58 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

bzombo wrote...

i was never really a fan of 3e, 3.5, or 4e. i come from the ad&d second edition days. i happen to like thaco and the idea of lowering armor as you get better armor as opposed to raising it. i had a great time in the groups i played in back then. i was in a 3.5 group a few years back and i was pretty bored by it. i also find myself struggling to get through games that use 3e or 3.5. as much as i enjoy toee, i still have my moments where i get annoyed and stop playing. the ruleset just drives me nuts! i like when classes have limits on them. it makes each class have value and strengths and weaknesses. the 3e+ stuff just kinda gave every class access to everything if they just use extra points on skills/feats.

Other than my liking 4E, I'm right there with you.

Prior to 4E coming out I was going to run a D&D campaign for a group of people I was playing with at the time, but trying to use the 3.5 books was driving me batty and I changed everything back to 2nd ED.
Lucky for me 4E came out and I still had players - the 3.5 people didn't want to learn/relearn 2nd ED.

But as for CRPGs, it took years for me to make the connections of why I never finished ToEE, NWN, and only played Icewind Dale 2 once.  There was one thing holding them in common - 3.5 ruleset.

[addiction21]

Is there a waffle edition of the rules? If they did I would prefer the setting to be in the Dragonshard setting. I think thats it with the Warforged. I found that setting to be more interesting then the Forgotten Realms (Baldurs gate right?) setting.

I have to go look it up but I remember a game called Dark Sun I think, and that is supposed to be another setting for D&D. You have to excuse my nubness in this area I know little and never actully played the PnP games.

[Seagloom]

MerinTB wrote...

Onto the complaints about lack of depth of lore in the books (for Seagloom here) -

WotC have acknowledged this.  They've taken the complaints to heart.

If you haven't checked out these books yet, Seagloom, go to your local library or bookstore and look through Manual of the Planes, Open Grave, Primal Power ... all good examples of less mechanics more backstory / history / world description.  Primal Power, in particular, marked a turning point in the Powers books for how much "fluff" they added to class/race combo descriptions.

And as for Monster Manuals, while I'll say I love the format of the first two for 4E (I seriously, completely love the layout and design of the books and really did NOT for the 3rd ED books at all) but I understand the desire for more background on the monsters.  Mike Mearls and others as WotC have, again, acknowledged the fan complaints about this and say that the 3rd Monster Manual is designed with those complaints in mind.  I'd suggest checking it out when it comes out and seeing if that is more to your liking.

Took me awhile before I noticed this here. I've seen Manual of the Planes but not the others. It was chock full of lore. Of course, it was the new planar cosmology I'm not particularly fond of, being a Planescape fan. Still, the arrangement of various planes hardly bother me. It's mostly how the treatment of fiends and moreso, celestials. I really hate how celestials have been reduced to divine automatons in 4e. Still, your point is taken and I've digressed long enough.

It's good that WotC is trying to make up for it with future books. The unfortunate part is we're unlikely to see much coverage on most creatures from the first Monster Manual until 5e. The majority of them are unlikely to warrant their own books such as dragons and undead. Considering that is where a lion's share of the most iconic D&D monsters can be found, I see it as a sort of too little too late thing. The positive side is hopefully they won't repeat this mistake again.

Also, I've never understood the term fluff. I know what it *means*. I just hate that fluff is considered something superfluous as that word implies. While mechanics are known as crunch... which implies that's where the real meat of a game is. I know this has nothing to do with our posts. Just venting.

[Seagloom]

addiction21 wrote...

Is there a waffle edition of the rules? If they did I would prefer the setting to be in the Dragonshard setting. I think thats it with the Warforged. I found that setting to be more interesting then the Forgotten Realms (Baldurs gate right?) setting.
I have to go look it up but I remember a game called Dark Sun I think, and that is supposed to be another setting for D&D. You have to excuse my nubness in this area I know little and never actully played the PnP games.

Dragonshard was set in Eberron. Admittedly, Eberron is pretty neat and I'm also fond of it despite being a diehard FR fan for several years. The weird thing is, I prefer not using D&D rules to play in Eberron. It's IMO the most unique D&D setting there is precisely because so many common tropes are subverted, and the world feels expansive, yet unexplored. I mean, I like elves... even drow elves in Eberron... and I *despise* them virtually anywhere else.

Dark Sun was a 2e setting that will be updated for 4e this year. Every year WotC focuses on one campaign setting. First it was Forgotten Realms shortly after 4e's launch. Then it was Eberron last year. Now it's going to be Dark Sun. That's another setting I like, though not as much as some others. It's post apocalyptic D&D with a few fun concepts about magic thrown in. Do you remember the cannibal halflings in Baldur's Gate 2? They come from Dark Sun. I'm actually surprised WotC chose it since it isn't the best fit for 4e's super powered PCs approach. I guess they wanted to tie it in with the third Player's Handbook though, since psionics heavily features in Dark Sun.

Oh and yes, Baldur's Gate took place in the Forgotten Realms.

[Dark Lilith]

I basically liked D&D games and RPG's are a huge turn-on for me.I'll play and pay if they make another.

[addiction21]

Ya Eberron was what I was thinking. Not to get down on the Forgotten Realms setting but it has seemed to have been used A LOT and is kinda the stock fantasy setting. Its got its great parts like the Illthid (the squid faces) and some other things.

I do not remember the canibles halflings but it has been a long time since I played the BG games and never actually got to play the BG2 expansions (was there more then 1?).

[Seagloom]

There was one expansion for Baldur's Gate 2. You run into them during the Planar Sphere quest in the main game. There's also a nod to Dragonlance in that area in the form of the three knights encountered early on. Aaanyway, those halflings were indicative of Dark Sun as a whole. It's pretty gritty, at least for D&D.

[Statulos]

Any Forgotten Realms thing is welcome. Especially if the Dark Maiden is somewhere.

Modifié par Statulos, 09 mars 2010 - 01:53 .

[Nhadalie]

It's been awhile before I really looked into D&D rules. But it really bothers me that they changed how the races are with 4th edition. (Aasimar are now "devas", and eladrin are no longer celestials, etc.)

I don't think a new D&D game is very likely to happen. Though honestly, I sort of consider Dragon age to be roughly based on D&D. Since they share some similarities. But that might just be because I grew up with D&D stuff all around me. Maybe in the future a new D&D based game will happen. But I don't think it will be for a couple years, personally.