# FR: Players Guide to Faerun is out what do you think?



## SteveC (Mar 20, 2004)

Hi all,
I was just at my FLGS and saw that the new Players Guide is out, updating the Realms to 3.5. I looked at it and saw a lot of rules: feats, prestige classes and spells.

Here's my question for those brave souls who bought the book: I don't run a FR campaign, so how much of this material is going to be useful to me? The original FR book for Third Edition had some balance issues for use in a "standard" 3E game, and Magic of Faerun had even more (that's just my opinion of course). Has this same sort of thing been carried over to the new edition, or is it more "generic 3.5 friendly?"

Any comments you would like to make about the book are welcome as well: what feats/classes/spells/domains are you most interested in?

Thanks!

--Steve


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2004)

It still has balance issues.  One feat gives you proficiency with all martial weapons -- so an Eldritch Knight doesn't need to take a fighter level anymore.  Another feat lets you sell loot for 75% of book price instead of 50%.  What party wouldn't want this?

WoTC really needs to hire back Monte Cook.

Ken McKinney



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> I was just at my FLGS and saw that the new Players Guide is out, updating the Realms to 3.5. I looked at it and saw a lot of rules: feats, prestige classes and spells.
> 
> Here's my question for those brave souls who bought the book: I don't run a FR campaign, so how much of this material is going to be useful to me? The original FR book for Third Edition had some balance issues for use in a "standard" 3E game, and Magic of Faerun had even more (that's just my opinion of course). Has this same sort of thing been carried over to the new edition, or is it more "generic 3.5 friendly?"
> ...


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 20, 2004)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> It still has balance issues.  One feat gives you proficiency with all martial weapons -- so an Eldritch Knight doesn't need to take a fighter level anymore.  Another feat lets you sell loot for 75% of book price instead of 50%.  What party wouldn't want this?
> 
> WoTC really needs to hire back Monte Cook.
> 
> Ken McKinney




Being aware of some of Monte's notions of balance, I would be careful what you wish for. And neither of the feats you listed really pose huge balance problems.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 20, 2004)

I don't think it had any severe balance issues. Some of the feats were better than normal, yes, but that's because they were regional feats: you can only take one of those, and at 1st level. The rest of the feats seemed pretty much in line with relative feats from the PHB.

In regards to how much is "lootable" for a non-FR game...well, its not the easiest thing to remove a lot of this for a more generic game unless you want to be doing heavy borrowing. Things like the region listings, cosmology, etc. seem pretty closely tied. If you just want to use the feats, spells, PrC's etc., you shouldn't have too bad a time.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 20, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I don't think it had any severe balance issues. Some of the feats were better than normal, yes, but that's because they were regional feats: you can only take one of those, and at 1st level. The rest of the feats seemed pretty much in line with relative feats from the PHB.
> 
> In regards to how much is "lootable" for a non-FR game...well, its not the easiest thing to remove a lot of this for a more generic game unless you want to be doing heavy borrowing. Things like the region listings, cosmology, etc. seem pretty closely tied. If you just want to use the feats, spells, PrC's etc., you shouldn't have too bad a time.



Interesting stuff. How much of the material is new, and how much is converted from 3.0?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 20, 2004)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> It still has balance issues.  One feat gives you proficiency with all martial weapons -- so an Eldritch Knight doesn't need to take a fighter level anymore.  Another feat lets you sell loot for 75% of book price instead of 50%.  What party wouldn't want this?
> 
> WoTC really needs to hire back Monte Cook.
> 
> Ken McKinney




Didn't Monte's variant Player's Handbook have a feat that in essence gave you all exotic weapon profiencies (that were heavy) and their dire versions for one feat? Might want to rethink that statement.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2004)

> I don't think it had any severe balance issues. Some of the feats were better than normal, yes, but that's because they were regional feats: you can only take one of those, and at 1st level. The rest of the feats seemed pretty much in line with relative feats from the PHB.




That's questionable balance-fu. Even regional feats should be in line with other feats that a character can take at first level, because they are exactly the same cost (1 feat, at 1st level). It doesn't matter the quantity, it's the quality....if I made a class that was better than the others but you could only take one level of it, and it *had* to be your first class level, that would still be bad balance because it's the same cost for a better power.

That said, the 75% sellback isn't too bad (should be bigger than 1st level, but no biggie), but the 1 feat for all martial weapons is pretty volatile.

Mostly I'm interested to see how the Planetouched are updated...that was basically the reason I picked up the first one, after all.......


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's questionable balance-fu. Even regional feats should be in line with other feats that a character can take at first level, because they are exactly the same cost (1 feat, at 1st level).




Not so. This got a sidebar for why they deliberately changed regional feats to make them better than normal feats. The design philosophy is that since regional feats require the character to be grounded in the campaign world (essentially being a strong encouragement for role-playing) that they should reward the character more.



> Originally posted by *SteveC*
> _Interesting stuff. How much of the material is new, and how much is converted from 3.0?_




Not having done a complete check, it seems like the first half of the book was 3E to 3.5E updates, since that corrects the (regional) feats, spells, and PrC's (conversely, the magic items section seemed to be almost all new material). The second half of the book, dealing with cosmology, epic levels, the appendix for psionic/exalted/vile material, and the short section on playing "under-powered" versions of races with a level adjustment, was mostly new material (some of it was taken from the WotC website though).


----------



## Gothmog (Mar 20, 2004)

I looked at it today in the store for about an hour, and I have to say I thought it was a VERY weak book.  Most of the material (I'd say 60-70% from eyeballing it) is reprinted from other FR books and updated to 3.5.  The regional feats are pretty much all the same, with a few minor mods to up their power.  Some of the spells were new, but lots were revisions of spells from older FR stuff.  The PrCs were the major thing though- almost all of them are from the FRCS, and only slightly modified for casters so the DCs are lower and in line with 3.5 (which is a good thing).  Looks like there were some new properties for weapons and armor and items, but not that many.  Some new epic level stuff (blah), some FR cosmology details (useful for FR fans, useless otherwise), and an update of events in the realms, as well as ways to include stuff from the BoVD and BoED.  Overall a very mediocre book, and one I would only recommend to diehard FR fans.  Pass on it if you don't play the Realms.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2004)

> Not so. This got a sidebar for why they deliberately changed regional feats to make them better than normal feats. The design philosophy is that since regional feats require the character to be grounded in the campaign world (essentially being a strong encouragement for role-playing) that they should reward the character more.




Did I mention that my one-level first-level class is v. exclusive to only this world? Heck, it varies by region...it grounds you more in the world!

Eh, it's still a bad reason. While I can see the logic, it's crossing the flavor/mechanics boundary (you've done something for flavor! here's a mechanical benefit!), and it's effectively saying "Guys from FR are better than your mooks from wherever else you guys are from, 'cuz we've got REGIONAL FEATS! And those make us POWERFUL!"

I mean, it doesn't exactly shatter the game, but it's significant enough to grate on me...it's like saying something can be powerful because it's 'rare.' This is bad rules fu, methinks.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Did I mention that my one-level first-level class is v. exclusive to only this world? Heck, it varies by region...it grounds you more in the world!
> 
> Eh, it's still a bad reason. While I can see the logic, it's crossing the flavor/mechanics boundary (you've done something for flavor! here's a mechanical benefit!), and it's effectively saying "Guys from FR are better than your mooks from wherever else you guys are from, 'cuz we've got REGIONAL FEATS! And those make us POWERFUL!"
> 
> I mean, it doesn't exactly shatter the game, but it's significant enough to grate on me...it's like saying something can be powerful because it's 'rare.' This is bad rules fu, methinks.




I agree with you, though in practice, beyond 1st level, the balance effects are minimal. This is because they are more potent than single feats, but not feat chains. And from what I can tell, they are not prereqs for other feats. Many simply act to give large benefit to rolls than only come up occassionaly. Most feats with feat prereqs will give you more utility. They are not that bad, though its a line i wish they hadn't crossed.


----------



## LGodamus (Mar 20, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I don't think it had any severe balance issues. Some of the feats were better than normal, yes, but that's because they were regional feats: you can only take one of those, and at 1st level. The rest of the feats seemed pretty much in line with relative feats from the PHB.
> 
> In regards to how much is "lootable" for a non-FR game...well, its not the easiest thing to remove a lot of this for a more generic game unless you want to be doing heavy borrowing. Things like the region listings, cosmology, etc. seem pretty closely tied. If you just want to use the feats, spells, PrC's etc., you shouldn't have too bad a time.




you are not limited in how many regional feats you can take nor can they only be purchased at first level.....unless of course they changed it from 3.0


----------



## BobROE (Mar 20, 2004)

LGodamus said:
			
		

> you are not limited in how many regional feats you can take nor can they only be purchased at first level.....unless of course they changed it from 3.0




Which they did, which I think is part of the point.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Did I mention that my one-level first-level class is v. exclusive to only this world? Heck, it varies by region...it grounds you more in the world!




Then you've managed to create something that is not only not unbalancing, but works well with your world also! Congratulations, it must be very gratifying.



> _Eh, it's still a bad reason. While I can see the logic, it's crossing the flavor/mechanics boundary (you've done something for flavor! here's a mechanical benefit!),_




Not really, no. That would be true if you got an effect just for doing something, but these still have to be purchased normally with a feat slot. Not to mention the fact that your choices among them are limited to start with, and you can only take one, more than makes up for the fact that that it's slightly more powerful (and only slightly).



> _and it's effectively saying "Guys from FR are better than your mooks from wherever else you guys are from, 'cuz we've got REGIONAL FEATS! And those make us POWERFUL!"_




Now that's just plain ridiculous...the _Greyhawk_ boys have regional feats too.   



> _I mean, it doesn't exactly shatter the game, but it's significant enough to grate on me...it's like saying something can be powerful because it's 'rare.' This is bad rules fu, methinks._




With that outlook, major artifacts must tear you up inside.  

Honestly though, I don't think any of the regional feats are more powerful than, say, a feat that offers a permanent, unnamed +4 bonus initiative.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2004)

> Then you've managed to create something that is not only not unbalancing, but works well with your world also! Congratulations, it must be very gratifying.




....see, the point was that's exactly what these regional feats are. 



> Not really, no. That would be true if you got an effect just for doing something, but these still have to be purchased normally with a feat slot. Not to mention the fact that your choices among them are limited to start with, and you can only take one, more than makes up for the fact that that it's slightly more powerful (and only slightly).




See, as far as I can see, this is bad balance-fu. You have to pay the cost, but you get a greater benefit than someone else who pays the same cost....maybe not significantly....but it's kinda like in normal D&D, 1 first-level feat = 1 first-level feat. In FR, 1 first-level feat = 1 first-level feat +1. It's not game-breaking, but it is unbalancing....a smidge.  You pay no extra cost for that +1.

Limiting the number and choices isn't a balance factor. Even if there is only one of those one-level uberclasses per continent, the class is still overpowered on it's own merits. It's on an extra cost, it's just that your +1 is limited on what it can apply to...it's a limit on the bonus, not a cost to pay for the bonus...



> Now that's just plain ridiculous...the Greyhawk boys have regional feats too.




Well, no, not really....not if the PHB is taken to = Greyhawk (which was my assumption)....but basically, whatever world is crafted from the PHB is now 'worse,' just like any character created in that world. The FR character is more powerful. Though my example was ludicrously exaggerated, I'll give you that. 



> With that outlook, major artifacts must tear you up inside.




Major artifacts are more plot devices than anything else...PC's don't expect to get their hands on them unless there's a reason within the plot, and then don't expect to be able to 'abuse' their powers for very long. However, FR PC's expect to get these "+1 feats," and expect to be able to use it to it's greatest advantage. It shouldn't matter how exotic or rare, say, a mercurial greatsword is...once the PC's get one, they're more powerful than ever before, and if the PC's never get one there's no reason to have them in the game. 



> Honestly though, I don't think any of the regional feats are more powerful than, say, a feat that offers a permanent, unnamed +4 bonus initiative.




Well, when one comprable feat gives you access to a single martial weapon....vs. FR's 'all martial weapons'.....that's more powerful than any standard feat...frighteningly so...


----------



## Felon (Mar 20, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Not really, no. That would be true if you got an effect just for doing something, but these still have to be purchased normally with a feat slot.




If they're better than a regular feat then clearly it's reasonable to suggest that they should have some accompanying extra cost. That there's only a one-level window to take the feat does not represent a _cost_, but is rather a limitation to keep players from taking more than one. That's not the same thing as it does not balance the regional feat against a non-regional taken at first level.



> Not to mention the fact that your choices among them are limited to start with, and you can only take one, more than makes up for the fact that that it's slightly more powerful (and only slightly).




So far nothing that's been said indicates that the greater power of the regional feat is "made up for" in comparison to a non-regional feat taken at first level. 

As for the rationale the designers provided--that taking a regional feat encourages roleplaying--that's really pretty dubious reasoning. A character can just take the feat, and never have to really know anything about the region. It happened all the time before; the simple truth is that players are often unfamiliar with their DM's chosen campaign setting at is outset, and really don't have an easy way to become familiar until they've played a while--which takes them beyond first level. Like the Midget said, bartering mechanical balance for role-playing flavor doesn't really work out all that equitably. Folks have been aware of that since the 1e cavalier.   Role-players will role-play without any inducement. Powergamers will just pay lip service to get the slight power boost.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> See, as far as I can see, this is bad balance-fu. You have to pay the cost, but you get a greater benefit than someone else who pays the same cost....maybe not significantly....but it's kinda like in normal D&D, 1 first-level feat = 1 first-level feat. In FR, 1 first-level feat = 1 first-level feat +1. It's not game-breaking, but it is unbalancing....a smidge.  You pay no extra cost for that +1.




And if all feats were created equal to begin with, that might be true. But as it is, some normal feats are just better than others anyway. Getting +2 to Diplomacy and Bluff (or whatever) isn't as good as getting (to rehash that example) +4 to initiative.



> _Well, no, not really....not if the PHB is taken to = Greyhawk_




Um, you _do_ realize that there's a two-part article in _Dragon_ (part 2 in next month's issue) that gives regional feats for the _Greyhawk_ campaign, right?



> _Major artifacts are more plot devices than anything else...PC's don't expect to get their hands on them unless there's a reason within the plot, and then don't expect to be able to 'abuse' their powers for very long._




To be fair, that's just your interpretation.



> _Well, when one comprable feat gives you access to a single martial weapon....vs. FR's 'all martial weapons'.....that's more powerful than any standard feat...frighteningly so..._




And not at all more powerful than a single level of Fighter, which would do the same thing...hey, that means Fighter is your uber-class, isnt it?!


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 20, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Role-players will role-play without any inducement. Powergamers will just pay lip service to get the slight power boost.




Which is the fault of the player, not the system. A single feat that is slightly better won't unbalance anything, unless a bad player (or substandard DM) lets it.


----------



## Felon (Mar 20, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Which is the fault of the player, not the system.




This opinion is a little naive. If you're designing a henhouse and you know there are foxes out there, you do have an obligation to address the potential problem. When some chickens get eaten, you don't get absolved of responsibility for leaving holes in the structure by saying "that's the foxes fault, and the fault of the rooster that should have been watching all the hens, but not mine--not in the least!"

Likewise, the simple fact of the matter is, there _are_ bad players out there, the designers are aware of that, and that's where spiffy concepts like "game balance" come into the picture. When presenting new feats, spells, classes, or what have you, the system does have an obligation to address obvious exploits before they get out of the starting gate, and so far this looks to be one of them. 



> A single feat that is slightly better won't unbalance anything, unless a bad player (or substandard DM) lets it.




It's not the end of the world, but the scenario shouldn't exist in the first place. Rather than just sort of weakly contend that "oh, this is a little unbalanced but it won't be _too broken_ I suppose", they should just make an earnest effort to keep the field level.


----------



## heimdall (Mar 20, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> It's not the end of the world, but the scenario shouldn't exist in the first place. Rather than just sort of weakly contend that "oh, this is a little unbalanced but it won't be _too broken_ I suppose", they should just make an earnest effort to keep the field level.




Well, consider that all PCs in FR have the same option. Strictly speaking, it IS balanced. Now, when compared with other worlds, yes, the characters may be more powerful. 

But then again, the rules were designed for the Realms, not a cross-over campaign. Each world is going to have things in it that make it unique. Look at the Bard class in the DragonLance campaign setting prior to the Age of Mortals... no spells. Even when Age of Mortals hits, no healing spells, as that's the province of divine spellcasters ONLY. And if we look at Ravenloft, 3.0 or 3.5 rules, spellcasters get nerfed a bit because certain spells react differently. One could say the field isn't leveled between say Greyhawk and Ravenloft. An example of an out-of-balance situation can almost always be found when comparing across worlds.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Mar 20, 2004)

IMO, it is an adequate book without being inspiring. I read it and felt that I had just paid for a series of web enhancements. So, yes, the utility is there but the inspiration is not.

Oh well, back to Midnight and Dawnforge....


----------



## Numion (Mar 20, 2004)

IMO the all martial weapons proficiency isn't a big deal because:

1) Players mostly stick to one weapon

2) Characters that don't have the proficiencies are lousy weapons users anyway, so there won't be any gamebreaking combos with the feat.


----------



## Darkness (Mar 20, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> IMO the all martial weapons proficiency isn't a big deal because:



*nods*

3) Feats are rather precious; you don't get that many. Unless you're a fighter - but they get all MWPs anyway.


----------



## Swiftbrook (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> See, as far as I can see, this is bad balance-fu. You have to pay the cost, but you get a greater benefit than someone else who pays the same cost....maybe not significantly....but it's kinda like in normal D&D, 1 first-level feat = 1 first-level feat. In FR, 1 first-level feat = 1 first-level feat +1. It's not game-breaking, but it is unbalancing....a smidge.  You pay no extra cost for that +1.
> 
> Limiting the number and choices isn't a balance factor...






			
				Felon said:
			
		

> If they're better than a regular feat then clearly it's reasonable to suggest that they should have some accompanying extra cost. That there's only a one-level window to take the feat does not represent a _cost_, but is rather a limitation to keep players from taking more than one. That's not the same thing as it does not balance the regional feat against a non-regional taken at first level.




But there is a *cost*.  I play an elf ranger.  At 1st level I get one feat.  One.  If I could choose that powerfull 1st level regional feat at any level, I might wait and take it at 6th.
Like this:
1st: Point Blank Shot
3rd: Percise Shot
6th: Regional Feat

But limiting that regional feat to first level only means I now must put off Point Blank Shot & Percise Shot like this:
1st: Regional Feat
3rd: Point Blank Shot
6th: Percise Shot

That is a *cost*.  You do "pay an extra cost for that +1".  Two levels that I can't use PBS (1 & 2) and three levels I can't use Percise Shot (3, 4 & 5).

By limiting a feat to only being available at 1st level, it can be a slightly more powerful feat without upsetting the ballance.

-Swiftbrook


----------



## Pseudonym (Mar 20, 2004)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Most of the material (I'd say 60-70% from eyeballing it) is reprinted from other FR books and updated to 3.5.



Which is exactly why I bought it.  

As far as usability for other campaigns, most of the prestige classes are easily portable to other worlds. The Hammer of Moradin would be suitable for any world with standard D&D dwarves in it. The Shaaryan Hunter would be excellent for any mounted nomadic culture.

Another easily portable mechanic are the initiate feats for several deities. It would require determining equivalences between the Realms deities and the deities of the campaign you want to plug these into, but it shouldn't be that hard.

These feats require a specific class level and patron, and give thematically appropriate abilities and add deity specific spells to the available spell list. For example, the Initiate of Lathander allows you to spontaneously cast any spell with the light descriptor in addition to the normal spontaneous cure spells.

The magic items given are easily portable as well, there are some specific items with a bit of Realms history given for each one. The general ones are nice and not too overwhelming.

I've only given it a quick skim in most sections. The areas I paid particular attention to were the very Realms specific things like the changes to the cosmology and the advanced timeline.

If you are a Realms fanboy go out and get it now. If you want to mine it for bits, then I'm sure a Share the Love deal will get going soon.


----------



## jsaving (Mar 20, 2004)

> IMO the all martial weapons proficiency isn't a big deal because:
> 1) Players mostly stick to one weapon
> 2) Characters that don't have the proficiencies are lousy weapons users anyway, so there won't be any gamebreaking combos with the feat.



Agreed, *except* that prestige classes like the eldritch knight require the caster to level up once without any casting progression -- and implement that requirement through the verbal sleight-of-hand "proficiency with all martial weapons."  The 3.5e team has said the eldritch knight is broken without this requirement, which presents a problem in a world where a feat can suddenly give you this proficiency.


----------



## Urbannen (Mar 20, 2004)

So this Martial Weapon Proficiency feat doesn't have Simple Weapon Proficiency as a prerequisite?

That's pretty wacko if true.  "Oh, I'm an Eldritch Knight.  I can use a greatsword, but heck if I know how to wield a mace."


----------



## reiella (Mar 20, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Not so. This got a sidebar for why they deliberately changed regional feats to make them better than normal feats. The design philosophy is that since regional feats require the character to be grounded in the campaign world (essentially being a strong encouragement for role-playing) that they should reward the character more.
> mostly new material (some of it was taken from the WotC website though).




And that's a design philosophy I disagree with vehemently.
You shouldn't need to carrot the players in that fashion, in my opinion.
From a mechanical point of view, offering a mechanical reward for a roleplaying quirk (in this case, a feat that is more powerful than other 'non-regional' feats) is a crutch saying that whatever roleplaying that is necessitated by the feat, somehow makes the character weaker such that it requires additional mechanical benefit.

Time restriction should mostly be a flavor thing anyway, as for balance, it results in situations where players are more likly to take a regional feat for their first level, since it's something that they can NEVER make up.  Further, the situations where you are 'effectively' forced to take the regional feat at first being considered a cost can only work if the feat in question reduces in viability/power as you level up (and in this situation you best let your players use the Reduce LA option in UA, because it's meant to address this exact problem).


----------



## Mystery Man (Mar 20, 2004)

I like the book but I thinks I'm going to grandfather in any old feats my players have already chosen for their characters in case they want to keep them. Am I too nice of a guy?


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 20, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Didn't Monte's variant Player's Handbook have a feat that in essence gave you all exotic weapon profiencies (that were heavy) and their dire versions for one feat? Might want to rethink that statement.



Monte divided all exotic weapons into agile and heavy basically.  I've always thought that having group weapon proficiences made much more sense.  I don't see anything wrong with this one.  His sense of balance seems fine by me.

Hagen


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2004)

*martial*

the martial weapon proficiency feat doesn't have simple weapon proficiency as a prereq, no.

And the fact that it breaks the balance of the EK is exactly what I meant in my first post.  An EK now gets access to high level spells as quickly as a sorcerer, plus he gets full BAB for all but 5 levels of his progression -- IE, his BAB at 20th level is better than a clerics.

The one thing that mitigates this is that Spellsword is a really good PRC for an EK character to pick up a level in, and the Wis5/EKX can't do this because he doesn't have proficiency in all armor. 

Ken


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2004)

> And if all feats were created equal to begin with, that might be true. But as it is, some normal feats are just better than others anyway. Getting +2 to Diplomacy and Bluff (or whatever) isn't as good as getting (to rehash that example) +4 to initiative.




It's a difficult choice for some. A rogue for instance....+2 to Hide/Move Silently, +4 to Initiative, it's really just a matter of which one he wants to do better.....a bard or a sneaky charlatan type getting +2 to Diplomacy and Bluff is at least as good as a +4 to initiative. +2 to Listen and Spot is pretty nice for anyone who want to avoid the surprise round. +2 Search and Appraise useful for those rogues who like to find the treasure, and give the dim bulbs the cheap stuff. It is as good. 



> Um, you do realize that there's a two-part article in Dragon (part 2 in next month's issue) that gives regional feats for the Greyhawk campaign, right?




Well, if Dragon were the PHB, I'd give this to you, but Dragon is basically a bunch of fan articles. FR now is more powerful than the "base D&D world," with these feats. Not significantly so, but noticably so.



> To be fair, that's just your interpretation.




Well, according to the DMG: "Never introduce a major artifact into a campaign without careful consideration. These are the most potent of magic items, cabable of altering the balance of a campaign.".....I'd say my interpretation is pretty well founded.  Aritfacts aren't powerful because they're rare, they're powerful because they're plot devices, not really meant to be tools for the PC's to use throughout their careers (like a feat).



> And not at all more powerful than a single level of Fighter, which would do the same thing...hey, that means Fighter is your uber-class, isnt it?!




It means that taking one level of a class is a bigger cost then a feat slot. There shouldn't be a feat that let you cast all the spells a first-level Sorcerer can cast, either.



> But there is a cost. I play an elf ranger. At 1st level I get one feat. One. If I could choose that powerfull 1st level regional feat at any level, I might wait and take it at 6th.
> Like this:
> 1st: Point Blank Shot
> 3rd: Percise Shot
> ...




That's not a greater cost than any other feat, man. By taking ANY feat, you're delaying your acquisition of others. There still isn't a cost for that +1, because I could choose Improved Initiative or Skill Focus instead and achieve the same effect, and neither of those have the power of the regional feat. Does this mean that Improved Initiative is suddenly a weak feat, because if they take it at first level, and they're not a human or a fighter, they're delyaing their acquisition of greater powers? That seems to be specious resoning at best.



> By limiting a feat to only being available at 1st level, it can be a slightly more powerful feat without upsetting the ballance.




Not really, because 'only at first level' isn't a *cost*, or any greater cost than any other feat that is taken once. I could put a feat at 3rd level, make it a '3rd level only feat', and then make it more powerful than similar feats...is that balanced? How about a more powerful 18th level feat, or 12th level feat? Saying that you can only do this at a certain point is just a mandate on how you can spend your +1. It's like saying that you can spend it on attack or AC, but ONLY those....and you can only do it ONCE, or NEVER....the +1 still exists, and it's still more powerful,a nd there's no greater cost for it than there is for any other feat just because you claim that it can only be taken at a certain level.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's a difficult choice for some. A rogue for instance....+2 to Hide/Move Silently, +4 to Initiative, it's really just a matter of which one he wants to do better.....a bard or a sneaky charlatan type getting +2 to Diplomacy and Bluff is at least as good as a +4 to initiative. +2 to Listen and Spot is pretty nice for anyone who want to avoid the surprise round. +2 Search and Appraise useful for those rogues who like to find the treasure, and give the dim bulbs the cheap stuff. It is as good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're missing the point. Skill Focus is STILL a weak feat. Improved Initiative is decent, but I'd still rather take than than the overwhelming majority of regional feats in the book. When the designers said they made regional feats stronger, they meant in comparision to single feats that didn't act as the first step in a feat chain. Most people will STILL take power attack over most of the regional feats. Thus there is an oppurtunity cost to taking a regional feat over point blank shot or dodge, because you are delaying the aquisition of more useful feats farther down in the chain. For humans and fighters, this is a real cost even at first level.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2004)

> Thus there is an oppurtunity cost to taking a regional feat over point blank shot or dodge, because you are delaying the aquisition of more useful feats farther down in the chain.




How is that a bigger cost than Improved Initiative, Skill Focus, a +2/+2 feat? Not all feats are chosen to form a chain. 'Delaying the chain' isn't a cost because  (a) it doesn't for some characters (HUMAN FIGHTERS ARE THE NEW ELVES!!!!, to be ludicrous about it), and (b) not every feat forms a chain.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 20, 2004)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> the martial weapon proficiency feat doesn't have simple weapon proficiency as a prereq, no.
> 
> And the fact that it breaks the balance of the EK is exactly what I meant in my first post.  An EK now gets access to high level spells as quickly as a sorcerer, plus he gets full BAB for all but 5 levels of his progression -- IE, his BAB at 20th level is better than a clerics.
> 
> ...




Except that the wiz10/ek10 will on average have 30 or so less hps, have to deal with arcane spell failure if they wish to wear armor (not as big a deal), have a lower caster level, and lack the clerics few key buffs that allows it to easily pass between a caster and martial roll. So even with only a one docked caster level, you will only be a suboptimal caster and crappy fighter. Quicken Spell can help somewhat, but if the best you can handle is to fling 5th level spells at 20th level while shooting off the crappy ranged attack (you'd make an awful tank), I wouldn't be worried.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> How is that a bigger cost than Improved Initiative, Skill Focus, a +2/+2 feat? Not all feats are chosen to form a chain. 'Delaying the chain' isn't a cost because  (a) it doesn't for some characters (HUMAN FIGHTERS ARE THE NEW ELVES!!!!, to be ludicrous about it), and (b) not every feat forms a chain.




My point is that skill focus and the skill enhancing feats are in fact weak, so playing of them as a point of comparison when it comes to balance is pointless. Improved Initiative is better and quite frankly is still better than many of the regional feats i'm looking at in the book. You are overstating your case.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 20, 2004)

And I never implied human fighters are too strong. Extra feats are their key advantage, one that is mitigated by the taking of feats that don't fill prereqs. Every class which is heavily feat dependent tends to go into a tree, whether human or not, so they all pay some cost. Other races (and some other classes) have other advantages to make up for their relative lack of feats. Human fighters are simply hurt the most.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2004)

> My point is that skill focus and the skill enhancing feats are in fact weak, so playing of them as a point of comparison when it comes to balance is pointless. Improved Initiative is better and quite frankly is still better than many of the regional feats i'm looking at in the book. You are overstating your case.




If Improved Init. is better, than the designers still did their jobs wrong because they specifically said they were creating more powerful feats. 

But my point is that while you may have a point with skill focus (+4 IMC, but that's irrelevant), skill enhancing feats are not weak...neither is improved initiative....neither is Martial Weapon Proficiency. They're all supremely useful for the characters who would use them (a warrior/wizard, someone who specializes in the skills, someone who wants to play a fast character). And they're the same cost as any regional feat, which provides a greater bonus than them (or, probably, *should*, by the designer's own logic)....if you're going to argue that core feats are weaker and/or more powerful (other than skill focus ), I'd have to ask how much free time you have to be doing more playtesting than all of 3.5....

The Facts are that the designers made regional feats to be more powerful than normal feats available at first level, in order to encourage characters to belong. They put limits on how these feats can be spent. It's my position that these don't cost any more than a normal feat, and thus shouldn't be any more potent. It's theirs that they can be more potent because they help reinforce the character's ties to the world, and that's a Good Thing. IT's yours that....what, they aren't  more powerful after all?


----------



## Felon (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, if Dragon were the PHB, I'd give this to you, but Dragon is basically a bunch of fan articles.




Whoa. Hang on there, Midge. Dragon is 100% official D&D material, and in fact the artices are for the most part written by professional game designers. 

At any rate, don't beat your head against the wall on this arguement. It has been established that the regional feats provide quantifiably superior benefits to standards feats at no cost, and the only real rebuttal that can be provided is "I think it's OK". If they're simply going to insist it's not a big deal, so be it. I've said my piece.

But for the record, folks, don't dwell on the martial proficiency feat, as there are other even more unbalanced examples, such as the new, improved Luck of Heroes (+1 on all saves and +1 to AC). 

Ever since the Book of Exalted Deeds came out, I've been concerned that the power-scaling 2e trend is starting to emerge again. With these feats and PrC's like the Hammer of Moradin, my concerns are not being allayed. But ah well, catering to powermunchkins isn't that a big deal, right?  OK, now I've said my piece. :\


----------



## Swiftbrook (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> > Um, you do realize that there's a two-part article in Dragon (part 2 in next month's issue) that gives regional feats for the Greyhawk campaign, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Dragon were the PHB, I'd give this to you, but Dragon is basically a bunch of fan articles.




You do know that the Dragon article with new feats for Greyhawk was written by Erik Mona, author of Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, Editor-in-Chief of Dungeon Magazine.  Ya, he's just a fan.

-Swiftbrook


----------



## Cam Banks (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's not a greater cost than any other feat, man. By taking ANY feat, you're delaying your acquisition of others. There still isn't a cost for that +1, because I could choose Improved Initiative or Skill Focus instead and achieve the same effect, and neither of those have the power of the regional feat. Does this mean that Improved Initiative is suddenly a weak feat, because if they take it at first level, and they're not a human or a fighter, they're delyaing their acquisition of greater powers? That seems to be specious resoning at best.




The point here is that if you don't take it at 1st level, you don't ever take it. If you don't take Point Blank Shot or Improved Initiative at 1st level, or anything else for that matter, you can usually take it later. Regional feats are not only limited to certain backgrounds but if you don't pick them up first thing, that's it.

It may not sound like a balancing factor to you, but I can buy their reasoning.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Spatula (Mar 20, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Not so. This got a sidebar for why they deliberately changed regional feats to make them better than normal feats. The design philosophy is that since regional feats require the character to be grounded in the campaign world (essentially being a strong encouragement for role-playing) that they should reward the character more.



So we're back to balancing mechancal bonuses with role-playing.  Yay.

It sounds like they need to bring back the whole core of the 3.0 design team.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 20, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> But for the record, folks, don't dwell on the martial proficiency feat, as there are other even more unbalanced examples, such as the new, improved Luck of Heroes (+1 on all saves and +1 to AC).



Feh.  That looks like the equivalent of 2.5 feats.  Is the AC bonus typed?  Does it only apply in limited circumstances like Dodge?


----------



## reiella (Mar 20, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Feh.  That looks like the equivalent of 2.5 feats.  Is the AC bonus typed?  Does it only apply in limited circumstances like Dodge?




Negative. It's a flat +1 luck bonus on all saving throws and a +1 luck bonus to Armor Class.

While I suppose it isn't too bad later on, if you happen to be running a Psionic Campaign, and your players all wear Skins of the Hero....


----------



## candidus_cogitens (Mar 20, 2004)

I don't have the FRCS. (I thought it was too expensive, but I have still been considering buying it.)  So, do I now have to buy TWO books if I want up-to-date basic information on the Realms??

It sounds like FRCS has been out-moded, but it is still necessary because the new book doesn't give you everything that the first one had.

Frustrating!


----------



## reiella (Mar 20, 2004)

candidus_cogitens said:
			
		

> I don't have the FRCS. (I thought it was too expensive, but I have still been considering buying it.)  So, do I now have to buy TWO books if I want up-to-date basic information on the Realms??
> 
> It sounds like FRCS has been out-moded, but it is still necessary because the new book doesn't give you everything that the first one had.
> 
> Frustrating!




The FRCS gives you alot more campaign information.  The FRPG works nicely as a "Quick Intro" type book, however.  The FRCS is where you'll find the god lists, region info, and plot hook ideas.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 20, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> But ah well, catering to powermunchkins isn't that a big deal, right?




No offense to you Felon (and if I do offend you I apologize), but statements like this, in my opinion, are examples of the "elite" mentality that I find to be a very arrogant attitude in some gamers.

It's as if being a "powermunchkin" is a "bad" thing. I've always held the opinion that there is no right-way or wrong-way to play DnD. Just because someone doesn't like a particular playing-style doesn't mean that their playing-style is any better and vice-versa.

In my opinion, DnD has always been about options. In regards to the "martial weapons" regional feat, in my opinion, if you don't like it, then don't use it or just tweak it to be more "balanced" for your campaign. What I believe is that it all comes down to groups (players and DM). For some groups this feat will not be a problem and for others it will be too powerful. It is up to the group to decide.

However, I think I have read from various sources (but take this with a grain of salt because I am just drawing from a general memory and can't really be specific without taking time to research) that it was generally acceptable practice to make some feats a little bit more powerful than others. I think this may have even been said about certain feats in the PHB.

Anyway, sorry for the rant and for going off-topic from the thread.

For what it's worth, I plan to pick-up a copy of the PGtF. Call me a FR-fan, heh.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 20, 2004)

Can we rename this thread "Complaints of Regional Feats vs. Standard Feats"? Outside of some very basic information and some balance issues that people who don't even own the book have, does anyone else have anything to say about the material in the book? Any cool monk PrCs? How about bards? How many variants of the harper do we get this time? 

Since it is the Player's Guide, I imagine that there's not much in the form of monsters, templates and magic items but I've seen at least a mention of magic items or item properties. Any word on those?


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If Improved Init. is better, than the designers still did their jobs wrong because they specifically said they were creating more powerful feats.
> 
> But my point is that while you may have a point with skill focus (+4 IMC, but that's irrelevant), skill enhancing feats are not weak...neither is improved initiative....neither is Martial Weapon Proficiency. They're all supremely useful for the characters who would use them (a warrior/wizard, someone who specializes in the skills, someone who wants to play a fast character). And they're the same cost as any regional feat, which provides a greater bonus than them (or, probably, *should*, by the designer's own logic)....if you're going to argue that core feats are weaker and/or more powerful (other than skill focus ), I'd have to ask how much free time you have to be doing more playtesting than all of 3.5....
> 
> The Facts are that the designers made regional feats to be more powerful than normal feats available at first level, in order to encourage characters to belong. They put limits on how these feats can be spent. It's my position that these don't cost any more than a normal feat, and thus shouldn't be any more potent. It's theirs that they can be more potent because they help reinforce the character's ties to the world, and that's a Good Thing. IT's yours that....what, they aren't  more powerful after all?




Wow. If you honestly can't see why the +2/+2 s and martial weapon proficiencies are weak, then i fear pressing this point, because I doubt you will get it, but oh well....SUCH FEATS HAVE ALMOST NO IMPACT ON THE ABILITY OF A CHARACTER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR PARTY'S EXPECTED DAMAGE PER ROUND OR TO HELP THEM AVOID SUCH DAMAGE. There. You see, the thing is, the only 'balance' in this game is related to combat (and rightfully so). A wizard with martial weapons proficiency who actually trys to use it will in almost all cases weaken its party, because a lack of hps, armor proficiency, bab, bonus feats or combat enhancing class abilities, would make it a poor fighter regardless of whether or not it could wield a polearm or longsword. And the OPPURTUNITY COST of not using its spells only seals the deal.

So, regardless of how you interpret the designer's use of the term 'better' or their intentions in general, many of the feats are not unbalanced relative to something like power attack. If anything, unlike crap skill feats, most players will actualy see them as balanced choices as oppossed to their choices of the first link in the chain. The fact that they can only be taken at first level means that they impose this time cost, pushing the character's utility curve up to higher levels.

You have an notion of balance which in some cases is too broad and others too narrow. I especially love the inability to distinguish between 'flavor' feats and those that are actually relevant. So my conclusion is that for the most party on the actual merits as oppossed to your interpretation of designers intent, these feats are not particularly special..nope. And if what the designers meant by more powerful was in respect to +2/+2s and the like (i.e. feats not used as prereqs), then this is both perfectly in keeping with what they stated AND its not unbalancing.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 20, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Whoa. Hang on there, Midge. Dragon is 100% official D&D material, and in fact the artices are for the most part written by professional game designers.
> 
> At any rate, don't beat your head against the wall on this arguement. It has been established that the regional feats provide quantifiably superior benefits to standards feats at no cost, and the only real rebuttal that can be provided is "I think it's OK". If they're simply going to insist it's not a big deal, so be it. I've said my piece.
> 
> ...




Dude, are you going for a plea of willfull ignorance? If you think most of the regional feats in the book are better than Cleave or Improved Trip, than you are off your rocker.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 20, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Can we rename this thread "Complaints of Regional Feats vs. Standard Feats"?




Heh, yeah. 

I'm interested in hearing about the "history" updates in this book.

Have they incorporated the events from the various novels, such as the 1,000 Orcs book with Drizzt in it?

I believe that one of the greatest strengths of FR is the history and I looking forward to hear about the current events in FR. Anything in there that could be considered a Realms-Shattering-Event?


----------



## foxylady (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It means that taking one level of a class is a bigger cost then a feat slot. There shouldn't be a feat that let you cast all the spells a first-level Sorcerer can cast, either.



"cast all first level spells" is a much better feat than "use all martial weapons".


> How about a more powerful 18th level feat, or 12th level feat?



How about it? A feat can be more powerful than the norm if you have to be  higher level to get it, simply because it's no longer unbalanced at the level you get it. I happen to like feat scaling, especially for fighters, whose feats rapidly lose oomph at high levels. The same issues shows up in LA: light 1/day as an SLA might be worth +1 LA at first level, but by the time you're tenth level it's surely worth +0 LA.


----------



## reiella (Mar 20, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Heh, yeah.
> 
> I'm interested in hearing about the "history" updates in this book.
> 
> ...




Return of the Archwizards and War of the Spider Queen metaplot is accounted.

The timeline updates to Kythorn 1,1373 DR (Year of the Rogue Dragons).

[ Add ]
No clue if that includes 1000 orcs or not, I haven't read the novels.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 20, 2004)

*U*

Use the feats and have fun with 'em. I get their reasoning, and I can accept it, it's just a kind of annoying example of FR simply being 'better' than the core rules......which is something I thought was mostly in the past....so it's a bit of a booo........



> Wow. If you honestly can't see why the +2/+2 s and martial weapon proficiencies are weak, then i fear pressing this point, because I doubt you will get it, but oh well....SUCH FEATS HAVE ALMOST NO IMPACT ON THE ABILITY OF A CHARACTER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR PARTY'S EXPECTED DAMAGE PER ROUND OR TO HELP THEM AVOID SUCH DAMAGE. There. You see, the thing is, the only 'balance' in this game is related to combat (and rightfully so). A wizard with martial weapons proficiency who actually trys to use it will in almost all cases weaken its party, because a lack of hps, armor proficiency, bab, bonus feats or combat enhancing class abilities, would make it a poor fighter regardless of whether or not it could wield a polearm or longsword. And the OPPURTUNITY COST of not using its spells only seals the deal.




Well, if that's the only measure, why not just give everyone except those with good hp and BAB proficiency in every weapon, since it's just going to weaken the party anyway if they actually use those powers? 



> So, regardless of how you interpret the designer's use of the term 'better' or their intentions in general, many of the feats are not unbalanced relative to something like power attack. If anything, unlike crap skill feats, most players will actualy see them as balanced choices as oppossed to their choices of the first link in the chain. The fact that they can only be taken at first level means that they impose this time cost, pushing the character's utility curve up to higher levels.




No, they don't, because a character could take, say, Scribe Scroll at first level and have the exact same effect regardless of the time scale. The cost of EVERY feat is 'you can't get other feats.' Simply dictating a level at which they are to be chosen doesn't increase the COST, it just puts limits on the feat's versatility.



> You have an notion of balance which in some cases is too broad and others too narrow. I especially love the inability to distinguish between 'flavor' feats and those that are actually relevant. So my conclusion is that for the most party on the actual merits as oppossed to your interpretation of designers intent, these feats are not particularly special..nope. And if what the designers meant by more powerful was in respect to +2/+2s and the like (i.e. feats not used as prereqs), then this is both perfectly in keeping with what they stated AND its not unbalancing.




Well, I look at it this way. I"m a first level wizard from place who wants to wield a longsword. I can take one of two feats, one of which is Martial Weapon Proficiency, and one of which is the regional feat that gives me all Martial Weapons.......hmmmmmm..............

Or, I'm a first level anything from place who wants to boost my saves. I can take one of two feats, either a +2 save feat, or +1 all saves and AC feat.......hm..............

Or even, I'm a first level anything who wants to be quick....I can take one of two feats, Improved Initiative, or a regional feat that gives me +1 to all saves and AC........well, I can always take Improved Init. later......hmmm......

See, this "regional feats are more powerful" thing makes players want to choose them, which links them to the world. Helpful. But the benefit to Whirlwind Attack is the same if I get it now, or if I get it in three levels because of my regional feat....that benefit doesn't significantly decrease at higher levels. The regional feats, baring exceptional circumstances, are 'no brainer' feats....you'd be a fool NOT to take it. They seem to have been designed specifically that way.....it makes someone from one region significantly different from someone from another, and makes sure that difference is reflected in the party. 

But if I'm a wizard from place who wants to wield a longsword, what would ever be my incentive to pick up Martial Weapon Proficiency? I would say that any one feat that makes any other feats seem like bad choices in the circumstances in which they would be chosen is 'overpowered.' The +2/+2 feats aren't overpowered in this respect (+10% on two different rolls is certainly a significant advantage when you use those rolls a lot), Improved Initiative isn't overpowered in this respect (+20% to one roll is a big bonus, if you want to avoid being flat-footed), Skill Focus isn't overpowered in this respect (+15% to one roll is a bit weak, but not enough to make it not worthwhile).

The regional feats in the book shouldn't stand up against cleave or improved trip any more than they have to stand up to whirlwind attack....they should have to stand up to feats without prerequisites, which they are obviously more powerful than.

If that's cool with you, go, have fun. But I think that's bad design-fu.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 20, 2004)

I just want to know WHY they demoted Orcus.  He deserves godhood as much as that wimpy Finder. Moreso.


----------



## reiella (Mar 20, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> See, this "regional feats are more powerful" thing makes players want to choose them, which links them to the world. Helpful. But the benefit to Whirlwind Attack is the same if I get it now, or if I get it in three levels because of my regional feat....that benefit doesn't significantly decrease at higher levels. The regional feats, baring exceptional circumstances, are 'no brainer' feats....you'd be a fool NOT to take it. They seem to have been designed specifically that way.....it makes someone from one region significantly different from someone from another, and makes sure that difference is reflected in the party.




Well, let's see.  After looking over the regional feats, at least a good third can be seen as Reasonable to the Baseline (Non-Regional) feats.  Stuff like Axethrower just is a reverse engineered Weapon Finesse.

Stuff like Mercantile Background grates on my nerves though...  The 300 bonus starting gp is a nice touch, but the boon to sell value kinda replaces a skill check for negotiation.

The worst one I've seen so far, is Otherwordly... No SINGLE FEAT should change your base type.  That's a template thing IMO.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 20, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I just want to know WHY they demoted Orcus.  He deserves godhood as much as that wimpy Finder. Moreso.




Orcus has been demoted?

So Orcus has been included in the FR mythos?

(Or has he always been a part of it and I just didn't know it?)


----------



## reiella (Mar 20, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Orcus has been demoted?
> 
> So Orcus has been included in the FR mythos?
> 
> (Or has he always been a part of it and I just didn't know it?)




He was in 2nd Edition, during the time period of the Universal Mythos systems.

The Abyss is home to no deities, but demon princes make their homes there.

However, from the text for the Nine Hells, you can extrapolate the Demon Princes to rival minor deities in terms of power.  Regardless it is a step down from his position in 2e mythos (particularly in the Armageddeon period of 2e).


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 20, 2004)

No seriously, can we get another thread for all the regional feat arguements.

Some people seem to be forgetting that other settings have them too.

Greyhawk? Yup.

Kara-Tur? Yup.

Legend of the 5 Rings? Yup.

Let's focus on the other aspects of the book. I am interested that some more novels have been updated even as I cringe as I haven't read a Forgotten Realms book in a while.


----------



## Felon (Mar 20, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> It's as if being a "powermunchkin" is a "bad" thing. I've always held the opinion that there is no right-way or wrong-way to play DnD. Just because someone doesn't like a particular playing-style doesn't mean that their playing-style is any better and vice-versa.




Don't get me wrong; I've designed as many "smackdown" characters as the next guy. But as you say, the game is about options. If these regional feats patently outclass other feats, then that makes some choices flat-out better than others. That limits options and leads to more homogenous character designs. This is why I say it is a big deal when designers start getting in that mode where the content of each new product is just a little more powerful than the content in previous products. A variety of choices should be available.



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Dude, are you going for a plea of willfull ignorance? If you think most of the regional feats in the book are better than Cleave or Improved Trip, than you are off your rocker.




All I can infer from your posts is that you're of that school of thought that any feat that makes for a more offense-oriented character (like Cleave or Improved Trip) is inherently better than a defensive feat (like Luck of Heroes or Blooded), which in turn is inherently better than a feat that boosts skills. Perhaps you buy into that belief strongly enough that you regard it as a tautology, which is you don't bother to support it beyond "dude, you're off your rocker". The truth is, it's just one subjective outlook on how to play the game, albeit a very popular one. 

Maybe in your campaign skill enhancing feats don't amount to much--I've certainly played in campaigns where they didn't--but I've also been in campaigns where Cleave was considered nigh-useless (because all anyone seems to fight are individual powerhouse monsters) and Improved Trip is unheard of (because the powerhouse monsters are too hard to trip). And within that subset of campaigns, there were some where characters constantly had to make saving throws and skill checks and got plenty of milieage out of save-and-skilll-enhancing feats.


----------



## Felon (Mar 20, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Let's focus on the other aspects of the book.




OK, go. Shoot. Start talking about another aspect. Folks, instead of just saying "let's change the subject already!", go ahead and _change the darn subject already_.   

I'll give a push. Are there any new cleric domains? Are any of the old domains revised significantly? I remember scalykind used to suck. Is scalykind any better now? 

(see that's how you do it)


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 20, 2004)

I did my best. I still figure Orcus deserves intermediate godhood if only cause Kiaranselee deserves to fry. And yes he was since the whole Bloodstone trilogy was a major part of the FR mythos.


----------



## reiella (Mar 20, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> OK, go. Shoot. Start talking about another aspect. Folks, instead of just saying "let's change the subject already!", go ahead and _change the darn subject already_.
> 
> I'll give a push. Are there any new cleric domains? Are any of the old domains revised significantly? I remember scalykind used to suck. Is scalykind any better now?
> 
> (see that's how you do it)




The new initiate feat/spell system I like alot.  It returns some of the fun of the Specialist Clerics from 2e, although they may be a bit more than over powered.

Scaleykind loses Creeping Doom, and gets Vipergout instead.  Not a significant change, and one that may well actually hurt the domain as a whole.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 20, 2004)

Sorry if I kept repeating myself with the change but it's more than likely that no one is suddenly going to stand up and shout, "Yes, your point of view is valid and I don't have to challenge it here and continue to defend my own point of view!" Not going to happen.

For me, I tried to steer it in a new direction.

1. Harper PrCs. I remember that there used to be a few of these suckers scattered through different FR books. How many are there in this book?

2. Monsters and Templates. As this is a player focused book, are there any monsters and templates? New familiars or updated familiars?

3. Monk PrCs. I haven't seen a whole lot of 3.5 Monk PrCs. I haven't got the SL book on Monks/Paladins and while the Beyond Martial Arts book (print version 3.5) does have some interesting aspects, I'm always interested in more vareity in my monks.

4. Psionics. How well are psionics now put into the game? Are there any psionic gods and minions over different aspects of psionic powers?


----------



## reiella (Mar 20, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Sorry if I kept repeating myself with the change but it's more than likely that no one is suddenly going to stand up and shout, "Yes, your point of view is valid and I don't have to challenge it here and continue to defend my own point of view!" Not going to happen.
> 
> For me, I tried to steer it in a new direction.
> 1. Harper PrCs. I remember that there used to be a few of these suckers scattered through different FR books. How many are there in this book?
> ...




1) One, the Harper Scout is now the Harper Agent, and has been heavily reworked.

2) Some new familiars, although not significantly more than already in hte DMG and the FRCS.

3) One 'expilcitly', but a good number of the PrCs state monks are known to take that prc.  But they're more "warrior"/"pious" type PrCs than monk specifically.  It's also rather ... dark.

4) Not well at all, one PrC, and some organizations.  Coupled with a confusing statement (if compared against the 3.0 Psi definition of Magic-Psionic Transparency).  Nothing else.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 21, 2004)

*EK balance*

Well, if an Eldritch Knight is balanced without the fighter level, then why doesn't WoTC just remove the 'proficient in all martial weapons' clause from it?   Would you agree that the EK class is balanced in that case?

Ken



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Except that the wiz10/ek10 will on average have 30 or so less hps, have to deal with arcane spell failure if they wish to wear armor (not as big a deal), have a lower caster level, and lack the clerics few key buffs that allows it to easily pass between a caster and martial roll. So even with only a one docked caster level, you will only be a suboptimal caster and crappy fighter. Quicken Spell can help somewhat, but if the best you can handle is to fling 5th level spells at 20th level while shooting off the crappy ranged attack (you'd make an awful tank), I wouldn't be worried.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 21, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I did my best. I still figure Orcus deserves intermediate godhood if only cause Kiaranselee deserves to fry. And yes he was since the whole Bloodstone trilogy was a major part of the FR mythos.




If Orcus had been an Intermediate god, there was no way Kiaransalee, that uppity little demipower, would ever have managed to kill him in the first place.

As it is, if WotC were willing to give Orcus his due, things would be getting interesting, since Lolth's Silence has caused Kiaransalee to experience an influx of worship that's since bumped her up to a Lesser deity (which is Orcus's divine level..presuming he has one).

And you just know there would be a reckoning; Kiaransalee calls her realm in the Demonweb Thanatos, having named it after the place she took from Orcus.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 21, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Heh, yeah.
> 
> I'm interested in hearing about the "history" updates in this book.
> 
> ...




As Reiella said, the only two plot-thread updates are for the Return of the Archwizards and the War of the Spider Queen. Neither offer anything crunchy (which was a major disappointment, since I wanted stats for the alchemical substance that burns through stone), and there was only a little bit of information on how to work these into an ongoing campaign.

The two updates basically just reiterated things from the novels, which was rather frustrating, because Shadow Weave Magic, as protrayed in Troy Denning's Return of the Archwizards series, is rather different from how it's presented in the rest of the PGtF and FRCS. (There was also a minor error made in the summarizing of the last part of book III of the War of the Spider Queen).


----------



## Silveras (Mar 21, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> 2. Monsters and Templates. As this is a player focused book, are there any monsters and templates?




The updates to many, many monsters from FRCS, Monsters of Faerun, Silver Marches, and Faiths and Pantheons are in a web enhancement on the WotC site.


----------



## HiLiphNY (Mar 21, 2004)

Good grief. . .I saw it, browsed it, and here we go again - it's another 3.5 "revision" that might as well be a second printing. . . .sheesh wizards.  Well, there's always hope for the Serpent Kingdom. . . I put my faith in Greenwood.

Can we hurry up and get to 4.0?


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 21, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> If Orcus had been an Intermediate god, there was no way Kiaransalee, that uppity little demipower, would ever have managed to kill him in the first place.
> 
> As it is, if WotC were willing to give Orcus his due, things would be getting interesting, since Lolth's Silence has caused Kiaransalee to experience an influx of worship that's since bumped her up to a Lesser deity (which is Orcus's divine level..presuming he has one).
> 
> And you just know there would be a reckoning; Kiaransalee calls her realm in the Demonweb Thanatos, having named it after the place she took from Orcus.



Al, I meant after his death. I figured he managed to reconsidate much quicker since he's got pull with more than just drow. Besides he should take over Velshroon's portfolio as well. Necromancy and undead are his forte, not some panty waist Red Wizard. My idea of a Reckoning would be Kiaranselee being completely obliterated and Orcus coming on the rise as the baddest CE power next to Cyric.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 21, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> 3. Monk PrCs. I haven't seen a whole lot of 3.5 Monk PrCs. I haven't got the SL book on Monks/Paladins and while the Beyond Martial Arts book (print version 3.5) does have some interesting aspects, I'm always interested in more vareity in my monks.



Regarding that book Joe, PG to Monks has some very decent Pr-classes but I think you'll enjoy the Paragon and Martial Arts feats more to make your monks have more variety. As it stands Exemplar Pr-class is good since they get LOTS of Martial arts and Paragon feats.


----------



## drnuncheon (Mar 21, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 'Delaying the chain' isn't a cost because  (a) it doesn't for some characters (HUMAN FIGHTERS ARE THE NEW ELVES!!!!, to be ludicrous about it), and (b) not every feat forms a chain.




You don't think delaying the level you get something at is a cost?  So, there's no cost in taking 3 levels of fighter then going to wizard?  After all, you're still getting 9th level spells, you're just delaying them for a bit.

The guy who takes the regional feat is going to watch his buddies get the cool top-of-the-chain feats 2-3 levels earlier than he does.  That is a very real cost, albeit one that you only see if you play the character up from level 1, and therefore one that tends to get ignored in discussions where 20th level characters pop fully formed out of thin air.

J


----------



## Numion (Mar 21, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> At any rate, don't beat your head against the wall on this arguement. It has been established that the regional feats provide quantifiably superior benefits to standards feats at no cost, and the only real rebuttal that can be provided is "I think it's OK". If they're simply going to insist it's not a big deal, so be it. I've said my piece.




I'm a big proponent of balance, and generally agree that no mechanic benefit should be balanced with an RP one. now, having said that, some thing Mike Mearls said quite eloquently came in to mind:

"A good designer makes balanced mechanics. A great designer knows when to ignore balance for greater playability". 

Or something like that. He said it better. Now, I haven't seen the book in question, but I'd still give it a chance, and instead of complaining for the sake of principle about the more powerful feats, I'd see if the mechanic adds to the game. Is the game overally better with the slightly more powerful regional feats? I don't know, but it just might be. 



> But ah well, catering to powermunchkins isn't that a big deal, right?




I detest balancing reasonable posts with inane parting shots


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 21, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Al, I meant after his death. I figured he managed to reconsidate much quicker since he's got pull with more than just drow.




I've actually got an adventure(s) in mind that would try and solve this discrepancy between Orcus as "just" an Abyssal Lord and Orcus as a god once and for all, but since I'm such a stickler for what's official and what's not, it'd take an okay from _Dungeon_ to actually get me to write it. Between the fact that _Dungeon_ now wants shorter adventures (and this would be rather long), and the rumor that Erik Mona (who is known to be beloved of _Greyhawk_) doesn't like the _Forgotten Realms_ very much, it seems unlikely I'll be writing this anytime soon.



> _Besides he should take over Velshroon's portfolio as well. Necromancy and undead are his forte, not some panty waist Red Wizard._




Except Velsharoon has Mystra and the Gods of Magic backing him, and, less reliably, Talos and the Gods of Fury.

On an aside, did you notice that, comparing _Powers & Pantheons_ to _On Hallowed Ground_, Velsharoon and Mellifleur apparently share a planar realm on Gehenna? Interesting.

Anyway, I think Orcus works best without an overwhelming amount of power. You gotta stay in the trenches to not lose touch. That's what got him killed in the first place.


----------



## Numion (Mar 21, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, I look at it this way. I"m a first level wizard from place who wants to wield a longsword. I can take one of two feats, one of which is Martial Weapon Proficiency, and one of which is the regional feat that gives me all Martial Weapons.......hmmmmmm..............




I get your point, but since you're concerned about balance, consider this: balance-wise, what would be the significant difference between those two choices? My guess is nil. 

It just won't matter if your wizard uses only the longsword, or if he's able to swing greatsword too .. it just isn't going to matter. 

I get the theory though. There isn't a reason to take the normal WP: long sword if you can take the other - but it doesn't really matter this or that way in-game, and balance-wise.


----------



## reiella (Mar 21, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> I get your point, but since you're concerned about balance, consider this: balance-wise, what would be the significant difference between those two choices? My guess is nil.
> 
> It just won't matter if your wizard uses only the longsword, or if he's able to swing greatsword too .. it just isn't going to matter.
> 
> I get the theory though. There isn't a reason to take the normal WP: long sword if you can take the other - but it doesn't really matter this or that way in-game, and balance-wise.




Honestly, as said before, the Martial Weapon Prof feat isn't even the worst of it.  But for an example.  So you can use a martial bludgeoning weapon against those with DR/bludgeon, and a slashing weapon against those with DR/slashing.

Consider Bullheaded, get +2 to all Will Saves, and can no longer become shaken.  That has a significant impact...

Or Fleet of Foot contrasted against Dash.  (10ft v 5 ft).

And a number of others which are effectively, Other Feats +1.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 21, 2004)

The key to those feats is that you can only have ONE...and that you HAVE to take it at 1st level...AND you have to qualify for that Region. You can't just look at the benefits.

...besides, this is the Realms, I thought we were used to power there by now?


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 21, 2004)

Can we get back to my problem now?  

Al, 

First I look forward to any suggestions or comments you might have about fixing this. But while I do agree he got a little greedy, that's just part of his nature. Thus getting more power while still staying involved is how he'll manage to mantain his power base and keep it from just being stifled.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 21, 2004)

*Not a very good book IMO...*

This is one of the poorest Forgotten Realms books I've seen to date. The book is rife with Prc's and Feats that aren't balanced compared to other Prc's and Feats in the same book.

For example, The Eye of Horus Re is about 10 times better than the Morninglord of Lathander even though they are similar types of deities. The Hammer of Moradin is about ten times better than the Justicar of Tyr. The Blooded and Mercantile background have almost become no brainers if you are able to take them as regional feats. There is a feat called Fearless that makes you immune to fear simulating class abilities. 

I don't quite get what he designers were going for with this one. Now I'm going to have a bunch of undead hunters wanting to be Eyes of Horus Re since this Prc is about as insanely overpowered as they come. The class gets to use Greater Turning a number of times per day equal to 3 plus their charisma modifier in addition to their regular turning attempts. That is just stupid, imbalanced design.

For a book that took so long to come out, they could have done a better job. This is not a very good book. Mostly full of updates of old classes for 3.5 and a few new Prc's, some of which are overpowered.

The one thing I do like though is the Deity domains. Gives a little flavor back to FR priests.


----------



## jester47 (Mar 21, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> For example, The Eye of Horus Re is about 10 times better than the Morninglord of Lathander even though they are similar types of deities.




What are the requirements for these PrCs?  The same?  Is one more strict than the other?  A major part of a PrC is the requirements.  You cant just look at the results for a feat or class when determining balance, you have to weigh the whole thing.  

Aaron.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 21, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> This is one of the poorest Forgotten Realms books I've seen to date. The book is rife with Prc's and Feats that aren't balanced compared to other Prc's and Feats in the same book...




I respect your opinion.   However, I am of the opinion that PrC's and Feats that appear unbalanced may "sometimes" appear worse off on paper than when actually used during play. Why not try it out and see if it works first?

In regards to Orcus, so what is the deal? Deity or Demon Prince?

I remember the Bloodstone Modules that have him as the final BBEG, where he is presented as a deity.

However, from my understanding, the PGtF presents him as a Demon Prince.

I've always liked Orcus and am trying to incorporate him into my FR campaign. My player likes vampires, so I am going to have him as a BBEG (not to be fought, but just behind the scenes) since his portfolio is undead.

Nightfall: could it be that you like Orcus because he is the "mascot" for Necromancer Games (or is it Sword and Sorcerery)?


----------



## Creeperman (Mar 21, 2004)

Speaking of Justicar of Tyr, would someone with the book mind giving a rundown of it?  I'm still waiting for my copy of the book, and the suspense is killing me.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 21, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> In regards to Orcus, so what is the deal? Deity or Demon Prince?




Par for the course, the book seems to want to have it's cake and eat it to on this issue.

Page 143, under "Features of the Abyss" states:


> The Abyss has no divine realms, and no true deities make their homes there. However, a great many demon princes - probably as many as there are layers of the Abyss - vie for power and territory on this plane. Prominent demon princes include Demogorgon, Eltab, Yeenoghu, Orcus, Graz'zt, Baphomet, and Kostchtchie, most of whom are described in the _Book of Vile Darkness_




However, page 189 has a table (Table A-10) describing the "Vile and Exalted Deities" of Faerun...that is, the deities who can grant exalted domains (from the _Book of Exalted Deeds_) and vile domains (from the _Book of Vile Darkness_). The thing to note is that several archfiends (and celestial paragons) are listed among the "deities" of the table with no discrepancies noted. While Orcus is not among them (he has no vile domains, though he has other domains), this clearly points out that several demon lords can grant spells...something they shouldn't be able to do, unless they were gods.



> _I remember the Bloodstone Modules that have him as the final BBEG, where he is presented as a deity._




From what I've heard about module H3 _Mines of Bloodstone_, it does have an appearance by an "avatar of Orcus" yes. However, Orcus as displayed on pages 76-77 of H4 _Throne of Bloodstone_ is decidedly not a god there. He does have a full stat listing which is different from his _Monster Manual_ depiction, which is stated as being his stats within his actual fortress - the _Monster Manual_ stats are used if he's elsewhere on his plane or another plane (as modified by _Manual of the Planes_). Nothing about his description notes him as a deity (though, to be fair, you fight Tiamat later in the adventure, and she has no notations that depict her as a deity either, save that Bahamut tells you that even if you kill her, she'll come back - same for destroying the Wand of Orcus).



> _However, from my understanding, the PGtF presents him as a Demon Prince._




Like I said, it waffles on that issue.


----------



## kuje31 (Mar 21, 2004)

Also up until the Players Guide, Orcus was listed as a lesser deity, on the last page of Faiths & Pantheons as well as on page 5 of that book. He also has a cleric in the Unapproachable East sourcebook, but now the current 3/3.5 book changes him back to just a demon prince. Wish they would make up thier mind!


----------



## Swack-Iron (Mar 21, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Now I'm going to have a bunch of undead hunters wanting to be Eyes of Horus Re since this Prc is about as insanely overpowered as they come. The class gets to use Greater Turning a number of times per day equal to 3 plus their charisma modifier in addition to their regular turning attempts. That is just stupid, imbalanced design.




So set your campaign in Luskan, a place about as far away from the stomping grounds of Eyes of Horus Re as possible. And don't throw many undead against them. Problem solved.


----------



## Swack-Iron (Mar 21, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> I respect your opinion.   However, I am of the opinion that PrC's and Feats that appear unbalanced may "sometimes" appear worse off on paper than when actually used during play. Why not try it out and see if it works first?




And here, finally, is the real crux of the issue. How many of you people who are complaining about balance issues have actually played a 3.0 game set in the Forgotten Realms?

I've been running a game set in the Realms since about a month after the FRCS went on sale. In my experience, not one of the many players who have created characters in my game have taken any of the regional feats. Not a single one. Why? Because in their 3.0 incarnations they never seemed as useful as the general feats. Although perhaps balanced compared to the PHB feats, none of my players has ever felt that a single regional feat would have actual utility.

As a DM I'm happy that the 3.5 regional feats got a bump in power. It makes them more attractive, which means that my players are more likely to use them when designing new characters. My kudos go to the designers for actually paying attention to how the stuff they design was getting used.


----------



## rounser (Mar 21, 2004)

> Eltab



Who?


----------



## Felon (Mar 21, 2004)

Swack-Iron said:
			
		

> And here, finally, is the real crux of the issue. How many of you people who are complaining about balance issues have actually played a 3.0 game set in the Forgotten Realms?




**raises hand**



> As a DM I'm happy that the 3.5 regional feats got a bump in power. It makes them more attractive, which means that my players are more likely to use them when designing new characters. My kudos go to the designers for actually paying attention to how the stuff they design was getting used.




I don't recall anyone taking any regional feats, and I don't recall any real reason to be disappointed about that. I sure don't think the game's enhanced by making them unbalanced to the point that they become just too darn tempting to resist.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 21, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> What are the requirements for these PrCs?  The same?  Is one more strict than the other?  A major part of a PrC is the requirements.  You cant just look at the results for a feat or class when determining balance, you have to weigh the whole thing.
> 
> Aaron.




Eye of Horus Re Requirements
Al: Lawful Good
Region: Mulhorand
Skills: Knowledge (Religion) 9 ranks, Spot 4 ranks.
Feats: Alertness, Extra Turning
Spellcasting: Able to cast 3rd level divine spells.
Domain: Sun

Morninglord Requirements
Alignment: Any Good
Skills: Craft (any) 4 ranks, Diplomacy 7 ranks, Knowledge (Religion) 8 ranks, Perform (any) 2 ranks.
Feat: Improved Turning
Spells: Able to cast 3rd level divine spells.
Patron Deity: Lathander


The Eye of Horus Re is so much better than the Morninglord of Lathander that the two classes are not comparable fighting undead or any other creatures for that matter. Just to give you a slight example of the difference, at 10th level the Morninglord gains the equivalent of 60 foot darkvision while the Eye of Horus Re gains always active _True Seeing_. The Eye of Horus Re receives 60 foot Darkvision at 2nd level. When you get this book, just look over the two classes. They are not comparable.


The Regional feats are actually not that bad. You can now only have one regional feat ever. You have to buy it at first level. They may be more powerful, but they are very limited.


----------



## Sammael (Mar 21, 2004)

Hmmm. The Eye of Horus-Re requires four ranks in a skill that is cross-class for clerics, and a feat that certainly isn't very high on any cleric's wishlist. Still not enough to balance it out, but burning a feat on Alertness is not something many people like to do.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 21, 2004)

Demon Princes propping up again as problems eh? Well, WoTC does have a book on the undead coming out and Orcus is one of the primary masters of the undead regardless of what sphere he's in. Perhaps like Loth and Tiamat, they'll have different versions of him that can fill in different niches depending on what campaign setting you're playing in.

For example, his role in the new campaign setting, if he even has one, has yet to be seen.

On regional feats....has anyone changed anyone else's mind on the reasoning of the power level of the feats yet? It's pretty much the same arguement on page 4 that it was on page 1. Seriously, let it go. No-one here is going to suddenly wake up and say, "Gee, that was right!"


----------



## Pseudonym (Mar 21, 2004)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Since it is the Player's Guide, I imagine that there's not much in the form of monsters, templates and magic items but I've seen at least a mention of magic items or item properties. Any word on those?



There are no monsters or templates given.  Regarding magic items, there is a small section.  A few new armor and weapon properties are given.  None seem especially overpowered or useless to me.  Most were kind of "meh".  The death ward armor property, for example, is a +2 bonus that confers a _death ward_ upon the wearer for up to 7 minutes a day.  A nice touch is that it is automatically activated when the wearer is exposed to a death effect or negative energy.

Most of the items given have names and a bit of history, but mechanically are nothing special.  The Dragonheart armor, worn by a great king etc. is mechanically dwarf sized +1 red dragon hide scale male that gives fire resistance 10.  I like the history given for these items, and wish more had these little blurbs attached to them in other suppliments.  It makes it a bit more interesting from the bardic lore perspective than saying just another +2 mace.

Some of the wonderous items I can see putting into my game, as they present interesting situations.  Tasmia's Heart is an elaborate black silk bustier adorned with gems that acts as a _ring of freedom_ and a _helm of underwater action_.  I know a player who is going to want this, but will balk at wearing a ladies clothing.  What does he do, gain the effects of items he has been searching for, by wearing frilly black lace, or insist on being a manly man and forego the item's benifits.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 21, 2004)

Interesting stuff on Orcus. Thanks for the info. I've held a fascination with the DnD tanar'ri and baatezu ever since 3.0 came out, heh.

Anyways, we may have to wait and hear more about what the deal is with Orcus. This is not a big thing for me, since I consider this a somewhat "off-the-wall" campaign hook. Perhaps the PCs can find out the secret behind the truth of Orcus' status? I remember a poster in this thread even mentioned creating an adventure around that idea.

Any modules presented in here, akin to the Green Bones and Red Wizard modules in the FRCS? (Heh, probably not since this is the "Player's" Guide to Faerun.)


----------



## Pseudonym (Mar 21, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Any modules presented in here, akin to the Green Bones and Red Wizard modules in the FRCS? (Heh, probably not since this is the "Player's" Guide to Faerun.)



Nope.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 21, 2004)

Swack-Iron said:
			
		

> And here, finally, is the real crux of the issue. How many of you people who are complaining about balance issues have actually played a 3.0 game set in the Forgotten Realms?
> 
> I've been running a game set in the Realms since about a month after the FRCS went on sale. In my experience, not one of the many players who have created characters in my game have taken any of the regional feats. Not a single one. Why? Because in their 3.0 incarnations they never seemed as useful as the general feats. Although perhaps balanced compared to the PHB feats, none of my players has ever felt that a single regional feat would have actual utility.
> 
> As a DM I'm happy that the 3.5 regional feats got a bump in power. It makes them more attractive, which means that my players are more likely to use them when designing new characters. My kudos go to the designers for actually paying attention to how the stuff they design was getting used.



 One Regional Feat I STILL love for my Sun Elf Wizard is...Mind Over Body. Hooah! 

PCs usually took Regional feats in my games, but I rarely saw them take more than one.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 21, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Use the feats and have fun with 'em. I get their reasoning, and I can accept it, it's just a kind of annoying example of FR simply being 'better' than the core rules......which is something I thought was mostly in the past....so it's a bit of a booo........
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*I think its rockem sockem design foo. But of a more nuanced variety. Actually, that's not true. Its something I could take or leave, but I think you are overstating your case. *


----------



## Syltorian (Mar 21, 2004)

Creeperman said:
			
		

> Speaking of Justicar of Tyr, would someone with the book mind giving a rundown of it?  I'm still waiting for my copy of the book, and the suspense is killing me.




I'd like to hear about him too, as well as about the Initiate of Tyr feat. Can someone please tell us what it does, even if only in outline? 

I also couldn't find any spells with (Tyr) in the Magic of Faerûn (though several of Velsharoon and other gods which don't seem to get Initiate feats) Does the Triad (Torm, Tyr, Ilmater) get to use the same 'specialist' spells? And do the Initiate feats all give the same number and levels of spells? 

Thanks


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 21, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong; I've designed as many "smackdown" characters as the next guy. But as you say, the game is about options. If these regional feats patently outclass other feats, then that makes some choices flat-out better than others. That *limits options and leads to more homogenous character designs. This is why * I say it is a big deal when designers start getting in that mode where the content of each new product is just a little more powerful than the content in previous products. A variety of choices should be available.
> 
> *This seems to contradict your point below, which implies that the dm determinant of what is powerful through choices of encounters and the like (though for balanced encounters i think there is less choice than what you let on).*
> 
> ...




I won't even address skill balance, because that SHOULD be obvious. But yes, attack related abilities are almost always preferable to defense attributes, because offensive ability does a double duty; it both dishes out damage and prevents you from taking damage in a shorter (and thus more resource light) period of time. And, as one goes up in level, offensive abilities tend to rise exponenetially and defensive (hps, ac, saves) in a more linear fashion. For fighters this is because circumstantial offensive abilities tend to stack. For mages, its just because of the way spells scale. As to feats, its almost always better to go with one that helps offense, because you'll get greater returns.

And yes, it is possible for a dm to skew encounters to inordinatly reward defensive abilites. Even then, the constant offense feats that do come into use (weapon focus/specialization, spell focus, metamagicetc) would provide greater returns. And even with the circumstantial ones, they have the inherent benefit of being within the the means of the player to activate (exception being cleave and combat reflexes) as oppossed to he dm (with saves and skills, the latter more arbitrarily), which is a benefit because their effects are graditated, no binary. Besides which, I think you are underestimating Improved Trip.

So your point is taken, though I their are inherent combat benefits for offense, which might be mitigated by dms, but not removed.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 21, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> Honestly, as said before, the Martial Weapon Prof feat isn't even the worst of it.  But for an example.  So you can use a martial bludgeoning weapon against those with DR/bludgeon, and a slashing weapon against those with DR/slashing.
> 
> Consider Bullheaded, get +2 to all Will Saves, and can no longer become shaken.  That has a significant impact...
> 
> ...




None of which are particularly non balancing. You need better examples.


----------



## Numion (Mar 21, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> Honestly, as said before, the Martial Weapon Prof feat isn't even the worst of it.  But for an example.  So you can use a martial bludgeoning weapon against those with DR/bludgeon, and a slashing weapon against those with DR/slashing.




Sorry to be a pain in the ass about this one feat, but still:

1) Those situations you listed are rare

2) There isn't much difference to using simple weapon of the same type

3) The types who would have to take that feat in the first place aren't going to unbalance the game by overcoming damage reduction with their secondary weapon. (Consider a wizard, with the all martial weapons feat, packing a good magic weapon of all damage types? Either a) doesn't exist b) is wasting resources <-> isn't too powerful / unbalancing) 



> Consider Bullheaded, get +2 to all Will Saves, and can no longer become shaken.  That has a significant impact...
> 
> Or Fleet of Foot contrasted against Dash.  (10ft v 5 ft).
> 
> And a number of others which are effectively, Other Feats +1.




You have a point here, no doubt. Doing a feat thats just better than some other feat isn't necessarily a great idea. But can't really see any of the feats listed unbalancing my game.

Do these feats break the holy grail of balance? Yes.

Do these feats help root the characters in the FR? Yes. 

Is the combined effect of above points positive or negative to gameplay? I don't know, but I'd like to test it. 

Don't knock it before you try it. Balance is a means to good gaming, not the ends.


----------



## reiella (Mar 21, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> You have a point here, no doubt. Doing a feat thats just better than some other feat isn't necessarily a great idea. But can't really see any of the feats listed unbalancing my game.
> 
> Do these feats break the holy grail of balance? Yes.
> 
> ...




Well therein introduces a problem then, are those earlier feats 'too weak' or are they 'too strong'?

I'm inclined to believe that the assumption is that the earlir feats were 'too weak', but some may possibly be as such due in part to the 'Stacking Issues' (similiar to Spell Focus) from before.  After all, Cosmopolitian also got changed so that it didn't provide what amounted to another Skill Focus bonus.

But hey, at least it's possible for a monk to break 100 ft. base speed again....

I'm still approaching this part from the assumption of 'ignoring the 1st level feat'/regional restriction stated earlier .

And your closing remark is quite true .  But if I'm more interested in a mixed-balance game, I'd go for Rifts myself.

Of course, couple other ones that really are eepy to me.

I also could have swore I mentioned Otherwordly, but I apparantly didn't.  A feat that turns you into an Outsider with all type benefits (But a native outsider, so you miss out on most of the penalties).

Fearless ...  You become immune to fear effects.

Anycase, some quirks abound here (Besides the feat balance issues ).

Just noticed something that really annoys me, Comp Warrior has another feat called Fleet of Foot, that is more or less a staggered charge feat...  

Axiomatic Strike ... Again Complete Warrior / PGF conflict.  In complete warrior it's pretty much a Stunning Fist usage feat (and grants +2d6 damage against chaotic opponents).  The PGF Axiomatic Strike is an (smite chaos/any lawful alignment) epic feat that makes every weapon you wield considered axiomatic.

Oh well, just frustration towards the rules continuity editors.


----------



## Silveras (Mar 21, 2004)

First, let me add my voice to the chorus asking people arguing about the balance of feats to take it to another thread, already. 

Second, with regard to Orcus, I think this is a throwback to the 1st Edition approach. In 1st Edition, the Arch-Devils and Demon Princes were *not* deities, but they were "equivalent to" Lesser Deities, and could grant spells as such. This sounds like where the Celestial Paragons and Fiendish Patrons are positioned now: not true deities, but close enough that they can grant spells to followers. 

However, I am waiting for Amazon to realize the book is out and ship my darned copy to me.  So I am just making an educated guess about Orcus, etc.


----------



## jester47 (Mar 21, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Eye of Horus Re Requirements
> Al: Lawful Good
> Region: Mulhorand
> Skills: Knowledge (Religion) 9 ranks, Spot 4 ranks.
> ...




Well, that Mulhorund regional requirement and the Lawful Good requirement really limit who can take the Eye class.  Also you have 2 feats required for the eye.  So that pretty much takes any choice out of the feats for many non-human characters.  Simply put the Morninglord is a lot easier to take.  Few players are willing to play Lawful Good, and even fewer are willing to burn feats.  The power of the Eye is relative to the limitations placed on it.  The Morninglord is open to a lot more PCs and so the benefits reflect that.  I really dont see a problem here unless you have players that START with PrCs and/or are allowed to build a character with a specific PrC in mind.  Neither of which is somthing I personally allow.  IMC random chance and hard work are the only way you get a PrC.  (occasionaly, if we are doing somthing special, I might allow a character to start with a PrC, but it is ussually backed up by the story) As an aside it is awesome to see a plyer who is excited that thier character actually qualifies for a PrC, and I do allow test based prereqs from Unearthed Arcana (but no one has tried it yet). 

Aaron.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 21, 2004)

*re*



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> Hmmm. The Eye of Horus-Re requires four ranks in a skill that is cross-class for clerics, and a feat that certainly isn't very high on any cleric's wishlist. Still not enough to balance it out, but burning a feat on Alertness is not something many people like to do.




When you see the abilities of the Eye of Horus Re, you will gladly burn the Alertness feat.

They gain Greater Turning a number of times per day equal to 3 + Charisma modifier in addition to their regular turning attempts.

All their attacks become good aligned at a certain level.

They can blast a burst of Positive Energy in a 100 foot radius using 2 of their regular turning attempts that does 1d6 damage per Eye of Horus Re level.

No miss chance in darkness and Blindfight feat for free.

Always active True Seeing at 10th level.

Its a very good class. Too good IMO. Makes the Morninglord look like a poor man's undead fighting warrior.


----------



## reiella (Mar 21, 2004)

Not sure what I make of the changes to Incantatrix.

Gets more free feats, and a bit more Meanie Potential (wresting control of a spell away).

The cooperative metamagic mechanics also seem to result in ... well practically never being able to make use of it, to even heighten a cantrip, it requirse a DC 21 check, but I understand why so difficult, just esh, not too sure they're too possible to use past a modified 6th level spell.

I do like how improved metamagic got moved though.  Incanatrix just starts to feel more like an epic PrC now rather than a regular one .


----------



## reiella (Mar 21, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> When you see the abilities of the Eye of Horus Re, you will gladly burn the Alertness feat.
> 
> They gain Greater Turning a number of times per day equal to 3 + Charisma modifier in addition to their regular turning attempts.
> 
> ...




And at 8th level, the Morninglord can at the start of the day, cast heal on themselves, cast Restoration (without component, or cost, single attribute), or remove any poisons or diseases...  The restoration bit can possibly be applied to other party members as well.  It does take an hour though.

Further, the Morninglord get's special darkvision...  Full color.  But the Eye of Horus-Re also gets Low-Light vision (when they get darkvision in fact).

And just in case TrueSight wasn't enough, at 6th, the eye can ignore miss chance created by darkness spells + effects, and gains Blind-fight.  And a +5 sacred bonus to Spot (Rather nice 'catch up' for the cleric at least).

And yea, I have ot agree that the Eye is The Uberer of the Two for their specialist task focus.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 21, 2004)

*re*

The initiate domains are real nice. Give unique spells to the priests of certain gods and a nice little domain power. Well worth the feat you have to spend to gain the initiate domain.

For example, Initiate of Tyr domain gives +1 attack with Longsword and access to _Sword and Hammer_ and _Greater Sword and Hammer_. Now only Tyrran priests can cast those two spells.


----------



## reiella (Mar 21, 2004)

Syltorian said:
			
		

> I'd like to hear about him too, as well as about the Initiate of Tyr feat. Can someone please tell us what it does, even if only in outline?
> 
> I also couldn't find any spells with (Tyr) in the Magic of Faerûn (though several of Velsharoon and other gods which don't seem to get Initiate feats) Does the Triad (Torm, Tyr, Ilmater) get to use the same 'specialist' spells? And do the Initiate feats all give the same number and levels of spells?
> 
> Thanks




The Justicar gets a bunch of Smite Chaos type boons, full spell progression for a divine spellcasting class.  Reqs 2nd level divine spellcasting.

Spell Focus (Lawful spell) (Effectively).

Maimed God's Boon: Add Cha bonus to all saves with the chaotic descriptor, and against spell-like + su abilities of chaotic outsiders....  Stacks with Paladin bonus, so you get Super Double Charisma boon.

Can eventually make their weapon act as an axiomatic weapon for Cha/rnds (min 1) / day.

And it ends, with a constant Dispel Chaos aura.  A dismissed outsider temporarily disables it for the rest of the turn, but may be reactivated as a free action on the justicar's next turn.

In all, it looks good, but I can see some potential smack-down pain in it...

Quick overall observation:
None of the Paladin or Monk themed prestige classes allow for Freely Multiclassing (Justicar and Monk of the Long Death) that I can tell.

I think this may just be an oversight, but I don't know.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 21, 2004)

> Do these feats break the holy grail of balance? Yes.
> 
> Do these feats help root the characters in the FR? Yes.
> 
> Is the combined effect of above points positive or negative to gameplay? I don't know, but I'd like to test it.




Which is really the best approach. I'm just not a fan of them making 'better feats,' and I'm usually extremely ambivalent to accusations of power creep. 

*shrug* I guess with 3.5, so ends my purchases in the Realms.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 21, 2004)

We can go on and on about the power level of the FR, but I'd really like to know more about the content of the book, if you guys don't mind.

What's new about the Incantatrix? I'm playing one right now so I'd really like to know what's changed. I'm also extremely intrigued by the Netherese Arcanist and Spellfire Heirophant Epic prestige classes. Anyone care to fill me in?


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 21, 2004)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Which is really the best approach. I'm just not a fan of them making 'better feats,' and I'm usually extremely ambivalent to accusations of power creep.
> 
> *shrug* I guess with 3.5, so ends my purchases in the Realms.




On this I understand and agree with you. In this case I don't think the results were that bad considering where the core feats were, but I don't buy the effectivness for flavor argument either.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 21, 2004)

> We can go on and on about the power level of the FR, but I'd really like to know more about the content of the book, if you guys don't mind.




NO! DON'T DISCUSS CONTENT! ARRRGH! MY RAILROADING, MY RAILROADING! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## reiella (Mar 21, 2004)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> We can go on and on about the power level of the FR, but I'd really like to know more about the content of the book, if you guys don't mind.
> 
> What's new about the Incantatrix? I'm playing one right now so I'd really like to know what's changed. I'm also extremely intrigued by the Netherese Arcanist and Spellfire Heirophant Epic prestige classes. Anyone care to fill me in?




They no longer can specialist benefits if they weren't a specialist before.  Regardless of their prior specialist state, they must choose another restricted school.

They get 1,4,7,and 10 bonus metamagic feats.

2nd, By making a DC 18 + [3xadjusted spell-level] spellcraft check, they can apply a metamagic feat to a spell being cast by a willing allied spellcaster.  Limited to 3 + Int Modifier uses per day.

3rd, They can do the same later to an existing magical effect, not necessary for 'willing allied spellcaster' then of course.  (For instance, extend duration of a wall of force, or maximize damage dealt by cloudkill).

5th, they can apply metamagic feats to spell trigger items, using up an additional number of charges equal to the spell level adjustment.  It has to be from an item that uses charges however (not like a strand of prayer beads).

6th, Seize Concentration, steal control over an ongoing spell effect that requires concentration, opposed caster level check if other spellcaster isn't willing.  Divine Spellcasters get a +2 bonus to check.  If incantatrix concentration lapses,  the original spellcaster may make a dc 15 + spell level caster level check to reclaim the spell.  All level variables remain the same as the original spellcaster.

At 7th (and again at 9th), they get one instant metamagic.  It does not use a higher-level spell slot (the wording would allow you to theoretically maximize Meteor Swarm, if you had the spell, without any needing 10+th level spell slots at all).

At 8th, they can 'snatch' control over a persistant spell/effect created by another spellcaster (that does not necessarily require concentration, such as Bull's Strength). Same opposed check.  All level variables remain the same as the original spellcaster.

At 10th, they get Improved metamagic.  Applying to all metamagic feats.  The result also appropiately lowers the DC for the Cooperative Metamagic and Metamagic effect (as the effective spell level is one lower).


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 21, 2004)

How's the artwork?  Did they shell out the big bucks for Dennis Crabapple and a chimp with crayons?


----------



## dreaded_beast (Mar 21, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> The initiate domains are real nice. Give unique spells to the priests of certain gods and a nice little domain power. Well worth the feat you have to spend to gain the initiate domain.
> 
> For example, Initiate of Tyr domain gives +1 attack with Longsword and access to _Sword and Hammer_ and _Greater Sword and Hammer_. Now only Tyrran priests can cast those two spells.




So only clerics of a particular deity can get their deity spells, similar to how it was in 2nd ed with spheres and such?

My old DM had a big gripe with that, but I personally didn't mind.


----------



## reiella (Mar 21, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> So only clerics of a particular deity can get their deity spells, similar to how it was in 2nd ed with spheres and such?
> 
> My old DM had a big gripe with that, but I personally didn't mind.




Pretty much, although it may be closer to specialist priests than the spheres.

I like the idea of the Initiate feats, but then, they are a bit more powerful than regular feats (Spell Knowledge + usually a Domain-grade ability), and stacking them on top of the arguably 'High end of the Balance cloud' Cleric seems to just result in even more potential for Cleric smackdowns...


----------



## Syltorian (Mar 21, 2004)

Thanks for the information, Reiella and Celtavian.   

Hm. That would get the Initiate of Tyr who has also chosen War as one of his domains +2 on Longswords? Now to decide whether I like that or not... 

From the contents lists that have been posted on several places, there seems to be some description of Human Ethnicities. Is the description any different or adding anything new to the Races of Faerûn?


----------



## Derren (Mar 21, 2004)

I have heared that Initate of Mystra allows one to cast spells in antimagic fields (with caster level checks). Is that true?

Doesn't sound very balanced with +1 with longswords.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 21, 2004)

Thanks for the info Reilla! The new Incantatirx sounds soooooooo cool! So they no longer have any anti-outsider abilities, I take it? Do they still have the same requirements as before (ie knowlege planes, iron will, etc)?

I'm also glad they took out the weird specialist thing with them. Giving up one extra school is alot more balanced, IMO. I am going to miss Hardy Spirit though...


----------



## Pseudonym (Mar 21, 2004)

Derren said:
			
		

> I have heared that Initate of Mystra allows one to cast spells in antimagic fields (with caster level checks). Is that true?



To cast in an anti-magic field, they need to make a Spellcraft check vs a DC of 11+ the caster level of the antimagic field.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> How's the artwork?





			
				ENWorld said:
			
		

> *dead silence*



Wow, that bad, huh?


----------



## reiella (Mar 22, 2004)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info Reilla! The new Incantatirx sounds soooooooo cool! So they no longer have any anti-outsider abilities, I take it? Do they still have the same requirements as before (ie knowlege planes, iron will, etc)?
> 
> I'm also glad they took out the weird specialist thing with them. Giving up one extra school is alot more balanced, IMO. I am going to miss Hardy Spirit though...




No more anti-outsider.
They lose Knowledge (the Planes) as a req, but retain it as a class skill.  Rest is the same.


----------



## reiella (Mar 22, 2004)

Syltorian said:
			
		

> Thanks for the information, Reiella and Celtavian.
> 
> Hm. That would get the Initiate of Tyr who has also chosen War as one of his domains +2 on Longswords? Now to decide whether I like that or not...
> 
> From the contents lists that have been posted on several places, there seems to be some description of Human Ethnicities. Is the description any different or adding anything new to the Races of Faerûn?




I hate laptops, anyway.

Human Ethnicities are about as addressed as they were in FRCS, with of course, more region data in the FRCS, so I'd imagine the Races of Faerun book to have more information/data.

The Player's Guide works nicely as a big link between different WotC products and FR...  Although it does seem to require more from other books than any other WotC product to date.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Mar 22, 2004)

It seems to me that the whole regional feat panic is overblown.

Sure some of the feats sound good. But, with the exception of the interaction between prestige class requirements and the all martial weapons feat (and really, is anyone maintaining that Martial Weapon Proficiency is a _good_ feat; I've always thought of it as a significantly subpar feat), most of them sound balanced. And I rather like the idea of providing an incentive for players to ground their characters in the game world (as well as a mechanical reason that, say Halruaa is known for producing effective wizards and the Dalelands for tough, heroic fighters). It may increase the power scales a little bit but it doesn't do so nearly as much as increasing one's point buy from 25 to 32 or 28 to 36 points would do.

The prestige classes seem a good deal more worrisome. The Hammer of Moradin is definitely over the top. They Eye of Horus Re may well be too (though I don't have the book and it's not in the web preview so I couldn't say for sure). Its prerequisites don't look significantly tougher than the Morninglord's to me (ranks in spot are not nearly as suboptimal for most clerics as ranks in perform and if you've got spot ranks, alertness can be a worthwhile feat).


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> How's the artwork?  Did they shell out the big bucks for Dennis Crabapple and a chimp with crayons?



See for yourself.

Truthfully, the artwork isn't that bad.  Sure, there's no Todd Lockwood or Sam Wood, but there's still some good art in there.


----------



## reiella (Mar 22, 2004)

Another interesting change to the region system.

At least I think it is.

Every region now has Bonus Freebie equipment (like FRCS).  However, it isn't restricted to class.  You're also able to take a 100 gp option at any time.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 22, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> See for yourself.
> 
> Truthfully, the artwork isn't that bad.  Sure, there's no Todd Lockwood or Sam Wood, but there's still some good art in there.



You're right.  The art for the most part doesn't blow my socks off, but nothing's really horrible either, with even a few that are downright cool.


----------



## Kesh (Mar 22, 2004)

Okay, so basic question then:

Suppose I have a copy of _Silver Marches_. If I pick up FRPG, will I be able to effectively run an FR campaign? What would I be missing from the FRCS? And what if I had _Faiths & Pantheons_ to supplement any missing gods/spells?

Essentially, I have to sell off some of my books. I'll eventually pick up FRPG, so I'm wondering which book I can safely ditch: FRCS or F&P, or both?


----------



## reiella (Mar 22, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Okay, so basic question then:
> 
> Suppose I have a copy of _Silver Marches_. If I pick up FRPG, will I be able to effectively run an FR campaign? What would I be missing from the FRCS? And what if I had _Faiths & Pantheons_ to supplement any missing gods/spells?
> 
> Essentially, I have to sell off some of my books. I'll eventually pick up FRPG, so I'm wondering which book I can safely ditch: FRCS or F&P, or both?




None of them.

You will need the FRCS to use the FRPG.
And Faithes and Pantheons is not antiquated by FRPG.  FRPG does update relevant (PLAYER) information (ie, spells, domains, etc) from Faiths & Pantheons.

Silver March is effectively Untouched by the FRPG.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 22, 2004)

Silveras said:
			
		

> Second, with regard to Orcus, I think this is a throwback to the 1st Edition approach. In 1st Edition, the Arch-Devils and Demon Princes were *not* deities, but they were "equivalent to" Lesser Deities, and could grant spells as such. This sounds like where the Celestial Paragons and Fiendish Patrons are positioned now: not true deities, but close enough that they can grant spells to followers.




This would be much easier to accept if they hadn't gone all across the board on this issue back in the BoVD. It stated that archfiends were not able to grant spells, then it'd give them domains anyway, and then said you could justify it by possibly giving them divine rank 0, which completely ignored that D&Dg said that divine rank 0 creatures can't grant spells!

The only idea pitched (also in the BoVD) that I liked was that clerics of archfiends aren't worshipping the fiends per se, but rather, worshipping Evil, as interpreted by such-and-so archfiend. That was a cool way of doing it - too bad that doesn't fly in the Realms, where you must actually worship a god to get divine spells.


----------



## reiella (Mar 22, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The only idea pitched (also in the BoVD) that I liked was that clerics of archfiends aren't worshipping the fiends per se, but rather, worshipping Evil, as interpreted by such-and-so archfiend. That was a cool way of doing it - too bad that doesn't fly in the Realms, where you must actually worship a god to get divine spells.




Best answer to this problem I got was the one given in Defenders of the Faith.

That other gods grant those spells and powers on behalf of the Arch-fiend.

Although the 'Abstract Evil represented by the Archfiend' works nicely too.

And yea, it's frustrating period.  Given that they want to maintain the old legacy of the Archs being killable, they didn't want to have them be DR ranked by default (given that Divine Rank changes CR indeterminantly).


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 22, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> Best answer to this problem I got was the one given in Defenders of the Faith.
> 
> That other gods grant those spells and powers on behalf of the Arch-fiend.




Yeah, I remember seeing this paradigm pitched in some 2E material. It did seem like a good idea, but I didn't see this one flying for this scenario, because just granting spells alone shouldn't seem to make an archfiend a god (maybe from a mortal perspective).


----------



## Kesh (Mar 22, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> None of them.
> 
> You will need the FRCS to use the FRPG.




Argh. Are you saying there's just not enough rules updated in FRPG to effectively run a game using it (combined with F&P & SM)? I'd only be running in the Marches themselves, as the other regions aren't that interesting to me.


----------



## reiella (Mar 23, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Argh. Are you saying there's just not enough rules updated in FRPG to effectively run a game using it (combined with F&P & SM)? I'd only be running in the Marches themselves, as the other regions aren't that interesting to me.




There are enough rules in just SM to run a game their I believe.

Trouble is, you're going to find alot of PrCs missing and alot of spells/feats missing.

It only reprints the stuff that changed with 3.5, while it references the stuff that did not.

I really can't recommend it myself, but I think a quick skim over at The Store may help you decide/determine.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 23, 2004)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> We can go on and on about the power level of the FR, but I'd really like to know more about the content of the book, if you guys don't mind.




Eh.

The Initiate feats look cool.  The updated PrCs are a bit less crazy, like Divine Disciple (that bonus domain comes in at 4th level, not 1st).  It has two potentially generally useful Exalted feats, useful for those VoP characters who desperately need them.

I rather like the Black Blood Hunter PrC, which is a vile were-baddy class (and, with suitable mods, a nice were-PC class).  Martyred Champion of Ilmater is fairly cool, in that it either gives alternating spellcasting or bonus feats, your pick at the start.   However, please, for the love of any deity that holds you dear and to whom you feel likewise, RUN, don't walk, away from the Celebrant of Sharess.  If nothing else, consider that this combines exalted feat requirements, poor BAB, d6 hp, a pounce ability...and rage.

The spells are okay, and seem to be toned down a bit in general; the Nybor's series, for example, no longer affects the target's Str.  Magic items are a mixed bag; they waste an entry on a plain +3 heavy shield (rumored to have weaponbreaking properties that relate mostly to its being steel and the breaking weapons having been made out of bronze), but there's the Cloak of Weaponry, which we've nicknamed the Highlander Trenchcoat (as it can hold up a single one-handed weapon of 25 pounds or less).

It's nice to have the cosmology section, if for no other reason than the FRCS was rather sparse on that (not sure if F&P had it).  They have a section on psionics, which effectively says that psionics are there, but most people just think you're a mage and treat you accordingly.  Amusingly, they're using the Revised psionics in their descriptions, though that's hardly surprising.

I'm not...quite...regretting my purchase.  But get it with a discount if possible, and only if necessary.

Brad


----------



## Moulin Rogue (Mar 23, 2004)

Are all the spells updated from _Magic of Faerun_ there or are there some new ones? I never did pick up _Magic of Faerun_, has it been rendered obsolete by 3.5 and this new book particularly?


----------



## reiella (Mar 23, 2004)

Moulin Rogue said:
			
		

> Are all the spells updated from _Magic of Faerun_ there or are there some new ones? I never did pick up _Magic of Faerun_, has it been rendered obsolete by 3.5 and this new book particularly?




Negative.

It has spells from MagF, FRCS, and a handful of other FR sources.

I'm not sure if there are any unique spells in it (as I don't have Underdark or Races of Faerun to compare against).

The spell list, however, is NOT all inclusive of the spells from Magic of Faerun, the FRCS, Underdark, and Races of Faerun.  The revised spell list references spells from those sources as well (even in the General Class Spell List).


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 23, 2004)

*re*



			
				dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> So only clerics of a particular deity can get their deity spells, similar to how it was in 2nd ed with spheres and such?
> 
> My old DM had a big gripe with that, but I personally didn't mind.




Yes, alot like 2nd edition. I really happy with this change personally. It gives more flavor to clerics.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Mar 23, 2004)

It's late & I'm not through reading the Domains, but...

... why does every player race EXCEPT human get a racial domain? Drow (ok, at least 1 non-player race), Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling (this is where my eyes gave out *yawn*)... I looked for Human, but it isn't there. Grr.

So, what would a Human domain look like, anyway?


----------



## reiella (Mar 23, 2004)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> It's late & I'm not through reading the Domains, but...
> 
> ... why does every player race EXCEPT human get a racial domain? Drow (ok, at least 1 non-player race), Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling (this is where my eyes gave out *yawn*)... I looked for Human, but it isn't there. Grr.
> 
> So, what would a Human domain look like, anyway?




Well, there isn't a God of Humans...

That's most likly the reason why.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 23, 2004)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> ... why does every player race EXCEPT human get a racial domain?




Well, Humans are a very diverse bunch. While all Elves are similar, all Dwarves are similar, etc, Humans have widely diverse cultures and religions. Now, I wouldn't expect to see a Human domain, as it simply wouldn't make sense, but I suppose that regional domains (which would bascially be Human domains, but focusing on a particular Human culture) would be a very interesting idea.


----------



## Silveras (Mar 23, 2004)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> It's late & I'm not through reading the Domains, but...
> 
> ... why does every player race EXCEPT human get a racial domain? Drow (ok, at least 1 non-player race), Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling (this is where my eyes gave out *yawn*)... I looked for Human, but it isn't there. Grr.
> 
> So, what would a Human domain look like, anyway?




Primarily because Humans are the "standard", and the other races are all understood in terms of how they are different from humans. 

What would it look like ? Probably a lot like the Community domain.


----------



## silverblade (Mar 24, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Argh. Are you saying there's just not enough rules updated in FRPG to effectively run a game using it (combined with F&P & SM)? I'd only be running in the Marches themselves, as the other regions aren't that interesting to me.




About the only mechanics info, you'll need from the campaign setting is maybe some info on the various variant magic things like spellfire, dead magic areas, the shadow weave, circle magic, etc. You should be able to get everything else you need from the PGtF and the other books. You might also want to download the web enhancement from WotC's site to update monsters from the campaign book, monsters of faerun, and silver marches.


----------



## Altalazar (Mar 24, 2004)

It would have been nice if the cover wasn't the way it was, but I guess that can be fixed... and now I need to sleep.  I guess I'll actually read it tomorrow.


----------



## orangefruitbat (Mar 24, 2004)

Of course you can. Most of the book is history/geography for the realms - and you've got more specific info on the region you're interested in. You don't really need the prestige classes and feats described (most of them are in the new core rules or PGF anyways). If you want to emphasize the religious aspects of Faerun, you'll need to know the names and domains of all the gods, but they're all availble online.

The only thing that might cause problems for you as a DM is that there might be a few (very high level) NPCs with prestige classes that you don't have the stats for.

F&P is almost useless in my opinion - some ok prestige classes, but most of the book is filled with useless diety stats. 



			
				Kesh said:
			
		

> Okay, so basic question then:
> 
> Suppose I have a copy of _Silver Marches_. If I pick up FRPG, will I be able to effectively run an FR campaign? What would I be missing from the FRCS? And what if I had _Faiths & Pantheons_ to supplement any missing gods/spells?
> 
> Essentially, I have to sell off some of my books. I'll eventually pick up FRPG, so I'm wondering which book I can safely ditch: FRCS or F&P, or both?


----------



## Staffan (Mar 24, 2004)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> It still has balance issues.  One feat gives you proficiency with all martial weapons -- so an Eldritch Knight doesn't need to take a fighter level anymore.  Another feat lets you sell loot for 75% of book price instead of 50%.  What party wouldn't want this?
> 
> WoTC really needs to hire back Monte Cook.



Note that a lot of the stuff I've heard about PGTF are also done in Monte's Arcana Unearthed. For example, the AU version of Martial Weapon Proficiency gives you all martial weapons (and the Exotic Weapon prof feat gives you either all "heavy" exotics or all ranged and "agile"), and AU also has a group of feats that are more powerful than the norm which you can only take one of, and only at first level (similar to regional feats, except not region-based).

So, I don't think Monte Cook specifically should be brought up in discussions about any balance issues there may be with Player's Guide to Faerûn.


----------



## Henry (Mar 24, 2004)

Based on the feat info detailed so far, I'm getting very wary about this book. I am a big detractor of balanced via roleplay restrictions, because of the arbitrary nature it is applied from DM to DM. Some DM's treat roleplay restrictions too harshly and some too lightly because of the lack of a referential gauge. Even beyond that, if a feat like luck of heroes grants bonuses to Armor Class AND Saves, then that's a huge boost. The designers seem to have tamed one tiger (save DC's) at the expense of letting another free (excessively-powered feats). 

I'll eventually have to see for myself, but I'm really hesitant about this one.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 24, 2004)

I'm just wishing they'd make up their damn minds regarding the Archfiends, make them real gods and get on with it.


----------



## JPL (Mar 24, 2004)

I think the amped-up regional feats are a good thing.  Limiting them to one per customer goes a long way towards balancing them out.

I fear power creep in offical D&D products as much as anybody.  But this is a far cry from the 2.0 Bladesinger or the various 2.0 Complete Books.

I'm glad they fixed the ancestor feats for Oriental Adventures in Dragon magazine in the same way...in 3.0 OA, most of them just weren't good enough to take over, say, Power Attack or Combat Casting or Improved Initiative.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 24, 2004)

*doesn't care about feats* I just want them Archfiends kicking the gods around like they should.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 25, 2004)

*re*



			
				orangefruitbat said:
			
		

> F&P is almost useless in my opinion - some ok prestige classes, but most of the book is filled with useless diety stats.




I still wonder which bright game designer thought we needed stats for the deities rather than details about their worship and power sites. Fighting deities was something I did when I was really young, so I didn't really want or need their stats.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 25, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Based on the feat info detailed so far, I'm getting very wary about this book. I am a big detractor of balanced via roleplay restrictions, because of the arbitrary nature it is applied from DM to DM. Some DM's treat roleplay restrictions too harshly and some too lightly because of the lack of a referential gauge. Even beyond that, if a feat like luck of heroes grants bonuses to Armor Class AND Saves, then that's a huge boost. The designers seem to have tamed one tiger (save DC's) at the expense of letting another free (excessively-powered feats).
> 
> I'll eventually have to see for myself, but I'm really hesitant about this one.




The only restriction for the new feats is that they must be taken at first level and you can only have one. Not really a roleplay requirement, more a metagame requirement to limit their availability. They are pretty tough feats.

Personally, I like the FR feats. They are very worthwhile to take and are well-thought out. I think you'll like them personally.


----------



## JPL (Mar 25, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> The only restriction for the new feats is that they must be taken at first level and you can only have one. Not really a roleplay requirement, more a metagame requirement to limit their availability. They are pretty tough feats.
> 
> Personally, I like the FR feats. They are very worthwhile to take and are well-thought out. I think you'll like them personally.




Well, the roleplay requirement is that your character must hail from the appropriate region.  

If you're from Thay, you gotta deal with everyone who hates people from Thay.  If you're from Halruaa, everyone will assume you are a snotty wizard.  And so forth.

Depending on the DM and the adventure, this can make all the difference in the world or none at all.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Mar 25, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> This would be much easier to accept if they hadn't gone all across the board on this issue back in the BoVD. It stated that archfiends were not able to grant spells, then it'd give them domains anyway, and then said you could justify it by possibly giving them divine rank 0, which completely ignored that D&Dg said that divine rank 0 creatures can't grant spells!




I don't believe that it's stated explicitly in D&Dg.  "Grant Spells" (p. 29) makes no mention of rank, which implies that quasi-deities can grant spells, while the demigod description (p. 25) says that demigods can grant spells, implying that you need rank 1.

Read whatever you want from the two.


----------



## Pants (Mar 25, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *doesn't care about feats* I just want them Archfiends kicking the gods around like they should.



You mean, like they've never ever been able to do in core DnD before? 
(Forget the Waukeen/Graz'zt thing, that was extenuating circumstances)


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 25, 2004)

Not really. Cause if that were so, Orcus would have killed Kiaranselee before the damn cow got uppity. Not to mention he'd have turn most of the Bloodstone lands into his personal playground. As it should be.


----------



## Aaron L (Mar 26, 2004)

The "amped up" feats are an overpowering +2 to 3 skills or equivilent.  Nothing to get worried over.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 26, 2004)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't believe that it's stated explicitly in D&Dg.  "Grant Spells" (p. 29) makes no mention of rank, which implies that quasi-deities can grant spells, while the demigod description (p. 25) says that demigods can grant spells, implying that you need rank 1.
> 
> Read whatever you want from the two.




Actually, you didn't read early enough in chapter 2. On the first page of chap. 2 (page 25), under the "Ranks of Divine Power" heading, the listing for rank 0 says:



> *Rank 0:* Creatures of this rank are sometimes called quasi-deities or hero deities. Creatures that have a mortal and a deity as parents also fall into this category. *These entities cannot grant spells*, but are immortal and usually have one or more ability scores far above the norm for their species. They may have some worshippers. Ordinary mortals do not have a divine rank of 0. They lack a divine rank altogether.




The emphasis was mine, of course, but that sums it up rather clearly. Rank 0 beings can't grant spells.


----------



## Felon (Mar 26, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Based on the feat info detailed so far, I'm getting very wary about this book. I am a big detractor of balanced via roleplay restrictions, because of the arbitrary nature it is applied from DM to DM. Some DM's treat roleplay restrictions too harshly and some too lightly because of the lack of a referential gauge. Even beyond that, if a feat like luck of heroes grants bonuses to Armor Class AND Saves, then that's a huge boost. The designers seem to have tamed one tiger (save DC's) at the expense of letting another free (excessively-powered feats).




Well-put.


----------



## reiella (Mar 26, 2004)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> The "amped up" feats are an overpowering +2 to 3 skills or equivilent.  Nothing to get worried over.




+1 to AC + All Saving Throws
Immune to Fear
Numerous Immune to 'shaken' state + Other Stuff  Feats
Type change to native outsider (all the benefits of a type change, without the downside of being an outsider, including 60 ft darkvision).
20' ft Frightful Prseence ability (Charge/Full Attack/Cast a spell that targets an enemy or includes an enemy in the area of effect)
Gaining Favored Enemy  [This one is arguable, as I'm not too sure how it'd work, as it doesn't list any bonus or progression rate ]
Fire Resistance 5
Ability to move up to your normal speed while using the Hide or Move Silently skill at no penalty [admittantly, just an effective +5 to two skills under specific circumstance]
Spell Focus + Spell Penetration [one school]
Exhaustion Reliancy (Downgraded to Fatigued, Fatigued downgraded to No Effect)

Lot more than just the Skill Feats +1 and the Save Feats +1...


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 26, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> +1 to AC + All Saving Throws
> Immune to Fear
> Numerous Immune to 'shaken' state + Other Stuff  Feats
> Type change to native outsider (all the benefits of a type change, without the downside of being an outsider, including 60 ft darkvision).
> ...




...and still nothing better than a +4 to all initiative rolls.


----------



## reiella (Mar 26, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> ...and still nothing better than a +4 to all initiative rolls.




Difference of opinion there, but one I'm not so much inclined to argue over .

I am more willing to argue that those feats are significantly more than "+2 to three skills", however .

[ Edit / Add ]
Which was mostly my intent in that last seeing as how it was stated that the amped up regional feats were nothing more than "+2 to 3 skills".


----------



## Pants (Mar 26, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Not really. Cause if that were so, Orcus would have killed Kiaranselee before the damn cow got uppity. Not to mention he'd have turn most of the Bloodstone lands into his personal playground. As it should be.



Too true


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 26, 2004)

Thank you Pants.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 27, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> ...and still nothing better than a +4 to all initiative rolls.



While a +4 to init is nice, I really think the advantages has been blown out of proportion, simply because D&D's roll once per combat. Sure it gives you the advantage in that first round, but after that, you're just going in order, it doesn't really matter WHEN you go at that point.

Also, I rarely see people take Improved Init, so I dont think it's as good as a +1 to AC and such.

Compare +1 to AC +1 to saves to Dodge, which is +1 to AC vs one opponent.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 27, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> While a +4 to init is nice, I really think the advantages has been blown out of proportion, simply because D&D's roll once per combat. Sure it gives you the advantage in that first round, but after that, you're just going in order, it doesn't really matter WHEN you go at that point.




I disagree. It matters very much WHEN you go at that point. It can be vital to go first in a round, especially if you want to hold actions to do things such as counterspell, or otherwise determine what your enemies are doing. And, if worse comes to worst, you can spend a round to have your initiative rerolled.

I think a flat +4 to initiative is comparably powerful to any regional feat because it'll always be applied in every single battle. Other feats, such as immunity to fear, won't always be applicable. You won't need that when you're facing down an orc horde, or battling a drow scouting party. But initiative is always useful...add to that that its a +4 unnamed bonus, and it seems to be equal at the very least to any regional feat.


----------



## reiella (Mar 27, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> While a +4 to init is nice, I really think the advantages has been blown out of proportion, simply because D&D's roll once per combat. Sure it gives you the advantage in that first round, but after that, you're just going in order, it doesn't really matter WHEN you go at that point.
> 
> Also, I rarely see people take Improved Init, so I dont think it's as good as a +1 to AC and such.
> 
> Compare +1 to AC +1 to saves to Dodge, which is +1 to AC vs one opponent.




Well, that's not a good comparison either, as Dodge is an 'entry' feat, and generally regarded as 'Ok for being underpowered' because it leads into more powerful feat chains/Prestige Classes later on.  Much in the same tone that the 'Save' Feats are often glossed over as Prestige Class Requirement bait.

Not that I necessarily agree with that perception, but it is one I understand .  I personally perfer to see all Prestige Classes balanced against a core class or core class progression.

+4 to Initiative is a nice 20% boost for Rogue/sneak fighters combat ability and just great for tactical supremacy.  It is a pretty good feat, but also one that I'm "passing up" with my monk, simply as +8 instead of +4, especially as I personally perfer to come in later with flanking support as the Flurry of Misses really benefits from that +2 .

Oh, and Alzrius, a couple of those feats would be used EVERY battle as well.  Including Luck of the Heroes, and gaining the Frightful Presence ability will practically always come up in combat.  But by the same argument, +1 to AC will come up every combat, and most certainly more often than a +4 to Initiative would as well.

Will just concede that we have different experiences in regards to "types of feats people like taking".  As a sidenote, if the +4 Init is so nice, I'd expect almost all Humans to be taking Improved Initiative and Blooded for their two first level feats , fear the +6 Initiative, might get nixed in 3.6 due to being too stackable and abusable .


----------



## Faraer (Mar 27, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I still wonder which bright game designer thought we needed stats for the deities rather than details about their worship and power sites. Fighting deities was something I did when I was really young, so I didn't really want or need their stats.



Erik Mona and Sean Reynolds have both said they were against including those stats, and I'd be surprised if Eric Boyd wasn't too. It was demanded based on the Krunch über alles dogma either by Richard Baker or managers above him.


----------



## reiella (Mar 27, 2004)

Faraer said:
			
		

> Erik Mona and Sean Reynolds have both said they were against including those stats, and I'd be surprised if Eric Boyd wasn't too. It was demanded based on the Krunch über alles dogma either by Richard Baker or managers above him.




In the FR product line (and sorta in D&D in general), there's a distinct policy against reprinting significant fluff that's Not Essential and has already been printed (even in 2e).

I suspect the great religon books FR had in 2e are the cause for Faithes and Pantheons being more of a 'stat and quick glance' rather than the in depth view.

Can't say it's something I personally like either but I can understand it.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 27, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> In the FR product line (and sorta in D&D in general), there's a distinct policy against reprinting significant fluff that's Not Essential and has already been printed (even in 2e).




Which is why, instead of rewriting "fluff" material on a product, you'll be referenced to another product, despite the fact that it's several years, and an edition or two old, and long since out of print now.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 27, 2004)

I just want my Orcus back and at full demonic godhood power to kill Kiaranselee and Velshroon. He's better at undead anyway.


----------



## Felon (Mar 27, 2004)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I disagree. It matters very much WHEN you go at that point. It can be vital to go first in a round, especially if you want to hold actions to do things such as counterspell, or otherwise determine what your enemies are doing.




Initiative bonuses are only significant at the very start of a round. From then on, you're just taking turns back and forth and a higher initiative confers no advantage. For instance, after both sides' first round of actions, initiative scores make no difference in regards to readying an action to counterspell someone. 



> And, if worse comes to worst, you can spend a round to have your initiative rerolled.




If you're talking about refocus, that option's gone from 3.5e. Many designers have mentioned that they realized that refocusing was a prertty pointless option. You just delay forever if you want.

Make no mistake: the regional feats are, by design, intended to be better than regular feats.


----------



## Felon (Mar 27, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> Another interesting change to the region system. At least I think it is. Every region now has Bonus Freebie equipment (like FRCS).  However, it isn't restricted to class.  You're also able to take a 100 gp option at any time.




Sorry for the late response, but can you elaborate on this?


----------



## FireLance (Mar 27, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Sorry for the late response, but can you elaborate on this?




Previously, you got regional bonus equipment only if you were of the favoured class for the region.  Now, characters of any class can take the bonus equipment, but you must select either one of two fixed choices (usually worth about 300+ gp) or 100 gp.  The 100 gp option is for classes who wouldn't find the alternatives to be attractive.  For example, if you're playing a wizard, and choice A is a masterwork melee weapon and choice B is a suit of masterwork armor, you might prefer taking 100 gp instead.


----------



## Faraer (Mar 27, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> In the FR product line (and sorta in D&D in general), there's a distinct policy against reprinting significant fluff that's Not Essential and has already been printed (even in 2e).
> 
> I suspect the great religon books FR had in 2e are the cause for Faithes and Pantheons being more of a 'stat and quick glance' rather than the in depth view.
> 
> Can't say it's something I personally like either but I can understand it.



Well, the cause, per Sean and Erik, was edict from above to include the stats. There's plenty of new content re the priesthoods that could have appeared instead of those stat blocks, such detail as the Lathanderite and Banite oaths Ed's recently posted on the candlekeep.com boards.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> Well, that's not a good comparison either, as Dodge is an 'entry' feat, and generally regarded as 'Ok for being underpowered' because it leads into more powerful feat chains/Prestige Classes later on.  Much in the same tone that the 'Save' Feats are often glossed over as Prestige Class Requirement bait.



I don't think an Entry Feat need be weak in and of itself, though higher feats along the chain will be more powerful. As an example, power attack, mounted combat and point blank shot are not weak IMO, but they are Entry Feats.



> +4 to Initiative is a nice 20% boost for Rogue/sneak fighters combat ability and just great for tactical supremacy.  It is a pretty good feat, but also one that I'm "passing up" with my monk, simply as +8 instead of +4, especially as I personally perfer to come in later with flanking support as the Flurry of Misses really benefits from that +2 .



The thing is, Rogue's will benefit the most (and, the 20% boost isn't really in "combat ability IMO) because of sneak attack. But, that assumes no surprise round. Rogue's will also usually have a high dex, so the effect will be lessened for them.
In the games I've been in, it's been more of a dump feat (Imp Init) than some Must Have. Heck, I think I'm the only one that has it right now from the 4 games. (I also had a past PC that was a Crane Samurai, he was boosted up to around +12 for init IIRC)



> Oh, and Alzrius, a couple of those feats would be used EVERY battle as well.  Including Luck of the Heroes, and gaining the Frightful Presence ability will practically always come up in combat.  But by the same argument, +1 to AC will come up every combat, and most certainly more often than a +4 to Initiative would as well.



+1 to AC and +1 to saves will not only come up every combat round, but will come up out of combat as well.
+4 to init will come up in the first round of combats, but is still not a huge bonus when you're rolling a d20. The die still determines when you go.



> Will just concede that we have different experiences in regards to "types of feats people like taking".  As a sidenote, if the +4 Init is so nice, I'd expect almost all Humans to be taking Improved Initiative and Blooded for their two first level feats , fear the +6 Initiative, might get nixed in 3.6 due to being too stackable and abusable .



The regional feats are stated to be more powerful. I think the actual main balancing factor is that everyone can take them, so they're theoretically balanced against each other. The problem will be folks plucking from FR to put them in other games where the majority of players don't have them.

I'm actually more opposed to the Regional Equipment myself.


----------



## reiella (Mar 28, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The regional feats are stated to be more powerful. I think the actual main balancing factor is that everyone can take them, so they're theoretically balanced against each other. The problem will be folks plucking from FR to put them in other games where the majority of players don't have them.
> 
> I'm actually more opposed to the Regional Equipment myself.




Hmm, well I disagree a bit with them being even balanced with each other, but that's a matter of opinion.

One thing I would kinda like clarified is this assumption that they are stated to be more powerful.

The sidebar, I had thought folks were refering [ Regional Feats and Previously Published Material, believed because it fits the rough location ].

The only statement regarding balance in that block is that allowing a character to choose more than one may be unbalancing, suggesting more of a synergistic problem rising up from the theoretically unique nature of the regional feats (such as folks in the particularly 'regional feat crowded' regions).

And yea, Regional Equipment is most likly a bit more of a power-creep than [most] of the regional feats, especially with the effective 'or Free 100 gp' option for folks who aren't the specific class.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 28, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> Hmm, well I disagree a bit with them being even balanced with each other, but that's a matter of opinion.
> 
> One thing I would kinda like clarified is this assumption that they are stated to be more powerful.
> 
> The sidebar, I had thought folks were refering [ Regional Feats and Previously Published Material, believed because it fits the rough location ].




Not having seen the book, I can't say, just going by what's been typed here.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 29, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Previously, you got regional bonus equipment only if you were of the favoured class for the region.  Now, characters of any class can take the bonus equipment, but you must select either one of two fixed choices (usually worth about 300+ gp) or 100 gp.  The 100 gp option is for classes who wouldn't find the alternatives to be attractive.  For example, if you're playing a wizard, and choice A is a masterwork melee weapon and choice B is a suit of masterwork armor, you might prefer taking 100 gp instead.



Hmmm.  Why wouldn't the wizard take the masterwork weapon (worth at least 300 gp) and then sell it for 150+ gp?


----------



## reiella (Mar 29, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  Why wouldn't the wizard take the masterwork weapon (worth at least 300 gp) and then sell it for 150+ gp?




*shrug* Mostly depends on the campaign world, but by the RAW there would be little reason to take the gold option.


----------



## JPL (Mar 29, 2004)

Bought it Saturday.  Overall, very nice.  I particular, the crossover section [Vile Darkness, Exalted Deeds, etc.] is very thought-provoking.

Now that I've read the feats section for myself, I'm stll on board.  There's no way to make sure that any given player will make an effort to roleplay the cultural/geographical background associated with his regional feat...but in a world as vast as the Realms, I think it's a great character hook for players new to the Realms.

And once again, I find myself wanting to do a high-magic game based in Halruua...


----------



## Ondo (Apr 2, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> The Eye of Horus Re is so much better than the Morninglord of Lathander that the two classes are not comparable fighting undead or any other creatures for that matter. Just to give you a slight example of the difference, at 10th level the Morninglord gains the equivalent of 60 foot darkvision while the Eye of Horus Re gains always active _True Seeing_. The Eye of Horus Re receives 60 foot Darkvision at 2nd level. When you get this book, just look over the two classes. They are not comparable.




Sure they are.  The Eye of Horus-Re does have better special abilities, but he doesn't get +1 spellcaster level at first level.  They look pretty balanced to me.


----------



## candidus_cogitens (Apr 6, 2004)

LGodamus said:
			
		

> you are not limited in how many regional feats you can take nor can they only be purchased at first level.....unless of course they changed it from 3.0




That quote is from weeks ago, but I have a question on that matter.  Can you take a regional feat and a racial feat at first level? 

And another question:  what is name of the feat that gives proficiency in all martial weapons?


----------



## JPL (Apr 6, 2004)

candidus_cogitens said:
			
		

> That quote is from weeks ago, but I have a question on that matter.  Can you take a regional feat and a racial feat at first level?




There's no such thing in PGTF as a racial feat.  Each race has a list of associated regions, and each region has a list of associated feats.  And of those feats, you get only one, which must be taken at first level.


----------



## candidus_cogitens (Apr 7, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> There's no such thing in PGTF as a racial feat.  Each race has a list of associated regions, and each region has a list of associated feats.  And of those feats, you get only one, which must be taken at first level.




The racial feats I had in mind are from Races of Faerun.  Presumably those have not been completely done away with by PGTF.  Or am I wrong?

And by the way, what is the name of that all-martial-weapon-proficiency" feat?


----------



## reiella (Apr 7, 2004)

candidus_cogitens said:
			
		

> The racial feats I had in mind are from Races of Faerun.  Presumably those have not been completely done away with by PGTF.  Or am I wrong?
> 
> And by the way, what is the name of that all-martial-weapon-proficiency" feat?




Racial feats still exist I believe.

There's a text block covering over Stoneblood, Stonwalker Fist, and Swarmfighting (urdunnir dwarf, urdunnir dwarf, and wild dwarf) says that they're just feats available to any of the appropiate race.

Not having Races of Faerun, I couldn't say specifically though.


----------



## Urbannen (Apr 8, 2004)

It looks like now the racial feats from RoF are not regional feats.  For instance, the Tethyrian racial feats are now listed under Western Heartlands, while the Calime racial feats are listed under Calimshan, or some facsimile thereof.  

However I don't think PGtF ever explicitly says that it is coopting the racial feat system.

Edit:  Calime!  Calime!  Calime!  

Now you try it.


----------



## Pseudonym (Apr 8, 2004)

Urbannen said:
			
		

> Edit: Calime! Calime! Calime!



I believe thery are referred to as Calie.


----------



## Pseudonym (Apr 8, 2004)

candidus_cogitens said:
			
		

> And by the way, what is the name of that all-martial-weapon-proficiency" feat?



The feat is called Militia.  It is limited to half-elves from Aglarond, halflings from Lurien or humans from Altumbel, the Dalelands, Impiltur, Samarach, Thindol or Turmish.

As my Realms game is in the Silver Marches, it's not likely to come up.


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 9, 2004)

Ondo said:
			
		

> Sure they are.  The Eye of Horus-Re does have better special abilities, but he doesn't get +1 spellcaster level at first level.  They look pretty balanced to me.




The loss of one caster level does not balance the classes. You are a real easy to please person. The Eye of Horus Re is unbalanced because of its extreme uses of greater turning alone. An Eye of Horus Re with an 18 Charisma can use Greater Turning 7 times per day in addition to their regular turning attempts. Use regular turning attempts to kill weak undead, use greater turning to kill big undead. At a certain level, every weapon they wield becomes good aligned. For two turning attempts, an Eye of Horus Re can do class level d6 damage to evil in a 100 foot radius, at 10th level this is basically a 10d6 fireball that you can't resist. You don't think this class is imbalanced? C'mon now, its overly powerful. The only thing that will keep it from being played all too often is the requirement of being from Mulhorand.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 9, 2004)

After looking it over, I just decided all this book does is give more stuff and doesn't really add any flavor to FR. So if you want to be bad ass 3.5 guy, this is a book for you. 

At least complete Warrior had something of substance to it.


----------



## Ondo (Apr 9, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> The loss of one caster level does not balance the classes. You are a real easy to please person. The Eye of Horus Re is unbalanced because of its extreme uses of greater turning alone. An Eye of Horus Re with an 18 Charisma can use Greater Turning 7 times per day in addition to their regular turning attempts. Use regular turning attempts to kill weak undead, use greater turning to kill big undead.




How often is that 7th greater turning going to help?  Given the choice between an Eye's 3+Cha greater turning attempts, and a Morninglord's 3 greater turning, one of which can automatically do maximum turning damage, I'll take the Morninglord's every time.  YMMV.



> At a certain level, every weapon they wield becomes good aligned. For two turning attempts, an Eye of Horus Re can do class level d6 damage to evil in a 100 foot radius, at 10th level this is basically a 10d6 fireball that you can't resist.




It only damages undead, not evil.  You won't get it until you are at least character level 14.  At this point your one less caster level means you have one less 7th level spell than a regular cleric or Morninglord of Lathander.  You'll get 8th and 9th level spells a level later, and have one fewer of those when you do get them (though catching back up on the lower level ones at times).



> You don't think this class is imbalanced? C'mon now, its overly powerful. The only thing that will keep it from being played all too often is the requirement of being from Mulhorand.




Sure don't.  Either one can handle undead fine - the Eye's ability to do it even better doesn't seem worth not being able to handle other things as well as a Morninglord of Lathander. Your mileage, obviously, varies.


----------



## candidus_cogitens (Apr 9, 2004)

Pseudonym said:
			
		

> The feat is called Militia.  It is limited to half-elves from Aglarond, halflings from Lurien or humans from Altumbel, the Dalelands, Impiltur, Samarach, Thindol or Turmish.
> 
> As my Realms game is in the Silver Marches, it's not likely to come up.




This answers one of my questions.  Thanks!

The thing I am still wondering about is whether it is permitted to take both a regional feat and a racial feat at level one.  Is the rule that you can only take one regional feat, or that you can only take one feat that is level-one-only?


----------



## kuje31 (Apr 9, 2004)

candidus_cogitens said:
			
		

> This answers one of my questions.  Thanks!
> 
> The thing I am still wondering about is whether it is permitted to take both a regional feat and a racial feat at level one.  Is the rule that you can only take one regional feat, or that you can only take one feat that is level-one-only?




Taken from the FR mailing list. 

"The regional feat limit is an absolute; you only have the opportunity to pick 1 of those, ever.

In the case of the human fighter, you have 3 feats: Your 1st-level feat, your human feat, and your fighter feat. Either your 1st-level or your human feat slot can be used to select a single regional feat; you must use your fighter feat slot to pick a [fighter] feat; and your remaining feat you can use to pick any other feat you like, other than a second regional feat.

One regional feat ever, that's it.

Richard Baker
Senior Designer
Roleplaying R&D
Wizards of the Coast, Inc."


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 10, 2004)

Kuje,

I've decided after MUCH rereading, there's nothing that specifically prohibits what has come before in Faiths and Panethons. Nor in UnEast. Therefore I say unto you, Orcus is a god.


----------



## kuje31 (Apr 10, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Kuje,
> 
> I've decided after MUCH rereading, there's nothing that specifically prohibits what has come before in Faiths and Panethons. Nor in UnEast. Therefore I say unto you, Orcus is a god.




Well except the part where it says no deities reside in the Abyss........


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 10, 2004)

Right but that's contradicted by the fact that there are several places where it says "They have power equal to minor deities" And it talks about handing out vile domains as well. So again I say, Orcus is a god.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Apr 10, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Right but that's contradicted by the fact that there are several places where it says "They have power equal to minor deities" And it talks about handing out vile domains as well. So again I say, Orcus is a god.




Who cares, really?

Orcus can be a god in your campaign if you want.

Stop going on about it.

Geoff.


----------



## Nightfall (Apr 10, 2004)

Sorry it bugs you Geoff.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Apr 12, 2004)

Dawnforge's Age of Legend has a nice take on cultural feats which are similar to FR's regional feats but can be taken at any time provided you have been immersed in the culture.

Personally, that's the way I would like to see it. Also, things like Daylight Adaptation don't really make that much sense as something you acquire at 1st level.

Anyway, back to Dawnforge for me... although I am looking forward to stealing ideas from Serpent Kingdoms for Zangala....


----------



## Pseudonym (Apr 12, 2004)

candidus_cogitens said:
			
		

> The thing I am still wondering about is whether it is permitted to take both a regional feat and a racial feat at level one. Is the rule that you can only take one regional feat, or that you can only take one feat that is level-one-only?



From what I can tell, the racial feats from _Races of Faerûn_ have been rolled in to the regional feats.  For example, the Underdark (Old Shanatar) region lists Azerblood and Batrider as regional feats, with a superscript notation that these are from _Races of Faerûn_.    I interpret that to mean that the racial feats from _RoF_ are now regional feats appropriate to that race.  So, no, you can't take a racial feat and a regional feat at level 1 because racial feats are now regional.

On a side note, after going over the _PGtF_, I see several illustrations misidentified.  The labels for Gold Dwarf and Gray Dwarf on page 20 are switched, as are Illuskan and Mulan on page 10.  Has anyone else noticed mislabled art?


----------

