And the circle is now complete !! (Maniacal laugh)
Search Posts
Hello, I'm not sure they are the exact equivalent of the spells you mention, but you should have a look at: - "Reincarnate" in True20 Adept's Handbook: "Bring the deceased back to life in another body". - "Other Shaping" also in True20 Adept's Handbook: "Reshape another’s body into different creatures". It doesn't work on objects though, but you could extend this power following the examples in the "Advanced Powers" section of (again) True20 Adept's Handbook. - "Body Control" in the core game: one the use of the power is "Speed Recovery". You could easily rule that an advanced power use of this particular power mimics the effect of "Regenerate". Cheers!
My impression exactly. I don't dislike the new classes from a mechanical point of view but they do have a more "modern" look and feel. I can easily see them integrated into a victorian or modern setting but I have a very hard time picturing them in my own Golarion campaign.
being mythic is all about beating impossible odds, not about being the strongest dude around I totally agree. Being "the strongest dude" around would be Epic not Mythic ! Since the beginning of this playtest, we are told that "Mythic is not Epic", but in practice the mythic abilities described are completely epic in nature. IMHO there is some confusion as to what exactly this new ruleset tries to achieve. Is it there to help us create mythic adventures as is being advocated ? or rather is it there to actually replace epic levels without having to "fix the maths" of the d20 system at high level ?
I totally agree. It doesn't make any sense story-wise to make the Mythic flaw mandatory. I can understand the concept for a character "born mythic" such as Achilles, however if an existing character acquires a mythic tier at some point in his career, why would he automatically gain a flaw ? In my opinion, it's up to the GM. Maybe the character came into contact with a powerful artifact that "tainted" him and the flaw is justified by the story. Maybe the character defeated a mythic opponent or creature, and I don't see why he should necessarily gain a flaw then. In a nutshell, the mythic ruleset must support mythic stories, not the other way around. It's always the story which prevails.
The simplest fix would just be to handwave that all Epic characters (and monsters?) count as Mythic, without necessarily having any other Mythic abilities. Yes it could completely work. I should have thought about this earlier, thanks. These rules were meant to supplement "epic" kind of play without stepping into that muck. Introducing them now entirely defeats the purpose of why they were made. The more I read the mythic rules, the more I agree with you. But the mythic paths contain some gems I'm willing to re-use under another form such as feats or epic prestige classes. It'd be like introducing them into a game with Hero Points; it just won't work really well. So don't add them to your game unless you wanna rebuild everything. It's amusing that you mention Hero Points, because I use them also - in conjunction with heavily house-ruled epic levels - and I have also the feeling that Hero points and mythic rules don't mix too well.
Even without mythic tiers, do you really make sure every town can stand up to a high level party? If so, why do they need heroes at all? You got a point. Let me explain further where I come from: what worries me as a GM is how to handle properly mythic characters in my setting. I can indeed deal pretty easily with epic characters and epic NPCs even though pathfinder guidelines are a bit vague about them. But if I allow mythic characters in my campaign, what do I do about existing epic NPC exactly ? How are all these high level NPCs going to co-exist with new mythic characters and NPCs ? Shall I rewrite them entirely to follow the new mythic rules as well ? I'm saying this because an epic 23rd level wizard is not "naturally" able to deliver mythic damage while a 6th level wizard 3rd tier can. And I have a serious problem with this. At this point I'm tempted to follow 2 completely different roads:
Maybe I'm wrong and both solutions will create more problem, but my deep feeling is that the power curve of mythic characters is just too steep - even well before tier 9 - to make them coexist in an established setting with numerous epic but non-mythic characters, without breaking the logic of the setting itself.
I tend to agree with the OP. There is one point I disagree however: 3) Each character should have a weakness that allows even weak creatures to kill the character (in theory - they might find it hard to accomplish in practice) if they exploit it properly. The 'mortal weakness' could be based on the mythic fault or be an entirely separate concept. I don't see why mythic characters should always have a flaw. Some like Achilles do, some others like Perseus don't. In my opinion, a flaw should be gained in exchanged for an extra mythic ability, but should not be mandatory. Also with respect to: And if you actually want to kill them, all you have to do is add a single Tier to any NPC with class levels, or add a single Tier and mythic ability to your mythic creatures. But as I said, that sorta defeats the purpose since if you're playing with Mythic levels, these characters are supposed to be special. You are quite right. The only issue is that if you follow this logic, then you'll end up with dozens if not hundreds of mythic characters to maintain the coherence of your setting. And of course, as the OP noted, all the PCs in the group will necessarily have to be mythic. If not what's the point ? In my opinion, the only possibility to avoid the inflation in the number of mythic NPCs in a campaign is to reserve the mythic tiers to a few well-chosen NPC. I understand that this will frustrate many players, but what's the alternative ? Putting a mythic NPC in every town visited by the players to ensure that someone can stand up to them ?
I like option #3 better provided we are talking about a full round action and not a standard action. This way, the ability remains epic while still being under control.
My FLGS devotes more space to Pathfinder than D&D. The only place I've found where D&D takes up more shelf space than Pathfinder is Barnes & Noble. I think the Pathfinder brand is getting to the point where it can stand on its own, at least out here. I've made the same observation at my own FLGS recently. It didn't occur overnight, but progressively, and I just realized this a couple of weeks ago. I'm also convinced that today Pathfinder stands on its own in the RPG arena.
With the Realms it was worse. The nuking was revealed poorly. I could not have said it better. Cataclysmic events have a tendency to happen quite often in the Realms. But until the Spellplague, all these were woven together in a complex fabric that had cohesion even though it was built upon layers and layers of history. IMHO, it could have been the same for the spellplague. I can see very well how this particular event could be used effectively from the narration point of view. But the implementation of this idea resulted in one of the worse plots, possibly the worst, I have ever read in my gaming history ... and I have grey hair.
That probably requires a little elaboration. The Realms are the setting where the love-in with magic, magic-users, and "magic can do anything! Anything!" really started to gain traction. Every Realms supplement put in more magic stuff, spells or items, to make it plain that the best way to do something was through magic, that mundane skill was less important. This isn't something that is justified by AD&D or B/X-BECMI, magic was powerful but had real limits. FR started the process of taking those limits away, and I'm convinced this was what led to 3rd edition being explicitly designed not just to give more power to all types of spellcaster and to increase the emphasis on magic items, but to reduce the abilities of everyone who wasn't explicitly magical. I don't really see why you put this on the Realms. The "more power / spells / badass prestige classes" is a trend that started with 3.0 and continued in 3.5 accross all settings. And it continued with Pathfinder, where the base classes are more powerful again ! As a GM I'm very happy to set a tone closer to the FR grey box with less magic items and a little less emphasis on the figures of the Realms, even though I used the updates on the setting provided on the 3rd edition FR books. And that's not D&D in the original sense of the game. I don't know what's the original sense of the game, and I don't really care either, I'm merely a player / GM found of the FR and of Planescape. I do hope that Monte Cook and Mearls find out though :) Because if they don't, I surely won't. I planned on running the Forgotten Realms in Pathfinder, and began to update some of my favorite setting material to the new and improved rules. And in my Realms... there is no Spellplague. Same here.
It put a major, major dent into my desire to play in the Realms. Well, and I began buying AP's, which are put in Golarion. I completely understand, but it is not the end either. It is not that difficult to adapt a module or even a whole campaign to the FR given the richness of the setting. Also don't forget that there are still people playing Mystara out there !
I'm amazed as well, but the good thing is that the FR player community is so large, and there is so much material available, that even if WOTC changed mind and definitely pulled the plug from the FR, the setting would still be supported online by the community. The Forgotten Realms will never be forgotten, that's just impossible :)
****, I hate WotC for killing the Realms. +1 Like Blackdragon I haven't posted here for quite a while :) I hope D&D Next truly supports all eras of play in the FR. I believe however that even if this is the case, the old setting is dead (and it still hurts btw). New FR supplements should logically take place after the spellplague. That said, I would appreciate if WOTC created a new and original setting to support the next edition, something rich and involved, similar to what Paizo has done with Golarion.
This summarizes quite well my feelings about the difference of 4E with previous editions when it comes to world and campaign setting building. Of course, with some work, a good GM will always be able to bring back naturalism with any set of rule, but the post adresses the issue quite clearly I think. Thanks Pax.
Or simply "Master of the Empty Hand", as this is the signature of your class (hey Bladesong is the signature ability of bladesingers after all)
Play what you want but do not tell me that I am not roleplaying when I play 4e. Yes sure and I never will. By the way, can you also pass the words of wisdom to the most ardent 4E white knights (I do not think you are one), and tell them to stop pretending that "3E was so obviously broken that I don't even understand why you are still playing it". Thanks
And again, it absolutely does. And no, it still doesn't. This is totally unrelated to the rules. You could witness the same situation with non D20 games like Runequest or Call of Cthulhu, where it translates to "I'm out of magic points". Having NPCs interfere, or putting pressure on your players vastly diminish their tendency to use all their most powerful powers / spells in 1 or 2 encounters, and then stop to rest. All games that feature supernatural powers have this problem anyway - except when the characters are allowed to play really powerful spellcasters: an experienced Ars Magica magus can cast any spell of his repertoire at will in practice, but spellcasters in AM are more powerful than any other character by design. In either case you can throw more encounters at your pc's, That's not the issue, the issue is can the pc's survive it. That's generally not true in 3.5 and is true in 4th because they fixed the issue (more or less). With all due respect, your saying that the issue is fixed is entirely your personal opinion. Mine is that the issue is still more or less the same with the new edition. Sure you have at will and encounter powers, but now, all players can be tempted to "nova blast" their more powerful daily powers in the 1st encounter of the day and then simply decide to rest. It is still up to them isn't it ? So all it relates to in the end is whether or not the game master accepts / tolerates / encourages this kind of behaviour. Please, leave the rule system out of the equation.
It needlessly restricted spell-casting (especially at low levels), forcing spellcasters to not only define how long the party could function in a day No. It is neither a rule issue nor an edition issue but rather a gamemastering issue. Also known as "the 15 minutes adventuring syndrome", you can easily avoid your party playing like this by having their enemies being more active. In my campaigns, NPCs have agenda of their own and don't wait for the PCs to set things into motion. Does the presence of at-will powers in 4E solve this issue ? Hmm, I don't think so, because now, all the players and not just the wizard could say "Hey guys we have to rest, I'm out of daily powers". But once again this issue has nothing to do with the game system itself. so they darted into melee with their longsword. That's the way I play. Charge !
I've played ars magica properly and the latest edition is the best yet but there's been no Bestiary published that supports this edition. The previous edition doesn't fit! I don't have the last edition. Not that I'm not interested, but my shelves can only take so much ...
I do really like Ars Magica but am not sure if the 'feel' would work. Ah, you have me do some archeology work in my pile of notes - alas, at the time I was DMing Ars Magica I had no PC. My conversion system was quite simple and crude. It ran along these lines: Races Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Half-Elf
Halfling
Human
Classes All player classes without exception have +5/-5 maximum additional points to purchase virtues and flaws. At the storyguide’s discretion, Virtues might be bought and Flaws might be bought out after the start of the game at a cost. It costs 10 x X experience points to buy a virtue +X or to buy out a flaw –X. Expert Classes
Bonus Virtues & Flaws
Generalist Classes
Bonus Virtues & Flaws
Esoteric Classes
Bonus Virtues & Flaws
Of course, other class abilities must be translated into extra feats, sorry virtues (lol), that can be acquired during the game. The storyteller must also give more experience points than in a normal Ars Magica game. The flavour is not exactly the same than AD&D, that's for sure, but if you want now to make a comparison with 3E, honestly Ars Magica was D20 before the D20 era ...
I have never enjoyed creating details outside of a game session. I'm just not that kind of GM. I understand that most GMs love the details and that it does reduce the amount of work that needs to be done. Well, I'm just that kind of GM. Now that you mention it, I think that the observed differences in the perception of the 4E Realms might well stem from this difference of dungeonmastering style. With a family, career and health issues, I barely can find time to play, much less spend 10+ hours a week inventing detail and preping for a game. That's why I turn to an already heavily-detailed setting like the Realms. Same for me here pal. Today, my choice for a game or a setting is also motivated by the amount of work I'll have to doo afterwards. It hence accentuates my already existing bias (see above) for well-developped settings, and partially explains my disappointment with these new Realms.
Thanks for your clarification Drakli, I think we are on the same line of thought, and I must admit I can myself get emotional when it comes to the Realms ;=) As for Planescape 3E, you probably have the favorite already, but you might be interested to have a look here.
It also has a stable background source - the lifetime works of H.P.L. Well, this is entirely in the eye of the beholder. What about the excellent works of Pagan Publishing, like the Golden Dawn and Delta Green which really gave a new start to CoC ?
You are absolutely right. And I can go even further by saying that, as far as the Realms are concerned, I have everything I need in the previous editions. So you see, I don't really need the 4E Realms. But this is not what we were discussing. We were talking about the complete change of nature of the Realms - and not just the fact that the setting evolves which is fine. I already said in previous posts that the Realms have always been quite dynamic, but now, I'm afraid they are forgotten for good.
You're basically saying that things can never change, or that they can only change in relatively superficial ways. Please Paul, re-read my previous post, just before the one you answered to so quickly ;=)
But are the Realms really the Realms without the complexity and the backstories ? Is Planescape really Planescape without the Factions ? I know it is subjective, but I don't think so.
Do I want to know that much about my character before I've even started playing him? This level of detail, this "historical realism" are precisely the reasons why the Realms are so well-known, and cherished by many players and DMs including your servitor. If you don't like it, or if it is too much detail for you, than have more fun with a less developed world. That's fine with me. However, your post seems to imply that this justified a reboot of the setting, and I disagree with this line of thought. If I don't like a setting, I will simply not play in it, but I won't ask to butcher it either. I find, personally, that most changes brought to the 4E Realms were half-cooked and lazy to say the least. Many long-time fans of the Realms are not disappointed by the changes themselves (the FR have always been very dynamic and versatile), but rather by the pathetic way they were integrated into the setting.
The two can't even compare. The new FRCG has been scrubbed clean of all the history and lore that made the original box set such a refreshing breath of fresh air. I agree 100%. A lot of interesting remarks were done in this respect in this older thread.
Also, in response to Tharon, I suspect that WotC didn't take on such a grand narrative because it was too invested in putting 4e out. IIRC, even the last magnus from 3.5 FRCS was pretty lame, History of the Realms. It looked like a cut and paste of all the various history blurbs from all the other splatbooks, with a paragraph or two at the end to bring us up to speed. But this is really a freaking copy paste ! It's actually a shortened copy of the "Temporal Chronology of the Primes" which was available free on the net years before the book's release here.
I've been playing Forgotten Realms campaigns for years and cannot deal with trying to run the realms in 4th edition, no more than I'd run the realms using Ars Magica, the 'feel' is way too different. I don't want to start a new war D&D v.s. Ars Magica, but actually, I did run the Realms with Ars Magica (and some house rules of course). This was before the release of the 3rd edition. On the one hand, I always liked the richness of settings like the Realms or Planescape, and cannot stand the AD&D system with its THAC0, its racial class level limitations etc. On the other hand, Ars Magica is an incredibly adaptable system, which is actually very close to D20. What is funny, is that after the publication of the 3rd edition, I imported some of the combat "maneuvers" feats from 3E to my Ars Magica campaign via Virtues & Flaws. And it worked !
Hi, I know neither Age of Worms nor Savage Tide, but have experienced the Shackled City. It is very nicely done, detailed, and immersive. Plus you can easily re-use the abundant data on the city itself for your own scenarios. Cheers.
David, Russel, It looks like a great work, but it leads me to a very practical question. I know that some of Reality Deviant works are available in print already, like Reign of Discordia, and as many True20 fans, I would like to have a look at them beyond the previews available on the net. But, where I live (Central London), it is just impossible to find your books in any gaming store. When I ask about them, the answer I get is "Reality who ?". Is it because you have reserved your print works for the US only ?
If that is the case, 3PP may face a zero sum game. any gain for Paizo could be a loss for other 3PPs and vice versa. With Paizo's already strong sales and visibility to those sticking with 3.x, what chance do the other guys have? Anyone able to comment on this? I don't think other 3PPs will necessarily face a loss. On the contrary, they might very well support each other. Actually it has already started, as there are now available conversions of the first 2 Pathfinder Adventure modules to True20. And I understood that more are to come. In other words, OGL gamers may not have the buffet of choices they currently do, but they won't be a dying/dead breed anymore than WoD players are a dying/dead breed because there are significantly fewer WoD players than there are OGL/4e players. Hmm, this is debatable. What makes the ultimate success of a game is its ability to answer the gaming community expectations (= the customers). If 3PPs, freed from WOTC's common basis, start to develop high quality, original and memorable OGL products, even though they are not fully compatible, it can create even more demand. I can see a number of niches out there for OGL products, not the least of which would be a hybrid product that takes a lot of 4e assumptions and backs them into 3e This is very likely I think. By the way, True20 is power-based, and can easily re-absorb the 4E power with some rework. This is probably not a coincidence, but in the extension "True Sorcery", GR also gives a simple and balanced method to re-integrate a spell-based magic system into T20 power-based framework.
It remains to be seen if it will happen with DnD. If it happens - and it could happen to any commercial product, what good will it do to anyway ? Pathfinder and True20 are already out for those who don't like 4E, so you can still play the games you like, can't you ? On the contrary, the 3.5 community is very much in a fight for it's life I still DM 3.0, yes the .0 one, with my own house rules, and I didn't have the feeling my life was at stake. But thanks for the warning, mate, I'll reinforce the door ;=)
Or how Picard was better than Kirk Now you start a real faction war ;=) Everybody knows that Kirk was the best. Ah, and for the record Sisko was lame. Cheers.
All, Could we just let this useless quarrel die once and for good ? I mean, 4E is not my cup of tea, and the FR have changed so much that I can't personally recognize them, but does that authorize me to belittle the game or its fans ? Certainly not. Besides, there never has been so many game systems supported at the same time (partly because of the strong reactions to 4E) ? You want to continue with 3.x ? Play Pathfinder. You want to an evolution of the classic D20 ? Choose (the excellent) True20. You are bored with D20 ? Play Warhammer FRPG, Hero, Ars Magica etc. So what's the problem ? I never saw so many games of good quality being supported at the same time. And thanks to the pdf edition, they are now even cheaper. People who want to stick with the OGL should not be afraid of its disappearance anyway => OGL is forever. Now if you really want to defend the game you like, please support it by posting interesting game aids, plots etc, rather than by trashing your neighbour's game. Plus, you can later steal good ideas of other games and put them in your owns. Last but not least, there is only 1 gaming community, and several games. If you don't like product A or company X, buy product B or from company Y, that will allow the games you like to continue being developped more than the continuous rant on 4E. Game on !
I just thought I would post up to announce that Erik and I will be gone for two weeks on a trip to GenCon UK Hey, this is cool. I hope you bring enough copies of the beta version with you ? I can't wait to get my hands on it ;=). I saw the pdf, and it is great work. Cheers.
So, they did exactly what they've been saying for a year that they're going to do. I still don't understand why this is so surprising. The issue is not "what they did", but "how they did it". I'm not against changes, but the development of the spellplague backstory and its impact on the world is serioulsy lacking, whereas it should have been central and detailed extensively. You may like or not mind, but it is quite hard to defend that it does not show a total change of spin in WotC's approach to campaign settings. Unfortunately, I think you are quite right.
Where do you think this started ? The early extensions (Monsters of Faerun, Magic of Faerun, Lords of Darkness, Faiths and Pantheons) were literally crammed full with fluff, plots, adventure ideas. Races of Faerun, The Underdark, The Shining South, and The Unapproachable East were good, but there was already a tendency to "fill pages" with too many new classes, races etc, that were not really useful. The last generation supplements ? Dragons of Faerun, is basically a compilation of free articles of Wizard's website plus some useless crunch. The City of Splendor is half the size I expected, and gives much less info than the 2E version. Champions of Ruin and Champions of Valor are a pale remix of Book of Vile Darkness, Book of Exalted Deeds and Lords of Darkness .... When you have a setting with a rich history, a catastrophe like the Spellplague, is the occasion to attract both new players and old players who knew the setting too well. If this is done correctly, it adds even more depth. But this is not what I felt when I read the 4E sourcebook, the message I understood was "These are the new Realms, deal with it". If this is the new reference book for DM, there is way too little info. You will find more fluff here and here, and it's for free ! By the way, I know a lot of homebrew settings which are better written and more consistent than this iteration of the Realms. Now, I think I can stop to rant on about this book and go back to my campaign. ;=)
I still don't have a clear picture of the Spellplague and the 100 years of history after it Well I could not say it better.
I've read a large chunk of it...and still feel like i know almost nothing about the setting. It does start with a 30 page module set in Loudwater, I believe, which some have complained about, while others liked Well I went to my FLGS today to have a detailed look at the book. And I must say that I was very disappointed. I liked the 2E setting, sketchy but with richly detailed areas and a lot of mystery. I liked the 3E setting, fabulously rich and complex, the mature evolution of the 2E Realms. This 4E setting is certainly darker, reflecting our times, and gives just a few details, but it does not have this feeling of mystery of the 2E, and to be honest it seems quite uninspired. Though I belong to those who think that a reboot was not necessary, it could have been an opportunity to make the FR even more epic. But there is nothing in this book that makes me want to play in this setting. I don't think that the reboot is the issue though. In my opinion, after the early 3E FR extensions, the quality of the FR line has constantly declined. When I compare the abundance of material of the 3E sourcebook with the meager information of the 4E one, my impression is that a new standard of low quality writing has been set. Period
but if you don't care about play balance then there should be no issue with adding things that are unbalancing I agree. The pb is that, while I want to tinker with the system, I also do care about play balance. After all it is one of the strong points of 4E. It is simply my impression that 4E is not easy to deconstruct, as I thought initially.
Simple - give wizards a spell book. Let them keep whatever they write in it. At the start of every day let them fill their spell slots from any of the spells in their book. This is what I was thinking of doing initially, but 4E is soooo balanced, that I find this system much more difficult to tinker with in practice than the previous version or other non d20 systems. How could I say ? Every part of this ensemble seem so tightly fitted, that I don't really see how to adapt it to my needs without resorting to heavy works.
All of the stuff you mentioned is crunch. You don't need to use or convert any of it. Just use the new rules with the old fluff - it really is that simple. Well, for one crunch and fluff are not totally separated in D&D (whatever edition you refer to). You cannot compare D&D to a generic toolbox like HERO. Example 1: Vancian magic is as much a mechanic as a part of the setting, and the change of magic system had to be mirrored by change in the setting for 4E. Example 2: Alignment system matters (I must precise that I prefer by far games without alignment though). Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good had a real meaning in the campaign world itself, not just in the crunch part. Same thing if you want to adapt a 2E Planescape campaign. If that is really "that simple", how would you adapt 4E to allow wizards to have a genuine spellbook where they can add spells, instead of powers and the "self-deleting" spellbook ? I ask this question in particular (but I have a hundred or so more) because I really want to finish the current campaign before I jump to something else. And right now, I just don't have the impression that I can tweak the new system to the old era in a satisfactory way.
Well theoretically nothing indeed, but it is easier said than done. Both editions are different enough to make the translation of the old era to 4e quite painful. For instance, what about the total change in the multiclassing rule ? The replacement of spells by powers ? The balanced adaptation of the prestige classes ? Well, like you say, nothing is impossible but if your time is limited, you'll rather run an old era campaign in 3.x and a new era one in 4e. |