gone. I want some books that do not provide swarms of new monsters, I want nice historys, hooks and such things!
GhostStepper 06-07-06, 02:43 PM	Well, I once was a great fan of a high fantasy gary gyax style too, but now I really prefer the "tolkien way" even if I would never dare to compare this with anything D&D like, as it is something wounderful and completely different. But this is just an example of how the personal taste can changen. But nevertheless, I just don't see what I could possibly do with tons of classes - I mean, sometimes a NPC of this class ist nice, ok, but the basic are not so different in their appearance as a NPC that this would be somehing spectacular (as what matters are skills,saves, AC, AB and HP) And where's all the flair of the good old books? I mean, there were books in 2. Edition that were full of epic adventures and also (very) high levels of magic. But there had also been some accessory for those who prefer the medieval "Arneson-style". And today, all of those books seem to have gone. I want some books that do not provide swarms of new monsters, I want nice historys, hooks and such things! Actually theres a recent trend in WotC's products to include more "fluff" ("nice historys, hooks and such things" as you mentioned). If you read some of the other thread in the Furture Releases youll find that unfortunatly you are in the minority since alot of people do want more monsters, magics, rules, etc...and WotC seems to be leaning toward putting out books that focus on exactly what your talking about: hooks, adventures, background information, lore etc... If you want a book with lots of "fluff" or background information and ideas i suggest you check out the Fienish Codex. Its not tolkien-esque, but it appears to be atleast as much background and adventure information as straight rules and stats.
Blauer Jaspis 06-12-06, 02:23 PM	Well, I remarked some trys to envolve some "fluff" as you are calling it in the races of series, but ok, there werde some nice storys, but all of the races of series introduced an entire new race, and I mean who needs all the thousands of races? With savage species and Races of Faerun there are enough rules to incorperate almost every monster of the 4 (with the upcoming) MMs, so I really ask myself why I need an extra race like the raptorans. Of course, I admit that if you want a race with fluff, the MMs provide a pity for u, but I think there are still far enough races that could be treated in books before they should introduce tonns of new ones. And even if theres something good in FC, I hate, it, because first, I have no use for demons in my campain, and if I sould ever need one, I have enough in MM 1 . and on the other hand, FC is in one row with the Book of Vile Evil which - in my very personal opinion - is much to bloody. I have no need for such things. What I want is some book that does not waste 20% for given examples (as class - soulblade and then "Risus, Soulblade lvl 18 Stats"), another 5% to provide an epic counterpart to the new rules (that'd be Risus, Soulblade lvl 24), 10% for new Monsters and then another 20% to incorperate all the classes from other expansions, such as the warlock, hexblade and so on. That does not mean that I want a book that is only about female elvish warriors that posses the whirlwhind attack feat, but which is a little more precise, and no allrounder. Is there no one who thinks similar to me?
Blauer Jaspis 06-15-06, 04:33 AM	reactivate
ajs 07-06-06, 03:58 PM	What I want is some book that does not waste 20% for [...crunch...] Is there no one who thinks similar to me? There are huge mobs of people who think like you. They play in this setting called Greyhawk where 99% of the material that we get our hands on comes from sites like canonfire and the side-notes in Adventure Paths. That said, most of what you are saying rings a bit dull to me. You say you have no use for demons, but if you needed one you'd use the MM... and yet the MM is almost entirely crunch, while a book like FC has a fair amount of crunch, but an awful lot of high-quality fluff as well. I would think that if you needed a demon you'd get yourself FC1 rather than the MM. I'd also suggest getting a subscription to Dungeon. The modules presented in there are excellent resources. Don't think of them as "modules" if that bothers you. Just think of them as collections of settings and other resources.
Blauer Jaspis 07-16-06, 08:06 AM	Well, I jsut wantet to say that I would not buy a new book about demons as I don't need any demons at all but if I'd ever need one, I would take him out of the MM because this is a book I already own. So, if u say that the MM is more crunch than FC, this may be right, but as I said I loved high-variety once, too. But you don't really get my problem: There might be lots of fluff, but this fluff is as overpowered and epic as the monsters it is related to. So, a nice history that provides an authentic background for the madness of a werebat arc-wizard is as useless for me as the stats of the werebat arc wizard itsself. But recebntly, I took a look at the upcoming products, and Cityscape looked not bad, but I can't say more about it, as it is easy to spoil a good city with overflow of insane, weird monsters as well (and the products dissapointed me a lot of time lately - the last book that seemed okay to me [with the exception of material like fantastic locations, which I havent looked at] was Complete arcane) Tome of battle sounded promising as well, but now that I got to read the excerpt, I'm almost convinced that all of it will be quasi-psionic-magical feats for warriors to make them more fantsy-like, although I have to admit that I can't yet say that it is overpowered.
SilvercatMoonpaw 07-17-06, 06:03 AM	Everyone wants something different. You complain about too much crunch. Others complain about too much fluff. If you have crunch but no fluff often the product is just boring. If you have fluff but no crunch you run the risk of putting in flavor that some people don't like. And when you have both these things in you can have both problems at once. I'd have to say I prefer crunch over fluff. I can make my own fluff easily enough. What I really hate is the overabundance of "good vs. evil/these things which we think of as evil-related in real life are evil/monsters are smackdown targets with no culture and no influence beyond being villains or wise sages/humans and 'humanoids' dominate" and I especially hate the "magic is mysterious" kind of thinking (please note that this is my opinion and should not constitute a personal attack on anyone). This is why pure crunch is good: I can take it and decided all the alignment and power issues myself. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if monsters weren't presented so one-sided and settings weren't designed so that 99% of the world wants to kill you (Eberron in particular). Everything isn't going to be perfect. If you aren't satisfied with what WotC is doing, search elsewhere. rpgnow.com has a bunch of supplements for download that could enhance low-level play (NPC classes play even). If you want more "old-school" feel then look up Castles & Crusades. There are even alternate systems out there other than d20. I've found so many that are just boring that I've learned to stop complaining. Also, medevil Europe has been done to death. I'd like to see some Byzantine and Muslim empire sort of stuff, also more Oriental.
aotrscommander 07-17-06, 07:47 AM	I have some sympathy. I too, prefer a more tolkienesque style world. Most of my worlds are primarily run by the big four 'good' (re: nonevil) races, Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings, with Orcs, Hobgoblins, Goblins and Kobolds being the main 'evil' races, with a light smattering of some other, self-created races (usually only one or two). I don't see the need for all the extra races and bizarre monsters that are there just for the sake of being a different race/fill a new bestiary. I try to make my campaigns believable and consistant (since I'm a big consistancy freak), and adding all these extra races would seem incongrous if I didn't add in their cultures, lands etc, and that would be a huge undertaking. It's bad enough, for example, trying to do the cultures for the fourteen cultures based on the 'big four' in my lastest campaign world. For this world I went back to mythological inspiration to re-write the entire bestiary (a long job, but I'm getting there); I created a list of mythological beasts and am working my way through them. (Granted, many of the new monsters have a Monster class progression - but then again most of them are not humanoid races, so they at least have an excuse they are genuinely different.) Because of my heavy bias to writing my own worlds, I do find there are large parts of D&D that are too flavour specific. I use the most crunchy parts of the rules, and adapt the fluff as needed. So I only buy the expansions that are mainly crunchy (the Complete Books, XPH); I passed on all of the 'races of' series, and the PHB II, Complete Psi and Spell Compendium were the first books I bought since the last Complete came out. Complete Psi was probably the least useful of the books, since it didn't have any classes that I thought were particularly clever (like the Warlock or Dragon Shaman, and I had to tweak that as Dragons in my world aren't the same as core D&D). I do often adapt most of the crunchy apsects (spells, new classes etc), but weirder Presidge classes and races I often right off straight away. I don't know, they just feel, well, untidy to me. Most of the new races just feel like lumpy-headed aliens that you see in the background in Sci-Fi as 'random alien'; they just feel superficial, like psionics was in 2nd Ed, reconned into the world. Mind you, I don't use Gnomes or Half-Orcs either! So, I too, would like to see more 'generic' type rule books that are usuable by us that don't play on Greyhawk, Faerun or Eberron. For my money, I'd prefer a little less fluff and more down-to-earth rules; some nonweird prestidge classes would be nice. I don't object, by the way, to the campaign-world specific stuff; Eberron sounds quite interesting for a good read; I've occasionally been tempted to get Sword and Sorcery's Scarn books for the same reason. I would just prefer it if they kept the world-fluff to world-fluff books and had more stuff that was suitable of everybody in the generic books (the PHB II was a step in the righ direction, though the roleplaying chapters I could have lived without!)
20102000 07-18-06, 12:02 PM	Am I the only one who is thirsty for more medival and low-level oriented accessory? I do come accross people with the same interest. As mentioned above dragon/greyhawk as good sources. I would also suggest have a look at some of expeditious retreat stuff, medieval society etc. And avoid wotc material, as it pretty much caters for high magic only.
Blauer Jaspis 07-19-06, 04:25 PM	Well, perhaps it is from to call what I like fluff - as what I appreciate is something like, I make a book about fairs and try to give the fair a good atmosphere ..and it doesn't matter in which campain the fair is and why it is (background), just that u have flair, some nice images and so on. But what you just said sounded good, although I am a bit irritated as what I read from the dragon were epic nesseril spellcaster classes and no low level stuff. I know that it is difficult. But I think if they wouldn't try to get everything in one book, but split the content up, it would be better - as I would be able to buy a book about good old rogues without the whole - sorry he expression, I don't want to insult anybody, remember that I was I great fan of this once, too - PSI-magic-incarnum trash. But comlaining won't help much so I will calm down and wait for the point that WOTC decides to be less money-orientated and create some nice product that somebody that is so hard to satisfy as I also loves :D .