Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?

[Pex]

Spelljammer was radically different from normal 2e. Starfinder was radically different from Pathfinder. Most games get radically changed to accommodate a different playstyle or genre; hell, I probably have a few notebooks worth of homebrewed stuff lying within fifty feet of me right now.

Those are published games and irrelevant to my point. I don't care what published game you are playing, if you need to throw out a big chunk (how much a big chunk is is subjective but much greater than a few lines of house rules) of its rules to substitute your own then the truth is that game is not for you. Let whatever you wrote be the absolute best gaming rules ever. The original published game wasn't for you.

[Pex]

I mean, a buff to bring a party member up to competence is a wasted buff, usually. You probably wanna buff someone who already does something useful to make them more useful than blowing all your spells making the barbarian less bad.

Too bad Gleemax is gone. I'd love to bring up the old thread of a fighter going from levels 1 to 20 single handed defeating a gauntlet of monsters which started because people said a fighter wasn't worth spending a buff spell on. The success of the fighter proved them wrong. The fighter didn't even have to win its fights. It would have been enough to show the fighter put up the good fight, and maybe if he only had a buff spell or two he would have won. However, the fighter was winning its fights superbly. Not 100% victory but close.

For the fun of it I personally ran a crusader through the gauntlet to level 12 I think. Lost only one fight and one draw, but OMG was it a slugfest. Almost all the monsters had fast healing and with the crusader healing himself all combats lasted at least 8 rounds. You were allowed to purchase magic items appropriate for your level as expected in a normal campaign. A few combats were so long the duration of potions wore out. The draw happened because I didn't feel like continuing the fight after Round 15. One thing though, I proved the crusader is an expert on being a durable tank.

[gooddragon1]

I mean, if you de-power everything so that a fighter or barbarian can actually injure it, then yeah, that makes them viable. No duh. If you de-power everything so that the commoner can kill it, then the commoner will kill it, but the wizard (or indeed the barbarian, fighter, or truenamer) will kill it faster and better. The very fact that you have to modify challenges so that the barbarian stands a chance against them is entirely the point.

Not really, you just have to build him well (have appropriate magic items) and have well played support:

Orc Barbarian
18 strength +4 racial +5 levels +5 book inherent +6 belt +8 rage = 46 Strength = +18 to hit
+5 Greatsword of Speed (and +2 of other stuff)
+1 weapon focus
+5 base attack bonus
=+29 to hit

Against an AC of 40 that's hitting 50% of the time with his last iterative attack before any buffs. +2 from flanking +2 from heroism +1 from bless = +34 to hit which means he hits 75% of the time with his last attack and only misses on a 1 thereafter with low level in core buffs.

Damage is 2d6+27 STR +5 Enhancement = 34 damage on a minimum roll. Against DR 15 that's 19 damage * 6 = 114 damage. Out of 225 average hit points for the pit fiend that's roughly half. 114 * 2 = 228. With just core stuff. He'll be fine.

Though you have brought up an interesting point about catering to players. It seems like you want the system to make more character build options viable rather than having to do practical optimization to get to the appropriate numbers. I would just personally rather let homebrew and house rules do that than learn a new system. Still, very good point about not catering to players by softballing them. I've got to learn not to do that.

Edit: 6 attacks from whirling frenzy which is in the srd, but it is not core. Still, it's free ogl material.

[death390]

buffing your allies IS a viable BEFORE COMBAT strategy. just as soon as combat starts it is no longer a good use of your turn unless that is WHAT YOU DO. as i said bard actually is designed around being a buffer. but look at buff spells

early game Buffs (the location of 90% of all non-personal buffs)
magic weapon (greater [early-mid-game]) - +1 (up to +5 gmw) to the weapon. so +1 to hit/damage.
Enlarge -1 to-hit/AC, increase damage by 1 size (d6-d8-d10) average +1 damage
mage armor +4 AC
expeditious retreat: move speed get melee to target if within 30ft more than normal move speed
protection from arrows dr/10 vs arrows
see invisibility: great but situational
blur 20% miss chance
+4 stat buffs
displacement 50% miss chance but rnd/lvl
blink: better discplacement, temp flight, concealment vs targetted spells but 1rnd/lvl
haste- +1 attack on full round attack. drawback 1rnd/lvl very good at low levels.
GMW
Keen edge: double crit threat range (doesn't stack with imp. crit or keen)
Water breathing: extremely situational
Fly: THE buff for melee fighters against other fliers.

early game CC
Grease: large area reflex or prone
Summon monster: extra action, blocker, special traits (grappler/tripper/ect)
charm person: get a monster to run away. mind-affecting though
hypnotism/sleep: keeps multiple creatures from doing anything for awhile as long as not targeted mind-affected though.
color spray: destructive at low levels, 1 round daze at higher levels on multiple targets.
cause Fear: cause low lvl creature to flee (useless higher lvls)
ray of enfeeblement: -d6+1/2lvls Str damage 1 target, means that they might not be able to use their
weapon, up to -3 damage and -7 to hit @ lvl 1 takes out target as threat
summon monster2/swarm: same as summon monster, but SM2 can get d3 lvl1 bodyblockers & d3 more actions or 1 bigger one.
web: nasty entangle, even partial entangle on failed save. synergy with fire for damage.
glitterdust: 10ft radius blind (50% miss chance, 1/2 move speed, and more) AND shows invisible targets. better than see invisible most cases.
daze monster: removed from combat for 1rnd.
hideous laughter: lose all actions and prone rnd/lvl mind-affecting
touch of idiocy: negates casters higher level spells or all casting if reduced to less than 10 stat.
darkness: aoe miss chance affecting those in it
blinded/deafend: like glitterdust or 20% spell failure
ghoul touch: paralyzed 3-8rnds and is helpless (coup-de-grace?)
scare: 1 creature/3lvls <6HD become frightened. and try to run away.

now the CC list is only lvls 1& 2, while buffs are 1-3.
just looking at these i already say that the buffs lose out except in certain conditions. if fighting at sea where drowning is a problem water breathing is better for the warrior than a CC. against a flying enemy use hideous laughter or web ect to drop it to the ground or just summon something to dog-fight it in the air instead of giving the fighter fly.

why use blur/displacement when causing blind works just as well.

why give +4 to str/con/ect when making the enemy flee reduces the number of combatants. or they are facinated/dazed and not fighting back.

why use mage armor when fighting 1 creature when ray of enfeeblement reduces its to-hit by at least 2 against all targets AND damage by 1 minimum.

undead immune to mind-affecting use grease/web instead of enlarge. an entangled target is -2 AC and better than magic weapon

Haste, Haste is the only buff worth giving during combat and only when CC would be less useful, which is rarely. this is only early game it get worse the higher you go. which would you rather the caster use mass enlarge person or lesser geas; polymorph or black tentacles; after lvl 4 buff spells eventually dissapear for the most part but CC becomes more and MORE prevalent.

i repeat my statement buffing allies before combat is a viable strategy especially mid/late game with the lower level slots you arn't using as much. but in combat it is ALMOST NEVER worth it to buff an ally instead of using CC. the only problems are when the CC is resisted and even when they do they are sill fairly often debuffed like with web.

[atemu1234]

Those are published games and irrelevant to my point. I don't care what published game you are playing, if you need to throw out a big chunk (how much a big chunk is is subjective but much greater than a few lines of house rules) of its rules to substitute your own then the truth is that game is not for you. Let whatever you wrote be the absolute best gaming rules ever. The original published game wasn't for you.

My point is that they are based around the same ruleset - and that they were changed to accommodate a different idea of the game. Wanting to add to a game - or change a game you know already for a new environment - it's a labor of love.

Hell, there's a homebrew forum on this site, as well. If you have a problem with altering the game, go complain on that one. See how well it's received.

[Bohandas]

Another reason why I didn't switch to 5e is that I don't like Forgotten Realms

[Scots Dragon]

Another reason why I didn't switch to 5e is that I don't like Forgotten Realms

I suppose that would have made 4e into the perfect edition for you, though.

[Luccan]

Another reason why I didn't switch to 5e is that I don't like Forgotten Realms

I don't usually care for it either outside NWN, Baldur's Gate, or IceWind Dale, but that's really only a problem if you insist on using the published adventures (and even then, I'm sure you could file the Faerun off). I'd say at least 90% of the actual mechanics can be used without ever actually saying "Elminster".

[Knaight]

When people say that they want high-level characters to wipe the floor with mooks, they probably want a liiiiitle bit more than that the absolute best and strongest character in the game can beat the very weakest and easiest monster in the manual

High level characters can wipe the floor with mooks. It's toned down from D&D 3.5, but at a conservative estimate warrior classes get about 100 times as strong across 20 levels, while casters are yet above that.

I'm talking about the whole game. 3.5 with just Core is barely worth playing except for caster lulz, and definitely not worth learning. Same with all other D&D editions, really, except what exactly is the Core Lulz varies. Just first party 3.5 alone is like 80-odd books for the more involved ones not to mention all the nitty-gritty campaign world ones. That's gonna run you over a thousand euros.

So am I. 80-odd books is a clear outlier. Most systems have one core book and nothing else, and the ones that are good with expansion books are almost always still good without expansion books. Others have books where you're explicitly expected not to use all of them at once; if you really like GURPS you can get a bunch of books for it, but very few campaigns are likely to use more than five.

[Eldariel]

High level characters can wipe the floor with mooks. It's toned down from D&D 3.5, but at a conservative estimate warrior classes get about 100 times as strong across 20 levels, while casters are yet above that.


So am I. 80-odd books is a clear outlier. Most systems have one core book and nothing else, and the ones that are good with expansion books are almost always still good without expansion books. Others have books where you're explicitly expected not to use all of them at once; if you really like GURPS you can get a bunch of books for it, but very few campaigns are likely to use more than five.

Sure, fair. The price and scope criticism was specifically levied at DnD editions and PF though. They tend to bloat.

[Florian]

I mean, a buff to bring a party member up to competence is a wasted buff, usually. You probably wanna buff someone who already does something useful to make them more useful than blowing all your spells making the barbarian less bad.

That's pretty much of a non-argument. D20 is still build around some very simple core concepts, with the best supported part being the simple Combat as Sports dungeon crawl. Sure, other styles of gaming, or switching over to Combat as War, are possible with the rules, but they are not really supported, like at all, and carry that big fat sticker "do not put pressure on this!" at a lot of parts.

But people keep putting pressure on it, it always breaks, then they complain. No wonder 4E and 5E turned out that way.

(Edit: Tip for DBD, check L5R 4th, especially the elemental book series. The authors flat out state that it´s not possible to make "fantastic magic" that can't be abused by clever players. There's a pretty good section on what is RAI and how to handle it when RAW doesn't match. That's the kind of foresight D&D did not have, see your constant arguing of the "exact english phrasing" of some stuff...)

[death390]

High level characters can wipe the floor with mooks. It's toned down from D&D 3.5, but at a conservative estimate warrior classes get about 100 times as strong across 20 levels, while casters are yet above that.


So am I. 80-odd books is a clear outlier. Most systems have one core book and nothing else, and the ones that are good with expansion books are almost always still good without expansion books. Others have books where you're explicitly expected not to use all of them at once; if you really like GURPS you can get a bunch of books for it, but very few campaigns are likely to use more than five.

lol only 80 books? look at palladium books games series. ALL of them are cross-compatable with the base Rifts series.
rifts
teenage mutant ninja turtles
nightbane/spawn
robotech (as the anime)
heroes unlimited
ninjas & superspies
dead reign (zombies!!)
and more

they have a dragon magazine like series that are small books with misc stuff for all their series. but the books are full of material not a bunch of ask the editor/ faq/ comics/ ect.

[Kurald Galain]

I mean, a buff to bring a party member up to competence is a wasted buff, usually. You probably wanna buff someone who already does something useful to make them more useful than blowing all your spells making the barbarian less bad.

Lol, who's talking about blowing all your spells?

buffing your allies IS a viable BEFORE COMBAT strategy.

Great. Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Look at the sheer duration on a low-level Heroism spell, and you really have no excuse as a high-level character not to cast a bunch of those on your frontliners.

High level characters can wipe the floor with mooks. It's toned down from D&D 3.5, but at a conservative estimate warrior classes get about 100 times as strong across 20 levels, while casters are yet above that.

I think I mentioned this already, when people say that they want high-level characters to wipe the floor with mooks, they probably want a liiiiitle bit more than that the absolute best and strongest character in the game can beat the very weakest and easiest monster in the manual

[Cosi]

Lol, who's talking about blowing all your spells?

Okay, exactly how many spells are you talking about blowing? How much should a Wizard have to do to bring his party's Barbarian up to basic competence?

Of course, we should also note that even if that answer is "very little", the Barbarian is still underpowered. If the Wizard has enough power to contribute and bring someone else up to competence, and the Barbarian doesn't even meet that basic competence standard on his own, playing a Barbarian is clearly a drain on the resources of the rest of the party.

[Mordaedil]

On that note, greater magic weapon is amazing if your DM is stingy on magic item. Energy weapon also means you can basically ignore any need for buying magical equipment entirely.

[Kurald Galain]

Okay, exactly how many spells are you talking about blowing? How much should a Wizard have to do to bring his party's Barbarian up to basic competence?

Depends. Are you still talking about whether a level-20 barbarian can solo the toughest enemy for that level? Because nobody really cares about that. Or are you pointing out that higher-tier characters are stronger than lower-tier characters? Because I'm pretty sure everybody knows that already.

[Mordaedil]

Oh yeah, I was also just reading the Monster Manual last night. Was the old red dragon what was used as the baseline? It's a CR20 monster sure, but it's actually kind of on the weaker end for CR20 monsters. The black wyrm is also CR20, but has 39 AC and DR 20/magic. It would be a tad tougher for the example barbarian to hit, but again, using a baseline barbarian, isn't meant to be able to solo a dragon with many hit dies higher.

[Florian]

Oh yeah, I was also just reading the Monster Manual last night. Was the old red dragon what was used as the baseline? It's a CR20 monster sure, but it's actually kind of on the weaker end for CR20 monsters. The black wyrm is also CR20, but has 39 AC and DR 20/magic. It would be a tad tougher for the example barbarian to hit, but again, using a baseline barbarian, isn't meant to be able to solo a dragon with many hit dies higher.

Dragons were designed to be way above their CR because WotC thought they'd make good "boss monsters".

OTOH, characters are expected to actually follow the WBL table and work in a group of 3-5, so ....

[Jormengand]

The solo comparison is because the barbarian, ultimately, shouldn't be reliant on others to do its job because it's a fighting class, not a support class. Pitting a 20th-level truenamer or bard against the pit fiend, balor, dragon or whatever might be an unfair comparison (though I don't suppose the bard would lose if played well and the truenamer can just call another CR more-than-20 creature to mess the enemy up at that level) because it's implied that the bard and truenamer need other party members because of the kind of abilities they have (inspire competence and caster lens, for example, aren't the most useful for the bard or truenamer themselves) but the barbarian's abilities aren't support abilities, they're mash-the-monster-in-the-face abilities. Bard contributes (or should contribute) its quarter of the work by increasing the other three party members' abilities above the baseline competence of "50% chance to solo EL=ECL encounters; contributes fair share of work towards 50% chance to defeat EL=APL+4 encounters; etc." But the barbarian should already be at that level without the bard having to help.

[Kurald Galain]

The solo comparison is because the barbarian, ultimately, shouldn't be reliant on others to do its job because it's a fighting class, not a support class. Pitting a 20th-level truenamer or bard against the pit fiend, balor, dragon or whatever might be an unfair comparison (though I don't suppose the bard would lose if played well and the truenamer can just call another CR more-than-20 creature to mess the enemy up at that level) because it's implied that the bard and truenamer need other party members because of the kind of abilities they have (inspire competence and caster lens, for example, aren't the most useful for the bard or truenamer themselves) but the barbarian's abilities aren't support abilities, they're mash-the-monster-in-the-face abilities. Bard contributes (or should contribute) its quarter of the work by increasing the other three party members' abilities above the baseline competence of "50% chance to solo EL=ECL encounters; contributes fair share of work towards 50% chance to defeat EL=APL+4 encounters; etc." But the barbarian should already be at that level without the bard having to help.

What you're saying is simply that higher-tier classes are stronger than lower-tier classes. While clearly true, it has little to do with the discussion in this thread, and I suspect all people posting here already know it anyway.

[Jormengand]

What you're saying is simply that higher-tier classes are stronger than lower-tier classes. While clearly true, it has little to do with the discussion in this thread, and I suspect all people posting here already know it anyway.

No, what I'm saying is:

"The solo comparison is because the barbarian, ultimately, shouldn't be reliant on others to do its job because it's a fighting class, not a support class. Pitting a 20th-level truenamer or bard against the pit fiend, balor, dragon or whatever might be an unfair comparison (though I don't suppose the bard would lose if played well and the truenamer can just call another CR more-than-20 creature to mess the enemy up at that level) because it's implied that the bard and truenamer need other party members because of the kind of abilities they have (inspire competence and caster lens, for example, aren't the most useful for the bard or truenamer themselves) but the barbarian's abilities aren't support abilities, they're mash-the-monster-in-the-face abilities. Bard contributes (or should contribute) its quarter of the work by increasing the other three party members' abilities above the baseline competence of "50% chance to solo EL=ECL encounters; contributes fair share of work towards 50% chance to defeat EL=APL+4 encounters; etc." But the barbarian should already be at that level without the bard having to help."

Essentially, I'm giving the reason why the barbarian is being compared on its ability to fight monsters: because fight monsters is all it does.

[Kurald Galain]

Essentially, I'm giving the reason why the barbarian is being compared on its ability to fight monsters: because fight monsters is all it does.

Right. And this has what, exactly, to do with people switching (or not switching) to 4E/5E?

[Quertus]

I lost some quotes when my phone rebooted, but I want to agree with the notion that 4e and 5e have not offered anything to offset the sunk cost of buying shelves of 3e books.

Likewise, the solo numbers are still not relevant considering this is a team game. "No magic items" doesn't mean "no teammates". Add in a couple of common buffs and account for flanking, and we'll talk.

A barbarian at a real table with competent players should have not just the standard +2 flanking bonus. He and his rogue buddy should have taken extra flanking feats to boost that higher, the casters should have given them buff spells, be removing walls that prevent flanking, and sending minions to give them Aid Another bonuses to hit.

Come on, the simulation argument is meaningless. A game world is only there to give context to a group game and doesn't exist on its own. Not even the most hard-core sandbox gm would do that.

The problem with d20 is not items per se. It was not the worst move to anticipate items and just accept that a class should be 2/3 and items 1/3 of performance, ie. having 20 BAB and needing 10 more from items and accepting that. It just broke down when the system started to have "x2" instead of the intended "+2" items....

I think I'm living (or undead) evidence that this statement is false.

A good DM takes into account the abilities of the characters when creating encounters. It doesn't have to be AC 40 (pit fiend) just because the monster manual says so. Ditto with damage reduction (skeletons and zombies).

No. This is the exact opposite of good DMing. If all of the challenges are tailored to be just hard enough to be challenging but beatable, then nothing is real. If a Pit Fiend is always going to be boss monster tough, you can't become stronger than a Pit Fiend, because it is no longer a fixed point. If the DM changes monsters so that they're beatable when the rules say they shouldn't be, he is robbing the PCs of their ability to achieve things.

A good GM creates the world independent of the players or their characters, and runs it honest. Custom Tailoring encounters is, like railroading, just removing player agency, and not the sign of a good GM. /opinion(?)

I find it very odd how many players here just don't consider buffing their teammates a viable option. I'm sure it's possible to play in the highly selfish style of "everyone for himself!" but it's going to be both more effective and more fun if you cooperate with your party instead of ignoring them.

Cooperation is good for both fun and efficiency. I'm more and more going to argue that the health of the game needs the Fighter to need to spend his XP teaching combat tricks to the party, spend his combat actions buffing the party (morale boosts to hit, HP, saves, whatever), to teach people how to play a team game.

buffing your allies IS a viable BEFORE COMBAT strategy. just as soon as combat starts it is no longer a good use of your turn unless that is WHAT YOU DO. as i said bard actually is designed around being a buffer. but look at buff spells

Weakening Persist Spell metamagic (and removing it from core) was a huge debuff for fighters. This helps illustrate why.

[Florian]

I think I'm living (or undead) evidence that this statement is false.

Don´t kid yourself. The most one manages is to track how some plots evolve and that's it, to show that action and also non-action can have consequences.

[Jormengand]

Right. And this has what, exactly, to do with people switching (or not switching) to 4E/5E?

I dunno. You were the one who complained that the comparison was an unfair one because D&D is a team game in the first place. I'm just saying that that claim is false, not trying to make your statement relevant for you. But if I had to guess, I imagine it's to do with the fact that for all 4E's faults, at least people can actually contribute if they want to play a whack-thing-in-face character without having to scream for a buff.

[Quertus]

Don´t kid yourself. The most one manages is to track how some plots evolve and that's it, to show that action and also non-action can have consequences.

The reason I put the weasel words "I think" in front of my statement, instead of just stating it as fact, was because I was uncertain if I understood your position correctly. I am now convinced that I do not understand your position on the topic.

My first campaign world had a life of its own for about a decade before players set foot in it. And continues to have a life of its own, around a decade after the last time it saw play. It does not exist solely as a backdrop for a game (although it may theoretically serve that purpose again some day).

[Florian]

The reason I put the weasel words "I think" in front of my statement, instead of just stating it as fact, was because I was uncertain if I understood your position correctly. I am now convinced that I do not understand your position on the topic.

My first campaign world had a life of its own for about a decade before players set foot in it. And continues to have a life of its own, around a decade after the last time it saw play. It does not exist solely as a backdrop for a game (although it may theoretically serve that purpose again some day).

My point was that we play a game. Nothing beyond the participants of that game exist, therefore cannot be important. "Why did Elminster not already solve that?" can only have one answer: "Is someone playing Elminster?". That might break verisimilitude, but is simply the truth of the matter.

[noob]

My point was that we play a game. Nothing beyond the participants of that game exist, therefore cannot be important. "Why did Elminster not already solve that?" can only have one answer: "Is someone playing Elminster?". That might break verisimilitude, but is simply the truth of the matter.

The answer is that elmister is a pc and so the gm would not let him turn the setting in a typpyverse?(because if there is any versimilitude any high level wizard would turn the setting in a typpyverse)

[Eldariel]

My point was that we play a game. Nothing beyond the participants of that game exist, therefore cannot be important. "Why did Elminster not already solve that?" can only have one answer: "Is someone playing Elminster?". That might break verisimilitude, but is simply the truth of the matter.

Breaking verisimilitude however kinda destroys the whole point of playing RPGs for some players though, me for instance. I feel the game just becomes a shadow of itself if the freedom and the sandboxiness are lost. In my opinion, if Elminster exists, there needs to be a believable reason for why he hasn't done any given thing, though I as the player or the character need not know it. The DM should or at least should be ready to come up with something vaguely workable and roll with it, for when it inevitably comes up in one of those divination marathons when you spend the whole session playing 20 questions with the DM though. It's worth noting that FR is full of epic level movers so just because someone is immensely powerful doesn't mean someone equally powerful isn't checking their moves though. It's not possible for any hero, no matter how epic, to single-handedly solve everything due to the sheer power level of the settings.

Outside tabletop there are plenty of things that offer the sporty combat after all. There are wargames, there are various computer-based games like action "RPGs", tactical "RPGs", etc. All of those lack some aspects you can only find in tabletop and verisimilitude and practically complete freedom of action thanks to a human adjudicator for whatever weird, crazy stuff you want for your character to try are certainly big ones in my books. Similarly, "level gating" (tailoring encounter challenge ratings directly to the party) also tramples all over actually thinking your way out of being in way over your head, dying a horrible death because you did something very stupid, stomping all over weaklings higher up, etc.

[Scots Dragon]

In my opinion, if Elminster exists, there needs to be a believable reason for why he hasn't done any given thing,

From the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, D&D 3.0E;

The Concerns of the Mighty
There comes a time when every student and many a passing merchant, farmer, and king, too, demands the same answer of me: Why, O meddler and mighty mage, do ye not set the crooked straight? Why not strike directly against the evils that threaten Faerûn? Why do not all mighty folk of good heart not simply make everything right?

I've heard that cry so many times. Now hearken, once and for all, to my answers as to why the great and powerful don't fix Toril entire every day.

First, it is not at all certain that those of us with the power or the inclination can even accomplish a tenth of the deed asked of us. The forces arrayed against us are dark and strong indeed. I might surprise Manshoon or old Szass Tam and burn him from the face of Toril — or he might do the same to me. It's a rash and short-lived hero who presses for battle when victory is not assured.

Second, the wise amongst us know that even gods can't foresee all the consequences of their actions — and all of us have seen far too many instances of good things turning ut to cause something very bad, or unwanted. We've learned that meddling often does far more harm than good.

Third: Few folk can agree on what is right, what should be done, and what the best end result would be. When ye consider a mighty stroke, be assured that every move is apt to be countered by someone who doesn't like the intended result, is determined to stop it, and is quite prepared to lay wasste to you, your kingdom, and anything else necessary to confound you.

Point the fourth: Big changes can seldom be effected by small actions. How much work does it take just to build one house? Rearrange one room? How many simple actions, then, will it take to destroy one kingdom and arise another — with name, ruler, and societal order of your choice — in its place?

Finally: D'ye think we 'mighty ones' are blind? Do we not watch each other, and guess at what each is doing, and reach out and do some little thing that hampers the aims of another great and mighty? We'll never be free of this problem, and that's a good thing. I would cower at the thought of living in any Faerûn where all the mighty and powerful folk agreed perfectly on everything. That's the way of slavery and shackles and armed tyranny... and if ye'd like to win a bet, wager that ye'll be near the bottom of any such order.

Right. Any more silly questions?

— Elminster of Shadowdale