Post/Author/DateTime	Post
prototype00 12-21-05, 03:11 AM	From Uthmere(Part Nine) quoting Ed Greenwood, Farpadden is ably supported by two Assistant Masters: Adornen Zussrel (NE male human rogue 9; a tall, taciturn, strong, quiet, and competent man) and Ylantara Omrantle (CE female human rogue 6/thief-acrobat 2; a spiteful, lithe, coldly malicious sadist) Now as I recall, thief acrobat was a class that only appeared in Complete adventurer. So can we finally lay the debate to rest? Ed Greenwood uses complete classes to properly portray Faerunian flavour. prototype00
Tempus665 12-21-05, 04:21 AM	Even though I have great respect for the big guy, I couldn't care less what Ed does and doesn't use. I should say though that this could just be another one of Hasbro's tricks to get us to buy more books. :)
prototype00 12-21-05, 06:43 AM	Fair enough, to tell the truth most of us play the Forgotten realms the way we like it. But, there are those who always protest when we share our experiences, cries of "But that isn't the forgotten realms that Ed Greenwood wrote" or "Complete classes clash with Realmsian flavour". But lo, even Ed Greenwood is willing to give it a try. Reinventing and Improving the Realms we all love. I think theres a lesson there for all. prototype00
Ripe 12-21-05, 07:43 AM	Fair enough, to tell the truth most of us play the Forgotten realms the way we like it. But, there are those who always protest when we share our experiences, cries of "But that isn't the forgotten realms that Ed Greenwood wrote" or "Complete classes clash with Realmsian flavour". But lo, even Ed Greenwood is willing to give it a try. Reinventing and Improving the Realms we all love. I think theres a lesson there for all. prototype00 I'm not sure that I would call introduction of Complete classes and prestige classes Improvement but that is just my oppinion. Personaly I find the entire Complete series complete waste of paper and would never consider using them in Forgotten Realms campaign [possible exception might be using spells, feats and items from them, but I'm not even sure about that]. Classes and prestige classes (with the exception of ones introduced into realms during 1st and 2nd edition [such as bladesinger]) are out of the question.
Faraer 12-21-05, 08:05 AM	The thief-acrobat, of course, appeared in the original Unearthed Arcana and was part of the rules-language of 1st edition AD&D and so was used in 1st edition-era Realms sources from the Old Grey Box. When Ed writes in 3E terms, he naturally translates into the current language, using prestige classes where appropriate. When he DMs, he currently doesn't use 2E, so he doesn't. Referring to the thief-acrobat prestige class isn't a change or addition to the Realms: like any sword-and-sorcery world it has always had acrobatic thieves. Ed loves and accumulates books of all kinds, RPG books included, and is open-minded in what he includes in the Realms. This is so from the late 1970s when he incorporated D&D monsters and spells, through the 1990s when various monsters from non-Realms Monstrous Compendiums found their way into Realms products, to the 2000s when elements from the D&D books -- mainly monsters -- are mentioned in Ed's formally published and informally posted (hence this isn't a sales ploy) work, as heretofore unknown things (in a setting written from the start to accommodate such) or ways to game-implement existing but undefined features.
prototype00 12-21-05, 08:50 AM	Which is the point that I'm trying to make, the expanded series of books can allow players to properly flesh out their character to be more in line with the Forgotten realms and its flavour. The swashbuckler, the thief-acrobat and other classes can be used to convey character traits and abilities. The only problem is munching, but thats always a problem. prototype00
GothicDan 12-21-05, 10:06 AM	You're not realizing that the Thief kit was 90% the same as the standard Thief class. Kits were NOT the same as PrCs and new Core classes. The various stuff in the 3E generic products are just fine, unless they add something to the Realms that wasn't there in the first place, and does not actually further the feel of the Realms itself with said addition. But your original point was, as of your first post, that Ed used stuff from the 3E Complete series. This is in fact quite wrong. He uses 2E rules and basically the 1E setting, for the most part. Because it was the best that way. Warrior-based and rogue-based PrCs and Core Classses and the like, in any event, can typically be added fairly easy to a campaign setting. Only magical ones, personally, I would restrict on a case-by-cases basis, since above all else, the magic of various settings, from the mechanics of how magic is handled overall (such as the Weave) to the deities (obvious) is idiosyncratic from setting to setting.
prototype00 12-21-05, 10:25 AM	Correct enough I suppose. Seriously the only point I was trying to make was that its okay to use complete classes in the Realms, I think I mentioned as much as another post. New classes and PrCs are the closest thing we have to kits in 3rd ed (and I've played 2nd ed and there a lot of kits in it, as many as there are prestige classes now I'm guessing) so its best to use them to enhance the description of your character, which Ed, dealing with the lack of kits in 3rd ed is doing in his post. prototype00
Sweethug 12-21-05, 10:31 AM	Actually i didnt knew there was a point to make about the canonic (?) use of the complete series in the FR campaign. As for Ed Greenwood point of view on the subject, the better is perhaps to ask him. And this prolly have been already done... So this leads to Kuje... and his famous sig.
Ripe 12-21-05, 11:08 AM	Part of the reason I dislike complete series might be because they contain mostly crunch with very, very little lore [and I prefer it otherwise, I don't need 20+ new feats that I most likely would never use, or PrC's that are unplayable, etc., I need lore], but the problem with Complete classes and their use in the Realms is that most of them adapt poorely to the Realms [not all of them - some can be adapted or introduced easily and some cannot be adapted in any way]. Ironicaly enough the worse among them is Thayan Knight from Complete Warrior - and it's made with Realms setting in mind. Now, upon first read, PrC looks OK. It's ment to be a bodyguard and enforcer for Red Wizards and it's list of abilities are rather balanced. But then you notice this line: "The knight automatically fails any saving throw against mind-affecting spells cast by Red Wizards." Now considering that the main cause of death among Red Wizards [or tied for main with The Simbul :D ] are other Red Wizards, having a bodyguard that automaticaly fail mind-affecting spells cast by your opponents is just plain stupid :rolleyes: [and is probably reason why they were never mentioned before in Realms lore ;) ]. So they may be used as enforcers [and then only against non-Red Wizards] but as a bodyguards they were useless. And they say that PrC is made with Realms setting in mind :rolleyes: .
Kuje31 12-21-05, 12:12 PM	As was said, Thief-acrobat existed in 1e and so it's not really a change. :)
Fabius Maximus 12-21-05, 12:22 PM	The Complete series is meant to be generic, so I see no problems in adapting stuff in the realms, even the caster PrCs. There are myriad ways of casting spells. It gets only problematic if there are certain organizations tied to the classes or feats.
GothicDan 12-21-05, 12:57 PM	A large number of the spellcasting PrCs adapt horribly to specific settings. For example, the Ur-Priest to FR? Uh, what? Sure, you can convolute it and MAKE it work, but that doesn't mean it works well.
ClobberinTime 12-21-05, 03:13 PM	Yeah, Thief Acrobat was in the original 1ed Unearthed Arcana, along with the Cavalier and some other classes. Interestingly they were character classes and not kits, much more in tune with 3ed than 2 and the adjustment for their being over powered came from needing to earn more experience to gain levels. The original Cavalier was great, you got to add 2-20 % points to your strength score at regular intervals, this was the first time you could improve your ability scores short of finding a magic book like a Manual of Gainful Exercise. Needless to say this class was very very popular, :)
Dark Wizard 12-21-05, 04:44 PM	I remember King Azoun IV was stat'ed as a Cavalier at some point, though that might be more lore based than rules based.
Kuje31 12-21-05, 05:14 PM	I remember King Azoun IV was stat'ed as a Cavalier at some point, though that might be more lore based than rules based. He was in 1e. :)
Fabius Maximus 12-21-05, 06:15 PM	A large number of the spellcasting PrCs adapt horribly to specific settings. For example, the Ur-Priest to FR? Uh, what? Sure, you can convolute it and MAKE it work, but that doesn't mean it works well. Well, exceptions support the rule. ;) The Ur-Priest really is awkward. But you could restrict it to these Gargoyle-like monsters who hate deities and whose name I forgot. But I don't see problems with other PrCs. Races, otoh, are more difficult.
Krash 12-21-05, 07:07 PM	Much of the game content and game mechanics in Ed's writings are heavily edited by WotC. Just because his name is on it, doesn't necessarily say anything about what he puts in to "properly portray Faerûnian flavor". Realmslore does that, game stats in isolation seldom do. -- George Krashos
GothicDan 12-21-05, 07:07 PM	Races are indeed more difficult. But even then, there are a few Core classes and PrCs who I would hesitate about letting into FR. As for the Ur-Priests, it's simply a matter of the fact that in FR, you ALWAYS have had to have a patron deity to use divine magic - no exceptions. The deities WOULD know that their energy was being siphoned...
Fabius Maximus 12-21-05, 08:14 PM	Races are indeed more difficult. But even then, there are a few Core classes and PrCs who I would hesitate about letting into FR. I'm against new base classes on the whole. Most are just not necessary. Especially Swashbuckler (what is the Duelist for, pray?), Spellthief (too complicated) and Favoured Soul (Too powerful. Wtf were they thinking?) I like the Daggerspell Guardian PrCs, but the organization just won't fit into FR. But it works well in Eberron. After leafing through Cmp. Divine and Arcane I can say that there are relativly few PrCs that are problematic. Most do not match the fluff of Faerun entirely (Green Star Adept, Rainbow Servant (it fits nicely into Eberron, though) or the deity specific ones). Others take a bit of adapting (Suel Arcanamarch, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil), one or two are not necessary (Radiant Servant of Pelor). As for the Ur-Priests, it's simply a matter of the fact that in FR, you ALWAYS have had to have a patron deity to use divine magic - no exceptions. The deities WOULD know that their energy was being siphoned... As I said, the Kir-Lanan are the only individuals that should be able to take this class. And were in Realmslore is it written that the deities would notice the drain?
ClobberinTime 12-21-05, 08:46 PM	Yeah, I don't buy any of the straight D+D books anymore, the PRCs just don't have any taste to me, so I stick with the FR books. Azoun was definitely a cavalier for flavor, but lots of PCs took it as the best munchkin class around in 1ed.
GothicDan 12-21-05, 08:50 PM	I'm against new base classes on the whole. Most are just not necessary. Especially Swashbuckler (what is the Duelist for, pray?), Spellthief (too complicated) and Favoured Soul (Too powerful. Wtf were they thinking?) I tend to be especially against Core classes. I really dislike people trying to introduce the Artificer into FR. So much for the Red Wizards having a hold on magical item trade, eh? I like the Daggerspell Guardian PrCs, but the organization just won't fit into FR. But it works well in Eberron. I agree, oddly enough. I really like the Daggerpspell Mage PrC, and would use it in another world definitely, but I'd have to think twice about FR. The Daggerspell Shaper, though, I don't "feel" at all. Most do not match the fluff of Faerun entirely (Green Star Adept, Rainbow Servant (it fits nicely into Eberron, though) or the deity specific ones). Others take a bit of adapting (Suel Arcanamarch, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil), one or two are not necessary (Radiant Servant of Pelor). I agree with all of the above, for the most part. I would also never allow a Wu-Jen, a Warmage (Why? We have Red Wizard Evokers, War Wizards of Cormyr, and a half a dozen other war-mage-like organizations who do just fine being wizards, thank you very much), the Seeker of the Misty Isle (not tied to Corellon's lore whatsoever in FR), and a few others. This just goes to prove, really, that the more magical a PrC is, the more careful one has to be with introducing it into a setting with pre-existing magical lore, especially one as vast as FR (or as restrictive as, say, Dragonlance!). As I said, the Kir-Lanan are the only individuals that should be able to take this class. And were in Realmslore is it written that the deities would notice the drain? Where is it written that they wouldn't? As you are the one making the original statement, or inferring it (that they would not notice it), then it is up to you as the Positive in this debate to shoulder the burden of proof. :) The deities of FR went through a MAJOR transition with the ToT, in which their power was DIRECTLY tied to their number of worshippers. Suffice it to say that this has made them MUCH more "on their toes" so to speak with just where their power is coming from, who's giving it, who's taking it, etc. I won't even get into Portfolio Sensing; I am sure there's a dozen deities who could notice any of a number of the Kir-Lanan's magical dealings, and any deity with an Int and Wis score of 22+ (many of them!) would be able to put the pieces together fairly quickly.
Zevox 12-21-05, 11:42 PM	*shrugs* Personally, I pick and choose what I want to use from the Complete series in my games. Munchkinism isn't a problem in my group, so I don't need to worry about that. I allow most of the classes and PrCs (I'm particularly fond of the Swasbuckler, Hexblade, Knight of the Chalice, and Warlock), and make slight changes to some (example: the Thayan Knight problem mentioned above, I simply remove all "this doesn't work against Red Wizards" references). Deity-specific ones I either disallow or switch to fairly similar Realms deities (for instance, I swap Ravagers from the worship of Erythnul to either Garagos or Talos). Some that just don't fit or would require too much working around to fit I disallow (Green Star Adept, Rainbow Servant, and Warmage for instance). And some that I just don't like I disallow (Alienist and Effigy Master for example). But most of the Complete series I use. They're actually the only books I bought specifically for the reason of getting "crunch" (as its called by some), simply because of the sheer number of classes and PrCs I noticed that I liked when flipping through them in the store. Zevox
Zanan 12-22-05, 04:43 AM	BTW, the Thief-Acrobat was 3E-sized in Song & Silence, so he is around a wee while now too (apart from any earlier editions). While we are at Complete folk, while I welcome new classes such as the swashbuckler, warlock, hexblade (make cool drow fighter subs ;) ) and the really great scout, some clearly fall out of contention (Ur-Priest) while other sneed a scrutinizing look. Of the latter ilk surely is the Shadowbane Stalker, IMHO. If any good-doing folk utilize this PrC, they will soon rule the roost :rolleyes:
Fabius Maximus 12-22-05, 07:04 AM	I tend to be especially against Core classes. I really dislike people trying to introduce the Artificer into FR. So much for the Red Wizards having a hold on magical item trade, eh? Well, it could be a dead class. Since the ruling class of Imaskar was called Artificier and they were atheists, they had to have means to have access to healing somehow. The Artificier can do that. I agree with all of the above, for the most part. I would also never allow a Wu-Jen, a Warmage (Why? We have Red Wizard Evokers, War Wizards of Cormyr, and a half a dozen other war-mage-like organizations who do just fine being wizards, thank you very much), the Seeker of the Misty Isle (not tied to Corellon's lore whatsoever in FR), and a few others. This just goes to prove, really, that the more magical a PrC is, the more careful one has to be with introducing it into a setting with pre-existing magical lore, especially one as vast as FR (or as restrictive as, say, Dragonlance!). Wu-Jen, Shugenja and the like belong to Kara-Tur. The warmage is boring, Healer and Marshal are unnecessary. Hexblade, Warlock and Spirit Shaman I like. They bring distinct flavour and mechanics. The deities of FR went through a MAJOR transition with the ToT, in which their power was DIRECTLY tied to their number of worshippers. Suffice it to say that this has made them MUCH more "on their toes" so to speak with just where their power is coming from, who's giving it, who's taking it, etc. I won't even get into Portfolio Sensing; I am sure there's a dozen deities who could notice any of a number of the Kir-Lanan's magical dealings, and any deity with an Int and Wis score of 22+ (many of them!) would be able to put the pieces together fairly quickly. Well, I'm no expert on gods, but this sounds reasonable.
GothicDan 12-22-05, 09:58 AM	Well, it could be a dead class. Since the ruling class of Imaskar was called Artificier and they were atheists, they had to have means to have access to healing somehow. The Artificier can do that. Disregard the fact that they were also primarily known for their amazing mastery of wizardry, too, right? ;> Remember, they founded basically the Red Wizards of Thay (Thayd was the last apprentice of the Imaskari, I believe), they created a barrier that blocked an entire Pantheon from accessing Faerun... Not exactly Artificer-level stuff. And in 2E, there were spells for Wizards to heal, if not nearly as well as Clerics. Wu-Jen, Shugenja and the like belong to Kara-Tur. The warmage is boring, Healer and Marshal are unnecessary. Hexblade, Warlock and Spirit Shaman I like. They bring distinct flavour and mechanics. Oddly enough, those are some of the ones that I like, too. Hexblade and Warlock work fairly well in Faerun due to the fact that there's a fairly extensive history with the Lower Planes, with no already-made PrCs, core classes, or even kits, to reflect this connection, and Spirit Shaman is the closest I've yet found to the 2E Shaman class, which is quite common among the Uthgardt and the like. Well, I'm no expert on gods, but this sounds reasonable. Good. :D
Fabius Maximus 12-22-05, 10:21 AM	Disregard the fact that they were also primarily known for their amazing mastery of wizardry, too, right? ;> Remember, they founded basically the Red Wizards of Thay (Thayd was the last apprentice of the Imaskari, I believe), they created a barrier that blocked an entire Pantheon from accessing Faerun... Not exactly Artificer-level stuff. And in 2E, there were spells for Wizards to heal, if not nearly as well as Clerics. I read something about the netherese having access to arcane healing, but actual spells? In which book? Also, I thought the imaskari were famous for their ability to build constructs and portals. I don't argue against the fact that they had very powerful arcanists, but the artificier fits also. I would not make the class available to PCs, though. Oddly enough, those are some of the ones that I like, too. Hexblade and Warlock work fairly well in Faerun due to the fact that there's a fairly extensive history with the Lower Planes, with no already-made PrCs, core classes, or even kits, to reflect this connection, and Spirit Shaman is the closest I've yet found to the 2E Shaman class, which is quite common among the Uthgardt and the like. This is exactly why I like the Spirit Shaman. I loved my Shaman in BG2. :) What about the archivist? As I said in another thread, I find the class completely unnecessary, because of the Cloistered Cleric and the fact that its essentially more powerful wizard with redundant abilities.
GothicDan 12-22-05, 11:45 AM	I read something about the netherese having access to arcane healing, but actual spells? In which book? Well, the Simbul's Synostodweomer is one, available in the modern Realms, if very restricted. Also, with the school of Necromancy (White in particular) available, there's virtually no limit on what one can do.. Or live through. Or exist through, at least. Vampiric Touch, Lich Touch, etc. Ranged versions of these - scary! Also, the Larloch's Minor Drain from the BG game; Would Transferral (another Necromancy spell), Emapathic Wound Transfer, etc. Lots of Healing spells for Wizards, just not as effective as those for Clerics. Also, I thought the imaskari were famous for their ability to build constructs and portals. I don't argue against the fact that they had very powerful arcanists, but the artificier fits also. I would not make the class available to PCs, though. I'm not sure why Artificers are better at creating Portals and Constructs than Wizards are... What about the archivist? As I said in another thread, I find the class completely unnecessary, because of the Cloistered Cleric and the fact that its essentially more powerful wizard with redundant abilities. I've only heard about this class, but it seems rather pointless to me. We have Specialty Priests of Oghma and Deneir and the like - why do we need Archivists?
Faraer 12-22-05, 12:29 PM	Hmm... We agree that some prestige classes fit in the Realms and some don't. There's no doubt that many prestige classes are gratuitous in that they don't represent anything that the existing rules (with a few new feats here and there) can't handle. In large part they're toys for those who like playing with rules. I don't buy many non-Realms D&D books because I don't want their rules toys and I'm not too interested in WotC designer X's ideas on dwarves or evil or cold climates -- other books have more authority or provide better inspiration for me. Ed has many of the same reservations about these books as I do. But he always makes the most of what's there (and he likes having new monsters). The Realms has more wizardly healing than any ruleset has yet portrayed.
Crust 12-22-05, 12:44 PM	I love the core class books. I carry them with me to every game. The core classes and the prestige classes are all great and they can all be tweaked to fit into the Realms so long as someone has the desire to do it. To ban a class just because it doesn't seem to have the right flavor seems a bit @nal and short-sighted. I would only restrict classes based on character history. I might not allow a barbarian to take levels in wizard unless he does certain things, etc (why a player would take levels in barbarian and wizard is beyond me... just an example). If a DM of mine banned a class, I'd frown on it because that shows a lack of imagination and creativity. It also gives players a hint that the DM is more of a DN (or Dungeon Nazi). All of the core classes and prestige classes have a potential place in the Realms. All of them. There's too much diversity in the Realms to realistically say that any of them are off limits... unless you prefer to limit the possibilities in your games, of course. If a player of mine said, "I'd like to play a dwarf samurai (as is pictured in Complete Warrior)," I'd make him the protector of some dwarf lord, and I'd give him a fancy dwarven waraxe in place of the katana. It's that simple. A warmage could just be another type of Cormyrian war wizard who had some special training in battle magic. The green star adept could be the center of a meteoric event that spawns an entire campaign. The champion of Gwynharwyf (from Exhalted Deeds) could just be a champion of Tempus. A thief’s guild could consist of not just rogues, but spell thieves, ninjas, arcane tricksters, ghostfaced killers, or thief-acrobats. Each class could have its own guild in Waterdeep or some other large city with a myriad of cultural flavors. It's possible to make them work. You have to want them to work, though.
GothicDan 12-22-05, 12:55 PM	I will never "make" something work. The fact that you have to "make" something works means that it does not work, naturally, and it's offensive to the original material and the original Realms to try to "make" it work. Forcing anything to fit into a niche means that it wasn't meant to go there in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY reason to ban a class is because its flavor does not fit into a campaign setting. If you want a campaign world in which you can play anything you want, you're going to have to look outside of all of those published in D&D, with the possible exception of Eberron. By definition, the human mind defines things by what they are not. What's the point in playing a campaign setting as detailed as FR if you're just going to do anything you want with it anyway? There's absolutely no creativity in slapdashedly pasting together a class into the Realms by just altering a few names and adding in a few lines of history. True creativity is learning to make something happen using the rules as already present, and creating something new and interesting out of them. That's the sign of a truly gifted artist. Call me a Nazi-DM if you want. I guess it's the German blood in me. Just let Forgotten Realms be Forgotten Realms, for Bob's sakes. If you want Dwarven Samurai, Raptoran Ur-Priests, and Warforged Monks, keep them the heck out of Faerun. They add absolutely nothing to the setting by being there, and only serve to appease pretentious players' over-inflated egos and to assauge, more often than not, their pre-teen-aged fantasies about power and ub3r k3wln3ss. Have I been a little harsh in my posts lately? Probably. I've been having a bad few months. I don't care so much about being civil any more, as long as I feel what I am saying is correct.
Crust 12-22-05, 02:10 PM	Gothic, It's interesting how you seem to assume I was talking to you in my previous post. I must have be on target. ;) And I've been called a Dungeon Nazi in the past, but that was because I killed one of my PCs, and he didn't like that. He was ignorant. :) All I'm saying is that it's better to have more choices than less choices. And making core and prestige classes work isn't like gnawing on a square peg so it fits into a round hole. It's finding a niche in FR (which has nearly limitless niches) that will allow the core and prestige classes to exist, and there are too many races and cultures on Toril to exclude any of the classes. Saying that a warmage is another example of a war wizard of Cormyr isn't stretching anything. That person learned from a different teacher. That's not forcing anything. It's a simple explanation, and you don’t need an FR sourcebook to hold your hand and tell you these things. It is possible (even encouraged) to make these sort of decisions on your own. To flat-out resist these possibilities isn't healthy. It shows PCs that their DM chooses to limit his/her game, which isn’t the best thing to find in a DM. Now, if you don't own the books, that's another story, of course. It's the DMs job to tweak and rearrange, rather than take everything at face value and run games strictly by the book. DMs who know FR through and through (through novels and sourcebooks, not one or the other) should find it easy to explain the core and prestige classes. Not all of them are appropriate for PCs, not all of them are appropriate for NPCs, but they all have a place in FR. To say that any one of them does not is ignorant. Not ignorant as in rude or "stupid," but ignorant as in resisting possibility, resisting creativity, resisting choice. Your gut should tell you that's a bad thing. Your brain is probably telling you to quote me and respond to each of my paragraphs in detail. I'll wait... :D
GothicDan 12-22-05, 02:24 PM	Nope. Daniel is unmedicated. His ADHD is in full swing and oh look, that's a pretty bird outside... Ahem. In any event, the fact that Ed Greenwood himself seems to feel similarly to how I do (for the most part, as Faraer pointed out) concerning generic stuff being used in FR, pretty mucn cinches it for me. He is the DM who knows FR through and through, after all.
Crust 12-22-05, 02:36 PM	I agree 100%. Ed definitely helps to steer me in certain directions concerning my decisions as a DM. However, he's not running my games, and he's not helping to convince my players to select the base core classes. It's also about whether you want to play or not. By refusing player ideas and requests, you risk losing players, and I honestly can't afford that. I have four loyal players, and if they want to play a certain character, I feel inclined to go the extra mile and allow them that opportunity. I do understand where you're coming from. It would be interesting to have a list of all of the core and prestige classes followed by a potential niche they might be found in FR.
GothicDan 12-22-05, 02:56 PM	I'd also like to see on such a list which do NOT fit into FR, and recommendations for NOT introducing them into it. :) Call me a minimalist. Apparently, that's my sense of fashion, at least. Anyway, I'm a firm believer in not doing something at all if you cannot do it right. I would rather have 2 fantastic, thematic players, than 6 mediocre ones. I'd rather not play a game at all than play one which I did not feel was true to the world - which is why I dropped out of the first 3E game I was in, entirely.
Twilight Herald 12-22-05, 10:18 PM	Wu-Jen, Shugenja and the like belong to Kara-Tur. And since Kara-Tur is an established part of the Forgotten Realms setting, I'd allow these and most of the other generic Eastern races, base classes and PrCs from Oriental Adventures. Especially given the number of Shou trading settlements and "China towns" that have been springing up in recent years in Thesk and neighbouring nations.
Arivia 12-22-05, 11:09 PM	And since Kara-Tur is an established part of the Forgotten Realms setting, I'd allow these and most of the other generic Eastern races, base classes and PrCs from Oriental Adventures. Especially given the number of Shou trading settlements and "China towns" that have been springing up in recent years in Thesk and neighbouring nations. In Thesk and the Great Dale, sure, *if* you take the Shou Expatriate region. It makes no sense at all for your average character to use anything Eastern(IMO, that includes monks, but that's a discussion for a different thread). Shou, sure-your normal Theskian or Aglarondan, no.
GothicDan 12-22-05, 11:25 PM	Arivia, I <3 you. */disliker of Monks* PS: Unless it's in Planescape.
Arivia 12-22-05, 11:40 PM	Arivia, I <3 you. */disliker of Monks* PS: Unless it's in Planescape. Yes, but they're appropriate in PS. Shoe horning a class based on Eastern flavor into what is mostly a Western-styled game makes absolutely no sense, and it's pretty much the only thing I don't like about 3e. OA? Sure, play a monk. PS? Go ahead. FR? Sure-use the cloistered cleric class as your rules class, and look to Western monk orders(Benedictine, Franciscan) for your inspiration, not kung fu movies. If you want to play an unarmed fighter, then do that-a fighter who takes unarmed attack feats. Fairly simple. Monks just don't fit most D&D games.
prototype00 12-23-05, 08:43 AM	Obviously someone hasn't mastered the inscrutable ways of Benedictine-fu or Franciscan-do. :P But seriously, I have a viewpoint to put forth. Everyone says that monks are shoe-horned into Faerun, but let us examine monks in Faerun. Followers of Illmater for example, Illmater is god who first came to prominance in Calimshan and Zhakara, (correct me if I'm wrong here...) and in general the flavour of Calimshan and Zhakara is Indian-Middle Eastern. Now, as a tangent, I can anticipate the inevitable protests of "but the Realms have nothing to do with real earth" but lets be real here, even if Ed Greenwood was writing his stuff from a sealed metal box with nothing but air holes and a bucket, he would still be drawing on real world influences that he had read about or actually seen. Now back to previous topic... where was I, oh yeah, Calimshan and Zhakara Indian-Middle Eastern flavour. See for those who think that Kung Fu came from eastern reigions, and monks are therefore limited to Shou and suchlike, you really should read up on the great grandaddy of all martial arts; Kalari payattu which was taught as an aspect of religious instruction in India. Now let us make the connections here, Southern FR reigions - Indian Middle Eastern Flavour Illmater (pain is purification, suffering is enlightenment) FR mystery religion (it constantly says in the sourcebooks that while people in general are thankful for the aid provided by worshippers of Illmater, they are also mystified by their beliefs) - Hinduism (and I'm quoting this from wikipedia ""Sanātana Dharma" (सनातन धर्म, The Eternal Values ), the traditional name of Hinduism, speaks to the idea that certain spiritual principles hold eternally true, transcending man-made constructs, representing a pure science of consciousness") Indian Mystery Religion Illmater has monks - Hinduism has practicioners of Kalari Payattu Now, I can just see it, everyone is going to say, but they had such and such warrior priest kit from 2nd ed which did it so much better. Well, tough, 3rd edition came by and suddenly monks were the spokes-people of mysticism, a system which while not perfect is what we have. And it doesn't work out half badly, if you think about it. Suss out the secrets of the universe, gain butt-kicking power, what more can you ask for? This is just one case study, and really I didn't have to try really hard. I'm not shoehorning here, just making connections which, in fact, is what the people who always cry for a "a Western-styled game" are constantly, constantly doing. If you hadn't noticed, Faerun is a larger place than the heartlands and the Moonshae isles. Theres a place for all this stuff, and if you're willing to look into and appreciate the history of this world, I'm sure that there is a valid and natural explanation for all the stuff that is currently in Faerun. But I'm sure its easier to just say, "But things were better in 2nd ed", and then totally ignore every development in the Forgotten Realms that has taken place in the last 5+ years. prototype00
Faraer 12-23-05, 10:15 AM	Who's doing that? Yes, most of this stuff can be fitted into Faerûnian campaigns one way or another. But in terms of the published Realms, developing it by working with the setting is obviously better worldbuilding than taking independently developed elements and trying to slot them in wholesale. Despite the Realms' great ability to absorb these kinds of additions, the incongruities do add up over time, gradually introducing faultlines that needn't ever have been there.
GothicDan 12-23-05, 10:33 AM	What Faraer said. I'm sure it's quite easy to just say that we are just saying that "things were better in 2E" and ignore everything that came after, especially when you aren't actually thinking about what we're saying. I actually prefer many things the way they were in 1E, thank you very much, and I am only 20 years old, and have only been into the Realms since late 2E. So don't you dare try to make it seem as if I'm one of the old bearded men (no offense, Ed!) who is sitting around blubbering about old days of nostalgia. I never had those days; I was too young, and I never played in 1E. Heck, I never even played in the Realms at all, other than a brief foray into an online PBEM. There's no nostalagia, here. No, we're using logic, and analyzing things from a game-building perspective, rather than trying to simper and please every moronic player that happens to blunder our way. If you're going to play in my Realms game, you are playing in the Realms. You are not playing in some crude facsimile "based" off of the Realms with flying ninja robotic monks shooting lasers out of their eyes.
prototype00 12-23-05, 10:40 AM	I wrote 32 lines of text in that post, and added the last two as an afterthought. Yet people ignore the rigorously thought out portion and focus solely on the rejoinder. *sigh* I have learnt a very important lesson concerning human nature today. prototype00 P.s. That wasn't as nice as it could have been, I'm very tired now, and need sleep, which tends to make me cranky. FR is just a world that tends to make me very open-minded about roleplaying, but my views are not more legitimate than the others here, and I shouldn't have made it sound as if they were. Apologies to all involved, and goodnight.
GothicDan 12-23-05, 10:43 AM	I really don't see Illmater being nearly as Vedic-inspired as you say, especially considering that, I believe, Ed said that he was inspired pretty directly from Issek of the Jug, or some similar deity... Who was perhaps detailed in Fritz Leiber's novels, if I remember correctly. I think Rip or someone else could verify this. And if you're going to be arguing Vedic monks, you better get the culture straight! ;) The 2E Monk class was much more similar to monks such as those in the Mahabharata than the current 3E class, which is one of my major gripes. They cast spells, darn it - really, really powerful ones. Thus, the 2E version of the Monk made much more sense from a Vedic point of view. EDIT: After Googling for a bit, Issek was from Leiber's Lankhmar books, and is indeed not very Vedic-inspired. EDIT 2: Removed. (Daniel has been having a rough few months too. Darn that heart thing, physically and emotionally.)
prototype00 12-23-05, 11:56 AM	Curiouser and curiouser, I was wondering where I got it into my head that Ilmater was worshipped with regularity in Calimshan and I checked online and (there are only scant references to Ilmater in Calimshan in RoF ) and it finally led me to the "Nothern Journey" Unofficial campaign set in the bloodstone lands. Krash commented on it once or twice, and since he posts on this board too, I was wondering if he would mind informing us as to the veracity of the contents of the "Nothern Journey" setting, that I might decide whether to dump or keep the large amounts of lore concerning Ilmater that I have stored up in my brain based on my readings of it. prototype00
Lawless 12-23-05, 04:35 PM	Personally I don't like the idea of Complete stuff in FR. Of course I have a love hate relationship with my books to begin with. Having a small fortune in core and campaign specific settings, more often than not I don't use anything that's not in the core books anyway. Seriously even most of the FR stuff I have I use the fluff and not any of the various regurgitated PrCs and feats. Which if you think about it, most of them are just different combinations of all the same class features. Rambling, sorry must stay focused. The warlock at first glance does look like a pretty good fit in FR because of the lower plane interactions but for the honestly nitpicky reason such as there weren't there before so I won't add them now. Anyway I prefer to keep FR,FR and not add a pinch of Eberron here, cup of Dark Sun, etc. I would call myself a purist but I like the 3.x mechanics better, my dirty little secret.
Fabius Maximus 12-23-05, 05:25 PM	I'd also like to see on such a list which do NOT fit into FR, and recommendations for NOT introducing them into it. :) Hmm, why don't we do this? As for the monk, the class is to eastern for me in flavour also. But: There are several alternative fighting styles developed for D&D, and given that wrestling (monks of Oghma, anyone?), boxing and Savate are western weaponless styles, you could play a monk like this. Just get rid of the Ki Strike. Or maybe a change to the Cloistered Cleric that makes the class like the 2E monk..?
GothicDan 12-23-05, 11:09 PM	Wait.... Oghma? Do you mean Illmater?
warlockco 12-23-05, 11:43 PM	From Uthmere(Part Nine) quoting Ed Greenwood, Now as I recall, thief acrobat was a class that only appeared in Complete adventurer. So can we finally lay the debate to rest? Ed Greenwood uses complete classes to properly portray Faerunian flavour. prototype00 In 1st Edition, Thief-Acrobat was a Class presented in Unearthed Arcana. In 2nd Edition, Thief-Acrobat was a Kit that a Thief could take. Therefore where is your proof that Ed uses 3rd Edition, when he himself has said he still uses 2nd Edition?
Fabius Maximus 12-25-05, 08:25 AM	Wait.... Oghma? Do you mean Illmater? No, Oghma. Salvatore pictured wrestling monks of Oghma in the first book of the Canticle-series. I hate these books, but that part was quite believable.
KnightErrantJR 12-25-05, 10:31 AM	"Sigh" What was the point of all of this again? 1) Ed doesn't use 3.5, but he does write for it. Ed has also said that the Realms, as it exists in 3.5, is not just his baby anymore, and what he says is canon, until he puts it down officially in a sourcebook or another sourcebook contradicts it. 2) While I value Ed's judgement and how he runs his Realms, we are each running out own games. Ed has never had the Gygaxian tyrannical, "You can't call that a Realms game" pronouncements going on. Most of the lands "far away" were never visited by his PCs, but known by their interactions with NPCs from those regions, so I guess if you actually campaign outside of Waterdeep or the Dalelands or Cormyr, your aren't playing the way Ed would? 3) To go from saying that 3rd expansion items don't fit in the Realms to saying that monks don't fit causes some whiplash considering that many of you have cited Ed's campaign as a model. One of the company of Crazed Venturers was a monk. Several NPCs mentioned in 1st edition were monks. 1st edition monks were much like 3rd edition ones, so monks, based on the Greenwood criteria, are very much Realmsian. 4) Don't take any of this as a critisism on staying true to the feel of the Realms. So much has been introduced, I just don't think you can make a blanket statement that only FR material should ever be used, just as you can't make a blanket statement that everything D&D can be used. If you don't want to use Jerren and Vasharans and Raptorans and Goliaths and Illumians and the like in the Realms, I'm with you. If you have a problem with how Ur-Priests work, I get it. But I have a hard time with you telling me that a drow hexblade somehow invalidates Realmslore since its just a conveinient way of showing that drow males are allowed to learn martial skills and magical ones. If you don't want to use them, fine, but its just a means to an end, a way to tell a story.
warlockco 12-25-05, 03:01 PM	No, Oghma. Salvatore pictured wrestling monks of Oghma in the first book of the Canticle-series. I hate these books, but that part was quite believable. Oghma in the Realms is the same as the Celtic Oghma, and he was a wrestler.
warlockco 12-25-05, 03:04 PM	4) Don't take any of this as a critisism on staying true to the feel of the Realms. So much has been introduced, I just don't think you can make a blanket statement that only FR material should ever be used, just as you can't make a blanket statement that everything D&D can be used. If you don't want to use Jerren and Vasharans and Raptorans and Goliaths and Illumians and the like in the Realms, I'm with you. If you have a problem with how Ur-Priests work, I get it. But I have a hard time with you telling me that a drow hexblade somehow invalidates Realmslore since its just a conveinient way of showing that drow males are allowed to learn martial skills and magical ones. If you don't want to use them, fine, but its just a means to an end, a way to tell a story. Exactly. There are several creatures and such that exist in the Realms but do not have a source in the 3E Realms, but do have write-ups in other Campaign Settings, like Dragonlance. Wichtlin exist in the Realms, but the only place they have a write-up at all in 3E is in the Beastiary of Krynn for the Dragonlance setting.
Krash 12-25-05, 09:20 PM	Curiouser and curiouser, I was wondering where I got it into my head that Ilmater was worshipped with regularity in Calimshan and I checked online and (there are only scant references to Ilmater in Calimshan in RoF ) and it finally led me to the "Nothern Journey" Unofficial campaign set in the bloodstone lands. Krash commented on it once or twice, and since he posts on this board too, I was wondering if he would mind informing us as to the veracity of the contents of the "Nothern Journey" setting, that I might decide whether to dump or keep the large amounts of lore concerning Ilmater that I have stored up in my brain based on my readings of it. prototype00 The NJ group, headed up by Mark Oliva whose talents I admire, have written up the Bloodstone Lands and Impiltur in splendid fashion as far as I can see. I haven't read their Impiltur piece in any detail, in fact after the first couple of pages, I stopped reading it altogether - not because it wasn't any good, but because I have my own vision and thoughts re Impiltur (and much of the East in fact) which I didn't want to have to subconsciously or consciously compare and contrast to the NJ work. Given the paucity of detail on Impiltur and much of the Bloodstone lands, their work is excellent for those who want to add in a significant trove of geographic, social and political information to the region. In terms of whether it is "official", of course it is not. In fact, Eric Boyd's sterling recent attempts to add more Impiltur lore into the FR firmament in CoR and CoV takes Impiltur in different directions than the NJ team. Similarly, recent novels set in the East (mainly RLB's Rage of Wyrms books) again head in a different direction. As to the 'veracity' of their work, you do have to consider that the NJ team (and this is detailed in their introduction) chose to ignore various FR references. My position on such matters has always been that you absolutely, desperately attempt not to ignore anything: with a bit of work and explanation, anything can be 'fixed' (like the monarchs of Impiltur in CoV which have reconciled FR6 and FR9 and changed some dates from SoFS - not that much of the FR fanbase seems to have access to the old sources to see what changes have been wrought ... more's the pity). So the NJ work is true to their vision of 'how things should be' but has become somewhat dated given more recent official products. IMHO however, it remains an great resource for DMs looking to fill in the gaps and who don't have the time or inclination to do so themselves and if looked at solely in terms of Ilmatari information, is fantastic - as long as you are prepared to accept the possibility that some future official source may invalidate the material presented in NJ. -- George Krashos
GothicDan 12-25-05, 10:16 PM	First, George.. PLEASE WRITE SUPPLEMENTS FOR 3E!! :D Next: 3) To go from saying that 3rd expansion items don't fit in the Realms to saying that monks don't fit causes some whiplash considering that many of you have cited Ed's campaign as a model. One of the company of Crazed Venturers was a monk. Several NPCs mentioned in 1st edition were monks. 1st edition monks were much like 3rd edition ones, so monks, based on the Greenwood criteria, are very much Realmsian. I am fairly sure that no monks were detailed in 1E in the Realms. All monks detailed in the Realms were under the 2E version of the Monk class, or at least the vast majority of them. And from 1E to 2E, they had in-game explanations for why such NPCs would have changed or been wiped out - the Time of Troubles. Which is why all of the assassins in the Realms that worshipped Bhaal (those that had the kit) were destroyed when he died. It doesn't make much sense for all of the high monk clergy of the Triad, who could cast powerful 7th level divine spells in 2E, to suddenly lose all of those powers and acquire an Eastern flavor, does it?
KnightErrantJR 12-25-05, 11:16 PM	FR1, Waterdeep and the North, by Ed Greenwood (1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons supplement): Hlam, 7th level Monk, pg 52 "Hlam has twice tried and failed to become the White Master of Dragons. He was defeated by Iltmul at the Citadel of the Mists, and later by Iltmul's successor Dumal Erard of the Company of Crazed Venturers." The first edition Monk class was indeed an eastern style martial arts class, and this is straight out of Ed's Company of Crazed Venturers Campaign. As far as any "monk kit" clerics from 2nd edition that you would be concerned about loosing their powers, thats pretty simple. They only have a few levels of monk and the majority in cleric.
GothicDan 12-25-05, 11:29 PM	I admit defeat, then. However, I still do point out that the majority of Monks detailed for FR were for 2E, considering it was only around in 1E for awhile. And also, there was an in-game reason given for the changes in the various classes/kits in the transition from 1E to 2E. Most likely, with the revamping of the monk as presented in 2E, it would be assumed that something happened to all of the 1E monks that made them either invalid or otherwise dead, as happened to the assassins under Bhaal's rule. :) And in 2E, the Monk wasn't a kit, it was an alternate Priest Class presented in Spells and Magic, I believed, and reprinted directly in Faiths and Avatars. Also, if you take a look at the vast majority of Monks in 1E and 2E (available via Kuje's NPC file), you will see that they are from Kara-Tur and those from Faerun look almost more like abberations. Reference sources are mostly Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms, Swords of the Daimyo, The Ronin Challenge, Blood of the Yakuza, etc. The number of Monks in Fearun can be counted on one hand, and they are all detailed, it seems, either in Waterdeep and the North or the Savage Frontier. Other than that, all of the high level monks of Faerun are those types detailed in 2E. I think this seems to set a certain precedence for the Realms during the vast duration of its detailing via publication. The inclusion of the Monk into Faerun seems almost forced, considering its rarity. And we DO know that TSR heavily editted many of Ed Greenwood's material, which he's complained about on more than one occasion. It was more likely something along the lines of, "We are TSR and we want a fully integrated world, so you MUST use such references in your material." We could ask Ed himself for a direct answer, though.
Dark Wizard 12-25-05, 11:42 PM	As for sudden changes and retcons, the FR's entire cosmology was changed without any in game reason. I don't think monks going from a divine/priest class to a semi-martial class is that big of a deal, comparatively.
KnightErrantJR 12-25-05, 11:52 PM	Oddly Dan, I don't think we are disagreeing on as much as it may seem. I am just not as fazed by a lot of 3.5 stuff as long as it doesn't get in the way of the overall storyline. And as I said, I love Ed, and I love getting answers from him about various things that have never been detailed in the Realms, and I absolutely love sourcebooks written by him, but sometimes I don't really care much about what might have been tweaked long ago, because even Ed, when writing new material for the setting, goes by what the official changes were. Though given that Dumal Erard was likely one of his player's characters (being one of the Company of Crazed Venturers) I'm betting he was playing a Monk dedicated to Helm. Just as Ed wasn't crazy about having an "official" asian continent and an official "new world" I don't think it bothered him to have some asian style influence on Faerun as a whole, since it wasn't suppose to be analagous medeival Europe. And the precedent was set in sword and sorcery fiction with the number of "asian" feeling elements in the Conan books. As long as no one says I have to adopt Kender or Warforged into the Realms due to this or that new supplement, I can deal with most of what goes on. And hopefully we'll get a lot of Ed goodness in the upcoming Power of Faerun and the Knights of Myth Drannor Novels.
GothicDan 12-25-05, 11:56 PM	Okay, Knight. You're put forth your opinion intelligently and well-spoken, so I'll respect it. :) And, DarkWizard... You can sure as heck bet that I'm not very thrilled with the retcon about the cosmology. And many, many others aren't either; that's one of the hugest, most controversial of the retcons, in fact. Trying to use that as an analogy to soothe my feelings about the retconning of monks isn't very effective. ;)
Dark Wizard 12-26-05, 12:32 AM	It was not so much soothe your feelings as channel it towards the far greater nemesis of the retconned cosmology. :D I mean why change it? It's not like Greyhawk was making notable use of the Great Wheel cosmology. No offense to Greyhawk, but they're not as supported as they once were. While we're on the topic of Oriental/Eastern influences. The TSR/2e continents are the things I wouldn't mind a retcon on. Not get rid of them exactly, but redo them in a more Realmsian way. Definitely get Ed Greenwood more involved. Increase the historical, social, political, and economic connections between Faerun, Kara-Tur and Zakhara. And back to the topic of the Generic supplements making their way into FR. I support it to an extent. The DM has to pick and choose what works for his campaign and for the Realms. Some of the classes and PrCs work well in the Realms. Cormyrean Cavaliers, Dread Pirates on any of the coasts and seas, Swashbucklers from Sembia or Waterdeep. A Tiefling Hexblade from Westgate. Often, it doesn't have to be mentioned that the character is X class or has Y PrC. I don't even call all PHB core classes by their name, like I refer to all fighters as warriors in my games, or something more specific swordsman, sword master, guard, soldier, brawler, thug. A rogue could be a thief, a thug, an assassin, a scout, an adventurous locksmith. That hexblade the party is facing could just as easily be an anti-paladin, or a generic arcane warrior. I chalk a lot of this up to personal style. He might have learned how to fight or cast spells from my master a certain way, but over the years he's done it this way, or he just like it like this way better. His master might have been a spellsword, to anyone not intimately familiar with the details of his style he's just some guy who can use a weapon well and casts some spells. Just like I refuse to believe that over the thousands of years of history that a fireball spell can only be cast one way. Sure the basics are there, bat guano is needed and all, but I feel that every spellcasting tradition puts their own spin on it. There is little reason to believe that the Raumathari battlemage would cast fireball the same way that a Calishite fire elementalist. Totally different culture, different language, different time. I think we should try to make some things work. Not force it, but put some effort into seeing what is out there. I believe it was stated that part of the reason why Ed sold the Realms to TSR was that he realized one person's creativity was not the only way to develop the Realms, he wanted to see what other people brought to the table. I say go with that, as long as the rules remain mechanics and don't aversely effect the game and the story telling.
warlockco 12-26-05, 03:36 AM	As for sudden changes and retcons, the FR's entire cosmology was changed without any in game reason. I don't think monks going from a divine/priest class to a semi-martial class is that big of a deal, comparatively. Well considering they went from "Shaolin" to "Cleric" then back to "Shaolin" they just put it back to how it was originally. :D
GothicDan 12-26-05, 01:28 PM	Remember to keep it in the spirit and use of the Realms, though, not just generic 1E vs. 2E. The majority of Monks detailed for Faerunian expansions were more of the 2E variety.. Almost all of those detailed with a few exceptions, probably made just to include generic material, were for Kara-Tur. :) Originally Posted by Dark Wizard As for sudden changes and retcons, the FR's entire cosmology was changed without any in game reason. I don't think monks going from a divine/priest class to a semi-martial class is that big of a deal, comparatively. Comparatively, no, but you must treat each and every situation and change seperately... Which 3E does not seem to do much. The High Abbot of a Monastary of Illmater suddenly losing the ability to cast Creeping Doom or Regenerate or Heal makes a big, big difference for that monastary!