55 replies to this topic

[EvaineDian]

I have the ToB book, as well, but I didn't get far. I guess I won't read further after reading this thread.

As for Drizzt, he isn't SO bad, it's like reading a Swartzenager movie. Fun but leave your desire for good liturature at the door.

Don't laugh... But I do like some of his films...

Edited by EvaineDian, 28 November 2004 - 05:55 PM.

[hlidskialf]

I like Arnie films. I just don't expect to see more than they are when I watch them.

[Celestine]

Not all the FR books are bad. I've read quite a few myself over the years. I love the Songs n Swords (or was it Swords n Songs) by Elaine Cunningham. Book III - Silver Shadows is my favorite and still is. I like the first few Drizzt books but the storyline gets boring towards the end of the series. I can say right now, I'm not a fan of RA Salvatore.

I read the BG book I and it sucked terribly. My god, a total waste of time.

[Feanor]

hmm... I'd be kinda interested in reading those BG-books... albeit I'm not exactly willing to give out money for them (especially since I'm a poor uni student...)

Don't do it. You'll waste your time and money.

[Bane]

I found the Drizzt books quite annoying, he is only supposed to be what? level 14 or 15 yet they make him sound absolutely unbeatable. I find that very cheesy. Despite what people say I enjoyed the avatar series . I am just generally not a very critical person.

[talonsblade]

hey guys, i do agree some of RA Salvatore. are great IE: The Cleric Quintet and few others as well, some of the greyhawk novels are good as well right now i'm just finishing some books by David Eddings and i can say his books are good it seems like your right in his story and thats the way i like my books, a book should make you feel as if your with those chacters IE: u can feel anger, love everthing but i dont know about you others but give David Eddings a try you may like him.

[Andyr]

Hlid: What didn't you like about the Avatar Series?

The characters were unbelievable, and didn't inspire me to care about them at all. Their motivations were completely inconsistant as well. The writing was jumpy, with a broken flow. I only finished the trilogy out of stubborness, as I don't like starting a story and leaving it. I've been reading several scifi/fantatsy books a week for over 25 years and hazard to claim that I know good writing when I read it. These books were NOT in that catagory.

Ok. I thought Cyric was portrayed quite well, actually, out of the mortals. And the deities were quite good. I'd agree they don't compare to other stuff (Iain M Banks is a current favourite) though.

[Sovran]

@Avatar series: hlid's account sounds familiar. I struggled through the first four books mainly to educate myself on FR. The strongest impression I was left with was how awkward the writing was. I can't recall very good examples, but for one, I intensely disliked the way Midnight was constantly referred to as "the magic-user". (I *don't* want to hear those dice rolling in the background!)

And that was about the depth of the characterisation there, too. Cyric seemed more multi-dimensional than the others, true enough, but he alone wasn't intriguing enough to really spark my interest.

Oops, straying from topic. Boo.

@Eddings: I liked the first few sagas -- well-written fun. Way back then, the copy-paste fest wasn't as painfully obvious as it is in some of his later books, and his characters have more than one personality trait. (Well, a considerable percentage of them, anyway.)

On the other hand, if you like your plots and characters served with even a smattering of logic or believability, my advice is avoid the Redemption of Althalus like the plague. I haven't read anything by him -- or, actually, them -- after that, so I wouldn't know about the newest ones.

Fine, an attempt at ontopicness.

@BG books: As mentioned before, all this talk does have the effect of almost making the books seem intriguing in all their notoriety. Almost.

Edited by Sovran, 01 December 2004 - 09:50 AM.

[Consis]

As far as I know them (not much, considering I haven't read them) general consensus is that they're not very good as they like to kill of major characters in unprecedented ways, and don't stick to the story line.

Dear God child, you have no idea. I have every book because I love the Baldur's Gate story like no other I've ever read. To say 'injustice' would be an understatement. It is so completely sickening the way they butcher not only slight details but also the entire general plot itself. If you or anyone else can bring yourself to read such filth, I implore you to at least do the right thing and mail a formal complaint to the powers that be for such mutten. I suspect the powers that be are one of two companies: Wizards of the Coast or its parent company Tonka.

A side note:
-->Totally agree with Felstorm about the Drizzt character. I found the author to create his own little warped paradox. He made the drow ranger/fighter so powerful and skilled that, of course, only a character like Jarlaxle(next best thing to God him/her self) could possibly play equalizer. Any other character presented to Drizz't(exception of Entreri) is seen as having little or no influence at all.

Any Star Trek fans in here? Remember the red-shirted ensigns? Methinks everyone but Drizz't(Kirk), Jarlaxle(Q), and Entreri(Khan) should wear red shirts with a rank insignia of naval ensign.

That doesn't seem like good writing to me. More like bad comedy.

[NiGHTMARE]

I found the Drizzt books quite annoying, he is only supposed to be what? level 14 or 15 yet they make him sound absolutely unbeatable. I find that very cheesy. Despite what people say I enjoyed the avatar series . I am just generally not a very critical person.

Someone who considers level 14 or 15 to be low level doesn't really have the right to talk about things being cheesy .

[Diana]

Ive browsed the Baldurs Gate books in my local bookstore -- like everyone else has said -- save your money! The game itself and the mods are much, much better.

Edited by Diana, 22 December 2004 - 07:08 AM.

[Torack]

Someone who considers level 14 or 15 to be low level doesn't really have the right to talk about things being cheesy .

Y'see, part of me agrees and part of me doesn't agree with this statement.

The part that agrees has the following arguments:

Most campaign settings are geared towards low-level players(<10 levels) and the Forgotten Realms started out as that.

However, the part that doesn't agree wishes to add the following:

As time passes by IRL and the players see their characters gain abilities, the DM will be forced to toss more difficult monsters your way, until he basically runs out.

You also have to take in the consideration of the experience of the person in question. To my very limited knowledge, the people that visit computergame-boards, such as this, one, have their experience limited just by what the game shows and not so much the P&P version.
Considering that the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series allow your characters to easily reach level 20+, is experience-wise level 15/16 indeed not on the, supposed low side?

Similarly, this holds true for assigning stats to individuals one holds in great awe.

People are more likely to assign all 18's and 19's to the Fellowship of the Ring characters, Raistlin and other hero's due to these CRPG's, because it's easy to roll until you do get those maxed out stats.

Depending on what method you use in P&P stats will hardly if ever, cross the 15-mark. And then you are considered one really lucky motherf*cker. AFAIK the average cumulative ability scores hovers around 75-80 points. If you came to the game boards all happy and gay and stated you had rolled a character with a cumulative stat score of between 75-80, and that you possibly couldn't get any better stats, you'd be mocked.

Just a thought to peruse over. Don't mind me. I was ranting away.

Edited by Torack, 22 December 2004 - 08:47 AM.

[Stone Wolf]

Actually, the average stat total (assuming rolling 3D6x6 with no modifications) is only 63. The average (mean) roll for 3D6 is 10.5, so you just multiply that by 6 for 63. That makes characters with 75-80 stat points seem much more impressive.

[Ismail]

Well, using 4d6-drop-lowest method, I've rolled a char with following stats:

STR14 DEX16(14+2) CON18 INT19(17+2) WIS17 CHA12(14-2)

the modifiers are that of a tiefling.

Then again, I'm one lucky SOB when it comes to rolling char stats...

Edited by Ismail, 22 December 2004 - 09:30 AM.

[Userunfriendly]

the bg novels make "eye of aragorn" seem good...

at least you can laugh at eye...



i too was interested in all the really bad things said about them, so i shelled out 6 bucks, and read it...

i'll never get those 6 bucks back, ever...

but seriously, if i ever run out of toilet paper...

[Stone Wolf]

the bg novels make "eye of aragorn" seem good...

at least you can laugh at eye...



i too was interested in all the really bad things said about them, so i shelled out 6 bucks, and read it...

i'll never get those 6 bucks back, ever...

but seriously, if i ever run out of toilet paper...

You'll just end up with ink on your ass.

[Archmage Silver]

Heh heh. Those books are just not worth to be used as toilet paper Seriously, when I first read a sample chapter at Sorcerers Place I got nauseous. And that was the only time I read anything from those books.

[Userunfriendly]

You'll just end up with ink on your ass.

you're so right!!!

[Wiskas]

It wasn't that Salvatore took an average 15 lvl character called Drizzt and made him Power Munchkin™ immortal superhero. Salvatore created Drizzt as the best swordsman on the Sword Coast and some goblinhead from Wizards gave him only lvl 15.

[NiGHTMARE]

I think you mean TSR - Wizards of the Coast didn't even exist when the first Drizzt novel came along.

There no way anyone can be said to "only" be level 15 (and he's actually 16th level anyway). An exceptionally small number of canon characters in the Forgotten Realms are beyond even level 10... and the majority of those who do have higher levels are mages.

Also, it's quite possible for the best swordsman on the Sword Cost to "only" be level 16. In 2nd Edition, level 16 gives rangers 9 (if my calculations are correct) proficiency points to spend; so if Drizzt placed 2 in scimitar and 2 in dual-wielding (in addition to the "natural" dual-wielding bonus rangers have), he would be the best at dual-wielding scimitars that any ranger could possibly be... though his 13 STR would drag his fighting skills down a little.

Do remember, however, that 13 STR is still 1.33 times better than the typical human being... and that he has 20 DEX, which is twice as good as the typical human being!

Of course, a fighter can place 5 in any one weapon... so a 16th level fighter with 18/00 STR, 5 points in scimitar & 3 in dual-wielding, and a pair of scimitars similar in ability to Twinkle and Icingdeath would easily beat the crap out of Drizzt.

It would therefore seem more appropriate to say that someone from TSR decided that Drizzt should "only" be a ranger... but even that would be a load of crap because Salvatore deliberately chose for him to be a ranger rather than a fighter.

I'm afraid the truth is that R.A. Salvatore doesn't give a crap about his characters conforming with D&D rules, so TSR did the best job they could at fitting a character who broke the rules into the established system.

BTW have you ever noticed how Drizzt, despite being a ranger, never actually casts any spells? If it were me writting the 2nd Edition stats for Drizzt, I'd have given him some kind of ranger kit which is incapable of spellcasting but allows grand mastery in bladed weapons... but at the time his 2E write up was first published, kits had only just been introduced.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 26 December 2004 - 07:11 AM.