Forked Thread: Compare FRCS4e to other Settings

[Keefe the Thief]

If you compare the FRCS to one of the "shove as much stuff in as possible" Campaign Settins, then you´re gonna be disappointed. Because this time, the book has a significantly different focus. It wants to be small, easy to read, concise for starting a game in the new FR where the DM fills in all the gaps. This is a successor of the Grey Box, not of the 2e or 3e Campaign Settings. To which i say: thank god. Because i already own those.

 

[Scribble]

Uh, virtually identical apart from it wouldn't have pages and pages wasted on pointless location/origin-based feats? Maybe missing some of the PrCs but they were dual-use anyway.

I think if there IS significant campaign info in the Player's part that's not in the DMG, then that's bloody CRIMINAL on WotC's part. This idea of yours, that a campaign setting cannot be judged on the y'know, the book called CAMPAIGN SETTING, seems pretty fantastical.

Considering that no-one seems to be comparing "crunch" anyway, why the heck would the player's book matter?

Didn't the FRCS for 3e have things like playable races, new spells (powers) new magic items, new equipment et al?

I know it at least had new races,... as I seem to remember that being the first time we saw LAs?

 

[hexgrid]

This idea of yours, that a campaign setting cannot be judged on the y'know, the book called CAMPAIGN SETTING, seems pretty fantastical.

The book is called the "Campaign Guide," actually.

Maybe the name was changed to reflect the change in focus.