[GR] Advanced books? Anyone else excited?

[Gez]

So, if I say the APH is a sort of Unearthed Arcana; the ADMG is a sort of Toolbox and the AB is a sort of Monster Handbook, am I right or wrong?

 

[Darrin Drader]

This sounds very cool. A bestiary chock full of templates sounds promising. The only think that concerns me with the other two is that it sounds like it might add a whole new level of complexity to the core D&D game. In my opinion 3.5 is as complex as it needs to be already. That said, I've been blown away by the majority of Green Ronin's other books in the past and I expect that these will be handled well. Having Skip Williams as the author of the Advanced PHB is extremely cool.

 

[Arnwyn]

Uh... no. I don't know anything about them, so how can I be excited?

Now, after reading what Pramas wrote above, I'm intrigued... but so far the description of the monster book doesn't really seem all that impressive at all (and doesn't seem to match the concept of what Pramas wrote, IMO). More templates? No thanks.

I don't get it.

What's so exciting about these books? Seriously. Why is the Advanced Bestiary any different than Savage Species?

The blurb says "not just more of the same", but the monster book is a bunch of templates, which is just more of the same.

Not cutting 'em down. I'm interested in more tools, but the info so far really doesn't have me excited.

Wow... those are my sentiments *exactly*. I definitely need to see more information on the PHB and DMG type books and better information on the monster book.

So, the answer is: No. I'm a little intrigued, but hardly excited.

 

[diaglo]

so they are repeating the mistakes of the past.

it was a mistake when they introduced 1edADnD.

and it is an even bigger one now.

 

[Ghostwind]

The books certainly sound intriguing (like all of GR's stuff) and I have no doubt the accustomed level of quality will be the same, but it would be nice to have a little more information about the planned contents of the books. We're not asking for a table of contents, but some generalities over the topics covered would be nice.

 

[Silveras]

Have you looked at Expeditious Retreat's Magical Medieval Society book ? 'Cause it's that.

Actually, yes, you will find me generallypraising it and critiquing it in a couple of the threads about AEG's Empire.

I should not have said "PC Domains". What I was really getting at was a good way for the DM to have some quantified description of the politics in the campaign. Something along the lines of Birthright, but a bit more simplified (as it may or may not become part of the game, as the DM chooses).

Except for prestige class. But they're prestige classes, not base classes. If you want a city to have loremasters, you simply has to see whether there's room for a loremaster cabal (a power center), and then how many wizards are part of that power center, those high-level enough will be loremasters. Simple.

My quibbles with the existing system are along these lines, actually. There are notes that the "woodsy" classes (Barbarian, Druid, Ranger) should use different dice in areas where they are more prevalent, but that is about the end of the "sophistication" I am seeking. Also, the possibility of generating 3 Power Centers is Ok for quick-and-dirty cities you create on-the-fly, but I can easily see more city-centered campaigns involving 20 Power Centers competing for influence in the city, and the existing "bare bones" system implies that 3 is the most you would see. Additionally, I think classes like the Loremaster would be out of place in a Hamlet or Thorp -- lacking the resources needed to practice the trade, in general, unless the DM had a reason for adding the character. By the same token, though, the Loremaster should be, not common, but not unique, in a Large City or Metropolis.

As the existing system states, it is just generating the "normal residents", the DM is free to add any additional characters s/he wishes. I just think some PrCs, would *be* normal residents and others would not. The PrCs that are designed to be exemplars of race attitudes and styles (Arcane Archer, Dwarven Defender, for example) should be "fairly common" in cities of that race, especially larger ones. Conversely, PrCs that are more "organization members" should have their organization's presence decided by the DM.

What I would hope an expanded DMG would address, in this regard, is guidelines on differentiating cities by the primary race, and guidelines on how to classify PrCs for puroses of determining which should be present "as normal residents" and which should only be present because the DM places them there. Of course, such a section should be written keeping in mind that PrCs are an optional rule and not every DM allows them.

 

[Golem Joe]

Imagine that WotC published Player's Handbook II, Dungeon Master's Guide II, and Monster Manual II for Dungeons and Dragons. Those books would be aimed very broadly at D&D players and would try to provide material that would enhance the game for everyone. Some of the material would be brand new, some of it would be new takes on D&D standards, and some of it would simply expand on the baseline of the core books. All three books would be highly modular and designed to give players and GMs new tools to work with. In short, they would be books that any serious D&D enthusiast would want to have.

And again, this sounds like the claims of at least 1/3rd of the d20 books on the market. Frankly, I think d20 has become advanced enough. It's certainly more complex than AD&D1 or 2. So am I to expect these books will take it to the level of Rolemaster?

Sorry, not biting.

But I am looking forward to Black Sails Over Freeport.

 

[Pramas]

So, if I say the APH is a sort of Unearthed Arcana; the ADMG is a sort of Toolbox and the AB is a sort of Monster Handbook, am I right or wrong?

I'd say you're sort of right on the first count, but not on the second two.

 

[Pramas]

so they are repeating the mistakes of the past.

it was a mistake when they introduced 1edADnD.

and it is an even bigger one now.

AD&D was a completely stand-alone game, similar to but different from OD&D. That's not what we are doing at all. These books are meant to work WITH your core books, not replace them.

 

[Pramas]

The books certainly sound intriguing (like all of GR's stuff) and I have no doubt the accustomed level of quality will be the same, but it would be nice to have a little more information about the planned contents of the books. We're not asking for a table of contents, but some generalities over the topics covered would be nice.

We're going to be releasing a lot of info and previews over the coming months, so don't worry. The press release was a shot across the bow, informing people of our intentions. You'll get a better idea of what we have planned as we get closer to release.

I'm not going to get into specifics in this thread for two reasons:

1) The contents aren't set in stone. Things are likely to be added and dropped during playtesting and development.

2) The Advanced Player's Handbook and Advanced Gamemaster's Guide are far enough away that if I go into some the really cool new stuff in them now, other d20 publishers could see the ideas and rush copycat products out before us. And yes, this has happened before. Sad I know, but such are the realities of the crowded d20 market.