I'm currently weighing the options of researching some of the old lore against generally ignoring it and treating the old lore as a "misty past" equivalent to what a non-historian would know and not know about events one hundred years prior. A good deal of the old lore is quality and still of use, while going forward without looking back and relying on current and future FR books to give me a layman's knowledge of history makes me free use my full creativity to make the game my own.
Most of all I'm wondering if 1479 forward is going to be a FR philosophy we're going to see more of. I may be getting way ahead of things here, but its just a thought I've had rolling around in my head.
Most of all I'm wondering if 1479 forward is going to be a FR philosophy we're going to see more of. I may be getting way ahead of things here, but its just a thought I've had rolling around in my head.
Considering they will be printing a lot less on the Realms then they have in previous editions I am not sure if w will be seeing "more of" anything really
Most of all I'm wondering if 1479 forward is going to be a FR philosophy we're going to see more of. I may be getting way ahead of things here, but its just a thought I've had rolling around in my head.
I think you are right. I think that will happen too. Faced with the lore discontinuity, the likely increasing scarcity and applicability of earlier books and the time people would put in to learn about the previous lore... people will, completely understandably, decide that they would rather make their own up as and when they need it.
And just to make it clear I am neither encouraging or discouraging this... I am just suggesting that it is more than likely.
I'm wondering if a new attitude on Realmslore is going to appear in the near future. That attitude I would call 1479 forward.
I have to say, I don't understand what you mean by "1479 forward".
I have to say, I don't understand what you mean by "1479 forward".
Lady, I took it to mean the view that the things that happened in 1479 and after were to be considered of primary importance and the rest is backdrop. A "Misty History", to paraphrase.
Lady, I took it to mean the view that the things that happened in 1479 and after were to be considered of primary importance and the rest is backdrop. A "Misty History", to paraphrase.
Ah, I see.
If that is what he meant, I have to agree that 1479 and onward is going to be considered (by WotC) more important than the past. I don't recall if that was stated directly by the designers, but many of their comments imply it.It's likely that Wizards will treat the new FR as '1479 forward'. But you shouldn't limit yourself to 4e material.
Are your PC's ever going into ancient ruins? Encountering old cults/evil clerics? Older books are still applicable and add more depth to the 4e realms.
Also, just because you reference past events in your campaign.. it doesn't have to hold you down. If you don't want certain events to take place or matter in your campaign, then change it!
I understand that you are new to the setting and this is a good opportunity to get into it without having to read a lot of information (that you may or may not like). But there are huge benefits to knowing more about the Forgotten Realms.
(This is just my two cents, not trying to push you to use older sources. And I wish you well on your 4e FR campaign! ;) )
But I think if your new to the realms that you would be just fine going 4E forward. This cataclysm has reset the realms. Knowing who people were is important, but not all encompassing. It just depends what type of game you want to run and how you want to portray the realms in your game. If you want a world full of history and depth then use it. If you want a world that is trying to pick itself up and move into the future from it's recent troubles than do that and forget the past.
I think in the end it comes down to what type of game you want to run and what you want to do with the realms.
Most of all I'm wondering if 1479 forward is going to be a FR philosophy we're going to see more of. I may be getting way ahead of things here, but its just a thought I've had rolling around in my head.
-The designers have already stated that all future Forgotten Realms products will take place in the "new" Forgotten Realms, so, yes. That doesn't bar things in novels like flashbacks, or chapters taking place in the past, though. So, though there will not be any actual official coverage of the "old" Forgotten Realms, it will still be the setting and backdrop of scenes in novels.
While 1479+ is an uncomforable reality it does have its advantages if one decides to look for them.
It's not an "uncomfortable reality" for me in the sense that I don't have to have anything to do with it.
It's just a personal feeling, but I get the sense that we're going to be getting a lot less lore in this edition of FR than in previous ones...
-If the designers stick with the "three [Two, really. I don't count adventures]and we're done" mentality", then so it seems. However, a regular "diet" of online DRAGON articles and DDI articles certainly make up for some of that. Though, 24 (two a month, in theory) 5 page PDF files don't add up to one sourcebook (24 x 5 = 120 pages).
I'm wondering if a new attitude on Realmslore is going to appear in the near future. That attitude I would call 1479 forward. The basis for this perspective is my own experience. Aside from hearing things second hand as a D&D player, and two campaigns I played in twelve years ago that didn't really go deeply into the setting, I am a Realms newbie. That being said, I like the new Realms and recently started a new campaign as DM. I find that I can run my campaign to my satisfaction using just the FRCG and Dungeon and Dragon articles(I've planned on paying for the subscription for a long time now). Going forward to the present day, I find on this forum that a lot of the discussions here are about older things and details I'm not familiar with. I'm new, and that is to be expected. The thing is, there is a disconnect about the necessity of this lore and discussions, because I have everything I need to run my game(which is my priority) already at hand in the FRCG. The older books I could buy and could be useful to me, but they are written in a different style(one I don't really care for) than the material I am currently using, and there is a disconnect between that material and the present in the game mechanically and philosophy(thanks to the edition change) and geographically(Spellplague + 100 years). The older books are not plug and play like the FRCG and the articles.
I'm currently weighing the options of researching some of the old lore against generally ignoring it and treating the old lore as a "misty past" equivalent to what a non-historian would know and not know about events one hundred years prior. A good deal of the old lore is quality and still of use, while going forward without looking back and relying on current and future FR books to give me a layman's knowledge of history makes me free use my full creativity to make the game my own.
Most of all I'm wondering if 1479 forward is going to be a FR philosophy we're going to see more of. I may be getting way ahead of things here, but its just a thought I've had rolling around in my head.
If youre looking for ploot hooks or ideas, or for names of places, then go on and browe the old books. It saves time. If you dont, however, then it would be best to ignore the old books, as theyre almost completely redundant.
Grand history of the realms is a good book for that kind of things - you read some entries, take waht you want, and many things are molded in such a way that they could occur at any time, thus they can be implemented in the campaign yorue running. THats what I do -if I see a nice plot twist, I dont mind that "canonically" it has already happened, I make it wait for my PCs to be a part of. Kind of like in computer games, when you ahve a set goal and the npcs tell you to hurry because the building is gonna blow, but it won't blow, no matter what, before the protagonist exits the building.
Ironically though, I see the (un)intent of WotC coming to fruition.
The old 3e DM argument that they can't play in the Realms because of all the lore creeping into it has affected 4e already. Bare bones sourcebooks aren't necessarily enough and people are asking where do they go for for more info. They're soon to get sucked in.
Granted, FR 4e is draggin' in a new base, but the new base seems to want what brought the real base into power anyway.
...
Now where did I put those Quaalude's....
I don’t think WotC’s version of “1479 forward” necessarily means they won’t take the time to look back before they look forward (if you catch my drift), even with the large changes to how magic works and whatnot.
From a DMing standpoint, I like the mythical scarcity of lore. I’m well informed enough personally about the setting and an experienced enough DM to be able to run a game anywhere in the 4E Realms, but because of the time shift I don’t anymore have that reflex to go grab a Realms book off the shelf before creating something new for my Realms game.
That’s a nice change and mildly reminiscent of how things used to be twenty years ago when I was a kid, the Realms were just a couple years old and AD&D was the bomb.
I think new players to the game will benefit from the freedom of having minimal lore. Gives new DMs a chance to grow into their shoes.
I also think WotC will backtrack on it's print goals and give us more Realms hardcover books at some point.
It's just a personal feeling, but I get the sense that we're going to be getting a lot less lore in this edition of FR than in previous ones, if only because one of the avowed design decisions when it comes to 4e FR is to make sure that DMs and players don't get swamped with reams of canon. (I'm not saying that I think canon is restrictive; I'm also not saying the opposite. But I get the impression, true or false, that the designers view it as restrictive.) Perhaps, as a result, we will see lots more homebrew lore for 4e FR?
I think you're probably right. While we won't be seeing regular injections of lore per se, I do think the designers' intent is to use DDI to inject "crunchy" bits. When we do get future lore, it'll be from novels, then DDI will mostly be about turning out "new" monster stat blocks and other "shiny" things related to lore - like new classes and spells, magic items and the like. That way, all of it can be "modular" if item X or character class B looks really jazzy and people want to import them into homebrews or across into Eberron (and vice versa).
That way, they can pump out most everything they already have in 3.5, updating them for 4E. Many people will think it's new, and in a sense it will be (because of the crunch update). They already know most people will buy re-dressed lore and updated crunch, but this way it looks totally new because it'll be presented in DDI. The big difference is that when they want to update to 5E, I suspect that they'll wipe out the websites and such with 4E crunch materials and people will have paid for something that'll be gone unless they've managed to personally print everything out. Clever really, from a marketing standpoint.
It's just a personal feeling, but I get the sense that we're going to be getting a lot less lore in this edition of FR than in previous ones, if only because one of the avowed design decisions when it comes to 4e FR is to make sure that DMs and players don't get swamped with reams of canon. (I'm not saying that I think canon is restrictive; I'm also not saying the opposite. But I get the impression, true or false, that the designers view it as restrictive.) Perhaps, as a result, we will see lots more homebrew lore for 4e FR?
I actually think this edition will see a lot more lore, just not the type which comes in the book.
I think the new FRs invites DMs and players to create there own lore in amounts not seen before, I could see many campaigns having there own notebooks of lore over a long period of time.
Nothing personal to anybody, but I could say "Duh!" here for every statement.
Ironically though, I see the (un)intent of WotC coming to fruition.
The old 3e DM argument that they can't play in the Realms because of all the lore creeping into it has affected 4e already. Bare bones sourcebooks aren't necessarily enough and people are asking where do they go for for more info. They're soon to get sucked in.
Granted, FR 4e is draggin' in a new base, but the new base seems to want what brought the real base into power anyway.
...
Now where did I put those Quaalude's....
The "Real" base?
That's just a tad elitist and insulting, don't you think?
Considering they will be printing a lot less on the Realms then they have in previous editions I am not sure if w will be seeing "more of" anything really
I would consider 50+ adventures a year not 'a lot less'.
I would consider 50+ adventures a year not 'a lot less'.
You are suggesting that people (including players) read adventures as a basis for gaining Realmslore?
You are suggesting that people (including players) read adventures as a basis for gaining Realmslore?
I do.
It's all Realmslore.
I do.
It's all Realmslore.
Oh I agree with that. But considering the number of DMs on this board who have already lamented their player's familiarity with Realms material (more than a couple, I would hope you agree) is it a good idea to be encouraging them to read the very scenarios that you might want to run for them next week?
This is why I like adventure divorced Realmslore.
I agree it's not the best way to communicate lore, but it's one way.
Nothing personal to anybody, but I could say "Duh!" here for every statement.
Ironically though, I see the (un)intent of WotC coming to fruition.
The old 3e DM argument that they can't play in the Realms because of all the lore creeping into it has affected 4e already. Bare bones sourcebooks aren't necessarily enough and people are asking where do they go for for more info. They're soon to get sucked in.
Granted, FR 4e is draggin' in a new base, but the new base seems to want what brought the real base into power anyway.
...
Now where did I put those Quaalude's....
The past lore of FR was never the real problem for DMs. The problem was all the plots and lore that were going on in the present. 20 or so years of novels will give you that. The hundred year time jump dynamited that problem nicely.
-Adventures have very little lore in them, in relation to everything else. In the novel-sourcebook-adventure totem pole, they're at the bottom.
True.
Depending on the particular FR adventure, however, you can often find very specific lore and details about a particular place/location/region.
Adventures often have to flesh out areas that sourcebooks wouldn't touch in order to give DMs the details they need to properly run their game.
Much of that info is basic or otherwise generic (like NPC names and such), but some of it is history based information that shows how the adventure relates to the wider Realms.
The AD&D 2nd Edition adventure Curse of the Azure Bonds by Jeff Grubb and George MacDonald, and the 3rd Edition D&D adventure Into the Dragon’s Lair by Sean Reynolds and Steve Miller are two examples that come to mind of adventures that build off of existing lore in order to add more to that lore.
The "Real" base?
That's just a tad elitist and insulting, don't you think?
Nope. What he probably meant is "the first one".
Adventures often have to flesh out areas that sourcebooks wouldn't touch in order to give DMs the details they need to properly run their game.
Much of that info is basic or otherwise generic (like NPC names and such), but some of it is history based information that shows how the adventure relates to the wider Realms. (...)
Are you saying that sourcebooks alone don't give you enough information to properly run your game? Unless you're referring to 4E, I don't see this as having been true at all for the 1E, 2E, or 3-3.5E Realms.
Sure, there's sometimes extra tidbits of lore in adventures, but usually it's minimal. Even then, it's not always clear that those tidbits are considered canon. Take the most recent Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave adventure and its trilogy-partners... most of the "extra" there is really just flavoring, to give context and timing, and it's not clear that any of it is canon. And material for context is important, but it's not really "new lore". It's more like a look at the same lore from a slightly different, personalized, angle of view.
I also think WotC will backtrack on it's print goals and give us more Realms hardcover books at some point.
Perhaps. But only for those RSE’s we are so fond of. Otherwise, DDI will be able to handle the rest.
The "Real" base?
That's just a tad elitist and insulting, don't you think?
Wasn’t meant to be personal—nor insulting. But it is fact.
People who loved the Realms as they were, were its base. We’re the people that bought the campaign products from the start and continued to do so over the years—no matter how crappy some of it was. And we are still doing it.
I suppose the word “power” threw that off. The power I meant was that of what we supplied to WotC.
The past lore of FR was never the real problem for DMs. The problem was all the plots and lore that were going on in the present. 20 or so years of novels will give you that. The hundred year time jump dynamited that problem nicely.
And lets not forget about those gosh darn tootin’ NPC’s.
Nope. What he probably meant is "the first one".
And you’ll be my first infidel!!
Unless you're referring to 4E, I don't see this as having been true at all for the 1E, 2E, or 3-3.5E Realms.
Oh I'm absolutely talking about the Realms of old, from D&D 1st Edition right through 3.5.
For example, the 3rd Edition Into the Dragon’s Lair gives us Nalavarra's back-story and tells us a great deal of how she built her power during her confinement and who her chief allies were before her imprisonment. The adventure also expands the lore on the Goblins of Grodd and explains their nightmarish ability to move rapidly across Cormyr during the war.
The 1st Edition adventure Lashan’s Fall tells us in detail of Lashan’s final, true fate after his failed bid to bring all the Dales under his control, and gave us (back then) our very first glimpses into fabled Myth Drannor.
Take the most recent Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave adventure and its trilogy-partners... most of the "extra" there is really just flavoring, to give context and timing, and it's not clear that any of it is canon.
Oh, it's all canon, even the stuff that’s contradictory or that we’d otherwise like to turn up our noses at.
I wouldn’t consider the Appendix to Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave as any sort of “extra” flavoring or questionable in terms of canonicity.
In fact, that section is the first (and only) 3rd Edition product that covers any part of Cormyr in detail (in this case, Southeastern Cormyr [Wheloon, the Vast Swamp, Golden Ruins, Tomb of Chonis, Hermit’s Wood]).
Likewise the introduction of the Black Chronology is significant, not just for its value as a piece of Realmslore, but because it was (to my knowledge) first introduced in that very same adventure and not a proper Realms sourcebook.
This is why I agreed with Karsus earlier. On average, FR adventures from all editions of the game are naturally lowest on the totem pole in terms of lore quantity, because they’re mostly filled with room descriptions, monster and NPC stat-blocks and maps.
My point is that while the lore found in FR adventures may be minimal, that doesn’t mean the lore to be had is insignificant or of little interest to the Realms enthusiast who enjoys learning about the setting as much or more as they do playing D&D in it.
On the contrary, such lore is usually quite specific (centering on the needs of the given adventure) and can be rather significant and noteworthy on occasion.
On the contrary, such lore is usually quite specific (centering on the needs of the given adventure) and can be rather significant and noteworthy on occasion.
Now if only there was a way to read a compilation of all of that without having to leaf through adventures.
Still, seeing as we are likely to get primarily adventures and DDI material as future Realmslore sources, maybe there will be a push for people to compile this stuff.
Oh I'm absolutely talking about the Realms of old, from D&D 1st Edition right through 3.5.
The point of contention wasn't that some minimal lore was first shown in modules or other sources, but whether or not sourcebooks alone "don't give you enough information to properly run your game".
The 1st Edition adventure Lashan’s Fall tells us in detail of Lashan’s final, true fate after his failed bid to bring all the Dales under his control, and gave us (back then) our very first glimpses into fabled Myth Drannor.
Well,... certainly it gives some lore on Lashan's fate - but if you're talking about "Lashan's Fall" in the 1E boxed set, technically that's actually a sourcebook (it's in the "DMs sourcebook of the Realms" and that's not even the first printing of that module... it was in Dragon as an RPGA module before that).
I don't think anyone disagrees that many early bits of lore come directly from Dragon magazine (especially before they printed 1E). When people are speaking of "modules", usually they're referring to stand-alone products.
My point is that while the lore found in FR adventures may be minimal, that doesn’t mean the lore to be had is insignificant or of little interest to the Realms enthusiast who enjoys learning about the setting as much or more as they do playing D&D in it.
Again, I'm not arguing with the fact that some lore does indeed come from non-novel and non-soucebook sources. But I did have issue with your rather bold statement that sourcebooks alone don't seem to "give you enough information to properly run your game". Wasn't the whole point of 4E that you don't need all of those teeny bits of lore to properly run a game?
Unfortunately the trap in 4e is that it does not matter what new sourcebooks are released in terms of game content because classes can not learn beyond the set cookie cutter handful of powers that already exist. For example, magic-users can not learn new spells (only rituals). It does not matter if new ones are released for existing players. An arcane sourcebook is rather pointless and should instead be titled ritual sourcebook.
4e is going to run into the same perceived problem that 3.5 did. Namely that since it's so bare bones you will have people wanting more information. More information will lead to complaining by others that there is too much. Too much information will lead to a nuking of the setting once again. Rinse and repeat.
Unfortunately the trap in 4e is that it does not matter what new sourcebooks are released in terms of game content because classes can not learn beyond the set cookie cutter handful of powers that already exist. For example, magic-users can not learn new spells (only rituals). It does not matter if new ones are released for existing players. An arcane sourcebook is rather pointless and should instead be titled ritual sourcebook.
This problem has been noted before. Yes we know there is the likelihood that the problem will creep back in, but the only alternative is to make the setting static, like Eberron, and that would destroy one of the greatest features of the Realms; that they continue to grow and evolve outside of each individual campaign. So we have to accept a certain amount of retooling every so often.
As to the second part, many new powers and spells are going to be released in both source books and online, and thanks to the retraining option, as well as learning new spells/powers at each new level, there are many ways to customize and later rework a character. We still have yet to see many spells converted, and by 5e, we should have as many choices as there are in 3.x.
Now if only there was a way to read a compilation of all of that without having to leaf through adventures.
Totally, huh?
That's why I keep an overfull library in my hizouse.
But I did have issue with your rather bold statement that sourcebooks alone don't seem to "give you enough information to properly run your game".
That's not a statement I made. I really don't know what you're talking about.
I don't think anyone disagrees that many early bits of lore come directly from Dragon magazine (especially before they printed 1E). When people are speaking of "modules", usually they're referring to stand-alone products.
This is just picking nits. Lashan’s Fall, whether printed in Dragon Magazine (issue #95, if memory serves) or the DM’s Sourcebook of the Realms is still a standalone adventure.
3e allowed for flexibility, variety, and an open opportunity to learn as much as you could in terms of magic whereas 4e does not. While some spells might (and have been) updated into rituals, 4e does not offer the ability for adaptability.
That's not a statement I made. I really don't know what you're talking about.
Uhm, check your post, #30, in this thread. I quoted you directly, word for word.
So while you may not have entirely as many choices in 4e, you are by no means limited to only a few spells you can cast. Without the Extended Spellbook feat, a 10th level wizard has 2 1st, 5th, and 9th level daily spells, and 2 2nd, 6th and 10th level utility spells to choose from. With the feat you gain an additional daily spell of each of the above levels to choose from. Plenty of choice.
Also, your above statements only apply in any way after 10th level or so, till then a 3.x spellcaster can only cast a few spells per day and usually uses them up and are left with no combat options, just a bunch of utility spells, at least til the party takes another 8 hour break. In 4e a 1st level wizard can keep hitting enemies all day, so is far superior to a 3.x 1st level wizard.
Getting back to the lore issue (as I do not want to derail the purpose of the section), I relate this personally as a loss of magical lore.
Uhm, check your post, #30, in this thread. I quoted you directly, word for word.
See PM.
Getting back to the lore issue (as I do not want to derail the purpose of the section), I relate this personally as a loss of magical lore.
This is something I've been worried about too.
I remember last year's Gen Con FR Seminar where I asked how the 4E rules were going to "fit" all the magic of the Realms.
Their response, "Rituals, I think?"
Not the best response then. I don't think it's a great answer now.
-Lurk mode on.
18DELTA ;)
But as far as lore is concerned, toward the end of 3e (after the 4e announcement), something 'snapped' inside of me, and I wound-up with a complete 'disconnect' from what is canon and what is not.
Before, I accepted everything official as canon, and worked it into my version, even if I didn't like it (like the return of the Archwizards). Now, everything I read I take with a grain of salt. As far as I'm concerned, NOTHING is canon anymore - and I feel 'at peace' with that. FR is how I picture it, not the way a bunch of corporate yahoos picture it.
And I think it was Lady Penitent that caused that 'snap' inside of me. Bad enough Smedman wrote that garbage, but the fact that it made it past whatever passes for 'continuity control' at WotC is just sad.
I'm fairly certain she researched NOTHING about Faezress and just made-up her own version of it. That sort of thing is what has driven me away from FR in recent months, and what has turned 4e FR into some sort of free-for-all where designers and authors can just write whatever they want with no concern for past lore.
Thats not a 'Shared World' - thats just a mess.
Lady Penitent basically said to me "This is drivel and you should ignore it". I will complete my FR reading by getting many of the older novels I missed, but I have no intention of accepting anything 4e as canon, nor reading ANY of the 4e novels.
Weather they are good or bad, or even if I LOVE the author.
I made that decision the other day, when I passed over Schend's new novel for some older Realms anthologies at the bookstore. I love Steven's writing and creativity, but I just can't bring myself to buy-into 4e FR, on any level. Since they threw continuity out the window, they've totally lost that suspension of disbelief required for us to immerse ourselves in a fantasy world. It's as if all the latest books are written in their own little 'pocket universes' with no relationship to each other or the rest of FR's glorious history.
Its a shame - they really ruined something great here (for me).
I'm not saying others should feel this way, and 4e FR is fine unto itself, but it has very little to do with it's predeccessor as far as I'm concerned. If your new to gaming and need a world for your 4e games, then use it. Just don't bother with the novels - they'll only confuse you.
Not going to jump on the pro/con band-wagon anymore, because I see both as losing battles.
I have given up on it myself
I'm fairly certain she researched NOTHING about Faezress and just made-up her own version of it.
-To be honest, there was virtually nothing written on Faerzress'. The "straw that broke the camel's back" on this issue is that in the past, it was ambient, natural radiation, as opposed to what it is now.
After a while, I made things suitable for what I wanted to do as a DM and in the time I've DMed Forgotten Realms, it's caused me some issues with the occasional player. Particularly when someone who likes those high level good NPCs realises I had them die horribly somehow (I had both the Simbul and Elminster killed by Archfiends when she failed miserably to save him in Baator; the only good idea that book gave me).
Now of course, they've done all the work for me and after careful consideration, I'm pretty much taking only the 4E book as canon etc, then stopping the "official" time-line dead for my players campaigns. This means that only events that I stick in apply and advance the time-line, unless otherwise stated. This means as I run games for my players over the next few months or whatever, things will always be consistent from their perspective and they'll have a good idea of what's happening. It also means I don't have to read and keep track of a large amount of stuff I don't have the time to bother with (and same goes for my players).
I don't want a novel or a history book, I want a campaign setting. There is an important difference to me between these concepts. I don't want to buy a campaign setting and look at gigantic NPC stat blocks for people I've already made thoroughly dead and will never use. I approve very much of the 4th edition book, it's very dry, but then again I get ideas for adventures from just about everything. My eyes are still in my head (the lack of having to look at overpowered NPC X statblock helps) and I get plenty of ideas from the setting.
After some flicking through notes, the only books I ever considered canon in the games I ran were the Icewind Dale books and the Rising Tide (Actually, this is the Threat from the Sea series, but anyway).
-Thank you Mr. M.
No problem, Brimstone. :D
Lady Penitent basically said to me "This is drivel and you should ignore it". I will complete my FR reading by getting many of the older novels I missed, but I have no intention of accepting anything 4e as canon, nor reading ANY of te 4e novels.
I'm thinking of reading the Waterdeep novels, but other than that? No longer really interested.
For the record, I have not purchased any 4E FR sourcebooks, not even out of curiosity.
The rest of us will happily carry the torch, though.
That's too bad...you're missing out on the latest Realmslore and information.
The rest of us will happily carry the torch, though.
I'm not missing out on anything - and I'm still part of the community.
I'm not missing out on anything -
Without the FRCG and Player's Guide...yeah, you are.
But we'll fill you in as needed.
and I'm still part of the community.
Of course you still are.
I totally forgot about the new novels. Depending on your particular tastes, the novels are one other option for staying connected to the setting.
I’m looking forward to anything by Steven Schend, myseslf.
Without the FRCG and Player's Guide...yeah, you are. But we'll fill you in as needed.
No need, I've played in 4E so I know what that's like. And I read over the FRCG in a bookstore well enough to know that it wasn't for me. Having the direct experience of both, there's certainly no need to "fill me in", regardless of what you may think.
I'm content to stay with 3.5 rules, and my own homebrew world. In fact, you seem to be forgetting that most people who play D&D use homebrew settings and don't use the entirety of a published setting. Like me, most people pick and choose what they like.
As I see it, there's just no need to buy things that won't make their way into my setting. But it's still an active setting, we're doing our own thing, and we're hardly missing out on anything like you suggest.
Nobody said you were not part of it.
I totally forgot about the new novels. Depending on your particular tastes, the novels are one other option for staying connected to the setting.
I’m looking forward to anything by Steven Schend, myseslf.
I'm not interested in any of the 4E novels either, sorry. Probably because I haven't been particularly impressed with anything I've seen in 4E so far.
Having the direct experience of both ... In fact, you seem to be forgetting
Not at all. I just figured you (like me) were interested in Realmslore.
Not at all. I just figured you (like me) were interested in Realmslore.
Yes, and...?
Maybe that's the new attitude about Realmslore. :P
Don't have the 4E FR books....not interested in the novels....not interested in Realmslore?
Maybe that's the new attitude about Realmslore. :P
That's just ridiculous. I don't need to buy the 4E books or novels in order to keep fully apprised of all the new lore. And in any case, the vast majority of the lore isn't published in 4E.
That's just ridiculous.
Thus, the :P
I don't need to buy the 4E books or novels in order to keep fully apprised of all the new lore.
Yep, that's what message boards are for.
Double :P :P
That's just ridiculous. I don't need to buy the 4E books or novels in order to keep fully apprised of all the new lore. And in any case, the vast majority of the lore isn't published in 4E.
Careful, my sweets. Such an attitude will get you scolded.
Trust me.
I am waiting for Swordmage to come out in perperback. I am interested about the info inside it.
Not much info inside, my man. Just touches on things here and there.
Overall, I still recommend it to 3e'ers that aren't happy about 4e. It really isn't that far removed. And it is a decent read.
Well...besides the halfling.
Careful, my sweets. Such an attitude will get you scolded. Trust me.
Unfortunately, that seems to be true. But such things have never kept me from speaking honestly.
Don't have the 4E FR books....not interested in the novels....not interested in Realmslore?
Maybe that's the new attitude about Realmslore. :P
its mine
Unfortunately, that seems to be true. But such things have never kept me from speaking honestly.
I'm aware.
its mine
Of course it is! That's all you ever have to tell us, isn't it?
Tripple :P :P :P
::::::::::::::::::
I still think WotC is going to come out with more hardcover FR books eventually. They always seem to reorg right when they're in the middle of implementing a previously stated plan, so surely things will change yet again.
Of course it is! That's all you ever have to tell us, isn't it?
Tripple :P :P :P
::::::::::::::::::
I still think WotC is going to come out with more hardcover FR books eventually. They always seem to reorg right when they're in the middle of implementing a previously stated plan, so surely things will change yet again.
I'm about to start calling you Mr. Optimistic. Either that or 19DELTA.
You're entirely too happy for my taste.
In terms of the new campaign and player's guides you are right as there is not much there. However, if you like 3.5 you might want to take a look at the waterdeep series of novels as the authors still used the flavor of 3.5 in them. For example, the magic system remained completely 3.5 in Blackstaff Tower.
My thought is that this trend will continue in the novels and you will only see the technical changes in the gaming sessions themselves.
Cheers!
@Therise,
In terms of the new campaign and player's guides you are right as there is not much there. However, if you like 3.5 you might want to take a look at the waterdeep series of novels as the authors still used the flavor of 3.5 in them. For example, the magic system remained completely 3.5 in Blackstaff Tower.
My thought is that this trend will continue in the novels and you will only see the technical changes in the gaming sessions themselves.
Cheers!
Is or is not this Waterdeep series 4e?!
I'm about to start calling you Mr. Optimistic. Either that or 19DELTA. You're entirely too happy for my taste.
LOLZ! You shouldn't tell me that. I may start to be entirely too happy around you on purpose.
:::::::::::::::::::::
I think we might be a bit too hastly in describing Schend's latest book as one that's "3.5".
Interesting to see how lore and rules seem to be in conflict as 4E relates to certain of the new FR novels.
LOLZ! You shouldn't tell me that. I may start to be entirely too happy around you on purpose.
:::::::::::::::::::::
I think we might be a bit too hastly in describing Schend's latest book as one that's "3.5".
Interesting to see how lore and rules seem to be in conflict as 4E relates to certain of the new FR novels.
Thanks!!
You answered nothing, you happy freak!!!!
Cheers!
@Therise,
In terms of the new campaign and player's guides you are right as there is not much there. However, if you like 3.5 you might want to take a look at the waterdeep series of novels as the authors still used the flavor of 3.5 in them. For example, the magic system remained completely 3.5 in Blackstaff Tower.
My thought is that this trend will continue in the novels and you will only see the technical changes in the gaming sessions themselves.
Cheers!
Thanks, I believe I will.
Unfortunately, that seems to be true. But such things have never kept me from speaking honestly.
Well I, for one, appreciate your opinion, and I don't think you should be harassed over it.
Of course it is! That's all you ever have to tell us, isn't it?
its pretty much all I got to say on the issue at this point
I still think WotC is going to come out with more hardcover FR books eventually. They always seem to reorg right when they're in the middle of implementing a previously stated plan, so surely things will change yet again.
I hope so. I think.
Actually, I was not being a bit too hasty at all in my post. I own, have read, and have posted questions about using the flavor of 3.5 magic in 4e novels in the threads to the authors section. Once you read the book, I'd be happy to compare notes about how 3.5 magic was used. The current setting is 4e in the novels, the current situation in Faerun is 4e in the novels, but the way magic is used is not core 4e. So if you are expecting that you will not see it in Blackstaff Tower.
Cheers!
Yo. Or something.
What's your definition of 4e? What years do these novels take place in?
-To be honest, there was virtually nothing written on Faerzress'. The "straw that broke the camel's back" on this issue is that in the past, it was ambient, natural radiation, as opposed to what it is now.
However, the 2e Monstrous Manual firmly established that Drow use Quasi-magical Items - VERY similar to those used by the Netherease. Unlike the Quasi-Magical Items created by the Archwizards, which were powered by the energies of the Mythallars, the Drow items were powered by Faezress radiation.
The energies granted by the Faezress were 'destroyed' by sunlight, and that is why most Drow-made items could not tolerate being on the surface.
Although that source only postulates the 'strange radiation' as on possible source, other sourcebooks do indeed tell us that part of the Drow-item creation process is leaving the item exposed to a Faezress node for several days (weeks?)
*Not that any of this matters anymore - since I fell off the 'canon wagon', everything is how I picture it, novels and sources be damned. ;)
Heard you were banned?
Which gave me time to think...
If I have to 'censor' myself and my opinions, is this site really worth the trouble?
Anyhow, I've decided to just let 4eFR speak for itself.
My future participation here will be (for now) in an advisory capacity; to answer questions, and perhaps share some campaign ideas and plothooks.
The emotional attachment is completely gone at this point.
They're the ones that say we all have to live with each other--yet they report any "offense" that comes to their eyes.
Who's being offensive to who? I know its not you and I that are reporting.
Well I, for one, appreciate your opinion, and I don't think you should be harassed over it.
I appreciate Therise' opinion too, believe it or not, even when I disagree with her.
Good thing there's no harassment going on with regard to her opinion, despite your unsubtle claim to the contrary.
The energies granted by the Faezress were 'destroyed' by sunlight, and that is why most Drow-made items could not tolerate being on the surface.
As to Faerzress.....it was revised in 3rd Edition.
That is, Drow magical items stopped decaying in sunlight.
I believe the 3.5 FR Player's Guide addressed this to some small degree also, but I can't remember if it was to try and fix the retcon or not.
If I have to 'censor' myself and my opinions, is this site really worth the trouble?
Depends on whether or not you can follow the CoC. It doesn't ask for much and is blind to whomever does the reporting.
All it cares about is whether something (that is, someone) breaks its rules or not.
For example, every time Therise hits the report button and another benign (to my eyes) post written by yours truly gets flushed down the internet toilet by a WizO, I instantly reafirm my belief she's got a red-phone hotline to WizO central and can get them to do whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
Now I could use that imaginary thinking to accuse her of harassment or claim she follows me around everywhere I go on these Forums to shout me down or disagree with me on principle because of some imagined past slight.
But the truth of it is, she doesn't have such a phone and even if she did follow me around, that doesn't change the fact that I'm responsible for what I post, not her.
This is why 99.99% of the time when one of my posts was deleted, it was because I broke the CoC and a WizO made sure I paid the price for it (which is their job).
It's not about who does the reporting or even how often they do it.
It's about the content of what you post.
Absolutely.
I'm totally not being utterly sarcastic and implying I'm sick of reading the same several people repeatedly crap up threads. Not at all.
Utterly not I tell you.
Yeah, so... ANYWAY...
Welcome back, Markus. You were missed.
However, the 2e Monstrous Manual firmly established that Drow use Quasi-magical Items - VERY similar to those used by the Netherease. Unlike the Quasi-Magical Items created by the Archwizards, which were powered by the energies of the Mythallars, the Drow items were powered by Faezress radiation.
The energies granted by the Faezress were 'destroyed' by sunlight, and that is why most Drow-made items could not tolerate being on the surface.
Although that source only postulates the 'strange radiation' as on possible source, other sourcebooks do indeed tell us that part of the Drow-item creation process is leaving the item exposed to a Faezress node for several days (weeks?)
-None of this has changed. Such items still exist (Drowcraft items, from Underdark). They are still charged by Faerzress', and deactivate when left in the sun and such.
-The only thing that has changed is the origin of the Faerzress', going from natural radiation to 'Elven-crafted' radiation.
The novel takes place in the current year of 4e FR. I consider that 4e. The magic system (which is my example) does not follow 4e and instead behaves as 3.5.
Like I said, the current year is the one in the FRCG, but the flavor of some aspects remains the same as it was.
Cheers!
-The only thing that has changed is the origin of the Faerzress', going from natural radiation to 'Elven-crafted' radiation.
Hmphhh...
Maybe I should read the books then, before I offer opinions on them...
NOT!!! :P
After you (or someone) told me about the "Drow-Nip" thing, I decided to avoid them like the plague.
You know, Faezress exists on practically every world where there are Drow, so Smedman's explanantion makes NO SENSE, but whatever.
Then again... if it DOESN'T exist on worlds with NO Drow...
Nevermind... I stopped trying to make sense of all the continuity holes months ago. I sleep better now, too. ;)
Hmphhh...
Maybe I should read the books then, before I offer opinions on them...
NOT!!! :P
-There's no need to. All you need to know about something, to offer an opinion on it, is a little bit. You don't have to be a PhD in Political Science to have an opinion about politics or anything.
After you (or someone) told me about the "Drow-Nip" thing, I decided to avoid them like the plague.
-By "Drow-Nip", you mean it as in the thing that was keeping the Drow in the Underdark? Yeah.
You know, Faezress exists on practically every world where there are Drow, so Smedman's explanantion makes NO SENSE, but whatever.
-That, I did not know. Perhaps everywhere else, it is natural, while on Abeir-Toril, it's "manufactured"?
Nevermind... I stopped trying to make sense of all the continuity holes months ago. I sleep better now, too. ;)
-Mind sharing your strategy?
Judge,
The novel takes place in the current year of 4e FR. I consider that 4e. The magic system (which is my example) does not follow 4e and instead behaves as 3.5.
Like I said, the current year is the one in the FRCG, but the flavor of some aspects remains the same as it was.
Cheers!
You're telling me this book--this series--takes place in 1479 and is out on the shelves? By all reports, the only true 4e novel is supposed to be Swordmage.
-None of this has changed. Such items still exist (Drowcraft items, from Underdark). They are still charged by Faerzress', and deactivate when left in the sun and such.
For the record:
The release of 3rd Edition signaled the end of Drow magic items decaying in sunlight.
This was a deliberate game design decision that caused much (online) controversy when news of the change was leaked to the gaming public and Realms-fandom in particular.
For the Realms specifically, Jonathan Tweet, Sean Reynolds, Ed Stark and Rich Baker discussed the issue and ultimately decided to remove the concept of decaying Drow magic items from the setting when they worked on the 3E FRCS.
This affected Realms canon directly, thus allowing House Jaelre, The Spider-kissers, the Underdark Raiders and the Auskovyn drow (amongst others) to migrate to the surface world with their magical might fully intact, and was in place for approximately three years until the release of the FR Sourcebook Underdark in 2003.
Note that this sourcebook didn’t reverse the retcon: As a rule, drow magic items still don’t decay in sunlight. Rather, it created an exception that tried to bridge the gap between the older lore and the needs of 3rd Edition game mechanics.
The inclusion of Drowcraft items helped to partially remove an ugly retcon scar on the face of the Realms.
See the (1st Edition) Fiend Folio for more history on where the idea of where Drow magic items (and poisons) decaying in sunlight came from.
The Lovely Spider Queen
And Her from another angle.
She is SO cool... especially when another company steals her. :D
Even Lolth (Lloth?) changes from edition to edition; just take a look at her newest self -
The Lovely Spider Queen
And Her from another angle.
She is SO cool... especially when another company steals her. :D
-Slashing blades? What the hell?
-I preferred the last appearance of Lolth- the multifaceted, multi-aspected Lolth that was born at the end of the WotSQ series.
-If 4e was going to turn her into..."that", I don't know why Lolth had her appearance changed in the WotSQ series to begin with...
-Slashing blades? What the hell?
-I preferred the last appearance of Lolth- the multifaceted, multi-aspected Lolth that was born at the end of the WotSQ series.
-If 4e was going to turn her into..."that", I don't know why Lolth had her appearance changed in the WotSQ series to begin with...
Don't worry... this is a monster/queen for
(:P)-Extra lashings for him. Seriously, though, that thing as Lolth would not be cool...Though, it does seem very Lolth-like, as evidenced by me being completely fooled.
Both books are out. Prologue and Chapter 1 20 Marpenoth (1479DR) and 8 Nightal (1479 DR). That is for the book Blackstaff Tower. Chapter 1 of Mistshore starts on 22 Eleint (1479 DR).
Both are 4e timeframes,
Cheers!
-So MT's purposely misleading me? Gee, thanks.
-Extra lashings for him. Seriously, though, that thing as Lolth would not be cool...Though, it does seem very Lolth-like, as evidenced by me being completely fooled.
It does. A lot of Blizzard "characters" are essentially modeled after things in D&D (or more generally, generic mythology). Initially, I thought it was Warcraft, but this one's for Diablo III.
Especially since I hinted (directly below those links) that she was 'stolen' by another company. :D
I would use THAT version of the Spider Queen if I were to run a Gothic Earth game, which I would love to do, if ever given the chance. I just love the genre, and The League of Extraodinbary Gentleman is one of my favorite movies (along with Van Helsing).
@Judge,
Both books are out. Prologue and Chapter 1 20 Marpenoth (1479DR) and 8 Nightal (1479 DR). That is for the book Blackstaff Tower. Chapter 1 of Mistshore starts on 22 Eleint (1479 DR).
Both are 4e timeframes,
Cheers!
Sweet smelling Bejebuz fart.
How in the hell did this happen?
Gug. Fine! Thanks!
This sux. Now I go seek.
But if I get another Orc King, I'm coming back to spank you.
Well, considering that link brings you to an address with 'Blizzard' and 'Diablo3' in it, I thought most folks would catch on right-quick.
-Didn't even notice.