The FR player's guide and the FR DM's guide are written from two different points of view (excluding mechanics that are in the player's guide) to not contaminate things for players or DMs. I personally like the format of everything being together so I only need to get one book because things are easier to find that way. But what happened to the days where players didn't use their own knowledge (that they got from the books) to influence what their characters do and the days where the DMs don't slavishly follow the books. That's the basic gist of why I understand most people to like two separate books. I've been playing D&D for like ten years now (2e/3e/3.53/4e) and this was never a big problem that people talked about too much until recently.
I accidentally left my FR books in my hotel room in Vienna so I had to get new ones. I was flipping through them and I saw a few comments from other people here and it made me think: What happened to accountability?
The FR player's guide and the FR DM's guide are written from two different points of view (excluding mechanics that are in the player's guide) to not contaminate things for players or DMs. I personally like the format of everything being together so I only need to get one book because things are easier to find that way. But what happened to the days where players didn't use their own knowledge (that they got from the books) to influence what their characters do and the days where the DMs don't slavishly follow the books. That's the basic gist of why I understand most people to like two separate books. I've been playing D&D for like ten years now (2e/3e/3.53/4e) and this was never a big problem that people talked about too much until recently.
To be quite frank, it's to make more money for WotC. I mean, they release a new basic class with the FR Player's guide (Swordmage) and the new Dark Pact for the warlock plus more feats for Drow/swordmage plus other feats for general use.
So anyone who really wants an in depth look at the swordmage has to buy the FR Player's Guide. Hells, i'm tempted to buy the Eberron book for the info/feats on Warforged plus the Artificer class and I haven't invested any $$ into that setting.
Though I don't think it's a problem with accountability. There are always going to be players who bring their "out-of-character" knowledge to the game. Knowing what creatures powers/immunities/resistances/Keywords/etc... so I wouldn't go so far as to blame WotC for that problem. It relies solely on the DM and player.
I was tempted to buy it for the changeling race.
IO dont however give a wer rats arse for the eberron setting though...so it kind of stopped me
I accidentally left my FR books in my hotel room in Vienna so I had to get new ones. I was flipping through them and I saw a few comments from other people here and it made me think: What happened to accountability?
The FR player's guide and the FR DM's guide are written from two different points of view (excluding mechanics that are in the player's guide) to not contaminate things for players or DMs. I personally like the format of everything being together so I only need to get one book because things are easier to find that way. But what happened to the days where players didn't use their own knowledge (that they got from the books) to influence what their characters do and the days where the DMs don't slavishly follow the books. That's the basic gist of why I understand most people to like two separate books. I've been playing D&D for like ten years now (2e/3e/3.53/4e) and this was never a big problem that people talked about too much until recently.
-Welcome to the world we live in, where too much choice is a "bad" thing, where too much information is a "bad" thing, where...
I agree with everything Diffan said save being tempted to buy the epg for the warforged feats, and the artificer class.
I added warforged (or rather, their equivalent) to my homebrew.
Its strange, because I really don't care for them. Anyway, while I am also tempted to see what they have done with them in Eberron 4e (I have all the 3e Eberron books), I don't really need them, because I went in an entirely different direction with them.
I also added aberrations... which I hate... most peculiar...
I think I like to experiment with the "how I would do it if I used that" approach. So even though I don't care for Aberrations, I still like my versions WAY better then WotC's (they combine everything I like about all the D&D ones in one group).
As for the topic... I'm not sure I understand it.
Is the OP asking why they produce more then one rulebook for D&D? Pathfinder created a single tome, which I prefer, but I do understand that every player at a table need not have access to the entirety of the rules, either (or be forced to buy more then they need).
In theory, it is a good idea - players need only buy the Players Handbook. However, we know that is total BS, and in practice it just turns out to be far more lucrative for WotC to spread the rules all over the place (including the DDi).
Which means that eventually, 4e will be even more convoluted then 3e, and harder to reference.
Which means that eventually, 4e will be even more convoluted then 3e, and harder to reference.
That will be the reasoning for 5e in 4.5 years, and how horrible 4e is. All of the same reasonings for 4e vs 3e. Plus it will be a whole new set of people working at WotC. So their Edition will be the greatest/sexist/Ubberrest. :embarrass
Actually the EPG and ECG are two of the best books in 4E (and the ECG is literally information rich, it's far and away superior to the FRCG in nearly every conceivable way). I found the FRPG one of the worst in comparison, because despite being a setting book it was too repetitive compared with the FRCG and all I got out of it were a few classes and similar. The EPG is not anywhere near as repetitive and is packed full of good mechanics for use in Eberron specific games. The ECG goes into more depth in general without repeating information.
I think really it's nothing to do with wanting more money, because if they wanted more money the logical thing to do isn't make a specific player and specific DM book. You mix the player specific things with the DM specific things, forcing everyone to buy both. No player needs the ECG to play in Eberron because the EPG really does a good job on the world. I personally did not get that impression from the FRPG.
Which means that eventually, 4e will be even more convoluted then 3e, and harder to reference.
I don't find that at all. It's easy to figure out where things are and if you have the character builder you can get it, pay a single months subscription, download the update and then have every single book/dragon article/etc in one easy format (which tells you where everything comes from precisely). I own all of the 4E books thus far and I can find anything off the top of my head easily. It is all self contained; so a Storm Sorcerer is in Arcane Power, a Beastmaster Ranger in Martial Power, rules for Tomes are in Arcane Power and such. I can't see it being possible for 4E to be "convoluted" because everything is in such obvious places and they clearly differentiate resources for players from those intended for people running games. Unlike 3E where splat books like Draconomicon had things designed for PCs in them, 4E does away with that concept entirely and books like Draconomicon/Open Grave are exclusively DM related material.
However, we know that is total BS, and in practice it just turns out to be far more lucrative for WotC to spread the rules all over the place (including the DDi)
I have players who get along perfectly fine with just a PHB. If you want more options you need to buy further books, which isn't terribly different than any other system. It's just perfectly obvious what those books are in 4E (which makes your assertion about it being convoluted very curious). As I mentioned above, the rules for PCs are kept in books FOR PCs. There is a SINGLE example in all of 4E where you have a book designed for DMs that has player related information in it and that's Manual of the Planes. All the specific books like Monster Manual, Monster Manual 2, Dungeon Masters Guide, Open Grave, Draconomicon, Dungeon Delve and Eberron Campaign Guide do not have required rules for building characters (albeit there are some races in the two MMs, but those are easy to find without needing the book). All the books that have rules for building PCs are in fact, perfectly obvious.
PHB, PHB2, Martial Power, Arcane Power, Divine Power, EPG, FRPG and the Adventurers Vault.
So IMO as a player for every option in the game for building characters after the first 4E year you would need to buy about eight books (one of which came out this month) and again in a year. If you add a DDI subscription to that you don't even need to buy any of those books anyway beyond the PHB for the core rules. You can use the character builder to make anything you felt like (and it will tell you where a rule came from).
Edit: Also for those with short memories this is the opposite of 3E. Where every book had to have options like Prestige Classes for players, spells or items in it. 4E has completely done away with this, as Draconomicon and Open Grave prove conclusively: Neither book has a single real rule or option relevant to PCs in the entire book (eg; no Paragon Paths or new feats or whatever else). It's all focused on DM related adventure ideas, new monsters and information on the monsters it covers (Dragons and undead respectively).
Actually the EPG and ECG are two of the best books in 4E (and the ECG is literally information rich, it's far and away superior to the FRCG in nearly every conceivable way). I found the FRPG one of the worst in comparison, because despite being a setting book it was too repetitive compared with the FRCG and all I got out of it were a few classes and similar. The EPG is not anywhere near as repetitive and is packed full of good mechanics for use in Eberron specific games. The ECG goes into more depth in general without repeating information.
Which simply proves my point that certain people want everyone playing in Eberron, and are out to do everything within their power to tank FR.
You have to pay extra for the privilege of having the rules organized for you.
Um no? They are already organized into clear books and it's like you decided to completely not read my post at all. There is nothing inherently hard about realising that if you're a divine character the rules for everything you need is in 3 books:
Core Players Handbook : Divine Power : Adventurers Vault.
That's it. How anyone could find this confusing is baffling to me.
So, you either get your parents to sign you up for the DDi, or you have to wade through dozens of books spread over several settings and the internet.
Except that you don't? Did you even read my post?
There is NOTHING inherently better about 4th edition over 3rd
Given you don't seem to have read my post I'll point out again that it's simple to find rules you are looking for. If you are playing a Cleric, the rules and powers most relevant to you are in:
Players Hand Book(s): Divine Power.
It's that easy. You can use 2 books period and have 90% of everything relevant to your class, or 3 and have 95% of it. If you play a Rogue you simply need the PHB and Martial Power etc. A DDI subscription gives you one of the best and easiest to use programs for creating characters I've seen in years.
Also, if you can't afford something like $12ish dollars for a single months subscription (which you then cancel after updating), that gives you access to over $100+ US in rules and makes them trivially easy to use maybe you should consider a cheaper hobby?
Are 4e pro-ponents now stooping to picking on the handicapped? Is there no end to the elitism in this game?
Sorry... couldn't resist... ;)
And no - I just skim most posts looking for stuff I can quote out-of-context. :P
And no - I just skim most posts looking for stuff I can quote out-of-context.
It shows.
When I look at these boards now, and compare them to the boards of just three years ago (when I first started participating), I realize just how much FR has lost, and it saddens me.
I can't help my bitterness... FR will not survive another edition... it's barely weathering this one.
The rules are a different matter entirely... believe it or not, the next campaign I run (starting in just two weeks) will be using the 4e rules.
Hows that for a kick-in-the-head?
And NO, that doesn't mean I like them. I hated 2e, but I still ran it.
As to the actual topic... not sure there's much left to say.
Which simply proves my point that certain people want everyone playing in Eberron, and are out to do everything within their power to tank FR.
I dunno... 3e's organization made sense to me. Its never that difficult for me to find stuff. Guess that makes me weird.
I've made (and still make) 3e characters and I do have a lot of sifting to go through. While web-sites like crystalkeep are helpful, I find myself going through 8-10+ books to find the best feats, equip., and spells to build good characters.
So having all the info right there in less than 5 books is a boon for me.
But MT is right about the field not being saturated yet. As my friend and I argue about the difficulty of breaking 4e, he always says "just give it time." And I hate to say it but its true. The more "splat" books that come out for each power of classes (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Primal, Ki, Shadow, etc...) there are going to be ways for people to find loop holes into the mechanics and break it. Its just how the game progresses.
But there-in lies the problem. With only "core" 3e is boring as hell for any non-spellcaster past 8th level. In 4e, everything is built for their power's "effects" which can turn the tide at times instead of just doing X-damage. So yea it's a two-edged sword but those are the best kind :D.
To keep this in the FR boards: I think the OP is trying to understand why WotC would put non-setting specific stuff into settings. Does the Drow race really need to be directly tied to FR? Why wasn't the Swordmage put into the PH2? And the reason is if you want swordmages, artificers, options for your warforged, or drow in your homebrew your more likely to buy the book the info is in instead of going through DDi. Thats where you get hooked into a certain setting.
Example:
Johnny: "Hey, I picked up this Forgotten Realms Guide for the cool Swordmage class but after reading through the book, it sounds like a fun place. We should try it in our next campaign."
Mary: "Let me look....Ohhh, they've got Drow stuff in here! I wonder if I can make a scimitar-wielding one who's not evil?! Awesome!"
Bob: "Uh, can we please get back to our Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil adventure?"
Johnny and Mary: "No!"
I dunno... 3.5e fighters have become appealing of late to me now that I've given them a very serious look over. I managed to build a level 20 halfling straight fighter who can go head to head with a pit fiend or balor with little chance of being hit or failing a save beyond the base 5% everyone has. Not exactly a damage dealer, but with a crit range of 15-20, he can hold his own with the right gear, well within the 760k wealth limits. And that's just with the PHB. If I toss in PHB2, CW, and BoED (sanctify strike, not VOP), he gets even more dangerous... sadly its purely theoretical for me though, since I never actually get to be a player. Still a fun exercise though.
....loser... :P Tapping on that tho I made a Lv 6 NPC fighter that runs with the group, and when I was done with her, she had higher Will Than Fort. And I wasn't aiming to do that. I'm looking foward to rub it on those "3e haters up stairs" :P. Then again I dont care enough
I dunno... 3.5e fighters have become appealing of late to me now that I've given them a very serious look over. I managed to build a level 20 halfling straight fighter who can go head to head with a pit fiend or balor with little chance of being hit or failing a save beyond the base 5% everyone has. Not exactly a damage dealer, but with a crit range of 15-20, he can hold his own with the right gear, well within the 760k wealth limits. And that's just with the PHB. If I toss in PHB2, CW, and BoED (sanctify strike, not VOP), he gets even more dangerous... sadly its purely theoretical for me though, since I never actually get to be a player. Still a fun exercise though.
I've played Melee-style characters ever since 3e came out and yes, their appeal hasn't lessened on me, but the ability to end an encounter with say Undead to Death, Glasstrike, Otto's irrestable dance, forcecage, etc.. as a one shot (often 1st round) win is pretty damn convincing that spellcasters are far more effective than a fighter with 4 attacks per round (with a limited 5-ft. step mind you).
Its pretty much the reason I made my pally-nuke (12th level Paladin) so that it could take down a Balor in 1 shot. It's a power trip to know you can own a monster with one strike of your weapon. But now with 4e, in my own opinion, everyone is useful all the way through 30th level. No one class (glaringly) out-shines everyone else. The fact that they sorta "shoe-horned" the classes into roles isn't a hinderance in my eyes, but an attempt to get everyone involved in some way.
To be quite frank, it's to make more money for WotC.
And just to be clear, it's not like TSR didn't do this either with D&D and AD&D (approx. 1st and 2nd edition, respectively).
Just as well, players have always used out of game knowledge to some degree.
And just to be clear, it's not like TSR didn't do this either with D&D and AD&D (approx. 1st and 2nd edition, respectively).
Yep, it's how the game progresses. If they only made say a handful of books where else would they make money? It's 3e's splatbooks and me wanting to play some unique classes that even remotely keeps me interested in playing that edition.
And to be extra clear, Paizo (Pathfinder) setting is doing the same thing. Oh sure, the Beta version of their stuff is available for free but you can sure as bet when it's marketing version is out, it'll cost something like 39.99 for the main book. That's not even getting into all the extra stuff they're going to "convert" from 3e that will all be available on their internet site for a easy monthly subscription. I frankly don't see a difference between the two (WotC/Paizo).
Just as well, players have always used out of game knowledge to some degree.
Yea, which illustrates the wonderful idea Monster Knowledge checks are in 4e. Not that it couldn't be done in 3e but if you didn't have Knowledge (arcana, dungeoneering, nature, religion, or the planes) then you pretty much
didn't know what a monster was capable of and the skill couldn't be used untrained.
P.S: As a side note, I am actually happy they made two books for FR (one for Players, the other for the DM). It does cut down on out of game knowledge and puts a little mystery about areas your character and possibly player have never been to. How was your character to know a large vampiric cult prowles the lands of (instert town name here)?
As to monster knowledge in-game (3.5e in my case), I tossed in Knowledge (magizoology) as a nod to Harry Pottery for my wife's sake, and its worked out pretty well for us with the consolidation (its a class skill for every class btw).
As to monster knowledge in-game (3.5e in my case), I tossed in Knowledge (magizoology) as a nod to Harry Pottery for my wife's sake, and its worked out pretty well for us with the consolidation (its a class skill for every class btw).
-What's that?
I used to be big on 'more' (more skills, more abilites, more weapons, more attributes, etc..), but I'm starting to embrace the 'less is more' concept, at least as far as rules are concerned. The faster a game is paced, the more enjoyable it becomes.
I have to see what the final iteration of the Pathfinder rules did, before I make any decisions. They had some good ideas, but I may want to take them further (yes, I'm also working on my own game system, as well as a homebrew setting... I've had it with pre-fab crap).
As for the original question of this thread - What happened to accountability?
Ask the accountants.
I'll probably steal that... not sure though... might have it be a synergistic roll combining animal lore (forget the name of that skill) with Knowledge: Arcane. I find some of HP creeping into my world.
-I just use the existing knowledge skills, based on what the monster is. If it's an extraplanar creature, the PC can gleam some knowledge by making a Knowledge: The Planes check. If it's a magical beast, the PC can find out more by making a Knowledge: Arcana check. If it's a natural thing, they roll for Knowledge: Nature. It's very much an ad hoc thing, for each case.
As for the original question of this thread - What happened to accountability?
Ask the accountants.
I though that was the 'Nanny' profession.... :P
It has nothing to do with accountability. It has everything to do with utility.
How would you feel if I said, "Hey, wanna play a card game?"
"Sure."
"Okay. If you want to play this card game, you gotta take a month-long class, pass a test, and then you can play."
"But why? Can't you just teach me how to play the game?"
"Sure, but that's not the point. The point is that you need to know everything about the game. And prove it."
"But I don't need to know that, do I?"
"No. But that's not the point. Oh. And you have to pay for the class, too."
"Er, no thanks. I'll just go play some beer pong..."
You don't need to know everything to play D&D. The PHB is more than enough information than necessary. For players, I actually recommend reading as little as possible, just focusing on the rules needed to play. As the DM, I'll help the make a character. They don't need to read all the things that are irrelevant to their character. If they need to know something about the rules, the PHB can explain it. If they need to know something about the campaign, I can explain it. Every other printed resource is unnecessary. Forcing players to read through books and books of information detracts from the actual gaming experience -- especially when a lot of the printed material is either irrelevant or contradictory to the campaign. Selling one huge book filled with every bit of information for both DMs and PCs is great for DMs, but terrible for players.
Forcing players to read through books and books of information detracts from the actual gaming experience -- especially when a lot of the printed material is either irrelevant or contradictory to the campaign. Selling one huge book filled with every bit of information for both DMs and PCs is great for DMs, but terrible for players.
-I wholeheartedly disagree.
There's a lot of potential definitions of K.I.S.S. out there. What makes sense as being simple and easy to one person won't necessarily apply to everyone who looks at whatever it might be.
True, but in reguards to D&D, there are some wacked out rules that even an experienced player like myself must look up time and time again. Making rules more "realistic" doesn't necessary make the game better and I think that was a big problem I had with 3.5. Using the K.I.S.S method, I feel, helps keep the game quickly flowing and minimizes the constant book swapping of all the players (this is usually just when combat occurs).
-I wholeheartedly disagree.
With the fact that a DM forces his players to read through books or that (snip) selling one huge book filled with every bit of information for both DMs and PCs is great for DMs, but terrible for players (snip)?
Forcing a PC to do anything seems wrong to be but I have no qualms about them reading further into a region their character would be from. I'd expect a merchant's son from Impiltur to know about the local history, land, country's enemies, usual monsters that lay about the area, etc... Would that same character know anything about Waterdeep, the Border Kingdoms, or Cormyr? Probably not. But I'll never impede a PC's thrist to learn.
With the fact that a DM forces his players to read through books or that (snip) selling one huge book filled with every bit of information for both DMs and PCs is great for DMs, but terrible for players (snip)?
-That "selling one huge book filled with every bit of information for both DMs and PCs is great for DMs, but terrible for players." A few things: Firstly, I believe that players obviously need to know about the world before they can make characters, otherwise, as I always joke about, you'll have players wanting to make Ninja Dragon Disciple Yeti from Calimshan who were trained by the Thayan Embassy in Cormyr who worship Boccob (In other words, character combination that don't make sense in the context of the world). Secondly, a person living in the world is likely to be aware of the world around him/her. I live in the U.S., but by virtue of living, reading, and all of that, I know a thing or two about China, India, Iran, wherever. A character from Cormyr is going to know a little more than just Cormyr, and the player won't be able to demonstrate that knowledge (without the DM dictating that their character knows something) without having read about that place. And lastly, the setting is one with a rich and appealing history. Like you said, you wouldn't want to impede a player from learning about the world. Making a clear and direct separation between what the players are supposed to know and what the DM is allowed to know sends that message, if not impeding the player directly (with a "conservative" DM).
If they need help with a character concept, I'm much better then a book.
I think. ;)
It also helps me to steer them towards certain things that will prove useful to them, without giving away my plans for them.
Yes... I know... you think thats heavy-handed... you think everything is heavy-handed. :P
I least I don't make my players call me Dungeon-Master... I knew a guy who did that...
I prefer my players know nothing.
If they need help with a character concept, I'm much better then a book.
I agree. I much prefer having DM information in one book and player information in another book. For one thing this is just a useful separation and means players aren't buying material for one random prestige class (or whatever, as was the case in 3rd). If my players want to know more about the world that is why I am there as the DM, to tell them how the world is (especially because in a GOOD setting ... ahem ... that is left to the DM to begin with on important matters).
I also detest the fact the DM materials frequently have statblocks for NPCs I may want to use. I am more likely to use these NPCs as players would not have read their stat blocks in a system where the DM/Player information is separated. Most of them time I tend to change it anyway however.
It also helps me to steer them towrds certain things that will prove useful to them, without giving away my plans for them.
Yes... I know... you think thats heavy-handed... you think everything is heavy-handed. :P
Ah, like the Pied Piper leading the rats.
I think you and I may have something in common, my friend.
You need to control the game, without it feeling like you are controlling the game.
I've only met one 'perfect' Gamemaster my whole life (NO, not me) - everyone else tends to lean one way or the other (too much control, or not enough). The best you can hope for is to get it right most of the time... then you're players will have fun, and thats what its all about.
I think I'd enjoy gaming with most of the folks here.
There is a 'right way' to do it, though. Its like the episode of Futurama where Bender meets god, and he says "When you do things right, they won't know if you've done anything at all".
Which is exactly how I do things in my game.;)
In retrospect, perhaps the Pied Piper wasn't the best comparison I could've made.:D
There is a 'right way' to do it, though. Its like the episode of Futurama where Bender meets god, and he says "When you do things right, they won't know if you've done anything at all".
-That wasn't G-d. It was was 'left-over' after a robot crashed into G-d. ;)
-That episode also featured Tabot! Yes, in a further revision, I do have an astrology lab atop a mountain, manned by monks working for the High Lama.