The Forgotten Realms is a setting. You can use any rule set you want to play games in that setting. All you need is something detailing that setting (The 3e FRCS, the 4e FRCG, something else...), and a rule set (3e, 4e, 2e, GURPS, Marvel Super Heroes) and you are all set.
you should get them anyway. Rhee says they're good
:D LOL.
I'm enjoying the books, yes.
I was just wondering if anyone knew if I would have to buy the 4th edition PH and DMG for a FR setting, or if all the info I would need would be in the 2 FR books. I know they aren't out yet, but I wasn't sure if anyone had an answer. Thanks in advance.
If you're playing in 4E FR, you should purchase the 4E Core Rulebooks. The 4E Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and Player's Guide both assume you already have the 4E Core Rulebooks.
It's not a good idea to try using rules from an earlier rules edition (3rd Edition or 2nd Edition) to run a 4E Realms Campaign because the setting has changed sufficiently enough that the game rules and setting details are very much intermigled.
You can certainly use the lore from the older sourcebooks that are non rules related in a 4E game, however. That's what I do.
It's not a good idea to try using rules from an earlier rules edition (3rd Edition or 2nd Edition) to run a 4E Realms Campaign because the setting has changed sufficiently enough that the game rules and setting details are very much intermigled.
You can certainly use the lore from the older sourcebooks that are non rules related in a 4E game, however. That's what I do.
-I don't think that'd be an issue.
-I don't think that'd be an issue.
You're saying someone can run the 3E rules set with the 4E rules found in the 4E FR Campaign Guide, then?
That they're compatible?
C'mon, get real.
In order to use the 4E FR products with 3E rules material (or viceversa) you have to ignore all of the crunchy rules bits that are included in the books.
That’s impractical, and frankly dumb. Someone new to the setting or looking to get back into it shouldn’t be encouraged (much less expected) to try and combine old rules with the new setting.
It’s highly questionable for anyone versed in the setting and who is experienced as a DM to brush off the impracticality of such a proposition.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Or you might be responding only to my second paragraph, in which case t's good to see we agree on something.
;)
I'm enjoying the books, yes.
As am I. Though I haven't read much through the DMG and I for one and happier that the magical item section is now in the PHB.
As am I. Though I haven't read much through the DMG and I for one and happier that the magical item section is now in the PHB.
Yes, that is probably for the best.
You're saying someone can run the 3E rules set with the 4E rules found in the 4E FR Campaign Guide, then?
-How can someone run 3e rules with 4e rules?
-One can use the 4e setting with 3e rules, 2e rules, 1e rules, GURPS, or any other ruleset. One can use the 3e setting with 4e rules, 2e rules, 1e rules, GURPS, or any other ruleset. One can use the 2e setting with 4e rules, 3e rules, 1e rules, GURPS, or any other ruleset. One can use the 1e setting with 4e rules, 3e rules, 2e rules, GURPS, or any other ruleset.
Though I think it's a bit silly to run 3e rules with the new changes that 4th brings about, but hey, it's your game.
-Agreed, but it is certainly possible.
One can use the 4e setting with 3e rules, 2e rules, 1e rules, GURPS, or any other ruleset.
And suggesting that to someone is generally a dim-witted idea.
Why would you (and I mean you literally) want to encourage someone to run the 4E FR Setting (which will include plenty of pages of 4E rules) with other rules sets?
You’re basically telling someone they should buy the 4E FR books, but ignore all the rules information, much of which will be thematic and tied into the setting.
Then, you’re telling them they will need to re-write all the NPCs and rules in the setting to fit their system of choice.
Then, you’re telling them they’ll need to explain to their players why they should ignore much of what’s in their 4E FR books.
Just because someone could do something doesn't mean they should, or that it's even feasible. Asking several people to do it (which is what this would boil down to) just compounds the wastage of time.
Why would you (and I mean you literally) want to encourage someone to run the 4E FR Setting (which will include plenty of pages of 4E rules) with other rules sets?
I thought he was just suggesting it as an option, in the vein of "you're free to do whatever you want". He wasn't asking people to do anything, and in that light your response strikes me as silly (or belligerent).
And suggesting that to someone is generally a dim-witted idea.
Why would you (and I mean you literally) want to encourage someone to run the 4E FR Setting (which will include plenty of pages of 4E rules) with other rules sets?
You’re basically telling someone they should buy the 4E FR books, but ignore all the rules information, much of which will be thematic and tied into the setting.
Then, you’re telling them they will need to re-write all the NPCs and rules in the setting to fit their system of choice.
Then, you’re telling them they’ll need to explain to their players why they should ignore much of what’s in their 4E FR books.
Just because someone could do something doesn't mean they should, or that it's even feasible. Asking several people to do it (which is what this would boil down to) just compounds the wastage of time.
-Aren't you the guy who's usually all for freedom for the DM to do whatever he wants to do?
-That said, everything I just stated before is 100% correct.
Aren't you the guy who's usually all for freedom for the DM to do whatever he wants to do?
Nice dodge. No response for the practical concerns I brought up, then?
And for the record, I'm all for DMs continuing to do what they've always done (since well before you got into the game, as a matter of fact) for as long as D&D has been around, which is to play their FR game how they want to play it, and Canon be damned.
That, however, doesn't mean I'm a fan of bad advice, especially when it comes from anyone that should know better.
I don't like to steer people in the wrong direction, see?
Suggesting to people they can or should use the 4E Realms with any prior rules set is a dumb idea that is full of holes and future problems.
Nice dodge. No response for the practical concerns I brought up, then?
And for the record, I'm all for DMs continuing to do what they've always done (since well before you got into the game, as a matter of fact) for as long as D&D has been around, which is to play their FR game how they want to play it, and Canon be damned.
That, however, doesn't mean I'm a fan of bad advice, especially when it comes from anyone that should know better.
I don't like to steer people in the wrong direction, see?
-Just some personal advice, before I get to the meat of the response: get off the high horse. People often consider me elitist, condescending, and so on, and I acknowledge that I am. You? Opposite side of the spectrum. The "liberal elite" is just as radical as the "archcon right", remember, and is just as "highly" regarded as well.
Suggesting to people they can or should use the 4E Realms with any prior rules set is a dumb idea that is full of holes and future problems
-Oh, the irony. Are you not the same person that was explaining how utilizing second edition materials (the Volo's Guides) in 4th Edition games comes off mostly without a hitch, being relatively seamless? To say that backwards compatibility is fine, but forwards compatibility does not is highly hypocritical. Different ruleset? Check. Different rules? Check. Different setting status and ‘feel’? Check? Different mechanics that influence lore? Check. Different lore that influences mechanics? Check.
-Hey, Selunatic, haven't you been running a FR since the Forgotten Realms debuted (or somewhere thereabouts) in 1e, that continues to this day, in which you've implemented plenty of ideas/issues that have come to pass since 1e was glossed over in favor of 2e, and later 3e? Still chugging along, eh?
Our prior discussion about the feasibility of rolling lore forward to the future setting was about just that: lore.
That was because Volo's guides aren't full of rules. They're full of lore, with some chunky rules bits thrown in on the side.
I don't need to know a rules set to make good use of a Volo's book.
But I do need to know the 4.0 rules if I want to use the 4E Realms successfully and if I want to get the most bang for my buck out of the money I'd spend on the two 4E FR books.
That's the distinction.
I strongly encourage you to read my arguments more closely before you start hurling around invective.
That was because Volo's guides aren't full of rules. They're full of lore, with some chunky rules bits thrown in on the side.
-As is the FRCG, except there are more mechanical aspects than the Volo's guides contained.
I don't need to know a rules set to make good use of a Volo's book.
-Nor do you need to know a rule set to make good use of the setting's campaign setting (In this case, the FRCG), or any related sourcebooks.
But I do need to know the 4.0 rules if I want to use the 4E Realms successfully and if I want to get the most bang for my buck out of the money I'd spend on the two 4E FR books.
-So, you disagree that you get less bang for your buck by referencing those 2e materials, when the mechanical system they support doesn't match up, regardless of the lore, but, at the same time, feel that you do get less bang for your buck by referencing these 4e materials, when the mechanical system they support doesn't match up, regardless of the lore?
The 4th Edition Rules are not compatible with the Third Edition rules.
Just as the Time of Troubles heralded the transition from 1E to 2E, the Spellplague does the same for 3E to 4E. In both cases these in-setting events happened to explain away the game rule changes.
The difference between the current Spellgplague explanation vs. the ToT is that the former is a much larger set of changes. Likewise the rules changes for 4E are far bigger than the changes between 1E and 2E.
It bears repeating again: These are drastic, setting altering changes that are meant to work the new 4E Rules into the Forgotten Realms.
Because of this you can’t expect to have the same ease of conversion from 4E to any other rules set that you could with 1E to 2E, or 2E to 3E. Any other set of rules isn’t going to ‘fit’ the 4E Realms, either.
Therefore, it’s not a good idea suggest to a typical gamer that “they can play” in the 4E Realms with any earlier set of D&D rules. It’s an impractical idea (to put it nicely) that ignores a great deal of what’s happened to the setting and the D&D game rules.
-Nor do you need to know a rule set to make good use of the setting's campaign setting (In this case, the FRCG), or any related sourcebooks.
Your claim is a weak, subjective statement that is not supported by what we know of the 4E rules set and what has happened because of those rules to shape the 4E Realms.
Your claim is false with regard to the 4E Realms.
(...) Your claim is a weak, subjective statement that is not supported by what we know of the 4E rules set and what has happened because of those rules to shape the 4E Realms.
Your claim is false with regard to the 4E Realms.
I'm not so sure... if someone really loves the presentation of 4E Realms (which I don't), why couldn't they take the setting and use it with another rules system?
For one set of players, several years ago, I ran the (later 2E, early 3E) Forgotten Realms with the Rolemaster system rules and it worked fine. I had to translate quite a bit prior to adventures if I wanted to use a particular known NPC, but I do modifications in 3.5E anyway. Granted, I never did try to move a set of PCs from my Realms/Rolemaster campaign into Realms/3.5E, as that would've taken a lot of explaining and retconning in terms of magic changes, etc. But if you wanted to, I don't see why someone couldn't use 4E Realms with another rule system. It's just a setting, not something that's dependent on a particular rule system.
Someone could reasonably expect to take 1E rules and convert to 2E if they wanted, less so 2E to 3E, but still possible.
The 4th Edition Rules are not compatible with the Third Edition rules.
-Which doesn't matter if one wants to use the 4-Gotten Realms setting as the setting for their 3e campaign. They are using 3e rules with the 4-Gotten Realms setting, and not the 4e rules.
-That said, the 4e rules are fairly connected with the 3e rules, being as that the 4e ruleset is based upon the d20 system that 3e is. See Star Wars SAGA Edition, which is the proverbial branch between the two.
Just as the Time of Troubles heralded the transition from 1E to 2E, the Spellplague does the same for 3E to 4E. In both cases these in-setting events happened to explain away the game rule changes.
The difference between the current Spellgplague explanation vs. the ToT is that the former is a much larger set of changes. Likewise the rules changes for 4E are far bigger than the changes between 1E and 2E.
-Yes, that is all correct. That isn't particularly relevant in the conversation at hand, of course. Regardless of the reason, these events become lore for the setting, and because of that, transcend rules.
It bears repeating again: These are drastic, setting altering changes that are meant to work the new 4E Rules into the Forgotten Realms.
-This is correct. That doesn't mean, however, that people are barred from using the ruleset of their choice (12, 2e, 3e) with the setting of their choice (1e Realms, 2e Realms, 3e Realms, 4e Realms).
Because of this you can’t expect to have the same ease of conversion from 4E to any other rules set that you could with 1E to 2E, or 2E to 3E. Any other set of rules isn’t going to ‘fit’ the 4E Realms, either.
-It's never easy to convert rulesets. No one ever said it would be easy, either. That said, converting 3e to 4e is probably the simplest of them all, being as that 4e was based on the d20 system that 3e is. 1e to 2e (especially with all of those 'player options' things) is fairly difficult, so it seems, and 2e to 3e, the same, with all of the mechanical differences in the rulesets. But, none of that bars someone from using the ruleset of their choice with the 4-Gotten Realms setting.
Therefore, it’s not a good idea suggest to a typical gamer that “they can play” in the 4E Realms with any earlier set of D&D rules. It’s an impractical idea (to put it nicely) that ignores a great deal of what’s happened to the setting and the D&D game rules.
-Your claim is a weak, subjective statement.
Your claim is a weak, subjective statement that is not supported by what we know of the 4E rules set and what has happened because of those rules to shape the 4E Realms.
Your claim is false with regard to the 4E Realms.
-A setting is not dependent on rules, as I have demonstrated previously, using Selunatic as an example. Your claim that it is has been debunked.
I was just wondering if anyone knew if I would have to buy the 4th edition PH and DMG for a FR setting, or if all the info I would need would be in the 2 FR books. I know they aren't out yet, but I wasn't sure if anyone had an answer. Thanks in advance.
In days to come, you'll need the Core Rulebooks or download the SRDs, though the latter are better for the more advanced players, rather than newcomers.
There is already lots of FR lore out there and to a very (as in: VERY) large extend, this is background information. That is, information where rules are not needed, at least not in that much detail. Thus, you can e.g. download quite a number of AD&D (i.e. 2E) FR material for free from the Wizards website as well as buy 20odd FR sourcebooks made for 3E and 3,5E. The info in there does not become invalid with a new edition, unless they change the setting. No-one requires of you to play your game "now" though. Simply put in real world context, if you decide to play at a time when the pyramids were build you can easily look that up in an old lorebook and adopt it to the edition*, even though the newest edition is made for a period set just after WWII.
*For the pyramids are still in Egypt, where it was and is still warm, the Nile flows from A to Z and the pharaoh's ruled. Whether that pharaoh was a Paladin 20 in AD&D or a Paladin 34 in 4E does not exactly matter here.
Whether that pharaoh was a Paladin 20 in AD&D or a Paladin 34 in 4E does not exactly matter here.
-Would the Pharaoh be a Paladin? I think a Favored Soul might be better! :P
-Would the Pharaoh be a Paladin? I think a Favored Soul might be better! :P
I made no mention of 3E and as there are no Favored Souls in AD&D or 4E
(IMHO, a pharaoh in 3E would most likely be an aristocrat XX with inbred illusions of grandeur.)I made no mention of 3E and as there are no Favored Souls in AD&D or 4E
-The only Pharaoh that I have in my own campaign- and this individual is only a descendant, and doesn't actually have the title, as it's defunct right now- is indeed an Aristocrat. I gave him a few levels of Favored Soul for good measure. There's more Aristocrat than Favored Soul, however. Aristocrat 4 / Favored Soul 2.