Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DMD 02-04-08, 10:14 AM	I just read this article from Dragon #362. I cannot believe they destroyed Halruaa and the Shaar! However, interesting the changes appear to be and some of them are, I don't think overall I would prefer these changes in 4E to what I have now in 3.5.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-04-08, 12:19 PM	I just read this article from Dragon #362. I cannot believe they destroyed Halruaa and the Shaar! Welcome to the club. :-/
18DELTA 02-04-08, 02:28 PM	-At least we get 'spellscars' now.:P :D :rolleyes: 18DELTA:P
DMD 02-04-08, 03:17 PM	Any other Eberron concepts we get in the Realms? I can't keep track of them all... ;) I like the Eberron setting, sometimes I even use things from it (like Warforged) but if I wanted to run an Eberron campaign I would. I don't like it being forced upon the FRCS setting in the manner in which it seems to be happening. The spellplague gives me the same feel as the result of the explosion which ended the Last War in Eberron which created the Mournland. Except in the case of the Realms it seems less original as it was already done in Eberron. I mean everyone reading that article had to be thinking of the mournlands when they read about these spellplague afflicted lands am I right? Don't get me wrong, some of the new concepts I have read about for the Realms are interesting, however, I think some of the changes simply do not make sense. Why does Halruaa explode while Shade does not? If anything I would think the spellplague would effect Mythals and Mythallars first before randomly obliterating Halruaa. I honestly believe they did not need to make these drastic changes simply to change the Realms over to 4E rules. If anything the explanation for these cataclysmic changes are more implausible than a simple rules change with no explanation would have been. Even if they wanted to give explanations for the rules changes, I think the changes to magic for example could have been as simple as Mystra is slain and a new god/goddess takes the portfolio and as a result access to magic changes. Personally I prefer the Neutral over the Good goddess of magic anyway. However, in the end I suppose this really is no different than the changes that resulted in the shift from 1st to 2nd edition. (Because Baal dies all characters that are assassins die, that I am sure annoyed a lot of players :rolleyes: ) I just have more invested in 3.5 now than I had in 1st edition back then. Hopefully the novels Wizards will release will continue to be interesting. :)
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-04-08, 07:26 PM	I honestly believe they did not need to make these drastic changes simply to change the Realms over to 4E rules. If anything the explanation for these cataclysmic changes are more implausible than a simple rules change with no explanation would have been. Even if they wanted to give explanations for the rules changes, I think the changes to magic for example could have been as simple as Mystra is slain and a new god/goddess takes the portfolio and as a result access to magic changes. Personally I prefer the Neutral over the Good goddess of magic anyway. Based on all I have read from the developers themselves, it's pretty clear that many of these changes weren't done simply to explain the new rules, they were also done to fix perceived problems with the setting (such as Mystra and her Chosen "dominating" the setting and/or overshadowing the PCs).
18DELTA 02-04-08, 11:42 PM	-I think the 'Spellscars' are WotC's way of getting the 'Dragonmarks' right for 4E. If you know what I mean. :rolleyes: 18DELTA;)
DMD 02-05-08, 03:53 PM	Rinonalyrna if you are right (and you probably are) that is an even worse reason for the changes. If a DM allows an NPC to overshadow the players, it is the DM's fault not the setting's. Stars are popular whether in fantsy or real life, they generate interest. Killing them off arbitrarily (even if it only seems arbitrary to us) is a bad idea.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-05-08, 04:04 PM	Rinonalyrna if you are right (and you probably are) that is an even worse reason for the changes. If a DM allows an NPC to overshadow the players, it is the DM's fault not the setting's. Totally agreed--that's what many of us have been arguing for a long time.:) Stars are popular whether in fantsy or real life, they generate interest. Killing them off arbitrarily (even if it only seems arbitrary to us) is a bad idea. I agree with that too--some NPCs are bound to stand out and become thought of as "iconic", whether they are epic level or not.
Lord Karsus 02-06-08, 01:41 AM	If a DM allows an NPC to overshadow the players, it is the DM's fault not the setting's. -Try telling that to some people, I'm telling you...
Dark Wizard 02-06-08, 01:52 AM	-I think the 'Spellscars' are WotC's way of getting the 'Dragonmarks' right for 4E. If you know what I mean. :rolleyes: 18DELTA;) Or WotC just giving them to FR since the idea seems to work for Eberron and part of what makes Eberron 'cool.' I figured of all things, Realms denizens would actually just develop a tradition of skin-rune magic.
Lord Karsus 02-06-08, 02:13 AM	I figured of all things, Realms denizens would actually just develop a tradition of skin-rune magic. -There are at least two different traditions Faerūnian residents have related to this: the 'Hidecarved' tradition, as evidenced by Book II of the Year of the Rogue Dragons trilogy, and the Runescarred Berserker tradition of Rasheman.
Flicker 02-06-08, 08:30 AM	-There are at least two different traditions Faerūnian residents have related to this: the 'Hidecarved' tradition, as evidenced by Book II of the Year of the Rogue Dragons trilogy, and the Runescarred Berserker tradition of Rasheman. you could include the Red Wizard tattoo magic as well.
Lord Karsus 02-06-08, 12:19 PM	you could include the Red Wizard tattoo magic as well. -Them and Dwarven/Giant runes as well.
MarkusTay63 02-10-08, 12:00 AM	Yup - lots of ways to have incorporated those rules into FR without all this silly 'Spellplague' talk. :rolleyes: Personally, I left Dragonmarks pretty much the way they were, but had them as 'magical tattoos' used by Halruaan guilds. They were there, but well hidden, where my players would most likely never run into them... unless I needed them for a plothook. ;) Of course, they've gone and nuked Halruaa, so I suppose I'll have to find some other appropriate out-of-the-way spot to stick them (I'm just not down with the whole 'spellscarring' thing - I prefer it to be choice).
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-10-08, 05:58 PM	Yup - lots of ways to have incorporated those rules into FR without all this silly 'Spellplague' talk. :rolleyes: Yes, and in fact that applies to other stuff too. You want Tymanther in the Realms? Just put in on one of the unused swaths of land.
Lord Karsus 02-10-08, 06:05 PM	Yes, and in fact that applies to other stuff too. You want Tymanther in the Realms? Just put in on one of the unused swaths of land. [:rolleyes:]-What unused swaths of land? What ever do you mean? All of the Realms has been detailed to the smallest grain of sand, the smallest clump of dirt, leaving no stone unturned. There are no unused swths of land...[/:rolleyes:]
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-10-08, 06:07 PM	[:rolleyes:]-What unused swaths of land? What ever do you mean? All of the Realms has been detailed to the smallest grain of sand, the smallest clump of dirt, leaving no stone unturned. There are no unused swths of land...[/:rolleyes:] Oh yeah, I forgot, all of the Realms has been detailed to the point where there is absolutely nothing anyone can do with it anymore.:rolleyes:
Lord Karsus 02-10-08, 08:05 PM	Oh yeah, I forgot, all of the Realms has been detailed to the point where there is absolutely nothing anyone can do with it anymore.:rolleyes: -If only...If only...
MarkusTay63 02-11-08, 12:39 AM	Yeah, I guess Tymanther wouldn't fit on those three immensly large islands we have, or on the continents of Osse or Katashake. Or even Anchorome... Nope, it had to be plopped right down in the very middle of the Realms, because they just couldn't figure out where else to put it. :bored:
Lord Karsus 02-11-08, 12:47 AM	Or even Anchorome... -Especially when, supposedly, Anchorome is going to be detailed (Wait, I thought everything was already detailed?), and Maztica is, well, you know, gone, and replaced with something new.
admcewen 02-11-08, 07:15 AM	[QUOTE=DMD;15007704]Any other Eberron concepts we get in the Realms? I can't keep track of them all... ;) To be honest if anything in the Realms felt like Eberron it would have been Halruaa, maybe thats why they got rid of it...
Alediran 02-11-08, 08:11 AM	To be honest if anything in the Realms felt like Eberron it would have been Halruaa, maybe thats why they got rid of it... You got it bakcwards. Eberron felt like Halruaa.
admcewen 02-11-08, 08:34 AM	You got it bakcwards. Eberron felt like Halruaa. Errrr, nop not really. I love both the Realms and Eberron and to assume Keith copied Halruaa and made a campaign setting from it is crazy their is more to Eberron than magi tech (something I feel does not fit in to the Realms anyway) and one of the great things about Eberron that makes it so good is that Keith Baker has taken all the stereotypical archetypes of traditional fantasy and thrown them in the bin. Now while I like trad-fantasy hence my love of the Realms, Eberron brought something new and fresh to D&D and I feel that Halruaa ended up feeling to similer from a magi-tech point of view only. By the way it just occured to me that you might have meant that jockingly if so I apologise.
Alediran 02-11-08, 08:39 AM	Except that Halruaa exists in the FR since 1st edition and was always like that. Creativity is not creating new themes, but creating a new way of viewing old themes.
admcewen 02-11-08, 08:56 AM	Except that Halruaa exists in the FR since 1st edition and was always like that. Creativity is not creating new themes, but creating a new way of viewing old themes. Not sure about it being in 1st Ed (where?), but do own 2nd & 3rd Ed versions, and yes it hasn't changed much but again to assume that Eberron has copied a single country in the Realms and that they are the same is foolish (I only said felt like). I agree that nowadays origanal ideas are few but Eberron was intended to be different from most tradtional fantasy settings (certainly from WOTC) and I see the removal of Halruaa as a way of seperating the lines more. As I said earlier I never did feel that Halruaa fitted well into the Realms (I liked the idea) and so never used it much but when Eberron came out it became more obvious to me as to why it didn't feel right for the Realms, because Eberron was such a differant setting and Halruaa seemed more in key (magi-tech) with that setting than the Realms.
Alediran 02-11-08, 10:06 AM	For me Halruaa fits perfectly because they are the result of their history.
DMD 02-11-08, 12:56 PM	Yes I felt Halruaa fit in perfectly as well when considering its history. Interesting point that Halruaa was removed to differentiate the Realms from Halruaa however as so many other new additions seem to be so similar to Eberron I find that explanation unlikely. If anything I would think that in the future it would have been more interesting for Cormyr and the Vilhon Reach to be laid to waste as Shade Enclave and Halruaa battle for supremecy across the continent. Think about it Netheril's descendants (Halruaa) versus Netheril's Returning Archwizards the (Shades). I never understood why that was not played up more by WOTC. I was planning on doing an adventure based on that one day, but I have so decades left on this planet. :weep:
admcewen 02-11-08, 01:52 PM	[QUOTE=DMD;15064221]Yes I felt Halruaa fit in perfectly as well when considering its history. Interesting point that Halruaa was removed to differentiate the Realms from Halruaa however as so many other new additions seem to be so similar to Eberron I find that explanation unlikely. Which ones...?
Lord Karsus 02-12-08, 01:46 AM	Which ones...? -I don't know much about Eberron, but, to the 'uninitiated', Spellplague Marked, or whatever it's called, it very similar to Eberron's Dragon Marked. The Realms' Plaguelands seem very similar to Eberron's Mournland. The sudden reemergence of 'Blood Forge Golems' recently, after near obscurity for so long, sounds like a hook to include Warforged. While all this might not be exactly true, WotC has told us that the truth does not actually matter much, but perceptions on things do.
admcewen 02-12-08, 01:43 PM	-I don't know much about Eberron, but, to the 'uninitiated', Spellplague Marked, or whatever it's called, it very similar to Eberron's Dragon Marked. The Realms' Plaguelands seem very similar to Eberron's Mournland. The sudden reemergence of 'Blood Forge Golems' recently, after near obscurity for so long, sounds like a hook to include Warforged. While all this might not be exactly true, WotC has told us that the truth does not actually matter much, but perceptions on things do. Good point I accept that being uninitiated to Eberron will not help, luckily I'm a fan of both so I'll explain...no its too complicated I'll sum up. Ok here we go, you'll have to trust me on this bearing in mind I'm a fan of both the Realms and Eberron, the only real similarity between Plaguelands (as we know so far) and the Mournland is simply that, they occupy areas of land thats really it from a fluff point of view. Right spellscarred, ok the similarity (again bearing in mind we know very little about them) between them and Dragonmarks is they appear on the body (both for completely different reasons) and they glow blue when used, thats it. Now the "blood forge golems" I have heard nothing about this but I am genuinely interested is their a link I could use? If you wish me to I could explain the differences in detail but I will need some time to get them down.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-12-08, 06:24 PM	Errrr, nop not really. I love both the Realms and Eberron and to assume Keith copied Halruaa and made a campaign setting from it is crazy... :uh-huh: Uh, it's even CRAZIER to assume that Halruaa is a copy of Eberron, since it's been around for decades...it's existed before Eberron was a gleam in Keith Baker's eye (and I don't know how old Keith is, but it's possible Haluraa was around even before he was born).
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-12-08, 06:27 PM	I see the removal of Halruaa as a way of seperating the lines more. Do you have proof that that's why Halruaa was deleted? I'm not buying that theory until I see proof. And even if it's true, it was stupid, because adding mechanics for something similar to dragonmarks (the "spellscars") isn't exactly "seperating the lines" between the two settings.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-12-08, 06:30 PM	Right spellscarred, ok the similarity (again bearing in mind we know very little about them) between them and Dragonmarks is they appear on the body (both for completely different reasons) and they glow blue when used, thats it. Uh, no, there's more to them than that, and I think you know it.
admcewen 02-12-08, 06:40 PM	:uh-huh: Uh, it's even CRAZIER to assume that Halruaa is a copy of Eberron, since it's been around for decades...it's existed before Eberron was a gleam in Keith Baker's eye (and I don't know how old Keith is, but it's possible Haluraa was around even before he was born). I never said it was a copy, I said that if any land in the Realms had the feel of Eberron it was Halruaa.
admcewen 02-12-08, 06:42 PM	Do you have proof that that's why Halruaa was deleted? I'm not buying that theory until I see proof. And even if it's true, it was stupid, because adding mechanics for something similar to dragonmarks (the "spellscars") isn't exactly "seperating the lines" between the two settings. Fair point, but to be honest its no more of a wild theory than a lot of the assumption and guessing on these boards, just cause mine has something that might explain the changes that a lot of people are ranting about.
admcewen 02-12-08, 06:43 PM	Uh, no, there's more to them than that, and I think you know it. Like what?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-12-08, 06:44 PM	I never said it was a copy, I said that if any land in the Realms had the feel of Eberron it was Halruaa. You said there is more to Eberron than magitech. I agree, but there is also more to Halruaa than magitech, as well.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-12-08, 06:48 PM	Like what? The concept of being able to "master" one's mark. That's not too far from what happens with Dragonmarks. The fact that the marks have different causes does not negate the fact that the idea behind them is very similar.
admcewen 02-12-08, 06:49 PM	You said there is more to Eberron than magitech. I agree, but there is also more to Halruaa than magitech, as well. True but magi-tech is where they clash and somethings gotta give...
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-12-08, 06:51 PM	True but magi-tech is where they clash and somethings gotta give... Absolutely not! Prove your damn theory before trying to foist it on me. And if it's true that "magitech" is where they clash, then magitech itself has to give, because the preview book Worlds and Monsters stated that they don't want to emphasize "silly" uses of magic in D&D anymore.
admcewen 02-12-08, 07:06 PM	The concept of being able to "master" one's mark. That's not too far from what happens with Dragonmarks. The fact that the marks have different causes does not negate the fact that the idea behind them is very similar. Ok I can see where is going and I'm tired and need to go to bed. Take a look at any set of ideas for powers rules etc and I bet you can find something similar in any setting from Eberron to The Realms and from Star Wars to D20 modern/future and past, a clash of mechanics are always going to happen because they all use the same system D20. Its the fluff and background behind them that counts. Force powers are abilities that Jedi have to "master" I'm not going to give up The Realms or Eberron for that matter simply becuase of a similarity of ideas with Star Wars.
Lord Karsus 02-12-08, 07:11 PM	Absolutely not! Prove your damn theory before trying to foist it on me. And if it's true that "magitech" is where they clash, then magitech itself has to give, because the preview book Worlds and Monsters stated that they don't want to emphasize "silly" uses of magic in D&D anymore. -Whoops.
Liquid_Technique 02-12-08, 07:13 PM	Dear all, I have come to conclusion that Psionics are new and better form of "Magic". I realise that this view is bit controversial so please let me explain and provide reasons why. To understand this view we have to first take a look at the case of ioulaum. He is the best and most powerful Arcanist ever (this can be debated) and for sure one of the most powerful magic users "alive". For this reason following is very important: Ioulaum isn't interested in magic any more! He's doing the psionics thing now, and in grand style I might add. The reason for this is not fully explained in the books but using simple logic it is very clear why. It seems that Ioulaum became dissillucioned with magic after the Fall of Netheril. He realized that in relying on Mystryl's Weave he was no different than the clerics who relied on divine power for their spells. Despite being a friend to the clergy of Mystra previous to Karsus' Folly, he may also have become disillusioned with her and her power. For this reason, he sought, and eventually discovered, a power source independent of the divine and the Weave both--psionics. Which is why he arranged to become an Elder Brain and so forth. This is why he hasn't gained wizard levels since the Fall--wizardry isn't his thing any more. He instead gained 20 levels of psion (included in his Elder Brain "template"). Once he's mastered his new form, he'll probably continue gaining more. Wait a few more centuries and he'll doubtless make a grand reentrance on the Faerunian scene with the first psionic mythallar (and perhaps an enclave of illithids to boot). So: 1. Divine (Clerics and so forth.) rely on power given and granted them by Divine Powers or whatever you want to call them. Divine "casters" rely on powersource of outside origin. If this powersource is taken away or not granted to them anymore they lose all power they had at that very second. They can no longer do anything. Divine COMPLETELY RELY ON 3rd PARTY TO GIVE OR NOT GIVE THEM POWER. 2. Arcanists/Mages/Wizards or whatever you want to call them, rely on power given to them or rather acess outside power source (the weave). Some of them are granted more acess than others like Larloch is. If this powersource goes boom or if their access to this powersource is denied all their power they have is gone. They can no longer do anything. WIZARDS/ARCANE COMPELTELY RELY ON 3rd PARTY TO GIVE/GRANT OR DENY THEM POWER. 3. Unlike magic, call it divine or arcane, psionics stems from the mind and body, rather than external sources. Please read that again. Psionics is the ability to harness, shape, and control natural forces through the power of the mind. The power source for psionics is Psion himself. Power is not taken or granted or anything remotely like that. 4. As we all know there is no better weapon than the mind (human brain in real life but in D&D lets just use term mind as in D&D there are other "races" on par with humans.) Psionics are all about the mind. Ioulaum realised that what he has is borrowed power that can be taken away just like that from him any second wether he likes it or not. He also something better and new... Psionics! Psionics is VERY flavorful concept and frankly said is great for the realms. A new type of powersource compeltely independent from any of the so called gods or other major powers. It is a power source these "gods" and other uber beings can not just grant or take away just like that. Ioulaum realised that and is now after NEW power that can not be taken away from him. A new power that has potential to surpass the existing divine and arcane or at least to be on par. When you have one of the best Arcanists ever give up arcane magic in order to study and rely on this new power you know there is something special to it. Thanks for taking time to read this, Liquid_Technique
admcewen 02-12-08, 07:13 PM	Absolutely not! Prove your damn theory before trying to foist it on me. And if it's true that "magitech" is where they clash, then magitech itself has to give, because the preview book Worlds and Monsters stated that they don't want to emphasize "silly" uses of magic in D&D anymore. Alright, first off stop being rude and aggressive it is totally not needed. I am NOT trying to "foist" my ideas on you, I have simply posted how I feel being a long time fan of the Realms and others have responded in their own fashion with their opinions to which I have answered to the best of my abilities it's called a debate they can be fun and informative and sometimes can become a little heated due to the fact that people can be emotionally attached to subject in hand, I FEEL that you are trying to turn this into an arguement and I am not playing ball by sinking to your level and replying in kind.
Lord Karsus 02-12-08, 07:18 PM	I have come to conclusion that Psionics are new and better form of "Magic". -Though I know this doesn't have anything to do with your argument about Psionics, I liked the Psionics system of 3e much more than the Magic system. They were a little complicated at first, but after I read the Expanded Psionic Handbook, things made a lot more sense. PP and Augmenting are fun. :) He is the best and most powerful Arcanist ever (this can be debated) -Very much debatable. ;) Alright, first off stop being rude and aggressive it is totally not needed. I am NOT trying to "foist" my ideas on you, I have simply posted how I feel being a long time fan of the Realms and others have responded in their own fashion with their opinions to which I have answered to the best of my abilities it's called a debate they can be fun and informative and sometimes can become a little heated due to the fact that people can be emotionally attached to subject in hand, I FEEL that you are trying to turn this into an arguement and I am not playing ball by sinking to your level and replying in kind. -So, you concede by not backing up your theory? If you are going to stop debating...
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-12-08, 07:25 PM	I'm not going to give up The Realms or Eberron for that matter simply becuase of a similarity of ideas with Star Wars. Who said you have to give anything up? The only one suggesting any such thing seems to be you. If it's not obvious by now, I don't think it's a bad thing if two settings (or more) share similarities. On the other hand, you are the one advancing a theory (or at least, that's what it seems like to me) that is based on the idea that two settings that are "similar" and are being pushed by the same company can't simply co-exist as they are.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-12-08, 07:29 PM	I FEEL that you are trying to turn this into an arguement and I am not playing ball by sinking to your level and replying in kind. Don't "feel", think. I'm not trying to turn this into an argument, but I am getting annoyed at some of your comments. It's not a self-evident truth that "something's gotta give" if two settings seem to be similar. And if that is true, why should the setting that's been around longer be the one to get ditched?
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-12-08, 07:31 PM	To understand this view we have to first take a look at the case of ioulaum. He is the best and most powerful Arcanist ever (this can be debated) and for sure one of the most powerful magic users "alive". No, that would be Karsus.;)
Lord Karsus 02-12-08, 07:34 PM	No, that would be Karsus.;) -Whatta woman! She knows, she knows. :cool:
admcewen 02-13-08, 01:50 PM	Absolutely not! Prove your damn theory before trying to foist it on me. And if it's true that "magitech" is where they clash, then magitech itself has to give, because the preview book Worlds and Monsters stated that they don't want to emphasize "silly" uses of magic in D&D anymore. I've had a day to think this through and this will probably be my last post on these forums until the book comes out and most still here will be fans of it (I'm going over to Eberron/it's safer & friendlier), but anyway here we go... 1) Disprove it..(if you can't beat them...):cheer: 2) I'M BUYING THE NEW REALMS AND I'M GOING TO REALLY ENJOY IT AND NOTHING WILL STOP ME (interesting to hear this rant from the other side):evillaugh 3) And to be honest if anything is going to put me off the Realms it will be some of the other people who also play their, not WOTC (I don't know truly how Ed feels about the New realms but I am pretty sure that he would not want fans of his setting going at it towards each other and putting other fans off):mad:
Lord Karsus 02-13-08, 01:55 PM	-Congratulations.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-13-08, 02:05 PM	1) Disprove it..(if you can't beat them...):cheer: Doesn't work that way. If you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it, not on the skeptics to disprove it. For your information, I also don't care whether you buy the FRCG or not. Same goes for anyone else, really. So, don't flatter yourself.
Alediran 02-13-08, 02:09 PM	3) And to be honest if anything is going to put me off the Realms it will be some of the other people who also play their, not WOTC (I don't know truly how Ed feels about the New realms but I am pretty sure that he would not want fans of his setting going at it towards each other and putting other fans off):mad: Straight from Candlekeep: "I overheard R.A. Salvatore dining out at a recent Gencon [he was at a nearby table in the same restaurant] saying he was furious at the proposed changes, and told WotC so, at length in person and in writing. He also said [as far as I can recall] "Boyd sounded real uneasy, and Ed wasn't pleased, either."
Markustay 02-13-08, 02:24 PM	However, that is just Internet Hyperbole and is worthless in a factual argument -no matter how true it might be. I really doubt any of the folks with real talent (and I AM including RAS in that statement) wanted anything to do with 4e FR, but since they know what side of the bread the butter is on, they shut-up and dealt with the crappy mess they've been handed. Errrr, nop not really. I love both the Realms and Eberron and to assume Keith copied Halruaa and made a campaign setting from it is crazy...True, especially since it's painfully obvious that he copied the Iron Kingdoms campaign setting for 98% of his 'original' ideas. Something about that name 'Baker'... :rolleyes: Half-baked ideas? :P
Lord Karsus 02-13-08, 03:07 PM	-DOUBLE POST-
Lord Karsus 02-13-08, 03:07 PM	Straight from Candlekeep: "I overheard R.A. Salvatore dining out at a recent Gencon [he was at a nearby table in the same restaurant] saying he was furious at the proposed changes, and told WotC so, at length in person and in writing. He also said [as far as I can recall] "Boyd sounded real uneasy, and Ed wasn't pleased, either." -Context? Who/what said that? Sounds like BS to me.
Markustay 02-13-08, 05:34 PM	It really doesn't matter, though, if it is or isn't, because it's one of those "I heard it on the Internet so it must be true" scenarios. That makes it worthless as an argument-point. It sounds like it could be true, but just how close was that guy that he was able to here every little nuance of the conversation? :bored: Besides - does RAS even go to Gencons? :confused: I was under the impression he hated FR fans. ;)
Alediran 02-13-08, 06:36 PM	It was in this thread: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10609 And you posted on it.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-13-08, 06:50 PM	adcewen, I would like to apologize for my snippier comments. However, I still stand by the points I made before.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-13-08, 06:52 PM	However, that is just Internet Hyperbole and is worthless in a factual argument -no matter how true it might be. It's true that ultimately, we can't know what anyone's "true feelings" are. However, it is also true that the Spellplague was not Ed's idea...and that is straight from the man himself. Markus, you probably already know this, I am just making a general comment.:)
Lord Karsus 02-13-08, 07:24 PM	It really doesn't matter, though, if it is or isn't, because it's one of those "I heard it on the Internet so it must be true" scenarios. That makes it worthless as an argument-point. -Not necessarily. If, say, a Krash was the one who said it, it'd have some credibility. -But, no, it was a random person with 10 posts to his/her name known as 'Longtime Lurker'. No credibility what so ever. It sounds like it could be true, but just how close was that guy that he was able to here every little nuance of the conversation? :bored: -Hmm...Under the table, if you get my drift. ;) It was in this thread: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10609 And you posted on it. -Oh, okay. Thank you.
GoldDragon 02-14-08, 01:57 AM	Oh yeah, I forgot, all of the Realms has been detailed to the point where there is absolutely nothing anyone can do with it anymore.:rolleyes: You sure? That a Realm got dropped right on Unther sounds a little "Ravenloftish" to me. You still might be able to get to a Unruined parallel version of Unther through "Side Space" if Unther didn't outright replace the New realm where it used to be (Or may be even floating in it's own pocket dimension...if not in "Ravenloft" in the deep Etheral...lol) As for the fall of Haaluraa and the Shar.....Sounded to much like a Marine Yell and a Lord of the Ring rip off so not at all surprised...lol
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 02-14-08, 01:40 PM	You sure? Just in case it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic.:)
Lord Karsus 02-14-08, 02:10 PM	-Heh. :rofl:
Flicker 02-14-08, 05:45 PM	You know I had a long discussion with Mr Greenwood around when 3e was published at GenCon with regards to how he felt Wotc had treated the Realms and he commented that 'they own the rights therefore they are entitled to do what they want, that doesn't stop me doing what i want in my home campaign.' He mentioned that he was simply grateful he had the opportunity to share hi ideas wiht thousands of other like minded souls. I've lived by that statement ever since, because to me it sums up that he, and RAS and other recognise that they make money but they live by how they want to in their own minds. I actually accept the previous posters statement about RAS felt, on the basis that I can understand, that is a likely human reaction, I can also see that after further thought, the likelihood is that as many of us do we look to see where the next paycheck is coming from. And believe me when I say 4e is nothing more than that paycheck, I have not heard a concerted argument from anybody yet as to a reason to change 'everything'. There are merits to 4e, I will not disagree with that, but the way it has been marketed and the 'we are right approach' of the company smacks of arrogance IMHO in the extreme, I believe that profit margins could be sustained and new people attracted to D&D with the correct marketing while keeping the current players engaged and happy, but I feel that the quick fix approach has been used to generate short term revenue to keep the 'corporate bean counters' at bay. I am happy to be proved wrong, but having worked for the largest company on the planet, I like to think I understand corporations more than a little, but since I am now way off thread, this wil probably get edited by a WizO. In case it doesn't, here's a thought, all it takes is a leader to promote an idea and people who are willing to follow, if you need a leader than find one and stand by what you want.