Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nekrolog 12-09-04, 11:43 PM	Rich just posted the table of contents for Lost Empires of Faerun. I'm on the fence about the space distribution in the book so far. Granted, I usually am before actually getting to peruse the pages, and I haven't been disappointed yet about any FR supplement purchase (ok, I have all of them). It seems that there's a lot of reprinting going on in there... the monsters from MC:MoF section is huge, and we have converted 3.5 stats for all of them. They covered a pretty broad base with the fallen empires, seems like 1-3 pages each. Depending on what they're covering that might be enough. The PrC's and spells don't excite me anymore. I thought this might be the first book to use that space for something else; at least it doesn't take up too much of the book. Overall, I've been looking forward to this one for a while, and they haven't printed a book yet that I haven't liked. I'm sure the parts that interest me will be great, but should they really stick to the standard "PrC's, spells, races" format that they're using for every book? I'd like to see one or two that acknowledge that this stuff isn't always necessary.
Cunning Linguist 12-10-04, 12:02 AM	Im sure you could fine alot of people on these boards that don't want more PrC or new spells. But there are lots of people who do. Infact, I think this book needs new feats, spells and PrC more then any other book, after all, magic back in the days was diffrent then it was now. We need new feats and spells and PrC to see how it was diffrent. Why did the wizards of Netheril manage to do what they did? How did the Imaskari build such a empire? Sure you could write several pages on it, but a PrC that shows how they managed to do it, now there is lexicon fact right there. In the end it's all about balance. I myself always read the fluff part before I read the PrC and new spells, then I get to go "Oh, so that's how they do it" or "So that's what that item does".
nekrolog 12-10-04, 12:19 AM	True about the epic magic, that certainly seems relevant and intriguing. PrC's for long dead civilizations? Or for people that raid "ancient empires?" Not sure that I'll need those in the near future. The class list spells could be worthy of some real estate in the book, if they're unique enough to make them seem different from the typical spells that are published. I guess they would be useful in designing spellbooks for PC's to find in their travels among ancient ruins. Oh yeah... Cunning Linguist, have you met Colonel Angus? :D
Tempus665 12-10-04, 03:45 AM	There aren't too many new PrC's and spells, so that's okay in my book. The book as a whole seems really good and informative. To me, it adds a lot of background that is currently missing (unless you're ready to scavenge for a lot of 2nd edition material).
Imruphel 12-10-04, 04:29 AM	IMO, I'm always happy to see new FR prestige classes because they always come with campaign-specific background notes something that is sadly lacking with the flavourless (and often badly designed from a mechanical perspective) PrCs in various generic d20 publications. I really do wish WotC (et al) would use the space in the Complete ... series that is currently used for a sample character (both a waste of space and an opportunity for the editors to miss more errors) to explain how the particular PrC could be integrated into the three WotC worlds (and, yes, I say three because I am including Greyhawk).
ruleslawyer 12-10-04, 08:48 AM	It's also only five PrCs, and they all sound pretty interesting and worth building character concepts around. Besides, I agree with CL that these are actually a good idea in this case, because they can be used to create NPCs that are mechanically different from the PCs due to being from a different era. Undead Cultist of the Shattered Peak, anyone?
GothicDan 12-10-04, 09:07 AM	Wow. One page on each empire? I'm going to go cling to Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves now...
Tempus665 12-10-04, 10:15 AM	I really do wish WotC (et al) would use the space in the Complete ... series that is currently used for a sample character (both a waste of space and an opportunity for the editors to miss more errors) to explain how the particular PrC could be integrated into the three WotC worlds (and, yes, I say three because I am including Greyhawk). I couldn't agree more with you on this one - whereas the sample dragons in Dracomonicon (for instance) serve some purpose, the sample PrC characters do not, IMO.
Karsus_the_Destuctor 12-13-04, 04:34 PM	I for one am jazzed up about this release. I just started a campaign this last weekend that deals with a major nethereese artifact that was unearthed and that the players have discovered. I would love to be able to send them into one of the ruins of the crashed cities to meet some nasty's that live their. Their are so many ways i could utlize this book, :D It's definatley on my list of items to get with some extra christmas cash. As far as the PrC's go, a few new ones might not be too bad, however their are so many out now, it just reaches a point where it gets silly. Personally i like to assign PrC's based on player activity, for instance, in a previous session, one of the players was a paladin/cleric of Tyr. He roleplayed so well, i eventually told him he could PrC into a Justicar (after he met the requirements of course). I am a pretty liberal DM ( i think ) but I would honestly rather see more releases like Unearthed Arcana, allowing players to trade certain class features for other ones, customizing a character like that just makes them special i think, not only to the campaign but also to the player and the DM. I also agree with CL, magic back in the day was way different. It will be interesting to see how.
GothicDan 12-13-04, 05:17 PM	Unless there's any new material presented outside of pure mechanics, I personally am rather bored by the book. 10 pages on Cormanthyr... As opposed to an entire supplement in 2E? I don't see the improvement...
Pystian 12-14-04, 05:28 AM	Does anyone know what Greenbound Summoning is? Cormanthyran Moon Magic? Any of the PrC's (especially Magelord or Olin Gisir)? There may only be 10 pages on Cormanthyr, but it's not a suppliment only on Cormanthyr. From the looks of it, there will be plenty of new fluff, and enough crunch to make it usable. And old second edition suppliments are still legit (well, mostly), so I'm definitely looking forward to the book. Probably more than any other so far, actually. Just give it a chance GothicDan. I don't know anything about the book everyone doesn't, but you never know, you might be surprised.
Barmoz 12-14-04, 09:03 AM	Could someone please include a link? At work and surf (and search) time limited. Thanks in advance.
nekrolog 12-14-04, 12:47 PM	Could someone please include a link? At work and surf (and search) time limited. Thanks in advance. A link to what?
ClobberinTime 12-14-04, 05:33 PM	I like PRCs and believe they should be a little overpowered, but also feel that they should be special, i.e. special training, special equipment, etc.... So for instance Ruamarthi Battle mage would in my book get back all their caster levels, but the char would have to find a book describing how to become one in the deepest dankest corner of Winterkeep, after an epic quest of some sort, it wouldn't just happen, same thing with any PRC. So Aglarondian Griffon rider you had better show up whent the Simbul calls or your just a fighter with a bad feat selection. Now that being said as DM you gotta come up with the quest... It looks to me like this book has tons of fluff, there is not much stuff on the Ruamarthi, Imarski (although I don't have uderdark), or the Nar, so that should be cool. Overall I am looking forward to this more than any other FR book yet.
Barmoz 12-14-04, 05:52 PM	A link to the table of contents that was referenced as being posted in the first message in the thread.
GothicDan 12-14-04, 07:41 PM	Pystian: Well, as I said, I don't care about crunch - feats, new spell systems, PrCs, etc. Because I don't play 3E. The only reason I buy 3E books is for fluff. And when we DO have several hundred pages dedicated to Cormanthyr, for example, I don't think that those 10 pages are going to be particularly interesting, especially considering half of them will probably be mechanics. One of the things that made 2E's supplements so good was that they hardly ever statted NPCs, they didn't have new feats, and typically Kits were only presented in large numbers in books specifically dedicated to them (Wizards and Rogues of the Realms, etc.). So 90%+ of it was all fluff.
Fenalian 12-14-04, 08:28 PM	I think 3E is a HUGE improvement over the earlier editions in terms of gameplay. But what I liked about 2E was the fact that it gave you more of a 'feel' for what you were doing. I loved the ecology/habitat section in the MCs. It helped the DM get into the monsters. The 3E MM's are just numbers and feats and skills, um, ok, that is nice. I just feel like I am getting ripped off. But, with my 2E books, sould I manage to scrounge some people together sometime soon, it will not be difficult to make some alterations. I know that when I DID run stuff in the realms, it was always in 'out of the way' places. I wanted to do things in Anauroch, The great glacier, the Shining South, The jungles of chult. I figure, people read about the same places all the time, waterdeep, baldurs gate, silverymoon, over and over and over again in the novels. Take the PCs to the places that are rarely covered, let them experience that joy of discovery all over again.
GothicDan 12-14-04, 09:45 PM	I feel pretty similar in my stance to you, Fenalian. I do enjoy a few of the basic rule changes (BAB, saves, skills, maybe feats to a limit), but I really dislike some points about it, too. Being obssessed with balance, for one. And also, I think that, in part, the rules should be more worried about reflecting the theme than being necessarily streamlined. Don't get me started on how much I feel that WotC has messed up the setting-based material.
ClobberinTime 12-15-04, 04:13 AM	2ed in the end had just gone mad with rules, and was a complete mess... The new game works, the old one didn't. If your whole game is roleplay, I suggest putting on some leiderhosen and headin out to Medievel times for the evening, probably would waste your money less than buying 3ed realms stuff.
Fenalian 12-15-04, 05:26 AM	Hmmm, never said 3E didnt work. As far as 2E getting bogged down with rules, I never saw it. Sure, it had its flaws, quite a few, actually. But the sourcebooks for the Realms, were usually of top quality. I have not seen that many for 3E other than flipping thru a copy or two at the local bookstore and I am not too impressed.
GothicDan 12-15-04, 10:57 AM	3E works just fine, really... Just not for the feel of AD&D. I would love to play it in another game, with non-AD&D settings, though, but it sucks a lot of the theme/feel right out of worlds like Dragonlance, Planescape, and FR. 2ed in the end had just gone mad with rules, and was a complete mess... The new game works, the old one didn't. If your whole game is roleplay, I suggest putting on some leiderhosen and headin out to Medievel times for the evening, probably would waste your money less than buying 3ed realms stuff. I hear this quiet often, and I'm always amused. What rules are you talking about, exactly? All rules outside of the core 3 books were optional. In 9 years of playing AD&D, I have not once encountered problems with 2E rules that upset the enjoyability of the games that I played in. As to Medieval times - A "Roleplaying" game by default should primarily be about "roleplay," just because that's the name. Just like a "vegetarian lasagna" should have no meat in it. And that must be why I have 8 swords, 2 battle axes, a helmet, a Renaissance-style shirt, a black velvet cloak, and 20 daggers.... If only I could get my hands on a wizard's staff, and a set of wizardly robes, I'd be set.
ClobberinTime 12-15-04, 05:34 PM	Most people used the Player Options books and the like, and those have tons of special cases, its one of those situations where the DM has to make rulings on the fly about which is more powerful the unstoppable force or the immovable object. Now its true if you didn't use the players option books and only the core books you had fewer rules, but more DM rulings on interpretations of poorly written combat rules, magic rules, spell descriptions and the like. If you never used or didn't like the players options books I'm not surprised you don't like alot of the 3e stuff because it is cut from the same cloth. I will agree that in 3e the fluff and crunch are in the same books, unlike in the 2ed realms stuff, but this is actually an advantage for most of us because we like them both about equally. I at least have some respect for the fact that your against crunch in both 2ed and 3ed, and just want them split up so that you can get more of one than the other as a consumer. In fact logically it makes sense that the stats for one of the NPCs described in the book should appear in that book. By the way are you guys sure your not just being nostalgic about the games you played in from 13-16 when it was way more important than anything in your real life, and you really lived and breathed D+D, your love of those old books is part of that time period and perspective on the world that unfortuneately we all grow out of?
Kuje31 12-15-04, 05:53 PM	By the way are you guys sure your not just being nostalgic about the games you played in from 13-16 when it was way more important than anything in your real life, and you really lived and breathed D+D, your love of those old books is part of that time period and perspective on the world that unfortuneately we all grow out of? Not me. I didn't get into D&D until I was out of high school, almost 10 years ago now. :( Yes I read all the novels for FR and Dlance and many of the Ravenloft novels as well but I never played tabletop D&D until I was out of school. :) And I don't think Gothic is saying that he want's the book split between Realms lore and mechanics but most of the 3/3.5 FR books contain WAY MORE mechanics or crunch if you prefer then Realms lore. For example, where's all the named NPC's that are sages, smiths, deed takers, etc. None of them really show up in 3/3.5 Realmslore.
GothicDan 12-15-04, 06:06 PM	Most people used the Player Options books and the like, and those have tons of special cases, its one of those situations where the DM has to make rulings on the fly about which is more powerful the unstoppable force or the immovable object. In 9 years of playing AD&D, I have only met one DM that allowed the full use of Player's Options. Most allowed the spells and a few minor things, but nothing major, and certainly not the Character Point systems. Now its true if you didn't use the players option books and only the core books you had fewer rules, but more DM rulings on interpretations of poorly written combat rules, magic rules, spell descriptions and the like. As far as I'm concerned, vague rules help to promote a sense of vagueness/unreality intrinsic to the feel of AD&D itself. The more streamlined things "feel" (from rules), the more streamlined the game feels. And AD&D was never meant to feel that way. It's a fantasy game. There should be nothing streamlined and easy about it, as far as I'm concerned. I at least have some respect for the fact that your against crunch in both 2ed and 3ed, and just want them split up so that you can get more of one than the other as a consumer. In fact logically it makes sense that the stats for one of the NPCs described in the book should appear in that book. And I have respect for the 3E mechanics. As I said, it's a wonderful system. I just do not feel that it is right for the feel that AD&D had. I consider AD&D and D&D to be so different, thematically, that they are more separate games than separate editions. If you never used or didn't like the players options books I'm not surprised you don't like alot of the 3e stuff because it is cut from the same cloth. I will agree that in 3e the fluff and crunch are in the same books, unlike in the 2ed realms stuff, but this is actually an advantage for most of us because we like them both about equally. I always played spellcasters in 2E. So the only things I ever used from Options were new spells and new Schools of Magic. By the way are you guys sure your not just being nostalgic about the games you played in from 13-16 when it was way more important than anything in your real life, and you really lived and breathed D+D, your love of those old books is part of that time period and perspective on the world that unfortuneately we all grow out of? I have nothing to be "nostalgic" about. I am 19. I started playing AD&D (Dragonlance) when I was 10. By the time I was 13-16, D&D 3E was already out. Everything is quite fresh in my memory, and as a physics student, I try to look at things impartially. The rules for 3E are certainly more streamlined. Whether they are "better" is a question that can only be answered by an individual based on what he wants in his game. Reasons why I hate 3E beyond the basic rule changes include nerfing wizards (my favorite class), nerfing specialist wizards (which I liked more than mages), killing Planescape (my favorite setting), the f*cking up of 3E FR's cosmology, the art (many of the pictures in the Dragonlance Campaign setting, which was my second favorite setting, scream 'ANIME!' instead of 'AD&D!'), metamagic rules and item creation rules (now wizards have to sacrifice feats to do what they could do with spells in 2E), the mutilation of the Realms (Spellfire, High Magic, retconning)... There's a summary. I could easily think of more things if I cared more about the argument. :)
HVulpes 12-15-04, 07:26 PM	As far as I'm concerned, vague rules help to promote a sense of vagueness/unreality intrinsic to the feel of AD&D itself. The more streamlined things "feel" (from rules), the more streamlined the game feels. And AD&D was never meant to feel that way. It's a fantasy game. There should be nothing streamlined and easy about it, as far as I'm concerned. And I have respect for the 3E mechanics. As I said, it's a wonderful system. I just do not feel that it is right for the feel that AD&D had. I consider AD&D and D&D to be so different, thematically, that they are more separate games than separate editions. I always played spellcasters in 2E. So the only things I ever used from Options were new spells and new Schools of Magic. I have nothing to be "nostalgic" about. I am 19. I started playing AD&D (Dragonlance) when I was 10. By the time I was 13-16, D&D 3E was already out. Everything is quite fresh in my memory, and as a physics student, I try to look at things impartially. The rules for 3E are certainly more streamlined. Whether they are "better" is a question that can only be answered by an individual based on what he wants in his game. Reasons why I hate 3E beyond the basic rule changes include nerfing wizards (my favorite class), nerfing specialist wizards (which I liked more than mages), killing Planescape (my favorite setting), the f*cking up of 3E FR's cosmology, the art (many of the pictures in the Dragonlance Campaign setting, which was my second favorite setting, scream 'ANIME!' instead of 'AD&D!'), metamagic rules and item creation rules (now wizards have to sacrifice feats to do what they could do with spells in 2E), the mutilation of the Realms (Spellfire, High Magic, retconning)... There's a summary. I could easily think of more things if I cared more about the argument. :) I think I can explain the difference, but it uses most of my own opinions and knowledge. Basically, 2ed is TSR and 3ed is WoTC. Think about it. One has roots in war re-enactments and war games in the 70's where it's rules could be inacted in it's own pace, the other was based on CRPG and VRPG in the 90's which involved streamlining to speed the action up. Quite a difference in outlooks. Add to that TSR had to suffer the D&D backlash which resulted in making it more kid friendly. While WoTC has come into a society of multi-generational players and a more mainstream connection thanks to video games. Also including more social/RL issues and mature issues. Think of the difference of Super Mario RPG and Fable. A definate change. It's not a chocie between good and bad, but in good and good. Like choosing Pepsi and Coke. Not much difference, except for a few minor things like formula and marketing. Gothic Dan likes Classic Coke, I like the new Pepsi. The difference is that they are no longer making Coke, only Pepsi. And only a few cans of Coke still exist out there. They are out there, just hard to find.
GothicDan 12-15-04, 07:56 PM	HPVulpes, I agree with your sentiments. :) I've never been one to like stuff just because it's easily available or popular. I am an American who listens almost exclusively to Scandinavian Doom Metal. I am simply very, very specific about what I like; even if I respect something else, it doesn't mean that I have to like it. Of course, there are some things that I don't respect about 3E, too, but I don't hate it without good reason, when you consider my reasons in context with my personal experiences and desires. They pretty much killed the two things I liked most about AD&D: Wizards and Planescape.
Alac Luin 12-15-04, 08:02 PM	Gothic Dan likes Classic Coke, I like the new Pepsi. Hmm, I like classic coke and I like 3.xed rules. :confused: And I never did like the players options series. Now I do like 2ed "fluff" and wish new books contained more of it. despite some historical mistakes, Races of Faerun was not to bad, niether was Lords of Darkness. Most of the other 3x Ed books seem to lack dramatically in the "fluff" department. But only 1-3 pages for each "empire"? is this enough? Just looked at it agien, there is potential there. If nobody else posted a link to the ToC we are talking about... post #466 (upper right hand side of post) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=282525&page=16&pp=30
GothicDan 12-15-04, 08:29 PM	That's precisely my point. There's far too little content for each empire to even hope that there would be anything significantly new in the book, in terms of fluff, that would make me actively yearn for it. The only new fluff additions might be in the area of NPCs (X Baron rules/ruled X region) and the like, and, simply put, I don't give a damn about a stat block, and even the fluff of the 3E NPCs are a bit lackluster.
Jonathan Strange 12-16-04, 05:46 AM	Um, is there a link for the posted content? Also, why does the "right facing elf with the sword and magical shield bubble blocking a lightning bolt" appear on yet another book? It looks exactly like The Players Guide to Faerun. Weak.
Alac Luin 12-16-04, 10:48 AM	[QUOTE=Jonathan Strange]Um, is there a link for the posted content?/QUOTE] from my earlier post, the ToC is... post #466 (upper right hand side of post) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=282525&page=16&pp=30 It's the Rich baker thread wher he listed the ToC for us to look at and discus :)
primemover003 12-16-04, 08:00 PM	It looks to be the same iconics (paladin with the glaive from the back cover of PGtF) and I think a spell-shield is a spell-shield... My favorite is that they're finally updating the FLAMESKULL!!! w00t!