They have made Knowledge Ravneloft part of Knowledge the Planes and all characters must buy it as a cross class skill. This knowledge is also suposed to be very hard to come by which makes Anchorite of the Mists, Stygian Attendant and possibly a few others difficult classes to get.
The updated Witchhunter is now Monster Hunter. After you take levels of Monster Hunter you can advance into a second prestige class that requires 3 levels of Monster Hunter. These are Specialty Hunter classes that focus on a specific group of creatures. The classes look ok but not sure I would take them as a player. The Specialty Hunter class: Witchhunter could be an interesting villain though.
There are a few new spells
Looks like most of the rest is the same as the 3.0 Setting Book. Aside from the fact that now at the end of most of the monster sections they tell you to reference Van Richten's Arsenal for various rules.
Originally posted by Darrius Adler
Not sure how many others have picked it up yet but I recommend checking it out in the store before you do. Yet again rules have been added that don't need to be there like the Morality/Blessed rules in HoL. The Magic Rating system I can at least understand. I would never use it and is more complicated than it needs to be due to the way it is written. What amazes me is the Weakness section for each of the core classes. The idea of Rangers, Fighters, Rogues and Monks making a Powers Check just for advancing to a new level is ridiculous. I feel it goes against what the Powers Checks are intended for. You should make a check for doing something evil that you know is evil, not for playing the game/gaining XP. Also, failing a check for leveling up brings up the complication of how to repent that action to remove the taint? All the classes got hit in some way in the Weakness section but you can read those in the book. By far the Weakness changes anger me the most about the book and I have no intention of using those rules.
They have made Knowledge Ravneloft part of Knowledge the Planes and all characters must buy it as a cross class skill. This knowledge is also suposed to be very hard to come by which makes Anchorite of the Mists, Stygian Attendant and possibly a few others difficult classes to get.
The updated Witchhunter is now Monster Hunter. After you take levels of Monster Hunter you can advance into a second prestige class that requires 3 levels of Monster Hunter. These are Specialty Hunter classes that focus on a specific group of creatures. The classes look ok but not sure I would take them as a player. The Specialty Hunter class: Witchhunter could be an interesting villain though.
There are a few new spells
Looks like most of the rest is the same as the 3.0 Setting Book. Aside from the fact that now at the end of most of the monster sections they tell you to reference Van Richten's Arsenal for various rules.
It does not sound worth the money I was going to spend on it.~B4Real
I agree with you, though, about having Powers Checks simply for leveling up--that's out of sync with what they're used for. Personally, I think it's just as easy (if not easier) for a warrior to fail powers checks in comparison to their spellcasting-contemporaries. After all, the warrior classes are oriented towards one thing--battle.
I rather like the concept of making Knowledge: Ravenloft a cross-class skill for all classes. In my game, I've made it even harder to gain ranks in, using a system similar to the Mythos Knowledge roll from Call of Cthulhu.
It seems that I may need a closer look at this book to make a decision....
Did anyone complain then?
And for all you Wizards & Sorcerers out there:
Your weakness is to make a Powers Check every time you learn a Necromancy, Enchantment, or Evocation spell
Originally posted by Darrius Adler
I must have missed that, was it the Arcanist?
Yep. That one didn't seem to bother so many people--although I do recall questions being raised about how to atone for failure--probably because it was specifically a variant class for those who wanted to play the dabbler in forbidden arts, and they got things like extra arcane knowledge and the ability to turn undead to make up for it.
Originally posted by Darrius Adler
And for all you Wizards & Sorcerers out there:
Your weakness is to make a Powers Check every time you learn a Necromancy, Enchantment, or Evocation spell
What I find amusing about this is that it requires a Powers Check for spells like _Tenser's floating disk_, _heroism_, and if you decide to let wizards learn or research it, _good hope_. :-) I think they made a few mistakes in selecting such a broad group of spells.
Matthew L. Martin
Originally posted by Matthew L. Martin
Yep. That one didn't seem to bother so many people--although I do recall questions being raised about how to atone for failure--probably because it was specifically a variant class for those who wanted to play the dabbler in forbidden arts, and they got things like extra arcane knowledge and the ability to turn undead to make up for it.
What I find amusing about this is that it requires a Powers Check for spells like _Tenser's floating disk_, _heroism_, and if you decide to let wizards learn or research it, _good hope_. :-) I think they made a few mistakes in selecting such a broad group of spells.
Matthew L. Martin
A Powers check for Tenser's Floating disk? Oh lord,they have finally went completely insane!
~B4Real
Originally posted by B4Real
A Powers check for Tenser's Floating disk? Oh lord,they have finally went completely insane!
Just to make sure there's no confusion about who "they" are, I'd like to add that John, Andrew, and I, though credited as "authors" of the Ravenloft PHB, are only authors to the extent that it was based on our original work, the 3E Campaign Setting. We didn't make any of the changes in the PHB or know about them ahead of time.
I, personally, find the idea of making a character make a Powers Check for advancing a level, or for learning any Evocation spell, to be...
...well, let me just say that I would never use it in my own campaigns.
Originally posted by Andrew Cermak
I, personally, find the idea of making a character make a Powers Check for advancing a level, or for learning any Evocation spell, to be...
I'll complete that thought where not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you doesn't apply to me:
Stupid.
Which is pretty much what I was expecting out of the book when I saw the preview for it. Sure, I can understand the concept of the Rarity of Magic Rating, but the way it was implemented is, again...stupid.
I generally try to word my criticisms in a more tactful manner, but, well...no one was ever helped by misleading criticism. I would have figured a bit more thought and care would go into a hardcover book (it is hardcover, yes?), seeing as how those tend to see a bit more profit, as I understand it, but, well...
At least we have the Gazetteers to look forward to, at least until the fifth one.
Originally posted by TricksterGod
I'll complete that thought where not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you doesn't apply to me:
Stupid.
Which is pretty much what I was expecting out of the book when I saw the preview for it. Sure, I can understand the concept of the Rarity of Magic Rating, but the way it was implemented is, again...stupid.
I didn't find the concept of Magic Ratings too bad but it was made a lot too much complicated.
What bugs me the most is that these two new concepts (Magic Ratings and Weaknesses) will be supposed to be featured in all upcoming books. I know I'll ignore them and I hope writers do (notice how HoL NPC's never had any virtue ratings???)
At least we have the Gazetteers to look forward to, at least until the fifth one. [/b]
Now I'm scared
Originally posted by Charney
I didn't find the concept of Magic Ratings too bad but it was made a lot too much complicated.
What bugs me the most is that these two new concepts (Magic Ratings and Weaknesses) will be supposed to be featured in all upcoming books. I know I'll ignore them and I hope writers do (notice how HoL NPC's never had any virtue ratings???)
I find that highly displeasing, though depending on how it's implemented, possibly quite easy to ignore.
I would have been fine with a Magic Rating which was more like Culture Rating; as in, this is how developed, well-known, trusted, and used is in a domain. And just like with Culture Rating, where going from Paridon to Tepest won't cause your pistol to stop functioning, the Magic Rating should have just left how magic actually functioned alone. I think it's fine to say finding a Wizard in Lamordia is about as likely as finding a musket in Forlorn. But screwing around with character balance unnecessarily, in a way that does not add onto the setting in my opinion...well, the new Players Handbook is one less thing I need to bother worrying Santa over.
Originally posted by Charney
Now I'm scared
Yeah. By all accounts, the fifth Gazetteer will quite likely be the last book John Mangrum works on for Ravenloft. While I wouldn't say his absence will end up in the setting going bottoms up quality-wise (He's not their only good author, after all), it's definitely not a good sign in my opinion.
Originally posted by Dominique
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Powers checks just for levelling up? How on earth do they justify that? (That's not a rhetorical question. Please, someone, tell me. I can't wrap my mind around this concept.) And here I thought that the DMG thing about rolling a powers check just for taste-testing the wrong potion was bad . . .
Sorry to say but these new books sound incredibly stupid.
~B4Real
Basicly, they only have the mearest hint of a clue. Always have done
I've just rediscovered Ravenloft after a long absense. I really liked the core rules (3rd ed) If this crap is what I'm getting for my money the RLPHB can sit in the shelf. I'll spend on the gazzetters instead..
Originally posted by Sir T
But unfortunatly, its about par for White Wolf. I've folowed the cycle of "we get cool idea, we release excelent core rulebook for it. (I'm talking Vampire and werewolf, and to a lesser extent mage) We then F**k it up with every new release and leave the people who liked the original book crying and angry" Basicly most of them simply dont understand the gothic style, and go with cool ideas and power play. Or manic depression, the roleplayig game.
Basicly, they only have the mearest hint of a clue. Always have done
I've just rediscovered Ravenloft after a long absense. I really liked the core rules (3rd ed) If this crap is what I'm getting for my money the RLPHB can sit in the shelf. I'll spend on the gazzetters instead..
Yeah I do not think I wil be using that v3.5
. I ordered the gazette though....I am pretty sure I can convert the 3.0 RL setting to be used with my v3.5 DnD core rulebooks.~B4Real
Originally posted by Dominique
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Powers checks just for levelling up? How on earth do they justify that? (That's not a rhetorical question. Please, someone, tell me. I can't wrap my mind around this concept.) And here I thought that the DMG thing about rolling a powers check just for taste-testing the wrong potion was bad . . .
The only possibility *I* can imagine is that someone over there thought powers checks worked like the Cthulhu Mythos skill in Call of Cthulhu.
In that game, the Mythos skill is increased as one encounters beings and ideas of the Mythos-- not just reading books with stuff Man Was Not Meant To Know, but encountering horrible creatures that shatter your understanding of the world (ie failing a Sanity Check). The better your Mythos skill, the better you may be able to deal with future incidents... however, on the 0-99 scale of stats used in the original non-d20 CoC, your maximum possible sanity is 99 minus your percentile in the Mythos skill. In other words, the truth will drive you mad, or at least impair your ability to ever be truly sane again.
It sounds like a new writer thought that Powers Checks reflected a character's greater understanding of the nature of Ravenloft-- except they don't. Van Richten came to understand quite a *lot* about the nature of Ravenloft and by that idea should've been considerably more tainted by it.
I wish we could find out whose idea this was, so we could demand an explanation and/or slap them silly. ;)
Well, the Gazetteers are still pretty good.
I'm not sure what the opinion of a lifelong Ravenloft fan who was one of the founding members of the Secrets of the Kargatane site is worth, but these new rules are poorly conceived, and they unjustly punish player characters to the point of why even bother playing.
But I think you're all starting to see that without me pointing it out.
Save your money folks.
I read that spell rationale for power checks had changed a bit. What were the changes?
Originally posted by Scipio
Ok, before, I wasn't sure whether I was going to buy this or not. Now that I see that Andrew C. didn't like the new rules, and that Joe didn't even care for it enough to buy it, I think I'll spend my money on something else (Can anyone say Tarokka?)
Wise choice.
Originally posted by Sir T
I wonder when the first 6th level fighter Darklord will crop up? *sigh*
give me the percentile chance of failing a level-up Power Check and I'll tell you in no time. Assuming he's a good guy and doesn't provoke any other Power Checks
W.C.
Originally posted by Epicfetus
I hate abuse of Powers Checks. A Powers Check is supposed to be a way to say "hey you, you're being evil....see?" hence the paths and the like. When you start making them inadvertantly, it gets cheesy. Leveling Up? Learning a spell? Doesn't make sense...I'm not even sure you should make a Powers Check when the PC uses a Necromancy Spell to counterspell....but that's definatly open to debate.
As far as I recall, that thing about the Powers Check when learning spells is very much like in MotRD. As for the Arcanist doing power-checks whenever he raised level, I was always adamantly against it, and in fact, my villain in my campaign is modeled after the arcanist and never in his life (DM decided!) has failed a powers check. Judging from the fact his level is 12, giving a 5% chance of failure to each check, he had 46% chance of failing AT LEAST 1 check.... this means, I never bothered about him rolling power checks merely for raising level. That's way unfair to the PCs, even if this is Ravenloft.
The Arcanist was always a useless class for me, but with an Enormous appeal (seems to me it must have been much based in Lovecraftian tales... Randolph Carter, if I remember well, was a fine example).
W.C.
Originally posted by Andrew Cermak
Just to make sure there's no confusion about who "they" are, I'd like to add that John, Andrew, and I, though credited as "authors" of the Ravenloft PHB, are only authors to the extent that it was based on our original work, the 3E Campaign Setting. We didn't make any of the changes in the PHB or know about them ahead of time.
I, personally, find the idea of making a character make a Powers Check for advancing a level, or for learning any Evocation spell, to be...
...well, let me just say that I would never use it in my own campaigns.
I feel you on that one Andrew. My question is doesn't Arthaus know that stuff noticeably as bad as the RL PHB will inadvertently make you guys look bad as well(Being that your credited as authors)? There is an obvious difference between my RL CS 3.0(Which you guys penned) and the RL PHB(*gag*) so I can see it was not your doing. But will everyone else?
~B4Real
Bummer, but the Tarokka Deck rules, and I'm looking forward to Gaz. IV! :D
Originally posted by Chaderick
I'll throw in my admittedly smaller two coppers on that one, too. I picked up the Ravenloft Player's Handbook and for the first time EVER, I put it back on the shelf without looking back. It's the only published Ravenloft product I haven't bought. I even got the leatherette and standard versions of Ravenloft 3.0 when they came out; but after reading through the majority of the changes in my local store, I realized that I couldn't find anything that would make Ravenloft more realistic, more atmospheric, or even more fun.
Bummer, but the Tarokka Deck rules, and I'm looking forward to Gaz. IV! :D
I want to get the Tarokka deck too.. being that I use Vistani alot in my campaign.
~B4Real
Apperently when Monte Cook delivered the Book of Vile Darkness to WOTC they sat down at a meeting and tried to get him to rewrite it so it would be even more vile than it allready was. Monte refused as he felt it was inappropriate for the product. I have some problems with Monte Cook (just minor ones, I hasten to add) but I have to respect him for that.
Thats the attitude we have to be aware of here when looking at the RLPHB and stuff. And why more could be on the horizon..
Originally posted by B4Real
I feel you on that one Andrew. My question is doesn't Arthaus know that stuff noticeably as bad as the RL PHB will inadvertently make you guys look bad as well(Beaing that your credited as authors)? There is an obvious difference between my RL CS 3.0(Which you guys penned) and the RL PHB(*gag*) so I can see it was not your doing. But will everyone else?
~B4Real
Fortunately the RLPHB does list who is to blame for the changes in the credits:
Additional Material:
Andrew Bates & Aaron Vos
Mr. Bates is also the S&S Managing Editor
Originally posted by Darrius Adler
Fortunately the RLPHB does list who is to blame for the changes in the credits:
Additional Material:
Andrew Bates & Aaron Vos
Mr. Bates is also the S&S Managing Editor
And what does a managing editor do?
Originally posted by Darrius Adler
Fortunately the RLPHB does list who is to blame for the changes in the credits:
Additional Material:
Andrew Bates & Aaron Vos
Not really. "Additional Material", I believe, refers to people who contributed material but weren't full-fledged designers on the book. More to the point, they've changed the Author credits--adding Nicky Rea and Jackie Cassada to the original three--without any differentiation.
On a tangent, I've found something that annoys me more than the _Tenser's floating disk_ powers check rule--although that one gains an extra twist by the fact that the powers check for learning TFD is _equal_ to that for _wail of the banshee.
In short: The RL PHB is the Dark Powers' gift to Tristen ApBlanc.
The new Weakness for druids is that within a 20-mile radius of a sinkhole of evil, there is a chance that the land is tainted and may compel a druid to commit evil actions and make a powers check. Aside from the silliness of making a powers check for being _compelled_ to do evil, consider the numbers. Within the 20-mile radius of a rank 5 sinkhole of evil--in this case, Castle Tristenoira--there's a 70% of the land being tainted, and thus a 30% of a druid being forced to do evil. That means a 21% chance of a powers check a _day_, IIRC. That practically guarantees a check every 5 days, and even if it's only a 1% chance of failure, within 1.5 years, the druid will be a step further down the road to darkness. After failing two powers checks, according to the new book, the druid's alignment shifts to evil and they start _wanting_ to taint and despoil the land. Thus, on average, 3 years after a new druid in Forlorn takes up the mantle, they will join the goblyns in Tristen's crusade to ruin the land.
It may be that I'm misremembering or misinterpreting things here. But if not, a question:
How does this work with 200 years of druidic resistance to the Solleyder? :-)
Matthew L. Martin
Not even at the S&S boards!
What are we going to do about it?
Originally posted by Walden
This is getting extremely serious. The real question is:
What are we going to do about it?
Give Arthaus a powers check? Nah j/k. I really don't know.
~B4Real
Originally posted by Walden
This is getting extremely serious. The real question is:
What are we going to do about it?
Do (as much as possible) objective and truthful reviews of bad products and not buy the bad product. Also making sure that S&S gets this feedback. I don't remember if the Dark Duo ever talked about how ChoDarkness wasn't well received.
Originally posted by B4Real
Give Arthaus a powers check?
:heehee
Originally posted by Charney
Do (as much as possible) objective and truthful reviews of bad products and not buy the bad product. Also making sure that S&S gets this feedback. I don't remember if the Dark Duo ever talked about how ChoDarkness wasn't well received.
I'm in total agreement with Charney, here.
Originally posted by Charney
Do (as much as possible) objective and truthful reviews of bad products and not buy the bad product.
Way ahead of you. I've allready put a bad review on a dnd board I post onto occasionally. (www.dndadventure.com)
The best thing we could do is send feedback to sword and sorcery about it. And I mean OBJECTIVE AND POLITE feedback. Casually menttion the fac that your not buying the product. Explain that you liked the core rules as well (assuming you did, of course) State what was good about the products you liked. That wy we can see more of the stuff that actually good coming out (or at least stuff from decent writers)
And explain the differences between Ravenloft and Call of Cuthulu, as I think they dont understand that..
(I'm NOT dissing call of Cuthulu. I had had remndous fun with that game. Its just that Ravenloft is diferent)
Since I'm on the subject, I'll explain what I see are the differneces. In Ravenloft, the evil you do comes from "within" you. A Darklord is ulitmatly responsible for his fate. In COC, the evils all come from outside humanity. To know the ttruth is tto o stark raving mad, as there is the realisiation NO safety, NO hope, no gentleness. In Ravenloft, heroes are more.. heroic, not just people that managed to hold themselves together long enough to hold off the darkness for another year or two.
Hmm, I'm probably nott makin any sense here am I? Ahh well
In the Sword and Sorcery catalog they said "discover a new dimension in Ravenloft -- the Masques." More like, here we will explain what Masque means because applies to Masque of the Red Death. Which they plan to release the 3.5 version of MotRD in 2004, so not really a new concept just a marketing ploy.
Most importantly though, we need to make sure that S&S/WW/Arthaus/etc knows that we are not pleased with these changes. In the hopes that they will stop adding needless/unwanted rules. I am not certain about the best way to do that though.
a) everyone preffered the RL: Campain setting
and b) everyone hates the new book
Despite the new book being 80% identical. The four pages that include the power check rules and Magic Level rating must be terribly bad if they drag down the ENTIRE book to un-usability and resultin people commenting how it might mean the end of the Ravenloft line and quality.
Just ignore the damn rules already. Ignore Champions of Darkness and pretend it doesn't exist like Requiem: the Grim Harvest. Or A Light in the Belfrey. Or Lord of the Necropolis. There have been bad products before, real stinkers. And there will be more. But Carnival, the Gaz, Walking Dead, and more all came out AFTER Requiem. Not the end of the world yet people.
But products happen, they make the good ones look better. And with a new Gaz and VanRichten guide on the way I'm still hopefull.
I am going to buy the book. I'm poor now, but I will. I'll ignore what I don't like. The rules may have been bad, oh well. Everyone has a bad day, I guess the authors had a blonde moment.
Yes I know I'm paying $40 cndn for a book almost solely cause it has a better index and table of contents, but eh. I'd just waste the money anyway. What's the point of having money if ya can't spend it on things that make ya happy.
However, this is still an extremely serious matter before us. The Ravenloft Player's Handbook is not a supplement, like Champions of Darkness, or an adventure, like Light in the Belfry, but makes up the very core rules for the setting. For newcomers, particularly this will be the book to buy. An individual DM can always ignore the rules, of course, but this book is setting the standard for the whole system.
And, yes, this misuse of the power check system is a major problem because power checks cut to the heart of the purpose of Ravenloft. Requiring PCs to make power checks for every little thing (and even for things done against their will) makes a total travesty out of the moral system that is the defining feature of Ravenloft's system.
The idea of class-based disadvantages in general is not a bad one, as it gives the players a personal sense of the advesity they face. However, ruining the power checks systems was the absolutely WRONG way to do it.
It's the Core Book so technically all other products should be affected by it (like new domains in the Gaz having a magic rating).
One thing that sorta irks me is the fact that Morality rules are in it. It's a personnal thing but here's my point: I didn't like the rule (good concept, bad game mechanics) and now it's in another book. Why? Because it wasn't really disregarded by the fan. So if we don't say that this weakness rule is silly, we'll see DL who got cursed for just levelling up!
Originally posted by Sir T
Since I'm on the subject, I'll explain what I see are the differneces. In Ravenloft, the evil you do comes from "within" you. A Darklord is ulitmatly responsible for his fate. In COC, the evils all come from outside humanity. To know the ttruth is tto o stark raving mad, as there is the realisiation NO safety, NO hope, no gentleness. In Ravenloft, heroes are more.. heroic, not just people that managed to hold themselves together long enough to hold off the darkness for another year or two.
Not quite on it IMHO. In CoC morality is fictious. The universe is ruled by depraved idiotic gods. Humanity is insignificant, just the least in a large string of races to inhabit this planet. The objective is to forestall the inevitable: the wake up of Cthulhu and the degradation of humanity.
In RL there is always hope...
Still, the ones who wrote the weaknesses seem to have mixed the two (seems more like Masque and how casting magic is dangerous but that's inherant to Masque)
Originally posted by Charney
I thought that in Cthulhu those were Insanity checks rather than corruption to evil.
And all cultists are utterly insane. The insanity checks are called becuse all that is held true to humanity (namely morality and hope) is a falsehood.
And I'm guessing that the coming of Masque has something to do with this...
Ps I repeat my unanswered question: ¿Was something in the RLPH changed or added for good?
In Ravenloft, as you all probably know, we have powers checks. These, in turn, are scales of morality--each powers check represents a chance that the Powers That Be might take notice for whatever vile, depraved act that was committed.
As such, having them from actions taken in day to day life makes little sense.
While the two shouldn't be compared, as they measure different things, I think this statement makes a lot of sense:
Being forced to roll a powers check for leveling up would be akin to being forced to roll a Sanity check for seeing making a sandwich. Ridiculous.
My best example so far: In the Dread Realms section, page 182, there is a map of Paridon. The only feature labeled is the Rhastik River. The text touching the map refers to it instead as the Nodnal River. Also, the following comment (word for word from 3.0 RCS) on page 183 "The domain's most infamous predator is Bloody Jack, a nearly mythic killer who goes on rampages every thirteen years and whose latest rampage comes due this year." (italics mine). However, on the advanced timeline for the PH on page 20, it specifically states that the Current Year is 758, and it was in 755 that " 'Bloody Jack' strikes Paridon again."
For an editor to fail to recognize that three years in game time have passed & also fail to review and update the material for inconsistencies or changes seems, well, pardon my ignorance of publishing & deadlines, but just plain incompetent.
I think this book was going to get bad reviews regardless, there was almost no way to make everyone happy with this book.
They were forced to reprint the Campaign setting to keep the licence so they had three options:
1) Just reprint the book word-for-word with only the mechanics changed
2) As above but throw in a few extra tidbits and updates to appease those who want to buy a second copy but nothing to serious or grand
3) Rewrite it all and really redesign the thing from the ground up. Drastically redo things like fear and horror and culture levels to update the setting.
Now if it was just 1) sales would be slow and everyone would whine that there's nothing new and it's not worth getting. If 2) people whine about the new rules not being worth the extra money if not the new rules themselves. If 3) people whine that they're being forced to buy a new book that covers stuff they already know and that all the old books are now out-of-date.
There was no way to win! It is the Arthaus Kobayashi Maru!!
Plus they have a publishing limit. They can only make four or five Ravenloft books a year and have to pick and choose which ones to make. This book killed or delayed a project, probably something somebody had been kicking around for months. So they had to make a new book, in less time, that they had already made and was taking away from people's pet projects. While also coming up with new rules that hadn't been done before but which also wouldn't be 100% necassary to run future games for the people who didn't buy the book.
Poor, poor bastards...
Originally posted by Charney
So if we don't say that this weakness rule is silly, we'll see DL who got cursed for just levelling up!
Maybe that's what happened to Meredoth XD
Ok they needed to reprint a book we already had but that doesn't mean we would have complained. Not that many people complained when they put out 3.5 since:
1-You were ok with 3.0 and didn't need 3.5
2-You liked the modifications and got them via SRD (like I did)
3-You got it anyway since you're rich or crazy for D&D books
Now, let's say they re-release the core book with only a few modifications for 3.5 (which wasn't necessary IMHO except for the monsters at the end) without new material (the one we complained about).
Here's my take:
1-Hardcore RL collectors will get it anyway
2-People who don't think the changes are worth it don't buy it
3-New gamers buy this book (fully 3.5) instead of the other (3.0)
The way I see it, everyone is happy.
Now they included that by consensus we think hurt the setting.
1-Hardcore fan get it and complain cause it hurts the setting and future accessories (behold Darvinius, Darklord of the TENSER DISK)
2-People who don't get it complain cause it hurts the setting and future accessories (behold Darvinius, Darklord of the TENSER DISK)
3-New players get a product weakened by these poor rules with further consequences unknown at the moment
That's how I see it. The product wasn't doom from the start.
The Denizens of Dread book coming which really require a 3.5 update doesn't really need anything new in my opinion. But if they include poor rules/creatures (the accursed chipmunk of Sheriff von Zarovich) like the RL PHB, it will hurt weaken the setting.
Originally posted by Keg of Ale
Indeed. If you add new material in a book, we expect these rules to be helpful, logical and professionally-designed. The "new material" in the RPH is neither of these.
So basically they just added in a few things that actually hurt the game more than helping it in order to say :HEY THIS BOOK WITH A POWER CHECK FOR EVERYTHING IS NEW COME SPEND YOUR MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????? :D
~B4Real
Originally posted by Andrew Cermak
Just to make sure there's no confusion about who "they" are, I'd like to add that John, Andrew, and I, though credited as "authors" of the Ravenloft PHB, are only authors to the extent that it was based on our original work, the 3E Campaign Setting. We didn't make any of the changes in the PHB or know about them ahead of time.
I, personally, find the idea of making a character make a Powers Check for advancing a level, or for learning any Evocation spell, to be...
...well, let me just say that I would never use it in my own campaigns.
Good to see you 'round, Andrew. Might I say I have enjoyed your stuff for years?
Yes, the Ravenloft Players Handbook seems to be the book that launched a thousand house rules! :D
Originally posted by ManinDarkness
Any good news?
Yes, there is one very good quality about the new PHB, one that made my heart sing and my spirt soar after I first opened it.
It has wonderful binding. Top quality. It won't creek and rip like Denizens of Darkness or suffer from an abundance of thick glue like Rafenloft Dungeon Master's Guide, and it won't totally self-destruct like Dark Ages: Vampire. It opens smoothly, and you can ruffle the pages without fear of breaking it's back. Now, if only the content were improved over the Core Rulebook....
Seriously, I've worked in archives and it is important to me that my gamebooks last for the next generation and the generation after that. It is my culture after all.
Originally posted by Catman Jim
Was there really an editor on this? You've listed the Managing Editor above, but I am disappointed in the amount of material that was lifted straight from the 3.0 Campaign Setting book and set in the Player's Handbook without actually reviewing it!
My best example so far: In the Dread Realms section, page 182, there is a map of Paridon. The only feature labeled is the Rhastik River. The text touching the map refers to it instead as the Nodnal River. Also, the following comment (word for word from 3.0 RCS) on page 183 "The domain's most infamous predator is Bloody Jack, a nearly mythic killer who goes on rampages every thirteen years and whose latest rampage comes due this year." (italics mine). However, on the advanced timeline for the PH on page 20, it specifically states that the Current Year is 758, and it was in 755 that " 'Bloody Jack' strikes Paridon again."
For an editor to fail to recognize that three years in game time have passed & also fail to review and update the material for inconsistencies or changes seems, well, pardon my ignorance of publishing & deadlines, but just plain incompetent.
I just remembered, there was an errata for the R3E, they didn't incorporate it into the RLPHB at all? Like for instance that error of naming Half-Vistani giogoto instead of giomorgo. They didn't make any correction at all?
Originally posted by Keg of Ale
Half-Vistani are giomorgo again, that much I know.
At least!!! Hope the rest of the errata was included as well.
Originally posted by Ahura's Ghost
Good to see you 'round, Andrew. Might I say I have enjoyed your stuff for years?
You most certainly may. Thank you.
The "5% check per level/spell learned" stuff is not a 5% powers check, which would be sheer insanity as premeditated murder of a good NPC only rates a 6% check! (Yes, this is the value given in the powers checks table in both RLPHB and RCS.)
What I think it's supposed to be is that when a level is made/spell is learned the DM rolls the 5% roll and if the PC fails they then make a powers check, though apparently the value of said check is left up to the DM.
This basically means that it's 1/20th of x% per level/spell, which makes it far smaller odds.
However, it seems like a very clumsy, heavy-handed way to suggest that even the seemingly minor bad deeds of Ravenloft have a corrupting effect in the long run. To paraphrase Laurence Olivier, "Why don't you try roleplaying?"
The cleric and druid weaknesses may actually warrant more concern than the fighter/rogue/monk and sorceror/wizard ones.
The clerical class weakness is interesting but also a bit shady: a cleric who fails a turn attempt on an undead may attempt to rebuke it instead, but at the cost of a major powers check (breaking an oath to your god, 10%). The more problematic one is that good and neutral clerics have doubled percentages of failing powers checks, on the assumption, I guess, that they're held to higher standards. I don't really see why this latter distinction was made. The doubling rule also applies to paladins, as if they didn't have enough trouble by being detectable by darklords!
The druid one is, I think, the most screwed up. Basically, because of their ties to the land, a druid who is within 20 miles of a sinkhole of evil of rank 3 or higher has a chance to become corrupt (ie have to make some kind of powers check) or be tempted to actually do an evil deed (alas, in the need to take notes quickly I didn't write down how often this check needs to be made). The percentage for corruption/evil deeds is 30%/10% for a rank 3 sinkhole, 50%/20% for a rank 4 sinkhole and 70%/30% for a rank 5 sinkhole! Compounding the mess, any druid who fails two power checks instantly has their moral alignment change to evil and purportedly becomes bent on blighting the land, not restoring it.
Since Castle Tristenoira is a rank 5 sinkhole according to Gaz1, and the whole domain may be less than 8 miles across (based on the old Castles Forlorn boxed set maps), the odds are small to zero that there would be ANY druid resistance left in the domain of Forlorn! In fact, since the rule as written ignores domain borders, the Forfarian druids that might reside in the neighboring domains should be completely twisted as well...
In short, I really want to know who wrote this new material, as I think they need a good talking-to at the least, if not repeated slapping with a trout...
Originally posted by Brandi
In short, I really want to know who wrote this new material, as I think they need a good talking-to at the least, if not repeated slapping with a trout...
It's my understanding that it was the developers who wrote that material. It wasn't Cermak, Wyatt, or myself; our contributions are limited to the original R3E text, about a page's worth of suggestions, and apparently some material we wrote for Secrets of the Dread Realms.
Originally posted by John W. Mangrum
It's my understanding that it was the developers who wrote that material. It wasn't Cermak, Wyatt, or myself; our contributions are limited to the original R3E text, about a page's worth of suggestions, and apparently some material we wrote for Secrets of the Dread Realms.
Someone needs to take away their writing supplies ....permanently.
Originally posted by B4Real
Someone needs to take away their writing supplies ....permanently.
This whole thread is more eloquent that a bunch of reviews. Perhaps we should post it (or a link to it) at ENWorld and S&S ?
W.C.
Originally posted by William Cairnstone
This whole thread is more eloquent that a bunch of reviews. Perhaps we should post it (or a link to it) at ENWorld and S&S ?
W.C.
Agreed. I am working on a review right now.
~B4Real
Originally posted by John W. Mangrum
It's my understanding that it was the developers who wrote that material. It wasn't Cermak, Wyatt, or myself; our contributions are limited to the original R3E text, about a page's worth of suggestions, and apparently some material we wrote for Secrets of the Dread Realms.
If you're worried I thought otherwise, I am QUITE sure that would not have been Kargatane material-- in fact, I can pretty much imagine your reaction to such material had it been submitted for your approval (ie "Harlan Ellison on a BAD day...").
Originally posted by John W. Mangrum
...and apparently some material we wrote for Secrets of the Dread Realms.
This would be the Monster Hunter prestige class, etc.?
Originally posted by Something Awry
This would be the Monster Hunter prestige class, etc.?
None of us who wrote R3E have actually seen the PHB yet, so I'm just going off what I've heard from others, but I'm referring to a few spells. The new prestige classes could be based on the witch hunter, but I don't know.
Originally posted by ManinDarkness
Any good news?
The scheduling problems that have kept me away from contributing in any substantive way to Ravenloft for the past two-three years have finally been worked out, so I'm writing a chunk of "Gazetteer V" and "Legacy of Blood."
Whether that's good news or not depends on your perspective. I'm happy to be back, though. Not happy that John, Stu, and the Gang seem to be riding off into the sunset, but happy to be back on the line that I love.
Originally posted by Writer of Stuff
The scheduling problems that have kept me away from contributing in any substantive way to Ravenloft for the past two-three years have finally been worked out, so I'm writing a chunk of "Gazetteer V" and "Legacy of Blood."
Whether that's good news or not depends on your perspective. I'm happy to be back, though. Not happy that John, Stu, and the Gang seem to be riding off into the sunset, but happy to be back on the line that I love.
Yes, that's good news, especially counting that so many people liked Domains of Dread.
Pray tell, if you may, what domains will be covered in Gaz 5, and what is Legacy of Blood about ?
W.C.
Originally posted by Writer of Stuff
The scheduling problems that have kept me away from contributing in any substantive way to Ravenloft for the past two-three years have finally been worked out, so I'm writing a chunk of "Gazetteer V" and "Legacy of Blood."
Whether that's good news or not depends on your perspective. I'm happy to be back, though. Not happy that John, Stu, and the Gang seem to be riding off into the sunset, but happy to be back on the line that I love.
THose are very good news :D
I loved most of the book you worked on (the others I simply never read!).
only question I always found hard is
gunpowder. requires an ounce. sold in horns and whatnot.. HOW MANY OUNCES IN WHAT? hehehe we dont use ounces here so I have no clue.
Do agree that the Druid had problems... Makes sense though, they are tied to the lands.
Originally posted by Brandi
However, it seems like a very clumsy, heavy-handed way to suggest that even the seemingly minor bad deeds of Ravenloft have a corrupting effect in the long run. To paraphrase Laurence Olivier, "Why don't you try roleplaying?"
But then we also wouldn't need fear and horror checks!
They're just a gaming tool and if the players can appropriatly act horrrified or terrified you need never make a roll.
I view some power checks like that, especially the druidic ones. If you have a good RPer who can feign the temptation in an appropriately Frodo manner then skip the rules.
And I believe there are sixteen ounces to the pound. Hopefully it tells you how much a pound ways.
Pesky antiquated imperial...
Originally posted by The_Jester
I agree with what Brandi said and his view of the rules. That's what I'll be using. Sounds less crappy.
'His?' [glances over at her husband] Won't he be surprised...
Do agree that the Druid had problems... Makes sense though, they are tied to the lands.
I think the most damaging problem there is that the probabilities are so *very* high that it all but destroys the main conflict in Forlorn. Maybe if the evil deed checks were removed outright and the corruption ones were reduced to 5/10/15% it might be usable.
[Fear and horror checks]
They're just a gaming tool and if the players can appropriatly act horrrified or terrified you need never make a roll.
This is true, but I think the fear/horror mechanism is more well-integrated into the system then the recent changes. YMMV, though.
Originally posted by Ahura's Ghost
It has wonderful binding. Top quality. It won't creek and rip like Denizens of Darkness or suffer from an abundance of thick glue like Rafenloft Dungeon Master's Guide, and it won't totally self-destruct like Dark Ages: Vampire. It opens smoothly, and you can ruffle the pages without fear of breaking it's back. Now, if only the content were improved over the Core Rulebook....
Now I remember! You where the crazy bookbinder/archive-guy from SotK! :D
No seriously, I remember you talking about that on the Goat too...
As for the book itself, I'm scared. I'm really scared. That they put out sub-standard books, while bad enough in itself, isn't the worst. It's what these books may do to the setting further along the line.
Personally, I think the real problem many of the new authors have, is a weak understanding of the D&D mechanic. Just take a look at the Notoriety/Fame rating in Champions of Darkness, for instance. To me, it seems clumsy, and a bit weird. Why do they use percentages instead of basing their system of the 20-sided die? The gamesystem is, after all, named d20...
I seriously hope that the material in CoD, HoL, and the RLPHB (which I haven't looked at yet, but which sound horrible...) be declared Non-Canon, or that a document be realeased that fixes these apparently blatant faults...
I'll go rate the RLHB down on some other boards, just to send a message, but I can't write a review, as I haven't seen the book...
Originally posted by William Cairnstone
Pray tell, if you may, what domains will be covered in Gaz 5, and what is Legacy of Blood about ?
I don't think White Wolf has announced which domains will be covered in GAZ V, and its my habit to let those sorts of things be announced by the publisher.
"Legacy of Blood" details the family and family histories of darklords and possibly other powerful figures in Ravenloft, providing rules and guidelines for creating and playing members of those families. It's an implimentation of an idea that's been with the line since 1991, but never used in a major way.
Originally posted by malken
I seriously hope that the material in CoD, HoL, and the RLPHB (which I haven't looked at yet, but which sound horrible...) be declared Non-Canon, or that a document be realeased that fixes these apparently blatant faults...
With the RL PHB using the morality rules from HoL, I think you can forget it unfortunately
Originally posted by John W. Mangrum
None of us who wrote R3E have actually seen the PHB yet, so I'm just going off what I've heard from others, but I'm referring to a few spells. The new prestige classes could be based on the witch hunter, but I don't know.
Query: Surely they would have to have asked your respective permissions to rewrite your collective work?
John has been crediteded. Thats all they needed to do
Still, for those looking for some good news out of the book it did plug the upcoming updated "Masque of the Red Death" setting! Maybe not news to some of you but with the demise of the Kargatane's website I've been horrible at tracking down spoilers.
If you would read the entire text on the Magic Ratings, you would notice that on page 31, we state that this system is optional and should be used by DMs and players who like it. It made sense for us that in realms with different cultural levels and approaches to magic, there should be some differences in how magic worked and which magics worked and which did not. The Magic Ratings address that difference. If you don't like it, don't use it. We even say that in writing!
Second, to say that powers checks are "required" for fighters with each level is to give the pertinent paragraph a superficial reading. What we actually say is that powers checks reflect what happens to an individual who spends most of his life killing creatures -- whether monsters or brigands or evil wizards or whatever. Bringing death to creatures has a long-term effect on those who are the deathbringers, whether they are soldiers, executioners or adventurers.
Again, this is not a mandatory process. The sentence reads as follows: "As fighters advance in levels and kill more monsters and people, the DM might also call for powers checks to indicate the hardening or deadening of the character's soul as he becomes inured to dealing out death." Please notice the word "might." This means that a DM also might NOT call for powers checks as fighters advance. Please read what's actually written before you denigrate it...
We also hope that DMs will use some common sense with wizards and powers checks -- obviously leaning Tenser's floating disc will not require a powers check; however, spells that "manipulate and control others, evoke deadly effects or meddle with the powers of life, death and undeath" would potentially call for a powers check.
To those of you who have made up your minds either by looking at the book or by depending on reviews, we can only say that buying gaming products is certainly your choice. We hope you will find other Ravenloft products, such as the Gazetteers, the Van Richten's Guides and other forthcoming books more to your liking.
To those of you who have not yet seen the Ravenloft Players Handbook, we can only ask that you actually look the book over and notice what we actually say -- not what some people insist we said.
As for the credits -- Nicky and I wrote and are responsible for most of the new material. Andrew Bates and Aaron Voss developed the Monster Hunter class because they are both fans of Ravenloft and we liked their suggestion for expanding the Witch Hunter class.
The credits include the original authors of the Ravenloft 3rd edition book because they WERE the authors of that book and the RPHB is an update of that version, not an entirely new book. The book, incidentally, was not a marketing ploy, but was necessary for us as licencees of Wizards of the Coast in order to fulfill our obligations. We had to update our core books to comply with the new 3.5 revisions for D&D.
Lastly, when a freelancer writes for a gaming company, her work is considered "work for hire." This means that the company commissions the writer to write the material which the company then buys from the writer and therefore owns that material. Nothing that Nicky or I has ever written for White Wolf or Arthaus or Wizards or any other gaming company belongs to us. If those companies choose to use that material as the basis for other books, they are free to do so.
This is something that ALL freelance writers should understand, since it is built into every contract. It is something we accept when we sign the contract.
We'll try to visit this board more often. We want to hear your opinions and will try to answer questions as completely and honestly as possible.
Take care, all,
Jackie Cassada and Nicky Rea, Ravenloft Developers
If you would read the entire text on the Magic Ratings, you would notice that on page 31, we state that this system is optional and should be used by DMs and players who like it. It made sense for us that in realms with different cultural levels and approaches to magic, there should be some differences in how magic worked and which magics worked and which did not. The Magic Ratings address that difference. If you don't like it, don't use it. We even say that in writing!
Second, to say that powers checks are "required" for fighters with each level is to give the pertinent paragraph a superficial reading. What we actually say is that powers checks reflect what happens to an individual who spends most of his life killing creatures -- whether monsters or brigands or evil wizards or whatever. Bringing death to creatures has a long-term effect on those who are the deathbringers, whether they are soldiers, executioners or adventurers.
Again, this is not a mandatory process. The sentence reads as follows: "As fighters advance in levels and kill more monsters and people, the DM might also call for powers checks to indicate the hardening or deadening of the character's soul as he becomes inured to dealing out death." Please notice the word "might." This means that a DM also might NOT call for powers checks as fighters advance. Please read what's actually written before you denigrate it...
We also hope that DMs will use some common sense with wizards and powers checks -- obviously leaning Tenser's floating disc will not require a powers check; however, spells that "manipulate and control others, evoke deadly effects or meddle with the powers of life, death and undeath" would potentially call for a powers check.
To those of you who have made up your minds either by looking at the book or by depending on reviews, we can only say that buying gaming products is certainly your choice. We hope you will find other Ravenloft products, such as the Gazetteers, the Van Richten's Guides and other forthcoming books more to your liking.
To those of you who have not yet seen the Ravenloft Players Handbook, we can only ask that you actually look the book over and notice what we actually say -- not what some people insist we said.
As for the credits -- Nicky and I wrote and are responsible for most of the new material. Andrew Bates and Aaron Voss developed the Monster Hunter class because they are both fans of Ravenloft and we liked their suggestion for expanding the Witch Hunter class.
The credits include the original authors of the Ravenloft 3rd edition book because they WERE the authors of that book and the RPHB is an update of that version, not an entirely new book. The book, incidentally, was not a marketing ploy, but was necessary for us as licencees of Wizards of the Coast in order to fulfill our obligations. We had to update our core books to comply with the new 3.5 revisions for D&D.
Lastly, when a freelancer writes for a gaming company, her work is considered "work for hire." This means that the company commissions the writer to write the material which the company then buys from the writer and therefore owns that material. Nothing that Nicky or I has ever written for White Wolf or Arthaus or Wizards or any other gaming company belongs to us. If those companies choose to use that material as the basis for other books, they are free to do so.
This is something that ALL freelance writers should understand, since it is built into every contract. It is something we accept when we sign the contract.
We'll try to visit this board more often. We want to hear your opinions and will try to answer questions as completely and honestly as possible.
Take care, all,
Jackie Cassada and Nicky Rea, Ravenloft Developers
If you would read the entire text on the Magic Ratings, you would notice that on page 31, we state that this system is optional and should be used by DMs and players who like it. It made sense for us that in realms with different cultural levels and approaches to magic, there should be some differences in how magic worked and which magics worked and which did not. The Magic Ratings address that difference. If you don't like it, don't use it. We even say that in writing!
Second, to say that powers checks are "required" for fighters with each level is to give the pertinent paragraph a superficial reading. What we actually say is that powers checks reflect what happens to an individual who spends most of his life killing creatures -- whether monsters or brigands or evil wizards or whatever. Bringing death to creatures has a long-term effect on those who are the deathbringers, whether they are soldiers, executioners or adventurers.
Again, this is not a mandatory process. The sentence reads as follows: "As fighters advance in levels and kill more monsters and people, the DM might also call for powers checks to indicate the hardening or deadening of the character's soul as he becomes inured to dealing out death." Please notice the word "might." This means that a DM also might NOT call for powers checks as fighters advance. Please read what's actually written before you denigrate it...
We also hope that DMs will use some common sense with wizards and powers checks -- obviously leaning Tenser's floating disc will not require a powers check; however, spells that "manipulate and control others, evoke deadly effects or meddle with the powers of life, death and undeath" would potentially call for a powers check.
To those of you who have made up your minds either by looking at the book or by depending on reviews, we can only say that buying gaming products is certainly your choice. We hope you will find other Ravenloft products, such as the Gazetteers, the Van Richten's Guides and other forthcoming books more to your liking.
To those of you who have not yet seen the Ravenloft Players Handbook, we can only ask that you actually look the book over and notice what we actually say -- not what some people insist we said.
As for the credits -- Nicky and I wrote and are responsible for most of the new material. Andrew Bates and Aaron Voss developed the Monster Hunter class because they are both fans of Ravenloft and we liked their suggestion for expanding the Witch Hunter class.
The credits include the original authors of the Ravenloft 3rd edition book because they WERE the authors of that book and the RPHB is an update of that version, not an entirely new book. The book, incidentally, was not a marketing ploy, but was necessary for us as licencees of Wizards of the Coast in order to fulfill our obligations. We had to update our core books to comply with the new 3.5 revisions for D&D.
Lastly, when a freelancer writes for a gaming company, her work is considered "work for hire." This means that the company commissions the writer to write the material which the company then buys from the writer and therefore owns that material. Nothing that Nicky or I has ever written for White Wolf or Arthaus or Wizards or any other gaming company belongs to us. If those companies choose to use that material as the basis for other books, they are free to do so.
This is something that ALL freelance writers should understand, since it is built into every contract. It is something we accept when we sign the contract.
We'll try to visit this board more often. We want to hear your opinions and will try to answer questions as completely and honestly as possible.
Take care, all,
Jackie Cassada and Nicky Rea, Ravenloft Developers
Truth is, I'd much rather have people, such as yourselves, putting their energy into writing a number of GooD adventures etc. than regurgitating old material without even taking a previously released errata into consideration.
Tuppence up...
), I would suggest a strong part of the displeasure for many purchasers of the book comes from the fact that they were expecting a new book due to the name. I can totally agree and understand to the fact that you needed to update the rules to the 3.5 setting but to call the book "Player's Handbook" as if it was something entirely new rather than "Ravenloft Core Setting v3.5" was a disappointing decision. I'm sure I'm not the only person who pre-ordered this book or bought via online without first being able to view the book and the advertised blurbs about the book do very little to help a person realize it's not really a new book. I did expect some rehash of old content and did realize some of the book would deal with updates for 3.5 but not the majority of the book being a reprint. I was probably naive but I was rather hoping for new information to further flesh out Ravenloft PC's (e.g.: hints on playing a paladin or perhaps a sorting of commonly known facts or rumours of the land to the general adventurer) based around the name. You did, indeed, deliver some new PC-specific things and I won't even argue about the quality of the book - all the Ravenloft books have been quality since its' relaunch; they may not always be to my tastes but they've been done with minimal error, strong art, good printing, etc. I don't even mind the majority of the optional rules as they're just that - optional, and an interesting take-on by the authors of the book (I like seeing how different people would run the setting). However, in a book that involves DM storytelling guidelines and information on the primary types of villains/monsters, can you really use the title "Player's Handbook"?Originally posted by DarkDuo
Sorry it has taken us so long to respond to this thread. We've been unable to visit this message board until recently, so now that we're here, we'd like first of all to say hi to all the people who love Ravenloft and want to see quality products for it, even if we disagree on what "quality" means.
First of all, thanks for dropping us a visit. We've been all confused with the new book for weeks now, and having developers responding to our concerns really helps.
On with the discussion.
If you would read the entire text on the Magic Ratings, you would notice that on page 31, we state that this system is optional and should be used by DMs and players who like it. It made sense for us that in realms with different cultural levels and approaches to magic, there should be some differences in how magic worked and which magics worked and which did not. The Magic Ratings address that difference. If you don't like it, don't use it. We even say that in writing!
I would have personally preferred that the "optional" thing would appear at the beginning of the section rather than at the end. It isn't much of a problem though. Personally, I've nothing against using Magic Ratings in my game. Without lots of magic items to give them bonuses, the "regular" classes become a lot weaker than spellcasters. A way to control the power of wizards and sorcerors is something useful. However, I must say there's a difference between a good *concept* and the actual rule. The concept of Magic Ratings isn't bad. When you look at the way they are handled in the book, though, you find some flaws.
Ravenloft Player's Handbook, page 28:
Magic Rating 1:[...] Those who must make saving throws against magic do so at a +1 and spell DCs are lowered by 1 point
This rule provides a bonus to saving throws while giving a penalty to that saving thow's DC. To me, and with all due respect, this rule sounds innecessarily complicated. Haven't the designers seen an obvious way to simplify it? I did. In the end, however, we ended up with this clumsy rule in the Ravenloft Player's Handbook.
Second, to say that powers checks are "required" for fighters with each level is to give the pertinent paragraph a superficial reading. What we actually say is that powers checks reflect what happens to an individual who spends most of his life killing creatures -- whether monsters or brigands or evil wizards or whatever. Bringing death to creatures has a long-term effect on those who are the deathbringers, whether they are soldiers, executioners or adventurers.
Again, this is not a mandatory process. The sentence reads as follows: "As fighters advance in levels and kill more monsters and people, the DM might also call for powers checks to indicate the hardening or deadening of the character's soul as he becomes inured to dealing out death." Please notice the word "might." This means that a DM also might NOT call for powers checks as fighters advance. Please read what's actually written before you denigrate it...
I haven't got a problem with this rule, since its optional. I find it rather illogical though. Remember that powers checks allow redemption. How a character is supposed to redeem for becoming a better fighter? In my opinion, there should have been a little more thought put in this rule before printing it in a Ravenloft core book.
We also hope that DMs will use some common sense with wizards and powers checks -- obviously leaning Tenser's floating disc will not require a powers check; however, spells that "manipulate and control others, evoke deadly effects or meddle with the powers of life, death and undeath" would potentially call for a powers check.
Thank you for pointing that out, it certainly made me understand the rule better. For that to happen, however, it was required I go here and read your explanation. Rules should not need explaining to be implemented. That is, if the DMs needed to use common sense about the rule, the book should have said so. On page 53, the book reads:
Whenever sorcerers [and it is later stated wizards follow the same restrictions] learn new enchantment, evocation or necromantic spells, there is a base 5% chance per spell learned that the sorcerer devolves into evil.
As written, the book does require a powers check for learning Tenser's Floating Disk.
Lastly, please understand that the Ravenloft Player's Handbook is the main book for the setting. As such, poorly thought/explained rules there are less tolerated than in other products, at least by me. Especially that most of the fans who'll buy it won't be able to read your clarifications on this thread.
We'll try to visit this board more often. We want to hear your opinions and will try to answer questions as completely and honestly as possible.
Many thanks for this alone. I do hope we'll end up with a good cooperation between developers and fans in the future. I hope you didn't mind my being honest in this post myself.
Originally posted by DarkDuo
If you would read the entire text on the Magic Ratings, you would notice that on page 31, we state that this system is optional and should be used by DMs and players who like it. It made sense for us that in realms with different cultural levels and approaches to magic, there should be some differences in how magic worked and which magics worked and which did not. The Magic Ratings address that difference. If you don't like it, don't use it. We even say that in writing!
So it's stated as being optional; fair enough. However, this is a core product. It helps set the tone for everything else. For that matter, will the Rarity of Magic Rating be showing up in future products? Can we expect it to pop up in the new Gazetteers, or be implemented into any new Van Richten's Arsenal? Such as with, perhaps, a 3rd level spell that circumventates the Rarity of Magic Rating for a certain amount of time? Or in some other way be integrated into the setting beyond the Player's Handbook?
If so, that's not particularly optional. Or at the least, when integrated into later products, the option becomes as good as being a standard rule. However, that's simply guesswork on my part. I'll have to wait and see if the RMR shows up in later works. It is my sincere hope that it does not.
As Keg of Ale has already pointed out, it was not well thought out, as can be witnessed by the modification it makes to the spell save DC and the saving throws against spells. One or the other would have amply sufficed.
Conceptually, as has been said, the idea is a good one. But the implementation was not. It does make sense that some idea of how magically inclined one place is in comparison to another exists, but it would have worked better, in my mind, were it modelled more closely after the Cultural Levels. Where firing a pistol works just as well whether one's in Paridon or Har'Akir. Messing around with class balance does not for quality make, in my mind, and the RMR does not, in my opinion, so much reflect cultural differences in magic, so much as stifle spellcasters.
Originally posted by DarkDuo
Second, to say that powers checks are "required" for fighters with each level is to give the pertinent paragraph a superficial reading. What we actually say is that powers checks reflect what happens to an individual who spends most of his life killing creatures -- whether monsters or brigands or evil wizards or whatever.
Again, this is not a mandatory process. The sentence reads as follows: "As fighters advance in levels and kill more monsters and people, the DM might also call for powers checks to indicate the hardening or deadening of the character's soul as he becomes inured to dealing out death." Please notice the word "might." This means that a DM also might NOT call for powers checks as fighters advance. Please read what's actually written before you denigrate it....
In response, I'll say this:
If a character is making Powers Checks during the course of their adventuring career, there is no need to make one when leveling up. The inuring of the soul is already occuring.
If, on the other hand, a character is not making Powers Checks during the course of their adventuring career, there is, again, no need to make a Powers Check when leveling up. If previous acts weren't worthy of a Powers Check before leveling up, they shouldn't suddenly be when leveling up.
So even that "might" shouldn't be there. There's no circumstance where the act of leveling up itself should entail a Powers Check. I believe most understand the toll death-dealing can have on ones moral well-being, but if an act warrants a Powers Check, it needn't be rolled for twice (once when it's first done, then again when leveling), and if an act doesn't, it shouldn't be rolled for when leveling up.
There's also a difference between becoming jaded and falling into darkness.
Originally posted by DarkDuo
We also hope that DMs will use some common sense with wizards and powers checks -- obviously leaning Tenser's floating disc will not require a powers check; however, spells that "manipulate and control others, evoke deadly effects or meddle with the powers of life, death and undeath" would potentially call for a powers check.
And to this I say that in light of the number of spells requiring Powers Checks, that are altered, and that there's a difference between having knowledge and actually using it...eh. Unnecessary, even with the proper use of common sense.
Originally posted by DarkDuo
We'll try to visit this board more often. We want to hear your opinions and will try to answer questions as completely and honestly as possible.
And despite my vitriol, or rather, because of it, I am appreciative. It is good to know that some of the Ravenloft communities concerns will be heard and addressed, and possibly taken into consideration.
Originally posted by TricksterGod
Double post. Bugger.
It's okay, the Dark Duo triple-posted. :D
Anyway, glad to see the Duo here-- the ability to get feedback, even if in the end a reader ends up going their own way, was something I think we'd gotten to liking from the Kargatane, after all.
Originally posted by TricksterGod
If a character is making Powers Checks during the course of their adventuring career, there is no need to make one when leveling up. The inuring of the soul is already occuring.
If, on the other hand, a character is not making Powers Checks during the course of their adventuring career, there is, again, no need to make a Powers Check when leveling up. If previous acts weren't worthy of a Powers Check before leveling up, they shouldn't suddenly be when leveling up.
If the character went off and slaughtered fifty evil-doers in self defense he wouldn't need to make a DP Check. So does that mean he's unaffected by killing 50 people?
In RL that kind of systematic murder should have its toll and you shouldn't just be able to shrug off killing fifty dudes just because they were evil and out to sacrafice you to their god or something.
Yes by making the new class modifications they're dinking with the classes. So what?
They already did that when they first made DP checks for casting certain spells or altered equipment lists.
So mages get altered with different Domains, so do other classes. Firing a pistol is NOT the same in some Domains as it more primative places it will be viewed as dark magik. So likewise some places that are more scientific might have changes to magic. It makes sense. And even if you don't use guns a knight in full plate armour is going to look weird when everyone has leather on and rapiers and visa versa.
And if something is common sense, do you really NEED to point out to everyone that it's common sense? Of course you don't need to roll a flipping DP check for Tenser's Floating Disc. Sure the rules have a broad rule that says you do, but if they went about describing each and every single exception or variation they'd have no rules for other rules.
Originally posted by The_Jester
So mages get altered with different Domains, so do other classes. Firing a pistol is NOT the same in some Domains as it more primative places it will be viewed as dark magik. So likewise some places that are more scientific might have changes to magic. It makes sense. And even if you don't use guns a knight in full plate armour is going to look weird when everyone has leather on and rapiers and visa versa.
What you're citing is in-character response to certain actions. That is not the same as the physical mechanics of an action being altered.
Originally posted by The_Jester
If the character went off and slaughtered fifty evil-doers in self defense he wouldn't need to make a DP Check. So does that mean he's unaffected by killing 50 people?
In RL that kind of systematic murder should have its toll and you shouldn't just be able to shrug off killing fifty dudes just because they were evil and out to sacrafice you to their god or something.
Thus why the comment on becoming jaded is different from falling into darkness. One shouldn't have to worry about suddenly growing scales for defending the lives of innocents. If those kinds of acts are worthy of a Powers Check, then they should be rolled when they're performed. If the act isn't worth rolling a Powers Check in the first place, it isn't worth rolling one later.
Better that some Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome rule or something else like that was added. Toss in a new rule for making a Madness save. Don't make unnecessary checks for corruption.
Originally posted by The_Jester
Yes by making the new class modifications they're dinking with the classes. So what?
They already did that when they first made DP checks for casting certain spells or altered equipment lists.
So mages get altered with different Domains, so do other classes. Firing a pistol is NOT the same in some Domains as it more primative places it will be viewed as dark magik. So likewise some places that are more scientific might have changes to magic. It makes sense. And even if you don't use guns a knight in full plate armour is going to look weird when everyone has leather on and rapiers and visa versa.
Firing a pistol is just the same from one domain to the next. Load it, aim, roll to attack, and if it hits, roll damage. Mechanically, there is no difference. Yes, it makes sense for some cultures to look differently upon magic. And sure, tromping around in full plate does cause Renaissance domains to cast a peculiar eye upon the individual in the form of an increased OR. But that doesn't neuter a character at 7th level, or inordinately grant certain classes a distinct and powerful advantage.
Originally posted by The_Jester
And if something is common sense, do you really NEED to point out to everyone that it's common sense? Of course you don't need to roll a flipping DP check for Tenser's Floating Disc. Sure the rules have a broad rule that says you do, but if they went about describing each and every single exception or variation they'd have no rules for other rules.
You make an excellent point, here, Jester. However, if I buy a book with new rules that my common sense tells me not to use (without heavy reinterpretation, anyway), it is logical for me to think there's a problem there somewhere. Between the version of the rules that is given in the book and the version explained to us by the Dark Duo above, there is a huge difference. And clarifying it all took them only a few lines. Had these lines been included in the book, there wouldn't have been as much trouble. Alas, they hadn't.
Originally posted by DarkDuo
Sorry it has taken us so long to respond to this thread. We've been unable to visit this message board until recently, so now that we're here, we'd like first of all to say hi to all the people who love Ravenloft and want to see quality products for it, even if we disagree on what "quality" means.
The most interesting thing about one of your visits is how many people suddenly "understand it now" after you "explain" it. I'm sure we don't agree on quality. And we definitely don't agree on what a marketing ploy is. If Wizards of the Coast had reprinted their v3.5 Player's Handbook as The Greyhawk Player's Handbook, simply because there were a few new paragraphs regarding the world of Greyhawk, there would have been every bit as much disgruntling among the fans. What you did was a travesty at worst, a marketing ploy at best.
We also hope that DMs will use some common sense with wizards and powers checks -- obviously leaning Tenser's floating disc will not require a powers check; however, spells that "manipulate and control others, evoke deadly effects or meddle with the powers of life, death and undeath" would potentially call for a powers check.
This makes me wonder how long it has been since either of you has played in a role-playing group that lasted longer than a playtest session. In an ongoing campaign, players care a lot about what does and doesn't affect their characters, and anyone who flips from Al Franken on CSPAN to Bill O'Riley on FOX NEWS will see that it's very hard to find two people who can agree on common sense.
We can't even agree on what a quality book is, or what a marketing ploy is.
It would have been worth it to do it right, meaning actually delineate which spells require a powers check, and which don't. Otherwise, it shouldn't have been done at all. "Obviously," it could be stated, Tenser's Floating Disc does not require a Powers Check. But what is inherently evil about Sending...Unless the wizard who learns it intends to use that spell to send sinister messages to his enemies, drawing them into paranoid fits of rage. But then, couldn't Tenser's Floating Disc be used by a necromancer to cart off his paralyzed enemies? And then, what about a spell like Summon Monster, which guarantees an evil wizard an infernal creature every time?
I may be missing your point, but if so that merely proves mine. What seems to me to be common sense may be wildly different from your own perceptions. You wrote a CORE RULEBOOK. I walked away from your Core Rulebook knowing that my players would need a litany of explanations for the minor changes. Basically, for the amount of that book, I would have paid for the privilege of rewriting what was added to the earlier, very worthwhile book.
To those of you who have made up your minds either by looking at the book or by depending on reviews, we can only say that buying gaming products is certainly your choice. We hope you will find other Ravenloft products, such as the Gazetteers, the Van Richten's Guides and other forthcoming books more to your liking.
To those of you who have not yet seen the Ravenloft Players Handbook, we can only ask that you actually look the book over and notice what we actually say -- not what some people insist we said.
As for the credits -- Nicky and I wrote and are responsible for most of the new material. Andrew Bates and Aaron Voss developed the Monster Hunter class because they are both fans of Ravenloft and we liked their suggestion for expanding the Witch Hunter class.
I made up my mind based on a little of each. I read through it a few times, and then I read some stuff here, and I eventually left it on the shelf. I already paid for a finished version. This seems like the finished version plus a rough draft of what any other company would have posted online as a free download.
Lastly, when a freelancer writes for a gaming company, her work is considered "work for hire." This means that the company commissions the writer to write the material which the company then buys from the writer and therefore owns that material. Nothing that Nicky or I has ever written for White Wolf or Arthaus or Wizards or any other gaming company belongs to us. If those companies choose to use that material as the basis for other books, they are free to do so.
This is something that ALL freelance writers should understand, since it is built into every contract. It is something we accept when we sign the contract.
This wasn't necessary.
We'll try to visit this board more often. We want to hear your opinions and will try to answer questions as completely and honestly as possible.
Take care, all,
Jackie Cassada and Nicky Rea, Ravenloft Developers
I think that what really hurts here for some of us...Ah, I'll just speak for myself. What hurts here for me is that this is the first Ravenloft product that had nothing worthwhile for me in it. It was actually offensive to read what had been added to it. A core rulebook is no place for a series of optional rules, and a reprint of an already existing book is no time for a title that makes it seem like the latest book in a series.
I remain a fan of the series, naturally. I will certainly buy up the new material as it comes out, but I will definitely not order anything online without flipping through it myself. Who knows, maybe Van Richten's Guide to the Shadow Fey is actually nothing more than someone's compilation of fey-references from the earlier Van Richten's Guides...
A few comments on your responses:
The decision to change the name of the core rule book to the Ravenloft Player's Handbook was made to emphasize it's "official" nature. Unlike other d20 products, Ravenloft is an officially licensed product, done by Arthaus as licensed by Wizards of the Coast. Thus, the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Again, we must mention that we had to update our basic rulebooks due to our license. We could not just post the 3.5 revisions online.
We have mentioned in our pre-publication material that this book was not an entirely new book -- we never claimed that it was completely different from the original book, but that it was, in fact, a revision.
As far as including optional rules instead of hard and fast, "official" rules, we have to say that in most of the products put out by Arthaus, White Wolf and, lately, by Wizards of the Coast, even the official rules are referred to as guidelines. The whole idea is to give Dungeon Masters as many opportunities to customize their campaigns as possible, while still providing some structure to the game (i.e., rules) that help define it and differentiate it from other games (i.e., powers checks and Madness Checks in Ravenloft are NOT the same as similar checks are in other horror games).
Our experience is that DMs and players will change the rules anyway, and that even the most inoffensive rules will bother some people. (My personal bugbear is the short shrift given to half-orcs in D&D...)
As for our gaming experience, both of us play in regular campaigns. I (Jackie) have run a D&D game that started in 1984 and is still going on, though we no longer meet weekly due to the fact that some of our players now live out of town. I am currently running a Ravenloft campaign at our local gaming club in four week increments; in between my Ravenloft game, I play in a d20 game, a Mutants and Masterminds fantasy game, a Mage game, a Vampire game and I run a Changeling game -- all in four week sessions at our club. So, no, our only gaming experiences are NOT just in playtesting. We've been gaming since 1978 and are still doing it -- if we don't play, how can we stay in touch with the work that we do?
Again, we appreciate your voicing your concerns. And no, Van Richten's Guide to the Shadow Fey is not a rehash of information on the fey...
Till next time,
Jackie & Nicky
Originally posted by Chaderick
The most interesting thing about one of your visits is how many people suddenly "understand it now" after you "explain" it. I'm sure we don't agree on quality. And we definitely don't agree on what a marketing ploy is. If Wizards of the Coast had reprinted their v3.5 Player's Handbook as The Greyhawk Player's Handbook, simply because there were a few new paragraphs regarding the world of Greyhawk, there would have been every bit as much disgruntling among the fans. What you did was a travesty at worst, a marketing ploy at best.
This makes me wonder how long it has been since either of you has played in a role-playing group that lasted longer than a playtest session. In an ongoing campaign, players care a lot about what does and doesn't affect their characters, and anyone who flips from Al Franken on CSPAN to Bill O'Riley on FOX NEWS will see that it's very hard to find two people who can agree on common sense.
We can't even agree on what a quality book is, or what a marketing ploy is.
It would have been worth it to do it right, meaning actually delineate which spells require a powers check, and which don't. Otherwise, it shouldn't have been done at all. "Obviously," it could be stated, Tenser's Floating Disc does not require a Powers Check. But what is inherently evil about Sending...Unless the wizard who learns it intends to use that spell to send sinister messages to his enemies, drawing them into paranoid fits of rage. But then, couldn't Tenser's Floating Disc be used by a necromancer to cart off his paralyzed enemies? And then, what about a spell like Summon Monster, which guarantees an evil wizard an infernal creature every time?
I may be missing your point, but if so that merely proves mine. What seems to me to be common sense may be wildly different from your own perceptions. You wrote a CORE RULEBOOK. I walked away from your Core Rulebook knowing that my players would need a litany of explanations for the minor changes. Basically, for the amount of that book, I would have paid for the privilege of rewriting what was added to the earlier, very worthwhile book.
I made up my mind based on a little of each. I read through it a few times, and then I read some stuff here, and I eventually left it on the shelf. I already paid for a finished version. This seems like the finished version plus a rough draft of what any other company would have posted online as a free download.
This wasn't necessary.
I think that what really hurts here for some of us...Ah, I'll just speak for myself. What hurts here for me is that this is the first Ravenloft product that had nothing worthwhile for me in it. It was actually offensive to read what had been added to it. A core rulebook is no place for a series of optional rules, and a reprint of an already existing book is no time for a title that makes it seem like the latest book in a series.
I remain a fan of the series, naturally. I will certainly buy up the new material as it comes out, but I will definitely not order anything online without flipping through it myself. Who knows, maybe Van Richten's Guide to the Shadow Fey is actually nothing more than someone's compilation of fey-references from the earlier Van Richten's Guides...
Now that was the most honest poster I have seen here in awhile.
~B4Real
Hi...I'm afraid that, as Mr. Mangrum (and a thousand other writers) unfortunately discovered, you have to have a pretty thick skin in order to interact with your fans.
Cheers
Originally posted by Walden
Ms. Casssada and Ms. Rea,
Hi...I'm afraid that, as Mr. Mangrum (and a thousand other writers) unfortunately discovered, you have to have a pretty thick skin in order to interact with your fans.
Cheers
Yup. As I've told some of our writers, developers are the people who take the flack.
We have relatively thick skins, but we also want those who love Ravenloft and play the game to be as informed as they want to be about what goes into (and what doesn't go into) putting together the books they love (or find problems with).
Interacting with Ravenloft fans -- and I'd like to think that they're fans of the Ravenloft setting rather than those who write for & develope it -- is worth a few skinned knuckles, bruised egos and stepped on toes.
We weren't dubbed the Dark Duo for nothing!
Take care,
J&N
Originally posted by DarkDuo
Yup. As I've told some of our writers, developers are the people who take the flack.
This is probably more true at White Wolf--where the developers are more the public face of the line, and the writers seem to come from a large pool of freelancers--than for TSR/WotC lines, where the writers have been more steady and public, and for Ravenloft, where the Kargatane were the face of the setting from 1999 onward. Compared to the stuff seen on their review pages and forums, you two have gotten off light. :-)
Interacting with Ravenloft fans -- and I'd like to think that they're fans of the Ravenloft setting rather than those who write for & develope it
The two are oft interwoven. Some writers have a track record of producing material that fits in well with the setting's underlying themes and moods and gives it new 'life', while others aren't so reliable or inspiring.
Matthew L. Martin
"Darkduo, Darkduo...
so good they posted thrice!"
Ok ok. I'm sorry. I apologise. You can get back to your regularly shedualed posting..
For the most part, I have no problem with the PHB; it's a rehash of material, but that's what we knew it would be from the beginning. And while I for one will never use RMRs, I don't mind their existence as an optional rule so long as they don't become intrusive in later products; if they become as integral as CLs, I'll have some issues, but they're not bad as an option.
My primary worry, however, is with the powers checks for levelling up, learning new spells, and hanging around sinkholes of evil. Again, I can safely say that they probably won't affect me or any of the other DMs on this board who don't like them, since we can just ignore the optional rule and move on. However, I'm not concerned about the seasoned players and DMS; I'm concerned about the new ones. The PHB is going to be the first thing that many new Ravenloft players read, and I'm uncomfortable with a rule that's so controversial being in a book so utterly integral to the setting. It's especially troublesome given the placement of the class weaknesses section; since that actually comes before the section on powers checks, the checks for levelling up and learning new spells are going to be the first things that newcomers see relating to powers checks. I personally don't feel that's a good reflection of what powers checks have always been portrayed as, so I don't like it at all as a first impression. I think that newcomers are going to come away from the PHB with two entirely conflicting views of what powers checks are supposed to be--the view that it's a punishment by the Dark Powers for an intentional act of evil, and the view that it's a tool used by the DM against characters who haven't necessarily done anything wrong. Again, those of us who already have a set idea of how powers checks work in our campaigns can just ignore the rules that go against that idea; however, newcomers don't have that luxury.
That's my two cents, anyway. Again, thanks for reading these! ^_^
Originally posted by Dominique
For the most part, I have no problem with the PHB; it's a rehash of material, but that's what we knew it would be from the beginning. And while I for one will never use RMRs, I don't mind their existence as an optional rule so long as they don't become intrusive in later products; if they become as integral as CLs, I'll have some issues, but they're not bad as an option.
My primary worry, however, is with the powers checks for levelling up, learning new spells, and hanging around sinkholes of evil. Again, I can safely say that they probably won't affect me or any of the other DMs on this board who don't like them, since we can just ignore the optional rule and move on.
It also seems fair to say that any optional rule which is going to be ignored by most people out of hand, and ignored even when explained, is not a good optional rule in the first place. Even in light of the explanations, it seems some folk aren't overly enthused by the new rules, nor for that matter, have necessarily found the explanations to be satisfactory (at least I didn't).
Originally posted by TricksterGod
It also seems fair to say that any optional rule which is going to be ignored by most people out of hand, and ignored even when explained, is not a good optional rule in the first place. Even in light of the explanations, it seems some folk aren't overly enthused by the new rules, nor for that matter, have necessarily found the explanations to be satisfactory (at least I didn't).
I think that whole it is optional jibberish is just another way to get out of having wrote a very bad book. After all everything is subject to what the DM's and players would like to use in their campaigns but does that mean we should not expect a quality product? The RL PHB v3.5 is not a quality product. If this is the future of RL then I fear for the product line.
~B4Real
i've defended CoD as being at least saveable, this book doesn't have the same quality.
Originally posted by Dominique
However, I'm not concerned about the seasoned players and DMS; I'm concerned about the new ones. The PHB is going to be the first thing that many new Ravenloft players read, and I'm uncomfortable with a rule that's so controversial being in a book so utterly integral to the setting.
You and I have the same concern Dominique. And unlike the magic rating rules the weakness never state specificly that they are optional.
And once again we are talking about two or three rules that probably take up less that a page and a half of text. In an entire book!
How does that destroy the quality of the entire product? Was the other RL: CS not a quality book either? Should you not be savaging other problems with the book other than focusing on the 1 1/2 pages of questionable new text?
Yes, I agree with pretty much everyone that thinks the new DP checks for fighters and mages may be (nay, is!) overkill.
(except for Keg of Ale's comment that Charm Person shouldn't require a DP check to learn anymore than Fire Ball. We are talking about a brain altering mind control spell here, sounds kinda evil to me. I wouldn't necassarily always require a DP check for learning it, but neither would I for a fighter killing things)
But c'mon, is it really killing the entire flipping product line?! That's the slipperiest of slopes there. One huge fallacy . If one and a half pages of crap rules is the end of the RAVENLOFT line I'd hate to see what Lord of the Necroplois was. The end of the space-time continuum? I bet the world ended but due to the time distortion the explosion just hasn't reached Earth yet.
If we all tried we could list just as many dumb ideas.
How about the removal of Bards from the DoD setting? The inclusion of a Drow domain in the original Black Box? What about the complete lack of curse rules in that same box? The maps? Retroactivly adding Modules to the Grand Conjuntion Hexad? Not making the darn levels line up for the Hexad adventures so you can play them in order? The beeps on the Light in the Belfreyadventure or that entire box in genera? Jander's constantly fluxuating alignment? The Death adventures and shoddy Grim Harvest playing undead rules?
There have been weird mistakes before and there will be more...
So yeah, bad rules, should have been slightly better written to emphasise the optionality, but the book had to be done. Better to put out crap than take several authors off a new book to rehash something and just shuffle words around.
As for the corruption of new players... how dumb are these newbes anyway? Is there really going to be a rash of Tenser's Floating Disc Darklords floating on the net in six months in Player's Campaigns? Or are people going to smart enough to take one look and say "I think I'll bend this rule here..."
Honestly, how many players and DMs do you know that obey each and ever single rule, optional or not, in D&D? Every lowly rule? Heck, I probably don't even obey a 2/3rds of all the rules and bend a good chunk of the remainder.
Originally posted by The_Jester
As for the corruption of new players... how dumb are these newbes anyway? Is there really going to be a rash of Tenser's Floating Disc Darklords floating on the net in six months in Player's Campaigns? Or are people going to smart enough to take one look and say "I think I'll bend this rule here..."
Honestly, how many players and DMs do you know that obey each and ever single rule, optional or not, in D&D? Every lowly rule? Heck, I probably don't even obey a 2/3rds of all the rules and bend a good chunk of the remainder.
I think you miss a vital point, Jester. Let's consider the new material in relation to the first R3E CS. If all the new material is optional and wrong, and if every sensible player should discard all new material (guess that's where it all comes in the end), then there's nothing new in the book worth it.
From the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons, way back in the 70s, the authors have said the players should feel free to alter the game as they saw fit. Nevertheless, they always wrote a standard body of rules without the need to specify optionality. I think the author should always write standard rules, occasionaly specifying Variant or Optional Rules clearly marked as so, like TSR did with Players' Option series and in the Core Books of 2nd Edition, and just like WotC did in the Core Books of 3rd Edition. These rules, though, had some kind of standardicity and had been weighed and tested somewhat, and probably were almost as good candidates as standard rules to have been the preferred choice to put in the book. See, in general, these are variants to another rule in the same niche.
Now, writing with dubious intent like 'the DM _might_ enforce this rule', or 'the player _should_ make this roll' is merely trying to deny the author's own responsibility. Of course we are free to alter the standard rules, but there MUST BE standard rules which we can deviate from. With wordings like 'might' and 'should', we end up not knowing which is which. It's like the Core Book now is just a collection of house rules from one particular fan who happens to have been the author. As if the author were afraid to rule, afraid to write. Look, I think we should play the game like this, but I don't know if you'll like, so I'll use a weaker tense and suggest that the rule is this.
That's not possible! That's author's cowardice, to put the finger on the wound!
The Core Book has more authority than any other book or fan, except in the fan's own campaign, because it is standard for many, many, many more people and not every one is going to change the same rule. So, in general, take two altered games from two different fans: the majority of the game will be the same, because probably they have changed different rules.
Now, it does become a problem if a large community consistently changes the same rule. That means the rule is bad and should not have been there. Saying that people are dumb if they do not break that rule is a perversity which places the error on the player and not on the author who had such a bad idea.
The bottom line: if all the new material in the book is going to be ignored by everyone, or better, should be ignored by everyone, including first-time players, then it is bad, and it would probably have been better to make a straight 3.5 version without new material: a new book for new players. It really brings nothing new to whoever already has the RLCS, so they're not targetting the old market, but instead the new fans.
Also, fans never needed authorization to bend rules, so it's not because the book says 'might' instead of 'must' that fans will feel it is an optional rule. In my very personal opinion, writing like that is lacking respect for the fans: the author does not rise to the obligation and does not acknowledge the basic right of the fan to disregard ANY rule in the book, even those written with all do's and don'ts.
Just my opinion.
W.C.
Originally posted by The_Jester
(except for Keg of Ale's comment that Charm Person shouldn't require a DP check to learn anymore than Fire Ball. We are talking about a brain altering mind control spell here, sounds kinda evil to me. I wouldn't necassarily always require a DP check for learning it, but neither would I for a fighter killing things)
I never said that. Go reread my post.
But c'mon, is it really killing the entire flipping product line?! That's the slipperiest of slopes there. One huge fallacy . If one and a half pages of crap rules is the end of the RAVENLOFT line I'd hate to see what Lord of the Necroplois was. The end of the space-time continuum? I bet the world ended but due to the time distortion the explosion just hasn't reached Earth yet.
If we all tried we could list just as many dumb ideas.
How about the removal of Bards from the DoD setting? The inclusion of a Drow domain in the original Black Box? What about the complete lack of curse rules in that same box? The maps? Retroactivly adding Modules to the Grand Conjuntion Hexad? Not making the darn levels line up for the Hexad adventures so you can play them in order? The beeps on the Light in the Belfreyadventure or that entire box in genera? Jander's constantly fluxuating alignment? The Death adventures and shoddy Grim Harvest playing undead rules?
How is this "new material" killing the entire flipping product line? Let me tell you how: there are people out there, working for White Wolf, who lack judgement enough to write something so innacceptable in a CORE RULESBOOK, no less, and these are the same people who control the fate of the Ravenloft right now. THAT's HOW.
As for the corruption of new players... how dumb are these newbes anyway?
You'd be surprised. At best, we'll risk having newbies adopting these new rules. No much harm. At worse they'll see the book's problem right away and drop out of Ravenloft.
Originally posted by William Cairnstone
I think you miss a vital point, Jester. Let's consider the new material in relation to the first R3E CS. If all the new material is optional and wrong, and if every sensible player should discard all new material (guess that's where it all comes in the end), then there's nothing new in the book worth it.
From the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons, way back in the 70s, the authors have said the players should feel free to alter the game as they saw fit. Nevertheless, they always wrote a standard body of rules without the need to specify optionality. I think the author should always write standard rules, occasionaly specifying Variant or Optional Rules clearly marked as so, like TSR did with Players' Option series and in the Core Books of 2nd Edition, and just like WotC did in the Core Books of 3rd Edition. These rules, though, had some kind of standardicity and had been weighed and tested somewhat, and probably were almost as good candidates as standard rules to have been the preferred choice to put in the book. See, in general, these are variants to another rule in the same niche.
Now, writing with dubious intent like 'the DM _might_ enforce this rule', or 'the player _should_ make this roll' is merely trying to deny the author's own responsibility. Of course we are free to alter the standard rules, but there MUST BE standard rules which we can deviate from. With wordings like 'might' and 'should', we end up not knowing which is which. It's like the Core Book now is just a collection of house rules from one particular fan who happens to have been the author. As if the author were afraid to rule, afraid to write. Look, I think we should play the game like this, but I don't know if you'll like, so I'll use a weaker tense and suggest that the rule is this.
That's not possible! That's author's cowardice, to put the finger on the wound!
The Core Book has more authority than any other book or fan, except in the fan's own campaign, because it is standard for many, many, many more people and not every one is going to change the same rule. So, in general, take two altered games from two different fans: the majority of the game will be the same, because probably they have changed different rules.
Now, it does become a problem if a large community consistently changes the same rule. That means the rule is bad and should not have been there. Saying that people are dumb if they do not break that rule is a perversity which places the error on the player and not on the author who had such a bad idea.
The bottom line: if all the new material in the book is going to be ignored by everyone, or better, should be ignored by everyone, including first-time players, then it is bad, and it would probably have been better to make a straight 3.5 version without new material: a new book for new players. It really brings nothing new to whoever already has the RLCS, so they're not targetting the old market, but instead the new fans.
Also, fans never needed authorization to bend rules, so it's not because the book says 'might' instead of 'must' that fans will feel it is an optional rule. In my very personal opinion, writing like that is lacking respect for the fans: the author does not rise to the obligation and does not acknowledge the basic right of the fan to disregard ANY rule in the book, even those written with all do's and don'ts.
Just my opinion.
W.C.
Agreed. It's like saying that DnD's foundation is now the d20 system but then saying, it's optional you do not have to use the d20 system to play DnD d20. In a case like that they could have just simply slapped a 3rd edition label on the products left in the THACO system and said be happy with that. The rules are there for a reason and in order to play a certain game you need as was said above standard rules so don't give us that it's optional crap because we are literally not buying it!
Make quality products....bottom line.
~B4Real
Originally posted by The_Jester
And once again we are talking about two or three rules that probably take up less that a page and a half of text. In an entire book!
...
Should you not be savaging other problems with the book other than focusing on the 1 1/2 pages of questionable new text?
...
If one and a half pages of crap rules is the end of the RAVENLOFT line I'd hate to see what Lord of the Necroplois was.
The PDF preview for the RLPHB is available, and contains the Magic Ratings rules in their entirety. Those rules alone occupy 6 pages. Even based solely on text, it's a little over 4 pages.
Anyone arguing over size, obtrusiveness, or merit should at least look at the one change freely available.
First of all this book is the Core Rulebook redux. As per the license with Wizards of the Coast White Wold/Arthaus was required to republish certain books such as the Campaign Setting and the monster book.
Changes: First thing I notice was a table of contents that listed more than the chapters. Excited I flipped to the end and found the Index is still rough and short. Oh well. It is compressed into a smaller space with three columns so it seems less barren.
There are also NO ADS in the back of the book. Saddly no hints of future Ravenloft products but thankfully no other teasers for Vampire products of the like.
Now there are more changes than just the often-referenced Class Weaknesses and the Magic Rating. The page count of the Campaign Setting topped off at 224 w/ ads. The new book is 256. Thirty-two new pages! And although 11-12+ pages of this are hotly debated new rules there must be other new content to examine.
There is also the brief section on ‘Masques’, which are apparently Ravenloft intruding on and influencing other worlds, such as the Gothic Earth of Masque of the Red Death. This is probably an attempt at brining MotRD into canon.
There is also the updated Prestige Class from Secrets of the Dread Realms, updated with a spin-off PrC.
There are additional rules in altering classes, these will be mentioned in detail later on.
Madness rules have been tweaked slightly. The altered spell list has been increased. Seven new spells have been added to the book.
Additionally the errata has been applied to be book fixing several small errors.
There are still errors, mostly from the reprinting. They didn’t update the Pardion entry to reflect the time-change. And there are a few minor typo-style errors like the probably cut-n-paste goof in the Wiz weakness section that refers to sorcerers.
Class Weaknesses: This has been hotly debated on message boards, especially the Fighter’s weakness that is referenced in the weaknesses of the Monk and Ranger.
The crux of the complaint is the requirement that a fighter make a dark powers check with every level gained. The idea is that repetitive killing deadens the fighter’s heart.
However the text for the fighter’s weakness is a veritable hodgepodge of the world “may”, “might” and “if”. And the passage itself that refers to the level based power checks is begin with “For those DMs who prefer an easier way to determine when to ask for a power check, you may assume…”, making the entire rule doubly optional. The entire two preceding paragraphs offer suggestions of when to roll power checks based on actions, the once a level rule is simply for those DMs who wish to save on book keeping! While this is deplorably not emphasized, and not mentioned in the other weakness sections of the Ranger and the Monk.
A far worse class weakness goes to the druid. The weakness all but forces the character to make rolls for actions they did not choose to do and can quickly result in an alignment change. Simply put lands that have a sinkhole of evil >2 have a chance of tainting druids, and when druids come within 20 miles of the tainting sinkhole they have a chance of committing evil in the defense of the land. Thankfully this does not apply to all sinkholes, nor is the result guaranteed. Even for a rank five sinkhole there is a 70% chance that the druid need make a 30% chance to roll less than a 1-10% power check. So failure is still not guaranteed.
The Sorcerer and mage likewise have a somewhat overdone weakness. In addition to the checks for casting iffy spells they must make rolls to learn spells from certain school. There is not wording of this being optional or common sense. It is all enchantment, evocation, and necro spells. Including the heavily inappropriate ones to call for DP checks like Tenser’s Floating Disc. However, it is very unlikely to become a darklord just from learning spells. I’ll borrow some math from one William Cairnstone for this (as mine sucks).
Well, although this is not a definitive answer, the chance of failing the mth check on the nth try is:
f(n) = Combin(n-1, m) * p^(m) * q^(n-m+1)
This gives far smaller chances that you'd expect at first of becoming a darklord on exactly the nth attempt.
And the chance of not being a darklord by attempt n is 1 - sum (f(i), m<=i
Now for the meaning of the parameters and some data:
m is the number of steps to fail to become a darklord, ie, 6.
n is the number of attempted power checks
p is the probability to fail a powers check. In the examples I give below, 10%
q is 1 - p (the chance not to fail a powers check).
Just to give you an idea, the chance to have eluded darklordship after m power checks is:
m = 6: 99.99946%
m = 8: 99.99368%
m = 20: 98.55557%
m = 30: 91.65804%
m = 50: 59.76315%
m = 80: 16.8023%
m = 100: 5.419131%
m = 150: 0.178289%
Midpoint chance occurs at m = 55. After 55 powers checks with 10% failing chance, you have roughly 50% (50.6508%) chance of not gaining darklordship (conversely, 49.3492% of being a Darklord)
This is going with a 10% chance of failure instead of a 5% (discussion was on murder not learning spells).
So I’m simply doubling the results. A wizard would need to learn aprox. 110 necro, enchant, and evoc spells to have a 50-50 chance of becoming a darklord. There are, at my last count, a little over 125 spells from those three schools so it is possible, but this is including 0 and 1st level spells which wouldn’t technically be learned. And it assumed the character makes it to 17th level, has access to enough gold to scribe all the spells let alone find and learn them, etc.
The bigger question is still how to redeem oneself from failing a spell-learning power check…
These rules are not without precedence as the Archanist from the 2nd Edition setting Domains of Dread was required to make a 5% per level (!) check every time they gained a level.
Personally I think the greatest flaw in the book is the fact they didn’t take advantage of the reprint to fix all the complaints people had with the Campaign setting. Such as:
- The inclusion of the monsters, added because the VanRichten Guides were for players as much as DMs. But the VanRichten guides only had a small amount of hard game info and this was relegated to the DM-only section. Monster updates should have been in the DMG…
- The lack of player un-friendly information, such as the nature of the demiplane (ie the existance of the Dark Powers and Darklords) This should have been relegated to a DM section at the back, perhaps in the running-the-game chapter.
- The non-inclusion/updating of information from other sources. Like the spells, feats, religion info, and PrC from the Gaz.
Debates on the book:
1) It is nothing but a cash grab
- The book was required to be published. There was no choice involved. This argument is made based on the addition of new rules which implies people are being forced to pick it up to incorporate all the new rules (whereas, if there were no new additions to the book the same people would probably bemoan the lack of any new content).
However the largest of the new rules, the Ravenloft Magic Rating, was released FREE as a PDF. So its probably inclusion into later products will not be problematic. While some argued that the Magic Rating adds nothing it is liked be some who believe it works thematically with the intent of the Demiplane. There is also the debate that it handicaps Magic Users with rules that do not affect other classes, but all classes suffer occasional discomfort in different Domains. Not all is related to hard rules yes, but the effect is the same. It should also be noted that the Magic Rating does NOT always hinder spell casters! In higher MR domains casters learn spells faster, items are harder to destroy and spells are more difficult to save against. So while a wizard in Lamordia may have problems, one in Darkon is almost better off than in other Campaign Settings.
Oh and the Ratings often fluctuate in different parts of Domains, there is often a wide range. And Lamordia’s general MR is NOT 0!
2) If all the new rules are optional why buy the book? You buy the books for hard rules.
The 3E writers repeatedly state in the Core books that all rules can now be considered optional, it is one of the tenements of Third Edition, encouragement to make the game your own.
That said one buys the Core rulebooks for game rules, you buy Settings for the world and environment and history not for the rules. Ravenloft is not about the rules, more often that not the rules get in the way of atmosphere or the setting. Hence the Dark Powers which act as a deus ex machina rule breaking tool.
Optional rules do not work all the time, but they do work some of the time. The new rules like the Magic Rating have their time and place.
3) The book is signaling the end of the quality of the Ravenloft line
This argument is based on the fact the writers of the new material for the PHB are the developers of the line. And if the developers, the ones who pick and choose which products get made and which don’t, write inappropriate rules then they will only develop poor products in the future leading to a lack of quality in the line.
This argument suffers from the slippery slope fallacy. The developers are developers because they are not regular writers. It is not their job. Presumably they wrote the extra material so as not to pull other writers off other products.
These same people are credited with the development of: Van Richten’s Arsenal and Guide to Walking Dead, the DMG, the Gaz, etc. Writers make good or bad products, the people in charge just approve which products will be written. So there have recently been 2 bad and 6 good. Credit where credit is due, lets give them some slack. And after the quality of the Gaz, the DMG and others (which have been quoted by some as being some of the best or most fun game supplements ever) they deserve some time.
4) The book will have new players inappropriately using Power Checks
Yes the weakness modifications to the classes do overuse power checks. The ranger and druid are prime examples.
But there is one problem with the assumption that all new players will fall into this misuse, it requires the new players to live in a vacuum. They must be new to the setting and not purchase any ‘good’ 2nd Edition products, not play with experienced players and not communicate with any regular RL players either in real life or online.
Not that those with correct information, communication with other players, and the like never misuse power checks. There are frequent debates on message boards over whether actions required checks, what kind of curse was appropriate, etc.
5) The book is “garbage”!
- Let’s go through this Aristotle-style:
The Campaign Setting is/was not garbage.
The PHB is a reprinting of the CS
Therefore the PHB in not garbage.
The PHB cannot and is not garbage anymore than the campaign setting.
Yes, the Campaign Setting was not great, at least in terms of other RL main books. The Red Box and Domains of Dread hardcover are in many ways superior. But they are out of date in regards to game mechanics, not to mention the changes to the setting (new lords, deaths, passage of years, etc).
While the PHB’s new material may be garbage this is entirely subjective and a personal opinion.
In short:
Is the Player’s Handbook worth the money? Yes. IF you do not already have the Campaign Setting or your CS needs replacing.
There is nothing in the CS that is not in the PHB, and the PHB does have more. Albeit some questionable in quality, there is still more. And the updated monster rules, PrC, and the like are quite helpful in the game saving the DMs valuable time converting and updating the rules.
Originally posted by John W. Mangrum
The general track record of fans speculating about behind-the-scenes matters remains unchanged.
Well it's fun!
Probably, the best thing to do at this point about the problematic class disadvantage rules is for everyone to simply ignore them. I would like to know if someone would be willing to come up with some better alternatives for class weaknesses, but if not let's just pretend this product doesn't exist.
And I agree with those who say that two poor products (this and Champions of Darkness) don't prove that the line is collapsing and we should wait another year before we make any conclusions about the future of Ravenloft.
-----------------------------------------
Long Live Ravenloft