Search results

They are trying to win back the - large - part of their former player base they drove away to Pathfinder with their insulting "3.X sucks, 4E rules" advertising campaign and their "we'll stop offering PDFs of earlier editions so you have to buy our new edition" decision. It's a good idea, but it...

It took them years, but they finally wised up and are giving the 3.5 fans (some of) what we want. Now we need PDFs available, and we can forget the whole stupid "We will stop selling 3.5 pdfs so you'll have to buy 4E" scheme.

That's D&D for you, since the start, through any edition.

You're not the omly one. 4E wrecked the Realms, and replaced detailed regions with barely-described clichee. The Realms are not 3 books, are not entire regions reduced to a single paragraph which offers no real information, but a tapestry of history and details that make a region come alive.

Yeah, it made no sense - in order to sell a few copies of 3 books, they destroyed an entire setting to turn it into something its old (and numerous) fans hated. Could have simply made a enw setting for those who hated the realms.

4E's changes killed the Realms. Ed should relaunch the timeline from some point prior to the end of 3E.

That's included in "prior to the end of 3E".

"A point prior to the end of 3E" includes 1E and 2E by definition.

No, I meant I am fine with any point up from 1E to the end of 3E for a relaunch. Even the ToT, for all the hamfisted "new rules, new world" changes it brought, was not as bad as the 4E debacle.

Then the realms remain dead. (They don't have to retcon it, they can do a relaunch, comics and movies do that all the time.)

That. If every product will still cling to the 4E changes I'll not buy anything - and I bought just about every FR book before they went crazy and wrecked it for 4E.

I like FR for the rich setting, and the details it added, and the history. I don't really use all the high-level NPCs.

What weird sexual stuff? All I remember is that Ed's heroes act like I'd expect adventurers to act: Like soldiers on leave.

As long as they don't appear and fight no one can tell what level they are anyway. The actual source book material doesn't really need all those demi-gods, and their reputation could just be overblown by bards.

I find wading through sewers and/or the blood of enemies far more creepy and disgusting than wading through a bath where an orgy is being held.

The problem high-level NPCs pose to me is that if the players know or think they are more powerful than their characters, they often try to solve a problem by informing the NPCs ("Hellgate about to open? X needs to be informed, so he can close it! No, we can't risk trying to do it ourselves, the...

In 3E, Drizzt was a pushover mechanically, and the chosen of Mystra were not exactly optimized either.

No, for an inexperienced DM it could be tricky to handle that as soon as the players don't want to dress up, but use invisibility and silence and have the rogue use a rope to get the weaker characters over the wall. Or arrange a distraction to cover the noise the dwarf makes by doing a bit of...

So, instead of the fighter being useless, the paladin, barbarian and ranger are useless, since they cannot come close to the fighter? As long as a magic weapon makes you better at hitting things it is needed for characters who hit things as their main combat stick, or they are inadequate...

Skill checks are not the goal, skill checks are the tool. They should originate from actions stated by the players, not from a framework. The amount of skill checks needed follows the situation, not the other way around. Their DCs too should vary according to the specific check and situation...