Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mr. Master 04-20-06, 10:08 AM	I've started reading fantasy with the Avatara's Trilogy and,since those years,I've always loved the FR setting. When the 3.0 corebooks first appeared here in Italy,together with the FR manual,I was so happy that I immediately started DMing a campaign,even though I had been DMing only D&D (yes,the old coloured boxed sets)for a couple of years. I love the 3.0 edition and I think it perfectly suits the FR setting and my personal ideas on fantasy (ex. the gnomes are good illusionists,a dwarf is slower than an elf,disintegrate is an istant death spell,etc.). Then,after a couple of months,the 3.5 edition appeared...and I had just finished to buy my manuals :( !I kept on going with 3.0 edition,since I felt it hadn't so many problems.Of course,during these years,I've created some house rules to best solve some of the problems I felt there were (ranger,paladin,some feats/prestige classes/spells),but these are very few,since I feel that 3.0,IMHO,works perfectly. Now,this days,I'm having long and careful looks at the 3.5 manuals,because I've realized that there are negative points in them,but also positive ones,like some classes,feats and spells. Now,the real question I wanto to make to you veterans is this one:does the 3.5 edition better fits into the FR setting than the 3.0? I'm very doubtful of this,because some points in 3.5 manuals puzzle me (the dwarf no longer slowered by heavy armour,the gnome who loves to be a bard and not an illusionist,the ranger with his new d8 as HD,the disintegrate which is now not so powerful as before,etc)and I'd like to know if the old material (manuals but also novels,such as the Drizzt and Elminster ones)can be used as well as before with these new rules and if the "mood" of the FR worlds is the same with these rules. In the end,I'm just a rookie of FR,but I love it very much and I don't want to give up my ideas on it just for a new setting of rules. :)
Faraer 04-20-06, 03:21 PM	The changes in v.3.5 are far too minor to be a clearly better or worse portrayal of the Realms; they certainly have made no appreciable difference to the setting's mood. Any points you dislike, such as the favoured class of gnomes, are easy to fix as a DM. In terms of lore, all the older material is 99% usable with the new.
BrianCritchley 04-20-06, 03:53 PM	the alterations do, in my opinion work pretty well. the revisions of the ranger in particular are quite nice.
Dragondm6 04-20-06, 04:18 PM	I felt that the revisions were so minor, that I didn't even bother... I still play 3.0 and I DM in the FR setting too. 3.5 won't take away from the world, but just paints it with slightly different colors.
Mr. Master 04-23-06, 06:09 PM	Well,I've been thinking a lot on it and I've finally decided to keep on playing with 3rd edition. Even if the changes are few,they still paint the FR setting in a way that I don't like very much.Moreover,if they are so few,why should I buy other manuals instead of using my own? The only thing I've changed is the ranger.I've added good Ref ST,the choice to pick Close Shot+Rapid Shot instead of Ambidexterity+2 Weapons Fighting (but the ranger gets these feats only at 2nd and 4th level,in both cases)and some special powers:Endurance (3rd level),Wilderness Stride (6th level),Tireless Hound (9th level),Evasion (12th level),Camouflage (15th level) and Hide in Plain Sight (18th level).All these special powers can be used only if the ranger wears light armor or no armor at all. So,in the end,I've pickpocked something from 3.5 ;) . Well,thanks for your answers. Special thanks to Dragondm6 (it's good to know that others still play 3rd edition,I think I was kind of a white fly). :)